Frpm Albania Today, 1978, 1

“Eurocommunism” or Undisguised Revisionism

From “Zëri i Popullit”, organ of the CC of the PLA, dated December 4, 1977.

One of the variants of modern revisionism is that which is called “Eurocommunism”. Its most outstanding representatives are the Spanish, French and Italian revisionist parties. According to the meaning its authors give it, “Eurocommunism” means communism of the developed capitalist countries of Western Europe. In reality this so-called communism has nothing in common with genuine communism.

Explaining what revisionist policy is in a well-known and always actual article entitled: “Marxism and Revisionism”. In 1908 Lenin wrote among other things:

“To determine its conduct from case to case, to adapt itself to the events of the day and to the chopping and changing of petty politics, to forget the primary interests of the proletariat and the basic features of the whole capitalist system, of all capitalist evolution, to sacrifice these primary interests for the real or assumed advantages of the moment – such is the policy of revisionism”. And Lenin went on to add that “every more or less 'new' question, every more or less unexpected and unforeseen turn of events, even though it changes the basic line of development only to insignificant degree and only for the briefest period, will always inevitably give rise to one variety of revisionism or another”.

In short, "Eurocommunism” is nothing else but the emergence of a new variant of revisionism, as predicted by Lenin some seventy years ago. Thus, after the notorious Titoite and Khrushchevite variants, we are now seeing the West European variant of revisionism. We must add that there are also other variants of modern revisionism, but in this article we will deal only with "Eurocommunism” and the “Eurocommunists”.

Like all the other revisionists, the Eurocommunists, too, proceed from Khrushchev's notorious thesis on the peaceful transition to socialism. Not long ago, on the 13th of October this year, one of the principal representatives of "Eurocommunism”, the General Secretary of the French revisionist party, George Marchais, stated: “What did we decide at our latest (22nd) Congress? We decided to make democracy (read: bourgeois democracy) and freedom in all its aspects, a simultaneous instrument of our struggle for the transformation of society and the fundamental dimension of the socialism we want for France”. In a word, the French arch-revisionist wants to reassure the bourgeoisie that his party has renounced the key principles of Marxism-Leninism – proletarian revolution, class struggle and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Berlinguer in Italy and Carrillo in Spain are doing the same thing for the bourgeoisie of their own countries. With their assurances that they have renounced class struggle, revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat, they reassure it, some covertly and others overtly, that they have renounced and rejected the entire doctrine of scientific socialism. They have rejected not only Stalin but also Lenin, Marx and Engels. In recent times the Italian revisionists declared officially that they will remove all reference to Marxism-Leninism, as the ideology of the party or as the basis of its policy, from all the documents of their party.

In disguised terms, this is also revealed by Marchais in the above mentioned statement when he says: “We have reflected a great deal about our experience, about the reality and demands of a country like France. There is no question of us seeking to replace the present day privileged people with other privileged people, bureaucracy with another bureaucracy, one ruling party with another ruling party, a man of providence with another man of providence”. In these few phrases of Marchais' one can find merged into one all the theses of the modern revisionists, from Gilas and Tito to Khrushchev and others. Here, slightly camouflaged, there is also a frontal attack on Lenin and Stalin, because it is they he is alluding to when he speaks of "another man of providence”, going so far as to place the great leaders of the world proletariat on a par with the so-called “men of providence” whom the bourgeoisie of France and other Western countries turns out according to the occasion and circumstances.

Usually, the revisionists do not express their ideas so openly, they try to hide their betrayal of the working class of the respective countries behind empty words about changing situations, democracy, freedom, etc. But the "Eurocommunists” act somewhat differently. Thus, one of the three main "Eurocommunist” parties, that of Spain, came out openly with its theses, which are the real theses of this variant of revisionism. It did this through its General Secretary, Santiago Carrillo, who posing as a theoretician, in a book of his entitled "Eurocommunism and the State”, and in a series of statements to the press, the radio and television of the Western countries has tried to codify the theory and practice of Eurocommunism.

