ENGLISH

 

 

 

The Khrushchev-Tito Revisionist Group Concoct New Plans against the Cause of Socialism

Article published in the newspaper
Zeri i Popullit
January 8, 1963

The "Naim Frasheri” State Publishing Enterprise
Tirana 1963

 

 

As time passes, the modern revisionists plunge themselves deeper into the mire of betrayal to the interests of Marxism-Leninism, the international communist and workers’ movement, the cause of socialism, the liberation of the peoples, and peace. This is clearly shown by the whole history of the evolution of the renegade Tito clique and of N. Khrushchev’s revisionist group; it is forcefully borne out by recent events.

The stand of N. Khrushchev’s revisionist group towards the Caribbean crisis, towards the Sino-Indian border conflict, the complete rapprochement of this group with Tito’s revisionist group, the growing hostility of N. Khrushchev and his followers towards the Albanian Party of Labour and towards other parties that stand resolutely for the purity of Marxism-Leninism, his monstrous assaults and slanders against them — all of these, when taken together and closely connected with each other, lay bare not only what the modern revisionists are doing but also what they intend to do in the days to come.

This is clearly evident also in N. Khrushchev’s address to the session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on December 12, 1962. This speech is further evidence of the fact that N. Khrushchev’s group are heading towards dissension and betrayal, towards anti-Marxism and revisionism. His views and acts are taking him closer and closer to the ideological and political line of the Titoite clique by rejecting and trampling underfoot the common line of the international communist and workers’ movement clearly formulated in both the 1957 and 1960 Moscow Declarations. He is becoming closer to and hanging together with the enemies of the cause of socialism and communism, with the Yugoslav revisionists and the imperialists, while maintaining an increasingly bitter and hostile attitude towards the socialist countries and fraternal parties which resolutely uphold the revolutionary line of Marxism-Leninism, of hostility towards imperialism and revisionism. He is doing so by leaving no leeway for solving divergences within the international communist and workers’ movement and consolidating its unity on the basis of the principles of Marxism-Leninism and of proletarian internationalism.

N. Khrushchev’s speech provided everybody with an opportunity to draw appropriate conclusions, among which it is not difficult to perceive the main one, namely, in whose benefit N. Khrushchev spoke and along what lines he is proceeding.

When Tito attended the meeting as a guest of honor and spoke to the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union, he hailed N. Khrushchev’s speech, saying that “he had followed it with close attention”, that he was “generally at one with what Nikita Sergeyevich had said concerning the relations between our two countries”, and that “our views on major international issues are identical or nearly so”, and so on and so forth. A few days later, in his press conference, President Kennedy spared no word of praise for Khrushchev whom he in fact upheld as “the best premier of the Soviet Union”, as far as the interests of American imperialism are concerned, of course. This is what the enemies of communism said. And it is evident that when the enemy praises the deeds of a communist it goes without saying that those deeds do not serve the revolution, nor the people, but are of benefit to the enemy and to the counter-revolutionaries.

True Marxist-Leninists and revolutionaries and the people, too, draw a conclusion from N. Khrushchev’s speech. They see that N. Khrushchev’s group are persistently proceeding along the line of dissension and betrayal, that they are causing ever greater damage to the basic interests of the communist and revolutionary movement, of the people and of world peace by their views and acts. That is why true communists sharpen their vigilance and strive now more than at any time in the past to expose the treacherous nature of the revisionists in order to frustrate their diabolic plans and aims.

* * *

In order to carry out their plans which are to dismember the communist movement and the socialist camp so that they may deal a harder blow at Marxism-Leninism and at the revolutionary movement of the people, the revisionists have long striven to form a united front, have long striven to find a common language in their activities against the communist movement. Tito’s clique represent the first group of the modern revisionists which manifested themselves in the international communist and workers’ movement immediately after the establishment of the socialist camp. Placing themselves in the service of the American and other imperialists, the Yugoslav leaders’ revisionist clique set to work, right at the start, to undermine the socialist countries, to oppose Marxism-Leninism, to check the growth of the influence of socialism in the world. In many of the People’s Democracies in Europe they set up and organized groups of agents with whose assistance they hoped to put into execution the criminal imperialist designs to overthrow the people’s regime and destroy the socialist camp. But Tito’s subversive plans met with failure. J. V. Stalin, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Information Bureau, tore the mask off the treacherous group of Yugoslav leaders by clearly proving in a convincing way that these were an anti-Marxist group, agents of the imperialists, a group of saboteurs within the international communist and workers’ movement. The exposure of the Yugoslav revisionists led to the detection of their collaborators in the ranks of the fraternal parties and they were duly called to account and met with what they deserved.

Later events corroborated the correctness of the condemnation of Tito’s clique by the international communist movement. Tito’s clique betrayed Marxism-Leninism, the interests of socialism and openly band together with the American and other imperialists, as can be proved by a host of facts. Up to date they have received from the imperialists over 5 billion dollars in the forms of “aid” and credits. They have joined the military Balkan Pact, two members of which are members of NATO; under the guise of “neutrality” and “keeping outside blocs” they have striven and continue to strive to alienate the newly liberated countries from cooperation with the socialist camp and to link them with the imperialist powers, particularly the American imperialists; they have never ceased to undermine the socialist countries, as manifested by their active support of the counter-revolutionaries of the Imre Nagy type in the Hungarian events and by their joint participation with the American imperialists, the Greek monarchical fascists and the various Albanian traitors in the plots against our country; they have launched attacks against Marxism-Leninism, and attempted to revise its basic theses, as expressed so clearly in the program of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia which was adopted at its 7th Congress, and so forth and so on. It is precisely because this clique of traitors have gone to such an extent that the 1960 Declaration of the 81 communist and workers’ parties stresses the need to continuously expose and resolutely combat the Yugoslav revisionist leaders. This is the joint conclusion of the international communist and workers’ movement, which expresses the unanimous opinion of revolutionaries and Marxist-Leninists.

