Whom Do Khrushchev’s Viewpoints and Actions Serve?
Article published in the newspaper Zeri i Popullit
March 2, 1962
"Naim Frasheri" State Publishing Enterprise
...In politics,” V. I. Lenin has said, “'it does not matter so much who defends directly the^e or those viewpoints. What matters is to whose advantage these viewpoints, these proposals, these measures... are. Do not trust the phrases, you had better see to whose advan tage they are.” (Vol. 19, p. 33, Russian edition.) Every passing day shows, ever more clearly and by numerous facts, whom do the viewpoints and actions of N. Khrushchev and his group really serve, confirms the se rious danger they pose and the great damage they bring to the world revolutionary movement, to the cause of socialism, of the freedom of the peoples and of world peace.
Everyone who attentively follows N. Khrushchev’s ac tivities does not find it difficult to convince himself that these viewpoints and actions are not detached, isolated, occasional mistakes. On the contrary, they testify to a whole consistently opportunist line, they show that N. Khrushchev is ever more departing from the revolution ary positions of Marxism-Leninism, that he is ever more deeply sliding into the mire of anti-Marxism.
The Spreading of Pacifist Illusions about United States Imperialism Seriously Damages the Cause of Peace
The basic criterion for determining whether a party or a leader stands on revolutionary Marxist-Leninist positions is the attitude towards the class enemy. Conse quently, the only correct policy is the policy based on class conceptions. In our times the principal enemy of the international working class and of all the peoples is imperialism, and in the first place its head, the center of world reaction — United States imperialism.
But what is the attitude of N. Khrushchev and his group on this fundamental question? The facts indicate that his attitude is by no means a determined and prin cipled attitude, but a quite contradictory, wavering and opportunist one.
Now it is no secret to anyone that N. Khrushchev and his group have become accustomed to propagating harmful illusions about the leaders of imperialism, espe cially of United States imperialism. At first such illu sions were spread concerning the former president of the United States of America, Dwight Eisenhower, presenting him as a man “who enjoys the absolute confidence of his people” and who “sincerely loves peace.” But before long, after the provocation by the “U-2” spy aircraft, N. Khrushchev made a 180-degree turn and called Eisen hower by his real name — a warmonger. This radical turn was followed by more illusions about Eisenhower’s successor, John Kennedy. His advent to power was adver tised by N. Khrushchev and his propagandists as an event of great importance which would bring about fundamental changes in the policy of the United States of America for the consolidation of peace. But this legend, too, about President Kennedy was smothered by the rifle fire on Giron Beach in Cuba and the roar of guns in the Laotian jungles; it was stifled by the sabre-rattling in West Berlin and the astronomical figures of the United States military budget. Following these and many other events, N. Khrushchev, in a speech delivered on May 6, 1961, in Erevan, reprimanded those who cherished illusions about the Kennedy Administration. This was but a demagogical manoeuvre to cover his tracks. What N. Khrushchev sought to conceal was in fact laid bare by his authorized messenger, the diplomatic journalist A. Adjubei who, during the interview granted to him by Kennedy on November 25, 1961, told the president “in a quite sincere manner” that "...your election to the high post of the president of the United States of America was welcomed by the public opinion of our country (read: by N. Khrushchev’s group — Editor) with great hopes.” More over, immediately after this interview, he told the American journalists that the Americans must be proud of the president they have. (!) And he said this precisely a few days after the Kennedy Administration had begun its acts of persecution against the Communist Party of the United States of America.
The two historic documents of the present-day interna tional communist and workers’ movement — the 1957 and 1960 Moscow Declarations — point out that United States imperialism is the main force of aggression and war, an international gendarme and the fiercest enemy of the peoples throughout the world. But N. Khrushchev’s spokesman, A. Adjubei, apparently does not agree with such an appraisal. After his second “cordial” meeting with President Kennedy, Adjubei told American journalists on January 31, 1962: “We do not believe that the United States of America wants war.” We would like to ask N. Khrushchev and his spokesman: Since when has United States imperialism renounced the policy of war and become peace-loving? And what about Lenin’s thesis that imperialism is a source of war and aggression? Has his thesis become obsolete and outlived its days? If such is the case, where then does the danger of war come from? Who is threatening peace? Does such a danger no longer exist and the peoples may sleep at ease?
N. Khrushchev and the propagandists of his theses, intending to pursue a “flexible policy”, for the sake of talks or of some diplomatic combination, are seeking very carefully to avoid a resolute unmasking of United States imperialism. Many basic articles of the Soviet press on international issues do not even mention United States imperialism at all. Even in the articles written for such an occasion as the WFTU Congress — the congress of the working class international organisation — or at the meeting of the World Peace Council, which is a body aimed at organising and arousing the peoples in the struggle for the defense of peace and against warmon gers, it was not considered proper to mention even the name of the main bulwark of aggression and war in the world, the monopoly imperialism of the United States of America. What are the conceptions by which N. Khrush chev and his supporters are guiding themselves in their attitude towards United States imperialism? Does U.S. imperialism become better, wiser and more peace-loving for not mentioning it, for not unmasking it? What does this have in common with the Marxist-Leninist class conception about imperialism? How do N. Khrushchev’s attitudes comply with the task set by the Moscow Decla rations of the communist and workers’ parties concerning the indispensability of exposing the policy of war and aggression of United States imperialism, about enhancing the vigilance of the peoples against the plan and the dan gerous acts of the imperialist warmongers?
