INTERVIEW WITH THE REVOLUTIONARY COMMUNIST PARTY OF TURKEY (TDKP) - 1

An interview held in 1993 with a representative of the Central Committee of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Turkey (TDKP) 

On the temporary defeat of socialism, the impasse of the imperialist system and prospects for socialism 

Let us first begin with some facts. Imperialist-bourgeois circles are uttering cries of victory. It is being claimed that the failure and collapse of socialism prove that capitalism is the ultimate and most advanced social system that humanity has created. How would you respond to these facts? Is communism not dead? 

As you have indicated, there has been a despicable campaign going on for some time. That Marxism and socialism have collapsed; that they have suffered a definite defeat in the face of bourgeois ideology and capitalism presented as a market economy; that capitalism is superior to socialism, etc. are the claims upon which this campaign is based. This campaign, which has been launched by the world bourgeoisie and global reactionary forces with the full support of old and new revisionism, constitutes the most direct and undeterred attack on Marxism and socialism in the current period. It is not only the most direct and undeterred offensive, it is also the most effective in terms of its outcomes. It is an undeniable fact that this onslaught has affected not only the sections of the working people who are under the influence of open bourgeois or bourgeois-feudal ideologies, but also the progressive sections of these people who are supportive of or inspired by socialism and Marxism, members of the intelligentsia, the political parties, and political trends which claim to be socialist or Marxist. It is also an undeniable fact that - with the exception of a small minority - despondency and lack of confidence are quite common among workers, labourers and intellectuals who have until recently been sympathetic to socialism and considered Marxism as the most scientific theory. This campaign proved effective, because the bourgeoisie, reactionary forces and their collaborators (even though superficially) have been able to base their onslaught on the phenomena and processes of the last 40-45 years and on the prejudices that the socialism's historically-significant initial achievements have generated among the masses. 

What phenomena and processes are cited as the basis for the failure and collapse of socialism as well as the definite supremacy and victory of capitalism? 

First of all, the phenomena and processes experienced in the Soviet Union as the country of the first successful proletarian revolution and in Eastern European countries where, after World War II, the regimes of peoples' democracy were established and the construction of socialism was initiated. Also cited are the phenomena and developments in the countries of the socialist camp, and recently in Albania. These reflect the many-sided economic, political, social, ideological crises and breakdowns undergone in these countries as well as the transition to a classical capitalist formation in both the infra- and super-structure. 

Secondly, the phenomena and processes undergone in countries such as Cuba, China, Angola, and even Algeria which proclaimed themselves to be socialist in spite of the fact that the proletariat in those countries had never become organised as the hegemonic class and captured the power and that socialist construction had never taken off. 

Thirdly, the processes undergone by the parties and political currents which describe themselves as communist or socialist and claim to be the revolutionary parties of the working class equipped with Marxism-Leninism. 

The on-going imperialist-bourgeois campaign is drawing attention to the manifolded crisis, decay, and disintegration processes which became strikingly apparent in the 1980s and infected all the countries or parties which proclaim themselves to be socialist or communist. The crisis, decay and disintegration; the open embracing of capitalism by those countries and parties, etc. are being presented as evidence that socialism and Marxism-Leninism have failed, that capitalism and imperialism have attained a definite triumph. 

It cannot be denied that those countries that until recently has proclaimed themselves as socialist and have been presented as such by all political forces except true Marxist-Leninist parties and forces, have undergone an all-round crisis in the 1980s and they are still going through this experience. Undoubtedly, another fact that cannot be denied is the loss of mass support for most of those allegedly Communist or Marxist-Leninist parties - irrespective of whether they are in power or in opposition. These parties find themselves engulfed in a huge ideological and organisational crisis and try to maintain their existence by transforming themselves into typical social-democratic parties which openly reject the Marxist-Leninist ideology that at one time they pretended to defend. All these are undeniable facts. The vital question here, however, is whether or not those parties and countries which find themselves declining and disintegrating in the midst of the 1980s' multi-dimensional crisis are true socialist parties which have applied Marxist-Leninist principles as they have come to be known or purported to be. Another vital question is whether or not the capitalist-imperialist system - as it is claimed by the bourgeois-revisionist campaign - has managed to establish a universal harmonious process which would enable it to overcome its antagonistic contradictions or the deep crises aggravating those contradictions, which would eventually constitute its death warrant. 

Let us elaborate on the first question. Putting aside countries such as Cuba and China which presented themselves as socialist, but never entered the path of socialist development, let us concentrate on the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe - the countries that constituted the socialist camp after World War II. These were the countries where the proletariat and Communist Parties seized power and socialist construction had gone some way even though at different levels. Most of the Communist Parties were established as proletarian parties equipped with Marxist-Leninist theory and they charted a development along these lines. The bourgeois-revisionist propaganda is based on the assumption that the class base and socialist features of those countries as well as parties have remained intact and along the same lines until the 1980s when they found themselves engulfed by a deep crisis and a process of decay, which eventually led to their final disintegration and collapse. This is the preponderant view which, today as well as in the past, has been presenting the crisis and the collapse of those parties and countries as the crisis and collapse of socialism. Even though it is preponderant and relying on some formal evidence, this analysis and its assumptions do not reflect the substance of the process and the phenomena involved. 

As is the case in almost every issue, there are two fundamental views that emerge in the analysis and evaluation of the above-mentioned phenomena and processes. These two vies or arguments are the result and reflection of the fact that the proletariat and bourgeoisie are two classes whose relationship is characterised by an antagonistic contradiction. This antagonistic contradiction is reflected not only in the analysis and evaluation of the phenomena and processes involved but also, inevitably, in the analysis and evaluation of the existing situation, the direction of its development, and the direction of the historical evolution in general. 

In contrast to the arguments of the bourgeois-revisionist camp and the intermediate views in its orbit, the process of socialist construction which began with the October Revolution of 1917 in the Soviet Union and expanded to Eastern Europe after World War II was not a continuous process which has been uninterrupted until the 1980s. Albania was the only country where the process of socialist construction was uninterrupted until the 1980s despite tremendous difficulties and sacrifices. This fact cannot be altered by attempts by the former socialist countries beyond Albania and a majority of former communist parties to present themselves as socialist, even Marxist-Leninist communist until the 1980s when they found themselves in the midst of complete collapse and disintegration. 

