With Africa, as with everywhere else, the PLA likes to talk about “the peoples,” praise their glorious struggles and pledge the PLA’s undying support for them. The PLA is a great one to call for applying the “class criterion” and they will even talk about different classes in backward countries in a general way but they almost never speak about the concrete roles of different classes in specific countries. Despite the PLA’s claim to stand with the proletariat of these countries, almost invariably, when they speak of “the peoples” they are talking about the activities of the national bourgeoisie and the ruling cliques in the governments.
The African peoples, who have emerged from the darkness of centuries of colonial slavery, are making all-round efforts to defend and strengthen their sovereign rights, and have rejected the neo-colonialist practices of oppression and exploitation followed by the neo-colonialist powers and the flagrant plunder of their natural resources. (Albania Today, no. 1, 1977, p. 46)
For the PLA, Africa is not on the road of revolution. Instead, the PLA speaks of the “anti-imperialist resistance of the African peoples, to divert them from the road of consolidation of national independence and independent economic development.” (Albania Today, no. 1, 1978, p. 60) So the anti-imperialist revolution of the workers and peasants is replaced by the “anti-imperialist resistance” of the governments and the classes they represent. The PLA’s support for “the peoples” is in reality support for the governments and the bourgeoisie. The PLA, at a candid moment, tells us that “at the head of various African states there are people who are really concerned about the good of their peoples, who are sincerely trying to set their countries on the road of progress.” (Albania Today, no. 4, 1978, p. 71) Just exactly who these leaders are and which countries have such “great” leaders the PLA does not tell us. This, of course, allows then to manoeuver, because today’s “good leader” is tomorrow’s reactionary. Of course, it is convenient not to name them because then it could be scientifically proven that these leaders are only really concerned about exploiting their people. For the PLA. there are not only the leaders “who are really concerned about the good of their peoples.” there is also the category of “realistic leader.”
There are also realistic leaders of a number of African states who are striving to strengthen unity of the African peoples and states against imperialism and neocolonialism and against any interference in their internal affairs. These leaders cannot fail to enjoy the support of all the freedom-loving and progressive forces of the world. (Albania Today, no. 4, 1978, p. 72)
And just exactly who are these “realistic leaders”? The PLA does not specify, but obviously they think there are quite a few. It would seem likely that it might include people such as Idi Amin, who was one who strove to strengthen the unity of African states and who claimed he was opposed to imperialism and neo-colonialism and who was certainly against any interference in his internal affairs. Amin has shown his concern for his people by butchering tens of thousands of them. Before he was deposed, Amin carried out systematic genocide of certain tribes and religious groups and totally destroyed the economy of the country, except for enriching, through tremendous corruption, the leaders of the government and the ruling class of his tribe. Nobody who loves freedom and is the slightest bit progressive could support this hangman.
Although Amin has had unity with countries like Libya, he has also carried out provocative activity against other states and even invaded Tanzania to prevent a coup d’etat from his army. But the PLA likes to cover for the “realistic” Amin. The PLA says “it was U.S. imperialism that incited the quarrel between Kenya and Uganda.” (Albania Today, no. 1, 1977, p. 60) There is no doubt the US had a hand in things, but to apologize for Amin this way is incredible. And what about the involvement of Russian imperialism through Libya? Amin has tried to get support on the grounds that imperialism was out to get him. No doubt this despot has become an embarrassment to the imperialist camp and they may want to get rid of him, but that is certainly no reason for the proletariat to support this dog.
The kind of “freedom-lover and progressive” who has given all his support to Amin is Col. Qaddafi of Libya. He has shown his concern about the good of his people by instituting Islamic (Koranic) Law and cutting off people’s hands and other barbaric practices of ihe feudal past. But Libya opposes imperialism, at least US imperialism; it is against interference in its internal affairs and is for African unity. Qaddafi is no doubt another one of these “realistic leaders” and Albania has good relations with Libya. The fact that he acts often as gendarme of Russia, and that he finances world wide terrorist activities, is better left unsaid as far as the PLA is concerned. The PLA has a whole “theory” to justify washing its hands of the blood of the African people that these butchers have spilled.
The African peoples already have long experience of struggle against foreign oppressors and their various lackeys and know how to discriminate between those who betray them. IT IS NOT FOR US TO SAY HOW SUCH STATESMAN SHOULD ACT, BUT THEIR GOOD INTENTIONS SHOULD BE DEFENDED. (Albania Today, no. 4, 1978, p. 72)
No doubt the PLA will have nothing to say about Emperor Bokassa killing students in the Central African Republic for refusing to buy and wear $200 uniforms bearing his likeness and made by his wife’s factory, but they will defend his “good intentions.” Although the PLA does talk about “the local reactionary cliques in the service of imperialism and neo-colonialism” (ibid.) it once again does not identify them. Apparently this depends on the “good intentions” of these regimes towards Albania.
