Marxism-Leninism: Outdated or Full of Vitality?

Answer to the question: Do we really need a new ideology or a “higher stage” of Marxism-Leninism?

The revisionists and opportunists of all hues, whether it be under the cloak of discarding it entirely or creating a “higher stage”, neglect the role that Marxism-Leninism has played and still plays under today’s circumstances.

The one word always associated with Marxism-Leninism for those in denial of the facts is the following: outdated. Unfortunately, the most substantive arguments received in justification of this stance is either that the Marxist-Leninists are dogmatists and need to learn to adapt to the circumstances of today or that all of the Marxist-Leninist parties have become rotten and no longer suitable for the organisation of socialist society. All of these people have one thing in common: the claim that Marxism-Leninism, mostly in the time of Stalin, was the correct ideology but it has since proven to be unsuitable for today.

In order to discover the truth as to whether Marxism-Leninism is still full of vitality, whether it remains the ideology of the proletariat, it is first necessary to discover under what circumstances it came to be in the first place and what kind of changes prompted it to become the sole ideology of the proletariat. This is the first question.

Using the founding ideas of Marxism-Leninism, we can safely tell whether the situation today warrants a new ideology, whether we can add something on to the end of Marxism-Leninism or discard it entirely. But this alone is not enough to prove that an ideology remains an ideology of the proletariat. In order for this, an analysis must be made of Marxism-Leninism in all of its advancements up to the present day remain correct, whether or not it can hold the same theoretical correctness it once did. This is the second question.

Founding of Marxism-Leninism; Circumstances for a New Ideology

In the founding of Marxism-Leninism, the works of J.V. Stalin become indispensable. As the chief proponent of the synthesisation of Marxism-Leninism, his works must be referred to mainly in concluding the circumstances in which Leninism came to be the second stage of Marxism. His pamphlet, “Foundations of Leninism”, bears overwhelming significance for statements like the following:

“Leninism is Marxism of the era of imperialism and the proletarian revolution. To be more exact, Leninism is the theory and tactics of the proletarian revolution in general, the theory and tactics of the dictatorship of the proletariat in particular. Marx and Engels pursued their activities in the pre-revolutionary period, (we have the proletarian revolution in mind), when developed imperialism did not yet exist, in the period of the proletarians’ preparation for revolution, in the period when the proletarian revolution was not yet an immediate practical inevitability. But Lenin, the disciple of Marx and Engels, pursued his activities in the period of developed imperialism, in the period of the unfolding proletarian revolution, when the proletarian revolution had already triumphed in one country, had smashed bourgeois democracy and had ushered in the era of proletarian democracy, the era of the Soviets.” (J.V. Stalin: “Foundations of Leninism”, Works, Vol. 6, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow 1954, p. 73.)

Marxism-Leninism is the ideology of the proletariat during imperialism, it did not come about merely because of its struggle with the revisionist Second Internationalists. Although, as Stalin correctly points out, that is one of its main tenets:

“…Lenin did indeed restore the revolutionary content of Marxism, which had been suppressed by the opportunists of the Second International. Still, that is but a particle of the truth. The whole truth about Leninism is that Leninism not only restored Marxism, but also took a step forward, developing Marxism further under the new conditions of capitalism and of the class struggle of the proletariat.” (J.V. Stalin: “Foundations of Leninism”, Works, Vol. 6, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow 1954, p. 72.)

But to slander Marxism in general as irrelevant and outdated, non-revolutionary and dead, is to create a:

“…foolish and vulgar division of the teachings of Marx into two parts, revolutionary and moderate…” (J.V. Stalin: “Foundations of Leninism”, Works, Vol. 6, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow 1954, p. 72.)

It can be said, in summation, that the main aspect of Leninism, of the development of Marxism into Marxism-Leninism is the following:

“Leninism grew up and took shape under the conditions of imperialism, when the contradictions of capitalism had reached an extreme point, when the proletarian revolution had become an immediate practical question, when the old period of preparation of the working class for revolution had arrived at and passed into a new period, that of direct assault on capitalism.” (J.V. Stalin: “Foundations of Leninism”, Works, Vol. 6, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow 1954, p. 74.)

