Last April was the 11th anniversary of the death of Comrade Enver Hoxha, who was the resolute defender of proletarian socialism, the leader of the International Communist Movement and of the anti-revisionist struggle, the great friend of the oppressed peoples and the architect of the revolution and socialist construction in Albania.
The name of Enver Hoxha has different meanings for many parties, currents and individuals. Every one of them evaluates and judges him according to their own class and ideology. While the enemies of the working class remember Enver Hoxha with deep resentment and anger, the class conscious proletariat, the defenders of socialism and progressive people see in his name a resolute defence of socialism and a great friend of the oppressed peoples.
However, even in these circles what Enver Hoxha brings to mind in the first place is a communist leader who successfully established socialism in a small country and defended it to the end against all kinds of imperialist siege and revisionist attacks.

This statement is just a small part of the truth and does not reflect fully the importance of Enver Hoxha for the international proletariat's cause of communism. Evaluating Enver Hoxha only by what he did in Albania means not to see or understand his contributions and efforts to defend and develop the scientific doctrine of the international working class, his leadership in the anti-revisionist struggle, and the moral support he gave to the peoples of the world for their national and social emancipation. It must also be emphasised that Enver Hoxha must be defended and remembered, in the first place, for the contribution he made to the great cause of the international working class, rather than what he did in his own country.
This is because Comrade Enver Hoxha's struggle, together with the PLA under his leadership, against modern revisionism and its various currents -Khrushchevism, Titoism, Euro-communism, etc.- and Maoism, his great efforts to defend Marxism-Leninism, his resistance against the encirclement by the imperialist capitalist system, and its attempts to destroy socialism, and his analysis which revealed the strategies and current tendencies of imperialism and the super powers, have far greater importance than his successes in establishing and defending socialism in Albania. This is because what lays behind this great effort and resistance is the resolute defence of Marxism-Leninism, the protection of its proletarian nature, its development through contributions based on the analysis of the current situation, and its successful application.
All communists remember well how Bolshevism led by Lenin defended and developed Marxism on the basis of current and theoretical questions against the opportunism of the Second International which had degenerated and given up its revolutionary traditions. It should also be remembered that this defence and development of Marxism was achieved through a broad- fronted struggle including the defence of the Marxist theory of the state and the doctrine of revolution which were concealed by the opportunist leadership of Second International, of imperialism and war, of the organisation of communist parties of a new type, the condemnation of empty daydreams about bourgeois democracy and criticisms of its exaltation, defence of Marxism in socialist construction, etc. Lenin characterised the grave harm caused by the opportunism of Second International as follows: "What is necessary today is to start digging to re-find Marxism whose purity has not been degenerated and to place it in the consciousness of broad masses." (State and Revolution)
No serious-minded communist can deny the fact that Enver Hoxha, the leader of the PLA, carried out a similar struggle against revisionism in power and opportunism of all shades. Today, we can see better the gravity of the harm caused by Khrushchevite, Brezhnevite, Titoite, Maoist, Euro-communist, etc. currents to the cause of revolution. Thus, the great importance of Comrade Enver Hoxha's determination in defending Marxism-Leninism can be understood better.
What happened was a many-sided struggle against all these anti-proletarian ideologies to defend the principles of Marxism-Leninism in various fields such as the state and revolution, the Leninist party, imperialism and its contradictions, socialist construction and the understanding of proletarian socialism, Stalin's masterpiece (the construction of socialism in the USSR), philosophical materialism, and even Marxist aesthetics in arts and literature. The purity of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian socialism was maintained. Furthermore, Marxist-Leninist theory was enhanced in daily struggle.
As is known, modern revisionism emerged after World War II, as an ideology whose roots go deep in the past, and which was shaped according to the needs of the imperialist bourgeoisie in that period. Of course, there are various historical, economic and political reasons for its emergence as well as the particular form it took in the post Second World War period. Modern revisionism is not a homogenous ideology. It can be divided into various forms and currents. However, the nature and common characteristic of all these currents is the fact that, whether it be in former socialist countries or in the European countries, they are based on the labour aristocracy. They all claim that conditions and, subsequently, class relations have changed fundamentally. This leads them to advocate the end of the class struggle, "harmony" with the imperialist bourgeoisie, and the denial of proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Modern revisionism serves the imperialist bourgeoisie's aim to destroy socialism and to prevent the struggles and eruptions, the inevitable consequences of class antagonisms which are getting sharper world-wide. It tried to fulfil its underhand goal, putting forward different phenomena according to the conditions. However, its anti-communist nature and its enmity towards the working class and the peoples have always stayed the same.