Algeria, despite its close ties to the Soviet Union, is a country with which the PLA has promoted close relations. Recently Albania sent its “cordial wishes for your election to the high post of Prime Minister of the Algerian government” to Ahmed Abdelghani. (ATA, March 13, 1978) Mehmet Shehu said “I take the occasion to express to our brothers the Algerian people the best wishes for the prosperity of their land.”
Shehu’ s concern for the prosperity of the national bourgeoisie of Algeria is indeed touching. As to the proletariat and peasantry who are exploited to gain this prosperity, they should be happy with the “good intentions” of Abdelghani towards Albania. The Soviet Union says Algeria is building socialism on the “non-capitalist road of development.” If the PLA does not think Algeria is building socialism, just exactly what kind of social system do they think is being built, if not capitalism? If the PLA wants to support “independent and sovereign” capitalism in Algeria, that’s their business, but it is certainly not the business of communists, the international proletariat and particularly not of the Algerian proletariat. The PLA seems to enjoy the Russian preference for state capitalism that parades itself around as socialism.
Another regime Albania seem to have fondness for is Numeiri’s in Sudan. Haxhi Lheshi, Albanian president, sent the following message to Numeiri:
TIRANA, 3 January/ATA/Haxhi Lheshi president of the Presidium of the People’s Assembly of the PSR of Albania has addressed a message to GATAR MOHAMED NUMEIRI, president of the Democratic Republic of Sudan. The message read:
For the occasion of the anniversary of the independence of Sudan, it is with pleasure that I address to you from the Albanian People and the Presidium of the People’s Assembly of the PSR of Albania the best wishes of happiness for the Sudanese people. (Our translation from French)
Although the PLA feels like celebrating the anniversary of the independence of the Sudan, it is not occasion for great happiness among the people of Sudan. It may be a long time since General Gordon came up the Nile to Khartoum to suppress the people of this country, but it was not long ago that Sadat was up the river with the Egyptian parliament to have a joint meeting with the Sudanese Parliament to try to get a closer “union” with Sudan, which would give Egypt more control over the economy. At issue here of particular importance, economically, is the water of the Nile river. Egypt is financing a $260 million diversion of the river in Sudan that will increase water flow by 5% and allow Egypt to irrigate 200,000 additional acres. But there is more at issue here than Sadat’s attempts to annex Sudan with Numeiri’s cooperation.
The “Peace Treaty” that Sadat signed with Israel, however, has put a kink into Sadat’s plans in Sudan. Numeiri was one of the few leaders in the Arab world to support Sadat and the treaty (the other countries supporting Sadat are Oman and Somalia). So a great deal of pressure has been brought to bear on Numeiri to break with Sadat. This seemed about to happen after Qaddafi visited Khartoum and promised financial assistance and the disposal of some of Numeiri’ s political opponents resident in Libya who are waiting for a comeback (which of course Qaddafi could try to organize, too). Apparently Qaddafi’s efforts did not come to a good end, but more importantly, neither did the efforts of thousands of progressive people in Sudan who have been demonstrating and protesting against Numeiri’s treachery against the Palestinian people. Numeiri, however, has for the time being, stuck to his old loyalties; this was announced after a visit by French president Giscard d’Estaing. The fact that the US is increasing its annual “aid” from $100 million to $250 million and that the US Defense Secretary announced more military aid, which is going to be financed by Saudi Arabia, probably had something to do with Numeiri’s reluctance to break with Egypt. Sudan is of considerable importance to the Western imperialist bloc because of the need to protect Sadat’s southern flank, and because, besides Egypt, Sudan borders on seven countries all of which are important trouble spots for the imperialists. (The countries are Libya, Chad, Central African Republic, Zaire, Uganda, Kenya and Ethiopia. It is also right across the Red Sea from Saudi Arabia).
It is also important to understand that the country is divided between the Arab north and the black south and the regime waged a bloody war to suppress the aspirations of the black people of the south for independence and freedom. These people are also very unhappy about Sadat’s and Numeiri’s plans to annex Sudan to Sadat’s plans for being the gendarme of US imperialism in Africa and the Middle East. The PLA’s sending Numeiri a message about independence and the happiness of the people is a disgusting display of opportunism. Numeiri may have “good intentions” towards Albania but the proletariat and peasantry of Sudan are not going to send him any message, except maybe one engraved on a bullet.
