Preface

To us at the Red Spectre, the following work marks not only a political obligation, but also an organizational one due to our history. As some of our readers will know, before our restructuring from a journal to an organization, we explicitly were Hoxhaists and upheld the figure of Hoxha as a classic of Marxism. In our course of study and squishing of the amateurism which plagued us, we have discovered that (around early 2023) our line on the matter has been completely incorrect.

Nevertheless, it is one thing to have sufficient evidence to be convinced as individuals, quite another to speak as an organization. The weight the latter carries is much greater, and therefore, requires more attention, verification, and heavier proof, and it was this precise thing - the high standard of proof we set for ourselves - that made it so this work could be published only now. We could not reconcile ourselves to a mere comparison between Hoxha’s record and Lenin’s handling of Kautsky, and crown it a ‘polemic’.

Hence given the topic's historical nature, as opposed to an issue of an immediate nature with a sensitive time window to respond. We focused on the other more immediate problems that faced us in those times. Now however, we are a much larger organization, with significantly more manpower to focus on different projects, and so the task of writing this article has come before us.

Recently, our investigation has yielded fruit. Despite the astounding scarcity of any accessible materials on the matter, we came to possess evidence that is as damning as it is rock solid - With both of these surpassed, perhaps, only by its obscurity.

At long last, we are proud to present both our theoretical and historical arguments against Enver Hoxha, to expose this crook’s greatest of lies - That he is anything more than a lying centrist, playing Kautsky to Khrushchev’s Wilhelm, and then again to Mao’s

What is Hoxhaism?

One question that had led to much debate even within the Red Spectre, was the question of what Hoxhaism even is. The word itself is often thrown by revisionists to disparage good Marxist-Leninists, and even we have had it thrown at us as an insult. To a revisionist, to be a Hoxhaist is to be a dogmatist, to be an ultra-”left”;  who unapologetically worships Hoxha and Stalin; someone who follows this “backwards” and “antiquated” interpretation of Marxism. If you uphold the theory of Marxism-Leninism, if you are opposed to revisionism, if you uphold the revolutionary history of the Soviet Union until Khrushchev, you are somehow a Hoxhaist. Hence the usage of the term “Hoxhaism” by revisionists, is utter nonsense.

However, this does not mean that the label itself does not refer to anything real, as all ideas stem from a material basis, as a consequence of reality. There are many Marxist-Leninists who even identify with the label themselves, sharing it with the putrid ooze that contrasts so strikingly with Marxism - Not too dissimilarly to how Marxist-Leninists have to share a space with Dengites. Many good and well intentioned comrades who simply lacked prior access to all the facts surrounding Hoxha, and who made principled and well intentioned analysis given the information they had.

But when we speak of these bad self described Hoxhaists, what exactly are we referring to here? Hoxhaism as we will use it for the rest of this article, as a label denoting a specific type of revisionism, refers to a revisionist who matches some or all of the following criteria:

A) Those who uphold Enver Hoxha as a classic of Marxism; often accompanied by cult-like appraisals of his personality. For example, Arbeit Zukunft:

“He was one of the most extraordinary Marxist-Leninist leaders of the international communist Movement.

[...]


Enver Hoxha was an attentive and clear sighted friend of the German comrades

[...]

because so far Comrade Enver Hoxha has an unbeatable argument on his record [as we will show later this argument is not so “unbeatable”...]: decades of restless, courageous, even bold, successful, often inspiring and rousing revolutionary activity that  has left us invaluable experience of socialist construction: There is only one thing: learning from it.”
Arbeit Zukunft, https://www.arbeit-zukunft.de/2005/04/08/unvergessen-genosse-enver-hoxha-starb-vor-zwanzig-jahren/ [Brackets ours: P.K & H.M]

B) The leadership of organizations which uphold E. Hoxha to a lesser extent than the above, but

neglect any attempts to ascertain the errors in the sphere of internationalism and foreign policy, that neglect any investigation or mention of them; I.E., Those whom uphold him ‘eclectically’, akin to how the APL upholds him and others in such a manner:

`Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Vladimir Lenin, and Joseph Stalin, and enriched by figures such as Enver Hoxha, Che Guevara, Ho Chi Minh, and Kwame Nkrumah`

- American Party of Labor, Our History

This manner of eclecticism is of course absurd and casts doubt on whether they even bothered to read the works of any of these people. Either they muddy the water due to a truly profound ignorance, or due to conscious eclecticism - They muddy it all the same. How can one uphold multiple figures that conflict with one another?

"They publicize these and many other confusing theories, which you know only too well. What sort of Marxism-Leninism is this which advocates attacking the enemy, fighting it with these "wild" detachments, etc. without having a Marxist-Leninist party to lead the fight? There is nothing Marxist-Leninist about it. Such anti-Marxist and anti-Leninist theories can bring nothing but defeat for Marxism-Leninism and the revolution, as Che Guevara's undertaking in Bolivia did."
-Hoxha, The Fist of the Marxist-Leninist Communists Must Also Smash Left Adventurism, the Offspring of Modern Revisionism

C) Those who justify, apologize, or otherwise swipe under the rug the grievous lapses in principle committed by Enver Hoxha, despite being fully aware of them - Instead of merely not knowing of them in the first place. In other words - Upholding him despite the knowledge of what he did; such as many of those attempting to respond to us will try to do.

Ultimately, the term “Hoxhaist” is used by revisionists to muddy the water between Marxism and actual Hoxhaism, between those who uphold Marxist principles and believe Hoxha did as well, and those who uphold Hoxha’s actual principles as distinct from Marxism-Leninism.

Our end conclusion vindicated that notion - The enemies of Marxism make no differentiation or clarity in the usage of that term. They do not differentiate between principled cadre and unprincipled leader, between those who uphold Hoxha out of viewing him as a defender of Marxism, and those who hoodwinked themselves to elevating him to a classic, those who would turn away from him upon seeing truth in his actions and his lack of sincerity - And those who will justify even that. 

Consequently, we wish to make this important clarification preemptively: To those who do not belong to a Hoxhaist party’s leadership, to those who do not uphold Hoxha as the 5th head of Marxism, to those who will be as mortified as we were upon seeing the content of this article: We do not believe our principles differ from yours, merely the knowledge we have. We do not consider you Hoxhaists, we consider you Marxists. The term Hoxhaist is targeted at the remainder.

They Buried Comrade Stalin, Then Buried Their History

Enver Hoxha, as the fantastic sovereign of void-filled platitudes and empty phrases, has shown a stubborn unwillingness in his writings to allow a person to even doubt how they ‘always acted with principles in the face of revisionism’.

Enver Hoxha would have us all believe nonsense such as:

"Right from the start, the Party of Labour of Albania raised high the banner of implacable and principled struggle against Soviet revisionism and its followers, courageously defended Marxism-Leninism, the cause of socialism and the liberation of the peoples, just as it had fought and was fighting resolutely against Yugoslav revisionism."

-Hoxha, Imperialism and the Revolution

Unlike what happened with many other communist and workers’ parties, the PLA did not make any concessions on matters of principle, in spite of the pressure by the Soviet revisionist leader ship, and preserved its Marxist-Leninist general line intact

-Hoxha, “ON THE ACTIVITY OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE PARTY OF LABOUR OF ALBANIA”

The Party of Labor of Albania tried in every way to avoid publicising its differences with the Communist Party of the Soviet Union [P.K.: Deliberately choosing silence over minor questions such as “everything Stalin, his life, and his work represented” and glossing over it] lest that would put weapons into the hands of the enemies of communism [P.K.: Ah yes, a party refuting Khrushchevite lies would definitely place weapons in the hands of the ‘enemies of communism’. Silence worked out so much better!]. On the other hand, it was not yet cognizant of Khrushchev's real intentions, therefore it tried to settle the differences through talks and consultations in a comradely spirit. While maintaining a principled stand, it strove and hoped to make the Soviet leaders realize their mistakes and take the right path. 

-’Institute of Marxist-Leninist Studies of the Central Committee of the Party of Labor of Albania’, Reject the Revisionist Theses of the XX Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Anti-Marxist Stand of Krushchev's Group! Uphold Marxism-Leninism! [P.K.: Brackets mine]

We could produce many more such examples. The narrative is clear: The PLA did nothing bad, it was always principled, and in any case something bad happened, it was either due to the PLAs kindness and ‘carefulness’ or the treachery of its enemies. By itself, this is already damning; None of the Marxist standards of criticism are present, there is no admission, let alone investigation, of what went wrong, on why the enemy managed to outsmart and fool a party for so long, what they could have done better and where were their shortcomings. But all of this, pales in comparison to the fact Hoxha, himself, praised the 20th CPSU congress and its fight against the cult of personality, a claim we can quite literally prove two distinct times:

1st:

“The Third Congress of the Workers' Party, held in May this year, summarized the results of the implementation of the first plan for the development of the national economy and culture of the republic, and approved the guidelines for a second five-year plan. Based on the experience and inspiring lessons of the 20th Congress of the CPSU, the Third Congress of our Party developed clear and fair decisions based on Marxist-Leninist principles. For non-Marxists these righteous decisions were certainly not to their taste. Such people would like to see our Party bow to the treachery, threats, blackmail and vanity of certain elements. However, they miscalculated because our Party has never bowed and will never bow to injustice and blackmail.“ [P.K: My Emphasis]

[...]