For example, in the beginning, the Khrushchevites directed their attacks at Stalin. This was because the imperialists and revisionists were quite aware that Stalin's name and works were inseparably tied to the establishment of socialism in the Soviet Union. Also, they knew that if this reactionary attack was successful socialism, for the establishment of which Stalin spent his whole life, would be dealt a fatal blow, be destroyed, and the desire of hundreds of millions of proletarians and labourers to establish a society without classes and exploitation would suffer a heavy blow.
Knowing this fact the Khrushchevites launched their attack and betrayal on this point. They attacked the theory and practice of socialist construction which was identified with Stalin's name. Their successors continued these attacks. And what happened next is quite well known. No communist or sympathiser of the revolution who can assess what is happening today can deny the fact that revisionist betrayal and imperialist attack were not limited to Stalin. On the contrary, it involved a fundamental settling of accounts with and taking revenge on socialism and its history.
Later, the Euro-communists came onto the stage as the most ferocious anti-Leninists. By attacking Stalin Khrushchev wanted to destroy socialist construction and its practice. The Euro-communists, on the other hand, wanted, as Enver Hoxha stated, to destroy the theory and practice of proletarian revolution by attacking Lenin. The Titoists and Maoists attacked the fundamentals of proletarian revolution and socialist construction, and announced that " they had entered the path of a self styled socialism". They put aside socialist construction, the struggle for revolution against imperialism, and all the fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism. They betrayed the international working class and the peoples of the world, taking refuge in bright and sharp rhetorics.
It was not a coincidence that all these ideologies and currents which were counterrevolutionary in essence launched their attacks on Marxism-Leninism. They were aware that if they got the upper hand in these attacks they could strike a heavy blow, even if temporarily, to the cause of communism. For this reason, it will be useful to touch upon this aspect of the question.
Comrade Enver Hoxha characterised the reason for the attacks of these counterrevolutionary currents and the imperialist bourgeoisie on Marxism-Leninism, and the importance of defending it as follows: "It is not a coincidence that the imperialists, the bourgeoisie and the revisionists are directing the sharp point of their spear at our victorious doctrine Marxism-Leninism. Without Marxism-Leninism there can be no genuine socialism." (Report to the 8th Congress of the PLA)
With this correct point of view, Comrade Enver Hoxha considers the defence of Marxism-Leninism as a corner stone of all the victories and successes of the people: "The boundless loyalty of our party to the immortal doctrine of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, its ability to apply this doctrine in a creative manner, in conformity with the conditions of the country and the complicated international situations, its determination to defend the purity of the principles of this doctrine from the attacks and distortions of many enemies, internal and external, have been and remain the fundamental basis of all the successes and victories of our people." (ibid.)
Undoubtedly, these successes and victories belonged to the international working class as well as the people of Albania. This was the main significance of these victories. Because what was being defended was the cause of revolution and socialism of the international working class as a whole. For this reason it was inevitable that these successes had deep and lasting results.
In this process, it was Enver Hoxha who enlightened the parties and the people of the world who remained loyal to the cause of communism against these counterrevolutionary reactionary ideologies and their various currents, who equipped them ideologically, and who practically built socialism together with his party and the labourers of Albania. Against the enemies of the working class, he acted in the manner of defending Marxism, keeping the spirit of Leninism alive, laying claim to and defending Stalin and all the historical gains of socialism, and opposing imperialist bourgeoisie and revisionism head on.
For this reason, it would be a grave mistake to think that this harsh struggle did not create any shining results in the same way as the defeat of the Second International or the victory of the socialist revolution. Such an approach would also leave in the dark the information which explains which enemies the working class settled accounts with to defend the purity and the revolutionary essence of Marxism-Leninism. It would weaken the present ideological arsenal of the communist parties and destroy their strength to fight.
We must not forget that this struggle was also conducted against currents who were in power (with the exception of Euro-communism). It led to real and lasting gains in that period and secured the ideological gains and inheritance to which the following period would lay claim and rise.