Plainly, Leninism is Marxism in the epoch of imperialism and the proletarian revolution. This development was well warranted, because as Stalin said “Marx and Engels pursued their activities in the pre-revolutionary period.” It would have been a sheer impossibility, as genius as the works of Marx and Engels were and are, for them to be correct about all of capitalist-imperialist society, when the question of the proletarian revolution is on the order of the day for the whole world. Lenin’s advancements in these circumstances were not just historical but entirely relevant up the present day; he was the first to fully expound the now well-known Marxist theses on the contradictions in the new epoch. These are the grounds on which the development of Marxism into Marxism-Leninism occurred and how all future developments should be examined. Stalin’s writings make it clear that for a new ideology (or a new -ism), not only is the restoration of the revolutionary character of Marxism-Leninism necessary, but also a change in the fundamental character of the epoch, of society in itself. This is how Marxism-Leninism came into being and how it will go out of being, it too is subject to the processes of dialectics and will negate itself as the spiral of historical development carries on.

Examination of the Character of Our Epoch

What is our epoch? Can it be said that we live in the same epoch that Lenin’s teachings were of so much importance? Certainly, our epoch, as is relatively well-known to Marxist-Leninists, is imperialism and the proletarian revolution. Describing the contradictions that gave birth to Leninism as the second stage of Marxism, J.V. Stalin said:

“Lenin called imperialism ‘moribund capitalism.’ Why? Because imperialism carries the contradictions of capitalism to their last bounds, to the extreme limit, beyond which revolution begins. Of these contradictions, there are three which must be regarded as the most important.” (J.V. Stalin: “Foundations of Leninism”, Works, Vol. 6, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow 1954, p. 74.)

For accuracy, each of these contradictions will be confirmed as still the main contradictions today.

“The first contradiction is the contradiction between labour and capital. Imperialism is the omnipotence of the monopolist trusts and syndicates, of the banks and the financial oligarchy, in the industrial countries. In the fight against this omnipotence, the customary methods of the working class-trade unions and cooperatives, parliamentary parties and the parliamentary struggle-have proved to be totally inadequate. Either place yourself at the mercy of capital, eke out a wretched existence as of old and sink lower and lower, or adopt a new weapon-this is the alternative imperialism puts before the vast masses of the proletariat. Imperialism brings the working class to revolution.” (J.V. Stalin: “Foundations of Leninism”, Works, Vol. 6, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow 1954, pp. 74–75.)

Can it be said that this contradiction has been resolved? Not in the slightest. It had been resolved in a number of countries where socialism had been built, but today this exists nowhere with the restoration of global capitalism. The masses have not risen in a successful revolution anywhere for quite some time, and the dominance of finance capital over the proletariat is still the contradiction that defines the everyday lives of the international workers.

“The second contradiction is the contradiction among the various financial groups and imperialist Powers in their struggle for sources of raw materials, for foreign territory. Imperialism is the export of capital to the sources of raw materials, the frenzied struggle for monopolist possession of these sources, the struggle for a re-division of the already divided world, a struggle waged with particular fury by new financial groups and Powers seeking a ‘place in the sun’ against the old groups and Powers, which cling tenaciously to what they have seized. This frenzied struggle among the various groups of capitalists is notable in that it includes as an inevitable element imperialist wars, wars for the annexation of foreign territory. This circumstance, in its turn, is notable in that it leads to the mutual weakening of the imperialists, to the weakening of the position of capitalism in general, to the acceleration of the advent of the proletarian revolution and to the practical necessity of this revolution.” (J.V. Stalin: “Foundations of Leninism”, Works, Vol. 6, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow 1954, p. 75)

Can it be said that the prominence of the first contradiction, that of labour and capital, still creates conflict between imperialist powers? Yes. The events in the so-called “Middle East” where the social-imperialist Soviet Union and the U.S. imperialists had so many conflicts is a confirmation of this. The rabid race for markets and spheres of influence occurs mainly between the U.S. and other imperialist countries today in the oppressed countries, specifically in Africa where both have installed their enslaving foreign investments, credits, and “aids.” The temporary rapprochements between U.S. imperialism and, for example, Germany, in no way proves the Kautskyite theory of “ultra-imperialism” correct, because the contradictions that exist between them are real and will boil over, as the Soviet-American contradictions did. All told, it can be said that the second contradiction still exists in today’s society.

