Four and a half months have passed by since N. Khrushchev, ideologist and inspirer of the modern revisionists, was ousted from the key-posts in the Communist Party and Government of the Soviet Union. Relatively, this is not too long a period of time, yet long enough to confirm that his followers are faithfully and even more resolutely pursuing the anti-Marxist, opportunist and capitulating line of their inglorious chief. N. Khrushchev’s removal from the political scene, though, brought some change in the tactics of his followers who have set to work in carrying out Khrushchevism not only without Khrushchev but also under conditions in which the latter was badly exposed by the firm principled fight of Marxist-Leninists and in which revisionism was heading for its inevitable and total doom.
Kosigin’s new government is trying to use new demagogical tactics in order to conceal its acts aiming at aligning its policy with that of the imperialist bourgeoisie, particularly the American, on the basis of the notorious «Khrushchevite peaceful coexistence».
It must be said that the new Soviet revisionist leaders became well aware of the great loss they incurred by the dashing course of betrayal pursued when Khrushchev was in the lead. Soviet revisionists relied a great deal on the leaders of American imperialism, made rash concessions to them only to reap defeat for themselves. With N. Khrushchev at the head, modern revisionists had placed themselves between the grasping jaws of pinchers which kept closing upon them. Moreover, the rush of their course was such as to require serious steps or let themselves perish like fetid worms under the heels of imperialists. N. Khrushchev’s removal, therefore, was a conditio sine qua non for them, regardless of the great political loss that would accrue to them. But, on the other hand, it must not be forgotten that this was a difficult operation which would not only fall short of averting the opposition and continuous fight of the Marxist-Leninists and people of the Soviet Union but would also bring upon the revisionists the opposition, open and covert, of other Khrushchevites.
The Brezhnyev-Kosigin-Mikoyan Troika refrained from denouncing N. Khrushchev openly both because they would follow his course to the letter and also because it was a course they had worked out together. They did some «criticizing» within but said nothing abroad against Khrushchev, and thus «escaped» from any exposure themselves, «saved» their own line, avoided any «opposition» with ultra-Khrushchevites, and the «opposition» of the latter, if we may call it so, was confined to a matter of personal sentimentality which time would cicatrize
But the revisionists who ousted Khrushchev had to do some hard thinking about a change of tactics to allow them to hold their own, to continue their line of action and to ward off any blows by Marxist-Leninists.
Our opposition to modem revisionists has been and is deep and insurmountable in all issues. N. Khrushchev and his companions tried their hardest to humbug us, to force their treacherous view on us. They failed and were obliged to join issue with us but here too they lost battle alter battle and their bastion crumbled to pieces. Then Khrushchev and his companions called a truce on polemics, or better said, called on us to cease polemics while they could pursue their treacherous line in peace. Here too they met with defeat.
After Khrushchev's downfall, his companions who had continued in power, did not resort to clamorous practices like those of N. Khrushchev’s, «beating his chest to stop polemics», but, bearing this appeal in mind, they apparently adopted the tactics, not of demanding cessation of polemics out loud, but by looking for that sector of the general line where their demagogy could easily fit in and have these polemics quelled down. For this they have found the link of the foreign affairs issue, or that of the anti-imperialist front. It is in this field that the revisionists think of carrying out their demagogy for stopping polemics; for carrying out their line through trade and, as far as conditions may permit, through political and cultural exchanges. But the field of the anti-imperialist front is only the first field of their experiment.
It is now very clear that the main objective of the new Soviet revisionist leaders is to keep their real intentions and line from the communists and from public opinion. They strive to achieve the same objectives as N. Khrushchev but without making too much of a fuss, without raising a hue and cry about it, but by trying hard to throw the stone and hide the hand that throws it. Typical of the new Soviet leaders is their ample use of a refined demagogy intended to mislead the naive and confound the waverers.
Good and fruitful Soviet-American collaboration continues but in silence, without the speeches and cries which N. Khrushchev made use of. Soviet revisionists have signed numerous agreements with the American imperialists; they have agreed to prevent the United Nations Organization from carrying on its normal work; the Americans continue their job unmolested in the Congo and elsewhere, they bombard the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam and Kosigin delivers a pro forma speech and thinks that he has taken the initial step in (his new demagogical tactics towards seizing the link of the anti-imperialist front. Soviet revisionists have now raised their voice a little louder saying that they are opposed to American imperialism. The Soviet revisionist newspapers refer now not only to «lunatics» but, at times, mention also Johnson’s administration, they have muffled their bragging about the «reasonable» American man and so on. In international gatherings they pose as anti-imperialists, but always in moderate tones, trying in this way to maintain in a demagogical way that our correct Marxist-Leninist line against American imperialism is allegedly not much different, in principle and in practice, from that of the modern revisionists.
