Alliance and Complete Harmony between Titoite Clique and Soviet Khrushchevite Revisionist Leaders

 (Article published on the «Zeri i Popullit» daily of July 10, 1965)
The «Naim Frasheri» Publishing House
Tirana, 1965


A hurried look into the 10-year history of complete affinity of Khrushchevites with Titoites

Khrushchevites and Titoites plot against peoples to the benefit of imperialism

Fresh attacks and trumped-up charges against Marxism-Leninism, against the communist movement

Yugoslav experience is taken by the Khrushchevite revisionists as a model for the re-establishment of capitalism

Following a visit of nearly two weeks to the Soviet Union the head of the Yugoslav revisionists, Joseph Broz Tito, returned to Yugoslavia on .July 1st. This commercial traveler advertising and selling the worst commodities manufactured in Washington had a busy month of travelling, speeches, banquets, sightseeing, decorations and receptions in June. .Before going to the Soviet Union Tito visited Czechoslovakia from June 2 to June 8 and then the German Democratic Republic. After a brief return to Belgrade he left for Moscow where he was accorded an extraordinary and hearty reception by the Brezhnyev-Kosigin-Mikojan revisionist troika.

This is Tito’s first contact with Khrushchev’s successors. And. this contact, all the ceremony of reception, talks and their outcome, speeches delivered and everything else indicated once again that Khrushchev’s successes pursue with consistence and in a persistent and systematic way the treacherous road and line of their inglorious and bankrupt leader.

All the Soviet propaganda machinery was set in motion to popularize «this important event». Newspapers carried front page photos and biographies couched in very bombastic epithets about him.

The meeting of the renegades to Marxism-Leninism was prepared with great perspicacity by both sides. On the eve .of Tito’s departure for the Soviet Union a TANJUG correspondent from Moscow said inter alia: «President Tito’s visit is a sign of good relations between Jugoslavia and the Soviet Union and of their common concern for the deep aggravation of the international situation».

In an editorial on the eve of Tito’s departure review «Kommunist» called this meeting new contribution: to the development of relations between the people of two socialist countries, a new contribution to the cause of peace the consolidation of which is the concern of both Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union».

The importance of this visit was clearly set forth also by Mikoyan in his speech of welcome to Tito on his arrival to Moscow, calling it «a new step towards furthering their fraternal friendship and fruitful all-round collaboration».

Tito’s visit to. Moscow was, thus, a manifestation of full alliance and deepest unity between Soviet and Yugoslav revisionists. It showed not only, that the traitors and usurpers who are now at the head of the party and Soviet State have totally rehabilitated Tito but also that no one cm speak now of any difference, however small, between the Khrushchevite and Titoite revisionists,, that the former are openly united to this band of renegades whose merit lies in their being the first to take the road of betrayal to Marxism-Leninism and to the revolutionary movement of peoples.

No longer do the Khrushchevite revisionists, eager as they have been to rehabilitate Tito’s clique, try to keep a certain distance with the Belgrade revisionists claiming that their relations were on a state level and even stressing the ideological differences which allegedly existed between them. This time the head of the Yugoslav revisionists was invited to the Soviet Union by the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the United Soviet Socialist Republics, the Council of Ministers and the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

Nor does Tito entertain any longer any doubts and misgivings about the removal of his friend in betrayal, Nikita Khrushchev, from the political scene. He realized that those who ousted and substituted the champion of their capitulating anti-Marxist, anti-socialist and treacherous ideas and policy, were «good boys» determined to follow the same road with more intelligence; that they ousted Khrushchev because he had become an obstacle for their very course through his repeated blunders. He realized that after all what changed at the head of the Party and of the Soviet State was the continuation of Khrushchev’s policy without Khrushchev. He saw this in the stand of N. Khrushchev’s successors in all matters as well as in their attitude towards the Yugoslav revisionists in particular. He finally saw this also in the reception which Brezhnyev, Kosigin and Mikoyan prepared for him, so hearty a reception which Khrushchev himself would probably not have dared to accord him.

A hurried look into the 10-year long history of complete affinity of Khrushevites with Titoites

Tito’s visit to the Soviet Union, to the Socialist Republic of Czechoslovakia and to the German Democratic Republic coincides with the 10th anniversary of the shameful act of Nikita Khrushchev and his fellow culprits in treason, who betook themselves to Belgrade and kowtowed to that band of counterrevolutionaries and American imperialist agents which goes by the name of Tito’s clique. Faced with the legitimate wrath which this act would have created among the Soviet people, the peoples of People’s Democracy and among all the communists in the world, Khrushchevite revisionists, acting as inveterate plotters and liars — as they acted in all other matters —confined themselves at that time to «the question of superficialities», to the question of removing «the unnecessary things» that had been said against «the Yugoslav comrades». Nikita Khrushchev accused Stalin, at that time, of being to blame, for disrupting relations with Yugoslavia, but, by playing the role of removal of superficialities, he let it be understood, for the purpose of lulling others to sleep, that the groundwork of differences existed. But this could not fool Marxist-Leninists and true revolutionaries.