“As always, our Party will be guided by the glorious experience of the CPSU founded by the great Lenin, whom it always considered its mother and educator. Our Party will always be against those who, using the just struggle against the cult of personality led by the 20th congress of the CPSU, are struggling to revive the glorious party of Lenin in order to cultivate their own personality. Such — if I may put it this way — “comrades” try with the help of so-called socialist slogans to see the speck in their neighbor's eye but do not see the beam in their own! But authentic Leninists are not blind. They know how to find the speck in their eye and clean it out, but they also know how to find not only the beam but also the speck in their neighbor's eye. According to the Albanian saying: "People do not feed on straw", even less so, Marxists, who know how to look at things as they really are.” [P.K: My Emphasis]

-  Pravda, November 8th, 1956, P3 (look for “Албанской партии труда—15 лет”, written by “Энвер ХОДЖА” - I.E. Enver Hoxha), https://marxism-leninism.info/paper/pravda_1956_313-10357

This is bad enough on its own. Yet, the biggest and worst part of this entire article is the second proof we have promised - the original words Hoxha gave to the 3rd PLA congress in 1956, using the first edition release, I.E. the 1956 release, as opposed to the second edition from the 1970s which lacks any mention of the following quotes and more like them:

“The great historical successes of global significance achieved by the Soviet people in building socialism, in the victorious Patriotic War, in strengthening the Soviet social and state system and in increasing the international prestige of the Soviet Union, all these brilliant victories of the Soviet people, under the leadership of the Communist Party were not subjected to a fair Marxist-Leninist interpretation but were unfairly attributed to the merits of one person, to Stalin, and were all explained by his merits to him. The great error of J.V. Stalin lies in the fact that he not only admitted the praise and flattery addressed to him, but he, on his part, supported and encouraged these anti-Marxist views.” (P182)

[...]

“The personality cult and leadership practice created by J.V. Stalin marked the open and distorted violation of the Leninist principles of collective leadership in the Party, marked the violation of Leninist party norms. J.V. Stalin's disregard for the norms of party life, solution of problems in an individual manner on his part, contempt for party opinion, even taking severe measures against those who expressed opinions contrary to the his, could not fail to cause and did cause great harm, giving rise to serious alterations of Leninist rules in the life of the party and to the violation of revolutionary legality.” (P183)

[...]

"The cult of personality and contempt for the criticism and advice rightly expressed by the members of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, as well as for the party norms, led Comrade Stalin into mistakes; he did not show the necessary vigilance on the eve of the Patriotic War against German Nazism; he did not devote due attention to the further development of the; socialist agriculture and the material well-being of the kolkhoz farmers; he supported and incited the Yugoslav affair in a wrong line, etc. In such circumstances, Comrade Stalin showed himself to be one-sided in his ideas and broke away from the masses.” (P183)

[...]

"The Communist Party of the Soviet Union and its Leninist Central Committee have taken decisive measures for the restoration of Leninist norms in the party, for the restoration of the principle of collective leadership in all links of the party, from top to bottom, for the development of self-criticism and criticism, for the collective discussion and solution of the most important issues. (P183)

[...]

"Measures taken by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the 20th Congress to restore and further develop the democratic principles of party life and activity, measures taken against management by bureaucratic methods, against the concealment of faults, the disguise of reality, blissful satisfaction, indifferentism, as well as the measures taken to develop concrete criticism and self-criticism, in principle, are ensuring greater activity on the part workers and communists by developing the immense creative energy of Soviet men.” (P183)

[...]

“The Party of Labor of Albania and the entire Albanian people have fully approved the historic and just decisions of the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and consider these decisions not only a resounding victory of the Communist Party and the Soviet people, but also as a great victory for the Party of Labor and the Albanian people (Applause). (P183)

[...]

"Our party and our people approve of the bold and principled struggle waged against the cult of personality. The cult of personality with regard to Comrade Stalin also had very pronounced manifestations in our party and our country. Our people and our party have emphasized and will rightly emphasize that the Soviet Union and the glorious Communist Party, founded by the great Lenin, are the decisive factors in the liberation, forever, of our people, and it is for this reason that the love of our party and our people towards them will be indestructible and eternal (Prolonged applause. Cheers. The delegates rise to their feet).” (P184)

[...]

“But now we understand well the role and place that should belong to Comrade Stalin in the building of socialism and communism in the Soviet Union and in the help and role he played in the liberation of our country. The correct Marxist-Leninist understanding of this important problem of principle was made clear to us by the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.” (P185)

-Hoxha, Report to the 3rd Congress

Fortune smiled on Red Spectre, as we found a rare copy of this book, the original release from 1956. We have digitized the entire thing and uploaded it to our archive for our readers to judge for themselves, rather than rely on excerpts. Further, the original pages for the above quotes are mentioned next to them. Therefore, we invite you to have a look at what is likely the first digitalization of its kind, at least insofar as real, free, no strings attached access for any reason is concerned, as opposed to being relegated to the bourgeoisie academia alone:

Indeed the "invisible hand" of Stalin works in mysterious ways.

Enver Hoxha the Snailtrist

The entirety of our investigation on Hoxha proved to us he could be termed a ‘Snailtrist’, a centrist that moves at the pace of a snail. Only Hoxha could regard the delay of 4 years as ‘haste’, and the delay of two decades as ‘perfectly acceptable’. For him, acting on the spot is running at a Cheetah’s pace. Hoxha’s unhurried murmurs notwithstanding, I duly believe no one will be able to pardon his servility and meekness given Lenin’s handling of Kautsky.

Comrade Lenin, a man actually deserving of all the remarks about ‘staying true to principles’, which Hoxha wrote in tomes to pat his own back. Unlike the champion self-serving truisms the latter is, the former very rarely engaged in such inanity. Instead of Hoxha’s self-aggrandizing slogans that lack any material proof, with Lenin we have a firm, principled and unshakable line that ironically, and expectedly, lacks any childish boasting.

When Lenin and the Bolsheviks saw a flagrant betrayal of principles, they wasted no time denouncing it. Rather than send a carrier pigeon to the German Social Chauvinists to ‘discuss their differences’ and ‘criticize in a way that won’t be used by international imperialism’ (let alone behave as Hoxha did by sending a carrier turtle), they denounced it at once:

"2. The conduct of the leaders of the German Social-Democratic Party, the strongest and the most influential in the Second International (1889-1914), a party which has voted for war credits and repeated the bourgeois-chauvinist phrases of the Prussian Junkers and the bourgeoisie, is sheer betrayal of socialism. Under no circumstances can the conduct of the leaders of the German Social-Democratic Party be condoned, even if we assume that the party was absolutely weak and had temporarily to bow to the will of the bourgeois majority of the nation. This party has in fact adopted a national-liberal policy."

- Lenin, The Tasks of Revolutionary Social-Democracy in the European War

If we compare this to the Secret Speech, we must bear in mind that Hoxha could have been ‘fine’ even by criticizing just Khrushchev’s person. Such a thing would be regarded as inaccurate, but nevertheless a good thing; It would be principled, simply not as useful as ‘more correct’ options, such as denouncing the entire Khrushchevite faction, or better yet, the entirety of the CPSU’s central committee for its inaction and complicity for everything leading up to this moment, and for not having the deserter Khrushchev shot. But, even more powerful would be acting as the Bolsheviks did, and denounce not a single individual, not a single party, but the entirety of the treacherous leadership that went over to the side of the enemy:

"3. The conduct of the Belgian and French Social-Democratic party leaders, who have betrayed socialism by entering bourgeois governments,[2] is just as reprehensible.

 4. The betrayal of socialism by most leaders of the Second International (1889-1914) signifies the ideological and political bankruptcy of the International. This collapse has been mainly caused by the actual prevalence in it of petty-bourgeois opportunism [...]"

- Lenin, The Tasks of Revolutionary Social-Democracy in the European War

Any pestilent yapping aiming to absolve Hoxha, which I (Philip Kovalchik) expect from his mantra spewing devotees, ought to keep in mind the following prior to any self-embarrassing claim to the tune of, “Hoxha eventually called them out!”:

1. What Hoxha needed years for, Lenin needed less than a month - Strictly the time needed for the information to get across, as they possessed much worse means of communication and operated under the Tsar’s police.
   
   
2. Hoxha regurgitated Khrushchevism in those years, as we have shown and will show further below.
   
   
3. Enver Hoxha, to his credit, learned from his ‘mistakes’ - His next ideological fling, in which he embellished Maoism instead of Khrushchevism, lasted not years, but decades.
   
   
4. Throughout all of this, Hoxha denied all wrongdoing!!! 
   
   
5. Lenin fought against Kautsky and co, which were once held as the authority of Marxism; Hoxha would have fought against the revisionists which discarded the banner of Stalin and slung mud on it - they would be supported not only by the people, but even the soldiers, commanders, men like Rokossovsky, potentially even rallying the elements in the leadership which remained inert not out of malice or agreement, but out of incompetence, inexperience, ‘honest mistakes’, and the complicity, support, and lack of open opposition from parties in power or any prominent organs or leaders in the party, such as the inconsistent Molotov; How many of the latter, especially, could have been brought back to Marxism, have their eyes opened to the monstrous course they thread, had only Hoxha spoken out, had he not waited, had he not repeated Khrushchevism and legitimized the CPSU’s horrifying course?
   