With great self confidence we can claim that in the same way that Lenin is the leader of the period of getting rid of the opportunism of the Second International, realising the socialist revolution and making Marxism stand more firmly on its feet, and that Stalin is the leader of the period of realising socialist construction and of the struggle against Trotskyism, other deviations and imperialist encirclement, Enver Hoxha is the leader of the period of the struggle against setback and modern revisionism.
If the International Communist Movement is beginning to stand firmly on its feet again, it is doing so on the basis of a heritage and a platform which Enver Hoxha played a leading role in establishing and passing on to the next generation. It owes its very existence and its ideological platform -which is insufficient today and which needs to be renovated in such a way that it can respond to current conditions in every aspect- in great part to Enver Hoxha.
Taking the present international conditions into consideration if this platform is renovated and improved in every aspect, and if all detachments of the International Communist Movement succeed to renew themselves joining the fresh forces of the working class in each country, then, the international cause of revolution can be placed on its real foundations, and proletarian socialism can once more proclaim its ultimate hegemony within the international working class over reactionary "socialist currents".
No "socialist" current has these advantages or the ideological clarity that the International Communist Movement has. If it shows the ability to use these possibilities, it will become the hope of the international working class and the oppressed peoples.
This is because all these reactionary "socialist" currents have already completed their natural evolution and have reached their final point -which is their integration into the imperialist system and the new world order. Undoubtedly, these reactionary currents will also attempt to "renovate" their own platforms. However, historically, they are bound to be defeated in the beginning, taking into consideration their approach towards the working class, proletarian socialism, Marxism-Leninism, and their practice.
This is where the real meaning of the inheritance left by Enver Hoxha lays. In the concrete conditions of his time, he stripped the revisionist and opportunist currents of their shiny dresses, which the majority of whom were "in power", they used for fooling the international working class and the labouring peoples of the world. He revealed their real face to the workers and labourers and showed their inevitable end through the light of concrete phenomena. The fact that he did all this as a leader who built socialism in his own country despite all difficulties and who bore the responsibility of a people doubles his value and the seriousness of the work he did.
It is not possible to cover in one article what Enver Hoxha achieved as a whole. Therefore, we will just highlight some aspects of his works, which have contributed to Marxism-Leninism since the day they were written.

Enver Hoxha and the interpretation of current situation on an internaional scale on the basis of the Leninist theory of imperialism
It is well known that the international situation which emerged in late 1980s was looked upon with surprise by many individuals and political currents claiming to be socialist. What happened was that modern revisionism -which, with Gorbachovism, arrived at the final stage of its internal evolution- openly went bankrupt; the so-called "socialist bloc" moved towards classical capitalist forms shedding its mask, and openly integrated itself into the international capitalist system; and the imperialist bourgeoisie, realising that it was time, launched its "new world order" attack with all its strength.
This situation, which was appeared to be incomprehensible, was not a surprise to those detachments of the International Communist Movement who had been loyal to Marxism-Leninism. What was the source of this clarity?
The answer to this question must initially and definitely be sought in the determined Marxist-Leninist position taken by comrade Enver Hoxha in his time, in the ideological and practical position that he took in the light of this doctrine, and in the inheritance left by this position. This inheritance was looked after by the healthy detachments of the International Communist Movement and constituted a sound basis for them. Enver Hoxha's works and his struggle have been a compass for these parties and have prevented them from being taken by surprise and panicking in the face of the above mentioned developments. What was Enver Hoxha's analysis of the situation of the international imperialist system and of social imperialism since the mid-1970s?
Above all, comrade Enver Hoxha determinedly defended the Leninist theory of imperialism, enriched it in the light of current developments, and demolished the reactionary theses claiming that the imperialist-capitalist system had changed and that class struggle had ameliorated. He rejected and criticised the theses concerning the "peacefulness" of imperialism, its overcoming its crises, the qualitative change in monopolist capitalism, and the change in the objective position of proletariat caused by the scientific-technological revolution, etc. He revealed the counterrevolutionary nature of these theses.