Bourgeois-revisionist propaganda is equating the defeat suffered by socialism to the crisis and collapse in the former socialist countries and the accompanying transition to a classical capitalist formation in the super-structure. The liquidation of socialism and the construction of capitalism in those countries, i.e. the major defeat suffered by the revolutionary movement of the world proletariat, is said to begin when all the results of this process have become only too apparent - with the period of transition to a classical capitalist formation. With the exception of Albania, the destruction of socialism especially in the Soviet Union and in the former socialist countries, the liquidation of the revolutionary working class movement in capitalist countries, the transformation of the Communist Parties from being the headquarters of this movement into reformist bourgeois, petit-bourgeois parties, etc. are not contemporaneous with the crisis and collapse of the late-1980s that engulfed the former socialist countries. These developments correspond to different historical periods. This is one of the facts that must be established if we ever want to analyse correctly the phenomena and processes involved and derive truly scientific conclusions. 

You have stated that the process leading to the destruction of socialism and the transformation of the communist parties into bourgeois-reformist in the former socialist countries apart from Albania did not start in the 1980s. If this is the case, when did this process start and when was it completed? 

This process started right after World War II when the imperialist-capitalist system was penetrated through new fronts and suffered new blows, the Communist Parties came to power in some countries and were strengthened enough to become an alternative for power in others. That was a time when the working class and peoples won the greatest victories in the history of socialism and the possibility of attaining a definite victory had been increased. It may sound puzzling to argue that the above-mentioned process began just at a time when great victories were won and the possibility of marching towards the final victory was increased. This, however, is not a confusing and complicated argument. It is inspired by the Marxist thesis that has been vindicated by the history of all revolutions. The advance of revolutions is associated with an increasing possibility of counter-revolutions and could lead to resistance by the overthrown classes who become one hundred, even one thousand times more adamant. 

The process following World War II was characterised, on the one hand, by heavy blows suffered by imperialism and global reactionary forces. On the other hand, it was also characterised by the emergence of new conditions enabling the those forces to initiate a unified offensive for the recovery of lost positions and eradication of the gains of the revolutionary and socialist struggle. This was a process whereby the advancement of the revolution was associated with the development of counter-revolution. 

One of the most significant outcomes of World War II was the emergence of the US imperialism as a superior power and the establishment of its hegemony over the rest. Coupled with the heavy blows that the imperialist system had suffered, this development led to the emergence of suitable conditions for imperialist and global reactionary forces to initiate and maintain a united offensive against socialism and the revolutionary movement of the working class and oppressed people. Under these conditions, conflicts among imperialist powers did not disappear. Imperialist forces, however, became able to act under a single command with a common strategy and tactics. 

It is now common knowledge that global imperialism and reactionary forces, having suffered heavy blows right after the World War II, unified all their forces under the leadership of the US imperialism - the new master of the capitalist world. They became united and developed a perspective of life-and-death struggle against the socialist camp and the revolutionary and socialist struggle. They tried to force the proletariat, the peoples and the socialist camp to surrender under the threat of nuclear/thermo-nuclear war. They also renewed their relations with the many intermediate strata who tend to be wavering and who are linked to capitalism and imperialism with multiple ties, including the introduction of various measures that would deter the proletariat and the peoples from revolution. It is obvious that these tactics and measures, in addition to their adverse influence on the wavering forces of the revolutionary and socialist struggle, have also affected the revolutionary parties of the working class - especially the weakest among them - and generated tendencies towards compromise and surrender. 

It was under these conditions that new opportunist tendencies began to show up, later on to develop into modern revisionism in the ranks of the working class movement and the Communist Parties, whether they were in power or in opposition. The opportunist tendencies which developed into modern revisionism were neither specific to socialist countries or proletarian or Communist Parties who were in power nor did they emerge for the first time in those countries and become preponderant. They emerged as an international phenomenon within the ranks of the working class movement and the international communist movement and became preponderant at that level. Opportunism and modern revisionism, by exploiting the new developments, became dominant within a dominant majority of the Communist Parties and altered their political line. Despite its international character, links and common basis, the process of emergence of the new opportunist tendencies and their evolution into a hegemonic modern revisionism did not begin and end as a simultaneous process in all countries. Nevertheless, the 20th Congress of the CPSU in 1956 constitutes a turning point not only for the development of the socialist camp headed by the Soviet Union, but also for the whole of the international Communist Movement. Leaving aside the intermediate trends which tend to be associated with every major turning point, following the 20th Congress there emerged two clearly demarcated fundamental lines and camps within the international Communist Movement. It can and must be stated that the process whereby the hegemony of modern revisionism was established within the ranks of the international Communist and Labour Movement - with the exception of Albania - began in the second half of the 1950s and was completed in the 1960s - leading to a clear division into two lines and two camps. 

During and after the 1950s the modern revisionists, resorting to the pretext of new phenomena and developments, deviated from socialism and Marxism-Leninism whilst the true communists, under the leadership of Enver Hoxha's Party of Labour of Albania (PLA), have continuously argued that the socialist construction was interrupted in all countries except Albania. With the hegemony of modern revisionism being established in those countries, they argued, a process of capitalist restoration had begun and the communist parties ceased to be truly Marxist-Leninist and revolutionary class parties of the proletariat. Our party too has defended this line since its establishment. 

With the exception of the Party of Labour of Albania and a few other parties, the hegemony of modern revisionism in the international labour and communist movement has led to the deformation of the Communist Parties into reformist petit-bourgeois parties and to the destruction of socialism in all countries other than Albania. All those countries became capitalist and their revolutionary working class movement was liquidated. Without the revolutionary leadership of the proletariat, the revolutionary struggle of the oppressed peoples has deteriorated. The heaviest defeat suffered by socialism, the world proletariat and the oppressed people - contrary to the arguments of the bourgeois-revisionist campaign - was inflicted not at the end of the 1980s, but in the second half of the 1950s. The interruption in socialist construction and the restoration of capitalism began at that time and was completed in the 1960s. The collapse of socialism in Albania which had been the only socialist country in the world towards the end of the 1980s was the last link in the defeat inflicted in the second half of the 1950s and it constitutes the last bourgeois and imperialist victory. 

