Marx-Engels |  Lenin  | Stalin |  Home Page


Chairman of the Writers' and Artists League of the PSR of Albania
Dritëro AGOLLI

In today's conditions of the waging of the class struggle ensuring the leading role of the Party in art is one of the fundamental requirements for the implementation of proletarian partisanship. Nowadays, the principle of party leadership in art, as the essential element of proletarian partisanship, is the main target for attack by the bourgeois and revisionist theories and all the other opportunist trends«.


Thus, our struggle against bourgeois and revisionist alien influences displayed in their most complete form in literature and art prior to the 4th Plenum of the CC of the Party, as a consequence of the savage imperialist-revisionist pressure, from both inside and outside the country, cannot be explained simply as an effort to escape from certain distorted artistic tastes that we did not like, but as a principled struggle that was necessary to destroy the roots of these manifestations, behind the modernist nature of which lurked an entire, conscious, elaborated class ideology, a complete reactionary ideology, with well-considered and far-reaching aims. The representatives of, and agitators for, this ideology had tried to use the weapon of art to achieve their sinister desires and aims against socialism.

Summing up, on the one hand, the rich experience of the development of literature and art in the recent period, and on the other, the experience of leadership by the Party in the field of artistic creativeness, the 7th Congress reached the conclusion that the consistent defence and strengthening of proletarian partisanship comprise not only the main condition for all outstanding achievements, but also the fundamental requirement for the further progress of artistic culture. The class essence of our art and its aims are reflected, and the interests and the socialaesthetic ideals of the working class are expressed, in the principle of proletarian partisanship. This principle makes our art capable of militating for the line of the Party, militating as a powerful ideological weapon of the working class for the construction of socialism and the complete triumph of the revolution. The implementation of the principle of proletarian partisanship in literature and art in the conditions of the development of the class struggle in our society, has several main aspects which we consider of particular importance. These aspects may be summed up in three directions: 1) Enhancement of the leading role of the Party in literature and art; 2) Strengthening of proletarian partisanship in literature and artistic creativeness; 3) Raising the level of the worldoutlook of writers and artists.


In the present day conditions of the development of the ideological struggle in our country, the direction of art with definite aims, with lofty proletarian partisanship, direction which should exert an active influence on artistic creativeness, assumes special importance. In this manner, literature and art become part and parcel of the great cause of the Party, are closely linked with the tasks of our socialist revolution and fully in the service of this revolution. »The sound leadership of the Party,« says Comrade Enver Hoxha, »has given culture and education, literature and art a development, a direction and mobilizing force, and has linked them more closely with the people, the working class and the cooperativist peasantry, with the great tasks of our socialist revolution«[1].

Our Party has given art very consistent guidance, has orientated and assisted it at many moments when artistic practice and the class struggle in this field have raised complicated ideo-aesthetic problems. It has focussed its attention on, and strongly criticized the partial slips and deviations that have occured in our creative work, while severely condemning those ideological enemies who have tried to weaken the leadership of the Party in literature and art and to encourage modernist alien influences. While ensuring its leadership in literature and art, not only has the Party fought for their ideological purity, but it has also encouraged their enrichment in content and form, in styles and genres, by constantly opening up fresh creative possibilities for every writer and artist. This has come about because the Party has constantly kept in mind the specific character of creative art, having trust in and respect for the artist, valuing his work, while at the same time, never reconciling itself to any negative alien influence.

The strengthening of proletarian partisanship is not only an ideological problem, but also a political, organizational, and economic problem. It has many other aspects, too. Proletarian partisanship implies all the comprehensive activity to implement the line of the Party and to defend the dictatorship of the proletariat in the field of artistic culture. It is embodied in the various directives and instructions of the Party. This fundamental principle of socialist realism is connected with the fulfilment of many tasks: with the deepening of the Marxist-Leninist ideological orientation of literature and the arts, with the activity of the Writers and Artists' League and the literary press, with the work of the schools of art, with the training of cadres to work in and run the sectors of creative literary-artistic work, with the amateur movement, and with all the aesthetic education in the general educational system. On the other hand, the strengthening of proletarian partisanship is linked with a more thorough development of aesthetic studies on the current problems of literature and art and the unmasking of modernist and revisionist trends. Finally, it is linked with all the work of the party organizations and state organs, which lead the cultural and artistic institutions. If there is not a united front of struggle for the consistent implementation of directives and instructions of the Party in all these directions, and this is forgotten, distortions which hinder the achievement of the leading role of the Party in individual links and sectors emerge.