With regard to the crisis of imperialism which was felt clearly in mid-1970s, Enver Hoxha said:
"The international situation and the danger of war is becoming even more acute because of the grave economic, political and ideological crisis which has swept the capitalist and revisionist world today. The present economic crisis is the clearest and the most concrete expression of the deepening of the general crisis of capitalism. Unlike the crisis of the 1930s, which included the United States of America and the big developed countries especially, the present crisis has engulfed all the capitalist countries, developed or undeveloped, without exception. This great extent and depth of the crisis results from certain new factors in the development of the capitalist system after the Second World War, such as the further increase in the concentration and internationalisation of capital, the establishment of the almost complete domination of the dollar in the world financial system, the extension of the activity of multi-national companies and their ever increasing role in world production and the growth beyond all bounds of non-productive expenditure, especially on armaments." (Report to the 8th Congress of the PLA)
Enver Hoxha touched upon the then current crisis of imperialism in his other works and drew the conclusion from these phenomena regarding the current strategy of imperialism led by the USA, which is taking place today that: " ... the capitalist world is searching for a way out of the abyss, even if only for the time being. Naturally, US imperialism is striving to find this way out and, possibly, to co-ordinate it with Soviet social-imperialism, with its NATO allies, with China, as well as with other industrialised capitalist countries." (Imperialism and Revolution)
These predictions, which may today seem like "soothsaying" to some people, materialised in the late 1980s when the revisionist system united openly with the world capitalist system. This, however, expanded and strengthened the grounds for new contradictions and conflicts. Enver Hoxha, drew attention, even then, to the possible changes that could emerge in the future. "The existing alliances are continuing but with the tendency to scatter. What will change is not the essence of these alliances but their direction." (ibid.) The fact that the inter-imperialist orientation towards new groupings is getting stronger and stronger today confirms these predictions.
It is obvious that Enver Hoxha's revelation of this US strategy of "unification" is, at the same time, a revelation which helps us to understand the roots of modern revisionism in the international imperialist system and which draws attention to the links and similarities of their brothers in the Soviet Union with them -an identical class origin, in political and ideological terms. Enver Hoxha drew attention to this phenomenon in many of his works, analysed the general strategy of imperialism and its inauspicious orientation, and revealed the fact that the revisionist currents rising on the basis of the labour aristocracy in the imperialist countries and modern revisionism in power which emerged in the process of the degeneration of the workers' state in the Soviet Union and which is based on the labour aristocracy are the products and the two different faces of the same process.
All these analyses and predictions are based on a deep analysis of the imperialist system in the light of Marxism-Leninism and on the knowledge of the main elements of the likely direction of development of their internal contradictions and orientations. This is the only explanation of the fact that these predictions became true. It also constitutes a further justification for the Leninist theory of imperialism on the basis of current developments.
Enver Hoxha did not simply repeat the fact that there was no change in the nature of imperialism and that our era is the era of imperialism and proletarian revolutions, as was stated by Lenin at the beginning of our century, but also defended and developed this theory on the basis of current developments.
"The concentration and centralisation of production and capital, creating giant monopolies which have no technological unity, is widespread today. Enterprises and entire branches of industrial production, construction, transport, trade, services, of the infrastructure, etc., operate within these gigantic 'conglomerate' monopolies. They turn out everything, from children's toys to intercontinental missiles."
"The mergers and combinations of industrial, trading, farming and banking enterprises have led to the creation of new forms of monopolies, to the creation of big industrial-commercial or industrial-agrarian corporations, forms which are finding wide application not only in the capitalist countries of the West, but also in the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and other revisionist countries. In the past the monopoly combines carried on the transport and selling of goods with the help of other independent firms, whereas today, the monopolies control production, transport and marketing." (ibid.)
Enver Hoxha who analysed the new forms of monopolies stated the following in regards to multinational companies and their nature:
"In their outward appearance, these companies seek to give the impression that they are under the joint ownership of capitalists of many countries. In fact, in regard to their capital and control, the multinational companies belong mainly to one country, although they carry out their activities in many countries. They are expanding more and more through the absorption of local companies and firms, big and small, which cannot cope with the savage competition." (Imperialism and Revolution)
Enver Hoxha also drew attention to the changes in the structure of financial capital:
"Although since the Second World War finance capital has increased and undergone structural changes, it still has precisely those same aims it has always had, the making of maximum profits through the exploitation of the broad masses of working people inside and outside the country. The insurance companies, which have greatly increased over recent years in the main capitalist countries and have become competitors of the banks, have the same role. In the United States of America, for example, in 1970 as against 1950, banking assets had increased 3.5 fold, whereas those of insurance companies had increased 6.5 fold, over the same period.
"With the capital they accumulate through plundering the people, these companies have been able to advance the monopolies large sums amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars. In this way, the insurance companies are merged and interlocked with the industrial and banking monopolies, becoming an organic constituent part of finance capital." (ibid.)