You have stated that socialist construction in socialist countries apart from Albania was interrupted in the second half of the 1950s and that the restoration of capitalism was completed in the 1960s. However, there are others who would argue that the social system in those countries remained essentially unchanged after the 1960s, because, until recently, the means of production were under state ownership and a planned economy was implemented. What is your opinion on this matter? 

Those who subscribe to this view are turning reality upside down and independently of their intentions they are re-inforcing the bourgeois-revisionist campaign today as they did in the past. Instead of conducting an objective analysis of the objective situation, instead of analyzing a historical process by taking into account its specific characteristics, instead of penetrating the substance of the processes that have been undergone, they are stuck with the form, with the appearance. They miss the substance and try to arrive at conclusions through their formal models. 

It is first of all necessary to stress that socialist society is distinguished by the fact that the major means of production and distribution are owned by society as a whole and not by a minority. In socialist society, which forms the initial stage of communism and which is nothing but a transient society in the process of transition from capitalism into communism, collective ownership is inevitably realised as state ownership. However, this does not mean that every state ownership is socialist ownership or that it represents the ownership of society as a whole. Also, state ownership does not imply a type of ownership that is specific to socialism. The founders of scientific socialism, Marx and Engels, have drawn attention to this issue. They provided ample evidence and indicated that the centralisation of production processes and the concentration of capital would lead to state ownership as a specific form of capitalist-bourgeois ownership. It is also common knowledge that Engels has ridiculed and described as counterfeit socialism the views of those who, looking at the emergence and expansion of state enterprises in Germany, concluded that every state ownership is necessarily socialist ownership. Also, planning which is completely different from socialist planning in its content, substance and function, which cannot and will not eliminate anarchy or over-production is not a concept that is completely alien to capitalism. It is not necessary to go far for evidence to prove this point. It will be clearly seen by looking at the experience of our country that state ownership and pseudo-planning are not alien to capitalism or specific to socialism. It is true, however, that the treatment of the question in this context is insufficient when it comes to distinguish the differences between the system of other capitalist countries and that of the former socialist countries - which was established in the second half of the 1950s and remained intact until recently. Until recently, state ownership and planning in the former socialist countries have possessed different characteristics when compared to the experience of those countries that had never gone through a process of socialist development. Although it may not explain the situation satisfactorily, the point made above is important in the sense that it contributes to the dissipation of a prejudgment which equates the concepts of state ownership or planning - either in theory or in practice - with socialism. 

The issue will become clearer when the point made above is taken in conjunction with the distinguishing features of the restoration process that have been lived through in the former socialist countries, especially the Soviet Union, and with its impact on the capitalist formation. Although in general terms, I have indicated in my answer to the previous question that the advance of revolution is associated with the emergence of counter-revolution. I have also indicated that imperialism and global reactionary forces have initiated an all-round offensive and developed new arrangements aimed at maintaining their system of slavery, and recovering the positions they have lost. Another established fact, however, was that the liquidation of socialism was not a result of an open clash between the socialist and capitalist camps or a straightforward move of the overthrown classes. The interruption of the socialist construction process and the restoration of capitalism did not begin by the recapturing of power by the old classes. 

The distinguishing feature of capitalist restoration in the Soviet Union was that it was based on forces which were becoming weaker but were not destroyed as a result of the socialist construction process. These capitalist elements may appear under different forms, but although weakened, they will try to maintain their existence until the last stage of the communist society. If necessary measures are not taken at the right time, these forces will degenerate and may cause the construction process to transform into a restoration process. Under these conditions, the restoration process may unfold whilst some socialist forms are preserved. It is even compatible with the slogans of `proceeding to the advanced stage of communism.' In the case of the Soviet Union, the economic basis of socialism had already been established and the exploiting classes - even though some residues survived - were eradicated towards the end of the 1930s. Given this fact, the reversal process could begin and continue as a process in which restoration would inevitably unfold under `socialist forms'. This is due to the fact that it was not possible to initiate the reversal process as a result of defeat in an open struggle between imperialist-capitalist and socialist camps. In that case, the reversal process had to rely on the overthrown, but not completely eradicated remnants of the exploiting classes. The fact that state ownership in fundamental means of production, planning procedures, and deformed socialist forms in the super-structure were maintained was nothing but an inevitable result of this type of reversal process. This was also in line with the interests of the social strata who imitated and maintained the reversal process. Indeed this was what happened in the Soviet Union. This situation was one of the factors that determined the course of capitalist restoration in other socialist countries too. In fact, the modern revisionists who put the Soviet Union on the road to restoration were against the unfolding of the restoration process in other socialist countries under straightforward capitalist forms. They even entered into armed conflicts as was the case in Hungary and Czechoslovakia. They became the most powerful supporters and advocates of capitalist restoration under `socialist' forms. They did not hesitate to crush the forces which rose against them. 

The restoration process in socialist countries apart from Albania led simultaneously and inevitably to the emergence of the Soviet Union as a super imperialist state and the formation of a new imperialist block under its hegemony. The difference between this new super state on the one hand and the imperialist block headed by the US imperialism on the other was related not to substance but to forms - which were continuously disappearing anyway. Coupled with the high prestige of the Soviet Union as the country of the first successful proletarian revolution and the respect it inspired among the world proletariat and peoples during the periods of Lenin and Stalin, the bourgeois demagogy portraying the Soviet Union and its block as socialist and depicting the struggle between the two imperialist blocks as a struggle between socialism and capitalism have affected not only the backward sections of the masses but also their progressive sections. 

The USSR was a country where advanced measures had already been taken in the process of socialist construction, especially in the area of establishing an economic basis for socialism towards the end of the 1930s. The masses in that country recognised the supremacy of socialism as a result of their own practical experiences. In that country, the restoration process was carried out by capitalist elements who were weakened but managed to survive under different forms. To expect the straightforward bourgeois ideology and the classical, typical capitalist forms to become hegemonic suddenly is to move away from scientific thinking in theory and to fall into absurdity in practice. It also implies ignoring the level which the socialist construction process had reached and the consequences it had produced. It means turning upside down the relationship between substance and form. When we look not only at the history of social evolution, but also at that of natural evolution, we can see that substance evolves under a form compatible with itself. We can also see that any change in substance takes place under the old form, only to develop the suitable form - which would eventually become preponderant - in the process of evolution. The process experienced in the Soviet Union and other former socialist countries since the mid-1950s is in line with this analysis. 

