soviet revisionism and the struggle of the pla to unmask it

7/28/2019 Soviet Revisionism and the Struggle of the PLA to Unmask It

1/105

THE INSTITUTE OF MARXIST-LENINIST STUDIESAT THE CC OF THE PLA

SOVIET REVISIONISMAND THE STRUGGLE

O F T H E P L A T O U N M A S K IT

TH E 8 N E N T O R I P U B L I S H IN G H O U S ETIRANA 1981


2/105

This book comprises th e reports and a number ofpapers read at the Scientific Session ^Soviet Revi-sionism and the Struggle of the PLA to Unmask lt,organized by the Institute of Marxist-Leninist Studiesat the CC of the PLA on 17-18 November 1980. Th ereports and papers are published in an abridged form.

THE OPENING ADDRESS BY PROF. Ndregi Plasari,VICE-DIRECTOR OF THE INSTITUTE OF MARXIST-

LENINIST STUDIES AT THE CC OF THE PLA

It is now twenty years since November 16, 1960,when Comrade Enver Hoxha, on behalf of the PLA,made his historic speech at the Meeting of the 81 com-munist and workers' parties in Moscow,This is an historic speech from every point of view.First and foremost, this is due to its principled, revo-lutionary and militant content. It is an ardent defenceof the Marxist-Leninist principles and a devastatingattack on Khrushchevite revisionism, at a time when thisrevisionism had completely liquidated the revolutionaryline of the Bolshevik Party of Lenin and Stalin and hadreplaced it with the anti-Marxist counter-revolutionarycourse of the 20th Congress. The Khrushchevites hadlong been striving to impose this course on the communistand workers' parties of various countries. And at theMoscow Meeting of November 1960 their aim was to haveit formally sanctioned as the general line of the inter-national communist movementIn Moscow Comrade Enver Hoxha unmasked therevisionist theses and stands of the Khrushchev groupon the fundamental problems of the theory and practiceof the revolution and the socialist construction, and thestrategy and tactics of the international communist move-ment, as well as the anti-Marxist methods used by that

9 A


3/105

group to force the other parties to adopt those thesesand stands, while expounding the revolutionary viewsand stands of the PLA on all these questions and defend-ing the principleis of Marxism-Leninism.Comrade Enver Hoxha refuted the counter-revolu-tionary view about the change in the nature of capitalismand imperialism. He, who does not see that imperialismhas not changed either its hide, its coat or its nature,that it is aggressive and will be aggressive while evena single tooth is left in its mouth, *is blind, while he ,wh o sees this bu t covers it up, is a traitor in the serviceof imperialism.*He defended the revolutionary view of the PLA thatpeace cannot be safeguarded and strengthened by flat-tering, cajoling and making concessions to the Americanimperialists, by capitulating to their pressure, as occurredwith the Khrushchev group and the other revisionists,but by waging a resolute political and ideological struggleto defeat the aggressive plans of the imperialists.He described as anti-Marxist the view of the Sovietleadership which presented peaceful coexistence andpeaceful competition with the imperialists as the generalline of the Soviet Union and the entire socialist camp,the main road for the t r iumph of socialism over capi-talism! Peaceful coexistence between states with dif-ferent social systems is only one of the aspects of theforeign policy of a socialist country, while the struggleagainst the imperialist policy and the bourgeois ideology,or the unreserved support for the revolutionary libera-tion struggle of the proletariat and the peoples againstimperialism and the reactionary bourgeoisie, must not berenounced for the sake of it , as it was by Khrushchevand his successors.The communist party of any capitalist country istruly Marxist-Leninist only if it raises the masses instruggle against imperialism and all its lackeys withinthe country in order to undermine their rule, and, inthe conditions of a revolutionary situation, to destroytheir political power, to establish the people's state

power, to consolidate and further develop this power asa dictatorship of the proletariat, and does not wait forsocialism to come through the peaceful parliamentaryroad of Khrushchev and other revisionists.In particular, Comrade Enver Hoxha criticized theKhrushchev group for its counter-revolutionary standtowards Stalin who dedicated his whole life to thedefence and creative implementation of Marxism-Lenin-ism, to the cause of the revolution and socialism. Herepeated the unwavering view of the PLA on the revo-lutionary work of Stalin and stated the issue bluntly:W e all should defend the good and immortal work ofStalin. He who does not defend it is an opportunist anda coward.Stalin and the Information Bureau were completelyright to denounce and condemn Yugoslav revisionism asan anti-Marxist counter-revolutionary trend, as an agencyof imperialism. Time had completely vindicated thisassessment, therefore the struggle against Yugoslav re-visionism remained an indispensable and constant dutyfor the communist parries. However, it was not only inYugoslavia that revisionism existed, Comrade Enver Hoxhahas pointed out. It was spreading alarmingly in othercountries and parties. For this reason the PLA insistedthat the assessment, which the Moscow Meeting of1957 had made of modtern revisionism as the main danger,should not be renounced as demanded by the Khrush-chevites who described it as no longer valid, bu t shouldbe re-emphasized!In order to bar the way to revisionism it was veryimportant to put an end to the methods of pressure,interference and plots in the relations among the com-munist parties. In particular, the stand of Khrushchevand his group at Bucharest, where they resorted to suchmethods with unprecedented brutality, should be con-demned. The attempts of the Khrushchevites, actinglike great-state chauvinists, to compel the other partiesto go to the Moscow Meeting in step with their revisionist


4/105

views, should also be condemned. In particular, ComradeEnver Hoxha exposed the domineering and huckster-like activities of that group towards our Party andsocialist Albania. Addressing Khrushchev he declared atthe meeting: There was a time when Albania wasconsidered a commodity to be traded, when othersthought it depended on them whether Albania shouldor should not exist, but that time came to an end withthe triumph of the ideas of Marxism-Leninism in ourcountry.*N o other party made such a courageous defenceof Marxism-Leninism and such a penetrating principledexposure of the anti-Marxist course and activity of theKhrushchevites. They could not do so because the otherparties were all infected, to a greater or lesser extent, bythe disease of revisionism, whereas the heart and mindof the PLA were sound and its line crystal-clear.The Chinese also spoke against the Khrushchevgroup. They spoke there no t from militant, attackingpositions, bu t from defensive, wait-and-see, opportunistpositions. As it became clear later, they did not proceedfrom the aim of defending Marxism-Leninism and theinterests of international communism, bu t from the aimof defending their ow n narrow chauvinist and hegemony-seeking interests, just as the Khrushchevites did.Comrade Enver Hoxha's speech at the MoscowMeeting completely upset the -tranquil situation ofthe first six days of the meeting. Khrushchev haddeliberately created this situation because he wanted tocover up the deep principled contradictions and disagree-ments in the international communist movement, soas to avoid criticism and the exposure of his anti-Marxistviews an d activity and to put the blame on our Partyand the Communist Party of China, against which theattacks in a long material, full of accusations andslanders that was distributed prior to the meeting, wereaimed. But Comrade Enver Hoxha's speech foiled thisdiabolical tactic. It set the meeting ablaze forcing thedelegations of other parties to express their stand6

towards the problems under discussion. The savagecounter-attacks launched by the Soviet and other re-visionists on our Party, in an effort to neutralize thebombshell effect of the voice of our Party, only servedto strengthen this effect, to make this voice stronger,more devastating.This extraordinary effect of Comrade Enver Hoxha'sspeech at the Meeting of the 81 parties is one of itsimportant historic aspects.It is the period after various events which brandsthem as historic. An d time has fully confirmed thegreat historic importance of Comrade Enver Hoxha'sspeech in Moscow. It has shown how completely rightour Party was to oppose the counter-revolutionary re-visionist course of the Khrushchevites and how correctwere the views it put forward at that international forumof the communist movement.At that time Comrade Enver Hoxha warned aboutthe great danger that threatened the Soviet Union, thesocialist camp, the entire international communist move-ment from the anti-Marxist views and stands of theKhrushchev group, if this danger was not faced bravelyand measures taken to heal the open wounds. However.those views and stands were not simply mistakes anddistortions. As Comrade Enver Hoxha pointed out at the7th Congress of the PLA, they constituted a consciouslychosen course* to liquidate the dictatorship of the pro-letariat and restore capitalism, to transform the SovietUnion into an imperialist state. Today we can see clearlywhere the theories and policy of Khrushchev, whichhave been faithfully followed and further developedby his worthy disciples, Brezhnev and company, haveled the Soviet Union. Nothing remains there of theformer socialist order but the empty shell. The bourgeois-revisionist content pervades every field of life. Theinternal policy of the present-day Soviet party and stateis a fascist policy of oppression and exploitation of theworking masses, and of the Russification of the non-Russian nations, while its foreign policy is a fascist-