Although the leading role of the Party in the implementation of proletarian partisanship has been enhanced and strengthened, sometimes there is still an oversimplified administrative concept of it, for instance, thinking it sufficient to ensure the number of items in the repertoire, publications or performances, and not extending this leadership to the main orientation of the content and the artistic level.

In today's conditions of the development of the class struggle, ensuring the leading role of the Party in art is one of the fundamental requirements for the implementation of proletarian partisanship. Nowadays the principle of the party leadership in art, as the essential element of proletarian partisanship, is the main target for attack by bourgeois and revisionist theories and all the other opportunist trends. The bourgeois and revisionist ideologists and aesthetes and all our ideological enemies consider party leadership in creative work as a petrification of art, a restriction on the expression of individuality. The bourgeois and revisionist ideologists constantly raise their notorious slogan against leadership by the party in art, while trumpeting the idea of the freedom of the artist. All this is concealed under the mask of an ideology that stands above classes. In reality, bourgeois and revisionist art, itself, is guided by their ideologies and their reactionary partisanship which destroys the artist, turns him into a market commodity, and gives him no possibility of entering into the life of the people. The notorious revisionists G. Lukacs, E. Fischer and R. Garaudy come out openly against party leadership in art and against the Leninist principle of proletarian partisanship. In his notorious article, »Art and the Ideological Superstructure«, E. Fischer long ago theorized about the inevitable »ancient« conflict between the state and »the spiritual elite«, as he calls the artists. »If the socialist artist,« he writes, »is a supporter of the Central Committee, a qualified worker in the sector of agitation and propaganda, then as a result, not only will he be degraded as an artist, but he will also be a bad agitator and propagandist. If art is forced to adept itself to the requirements of the current tactical situation, life forsakes it«.

This revisionist ideologist puts the proletarian policy of the Party in open conflict with the artist, whereas it is known that this policy arms creative practice, orientates it and helps it to reflect the life of the people truthfully, to judge and analyse the main directions of social life scientifically.

The Soviet revisionist theoreticians and scholars have resorted to shameless distortion of Lenin, presenting him as a leader »tolerant« towards liberal and decadent trends in art, claiming that he was allegedly in favour of the flourishing of many trends and that he understood »tolerance« in art. Thus, in a recently published book, entitled, »That's how it happened«, the revisionist Soviet writer, O. Litovsky, writes that Lenin's policy in the sphere of art was »liberal in the finest sense of the term«.

It is clear that revisionism is not ashamed to become the most cynical falsifier when it comes to attacking the sacred principles of revolutionary ideology.

By ensuring the leadership of the Party in literature and the arts we fight, at the same time, for the strengthening of proletarian partisanship in every work, and for its defence against the attacks of enemies and renegades from Marxism-Leninism.


By making art an inseparable part of its great cause in the fierce class struggle, our Party created in our country a rich artistic culture closely linked with the life of the people, with their interests and dreams. This advance of our arts on a broad front could not have been made if class tendentiousness in the artistic treament of the range of themes and problemes, which the revolutionary development of our society brought to the fore through fierce class struggle, had not been strengthened by affirming lofty ideals and rejecting old, inhibiting, alien, anti-socialist concepts. At the 7th Congress of the Party Comrade Enver Hoxha said about this: »The 4th Plenum of the Central Committee sternly criticized some harmful manifestations that had to do with imitations of reactionary foreign trends, with the wrong treatment of contradictions in our society, with theories that disparaged folk creativeness, etc. It put forward important tasks over the entire front of culture. Their implementation gave a fresh impulse to the development of literature and art, to all cultural and artistic activity« [2].

But looking at the process of creative work in the light of the decisions of the 7th Congress of the Party and the requirements of its own mission in the development of the class struggle, for the further strengthening of proletarian partisanship in literary and artistic works, a series of new tasks, which assume particular importance in the presentday conditions, have emerged.

