ENGLISH

 

 

 

The Moscow Declaration,
The Invincible Banner of the War against Imperialism and Revisionism

(Reproduced from the «Zerl i Popullit» daily, December 6, 1963)
The Naim Frasheri State Publishing House

Tirana. 1963

 

 

Table of Contents

Modern revisionism is characterized by its total capitulation to the enemy of the class in all its fronts

Coordination of the policy of N. Khrushchev’s group with that of Tito’s clique means coordination of the policy of modern revisionists with that of the imperialists

N. Khrushchev’s revisionist line is for the imperialists, against the socialist camp and the liberation movement of peoples

Without fighting revisionism the cause of the revolution and of socialism cannot forge ahead

 

 

It is three years since the Moscow Meeting of the representatives of 81 communist and workers parties of the world took place marking a notable historical event for the entire international communist movement of our time. Just as in 1957 the 1960 meeting adopted the appropriate documents which were the result of a free and full exchange of views brought about in conformity with the principle of unity through consultations. The Declaration of the meeting and the appeal addressed to peoples make up the joint program of the international communist movement.

The world historical significance of the Moscow Declarations lies in the fact that these documents, proceeding from a deep, scientific, Marxist-Leninist analysis of the great revolutionary processes that have taken place in the world, define in a correct way the basic characteristics of our epoch, the common laws of socialist revolution and of socialist edification. They universalize the rich ten-year long experience of the class struggle of the entire international communist movement and specify clearly and correctly the principles and duties of the communists of the whole world towards the most important issues of present world development. Alluding to the most important theoretical, political and programmatic problems of the communist movement the documents of the Moscow Meeting formulate in a scientific way conformable to principle, its strategy and tactics at the present stage and give a sound cue for every revolutionary communist in the fight to abolish exploitation of man by man, to defend democracy, peace, national liberation and for the triumph of socialism and communism throughout the world.

Reaffirming once again the general 'truth of Marxism-Leninism, the meetings of the representatives of the communist parties and the documents adopted by them emphasized in a categorical way that the communist movement can fulfil its historical mission with success only if it abides faithfully by the lofty principles of the Great October Revolution, if it indorses the indispensability of the socialist revolution and carries it forward to its ultimate conclusion.

Firmly upholding the revolutionary principles of Marxism-Leninism the Moscow Declaration laid before the communist movement the very explicit, unhesitating and unequivocal duty of fighting without leniency against imperialism and reaction, the duty of upholding peace, national liberation and socialism, the duty of strengthening the socialist camp and of setting up a new world free of capitalists and exploiters.

These concrete tasks are neither vain desires nor daydreams. They represent an objective necessity arising from the historical reality of our times and are, therefore, real and attainable. The revolutionary tasks of the communist movement are determined on the basis of a class analysis of the basic contradictions of the present time and of the ratio of forces at work today in the international arena, they express the general law of development of the history of the world.

The time that has elapsed since the meetings of the representatives of the communist and workers parties and subsequent world events of the recent years have reaffirmed in an incontestable way the correctness of the general line of the communist movement defined in the Moscow Declarations, the vitality and strength of its theses and principles. The cause for which the communists and all the peoples of the world fight has forged ahead. A ratio of forces on a world scale has already been created and is getting ever stronger in which one can clearly see the superiority of the forces of socialism over those of imperialism, of the liberation forces over those of colonialism, of the democratic and revolutionary forces over those of reaction, of the forces upholding peace against the warmongers. The new and important achievements which the socialist camp has attained, its all-round consolidation, the continuous growth of its role and influences has enabled the world socialist system to become a more and more decisive factor in the development of human society. Quite the contrary is happening to the imperialist system, the sphere of influence of which is setting narrower ' and narrower. In spite of its frenzied resistance imperialism has not succeeded in curbing the great impetus of the anti-imperialist revolutionary movement. Heroic Cuba detached itself from the system of oppression and exploitation of the American imperialists. This has been a great revolutionary event of our time. The world significance of the Cuban revolution lies in the fact that it was carried out with success in the American continent right before the noses of the United States of America. Secondly, that it succeeded in warding off with pluck and courage the biggest reactionary force the world has yet known, the American imperialists, manifesting in this way the weakness of imperialism and the strength of the socialist revolution.

The war front against imperialism and colonialism, both new and old, has taken such proportions as never met with at any other time before. Asia, Africa and Latin America .have launched such a revolutionary war as to shake the very foundations of the imperialist system. The Algerian people, who won their freedom by a long and bloody struggle, are continuing their endeavors to safeguard and further their revolutionary achievements. The liberation war of the peoples of the Portuguese colonies in Africa is waxing strong and the struggle of the broad masses of the people of South Africa against racial discrimination and for freedom and democratic prerogatives has received a new impetus. All the African countries are exerting great efforts to oppose neo-colonialism and to strengthen their independence and develop their economy independently.

The heroic people of South Vietnam who are coming into direct contact with the American war machine, are waging successfully a gigantic war. Invincible are the patriotic forces of Laos who firmly oppose imperialist intervention.

The class struggle in capitalist countries everywhere is becoming more bitter and the revolutionary movement of the masses of the people is continually gaining ground everywhere. We are today witnesses of a new aggravation of the contradictions within the ranks of the world capitalist system. The process of decline and decay of bourgeois society has been going on without interruption.