Now N. Khrushchev and the propagandists of his theses are seeking to create the impression that the main danger to peace in our days is no longer United States imperial ism but the West German revanchists. This is putting the cart before the horse. The revengeful militarism of West Germany is undoubtedly a great danger to peace, a dangerous hotbed of war in the center of Europe; it is the main striking force of the aggressive NATO bloc against the socialist countries. But is this a reason to conceal or belittle the danger of United States imperial ism as the head and the main force of world reaction, as the greatest and fiercest enemy of peace and of the peo ples of all countries? It is a matter of common knowledge that the United States imperialists are the main prop of the West German revanchists, at whose incitation and by whose direct aid militarism has been revived there, the Wehrmacht is being armed with weapons of mass annihi lation and rockets and is being incited against the German Democratic Republic, the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries.
They want to convince us that all this is done for the consolidation of peaceful coexistence, for the relaxation of international tension, for the preservation of peace; that these attitudes and actions meet the interests of all peace-loving peoples. A futile effort. It is difficult to convince people that peace can be preserved and strength ened by concealing from them who are the real war mongers, and even more difficult by spreading pacifist illusions about imperialism and its leaders. Contrariwise, the spreading of such illusions is very dangerous to the cause of peace, for it lulls the vigilance of the peoples and gives a free hand to the imperialists, in the first place to the American imperialists, feverishly to continue the armaments race and the preparations for a new world war.
But according to the logic of N. Khrushchev and his followers, there is nothing bad in this; for in reality, if we leave aside their formal statements and consider only their actual deeds, they do not attach any great impor tance to the struggle of the peoples for peace and they consider the talks and meetings (especially the personal, and often even the “family” ones) with the governments of the imperialist powers and their leaders as a principal means for tha securing of peace. Yes, the meeting and talks are necessary. But they can yield positive results only if they rest on the resolute struggle of the peoples for the settlement of the international questions, to stay the hand of the imperialist warmongers, to oblige them to enter into serious negotiations.
Today great changes have occurred in the world bal ance of forces. The positions of imperialism have been greatly narrowed and weakened. The world socialist system is with every passing day becoming the decisive force in the development of the human society. As a result of these changes, more favourable conditions have been created for the struggle against imperialism, there has arisen the real possibility of preventing a new world war and other aggressive wars undertaken by imperial ism. The correctness of this conclusion, written down also in the Moscow Declaration, has been confirmed by life. But, for the Marxist-Leninists there is no doubt either about the fact that as long as imperialism exists there remains also the ground for aggressive wars. To emphasize this does not mean at all to deny the possi bility of preventing war, to scare the peoples by war. On the contrary, to deny this or completely throw it into oblivion, to speak in a unilateral, anti-dialectic way only of the possibility of preventing war as N. Khrushchev and the propagandists of his theses are doing, this is dan gerous, for it lulls the vigilance of the peoples, weakens their active struggle against the imperialist warmongers, increasing thereby the danger of war. The Declaration of the 81 communist and workers’ parties rightfully points out that the communists must not allow either the under estimation of the possibility of preventing a world war or the underestimation of the danger of war. Only the victory of socialism throughout the world will definitely remove the social and national causes of the unleashing of wars of any kind.
A member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, A. Rumyantsev, falsifying the 1960 Moscow Declaration, has expressed the opinion in one of his recent articles that to exclude war* from the life of society (that is all sorts of wars* for he makes no difference between them) it is by no means necessary to destroy capitalism definitely nor necessary for social ism to triumph on a world scale, or at least in the main imperialist countries (he says nothin,g about this), but it would be sufficient only: “Firstly, to increase in all direc tions the might of the socialist camp;... secondly, to strengthen further the independence of the countries that have liberated themselves from the colonial yoke... and, finally, to promote further the compactness of the peace-loving forces.” Likewise, in the article “Peaceful Coexistence and Revolution”, published in the periodical Communist, issue No. 2, 1962, the opinion is expressed that In the present-day conditions it is possible to exclude war* from the life of society and that the implementation of the principle of peaceful coexistence between states is the real method for this. The same article further quotes one of the messages of the Soviet Government addressed to the government of the United States of America, point ing out that peaceful coexistence “is possible only if states with different social orders will submit to interna tional laws, if they will recognize the securing of world peace as their loftiest aim."* What follows from all this? Either imperialism has changed its nature and is no longer aggressive and belligerent, it has renounced its plans of war and is prepared to accept the securing of world peace as its loftiest aim, or it has weakened so much that it is unable to undertake any aggressive action. Neither the one nor the other corresponds to reality, and this is con firmed by indisputable facts in the whole development of present-day international life. Still the greatest evil is that these viewpoints seriously damage the peoples’ struggle against imperialism, and in defense of peace.
* Stress ours – Ed.
In his article A. Rumyantsev says also that, as was pointed out at the 22nd Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, “peaceful coexistence — and only this — is the best road and the only road acceptable for the settlement of vitally important problems facing society”.* How should we understand this? Let us take such fundamental and vital problems of the present-day society as the liberation of the enslaved peoples from the imperialist yoke, or the liberation of the working class and all the working people from capitalist exploitation. What, in the final analysis, is the real road to the settle ment of these vital problems?
* Stress ours – Ed.