  Hoxha, the hypocrite he is, characterized the politburo’s attempt to oust Khrushchev in 1957 as:

"Thus, after this forlorn attempt, these former co-fighters of Stalin’s, who had associated themselves with the slanders made against his glorious work, were described as an “anti-party group” and received the final blow from the Khrushchevites. No one wept over them, no one pitied them. They had lost the revolutionary spirit, were no longer Marxist-Leninists, but corpses of Bolshevism. They had united with Khrushchev and allowed mud to be thrown at Stalin and his work; they tried to do something, but not on the party road, because for them, too, the party did not exist. "

-Hoxha, The Khrushchevites

And they definitely deserve such scathing words; But, if these inconsistent, half-hearted “corpses of Bolshevism”, who are “no longer Marxist-Leninists” due to their complicity, if even they acted in 1957 - what can we say of Hoxha, which ‘acted’ in 1960?

Not to mention, ‘acted’ is too strong a word. The bombastically named “Reject the Revisionist Theses of the XX Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Anti-Marxist Stand of Krushchev’s Group! Uphold Marxism-Leninism!”, dated 1960 (and which mainly proves Hoxha is somehow worse at naming his works than he is in writing them), is often lauded and praised to the high heavens by Hoxhaists, as some sort of great landmark in the fight against Khrushchevism, as its ‘complete rejection’, as a staunch, dedicated, “full steam ahead” attack against Khrushchevite revisionism. Have they even read the damn work?

I am of the opinion it deserves its own subchapter, which will be named in accordance with Hoxha’s style:

Reject Hoxha’s Meek ‘Rejection’ of Khrushchevism! Uphold Marxism And The Banner Of Stalin Unwaveringly Against Khrushchevite, Maoist, And Hoxhite Slander!

Let us pose the following questions to the reader: Had we begun this article by praising Hoxha and his fight against revisionism, would we not appear harebrained and asinine, given both the title and content of this work?

Would we not appear to be inconsistent and spineless, in the spirit of blind kittens meowing as they walk aimlessly, as if we hope to reach a Marxist line by chance?

Would we not be mocking the legacy of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, by masquerading as their followers while perverting their teachings?

Would not the question arise - If we believe Hoxha to be a traitor, why do we substitute praise in place of criticism, in the article meant to expose him? Why do we muddy the water, make the division more murky instead of more clean?

Indeed, such questions would be impossible to answer. On another note, this is the second paragraph in Hoxha’s 1960 work:

"The existence of the socialist camp with the Soviet Union in the lead is already an accomplished fact in the world. The communist movement in general has been enlarged, strengthened and tempered. The communist and workers' parties throughout the world have become a colossal force to lead mankind forward towards socialism, towards peace. [P.K.: My Emphasis]"

- Hoxha, Reject the Revisionist Theses of the XX Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Anti-Marxist Stand of Krushchev's Group! Uphold Marxism-Leninism!

Indeed, Khrushchevism was demolished that day.

Our socialist camp, headed by the glorious Soviet Union, has become a colossal force from all points of view, both as to its economic and cultural as well as to its military potential. At the center of the successes, at the center of the strength of our camp lies the colossal moral [!!!!!!!!] and political, economic, cultural, and military strength of the Soviet Union. The successes in industry, agriculture, education and culture, in science and in the military field in the Soviet Union are exceptionally great. At the same time they are of immeasurable assistance to the achievement of major successes in the other countries of the socialist camp.[P.K.: Spoilers: our Snailtrist only ‘remembers’ much later that, in fact, the revisionist USSR was imperialist… What banal hypocrisy!]

It is rightly pointed out in the draft-Statement that the great and inexhaustible strength of the socialist camp headed by the Soviet Union is the decisive factor in the triumph of peace in the world, it is the moral, political and ideological force which inspires the peoples of the world who are fighting to free themselves from the yoke of the blood-sucking colonialists, from the clutches of imperialism and capitalism, it is its force of example and its economic aid which helps and inspires other peoples to win the battle for total liberation from the exploiting capitalists.

It is for this major reason that the Soviet Union and the socialist camp have become the center and hope of the peoples of the world, their moral, political and economic prop, their firm and loyal champions against the threats of the warmongering U.S., British, French aggressors and their allies. [P.K.: All emphasis mine. To clarify, these three paragraphs come one after another.]

-Hoxha, Reject the Revisionist Theses of the XX Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Anti-Marxist Stand of Krushchev's Group! Uphold Marxism-Leninism!

So - We have here the same Khrushchevite USSR that became Khrushchev’s fiefdom, that took it upon itself to dismantle everything Stalin has painstakingly built, the same Khrushchevite USSR that has become a fascist dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and led the worker’s movement to their deaths - indeed, this very same Khrushchevite USSR “inspired” people to “win the battle” for “liberation from the exploiting capitalists”!!! 

Indeed, this imperialist superpower is a force for peace - It is only that imperialist power, the USA and ‘its allies’, as Hoxha put so Plekhanovistically, that is responsible for wars. 

What violent action has the Judas pacifist Khrushchev ever taken? 

Hoxha surely read Imperialism: Highest Stage of Capitalism, he surely knows all imperialist powers strive to expand their sphere of influence, the markets they exploit, and do so violently, he surely knows of the inevitability of wars under capitalism. And still, he takes the side of one imperialist power over the other, claiming one is a fighter for “peace”...!

Not even a plea for ignorance (Negligence) can help here, as Hoxha later detailed extensively how “the heroic PLA” had to resist “blackmail” and “pressure” from the Khrushchevite revisionists:

The Soviet Union, which had turned into a revisionist country, into a social-imperialist state, built up its own strategy and tactics. The Khrushchevites worked out such a policy as to enable them to disguise all their activity with Leninist phraseology. 

[...]

Gambling on the name of Lenin and the Bolshevik Party, the Khrushchevite revisionists did their utmost to impose this anti-Marxist line of theirs, this revision of the Marxist-Leninist theory in all fields, on all the communist parties of the world. They wanted the communist and workers' parties of the world to adopt this revisionist line and transform themselves into counterrevolutionary parties, into blind tools of the bourgeois dictatorship, to serve capitalism.

But this was not fully achieved as they desired. first and foremost because the Party of Labour of Albania remained unwavering in its consistent implementation of Marxism-Leninism and in defence of its purity. [...]”

- Hoxha, THE STRATEGY OF IMPERIALISM AND MODERN REVISIONISM

“This is a period full of lessons for the Marxist-Leninists, because it brings out the bankruptcy of “bureaucratic legality”, which represents a great danger to a Marxist-Leninist party, brings out the methods which the revisionists used to profit from this “bureaucratic legality”, brings out how leaders, who are honest and experienced but who have lost the revolutionary class spirit, fall into the traps of intriguers and give way, retreat before the blackmail and demagogy of revisionist traitors disguised with revolutionary phraseology. 

[...]

Many were misled by this demagogy of traitors. However, the Party of Labour of Albania was not misled. It has made a detailed principled analysis of this question and has had its say in defence of the Marxist-Leninist truth long ago. “

-Hoxha, The Khrushchevites

Hence, either Hoxha knew of Khrushchevite imperialism back then and praised them anyways, or once again, his hypocrisy shows and he lies to our face. Pick your poison.

And yet, in his heroic declaration at the 1960s conference, what do we see? We see the scoundrel calling these same imperialists the “center of hope”, the “firm and loyal champions against the threats of the warmongering U.S.[and its camp]”!! 

Now, it is predictable that some dishonest Hoxhaist will try to counter all these claims by pointing to the Stalin years, and saying that, back then, all this praise was warranted… And yes, back then it was! And that makes all of this criticism that much worse for Hoxha.


Hoxha did not use words such as “was”, praising the USSR in past tense - He is saying “is”, talking of the current USSR, of 1960. The former approach would denounce the USSR for how low it stooped, it would attack it for no longer being worthy of the achievements and legacy of Stalin, of the praise it once had; It would mean exposing it. What Hoxha did was downplaying this affair, of partaking in this game of pretend that, somehow, the USSR and the so-called “socialist camp” still deserves these lofty words. Once again, Hoxha muddies the water.

Not helping affairs is the fact Hoxha referred to “comrade Khrushchev” using this exact term circa 65 times throughout this speech.

It would be very easy to fill this polemic with more, and more, and more such two-faced lip-service Hoxha lended to Khrushchev:

"We should do everything, strive with all our means, in order to prevent war. The policy of the Soviet Union and of our socialist camp has been and remains a policy of peace. All the Soviet proposals and those of the Governments of our countries of the People's Democracy made in the international arena have aimed at easing tension among nations, at solving unsettled issues through negotiations and not through war.

The peaceful policy of the Soviet Union and of the countries of the socialist camp has exerted a major influence in exposing the aggressive intentions of imperialism, in mobilizing the people against the warmongers, in promoting their glorious struggle against the imperialist oppressors and their tools. The examples of heroic Cuba, the struggle of the Japanese people and the events in South Korea and Turkey are the best proof of this. [P.K: Emphasis mine, paragraphs adjacent in the original work.]"

- Hoxha, Reject the Revisionist Theses of the XX Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Anti-Marxist Stand of Krushchev's Group! Uphold Marxism-Leninism!

And so on…

"Our Party has educated, educates, and will continue to educate our people with a great love and loyalty towards the peoples and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. This love has been tempered and will be tempered each passing day for it is kneaded with blood, for it has developed on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism. We have loved, and still love the Soviet people from the bottom of our hearts and the Soviet people, on their part, have loved and love the people and the Party of Labor of Albania in the same way. This is friendship between peoples, friendship between Marxist-Leninist parties and, therefore, it will flourish through the ages and will never die. This is the unshakable conviction of the Albanian communists, a conviction they have deeply implanted and will continue to implant among our people. We have said and we it repeat now that, without this friendship, there could not have been freedom for our people. This is the fruit of Leninism. [P.K: Emphasis mine]"

- Hoxha, Reject the Revisionist Theses of the XX Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Anti-Marxist Stand of Krushchev's Group! Uphold Marxism-Leninism!