All of these important processes reassert once again the correctness of the conclusions and theses of the Moscow Declarations that the new ratio of forces, which keeps changing in favor of socialism and to the loss of imperialism, creates new and more favorable conditions and possibilities for the struggle against imperialism, in defense of peace and national liberation, of democracy and socialism. If the present favorable international situation is correctly assessed and utilized to the utmost by the communists it will give them all the opportunity needed to lead the revolutionary practice with success and to be at the height of the tasks which history has charged them with.

But in contrast with the recent successes of the revolutionary anti-imperialist forces, we cannot pass by unstressing the great damage the modern revisionists, represented by Tito-Khrushchev group, have caused and are causing to the cause of peace and socialism. During this period the Marxist-Leninists have had to wage a war on two fronts. While on one hand, abiding faithfully by their triumphant doctrine and the revolutionary principles of the Moscow Declarations, they have mustered all their efforts to utilize to the maximum the present favorable international situation in order to further the revolutionary and national liberation

struggle, on the other hand, they have untiringly combatted the modern revisionists who, having totally renounced the teachings of Marxism-Leninism and trampled underfoot the declarations of the 1957 and 1960 meetings of the communist and workers parties, work against socialism and in favor of the imperialists, obstruct the revolution of peoples and undermine the socialist camp, split the international communist movement and wreck the war against imperialism.

Today, six years after the 1957 Declaration and three years after that of 1960, at a time when the modem revisionists have launched their general attack against Marxism-Leninism and those who uphold the teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, one can plainly see the historical and , decisive importance to the world communist movement and to the future of the revolution, of the imputation of modem revisionism as the main peril to the world communist movement at the present stage as well as the call to fight it until its final ideological and political collapse. The accurate diagnosis made on this pernicious disease in the most important documents of the communist parties rendered a great service to the entire revolutionary movement of peoples. The detection of the ideological and political roots of revisionism and the warning to beware of its peril, served to frustrate its obstructionist plans, the plots and maneuvers of Nikita Khrushchev’s revisionist group and at the same time to sharpen the vigilance of peoples against this new peril.

The thesis of the Moscow Declarations on revisionism did not only sound the alarm but it also helped to mobilize all the communists to engage in a firm battle against opportunism. This thesis was a correct Marxist-Leninist directive which tore the revisionists’ plotter’s mask, frustrating their secret plans to carry out their perilous work. The successes that the sound Marxist-Leninist forces have scored so far in their fight against modern revisionism are due to a great extent to the fact that the Moscow Declarations expressed themselves firmly and unhesitatingly and in a communist way conformable to principle, against modem revisionism. Without fighting revisionism, Lenin has said, no successful war can be waged against imperialism, nor can the great cause of socialism make any headway. What is of significance is the fact that the Moscow Declarations are permeated throughout with the spirit of combat against revisionism, and all their theses are worded taking into account the eventuality of polemics with them.

 

Modern revisionism is characterized by its total capitulation to the enemy of the class in all its fronts

 

During recent years and especially since the publication of the Declaration of the Moscow meeting of the 81 communist and workers parties, one can see a precipitating evolution of the modern revisionists towards moving away from the teachings of Marxism-Leninism, towards intensification of undermining activities against the socialist camp and the international communist movement, towards closer contact and open collaboration with the imperialists.

This evolution is already completely crystalized and presents a fully distinct and typical phenomenon. If a few years ago N. Khrushchev’s group tried to keep certain superficial features of Marxism-Leninism, tried to disguise themselves behind certain revolutionary phrases using demagogy on a grand scale, now they are coming out in the open propagating a downright revisionist code in all fields, filled with opportunist formulae and theses, contrary to Marxism-Leninism and the Moscow Declarations.

In this sense, that is, in the evolution which modem revisionism has made in recent years, it has assumed certain new characteristics, touching not only the theoretical and political field but transcending also into the internal state organization and the international inter-state relations. In one word, modern revisionism is characterized by total capitulation before the class enemy in all fronts.

First and foremost the modern revisionists have already completely revised the basic theses of Marxism-Leninism on the revolution, the dictatorship of the proletariat and edification of socialism and they have embraced the social democratic views of class collaboration and of subservience to the bourgeoisie. Negation of the Marxist-Leninist theory of proletarian revolution and of proletarian dictatorship, which constitutes the sum and substance of the infamous program of the League of Jugoslav Communists is borrowed and is being zealously propagated by all the modem revisionists. Now these people do not speak any longer either about the class struggle nor about the revolution, but about «integration of society», «integration of states», which, it is claimed, is conditioned by the social and economic transformations that have come about in the world after the second world war. Thus, if we are to mention one of the latest examples, in a document of the Central Committee of the Italian Communist Party entitled «Towards a new advance and towards the unity of the international communist movement» it openly stated that the way of the October Revolution «is a strategy that does not conform to the actual situation» since, it is claimed, now «the sum total of the objective and subjective changes that have come about in the advanced capitalist countries have led to important changes in the state orders and structures». Proceeding from this assertion, that is, that the nature of imperialism and capitalist society has changed, the leaders of the Italian Communist Party state: «the search for new ways of acquiring and directing state power assumes major importance to carry on positive talks with the social and political forces which in the advanced capitalist countries are essential to setting up a new block to govern». And these social and political forces are the social democratic movement and the Catholic movement, which, according to the Italian leaders, «have power and roots in Western Europe, even in the working class».