“The third contradiction is the contradiction between the handful of ruling, ‘civilised’ nations and the hundreds of millions of the colonial and dependent peoples of the world. Imperialism is the most barefaced exploitation and the most inhumane oppression of hundreds of millions of people inhabiting vast colonies and dependent countries. The purpose of this exploitation and of this oppression is to squeeze out super-profits. But in exploiting these countries imperialism is compelled to build these railways, factories and mills, industrial and commercial centers. The appearance of a class of proletarians, the emergence of a native intelligentsia, the awakening of national consciousness, the growth of the liberation movement-such are the inevitable results of this ‘policy.’ The growth of the revolutionary movement in all colonies and dependent countries without exception clearly testifies to this fact. This circumstance is of importance for the proletariat inasmuch as it saps radically the position of capitalism by converting the colonies and dependent countries from reserves of imperialism into reserves of the proletarian revolution.” (J.V. Stalin: “Foundations of Leninism”, Works, Vol. 6, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow 1954, pp. 75–76.)

Is the third contradiction prevalent today? Of course. Although direct colonialism has been largely been eradicated from the planet, in part thanks to the influence of the new and enlarged socialist states post-war, neo-colonialism (or a term that some prefer, semi-colonialism) dominates the oppressed countries. They are bound hand and feet today by means of economic domination, of tricking them through a vague “political independence”, which in fact, is nothing but dependence disguised. One great example of this cloak is the so-called “non-aligned movement”, led by various leaders who themselves are subservient to the imperialist powers. These neo-colonies are stuffed tight with foreign investment today, and if anything, this contradiction has become much more mature and ripens things for the proletarian revolution more than ever before.

In conclusion, Stalin says:

“Such, in general, are the principal contradictions of imperialism which have converted the old, ‘flourishing’ capitalism into moribund capitalism.” (J.V. Stalin: “Foundations of Leninism”, Works, Vol. 6, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow 1954, p. 76.)

These three main contradictions of the epoch of imperialism and the proletarian revolution are still relevant today, and perhaps more than ever before. In such a situation, can the basis of Marxism-Leninism be considered outdated when its analysis of the contradiction of our epoch is not correct? Marxists certainly think so. Enver Hoxha’s “Imperialism and the Revolution” was an excellent defence of these theses, definitively proving that Lenin’s definition of imperialism is almost fully correct, that Leninism is still the ideology of the revolutionary proletariat. What are some of the main points to this? Firstly, that Lenin’s analysis of Imperialism as the stage of state-monopoly capitalism:

“State monopoly capitalism, which represents the highest stage of concentration of production and capital, is the main form of property prevailing today in the Soviet Union and the other revisionist countries. This state monopoly capitalism is in the service of the new bourgeois class in power.” (E. Hoxha: “Imperialism and the Revolution”, Norman Bethune Institute, Toronto 1979, p. 76.)

That this is not exclusive to the openly capitalist countries, but also characteristic of the revisionist countries:

“In China, too, through a number of reforms, such as the establishment of profit as the main aim of the activity of the enterprises, the application of capitalist practices in organization, management and remuneration, the creation of economic regions, trusts and combines very similar to the Soviet, Yugoslav and Japanese ones, the opening of doors to foreign capital, the direct links of enterprises with foreign monopolies, etc., the economy is assuming forms typical of state monopoly capitalism.” (E. Hoxha: “Imperialism and the Revolution”, Norman Bethune Institute, Toronto 1979, p. 76.)

That these develop into international monopolies, named today “multinational companies”:

“At present, in the capitalist and revisionist world the concentration and centralization of production and capital have reached an inter-state level. the European Common Market, Comecon, etc., which represent the union of monopolies of various imperialist powers, also encourage and realize this tendency in practice.

“Analysing the forms of international monopolies, in his time Lenin spoke of the cartels and syndicates. In today’s conditions, when the concentration of production and capital has reached very large proportions, the monopoly bourgeoisie has also found other forms for the exploitation of working people. These are the multinational companies.

“In their outward appearance, these compatibles seek to give the impression that they are under the joint ownership of capitalists of many countries. In fact, in regard to their capital and control, the multinational companies belong mainly to one country, although they carry out their activities in many countries. They are expanding more and more through the absorption of local companies and firms, big and small, which cannot cope with the savage competition.

“The multinational companies open up subsidiaries and extend their enterprises to those countries where the prospects for maximum profits seem most secure. The US multinational company ‘Ford’ for example, has set up 20 big plants in other countries, in which 100 thousand workers of various nationalities are employed.” (E. Hoxha: “Imperialism and the Revolution”, Norman Bethune Institute, Toronto 1979, pp. 76–77.)