First, the class struggle must be a subject reflected, and a permanent and cardinal theme in our literature and arts.

This theme broadens the horizons of arts, gives them an indisputable superiority, because the class struggle pervades all the fields and pores of social life. It manifests itself in the economic and political relations between people, in collectives and families, in town and countryside, in intimate actions and moral relationships, at school and in production, in the past, the present and the future. The treatment of the class struggle in literature and the arts is one of the ways to strengthen their tendentiousness, to link them with the fundamental problems of the internal and external developments that engage the attention of the Party and the people. If some works, such as »The Great Winter« by I. Kadare, »The Moscow Meeting« by G. Madhi, »Confrontation« by T. Laço, »The Girl of the Mountains« by N. Zoraqi, »The Fall of Idols« by S. Drini, »The Grand-Mother« by K. Kosta, and a number of films produced in recent years, have had a favourable reception from readers and audiences. This is due not only to the mastery of their authors, but also to the class tendentiousness with which they treat the problems of our socity, and the political line of the Party. We have many other works, too, which have reflected the reality from the angle of the development of the class struggle. But it is essential to do more in this field. The reflection of the class struggle in literature and art is one of the most important problems of our creative work, because it is linked with many other problems, such as those of the recognition and correct solution of contradictions in our society, those of a thorough understanding of the typical and the individual, those of the relationship of the hero to the mass, those of the aesthetic and social ideal, those of the class stand towards tradition and its relationship with innovation, and many others. A thorough Marxist-Leninist knowledge of the development of the class struggle in our society helps the artist to capture the fundamental trends of development of our revolution in a scientific manner. The writers and artists »are required to reflect accurately in their works the fundamental processes and trends of development of our revolution, the contradictions of life, and to fight any manifestation of formalism and stereotyped treatment of them, to faithfully and creatively apply the method of socialist realism, which is the foundation of the proletarian art which the future belongs« [3].

Although improvements have been made since the time of the 4th Plenum of the CC of the PLA, erroneous solutions to these difficult problems of our arts are still seen occasionally. Sometimes the reflection of the class struggle is superficial and there is no thorough analysis of its processes in certain works.

Second, the strengthening of proletarian partisanship is also linked closely with the treatment of the acute current problems which engage the attention of the Party in the stage of the complete construction of socialism. Thus more stress should be put on certain themes such as that of the [hegemonic] role of the working class, the revolutionary transformations in our countryside, and the revolutionizing force of communists, which require more profound treatment in all their breadth and magnificence, because, despite the indisputable achievements, we think there is a disproportion in this direction, which must be overcome. The problem is that these themes should occupy the place they deserve in our literature and art, in conformity with their intrinsic importance in the context of the struggle our Party is waging today to enhance the leading role of the working class, to reduce the essential distinctions between city and countryside, to liquidate the sources of bourgeois-revisionist degeneration and to complete the construction of socialism. On the other hand, greater attention must be focussed on the treatment of all the cardinal problems of social development, as laid down by the 7th Congress of the Party such as the themes of our people's resistance and struggle against the imperialist-revisionist encirclement, patriotism and proletarian internationalism, the implementation of the principle of self-reliance, defence and revolutionary vigilance, etc.

The treatment of this range of themes and problems with class tendentiousness helps to link literature and art better with the great cause of the Party, with the entire presentday and historical reality of Albania. Linking art with the problems of the Party invigorates it with rich social content and lofty communist ideals. Then it is not imprisoned in the shell of petty eroticism and never becomes a means to delve into the murkiest depths of the consciousness of the egoistic isolated individual, such as is seen in the degeneration of the literature and arts of the bourgeois and revisionist countries. One of the functions of Western and Soviet modernism is to destroy man's confidence in himself and his own thinking. According to the US aesthete and writer, R. Kostelliants, art is »blinding, deafening, maddening spiritual suffering«. That is why books are centred on psychopaths, idiots, the spiritually crippled, sadists and prostitutes.
»Zashchishchaysya, Liubovj!« Moscow, 1969, pp. 55-56).

In a word, alongside that revisionist Soviet literature which, with overworked cliches, sings to the glory of the chauvinist soldier of Russian expansion, another literature, which boosts criminals, their »faithful« wives, and prostitutes, under the veil of »all-conquering love«, is flourishing.