It is a common assumption that central planning, state ownership of the fundamental means of production, etc. have not changed since the 1950s. It is also assumed that the transition to profit-determined production, production for the market, capitalist competition - in short the transition to a capitalist economy described as the market economy - took place in the 1980s with the Gorbachev period. This, however, is not correct. The rise to hegemony of the Kruschevite modern revisionists in the USSR and other socialist countries was also the beginning of radical reforms in areas like central planning, the relationship between the working people and the state, between the production process and means of production, the distribution of the total social production, etc. These reforms were later on continued as Liberman Reforms. Whilst, on the one hand, the areas under central planning were reduced and the powers of the managers with respect to exchange of products were increased under catch phrases like autonomy and initiative, on the other hand, production for the satisfaction of social needs and for the balanced development of the economy was replaced by production for the market. These few examples provide enough evidence that socialist forms were not replaced in an abrupt way by openly capitalistic ones. What happened was that capitalist forms were created by changing the socialist forms and through flashy reforms. Developments since the late 1980s onwards in the USSR and other Eastern European countries are final stages in the process of transition to classical or typical capitalist formations. They represent the last stage in the process which began in the 1950s with the hegemony of modern revisionism. With those developments, the capitalist-bourgeois process of change which began under socialist forms has eventually come of age and made its classical, typical forms hegemonic. That is why the developments in the USSR and Eastern European countries came neither as a surprise nor as unexpected events for truly Marxist-Leninist parties and forces. On the contrary, they had analysed the situation and concluded that the process would unfold along these lines. 

You explain many developments in terms of "return to capitalism from socialism". Does this not overshadow the supremacy of socialism over capitalism? 

No. It does not. On the contrary, when we use scientific criteria and norms compatible with the real situation we can see that the phenomena and processes that have been experienced indicate that socialism has suffered the heaviest defeat of its history, but they also indicate that socialism is superior to capitalism. If you take as your starting point the demagogy of the modern revisionists and the facts that relate only to the form; if you take the allegedly socialist USSR and Eastern European countries as truly socialist countries until the 1980s when classical capitalist methods were established, then yes you can conclude that Marxism-Leninism has collapsed, that capitalism is superior to socialism. If, however, you accept that socialist construction was interrupted in the second half of the 1950s in the former socialist countries apart from Albania you arrive at a different conclusion. 

Phenomena and processes, the characteristics of political groups or parties, the nature of states and social orders must be analysed by looking at their practice and not at what their representatives would claim. This is the scientific approach that reflects the truth. If we adopt this approach, we arrive at the conclusion that the transition from socialism to capitalism in former socialist countries apart from Albania, and the deviation from Marxism-Leninism of the parties which recently rejected both Marxism-Leninism and their communist titles began in the second half of the 1950s and was completed in the early 1960s - not in the 1980s. That is why it was not socialism, Marxism-Leninism that collapsed in the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries. What was proved was not the superiority of capitalism against socialism either. The collapse and failure were those of a capitalism that corresponded to specific historical conditions, of a bourgeois power and ideology the crisis of which had already been exposed. What was proved in the mean time was the supremacy of one type of capitalism over the other, of one imperialist camp over the other. 

On the other hand, the period until the second half of the 1950s when socialist construction was uninterrupted proved the supremacy of socialism over capitalism in all areas. If you compare the economic, social and political achievements of the Soviet Union - the first socialist country where socialism had its longest experience and the economic basis of socialism was established during the socialist construction until the second half of the 1950s - with the capitalist countries you arrive at this simple fact. And this was in spite of many disadvantages such as imperialist blockade, aggression and sabotage. In spite of residual feudal elements from the pre-revolutionary period, Russia (itself a semi-colony of the advanced capitalist countries with an economy ruined during the war) its proletariat and its peoples realised an unprecedented development which was rapid and balanced and not based on the exploitation of other countries. The gap between Russia and advanced capitalist countries was bridged at a rapid rate. It became an advanced industrialised country with no unemployment, hunger or crises. Its people participated in political life more actively and their living as well as cultural standards improved. 

After the second half of the 1950s when socialist construction was interrupted and capitalist restoration began, the Soviet Union and the Eastern European countries entered a new period which was completely different in terms of its political, economic, cultural and social aspects. First the rate of growth in social production as a whole declined. The balanced and stable development of all economic sectors and especially industry and agriculture was replaced by an unbalanced and unstable process of development. This was followed by the typical features of economic development - stagnation, crisis, unemployment, and militarisation of the economy. The results of deviating from Marxist-Leninist principles, from the road laid down by the Great October Revolution, from socialist construction, etc. are too obvious today: crises, collapse, inter-ethnic conflicts, unemployment, impoverishment of the majority of the working people, ideological and moral decay and the concentration of wealth in the hands of a small minority. This is the result that can be established when the phenomena and processes that have been undergone are analysed by penetrating into their substance. 

A period of chaos, crisis and collapse has been observed in Albania too - the country that you have described as the only socialist country until recently. To what extent is this development compatible with your explanations above? 

It is true that we have described Albania as the world's only socialist country until recently. It is also true that a process of chaos, decay and crisis has ensued and socialism has been liquidated there. But it is also true that the crisis, decay and chaos in Albania did not emerge as a result of liquidating socialism after long years of capitalist restoration as it was the case in other socialist countries. The collapse of socialism and the emergence of a complete collapse as well as crisis are simultaneous processes in Albania - the country that we describe as the only socialist country since the late 1950s until recently. It is true that Albania experienced serious economic difficulties before the collapse of socialism. This, however, does not prove the supremacy of capitalism over socialism. On the contrary, it proves the supremacy of socialism in the experience of a small and highly backward European country which, until recently, has maintained a balanced development despite the fact that it had to bear the banner of socialism and of the proletariat single handed. Instead of speculating on the question of how Albania faced serious difficulties and why socialism has collapsed there, it is more relevant to seek an answer to the question of how Albania has resisted and survived for nearly thirty years following the heaviest defeat of socialism elsewhere. The experience of Albania, the smallest and most backward country in Europe that managed to survive under imperialist blockade and with no meaningful international support, does not contradict the explanations I have made above. 

The collapse of socialism and recent developments in Albania cannot be compared with those experienced in the Soviet Union and other former socialist countries. Any effort in this direction is a move away from reality. 