Queer in these declarations of the Italian leaders is the concept that the class struggle of the working masses led by the proletariat can be replaced by talks with the social and political forces, that the dictatorship of the proletariat can be substituted for a new block of power which would include both the social-democrats, that have already proved to be inveterate servants of the bourgeoisie, and the demo-Christians, who represent the upper classes of the bourgeoisie and of reaction. In the Italian document, which pretends to teach the whole communist movement, not a word is said about the historic mission of the working class, about the overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat as a means to ensure the triumph of the revolution and about building socialism. Revolution and dictatorship of the proletariat do not even figure as words let aside as conceptions. The final goal of the proletariat, of their struggle and endeavors is, according to the conceptions of the leaders of the Italian Communist Party, to arrive «at a socialist solution, which will be capable of guaranteeing a high rate of production, to carry out an economic plan in which the initiative of the individual will have free play, to direct society by guaranteeing a broad system of political autonomy and prerogatives, to promote (free research in the field of culture and continuous confrontation of ideas».

The above quotations point out with clarity that the Italian revisionist leaders have fallen into the clutches of the ideology of the social democrats, have mastered it well and are zealously propagating it. The structure which Togliatti and his companions propose is nothing else but the present bourgeois, order already established in Western Europe, with, of course, a few concessions in the field of democratic bourgeois rights which figure more or less in all the programs of social-democratic parties.

It is not the «socialist solutions» which are now in vogue everywhere, but the overthrow of its power and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat that the bourgeoisie is afraid of; it is not economic planning but expropriation of capitalist property and the establishment of socialist property that frightens it. The bourgeoisie is not afraid of political autonomy and freedom but of the abolishment of the privileges and rights of exploiters, of the relentless war against bourgeois ideology.

It is not the revisionists in the capitalist countries of Western Europe alone that curry the favor of the bourgeoisie and more so of the social democrats, but N. Khrushchev himself who gives the cue to his followers, has set the first example and has given the directives for such favors. For some time now the leaders of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union have been striving to find a common language with the heads of social-democracy and to coordinate their views with them on the main international issues of the present which, of course, affect the most important ideological and strategical matters of the international communist and workers movement. Since the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and particularly, since N. Khrushchev’s group launched their open attacks against the communist parties which uphold Marxism-Leninism and the Moscow Declarations, the attitude of the European social democrats towards the Soviet leaders and their followers has become very lenient and encouraging. This activity is accompanied at the same time, with a persistent and all round pressure on Nikita: Khrushchev to urge him to forge ahead both towards coming into closer contact and collaborating with the imperialists as well as to introduce bourgeois liberalism into the internal life of the Soviet Union.

The same thing is now happening with Khrushchev as with Tito when he came out in the open against communism and when the most reactionary social-democrats gave him an all round assistance to keep him on his feet. The encounters of the heads of social democracy with the Soviet leaders, which have lately become more frequent, have assumed a very cordial character. Such terms as «unity of views on certain issues», «loyalty to the cause of peace», «reciprocal benefits from exchange of views» and others like these are never lacking in these encounters. This year alone N. Khrushchev has received official visits from the principal leaders of European social democracy and from its prominent ideologists and has conducted talks with them. Among these are the Belgian socialist leader, former NATO secretary and now Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Brussels government, Paul Henri Spaak. the newly elected leader of the Labor Party and eventual candidate for the Premiership of the English government, Harold Wilson and a delegation of the French socialist party headed by Guy Mollet.

Wherefore all this pilgrimage of the social democrats to Moscow precisely now, at this junction of affairs? The answer is given by the pilgrims themselves. This is what Spaak stated in his political address to the General Assembly of the United Nations Organization in its present session:

«Khrushchev is trying to make an experiment of peaceful coexistence and the West should not make it harder for him to make this experiment. It would be a frightful and inexcusable mistake if we discouraged him.

At this moment the future line of demarcation will no longer be between communists and non-communists, between the colonized and the colonizers, between ideologies and races. We are witnesses of the war between those who await the opportune moment and the inhuman doctrinarians on one side and those who have trusted on in progress and have never stopped hoping on the other. Let us not let this occasion escape from our hands».

Wilson expressed the same idea in his speech to the House of Commons after his return from Moscow. «Khrushchev,» said he, «has shown great courage defending his policy of coexistence against, what I think, some kind of resistance in his country and to pressure within the communist world.

We must face the fact that a failure in the present negotiations (referring to the negotiations which N. Khrushchev’s group are carrying on now with the imperialists), if this failure is attributed to us, it would lead to strengthening the position of those who, in the communist block are only too willing to criticise Khrushchev’s policy of coexistence».

The French socialists were even more outspoken when Guy Mollet said to foreign journalists in Moscow that they had taken up with Khrushchev «a number of questions covering all the theoretical and doctrinarian problems of a permanent nature which characterize the relations between the social-democratic and communist parties.» In an interview for the press Gerard Jacque, the director of the «Populaire» said before the delegation set out for Moscow:

«We have long since given up polemicizing with the Soviet Union and acknowledge the fact that this country is entirely in the phase of evolution. A whole epoch has come to an end and not a word of reproach has appeared in our press against the Soviet people.

The problems that are raised are those of democracy and democratic guarantees, of the single party, of the role of the socialist party in socialist society, of the nature of the socialist regime and of its structure.

The attitude maintained by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the divergences between Moscow and Peking manifest a positive explanation of this party towards political dogmatism and sectarianism».

These statements go to show that big steps have already been taken towards ideological and political contact and collaboration between the modern revisionists and the social-democrats. As far as Spaak, Mollet, Wilson and their companions are concerned N. Khrushchev and his followers have given ample proof theoretical and material, that they have renounced Marxism-Leninism and revolutionary wars, that all the obstacles that had separated them from one another before have been practically removed and that conditions have been created for alignment and collaboration. What are these proofs?

