From Albania Today, 1977, 5
Comrade Enver Hoxha's article published for the first time in the “Zeri i Popullit” on September 13, 1963, under the title "Results of N. Khrushchev's Visit to Yugoslavia”.
A few days ago Khrushchev concluded his visit to Yugoslavia. Both the propaganda machine of the revisionists and the western press tried to give this visit the maximum “international political significance”. It is now clear to all that Khrushchev did not go to Yugoslavia for a vacation, as stated at first. He went there to complete the process of the full rehabilitation of the Tito clique, to unite openly with this band of traitors, long condemned by all the communist and workers' parties, to hatch up new plots against the socialist camp, the international communist movement and peace, and to take another step in his rapprochement with US imperialism.
These aims of N. Khrushchev's visit became immediately obvious from his endless statements boosting the "successful building of socialism in Yugoslavia”, the "correct Marxist-Leninist line and the outstanding merits of the present Yugoslav leaders” headed by “my friend and comrade Tito”, about the contribution of the Tito clique to the "development of the principles of peaceful coexistence”, to the "strengthening of the world socialist community”, to the "consolidation of the unity of the communist and workers' movement", to the "creative development of Marxism-Leninism”, about the contribution of the Yugoslav leaders to the "strengthening of the anti-imperialist front”, about "the good points of the Yugoslav road to socialism", and particularly about the “workers' self-administration”, which, allegedly, is worthy of special attention and study by other socialist countries, in order to copy it, and about the "great role which Yugoslavia should play in the Balkans”, and so on.
Tito, on his part, pointed out that certain differences of points of
view which still exist are losing their significance in the face of
their great common goals. He expressed his satisfaction at Khrushchev's
high appraisal of his own activity, of his struggle for "socialism" and
the spreading of "communist" ideas and the “communist" spirit in
Yugoslavia, at the attacks which Khrushchev has launched against the
communist movement, the Communist Party of China, the Party of Labour
of Albania and other Marxist-Leninist parties.
In his August 24th speech at Split, Khrushchev publicly declared, “We note with satisfaction that, on the absolute majority of international problems, the views of the USSR and Yugoslavia arc similar... The unity of views and actions of the USSR and Yugoslavia in the international plane is a very important factor in world politics. This unity contributes to the development of the principle of peaceful coexistence in relations among all states." This, and many other statements of this kind, not only show a complete unity of views between N. Khrushchev and Tito on matters of foreign policy, but they also demonstrate that N. Khrushchev has made Tito his equal partner in the leadership of world's policy. But what role has N. Khrushchev assigned to his other partners? Apparently, they are to follow the “Yugoslav star” of the revisionist caravan blindly, like puppets.
In the field of ideology Khrushchev himself several times admitted that complete unity has been achieved on the fundamental issues. “For us Soviet communists”, he stressed, "there can be no basic contradictions with the Yugoslav communists", while at Brioni, on August 28, he told foreign journalists: “We have the same ideas and are guided by the same theory”.
There is no need for a guide to a village already in sight. It has now become quite clear to the whole world, even without these public confirmations, that both Tito and Khrushchev are inspired by the same out-and-out revisionist ideas which have inspired all the renegades from Marxism-Leninism, and that in their disruptive anti-Marxist practical activity they are guided by the same objectives, which are to extinguish the revolutionary spirit of the international communist movement, to bury Marxism-Leninism, to liquidate socialism and re-establish the domination of imperialism.
Apart from their unity of views and activities in the fields of politics and ideology, Khrushchev also laid the basis for closer collaboration with the Tito clique in the economic field. The purpose here is clear. He wants to make a contribution, along with the imperialists, to keep this clique on its feet, not only through his all-round political and ideological support, but also through economic aid, in order to make Yugoslavia a showpiece or model of revisionist “socialism”. At Rakovica Khrushchev stated, “Good economic relations, too, are being established between our countries. Compared with 1955, the volume of trade turnover between our countries has risen nearly six fold. In 1963 the mutual exchanges of goods are 50 per cent upon last year."