5/105

imperialist policy which, like that of the USA, aims atworld domination.Meanwhile the dictatorship of the proletariat andsocialism have been liquidated in the other formersocialist countries, too, which hare been turned intosatellites of the revisionist Soviet Union. China has setout on the road of its transformation into a social-imperialist superpower, whereas nearly all the formercommunist parties have turned into bourgeois-revisionistparties.Comrade Enver Hoxha's speech left its deep imprintupon th e international communist movement, which isnow on the way to its irevival on Marxist-Leninistfoundations, an d upon the history of the entire worldrevolutionary an d liberation movement.It is and will remain for ever an example of adhe-rence to principle, courage and independence, factorswhich are indispensable in waging a revolutionary struggleagainst the internal and external enemies of the prole-tariat and the people and in achieving the final victory-over these enemies.It will always be an emblem of struggle in the handsof our Party and people, one among the fighting flagsof its great victorious battles in the revolution and thesocialist construction and in the struggle against im-perialism and modern revisionism.Many party documents and works of ComradeEnver Hoxha prove with scientific arguments howcorrect and vital the struggle of the PLA against Khrush-chevite revisionism, which burst out openly and directlyon November 16, 1960 in Moscow, has been and is to thedefence of Marxism-Leninism and socialism in our countryand to the freedom and national sovereignty of our people.This is brought out again in Comrade Enver Hoxha's newwork -The Khrushchevites-.This work, which is pervaded by a dialectical Marxist-Leninist iron logic, based on facts and concrete his-torical events, convincingly demonstrates the anti-Marxist counter-revolutionary and hegemony-seeking8

character of the aims of the Khrushchevite revisionistsand their efforts to achieve these aims, on the onehand and, on the other hand, the principled Marxist-Leninist stands of our Party and its revolutionarystruggle against them. It gives a full and clear explana-tion of the reasons for the defeat of the plans andefforts of the Khrushchevites to force ou r Party andpeople to yield and to harness them to their revisionistchariot, and for our victory over them. In essence this wasdue to the loyalty of the PLA to Marxism-Leninism, itsadherence to proletarian principles, Its wisdom, vigi-lance and courage in defence of Marxism-Leninism,its correct linie, our people and our socialist Homeland.The steel unity of the Party and its Central Committeewith Comrade Enver Hoxha at the head, as well as theParty-people unity, have played a decisive role in theimplementation of the principled line of our Party. Inthe struggle against the Khrushchevites, as well asagainst all other enemies, our Party has never foughtalone bu t always together with th e people. That iswhy it has always emerged triumphant from thisstruggle.With the publication of the new work of ComradeEnver Hoxha The Khrushchevites the Albanian com-munists and people are provided with a new, powerfulweapon in the fight against modern revisionism, which,as our Party has laid down, will never cease untilsocialism and communism triumph on a world scale.In the context of this struggle, this scientific ses-sion ha s been organized by the Institute of Marxist-Leninist Studies, with the active participation of cadresfrom the -V.I. Lenin Higher Party School, the Uni-versity of Tirana, the Academy of Sciences, the ForeignMinistry, people of the press, the literature and art,etc. The theme of the session is: ^Soviet Revisionismand the Struggle of the PLA to Unmask It. However,the materials to be presented in this session go somewhatbeyond these -bounds, because the struggle againstSoviet revisionism is closely linked with the struggle


6/105

against modern revisionism, in general, and against allits trends, in particular, because ^Khrushchevite re-visionism,^ as the 7th Congress of the Party has defined,-always stands at the head of the modern revisionistfront*- and the exposure of that revisionism also servesthe exposure of all the other opportunists*.On behalf of the Institute of Marxist-Leninist studiesI declare the session open.

10

REPORTS

Prof. Agim Popa

THE 20th CONGRESS OF THE CPSU AND THEEVOLUTION OF MODERN REVISIONISM

Twenty years ago Comrade Enver Hoxha deliveredhis historic speech at the Meeting of 81 communistand workers' parties in Moscow. The experience ofthese twenty years has completely confirmed how correctand vitally important was the position of the PL A andhas proved indisputably that the line of resolute strug-gle against revisionism is the only correct stand toescape its destructive effects. In his new book TheKhrushchevites- Comrade Enver Hoxha stresses. Tothis fight, which demanded and still demands greatsacrifices, our small Homeland owes the freedom andindependence it prizes so highly and its successfuldevelopment on the road of socialism. Only thanks tothe Marxist-Leninist line of our Party did Albania no tbecome and never will become a protectorate of theRussians or anyone else.**With dear and well substantiated arguments Com-rade Enver Hoxha exposed the treacherous course ofthe Khrushchevite revisionists and established the divid-ing line between Marxism-Leninism and Khrushcheviterevisionism.He devoted special attention to criticism and expo-sure of the opportunist theses and counter-revolutionary* Enver Hoxha, The Khrushchevites* p. 7, Alb. ed.

11


7/105

standpoints of the 20th Congress of the CPSU, whichformulated the general line of Khrushchevite revisio-nism, both for the internal problems of the countryand for international problems. VTim-e has proven,writes Comrade Enver Hoxha, that the theses of the20th Congress were neither 'simple ideological distor-tions' nor erroneous assessments of situations T he'Khrushchevite theories' represented a consciously chosencourse for the elimination of the dictatorship of theproletariat and the restoration of capitalism, an ideologi-cal and political means specifically chosen for thetransformation of the Soviet Union into an imperialiststate and for the liquidation of obstacles to the imple-mentation of the policy of great-power chauvinism *

1. The Struggle Against Modern Revisionism A struggle for the Defence of the FundamentalTeachings of Marxism-LeninismAt the 20th Congress of the CPSU and after it, theKhrushchevite revisionists made great play with theslogan of ^creative development- of Marxism-Leninismand the struggle against dogmatism^, as all the othermodern revisionists have done, using the change inthe ratio of forces in the world and the appearanceof certain new phenomena in the period following theSecond World War as the pretext to spread their op-portunist theories and justify their counter-revolutionaryactions. JOn this basis, they declared the major teachings

* Enver Hoxha, Report to the 7th Congress of the PLApp. 224-225, Alb, ed.12

of Marxism-Leninism about, the revolutionary transitionfrom capitalism to socialism to be obsolete, supercededand unsuitable for our time.However, their anti-dogmatism is nothing but a prag-matic manoeuvre to justify and conceal their revisionism.It is a fact that many of the things which the present-day revisionists preach, about the ^peaceful road tosocialism*, about mass workers' party, legal andopen about various ideological and political currents andfactions, about -"democratic socialism^ etc., etc., are revi-vals, of course with new trappings to adapt them tothe new conditions and needs of the old theories ofBernstein and the Mensheviks, and of Kautsky andthe Second International, which Lenin denounced inhis time and which were buried by the triumph ofthe Great October Socialist Revolution.The Khrushchevites' attacks on Stalin and theirdiscrediting of the Soviet socialist order of the timeof Stalin, their rehabilitation of the Yugoslav revisionistleadership and proclaiming Titoite Yugoslavia a socialistcountry all these things opened the doors to therevival of revisionist theories about the separate na-tional roads of transition to socialism"-, ^specific socia-lism*, etc. This wa s the basis on which Togliatti's^Italian road to socialism^, Marchais' ^-socialism withFrench colours-*, Dubcek's -socialism with a human facein Czechoslovakia and suchlike came into circulation.This, too, is one of the directions of the modern revision-ists' attack on Marxism-Leninism and the theory ofscientific socialism. Hence, they advocate a road radical-ly different an d quite another -socialism-' from thatof the time of Lenin and Stalin.At the 20th Congress of the CPSU and after it, theKhrushchevi te revisionists made great play with thefalse slogan of returning to the teachings of Lenin,allegedly abondoned, distorted and violated by Stalin.Our Party ha s exposed the aim of the manouvre of theso-called return to Lenin. It has shown that th e attackson Stalin were, in reality, attacks on Marxism-Leninism,

13


8/105

which Stalin consistently applied and defended in theSoviet Union and the world communist movement.Life and later development fully confirmed thisanalysis of the PLA. As Comrade Enver Hoxha pointedout in his book -^Eurocommunism Is Anti-communism,the revisionists who spoke with such great enthusiasmabout "liberation from Stalinism*- in order, allegedly, toreturn to Leninism, are now preaching abandonmentof Leninism in order to go back to the founders ofscientific socialism, Marx and Engels, as the Eurocom-munists, the most undisguised revisionists of the presentday are doing. However, points out ComradeEnver Hoxha, - w a l l revisionists, whether Khrushcheviteor Eurocom munist, fight with equal ferocity an d cunningboth against Stalin and against Lenin and Marx.*Th e preaching of ^ideological pluralism^ also consti-tutes one of the most fashionable directions of themodern revisionists' attack on Marxism-Leninism. Theattacks of Nikita Khrushchev and his group on Stalinan d Marxism-Leninism, the rehabilitation of Titoisman d the Khrushchevites' rapprochement with social-democracy, gave the |freen light for the spreading ofthese preachings.