The anti-Marxists, all of those who work not to strengthen the communist movement and the socialist camp but to split and to exterminate it, think otherwise. Such are N. Khrushchev’s group who, in order to temporarily disguise their own plans, formally agreed with the opinion of the 81 fraternal parties and signed the Declaration, on the other hand dead set on violating it. And this is very clear indeed to every true communist. For N. Khrushchev and his group who had long since gone over to the position of revisionism would surely try to unite all revisionists throughout the world in order to carry out their plans against Marxism-Leninism. The best organized and most experienced group that enjoyed the full confidence of the American imperialists — and this is a thing which interested N. Khrushchev for his later plans — was the group of Yugoslav revisionists.

True Marxists, all who have attentively followed Nikita Khrushchev’s activities since his ascent to the highest post in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, cannot have failed to notice his persistent efforts to join in a common front with the Yugoslav revisionists. These efforts have been expressed in more than one way: in May 1955, N. Khrushchev went to Yugoslavia and, violating the resolution of the Information Bureau, embarked on the line of reconciliation and rapprochement with the Yugoslav revisionists; at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union N. Khrushchev attacked J. V. Stalin, a thing which would serve the dual purpose of discrediting Marxism-Leninism and rehabilitating the Titoite clique and justifying his reconciliation with them; under the demagogical pretext of doing away with “the consequences of the cult of the individual” Tito’s agents who had been tried and found guilty in the European socialist countries were rehabilitated in good time. N. Khrushchev collaborated with Tito in making changes in the leadership of the Party and the State in Hungary and let him have a free hand during the events of the Hungarian counter-revolution under the ridiculous pretext of “not enhancing his vanity”; N. Khrushchev’s group ceased in fact to denounce the hostile activities of the Yugoslav revisionists and, under the pretext of “peaceful coexistence”, began all-round rapprochement with them both in state and party relations, through frequent exchange of delegations, through various agreements and so on and so forth.

Our Party of Labour has continuously unmasked these dealings pointing clearly to the goal N. Khrushchev intended to achieve. It pointed this out at the Moscow meeting of the 81 parties as well. But N. Khrushchev kept going his own way. The signal that prepared the ground for the final rapprochement between Tito’s and Khrushchev’s group was sounded by the speech which Khrushchev delivered at Varna in Bulgaria in which he gave directives for union. This directive was followed by Brezhnev’s visit to Belgrade and was sealed with Tito’s “vacation” trip to the Soviet Union where the Yugoslav revisionist leaders met with a warm, a very hearty and friendly reception, a triumphal reception. The latest acts of the revisionists were well coordinated and carefully prepared so as to give “honorable comrade” J. B. Tito as much satisfaction as possible. This is clearly evident by the fact that Tito’s visit to the Soviet Union took place after the congresses of the communist and workers’ parties of Bulgaria and Hungary were held and those of Czechoslovakia and Italy were proceeding.

Nothing was ever said at these congresses by way of criticism of the Yugoslav revisionist clique and at the Congress of the Italian Communist Party where they were represented by a delegation, much was publicly said in their defense. This is also evident by the fact that the attacks of the revisionists both at these congresses and in Khrushchev’s speech were directed mainly against “dogmatism”, “sectarianism” and especially against the “Albanian dogmatists”, by arbitrarily proclaiming “dogmatism” as the principal menace to the international communist and workers’ movement. The revisionists needed this assessment of the “menace” of “dogmatism” among others in order to please J. B. Tito and to belittle the just opposition the Marxist-Leninists made to the modern revisionism of the Khrushchev-Tito group. Finally, in order to justify his complete reconciliation and rapprochement with the Titoite clique, N. Khrushchev dwelt at great length in his speech and publicly endorsed that Yugoslavia was a “socialist country”, that the Yugoslav leaders had “corrected” many of their mistakes and had “turned over a new leaf” and that too many things had been said about them, that the Moscow Declaration was a “stereotyped specimen”, and trifles of this kind to which no man with a clear conscience can give credit.

What right has N. Khrushchev to call the Moscow Declaration a “stereotyped specimen” and reject its conclusions which have been approved of by the entire international communist and workers’ movement and corroborated by experience? This is quite a disdainful and hostile attitude towards the international communist movement and its jointly adopted documents, an attitude which goes to show that he intends to place himself above the whole communist movement and to force his revisionist views on it. The jointly approved documents of the international communist movement cannot be arbitrarily modified by any person or party, whoever they may be. But of what significance is this to Nikita Khrushchev who, as an anti-Marxist, acts always as a putschist adventurer. He wanted to establish a united revisionist front and he has managed to achieve his goal. Whereas modern revisionism had formerly found its tangible expression in Tito’s clique, the Khrushchev-Tito group are now the typical representative of the united front of the modern revisionists.

The establishment of the united front of the modern revisionists was essential to both Tito and N. Khrushchev so that they might more easily attain their common objective. Firstly, they needed it so that they might deal a more pugnacious blow at Marxism-Leninism and at the unity of the international communist and workers’ movement. This was clear especially at the recent congresses of the communist and workers’ parties as well as in N. Khrushchev’s address to the Supreme Soviet, by the bitter attacks against the Albanian Party of Labour and other “dogmatists” as the “principal menace” to the international communist and workers’ movement, etc. Finding their position untenable because of the growing exposure of their revisionist views by life itself and of the growing resistance of parties and communists against them, the modern revisionists are striving by all methods and means to conceal their true nature, to disguise themselves under the false slogans of combating “dogmatism”, “sectarianism” and “foolhardiness”. But this is an old well-known tactics. The revisionists have always used the struggle against dogmatism and dogmatists as a mask behind which to fight Marxism-Leninism and the parties and communists who loyally uphold their revolutionary doctrine, just as they have used the struggle against sectarianism and adventurism as a mask behind which to make the people give up their fight and their revolution, to immobilize and paralyze them in order to preach reconciliation with their class enemies, to make unprincipled compromises and concessions and to capitulate to them. The attack the modern revisionists direct against Marxism-Leninism is one that affects our basic victorious doctrine. They strive to revise its basic principles, to reject the general laws of revolution and of socialist construction, to proclaim Marxism-Leninism as out of date, to deprive it of its militant and revolutionary spirit, to make of it something acceptable and harmless to the bourgeoisie and to all reactionaries. That is why it is essential to tear off the mask of the revisionists, to expose their false slogans and to lay bare their true aims and purposes. Dogmatism and sectarianism cannot be fought from positions of revisionism. Only those who successfully fight against revisionism are in a position to wage a successful struggle against dogmatism as well.