In Velenja on August 30, Tito, for his part, confirmed that, “It is in the interests of both sides that we should extend and develop our relations still further. And we shall do this. We have, for instance, already reached an agreement about the cooperation of certain branches of the economy, which through our further collaboration will be expanded even more”. Yugoslavia has agreed to participate in the “socialist division of labour”. Finally it was accorded observer status in the Council of Mutual Economic Aid (COMECON). Tito, of course, has every reason to be satisfied with all this; he is like a horse with two or more mangers to feed from.
During his sojourn in Yugoslavia, Khrushchev also revealed his determination to support the revisionist course of the Belgrade clique and, naturally enough, this was one of those matters that received the greatest publicity and most enthusiastic welcome from the Western press. Khrushchev revealed himself as a supporter of the Yugoslav road of socialism. In order to do this, he did not even hesitate to come out against the Soviet Union's road for the construction of socialism and communism, to openly criticize Soviet methods of management of the economy while eulogizing the Yugoslav system of self-administration. Are there no limits to his treachery! This is how the Tanjug news agency describes Khrushchev's meeting with the managers of the Rakovica combine in the neighbourhood of Belgrade: “While stressing that in the Soviet Union they stick to the principle of a 'single manager' comrade Khrushchev said that he liked the form of workers’ councils and that such a thing was progressive. “We, in our country”, Khrushchev continued, “are now seeking new forms of management, in which the public can find its full expression, and, therefore, your experience interests us...” He emphasized once again that the experience of Yugoslavia in regard to the workers' self-administration could also prove valuable. A study should be made of things which time has already confirmed. In connection with this, Khrushchev added that he would certainly send a group of functionaries of the party, the trade unions and the economic organs to make a detailed study of these matters in the Yugoslav practice".
It strikes the eye that through its detailed stories and reports, the Yugoslav press highlights Khrushchev's opinions and remarks at his meeting with the managers of the Rakovica combine, especially emphasizing his high appraisal of “self-administration” and "workers' councils" as “progressive forms”, when, as is known, they are the links to the restoration of capitalism in the Yugoslav economy. However, precisely at the time the Yugoslav and Western press was making a great fuss about these utterances of Khrushchev's, the Soviet press, which specializes in extolling the "genius" of N. Khrushchev and which allows no chance to go by without singing praises to his “wit" and "sagacity", for once became surprisingly mute on that day, and published not one word about this discussion. Apparently, the Moscow revisionists do not feel secure, and dare not come out openly before their own people in praise of those revisionist forms of the economic management which have nothing in common with socialism and which they themselves, not very long ago, criticized an rejected as anti-Marxist and anti-socialist, and as a variant of the theories of anarcho-syndicalism...
Tito once again proclaimed the superiority of the Yugoslav road to socialism and stressed that it was no longer specific to Yugoslavia alone but should become the foundation of the work of every party in the socialist countries. And the first successes, according to Tito, have become apparent in the Soviet Union during these last ten years. His exact words are, "When we speak of workers' self-administration, we are not referring just to the problems and needs of one country in particular. Social self-administration is founded on the ideas of Marx, Engels and Lenin. That is why comrade Nikita Sergeyevitch Khrushchev, quite correctly, always attaches very great importance to it. When we were in the Soviet Union we had the opportunity to convince ourselves that extraordinary development in all fields has been achieved there during these last ten years”.
Western observers have found it difficult to conceal their enthusiasm over Khrushchev's approval of the Yugoslav type of "socialism". In Yugoslavia they saw "a Khrushchev prepared to make many concessions, to take many steps forward". They have long regarded Yugoslavia as “a transmission-belt" to carry counter-revolutionary ideas from the West to the East. This is how Radio London expressed it on August 30: “Many observers consider Khrushchev's interest in the 'workers' councils’ in Yugoslavia as the most important result of his visit to the Adriatic coast. These councils are nothing else but a symbol of Titoite communism, and constitute one of the main parts of the revisionism which the Soviet Union and the entire communist world officially condemned less than three years ago. The system of 'workers' councils' in Yugoslavia is half communist and half Western. The only danger is that it may fall between two stools. This system, based on two models, is still holding its own. That's why N. Khrushchev is eager to do something similar in Russia. And if he does this he will be acclaiming not only Tito but also the Western economic system.” The mouthpiece of the big US monopolists, the “New York Times”, wrote: “The most interesting aspect... is the very friendly attitude of the Soviet Premier, N. Khrushchev, towards the Yugoslav system of implementing orthodox communism. This could give rise to big changes in Moscow's economic organization. Yugoslavia has adopted so many ideas from the West that it can play the role of a transmission-belt carrying Western economic ideas to the East."
