Khrushchev, for example, not only “forgot” the Statement and its stipulation concerning the need to further unmask the Yugoslav revisionists, but they also openly rejected it, adopting a new course in opposition to it, the course of rapprochement, reconciliation and cooperation with the Yugoslav revisionist leaders.
Perhaps the Yugoslav revisionists have changed their revisionist attitude and viewpoint since the Moscow Statement of 1960 was adopted? Perhaps they have suspended their undermining and splitting activities against the camp of socialism, against the unity of the communist and workers’ movement, and returned to the positions of Marxism-Leninism? No, this truth remains unchanged: the Yugoslav revisionists are the same renegades from Marxism-Leninism, and retainers of imperialism and the reactionary bourgeoisie, whom they have served and are serving with zeal and faithfulness; they have changed only the forms and ways, the paths and methods according to given situations.
The Yugoslav Revisionists Remain Enemies of Socialism
If we glance at events in 1961, we shall see that with each passing day the Yugoslav revisionists have sunk deeper in their hostile activities against the forces of socialism and peace, to the advantage of the forces of imperialism and reaction.
During the year 1961, as before, the press and propaganda of the Yugoslav revisionists were full of slogans about the integration of capitalism into socialism and about the radical changes which imperialism and capitalism of the present day have allegedly undergone, contending that they are no longer exploiters, nor aggressors, nor the source of war. The danger of war, according to the revisionists, comes no longer from imperialism, but from the socialist states, such as China and Albania. As a result of their revisionist attitude in the service of U.S. imperialism, the struggles between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, between socialism and capitalism, between the enslaved peoples and the colonialist oppressors, between the forces of democracy and those of reaction, and between the forces for peace and those for war, have all disappeared from the press and propaganda of the Yugoslav leaders.
The Yugoslav revisionists continue to spread their anti-Marxist viewpoints about important questions in present-day world development and in the communist and workers’ movement. One of such questions is that of peaceful coexistence which they propagandize as a policy of reconciliation with the imperialists, for the sake of which we must renounce all class struggle; they propagandize it as coexistence between the oppressed and the oppressors, between slaves and colonialists, and between classes in the capitalist countries. Another question is Marxist-Leninist teachings about the socialist revolution and the proletarian dictatorship which they reject as obsolete on the grounds that today the capitalist state is losing its class character and is becoming a state of the whole people, which serves bourgeoisie and proletariat alike.
The Yugoslav revisionists deny the fundamental laws of the building of socialism and the universal experience of the Soviet Union, and continue to preach their own specific socialism. For example, Tito tried to spread Yugoslav’s specific road to socialism, in his interview with the Japanese newspaper Asahi Shimboon on October 23, 1961, saying that there exist “almost as many roads to socialism as there are states and that every state will build socialism in a different way, in its own specific way”. It is easy to see the danger of this preaching presents to other countries and it is also easy to see whose interests and what classes the Yugoslav type of socialism serves.
Pursuing a policy of sabotage and conspiracy, the Yugoslav revisionist leaders continued to carry out their tasks during 1961 as loyal members of the Balkan military bloc, which nourishes aggressive aims against the socialist countries and which is linked with the NATO and CENTO blocs. The coordinated participation of the Yugoslav revisionists and their Greek and American allies in subversive activity against the socialist countries was shown by concrete evidence at the trial held in Tirana against a plot hatched by the ruling circles of Belgrade and Athens, in collaboration with some Albanian traitors and the Mediterranean U.S. 6th Fleet. As documented by the people’s justice, the plotters intended to liquidate the freedom, independence and sovereignty of our country; they intended to liquidate the People’s Republic of Albania.