He reveals that the Eurocommunists are supporters and admirers of the bourgeois state, which they want to preserve intact, that they are supporters of the supranational state the capitalist countries of Western Europe are trying to create, and which will have the Common Market as its basis.

In Carrillo, and in the final account, in Marchais and Berlinguer as well, just as in any revisionist, we have to do not with a theoretician but with a charlatan, who performs like a petty provincial advocate always ready to take up the most dishonest cases and defend them, stopping before no fabrication. In his articles and statements, he manipulates with quotations from the texts of the great teachers of Marxism, with events detached from international life, or administrative acts of different governments to suit the purposes of the defence of his theses, interpreting them in the most arbitrary way.

Carrillo and his party are the first among the European revisionists, or Eurocommunists, to renounce the notion of the dictatorship of the proletariat publicly, followed by Marchais and the French revisionist party. “The capitalist state”, says Carrillo, “is a reality. Which are its present characteristics? How must it be transformed? This is the problem of every revolution including the one we intend to realize through the democratic road of many parliamentary parties”. These few lines summarize the essence of all the preoccupations of the "theoretician”. But, sensing all the falsity of his position, understanding that this is an open, unscrupulous revision of Marxism-Leninism, the Spanish dwarf, against all evidence, tries to convince the others that allegedly even the giants of Marxism have constantly “revised” their doctrine and one another as well!. And in this connection, without bothering that his quotations are irrelevant and out of context, here Carrillo brings a passage from Marx, there he haphazardly cites Lenin and eyen Stalin, whom, though he calls him a criminal, he tries to make his forerunner in the achievement of the transformation of the state on the parliamentary road. As proof of his thesis, the "Eurocommunist” falsifier reproduces a letter, from the great man of the Soviet State to the head of the Spanish Government of the People's Front, the socialist Largo Caballero, in 1936, at the time of the Spanish Civil War. But this rabid anti-Stalinist does not understand that, instead of proving his thesis, this letter reveals the great correctness of Stalin in his relations with other states, pulls down the whole fabric of calumnies of the Khrushchevites, Titoites, Eurocommunists, Trotskyites and many others on Stalin's alleged interference, even plots, in the other countries.

To substantiate his assessments of the alleged changes in the structure and functions of the capitalist state and the “growing socialization of the capitalist economy”, this theoretician of the Paris cafes and this great admirer of the bourgeois state resorts to such ludicrous arguments, as, for, example, the decision of the French Government to “provide billions of francs as compensation for the farmers and stockraisers affected by the 1975 drought”, a gesture, which, according to him, could never have occurred in the past. Here Carrillo means: you see how the state has changed? It is no longer the state of the capitalist bourgeoisie alone, as it helps the peasants in need. In the past, too, for political or electoral expediencies of the moment, the French Government or the other Western Governments have distributed alms in cases of calamity, but it has never occurred to anyone to gee in such acts a change in the nature of the bourgeois states. This is seen only by renegades of the Carrillo, Marchais and Berlinguer type.

The modern revisionists, ranging from Tito to Khrushchev and others, based their attack against Marxism-Leninism on the campaign against Stalin, a campaign which, as our Party had long since warned, was nothing' else but an offensive against Leninism and would lead to the complete abandonment of the doctrine of Lenin and Marx. Carrillo, however, openly attacks all and everything of Marxism-Leninism. This unscrupulous intriguer does not hesitate to reject right off the entire Marxist-Leninist theory on classes and class struggle, proletarian revolution and the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat, as a collection of dogmas which are inapplicable to our time.

Expressing and' repeating all the dreams and fancies of bourgeois politicians, theoreticians and publicists, the Eurocommunists claim – and Carrillo says it openly – that the present-day proletariat is no longer that of the time of Marx, that it has changed. According to them the other classes of society have also changed. They are no longer the classes Marx and Lenin have spoken about.