Under these circumstances, is there any reason for the imperialist West to have the slightest worry about the results of Khrushchev's visit to Yugoslavia? None whatsoever.
Khrushchev's demagogy cannot continue for long to deceive the Soviet people, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the other communist and workers' parties with his tales that allegedly changes have been made in Yugoslavia towards socialism, that the Yugoslav leaders are correcting their former mistakes, and consequently, that Yugoslavia is a country which “is building socialism".
Everybody knows how matters really stand, what "changes” have been made there. Daily life brings out many facts which prove that nothing has changed in Tito's Yugoslavia. Only the grave can straighten out a hunchback. Tito himself has stated repeatedly that he has discarded nothing from his program, that "there is no question of any concession” and that he has not made and has no intention of making any change whatsoever.
He repeated this once again to Khrushchev's very face. Once again publicly reassuring his friends in the West, Tito said, “In connection with the visit of N. Khrushchev rumours are already circulating in the West, conjecturing as to who will make concessions. Will Tito and the Yugoslav communists enter the camp, or will N. S. Khrushchev make concessions to the Yugoslav communists on behalf of the communists of the Soviet Union? This is altogether out of the question", Tito emphasized, “There is no question of any concessions. This matter will not be taken up in the talks."*
* 'Pravda', August 23, 1963.
Tito's words are really meant for other ears. For his part, his assurances are the truth. And the facts show this. Tito has made no concessions to Khrushchev, but Khrushchev has made many concessions to Tito. The newspaper "Washington Post", which is very close to the US government and especially to the State Department, expressed the idea on August 24 that in the present state of international affairs, especially “in the Sino-Soviet conflict, Khrushchev stands in greater need of Tito than Tito of Khrushchev. Premier Khrushchev is trying to get on goodterms with the Yugoslav leader again".
Khrushchev's demagogic tales about the Tito clique having changed and corrected its mistakes are intended to prove that Yugoslavia is a real socialist country and that socialism is being built there successfully, in order justify his full collaboration with the Tito clique, its final rehabilitation and the inclusion of Yugoslavia in the family of socialist countries and that of the League of Yugoslav communists in the ranks of the international communist movement. But this is one of the crudest and most blatant violations of the 1960 Moscow Declaration, unanimously approved by all the fraternal parties, in which the Yugoslav revisionists were branded as traitors to Marxism-Leninism and as agents of imperialism, as splitters and underminers of the socialist camp, the international communist movement and the peace-loving forces and states.
But the achievement of full unity with the Tito clique shows clearly
once again down which road the Khrushchev group is rushing. As the
popular saying goes, “a man is judged by the company he keeps”. To
unite with the Yugoslav revisionists means to unite with the enemies of
socialism, the renegades from Marxism-Leninism, with the splitters of
unity and the agents of imperialism, who are conspiring against the
socialist countries and the entire world revolutionary movement. Not
only has the Khrushchev group united with the treacherous Tito clique
but it has launched frenzied attacks on all those communist parties
which, standing loyal to the Moscow Declaration of the 81 Communist and
Workers' Parties, carry out their international duty and expose the
Yugoslav leaders with their revisionist ideas and anti-socialist
activities. This means that the Khrushchev group has obliterated any
distinction between friend and foe, between Marxism-Leninism and
revisionism, between defenders and disrupters of unity, and between
anti-imperialist fighters and agents of imperialism, and has gone
completely over to the camp of the enemies of Marxism-Leninism,
socialism, the peoples and peace in the world.