Pursuing their policy of supporting U.S. imperialism and cushioning and masking its aggressive and belligerent activity, the Yugoslav revisionists went to such lengths that at the conference of the non-aligned countries held in Belgrade in September 1961 they put both the aggressive NATO bloc and the Warsaw Treaty, both the bourgeois and socialist policy and ideology on the same plane, and considered them as equally dangerous to peace and the security of the peoples. To curry favour with the imperialists, Tito openly attacked the Soviet Union for its just decision on the resumption of nuclear weapon tests, a decision aimed at strengthening its own defensive might as well as that of the whole camp of socialism, and at curbing the aggressors and defending peace. Tito termed the Soviet Government’s decision as “something which has alarmed the whole world on a very broad scale”. Proceeding further, he placed the Mutual-Aid Economic Council in the same category with the “Common Market” of the capitalist countries which serve to strengthen aggressive alliances, and considered them equally as “serious obstacles” to close economic cooperation.
The attitude of the Yugoslav revisionist leaders towards many events in 1961 once more shows that they, under the mask of an extra-bloc policy, are feverishly carrying on their hostile activity against the socialist camp, the international communist and workers’ movement and the unity of the peace-loving forces. The role which U.S. imperialism has assigned to the Yugoslav revisionist leadership was well defined by Tito himself as early as in 1956, when he stated in his Pula speech, “Yugoslavia must not withdraw into herself. She must work in every direction ... in the ideological field, so that the new spirit may triumph.”
Through their press and propaganda, the Yugoslav revisionists have sought to discredit the life and work of the peoples of the socialist countries, attacking in fact the very socialist system of these countries. For example, during November and December 1961 the official Yugoslav news agency Tan jug published a series of provocative dispatches written by its special correspondents about the socialist countries. What do the Yugoslav correspondents deal with? How do they describe life and work in the socialist countries? According to them, deceivers and falsifiers have a free hand in the socialist countries, and dictators, bureaucrats, robbers, speculators, the little kings of dogmatism and ruthless oppressors hold sway there. Dogmatism reigns in art and literature, in science and culture, and freedom and personality are smothered. It is sufficient to mention only a few of these stories and the way in which the issues are raised to understand their aim in discrediting the socialist countries.
A dispatch from Moscow entitled “The Little Dictators”, transmitted by Tanjug in December 1961, said that following the campaign against deceivers and falsifiers in the Soviet Union a new campaign against little dictators began. These little dictators are the local leaders who behave like lords in enterprises, collective farms and other institutions, knowing only how to command, and who are completely detached from the masses. The Yugoslav correspondent divides dictators into four types: the first includes the bureaucrats; the second — the speculators; the third type includes people who doubt everything and who, if they look askance at you, will frame up anything against you (as was the case of a certain Burkovski, the director of a technical school in the Ukraine and also a member of the regional committee, who allegedly hit the woman worker Nina Ostapenko with his fist simply because she refused to pick cucumbers from state property and carry them to his home); the fourth type includes the trade-union dictators, the chairmen of the trade-union committees, who allegedly behave like real masters over the workers.
A dispatch from Warsaw transmitted by Tanjug in November 1961 under the heading “After the Rest, to the Psychiater” described a Polish citizen who was sick and went to have a month of rest. Through this trip, life in Poland was presented in the darkest colours. The citizen was scolded by the train conductor because he had no money to pay for the ticket; he was attacked by salesmen because he refused to buy rotten apples; he went to get his cloak which he had sent for a cleaning and he found that the workshop was “closed under repairs”; he went to buy petrol and he found that the shopkeepers were “drawing up an inventory”; he went to the restaurant to eat fish and he was told that there was none, because all fish had been sent to Warsaw; he went to a store to buy a thermos and he saw the sign “closed”, etc. Thus, according to the Tanjug correspondent, people in Poland run hither and thither but nobody meets their requirements, nobody cares for them.
A dispatch from Budapest transmitted by Tanjug in December 1961 under the heading “The Little Kings of Dogmatism” gives many examples of abuse of state power allegedly being committed in Hungary by the so-called “little kings”. For instance, a woman worker was dismissed only because she did not believe that Yuri Gagarin had flown into outer space. But the store manager did not stop there. Convinced that there was “something” in this, he made another inquiry into the question, drew up a detailed report and out of this “something” he played behind-the-scene politics. There are many other such instances about the inclinations of the “little kings” to abuse their position and state power, Tanjug concluded. It is superfluous to mention its malicious slanders and onslaughts against China and our country.