According to this renegade who represents the theses of the bourgeois lumpen intellectuals, it is not the proletariat alone which is the most progressive class of society, which fights and leads the struggle for socialism, but all the classes, some more and others less, and above all, the intelligentsia, which he puts on a par with the proletariat. And here Carrillo does nothing else but copies and repeats the notorious ultra-opportunist thesis of the French revisionist philosopher Garaudy. Although 30 per cent of the Spanish population works and lives in the countryside, the peasantry, which made such a great contribution in blood in the Spanish Civil War, is not only not considered as the ally of the proletariat, but this so-called theoretician completely ignores its existence. According to Carrillo, all the classes are interested in a change in society and for this to be achieved the old society must be reformed and not overthrown.

After laying down the extravagant premise that the state is no longer that of the time of Marx and Lenin and that the classes are no longer those of their time, Carrillo, together with the other Eurocommunists, arrives at the conclusion that now there is another way for the proletariat to seize power and build socialism.

Marx said that class struggle inevitably leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat and Lenin considered the dictatorship of the proletariat as the essence of Marxist theory. The renegade Carrillo rejects this, he rejects the theory of the revolution, of the class struggle, of the seizure of power through violence, he rejects the role of the party of the proletariat and the leading role of the proletariat in the revolution. He turns back completely to the positions of social-democracy of the twenties when the soundest and the most revolutionary elements broke away from it and created the communist parties and adhered to the Third International. Carrillo goes even further, he preaches that society will be changed through the development of culture, turning the ideological apparatus of the bourgeois state (the Church, the university, etc.) to the advantage of the people.

The General Secretary of the Spanish revisionist party sets out on the road to his Eurocommunist state from the back- streets of the Catholic Church. According to him, the Church, the Vatican and the Pope of Rome himself have changed, have evolved towards a more progressive society. And this is allegedly proved by the Second Vatican Council. The clerical hierarchy has allegedly commenced to have its doubts about the possibilities of capitalism. Carrillo, this pontiff of Eurocommunism, as the French newspaper “Le Monde” described him in one of its latest issues, who unsparingly employs ecclesiastical terminology, shakes hands with the clergymen who have “evolved in their dogmas”. And after energetically shaking hands with them, he calls on the Eurocommunists to reject all dogmas (that is Marxism-Leninism) so that “they may become more progressive than the Church and the Vatican.”

It is now a fact universally known and confirmed by broad inquiries published in the Western press, that more and more believers are abandoning the Churches of Western Europe, even in those areas which used to be the bastions of religion. In France, for example, since liberation to date, religious practice has declined to ten per cent of the population. The situation is the same in Belgium and other countries. Finding it difficult to recruit new priests, the Church is obliged to resort to the services of itinerant priests.

Faced with such a situation, the Church plays on many boards and recoils from nothing. It plays with the demagogy of “worker priests”, with the demagogy of the tiermondist (third world) current of the Church, but also with the more conservative priests, as was recently the case with Bishop Lefevre, about whom a great fuss is being made. And precisely at such a difficult time, the Catholic Church, this bastion of capitalist reaction and mediaeval obscurantism, is being lent a helping hand by allies it has never hoped for, the Carrillos, Berlinguers, Garaudys and other Euro-communists.

The French revisionist Garaudy, one of the teachers in the theory of Santiago Carrillo, taking the cue from a document released by the bishops of France, enthusiastically pronounced himself in July this year for a “reciprocal fecundation between Christianity and Marxism”. According to him, there is no irreconcilability between Christianity and Marxism, because the “communist movement now has fewer and fewer Stalinists and more and more Santiago Carrillos". After quoting examples from the Spanish revisionist party “in which Christians and even priests are admitted to all levels of party leadership”, Garaudy exclaims exultantly: “Here is the future intended for a long term: a major historic change in which both Christians and Marxists will each in an equal manner bring about new dimensions”. Things cannot be said more clearly.