Albania dispatches similar messages to other regimes in Africa. For example, Lheshi sent a message to Leopold Senghor, President of Senegal, who just won an election which was rigged and “supervised” by magistrates from France. Albania sent their “best wishes for the prosperity of the people of Senegal” (ATA, April 4, 1979). Those enjoying prosperity in Senegal certainly are not the people, except for the local bourgeoisie and the French neo-colonialists. The occasion for the PLA was the national birthday, but the PLA has nothing to say here about the 1100 French troops stationed in Senegal. In fact, the PLA has little, if anything, to ever say about French imperialism despite the fact that France has 14,000 troops in seven countries in Africa. This may have something to do with the fact that “the People’s Republic of Albania maintains friendly relations with France and they are developing IN THE INTERESTS OF THE TWO countries .We maintain normal relations with the French state, though they do not approve of our regime, or we theirs. But we observe that the French government does not interfere in our affairs,“ (Report, p. 208) nor does Albania interfere in France’s affairs in Africa or elsewhere. For the PLA imperialist countries like France are just “small fish” and the real problem in Africa is only the “superpowers.”
We have already seen that the PLA has tried to cover for Amin by blaming everything on the US, but this is also a general position. The PLA says that “behind the enmity and discord among the Arab countries on the African continent lurks the blood stained hand of Washington and that of Moscow.” (Albania Today, no. 1, 1977, p. 60) But not only are they behind it, the PLA says “it is precisely the continued interference of the superpowers and the other imperialists which CAUSES conflicts and quarrels among African countries.” (Albania Today, no. 1, 1978, p. 60) Although the PLA pays lip service to the “other imperialists,” they seldom appear in their concrete analysis of events.
The African peoples are encountering the continuous intrigues of the two imperialist superpowers, which, in order to extend their political, economic and military interference, are resorting to most vile and dangerous methods in order to create hot-beds of tension and new conflicts. The aim of these intrigues is to incite divisions among the African peoples, to break unity, so that the conditions for American-Soviet intervention are created. What can be said about the conflict in Biafra, the events in Angola, the strife in Zaire and, more recently, about the armed conflict between Ethiopia and Somali? Who caused them? The African peoples? Of course not. These conflicts, which are kindled according to the appetite of the two superpowers, have their source first of all in the “divide and rule” policy, which U.S. imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism constantly pursue. In inciting division and creating hostility among peoples of this continent, the over-riding aim of the two superpowers is to weaken the anti-imperialist resistance of the African peoples, to divert them from the road of consolidation of national independence and independent economic development and, at the same time, to open the way to the strengthening of their interference, dictate, and neo-colonialist plunder. (Ibid.)
This is a preposterous view of events in Africa and is one designed to deceive the world and pander to the propaganda of reactionary regimes in Africa. Africa is a continent that was divided by the imperialists according to their interests, not the interests of the African people. To recognize the present borders in Africa is to cripple the African people and divide them into tribal and religious hostility. The reactionary regimes accept and fight to defend these borders because to do otherwise would be to lose their privilege of exploiting the minorities, and sometimes the majorities, in these countries, to enrich themselves and the ruling classes and their tribal hierarchy. The PLA tries to paint Africa as a veritable “garden of Eden” where everything would be fine if the “superpowers” would go away. It is true that the imperialists use these situations to pursue their policy to enslave the people of Africa; it is utter opportunism to cover up the role of the reactionary regimes in Africa. To say that the war in the Ogaden desert is just the doing of the “superpowers,” totally covers up the imperial policies of Ethiopia which annexed this area inhabited by Somalian people. It also covers for the fascist Durge’s genocidal attack on Eritrea. The world saw the spectacle of Biafrans butchered by the thousands and the PLA wants us to believe that this was just the doing of the “superpowers” and not of the reactionary regime in Nigeria, too. And the PLA speaks of applying the “class criterion,” but there are no classes for the PLA in Africa, just the people who want unity. It is the “superpowers” that are holding the African people back from the “non-capitalist road of independent economic development.”