All these activities and facts testify only to one thing: that the Yugoslav revisionists remain enemies of socialism.
The Yugoslav Revisionists — Splitters and Disrupters of the National-Liberation Movements of the Peoples
During 1961 there was an upsurge in the national- liberation movements of the Latin American, Asian and African peoples, which directed, first of all, against U.S. imperialism, and they are growing with each passing day. In this respect, too, U.S. imperialism made use of the Yugoslav revisionists as a good weapon, concealed under the mask of “neutrality” and of a “non-aligned country”, to smother the peoples’ movement for freedom, national independence and socialism. In his speeches during his visit to some African countries, Tito sought to undermine their confidence in the countries of the socialist camp, to soften their legitimate hatred for the Washington neo-colonialists, for U.S. imperialism which is the fiercest enemy of the national-liberation movements.
At the conference of the non-aligned countries Tito was among the very few advocates who were isolated at the conference and who sought to disorientate the peoples of Latin America, Asia and Africa and lead them astray from their correct path of struggle against colonialism and imperialism and for freedom and independence. Instead of the struggle against imperialism and colonialism and for freedom and independence, they raised the banning of nuclear war as the main issue. How absurd and ridiculous such an attempt appears in the face of the words of the Indonesian delegate R. Abdulgani that the main task of the oppressed peoples is their liberation from the yoke of colonialism, that “imperialism and colonialism are killing us just the same with conventional bombs”! At the conference of the non-aligned countries the voice of the representatives of the African, Asian and Latin American countries rose forcefully against U.S. imperialism. Only Tito and his kind dared not unmask the aggressive circles in the United States.
On the Congo question, the Tito clique adopted a hostile attitude towards the Congolese people. They supported the United States intervention and considered it a factor that “contributed to the stabilization of the situation”, as a “very important and valuable factor”. With police and the army, with clubs, tear gas and cavalry, they dispersed the Belgrade workers who protested in the streets against the murder of the great Congolese patriot Patrice Lumumba by the U.S. imperialists.
The Belgrade revisionist press condemned the nationalization policy carried out by Fidel Castro’s revolutionary government, saying it was “too great a swallowing up done all at once”, and made a noise about “the great difficulties” which the Cuban revolution was allegedly encountering every day. Regretting the losses which the imperialists are suffering in Cuba, the Yugoslav revisionist leaders advised them to make use of more subtle tactics in their intervention in order “not to risk those United States interests which still remain in Cuba”.
The Belgrade revisionist clique had the impudence to support such a plan to enslave the Latin American peoples as the “Alliance for Progress”, which was proclaimed by Kennedy as a path of salvation. They propagandized that U.S. imperialism “has begun to realize that times are changing, that the real unity and solidarity of America can be established only on the basis of equality”, and that imperialism has already “shown its readiness to settle and correct its mistakes”.
The Yugoslav revisionist leaders seek to conceal from public opinion the intervention by the U.S. imperialists in Laos, claiming that “Washington has made a big stride in detaching itself from Dulles’ past policy”, that Washington desires a “compromise” in settling the Laotian question “because it is really concerned about peace and neutrality of Laos”. Moreover, on this issue the revisionists threw off their mask almost completely and, from the position of supporting imperialism they proceeded to the position of attack on the peace-loving policy of the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China, claiming that a peaceful settlement of the Laotian question “depends on the Soviet Government” and that the Soviet Union and China should not “take the change in the United States policy as a sign of weakness”.
Recently, as the Indonesian newspaper Harian Rakiat writes, the spokesman of the Yugoslav Ministry of Foreign Affairs one-sidedly pointed out that the West Irian question should be settled by “peaceful .means”. But do the imperialists give up their positions peacefully? This question is answered in the affirmative only by the revisionists, devoted servants of imperialism. As to Marxist-Leninists and the peoples suffering under the yoke of the old and new colonialists, they have already outlined their path, their methods for the settlement of the national-liberation problem, and this is the path of resolute struggle to throw off the abhorred yoke. “People may adopt either of the two attitudes towards imperialism,” the Indonesian newspaper writes, “namely: either to resist it, or give it a pat on the back,” the latter being the attitude of the Yugoslav revisionists.