Enver Hoxha stated that with an ambition for more and more profit, the monopolist bourgeoisie transferred labourers' pensions, people's savings, in short, all monetary sources ready for use temporarily, into capital. He also stated that through giving credits, the labourers were put under immense debts, and that financial capital's economic and political hegemony is being felt in the political, ideological, educational, cultural, etc. fields of life.
We are aware that the conclusions that all kinds of deserters from revolution drew from the above mentioned phenomena are that imperialism is not the same "old imperialism"; that "globalisation" strengthened the grounds for peace and even made wars impossible, that it changed the objective position of the working class in production; and that capitalism was "socialised", etc. On the other hand, the conclusions drawn by Enver Hoxha were that the contradictions were intensified and ripened and that the objective bases for international revolution became stronger.
"The concentration and centralisation of production and capital, which characterise the capitalist world today and have led to extensive socialisation of production, have not in any way altered the exploiting nature of imperialism. On the contrary, they have increased and intensified the oppression and impoverishment of the working people....
"The intensification of the process of concentration of production and capital which is taking place in our time, has further exacerbated the basic contradiction of capitalism, the contradiction between the social character of production and the private character of appropriation, along with all the other contradictions. Today, just as in the past, the colossal income and super profits realised from the savage exploitation of workers are appropriated by a handful of capitalist magnates. Likewise, the means of production, with which the united branches of industry have been equipped, are the private property of capitalists, while the working class remains enslaved to the owners of the means of production and its labour power remains a market commodity." (Imperialism and Revolution)
These kinds of developments taking place in imperialist metropoles led to some changes in dependant countries. Enver Hoxha writes the following in regards to these changes:
"But besides this savage and all-round exploitation, certain changes in the economic and social structures have occurred in the former colonial countries, which are the resource of investments, the introduction of new techniques and technology, the extension of communications, etc., which the imperialists have been obliged to carry out so as to achieve greater and more rapid plunder of the wealth above and below the ground. This has also brought about the creation of new local social strata such as the national bourgeoisie, workers of various categories, and a new intelligentsia necessary to work in the economic, political and administrative sectors." (Report to the 8th Congress of the PLA)
As is known, the countries dependant on imperialism and the more advanced countries in particular go through this process more intensely. What do all these phenomena prove? One single fact that the objective bases for revolution are expanding and becoming stronger. In other words, they prove exactly the opposite of the theses stolen by revisionists and reformists from the ideologues of imperialism suggesting a "new world order". Where the enemies of revolution saw collaboration, submission and hopelessness, Enver Hoxha saw the dynamics which would strengthen revolutionary development, pointed out their objective bases, and drew attention to the inevitable developments which would be caused by this situation. We must emphasise that this is where one of the main demarcation lines between revolution and reformism lies -understanding the true content of the above mentioned phenomena and drawing correct conclusions from them.
Facts like the intensification of imperialist capital export, the inevitability of the application of a minimum technology in order to facilitate exploitation, etc. disturbed the class structure in dependant countries against traditional -feudal- classes and strengthened the objective position of the proletariat. This, consequently, changed old forms of relations between classes, solved the question of leadership in democratic revolutions, and changed the essence and direction of these revolutions. Enver Hoxha analysed this situation, drew the attention of the communist parties in these kinds of countries to these phenomena, and encouraged them to take responsibility with regards to the tasks of the proletariat. According to these analyses, the working class should be the leading force and should go forward in a courageous way.
Imperialist ideologues and their followers in the dependant countries, who have rosy dreams with regards to the scientific technological revolution and who suggest the emancipation of the working class and labouring masses from exploitation and oppression owing to the consequences of this "revolution", are trying to distort these facts and dull the consciousness of the labouring masses. However, the facts are obvious with all their grave consequences. Exploitation has intensified and the poverty of the labouring masses has increased. In short, contrary to their rosy picture, the bill is being paid by the international working class and labouring people. Among the things this bill involves are an increase in unemployment, an attempt to usurp all economic and social gains and to lower the wages constantly, more and more hardship to get the means of living, etc.
World capitalism uses scientific technological developments for further making the labouring people of the world into slaves and develops science and technology to this end.