The merging of Marxism with Catholic religion, this is the aim of the Garaudys. This is what Berlinguer is implementing in Italy, as is shown in his letter to the bishop of Ivrea. And this is what Santiago Carrillo and all the other Eurocommunists are trying to put into practice. The Catholic Church may one day make these people its saints, and it has the right to do it.

When for the Eurocommunists, the Church and the Vatican, despite their 20 centuries-long obscurantist and reactionary tradition, have changed as if by magic, the remainder of the ideological apparatus of capitalism has also changed, and long since at that, for them. Education, for instance, says the Spanish renegade, has assumed a mass character and has brought about a real revolution in society. According to him, this education has a popular and not an aristocratic character, as before. The class essence of the school does not even exist for Carrillo. Here he considers nothing else but the number of students. But even here, had he taken into consideration only the quantitative aspect of the question, he would haves been obliged to admit, although he cannot fail to know it, that in, the universities of all the countries of Western Europe the number of workers' sons and daughters does not exceed even 2 per cent.

The schools, and especially the universities, have been centres from where progressive and revolutionary ideas have always been spread, where progressive ideas have always clashed fiercely with the reactionary ones. Therefore to order to confuse :and paralyze the student youth, to lead it away from the working class, the bourgeoisie employs its entire ideological apparatus, as well as its lackeys: the Trotskyites, anarchists, and especially, the revisionist parties and their huge apparatus in Italy, France and Spain; Carrillo tries toelevate to a theory and justify theoretically this lackey role of the revisionists.

Carrillo considers the family as another aspect of the ideological apparatus of the capitalist state, which according to him, has changed and within which a struggle is going on between children and parents. Rejecting class struggle as a dogma, Carrillo embraces the ideas of bourgeois sociologists and the American pseudo-theoretician Marcuse on the “conflict of generations”.

But the Spanish servant of the bourgeoisie goes even further. Claiming that the youth oppose the ideas of their parents and their dogmas, he pretends that the youth of today, the sons and daughters of workers and revolutionaries, the sons and daughters of those who fought and shed their blood against fascism in Spain, reject the ideas and ideals of scientific communism as a “dogma”.

Thus, according to Carrillo, by winning over the ideological apparatus of the bourgeoisie, one will gradually move towards an ever greater democracy and a state which will belong to all. But what will be done with the repressive apparatus of the bourgeois state? Even this presents no difficulty for the theoretical mountebank. The police? In Italy it votes for the party of Berlinguer, he says. Why shouldn't it then vote for Marchais in France and for Carrillo and for Dolores Ibarruri in Spain? The Eurocommunists should accept the state apparatus without destroying it, even the army, set up and armed by the bourgeoisie. The Eurocommunists should work for a democratic transformation of the military mentality. But can this be achieved with military castes created and educated over the centuries to be the armed hand of the bourgeois state? Carrillo says, yes, and as an example of this he brings the French Army, which according to him has been "democratized” following the war in Algeria, as is seen... from some of its rules from which he quotes at random. Even the most conservative French newspaper, or an agent in the pay of the Deuxieme Bureau would not dare to praise the French Army in such a manner.

The bad luck with the pseudo-theories of the renegades from the working class is that the events give the lie to them before the ink has dried on the paper. Thus, at a time when Carrillo was lauding to the skies the democratic transformation of the French Army, breaking with past rules, the French Government decided that military regions and garrisons would be spread all over the territory of metropolitan France. This dissemination of garrisons is explained by the concern of the French ruling circles about a change in the situation not only inside France, but also in that which is called the South of Europe. To please the bourgeoisie and prove their loyalty to it, the Italian and French Eurocommunists have gone so far as to justify NATO and the presence of US troops and bases in Western Europe.