Our Party, right at the start, saw in this act a major plot to open the gate through which the Trojan Horse would enter into international communist and, workers movement, an act fraught with incalculable .risks for it. It saw right then that the «certificate of good behavior» which Nikita Khrushchev issued to Tito in Belgrade, was a major act of treason towards the socialist camp to the advantage of imperialism, a hard blow against the unity of the socialist camp and international communist and workers movement, it was flinging the doors of the socialist countries open to the acts of the agents of imperialism to degenerate the rule of workers and peasants and to the gradual re-establishment of capitalism in these countries. The attacks against the leader of the Party and the Soviet State, and of the International proletariat, Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin, and the rehabilitation of the Belgrade renegades constituted an organized assault against Leninism. Our Party saw right then and clearly that the question of. «superficialities» was not a simple and ordinary political act of relations tween states, but it indicated that Belgrade would become the «Mecca» from where Soviet revisionists and revisionists of other countries would receive their blessing and directives for the treacherous operations, that it was the great center of agents whence instructions, directives and orders would be given and where plans and everything between Washington and Moscow would be exchanged, that in due time exchanges between the latter capitals would be conducted directly either through diplomatic letters and messages, through visits of the Camp David type, through kinship messengers of the Adjubey type, or even through the setting up of red teletypes.

This, of course could not be accomplished without zigzags and acrobatics, not only because Tito’s clique’s betrayal, their transformation into a band of imperialist agents and cut-throats, was widely known, but also because the Belgrade renegades, typically conceited and arrogant, having received Khrushchev’s blessing, became more intolerant and more impudent in their demands. They wanted Khrushchev and his clique to proceed faster along the road they had begun, to bum the bridges behind them, to consummate their treason at once, in short, to make a sudden 180 degree turn without delay.

The principle of revisionists is to be bound by no principles, to have no scruples in choosing the means to attain their objectives. During these last ten years the Khrushchevite revisionists have cut the sad figure of those bankrupt bourgeois politicians who say one thing today, the contrary tomorrow and deny both the third day, by trampling underfoot and contradicting official statements, tearing up international acts and by denying pledges before the ink has even been dried on paper. But in all cases of zigzags, acrobatics, clownish gestures, their basic line of reconciliation with and getting closer to Tito’s clique, of reconciliation with and getting closer to the imperialists, has remained and continues to remain unchanged.

In its editorial of welcome the «Pravda» newspaper of June 18 this year described the Yugoslav renegade in a highly bombastic and servile way, as «a prominent Marxist-Leninist»-, as «a distinguished leader of the international communist and workers movement» etc. It is well known that during his first visit to the Soviet Union a few months after the 20th Congress Tito was called «a Leninist» in a speech by the Soviet Prime Minister of that time, Marshal Bulganin. For this, the leader of the Soviet Government at that time was bitterly criticised by Khrushchev, even before the leaders of all the communist and workers parties of Europe. One can now very well pose the question: Why was Marshal Bulganin criticised at that time; was it in order to throw dust into the eyes of true bolsheviki, of the Soviet people and of Marxist-Leninists throughout the world, or to find a pretext to remove the old leaders of the Party one after the other and secure the posts usurped by putschists Khrushchev, Brezhnyev, Kosigin and Mikoyan? Now they can vie with glorifying Tito and organize visits for him in the Soviet Union where forty years or so ago he was a prisoner of war as a corporal of the Austrian army and let him blow his own trumpet as «a prominent fighter» of the October Revolution and protector of Soviet Power. But the Soviet people take note of this and do not forget. They see now with regret that the Yugoslav Trojan Horse and the Soviet Trojan Horse have pulled down the bulwarks and open and camouflaged traitors strut together arm in arm and vaunt of their betrayal singing the praises of each other. The Soviet people do not forget and they take note of this.

It is a known fact that in spite of Khrushchev’s group’s ardent support for Tito’s clique, the international communist and workers movement, in defiance with the will and desire of Khrushchevite revisionists, condemned Tito’s clique for the third time through the 1960 Moscow Declaration as an underminer and splitter of the socialist camp, of the communist movement and of all peace-loving forces and states of the world, in the service of American imperialism. «Further exposure of the leaders of the Yugoslav revisionists and the active struggle to safeguard the communist movement as well as the workers movement from the anti-Leninist ideas of the Yugoslav revisionists», the Declaration reads, «continue to be the essential duty of the Marxist-Leninist parties».

Every time the Khrushchevite revisionists found themselves faced with such a firm stand of the international communist and workers movement, that, for purposes of demagogy and to escape exposure, they joined up with these condemnations towards Tito’s clique. But as the greatest putschists and swindlers that the history of the glorious communist movement has ever recorded, they tried to justify their reconciliation with Tito’s clique saying that one should look for «a spark of hope», that they can be corrected, that one should leave a door open for collaboration with «the Yugoslav comrades» in the war against imperialism in spite of divergences On the ideological front. But one year had hardly elapsed Since the Moscow meeting when Khrushchev stated to the correspondent Of the American newspaper «New York Times» on September 10, 1961 that «we, of Course, consider Yugoslavia a socialist country». On October 3 of the same year, the present First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Leonid Brezhnyev, declared to the Yugoslav Ambassador in Moscow that «We possess all the conditions for development of further and all-round collaboration».

At the 22nd Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union too N. Khrushchev made & further, approach toward the «Yugoslav comrades» when he started polemics and aggravated the divergences ,, which existed within the ranks of the international communist arid 1 workers movement by openly attacking the Party of Labor of Albania. The final and complete rehabilitation of Tito’s clique was achieved when Khrushchev visited Yugoslavia in the summer of 1963, while Tito’s present visit to the Soviet Union consecrated it as «Marxist-Leninist» also by Khrushchev’s successors and made a further step towards deepening the friendship and collaboration between the two revisionist cliques that dominate these two countries'.