And so forth…

"Some others advise us not to speak against the Yugoslavs, saying "why are you afraid ? You are defended by the Soviet Union?" We have told these comrades and tell them again that we are afraid neither of the Yugoslav Trotskyites nor of any one else. We have said and say it again that the Soviet Union has defended, defends and will defend us, but we are Marxist-Leninists and not for one moment should we diminish the struggle against the revisionists and imperialists until we wipe them out of existence. Because if the Soviet Union is to defend you, you must first defend yourself. [P.K: Emphasis mine]"

- Hoxha, Reject the Revisionist Theses of the XX Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Anti-Marxist Stand of Krushchev's Group! Uphold Marxism-Leninism!

Such examples are abundant, like mushrooms after a rain. This could come as no surprise, after all, as Albania stayed in the Warsaw Pact (The Soviet Union’s military alliance, in 1955 - while Khrushchev was already first secretary; Stalin rejected even a bloc between a few Balkan countries, let alone a full on military alliance:

"You provide ammunition to the reactionary elements in America for convincing public opinion that America would not be doing anything extraordinary in creating a Western bloc, since in the Balkans there already exists not only a bloc but also a customs union."
- Stalin, The Diary of Georgi DImitrov

After an excessively long speech of passive-aggressiveness befitting not of a party head, but of a particularly annoying high-school gossip-spreader, Hoxha finally reaches the question of Stalin. And all that waiting amounts to basically nothing, as Hoxha’s ‘defense’ of Stalin is as weak as the former’s spine:

"The Party of Labor of Albania is of the opinion that things should be re-examined in the light of a Marxist-Leninist analysis and errors should be corrected. Let us take the question of the criticism of Stalin and his work. Our Party, as a Marxist-Leninist one, is fully aware that the cult of the individual is an alien and dangerous manifestation for the parties and for the communist movement itself. Marxist parties should not only not permit the development of the cult of the individual which hampers the activity of the masses, negates their role, is at variance with the development of the life of the party and with the laws that govern it, but should also fight with might and main to uproot it when it begins to appear or has already appeared in a specific country. Looking at it from this angle, we fully agree that the cult of the individual, Stalin, should be criticized as a dangerous manifestation in the life of the party. But in our opinion, the 20th Congress and, especially, Comrade Khrushchev's secret report did not put the question of Comrade Stalin correctly in an objective Marxist-Leninist way. [P.K.: My emphasis]"
- Hoxha, Reject the Revisionist Theses of the XX Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Anti-Marxist Stand of Krushchev's Group! Uphold Marxism-Leninism!

But this raving two-faced dunce goes on to say:

“when it [The USSR - P.K.] fought the Second World War with legendary heroism and defeated fascism, liberated our peoples, when a powerful socialist camp was set up, and so on and so forth -- all this glorious epoch of the Soviet Union is left without a helmsman, without a leader. “

- Hoxha, Reject the Revisionist Theses of the XX Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Anti-Marxist Stand of Krushchev's Group! Uphold Marxism-Leninism!

And yet, he expects us to believe Stalin had any ‘cult of personality’? Does he not realize that the approach people had to Stalin was fully justified and borne out of Stalin’s selfless and heroic actions, that there was no ‘cult’, but a great love from the workers of the USSR to their elected party leader? Yes, it is true that some opportunists, like Khrushchev faked this admiration to blend in; But how is this a cult of Stalin? Is it a ‘cult of Marxism’ for a federal agent to dishonestly claim they agree with socialism? For a Marxist, to uphold the person that led us through the first socialist construction, that crushed the nazi war machine and stopped it in its tracks, that defended the communist movement from wave after wave of turncoats like Trotsky, that showed us, empirically, for the first time in history that our victory is possible, that a better world is possible - that this man deserves admiration is as obvious as ‘socialism is desirable’, as ‘one plus one equals two’. We have never seen Stalin reproach a Marxist for ‘the cult of Lenin’, and Lenin never reproached a Marxist for ‘the cult of Marx and Engels’; But Hoxha thinks himself smarter, adopting the Khrushchevite thesis on a ‘cult of personality’...? 

We do not, and will not, make any ‘apologies’ or reservations about upholding Stalin; We view him strictly from a class viewpoint, strictly from the point of view of progressivism VS reaction; From this point, Stalin cannot be anything besides an overwhelming force of good, a symbol of justice, peace, liberation, democracy, internationalism and socialism; And we are to believe that, to show great respect to him eventually becomes ‘excessive’? Further, would Hoxha not be guilty of just this ‘excessiveness’ in his ovations and puffery of the USSR, and of Mao as displayed in the next chapter?

To us, this has striking resemblance to the “70% good, 30% bad” petty-bourgeoisie appraisal Stalin received from some self-proclaimed Marxists. Well, more apt would be Proudhonists, as Marx proves here, by reducing this exact argument to absurdity using, out of all things, slavery:

Let us see now to what modifications M. Proudhon subjects Hegel’s dialectics when he applies itto political economy.For him, M. Proudhon, every economic category has two sides – one good, the other bad. He looks upon these categories as the petty bourgeois looks upon the great men of history: Napoleon Was a great man; he did a lot of good; he also did a lot of harm.The good side and the bad side, the advantages and drawbacks, taken together form for M.Proudhon the contradiction in every economic category.The problem to be solved: to keep the good side, while eliminating the bad.Slavery is an economic category like any other. Thus it also has its two sides. Let us leave alone the bad side and talk about the good side of slavery. Needless to say, we are dealing only withdirect slavery, with Negro slavery in Surinam, in Brazil, in the Southern States of North America.Direct slavery is just as much the pivot of bourgeois industry as machinery, credits, etc. Without Slavery you have no cotton; without cotton you have no modern industry. It is slavery that gave the colonies their value; it is the colonies that created world trade, and it is world trade that is the precondition of large-scale industry. Thus slavery is an economic category of the greatest importance.
-Marx, The Poverty of Philosophy, P49

For the Marxist, the answer is simple; Slavery had its historical role, and once it built the conditions needed to end slavery, it became reactionary;

But would not Hoxha endeavor, too, to find some common cause with this reactionary ideology as well, would we give him the chance?

We will conclude this chapter with the following eyesore:

"The Party of Labor of Albania found itself in a great dilemma. It was not convinced and will never be convinced on the question of condemning Comrade Stalin in that way and in those forms that Comrade Khrushchev did it. Our Party adopted, in general, the formula of the 20th Congress on this matter but, nevertheless, it dit not stick to the limitations set by the Congress nor did it yield to the blackmail and intimidation from outside our country."

- Hoxha, Reject the Revisionist Theses of the XX Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Anti-Marxist Stand of Krushchev's Group! Uphold Marxism-Leninism!

Yes, all the evidence that they, in fact, acted against Stalin is confirmed by Hoxha himself. Yes, Hoxha admitted to adopting “in general” the 20th congresses “formula” on the “question of condemning Comrade Stalin”.

We have nothing to add except our disgust.

Flirting With Chairman Mao

For as terrible as Hoxha’s flirtation with Khrushchev was, his infatuation with the right did not stop there, as for decades after meekly splitting from Khrushchev, Hoxha remained a firm supporter of Mao and Mao Zedong Thought up until the 70’s. You can see this appraisal as far back as 1954:

“Long live the People’s Republic of China! May it become stronger with each passing day! Long live the glorious and heroic Communist Party of China! Long live the Chairman of the People’s Republic of China, the dear friend of the Albanian people, comrade Mao Tsetung! Long live the unbreakable friendship of our two peoples, Chinese and Albanian, and may it become ever stronger!”
- Hoxha, THE 5th ANNIVERSARY OF THE PR OF CHINA, P427-428

Were it that Hoxha made this blunder in his analysis of Mao only in 1954, but had later come out against Mao within even the next few years, Hoxha may have had an excuse for this, as you could argue that by this point Hoxha was not familiar with the revisionist teachings of Mao, but even extending this great charity gets Hoxha nowhere as he continued to stand by Mao for decades. Take for instance in the year 1969:

“Allow me, on behalf of the Central Committee of the Albanian Party of Labour, of the Albanian Communists and the whole Albanian people, who followed with indescribable enthusiasm and great attention the proceedings of the Ninth National Congress of the fraternal Communist Party of China, to express to you the most cordial revolutionary congratulations on the full success of the Ninth National Congress of your glorious Party and on the historic decisions it adopted.”

- Hoxha, Letter to the Ninth Conference of the Chinese Communist Party

As can be seen, in 1969 Hoxha was praising the Ninth Congress of the Chinese Communist Party and the “historic decisions it adopted”. What were these historic decisions you may ask? Allow us to investigate. Take here, Lin Piao’s (Vice Chairman in the Chinese Communist Party) report to this Ninth Congress, where he directly quotes from Mao.:

“Chairman Mao summed up in good time the experience of the January storm of revolution in Shanghai and issued his call to the whole country: "Proletarian revolutionaries, unite and seize power from the handful of Party persons in power taking the capitalist road!" Following that, Chairman Mao gave the instruction: "The People's Liberation Army should support the broad masses of the Left." He went on to sum up the experience of Heilungkiang Province and other provinces and municipalities, laid down the principles and policies for the establishment of revolutionary committees which embrace representatives of the revolutionary cadres, representatives of the People's Liberation Army and representatives of the revolutionary masses, constituting a revolutionary three-in-one combination, and thus pushed forward the nation-wide struggle for the seizure of power.”
- Lin Piao, REPORT TO THE NINTH NATIONAL CONGRESS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA

What Lin Piao is writing about here, in this document that Hoxha upheld, is the Cultural Revolution in China. Lin Piao alongside Mao argues the necessity of the “proletarian revolutionaries” seizing power from pro-capitalist party positions, using the broad masses and the military against the party. But then we have to ask here two questions.