The Titoite thesis that it is allegedly possible toadvance to socialism even under the leadership of par-ties, organizations and forces which do not considerthemselves socialist gained respectability and wasquickly embraced by the Togliattists and others. Thepoint was reached that in the revisionist press, includingthe Soviet press, views appeared claiming that it waspossible to go over to socialism -^holding the Koranin one hand an d 'Capital' in the other, or


9/105

modern revisionism against the dictatorship of theproletariat. At the 22nd Congress, the Khrushcheviterevisionists declared the dictatorship of the proletariata thing of the past, claimed that it is contrary tosocialist democracy, and replaced it with the so-calledstate of the entire people*, which is nothing buta fagade for the dictatorship of the new Soviet bour-geoisie.However, within a few years the so-called stateof the entire people evolved into a social-fascist state.The unprecedented inflation of the police an d militaryapparatus, the use of violence to suppress the protestsof the working masses, the savage oppression an d perse-cution, the widespread use of concentration camps an d^psychiatric clinics* against revolutionary elements, theuse of the Soviet army to enslave other peoples an dcountries, are facts which testify to the social-fascistcharacter of the Soviet state today.The Khrushchevite campaign against the dictatorshipof the proletariat in the Soviet Union and its historicalexperience served as a major support for the propaga-tion of the anarcho-syndicalist theories of the Yugoslavrevisionists about ^bureaucratic etatism*. While theyadvocate renunciation of the revolutionary overthrow ofthe bourgeois state and the destruction of the oppressivebourgeois state machinery in the capitalist countries, theYugoslav revisionists denigrate the socialist state anddemand its earliest possible liquidation, in order toreplace it with -genuine humanitarian socialism*-, withtheir so-called -"direct democracy*, etc hence withthe Titoite system of self-administration* which isnothing but a capitalist theory an d practice, as ComradeEnver Hoxha has pointed out.The 8th Congress of the CP of China proclaimedone of the main tasks of the dictatorship of the pro-letariat to be the securing of the alliance with thenational bourgeoisie in the process of the so-calledsocialist construction of the country, the application ofthe course of -coexistence for a long t ime an d mutual16

control* between the Communist Party and the so-called democratic bourgeois parties, etc. Th e unprin-cipled struggle for power between revisionist groups an dfactions, the throwing of the masses into anarchistactions for the destruction of the state organs, of theparty itself and of the organizations of the masses,as was done during the so-called Great ProletarianCultural Revolution, the adoption of the course ofTitoite self-administrative* decentralization of theeconomy, the opening of the doors of China to theinflow of imperialist monopoly capital, the undertakingof aggression against Vietnam, as well as a series ofother anti-Marxist practices and actions, likewise testifyclearly that the Chinese revisionists have nothing incommon with the teachings of Marxism-Leninism onth e dictatorship of the proletariat. In their onslaughtagainst the dictatorshipof the proletariat the revisionistshave gone so far as the Eurocommunists have comparedthe dictatorship of the proletariat with the fascist re-gimes of Hitler, Mussolini, Salazar and Franco, as therenegade Marchais did from the tribune of the 22ndCongress of the French CP. This is a significant factwhich indicates the extent of the degeneration of themodern revisionists and their descent to the positionsof the most rabid an d banal anti-communism.But what do these revisionists put in place of theorder of the dictatorship of the proletariat? What is theessence of the so-called Democratic socialism^ withoutthe dictatorship of the proletariat which they advocate?It is nothing but the present-day bourgeois society,painted in pseudo-socialist colours to conceal its capita-list character, a hybrid capitalist-socialist society whichthe Eurocommunist revisionists offer the bourgeoisie asa way of escape in their critical situation, in order toretain their domination in the face of the proletarianrevolution.Historical experience, both the revolutionaryexperience of the times of Lenin an d Stalin, an d thatof the socialist construction in Albania in our days, as2 9 A 17


10/105

well as the experience of the revisionist counter-revolu-tion in the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, China an d othercountries, completely proves the correctness, vitalityand the unshaken present-day value of the teachingsof Marxism-Leninism on the dictatorship of the prole-tariat.Defence of the teaching of Marxism-Leninism onthe dictatorship of the proletariat, against which theforces of anti-communism and reaction and the modernrevisionists of all hues have risen ferociously in aunited front, remains one of the most important dutiesfor the genuine Marxist-Leninists to carry forward thecause of the revolution and socialism.

3. Saboteurs of the Revolution, Defenders of theCapitalist Order

All revisionists, both those of the past and themodern ones, whether they are in power or operatingin the countries of classical" capitalism, are united bytheir hostility towards the revolution, their efforts tosabotage and undermine it and to perpetuate the do-mination of the bourgeoisie.However, the theories of the denial of the revolu-tion became widespread in the com mun ist and workers'movement following the 20th Congress of the CPSU,which rejected as obsolete the Marxist-Leninist theoryabout the revolution with violence as a universal lawof the transition from capitalism to socialism and onthe smashing of the bourgeois state machine, andreplaced it with the Khrushchevite thesis about th e^peaceful road to socialism using the bourgeois parlia-ment and the bourgeois state apparatus in general.This thesis became the source and the basis for18

the flowering of all the counter-revolutionary theoriesof the revisionists today, and especially of the Eurocom-munists, who have as their aim the preservation andperpetuation of capitalism and who are a living proofof the total social-democratic degeneration of the revi-sionist parties.As Comrade Enver Hoxha points out in his bookEurocommunism Is Anti-communism*-, the present stra-tegy of revolutionaries, according to the renegadeCarrillo, is not to overthrow the state power of thebourgeoisie, because the state power no longer belongsto it. neither is it to overthrow the bourgeois relations ofproduction, because they have already changed. Thereforethe only thing which must be done is to bring about thegradual transformation of the existing political andideological institutions through reforms, in order tobring them into conformity with the social reality andchange them in favour of the people. In his time, Le-nin, exposing such views which "were then being spreadby Kautsky, wrote; *The general conclusion socialismwithout revolution! O r revolution without the destruc-tion of the political power, of 'the state machine' ofthe bourgeoisie! ! What a pearl of idiocy! !* Here, saysLenin, we have the purest and most banal opportunism;we have rejection of the revolution in fact, while it isaccepted in words.The bloody fascist coup in Chile in 1973, whichoverthrew the Allende government and brought to powerthe military dictatorship of Pinochet, was a crushingblow to the revisionist theories of ^peaceful democratictransition to socialism^. In their efforts to rescue thesetheories at all costs, the Italian Eurocommunists dishedup the so-called strategy of the ^historic compromise*-,the true name of which is historic betrayal.Th e same counter-revolutionary an d pragm atic stand-points characterize the Chinese revisionists' -"theory of

* V. I. Le nin , "Marxism on the State, p. 151, 1958, Alb. ed.19


11/105

the three worlds*. They distort and ignore the funda-mental c ontradictions of our epoch, deny the existenceof any revolutionary situation and prospect in ourdays and oppose any revolutionary activity, because,allegedly, the time fo r them has not yet come. Accordingto the Chinese revisionists, the sole duty of the prole-tariat and the people of any cou ntry , whethe r in thethird world^, the ^second world or in the USA, is tounite with the bourgeoisie and the leading circles oftheir own country, even the most fascist and reactionaryones, allegedly for the defence of the homeland andnational independence against the threat which comesonly from the Soviet social-imperialism.Th e period in which we are living is characterizedby a general upsurge of the world revolutionary process.The objective conditions are becoming ever more fa-vourable for the revolution. Now the decisive thing isthe preparation of the subjective factor for the revolu-tion. The main obstacle to this is the influenc e of re-visionist views among the masses and the disruptivecounter-revolutionary activity of the revisionists. Anarch-ist, foquist, terrorist, Trotskyite and other preachings andpractices in connection with the revolution and thearmed struggle have also caused confusion and disil-lusionment. -"Today when this question is put forwardfor solution,* writes Comrade Enver Hoxha, it is animperative duty for the Marxist-Leninists to dispelthe fog the revisionists have spread about the revolu-tion, to unmask their manoeuvres and deliberate mis-representations about this problem, to expose theircounter-revolutionary chauvinist hegemonic intentionsand to ensure that the teachings of Marxism-Leninismon the revolution are understood and applied correctly.**

* Enver Hoxha, -"Imperialism and the Revolution*, p. 145,Alb. ed.20

4. The Struggle Against Imperialism and Social-imperialism Is Inseparable from the Struggle

Against Revisionism

All the trends of modern revisionism have placedthemselves in the service of imperialism and social-imperialism, in order to undermine socialism, therevolution and the people's liberation struggles. Moreover,in the present period, revisionism in the Soviet Unionand in China has evolved into social-imperialism.Following the betrayal by the Yugoslav revisionists,who became a special agency of American and worldimperialism to undermine socialism, to split the socialistcamp and the world com munist and workers' movementand to sabotage the revolutionary and liberation strug-gles, the Khrushchevite revisionists, especially at the20th Congress of the CPSU, were those who laid the^theoretical^ and practical basis for the course of con-ciliation, rapprochement and counter-revolutionary co-llaboration with imperialism to the detriment of therevolution and the freedom-loving peoples.Using as a pretext the creation of weapons ofmass extermination and the ideas that *any sparkmight cause a world conflagration^, a nuclear catas-trophe^ which according to him, would lead to thedestruction of human civilization, Nikita Khrushchevdeclared that Lenin's teachings on the stand towardsjust and unjust wars were obsolete and outdated. Theteachings of Lenin were completely falsified and theKhrushchevite opportunist theses on peaceful coexistenceas the general line of the foreign policy of socialistcountries and international com mu nist movem ent*, asthe universal course for the triumph of socialism ona world s c a l e - , and as the most effective means forthe solution of all the vital problems that face present-day society*, etc were served up instead.However, the Soviet revisionists use the thesis on

21


12/105

^peaceful coexistence not merely to justify the policyof unprincipled concessions to and compromises withAmerican imperialism. This line,*- points out ComradeKnver Hoxha, -also served and is still serving them asa mask to hide the expansionist policy of Soviet so-cial-imperialism in order to lower the vigilance andresistance of the peoples to the imperialist plans ofthe Soviet revisionist leaders for hegemony. The thesisabout 'peaceful coexistence' was a call of the Sovietrevisionists to the American imperialists to divide upthe world an d rule it jointly. . .*Th e fascist type aggression and the occupation ofCzechoslovakia in 1968 and of Afghanistan in 1979, theunrestrained arms race, the transformation of the othercountries of the ^socialist community^ into neo-coloniesof Soviet social-imperialism according to the theoryan d practice of -"limited sovereignty*- and -^socialist inte-gration, the penetration and interference of the Sovietsocial-imperialists in Africa, in the zones of the Middlean d Far East, in the Mediterranean, in the Indianand Pacific Oceans, etc brought to light all the falsityof the preachings and propaganda of the Soviet revi-sionists about peace and peaceful coexistence, dissar-mament , security and detente.Th e 20th Congress of the CPSU with its courseof rapprochement and collaboration with American andworld imperialism also serves as a ^theoretical basisof justification for the present foreign policy of China.If, at one time, the Chinese revisionists criticised thiscourse of the Khrushchevite revisionists and the Chinesepropaganda attacked American imperialism as the greatestenemy of all the peoples of the world, this was donefrom a purely pragmatic standpoint at that junctureand was intended to prevent the formation of aSoviet-American alliance against China, or without China.The rapprochement of China with the USA has now