This contrast between the attitude of the Yugoslav revisionists and that of the peoples who are fighting against the colonialists clearly shows whom the Yugoslav revisionists are serving, what dangerous enemies of the national-liberation movement they are.
Billions of Dollars for Their Service Rendered to Imperialism
As a reward for its revisionist, anti-socialist and anticommunist activities, the Belgrade clique has received from its masters 3,200 million dollars in military and economic “aid”. In 1961 alone, pursuing the line of consolidating their all-round cooperation with the United States of America, they concluded a series of agreements on new “loans” amounting to a total sum of 197.4 million dollars. This much at least has been published by the Americans themselves.
With great zeal the Belgrade revisionists are equipping their army with U.S. armaments and are having their officers trained in U.S. military academies. Thus, as the White House press secretary Pierre Salinger said on October 17, 1961, the Kennedy Administration, which followed the policy consistently pursued by the Truman and Eisenhower Administrations, had given the Yugoslav Government 130 jet fighters of the F-86 type. According to the American data, which have not been denied by Tito, from 1952 to 1959 the United States gave Yugoslavia more than 540 military aircraft.
According to the Associated Press agency, in 1961 many Yugoslav military pilots underwent training in the United States at the Perin airforce base at Sherman. As stated by the Perin information officer, four Yugoslav pilots underwent training at the same course with West German and Chiang Kai-shek’s pilots. Of course, the Tito clique will make haste to deny these truths, as they have exposed its true colours. But what is the use of denials in the face of facts?
It is known that after the conference of the non-aligned countries held in Belgrade, the U.S. imperialists were disappointed by its results and “became angry” with Tito because he failed to fulfill his mission of converting the conference into an anti-communist rostrum. They expressed their “anger” by spreading stories that the Kennedy Administration would reconsider the question of aid to Yugoslavia. These rumours were designed only to give the Tito clique a stronger push to demand more intense activity and did not really mean suspension of aid to Yugoslavia.
In reality, on November 25, the U.S. Government made a “self-criticism” and officially proclaimed that it was prepared to conclude an agreement to sell American surplus farm products to Yugoslavia.
If we take only some of the U.S. imperialists’ compliments and appraisals of the Tito clique in 1961 for services rendered to them, it will be sufficient to see that the Yugoslav revisionists have discharged their duties well and that they have played their ill-famed role as splitters of the socialist camp, the communist and workers’ movement and the national-liberation and democratic movements everywhere in the world.
On October 18, 1961, the U.S. Secretary of State Dean Rusk stated at a press conference that American military aid not only had contributed to the defence of Yugoslav’s independence in the face of the Soviet bloc, but as early as 1948 Yugoslavia had also been a source of dissension in the ranks of international communism.
The newspaper Reynolds News writes that half a million tons of American wheat is not a very high price to pay for the spreading of the bright ideas of the Yugoslav Communists. (It is clear that by the bright ideas of the Yugoslav Communists the imperialists mean the viewpoint of the Tito clique about the revision of Marxism- Leninism which benefits U.S. imperialism.)
On December 26, 1961, the U.S. news agency UPI greatly praised the activity of Tito and his clique who have used every dollar they have received to the advantage of U.S. imperialism. The agency said, “During these years changes have occurred in Yugoslavia, which have satisfied the West. The forcible collectivization of agriculture has been practically eliminated by the Tito regime. The Yugoslav economy has been ever more adapted to the Western commerce. There have begun to appear some aspects of free trade in the industrial branch.”
Any comment on our part would be quite superfluous, for it is difficult for a third party to speak with more competence than the boss about the mission and the role he has assigned to his agent.
In conclusion, during 1961 the Belgrade revisionist clique acted, just as the Moscow Statement rightly characterized them, as renegades from Marxism-Lenin- ism, as splitters of the camp of socialism and the communist movement, and as subverters of the unity of all peace-loving forces and states, in the service of U.S. imperialism. Therefore, nothing has changed on the part of the Yugoslav revisionists.