It is now no secret to anyone that for some time back, Khrushchev and his propaganda agents have ceased to use the term “socialist camp”. This was especially noticeable during his tour of Yugoslavia. In no address, in absolutely no published speech or conversation, can one find such an expression except at the August 21 banquet, when Tito made a scornful reference to it. The question here is not just that Khrushchev tried to avoid saying anything that might prejudice his “cordial relations" with the renegade Tito, through the use of such "unfashionable" and “unnecessary" terms as “the socialist camp”, towards which, as everybody knows, the Yugoslav revisionists maintain a completely negative and hostile attitude. The fact is that Khrushchev supports and fully agrees with Tito's hostile attitude towards the socialist camp. When a journalist asked him at Brioni whether "the fact that Yugoslavia does not belong to blocs hinders the Soviet-Yugoslav cooperation", Khrushchev answered, “No!" and added. “Historically all the socialist countries take the same Marxist-Leninist position, for we are linked by common ideas and are guided by a single theory, while other manifestations like 'blocs' and so on are temporary”.
What does this mean? To what blocs is he referring? It is publicly known that the Yugoslav revisionists consider the socialist camp as a “bloc” that when they speak about the so-called "neutrality” or "non-alignment" of Yugoslavia, they pretend that they stand not only outside military blocs and organizations but also outside camps and above the camps. Under these circumstances Khrushchev's statement against the so-called “blocs” inevitably gives rise to two conclusions:
On the one hand, it is clear that Khrushchev fully accepts Tito's reactionary position, regarding the socialist camp as “a military bloc”, as a negative phenomenon that has led to the aggravation of the international situation and as something “temporary".
On the other hand, in this way N. Khrushchev supports and justifies the demagogic manoeuvres of the Tito clique about the so-called “neutrality" and “non-alignment” of Yugoslavia. But how can there be a country which is socialist and at the same time "neutral" in the great historic struggle between the two camps, the socialist and imperialist camps? There was a time when Khrushchev himself condemned and rejected this absurd pretension of the Tito clique: “The Yugoslav leaders", he declared at the 21st Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, “claim that they stand outside blocs, above the camps, although in fact they take part in the Balkan bloc, which consists of Yugoslavia, Turkey, and Greece... The leaders of the Yugoslav League of Communists consider themselves highly insulted when we tell them that they are sitting on two stools. They assure us that they are sitting on their own Yugoslav stool. However, this Yugoslav stool seems to be largely supported by the US monopolies. And precisely for this reason this position 'outside blocs', the neutrality to which the leaders of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia are so attached, has a strong smell of the US monopolies, which are fostering "Yugoslav socialism". The history of the class struggle still knows of no example in which the bourgeoisie has supported its class enemy materially or morally, and assisted it to build socialism."
Thus Khrushchev has now decided to cancel out the existence of the socialist camp and does not hesitate to come out openly against it. Here we have to do not only with a major concession of principle to Tito's revisionist and anti-socialist positions, but also with a real betrayal of the vital interests of socialism, with an attempt to undermine the socialist camp itself and to liquidate it.
In the context of his activities to undermine and split the socialist camp, the international communist movement and their unity based on the principles of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism, Khrushchev deemed it necessary to revive the idea of pan-Slavism during his visit to Yugoslavia. From the very first day he spoke of “our traditional friendship”, “our common historical destiny” and “our common final goal", in this way implying and stressing the special links between peoples of the same ethnic group. This is not the first time that the Khrushchev group, departing from the Marxist-Leninist class position, has tried to build its political platform regarding the relations between states and parties on such ethnic, racial, and even religious grounds, even going so far as to make one effort after another for rapprochement with the Pope of Rome in order to win the support of Catholics. But to replace the class principles of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism with pan-Slavism or with other similar non-Marxist ideas means to undermine the very foundations on which the workers' international solidarity and unity, and the relations among the peoples of the socialist countries and the communist and workers' parties are based. It means to degrade and seriously damage the cause of socialism. This is one of the many proofs of the complete and hopeless ideological degeneration of the Khrushchev group.