* Enver Hoxha, ^Eurocommunism Is Anti-communism*, p. 61,Alb. ed.22

been transformed into a typical alliance between impe-rialist powers, aimed against the revolution, freedom-loving peoples and other countries.From the motives which inspire it, the aims which itpursues and the dangerous consequences with which it isfraught , China's present-day policy o f opposition toSoviet social-imperialism has nothing in common withMarxism-Leninism. China's leaders are openly incitingthe USA to launch an imperialist atomic war in Europeagainst the Soviet Union, calculating that its two mainrivals will destroy one another fa r from th e borders o fChina and leave China as the omnipotent ruler of theworld. Hence, not the raising of peoples in struggle toprevent imperialist war, not the transformation of impe-rialist war, if it should break out, into a revolutionaryliberation war for the overthrow of imperialism, butthe replacement of the revolution with imperialist war such is the monstrous distortion which the Chineserevisionists have made of Marxism-Leninism.The Khrushchevite revisionist theses at the 20thCongress of the CPSU fo r rapprochement, collaboration,an d -peaceful competi t ion^ with imperialism, fostereda series of other revisionist theories both of theYugoslav revisionists and of those who are known todayas Eurocommunists.It is a fact that the Eurocommunists have becomesupporters of the policy of imperialist blocs, as allegedfactors for the preservation of peace. They no t onlyconceal the role of NATO for the suppression of therevolution in the West-European countries, but alsoignore the major national problem of the countries andpeoples in Western Europe, that of the domination ofAmerican imperialism in these countries and the needfo r liberation from it. At the same time, the Eurocom-munists have proclaimed the EEC and United Europeas a reality which must be accepted*-. They concealthe exploiting character of this Europe of capitalistmonopolies which is aimed against the West-Europeanpeoples and is an organ of the neo-colonialism of

23


13/105

European imperialism against the peoples of Asia, Africaand Latin America, and they spread false illusionsabout th e democratisation of these inter-imperialistorganizations, allegedly in favour of the working massesand the peoples. But, as Comrade Enver Hoxha writes,to accept this 'reality' means to accept the eliminationof the sov ereignty, the cultural and spiritu al traditionsof each individual country of Europe in favour of theinterests of the big monopolies, to accept the eliminationof the individuality of the European peoples an d theirtransformation into a mass oppressed by the multi-natio-na l companies dominated by American big capital.^*Therefore, along with the unmasking of the poi-sonous propaganda of imperialism, it is essential thatthe deceptive theories and the dangerous preachingsof the modern revisionists on the stand towards impe-rialism and the struggle against it must be exposed anddefeated, too.

5. Rapprochement with Social-Democracy theLiquidation of the Proletarian Party

The historical experience of the comm unist and work-ers' parties world-wide shows that the revisionists,both old and new of all trends, in their efforts to under-mine th e revolutionary movement an d socialism, havealways aimed their first blow against the revolutionaryleading staff of the working class, th e proletarian party.The Khrushchevite revisionists provided the examplefor this by proclaiming at the 22nd Congress the liqui-dation of the proletarian character of their party and* Enver Hoxha, -"Eurocommunism Is Anti-communism*-, pp .177-178, Alb. ed.

24

its transformation into a so-called party of the entirepeople**, a thing which is a great absurdity in theory,while in practice it means the elimination of the leadingrole of the working class.However, the Khrushchev group did not restrictitself to the Soviet Union alone. It tried to imposethe course of the degeneration of the proletarian partieson the entire international communist and workers'movement. From this point of view, it is not in theleast accidental that , along with th e rehabilitation ofTitoism, the Khrushchevite revisionists at the 20thCongress of the CPSU launched the slogan of rap-prochement with social-democracy. Moreover, at the22nd Congress, Nikita Khrushchev declared that, thisis not a temporary tactical slogan, but a general lineof the communist movement,*- propagating the illusionthat positive changes ar e taking place within th e ranksof social-democracy. However, as our Party ha s stressed,th e facts prove the opposite: they show that the social-democratic station has not moved in the direction ofthe revisionist train, but the revisionist train has rushedtoward the social-democratic station.The revisionists have abandoned the fundamentaltheoretical positions of Marxism-Leninism and the doc-trine of scientific socialism, and in fact have adoptedthe opp ortun ist counter-rev olutionary ideological posi-tions of social-democracy. From the viewpoint of theirpolitical strategy, the parties of Eurocommunism havecompletely abandoned any revolutionary activity forthe overthrow of the bourgeoisie and have changed intoparties of social reforms within the framework of bour-geois legality and the bourgeois constitution, zealousdefenders of the capitalist order and possible administra-tors of the affairs of the bourgeoisie, in order to gra-dually replace the discredited social-democrats incase difficult situations arise. From th e organizationalviewpoint, the Eurocommunist parties, following in thefootsteps of the social-democrats have proclaimed theLeninist norms and teachings on the life of the revolu-

25


14/105

tionary party of the proletariat to be incompatible withthe principles of democracy and the conditions of thedeveloped capitalist countries. The revisionists advocatethe so-called mass party the doors of which are opento anyone who votes for that party, to all kinds ofpetty-bourgeois elements, from the ranks of the workeraristocracy and bureaucracy, bourgeois liberal intellec-tuals, etc.The logical result of this social-democratic degene-ration of the revisionist parties is the open trend towardsliquidation, of whic h the bann er-bearer has been theItalian revisionist G . Am endola, who in condem ning theformer division in the socialist movement and the orga-nization of the communists as a separate party, cameout with the thesis of the direct amalgamation of the(revisionist) comm unist party with the social-democratsand socialists, allegedly in order to find - a new roadto socialism^. However, everyone knows that the -newroad which the revisionists are seeking is nothing butthe social-democratic road of the preservation andperpetuation of capitalism.In ou r t ime social-democracy and the revisionistsare fighting on the same side of the barricade to under-mine and sabotage the cause of the liberation of theworking class from bourgeois exploitation and oppressionand to rescue capitalism from the revolution which isapproaching. Therefore, the struggle against these agentsof the bourgeoisie in the workers' movement, the libe-ration of the masses from their poisonous influenceare decisive conditions for the preparation of the subjec-tive factor for the revolution.The formation and tempering of the revolutionaryparty of the working class, a genuine Marxist-Leninistparty, is achieved through ceaseless struggle againstany revisionist influence and by drawing the necessarylessons from the social-democratic degeneration of therevisionist parties.

26

** *

As the PLA has continually stressed, the settingof the Soviet Union on the anti-Marxist Khrushchevitecourse sanctioned at the 20th Congress of the CPSU,led, as it was bound to do, to the complete degenerationof the Soviet Union into a social-fascist capitalist stateand a social-imperialist power. In this connection, itis necessary to expose and refute the clamour of thebourgeois, social-democratic, Euro communist and otherpropaganda, that the Soviet leadership after Khrushchev,especially afte r 1968, has allegedly aband oned the lineof the 20th Congress and of Khrushchev, has takencertain steps back towards some -"Stalinist methods,has allegedly evolved into neo-Stalinism, etc.Immediately after the fall of Khrushchev, the Partyof Labour of Albania, opposing the vacillations andpressure exerted by the Chinese leadership, exposedthe demagogic manoeuvres of the Brezhnev group anddescribed the policy of the new Soviet leadership as acontinuation of Khrushchevism without Khrushchev. ThePLA stressed that it is essential to carry the struggleagainst Soviet revisionism, with or without Khrushchev,through to the end unwaveringly.There is also speculation with the contradictionswhich exist today amidst different trends of modernrevisionism, especially between Soviet revisionism andother trends. The Soviet leadership, in particular, triesto present the matter as if these are contradictions overprinciples and that it is defending the Marxist-Leninistpositions in polemics with certain deviations of the Eu ro-communists and in stern struggle with the Chineserevisionists who have betrayed Marxism-Leninism, etc.However, analysis of the facts refutes these claims andshows that these contradictions are not of a principledcharacter, on the part of the Soviet or of the otherrevisionists, because all of them are enemies of Marxism-

27


15/105

Leninism who, regardless of the contradictions whichdivide them, have a common, counter-revolutionary, op-portunist, ideological base.Le t us take the Chinese revisionists who have soughtto make political capital from the struggle waged bythe CP of China against Khrushchevite revisionism.Now, however, every one knows that this struggle bythe CP of China w as conducted with great zigzags an dvacillations and that it was never waged from sound,principled Marxist-Leninist internationalist positions, butfrom pragmatic and chauvinist great-power positions.In regard to the contradictions between the Sovietrevisionists, on the one hand, and the Titoites andEurocommunists on the other, they are based, fromthe one side, on the interests of Soviet social-imperialismwhich is trying to dominate all the revisionist partiesand to use them as instruments of its expansionistforeign policy, and from the other side, on the interestsof the Western bourgeoisie and Western imperialism,with which both the Eurocommunists and the Yugoslavrevisionists, who are seeking to be as independent aspossible from Moscow, are closely linked. They wantto be independent of any kind of Soviet dictate andfree to unite with the local bourgeoisie and Westernimperialism, with NATO and the EEC, in order to adaptthemselves better to their interests and demands anddo not want to have their hands tied by any sort of-common decisions and obligations^- which the Sovietsocial-imperialists wish to impose on them.The bourgeois, social-democratic, Trotskyite and otherpropaganda is making a great noise about the failure ofMarxism-Leninism and the crisis and disintegration of com-munism. In reality, it is not a crisis of Marxism-Leninismor communism, but of modern revisionism. The unprinci-pled struggle for power and the disturbances in therevisionist countries, from the overthrow of Khrushchevin the Soviet Union, of Rankovic and others in Yugos-lavia, to the frequent ups and downs in China, thefall of Gomulka and now of Gierek in Poland etc the