“Yugoslavia Is Building Socialism, We Must Become Acquainted With the Yugoslav Experience, Study It and Meditate Upon It.”
In contrast to all these facts and in open opposition to the 1960 Moscow Statement, Khrushchev and his followers continued during 1961 to advance on the road towards rapprochement, reconciliation and all-round cooperation with the Yugoslav revisionists, while waging an unprincipled struggle against the Marxist-Leninist parties which remained true to the Moscow Statement, such as the Party of Labour of Albania, under the pretext of fighting against the so-called “Albanian dogmatism”.
Let us cite only a few facts from the events after the publication of the Statement, and especially during the year 1961, which testify to the rapprochement which is being noticed and to which unsparing publicity is being given in the press and propaganda.
December 23, 1960. A. Gromyko, member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and Minister of Foreign Affairs, made haste to state at the session of the Supreme Soviet that “it must be pointed out with satisfaction that on fundamental international questions our positions are identical”. Since some of the anti-Marxist and anti-socialist positions of the Yugoslav revisionists towards different international problems have been briefly examined in the above, it is superfluous to point out that such an appraisal of Yugoslav foreign policy and its comparison with the policy of the Soviet Union is only a bad service rendered to the Leninist policy of peace pursued by the Soviet state and a good service rendered to the “independent policy” of “Comrade” Tito.
December 30, 1960. In reply to A. Gromyko’s statement, the Yugoslav Acting Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said at a press conference that “Gromyko’s words comply with our viewpoint and aspirations. On this basis, it is possible to develop mutual relations, as well as broad international cooperation in the interests of peace and progress in the world”. So, a month had hardly elapsed after the publication of the Moscow Statement when the identity of views and aspirations of the Khrushchev group with those of the Yugoslav revisionist leaders began to reveal itself.
September 10, 1961. In order to mitigate the anger of the Yugoslav “comrades”, lest they would take seriously those two pitiful remarks which were uttered against them in the draft programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Khrushchev himself was quick to tell the correspondent of the American newspaper New York Times that “we, of course, consider Yugoslavia to be a socialist country”. Is there a more brazen violation of the Moscow Statement than this? When did Khrushchev tell the truth about Yugoslav revisionism, when he signed the Moscow Statement, or when he spoke to the American correspondent?
October 3, 1961. At a meeting with the Yugoslav ambassador, L. Brezhnev, member of the Presidium of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, solemnly told him that “we have all the conditions for the development of further all-round cooperation”. He pointed out with satisfaction and repeated the Yugoslav ambassador’s words about “Yugoslavia’s determination to comprehensively develop relations with the Soviet Union”. Time will show what is hidden behind the words of “comprehensively develop relations”.
November 10, 1961. At the Plenary Session of the Central Committee of the Italian Communist Party P. Togliatti said, “We have had contacts with the Yugoslav Communists too and we maintain mutual friendly relations. This is not only a necessity resulting from our geographical position. It is something more. As to the present regime in Yugoslavia, we are obliged to ask what this regime is. It is not identical with the one existing in the Soviet Union, or in the people’s democracies. It is neither a feudal regime nor a capitalist one, nor does it seem to us a regime which, after having advanced to socialism, is going backwards, towards forms that have been passed through. Hence the necessity of becoming acquainted with it, studying it and meditating upon it. It clearly follows from this how wrong it is to treat Yugoslavia and her regime as enemies.”
December 5, 1961. D. Kallai, member of the Political Bureau of the Hungarian Socialist Workers’ Party told a West German journalist that “Yugoslavia is building a socialist social system but the official Yugoslav policy is revisionist”. They have sunk deeper and deeper! And the “creative” development of Marxism is endless! According to Kallai, the revisionists, too, are building socialism. It is by no means surprising that, by pursuing this “theory”, the imperialists may also build socialism. And why should the master not build socialism while his lackey is doing it?