The leader of International Communist Movement, and the great friend of the peoples
Throughout his life and struggle, Comrade Enver Hoxha has been a sound guide for the communist parties of various countries comprising the International Communist Movement. He always encouraged and gave moral support to them not to feel hopeless in the face of hardships and temporary failures, to constantly renew themselves and take up their revolutionary tasks as struggling parties. He valued the revolutionary work carried out by Marxist-Leninist parties, even though they were small at that moment, and encouraged them to feel more courageous and to take the initiative in taking up greater tasks.
Comrade Enver Hoxha wrote the following with great self confidence and determination:
"The Marxist-Leninist parties, all revolutionaries, however few in numbers establish themselves among the people, organise the masses systematically, with great care and patience, convince them that they are a great force, that they are able to overthrow capital, to seize state power and wield it in the interest of the proletariat and the people. Such parties do not think that, being small, they cannot stand up to the coalition of the parties of the bourgeoisie and the opinion formed by them." (Imperialism and Revolution)
This revolutionary position was the basic guide for Enver Hoxha and his party in the most difficult days. Even in 1966 he was determinedly saying the following:
"Our party believes that the present situation does not allow anyone calling themselves communist or revolutionary to wait for the attacks of revisionists, watch it and be satisfied with saluting the struggle against revisionism carried out by others. Time does not wait. Marxist-Leninists must be in the offensive not in defence. They have never been afraid of revisionist attacks and threats. Fear is a concept which is alien to them. They do not recognise this concept in their struggle against imperialism and revisionism. Those who are afraid of imperialism are the revisionists. Being afraid of revisionism would mean being more afraid of imperialism and having no belief in the power and victory of Marxism-Leninism." (Struggle Against Modern Revisionism)
This was the position of Enver Hoxha in his whole life and struggle. As one can clearly see in these quotations, frontal attack was his position against imperialism and reactionary forces. He did not write this with an empty confidence or without taking into account the conditions and without thinking in order to encourage action. On the contrary, he showed where the real possibilities of the revolution and revolutionary work lay. It is for this reason that he greatly valued the daily practical work and every small step of the communist parties especially in the imperialist-capitalist countries, and encouraged them to go forward.
"The genuine Marxist-Leninist parties stand in the vanguard and not at the tail-end of revolutionary action. The temporarily limited possibilities of the struggle and efforts by means of which they must and do oppose the great force of capitalist reaction, do not discourage them." (Imperialism and Revolution)
"The genuine Marxist-Leninist party and the revolutionary communists take part actively in the workers' strikes and demonstrations and fight to turn them into political strikes and demonstrations, so as to make life impossible for capitalism, the employers, cartels, monopolies and the trade union chiefs. In the course of this broad activity the proletariat will come to grips more often and more openly with the armed forces of the bourgeois order, but from these clashes it will learn to fight better. In the course of the struggle it also finds what forms of organisation and revolutionary struggle are possible, correct and appropriate. 'You cannot learn to swim without getting into the water', goes a popular saying. Without fighting by means of strikes, demonstrations, without active involvement in actions against capitalism in general, the struggle for the final victory cannot be organised and intensified, the bourgeois order cannot be overthrown." (ibid.)
Comrade Enver Hoxha emphasised that genuine communist parties must orientate themselves towards daily practical revolutionary work, learn together with the masses in this work and struggle and that the masses will gain experience on the basis of their struggle. He also drew attention to the absolute necessity of giving importance to theoretical education. He never accepted being inadequate in theory and considered it an important reason for the degeneration of old communist parties. He specially stressed the fact that the work of studying Marxism-Leninism cannot be separated from revolutionary action.
"For the Marxist-Leninist party to be able to work out and apply a revolutionary strategy and tactics, a correct political line, to know how to find its bearings in difficult situations, to be able to cope with the enemies and overcome the obstacles, it is absolutely essential that it carry out great, wide-ranging work for the study and assimilation of Marxist-Leninist theory.
"One of the reasons why the former communist parties in the capitalist countries turned into revisionist parties was precisely because they had utterly neglected the study and assimilation of Marxism-Leninism. The Marxist-Leninist doctrine was used only as an adornment, was turned into empty words and slogans, had not been implanted deeply in the consciousness of the party members, had not become part of their flesh and blood, and had not become a weapon for action. That small amount of work which was done for the study of Marxism-Leninism was aimed only at acquainting the party member with some cut-and-dried formulas, just enough to enable him to call himself a communist, to love communism in a sentimental way, while about how and in what manner this would be achieved he knew nothing, because he was not taught this.