The tendency of the revisionists to intensify their opposition to Marxism-Leninism and the interests of communism is clearly manifested also in some processes which have taken place recently among certain parties. Among these parties we notice the phenomenon of the removal from positions of leadership of those persons who do not uphold or are not so enthusiastic about the opportunist and treacherous line of the Khrushchev-Tito group. The pretext always is that either they are responsible for “illegal dealings” during the “period of the cult of the individual” or because of rotating cadres. It is becoming clearer and clearer that the revisionists are using, for their own hostile purposes, the correct Marxist thesis of considering the manifestation of the cult of the individual as alien to the communist and workers’ movement. They utilize the so-called cult of the individual of Stalin as a screen behind which to do away with cadres who loyally uphold Marxism-Leninism, and those who oppose revisionism. The purge in the ranks of certain parties is being accompanied by continuous “reforms” and “reorganization” of the party and of the economy on a national as well as on an international basis, the essence of- which reminds one in many cases of the “reforms” which were long ago carried out by Tito’s revisionist group in Yugoslavia.

As a result of the revisionists’ activities, which are prejudicial to the interests of socialism, a visible process of differentiation is being manifested in many parties: side by side with the revisionist group who hold the reins of the state in their hands a growing number of ordinary and responsible communists, dissatisfied with and disgusted by the deeds and line of action of the revisionists, are resisting the revisionist course. No doubt the revisionists will go to great lengths in their line of betrayal and will not hesitate to adopt even methods of persecution towards those who stand loyal to Marxism-Leninism. This is borne out by the harshness with which they fight the parties courageously upholding Marxism-Leninism in the international arena, by the experience of the Yugoslav revisionist leaders who in opposing the true communists make use of jails, concentration camps and bullets.

By all their views and deeds the modern revisionists are splitting the unity of the international communist and workers’ movement and of the socialist camp, while on the other hand they accuse Marxist-Leninists of being splitters. They themselves fight against unity while, on the other hand, they pretend to demand unity. But of what unity do the revisionists speak? They demand an infirm unity, a unity that tends to the right, a unity of revisionists based not on a principled policy, not on the Marxist-Leninist revolutionary ideology, but on the policy of capitulation to the imperialists on the anti-Marxist ideology of the revisionists. The rapprochement with Tito’s clique, unity with these agents of imperialism and N. Khrushchev’s recent speech itself show clearly what kind of unity the revisionists have in mind. The Marxist- Leninists strive firmly for unity but for a sound, immaculate unity free from disease, capable of withstanding the warmongering attempts of the imperialists and of guiding the revolutionary fight of the peoples with pluck and courage. In striving for unity the Marxist- Leninists bear in mind the teachings and example set by Lenin who kept stressing that the struggle against the imperialists cannot be brought to a successful end without first getting rid of the opportunists within the ranks of the workers’ movement, without freeing the workers’ movement of revisionists.

Every passing day confirms the correctness of the conclusions of both the Moscow Declarations that revisionism rather than dogmatism is the main menace to the international communist movement, that this menace is growing more serious and that, without fighting it with all the revolutionary vigor which characterizes communists, it may bring greater damage to the cause of socialism, to the just struggle of the peoples and to world peace.

The revisionists stood in need of a united front in the second place, in order to enable them to get closer and closer to the imperialists, to make a leeway for a “broader” international policy on the basis of leniency and “reasonable” compromise in order to create the necessary conditions for the deterioration of socialism by following the experience of the Yugoslav example of conduct towards imperialism. This tendency, which has been observed even before and which is more obvious in Nikita Khrushchev’s address to the Supreme Soviet, springs from the anti-Marxist conception of N. Khrushchev and his group on imperialism and the imperialist leaders. The modern revisionists presume that the aggressive nature of imperialism has undergone a change, that only certain “madmen” and “lunatics” want and urge war, that President Kennedy himself behaved “wisely”, “realistic”, “restrained” and “preoccupied” in “preserving peace”, etc. during the Cuban crisis. As early as September 1962 N. Khrushchev stated in his article published in the journal Communist, No. 12, that the imperialists had given up and were giving up their aggressive designs against the socialist countries, that they had taken to heart the call for peaceful economic competition with socialism, that they had concentrated all their efforts on competition with the world socialist system in the field of economy, politics and ideology.

N. Khrushchev has gone so far in disseminating such illusions about the desire of the imperialists for peace that he publicly declared in his recent message to Adenauer that he fully supported the efforts for peace of Pope John XXIII. There may of course be people who would call this statement of N. Khrushchev’s as “ingenious”, as an “expression of Leninist elasticity in politics”, as “wise tactics to differentiate the camp of the enemy”, and so on and so forth. But what kind of peace does the representative of the Vatican, of this well-known reactionary and anti-communist center, preach or dream of? The Roman Pontiff and all the representatives of the Vatican preach Christian peace, peace between the classes that have been created by the will of God, they preach the liberation of the peoples from the “infidels”, they preach Christ’s principle of unconditional obedience: “if they deal you a blow on one cheek turn to them the other cheek”. Could N. Khrushchev have this last principle of the Bible in mind when he declared that he fully supported the efforts for peace of Pope John XXIII?

It was with such anti-Marxist conceptions which express the subjective desire of pacifists and not at all the conclusions of class analysis, that N. Khrushchev “reasoned out” and even raised to a “theory”, in his speech of December 12, the necessity of making concessions to the imperialists, as a basis for peaceful coexistence. No true Marxist-Leninist can deny the necessity of reasonable and mutual compromises in given situations and under given conditions. This is one of V. I. Lenin’s teachings. But every true communist and revolutionary is opposed to unilateral compromises like those which N. Khrushchev’s group preach and carry out, which are detrimental to the basic interests of the peoples, to the cause of peace and of socialism and which constitute, in fact, capitulation to the enemy. He is opposed to attempts to present the policy of peaceful coexistence as only a compromise and nothing else, to present the policy of leniency and compromise as the only just policy and as the only way to safeguard peace and to establish peaceful coexistence.