In the first place, as Spaak affirms, N. Khrushchev is crossing the «line of demarcation» which separates the working class and its revolutionary vanguard from the bourgeoisie and its lackeys and is joining the camp of non-communists against the communists, of the colonizers against those under the colonial yoke, the camp of the opportunists and the lackeys of the bourgeoisie against the Marxist-Leninist and the socialist camp.

The frenzied attacks which N. Khrushchev’s revisionist group have launched against the Communist Party of China, the Party of Labor of Albania and other Marxist-Leninist parties, their dissentient and undermining activity against the socialist camp and the international communist and workers movement, have not only aroused a great joy and pleasure among the older opportunists but they have also given the necessary proof that «the modern revisionists renounced political dogmatism and sectarianism», that is they have renounced Marxism-Leninism. Similarly pleased are the right wing leaders of social democracy to take note of «the evolution» which is now taking place in the Soviet Union and certain other socialist countries of Europe where the doors have been flung open to the bourgeois ideology and manner of living. It is not to no purpose nor casual that the leaders of social democracy are singing dithyrambs to Khrushchev, to call him «a wise and enlightened man». Guy Mollet stated in a press conference that he was convinced that «a positive evolution is taking place in the Soviet Union» which, according to his words, is summarized in these matters: «Acknowledgment of many ways to build socialism», which, as we all know, in N. Khrushchev’s interpretation means that socialism can also be built by keeping «the bourgeois economic and political» structure intact; «the end of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which means renunciation of one of the basic issues of Marxism-Leninism and of socialist revolution, «internal evolution» which means the end of ideological struggle, bourgeois liberalism etc.

Now the right-wing leaders of social democracy in Europe, with a century long experience in the service of the upper bourgeoisie, do not only extend to N. Khrushchev all the help they can but they also address pathetic appeals to their imperialist masters and to all the reactionaries of the world to help him so as not to let the «great occasion» of the modern revisionists «slip from their hands. »

But the social democratic leaders do not seem to be eager to give their aid unconditionally, without demanding other concessions in the ideological field and without fresh capitulations in the field of politics, without further submission to imperialism. Their demands cover a wide range of problems, but the principal ones are reduced to urging N. Khrushchev to keep undermining the socialist camp and give up the socialist achievements of the peoples of the Soviet Union and of the countries of the People’s Democracies have attained. These demands were openly formulated in a very concrete way by the delegation of the French Socialist Party at the long talk they recently had with the leaders of the Communist Party of the Soviet' Union. According to the evidence given by Guy Mollet at a press conference in Paris after his return from Moscow, he demanded of Khrushchev that «the communists» give further «democratic guarantees» in order to win the confidence of the bourgeoisie. Thus, for instance, as a democratic guarantee he cited toleration for many parties (i.e. bourgeois parties) in the socialist countries and a share for them in the government, the abolishment of the cooperativist system in the countryside (as a condition to reestablish capitalism), modification of the electoral system to include antisocialist candidates in the electoral lists and so on. In the international field the French socialists demanded as «a democratic guarantee» the sacrifice of the German Democratic Republic to be swallowed up by Bonn.

Of course the bourgeoisie have always cherished such ambitions and predilections but now there exists a new situation in which the modern revisionists of N. Khrushchev’s group are concretely bargaining about these matters, when there are sample proofs that the traitors to Marxism-Leninism and to the victorious socialist revolution have made many concessions and have capitulated before so many demands of the bourgeoisie and imperialism. In this field there is practically a great peril which should not be belittled especially since the modern revisionists have not only leant an ear to but have actually begun to put these suggestions into practice.

 

Coordination of the policy of N. Khrushchev’s group with that of Tito’s clique means coordination of the policy of the modern revisionists with that of the imperialists

 

N. Khrushchev’s group’s relations with Tito’s clique throw some very dear light on the revisionist evolution of the leadership of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The latter have not only renounced the duty set forth in the Declaration of the 81 communist and workers parties with regard to continuing to expose the Jugoslav revisionists and to wage firm battle against the latter’s anti-Leninist views but they have established close collaboration with them in the ideological, political and economic fields. There is not much way to go from Tito to the social-democrats, one little step is all one need make. And this little step is now being taken.

N. Khrushchev’s visit to Jugoslavia during the latter part of August and the first part of September gave a public confirmation of his coordinated activities with the Titoite clique. In the official speeches delivered during this visit Tito and Khrushchev stated: «in connection with the international situation and the actual international issues we note with satisfaction an identity of views concerning the main point». It is clear that this identity is not based on the analysis and conclusions of the Moscow Declaration, this is clear for Tito’s clique have more than once disowned it and they have asserted that they pursue a different policy from that of the communist movement. Therefore «the identity of views» about the international situation and the international problems rests on Titoite views and line which are coordinated from head to bottom with the American imperialists and totally in their service. This <identity» proves at the same time that Khrushchev too has coordinated his policy with that of the imperialists. His attitude towards the socialist camp in the matter of disarmament, and especially towards the liberation movement of the peoples of Asia. Africa and Latin America, is entirely the same as that of Tito’s clique and equally favorable and profitable for the imperialists. It was not at all casual or a matter of coincidence that, after the signing of the Moscow Treaty on nuclear tests and following N. Khrushchev’s visit to Jugoslavia, Tito set out on a long voyage to some countries in Latin America and had an important political powwow with ex-President Kennedy on this occasion. Tito has acted as N. Khrushchev’s envoy and go-between to assure the American imperialists on behalf of the Soviet leader and to coordinate further joint actions in the field of international relations. Not to mention other things like those of capitulating concessions which N. Khrushchev intends to make to the imperialists in his attempts to conclude the so-called non-aggression pact between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, or in the question of Berlin and the peace treaty with Germany where he is d’accord to sacrifice the interests of the German Democratic Republic, we are citing a very significant example of Tito’s and N. Khrushchev’s «political identity». It is already well known that Latin America is one of the most revolutionary zones of the world, one of the continents where, as a result of the anti-imperialist struggle of people, the positions of the monopolists of the USA and of the native bourgeoisie have begun to shake from their roots. In order to suppress this movement and to maintain their power, the American imperialists spare nothing, neither the billions of dollars for the «Alliance for Progress», intervention of armed forces, coup d’état nor the Peace Corps. And in spite of all this big arsenal of suppression, bribes and propaganda they have not been able to suppress and to quell the revolutionary spirit of the people who fight for their freedom and independence. But even in this zone of uprisings the imperialists stand in need of the assistance of the revisionists who come to rescue them from their inevitable perdition through their policy of dissension and defeatist propaganda. This is how a big Italian political periodical comments Tito’s visit to Latin America, which the latter undertook with N. Khrushchev’s approval and blessing after they had come to terms on «a joint policy towards neutral countries»: «In the political and ideological front» the periodical asserts, «there are signs of a. desire to define a line of progress in the world towards equality and social justice without resorting to the severity which characterized the edification of socialism in Stalin’s Soviet Union or in the present Chinese People’s Republic».