Moreover Khrushchev did no fail to assign a special, if not a decisive, role to Yugoslavia in the Balkans and even in the world (!).
It was for this purpose that in his speech at Velenja, he extolled in a one-sided way the fight of the Yugoslav peoples against the fascist invaders, while deliberately denigrating the great contribution of the other Balkan peoples in the antifascist war. Of course, the peoples of Yugoslavia waged a really heroic war for the liberation of their country, but the other Balkan peoples, also, were in the thick of it and shed a lot of blood in that war. The setting of one people against another, the tendentious praising of the fight of one people and the deliberate ignoring of the contribution and the struggle of other peoples, which Khrushchev resorted to, reveals once again his aims of disruption and provocation by inciting the nationalist and chauvinist passions of the friends he supports. Khrushchev also took the opportunity to encourage Tito’s old dream of a special role in the Balkans, of his hegemony in some sort of "Balkan Federation". Thus during this visit Khrushchev revealed himself nakedly to be the complete Machiavelli, politically and morally.
Khrushchev and Tito puffed themselves up by posing as masters of the fate of the Balkans. When a foreign journalist asked them about this in Brioni, observers could not fail to notice Khrushchev's angry reaction, when he said, "Why do you stick your nose into our affairs?” Just what lies hidden behind the phrase "our affairs” was revealed by the British news agency Reuters, which wrote on August 18, "The possibility of new Balkan projects, in which Yugoslavia would play a primary role, cannot be ruled out”. The peoples of the Balkans are justified in asking: Since when have the affairs of the Balkans become the private business of Khrushchev and Tito? Who gave them the monopoly of the right to speak and act in the name of the Balkan peoples, to make deals and divide the roles behind their backs and to their detriment?
But what is this Tito clique to which Khrushchev wants “to entrust the fate of the Balkans”? And what is the "special role” which Khrushchev has assigned to it? Our people, as well as the other peoples of the Balkans, are very well acquainted with the features of this gang of renegades and agents of imperialism, we are well aware of their intentions and role. Are we perhaps to forget the active role of the Tito clique in the Hungarian counterrevolution? Can it be, that the subversive and conspiratorial activity of the Yugoslav revisionist agents, which have been detected and exposed time after time, in Hungary, Bulgaria, Albania and Rumania, have been forgotten so soon? The Albanian people will never forget the betrayal and plot by Koçi Xoxe and others, the plot hatched up by the Yugoslav revisionists in collaboration with the Greek monarcho-fascists, the US 6th Fleet, and some traitors against the sovereignty of our country, nor will they forget the numerous acts of provocation and hostility against the People's Republic of Albania and our people.
Tito accompanied his "dear friend" to the vicinity of the northern borders of our Homeland in a demonstrative way. Khrushchev did not go to Titograd to pay a "passing” visit to the ethnographic museum of Cetigne and see the relics of Nyegosh. He inspected the Albanian-Yugoslav border, in order to express in this way his support and approval of the profoundly hostile stand and intentions towards our people of the Yugoslav revisionist leaders who are notorious for the attempts they have made on the freedom and the independence of our socialist Homeland.
It is clear that “the special role” of Titoite Yugoslavia in the Balkans, indeed in the world(!), is directed against the vital interests of the socialist camp and the international communist movement; that its aim is to undermine and split them; and that this is a component part of the campaign of the Khrushchev-Tito revisionist united front against those fraternal parties which firmly uphold the principles of Marxism-Leninism, first and foremost, the Communist Party of China and the Party of Labour of Albania. The clearest evidence of this is the fact that Khrushchev's entire visit to Yugoslavia was accompanied by a frenzied campaign of monstrous, coordinated attacks launched by Khrushchev and Tito and others against the Marxist-Leninist parties.
The third main conclusion to be drawn from Khrushchev's visit to Yugoslavia is that he has moved closer to the imperialists, particularly to the US imperialists.
It is a publicly known fact – and Tito has more than once confirmed it by his own words – that "socialist" Yugoslavia has become a "bridge between the East and the West”. Khrushchev is now openly using this "bridge" not just to make approaches to, but actually to cross over to the West.