Following this line N. Khrushchev’s group try to achieve “an easing of international tension”, a “softening” of the cold war on the basis of unprincipled compromises in order to create a false situation of peace which will lull the vigilance of the peoples to sleep and which will seriously menace the cause of peace and socialism.

Of course, a special role in realizing the plans of the Khrushchev-Tito group and of putting into execution the “broad policy” with the imperialists to the detriment of the interests of communism, will be played by the agents of imperialism, the treacherous Tito group, as an intermediary in new political machinations between N. Khrushchev and Kennedy. These machinations may burst forth in any putschist meetings, with bitter attacks against the parties which strongly uphold the positions of Marxism-Leninism. It must not be forgotten that Tito himself revealed the final goal of the revisionists when he said in his interview granted to the American newspaperman D. Pearson, in August 1962, that “our way is that of the economic and political integration of the world” and that he would take up all issues with N. Khrushchev as well as with Kennedy. He stressed that “Premier Khrushchev knows how to estimate the opinions and I have noticed this among the American leaders as well”.

The united Khrushchev-Tito front is ready for fresh deeds, for fresh betrayal, for fresh blows to the socialist camp, to communism. But they will surely fail for our epoch is the epoch of Leninism, the epoch in which the destiny of mankind does not depend on the machinations of imperialist and revisionist chancelleries but on the peoples themselves. The peoples, true communists and revolutionaries are alert and at these decisive moments will frustrate the dangerous plans of the various foes of communism, will advance the cause of peace and socialism by mercilessly smashing the imperialist warmongers as well as their allies, the revisionist lackeys.

* * *

The “broad policy” in relations with the imperialists, the policy of “concession” and “reasonable compromises” which N. Khrushchev has tried to put into execution, the policy that aims openly at reconciliation with the imperialists, was best shown during the Cuban crisis. It was there that the danger of this policy to socialism and to world peace itself came forth with consummate clarity. The peoples and revolutionaries in various countries and honest communists saw tangible evidence of the unbalanced attitude of N. Khrushchev’s group, and their capitulation and withdrawal before the blackmail of the American imperialists. The prestige of N. Khrushchev’s revisionist group was dealt a deadly blow. It was precisely because of this and in order to justify their opportunist and treacherous policy and to make good their lost prestige that N. Khrushchev devoted most of his speech to the Caribbean crisis to lay bare the corresponding “arguments” in order to prove that the stand they took coincided with the interests of peace and socialism.

In his December 12, 1962 speech N. Khrushchev claimed that the peoples of the world hailed the Soviet attitude as a “wise” stand that saved “Cuba and the world from a nuclear catastrophe”, and so on. But if all the people of the world had hailed N. Khrushchev’s stand with so much enthusiasm why did he go to such great lengths to explain the Caribbean crisis in detail? If everything was clear and orderly why should this question be taken up in all Party Congresses, in all Central Committee plenums or in all national and regional conferences, and special resolutions be adopted to “support” N. Khrushchev’s stand? Revisionist propaganda treats the question of N. Khrushchev’s “elasticity” in the Cuban crisis with so much zeal as to create the impression that everything had been carefully prepared so as to leave the door open for further compromises in the days to come. But regardless of the ear-splitting noise, the peoples and true revolutionaries clearly saw in the Cuban crisis the danger of N. Khrushchev’s policy of acrobatics, his opportunist and treacherous trend to capitulate to and to compromise with the imperialists without taking into account the sovereignty of the people and the impending danger to world peace in the days to come.

The Caribbean crisis demonstrated once again that American imperialism is the main stronghold of aggression and war, that the American imperialists are the sworn enemies of the socialist countries and of the peoples, that, in order to attain their reactionary, predatory aims, they do not hesitate to undertake most dangerous acts and to lead the world towards a new war. The aggressive acts against socialist Cuba were not undertaken by certain “madmen” and “lunatics” as N. Khrushchev tries to pose the question, but by the USA government itself, headed by Kennedy, and in a very conscious and premeditated way at that. As a matter of fact one October day in 1962 the American imperialists made up their minds to haughtily dictate to a sovereign people, to the fraternal Cuban people, what weapons they should and should not have to defend themselves with, from whom they should and should not procure them. Thus the matter was put to the Cuban people and government in the form of an ultimatum: that they should either remove the defensive weapons from and allow imperialist control of Cuban territory or the USA would attack. They set up a naval blockade around Cuba. The sovereign rights of a people were trampled upon. The USA thus gave itself the right to force its will on others, now on Cuba and later on other countries.

Two attitudes were adopted towards this arbitrary act of the American imperialist bandits. American aggression was opposed by the heroic Cuban people who, rallying around their leader, Comrade Fidel Castro, and under the militant watchword “Country or death, we shall win”, rose as a single man to defend their independence, sovereignty and national dignity. It was opposed by the people of the world, by all international public opinion. Those who believe in the strength of the peoples, in the role of the masses and evaluate their influence cannot but arrive at the conclusion that it was precisely the unbending, revolutionary and dignified stand of the Cuban people and of their leader Comrade Fidel Castro, as well as the solidarity of the socialist camp and of all the peoples, that compelled the American imperialists to balk, bridle and give up their hazardous adventure. This was the decisive factor which averted the immediate danger of aggression against Cuba and of war.

In the Cuban crisis, N. Khrushchev’s group pursued the line of concession and compromise, the line of solving the problem by accepting, in fact, the right of the American imperialists to force their will on others and to trample on their sovereignty as an incontestable right. Underestimating the strength of the peoples and over-estimating the strength of the imperialists and in order to prove to President Kennedy how magnanimous he was towards imperialism and how desirous of peace, N. Khrushchev withdrew the rockets and airplanes which, according to him, were the cause of the crisis, and recognized the right of the USA to supervise. According to N. Khrushchev, both parties made concessions. What N. Khrushchev conceded is more than clear. What “concessions” the USA made is also clear. According to N. Khrushchev’s propaganda, Kennedy gave guarantees that he would not launch military intervention in Cuba. But can this be called a concession? Cuban President Comrade O. Dorticos has rightly said: “...If military non-intervention is taken as a warranty, it would create a dangerous precedent that would lead to recognizing the right of military intervention. If we gave up our sovereign right to have this or that weapon in exchange for the United States giving up military intervention, then military intervention in our country would be considered as a sovereign right of the United States which it would give up.... We will never agree to nor can anyone agree to the right to military intervention”.