That they are linked together indiscriminately with the bourgeois state:

“Between the multinational companies and the bourgeois state there are close links and reciprocal dependence, which are based on their exploiting class character. The capitalist state is used as a tool in their service for their aims of domination and expansion on both the national and the international plane.” (E. Hoxha: “Imperialism and the Revolution”, Norman Bethune Institute, Toronto 1979, p. 78.)

That the concentration of production has only increased and increased even more:

“The concentration of production and capital, Lenin teaches us, also serve as a basis for increased concentration of money capital, its concentration in the hands of big banks, and the birth and development of finance capital. In the course of the development of capitalism, together with the monopolies, the banks, too, assume great development, absorbing the money capital of the monopolies and concerns as well as of small producers and investors. In this way, the banks, which are in the hands of the capitalists and serve them, become the owners of the main financial means.

“The same process, which was carried out for the elimination of the small enterprises by the big ones, by the cartels and monopolies, has also taken place in the liquidation, one after the other, of small banks. Thus, just as the big enterprises created the monopolies, the big banks, too, created their banking concerns. In the last two decades this phenomenon has assumed colossal proportions and it is still going on, very rapidly, today. A distinctive feature of today’s mergers and Take-overs is the fact that not only the small banks but also the middle-sized and the relatively big ones are involved. This phenomenon is accounted for by the increasing severity of the contradictions of capitalist reproduction, the extension of the struggle of competition and the grave crisis of the financial and monetary system of the capitalist world.

“Twenty-six big financial groups dominate in the United States of America. The biggest of them is the Morgan group, with 20 big banks, insurance companies, etc., and with share capital of 90 billion dollars.

“The level of the concentration and centralization of banking capital is also very high in the other main capitalist countries. In West Germany, three out of seventy big banks own over 58 percent of all banking assets. In Britain, all banking activity is controlled by four banks known as the ‘Big Four’. The level of concentration of banking capital is also high in Japan and France, too.” (E. Hoxha: “Imperialism and the Revolution”, Norman Bethune Institute, Toronto 1979, pp. 82–83.)

That the imperialist countries continually export their capital to the imperialised countries in order to keep them under bondage:

“Lenin emphasized that present-day capitalism is characterized by the export of capital. Today this economic feature of imperialism has been further developed and strengthened. The biggest exporters of capital in the world today are the United States of America, Japan, the Soviet Union, the Federal German Republic, Britain and France.

“For a certain period, capital was exported by the United States of America, Britain, France and Germany, countries with developed industry, which sucked from colonies the riches of the land and those that lay below its surface. Later, as a consequence of the war and crises, some imperialist powers such as Britain, France, Germany, were weakened economically, while American imperialism enriched itself and became a superpower. In the situation created after the Second World War the torrent of exports of American capital was very detrimental to the other capitalist powers.

“Today, American capital is exported to all countries, even to the industrialized ones, in the form of investments, credits, loans, in the form of co-operation in joint companies or through the setting up of large industrial companies. American imperialism, monopoly capital, invests in the undeveloped and poor countries, because there production costs are low, while the level of exploitation of working people is high. It invests in order to secure raw materials, to monopolize markets, to sell its industrial products.” (E. Hoxha: “Imperialism and the Revolution”, Norman Bethune Institute, Toronto 1979, pp. 90–91.)

These characteristics (among many others not mentioned) applied to our epoch, the basis of which are found in Lenin’s works, proves that the Marxist analysis of today’s imperialism can still be found in those correct works of Lenin, specifically “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism.” By this evidence, we can conclude that a theoretical advancement in Marxism-Leninism is not necessary because our epoch is, in its basis, the same as was in Lenin’s time. Yes, it is true that many so-called “Marxist-Leninist” parties have lost their revolutionary character, but that means we need to revolutionise the ideology once more, rally the ranks of the working masses under its banner and organise a steady proletarian movement that the world so desperately needs right now. The answer is not to be found in adventurism, in creating a new ideology where the necessity nor the requirements exist, where Marxism-Leninism already makes a correct analysis of our society. Such a fact proves that by no means can Marxism-Leninism be considered “outdated.”