The establishment of a direct line of telephone communication between the Kremlin and the White House was recently inaugurated. This line is called “the hot line”, through which Khrushchev may talk directly to Kennedy and carry on further negotiations at the expense of the peoples. But Khrushchev and Kennedy also have a living telephone “line”, Tito, who provides good service in a “creative way” to their common purpose.
Expressing his great satisfaction over the conclusion of the tripartite Moscow agreement, which is another capitulation of the Khrushchev group to the imperialists, a fraud and a betrayal of the cause of socialism, Tito said in his speech at the banquet given by Khrushchev on August 21, “Of course this is still insufficient. Much still remains to be done...”. Tito, the inveterate agent of imperialism, is not satisfied with the results achieved, he wants further steps to be taken along the road which he long ago made clear to his revisionist colleagues. This is the road of the “economic and political integration of the world", in other words, the road towards the gradual and peaceful integration of socialism into capitalism about which Kennedy has spoken.
In analyzing Khrushchev's public utterances in Yugoslavia, everybody notices that he not only refrained from attacking US imperialism openly, but did not refer to it even once by name. He confined himself to the usual terms of the revisionists regarding "the most aggressive circles of imperialism” and very rarely at that. The AFP news agency pointed out, “This moderation of language can be explained, of course, by Khrushchev's desire to maintain the tone of 'peaceful coexistence', and also to avoid placing the Yugoslavs in an embarrassing position with regard to Washington”. But this is not all. Khrushchev did not make any open attack against the imperialists, because his views regarding imperialism in general, and US imperialism in particular, are the same as those of Tito, and because he has now set out on the road to full reconciliation and rapprochement with the imperialists. Western observers pointed out on this occasion, not without justification, that while awaiting the decision of the US Congress on the re-establishment of the “most favoured nation” clause in the trade relations with Yugoslavia, Tito will have something to report and bring as compensation to President Kennedy at the White House on the occasion of the trip he is to make to Latin America soon, that is, the new and more moderate attitude of Khrushchev.
The attitude of the Tito clique towards US imperialism and the attitude of US imperialism towards the Tito clique is no secret to anyone. Their relations are like those of master and servant. It is clear that the approach to and unity with the servant and agent of imperialism, who is nurtured and kept on his feet by US dollars, is a big step towards approach to and unity with his master – US imperialism. Everybody sees this. They see and condemn this open betrayal by Khrushchev who, by uniting with Tito, is rolling out the carpet in anticipation of the not so far distant day when the imperialists and the revisionists will celebrate Khrushchev's complete rapprochement with John Kennedy. The facts are now so clear that it is difficult even for those who, for some time, have made it their habit to follow Khrushchev in his great betrayal, to refuse to see it. A truly great responsibility towards their parties, their peoples and the international communist movement falls on those leaders who have had and still have reservations about Tito particularly, and about what Khrushchev and Tito are doing, and yet who keep silent, who are afraid to say what they think and dare not express their opinion. Embracing Tito leads to embracing Kennedy as well. Are all those leaders who call themselves communists, but who remain silent, in favour of this, too? The Khrushchev group is trying to persuade the communists and the people that unity with Titoite Yugoslavia means unity with socialist and anti-imperialist forces and is in the interests of the socialist camp and the international communist movement.
In order to judge whether this union really has such a character or not, let us look at how the West reacted to Khrushchev's visit to Yugoslavia and whether the capitalist world was perturbed by the “new rapprochement" of Belgrade with Moscow.
The facts show that, far from being disconcerted, the West and the imperialist powers received this visit with lively interest and welcomed it. In one of its reports from Belgrade, the “Washington Post" said, “Western diplomats are pleased with the tone and results of the talks between Tito and Khrushchev”. Therefore, Washington did not cut off its credits to Tito over his "rapprochement with Moscow”, but, on the contrary, is taking steps to increase them.