With a road to socialism like this, Carrillo and all the other revisionists reject the role of the party, deny democratic centralism. As far as the party is concerned, they have borrowed the concept of the party of all the people from the Khrushchevite revisionists and have turned it into the concept of pluralism of parties. For the economy, they have adopted the Titoite methods of self-administration. And from the other revisionists, they have adopted the pluralism of cultures, the competition of philosophical trends, religious currents.

It is impossible to follow step by step within the limits of one article, all the "Opinions” and "arguments” of the Eurocommunists which expose and prove the treachery of the modern revisionists in all its aspects. But one must mention here the international environment of the state of the Eurocommunists, and how Carrillo sees this environment. This environment is nothing else but the Atlantic environment. Carrillo and his party are in favour of the Common Market, NATO and Spain's accession to them. They are for the unification of the Europe of monopolies and trusts, presenting it, like the partisans of the “theory of three worlds” and the social democrats, as the "Europe of the peoples”. All of them are for the so-called third international force, which is allegedly opposed to the two superpowers, but which in reality is opposed only to the European proletariat and the peoples that it exploits, that is, they are for the big bourgeoisie and the big European capitalist monopolies. In this "strategy” the Eurocommunists and the advocates of the "theory of three worlds” have lined up on the same front and are fighting on the same barricade. The Eurocommunists and the other revisionists, though they may have contrasting views on this problem or that, are at one in the main thing, they unite with the bourgeoisie and imperialism in struggle against the revolution and Marxism-Leninism.

“A United States of Europe under capitalism”, said Lenin, “is either impossible or reactionary”. “Of course”, he added, "temporary agreements between capitalists and between states are possible. In this sense a United States of Europe is possible as an agreement between the European capitalists..., but what for? Only for the purpose of jointly suppressing socialism in Europe”. The Marxist-Leninists do not doubt and have never doubted that this is the aim of all the renegades from Marxism-Leninism.

All these "opinions” publicly advertised by Carrillo with the shamelessness typical of all renegades, are not the opinions of him alone, but also those of Dolores Ibarruri and of the Spanish revisionist party. They are a mosaic of the theses of all those who have tried to revise the great and always triumphant doctrine of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. In Carrillo we see Bernstein, Kautsky, Browder, Tito, Khrushchev, Togliatti, his teachers in revisionism, Berlinguer and Marchais, his companions on the "Eurocommunist” road. In Carrillo we also see the influence of a number of so-called theories, such as those of Sartre, Marcuse, of the present-day European Trotskyites and anarchists, mixed with the theories of the chiefs of Western social-democracy, and especially with those of Leon Blum who in an almost forgotten book entitled “A l'echelle humaine” (On a Human Scale), about 10 years before Khrushchev and 30 years before Carrillo indicated the "peaceful road to socialism”, a road which went also through the White House in Washington and the Vatican. The opinions of the Spanish renegade are nothing else but rubbish collected from the troughs of capitalism and revisionism and thrown together in the book called "Eurocommunism and the State”.

Eurocommunism emerged as a doctrine and was codified by Carrillo at a time when the Spanish bourgeoisie, that of the nine European Community countries and the US bourgeoisie together with the NATO and Common Market headquarters demanded to be reassured about the transition of power which would take place in Francoist Spain. Terrified by the working class and the revolution, and continuing to be haunted by the spectre of the Paris Commune after its suppression more than 100 years ago, the reactionaries are used to see red everywhere. Carrillo is dispelling their fears. That is why the representatives of the bourgeoisie have been lavish in their eulogies of the Spanish “theoretician”, who recently went even to the USA, so that the American capitalists could see and convince themselves that the Eurocommunists are "gentlemen” and very useful “businessmen”, with whom they can come to terms.

But the representatives of world capitalism and imperialism are rejoicing a little prematurely in their great expectations from Carrillo. It is true that Carrillo is one of the vilest agents of world capitalism, but precisely as such he is utterly worthless. His "theories” will not bring much benefit to capitalism, because he exposes the pseudo-Marxism of the modern revisionists, tears the mask off them, reveals their real aims to the proletariat and the peoples who are fighting for social and national liberation.