The PLA speaks of the activity of the “superpowers,” but, despite its claims that they are equally dangerous, and despite the PLA’s certainty of the interference of the US, in practice, the PLA is not so certain about Russian intervention. The Russian. Cuban and East German backed invasion of Shaba province in Zaire seems, unlike everything else, a mystery to the PLA. “It is difficult to determine exactly what occurred in Shabah, who are these Katangese gendarmes and those who caused the disturbance, where did they come from and where did they go?” (Albania Today, no. 4, 1978,p. 71) In this case the PLA asks “does the whole of Zaire constitute one state, as Belgian imperialism decided and as American, French and other imperialists have accepted? Are there ethnical, nationality and other problems of this nature there? Have these problems been properly settled?” (Ibid.) So why the PLA’s concern for such things in this case? Could it be that China actively supports Zaire, so for the PLA Mobutu is a reactionary and the Katangan rebels are unknown? Only to the PLA. The fact is that the “progressive states” in Africa is a euphemism for pro-Soviet countries and the others who tend to be pro US or French are known as moderates. The PLA is closest in general to these “progressive states” and their ruling cliques, and so despite its rhetoric, the PLA in practice often ends up supporting the same forces Russia and Cuba do.
This can be seen no more clearly than where there are revolutions going on in Southern Africa. The PLA is a great one to talk about the “class criterion” and opposing both “superpowers,” but they give complete uncritical support for the Patriotic Front in Zimbabwe, SWAPO in Namibia and the Pan-African Congress (PAC) in Azania. The PLA has nothing to say about which classes are leading these liberation movements, what their real objectives are, or how they stand with the Soviet Union. The Patriotic Front in Zimbabwe is only formally united; in fact, ZAPU and ZANU are bitterly divided with ZAPU allied with the Soviet Union and ZANU having connections with China. The leader of SWAPO in Namibia has openly called for Cuban troops to come and help him. The PLA is a great one to talk about the necessity, in general, of the hegemony of the proletariat in the national liberation struggle, but the proletariat certainly does not have hegemony in any of these struggles. There are not any Marxist-Leninist organizations, let alone parties, in these conflicts. All the talk about the hegemony of the proletariat is pure demagogy by the PLA because in practice the PLA falls after and promotes the hegemony of the national bourgeoisie over the proletariat and peasantry, probably in hopes that the new “progressive” regimes will have “good intentions” towards Albania. The PLA opposes the Yugoslav revisionists, the Russian and Chinese revisionists, but what of the revisionists in Africa that claim to be socialists and even Marxist-Leninists but who follow “non-aligned socialism,” or the “African road to socialism,” and who often rely on the Soviet Union and Cuba? The above mentioned Senghor is an important leader in the Socialist International, which includes such “revolutionary” and“progressive” parties as the German Social Democratic Party of Helmut Schmidt, and the New Democratic Party in Canada. Apparently the difference is that these revisionists have “good intentions” towards Albania. They try to develop good relations with Russia, China, Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Albania, whoever will help them, and unlike the revisionists who have “bad intentions” towards Albania, they want friendship with Albania. This means they are “really concerned about the good of their peoples and sincerely trying to set their countries on the road of progress.“ We learned from Angola that these liberation organizations can be in fact financed by the KGB or the CIA. None of the three in Angola represented the interests of the people, let alone the proletariat, yet the PLA buried its head in the sand as long as it could and just praised the struggle of the people, while its “fraternal” party, the “Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist),” actively aided, with “sympathy and material support,” the CIA backed UNITA. Bains’ links with UNITA go back to at least 1967, further, much further, than his links with Hoxha and the PLA.
The PLA will gladly denounce “reactionary and anti-popular regimes” that are linked to imperialism when it is in their interest to do so, like this recent denunciation of Saudi Arabia:
TIRANA, April 12/ATA/(Our translation from French)... the visit of the emissary of the Pentagon to the Middle East demonstrates that the U.S. has decided to pursue their anti-Arab plots. In rivalry with the Soviet Union, the U.S. tries to reinforce their military positions in the region and in that objective they use demagogy as well as military aid accorded to countries having reactionary and antipopular regimes like Saudi Arabia.
The PLA, however, can just as easily send its felicitations to the King of Morocco on its national day and wish the King prosperity.
TIRANA, March 3/ATA/(Our translation from French) Haxhi Lleshi, president of the Presidium of the People’s Assembly of the PSR of Albania has sent a message of greetings to King Hassan of Morocco. The message read:
On the occasion of the national day of Morocco, I have the pleasure of sending you, in the name of the Presidium of the People’s Assembly of the PSR of Albania and in my own name, the best wishes for the prosperity of the Moroccan people.