Albania, as a small socialist country, skilfully exploited the opportunities provided by the conflict between the two super powers and imperialist blocks. It managed to maintain socialist construction in spite of its small size. The agreement that was concluded in the mid-1980s between the Gorbachevite revisionist bourgeoisie and the western capitalist bourgeoisie was a straightforward collusion against the proletariat, the peoples, the historic achievements of the revolution, and socialism. Coupled with the collapse that took place subsequently in the imperialist block headed by the Soviet union, this new situation led to changes in global conditions and affected the situation in Albania to a considerable degree. The new global conditions left Albania face to face with a unified imperialist blockade, siege, isolation and aggression. In addition, the world has been suffering from the destructive consequences of the defeat inflicted upon the revolutionary movement of the proletariat and peoples in the second half of the 1950s. 

In the second half of the 1980s, under conditions of a unified campaign by the two imperialist blocks, the dictatorship of the proletariat could not maintain its trajectory, development and survival in a small country like Albania. That was because the security of socialist Albania, the stability in its internal order and external relations were under a direct threat. Socialist Albania tried to adopt tactics and positions that were functional for the preservation of the dictatorship of the proletariat, for cultivating the support of the proletariat, the youth and the people under the new conditions. But these objectives could be achieved only at a cost: a temporary slow down in the construction of socialism. These new tactics and position, when compared with previous ones, would have to imply a sort of `retreat' with its own specific features. The temporary retreat in the process of socialist and economic construction would have to be combined with a new political line and struggle which aimed at a new fusion between the dictatorship of the proletariat and the party on the one hand and the widest sections of the proletariat, the youth and the people on the other; a new trust at educating those sections in the light of the basic principles of socialism and Marxism-Leninism; and opening a new platform for the resistance of the Albanian people and nation against imperialism. Otherwise, it would not be possible for Albania, a small socialist country, to resist the imperialist-revisionist aggression. 

Under the conditions that prevailed in the second half of the 1980s, it was difficult, but not impossible, for socialist Albania to survive. But socialist Albania and the PLA did not understand the global changes that had been going on for a long period of time. When the impact of those changes were felt in Albanian economic, political and social life, imperialism had already won over some sections of the petit-bourgeois strata and students. Albania and the PLA leadership did not display the skills needed for a revolutionary outcome from those grave conditions and therefore failed to follow the revolutionary line that I have indicated. On the contrary, they panicked. They tended to adopt an opportunistic position which succumbed to imperialist pressure and threat, and to reactionary internal uprisings. Obviously, this orientation meant taking the road leading to the destruction of socialism. This process, with the contribution of the opportunism that controlled the party and the state, led to the disarmament of the revolutionary forces and was concluded very rapidly. Socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat were liquidated. 

The opportunistic orientation which succumbed to imperialist pressure and threats and to reactionary forces and the liquidation of the dictatorship of the proletariat did not provide any solution to the problems that were faced. On the contrary, it made them worse. It led to the process of complete collapse, chaos and crisis. These were the results of deviating from socialism and liquidating it. 

You have stated that it was the re-established capitalism that has collapsed in the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries and not socialism. Even though this might be the case, has socialism not been defeated? Has capitalism not won a victory? Does not this situation overshadow the Marxist thesis that socialism will replace capitalism? 

It is undoubtedly true that socialism has suffered the heaviest defeat in its history. Although they proclaim themselves as socialist and try to present the conflict between themselves and great imperialist powers as conflicts between socialism and capitalism, countries like Cuba North Korea and China are not socialist. Socialism as a social system no longer exists in today's world. With the process sustained recently, socialism has collapsed in Albania too - the only socialist country since the 1960s. Socialism as a social system has been liquidated. 

In daily discourse, socialism and communism are treated as the same phenomenon, as identical concepts and they are used interchangeably. Although this may be tolerated in a country where it is forbidden to defend communism, it is not a correct conceptualisation. This un-scientific and incorrect conceptualisation is reflected in your question too. The Marxist thesis that is said to be overshadowed envisages that capitalism will be replaced by communism - a social system in which exploitation, oppression and class-based differences are eradicated, where the principle of `form each according to his talent and to each according to his needs' is realised. According to Marxist theory, communism, as a social system with the specific feature indicated above, cannot replace capitalism suddenly and as a mature system. It cannot be established right after the destruction of capitalism and bourgeois rule. Between capitalist and communist society there is a transitional period which corresponds to nothing but the dictatorship of the proletariat - a period which was described by the founders of the communist theory - Marx and Engels - as the first stage of communism. This process of transition is characterised by the co-existence and mutual struggle of both communist and capitalist elements and it cannot be considered as the final victory. That is why the possibility of restoration, of temporary defeat and even the hegemony of capitalist elements cannot be ruled out in this period - which is also known as socialism. 

Even though he considered the proletarian revolution and the establishment of socialism in advanced capitalist countries as successive revolutions realised within a short time span, Karl Marx had emphasised the fact that the transition from capitalism to socialism would be completed over a long historical period. In this century, when capitalism has reached its final and monopolist stage, the world proletarian revolution has assumed a new characteristic. It consists of cracking the capitalist system at its weakest link(s) through proletarian revolution and commencing as well as maintaining socialist construction under imperialist-capitalist blockade - a task to be realised by the proletariat of the victorious country. The victory won as a result of cracking the imperialist-capitalist system at its weakest link(s) and commencing as well as maintaining the socialist construction cannot be taken as a final victory. Not only because would there be a transitional period in which both capitalist and communist elements co-exist, but also because this process would unfold under an imperialist-capitalist blockade. That is why Lenin, who developed and applied Marxist thought to the conditions of imperialism as the new and final stage of capitalism, frequently drew attention to this danger after the victory of the October Revolution and the beginning of socialist construction. Although he criticised the Trotskyite thesis that rejected the possibility of commencing the socialist construction both in general and in the Soviet Union, Stalin too stated that it would not be possible to claim final victory until the imperialist blockade was replaced by a socialist encirclement and the global bourgeois and capitalist rule was destroyed. Unless that final victory was won, the possibility of restoration, the danger of capitalism being re-built is too obvious to require any explanation. 