"The Marxist-Leninist parties cannot fail to remember this negative experience and draw from it the lesson that they must organise the study and assimilation of Marxism-Leninism on a sound basis, always linking this study with revolutionary action." (Imperialism and Revolution)
There is a great deal of experience to be drawn on especially by the communist parties comprising the International Communist Movement today from the lives of old communist parties in the past that leant towards reformism and revisionism, and lessons to be learnt from the criticism of their negativenesses.

Great friend of the peoples
Comrade Enver Hoxha gave great importance to the struggle of the peoples oppressed and exploited by imperialism and to their effort for their national and social emancipation. He observed their movement carefully and gave his moral support.
The Middle East was the main region which drew the attention of Enver Hoxha. In the light of dialectic and historical materialism, he analysed the struggle of the muslim peoples in the Middle East and Asia and the real reasons for this struggle which had a religious appearance.
The Islamic Revolution in Iran, the struggle in Afghanistan, the unjust wars and interventions of the imperialists and social-imperialists against these struggles, and the excuses such as "islamic fundamentalism", "islamic fanaticism", etc. which were used by these blood suckers to justify their aggression and which are also in fashion today, all made Enver Hoxha more sensitive to what was happening in these regions. He gave great importance to explaining the real reasons for the struggle of the muslim peoples and to enlightening them.
In his work Thoughts on the Middle East, Enver Hoxha touched upon some of the main aspects of this topic. He linked the real reasons for the struggle of the muslim peoples to imperialist, capitalist and feudal oppression, and to the economic and social conditions in which these peoples live.
As Enver Hoxha pointed out, in different periods in history, the progressive movement of the oppressed and exploited popular masses quite often had a religious appearance and the masses waged their economic and social struggle in this form. For example, despite their religious appearance, the peasants' movements in the Reformation period that took place at the centre of Europe in the 16th century were in fact against the catholic church which was the toughest defender of feudal system. In the late 19th and early 20th century, the movements of the muslim peoples against colonialism were also progressive in essence. In fact, the main reason inciting the struggle of the muslim peoples was the fact that they were subject to fierce oppression and exploitation, and that the executioners usually had the appearance of "christian imperialism". If there is no genuine communist party or a consistent revolutionary movement which can lead the struggle, this religious appearance becomes more dominant, and it is then more likely for the movement to be deceived and diverted. For example, when talking about the revolution in Iran, Enver Hoxha says that "people like Khomeini know how to use this movement which is, in essence, progressive, bourgeois democratic and anti-imperialist." (ibid.)
In these countries, especially in Iran, the popular masses went through a progressive and democratic awakening. However, religious elements who knew how to use the peoples' desire for freedom against imperialism took over the leadership and directed this awakening.
Marxist-Leninists have to understand these kinds of situations and decide their political tactics accordingly. For example, in the face of these kinds of developments, if they make a mistake like appearing as anti-religious, they will certainly harm themselves and the unity and struggle of the people.
It is very harmful to justify taking a wrong position against the movements with a religious appearance even with a correct reason like the materialist nature of communism. Of course, communists are materialist, but dialectical materialist. This means that they have to deal with the fight against religion in a concrete way, namely on the basis of the class struggle which is the most effective way of popular education. In other words, they have to take into consideration the difficult and complex conditions of the concrete situation, and develop their tactics on this basis.
Enver Hoxha had a dialectical materialist approach towards the movements of the muslim masses and warned communists and progressive forces against the mistakes they might make. For example, when evaluating the revolution in Iran he pointed out the following with great foresight:
"It is only the revolutionary action of the working class and Marxist -Leninist ideology that can be the determining factor for this anti-imperialist revolution to enter a correct path. Of course, in the current situation in Iran the majority of the revolutionary forces of the working class can be won over. Winning them over is a must and is prior to winning progressive elements, students or the poor and middle peasantry.
"If Marxist-Leninists do not understand this existing situation and do not interpret it correctly, if they come out as anti-religious fighters, they will make a mistake...