This quotation shows clearly that the press of the upper bourgeoisie and its patrons are well aware that Tito and Khrushchev do their utmost to check people from fighting for national liberation and freedom, from fighting the American imperialists, the biggest international capitalist exploiters and international gendarme, from pursuing the example of the October Revolution, from fighting for socialism like Stalin, or as the People’s Republic of China and other socialist countries did.

N. Khrushchev’s group are zealously following the example of Tito’s clique not only in the field of foreign policy. The Soviet leaders have recently adopted many methods of the Titoite regime in the internal affairs and administration of the country. During his sojourn in Jugoslavia N. Khrushchev showed great interest in the «original» methods applied in Titoite Jugoslavia; he called the «workers councils» a progressive form and announced that a Soviet delegation would go to Jugoslavia to study their experience. The western press links this decision with «the attempts being made now in the Soviet Union to democratize the apparatus of production» meaning the application of the forms and methods «of the Jugoslav specific socialism».

Just where these «original experiments», «e.g. the self-governing workers councils» discontinuance of planning, abandonment of foreign trade monopoly and others have led Jugoslavia, is clearly seen by the present Jugoslav reality which bears witness of a return to capitalism in all phases of life there. But very significant is the fact that N. Khrushchev’s group too are forcing on the Soviet Union «experiments» and «original methods» of the Titoite type, which are leading to the decline and degeneration of many important sectors of the economic, political and cultural life of the country, to a revival of the phenomena and manifestations inspired by bourgeois ideology. The predicament of Soviet agriculture is a result of this kind of experiments, or better still, of the revisionist line and departure from socialist principles pursued by Nikita Khrushchev now. Just how grave the situation in agriculture has become causing great deficiencies in provisions of bread, meat, butter and others, leading almost to ration cards, is proved by the fact that a country holding first rank in agriculture and having always exported grains, is now obliged to import large quantities of wheat from the capitalist countries and paying over a billion dollars for it.

The same predicament is manifested in the economic relations of N. Khrushchev’s group with the member countries of the Economic Council of Mutual Assistance whom they could not provide with bread and which are now obliged to turn to the West for grain. One way or another, N. Khrushchev is driving these countries to relations of dependence with imperialist states, just as Tito wishes to have them depend on American credits and surplus agricultural products.

Another field in which the policy imported from the Titoite clique is being practiced is that of culture and art in which one sees a relapse towards bourgeois decadence, pessimism, fatality and loss of revolutionary sentiments and conceptions. In the Soviet press itself one has recently come across articles deploring manifestations of degeneration in the life of youth, cases of gross corruption among important functionaries of the state and of the party. Cases of theft, arson, violation of communist ethics and so on are becoming frequent phenomena and are thriving under the general trend of libertinism and of imitating the western way of living.

N. Khrushchev’s line of capitulation to imperialism and to bourgeois ideology does not of course rim so smoothly. His revisionist course runs up against an ever growing resistance and opposition by the communists and the Soviet people, of all those who fought for the October revolution and in defense of its achievements, of those who toiled and sweated to set up the industrialization of the country and the collectivization of agriculture, of those who defended with arms in hand the great socialist Fatherland against the Hitlerite invaders, of those who have the destiny of the Soviet Union and of peace at heart. It is precisely because N. Khrushchev encounters such resistance that he borrows the experience of Tito’s clique in this matter too. In order to quell this resistance he resorts to repressions towards the opponents to his policy, to purges, to reorganization and expulsion of revolutionary communists from the ranks of the Party. It is precisely because his line is opposed by the members of the Party and the non-party masses that he uses Titoite methods of degeneration and of turning the Party into a shapeless, nonpolitical lump, on one hand and the revisionist whip on the other.

The line of purges, repressions, expulsion and so on is followed, under N. Khrushchev’s bidding, in many cases by communist parties of the non-socialist countries, where the revisionist leaders discredit the revolutionary communists calling them «renegades» and «anti-party elements» and so on. But in spite of being persecuted the communists loyal to Marxism-Leninism, whether in the party or outside it, never lay down their arms. They are joining up, organizing themselves and establishing real revolutionary parties of the working class, loyal to the teachings of Marxism-Leninism and resolute fighters against the imperialists and the revisionists.