1. If the party was so overcrowded with “capitalist-roaders” that seizure of power by force was necessary, then can you truely argue that the state is still by this point a dictatorship of the proletariat?

2. Furthermore, if the party is dominated by these “capitalist-roaders” to such an extent that this armed seizure of power is necessary, can the party still be regarded as a true proletarian party?

If the answer to both of these questions are no, it begs the question of why not split from the party itself, and repudiate the broken systems that allowed bourgeois infiltration in the first place. To create a new proletarian vanguard party to spearhead the revolution against the now bourgeois state. Of course this is already being too generous to Mao and his gang, as he was responsible for this problem in the first place. Quoting Mao, the man Hoxha went to such lengths to support:

“Places in the organs of political power should be allocated as follows: one-third to [...]. the proletariat and the poor peasantry; one third to [...] the petty-bourgeoisie, and the remaining one-third to [...] the middle bourgeoisie and the enlightened gentry”. [H.M.: Brackets mine]

  - Mao Zedong, CURRENT PROBLEMS OF TACTICS IN THE ANTI-JAPANESE UNITED FRONT

This Cultural “Revolution” of which was not backed by any party or vanguard, this Maoite attempt at putschism; of which is self-evidently wrong given any proper reading of Mao or the Congress itself, was given such praise by Hoxha as:

“The Ninth Congress marks a brilliant page in the long history of the great Communist Party of China, which is full of heroic and legendary struggles. It affirmed the revolutionary Marxist-Leninist line of Chairman Mao and the decisive victory of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. It firmly held and raised higher the red banner of revolution and socialism. It further strengthened and tempered the Party, its unity of thought and action on the basis of the invincible thought of the great Marxist Leninist Comrade Mao Tse-Tung.”

- Hoxha, Letter to the Ninth Conference of the Chinese Communist Party

And going on to say:

“The Albanian Party of Labour and the entire Albanian people wholeheartedly wish that the Communist Party of China and the great Chinese people, armed with all-conquering Mao Tse-Tung thought and under the wise and far-sighted Marxist-Leninist leadership of Mao Tse-Tung, will achieve new and ever greater successes and victories on the bright road of socialism established by the Ninth National Congress.

Long live the great and glorious Communist Party of China!

May Chairman Mao, great leader, great Marxist-Leninist and the closest friend of the Albanian people, live as long as the mountains!

May the unbreakable friendship and militant unity between our two Parties and peoples last forever and grow with each passing day!”

- Hoxha, Letter to the Ninth Conference of the Chinese Communist Party

Now, even if you were to ignore all of this- even if you were to argue that Enver Hoxha did not possess reading comprehension, that he as the Secretary of a Marxist-Leninist political party of which held state power, was incapable of understanding how the anti-Marxist line of the Chinese Communist Party refutes itself, you would still be behaving overly charitably towards this charlatan.

Contrary to the popular narrative that Mao Zedong was staunchly against Khrushchev and his revisionist current, Mao himself vacillated on this issue, and actually praised Khrushchev, and initially supported the slanderous secret speech against Stalin. Take for instance here in 1956:

“Then Mao Zedong moved on to a general evaluation of Stalin’s role.  He noted that Stalin, without a doubt, is a great Marxist, a good and honest revolutionary.  However, in his great work in the course of a long period of time he made a number of great and serious mistakes, the primary ones of which were listed in Khrushchev’s speech.  These fundamental mistakes, said Mao Zedong, could be summed up in seven points: 

1.  Unlawful repressions;

2.  Mistakes made in the course of the war, moreover, in particular in the beginning, rather than in the concluding period of the war;

3.  Mistakes which dealt a serious blow to the union of the working class and the peasantry.  Mao Zedong observed that this group of mistakes, in particular, the incorrect policy in relation to the peasantry, was discussed during Comrade Khrushchev’s conversation with [PRC military leader] Zhu De in Moscow;

4.  Mistakes in the nationality question connected to the unlawful resettlement of certain nationalities and others.  However, overall, said Mao Zedong, nationality policy was implemented correctly;

5.  Rejection of the principle of collective leadership, conceit and surrounding himself with toadies;

6.  Dictatorial methods and leadership style;

7.  Serious mistakes in foreign policy (Yugoslavia, etc.).”

- Yudin & Mao, Record of Conversation with Mao Zedong, 31 March 1956

Or when he again praised Khrushchev in 1965 even after his removal from power:

“But he [H.M.: Khrushchev] used to represent it [H.M.: the Soviet Union] before.  After all Khrushchev had done much good.  He was a great leader; he made a great contribution to Marxism-Leninism.  This, it seems, was being said at all congresses.” [H.M.: Brackets mine]

- Kosygin & Mao, Minutes from a Conversation between A.N. Kosygin and Mao Zedong

Now with all of this in mind, take Hoxha in 1962:

“We shall reply to them. We accept the exchange of delegations with the Communist Party of China, but we will not alter our stand in the least in regard to the proposed meeting with the Soviet revisionists. This is a wrong course the Chinese comrades are trying to lead us on to, it is an opportunist road of vacillations and concessions to the Khrushchev traitor group which finds itself in grave difficulties, and is intriguing in order to escape defeat. The Chinese comrades are giving it a hand to pull it out of the mire, giving it the possibility to strengthen its positions and go on the attack again.”
- Hoxha, THE CHINESE ARE GIVING KHRUSHCHEV A HAND

Here Hoxha is aware of China and Mao’s vacillations with the Khrushchev group, as far back as 1965. Now take Hoxha at a mere six days later:

“What is important is that the Chinese comrades tell the Soviets that their attempt to isolate Albania from China and the international communist movement is in vain and unacceptable. The stand of the Chinese comrades towards our opponents is good. Nevertheless, in the message they sent us, the tendency to seek a certain softening on our part is evident.”
- Hoxha, THE CHINESE COMRADES CRITICIZE THE SOVIET REVISIONISTS

So essentially, Hoxha understood that the Chinese government was pushing for rapprochement with the USSR, albeit under favorable terms for China and Albania of which were not achieved, and that furthermore, the Chinese government was pushing Albania to seek a softening of their line against the Soviet Union; of which Hoxha was fine with. So again I ask, why did the beginnings of the Sino-Albanian split take up to a whole decade after this? Of course, such is to be expected from a “snailtrist” like Hoxha, where days are decades and decades are centuries, that's what Lenin said isn't it?

But here is the real final damning piece of evidence, the fact that despite all these mistakes Hoxha and his party never accepted blame for their mistakes.

By analysing the facts, our Party arrived at some general and specific conclusions, which made it vigilant, but it avoided polemics with the Communist Party of China and Chinese leaders, not because it was afraid to engage in polemics with them, but because the facts, which it had about the erroneous, anti-Marxist course of this party and Mao Tsetung himself, were incomplete, and still did not permit the drawing of a final conclusion. On the other hand, for a time, the Communist Party of China did oppose US imperialism and reaction. It also took a stand against Soviet Khrushchevite revisionism, though it is now clear that its struggle against Soviet revisionism was not dictated from correct, principled Marxist-Leninist positions.

- Hoxha, Imperialism and the Revolution

When Hoxha does finally come out against China decades later, he does not proceed from the perspective of earnest self criticism and drive to improve, as we do in our introduction to this very work; rather he makes excuses to justify the incorrect line of Mao and the Chinese government.

“A political party’s attitude towards its own mistakes is one of the most important and surest ways of judging how earnest the party is and how it fulfils in practice its obligations towards its class and the working people. Frankly acknowledging a mistake, ascertaining the reasons for it, analysing the conditions that have led up to it, and thrashing out the means of its rectification—that is the hallmark of a serious party; that is how it should perform its duties, and how it should educate and train its class, and then the masses. By failing to fulfil this duty and give the utmost attention and consideration to the study of their patent error, the “Lefts” in Germany (and in Holland) have proved that they are not a party of a class, but a circle, not a party of the masses, but a group of intellectualists and of a few workers who ape the worst features of intellectualism.”
- Lenin, “Left-Wing” Communism: an Infantile Disorder

Additionally, he had access to more than enough information to come out against Mao, the Albanians had Chinese translators, and diplomats to China who could speak Chinese. Furthermore, Hoxha claims the views of Mao were kept hidden, despite the fact that the Collected Works of Mao had already been published in over a dozen languages by this point, and the Albanians would have access to them.

Furthermore, as for the claim that China was hiding this knowledge from Albania, we know this to be false as the Chinese government actually sent materials including the Collected Quotations of Mao directly to Hoxha. This means that Hoxha is explicitly lying here when he argues for a lack of information as his excuse as to why he waited so long to come out against Mao.