This is precisely the reason why the other revisionists, first and foremost the Soviet revisionists, are worried over Carrillo's sermons. This scum of the revisionist scum, caring for and embarrassed by nothing, dared to develop further and carry through to the end the theses of the Khrushchevite revisionists, and in the first place, the fundamental thesis of modern revisionism, namely, that of the “peaceful transition to socialism”, with which are linked the other theses, such as that of the change of the nature of imperialism, of a world without weapons and wars, of the party of the entire people and the state of the entire people.

From the very start the Party of Labour of Albania and comrade Enver Hoxha showed that these theses of Khrushchev's were a great betrayal of Marxism-Leninism, the cause of socialism and communism. Life has proved and is continually proving our Party right. It is proving that the revisionists are getting bogged down more and more deeply in the morass of opportunism and bourgeois degeneration.

The Khrushchev clique, and subsequently that of Brezhnev have tried to manoeuvre and avoid the exposure of all the cards of their betrayal. And here now is Carrillo, their collaborator, exposing their aims, and openly showing what the theses of the 20th Congress are. This is not only a slap but a heavy blow at them as well, because in order to hide their betrayal, the Khrushchevite revisionists must pass themselves off as Marxist-Leninists and still look so if they cling to some Leninist formulae. Immediately after the 20th Congress the Italian arch-revisionist, Palmiro Togliatti, was the first to demand that the Soviet revisionists should advance at a fast pace on the road of their Congress. Under the new conditions, however, Carrillo is going even further than the spiritual father of the Eurocommunists. He analyzes their theses one by one, looks into their logic and demands that they should be carried out to the letter. Carrillo tells the Soviet revisionists that the theses they put forward call for open rejection not only of Stalin, but also of Marx, Engels and Lenin, and this not only on one, but on all questions. He says that the road of the October Revolution, and together with it, the dictatorship of the proletariat, the role of the party, the hegemonic role of the proletariat, must be rejected. He says that the entire Marxist-Leninist theory and treasure must be revised in every field – ideology, politics, economics. Carrillo says that peaceful coexistence and the peaceful road to socialism call for a status quo not only in the field of international relations, in the preservation of military pacts, alliances, economic groupings, but also a status quo within every country, the preservation of the bourgeois state, of its repressive organs and ideological apparatuses. He demands of the Soviet revisionists, the Titoites and others to grant full freedom to the "dissidents”, to act so as to allow the pluralism of parties, cultures, philosophical trends, etc. He proceeds even further. He openly tells the Soviets that since they have rehabilitated so many traitors sentenced at Moscow trials, they must not stop half way. Since they have taken one step they must take the other: they must rehabilitate Trotsky. Likewise he bluntly tells the Soviets and the other revisionists that as long as they receive huge credits from the US imperialists, why, then, the Spanish Eurocommunist state should not receive such credits? He also says many other things as well, which expose the Soviet revisionists badly. All this is too serious a thing for them, it scorches them like hot iron. Therefore, they began to reproach Carrillo, but limited their target of attack only to his book, and only to one aspect of this book. Without going into the essence of the matter, or dealing with what Carrillo demands of them and the other revisionists, the Soviet revisionists express only their regret that, in his book, Carrillo attacks Marx, Engels and Lenin. The Soviet revisionists are thus trying to avail themselves of the opportunity offered them by the publication of the book to pose as champions of the theory of Marx and Lenin, which they were the first to discard.