No matter how much N. Khrushchev may try, to what demagogy and repressions he may resort to, be they ever so savage of the Titoite brand, he will never succeed to waylay people for long, to prevent, the communists from defending Marxism-Leninism and from smashing revisionism to smithereens. The future belongs to Marxism-Leninism, to communism. History has already given its verdict and no treachery, be it ever so base, can ever halt their triumphant march ahead.

 

 

N. Khrushchev’s revisionist line is for the imperialists, against the socialist camp and the liberation movement of peoples

 

The Moscow Declarations have stressed in very clear and unequivocal terms that the imperialists, with the Americans at the head, are the principal enemies of peoples and of the revolution. They emphasize that the imperialism of the United States has now become the main center of world reaction, a bastion of colonialism, an international gendarme and the biggest international exploiter. The United States represent today the main forces of aggression and of war and are the common, savage and cruel enemies of all peoples. But what is the attitude N. Khrushchev and all other revisionists maintain towards American imperialism? Now, far from abiding by the clear-cut line envisaged by the communist movement, they have advanced from spreading illusions about imperialism and its nature to open collaboration with it and capitulation to its dictates. The recent agreements entered into by N. Khrushchev’s group and Washington as well as their secret talks under way are nothing else but fresh plots of the imperialists and the revisionists against the socialist camp and peoples. The modern revisionists strive to put into effect the plan trumpeted abroad by Tito and embraced by N. Khrushchev, of the «economic integration» and of the «political integration» of the world, a plan which serves to realize the major counterrevolutionary strategy of the American imperialists to establish their sway over the entire world.

Since the Moscow Declaration was proclaimed towards the end of 1960, significant events have taken place in the international arena which laid bare N. Khrushchev’s true inveterate revisionist features and those of his followers. N. Khrushchev’s capitulation to the American imperialists at the time of the Caribbean crisis, his anti-internationalist stand of a collaborator with the enemies of the socialist camp in the Sino-Indian border conflict, his signature attached to the Moscow nuclear treaty which is directed against the people and is in favor of the imperialists and the like, proved beyond dispute that the modern revisionists, intimidated by the American imperialists succumb to their threats and degenerate into voluntary propagandists, into political agents and tools of imperialism.

N. Khrushchev’s adventuresome, opportunist and capitulating attitude towards the Caribbean crisis last October set the whole opportunist line of the modern revisionists at naught, showed the rottenness of their ideological positions and the peril which their political behavior has in store for peoples who fight against the imperialists and in defense of world peace. In spite of the deafening noise and atomic palaver, he withdrew in a very disgraceful way at the first threat of the American imperialists. It was only the manly stand, determined and deeply revolutionary, of the Cuban people and their leaders and the powerful solidarity of all the progressive men with Cuba, that resisted with success the aggression of the United States. As to Khrushchev, he did not only betray the just cause of the Cuban people but went so far as to legalize the demand of the American imperialists to intervene in the internal affairs of other peoples. He agreed to it that international missions of supervisors, which in fact means missions of the Pentagon and the Central Investigation Agency be sent to Cuba, as he had done before for the Congo.

Now, no matter how hard N. Khrushchev and his followers may try, how many resolutions they may adopt and how much they may swear that they pursued an elastic policy in the Cuban affair and reached profitable compromises, facts are facts, they capitulated to and accepted the American injunction. N. Khrushchev’s compromise was to the advantage of the imperialists and to the loss of socialism, was profitable to the reactionaries and to the disadvantage of the liberation movement of peoples. From all last year’s ups and downs in the Caribbean crisis all that remains, as far as N. Khrushchev is concerned, is the general impression that he is afraid of the revolutionary wars of peoples and that for the sake of coming into closer contact with the imperialists, he is ready to sacrifice them at the first occasion of their encounter with American resistance.

We could cite other examples, but the attitude of the modern revisionists towards the Caribbean events shows clearly of what stuff their conception of peaceful co-existence is made of and what it represents. By setting off the revolutionary and liberation wars of peoples to the struggle for peace, they violate one of the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism and one of the historic duties that evolve on the socialist countries to be in the vanguard of the war of peoples against imperialism, and particularly against American imperialism.

The Moscow Declarations attached great value to the revolutionary wars of the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America against imperialism and colonialism and considered them a powerful force in defense of peace throughout the world. Therefore the stand taken towards the revolutionary wars of these countries serves as an important criterion by which to distinguish the Marxist-Leninist from the revisionists, in order to tell who defends peace in reality and who helps in reality the imperialists. But what else could N. Khrushchev’s passive, disdainful and antagonistic stand towards the liberation and anti-imperialist movements of peoples be but an anti-revolutionary one in defense of the big capitalist bourgeoisie? N. Khrushchev’s call to the peoples who fight against the imperialists and colonialists in defense of national independence and popular democracy, to stop fighting and put their trust in the assurances, pledges and «the good will» of the «wise» leaders of American imperialism, goes to prove that the revisionists have dipped the .banner of war against imperialism and colonialism, that they have betrayed the interests of the proletariat and have degenerated into bourgeois pacifists, into plain social democrats.