Thus, every communist arid genuine revolutionary can draw at .least two conclusions: first, that in spite the demagogy they resort to, the new Soviet leaders showed once again that they are notorious anti-Marxists, faithful followers of Khrushchev’s line, allies of the renegades of communism and agents of imperialism; secondly, that the Soviet revisionists, while pursuing an altogether opportunist line towards the Titoite clique, holding on to what allegedly «unites us», to «the sparks of hope», fell themselves from head to foot into Titoite positions, betraying in this way communism and the interests of the Soviet and other peoples.

These lessons are of major importance to every Marxist-Leninist party, to every revolutionary, particularly today when the Soviet revisionists are trying hard to pose as «anti-imperialists» and «supporters>» of the revolution.

Having ousted N. Khrushchev the new Soviet leaders resorted to all sorts of maneuvers to conceal their true features for as long as possible.-With a view to gaining some political capital and to arouse «hopes» and illusions among the naive they feigned to be «anti-imperialists», sparing no words to «denounce» imperialism or to «support» the struggle of peoples; they began to «worry» about the unity of the international communist movement, by appealing for a cessation of polemics, for solving differences and so on and so forth. Under these circumstances and for such demagogical purposes they avoided high level official contacts with the Titoite clique, since an open alliance with this already exposed agency of imperialism would seriously prejudice untimely the fraudulent tactics of which the new revisionist leaders of the Soviet Union stood in great need.

But this chicanery did not last more than eight months. Its continuation is becoming harder and harder, on one hand, because Marxist-Leninists and genuine revolutionaries exposed this dangerous maneuver of the Khrushchevite revisionists right from the start and, on the other hand, because the development of events both at home and in the international field are creating all sorts of difficulties for revisionists. For this reason, since their first tactics is meeting with failure, the Khrushchevite revisionists feel the need for strengthening their ties and open collaboration with all other revisionists, first and foremost, with the Titoites, representatives of the more advanced detachment of modern revisionism, enjoying at the same time the unreserved support of American imperialism, which, at these moments, is of special importance to the new Soviet leaders. They stand in need of these links and these approaches in order to find other means and ways to realize their main purposes: to uproot the communist movement and the struggle of peoples, to restore capitalism in socialist countries, to consolidate their collaboration with imperialism.

Khrushchevites and Titoites plot against peoples to the benefit of imperialism

In spite of their Trojan Horse tactics of these last eight months Khrushchevite revisionists failed to quell down or limit the spread of the liberation struggle of peoples. On the contrary the heroic struggle of the South Vietnamese people, of the Congolese people, of the Dominican Republic and, in general, the anti-imperialist war of the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America have put the new Soviet leaders into an embarrassing position, bordering on full exposure. Their double-faced game is being stripped bare of its mask-. But, on the other, hand, this war has created serious difficulties to the Imperialist aggressors, particularly to the American imperialists too. Thus, the interests of the revisionists and those of the imperialists are linked closely together. Therefore, together with and in full agreement with each other, they are interested to find a way out conformable to their evil intentions and to the detriment of peoples. The question here is first and foremost to put an end to the imperialist war in Viet Nam.

The role, of Tito’s clique as an intermediary agent between the American imperialists and the Khrushchevite revisionists as well as that of an advisor, is already obvious. American imperialism has used and continues to use the Yugoslav renegades whenever its position has become precarious. Experience has also shown that every visit undertaken by Tito hides in itself a secret activity against socialism, against the liberation movement, freedom and peace. There is not the least doubt that Tito’s present visit to Moscow and his hearty talks with the new Soviet leaders, are connected with new plots which the revisionists, in agreement with the imperialists, are concocting against the just struggle the people of Viet Nam are waging for life or death against American aggression Just what shape they will take time will show.

But one thing is clear. The heretofore stand of the Soviet leaders towards the Vietnamese question has been and continues to be a capitulating one. Whereas the stand which Tito’s clique has maintained and continues to maintain towards the Vietnamese problem is close collaboration with the American imperialists to sabotage the war of the Vietnamese people and to mislead peace-loving peoples. It is known that on March 2, 1965 Tito wrote a letter to Johnson, proposing «hurried talks to search a political solution». He said in a servile way towards his American masters, that their consent to enter into negotiations would be a proof of their strength and a «very important step towards peace». It is also known that in his reply Johnson recommended to Tito: «In your talks and communications with the leaders of other countries you would reflect this good understanding».

The Yugoslav President went to Moscow in the wake of the Indian Prime Minister’s visit there. The latter together with Tito is the initiator of the so-called proposal of the 17 non-aligned countries «for unconditional talks in Viet Nam». During Shastri’s sojourn in Moscow the Soviet leaders said they were very much in favor of Shastri’s initiative in the Vietnamese question; an initiative which was nothing but a badly drawn up version of the fraudulent proposals which Johnson had advanced in his speech at Baltimore. The Soviet leaders even expressed their wish that Shastri give «a new valuable contribution regarding the situation in Viet Nam».