But the Soviet revisionists are worried over another question as well. Having abandoned Marxism-Leninism and betrayed the interests of the working class, having transformed the first state of workers and peasants into a social-imperialist bourgeois state, unwillingly and against their interests, the Soviet revisionists opened the road to nationalist and centrifugal tendencies in all the revisionist parties and to tendencies to rapprochement, groupings and meetings between various open or hidden revisionists. Thus the “Eurocommunist” parties, servants of the bourgeoisie of their respective countries, express and defend each the interests of his own bourgeoisie, which run contrary to the interests of the Soviet bourgeoisie. The Soviet revisionists thus suffered the same fate with the magician who let the devils out of the jar and could not call them together.

In his report at the 7th Congress comrade Enver Hoxha said, “The Party of Labour of Albania long ago said that modern revisionism, like the earlier revisionism of Bernstein and Kautsky, can never build that cohesion, that steel-like unity which only Marxism-Leninism, the scientific ideology of the working class, is in a position to do. Revisionism is synonymous with splits, lack of unify, chauvinism and anarchy. Our Party was convinced that, despite their slogans that they were ‘independent’, ‘sovereign’ and ‘capable’ of applying the Marxist-Leninist theory in the conditions of their own countries, the revisionist parties would not only break away from the Soviet Union and the so-called ‘socialist family’, but would become involved, as they have done, in irreconcilable conflicts with one another”.

Carrillo's writings, stands and statements are worrying his comrades in Eurocommunism – Marchais, Berlinguer and their parties. While in August this year the Western press published extensive statements of the Spanish renegade in defence of Eurocommunism, Santiago Carrillo was attending a symposium on “Eurosocialism” in Crete, in which the chiefs of European social-democracy, together with the revisionist Garaudy who has been expelled from the French revisionist party, were taking part. With this participation in the symposium in Crete, Carrillo showed that there is no dividing line between Eurocommunism and Eurosocialism. This is not to the liking of Marchais, because it exposes him in the eyes of the French working class which has a long and bitter experience of the treacherous role of the socialist party. It has good knowledge of Leon Blum's slogans, that “the socialists are sincere administrators of the capitalist society”, put into practice by the socialist party. It has also known the police dogs and the bullets of Jules Moch, the socialist home affairs minister in the post-war French Government.

As far as Berlinguer and the Italian revisionist party are concerned, they have put into practice what Carrillo claims to have raised to a theory, and are continuing on “the road to socialism” which goes through the “historic compromise” with Christian democracy and the Vatican. The Italian revisionist party has concluded a joint agreement with the Christian democrats and the other bourgeois parties, on which the program of the present government is based. At the same time, together with the other parties, it is striving to vest the police and the gendarmerie with emergency powers to control and spy on the citizens in the name of the "defence of law and order”.

They are integrating revisionism into capitalism, but it is not in their interest to kick up a row, to be reminded of the police of Rome voting for them, which logically means that the Italian revisionist party collaborates with the police. Berlinguer and Co. have learned the method of “combinations” from the bourgeoisie of their country and the Church. Thus, they are for “combinations” and not for the shouts that accompany the bullfighters in Spanish arenas.

Carrillo's theorizing in the rag called "Eurocommunism and the State” and in his frequent statements show the rottenness and complete decay of modern revisionism, its great betrayal and its going over completely to the side of the bourgeoisie, imperialism and reaction. Carrillo, Marchais, Berlinguer and Co., the revisionists of all hues, are vile traitors and loyal lackeys of the bourgeoisie; they want to rescue it from its inevitable doom. The present-day bourgeois and revisionist society, however is fraught with revolution, which no force in the world can stop. This revolution is guided and will always be guided today and in the future, until its complete triumph throughout the world, only by the immortal ideas of Marxism-Leninism. All the opposing ideas which try to revise our great, unerring and ever young theory, will end up in the garbage heap of history together with those of the Eurocommunists which, like all such other theories, will land there faster than all the others. They are filthy stains, which together with capitalism, imperialism and social-imperialism will be wiped off the face of the earth by the iron hand of the world proletariat which leads the revolution and which is inspired by the triumphant doctrine of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin.

Click here to return to the index of archival material.