One of the typical characteristics of modern revisionism today is that it has embarked on joint actions with American imperialism and international reaction against the socialist countries. By joining with the imperialists in an anti-Chinese campaign and plotting together with them, N. Khrushchev’s group renders great assistance to the Indian reactionaries to launch an armed aggression against the People’s Republic of China. They are vying with the American and English imperialists in supplying Nehru with arms, in vituperating against People’s China, in splitting and driving a wedge through Sino-Indian friendship. It is very plain that by upholding the aggressive policy of the Indian reactionaries and their friends, the imperialists, N. Khrushchev does not intend to deal a blow to the People’s Republic of China, to split the socialist camp and to undermine its unity alone. With a view to staining the peaceful and consistent policy of China and to drive a wedge into Sino-Indian friendship, he intends to discredit the great role and influence of the revolutionary example set by People’s China to the liberation wars of the peoples of Asia, to belittle the importance it exerts in the struggle of these peoples against imperialism, for national independence, economic development and progress. In this respect, leaving all others aside, N. Khrushchev’s group acts as a reactionary detachment in favor of the imperialists, against national liberation and social emancipation of the young Asiatic states.

Another coordination of the policy of the modern revisionists, another plot of theirs and gross treachery to the interests of the peoples of the entire world, is to be found in their signing the Moscow Treaty on a partial ban of nuclear tests. However contradictory it may seem but it is a fact that while the modern revisionists on one hand capitulate to the imperialist policy of nuclear blackmail, they, on the other hand, resort to atomic blackmail towards the peoples of the socialist countries and all the peoples of the world themselves. The Moscow Treaty served as another touchstone of the anti-revolutionary and chauvinist policy of the big state which N. Khrushchev has long been practicing. With a view to giving an example of their «elastic» foreign policy, to show that the destiny of the world depends, allegedly, on the will and agreements of the two big powers, to show the alleged effective workings of N. Khrushchev’s so called policy of peaceful coexistence, by signing the treaty the Soviet leaders did not even hesitate in betraying the interests of the Soviet peoples and of the peoples of the socialist camp, of betraying the interests of the peoples of the whole world.

When they put their signature down in Moscow against nuclear tests the Soviet leaders sold off at the same time the interests of other peoples in many other matters. In the first place they fulfilled a great desire of the American imperialists, namely, that the socialist countries should not be assisted in strengthening their defensive power against the aggressive designs of the USA, that a kind of recognition foe given to the discredited policy of two Chinas, that the interests of the German people be sold off in the question of the international status of the German Democratic Republic. Finally N. Khrushchev’s group together with the imperialists who possess nuclear weapons intend to establish their joint monopoly on nuclear weapons so that they can resort to atomic blackmail and preserve their zones of influence intact.

However hard N. Khrushchev and his friends may try to embellish the Moscow Treaty, the latter expresses the sum and substance of the chauvinistic policy of the big state which he pursues, it expresses the fetishism of nuclear weapons and the distortion of the theory of Marxism-Leninism. It expresses the opportunistic essence of revisionism, and of capitulation to the bourgeoisie, violation of the teachings of Marxism-Leninism on wax and peace, peaceful coexistence between states of different social systems and fraternal collaboration and mutual assistance among socialist countries.

The conclusion of the Moscow Treaty is, of course, not the end, as the revisionists themselves affirm, but the beginning of further collaboration of N. /Khrushchev’s group with the imperialists directed against the socialist camp and the peoples of the world. There are already a number of various projects pending decision by the leaders of the Soviet Union and the USA and concerning their relations in the political, economic and military fields. First and foremost N. Khrushchev is trying to strike up a new alliance with the American imperialists and, as a recompensation, to abandon his alliance with the socialist countries. If the American imperialists have not yet given their consent to this proposal, which is known by the pretty name of «non-aggression pact between NATO and the Warsaw Treaty», it is because they have come up against an opposition of their western allies which, for various reasons, do not find these negotiations between Khrushchev and the White House to their liking; on the other hand, being well aware of the weak position of the Soviet leaders and their inclination to come to terms under every condition, the American imperialists are eager to wrest to the maximum of concessions from them.

Another bargain that is now being conducted between N. Khrushchev and the Washington leaders, is the talks for an agreement to envisage a ban on spreading atomic weapons to other countries that do not possess them at present. This agreement aims at keeping atomic monopoly and as a consequence the monopoly of atomic blackmail to bind the Soviet Union not only to refuse necessary assistance to the People’s Republic of China to strengthen its defensive power, but to hinder it to possess modem weapons of warfare. On a wider scope the fresh concessions the imperialists demand of N. Khrushchev’s group aim at weakening the defensive power of the socialist camp, at disarming and isolating the national liberation and anti-imperialist movement and to leave the countries which have recently won their national independence defenseless against imperialist aggression.

The modem revisionists try to justify all these shameful capitulations and arrant betrayals of theirs by «theoretical arguments, to explain them as «successful solutions» arrived at in a correct way, of the problems of our days. They claim in a very awkward and absurd way that the changes that have occurred in the world have also changed the nature of our epoch, the nature of war and the nature of class laws, they have changed also the nature of imperialism, the feasibility and necessity of social and national revolutions are meager, Marxism-Leninism has become an outdated dogma and that the conclusions of the Moscow Declarations have lingered behind and have not kept pace with events and so on.

 

 

Without fighting revisionism the cause of the revolution and of socialism cannot forge ahead

 

Under these circumstances, when the modern revisionists are capitulating headlong to the imperialists, when they have launched an open and unprincipled assault against Marxism-Leninism, against the socialist camp, against the revolutionary movement of peoples and against the communist parties, it behooves the Marxist-Leninist to draw the line between them and the modem revisionists and to wage a relentless war against them. True communists cannot bargain with either the revisionists or with principles. Now the issue is clear-cut: either with the Moscow Declarations and against revisionism, or against the Moscow Declarations and with opportunism. In our epoch it has become a high internationalist duty for every communist to uphold the Moscow Declarations. Marxism-Leninism develops always at loggerheads with all kinds of opportunism. The Marxist-Leninist never lose sight of Lenin’s teachings and example who has repeatedly stressed that without first doing away with opportunism from the ranks of the working class, without cleansing it of revisionists, the war against imperialism cannot be a successful one, the cause of revolution and socialism cannot be brought to a successful end. The damage which the modern revisionists have so far caused to the international communist movement and to the liberation movement of peoples is very great but it can turn to a serious menace if the communists will not oppose it with all the revolutionary fervor that characterizes them.