With the establishment of the new peoples democracies, the imperialist-capitalist system was fractured and the power relations between socialism and capitalism were altered not only at the national but also at the international level. But the imperialist blockade was not eliminated. Also, capitalist elements, although weakened, continued to survive in economic, social, and ideological-political areas even within the USSR where socialist construction was at the highest level. The struggle between capitalist and communist elements continued. The conclusion that Marxist-Leninist theory would draw from this is clear: the transition from capitalism to communism was still on and it was still possible that restoration and the hegemony of capitalist elements could emerge under suitable national and international conditions. That socialist construction might be interrupted in countries where the proletariat seized power through revolution, that capitalism might be re-established in such countries, etc. are possibilities that the Marxist-Leninist theory would not deny. That this possibility was realised does not overshadow either Marxist theory or the Marxist thesis that communism will replace socialism. It only indicates that socialism and the proletariat as the founder of the communist society suffered a heavy but temporary defeat. 

Social history, the history of social development, has not progressed as a linear trajectory. No matter how progressive it is, a new social system cannot replace an old system no matter how outmoded and decayed the latter is. The succession would be realised only through a series of defeats and reversals. But neither history nor progressive development could be frozen or stopped. This fact is even more valid in the case of the transition from capitalism to socialism and constructing the socialist society under the leadership of the proletariat. That is because all classes that represent the pre-communist social systems emerged within the previous systems - with all the relations and socio-economic bases of the systems that they replaced. However, the communist society, where all class-based differentiations are eliminated, is different from preceding social systems not only in form but also in substance. All pre-communist societies were forms of class societies. Although the working class is a product of the capitalist society, its emergence or development is not characterised by its possession of either the relationships or the bases required for the communist society that it would establish. The working class, in contrast to all other classes that preceded it, would have to establish the communist society after having seized power on the ruins of capitalism and without any ready-made basis. This is one of the differentiating features of the transition from capitalism to communism. 

Marxism has arrived at the conclusion that capitalism would be replaced by communism by studying the historical developments of societies, especially capitalist society. It demonstrated that the bourgeoisie and capitalism have emerged from within the feudal system and played a progressive role by developing the productive forces. But it also highlighted the ways in which the bourgeoisie and capitalism, after a certain stage, have become an obstacle to further development of the productive forces. It demonstrated how the contradiction between the productive forces and the capitalist relations of production, reflected as a contradiction between the social character of production and the private nature of ownership, would inevitably lead to the establishment of the communist society. Did the heaviest defeat suffered by socialism and the world proletarian movement change this basis? Did it change the objective basis and causes of the October Revolution, the other revolutions that followed, and the uprisings of the world proletariat and peoples? It is this aspect that must be borne in mind when we try to answer the question of whether the victory of imperialism and bourgeoisie is permanent or temporary. What do the evidence and the processes indicate? 

The objective basis and causes of the October Revolution, the other revolutions that followed, and the uprisings of the world proletariat and peoples did not disappear or weaken. On the contrary, they have only expanded and become strengthened. The material basis for socialism is now more mature compared to the situation in 1917 when the October Revolution took place, fracturing the imperialist system. The centralisation of capital and the concentration of the entire social production in the hands of the monopolies and an increasingly narrowing oligarchy at both national and international levels are much more pronounced when compared to the situation in the 1910s or 1950s. 

On the other hand, global reactionary forces and imperialism are on the verge of exhausting all the advantages derived from liquidating socialism as a system, re-establishing a universal capitalist market, and the blows inflicted upon the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat and the peoples of the world. In spite of the demagogic propaganda, the imperialist-capitalist system is going through an increasingly deepening crisis instead of enjoying a relative and temporary period of stability. All evidence and phenomena point to the fact that imperialism, the supremacy and victory of which are being announced, is rapidly moving towards a new stage of its general crisis. 

It is being argued that a new process has started. A new and harmonious process whereby revolutions, wars and class struggle are made redundant and all the problems are solved through dialogue and compromise. If this is correct - although the indications are such that you do not subscribe to this interpretation - what kind of process is the world going through? 

The collapse of the imperialist block headed by the Soviet Union following its assumption of straightforward capitalist methods and forms is interpreted as the beginning of a period through which wars, revolutions and class struggles cease to exist in the world. However, the collapse of the Soviet Union and its block, instead of constituting a factor of stability for the capitalist system, proved to be a cause that deepens its instability. The balance of power that had been established between the two imperialist blocks headed by two superpowers has disappeared with the collapse of one of them. The balance has disappeared. German imperialism, having swallowed Eastern Germany, began to extend its influence eastward. Following the collapse and disintegration of the Soviet Union, it became powerful enough to add the re-division of the world to its agenda. In order to put an end to the monopoly of the USA acting as a world police, France and Germany formed a common military force and increased their efforts to ensure participation by other Western European countries. Japanese imperialism has amended the constitution that prohibited deployment of military forces outside Japan. The US imperialism is concentrating its efforts to maintain its position by slowing down the expansion of its rivals and maintaining its monopoly as the world police. This, however, does not conceal the fact that Japanese monopolies, having achieved a rapid development, are expanding towards advanced capitalist countries, especially the USA. Russia, as the major successor to the Soviet Union, is another potential power which had always entertained imperialist objectives. The major imperialist states are preparing for a new division of the world and are developing new strategies and tactics in a period when the old balance of power is destroyed and a new balance has not yet been established. 

The rates of growth in world production and trade are continuously declining. The most powerful economy, that of the USA, is going through the most severe crisis in its history since World War II. As the second power, the Japanese economy is suffering from declining growth rates and indications of stagnation are increasing. It is no longer a secret that the third largest power, the German economy is stagnating and the stagnation is set to continue. This is acknowledged even by the representatives of German imperialism. The situation in the economies of the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries has deteriorated further with the process of transition to market economies. The crisis in these countries is deepening. It was only a few years ago when Europe and the Soviet Union were the most stable parts of the world. But now Yugoslavia and the former Soviet republics are caught in the midst of civil and national wars. They are countries where people kill each other and thereby they are transformed into arenas where the new division of the world is exercised. Stability in the Middle-East proved an elusive quest in spite of all the agreements reached and declarations made. Asia, Africa and Latin America are regions where civil wars and uprisings are permanent. 