Of course, peaceful coexistence, correctly understood and implemented in the spirit of the 1960 Moscow Decla ration is by no means in opposition to the national-libera- tion movement of the oppressed peoples and to the revo lutionary struggle of the working class. On the contrary, as is pointed out also in the Declaration, in conditions of peaceful coexistence favourable possibilities are created for the development of the class struggle in the capitalist countries, for the development of the national-liberation movements of the peoples of the colonial and dependent countries, while the successes of the latter contribute on their part to the consolidation of peaceful coexistence. Communists are not and can never be of the opinion that to achieve the national liberation of the enslaved peoples and the victory of socialism in all countries, a third world war is indispensable. They are most determined fighters against a world war and for the defense and consolida tion of world peace.
But does this mean that peaceful coexistence will au tomatically settle the problem of the liberation of the oppressed peoples and of the triumph of socialism through out the world? As Marxism-Leninism teaches us, as it has been and is being confirmed every day by life and facts and as it has been pointed out also in the 1957 and 1960 Declarations of the communist and workers’ parties, the only right and possible path to the liberation of the enslaved peoples is their own resolute national-liberation struggle against the imperialist colonialists, while the path of the overthrow of the capitalist order and of the transition to socialism is the class struggle and the carry ing out of the socialist revolution in this or that form. While according to Rumyantsev, the only correct and acceptable road for the settlement of the vital problems of society is peaceful coexistence. If such is the case, then perhaps should the enslaved peoples renounce their national-liberation struggle, while the working class and all the working people in the capitalist countries should renounce their class struggle and revolution and wait for their liberation as a gift from peaceful coexistence?
We are by no means faced here with any wrong formu lation that has accidentally slipped from A. Rumyantsev, but with a clear expression of the opportunist line per sistently pursued by N. Khrushchev and his group in the issue of peaceful coexistence. That which N. Khrush chev himself dares not say out is openly said by his zealous propagandists. In fact, A. Rumyantsev’s formu lation is the dissolution of the essence of N. Khrushchev’s known revisionist conception about peaceful coexistence as the general line of the foreign policy of the socialist countries, which our Party has also criticised.
N. Khrushchev’s revisionist conception about peaceful coexistence as a magic wand for the settlement of all the problems of the present-day world has been expressed on many occasions and has been embodied in N. Khrush chev’s attitudes and deeds on a series of important prob lems and events in international life. Let us take even the attitude of the Soviet delegation to the meeting of the World Peace Council in Stockholm. An article published in the journal Za Rubezhom in connection with this meeting severely attacks those delegates who de manded that the forthcoming World Peace Congress should be a “congress of peace, national independence and disarmament”. The article says: “These speakers, using base methods, alleged that there are some people who consider general and complete disarmament as the only duty of the movement for the defense of peace and are counting on the weakening of support to the national- liberation struggle of the peoples.” But however hard N. Khrushchev’s propagandists may try from the editorial office of Za Rubezhom to justify the anti-Marxist attitude of the Soviet delegation in Stockholm, the fact remains that it was precisely the Soviet delegation that refused with great obstinacy to place on the agenda of the forthcoming congress of the peace partisans the problem of the struggle of the enslaved peoples against colonialism and for national independence, insisting that the agenda should include only the disarmament and the peace issues. What then does the Za Rubezhom call “base methods”? Is it a base thing to demand discussion at the peace con gress of the problem of the peoples’ struggle for their national liberation, to demand that the struggle for peace should not be divorced from the peoples’ struggle for freedom and national independence? This is a quite just and lawful demand which true Marxist-Leninists cannot but unreservedly support. The attitude of the Soviet delegation towards this question rightfully shocked not only the communist revolutionaries, but also many non communist delegates who represented the peoples of the Asian, African and Latin American countries who are waging a costly struggle against imperialist oppression, and for freedom and independence.
How can one explain such an attitude on the part of the N. Khrushchev group on such a vital question as that of the national liberation of the enslaved peoples? Do they perhaps think that general and complete disarma ment would automatically settle also the problem of na tional liberation, that the enslaved peoples must sit with folded arms waiting for the achievement of disarmament? Or do they perhaps think that the national-liberation movement of the peoples is a danger to peace which might lead to the unleashing of a world war, and that therefore the enslaved peoples must be quiet lest they should “provoke” imperialism? Or perhaps both? In fact, the com munist movement already knows N. Khrushchev’s wrong viewpoint that every “small war” is a danger to world peace, that “every spark may be transformed into a world conflagration”. It follows from this logic that any na tional-liberation struggle is also undesirable, for it might lead to the unleashing of a third world war. The attitude of the Soviet delegation at the meeting of the World Peace Council in Stockholm was nothing but a practical imple mentation of this anti-Marxist thesis of N. Khrushchev.
However viewed, such an attitude is only to the ad vantage of the imperialist colonialists and to the dis advantage of the peoples oppressed and enslaved by imperialism, to the disadvantage of the cause of peace and socialism; it is in open opposition to the Declaration of the 81 communist and workers’ parties, which points out that the national-liberation movement of the peoples is one of the great forces of our times for the defense of peace and that its successes strengthen the cause of peace and peaceful coexistence.
N. Khrushchev and his followers pay lip service to both ways of transition to socialism, with arms and without arms, peaceful and non-peaceful, while in reality they overestimate and consider almost completely abso lute the peaceful way. They interpret it in a reformist and opportunist way, pinning all their hopes for the transition to socialism on general and complete disarma ment and the economic competition between the two systems. This is testified by many facts. Is it not testi fied even by A. Rumyantsev’s article, in which he says that peaceful coexistence is the only correct and accept able road for the settlement of all the vital problems facing society?