N. Khrushchev has recently appealed in a demagogical and cunning way, to put an end to the polemics within the ranks of the communist movement, in other words, to put an end to the fighting which the Marxist-Leninists wage against modem revisionism and in defense of the Moscow Declarations. It is not, of course, out of good will that N. Khrushchev resorts to this often-repeated maneuver of his. Like all opportunists, he too would have refrained from demanding peace, if everything was working smoothly for and if the situation was favorable to him. He has manifested his bad faith as a plotter and putschist in many cases. He has manifested it in the Bucharest meeting, at the Conference of the 81 parties, at the 22nd Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, at the time he strove to wreck the talks between the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party of China last July etc. But at the same time, when he sees himself in straits, when the revolutionary Marxist-Leninist rise against him, and above all, when he is about to hatch fresh plots against the socialist camp and the communist movement he shows it again by making «peace-loving» proposals to end polemics.

The present situation in the international communist movement is by no means favorable to the modern revisionists. In spite of N. Khrushchev’s and his followers’ attempts to put a stop to debates, yet a strong debate is going on between the communists and the revisionists in all parties, countries and continents. Whole parties, large groups of communists and masses are rising to condemn the revisionist course of N. Khrushchev and those who blindly obey him. All prevarications, demagogies, intrigues and pressures of the revisionist leaders of certain parties to keep the masses of the communists away from these debates, to prevent them from getting in touch with the documents of the Communist Party of China, of the Party of Labor of Albania and of other Marxist-Leninist parties, are meeting with failure. Abiding faithfully by the teachings of Marxism-Leninism, upholding the Moscow Declarations and in battle with revisionism, the communists are today organizing new revolutionary organizations or strengthening the existing ones almost everywhere. These nuclei of Marxism-Leninism are striving today to alienate the masses of party members from revisionist influence, to smash the attempts of the revisionists who stand in the leadership against the will of the masses of the parties and to prevent the parties from becoming social-democratic. The internationalist communists are engaged in a big revolutionary job of spreading Marxism-Leninism and exposing revisionism. It is precisely this natural, irresistible process that N. Khrushchev tries to stem through his recent proposal to put an end to polemics. Having no other arguments in store but his demagogy, he tries to maintain the status quo in the communist movement, so he may be able to go ahead unhampered in dissentient work, so he may stab the communist movement in the back and the Marxist-Leninists may watch his anti-Marxist doings as lookers-on.

On the other hand N. Khrushchev, as we said above, is negotiating with the imperialists and is looking for new fields for capitulating compromises, for closer contact and collaboration with them. And it is natural for him to object to having his policy exposed under such circumstances. But the communists cannot be silent. If they did such a thing that would mean to stop fighting the imperialists, the common enemies of all peoples, it would mean to stop fighting for the revolution for peace, for communism. The communists have not hushed nor will ever hush when N. Khrushchev and the other revisionists betray Marxism-Leninism or capitulate to the imperialists. They will continue to expose N. Khrushchev’s so-called peaceful coexistence, to fight against the Moscow Treaty, which is gross betrayal and humbug, to oppose his collaboration with the Indian reactionaries and the imperialists against the People’s Republic of China, to discard with disdain the chauvinist concepts and principles of the big state of the Soviet leaders, to condemn the revisionist splitters of the unity of the socialist camp and of the communist movement, to uphold the revolutionary struggles .of peoples, to defend the Moscow Declarations, to fight for peace and socialism.

Loyal to the spirit and principles of the Moscow Declarations, the Marxist-Leninists are always for unity and strive to maintain and strengthen it. But they are opposed to such rotten unity which N. Khrushchev desires, a revisionist unity based on capitulation and obeisance to his dictates. The Moscow Declarations have defined well and explicitly on what basis the unity of the communist movement should rest. Therefore only through abiding by these definitions, loyally and fully, can unity become real and lasting. One of the basic conditions and most important premises to preserve unity, as the Declarations point out, is precisely the fight against modern revisionism which constitutes the main peril to the communist movement.

The struggle which the communists have waged in defending the purity of Marxism-Leninism, in defending and carrying out in practice the Moscow Declarations, has dealt a heavy blow to the revisionists. The process of exposing, isolating and smashing them ideologically is forging ahead full speed and there is no force to stop it. The revisionists themselves help this process advance through their day to day acts, their collaboration with the imperialist enemies, their outright betrayal of the interests of peace and of the revolution.

The communists have embarked on a great class battle on two major fronts: against the imperialists and the revisionists. The battle is bitter and hard, but they see the future with optimism, convinced that it belongs to socialism and not to imperialism, to Marxism-Leninism and not to revisionism. The communists build this future with their own hands, with their daring, determined and uninterrupted struggle against all the enemies of the class — the bourgeoisie and its opportunist servitors, they build it by strengthening their combative unity, which no force in the world can break, just as-there is no force in the world that, can stem the tide of progress of the great ideas of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, to stop the triumphant march of peoples towards communism.

 

 

 

Party of Labour of Albania