Nor is it hard to note that while feigning to back the national-liberation struggle of the people, to take part in the anti-imperialist front, the present Soviet revisionist leaders are practically opposed to the liberation struggle of oppressed people, back the imperialists and strive to maintain the status quo in the world today, which is to the advantage of the imperialists. One of the essential aspects of the new tactics adopted by the Soviet leaders is their fight against Marxism-Leninism, against the socialist camp, the international communist movement and the revolutionary liberation struggle of the people, is their pursuance of N. Khrushchev’s treacherous line camouflaged under the dense smoke of demagogy.
This dangerous tactics was clearly evident also in Kosigin’s speech delivered on February 26 through the Moscow television in connection with the visit he paid to the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam and the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea. He made unreserved use of the revisionist art at' demagogy by claiming that the new Soviet leaders are allegedly supporters of the liberation war of the Asian people, as if they too denounce the aggressive acts of the American imperialists in southeastern Asia. But in spite of the carefully chosen words and bitter looking expressions here and there, Kosigin was unable to conceal the inevitable truth that the present Soviet leaders are not in favor of the liberation war of the heroic people of South Viet Nam, that they do not oppose the aggressive policy of the American imperialists in southeastern Asia and that} they do nothing to expose the concrete imperialist peril threatening the socialist countries of Asia.
The people of South Viet Nam have taken up their arms and have been fighting heroically for a number of years now in order to oust the American invaders from their country, for the freedom and independence of their long-suffering homeland. Even with the powerful assistance of the American imperialists the ultra-reactionary regime in Saigon is hardly able to stand on its own feet. It is now quite evident that had it not been for the American troops who take direct part in operations against the liberating forces, the people of South Viet Nam would have long become masters of their own destiny. The people of South Viet Nam are obliged to fight for their freedom and independence because this has been imposed upon them by the United States of America. So long as the American imperialists continue to occupy it, there can be no peace in this country
Of course, the problem of removing the dangerous hotbed of war created by the American imperialists in South Viet Nam is a grave concern not only for Viet Nam, for the other peoples of Indochina and of Asia but for all the peoples of the world. But can this matter be settled? The American imperialists demand that the people of South Viet Nam capitulate, throw up their arms, submit to the United States of America. The people of South Viet Nam and all the peace-loving forces of the world demand that the American imperialists evacuate South Viet Nam and leave the people of this country alone to settle their own affairs. This solution complies in full with both the vital interests of the people of South Viet Nam and with the interests of world peace and international security in Asia and throughout the world. Thus, the only alternative is the departure of American troops from South Viet Nam as an essential primary condition for any possible settlement of the Viet Nam problem.
It is precisely this clear-cut and realist demand — the departure of American troops from South Viet Nam — that Kosigin fails to advance, for the Soviet revisionists are afraid of it. Referring to the views of the western diplomatic circles in Moscow the French news agency expresses their satisfaction that «the Soviet Premier did not bring forward the withdrawal of American troops from Viet Nam as an essential condition for any negotiation».
In his speech Kosigin stated that «in order to create conditions to find ways that lead to the normalization of the situation in Indochina it is essential in the first place to put an end to the aggressive acts of the USA against the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam»-. Of course, the grave aggressive acts which the American imperialists have perpetrated for some time against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam are intolerable acts that have aroused great indignation and a powerful wave of protests throughout the world. Without putting a stop to them there can be no question of solving the problem of Indochina in general and of South Viet Nam in particular. But the bombarding carried out by American aviation and marine on North Viet Nam are the consequence of the military occupation of South Viet Nam by the American Imperialists, of the dirty war they wage against the heroic Vietnamese people, are the expression of their rage for the blows and grave defeats they have encountered with in South Viet Nam. American imperialists carry out aggressive acts against the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam since their troops are located in South Viet Nam, since they strive by all methods and means to maintain their sway in that country. Therefore, without removing the cause, that is, without ousting the American forces of occupation from South Viet Nam, it is hard to conceive that the danger of extending American aggression in southeastern Asia can be eliminated. The demand forwarded by Kosigin is quite minimal and looks like having a demagogical character. As a matter of fact it does not affect the status quo in Indochina and apparently, considers the presence of American troops inside South Viet Nam as a normal thing. Therefore, when North Viet Nam is «defended» and the liberation war of the people of South Viet Nam is not upheld with firmness and persistence it only means not to defend the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam but to engage in demagogy, to put some kind of a soothing salve on an open wound so as to escape being totally exposed in the eyes of public opinion.