<> The N. Khrushchev group have badly confused also the problem of revolution and counter-revolution. At a press conference held in Brazil on February 8, 1962, A. Adjubei stated that “revolution, just as counter-revolution, is no longer* an export item.” It is evident that Adjubei places revolution and counter-revolution on one and the same plane. On the one hand, he says that revolution only in the present time* is not an export item, while up to now, it apparently has been. On the other hand, counter-revo lution only recently* has been an export item, whereas at present it is allegedly no longer such and therefore the danger of the export of counter-revolution by imperial ism exists no more! This serves imperialist reaction as a weapon to discredit the socialist camp and the communist movement and to lull the vigilance of the peoples. But what were the 1956 Hungarian events, the intervention of the United States imperialists and their mercenaries in Cuba in 1961, or the plot of the Yugoslav revisionists and the Greek monarcho-fascists, in cooperation with the United States imperialists, against the People’s Re public of Albania? The 1960 Moscow Declaration, in total contradiction with Adjubei’s statements, clearly points out that: “The communist parties, guided by the Marxist- Leninist doctrine, have always been* opposed to the ex port of revolution. At the same time they resolutely fight* against the imperialist exportation of counter-revolution. They consider it as their internationalist duty to appeal to the peoples of all the countries to unite, to mobilise all their potential forces, to work actively and* relying on the strength of the world socialist system, to prevent or deal a decisive blow to the interference of the imperialists in the affairs of the people of any country, who have risen in revolution”.*
* Stress ours – Ed.
It is known that one of the fundamental theses of Marx ism-Leninism, which has also been stressed in the 1957 and 1960 Declarations of the communist and workers’ parties, is the principle that the transition from capitalism to socialism can be achieved only under the leadership of the working class and its revolutionary party and by establishing the proletarian dictatorship. Whereas in the propaganda of the N. Khrushchev group, in the pages of the Soviet press and in the recent documents of the Com munist Party of the Soviet Union this thesis of principle is being thrown into oblivion and being carefully avoided, especially with regard to the prospects of the develop ment of the countries which have won their national in dependence and have liberated themselves from the co lonial yoke of imperialism. Thus, for example, the new programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, approved at the 22nd Congress, which deals with the non-capitalist way of development in former colonial coun tries, nowhere points out that in view of the develop ment of these countries in this way the leadership of the working class headed by its Marxist-Leninist party and the establishment of the proletarian dictatorship in this or that form are indispensable. On the contrary, it is hinted that the development of these countries in the non-capitalist way can be achieved also under the leader ship of other classes and parties, that in these countries the transition to socialism can also be effected without overthrowing the capitalist state power, without replacing it with the state of the proletarian dictatorship.
The thoroughly opportunist viewpoints of N. Khrush chev and his group about the question of revolution, as well as their attitudes and actions on the questions of imperialism, war and peace, peaceful coexistence and disarmament, by no means serve the working class, the labouring masses and the peoples, but on the contrary do great harm to the cause of the victory of socialism. In fact, they paralyse the revolutionary energy of the work ing people, they delay the victory of the socialist revolu tion, they lengthen the life-span of capitalism, they doom the working people of the capitalist countries to further sufferings for a long time under the heavy yoke of cap ital. The heroic Cuban people rightfully point out in the second Havana Declaration that “to bring Latin Ame rica’s liberation nearer, if only by one year, means to save the lives of millions of children, to free millions of minds for the development of culture, to save the peoples from inestimable suffering.” This is how the peoples and true revolutionaries view the question.
N. Khrushchev — Defamer of the Socialist Order and Splitter of the Unity of the Socialist Camp and the Communist Movement
N. Khrushchev has damaged and is damaging very greatly the cause of socialism, the unity of the socialist camp and the international communist movement by his unprincipled attacks on J.V. Stalin and his deeds, by his policy of rapprochement and reconciliation with the re visionist Tito clique, as well as by his hostile actions against the Party of Labour of Albania and the Albanian people.
<> N. Khrushchev and his group are demagogically spec ulating with the slogan of the fight “against the per sonality cult and its consequences”, intending to discrown Stalin’s ideas — Leninism, to revise some of the funda mental teachings of Marxism-Leninism and spread their own opportunist viewpoints, striking and liq uidating the sound Marxist-Leninist elements in the leaderships of the communist and workers’ parties of the different countries, activating and supporting for this pur pose his confidential agents in these parties, to rehabili tate the enemies and traitors to Marxism-Leninism and socialism — living and dead. N. Khrushchev and his sup porters, especially at the 22nd Congress and after it, publicly launched and are furiously conducting a whole campaign of attacks on and slanders against J.V. Stalin, presenting him as a fierce dictator, as a terrorist, mur derer and criminal, characterizing the period of Stalin’s leadership as a period of great errors, crimes and serious violations of the socialist laws. In this way they provided weapons to imperialist reaction and joined it in its efforts to discredit the Soviet Union, the proletarian dictatorship and the socialist order in general, to stain the ideas of socialism and communism.