Our militant and pure art, with all its power and beauty, stands in contrast to this aggressive degenerate bourgeois and revisionist modernism. This contrast becomes more militant when we deal with the whole wide range of problems and themes which was presented and analysed at the 7th Congress of the Party, with an even sharper class tendentiousness. The fullest possible treatment of this range of themes and problems, does not norrow the creative horizon of our literature and art, but, on the contrary broadens and deepens it, because it contains a wealth of aspects which give rise to an endless variety of subjects and forms. Within this broad horizon each writer or artist finds a boundless field for the flowering of his creative individuality, and the utilization of all means of artistic expression.

Third, the strengthening of proletarian partisanship in the conditions of the development of the class struggle requires the ceaseless raising of the artistic level of literature and the arts. Proletarian partisanship cannot be achieved without the all-round development of all means of artistic reflection, without a continuous evolution of artistic form. Only an art with sound content and fine artistic form can become a powerful weapon of the working class in the class struggle. We must struggle to achieve a sound content embodied in a perfect artistic form. On this question, Comrade Enver Hoxha has said: »And such content is bound to be conducive to the search for and discover of new forms« [4]. The Party teaches us, on the one hand, to regard art as part of the overall cause of the proletariat, i.e., not to divorce it from ideology, politics, [sociology], ethics and other forms of social consciousness, and on the other hand, to regard it, also, as a reflection of the reality with its own specific means, its varied forms, while encouraging the initiative of creative thought and imagination. Lenin recommends: »All these things are indisputable, but this only proves that the literary part of the work of the proletarian party cannot be fitted into the same mould as the other parts of the work of the Party of the proletariat« [5].

It is true that the artistic level of our creative literary and artistic work has risen, and the efforts of the writers and artists to cultivate all forms of art and to find fresh means of expression have been intensified.

Nevertheless, sometimes a narrow concept of proletarian partisanship is encountered, giving it the tone of routine agitation. This weakness is more apparent in variety theatre and plays. In these fields, banality and schematic treatment of the material from life are observed. In children's literature and some of the poetry published, there are also instances of the treatment of themes and problems with empty pompous phraseology. In some instances there are obscure and incomprehensible figures in poetry, a phenomenon which has been criticized following the 4th Plenum of the CC of the Party.

When we speak about the strengthening of proletarian partisanship, we do not exclude the demands for a higher artistic level. To raise the artistic level while maintaining proletarian tendentiousness means to achieve a broad understanding of the problem of proletarian partisanship, to put art more effectively in the service of people and to democratize it further.

Alien manifestations, old and new, conservative and liberal, schematic and modernist, are expressions of the class struggle in the field of artistic form.

The alien influences, manifested in the most complete way prior to the 4th Plenum of the CC of the Party, were camouflaged at first under the idea of »the quest for forms«. In fact they were intended to distort the proletarian partisanship and change the proletarian tendentiousness of our art. All those metamorphoses which the lyrical hero of poetry went through, for example, »I am a prickly pear«, a »shell«, a »fossil«, and what not, alienated art and cut it off from the major problems of the time by extinguishing the class spirit of action. Therefore the task remains to defend the form against the modernist distortions, which are in fashion today in bourgeois and revisionist literature and art. Form is always more vulnerable to formalist pressure, to alien creative trends and practices.

In present-day revisionist Soviet criticism, this quest in the field of form has become the fashion. In his article »The Class Spirit in Literature« (»Znamya«, 1968, N° 2, p. 217), the well known revisionist Soviet critic, G. Kunitsyn, writes: »Our enemy in art is, of course, neither Kafka nor any other close to his artistic trend, but in the first place the various forms of pseudo-realism and naturalism, which unlike Kafka, try to preserve the truth in details while affirming the overall lie.«

It is clear that the revisionist critic is disturbed neither by Kafka nor by modernism. All these things are acceptable to him. What worries him is realist art, which he calls »naturalism«. F. Paçrami, too, was worried only by conservatism, naturalism and schematism, as he understood them, whereas to him liberalism was not a problem.

Therefore, in order to face up to the great bourgeoisrevisionist ideological pressure and to keep our art in attacking positions, it is necessary to step up the struggle for the formation of the revolutionary worldoutlook in the ranks of our writers, artists, scholars and critics.