Advancements of Marxism-Leninism

Of course, this does not preclude the advancement of Marxism-Leninism, even under the current epoch. J.V. Stalin and Enver Hoxha both had a great deal of contributions to the advancement of Marxism-Leninism. For Stalin, it is mainly the building of a socialist society. The Bolshevik Party, with J.V. Stalin at the head, were the first in the world to build socialist society. They had to expound the theses (later outlined in Stalin’s brilliant work “Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.”) necessary to build such a society, and these theses were by no means easy to come by. They had to rely on the works of the Marxist classics combining theory with concrete practice, with the situation in the Soviet Union and the world. The main achievement of J.V. Stalin’s advancement in this regard is his application of dialectics to socialist society. Any good Marxist knows that the dialectical basis of socialist society is the resolution of the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie:

“It is necessary to distinguish the forms of resolution of temporary, partial contradictions (which make possible the development of the basic contradictions of a process) from the forms of resolution of the basic contradictions of a process as a whole, which lead to the removal of that process. Thus the different forms of the bond between the proletariat and the peasantry in the U.S.S.R. made possible such a development of small- scale commodity production and large-scale socialist industry as prepared the way for a final resolution of the basic contradiction. And the forms of final resolution of those contradictions, which lead to the removal of the given basic contradiction, are all-round collectivization and the conversion of agricultural economy into a branch of socialist industry. The final resolution of contradictions denotes the removal of both opposite aspects. The victory of the proletariat in the socialist revolution denotes that it ceases to be a class in capitalist society and that the elements of the bourgeoisie opposed to it cease to be the class controlling the country’s economy.” (M. Shirokov: “A Textbook of Marxist Philosophy”, Victor Gollancz Limited, London 1941, pp. 192–193.) (emphasis added)

And that this contradiction is resolved by means of the proletarian revolution and subsequent socialist transformations:

“The contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in the conditions of capitalism is to be resolved by revolution, by a proletarian seizure of state-power...” (M. Shirokov: “A Textbook of Marxist Philosophy”, Victor Gollancz Limited, London 1941, p. 160.)

The creative Marxist-Leninist thinking of Stalin and the Bolshevik Party on this topic gave light to the new reality, socialist society, becoming not just an idea but a concrete reality. This contradiction was resolved in the Soviet Union, and in doing so the proletariat abolished itself as a class:

“Take, for example, the working class of the U.S.S.R. By force of habit, it is often called the proletariat. But what is the proletariat? The proletariat is a class bereft of the instruments and means of production, under an economic system in which the means and instruments of production belong to the capitalists and in which the capitalist class exploits the proletariat. The proletariat is a class exploited by the capitalists. But in our country, as you know, the capitalist class has already been eliminated, and the instruments and means of production have been taken from the capitalists and transferred to the state, of which the leading force is the working class. Consequently, our working class, far from being bereft of the instruments and means of production, on the contrary, possess them jointly with the whole people. And since it possesses them, and the capitalist class has been eliminated, all possibility of the working class being exploited is precluded. This being the case, can our working class be called the proletariat? Clearly, it cannot. Marx said that if the proletariat is to emancipate itself, it must crush the capitalist class, take the instruments and means of production from the capitalists, and abolish those conditions of production which give rise to the proletariat. Can it be said that the working class of the U.S.S.R. has already brought about these conditions for its emancipation? Unquestionably, this can and must be said. And what does this mean? This means that the proletariat of the U.S.S.R. has been transformed into an entirely new class, into the working class of the U.S.S.R., which has abolished the capitalist economic system, which has established the Socialist ownership of the instruments and means of production and is directing Soviet society along the road to Communism.

“As you see, the working class of the U.S.S.R. is an entirely new working class, a working class emancipated from exploitation, the like of which the history of mankind has never known before.” (J.V. Stalin: “On the Draft Constitution of the U.S.S.R.”, Works, Vol. 14, Red Star Press, London 1978, pp. 157–158.)

The proletariat, in abolishing itself and becoming the new ruling working class, abolished the contradiction between the bourgeoisie and itself, creating new a contradiction. That contradiction, the basic contradiction of socialist society, is that between the powerful working class and the powerless former exploiters, and in the case where socialism has been built in capitalist encirclement, the external exploiters as well. Some may see this as a less violent, more reserved and peaceful contradiction, and it certainly gains many new advantages for the new class in power, but rather than weakening the vigilance of the workers’ dictatorship, Stalin says that class struggle must continue in socialist society, that the dictatorship must be further consolidated:

“The fourth group of critics, in attacking the draft of the new Constitution, characterize it as a ‘swing to the Right,’ as the ‘abandonment of the dictatorship of the proletariat,’ as the ‘liquidation of the Bolshevik regime.’ “The Bolsheviks have swung to the Right, that is a fact,” they declare in a chorus of different voices. Particularly zealous in this respect are certain Polish newspapers, and also some American newspapers.