Under the mask of the fight against “dogmatism” and “sectarianism” and claiming that revisionism has already been unmasked and defeated, N. Khrushchev and his group have renounced the fight against revisionism, which remains the main danger to the international communist and workers’ movement, and they are approaching ever nearer the Yugoslav revisionist clique. It is need less to dwell again here on the question of N. Khrush chev’s scandalous attitude towards the traitorous Tito group in relation to the 1956 Hungarian counter-revolu tionary coup, as well as on the other facts of the past concerning his rapprochement with the Yugoslav revi sionists. It is sufficient to mention that after the 22nd Congress, the meetings and talks, the exchanges of dele gations and all-round connections with Yugoslavia have been extended and are increasing with every passing day. N. Khrushchev and his followers are ever more often making statements alleging that Yugoslavia is a socialist country, that her foreign policy complies with that of the Soviet Union, etc. In this spirit of reconciliation and rapprochement, a Komsomol delegation was even sent to Yugoslavia recently for an “exchange of experience”(!). Facts show that such a policy of reconciliation with the revisionists is reviving the revisionist elements and view points among the ranks of the communist and workers’ parties; it gives a free hand to the Yugoslav revisionists and encourages them to attack Marxism-Leninism, to hit the unity of the communist movement, to carry out un dermining hostile activities against the socialist countries.
Have N. Khrushchev’s hostile attitudes and actions towards the Party of Labour of Albania and the People’s Republic of Albania served the communist movement and the cause of socialism, as N. Khrushchev and his spokesmen are seeking to present the case? On the con trary, such anti-Marxist acts of N. Khrushchev and his group as the extension of ideological differences to the field of state relations, the organisation of pressure and economic and political blockades, going as far as the de facto break-off of diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of Albania, the unilateral public airing of our differences at the 22nd Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the brutal interference in the internal affairs of our Party and our country, the slanders that the personality cult is thriving in our country and that a regime of terror holds sway here, the giving of protec tion to the enemies and traitors to our Party and our people, and the open calls for a counter-revolution, for the overthrow of the leadership of our Party and our people’s power — all these things do not serve but great ly damage our cause of socialism and communism. It is quite evident to every honest and reasonable person that they have damaged and are seriously damaging the unity of the socialist camp and of the international communist movement, that they discredit the prestige and the for eign policy of the Soviet Union, the relations between the socialist countries and the communist and workers’ parties, and that they provide the imperialists with weapons to fight us.
However hard N. Khrushchev and his group may try to justify these anti-Marxist and hostile acts against our Party and our people, and to deceive public opinion, alleging that they have made every effort to normalise the relations with the Party of Labour of Albania and the People’s Republic of Albania, the facts remain facts. We shall come back to this problem to prove by docu ments that N. Khrushchev not only has done nothing to improve the relations between our two parties and our two countries but, on the contrary, has done everything in his power to aggravate them. Not Khrushchev, but the Party of Labour of Albania has in fact made sincere efforts towards the settlement of the differences and the improvement of Soviet-Albanian relations on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism.
The N. Khrushchev group, aiming to conceal their de parture from the line of Marxism-Leninism and the viola tion of the 1960 Moscow Declaration, to justify their opportunist and capitulationist positions, are furiously rushing upon the correct and principled attitude of the Party of Labour of Albania, both as regards the meaning and implementation of the policy of peaceful coexistence and disarmament or even the other issues of war and peace, of the ways of transition to socialism, etc. In fact, the truth is quite different. The Party of Labour of Albania is faithfully implementing the teachings of Marxism-Leninism and the Moscow Declaration concern ing the above questions. And this can be confirmed even by a rapid comparison of the slanders of the N. Khrush chev group and their official declarations with the atti tudes and activities of our Party.
Let us take the question of peaceful coexistence. The propagandists of the N. Khrushchev group, slandering the Party of Labour of Albania, write:
“The leadership of the Party of Labour of Albania, especially Enver Hoxha and Mehmet Shehu, declare that the policy of peaceful coexistence cannot be the general political line of the socialist countries. In connection
with this, they refer to what they allege that the prin ciple of peaceful coexistence means refusal to support the national-liberation movement. In its outside aspect such a posing of the question is prompted, so to speak, by the concern for the destinies of the peoples of the colonial countries, but in reality they ignore the fact that the peoples of the colonial countries wish to achieve freedom in the peaceful way, without bloodshed. These aspira tions are met precisely by the policy of peaceful coexistence which implies especially non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries, the acceptance for every people to settle independently all the questions of their own life.” (Radio Moscow, February 15, 1962.) Let us briefly analyse this.
Firstly, according to N. Khrushchev’s propagandists, the Party of Labour of Albania, being against peaceful coexistence as the general political line of the socialist countries, is generally opposed to peaceful coexistence. But N. Khrushchev’s propagandists forget that the prin ciple of peaceful coexistence is not described in the Mos cow Declaration as a general political line of the socialist countries and is neither construed as a magic wand by which “every people could settle all the issues of their own life”, but as the only correct and reasonable prin ciple governing the relations between countries with different social systems. It follows also from the Mos cow Declaration that the foreign policy of the socialist countries is guided by some other principles, too: in the relations between the socialist countries — by the prin ciple of proletarian internationalism and of mutual fra ternal aid; towards the national-liberation movement and the revolutionary struggle of the working class and the laboui’ing masses — by the principle of solidarity with them, of aid and support to the peoples’ rights to freedom and independence, to national and social liberation.