The PLA completely violates the Leninist line on revolution in the oppressed nations and colonies. Lenin calls for exactly what the PLA fails to do, and that is to make “a clear distinction between the interests of the oppressed classes, of the toilers and exploited, and the general concept of national interests as a whole, which implies the interests of the ruling class.” (“Preliminary Draft of Theses on the National and Colonial Questions,” LCW 31: Theses no. 2) In fact, the PLA deliberately obscures this distinction and actively promotes the interests of the ruling class as the interests of the nation as a whole. And by promoting the idea that the cause of trouble in Africa is only the “superpowers.” the PLA promotes “the petty-bourgeois national illusion that nations can live together in peace and equality under capitalism” (ibid.) or under a “new international economic order,” i.e. “reformed” capitalism. The PLA. as the reader has seen in reference to Canada and will see, in relation to other countries, promotes this petty-bourgeois nationalism even in its policy in the advanced capitalist countries. Lenin exposed long ago the kind of “internationalism” practiced by the PLA. “Petty-bourgeois nationalism proclaims as internationalism the bare recognition of the equality of nations, and nothing more, while (quite apart from the fact that this recognition is purely verbal) preserving national egoism intact” (ibid.. Theses no 10).
The PLA promotes the national egoism of the countries of Africa, and other so-called “progressive” states of Asia and Latin America, in order to preserve and promote their own national egoism and to promote their national interests ahead of those of the international proletariat. The betrayal of the PLA to the revolution in Africa is clear. We will go on from this point and show in more concrete detail how the PLA betrays Leninism and the revolution in the concrete circumstances of the revolutionary crisis in Iran.
Lenin says that “with regard to the more backward states and nations in which feudal or patriarchal and patriarchal-peasant relations predominate, it is particularly important to bear in mind...the need to struggle against the clergy and other influential and medieval elements in backward countries.” (ibid.. Theses no. 11) Lenin also points out that it is particularly important to bear in mind “the need to combat Pan Islamism and similar trends which strive to combine the liberation movement against European and American imperialism with an attempt to strengthen the positions of the khans, landlords, mollahs, etc.” (ibid.) This is, of course, exactly what has happened in Iran, but, again the PLA completely departs from Leninism on the question. In light of events, it is incredible that the PLA can say that “world capitalism is insisting strongly on the word ’Islamic’ and distorting the true character of the revolution in Iran” (A Great Historic Victory for the Iranian People, Tirana, 1979, p. 16). While it is true that world capitalism is trying to reduce the revolutionary crisis to a question of religion, it does not serve the interests of the revolution to, as the PLA does, deny the dual aspect that Lenin talks about. Indeed, the mullahs have tried, and to considerable extent succeeded, to “combine the liberation movement against European and American imperialism with an attempt to strengthen the position of the... mollahs.” The PLA says that imperialism “is cynically pretending that such revolutions, which it labels ’Islamic,’ allegedly hinder, not only the progressive development of the countries in which they occur, but also the whole of ’international society’ ” (ibid.) It is not the imperialists that have given the revolution the name “Islamic,” it is Khomeini and the Shiite sect of Islam that has given it this name. The imperialists did not invent this, rather they have seized upon it to paint the Shah as some kind of “progressive.” But the fact that the imperialists do this is no reason to deny reality. Khomeini and his “Islamic revolution” is a reactionary force that is sabotaging the development of a genuine revolution. Khomeini represents reactionary forces like landlords and bazaar merchants, and this is a fact that no amount of demagogy from the PLA can hide, although, indeed, they try.