28

failures of the revisionist countries in their economiesan d foreign policy, the Soviet and Chinese aggressionsin Czechoslovakia, Vietnam an d Afghanistan, the con-tradictions an d squabbles in the revisionist camp allthese an d other facts ar e evidence of the deep an dinsoluble crisis which has gripped revisionism.The evolution of modern revisionism with all itsoffshoots an d theories, its demagogy an d dangerousdeceptions, show what a colossal task faces the Marxist-Leninists today to unmask it in the eyes of the workingclass and the peoples. It shows also that it is essentialto wage an unceasing principled struggle against al ltrends of modern revisionism, without underestimatingor creating illusions about any of them. The struggleagainst modern revisionism, for the liberation of themasses f rom th e poisonous revisionist influence, an dfor th e revolutionary tempering of the Marxist-Leninistparties themselves, is not a temporary campaign but apermanent and vital necessity in order to carry the causeo f the revolution and socialism forward to total victory.


16/105

Vangjel MoisiuSenior Scientific "Worker

THE STRUGGLE OF THE PLA AGAINSTTHE PRESSURE AND INTERFERENCE OF THEKHRUSHCHEVITE REVISIONISTS AGAINST OURPARTY AND COUNTRY

The struggle of the Party of Labour of Albaniaagainst the interference and pressure of the Khrush-chevite revisionists is a component part of the wholegreat principled struggle which it has waged againstSoviet revisionism.The whole world knows that at the Meeting of the81 communist and workers' parties, in November 1960,the Party of Labour of Albania took a resolute, openstand against the revisionist course and chauvinist po-licy of Nikita Khrushchev. In his historic speech,Comrade Enver Hoxha no t only exposed th e Khrush-chevite revisionist platform in general, not onlypre-sented the views of our Party on the fundamentalquestions of the theory and practice of the revolutionand the construction of socialism, as well as on theproblems of the strategy and tactic of the internatio-nal communist movement, but at the same time, openlyand resolutely exposed the pressure, blackmail and inter-ference of the Khrushchevite revisionists against ourParty and country.The firm and principled stand of our Party at theMoscow Meeting was in no way accidental or unexpected.30

and principled attack on Khrushchevite mo-o n? ?he Meeting of November HBOj.CoEnver Hoxha > n h, wo* -The hru-in^Tind which' the Party of Labour ofb i a had always maintained, was the transAon ton^w higher stage of the struggle which our PartyhadTon"been waling for the defence and consentapplication of Marxism-Leninism.-

** *

The first clash wa s over question of Yugoslav re-visionism. Only one year had passed since the deathof Stalin when Khrushchev began to alter the acceptedMarxist-Leninist course of the international communistmovement of the principled struggle against Yugoslavrevisionism and to make approaches to Tito. He neededthis in order to realize his plans for the eliminationo f Marxism-Leninism and socialism. Tito was the firstwh o attacked Stalin an d rejected Marxism-Leninism.That is why Kh rushch ev regarded Tito as his ideologicalally in his struggle against com mun ism.The PLA opposed the efforts of the Khrushcheviteclique fo r their rapprochement with th e Titoites fromth e time it received th e first letter on the Yugoslavquestion, in June 1954, which was the first warningof this -rappro che me nt. In particular, it pro tested ste rnlyagainst Khrushchev's visit to Belgrade in May 1955, tofall on his knees before Tito. This action which wa sundertaken without consulting other parties for theiropinion about it, was a flagrant and arbitrary violation

* Enver Hoxha, The Khrushchevites-, p. 3, Alb. ed .31


17/105

of decisions taken unanimously by the communist andworkers' parties and was clear evidence of the oppor-tunist line which Khrushchev had begun to follow.Th e Party of Labour of Albania, which knew thetrue face of the Yugoslav revisionists only too well andwhich waged a consistent irreconcilable struggle againstthem, immediately and unhesitatingly expressed its opposi-tion. The daily experience of our Party in relationswith the Yugoslavs.. ., the CC of the PLA wrote init s letter, ^proves clearly and completely, with manyvivid facts, that the principled content of all the re-solutions of the Information Bureau in connection withthe Yugoslav question is completely correct. The pro-cedure which it is proposed to follow fo r approval ofthe abrogation of the resolution of the Meeting of theInformation Bureau of November 1949 appears to us tobe improper... In our opinion, such a rapid and hastydecision on a majo r question of principle, without firstmaking a profound analysis together with all the par-ties interested in this matter... would not only bepremature, but would cause serious harm in the general

orientation.. .*Khrushchev went to Belgrade where he fell on hisknees to Tito and admitted that -^mistakes had beenmade* in regard to the CP of Yugoslavia and itsleadership. He rehabilitated Tito as a ^Marxist-Leninist^!Meanwhile time had proved, and proved even moreclearly later, that Tito had not undergone any changefrom an anti-Marxist and Trotskyite (as Stalin and theInformation Bureau had described him) to a Marxist-Leninist (a s Khrushchev called him). It was Khrushchevwho had embraced anti-communism and become likeTito. As Comrade Enver Hoxha says, -Anti-communismremained the foundation of their relations.** Thiswas the main factor which united them.* Letter of the CC of the PLA to the CC of the CPSU, M ay23 , 1955, CPA.

** Enver Hoxha: The Khrushchevites*, p. 106, Alb. ed .32

The PLA went on to oppose all the later actionsof the Soviet revisionist leadership for rapprochementand ideological collaboration with Yugoslav revisionistsand never ceased its struggle against this revisionism asKhrushchev insistently demanded. It raised its oppositionand waged its struggle on the basis of principle for thedefence of Marxism-Leninism and the unity of the inter-national communist movement and the socialist camp,and not from the positions of narrow nationalism orf r o m pig-headedness as the Khrushchevites tried topresent our just stands.

The differences over principle and the clashes of ourParty and the Khrushchev group increased and becamedeeper when the latter formulated and adopted itsrevisionist programmeat the 20th Congress of the CPSUwhile at the same time undertaking the savage campaignagainst the so-called cult of the individual of Stalin, andwhen it tried in every way to impose its counterrev-olutionary line on the whole world communistmovement.The Khrushchev group exerted especially great pres-sure on the PLA to have it accept the line of the 20thCongress and consequently to alter its own generalline.The Khrushchevites were aware of our Party'sopposition to them over the Yugoslav question and werealso aware of the high assessment which it made ofStalin as a great Marxist-Leninist theoretician and leader.Therefore they doubted that it would be willing toapprove the course of the 20th Congress. Neverthelessthey hoped that any obstacle would be overcome andthat the PLA would not become an exception fromthe other parties which with varying degrees of enthus-iasm, accepted the revisionist course of the 20th Congressdescribing it, in the terms which the Soviet revisionist3 9 A 33


18/105

leadership used; as a congress which marked a newstage in the development of the Soviet Union and theinternational communist and workers' movement.*-The Khrushchevites made every effort to ensurethat the theses of their congress were embodied in therd Cong ress of the PLA , w hich had been set for threemonths later, in May 1956. They ha d charged their mainideologist, Suslov, with the task of convincing theleadership of our Par ty of the necessity for re-examinationand alteration of its general line in conformity withthe course of the 20th Congress. They had also giventheir agent, Liri Belishova, the task of exerting pressurefrom within. They. utilized the Party Conference of thecity of Tirana to attack the Marxist-Leninist line andleadership of our Party. "They 'kep t up their efforts toachieve their aim by means of a delegation which theysent to our 3rd Congress. However, ou r Party did notbudge from its positions.In order to mislead our Party, the revisionistsemployed the so-called arguments about new situations^and consequently about *new roads an d possibilites foradvance*-, presenting the counter-revolutionary course ofthe 20th Congress as a -creative development ol Marxism-Leninism-* in conformity with these situations and pos-sibilities! - * < M a n y were misled by this demagogy oftraitors, writes Comrade Enver Hoxha, ^however, theParty of Labour of Albania was not misled.*Contrary to the aims of the Khrushchevites, the 3rdCongress of our Party fully approved the political lineand the practical activity of the Central Committee andthe whole Party. Unanimously an d without hesitation,it decided that the Marxist-Leninist course which ou rParty ha d pursued from the day of its foundation shouldbe continued.In the concrete circumstances, the 3rd Congress ofthe PLA could no t openly denounce the anti-Marxistcourse of the 20th Congres of the CPSU. Nevertheless,

* Enver Hoxha, -The Khrushchevites*, p. 180, Alb. ed .