The slander of N. Khrushchev’s propagandists that the Party of Labour of Albania is opposed to peaceful co existence is rejected by the official documents of our Party and Government and by their whole course of action. In Comrade Enver Hoxha’s speech delivered at the meeting devoted to the 20th anniversary of the found ing of the Party of Labour of Albania and the 44th anni versary of the great October Socialist Revolution, it is said: “The foreign policy of the Party of Labour of Alba nia has always been and continues to be based on the constant strengthening of the relations of friendship, fraternal cooperation, mutual aid and mutual support with the countries of the socialist camp, headed by the Soviet Union; on support for the anti-imperialist and anti-colonial national-liberation struggle of the oppressed peoples and nations, as well as for the revolutionary struggle of the working people in the capitalist countries; and on the efforts towards the securing of relations of peaceful coexistence between the People’s Republic of Albania and the capitalist countries, especially the neigh bouring countries.”
Our Party and Government have consistently trans lated into reality the principles of the policy of peaceful coexistence. It is needless to dwell at length on the diplo matic relations which our country is maintaining with 17 independent capitalist countries or on the efforts made and the readiness always expressed by the Government of the People’s Republic of Albania to improve the relations with its neighbouring countries. We shall only mention the trade relations of our country with the capitalist countries; for the N. Khrushchev group have now begun to slander our Party on this point, contradicting even their own revisionist conception of peaceful coexistence. The People’s Republic of Albania had early established trade relations with 12 non-socialist countries. Still Khrushchev has recently been accusing us of not making efforts to develop trade on the basis of mutual benefit, on the basis of the principles of peaceful coexistence with the capitalist countries. This year too, the People’s Re public of Albania, faithfully pursuing her correct policy, is developing trade relations with non-socialist countries such as Italy, Ghana, Egypt, Iraq, etc. But N. Khrushchev has now begun to slander us, alleging that the Albanian leaders are “orientating themselves towards the West”, that they are “intensively establishing political, economic and other sorts of relations with some NATO countries”, in other words his “brilliant” invention is allegedly com ing true, that is that the PLA and the PRA are selling themselves to imperialism for 30 coins. Waking dreams in broad daylight! N. Khrushchev is becoming furious because the Party of Labour of Albania and the Albanian Government, by pursuing a resolute and consistent policy, in the spirit of Marxism-Leninism and the Moscow Dec larations, in their relations with the capitalist countries, are frustrating his efforts to isolate the People’s Republic of Albania and to put up a blockade against her.
Secondly, according to the propagandists of the N. Khrushchev group, the Party of Labour of Albania, being opposed to the thesis that peaceful coexistence is the general line of the foreign policy of the socialist coun tries, is contradicting the desire of the oppressed peoples to achieve freedom through the peaceful way and with out bloodshed, and therefore it is opposed to the vital interests of these peoples.
We are faced here with an open distortion of the po sition of our Party and Government which, in all their policy and activities, have supported and backed the just struggle of the peoples to achieve and strengthen their freedom and national independence. The report of the Central Committee of the Party of Labour of Albania, delivered at the 4th Congress of the Party, reads:
“Our Party and our people, who have themselves ex perienced exploitation and colonial oppression, have sup ported and will always and unreservedly support the national-liberation struggle of the oppressed peoples. We consider this our internationalist duty.”
<> In their great zeal to slander the Party of Labour of Albania, the propagandists of N. Khrushchev’s theses in advertently reveal his quite anti-Marxist and opportunist position relating to the question of the ways to the libera tion of the oppressed peoples. It follows from their logic that the only right way to the liberation of the peoples from the colonial yoke is the peaceful way, that if you accept and support also the alternate way, that of the armed national-liberation struggle, it means that you are opposed to peaceful coexistence. It follows therefore from this logic that the Algerian, Angolan, Omani, Con golese, Laotian and other peoples must renounce their armed struggle and pursue the peaceful way, for, it is asserted, only this way conforms to the policy of peaceful coexistence. Thus, all those peoples who are struggling, arms in hand, for their national liberation are open to censure as belligerent and opposed to peace. There is again N. Khrushchev’s notorious thesis that to preserve peace and peaceful coexistence we must prohibit all kinds of wars without exception because any spark may result in a “world conflagration”. It is clear to everybody to whose advantage these viewpoints of N. Khrushchev’s are and whom they serve.
Precisely in this spirit N. Khrushchev’s propagandists are handling also the problem of the ways of transition to socialism. In an effort to justify in some way the opportunist viewpoints of N. Khrushchev and his group relating to this question and by distorting the position of the Party of Labour of Albania and slandering it, Khrush chev’s spokesmen, in one of their recent commentaries, alleged that “the Albanian leaders, denying the peaceful, forms of the victory on the part of the working class, are joining thereby the bourgeois propaganda which claims that war is the means of achieving the world victory of socialism.” This, of course, is only a slander undeserving of a halt to refute it. Our Party has never denied the possibility of the peaceful transition to socialism, the less has it ever thought of world war as being indis pensable for the triumph of socialism in all countries. In his speech of November 7, 1961 Comrade Enver Hoxha clearly pointed out: “We, the Albanian communists, have not been and never are a priori opposed to the peaceful way. But the teachings of Marxism-Leninism, historical experience and the' reality of the present days teach us that to achieve the victory of the cause of socialism, the working class and its party must prepare themselves at the same time for both possibilities — of the peaceful and non-peaceful ways. To orientate yourself towards the one possibility only means to embark on a wrong path. Only by getting well prepared, especially for the non-peaceful way, do the chances grow also for the peaceful way.”