The decline in the growth rates of the major imperialist-capitalist economies is accompanied by a rise in unemployment and inflation, a deterioration of the living and working conditions of the labouring classes, a fall in real wages, and an increase in reactionary policies as well as militarism. These developments are observed not only in backward countries but also in advanced capitalist countries which have been presented as models of welfare-statism. In the USA alone hundreds of thousands of people have been made redundant and tens of millions of people are living below the poverty line. In the advanced capitalist countries of Western Europe including Germany the increase in redundancies is accompanied by a rise in inflation levels. The representatives of German imperialism are asking the working people to make sacrifices. Strikes in those countries are becoming wide-spread while xenophobic and Neo-Nazi movements are increasing. 

The capacity of the imperialist states and monopolies to transfer the burden associated with stagnation and crises as well as intensified inter-imperialist conflicts to backward countries is decreasing. That is because millions of people are dying in Africa because of hunger, millions of people in Asia and Latin America are living below the poverty line, and those countries are finding it increasingly difficult to pay the interests on accumulated debt, let alone the principal itself. 

The stagnation and crisis faced by the advanced capitalist countries will only exacerbate the crisis and stagnation in the economies of these backward countries. By relying on their economic power and using the international financial institutions like the IMF or the World Bank, the imperialist monopolies are colonising the backward countries at greater rates to deplete the stocks that they have accumulated. They either force them to close certain enterprises or try to purchase them at ridiculous prices. Obviously, there will be conjunctural oscillations and deviations from the general trend. That is why it is not possible to identify the course of future development for either national economies or the world capitalist economy as a whole. 

Having said that, however, it is clear that the world capitalist economy will not be able to achieve the growth rates of the previous decades and that it is moving towards a general crisis engulfing all countries. 

The inevitable result of the tendency of the world capitalist economy to enter a new stage in its general crisis is the intensification of inter-imperialist conflicts as well as conflicts between the imperialists and the oppressed people and between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The imperialist-capitalist system is at the verge of deep and multi-dimensional crises, wars, radical changes, and revolutions. As inter-imperialist rumbles intensify, conditions are emerging now for a new advance in the revolutionary and socialist struggle of the world proletariat and oppressed people. The world is moving towards a process where inter-imperialist wars of division could emerge and the proletariat as well as the peoples could be drawn into new disasters. On the other hand, however, revolutionary uprisings of the proletariat and peoples against imperialist-capitalist slavery could emerge in conjunction with the deterioration in working and living conditions and the resulting poverty and unemployment. The world is going through a transitional period whereby the defeat and heavy blows inflicted by world imperialism and reactionary forces on the revolutionary movement of the proletariat and oppressed peoples are replaced by the rise of communism resulting from the rising struggle of the proletariat and oppressed people that will shake the imperialist system and fracture it at new fronts. The manoeuvres of world imperialism and reactionary forces, their aggression and demagogic campaigns cannot prevent the imperialist-capitalist system from being thrown into the dustbin of history. The victory of the proletariat and the people, the victory of communism that leads to the eradication all exploitative and oppressive relations cannot be blocked. 

Bourgeois economists themselves accept the fact that economies of capitalist countries are faced with stagnation and crisis. They, however, argue that stagnation and crises are no longer putting the economy off its trajectory. It is possible, they argue, to overcome the dilemmas brought about by crises by pursuing wise monetary policies and taking the right economic decisions. The stock exchange crisis of previous years and the 1981-83 world crisis are some of the examples given in support of such arguments. 

The economic or monetary policies to be pursued now or in the future undoubtedly affects the course of economic development. But they cannot determine the process of economic development itself. Therefore it is necessary to consider their impact on the formation and development of the crisis within this perspective. In order to assess whether or not the dilemmas caused by crises can be overcome by economic policies we need first of all to identify the basis of the crises that emerge in the process of capitalist development. 

The causes of and the basis for crises in capitalist economy have always been an important issue for debate in political economy. The views that you have outlined, i.e. the thesis that crises can be resolved through the use of correct economic policies, especially monetary policies, is not a novelty. It is a thesis that has been proved to be unscientific by evidence relating to capitalist development. It is a defunct thesis that is now put forward again. 

The argument that crisis is not an inevitable consequence of the capitalist economic development, that it is a result of incorrect economic policies reflects a consensus among bourgeois economists. In their view, crises can be avoided by pursuing correct economic policies. As an extension of this, it is also possible to arrest the crises and neutralise the destructive impact of incorrect economic policies. 

The basis of the crises that emerge in the process of capitalist development is over-production. Over-production is a result of the conflict between the limitless capacity to produce and the limited growth of the market. This is a conflict that cannot be resolved until capitalism is destroyed. With the use of monetary policies and other economic policies, it is possible to expand the market in an artificial way and temporarily. This expansion, however, is highly limited and can only lead to the intensification of dilemmas, instability, and other elements of the crisis in other sectors of the economy. When the issue is approached from this angle, one must indicate the highly limited manoeuvring capacity that the imperialist circles have at their disposal. By relying on monetary policies, they have already exhausted most of their limited capacity to manoeuvre. Apart from the difficulties that the dependent and backward countries have in paying the interests on the accumulated debts, the expansion of domestic credits in advanced countries is becoming increasingly risky as the possibility of non-payment increases. These are clear indications of instability in international financial markets. 

Evidence relating to the development of the world capitalist economy shows that it is heading towards a general crisis which is not limited to certain countries or sectors of the economy. The crisis will affect all countries and all sectors. These countries and sectors will affect each other and contribute to the intensification of the general crisis. Anarchical and unbalanced development is a feature of capitalist development. This is valid for the emergence and evolution of crises as well. Crises do not emerge simultaneously in all countries and sectors nor do they spread at a uniform speed. That is why it is not possible to identify a priori in which countries or sectors they are likely to emerge and at what speed they are going to spread. This is said, however, recent evidence on the stock exchange crisis and other relevant evidence suggest that the financial sector and money markets are not sound enough to enable the imperialist bourgeois circles to engage in any manoeuvring. It is quite possible to state that this sector is unstable enough to initiate a general crisis. That is why the imperialist bourgeois circles are in deep error if they think that they can attenuate or delay the destructive consequences of the crisis by pursuing some sort of monetary policy or other economic policies. This is especially the case when one takes into account the intensification of inter-imperialist conflicts in the future. 