in essence the revolutionary an d Marxist-Leninist co ntentof all the decisions and conclusions of -the 3rd Congresswas opposed to that course.On all the revisionist theses of the 20th Congress,on all the problems of principle which were concerningth e communist internat ional movement, the Par ty ofLabour of Albania had its own revolutionary views an dits reservations, which it had not only made k no wnto the Soviet leadership, but which it also expressedpublicly in the press and all its propa gand a.At t h a t time, our Party did not speak openly aboutthe differences over ideological principles which ha darisen between it and the Soviet leadership, but itdefended th e Soviet Union, at a t ime when the im-perialists and the various revisionists were attacking th eSoviet Union in order to discredi t communism. O ur Pa r t ycould no t come out openly at that time against Khrush-chevites, also, because it needed time to gain a completeknowledge of them, knowledge which was not achievedall at once. Th e actions of the Khrushchevites werecamouflaged, they manoeuvred with Ma rxist-Leninistslogans, advanced in zigzags which, along with doubts ,sometimes aroused hopes that the Soviet leadershipmight understand the catastrophe to which the coursewhich they had adopted was leading the CommunistParty and the socialist order and that they might takea course of correcting their erroneous stands.Therefore, as Comrade Enver Hoxha explains, ou rParty was cautious in the stand it took, and it kept itseyes open. It followed every action an d stand of Khrush-chev's with the greatest care, proceeding from the desireto preserve and strengthen the friendship with the SovietUnion but at the same time i t did not leave unanswered,in one way or another, the erroneous stands and actions,the deviation s of the Khru shch evites and the pressureswhich they exerted upon it.The Khrushch evites exerted pressure f o r - t h e reha-bilitation of our traitors, de ma nding that our Party ac tin regard to Koci Xoxe, Tu k Jakova and others as was

33


19/105

done under the pressure of Khrushchev and Tito withRa jk , Kadar and Nagy in Hungary, with Rostov inBulgaria, with Gomulka in Poland, etc. The terse replyof ou r Party in the face of this pressure was: W e havenever accused and condemned anyone fo r nothing.. .*In par ticular , the Khrushchevites strove to liquidatethe main leaders of our Party and state and to replacethem with rehabilitated traitors as it succeeded in doingin many other parties and former socialist countries.The Khrushchevites' pressure was intended also toplace ou r army, economy and culture under their controlby means of the Soviet advisers and specialists, as wellas by means of their Albanian agents. -All the partiesof th e socialist countries fell into this Khrushchevitetrap, with th e exception of the Party of Labour ofAlbania.***The Khrushchevites also continued the pressurewhich they ha d begun to exert immediately af ter th edeath of Stalin to give th e people's economy and ourcountry a one-sided, agricultural development, mainlygrowing f rui t . They were opposed to the setting up anddevelopment of socialist industry in Albania an d espe-cially opposed to the creation of the processing andmachine-building industry. They raised all sorts of pre-texts for this and left no stone unturned to hinder th eimplementation of the revolutionary economic policyof ou r Party of the industrialization of the country, thebuilding of the material-technical basis of socialism an dachieving self-sufficiency in bread grain. Proceeding f romthe teachings of Marxism-Leninism, the PLA regardedthe construction and defence of socialism as impossiblewithout a modern, multi-branched industry, without anadvanced mechanized agriculture to ensure the economicindependence, without which there could be no political in -dependence. However, the Khrushchevites wanted Albaniato be a country economically dependent on the Soviet

* Enver Hoxha. The Khrushchevites*. p. 134. Alb. ed .** Ibidem, p. 325.

Union, and, consequently, it would be dependent uponit politically, too.Meanwhile, modern revisionism was spreading ra-pidly and gaining control of almost all the communistan d workers ' parties and all the socialist countries (withth e exception of our country and Party) turning intoa very great danger for the international communistmovement and the socialist camp. The PLA had nodoubt at all that the unprecedented invigoration ofth e Yugoslav revisionism, it s very extensive diversionistac t ivi ty , th e appearance of Togliatti 's theory of poli-cn;risn>> the Italian road to socialism**, -"Unlimiteddemocracy* , etc the liquidation of leaders of manypar t ies , th e rehabilitation of many traitors in differentparries, the counter-revolutionary manifestations in Po-;.,""d. the counter-revolution in Hungary , etc all hadthei r source in the 20th Congress and that th e mainculprits for all these things were Khrushchev and company.Our Party watched these developments withgrea t concern. While maintaining its principled stand onal l questions and events, its suspicions were becomingever stronger and the opinion was crystallizing that theKhrushchevite leadership of the Soviet Union wasabandoning Marxism-Leninism and the road to social-ism. Th e crystall ization of this opinion was influencedespecially by th e fil thy role which Khrushchev, Mikoyan,Suslov, Andropov, etc played in Hungary, by removingRakosi, supporting Nagy, bringing down th e formerCentra l Committee of the Hungarian party and forminganother in the Crimea, where Khrushchev was onholiday and where he had invited Kadar fo r this purpose,while collaborating and striking secret bargains overthese things with Tito. etc.The Soviet leadership sent the letters exchangedbetween Khrushchev and Tito over the Hungarianquestion in November 1956 to the Central Committeeof ou r Party for its information, with the aim of receivingits approval of the bargain struck and to show the waywhich our Party ought to follow, too!

37


20/105

Presenting these letters for discussion in the PoliticalBureau of the Central Commit tee , Co mrade Enver Hoxhasaid: . . . th e question before us is whether to breachour principles, to keep silent or to march forward, notreconciling ourselves to incorrect stands? . . . I insist thatw e proceed on the basis of pr incip les which w e haved e f i n e d . . . W e should not publicize these differences ofopinion, for this is to the detriment of the Soviet Unionan d th e socialist camp. On the other h a n d , i t is myopinion that w e must no t make concessions of the kindt ha t th e leadership of the CPSU wants us to make, fo rth is is a marke-d lv opportunist stand... Nowhere wil lw e yield th e slightest concession on principles, not evena mil l imetre . . . We shal l uphold the issues of principleeven if we remain alone. W e shall certainly n-otr ema inalone for long if we wage a just struggle in defence ofprinciples.**In December 1956, Comrade Enver H o x h a pu tforward our oppos i t ion over a series of wrong ac t io nsand our concern about th e great danger wh ich the spreadof revisionism constituted, directly to the Soviet leaders.Tw o m o n t h s later, in February 1957, th e Plenum of theCC of the PLA, while denouncing th e revis ionis ts asth e culpri ts for the events in Hungary, Poland an delsewhere, defended the fundamental principles of Marx-i sm- L e n in i sm about th e leading role of the revo lu t io narypar ty of the working class in the revolu tion an d soc ia l is tcons truction, about the necessity for the dictatorsh ip ofth e proletariat dur ing th e whole period of transition fromcapitalism to c o m m u n i s m an d about th e class strugglein this period, principles which the Khrushchev groupand its followers had trampled upon. The viola t ion ofthese principles in Hungary an d Poland w as t e s t imonyto. the catastrophe wh ich w as threatening th e revolut ionand socialism. The Centra l Com mit tee also defended Stalinan d exposed th e so-called -"Stalin's cult of the individual*.Thus, in fact, th e plenum of the Central Committee of

* Enver Hoxha, Works, vol. 14, pp. 138, 139, 143, Alb. ed;

ou r Party rejected the revisionist theses of the 20thCongress.The Khrushchevites were aware of the principledstand of the PLA and its opposition to many of theiractions. However, as Comrade Enver Hoxha says, theydid not want to. exacerbate the contradictions with us.With their logic of counter-revolutionaries an d great-statechauvinists, they thought that we, as a small Party ofa small country, would have nowhere to turn to. Ifno t today, tomorrow, w e would fall on our knees to them.However, th e publication in -*Ze'ri i popullit of ComradeEnver Hoxha's speech at the plenum of the CC inFebruary 1957 alarmed the Khrushchevites. Therefore,they demanded that a top-level delegation of the Partyof Labour of Albania should go urgently to Moscow.As Comrade Enver Hoxha writes in his work -TheKhrushchevites, the Khrushchev group used the carrot*an d + < t h e stick* in an attempt to subjugate the leadershipof our Party. The carrot* was the promises of greatereconomic aid, the convertion of old credits to grants andth e formal approval of some revolutionary stand of ourParty. -The stick was their insistence, backed bythreats, that our Party should change its revolutionarystands towards Stalin, towards Titoism, towards internalenemies of our Party, and likewise change the policyof ensuring economic independence.The first direct clash with the Khrushchevite re-visionists occurred in April 1957, when Khrushchev,powerless to overcome the refusal of ComradeEnver Hoxha and other members of our delegation toaccept these changes, said to them with uncontrolledanger: -We cannot reach agreement with yo u Albanians!W e shall break off the talkU However, he did not da re -break them off, because he still hoped to achieve hisaim. Besides these pressures, activity was undertakento sabotage the construction and defence of socialismby means of their advisers, specialists and diplomatsin Albania, and also to prepare their agency for this