"Although they are anti-religious in principle, Marxist-Leninists, for the time being, should not launch a fight against the religious beliefs of people who rose up and who are in a just political struggle. They should also not forget the fact that the people who are not yet ideologically shaped are in the process of learning and seeing things with their own experiences in this important school, i.e. the uprising... Marxist-Leninists and the proletariat have to play an important role in these revolutionary actions and should understand and not allow the revolutionary moment that they are going through to die. They must not have any illusions for Shia religious people or anti-Shah bourgeois democrat elements to make "deep" and broad bourgeois democratic reforms. If the working class, poor peasantry and progressive students allow the violence of the revolution to fall down, which will mean not being able to direct alliances and activities to fulfil political and socio-economic reform, then the revolution will remain uncompleted, the masses will be misled, and consequently, they will continue to be exploited in new forms by pseudo democrats who are in alliance with different imperialists." (Thoughts on the Middle East)
As one can see from these quotations, Comrade Enver Hoxha's position on religion and social movements with a religious appearance is very educating in terms of the working class struggle. The importance of what has been said is that religious movements are important questions in many islamic countries. In the same way, it is a current and important question for communists to have a correct position towards these movements by analysing every single one of them in their specific conditions.

Struggle against the distortion of dialectical and historical materialism
In the fight against Titoism, Khruschevism -modern revisionism- Euro-communism and Maoism, Comrade Enver Hoxha did not only defend the fundamental theses of Marxism-Leninism such as imperialism, the state, revolution, the class struggle, socialist construction, etc. and enrich them through actual facts, but also strongly defended philosophical materialism.
He exposed the efforts of Maoism to place dialectical materialism in the service of Maoist revisionism distorting it in the same way as all the other fundamental theses of Marxism-Leninism and turning it into metaphysics in essence, and to whitewash the path taken by China. For example, he wrote the following against the distortions of the Marxist-Leninist theory of revolution by the Maoists in the philosophical field as well:
"In his writings Mao Tsetung makes frequent mention of the role of revolutions in the process of the development of society, but in essence he adheres to a metaphysical , evolutionist concept. Contrary to materialist dialectics, which envisages progressive development in the form of a spiral, Mao Tsetung preaches development in the form of a cycle, going round in a circle, as a process of ebb and flow which goes from equilibrium to disequilibrium and back to equilibrium again, from motion to rest and back to motion again, from rise to fall and from fall to rise, from advance to retreat and to advance again, etc." (Imperialism and Revolution)
"In this manner, 'Mao Tsetung thought' opposes the materialist dialectical concept of development, which, as Lenin says '...gives us the key to understand the 'self movement' of every existing thing; ...gives us the key to understand the 'leaps', 'the interruption of graduality', 'the transformation into the opposite', the abolition of the old and the emergence of the new', with the metaphysical concept which 'is lifeless, pale and dry'." (ibid.)
Mao's transformation of dialectics into metaphysics can clearly be seen when he deals with and interprets contradictions.
"In dealing with contradictions, he does not proceed from the Marxist theses, but from those of ancient Chinese philosophers, sees the opposites in a mechanical way, as external phenomena, and imagines the transformation of the opposites as a simple change of places between them. By operating with some eternal opposites taken from ancient philosophy, such as above and below, backward and forward, right and left, light and heavy, etc., etc., in essence Mao Tsetung negates the internal contradictions inherent in things and phenomena and treats development as simple repetition, as a chain of unchangeable states in which the same opposites and the same relationship between them are observed. The mutual transformation of the opposites into each other, understood as a mere exchange of places and not as a resolution of the contradiction and a qualitative change of the very phenomenon which comprises these opposites, is used by Mao Tsetung as a formal pattern to which everything is subject." (ibid.)
What Enver Hoxha says about how the dialectical method deals with contradictions is so clear that it does not need any comment. He condemns the understanding of so-called Maoist socialism with regards to socialist revolution. This understanding approaches it not as a qualitative change of society but simply as a replacement of the bourgeoisie with the proletariat. In doing so, he helps us understand what was happening in China in reality.
In this way, with the help of Enver Hoxha, we have the possibility to see how Mao used self-styled "dialectics" in order to reconciliate the antagonisms between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and which philosophical "reasons" he used in order for the bourgeoisie to continue its existence as a class.
All these criticisms made by Enver Hoxha and his defence of Marxism-Leninism throughout his life are not a simple repetition of the sum of this scientific doctrine until then. On the contrary, this defence involves efforts of renovation/ development of this science on the basis of actual facts and phenomena. This is what Enver Hoxha did in a simple and modest manner and this is what makes him more valuable. The international working class and every communist will not forget Enver Hoxha. They will defend him against all attacks in a determined way and hold on to this great son of the international working class.