The strengthening of the proletarian partisanship is closely connected with the ability of each writer and artist to interpret and analyse all the material from life in the spirit of our Marxist-Leninist ideology. Therefore, in the realization of proletarian partisanship, the world outlook of the artist himself plays a decisive role. We say this because his world-outlook determines the direction and the character of the creative work of each artist. For this reason every writer and artist should feel that the effort to raise his ideological level is an objective necessity, because only in this way can the complicated character of the class struggle be reflected correctly, can the pressure of the alien ideology be coped with and works of a sound militant spirit of attack be created. At the 7th Congress of the Party, Comrade Enver Hoxha said, »Those artists who work ceaselessly to raise their Marxist-Leninist ideological level, who master the teachings of the Party, who lead an active political life, who are thoroughly immersed in the life of the masses and have a profound knowledge of the road of the revolutionary historical development of our people and culture, succeed best in these tasks. Revolutionary art is created by revolutionary artists whose hearts beat in time with the heartbeat of the people« [6].

These words of Comrade Enver Hoxha clearly express the idea that the Marxist-Leninist world outlook not only has theoretical importance, but also has great practical activating force. All our literary and artistic practice, guided by the Party has confirmed the validity of this idea. Those artists who have thoroughly mastered the Marxist-Leninist world outlook have always stood in sound positions and have created a militant and partisan art of a high artistic level. Without mastering the Marxist-Leninist worldoutlook one cannot find one's bearings in the complicated phenomena of life, cannot disclose the fundamental trends of the development of our society, from the revolutionary class standpoint. However, the Marxist-Leninist ideology should not be studied for curiosity's sake, or simply to add to one's general culture, to be able to answer a question or to display one's ability as an orator in certain auditoriums. Its study, too, should be tendentious, should pursue an aim. In his report to the 7th Congress of the Party Comrade Enver Hoxha said: »We do not study Marxism-Leninism for the sake of erudition. We study it to apply it in life, so that we are guided by its principles in every action and judge everything in its spirit. Such a study of theory, closely linked with life and revolutionary practice, serves true communist moulding, the creation not only of a scientific outlook but also of a revolutionary character, so that our people will always be resolute fighters for the cause of socialism, irreconcilable with the enemies and their ideology« [7].

In the documents of our Party, in the Works of Comrade Enver Hoxha, the experience of the creative application of the general laws and principles of Marxism-Leninism in the conditions of our country has been reflected and summed up, a synthesis has been made of the rich experience of the revolution and the practice of socialist construction, and the struggle against imperialism and revisionism. While gaining a thorough knowledge of Marxist philosophy, political economy, scientific socialism, of our ethics and aesthetics and theoretical thinking, our writers and artists must also make themselves better acquainted with the rich experience of our literature and arts which have developed on a correct course, according to the principles of socialist realism. This should be done not only by the writers and artists, but also by all the editors, critics, scholars and cadres who direct the sectors of art. All books devoid of ideas which are published have first gone through the hands of the reviewers who have recommended them to the publishers. The second concession is made by the editors, and the third by the directors of publishing houses themselves. In all these practices either personal friendship is placed above principles, or one's world-outlook is insufficiently formed, or ideological vigilance is lax. Two years ago was published the book »Poets of the Thirties« in which the editor had collected even writings of authors compromised with the foreign invaders and the antipopular regimes, writings that were published in the fascist press even in the beginning of the Forties. This comes also from insufficient study of the documents of the Party over that period, as well as from a sentimental stand towards the literary and artistic past.