21/105

purpose - within ou r Party, so that they could take thefortress f rom within .The aim of the Khrushchevites was to break theresistance of the PLA and compe l it to change its course.But, as Comrade Enver Hoxha writes, *they broketheir heads.-*The revolutio nary stand of the PLA on all thequest ions which had given rise to differences after th e2 0 t h Congress, w as also expressed at the f i rs t Meetingof communis t and workers' parties in Moscow, inNovember 1957. as well as on the occasion of theannouncem ent of the counter-revolutionary program ofthe C o m m u n i s t League of Yugoslavia in 1958. A seriesof articles, published on this occasion in cur press,unmasked not only th e theses of tha t p rogram, butalso th e theses of the 20 th Congress. In vain the Sovietleadership nurtured hopes that things would changeafter th e signing of the agreement on the grant ing ofa new credit to Albania for the 3rd Five-year Plan,especially after Khrushchev's visi t to our country , inM ay 1959. As is known, he c a m e to carry out a recon-naissance before comm encing decisive ope rations fo rthe implementat ion of his m il i ta ry an d political plansin Albania . With th e discovery an d s mas hing of the coun-ter-revolut ionary plot of Teme Sejko in 1960, K hrushchev'shopes of exploiting this for his own a ims were wipedou t too.While resolutely continuing it s revolutionary course,through clashes with th e Khrushchevite, Tit-Mte andother revisionists , the P ar ty had becom e throughly awareof what they w-ere an d about the end of 1959 and thebeginning of 1960, it had reached th e conclusion: For

us the leadership of the C o m m u n i s t Par ty of the SovietUnion w as finished. Khrushchev and the Khrushcheviteswere revisionists, traitors."-*** Enver H ox h a , The Khrushchevites**-, p. 380, Alb. ed.** Ibidem, p. 383,

In June 1960. with this conviction the delegationo f th e PLA, headed by Comrade Hysni Kapo. went toBucharest where, as is known, the Khrushchev grouptried to deliver a decisive stab in the back to thesocialist camp and the international com m unist m ove-ment .A s Comrade Enver Hoxha tells us , when the CCof the PLA sent the delegation to Bucharest it knewnothing of Khrushchev's aim, bu t after receiving ComradeHysn i Kapo's radiogram s, i t very rapidly formed thecomplete conviction that Khrushchev had concocted aplot . . . one of the m ost perfidio us and savage.. .*an d therefore, everything possible had to be done todefeat this plot.In Bucharest the delegation of the PLA carried outthe inst ructio ns of the CC , openly opposed the destru ctiveact ivi ty of the Khrushchevite group and a t tacked Khrush-chev over his ant i -Marxis t aim and the conspiratorialmethods that he employed. In his book The Khrush-chev;tes Comrade Enver Hoxha says, Hence in Bucharestan d M oscow we did not defend China, as a big coun tryf rom which we m i g h t get aid, but we defended theLeninist norms, Marxism-Leninism. 3We did not defendthe Communis t Party of China because it was a bigpar ty , but we defended our principles, we defendedMarxist-Leninist justice. At Bucharest and Moscow wewould have defended any party or country, be it big orsm all num erically, provided only that it was withMarxism-Leninism.** As a result of the principled standof the PLA the Khrushchev group did not achieve itsdiabolical aim s. This stand was a logical result of thewhole revolutionary line which our Party had followed.

* Enver Hoxha, "The Khrushchevites*, p. 400. Alb, ed..** Ib idem , p. 408, Alb. ed.


22/105

The Bucharest Meeting marked an immediate turnin the relations between th e Par ty of Labour of Albaniaand th e Soviet leadership. The Albanian rebellion^- ha dto be crushed with all the means of compulsion an dpressure. For Albania and the Party of Labour of Albaniath e period of the great test began.In th e first place, th e Khrushchevites strove to splitand subdue th e Central Committee of the Party inorder to force it to condemn its own stand in Bucharest.They used their agent prepared in Moscow, Liri Beli-shova, to this aim. However, they ran up against th esteel unity of the Central Committee.The Khrushchev group ha d pinned great hopes onthe cadres who had graduated from schools in the SovietUnion. However, th e Khrushchevites were unable tof ind or to cause an y breach in the ranks, either of thePar ty or of the people. Faced with th e unity of thePar ty an d uni ty of the Par ty with th e people, their planscame to nought.In par t icular , the Soviet revisionists employed pres-sure an d sabotage in the economic field, by delayingand, in many cases, stopping the dispatch of goods andindustr ial equipment on the basis of agreements con-cluded. They went so far as to bring into action th eweapon of starvation, by refusing the delivery of aquan t i ty of grain to ensure bread supplies of whichthere w as a shortage because of the exceptional draughtof 1980. They m ade threats to our Go vernment t ha t theywould cut off deliveries of any kind of armaments an dmilitary equipment for our People's Army.The Party of Labour of Albania did not bend th eknee to them. It appealed to the heroism an d patriotism

of the people, to their spirit of struggle an d sacrifice.O ur people closed their rank s even m ore tightly aroundth e Par ty in the struggle to cope with th e difficult ies ,pressure and interference by the Khrushchevites.In August , th e Soviet leadership sent the CC of ourParty a letter in which it demanded that they shouldgo to the Meeting to be held in Moscow, in November

1960, with complete unity of opinions.* This wouldhave meant our Par ty 's a bandon ing i ts pr incipled standsin Buchares t and its Marxist-Leninist line. However, ou rpar ty was determined not to make any c oncessions, butto defend it s principles to the end. It s reply to thisdemand from the Khrushchev group was: Even if weAlbanians have to go without bread, we do not violateou r pr inciples , do not betray Marxism-Leninism. Every-body, friends and enemies, should be clear about this.*Meanwhile the Central Com mittee of our P ar tyinstructed its delegation to the commission of 26 par t ieswhich was draf t ing the dec laratio n of the MoscowMeet ing, to f ight persis tently for the re jec t ion of therevisionist theses which th e Soviet leadership an dothers wanted to embody in it: W e are for tak ing th emat ter through to the end, Comrade Enver Hoxha wroteto th e delegation. . . . A determined revisionist does notchange course . . . Compromise with them does not serveou r cause.***The historic speech which Comrade Enver Hoxhadelivered on behalf of the Central Committee of theP a r t y of Labour of Albania at the Meeting of the 81parties in Moscow is k n o w n to all. This speech defe atedKhrushchev 's cunning tact ic to cover up the profounddifferences over principles, the existence of two opposinglines in the in te rna t ional communis t movement and toavoid cr i t icism of the revisionist line and spli t t ing act ivi-ty of the Sov iet leadership. W ith this tac tic he aimedto saddle our Par ty and the C P of Ch ina with the blam eand. to this end, a Soviet document dis tr ibuted beforethe meeting launched f i l thy attacks and slanders againstthem, while he himself was to emerge as the banner-bearer of Marxism-Leninism and unity!In reply to Khrushchev 's at tempts to make dealsover Albania, Comrade Enver Hoxha told him at themeeting: There was a time when Albania w as considered

* Enver Hoxha, Works, vol. 19, p. 338, Alb. ed.** Ibidem, pp. 329, 330, Alb. ed.


23/105

as something to be bought and sold, while others thoughtthat it depended on them whether Albania would existor not, but that time came to an end with the triumphof the ideas of Marxism-Leninism in our country...The f ac t that Albania is advancing on the road tosocialism and takes part in the socialist camp is notdecided by you. .. . this does not depend on your wishes.The Albanian people, with the P arty o f Lab ou r at thehead, have decided this with their struggle and thereis no force t ha t ca n divert them f rom this course.***Afte r the Moscow Meeting, at which the ideologicalconflict reached it s culminat ion, th e Khrushchevites 'pressures and attacks against our Party and countryassumed harsher and more aggressive forms. Thinkingthat he had all the necessary means in his han ds Kh rush-chev raised hi s fist to wreak vengeance on the Party,th e people and a small socialist country , by organizingan all-round political, economic and military blockadeagainst Albania, unprecedented in its feroci ty.They unilaterally annulled all the agreements con-cluded between the two countries, stopped all creditsan d economic aid and broke off all commercial re lations ,withdrew al l their specialists from Albania in a threaten-ing way and expelled all the Albanian cadres andstudents who were studying in Soviet educational insti-tutions. These hostile actions were accompanied witha letter to our Governm ent in A pril 1961, which sa id:From now on, Albania cannot hope that the SovietUnion will assist it on the former basis. tha t *fromnow on the Soviet Union considers it necessary to bu ildit s relations with Albania on a new basis. Immediatelyafter this, in May, they arbitrarily annulled the bilateralagreements ab out the ob ligations they had assumed, onthe basis of the Warsaw Treaty, to supply our People'sArmy with armaments and mil itary equipment. Theyrobbed Albania of 8 submarines, as well as the Albanianwarships which were in the port of Sevastopol at that

* Enver Hoxha.. Works, vol. 19, pp. 424-425, Alb. ed .

time. They demonstratively withdrew th e ships fromthe mil i tary base of Vlora.At no time had the history of relations betweensocialist countries known such pressure against a smallsocialist country and a small people. Even the im-perialists have no t imposed such a complete blockadeagainst a socialist country. . .*, wrote ComradeEnver Hoxha.The Soviet revisionists were also ready to undertakemilitary intervention in Albania, using as a pretext thequestion of the military base at Vlora. However, theseplans fai led, thanks to the heroic resistance of our Party,our army and our armed people.Finally, in October 1981, from the tr ibune of the22nd Congress Nikita Khrushchev openly launched apublic attack against our Party, calling on communistsan d our people for counter-revolution, and followed thisup with another hostile act, th e breaking off of diplo-matic relations with Albania.All these things testified to the failure of everye f fo r t to subju ga te our Party and force it to take arevisionist course, a? the other parties did, to compelou r people to abandon the road of socialism and to enter;he road of capitalism, like the other former socialistcountries. Th e Party of Labour of Albania had scoreda big victo ry over Khrushchevite revisionism.In these conditions it could remain silent no longer.It not only had the right, but felt it to be a duty tomake publicly known the Khrushchevites' betrayal ofMarxism -Lenin ism and socialism and all their hostileactivi ty and crimes against our Party of Labour andsocialist Albania. The Party of Labour of Albania declaredstern and irreconcilable war on Khrushchevite revision-ism, be ing ful ly convinced that through this s truggleit was de fending the great cause of Marxism-Leninismand socialism. The struggle w hich is being imposedon ou r Party and people, declared th e Central Com-