We might quote many other facts and official statements testifying to the tendency towards rapprochement and reconciliation with the Yugoslav revisionists which has been noticed in a marked way since the 22nd Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
The rapprochement and reconciliation with the Yugoslav revisionists is not achieved only through statements and articles in the press and radio. This rapprochement shows in many directions. One of these is the exchange of delegations:
January 31, 1961. E. Furtseva, former member of the Presidium of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and Firyubin, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Soviet Union, gave a luncheon party in honour of the soloists of the Belgrade opera, A. Marinkovich and R. Filak. It was attended also by Kuznetsov, Deputy Minister of Culture. Toasts were exchanged.
February 24, 1961. A Soviet trade delegation led by M. Kuzmin, Deputy Minister of Foreign Trade, left for Belgrade to conduct talks for a long-term trade agreement for the years 1961-1962.
May 31, 1961. A delegation of the Yugoslav Metal Workers’ Union arrived in the Soviet Union.
June 10, 1961. A Soviet-Yugoslav agreement regulating the activities of the Soviet information institutions in Yugoslavia was signed in Belgrade.
June 16, 1961. The premiere of the Yugoslav film A Piece of the Grey Sky was shown in Moscow under the cultural cooperation programme. At the evening party, N. Danilov, Deputy Minister of Culture, spoke of the popularity of the Yugoslav cinema workers in the Soviet Union. At this evening party the floor was also given to the Yugoslav ambassador.
October 1, 1961. In Belgrade, the representative of the Soviet publishing houses held a press conference on the occasion of the opening of the exhibition of Soviet books in Yugoslavia. On display at the exhibition, he said, were also the translations of Yugoslav books printed in 15 languages of the peoples of the Soviet Union in a total of 6 million copies.
As we are dealing with books, we would like to mention here another fact about their relations in the field of ideological and political publications. As announced by the Yugoslav newspaper Politika of September 15, 1961, the Yugoslav charge d’affaires presented Tito’s selected works at a ceremony on September 14, 1961 to the Deputy Minister of Culture of the USSR. Politika did not say for whom this gift was. Nor did it point out the contribution the selected works made to the development of Marxism-Leninism. . . .
October 18, 1961. At the invitation of the Soviet trade unions, a Yugoslav trade union delegation arrived in Moscow for a visit in the Soviet Union.
November 25, 1961. A delegation of workers from the educational-cultural institutions run by the Yugoslav trade unions reported on the impressions of their visit to the Soviet Union where they went for two weeks at the invitation of the Soviet trade unions.
December 14, 1961. A. Mikoyan had a talk with S.V. Tempo in Moscow.
December 14, 1961. A Yugoslav women’s delegation left for Moscow at the invitation of the Soviet Women’s Committee.
December 20, 1961. TASS announced that a regular session of the Soviet-Yugoslav Commission on scientific and technical cooperation concluded in Belgrade. The protocol provides for exchanges of specialists to become acquainted with one another’s experience in production.
December 21, 1961. A plan for cultural cooperation between the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia for the years 1962-1963 were signed in Moscow. The plan provides, among other things, for the exchange of tourists. According to TASS, the Soviet Union pledged itself to receive another 20 Yugoslav students. An extension of the cultural cooperation has been envisaged in general.
January 4, 1962. A photo exhibition showing the outstanding events in Yugoslavia opened in the House of Friendship with the Peoples of Foreign Countries in Moscow.
January 5, 1962. A. Kosigin, First Vice-Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Soviet Union, received the Yugoslav ambassador and had a talk with him.
January 8, 1962. N. Patolichev, Minister of Foreign Trade of the Soviet Union, received V. Gainovich, Vice- Chairman of the Yugoslav Foreign Trade Committee, with whom he examined some questions relating to Soviet-Yugoslav trade.
The two countries exchanged many other delegations, of cinema workers, artists, composers, writers, etc., which have all been given a great publicity.