This then is “the reasonable compromise” which N. Khrushchev made, which according to him saved Cuba and world peace and pleased all parties concerned. As a Russian proverb has it, “the wolves ate their fill and the sheep suffered no losses”! In vain does N. Khrushchev try to conceal what cannot be concealed: his disgraceful capitulation to the atomic blackmail of the American imperialists and the way he did not hesitate to sacrifice the sovereignty of the peoples and to prejudice the interests of socialism in various countries.

N. Khrushchev tries to utilize the events in Cuba to further his anti-Marxist aims. He tries to spread the illusion that the danger of aggression against Cuba and of war has been removed, that peace has been strengthened and that the way has been opened to a peaceful solution of all the major international issues since N. Khrushchev’s “determined” stand, as it was claimed, has “checked” the imperialist warmongers, has compelled them to “withdraw” and “to learn a lesson”. As a matter of fact the development of events following the Cuban crisis goes to show that the American imperialists have not only failed to learn a lesson but they have, on the contrary, become more dangerous and more greedy. The imperialists are making more energetic preparations for war and plots against the peoples. Encouraged by the events in Cuba, the American imperialists and their President are making more persistent efforts to establish their hegemony over the world and their NATO allies.

Firstly, the danger of the American imperialist invasion against Cuba exists regardless of the vague and often denied statements by President Kennedy not to undertake military intervention against it. In fact, Kennedy did not fail to speak of “liberating” Cuba, of the need to make preparations against “Castro’s communist regime”, and so forth, both in his interview on December 17, 1962 and in his pow-wow with the Cuban counter-revolutionary ex-prisoners who returned to the USA on December 29, 1962. The true guarantees to check the military intervention of the American imperialists in Cuba lie in the implementation of Fidel Castro’s five- point demands. The joint statement of the leadership of the Union of Revolutionary Organizations and of the Government of Cuba on October 25, 1962 was justified in saying: “We give no credit to empty words about not attacking us. We need facts. And the facts we need are contained in our demands of five points.”

Secondly, N. Khrushchev himself was obliged to own in his speech to the Supreme Soviet following the Cuban events, that many statesmen in the USA, Adenauer and others in Western Germany, Home in England as well as other statesmen in the Western world had made and continued to make statements that “a policy of strength” should be firmly pursued towards the Soviet Union and other socialist countries, that the pending issues should be settled through concessions by one party alone and that in the light of the Cuban concessions, the Soviet Union must make concessions to the NATO bloc in everything. Such are the conclusions which the imperialists drew from N. Khrushchev’s “reasonable compromise”. It is plainly seen that the policy of flattery and unprincipled concessions does not make the imperialists more reasonable nor more peace-loving.

But the imperialist circles do not confine themselves to words and declarations alone, they have resorted and continue to resort to practical acts as well. Following the Caribbean events the efforts of the imperialists in preparing for war were clearly expressed in the Kennedy-Macmillan talks which ended by supplying England with “Polaris” rockets which would place the latter under growing dependence on American imperialism. In his recent interview President Kennedy announced, on the other hand, that the military budget of the USA of 52 billion dollars may rise to 60 or 65 billion dollars in the days to come, and he asked the other NATO powers to follow the same line. Finally, immediately after the crisis in the Caribbean region, the imperialists, the American and British imperialists in the first place, publicly announced their direct participation in the boundary aggression against the People’s Republic of China by openly encouraging the Indian reactionary circles and by promising and sending them assistance in arms and military personnel.

In spite of N. Khrushchev’s endeavors to embellish the imperialists, to disseminate illusions among the masses about the “peace-loving” and “wise” Kennedy and to hurl bombastic thunderbolts on the “madmen” of the Adenauer type alone, he cannot mislead the peoples who know that Adenauer and Kennedy are both enemies of peace and of mankind, that Kennedy is Adenauer’s instigator and that in order to defend world peace one must be on guard against both the warmongering acts of Kennedy, Adenauer and all their allies as well as against the machinations and the agreements of the Khrushchev- Tito group with the imperialists to create a false peaceful situation.

N. Khrushchev tries to make believe that he is the saviour of peace, that people should rest all their hopes in the days to come on N. Khrushchev who through his “elasticity” can ease international tension, safeguard and consolidate peace in agreement with Kennedy.

Whereas the Cuban events and the avoidance of the immediate danger of American aggression clearly indicate the significant and decisive role of the peoples themselves and of the international solidarity in preserving peace, N. Khrushchev belittles the role of the popular masses and distrusts the power and determination of the peoples to defend their destiny. It turns out from his speech that the protests of the people and their international solidarity are nothing else but “bombastic statements” which “did not reduce the strength of the imperialist forces and hardly gave Cuba any relief”. This stand of N. Khrushchev’s springs from the fact that he requires a freer hand in his bargains with the imperialists, he requires that the masses should blindly follow and unconditionally approve every “compromise” of his, every agreement of his with the imperialists. This was very clearly expressed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Soviet Union, A. Gromyko, who said that “... if there is harmony between the head of the Soviet Government, N. Khrushchev, and the President of the United States, Kennedy, the international problems on which the destiny of mankind depends, will also be settled”. It is clear that a risky view of this kind has nothing in common with Marxism- • Leninism. The 1960 Moscow Declaration stresses: “To strive for peace today means to maintain the greatest vigilance, to ceaselessly expose the policy of the imperialists, to follow with great attention the intrigues and machinations of the warmongers, to arouse the sacred wrath of the peoples against those who pursue the policy of launching war, to raise the organizations of all the peace-loving forces, to continuously increase the active efforts of the masses in favor of peace”. The stress is always laid on the masses, on the peoples, on their decisive role. Nowhere are their efforts called “bombastic statements”. Nowhere is it said that the destiny of world peace lies in the hands of two statesmen. And it cannot be otherwise. Without denying the role of leaders, Marxism- Leninism teaches that the masses, the people, are the main force of history and not individuals, however clever they may be, whatever post they may fill. These are the most elementary teachings of Marxism-Leninism, which, however, N. Khrushchev with his revisionist zeal and for his future designs tries to reject as worthless.