* Enver Hoxha, Works, vol. 22, p. 11, Alb. ed.45


24/105

mittee of the Party, will be protracted and dif-f icul t . But our Party and people have never been afraidof difficulties."-*The Khrushchev!tes were greatly mistaken whenthey thought that Albania would not be able to take asingle step forward wi th o u t the aid of the Soviet Unionan d that, in the end, it would be obliged to return toth e -"socialist family* which would mean to becomadependent on tne Soviet Union like the revisionistcountries of Eastern Europe, or to sell itself to imperial-ism for 30 pieces of silver!As Comrade Enver Hoxha says , th e PL A . . . didnot sell out and never will sell out to imperialism oranyone e l se because . . . a genuine Marxist-Leninist party,... whatever th e conditions and situations i t is in, neverallows itself to be b o u g h t or sold, bu t resolutely pursuesits course, the course of uncom promis ing struggle againstimperialism, revisionism and reaction./***Socialist Albania did not mark t ime, but advan-ce d very rapidly without the aid of the Soviet social-imperialists, vigorously developed it s economy an dculture, and all fields of the life of the country onthe road of socialism and strengthened its defence. W i t hit s far-sighted revolutionary policy in the political eco-nomic, cul tural and mil i tary fields, the PLA had ensuredal l th e conditions fo r such an advance. The achievementsmarked in 1961-1980 testify to the gigantic creative forceof a people which is led by a revolutionary par ty of theworking class. They refute th e predictions an d imperialistlogic of the Soviet revisionists.The Khrushchevite revisionist clique was gravelymistaken when it thou ght that i t could isolate Albania.Albania was not isolated an d never will be isolated,because throughout th e world there are Marxis t-Leninis ts ,genuine revolutionaries and internationalists an d therear e friendly peoples an d countries who unders tood an d

* -"Principal D o cum en t s of the PLA, vol. 4, p. 154, Alb. ed .** Enver Hoxha, *The Khrushchevites*, p. 108, Alb. ed.

continue to - understand ever more profoundly the rev-olutionary line and the principled struggle of the PLA indefence of freedom, independence an d social ism inAlbania, in defenc e of the interests and ideals of theproletariat and peoples of the whole world.

Although they suffered defeat in their encounterwith th e PLA, the Khrushchevi tes did not relinquishtheir effor ts to subjugate it and the Albanian people.They ha d great hopes of achieving the submiss ion of ourPar ty after the fall of Khrushchev, when they triedto lay all the blame on him for the quarrels anddisagreements* for which, according to them, there is noobjective basis or ideological reason. However, the Partyof Labour of Albania had no illusions at all about theaims of Khrushchev's successors who merely carried out < a change of horses* in the leadership while retainingKhru shchevis m quite u naltered,Our Party also rejected the advice of the Chineseleadership to follow their example in making approachesto an d reaching conciliation with the Khrushchevites.There was a strong smell of oppor tun ism an d pragmatismabout th e judgements of the Chinese leadership thatw e should offer ou r hand to the dear Soviet comrades*,we should forget th e past, an d w e should unders tandthe difficulties of the comrades of the Soviet Union.The exclusion of Khrushchev f rom the leadership ofth e Soviet party and state,* wrote Comrade Enver Hoxha,"did not mean the end of Khrushchevite revisionism, orthe liquidation of its ideology an d policy, which wereexpressed in the political line of the 20th and 22ndCongress of the C P S U . . . We mus t no t create and foster

47


25/105

illusions, we must not be deceived by demagogy anddisguises , . . . fo r the Marxist-Leninists, the struggle againstKhrushchevite revisionism ends when it s course is liqui-dated politically and ideologically, when the spirit , practi-ces and stands from Khrushchevite revisionist posi t ionshave been liquidated. . .*A f t e r the break with the Chinese, the Soviet re-visionists hoped once again that w e would offer themth e hand of friendship, because they thought that inthese conditions th e ^appropria te time* had come tosettle matters with Albania. Even to this day therevisionist press is openly hinting that, left withoutChinese aid. th e Albanians will return to the ^socialistfamily and the allies of the Soviet revisionists ar eintervening to sound out our reaction to this.However, their hopes will never be rea l ized. ComradeEnver Hoxha has said: Our enemies ar e mistaken whenthey think that our country is. . . 'abandoned on thestreets' that 'i t will hold out its hand to somebody w howill pull it out of the mire', etc. The People's SocialistRepubl ic of Albania. . . is advancing conf idently, relyingon its own strength, building, creating, training an ddefending itself fearlessly, and with its heroic example,it is inspiring an d will cont inue to inspire th e oppressedmasses of the world.**

Looking back at the road traversed during the p^sttwen ty years or so, we can define those causes, the* Enver Hoxha , Works, vol. 23, p. 100, Alb. ed .** Enver Hoxha, -"Albania Is Forging Ahead Confidently an dUnafraid*, p. 9, Alb, ed .

48

political-moral factors which ensured the great victoryof our Party over the Khrushchevites and their ignomi-nous defeat:l.Our Party fought and successfully defeated theinterference, pressure, blackmail and blockade of theKhrushchevites, because it has always remained loyal toMarxism-Leninism and has pursued a consistent prin-cipled line. The struggle of our Party against Sovietrevisionism is a just, profoundly principled struggle.O ur differences with the Khrushchevites did not haveto do simply with the relations between two parties andtw o countries. They were of a general character beforethey assumed a bilateral character; they were principledideological differences, differences between tw o opposinglines, before they were inter-state contradictions. The Sov-iet revisionist leadership carried out ugly hostile activitiesagainst our people and country, because the PLA de-fended Marxism-Leninism, whereas it had betrayedMarxism-Leninism. Consequently, the struggle of thePL A against Khrushchevite revisionism was not aimedsimply against the hostile anti-Albanian actions of theKhrushchevite clique against our Party and country, butabove all, against the revisionist betrayal, in order todefend Marxism-Leninism and the cause of revolutionand socialism. Comrade Enver Hoxha has said that wecondemned the Soviet revisionists' betrayal of Marxism-Leninism, just as we condemned the betrayal of theTitoite an d Chinese revisionists fo r . . . profound ideolo-gical and political reasons and not for trifles. Theywere not of a national character only, because theyaffected no t only Albania's economic interests, no , -theyhad and have more of an international character, becausethey violated the great principles for which the peoples,the world proletariat and progressive mankind arefighting.*-*.2. The Party of Labour of Albania successfully

* Enver Hoxha, "Proletarian Democracy is Genuine Demo-cracy, 1978, p. 39, Alb. ed.9 A 49


26/105

smashed the pressure, blackmail and hostile blockadesof the Khrushchevites, because it had the support ofthe broad working masses of the country, the powerfulbacking of the people. In steel unity with the Party,the people fought together with it against the savagehostile activity with a high level of political conscious-ness. Precisely In this unity, stresses ComradeEnver Hoxha, lies the invincible strength of the Partyand our people, the sound guarantee of all the past,present and future victories of the people. This unityis the heaviest blow against all enemies of our Partyand people, imperialists and revisionists of every descrip-tion.*3. The Party of Labour of Albania overcame theKhrushchevite blockade because it has always remainedloyal to the great revolutionary principle of self-reliance.N o one brought us our freedom, independence and thegreat victories of the revolution and the socialist con-struction as a gift, they were achieved by shedding riversof blood and sweat.When the Soviet leadership cut off all the creditsand economic aid, ou r Party and people did not capitulate,ou r economy did not come to a standstill, but on thecontrary, developed with rapid rates on the road ofsocialism. The correct policy of the Party for the socialistindustrialization of the country, the development andmodernization of agriculture, the building of the material-technical base of socialism, and an independent economy,ensured that our socialist economy would not experienceany kind of crisis or stagnation, bu t would go aheadvigorously.In the W est there are p oliticians and historianswh o distort an d falsify the great truth about the conflictof the PLA with the Krushchevites, motivating thevictories and resistance of our Party with unreal causesand factors. Among these we can mention the ^Chineseaid. and the ^geographical remoteness from the Soviet

* Enver Hoxha, Works, vol. 22, p. Ill, Alb. ed.

Union**. It is not difficult to refute these arguments.Our Party began and successfully waged the struggleagainst the Khrushchev group, not for the interests ofthe Chinese, or because that it had their support andaid, but for major national and international ideologicaland political motives, and relying on its own strength.In regard to the danger of Soviet military aggression,this existed twenty years ago, just as it does today. Ifthe Soviet social-imperialists or any other aggressor havenot dared to undertake military adventures against so-cialist Albania, this cannot be explained by geographicalremoteness, or by the lack of the desire on their part.They know that socialist Albania is not a mouthfulthat can be easily swallowed, that the traditionallypatriotic and freedom-loving people of Albania, linkedin steel unit y with their fearless Party of Labour areprepared from every aspect and determined to fightto the end to defend the freedom and independence oftheir Homeland. Any aggressor who would dare to attackit, would encounter a terrain ablaze with people's warfrom which he would no t manage to extricate himself.4 . Another factor in the triumph over the Khrush-chevites is the fact that our Party has persistently imple-mented th e revolutionary principle that foreigners(whether allies or enemies) must not meddle in theinternal affairs of our country. Remaining constantlyvigilant and not permitting any external interference, ithas worked out and applied its revolutionary line ina completely independent way and has fought hardto

soviet revisionism and the struggle of the pla to unmask it

Documents