Kosigin’s «defense» of Viet Nam is confined to mere phrases, appeals and supplications. He says, for instance, that the people of the various walks of life in South Viet Nam are «striving to stop foreign intervention» and so on, but does not touch the essence of the matter, that they strive to put an end to American occupation, that «reprisals only enhance resentment towards foreign intruders» but does not say that reprisals intensify the national-liberation struggle of the people of South Viet Nam. He says «we asked the USA and the other participants of the Geneva Conference to strictly observe and carry out their obligations». But as the USA has turned a deaf ear to these requests he does not say what the Soviet leaders intend to do. Kosigin states «imperialist policy of using military force against people who defend their independence should be opposed» and «an end should be put to the imperialist practice of encroaching upon the rights of the peoples», but he gives no explanation on how the Soviet revisionists oppose this imperialist policy and how they think they can put an end to imperialist encroachment on the rights of the peoples and what the Soviet Union should do for this grand cause. Typical of Kosigin's speech and, at the same time, of the policy of the Khrushchevite revisionists, is that part in which he refers to Korea. «We are of the opinion», he says, «that the American troops should evacuate South Korea». Apparently Khrushchevite revisionists merely think so but have no idea as to how the Americans should be forced to go. But we ask revisionist Kosigin: When you said that the Americans should quit Korea why did you not dare to say the same thing about them quitting South Viet Nam too? Or was the occasion lacking for you to say it? No, there was plenty of occasion for that, but you lacked the will to say it.
Today the problem of the armed intervention t of the American imperialists, and consequently, of the withdrawal of the American aggressive troops which occupy foreign territories, is an essential and key problem not only for South Viet Nam, but also for the Congo, for Cuba (the Guantanamo base) etc. When Khrushchev was in power he approved the dispatch of American troops to the Congo under guise of United Nations troops. When the Cuban question was being discussed, when he capitulated to the pressure of the USA, he uttered not a single word about Guantanamo. He considered it quite a normal thing for the troops of the United States to go on and occupy this strip of Cuban territory.
What difference is there now between the capitulating policy of N. Khrushchev and that of his successors? Absolutely none. Kosigin evades any outright gesture that would support the war of the people of South Viet Nam. He does not demand the withdrawal of American armed forces from there, because he does not want to jeopardize the policy of the Khrushchevite revisionists to get closer to and collaborate with the American imperialists, because he tries to avoid any occasion that might lead to any conflict with American interests, because, he apparently values highly the prestige of the United States.
If one follows the advice of the present Khrushchevite leaders of the Soviet Union one) has to undermine and obstruct the war of the people of Vietnam for freedom and independence, to perpetuate the rule of the American imperialists in South Viet Nam.
The Soviet revisionist leaders, like Khrushchev at his time, are very keen on calling themselves Leninists. But does their attitude towards the national-liberation struggle of peoples who are victims of American imperialism, particularly towards the struggle of the people of South Vietnam, comply with the ideas and teachings of Lenin? When the intervention of 14 states plagued the young Republic of the Soviets and all the internal reactionaries rebelled against the new Soviet Regime, Lenin did not settle this matter through talks with the intruders and the white guards, but compelled them by force to evacuate the country of the Soviets.
Quite to the contrary Kosigin advises the Vietnamese to negotiate with the American intruders and their puppets in Saigon leaving foreign occupation of South Viet Nam unaffected. And they give this piece of advice precisely at a time when the brave partisans of South Viet Nam are scoring repeated successes, when they have launched a sweeping attack which breaks through all resistance by the puppet regime in Saigon and their American supporters, when the imperialists of the USA are losing all grounds and find themselves in great straits, when the Soviet revisionists have resorted to all kinds of maneuvers in order to weaken this war, to lose this advantage and help the American imperialists turn the situation to their favor.
Soviet revisionist leaders pretend they are united in the joint anti-imperialist front. Verbally they may be so, but actually they are opposed to tins front and favor imperialism. The American imperialists have now launched a frenzied campaign accusing the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam with alleged intervention in the internal affairs of South Viet Nam. In his speech Kosigin made not the least attempt to denounce this vile calumny. His silence, to say the least, does not help the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam at all. His demand to cease bombarding North Viet Nam, in the form into which he has made it, is a faint supplication to the American imperialists and not a firm revolutionary stand. In fact, this request does not seem to favor any radical and final solution of the problem of South Viet Nam which, as we have said, is conditioned by the departure of American troops from there. Statements to the effect that American imperialist aggression will not escape punishment neither adds to nor detracts anything from the situation in South Viet Nam. The American imperialists themselves are well aware of this and they consider these «warnings» as mere propaganda slogans for home consumption.