It is significant at the same time that before starting on his trip Tito received and had a meeting in Belgrade with one of the pillars of American diplomacy, former Ambassador of the United States of America to Soviet Union and to Yugoslavia, George Kennan. We do not know whether the Yugoslav President received instruction from Johnson before setting out or whether the emissary of the American President consulted with Tito op the tete-a-tete conversations which he would conduct with Gromiko. It is possible that he may have carried out both of these tasks and in both cases the question of Viet Nam may have surely come up since George Kennan is one of the theoreticians of Washington’s Asiatic policy.

Finally, one’s attention is drawn by the fact that apart from demagogical phrases the joint Soviet-Yugoslav declaration deliberately avoids mentioning the need for the withdrawal of American troops from South Viet Nam as it avoids mentioning the March 22 Declaration of the National-liberation Front of South Viet Nam, as well as the 4 points advanced on April 8 by the Government of the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam.

Facts go to show that in spite of the demagogy used Titoite revisionists and Khrushchevite revisionists have totally succumbed to imperialism and have lined up with it against the heroic Vietnamese people, against the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America. The stand they maintain today towards the people of Viet Nam is the same as that they maintained formerly towards the Cuban people, or towards the martyred but unsubdued people of the Congo.

Tito was the first to begin the work which was later begun by the Premier of the English Government, Wilson, using the Conference of the Commonwealth to set up a «mission» for the problem of peace (implying American peace) in Viet Nam.

Thus, finding ways and means to come to the aid of American imperialism in subjugating the heroic people of South Viet Nam — this was one of the main objectives of Tito’s visit to the Soviet Union. Of course, during Tito’s tour something was said in the speeches delivered, in the Kremlin meeting and in the final communique against American imperialism and in support of the people of Viet Nam, but these are words, demagogy and nothing else. To the present Soviet leaders the destiny of the people of Viet Nam as well as the destiny of other peoples is nothing but a pawn in their vicious bargainings with the American imperialists within the framework of their co-existence with American capitalism. They too, like the Yugoslav revisionists, apart from bombastic phrases, left no stone unturned to compel the Vietnamese people to accept the «American peace». They try their utmost to save American prestige in that fiery land of South-east Asia by protecting it from any military defeat. How deeply concerned the Soviet leaders are about this is indicated by the barbarous suppression of the student demonstrations in Moscow and Leningrad, which was nothing but a protest against the barbarous bombardments of the USA in Viet Nam. In the Viet Nam question the Khrushchevite revisionists, timid and capitulating, see as the Yugoslav revisionists, a «hotbed of war» which must be quelled by all methods and means, that is why they insist on «peaceful talks» which are nothing else but unconditional peace which Johnson demands.

After N. Khrushchev’s removal, the Moscow revisionists in order to enhance, however slightly, their own prestige in the eyes of peoples who fight for independence, started, as we mentioned above, to maintain an alleged stand against imperialism, to say that they give unreserved aid and support to the liberation and anti-imperialist movements of peoples, that they rigorously respect the sovereignty of peoples and states, their freedom and independence, that they condemn interventions in internal affairs of others. The Soviet leaders have accompanied and accompany all these endeavors of theirs with a propaganda campaign wishing to persuade peoples, «as you see, we changed course».

All of this resembles the story of a chicken thief. His neighbors in order to argue that he had run away with their chickens pointed to the many pans of chickens he had sent to be roasted. The thief feigned shame and promised that he would change his ways. From that day on he never sent his stolen chickens to the public oven and stewed them at home. But this did not last him long, for «a change» of this kind was soon detected by his neighbors. Through their stand the Soviet revisionists too changed their ways but in the same manner as the chicken thief.

Does not their stand towards the June 19 events in Algeria, the intervention in effect of the Khrushchevites, Titoites and of their allies in the internal affairs of the Algerian people show that all their statements and preachings are bluffs and demagogy pure and simple? The June 19 events in Algeria, Ben Bella’s downfall and the assumption of power by the National Council of the Revolution, are an internal affair of the Algerian people. It is up to the Algerian people alone to judge of their affairs better than anyone else.

But it is a fact that the June 19 act of the Algerian Revolutionary Council was not only disapproved by the Soviet, Titoite and other revisionists, but the latter have ever since done their uttermost to discredit it, intervening in the internal affairs of Algeria, have taken under their protection Ben Bella whom the National Council of the Algerian Revolution have dubbed as an adventurer, a political quack, a despot. Through this these pseudo-champions against the «cult of the individual» betray themselves and show that they are interested not in the destiny of the Algerian people but in the destiny of a single individual, in the destiny of their «hero».

Revisionists measure others by their own yardstick. One is aware of the fact that Khrushchev and the present Soviet leaders effected a putsch in 1957 and eliminated the old Bolshevik leaders like Molotov, Malenkov, Kaganovich and others. It is also a fact that the present Soviet leaders pursued the same road and eliminated N. Khrushchev himself. Therefore, being putschists themselves, both the Soviet and the Titoite revisionists could not but consider the June 19 act of the Revolutionary Council in Algeria as a putsch.