The extent to which crises would throw the capitalist economy off its trajectory, the extent to which it would generate destructive consequences depends on the intensity of the crisis and on the national and international factors that determine its emergence. The current and most recent crises as well as all crises occurring during the development of the capitalist economy have not been identical and did not generate identical destructive consequences. What evidence do the bourgeois economists rely upon when they claim that future crises would not be as intense as that of the 1980s or the ones that occurred before? 

Bourgeois economists had been forecasting in the 1960s, 1970s and even in the 1980s that the capitalist economy would develop without experiencing problematic crises, that crises would not be intense in terms of their origins or consequences. Did the evidence and the processes that have been sustained confirm their forecasts? Not at all. Theories predicting a crisis-free capitalist development have failed and capitalism has experienced a number of crises that turned out to be either more or less intense than the preceding ones. Monetary policies and other economic policies devised by exhausting the talents of bourgeois economists did not prevent the US economy in recent years from experiencing the most severe crisis in terms of its origins and consequences in the post-World War II period. They may try to explain this crisis by referring to the mistakes committed in monetary and other economic policies. But they will never manage to devise the sort of policies that would prevent the crises that cause immense destruction of the productive forces and deep turmoil in the economy. That is because capitalist economic crises are neither the results of incorrect economic policies nor can they be stopped or their consequences be attenuated by pursuing this or that type of economic policies. This was the case in the past and it is still the case today. 

The countries where turmoil and crises are being experienced in their deepest forms used to be known as socialist countries. There is a certain interpretation of the developments in those countries in the bourgeois press: "the West is now footing the bill for the hostilities and national questions that socialism had failed to address". 

This type of interpretation is not unique to the bourgeois press only. Some self-styled socialist circles also subscribe to such an interpretation - although they may differ in details. Contrary to what has been suggested, they claim, socialism failed to solve the national question. In addition, they assert that the national question was not addressed even at the time of Lenin and Stalin. By arguing that national problems were oppressed by force, they provide support to the anti-communist campaign. 

Today, the former socialist countries and Yugoslavia constitute a region where ethnic/national and religious conflicts and clashes are the most intensified and where peoples are drawn into such conflicts and clashes intensively when compared to the rest of the world. But this is not the only region in the world with such problems. Leaving aside backward Asian, African and Latin American countries, conflicts and clashes originating from ethnic, colour, and religious differences are becoming more wide-spread and intensified. It is not difficult to cite the most recent examples of this trend - scores of people who died, hundreds who were injured, and damages amounting to billions of dollars in the USA, xenophobic movements spreading very rapidly in the most advanced capitalist countries, the revived hostility between the North and the South in Italy, the unresolved Irish problem in the UK, etc. But the conflicts and clashes based on ethnic or religious differences in the former socialist countries and Yugoslavia attract more attention today because they are the most intense mass conflicts and clashes with the heaviest destructive consequences. 

In the disintegrated Soviet Union and other socialist countries, the current national/ethnic problems which are tending to become wide-spread are not inherited from socialism. That is because, as was indicated above, Yugoslavia has never embarked on socialist construction and the process of socialist construction was interrupted in all socialist countries apart from Albania in the second half of the 1950s. Since the second half of the 1950s, the achievements and legacy of socialism in the areas of ethnicity/nationality and religion have been liquidated as was the case with all other areas. The results of the re-established capitalism became hegemonic. The current intensive and wide-spread national/ethnic and religious conflicts in the former socialist countries are the legacy of the capitalism, the social imperialism that was established in the second half of the 1950s under socialist forms. Those conflicts were exacerbated by the Western imperialists as they manipulated the national/ethnic or religious divisions for their own interests. A quick look at the main stages of the historical development concerning these issues will make the situation clearer. 

At the turn of the 20th century, the Eastern European and Balkan countries were not only late-comers to the process of development, but they also constituted a part of Europe where the national question had not been resolved. Residual feudal forces, the beginning of the monopolist stage of capitalism, the intensification of political reactionism, and the beginning of the inter-imperialist struggle for division, etc. had precluded any solution to the national question even within a capitalist framework. Powerful imperialist states exploited and encouraged national/ethnic conflicts and hostilities for their own interests. Before World War I, Russia, Eastern Europe and the Balkans constituted the part of Europe where national/ethnic conflicts, hostilities and clashes were becoming increasingly wide-spread and explosive. The Tsarist Russia was a prison for nationalities. The October Revolution transformed this feature radically. Not only full equality of rights was established, national inequalities were also reduced as a result of socialist construction and progressive historical development. In spite of many attempts by the overthrown exploitative classes and capitalist states, national/ethnic hostilities and prejudices gradually declined even though they have a long history behind them. This process was observed in all socialist countries until the second half of the 1950s when the revisionist counter-revolution attained victory. 

The victory of the revisionist counter-revolution and the interruption of socialist construction was accompanied by interruption in the process of resolving the national/ethnic question. The process of capitalist restoration in socialist countries was inevitably characterised by the emergence and flourishing of new bourgeois groups, by the beginning of exploitation based on the appropriation of the surplus-value, and by the intensification of the struggle for dividing that surplus-value. During this struggle, the ruling bourgeoisie of each national entity attempted at deepening the national/ethnic differences in order to be able to capture larger shares to the disadvantage of other bourgeoisies. During this process, while the Soviet Union became the most powerful and developed member of the `socialist' camp and established its hegemony as a super imperialist power over other members, the most powerful and developed republics within the Soviet Union itself established their hegemony over the weak peripheral republics and made them dependent. Consequently, a basis was laid for the revival and expansion of national/ethnic conflicts and clashes. The collapse of the Soviet Union as a super imperialist power and the combination of this collapse with the removal of the final residues of socialism led to the removal of all barriers that checked the intensification and spread of national/ethnic and religious differences and conflicts among local bourgeois groups. 

Under the leadership of the USA, the imperialist state who once encouraged national clashes to destroy the socialist camp before the victory of the counter-revolution, began to foster them to weaken the Soviet Union and its allies in the struggle for world hegemony. These powers are still fostering national/ethnic and religious conflicts that emerged after capitalist restoration in the former Soviet republics, the Balkans and Eastern Europe for their imperialist interests. They are trying to exploit the national/ethnic and religious clashes among local bourgeois groups that emerged after capitalist restoration. They are doing this as part of their strategies, tactics and plans aimed at increasing their influence following the collapse of Soviet social imperialism.