However queer it may seem, N. Khrushchev stated in his December 12 speech that “the dogmatists” and “sectarians” were the “warmongers”, for they “intended to hurl the world into the flames of a nuclear war”. He aims to discredit before the eyes of the world those Marxist-Leninist parties and socialist countries, which firmly oppose aggression and the imperialist warmongers, which unreservedly uphold the revolutionary wars of the peoples to free themselves from imperialist yoke,, or those which oppose neo-colonialist endeavors of the imperialists. He aims to tell the imperialists that, in order to get closer to them, he is not only ready to break with the “dogmatists”, but can also justify later any action of the imperialists against these “adventurers” who have themselves to blame for the consequences which are due to their “stubborn” and “uncompromising” attitude.

In order to make more or less acceptable his commonplace censure about “dogmatists” trying to drive mankind to a new world war, N. Khrushchev tries to attribute to it a “theoretical” basis by claiming that they “do not believe that socialism and communism can win under conditions of peaceful coexistence with the imperialists”, and that they want to settle the matter of the victory of communism over capitalism through war by annihilating millions upon millions of people.

True Marxist-Leninists have never been nor can ever be- in favor of bringing about the triumph of socialism through wars among states. They strictly adhere to the view that revolution cannot be exported. The war among states is not at all essential for the triumph of socialism. The question of the triumph of socialism in various countries is the internal affair of each country, which is settled by the revolutionary forces of every people when favorable conditions have matured for this. Up to recently the censure that the socialist countries and communist parties are in favor of exporting revolution through war, has been heard only from the most reactionary and most warmongering circles of imperialism who try to justify through this their own acts of aggression against the socialist countries, and their reprisals against the communist and workers’ parties, against every progressive movement. By repeating these charges N. Khrushchev has legalized these arguments of the imperialists and he undoubtedly has his own purposes and strong reasons for doing this.

Marxist-Leninists are at the same time opposed to N. Khrushchev’s anti-Marxist thesis that the triumph of Marxism-Leninism can be achieved through economic competition between the two systems and through the policy of peaceful coexistence. Of course, when the world is divided into two opposing systems, no Marxist- Leninist can deny the need and the importance of an economic race and of peaceful coexistence between them. If the achievements of the socialist countries in their economic competition with the imperialists and the policy of peaceful coexistence are rightly understood and applied in accordance with Marxist-Leninist teachings, they are of great importance also to the revolutionary and national-liberation struggle of the people, they create favorable conditions and opportunities to carry out this struggle with success, to make socialism win in various countries. Nevertheless the decisive factor in the triumph of socialism is the revolution, the determined struggle of the workers against capitalist oppression and exploitation. It is precisely this struggle that turns into reality the favorable opportunities that the existence of the socialist world system and its achievements in the economic competition with capitalism create. But to lay one-sided emphasis on the role and the importance of economic competition and peaceful coexistence by considering them as “a magic wand” to solve “all the vital problems confronting society”, and using them as a pretext to hold in leash the revolutionary and liberation struggles of the peoples, to fail to give them all the necessary backing and support, without reserve and hesitation, as N. Khrushchev and his followers actually do — this would mean to lack confidence in the strength of the peoples, in their revolutionary struggle, and in the triumph of socialism.

Thus N. Khrushchev stretches his hand out to the imperialists in all directions, and turns his back on the interests of the revolution, of Marxism-Leninism, and of the peoples. In unity of thought and action with the Yugoslav revisionists, he opens the way to further harmful deeds against communism and the peoples. Time will best show how events will develop and how far the Khrushchev-Tito group will go in carrying out their plans. But regardless of this, one thing is certain: the people, the Marxist-Leninists, the genuine revolutionaries, on their side, will not cross their hands behind their backs. They fight and will continue to fight ever more firmly both against the warmongering plans of the imperialists who are the number one enemy of the peoples, as well as against the plots and anti-Marxist activities of the renegades from communism. The people, the Marxist-Leninists and the true revolutionaries will come off triumphant in the end. The banner of truth, of Marxism- Leninism, of revolution, is not downed nor will it ever be downed by any enemy, or by any traitor. It has waved and will always wave triumphantly.

* * *

The Albanian Party of Labour has fought and continues to fight with pluck and courage against the policy of betrayal of the Khrushchev-Tito revisionist group. It has always stood for and continues to stand for the purity of Marxism-Leninism, in the interests of socialism and communism, and for the Marxist-Leninist unity of the international communist and workers’ movement, based always on the 1957 and 1960 Moscow Declarations.

The principled stand and struggle of our Party has always been received with rage and hostility by the modern revisionists, both by Tito’s renegade clique as well as by N. Khrushchev’s group. That is why the modern revisionists have directed and continue to direct all the guns of their resentment against our Party, sparing nothing: neither pressures, monstrous slanders, base reproaches, calls for counter-revolution, nor the organization of plots. But none of these objectives have met nor will ever meet with success, for our Marxist-Leninist Party cannot be intimidated nor destroyed. It is bound to its people like bone to flesh and it enjoys the sympathy and support of the various peoples, of the communists and revolutionaries of different countries to which it is bound by ties of internationalist solidarity.

In his speech of December 12, 1962 N. Khrushchev also devoted a great deal of time to slanders and assaults against the Albanian Party of Labour, using a rich vocabulary of vagabonds for the purpose. It would not be worth the trouble to take up here all that N. Khrushchev said against us if it were not for certain matters regarding the revisionist conception of N. Khrushchev himself, matters which throw light on his future aims against the Albanian Party of Labour.