So we have come to our final conclusion. Hoxha has shown again and again that he was the most fervent supporter of Mao and the cultural revolution when it really counted, but also that when it became inexpedient to remain a Maoite, he lied and claimed ignorance to flee responsibility for his own actions. His government has covered up and hid it’s own mistakes well, at least well enough that there are few publications on this issue, but the truth can only be hidden for so long. If Hoxha wishes to use his tongue to pull the wool over people’s eyes instead of shine a light on the truth so be it, but his ego and refusal to accept blame or criticism will ultimately be his undoing, even if it is post-mortem; because the revolutionary proletariat doesn’t need lies as given by Hoxha, it needs truth guided by revolutionary theory.

Socialist Debt, the Worker’s Loans

Debt is an important hammer in the toolbox of imperialism. Capitalist countries like the United States or China, as well as capitalist investment funds, such as the International Monetary Fund, rely on debt as a tool to strengthen capitalism in the developing world, to enforce the interests of the Western and Chinese bourgeoisie over the oppressed nations. As Lenin correctly pointed out,

“The export of capital influences and greatly accelerates the development of capitalism in those countries to which it is exported. While, therefore, the export of capital may tend to a certain extent to arrest development in the capital-exporting countries, it can only do so by expanding and deepening the further development of capitalism throughout the world.”

- Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism

The exporting of finance capital, typically through debt today, is one of the major ways in which capitalist countries make other countries subordinate to it, without ever needing to land a gunship, drop a bomb, or send in a brigade. To illustrate this Lenin points out further still,

“The capital-exporting countries are nearly always able to obtain certain “advantages,” the character of which throws light on the peculiarity of the epoch of finance capital and monopoly.”
- Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism

It is in large part due to this export of finance capital through debt and loans that we can say with such conviction that China is an imperialist country today; due to its belt and road initiative, as well as its contributions to the International Monetary Fund. Hoxha himself pointed this law out in uncharacteristic lucidity in his work, Imperialism and the Revolution,

"There are also other forms of according credits, like those practiced with those pseudo-socialist states which are trying to disguise the capitalist course on which they are proceeding. These are large credits provided in the form of trade credits which, of course, must be repaid within a short time. These are provided jointly by many capitalist countries which have calculated in advance the economic as well as political profits they will draw from the recipient state, taking into account both its economic Potential and ability to pay. In no case do the capitalists provide their credits for the construction of socialism. They provide them to destroy socialism. Therefore, a genuine socialist country never accepts credits, ill any form, from a capitalist, bourgeois, or revisionist country."

- Hoxha, Imperialism and the Revolution

Hoxha is, of course, technically correct in stating this. However the peculiar thing here is that he limit’s this to capitalist, bourgeois, and revisionist countries. But what then, does Hoxha think of credits afforded by socialist states? To quote Hoxha,

ㅤ"We think that the economically stronger countries of the socialist camp should accord credits also to neutral capitalist countries and to peoples recently liberated from colonialism, provided the leaders of these capitalist countries are opposed to imperialism, support the peaceful police of the socialist camp, and do not hinder or oppose the legitimate struggle of the revolutionary forces."
- Enver Hoxha, Speech Delivered at the 81 Communist and Workers' Parties in Moscow on November 16 1960, PG. 34, 35

Hoxha here in 1960 claims that the socialist countries should be giving credits, i.e loans, to supposedly “neutral” capitalist countries. In other words, it is bad when they do it, but fine when we do it. This idea is highly erroneous and anti Marxist in deed and character.

1. Historical Context

In the second quote, Hoxha is speaking at a large public meeting between different communist parties in Moscow. This particular speech is of great historical importance because it is the speech which marked the Albanian-Soviet split in which Hoxha came out in what was a rather weak and late criticism of Khrushchev. In other words, by this point Albania is splitting from the USSR, Hoxha understands the revisionist, chauvinist, and imperialistic character of Khrushchev and the leadership of the Soviet Union, which at the time was the only large “socialist state” that was capable of giving such large quantity of credits.

As such, Hoxha must be implying that the Soviet Union should be giving out these credits. This also makes sense when you consider that in the same speech, Hoxha criticizes the Soviet Union for not sending more aid to Albania. So as Hoxha is by this point aware of the revisionist character of Soviet Leadership, and as he has expanded on his critiques of revisionist countries giving credits, without ever self criticizing or addressing these events, is profoundly Dishonest.

2. Neutral Capitalist Countries

Hoxha here gives lip service to the concept of the “neutral” capitalist country. These neutral capitalist countries to Hoxha, are the countries which are opposed to imperialism, give support to “socialist police”, and do not hinder the struggle of the revolutionary forces. This idea is frankly absurd and unknown to Marxism-Leninism.

Firstly, the claim that capitalist countries may be opposed to imperialism is bizarre. Again quoting Lenin,

“Imperialism is the epoch of finance capital and of monopolies, which introduce everywhere the striving for domination, not for freedom. Whatever the political system, the result of these tendencies is everywhere reaction and an extreme intensification of antagonisms in this field. Particularly intensified become the yoke of national oppression and the striving for annexations, i.e., the violation of national independence (for annexation is nothing but the violation of the right of nations to self-determination).”

- Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism

Imperialism is not just related to modern monopoly capitalism, imperialism is monopoly capitalism in its highest form. Furthermore, the economic relations of capitalism left undisturbed will necessarily always recreate the conditions of imperialism and monopoly capitalism.

To Hoxha, these countries give support to socialist “police”. What Hoxha means by socialist police is rather unclear. Does he refer to literal socialist police operating abroad in these states, or the more direct policing of these states by the socialist camp? Regardless of what he does mean it is questionable at best, and continues a trend we see of vapid phraseologies over actual substance.

Lastly to Hoxha, these are countries which do not hinder the struggle of the revolutionary forces. Now to say that a capitalist country may be neutral and not hinder the revolutionary struggle, is simply alien. Even under socialism class struggle persists and intensifies.

“The dying classes are resisting, not because they have become stronger than we are, but because socialism is growing faster than they are, and they are becoming weaker than we are. And precisely because they are becoming weaker, they feel that their last days are approaching and are compelled to resist with all the forces and all the means in their power.

Such is the mechanics of the intensification of the class struggle and of the resistance of the capitalists at the present moment of history.”

- Stalin, The Right Deviation in the C.P.S.U.(B.)

So to then go and say that there are capitalist countries which are neutral and do not hinder or oppose the revolutionary struggle, is tantamount to abandoning the struggle in these countries.

Furthermore we would be remiss if we would not draw the obvious comparison here to Tito and the Non-Aligned Movement. Even while criticizing Tito, the Albanian government still claimed to support the Non-Aligned Movement at least in principle.

“We support in principle the Conference of Non-Aligned Countries because of the participation of states belonging to the first current, but we do not show enthusiasm and do not propagate it. In our support, we emphasize its anti-imperialist and anti-colonialist character that it should take on and oppose attempts to weaken this character of the conference.

[...]

We should instruct our representatives about our stance, especially about the tactics they should follow in meetings with Afro-Asian representatives. In the discussions of our people with Afro-Asians, we should generally support the conference by linking it with the anti-imperialist policy of Afro-Asian countries and expose Tito's clique and its divisive role in the service of imperialism, with concrete examples, related to our country in the first place.”
- Albanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Report on the 1st and 2nd Conference of Non-Aligned Countries

The Albanian government speaks as if the Non-Aligned Movement could be co-opted to serve socialist anti-imperialist goals, but even ignoring that implication, this support in principle is entirely in line with what Hoxha said, in how he refers to the existence of “neutral capitalist countries”. So it is quite interesting that despite being critical of Tito, the Albanian government supported the N.A.M., and how its parties chief representative spoke in the same language of capitalist neutrality.

3. Social Imperialism Right of Nations to Self Determination

What Hoxha proposes, is essentially using debt to force these “neutral capitalist countries” to alter their government so as to secure political advantages for the supposedly socialist state intervening in said countries affairs. I have to ask, how is this any different from what the International Monetary Fund does?

As communists we understand it would be wrong to go into another country and subject it to invasion, foreign meddling, or economic servitude. To do so would be a violation of the right of nations to self determination. What Hoxha argued for here is tantamount to social imperialism. It places the “socialist” country above the capitalist country, in a subservient relationship. Such relations are anti-communist in practice, and will only serve to alienate the workers of those countries against “communist” meddling. 

"Look at Finland; she is a democratic country, more developed, more cultured than we are. In Finland a process of separation, of the differentiation of the proletariat is taking a specific course, far more painful than was the case with us. The Finns have experienced the dictatorship of Germany; they are now experiencing the dictatorship of the Allied powers. But thanks to the fact that we have recognised the right of nations to self-determination, the process of differentiation has been facilitated there. I very well recall the scene when, at Smolny, I handed the act to Svinhufvud[14] which in Russian means “pighead”—the representative of the Finnish bourgeoisie, who played the part of a hangman. He amiably shook my hand, we exchanged compliments. How unpleasant that was! But it had to be done, because at that time the bourgeoisie were deceiving the people, were deceiving the working people by alleging that the Muscovites, the chauvinists, the Great Russians, wanted to crush the Finns. It had to be done."

-Lenin, Report On The Party Programme

So then it is ironic that Hoxha advocates such a line of financial meddling, using loans to force subservience onto foreign nations. He loves to make vague platitudes about “social-imperialism”, and even in splitting with the social-imperialists of Khrushchev (albiet shockingly late) he himself is a strong proponent of social imperialism and furthermore, feels the need to give Khrushchev advice on how he could better conduct social-imperialism.

4. Betrayal of the Workers

By providing loans to capitalist countries, you would not be building the material basis for socialism, rather strengthening the already existing capitalist regime. That is not to say that there should not ever be trade or treaties made with the capitalist camp, to deny that would be a denial of socialist peace tactics.