But in the stand of the revisionists towards the Algerian events there is still another reason: Khrushchevite and Titoite revisionists having trampled underfoot the interests and dignity of their own people, are afraid of their own people, are afraid of the revolutionary forces in their own countries, lest they take up heart and act in a way as to clear accounts with these traitors and renegades. Therefore, the revisionists deliberately strive not to recognize the National Council of the Revolution in Algeria, to ignore it in the eyes of the workers of their own countries and, at the same time, to increase their economic and political pressure on Algeria. But this is only temporary, for Khrushchevite, Titoite and other revisionists will eventually return to cajoling Algeria, the Revolution, the National Council of the Revolution and so on, will return to try to play the role of «adventurous, opportunist and intrigant» advisers with the hope of finding another Ben Bella. But the Algerian people and their leaders have enough experience not to fall in for the pressures or cajoling of the revisionists.

Freedom-loving peoples of the whole world, Marxist-Leninist parties, will not fall into the trap of the tactics of revisionists who, in one hand, feign to «unmask> American imperialism and, on the other, effect no practical change of policy towards these aggressors but even continue, under this guise, more frequent «hearty and friendly» contacts, exchange delegations after delegations to strengthen their «peaceful co-existence» and Soviet-American collaboration. Of great significance is the fact that while Mikoyan was delivering a «stern» speech at a meeting organized to honor Tito, «denouncing» the aggression of the United States of America in Viet Nam, Kosigin declared to R. Maudling, former cabinet minister in the Conservator Government of England, that «the Soviet Union attached major importance to the friendship with the United States».

And the imperialists know too well that the first represented demagogy, while the second the essence of Soviet policy. This is so true that neither the American press, the press of the other allies of the United States of America, nor the chancelleries of diverse countries showed any signs of uneasiness at Tito’s tour or at the speeches of the Soviet leaders taking a «rap» at American imperialism. Even in the refusal of the Soviet Government to Wilson’s peace mission western chancelleries and the western press, from seeing a clear-cut refusal, saw, on the contrary, what it was in fact a maneuver to throw dust on the eyes of others. They saw that through their refusal in words the Khrushchevites had left a leeway for any base negotiations to the detriment of the Vietnamese people.

The well-known American commentator Walter Lippman wrote in an article appearing in the June 24 issue of the «New York Herald Tribune»: «We should act proceeding from the principle that the Soviet Union is a mature communist country and for this reason, since both the United States as well as the Soviet Union are mature nations, we have a common vital interest in coexistence and in world peace. It does not behoove us to make boisterous and dramatic proposals to Moscow. But we can act in a determined way to eliminate minor frictions». Thus, Walter Lippman who is familiar with the secrets of «the powers that be» in Washington, says explicitly that there are only minor frictions between the Soviet Union and America, that in major issues, among which is undoubtedly that of Viet Nam, America should not create difficulties for Soviet leaders but should act tactfully. In this respect a role of importance for the American imperialists is played by Tito’s clique and by the Yugoslav President himself.

Fresh attacks and trumped up charges against Marxism-Leninism, against the communist movement

Tito’s visit to Czechoslovakia, to Germany and to the Soviet Union was characterized not only by the re-affirmation of familiar revisionist theses on the main issues of the present world development, but also by a major advance in this direction and by additional attacks against Marxism-Leninism and parties that Uphold it with courage. In these matters too the caravan was led by J. B. Tito.

While restraining himself a good deal from speaking of American imperialists as aggressors, J.B. Tito talked loud in his speeches complying with the needs of American imperialism of «peaceful coexistence», of resting his hopes on «the realistic views» of the chiefs of imperialism, on the role of the United Nations to preserve peace, of efforts that should be exerted for disarmament and so on. On the other hand, he tried hard to picture the horrors that a new nuclear war would cause in very touching terms.

More than once, both in Czechoslovakia, in Germany as well as in the Soviet Union, Tito, putting on the old cloak from Khrushchev’s wardrobe, preached: «Under the present conditions in the world any limited war in whatever region of the world, if it is not stopped in time, may turn to a conflict which would be impossible to check, which means that it may turn to a nuclear war with very terrible consequences for mankind and for world civilization.» This thesis was re-echoed also by the Czechoslovakian and German leaders, as well as by the Soviet Khrushchevites.

But what do the revisionists propose as a way to avoid «these terrible consequences»?

Firstly, one should be more reasonable with American imperialism because this is no longer the «incorrigible», enemy that used to be. Tito spoke clearly of this also in Berlin, in the reception given there on June 9: «We hope», he emphasized, «that reason as well as a realistic view regarding the existing problems of Europe will finally prevail also in the German Federal Republic». Proceeding from these «hopes», Tito was very reticent about the Bonn revenge-seekers during his stay in Czechoslovakia or in Germany. But the newspaper «Munchner Merkur», organ of the Bavarian conservators detected also Tito’s real «hopes» when it wrote: "Marshal Tito could not help keep silent at the attacks launched by Walter Ulbricht, leader of East Germany, at the ceremony of welcome, since he would have otherwise prejudiced Belgrade’s offers to establish relations with Bonn in various fields»-.

Secondly, Titoite and Khrushchevite revisionists recommend this time not simply Khrushchevite peaceful co-existence, not even active Titoite coexistence, but something more eloquent, namely, «persistent co-existence» with imperialism as the joint Soviet-Yugoslav declaration signed in Moscow points out. Speaking of this kind of coexistence at the Moscow rally Mikoyan said:

«The Soviet Union is in favor of creating such a situation in Europe as to enable a general European collaboration among all European, big or small, socialist or capitalist states».

Tito too spoke of such a general European collaboration, which is nothing else but gradual integration into capitalism, and spoke with great zest some time ago in an interview he had granted to American correspondent Drew Pearson in 1962 Bourgeois propaganda too speaks of such collaboration sizing up the gains to be derived from this «persistent coexistence».