The American imperialists repeated yesterday too their heavy aggressive and barbarous bombardments and machine gun shooting on the fraternal Democratic Republic of Viet Nam. We ask Kosigin: What will he do now? Or will he repeat the general phra.se of his February 26 speech that «if the American imperialists will keep up their aggressive acts against socialist Viet Nam, the conflict in this corner of the world will certainly emerge from its original framework»?
We are of the opinion that these fresh ugly provocations of the American imperialists against the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam are closely related to and a result of the encouragement which Kosigin gave them in his speech in general terms which he delivered as a matter of routine. Can the Soviet Government have already been informed beforehand of the fresh attacks on cities of the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam by American aviation? If so — and we have good reason to believe that they have been previously informed, and time will prove this — we accuse the Soviet revisionists with having perpetrated a real crime against the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam and the people of South Viet Nam, by failing to denounce the barbarous and bandit-like plan of the American imperialists in time.
Freedom-loving people and all anti-imperialist forces give full support to the correct attitude of the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam which has always pointed out the real cause of the present situation in Viet Nam and the ways to put a speedy end to the aggressive war of the American imperialists against the people of South Viet Nam.
«No attempts by American aggressors can extricate them from their predicament in South Viet Nam» the February 28 statement of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam has it. By intensifying and extending their aggressive war they do nothing else but enhance the resentment of the Vietnamese people, both in the South and in the North, and meet with further and greater defeats.
The Government of the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam demands that the Government of the USA put an immediate end to their aggressive acts in South Viet Nam, withdraw all their troops and the armaments of the United States and their satellites, stop all acts of war against the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam and carry out the 1954 Agreements tor Viet Nam with correctitude.»
This demand of the Democratic Republic o# Viet Nam is the only way that can lead to a just and effective settlement in Viet Nam.
The policy of revisionists and Soviet leaders, stuck as it is in the mire of opportunism and capitulation, is in a critical situation. The bourgeois press called Kosigin’s speech as a «moderate one», apparently, not to call it an opportunist one, or one to reflect its appendage to the policy of Washington, London and Paris. Deprived of any initiative of its own, the present foreign policy of the Soviet Union is spinning the yarn that the bourgeois imperialists provide it with. In fact, it now has no distinct feature of its own and, in most cases, drags along behind western initiatives, trying hard to keep in the rear, to avoid encounters that may oblige him it to take definite political stands, to sidetrack any step to assume major international responsibilities.
This opportunist line of the new Soviet revisionist leaders to fall back, to make unprincipled concessions and enter into compromises, is clearly apparent now in the stand they maintain towards' the key-problems which the national-liberation war of oppressed peoples raises before international relations. This war is now the mainstay and prominent factor that exerts most influence in aggravating, the political crisis of imperialism.
Now that the war of peoples against imperialism, colonialism and neo-colonialism has assumed great proportions and the imperialists are unable to suppress it by force of arms and dollars, the latter try to concoct all kinds of maneuvers and intrigues, make all kinds of proposals in order to gain time and mislead the people. The only correct and consistent policy which the revolutionaries can pursue is to give full assistance to the liberation war of the people, to expose and denounce the maneuvers and intrigues of the imperialists.
But the Soviet revisionist leaders maintain an opportunist, defeatist and capitulating attitude towards this situation and towards this revolutionary obligation. They strive to look for some «proposals» of the United States or of their allies, and to elaborate and hold it out in revisionist terms, so as to humbug the people and help the imperialist aggressors.
Such is Kosigin’s intention when, he re-echoes «proposals for talks» worked out in the offices of the Big Western Powers and does not demand the withdrawal of American troops from South Viet Nam. His lukewarm suggestions to denounce the provocations against the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam aim at deviating attention from the fact that the Khrushchevite revisionists are at one with the American imperialists in settling the problem of South Viet Nam from «the positions of force» of the United States. They aim at humbugging the people by creating the impression that the revisionists too are allegedly behind the correct cause of the Vietnamese people.
But no matter how much demagogy, how much cunning the Khrushchevite
revisionists may use to camouflage the collaboration and assistance
they offer to the American imperialists to carry out their aggressive
plans against the freedom and independence of the peoples, they have
not and will never succeed to sell off their lies for truth. As
heretofore, development of the national-liberation war of the peoples,
their anti-imperialist impulse, the day to day events in the field of
international relations, will tear up their mask and will lay bare, as
always, their true features, features of betrayal of the high Interests
of the revolution and peace.
Click here to return to the
index of archival material.