“What can one say about these critics, so-called?

“If the broadening of the basis of the dictatorship of the working class and the transformation of the dictatorship into a more flexible, and, consequently, a more powerful system of guidance of society by the state is interpreted by them not as strengthening the dictatorship of the working class but as weakening it, or even abandoning it, then it is legitimate to ask: Do these gentlemen really know what the dictatorship of the working class means.” (J.V. Stalin: “On the Draft Constitution of the U.S.S.R.”, Works, Vol. 14, Red Star Press, London 1978, p. 177.)

The contribution of J.V. Stalin and the Bolshevik Party towards the building of socialist society are innumerable. Yet, this does not warrant a new stage in Marxism-Leninism. Why? Because throughout this time, the fundamental character of the epoch in the world was still imperialism and the proletarian revolution, because these were merely advancements within the theoretical basis of Marxism-Leninism. Despite the attempt of people like Khrushchev to artificially elevate the status of Stalin by using the term “Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism”, there is and can be no so thing.

Similarly, within our epoch, Enver Hoxha and the Party of Labour of Albania made a number of advancements in the construction of socialist society. Unlike the revisionist countries who threw the economic advancements of the Lenin-Stalin USSR in the garbage by means of bourgeois reforms, Albania used these teachings and in a creative way constructed a genuine socialist society. By “in a creative way”, I mean that they were faced with unimaginable difficulties in the building of socialism and had to learn new ways of going over to the objective socialist laws and further consolidating them. As is well-known, in the time of Ahmet Zogu and the beginning of the construction of socialist society, Albania was the most backwards country in all of Europe. And just 15 years after the establishment of the people’s state power, they would be cut off from 2 superpowers, blockaded by both the U.S. imperialists and the Soviet social-imperialists. By 1979, they were blocked by China as well, a new blockade from another former ally. As you can imagine, a small country of a million people forced to construct socialism relying almost exclusively on their own people would be an immensely difficult task. It demanded creative thinking and it demanded the expounding of Marxist-Leninist theses for just this very situation. The construction of socialism was successful in Albania and even after its fall we can take many lessons from it on how to properly apply the principles of Marxism-Leninism while isolated by the capitalist-revisionist world.

The “Scientific Conference on the Marxist-Leninist Theoretical Thinking of the Party of Labour of Albania and Comrade Enver Hoxha” held during October 1983 shines some light on not only this vital principle but also the all-round advancements in theory of the Party of Labour of Albania and Enver Hoxha:

“The PLA has considered the principle of self-reliance as a law that operates permanently and in an all-round manner in the liberation wars, in the struggle for the triumph of the revolution, in the construction and defence of socialism. Comrade Enver Hoxha has the merit not only of having affirmed this principle in the conditions of a small country encircled by savage imperialist and revisionist enemies, as our country is, but also of defending it in face of attacks of all the scribes of the bourgeoisie and modern revisionism, who try to justify both the predatory ambitions of the superpowers and the economic and political sub-mission to international capital. According to this principle, Comrade Enver Hoxha points out that, ‘…the internal factor in the revolution and the socialist construction is decisive, and the people should rely on their own forces in every action.’” (“Scientific Conference on the Marxist-Leninist Theoretical Thinking of the Party of Labour of Albania and Comrade Enver Hoxha”, The “8 Nentori” Publishing House, Tirana 1983, p. 134.)

Further:

“Our Party has worked persistently and systematically in order to ensure that the principle of self-reliance does not remain a general slogan, but finds concrete application in all the work of our socialist construction and the defence of the Homeland. Comrade Enver Hoxha stressed at the 8th Congress of the Party that Albania is the only country in the world which develops and marches ahead on the road of socialism without any kind of aid and credit from abroad, because we have worked in time for this decisive step. Our internal and external enemies, in agreement and collusion with each other, have tried through pressure and sabotage to put us off this correct road of salvation, have tried to impede and sabotage the development of the key branches of the economy, especially the oil and mining industry, metallurgy and agriculture. But they have broken their necks against the correct line of the Party and have never managed to displace the axis of its economic policy.” (“Scientific Conference on the Marxist-Leninist Theoretical Thinking of the Party of Labour of Albania and Comrade Enver Hoxha”, The “8 Nentori” Publishing House, Tirana 1983, p. 135.)