In his speech N. Khrushchev stated, among other things, that the Albanian Party of Labour was primed by certain “foul-mouthed” people “to speak ill about the mother Communist Party of the Soviet Union” and that the Party of Labour was paid 3 kopeks by these people for doing this. A few days before, N. Khrushchev and P. Togliatti at the Italian Communist Party Congress called our Party “the loudspeaker of the Chinese”.

The Albanian Party of Labour is an independent party with equal rights in the international communist and workers’ movement. It has its own views which correspond to the triumphant teachings of Marxism-Leninism, to the 1957 and 1960 Moscow Declarations and to the interests of socialist construction in our Fatherland. The Albanian Party of Labour has courageously expressed and will always continue to express these views and has no need to be “primed” by or to “obey” any one. During all its revolutionary existence the Albanian Party of Labour has proved by its struggle, its line of action and its stand that it has never bargained with the principles of Marxism-Leninism, that it has never acted as a loudspeaker for others, that it has never sold itself either to the imperialists, to renegades from Marxism- Leninism or to anyone else, as N. Khrushchev himself has had the opportunity to be fully convinced of.

To meet our needs for economic and cultural reconstruction our socialist country has received credits and all-round internationalist aid only from the Soviet Union, the People’s Republic of China and the other countries of the socialist camp. And for this we are grateful to the fraternal peoples of these countries. Now, after the economic blockade set up in retaliation against our country by N. Khrushchev’s group, our country continues to receive internationalist help and credits from the People’s Republic of China alone. These credits and aid are given to the People’s Republic of Albania without interest and without conditions that would in any way prejudice the independence and sovereignty of the country or of the Party. This is due to the fact that both the Albanian Party of Labour and the Communist Party of China are Marxist-Leninist and entirely internationalist parties. Tendencies towards great-nation chauvinism and the way of forcing its views and its line on other parties and on other countries, are alien to the Communist Party of China. It stands firmly on the position of proletarian internationalism, it firmly defends the principles of equality, of independence and of comradely consultations in its relations with fraternal parties and fraternal socialist countries, and grants them all its internationalist aid and backing. By referring to “3 kopeks” and the “foul-mouthed”, N. Khrushchev seems to gauge others by his own yardstick, by the yardstick of a great- nation chauvinist, according to whom only the parties of the big countries, of those possessing large economic, political and military power, are entitled to have their own views which they can force on others through “aids” and credits, while small countries and parties, according to chauvinist N. Khrushchev, cannot have their own views, and since they stand in need of international aid and credits from big socialist countries, they are considered as sold to and loudspeakers for those which grant these aids and credits. This is how N. Khrushchev conceives of the relations among socialist countries and fraternal parties. This is how he conceives of the principle of equality and of independence of fraternal parties. If we follow this anti-Marxist line of reasoning are we to think that all the socialist countries which receive aid and credits from the Soviet Union are sold to N. Khrushchev? Are we, likewise, to think that when the Soviet Government used to help our country, N. Khrushchev had in mind to purchase us? It is quite evident that through these conceptions N. Khrushchev does nothing else but join in the chorus of the bourgeois reactionary propaganda which has always raised and continues to raise a hue and cry in this direction in order to discredit the socialist system and the lofty principles of proletarian internationalism.

Our stand towards the mother Communist Party of the Soviet Union is unalterable. Our Party and our people have considered, continue to consider and will always consider the Communist Party of the Soviet Union as a mother party and have nurtured and continue to nurture the greatest respect and affection for it. In vain does N. Khrushchev try to identify himself with the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and sow the seeds of enmity between two sister parties, between two fraternal peoples, between two socialist countries. With their anti- Marxist views N. Khrushchev’s group do not by any means represent the noble views and sentiments of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. On the contrary, they have betrayed its internationalist revolutionary traditions, its glorious line of action and its lofty ideals. Our Party has always drawn the line between N. Khrushchev’s group and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. That is why it has always launched its criticism only upon N. Khrushchev’s group which is a temporary disease in the sound body of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, of the great party of Lenin and Stalin.

In his December 12 speech N. Khrushchev censured the Albanian Party of Labour as a “warmonger”, an abettor which tried to plunge “the Soviet Union and the USA into a war and it itself to play the onlooker”. By uttering such monstrous slanders, by upholding E. Kardely’s known anti-Marxist thesis that the danger of war may come also from socialist countries, N. Khrushchev is mainly thinking of his strategy of reconciliation with the imperialists, which we have mentioned above. But by uttering such absurd slanders N. Khrushchev pursues, at the same time, some other ends, too. He tries to stain and to discredit our Party in the eyes of the peoples, to please, on the other hand, his friends, the Yugoslav revisionists, who, in order to justify their hostile and subversive aims and deeds against our Fatherland, have long since spoken of our country as a “warmonger”, as a “disturber of peace” in the Balkans, and so on and so forth.

Our Party and our Government have always pursued and continue to pursue a foreign policy of peace which is in accordance with the interests of safeguarding peace in the world and in the Balkans and with the interest of our small socialist country. We have striven and continue to strive to strengthen the fraternal relations, the mutual aid and cooperation based on the principles of proletarian internationalism with all the countries of the socialist camp; we have worked and continue to work to establish relations of friendship and mutual respect with all states of different social systems and especially with neighboring countries, on the basis of peaceful coexistence; we have supported and continue to support without reservation the national-liberation struggle of the peoples to win their freedom and independence, of the peoples who resist aggression and intervention by the imperialists and colonialists; we have actively backed and continue to back the struggle of all the peoples and progressive individuals to preserve peace throughout the world. This clear line of policy which our Party and our Government pursue is evident in all our concrete activities, it has yielded positive results and has aroused the affection, sympathy and respect of all peace-loving peoples.