But the sacred altar where world peace is safeguarded according to Tito and to all other revisionists, is the United Nations Organization. The United Nations, in their opinion, is «a high forum of peoples», an unrivalled international instrument for solving the political, economic and social problems of the present world and for safeguarding and consolidating peace, for the freedom and equality of peoples and so on. Liberation and peaceful objectives of many peoples and countries of the world, the revisionists claim, can be attained through the United Nations.

But what is this organization the revisionists recommend so highly?

It is now publicly admitted that this organization resembles an «electronic instrument» which is controlled and totally monopolized by the head of imperialism, the USA, with which the Soviet revisionists too have recently entered into the bargain. In the 20-year history of this international organization there are a number of black stains, there are many back-stage dealings and aggressions hatched up under its flag, which people will never pardon. Suffice it to mention that under the flag of the United Nations the United States of America waged a bloody war against Korea. Under the same flag and at the dictation of the USA and the blessings of Khrushchevite revisionists the forces of the United Nations were set up which suppressed the movement for independence of the people. Under the flag of the United Nations these forces were dispatched to intervene in the internal affairs of Cyprus. The United States organized the incident in the Gulf of Tonkin and then, under the flag of the United Nations, raised «this urgent issue» for discussion in the Security Council.

In spite of all this, the Yugoslav and Soviet revisionists, just as Johnson, insist that all international conflicts be settled in this «international tribunal». This is a game, as our people say, of a goat heading for the butcher.

Re-affirmation of these revisionist theses, as well as of those on general and complete disarmament, on avoiding the further spread of nuclear weapons etc. in all the speeches and bi-lateral statements that were signed shows clearly that one of the main purposes of Tito’s visit and of his talks, especially with Soviet leaders, has been the question of elaborating a more active policy compatible with the interests of imperialism. The heretofore tactics of the double-faced stand of Khrushchevite revisionists apparently does not please renegade Tito. He demands more active operations both in pursuing the revisionist line of capitulation to imperialism and in fighting against Marxist-Leninists.

It was precisely for this reason that Tito’s visit was characterized also by his unbridled attacks and trumped up charges against Marxist-Leninist parties. Thus, in his speech at the «Skoda» Works in Plzen of Czechoslovakia on June 5, Tito openly attacked the Communist Party of China by making the allegation that it «distorts the meaning of peaceful coexistence», that it «pursues a policy directly opposed not only to the struggle to safeguard peace but also to the genuine interests of socialism» and so on and so forth. In the same way, Tito slandered against the Communist Party of China, the Party of Labor of Albania and all Marxist-Leninists at the Moscow meeting when he made the allegation that «through their erroneous and dangerous theories... they help (sic!) the forces of reaction» and so on.

Tito’s above mentioned slanders and attacks against Marxist-Leninist parties surprise no one. But the fact that Khrushchevite revisionists created opportunities for him to attack Marxism-Leninism is of great significance. It proves the falsity of revisionist slogans on their alleged concern for «unity», it gives the lie to their «cessation of polemics» and it very clearly proves once again that the Soviet leaders are the sworn enemies of Marxism-Leninism and great splitters of international communism. It proves, on the other hand, that Khrushchevite revisionists together with J. B. Tito have elaborated a clear-cut line of treason against the international communist movement. In the declaration they signed we read that the Soviet revisionist leaders and Tito took up «the most urgent problems of the international communist and workers movement». But knowing, on one hand, that Tito has, for 17 years been busy organizing acts of subversion and plots against socialism and communist parties of various countries and, on the other, that the Khrushchevite revisionists pursue for years the same course, it is not hard for any honest man to arrive at the conclusion as to what these «experts» of the «urgent problems of the communist movement» could have decided. Being themselves aware of this weak point, it was not accidental for the Soviet revive «New Times» to hurry to state exactly in a comment on the Soviet-Yugoslav declaration that the talks on the problems of the communist movement referred to in the declaration point to the need of strengthening the unity of the communist movement.

But hard as they may try to humbug there is hardly man that can believe the revisionists. Every time and everywhere Tito plays the role of a provoker, of an abettor. In a speech at the little Czechoslovakian town of Cenkov he said that when he had once gone there in 1912 the Czechoslovak workers took him for a strike-dissenter. We do not know — time will tell — by whom Tito was sent at that time in Czechoslovakia where numerous strikes were afoot. But the workers, prompted by the instinct of their class got wise to the fact that they had to deal with a strike-smasher, a dissident. What the Czechoslovak workers could not have foreseen at that time was that this emigrant from some comer in the Balkans would eventually become a dissenter and provoker of international caliber, a faithful watchdog of the interests of the imperialist bourgeoisie, with the active support of Khrushchevite revisionists.

Yugoslav experience is taken by the Khrushchevite revisionists as a model for the re-establishment of capitalism

Tito’s tour is closely connected with the numerous attempts which are being made, especially in recent times, in the Soviet Union and in certain other countries to apply new «reforms» in economy whose aim it is to degenerate the economy of the socialist system and to gradually re-establish capitalism. The Yugoslav experience of self-management is at the root of all these re-organizations. It is precisely in this that all praises for «Yugoslav socialism» which fill the pages of Khrushchevite revisionist press, lie.