However, if a capitalist country meets all of the criteria Hoxha described, it is fair to say that the state is completely dysfunctional as a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, to the extent that we must question how it has not been overthrown already. In other words, this would be a country on the eve of revolution. So by the logic presented by Hoxha, should we make deals and give loans to a social-democratic Kerensky (whom it seems, Hoxha would have been infatuated with had he been his contemporary) and strengthen his regime? The capitalists who even in the face of revolution are so half hearted on basic questions of reform that their government was doomed to failure and overthrow by the workers? Clearly not. So why then must we make appeals to their bourgeoisie, to offer them favorable deals and loans and assistance, rather than allow the workers to carry out their revolution on their own? In this way Hoxha shows himself as a traitor to the revolution in every sense of the word.

Comrade Mujahadeen, Fundamentalism vs Progressivism

Enver Hoxha may be credited as the father of the current of frenzied, frantic fools that, fully foregoing any basic facts, embellished and flattered Fascist Iran, led by the Fraudulent populist, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei; In other words he can be credited as one of the original people who upheld Iran as Anti-Imperialist; much like the modern “Maga-Communists” and “Dengites” today, whom betray the oppressed workers of Iran. 

Hoxha, after finally ditching unity with opportunist, fascist revisionists, moved to his latest fling with openly capitalist countries:

"In order to find the truth we must analyse the activity of those forces in the actual circumstances, because many things, true and false, are being said about them, as is occurring with Ayatollah Khomeini, too. True, he is religious, but regardless of this, analysis must be made of his anti-imperialist attitudes and actions, which, willy-nilly, bring grist to the mill of the revolution."

-Hoxha, THE EVENTS WHICH ARE TAKING PLACE IN THE MOSLEM COUNTRIES MUST BE SEEN IN THE LIGHT OF DIALECTICAL AND HISTORICAL MATERIALISM, P390-391

We will get to the topic of Khamenei and Co. before they completely seized state power, pre-revolution, and the question of supporting them and discuss the purported anti imperialist character shortly. Firstly, one must point out that this particular paragraph was written shortly after Khamenei became “Supreme Leader of Iran”...

Therefore, Hoxha upheld this new government, with state power, as ‘anti-imperialist’ in its ‘attitudes and actions’, as a government that ‘brings grist to the mill of the revolution’, I.E. as a good and progressive force. 

"To proceed. The heroes of the Second International asserted (and continue to assert) that between the bourgeois-democratic revolution and the proletarian revolution there is a chasm, or at any rate a Chinese Wall, separating one from the other by a more or less protracted interval of time, during which the bourgeoisie having come into power, develops capitalism, while the proletariat accumulates strength and prepares for the "decisive struggle" against capitalism. This interval is usually calculated to extend over many decades, if not longer. It scarcely needs proof that this Chinese Wall "theory" is totally devoid of scientific meaning under the conditions of imperialism, that it is and can be only a means of concealing and camouflaging the counter-revolutionary aspirations of the bourgeoisie. It scarcely needs proof that under the conditions of imperialism, fraught as it is with collisions and wars; under the conditions of the "eve of the socialist revolution," when "flourishing" capitalism becomes "moribund" capitalism (Lenin) and the revolutionary movement is growing in all countries of the world; when imperialism is allying itself with all reactionary forces without exception, down to and including tsarism and serfdom, thus making imperative the coalition of all revolutionary forces, from the proletarian movement of the West, to the national liberation movement of the East; when the overthrow of the survivals of the regime of feudal serfdom becomes impossible without a revolutionary struggle against imperialism-it scarcely needs proof that the bourgeois-democratic revolution, in a more of less developed country, must under such circumstances verge upon the proletarian revolution, that the former must pass into the latter. The history of the revolution in Russia has provided palpable proof that this thesis is correct and incontrovertible. It was not without reason that Lenin, as far back as 1905, on the eve of the first Russian revolution, in his pamphlet Two Tactics depicted the bourgeois-democratic revolution and the socialist revolution as two links in the same chain, as a single and integral picture of the sweep of the Russian revolution :
    
The proletariat must carry to completion the democratic revolution, by allying to itself the mass of the peasantry in order to crush by force the resistance of the autocracy and to paralyse the instability of the bourgeoisie. The proletariat must accomplish the socialist revolution, by allying to itself the mass of the semi-proletarian elements of the population in order to crush by force the resistance of the bourgeoisie and to paralyse the instability of the peasantry and the petty bourgeoisie. Such are the tasks of the proletariat, which the new Iskra-ists present so narrowly in all their arguments and resolutions about the sweep of the revolution" (see Lenin, Vol. VIII, p. 96)."

• Stalin , The Foundations of Leninism
  

But for the sake of completionism, intellectual honesty, the informative value, and its polemical value - Let us pose the question, ‘assuming Hoxha is as delayed as ever, that in his head Khomeini has yet to have seized power - Why not support him, and consider him an anti-imperialist, now?’ 

Firstly, because a movement that poses a hindrance to the communists forces in organizing the exploited masses (in connection to to agrarian colonies - with a special focus to the peasantry), to the ends of the revolution:

"The significance of this change is that we, as Communists, should and will support bourgeois-liberation movements in the colonies only when they are genuinely revolutionary, and when their exponents do not hinder our work of educating and organising in a revolutionary spirit the peasantry and the masses of the exploited. If these conditions do not exist, the Communists in these countries must combat the reformist bourgeoisie, to whom the heroes of the Second International also belong. Reformist parties already exist in the colonial countries, and in some cases their spokesmen call themselves Social-Democrats and socialists. The distinction I have referred to has been made in all the theses with the result, I think, that our view is now formulated much more precisely."

-Lenin, The Second Congress of the Communist International

Due to keeping in mind that, only the socialist proletariat forms the real anti-imperialist force, and any genuine anti-imperialism has to be under its leadership:

"The dialectics of history are such that small nations, powerless as an independent factor in the struggle against imperialism, play a part as one of the ferments, one of the bacilli, which help the real anti-imperialist force, the socialist proletariat, to make its appearance on the scene."

-Lenin, The Discussion On Self-Determination Summed Up

That is because any other class, under the system of world imperialism, has some ties (by this we mean, specifically, some element that naturally pushes into their consciousness, notions that hope for the preservation of capitalism and free trade) to the capitalist mode of production stemming from their relations of production. Therefore, the victory of any other class but the proletariat means a capitalist victory, a victory that will either result in a new subjugator state, or a subjugated state. Imperialism, after all, is a stage of capitalism.

That is not to say it cannot be progressive when a reactionary class is replaced with capitalists; But any illusions of ‘progressivism’ from replacing this capitalism with that capitalism, or from the capitalist-led bloc resulting in an anti-imperialist result(at least, deliberately…) is sheer untruth.

To disagree with that would be to deny both the possibility and preferability of the bourgeoisie revolution growing into the socialist one:

"The opposition forgets that anyone who declares that the Chinese anti-imperialist revolution is a revolution for customs autonomy denies the possibility of the growing over of the bourgeois revolution in China into a socialist revolution, for he places the revolution under the leadership of the Chinese bourgeoisie."

-Stalin, Notes on Contemporary Themes

And, secondly, as borne out of the above point, the hegemony of the proletariat is a prerequisite of genuine anti-imperialist struggle:

"The situation is somewhat different in countries like India. The fundamental and new feature of the conditions of life of colonies like India is not only that the national bourgeoisie has split up into a revolutionary party and a compromising party, but primarily that the compromising section of this bourgeoisie has already managed, in the main, to strike a deal with imperialism. Fearing revolution more than it fears imperialism, and concerned more about its money-bags than about the interests of its own country, this section of the bourgeoisie, the richest and most influential section, is going over entirely to the camp of the irreconcilable enemies of the revolution, it is forming a bloc with imperialism against the workers and peasants of its own country. The victory of the revolution cannot be achieved unless this bloc is smashed. But in order to smash this bloc, fire must be concentrated on the compromising national bourgeoisie, its treachery exposed, the toiling masses freed from its influence, and the conditions necessary for the hegemony of the proletariat systematically prepared. In other words, in colonies like India it is a matter of preparing the proletariat for the role of leader of the liberation movement, step by step dislodging the bourgeoisie and its mouthpieces from this honourable post. The task is to create a revolutionary anti-imperialist bloc and to ensure the hegemony of the proletariat in this bloc. This bloc can assume, although it need not always necessarily do so, the form of a single workers' and peasants' party, formally bound by a single platform. In such countries, the independence of the Communist Party must be the chief slogan of the advanced communist elements, for the hegemony of the proletariat can be prepared and brought about only by the Communist Party. But the Communist Party can and must enter into an open bloc with the revolutionary wing of the bourgeoisie in order, after isolating the compromising national bourgeoisie, to lead the vast masses of the urban and rural petty bourgeoisie in the struggle against imperialism." [P.K.: My Emphasis]

-Stalin, The Political Tasks of the University of the Peoples of the East

Thirdly, the differentiation must be made between a group that wishes to overthrow state power and retain (or bring forth) imperialism, and those that hope to overthrow it for the sake of a non-capitalistic development, that eventually leads to socialism (or directly in countries that can materially support it):

"I think that the future revolutionary government in China will in general resemble in character the government we used to talk about in our country in 1905, that is, something in the nature of a democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry, with the difference, however, that it will be first and foremost an anti-imperialist government.