But the revolutionary education and tempering o£ the artists and writers are not achieved through ideological work alone. It is essential that the party organizations concern themselves, also, with all the other aspects of the activity for the revolutionization of writers and artists, with integrating them into the life of the country and activating them in the solution of social problems, so that their lives are intensively involved with the political situations. They must be militant people, people who live with the policy of the Party. At every moment our artist is a political person in the first place. The policy of the Party gives the artist the powerful passion and class standpoint so that he can consistently defend its principles. Nowadays the bourgeois and revisionist theoreticians try either to make the writers stand aside from revolutionary politics, or to turn them, in general, into people indifferent towards the problems of society. The aging revisionist Soviet writer, Marietta Shaginian, in her book »Four Lessons from Lenin«, published in the Soviet Union recently, counterposes politics to art, as the bourgeois theoreticians have always done. Leafing throughLenin's correspondence with Gorky [Gorkij], this revisionist author and publicist writes: »Reading every word of this correspondence, one begins to be aware of how necessary the shy, withdrawn, stubborn, sensitive, fiery Gorky was to Lenin, who sharpened up his thoughts on this friendship, on the questions asked by this rough, different, strange man. The artist was as necessary to the politician as air, food, as the left foot is necessary to the right foot.« And further: »...I think that had Gorky been another person, had he not made mistakes in 1908, in 1917, and perhaps more than once, before and after those dates, Ilych would not have loved him as he did, getting angry with him, persisting with him, sharpening his thought on the polemic with him«. (Marietta Shaginian, »Chetyre Uroka u Lenina«, Moscow, 1970, p. 281). These few lines bring out clearly the monstrous distortion, not only of two great figures of the proletariat Lenin and Gorky, but also of the Leninist policy of partisanship in art. On the one hand, the revisionist writer counterposes the artist to the politician, and on the other, puts Gorky in the role of the entertainer of the leader of the proletariat. Everybody knows that Lenin did not keep close to Gorky in order to »sharpen his thought« on polemics with him, but to make him a cofighter and a soldier of the revolution. Moreover, Leninnever considered Gorky »alien« to the cause of the revolution. What Shaginian says is shameless fabrication.

The Soviet revisionist theoreticians, guided by their bourgeois world-outlook, are now coming out openly for the revision of the principle of partisanship, not only in creative practice but also in theory. In reality they are for partisanship, provided it is revisionist partisanship. Indeed they have come out with the »theory« that, in the countries with a bourgeois system, only those writers who are »organized in the communist parties« (read: revisionist parties) can master this partisanship. We all know that proletarian partisanship is not only for those artists who are organized in parties. But according to the revisionist theoreticians this principle should allegedly be reviewed. The revisionist critic, G. Starets, [writes]: »Thus, in the framework of the bourgeois system, communist partisanship, as a rule, can be achieved only by those writers who are organizationally linked with the party«. Hence, according to this theoretician, it emerges that,Gorky and Mayakovsky [Majakovskij], who, were not party members, allegedly did not achieve partisanship in their works. True, they did not achieve that revisionist partisanship this theoretician is after!...

The essence of all the modernist and reactionary trends, schools and methods, whether camouflaged as art »that stands above classes«, or manifested openly, is bourgeois and revisionist partisanship, which deviously and hypocriticly, but also aggressively, tries to counterpose itself to proletarian partisanship and socialist realism. Hence, to adhere to proletarian partisanship today, means to combat the bourgeois and revisionist ideology, to combat its reactionary world outlook within the country and in the international arena, and to propagate the line and ideology of the Party tirelessly. Today the revisionist and bourgeois aesthetes have made decadence, irrationality, the preaching of absurdity, etc., fashionable throughout the world.Allen Ginzburg, who is well known in the Soviet Union, writes: »Now all revolutionary ideas and the usual methods of acting on the human consciousness have become obsolete«.

Faced with all this ideological chaos and all these reactionary trends that exert fierce pressure on our life, the struggle to raise the level of the Marxist-Leninist world-outlook of every writer and artist in all fields of our art is more necessary than ever. As Comrade Enver Hoxha teaches us:»We must cope with the united front of the enemies by strengthening our internal front in all directions, in the fields of defence and the economy, politics and ideology, always consistently waging the class struggle« [8]. The formation of the artist's world-outlook plays a major role, not only in strengthening the content of his creative work, but also in his treatment of many theoretical problems that face our arts in the party spirit. The confusion which sometimes arises over the question of the national character, tradition, innovation, etc., also stems from inadequate Marxist-Leninist formation.