But the “logic” of N. Khrushchev’s spokesmen is inter esting. In their opinion, if you accept, alongside the peaceful way, also the non-peaceful way of revolution, as V. I. Lenin teaches us and as required by the Marxist dialectics, it means that you stand for world war. There fore, to stand for peace it is allegedly necessary to re nounce the acceptance of the non-peaceful way and ac cept only the peaceful way to the victory of socialism! On this basis the bourgeoisie and its servitors may accuse of being belligerent and opposed to peace the working class and communist party in every country where they forecast the transition from capitalism to socialism also by non-peaceful means. Let the readers themselves judge who chimes in with the bourgeois propaganda on this question.
As much absurd as the above accusations and inven tions against the policy pursued by the PLA and the PRA are also N. Khrushchev’s accusations and slanders against the policy of our Party and Government concern ing the question of war and peace. In a quite irrespon sible manner and turning the facts upside down, N. Khrushchev’s propagandists slanderously allege that “. . . the Albanian leaders do not believe in the might of the socialist camp, they overestimate the potential ities of imperialism, they capitulate before it with fear, leaving in its hands the settlement of the question: should there be war or not. Such a position leads in fact to a lack of faith, of prospect, deprives the peoples of their confidence in the consolidation of peace. By such as sertions the Albanian leaders believe that the cause of the struggle for peace develops spontaneously, they dis arm the peoples, thereby weakening their efforts in the struggle for the defense of peace.” (Radio Moscow, February 7, 1962.)
The line of our Party on the question of war and peace has been and is more than clear. We consider it quite superfluous therefore to dwell at length on this problem and reject by numerous facts and documents this ex tremely clumsy slander of the N. Khrushchev group. We only quote a part from the report of the Central Com mittee of the Party of Labour of Albania to the 4th Con gress of the Party which, in the spirit of the 1960 Moscow Declaration, expresses the correct attitude of our Party: “The Marxist-Leninist dialectic method and the material ist conception of history give us the right answer — that the overestimation of our forces and the underestimation of the forces of the enemies, just as the underestimation of our forces and the overestimation of the forces of the enemies, lead to grave errors. The first case brings about the weakening of vigilance and leads to adventure, while the second leads to errors and opportunist attitudes. Therefore our Party has always pointed out that the bal ance of forces in the world has changed to the advantage of socialism, that the forces of socialism are greater than those of imperialism, that the forces of peace are stronger than those of war. At the same time it has not under estimated the forces of imperialism.. . . Our Party has spoken of and always struggles for the possibility of pre venting world war, says that world war is not today fa tally inevitable and at the same time it has spoken of the danger of war, for as long as imperialism exists there exists also the ground for aggressive wars.”
What is, then, the fault and error of the Party of La bour of Albania? Is it because, along with the correct evaluation of the forces of socialism and world peace, it does not underestimate also the forces of imperialism and war; is it because along with the admission of the pos sibility of avoiding a world war and the other aggressive wars undertaken by imperialism it points out at the same time also the danger of war, the possibility of the un leashing of aggressive wars by imperialism? What do the N. Khrushchev group want? Do they perhaps want us to follow in the traces of their illusions about the change in the nature of imperialism, that imperialism does not at present constitute any serious danger to peace, that it has its hands and feet tied and is unable to do anything? And what would the imperialists wish better than the spreading of such illusions?
Life itself has rejected these illusions of N. Khrush chev’s. What do the imperialist aggressions against Korea, Viet Nam, Egypt, the Congo, Cuba and other countries bespeak? There is no doubting the fact that the liquida tion of these hotbeds of war, not allowing them to be transformed into a world conflict, clearly speaks of the real possibility existing at present to stop the aggressive wars of imperialism. But it shows also that imperialism has by no means renounced its aggressive acts and that it is still in a position to undertake such acts, especially when all sorts of pacifist illusions are cherished with regard to it, when the vigilance of the peoples is relaxed and when they do not mobilize themselves with the proper strength and determination to stay the hand of the imperialist aggressors.
To point out only the possibility of preventing war and not to speak of its danger, not to unmask the policy of war and aggression pursued by imperialism — as N. Khrushchev does — means to trample with both feet on the Moscow Declaration, to lull the vigilance of the working people, to weaken their struggle for peace, to disarm the peoples and give free hand to the imperialists to implement their aggressive plans.
The Facts and Documents Refute the Lies about the Attitude of the Party of Labour of Albania towards the Disarmament Issue
Another field of slanderous activities of N. Khrushchev and his group against our country is the trumped-up charges about the policy and attitude of the PLA and the PRA concerning the question of disarmament. They present the case as if the PLA and the PRA “show a profound distrust in the possibility of achieving disarma ment in our era and basely falsify the Soviet proposals”. To justify this slander, the N. Khrushchev group produce as their sole arguments “the facts” that “the leaders of the PLA have provided no example and have made no practical contribution to the implementation of the dis armament programme”, that they “have opposed the proposals for the creation of an atom free zone in the Balkans and in the Adriatic Sea area”, that they have “risen against the Rumanian Government’s proposal for the relaxation of tension in the Balkans and the creation of premises of peaceful coexistence in this area.”