The various sides efforts are being made to give the Iranian revolution a religious colour. Of course, it is impossible to deny the subjective influence of the Shiite religious sect in the events in Iran, and it has played a positive role in the overthrow of the feudal regime of the Pahlavi empire. But it was not religious ideology which led the broad masses of the people in the uprising and the fight against the Shah. The democratic aspirations of the over whelmingly secular masses of the people in Iran, the concrete object for which the masses are fighting, cannot be identified with the ethico-theocratic demands of the Islamic doctrine. In appearance, the people of Iran may seem to be believers but in action and precisely in this revolution, they showed themselves to be very advanced and very objective. They rose and shed their blood for the overthrow of the monarchy and, the establishment of democratic republic in the country.... (Ibid., pp 14-15)
There is no doubt many people did rise up and shed their blood for the cause of a democratic republic, but it is in fact a democratic republic that has not been set up. This is because Khomeini was followed by a substantial number of the people in his call to establish an Islamic republic. And, in fact, an Islamic republic does have a great deal to do with the “ethico-theocratic demands of the Islamic doctrine.” It is part of this doctrine, particularly the Shiite sect interpretation of it, to establish a state that is a theocracy, that is based on Koranic law and rules at the highest level by the mullahs and Ayatollahs. The recent referendum was put forward by Khomeini as a choice between the monarchy or a “Islamic republic”. The PLA deliberately tries to cover up this fact. The PLA announces that “Iran passes from monarchal domination to a Republic” (ATA, April 3, 1979). But it is an Islamic republic, not the democratic republic talked about by the PLA. This is not some semantical difference created by the imperialists. It has been Khomeini that has been bitterly denouncing those that want a democratic republic. Khomeini has denounced democracy as an alien “western” concept that has nothing to do with the “Islamic” revolution. Khomeini has made it very clear that his Islamic republic will have nothing to do with democracy. Instead, it will be based on the Koran. There is no democracy in Iran today except in workers’ councils set up by the proletariat. There is a sort of dual power where the national bourgeoisie forms a government which was not elected, its head, Bazargan, was appointed by Khomeini and his secret revolutionary council. This council heads a series of “revolutionary committees” that are made up of mullahs, bazaar merchants and other likeminded reactionaries, who enforce Koranic law on the people through cutting off hands, executing homosexuals, banning frozen meat, attacking the proletariat and women, etc. The Bazargan government has to send its ministers to the “holy” city of Quom to get everything they do approved by Khomeini and his council. This may look like democracy to the PLA, but not too many other people would be fooled. The PLA goes so far to cover up events in Iran that it paints the recent demonstrations by women against Khomeini and his desire to return women to feudal bondage as a continuation of the struggle against the Shah, and not a struggle against the religious obscurantism that rules Iran today.
One of those demands was the annulling of the obligation to wear the veil, characterizing it as a medieval survival.
Saturday, thousands of women quit their work and organised a great demonstration of protestation in Teheran for the support of their equal rights.
That activity of the Iranian Women demonstrates clearly that they persist to realise their aspirations, for which they have combatted and beaten down the blood against ferocious forces of the Shah’s regime.... (ATA, Tirana, March 13. our translation from French)
The PLA says that “it is clear to the peoples of the world that the inspiration of the Iranian revolution is not a religious inspiration” (op. cit.,p. 15). But it is exactly against the “religious inspiration” of Khomeini and his followers that women and others have been fighting.
The PLA never criticises and exposes Khomeini, they instead try to cover up what he is doing in Iran and they praise his every step in foreign policy. The PLA loves Khomeini for breaking ties with Israel and South Africa, for withdrawing Iran from the oil consortium of the multinationals, for his denunciations of the “superpowers.” etc. Just like the Chinese revisionists, they can overlook internal repression if they find the foreign policy of a state in their national interest. Khomeini supporters are marching the streets of Teheran shouting “Death to Communists,” and the PLA is proclaiming Khomeini as a progressive.
The PLA’s stand on Iran is not, however, just a matter of seeking one more “progressive” regime to have relations and trade with Albania. It is part of their campaign into deceiving the proletariat of Albania that revolution is everywhere just around the corner, to get them to accept growing economic impoverishment from having to increase exports in order to make up for the lost Chinese aid. The PLA says:
The development of events in Iran once again confirms the Marxist-Leninist thesis, when the objective conditions and subjective conditions are ripe the revolution breaks out. That the popular uprising headed by the proletariat is invincible. It confirms the Marxist-Leninist analysis which our Party has made about the situation in the world today, the revolution is not just an aspiration and a future prospect, but a problem taken up for solution. In his book Imperialism and the Revolution Comrade Enver Hoxha says “.. .blah, blah, blah” (Op. cit.. pp. 6-7).
This is a little fairy tale the PLA likes to tell the Albanian proletariat and the international proletariat to promote itself and promote Hoxha and his new book. In its position on Iran, the PLA is not in the least interested in revolution, rather, the PLA is pushing a line to have the proletariat strengthen religious obscurantism and the national bourgeoisie. We have already seen how the PLA substitutes the enriching of the national bourgeoisie for the national liberation struggle. In Iran the PLA wants the proletariat to help the national bourgeoisie accomplish this task. The PLA speaks of “keeping the spirit of the revolution ablaze and raising it to a higher stage” (Ibid., p. 20). But this higher stage has nothing to do with the Leninist principle of immediately passing to the stage of socialism after the accomplishment of the first stage. In fact, the PLA never discusses socialism in relationship to Iran; instead it talks about preventing counter-revolution by “carrying the revolution through to the end.” But the “end” for the PLA has nothing to do with socialism. “To carry the revolution through to the end means for the people of Iran that they must raise their vigilance to the maximum and must not allow themselves to fall under bondage to foreign imperialists again, either the Americans, the Soviets or others.” (Ibid., p. 21) To accomplish this the PLA calls on the “people” to establish “a new structure and superstructure appropriate to the country and not borrowed from the so-called bourgeois democracy which in essence is anti-popular” (Ibid.). So instead of moving on to socialism, the PLA suggests a stage in-between. (Do they have in mind the revolutionary committees of Khomeini which certainly do not like bourgeois democracy?) The people’s “most trusted representatives will carry out the great social and economic reforms.” Once again the PLA has forgotten its “class criterion,” which class will rule? The PLA only gives us the vague answer of “progressive forces.”