The problems of the national character of art at the present time cannot be dealt with simply as academic analyses, because they are important political and ideological problems which are subject to class tendenciousness and proletarian partisanship. The reflection of special national features, and the national character in general, in art cannot be divorced from the class struggle and history. One of the most distinctive and active elements which expresses the national character is the patriotism of the artist himself, the originality of this patriotism which he finds among his own people. With their impudence devoid of all principles, the Soviet revisionists do everything they can to hit out directly or indirectly at the patriotism of our people in their publications and translations from bourgeois artistic and political literature. Recently in Moscow was published L. Mosley's book »Time lost«, where among other things, the English author says:»On April 7th, the Duce dispatched his naval ships to the port of Durrës and occupied the whole of Albania without meeting resistance« (L. Mosley, »Time Lost«, Russ. edition, 1972; p. 219). This is an ill-intentioned distortion of the history which cynically hurts the patriotic feelings of our people. Everybody knows that on April 7th, 1939, our people, although betrayed by Zog and the feudal-bourgeois regime, fought heroically to defend their land and honour against the fascist invaders.

Our literature and arts have found their patriotism in the very life of our people. This reality has given our arts their national tone and colour. Therefore, the national character of art assists directly to increase its educative power, with its love of country, its feeling of civic responsibility and its militant character. Hence, we come to the conclusion that the question of the national character is closely linked with the ideological leanings and the world-outlook of the artist, is closely linked with his partisanship. The ideology and world-outlook of the artists also determine his concept of patriotism and his reflection of the national character in art. Gjergj Fishta wrote in the Albanian language, was a master of the octosyllabic verse, portrayed the originality of life in our Highlands, drew on folk songs, but his ideology and world-outlook were reactionary because they were an expression of the interests of the anti-democratic and obscurantist exploiting classes. Even a reactionary writer may use national elements such as folk customs, traditional dress and headwear and popular phraseology, but he cannot be a patriot and a man of the people because he lacks the progressive ideological trend which is determined by his world-outlook. For this reason we say that the national character of an artist is linked with the popular spirit of his work, which stems from his treatment of the major problems of the life of the people. And the highest form of expression of the popular spirit is proletarian partisanship, the quintessence of class tendentiousness. Proletarian partisanship places art completely in the service of socialism, in the service of the communist education of man, while protecting it against cosmopolitanism and other antinational trends.

The insistence on the strengthening of the national character and the popular spirit in our literature and arts is linked directly with the requirements of the development of the class struggle in literary and artistic work. The socialist realism of our art is in open struggle against the ideology of the two superpowers the United States of America and the Soviet Union, which, proceeding from their expansionist intentions, are doing their utmost to divest the cultures of peoples of their national character and to make them cosmopolitan. For this reason the defence and the strengthening of the national character is not simply a question of aesthetics, but a question of political principle and of world-outlook in the arena where class struggle is waged. That is why, at the 7th Congress of the Party, Comrade Enver Hoxha takes both the national character and the popular spirit as inseparable from the positions of the Marxist-Leninist ideology, the class standpoint, proletarian partisanship. Dealing with the three cardinal problems of our arts: proletarian partisanship, the national character, and the popular spirit, all inter-connected with one another dialectically, he comes to the conclusion: »The national character and the popular spirit are expressed through the truthful reflection of reality, from the standpoint of Marxist-Leninist ideology...« [9].

It is from this angle that the revolutionary artist or writer of the new type should see his task as a creator and a citizen. Only through a sound ideological moulding can works with a high proletarian partisanship, with a clear national character and a thoroughly popular spirit, be created.

foot notes:

[1] Enver Hoxha, Report to the 7th Congress og the PLA, p. 76 (Eng.ed.)

[2] Enver Hoxha, Report to the 7th Congress og the PLA, p. 150 (Eng.ed.)

[3] Enver Hoxha, Report to the 7th Congress og the PLA, p. 153 (Eng.ed.)

[4] Enver Hoxha, Report to the 6th Congress og the PLA, p. 160 (Alb.ed.)

[5] Lenin on Culture and Art, 1960, p. 51 (Alb.ed.)

[6] Enver Hoxha, Report to the 7th Congress og the PLA, p. 153 (Eng.ed.)

[7] Enver Hoxha, Report to the 7th Congress og the PLA, p. 142 (Eng.ed.)

[8] Enver Hoxha, Report to the 7th Congress og the PLA, p. 113 (Eng.ed.)

[9] Enver Hoxha, Report to the 7th Congress og the PLA, p. 152 (Eng.ed.)