Our Party and Government have always considered the disarmament problem as one of the biggest problems of our times in the securing of peace and have held and continue to hold that, through the joint efforts of the socialist forces in the world, disarmament can be imposed upon imperialism and concrete results can be achieved in this respect. During its whole existence, the Govern ment of the People’s Republic of Albania has fought alongside the other socialist and peace-loving countries for the settlement of the disarmament problem, making its contribution to this question. It has resolutely sup ported the numerous proposals of the Soviet Union in the first place, and of the other socialist states, from the par tial settlement of the issues down to general and com plete disarmament. This is clearly shown by the many documents of our Party and Government and by all their actions in the international arena.
N. Khrushchev charges that the PLA and the PR A have been opposed to the proposal for the transformation of the Balkans and the Adriatic area into an atom and rocket free zone. How does the truth stand? This proposal was put forward for the first time by the USSR Govern ment and the Government of the PR A in their joint offi cial statement of May 30, 1959. The statement reads: “The Government of Albania and the Soviet Govern ment hold that the interests of the peoples of the Balkan peninsula and the Adriatic area would be met by the creation of an atom free zone in this area. The renuncia tion by the countries of this area of the establishment of atomic bases and rockets on their territories would be a large contribution to the issue of transforming the Balkans into a zone of peace and tranquillity.”
The slander and falsification rush led N. Khrushchev to such absurdities as accusing the PLA and the PRA of having opposed their own proposal. Have perhaps the PLA and the PRA changed their attitude towards this proposal? Not at all. They have been and remain de termined for the implementation of this proposal. N. Khrushchev and his group cannot produce a single fact in support of their slanders because such facts do not exist.
If it is a question of T. Zhivkov’s known proposal of 1960 that the Balkan countries (without including, then, Italy where the NATO rocket bases are established) should disarm down to the borderguards level, such a proposal has been and is rejected by our Party and Gov ernment as a dangerous and worthless diplomatic step.
As to the attitude of the PLA and the PRA towards the Rumanian Government’s proposal for a meeting of the heads of government of the Balkan countries for im provement and development of the relations between them, on this question, too, the facts give lie to the slan ders of N. Khrushchev’s propagandists, who accuse the leaders of the PLA and the PRA of having expressed themselves against this proposal.
As early as September 19, 1957, only one week after the Rumanian proposal, the newspaper Zeri i Popullit carried the reply of the Chairman of the Council of Min isters of the PRA, Comrade Mehmet Shehu, sent to the then Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the People’s Republic of Rumania, Chivu Stoica, by which the Al banian Government expressed its readiness to contribute to the improvement and development of relations among the Balkan countries. The letter said: “The Albanian Government, appraising the conclusion reached by the Rumanian Government that the vital interests of the Balkan peoples require broad collective cooperation among the Balkan countries, and considering the actual importance of this question, approves the Rumanian Gov ernment’s proposal that a conference of the heads of government of Albania, Bulgaria, Greece, Turkey, Yu goslavia and Rumania should be held during 1957 in the Rumanian capital or in the capital of any of the other countries participating in the conference.” The Govern ment of the PRA expressed this attitude again later. On June 16, 1959, the same newspaper Zeri i Popullit publish ed the declaration of the Government of the PRA in sup port of the Rumanian Government's declaration calling for a meeting of the heads of governments of the Balkan states for the securing of peace in the Balkans. The decla ration says: “The Government of the PRA unreservedly supports this proposal of the Government of the Ru manian People’s Republic and expresses its readiness to attend such a meeting.”
It is obvious, therefore, that we are faced here with a clumsy lie. But this does not surprise us at all because falsifications and slanders have become the principal method of the N. Khrushchev group in their unprincipled fight against the Party of Labour of Albania and the People’s Republic of Albania.
Whom do they serve — all these slanders, trumped-up charges against the policy of the PLA and the PRA, against a socialist country such as the PRA and against the Albanian people who are heroically struggling for the cause of socialism and peace? They cannot but be to the advantage of the enemies of the Albanian people, of the common enemies of all the socialist countries. Through these attacks and slanders against the PLA and the PRA. N. Khrushchev zealously serves the imperialist and the reactionary forces in the world, he seriously damages the cause of the unity of the socialist camp and the inter national communist movement, the cause of socialism and peace.
* * *
Such are the true features of N. Khrushchev and his group. N. Khrushchev’s consistently anti-Marxist view points, attitudes and actions cannot be described other wise than a betrayal of the socialist camp and the interna tional communist and workers’ movement, of the great cause of socialism and communism, of the liberation of the peoples, and of universal peace. Forty-two years ago the great Lenin wrote: “The man who ‘sincerely’ de clares himself a communist and who in reality, instead of pursuing a clear-cut and constantly resolute policy, a selflessly bold and heroic policy (only such a policy com plies with the recognition of the proletarian dictatorship), wavers and proves to be timid — such a man, by his lack of character, by his waverings, by his indetermination, commits the same treachery as an out-and-out traitor. From the personal viewpoint, the difference between the traitor who betrays out of weakness and the traitor acting with premeditation and calculation is very great; from the political viewpoint, such a difference does not exist because politics in reality is the destiny of millions of people and this destiny is not changed by the way in which the millions of poor workers and peasants are betrayed — whether by the traitors who betray out of weakness or by the traitors who betray for interest” (V. I. Lenin, Works, Vol. 30, p. 404, Albanian edition).
Our Party, remaining loyal to the vital interests of our people and of the working people throughout the world, to Marxism-Leninism and the cause of socialism and com munism, will resolutely continue its just and principled struggle against the anti-Marxist, revisionist and traitor ous viewpoints and actions of N. Khrushchev and his group, being fully confident that right will triumph.