This thinking allowed Albania to construct the only genuine socialist society in the world, which not only followed the theoretical thinking of the Marxist classics but also advanced along its own creative road, in unknown circumstances for the construction of socialism. Another aspect is the defence of such a small country, which is, of course, a critical question for determining whether or not people’s power can last. Here, the principle of self-reliance is held high as well:

“The defence of our socialist Homeland according to the principle of self-reliance makes this a first priority. For a small country as Albania the only possible and correct road to have a strong and unbreakable defence is the arming and military training of the whole people. Comrade Enver Hoxha points out, ‘For us to defend the freedom and independence of the Homeland and the victories achieved in the building of socialism, we must prepare an invincible force which consists in training the whole soldier-people right now.’ It is the broad masses of the people which fill the structures of our Armed Forces and which are trained militarily as close to the bases of production and work places as possible, so that, as Comrade Enver Hoxha says, the people are instantly on their feet, to the assigned fighting post and ready to open fire. Every one in our country works, studies and is trained for defence, simultaneously.” (“Scientific Conference on the Marxist-Leninist Theoretical Thinking of the Party of Labour of Albania and Comrade Enver Hoxha”, The “8 Nentori” Publishing House, Tirana 1983, p. 209.)

In Albania, the people were, by all means, a soldier people. In the USSR (even in Stalin’s time), there was an unfortunate divide between the masses and the standing army, manifesting itself in the plot of Tukhachevsky and later the help given to Khrushchev’s group against the so-called “anti-party group.” But this question was solved in Albania and solved forever for future socialist societies, with the great involvement of the entire masses in the standing army. These things, among others, represent advancements in Marxism-Leninism by the Party of Labour of Albania with Enver Hoxha at the head.

But why can’t “Hoxhaism” be considered a higher stage of Marxism-Leninism or even really a thing? This is, once again, because Marxism-Leninism is the ideology of the proletariat in this epoch. The epoch has not changed and will remain this way until the proletarian revolution triumphs worldwide. Protecting Marxism-Leninism from revisionism nor making strategical or tactical advancements creates a new stage. As proven, this does not preclude advancements, but encourages it, as in the case of J.V. Stalin and Enver Hoxha.

If a new stage of Marxism-Leninism is not only necessary, but incorrect, then what are the tasks of the Communists? Quite simply, we must form new, truly proletarian parties in places where they do not already exist. The Communists cannot subordinate themselves to pseudo-Marxist-Leninists who, in reality, are infected with Bernsteinism, Kautskyism, Browderism, Khrushchevism, and all the other revisionisms. Those parties must be cast aside as rotten and irredeemable because they will never lead to revolution, to the victory of labour over capital and the resolution of the basic contradiction of our epoch. At the same time, the Communists must combat the adventurists, those who are in disenchantment with the general state of Marxist-Leninist parties so they resort to “new” ideologies or to “higher stages” of Marxism-Leninism. These adventurists see the revolution not through a dialectical lens, through the evolutionary leap and the negation of the negation, but through endless circular development which some fine day will lead to the victory of the proletarian revolution.

The works of Enver Hoxha, like that of the works of the Marxist classics, remains a great inspiration for all Marxist-Leninists everywhere in this regard. His clear-sightedness, his Marxist determination, and his steel-like links with the masses allowed him to see the events of his time in a completely correct way. Commenting on the people’s uprising in Iran against Shah Pavlavi, he said:

“We must not forget the epoch in which we are living. We cannot fail to bear in mind the great development of science today, the growth and strengthening of the revolutionary proletariat and the spread of the ideas of Marxism-Leninism.” (E. Hoxha: “Reflections on the Middle East”, The “8 Nentori” Publishing House, Tirana 1984, p. 371)

These words remain true even today, and no force, no matter how reactionary, can hold down the flames of revolution. The proletariat and its pure ideology, Marxism-Leninism, is heading more and more every day for inevitable victory. The crisis of capitalism is reaching full circle, the rate of profit is continually falling, the objective factor is being laid before us. It is the job of Marxist-Leninists everywhere to prepare the subjective factor for such an event, and if we are sufficiently prepared, victory will be guaranteed.