It will be a government transitional to a non-capitalist, or, more exactly, a socialist development of China."

-Stalin, The Prospects of the Revolution in China

Observe here, my dear reader, how Stalin remarks so beautifully that the entire capitalistic stage of development can be skipped. Even if capitalism ends up being required to build the foundations of socialism, it can always be carried out within the framework of a NEP, guided by the proletariat. That is anti-imperialism, that is what we stand for.

Stalin contrasted two differing parties in pre-capitalist (more exactly: Not fully capitalist) countries, with one being imperialist and another, anti-imperialist:

"Thirdly. It would be fundamentally incorrect to say that the Kuomintang in Wuhan is a petty-bourgeois party, and to leave it at that. The Kuomintang can be characterised in that way only by people who have no understanding either of imperialism in China, or of the character of the Chinese revolution. The Kuomintang is not an "ordinary" petty-bourgeois party. There are different kinds of petty-bourgeois parties. The Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries in Russia were also petty-bourgeois parties; but at the same time they were imperialist parties, because they were in a militant alliance with the French and British imperialists, and together with them engaged in the conquest and oppression of other countries—Turkey, Persia, Mesopotamia, Galicia.

Can it be said that the Kuomintang is an imperialist party? Obviously not. The Kuomintang party is anti-imperialist, just as the revolution in China is anti-imperialist. The difference is fundamental. To fail to see this difference and to confuse the anti-imperialist Kuomintang with the imperialist Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik parties means to have no understanding of the national revolutionary movement in China."
-Stalin, Talk with Students of the Sun Yat-Sen University

Now, suffice us to see Iran’s invasion of Iraq to see it is most definitely imperialist. More examples can be brought up, but this topic is so far from our own, and so redundant when we proved using Marxist theory that it was very predictable, that we decide not to bore the reader by proving an axiom so rudimentary. 

As a closing remark on the topic of Iran, we will leave the following quote by Hoxha:

“The Iranian progressive, indeed non-religious bourgeoisie as well as communists and genuine patriots are also at the head of this revolution with bourgeois-democratic features, which we can call an anti- imperialist revolution the slogan of which is «Death to the Shah!».”

-Hoxha, GLORY TO THE IRANIAN PEOPLE!, P205

Because to him, the bourgeoisie being at the ‘head of the revolution’, I.E. leading it, is not only perfectly fine, but can coexist with the ‘communists’ and ‘genuine patriots’(?) leading it as well…

Unfortunately, there is one last element we have to endure and be infuriated by - Hoxha applied the same notions and same praise not only where, at the very least, a revolution might at least replace colonial semi-feudalism with capitalism. Hoxha can forge unity with reactionaries in much more dire situations than this, even coming to the aid of classes more reactionary than capitalists to do so:

“The valiant fighting people of Afghanistan, who are poor and armed mainly with weapons captured from the occupiers, are setting a very fine example of how foreign occupiers, whoever they are, however powerful and heavily armed they may be, can and must be fought, of how the ability to fight, the qualities of bravery and self- sacrifice are acquired in the course of the fighting to defend their freedom and their homeland.” (P530)

“Our people, rallied in the Democratic Front organization, closely united, without distinction as to region or religion, were more conscious about the ideals for which they had to and did fightand about the character of the state which they would build on the ruins of past regimes, after the victory. Nevertheless, I repeat that the struggle of the people of Afghanistan is a just struggle,and the Afghan patriotic fighters deserve to be honoured and respected by all the patriotic forces of the world, to be supported so that they can step up their liberation war even further until they drive the Soviet occupiers completely from their homeland. And, whether the Soviet social-imperialists and their local lackeys like it or not, this will certainly be realized in the not too distant future. The people of Afghanistan will regain their freedom and independence” (P534)

-Hoxha, The Afghan people will kick out the Soviet occupiers, P534

At a glance, this would seem perfectly innocent and justified. Would not expelling the imperialist USSR by force be a progressive and good thing? It certainly would be - That is not the issue at all.

The PDPA, the side the USSR backed in the Afghanistan war, definitely represented the bourgeoisie who wished to cut a deal with the Soviet Union. 

But their main opposition, the Mujahideen, represented the clerical, pre-capitalist exploitative stratas of society, which were backed by western imperialist powers, including the USA.

For example, this valuable admission by Brzezinski, the USA’s national security advisor during 1977-1981, admitted candidly the CIA entered Afghanistan before the USSR did:

"Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs that the American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahiddin in Afghanistan six months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a key role in this affair. Is this correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahiddin began during 1980,that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan on December 24, 1979. But the reality, closely guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention" [emphasis added throughout].

- Brzezinski Interview

In the source, he expressed cynical pride over luring the “Russians” into the “Afghan trap”, that he wrote to Carter “We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war”.

Worse still, many of these ‘brave patriots’ were not even Afghanis or had anything to do with Afghanistan to begin with. About 100,000 of them were trained in Pakistan, funded by the CIA, MI6, Saudi Arabia and China; Bin Laden himself stands out as an excellent example, as he was born in Saudi Arabia. The Pakistani secret service (ISI), allied with the NATO bloc, a ‘state-of-the-art-’ base was built for the Mujahideen, including hospitals and tunnels, as claimed by a former CIA veteran.

Before the PDPA, about half of all arable land was owned by around 5% of the population; (42% was owned by 2.2% in P41, 1967, and gives more detailed results in a chart;) From our 2nd source, we see that in 1967, the bottom 40% of landowning peasants had about 29% of land, and 40% of peasants surveyed overall had no land of their own. Under the regime of the landlords, many Afghani peasants could not even made ends meet;

The land reform pushed for by the PDPA (which, remember, lenin termed as a “First of all, the nationalisation of the land. Nationalisation of the land is a bourgeois measure, it does not exclude capitalism, nor does capitalism exclude it, but the blow it   will deal to private property will be a heavy one.”, and added that “The nationalisation of the land is precisely a condition for the most rapid capitalist progress in our agriculture.”, is one of the things that pushed resistance against them.

Another large reason was, the progressive reforms the PDPA implemented on women’s rights; For example, women were encouraged (and allowed) to study; by the late 1980s, half of university students were women, which made up 40% of doctors[slightly higher than the modern USA…], 70% of teachers and 30% of civil servants. 

A minimum (although not high enough, 16) age on marriage was finally implemented, banned forced marriages and more; 

In a socialist’s eyes, these measures do not go far enough are are all limited by their bourgeois character, of course. But are they better than violent, foreign backed, feudal fundamentalism that murdered the parents of young girls in front of the latter’s eyes for daring to send them to school, and engaged in horrific gender-based violence en masse to terrorize the population, conduct reprisals against women who studied (including little girls), and even due to racial and ethnic hate?

Are the capitalists of the PDPA truly more horrible than the horrific monsters and bandits that fought to overthrow them?

Hoxha seems to think so, provided he was capable of thinking in the first place; Lenin, however, made his position abundantly clear:

"There is nothing Marxist or even revolutionary in this argument. If we do not want to betray socialism we must support every revolt against our chief enemy, the bourgeoisie of the big states, provided it is not the revolt of a reactionary class." [P.K.: My Emphasis]

-Lenin, The Discussion On Self-Determination Summed Up

"But this Kievsky argument is wrong. Imperialism is as much our “mortal” enemy as is capitalism. That is so. No Marxist will forget, however, that capitalism is progressive compared with feudalism, and that imperialism is progressive compared with pre-monopoly capitalism. Hence, it is not every struggle against imperialism that we should support. We will not support a struggle of the reactionary classes against imperialism; we will not support an uprising of the reactionary classes against imperialism and capitalism." [P.K.: My Emphasis]

- Lenin, A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism

What else is there to be said?

Conclusion

In the above, we have displayed our reasoning in full as to why we shifted away from Hoxha. We believe it is the most complete polemic regarding this topic (especially if one disregards the sheer nonsense made by Maoists, as nonsense cannot be used to refute nonsense).

We have demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that Hoxha originally upheld Khrushchev, that he lied about this and attempted to cover it up. We have proven that Hoxha was aware of the vacillations of Mao and the Chinese Communist Party, yet he took decades to come out in full open criticism. We have proven that Hoxha upholds a policy that amounts to debt-trap diplomacy and social-imperialism. We have proven that Hoxha upheld the islamist dictatorship in Iran, and that he further supported the CIA-backed Mujahadeen feudalists, lacking even the most basic qualification on the national question in his (lack of) reasoning.

Throughout all of this, he never admitted to his mistakes, or made any attempt to acknowledge blame for anything he has done. It would appear that Hoxha died without regrets. The regret over his actions, it appears, is a price not he but the communist movement worldwide has to pay. Unlike him, we will not preach unity with traitors - Enver Hoxha included.

Finally, we call on all Marxists, all aspiring revolutionaries and activists to not abandon the label of Marxism-Leninism. Uphold the revolution, uphold the struggle for a better world. Hoxha may have betrayed Marxism-Leninism, but that does not mean that we have to. The label of “Marxism-Leninism” is worth fighting for because Marxism-Leninism is the science of the proletarian revolution. It is not just a collection of dusty tomes but rather a field manual on how to use our understanding of the world to make real positive change around us. When we say that we are Marxist-Leninists, we are saying to the world that we uphold the history of socialism, that change is possible, that we are steadfast and resolute in our determination to make the world a better place.

Uphold the banner of Marxism-Leninism, abandon devotion to persons and cults of personality.

Workers of the World, Unite!