Tito, on his part, has done his uttermost and has used ail methods and means to hitch the Soviet Union and the socialist countries to the cart drawn by the Yugoslav horse. Had they failed to do this; the Titoite agents would be of no use whatsoever to imperialist and the latter would have fattened in vain this clique with dollars.

In his ill-famed speech at Pula in 1956 Tito declared that Yugoslavia will not «hem itself up in its own shell». That is why it set to work and organized the counter-revolution in Hungary: That is why it tried to organize counter-revolutions in Albania and in other countries. Finally it found Imre Nagys in the Soviet Union and in certain other countries, who having assumed power by putschist methods, embarked on the Yugoslav way of peaceful transition from socialism to capitalism. In this prism Tito’s present visit to the Soviet Union is at the same time a visit of the master to see how his apprentices have carried on their work.

Sometime ago, during his last visit to Yugoslavia, N. Khrushchev had promised to his friend that he would send a delegation to profit from the experience of self management. Now the new Soviet leaders can also boast that they too have made a step «forward» in this direction. The problem of self-management in Soviet enterprises is no longer at the experimental stage but in full swing Tito, taking into account the aid that should be given to the «Soviet friends» in this direction, did not forget in his speeches to bring up examples of the successes which Yugoslavia has achieved through self-management, which, as he said, has become the basis of the entire political system there.

Nor can we consider as casual an article signed by a certain I. Buzdalov appearing in «Izvestia» on the eve of Tito’s arrival in the Soviet Union, which is fully devoted to the program of speedily extending this method to Soviet enterprises. The author expresses the view that there is no further need of discussing about this experience since «free and autonomous extension» have become a necessity for soviet industrial enterprises and sovkoses. Then, speaking of the difficulties that might arise from the extension of this method the writer stresses that «transition to self-management in enterprises will not be done automatically. Experience is needed and this experience should be acquired right away during the period of the practical build up of communist economy».

What self-administration is everybody knows, but as we are speaking of inserting and extending it in Soviet economic enterprises, let us briefly mention what results it has yielded in Yugoslavia.

At the 8th Congress of the League of Yugoslav Communists held in December last year the system «of self-management of enterprises» was submitted to a harsh criticism by the Yugoslav leaders themselves. In their many speeches and discussions they brought up a number of examples pointing to the creation of an accentuated anarchy in production, to manifestations of bureaucracy and parasitism, to extensive competition in the Yugoslav market, to the close up of hundreds of economic enterprises and to turning out people from works due to this rivalry and so on and so forth. But with a view to avoiding «misinterpretations» by friends of certain socialist and other countries for whom self management «has aroused interest», the critics hurried to confirm that these shortcomings did not arise from ,the system of self-management but from certain directors and administrators which do not understand and do not properly support these important forms. From the 8th Congress of the League of Yugoslav Communists to this day something should have been done to improve these shortcomings, but on the eve of Tito’s departure for the Soviet Union a plenum of the League of Yugoslav Communists was held in Belgrade. The report on «The actual tasks of further development of the economic system and social and economic relations» was read by M. Todorovich. In this plenum just as at the 8th Congress the shortcomings of self-administration were again taken stock of and enumerated. Todorovich attributes «this unstable situation» to the «critical times through which Yugoslav economy was passing as a result of having failed to take radical steps at the proper time»; and at the same time Todorovich hurried to console himself and other «friends» that he can now say that measures that are underway will have a «revolutionary character» which will save Yugoslav economy.

According to subsequent comments it became plain that these measures deal with «the curtailing or radical suspension of state and bureaucratic intervention in the affairs of enterprises». Thus in fact it is a further and greater step towards complete transition to the capitalist system.

This «evolution» was hailed with enthusiasm also by the «BBC» a few days ago. In one of its comments it said: «Whatever it may be, the reform points again to a continued trend toward liberalism, which advances the Yugoslav pattern as compared with other patterns.—

Yugoslav self-management has not brought about irregularities in the internal economy alone; repeated anomalies have been met with in foreign as well, but Todorovich tried to throw the blame for this on Yugoslavia’s partners. «Yugoslavia’s trade relations with other socialist countries», he says, «have caused other difficulties especially because of the centralized state economy and of the system of planning which is carried out in these countries». In other words, Titoites are not to blame that their self-administration meets with difficulties in matters of foreign trade but certain socialist countries, the Soviet Union included, which continue to practice the outdated system of «centralized state economy».

Apparently Todorovich was too rash in voicing this «reproach», therefore, he deemed it necessary to make some corrections at a later session of the plenum to that part of the report which speaks of the difficulties encountered in the trade with socialist countries saying that these problems «encounter certain difficulties caused particularly by certain forms of centrist management and by the system of planning which are practiced in these countries». Thus, Todorovich switched from «state centralized economy» "to «centrist forms». He was obliged to do this because of the fact that it might be taken amiss by the trade  partners, in particular, by the Soviet Union which is taking important steps against centralized economy, by speedily inserting self-management in Soviet economy, and also because such a «reproach» might become an obstacle in wresting fresh credits and aids from the Soviet Union.