Of course the transition from one stage of the revolution to the other, carrying it through to the end, is no easy task. But the progressive forces must gain ground step by step, must take sound democratic and progressive positions against those elements that will put up resistance and which are remnants of the backward feudalism of the past (Ibid.).
The PLA tells us that̶-;the Iranian proletariat with its Marxist-Leninist party, in alliance with the progressive and democratic forces of the country, will certainly carry this victory forward” (Ibid., p. 9). Despite all its demagogy about the leadership of the proletariat in the revolution in Iran, the “Marxist-Leninist party” is supposed to be merely part of a coalition with Khomeini and Bazargan. Of course, the party they talk about is not a Marxist-Leninist party. It is a small clique of students and other petty-bourgeois that until recently existed in Europe and not in Iran. This “party” has little proletarian composition and even less proletarian ideology. They are trying to make the proletariat an appendage of the liberal bourgeoisie and Khomeini and religious obscurantism. By its name, it is not even making the pretense of a proletarian party; it is a “Workers’ and Peasants’ Communist party.” A better name might be the “Mullahs’ and Kulaks’ Menshevik party.” This “party” came to Bains’ rally full of praise for Bains and announcing it would “defend the gains of the revolution,” thereby openly abandoning the proletariat to the hegemony of Khomeini and Bazargan. If they want to defend the chopping off of hands, that is their business, but we wish they would stop dirtying the name of communism with their stinking opportunism. Fortunately, there are far fewer people in Iran, and, particularly workers, who recognize this “party” than there are international opportunists who promote its betrayal of the proletariat in Iran. Lenin spoke of “the need for a determined struggle against the attempt to give a communist colouring to bourgeois-democratic liberation trends in backward countries.” (“Draft Theses on the National and Colonial Question,” LCW 31:149). Here, as on so many points, the PLA betrays the interests of the world proletarian revolution for those of its own country.
The stand of the PLA on the war in Indochina very clearly reveals its total lack of principle. The PLA has given us many sermons about how the two “superpowers” are equally dangerous and how it is wrong to ally with one against the other, etc., etc. But this was only rhetoric to use against the Chinese to demonstrate their alliance with US imperialism; but when Albania’s national interests require it, they can do the same things. The PLA has cultivated a long time relationship with the Vietnamese regime. The Vietnamese revisionist clique has openly praised the Soviet Union at every turn, and continues to proclaim their undying unity with the CPSU; they proclaim the Soviet Union’s leadership; they have recently signed a military alliance with the Soviet Union; they have joined COMECON and have agreed to the Soviet led “international division of labour,” i.e., neo-colonialism; and they have become a vehicle of Russian imperialist expansion in South East Asia. But through all this, they have apparently maintained their “good intentions” towards Albania. The PLA has carried on relations with the Workers’ Party of Vietnam as if it were a fraternal Marxist-Leninist party. The Vietnamese party was invited to the Seventh Congress of the PLA and sent a member of the Politbureau. There have been many delegations from Vietnam since then. The following is an example of the position of the Vietnamese revisionists on Albania.
Doan Luong, head of the delegation of the Federation of Trade Unions of Vietnam indicated notably:
The delegation of the Federation of Trade Unions of Vietnam is very happy to have come to your home to see wonderful socialist Albania, to participate in the celebration for the first of May. international labour day.
We are very happy about the great successes obtained in the various areas of life, like the economy, in the education and culture by the people and working class of Albania in the socialist construction of the country. We were profoundly touched by the movement of solidarity of the labourers of your country with the area hit by the earthquake, by their determination to surmount quickly the consequences of the earthquake.
After having wished to the Albanian people greetings for the great celebration of the 35th anniversary of the liberation of Albania with even greater victories, having wished that the friendship and militant solidarity that exists between our two peoples be reinforced and greatly developed in the future, Dong Luong continued:
We express to the Albanian people and the Albanian working class the sincere thanks of the working class, of all the labourers and Vietnamese people for the aid and support which you have given our struggle as well as against the American aggression and actually against the Chinese aggressors, who are dangerous enemies for the Vietnamese people as well as for the world’s peoples. (ATA, May 6, 1979, our translation from French).