This fact alone is sufficient to prove how false is Khrushchev's demagogic prattle that unity with Tito allegedly means unity with the socialist and anti-imperialist forces. If it were so, if this unity were spearheaded against imperialism, then we would not be hearing praises and congratulations from the imperialists for the Yugoslav road and the rapprochement of the Tito clique with Khrushchev, but would be hearing those same anti-socialist and counter-revolutionary attacks which the imperialists usually aim against their class enemy – the proletariat and its Marxist-Leninist party and the socialist and anti-imperialist forces of the world.
From this it is not difficult to understand who will benefit from such rapprochement and unity. The imperialists have good reason to welcome and support it, because they see in this unity the establishment of a united revisionist front against socialism and all the forces of the world revolutionary, anti-imperialist movement.
The fact that Khrushchev's visit to Yugoslavia ended with no big rally in Belgrade or final statement or communiqué must attract attention. This is by no means accidental, because, although it was officially announced that Khrushchev went to Yugoslavia for a holiday, Khrushchev and Tito themselves stressed, more than once, that this visit had been turned into a working visit. In reality, this was the only possible conclusion to talks between Tito and Khrushchev in this situation.
Both Tito and Khrushchev are very fond of publicity. They would have liked to consecrate their complete unity publicly, but at the same time the matter required them to restrain themselves to avoid openly disclosing their card and damaging their position.
Tito, of course, was the more interested in holding a rally and having official documents published because he would have liked to see the Moscow Declaration torn up officially, to see the final seal put on his complete rehabilitation, Yugoslav "specific socialism” given the “right of citizenship” and the League of Yugoslav Communists finally included in the ranks of the international communist movement as a “Marxist-Leninist party” and to have their joint views on present world development and the problems of the international communist movement sanctioned. In other words, Tito would have liked everything Khrushchev said in secret talks and publicly in support of the Yugoslav leaders and about their common concepts to be proclaimed in a joint official document.
But Khrushchev still feels obliged to keep up his disguise, because however carefully a joint official document was drawn up, it would still be in flagrant opposition to the Moscow Declaration. Khrushchev is obliged to resort to manoeuvre and deceit while still trying to hide behind the Moscow Declaration. He calculates that the work must be done, that is, Tito must be rehabilitated, the Moscow Declaration violated, his activities coordinated with the Yugoslav revisionists and plots hatched up together with them, but all this cannot yet be sanctioned by any official document, which would be another powerful weapon in the hands of the Marxist-Leninists.
Tito's dissatisfaction on this issue could be clearly understood from his farewell speech at the airport. While Khrushchev confined his speech to generalities, Tito concretely defined the results of the visit and the talks with his guest. He enumerated the points on which they agreed, and did this in such a way as to leave no doubt that he intended to remind his friend of the pledges he had made during his visit and to advise him not to forget them. These are the main results of Khrushchev's visit to Yugoslavia and his talks with the Tito clique.
The whole world is becoming more and more convinced that with his policy of unity with the Belgrade renegades and his rapprochement with the imperialists, Khrushchev is betraying the Soviet people and the other peoples of the socialist countries, the international communist movement and the national liberation and anti-imperialist struggle of the peoples of the world. Khrushchev had the audacity to say at Brioni, “I have something to boast about!” True enough! He could “boast” that he is carrying out the aims of the rabid class enemies of socialism and the Soviet Union, he could boast that he is seriously endangering the achievements of the Great October Socialist Revolution, that he is wrecking the socialist camp and splitting the international communist movement for the benefit of international reaction and US imperialism.
But the peoples and history will not forget and will not forgive him. The Soviet peoples who have emerged triumphant from many severe trials in their history, their Communist Party, the other peoples, the communists and revolutionaries of the world will not forget and will never forgive Khrushchev for his high treason to Marxism-Leninism, the international working class, the peoples, socialism and peace.
Keeping their revolutionary vigilance, their spirit of proletarian
internationalism and unbounded loyalty to Marxism-Leninism and the
interests of the proletariat and the people at a high level, true
Marxist-Leninists and revolutionaries will fight selflessly and with
determination against modern revisionism, for the preservation of the
purity of the Leninist teachings, and against imperialism and reaction
for the triumph of socialism, communism and peace in the world.
Click here to return to the
index of archival material.