This line of policy of our Party and our Government was clearly expressed also in the stand they maintained during the Cuban crisis. In spite of N. Khrushchev’s censures the world knows that it was not Albania that brought about the crisis in the Caribbean sea. How this crisis sprang up is better known by Kennedy and N. Khrushchev. Are we to be responsible for their acts? We have neither abetted nor incited anyone to enter into a conflict and launch a war. What we did and continue to do is this: like all Marxist-Leninists and all progressive mankind we firmly denounced and continue to denounce the piratical acts of the American imperialists; we stood by and continue to stand by the Cuban people in their just struggle, with all our energy; we are unreservedly at one with the firm revolutionary stand of the Cuban government headed by Comrade Fidel Castro, considering it the only just stand in the interest of the Cuban people and of the cause of peace in the world; we criticized and continue to criticize N. Khrushchev’s harmful stand and acts, his negotiations with the American imperialists and his shameful capitulation to imperialist blackmail.

For this stand N. Khrushchev censures us as “abettors” and “warmongers”! Must we give up exposing the American imperialists, their policy of aggression and warmongering, must we disseminate illusions, must we flatter and sing praises to Kennedy, in order not to be “abettors” and “warmongers”? Must we, for this, give up our firm support to the national-liberation and revolutionary war of the peoples, must we give up our proletarian internationalist solidarity and urge them to renounce their struggle and capitulate to the imperialists? Must we accept bargaining with imperialism as a “Marxist principle”, and submission, fear and capitulation as the way to safeguard peace, in order not to be “abettors” and “warmongers”? If all of these are “Marxist attitudes” what should we then call anti-Marxist and revisionist attitudes?

Whenever the revisionists find themselves in straits before incontestable facts that expose their activities, they trump up charges against our Party and attack it as “warmongers”, “dogmatists”, “adventurers”, and so on and so forth. The Yugoslav revisionists have done this for a number of years and N. Khrushchev’s group are now doing the same thing. But it is difficult to deceive anyone with such slanders and groundless denunciations. It is clear to all the peoples, the communists and the revolutionaries of the world, that it is altogether absurd to censure as warmongers the people of a small country like Albania who have more than once suffered from wars and who would incur devastations and colossal losses in the event of a new war. It is even more absurd to accuse the Albanians of aiming to plunge the Soviet Union and the USA into a war while they remain onlookers (?!). But there is no end to what a slanderer’s mind can trump up!

The experience of grappling with numerous enemies has taught our people that every time foes have concocted plans and plots against the freedom and independence of our country, they have organized a campaign of slanders and disparaging assaults against our Party beforehand, against the policy of our Government and against our people’s rule. This is what the Yugoslav revisionists have always done. This is what they did also when they organized their plot against the People’s Republic of Albania in collaboration with the 6th American Fleet, with the Greek monarchical fascists and with certain Albanian traitors, a plot which we unmasked and shattered in due time. We never forget the instigators, those connected with and participating in this plot.

Our attention cannot help being attracted by the fact that in his December 12 speech, while passionately upholding Tito’s renegade clique, N. Khrushchev launched a fierce attack against the Albanian Party of Labour by accusing it of wishing to insert the “bestial laws of the capitalist world” and the “bestial morality” into relations with communist and workers’ parties and with the socialist countries, that the Albanians are prone “to tear the Yugoslav communists to pieces for their mistakes”. We will not pause here to prove how monstrous such slanders are nor to show that it is precisely N. Khrushchev himself and his allies, the Yugoslav Titoites, and nobody else, who have used and continue to use the “bestial laws of the capitalist world” and the “bestial morality” in their relations with Albania and the Albanian people. For it is well known that it was not the Albanians, but N. Khrushchev’s group who set up the economic blockade against the People’s Republic of Albania; not Albania but N. Khrushchev’s group that ruptured diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of Albania; not the Albanian Party of Labour, but N. Khrushchev who called for a counter-revolution in Albania; not Albania but the Yugoslav revisionists who organized and still organize, against our country, plots and acts of subversion which aim at overthrowing the people’s regime in Albania.

Such an enumeration of facts alone suffices to verify who have made the “bestial morality” a law of their own, who have placed themselves towards Albania in an identical position as the American imperialists towards heroic Cuba.

But we will dwell on another matter. Why did Nikita Khrushchev need the provocation that the Albanians are prone “to tear the Yugoslav communists to pieces for their mistakes”? Through such a statement N. Khrushchev probably wants to justify the up-to-now anti-Albanian activities of the Titoite clique, on the one hand, and with such slanders, to further incite the hostility of the Yugoslav leaders against the Albanian people, against the People’s Republic of Albania, on the other. Does N. Khrushchev through this statement pledge his public and solemn word to uphold any new plot that the Yugoslav leaders intend to undertake together with their allies, against our Fatherland? Can this matter have been taken up in the “hearty” pow-wows between Tito and Khrushchev just as it may have been taken up by the numerous to-and-fro recent military and diplomatic delegations between Athens and Belgrade? The Albanian people and the Albanian Party of Labour take note of all these things and strengthen their vigilance. They never lose sight of the hustle and bustle of the Yugoslav Titoite agents to rake up, unite and organize the Albanian emigrant traitors residing in Yugoslavia, Greece and in other regions of Western Europe, for their hostile intentions against the People’s Republic of Albania. But no revisionists and no enemies of our country will ever find us unprepared. Our boundaries are sacred and inviolable. The mercenaries, their instigators and organizers, who dare to violate them, will share the same fate as the mercenaries and the American imperialists at the Playa Giron in Cuba.

* * *

N. Khrushchev’s group are proceeding further and further along the anti-Marxist and anti-socialist road of dissension and betrayal, causing increasing damage to the cause of socialism, peace and the struggle of the peoples for national liberation and social emancipation. But through these acts the revisionists are daily exposing their true features as renegades before the entire world communist movement and progressive public opinion. No demagogical manoeuvres and no assaults and slanders can save them from their inevitable fall. However long and strenuous the struggle against revisionism may be today, it will be crowned, as always, with the triumph of Marxism-Leninism.

With this absolute conviction the Party of Labour of Albania like all true communists and revolutionaries, loyal to their sacred ideals, will keep up their fight against the enemy number one of the peoples, the imperialists and particularly the American imperialists, as well as against the principal menace to the international communist and workers’ movement, the modern revisionism of the Khrushchev-Tito group, and for the inevitable victory of communism.

 

 

Party of Labour of Albania