These inspired words were spoke from a stage shared with a representative of Bains’ bogus “Canadian Workers Association.” It is obvious that the Vietnamese revisionists think Albania has the same social system as themselves as well as Russia. Bulgaria, Poland, Cuba, etc., since they also consider all these countries “socialist” too. What unites the Vietnamese and the PLA at this point has nothing to do with principle and everything to do with their own national interests. The PLA wastes a lot of paper talking about the “purity of Marxism-Leninism,” but ever since their break with the Soviet Union, they have pursued a policy of conciliation with the revisionists in Vietnam, China, Korea, Cambodia, Laos and even Romania. The PLA tried to forge a centrist alliance of these elements against the Soviet Union. Although ideologically there was great divergence between these revisionists, what united them was their nationalist fear of Soviet hegemony. Most of these parties took a centrist position between Khrushchevite revisionism and the “centrism” of the CPC and the PLA. But after the war with US imperialism, Vietnam moved closer and closer to the Soviet Union, and farther and farther away from China. The PLA’s contradiction with China has been more important recently than the contradiction with the Soviet Union. This has led to a situation where the PLA is willing to overlook Vietnam’s relationship with Russia for the sake of an alliance with Vietnam against China.
As to the specific stand of the PLA on the present conflict, and what this means, we will reserve this for a discussion later on about the nature of Albania’s contradiction with China. But what we raise here is that the PLA’s stand on Vietnam shows its complete lack of principle in its foreign policy. In the past, the PLA has said that Vietnam was socialist or building socialism, but now they tend to avoid this. It is obvious that the PLA considers Vietnam and other revisionist states as “progressive,” and, therefore, they avoid denouncing their revisionism or exposing their fraudulent claims to socialism. The PLA came out against Kampuchea because it served Albania’s national interest to do so at that time, just as it is now continuing to be in their interest to cover up, particularly, Vietnam, but also Laos, the Vietnamese puppet regime in Kampuchea and even Korea and Roumania. How does this fundamentally differ from China’s similar activities with Zaire and many other countries? China covered Zaire’s connections with western imperialism in order to proclaim its just struggle for national independence against Russian and Cuban backed insurgents from Angola because of China’s interest in checking Russian expansion. But the PLA has done the same thing in regard to Vietnam. It has covered up Vietnam’s connections with Russian imperialism in hopes of checking Chinese expansion in Asia.
The PLA has no real fundamental theoretical difference with the theory of “three worlds,” “non-alignment” or “developing” countries. It is just not in Albania’s national interest to view all these countries as progressive. Albania has reason to distinguish among them, but not reasons of Marxist-Leninist principle. On the one hand, the PLA can say that “when Iran is seething with the people’s revolt against the mediaeval regime of the Shah, Hua Kuo-feng goes to Tehran and kisses the Shahinshah” (Albania Today, no. 6, 1978. p. 72), on the other they can embrace the Ayatollah Khomeini, indeed a relic of mediaeval times. On the one hand the PLA can denounce the Chinese because they “defend the barbarous and fascist group of Pol Pot” (Sino-American Alliance, Tirana, 1979, pp. 22-23), on the other they can make it a line of international demarcation to support the Vietnamese regime, a regime that has sold out its hard won independence to the Soviet Union; a regime that represses its own people to a degree that thousands and thousands would sooner flee and risk often certain death rather than stay; a regime that practices the worst sort of racism towards its citizens of Chinese descent; a regime that is brutally butchering thousands of Cambodians; a regime that has colonized the Loatian people for Russian imperialism; and a regime that actively promotes Soviet social-imperialism and modern revisionism. For this regime the PLA can say “He who does not support Vietnam today supports the warmongerers”(Ibid.. p. 25). The facts are that anyone who supports the Vietnamese regime today is in practice supporting Russian imperialism, the subjugation of the proletariat and labouring masses of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos to imperialism, the spread of modern revisionism and is completely violating the principles of Proletarian Internationalism and is, therefore, an enemy of the proletariat in every country including their own. Hoxha makes it clear which class the PLA stands for internationally and it is not the proletariat.
The progressive peoples and democratic states that are fighting to establish their national sovereignty over their assets, who are fighting for their independence, for equality, and justice in internal relations, enjoy the full solidarity and support of the Albanian people and state. (Quoted in Albania Today, no. 6, 1978, p. 74)