In his report to the meeting of the Central Committee of the League of Yugoslav Communists on June 17 this year Todorovich laid out this course for Yugoslav economy: «1) de-nationalization of economy will be intensified; 2) the system of distribution of incomes will undergo deep changes to the benefit of enterprises; 3) devaluation of the dinar will limit the intervention of the state in foreign trade to a strict minimum. «This will be», Todorovich emphasized, «a chirurgical operation in order to remove from economy everything which is «primitive, conservative and superfluous». «The economic systems, he pointed out, «should be such as to allow Yugoslavia to adopt many forms of collaboration and integration both with the economies of socialist countries as well as with those of capitalist countries, or developing countries».

This is therefore what Yugoslav economy is and whither it is headed for. This is the example Khrushchevite revisionists are imitating!

On the eve of Tito’s visit to Czechoslovakia the correspondent of TAN JUG wrote from Prague: «The socialist Revolution of Czechoslovakia is now reviving. The whole social development of Czechoslovakia is dynamic. The chairs of the heretofore administrative and economic system are cracking and gradually, at first in an experimental way, they are being replaced by the levers of the new economic system... Such will she (Czechoslovakia) open herself to President Tito, will she show him the successes and results achieved, will she exchange her views with him regarding all these problems».

The Parisian newspaper «Le Monde» dated June 17, in a news item under the heading; «Izvestia seeks self-administration according to the Yugoslav way» quotes this part of the Moscovite newspaper: «Every enterprise should exchange the products of its work on the basis of free sales, of equivalences, of profit and of logic. A perceptible importance should be attached to those means of economic development as accounts, money, costs, profits, trade, credits, finances and so on».

Well, Tito saw in the Soviet Union the results of his ten years of labor, of his efforts and activities to the benefit of the international bourgeoisie and of imperialism. In a speech he delivered on his return to Belgrade he declared with buoyant enthusiasm that they had been received in the Soviet Union «as most cherished friends». «I have never felt such great affinity, warmth and understanding as this time». These words need no comment. If Khrushchev’s successors accorded Tito a reception which Khrushchev himself would not have dared to do, it is because the march of Soviet revisionists on the road of betrayal has been made with such long strides as to catch up with the Titoite runner, who had started the revisionist and traitorous Marathon race a long time ahead, and now they proceed arm in arm with hands clasped tightly with each other.

«The talks we had with the Soviet leaders», Tito said also in Belgrade, « have been, according to our opinion, very valuable and fruitful. I would like that all our people understand that there is no reserve whatsoever towards us now in the Soviet Union (read: in the revisionist leadership). I would like that there be no reserve whatsoever towards the Soviet Union in Yugoslavia too». This is understandable. As for us, we know and we have said it time and again in many of our writings.

After the present visit, judging by speeches and joint declarations a further increase is foreseen of the contribution of Khrushchevite revisionists for Tito’s clique which usually sets a high price for its services. Khrushchevite revisionists vie with imperialists in contributing to keep Tito’s clique on its feet not only through political and ideological support but also through unbounded economic aid to make Yugoslavia a «model» of specific socialism. The credits granted by the Soviet and other revisionists are needed to ward off the failure of the Yugoslav system of self-management, for otherwise this would bring about a serious crisis for all those who depend on the Yugoslav system for their own future.

In his speech in Belgrade after his return from Moscow Tito said: «We conducted very valuable and fruitful talks with the Soviet leaders on our bilateral relations and arrived at the joint conclusion that there is still much ground for extending our economic relations and our relations in the field of culture and in the political field etc.». In fact, the Soviet economic aid to Yugoslavia has increased a good deal. Between Yugoslavia and the other East European countries joint committees have been set up for economic, technical and scientific collaboration, economic, cultural, touristic exchanges have been intensified, visas are being lifted and so on.

But in spite of these imperialist and revisionist aids Yugoslav economy where extortionate capitalist law prevails is heading daily deeper towards anarchy and catastrophe. In fact, in Yugoslavia prices are continually rising and the discontent of the workers has reached its height, so much so that Tito felt obliged to admit on March 22: «they accuse us, the Central Committee and me» for the rapid rise of prices and for low wages. The Central Committee of the Yugoslav Confederation of Trade-Unions has also admitted in one of its documents that the rise of the cost of living «has greatly increased the uneasiness and discontent of workers», and that «it has also been noted that workers have no faith in some of the measures the authorities take».

Khrushchevite revisionists while adopting the Titoite experience of degenerating socialism and re-establishing capitalism are in fact taking the last stride towards treason. They are showing in all fields of their activity that they are not only faithful followers of N. Khrushchev but that they are more dangerous, more perfidious and more determined to submit to imperialism, to do away with socialism, to split and sabotage the communist and revolutionary movement.

* * *

Now there is no essential difference between Tito and the Khrushchevite revisionists. Their last meeting confirmed once again that the new Soviet leaders have ultimately taken the road to «persistent» collaboration with the American imperialists, that they are dangerous subversive elements in the ranks of the revolutionary movement and bitter enemies of socialism and communism, of the Soviet Union and of all socialist countries.

Soviet and other people and communists throughout the world will not forgive these renegades for their treason. History has already branded with shame the Khrushchevite revisionists as it has branded the Titoite revisionists too.

The Party of Labor of Albania, like all Marxist-Leninists and revolutionaries in the world will continue its courageous fight, as it has always done, to fully expose revisionists of every shape and form, first and foremost the Soviet and Titoite revisionist leaders, confident that in this way it does good service to the Soviet, Yugoslav and other peoples, to the cause of communism, freedom and peace in the world.

Click here to return to the index of archival material.