The chronicle of exchange of delegations is still increasing, not to mention here all the agreements that have been concluded on economic cooperation. All these have been conducted under the slogan of peaceful coexistence, but in reality they testify to an ever greater rapprochement of Khrushchev and his group with the Yugoslav revisionists and to a renunciation of the ideological fight against them. This is clearly shown also by the fact that all these things have taken place precisely at a time when pressure has been brought to bear on the small socialist country, the People’s Republic of Albania, which is resolutely struggling against imperialism and revisionism. Unprecedented blockades have been enforced against it in all fields, the basest slanders and attacks have been and are being delivered against it, even such measures were resorted to as open calls for counter-revolution, the closing of the Soviet Embassy in Tirana and the expulsion of the Albanian Embassy from Moscow.
The tendency of Khrushchev and his followers for a rapprochement with the Yugoslav revisionists, and their attacks and slanders against the Party of Labour of Albania and the People’s Republic of Albania at the 22nd Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union have been acclaimed by the Yugoslav revisionists and their masters, the imperialists. They have multiplied their activities, thinking that the day has come for them to undermine the socialist camp, the communist and workers’ movement and all anti-imperialist and anti-colonialist movements. They are zealously picking up everywhere the monstrous slanders and fabrications against the Party of Labour of Albania, the People’s Republic of Albania and the Albanian people and give them wide publicity. Tito’s enthusiastic greetings to the 22nd Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union were by no means fortuitous. It is, in the first place, a manifestation of Khrushchev’s anti-Marxist attacks on J.V. Stalin’s work and on the Party of Labour of Albania. Tito declared, “We have seen in the work of the Congress also a positive course which is now being effectively mirrored in the further development not only in the Soviet Union, but also in other socialist countries. We welcome such a course.” Here no explanation is needed at all, for it is clear that Tito is welcoming Khrushchev’s revisionist views and praying that they may become the prevailing views in the Soviet Union and in the other socialist countries, and that his anti-Marxist and splitting actions may extend ever more, so that the unity of the socialist countries and of the international communist movement may be destroyed and revisionism may triumph.
But the Party of Labour of Albania, just as the other Marxist-Leninist parties, will not depart from the struggle against modern revisionism and in defence of Marxism- Leninism because by this struggle we defend the cause of revolution, communism and world peace. Today dark clouds are hanging over the world. They may darken the sky for some time. They may cover up the sun, but only temporarily. The sun will not be concealed, it will shine. The truth of Marxism-Leninism will triumph.
Modern Revisionism — The Main Danger to the International Communist and Workers’ Movement
It is now clear that in their revisionist activities for splitting the socialist camp and undermining the anti-imperialist and national-liberation movement, the Tito clique has received the active support of the Khrushchev group, directly or indirectly. This is shown by the events that occurred during 1961. The exchange of delegations, the enthusiastic efforts to bring them ever nearer to the Yugoslav revisionist clique, the frequent statements about “socialist Yugoslavia”, etc., are mainly dictated by the ideological conceptions of the Khrushchev group, conceptions which do not differ much from those of Tito’s revisionist clique.
The rapprochement between the Khrushchev group and the Yugoslav revisionists has not been achieved and cannot be achieved overnight. Many factors have contributed and are contributing to this situation, the principal of these factors being the fear of the Khrushchev group that they may be openly exposed to the entire international communist and workers’ movement as supporters of the Yugoslav revisionists and their ideological comrades. This also accounts for the constant wavering and the often contradictory attitudes of Khrushchev towards the activities of the Yugoslav revisionists ever since 1955. The fundamental line of his attitude, which stems from a revisionist ideology, has always been a line of rehabilitating the Tito clique, a line of rapprochement and close cooperation with them. This has found a clear expression in Khrushchev’s initiative to normalize the relations with the Yugoslav revisionists as early as May 1955. But later on, owing to some careless, and obviously hostile and subversive actions on the part of the Tito clique in different periods (such as their activity during the Hungarian events, the publication of the Programme of the YCL, etc.), which aroused the legitimate indignation of Communists throughout the world, Khrushchev was tactically obliged to make some gestures against the Yugoslav revisionists, so as to avoid compromising himself. Experience, however, has shown that all this was a camouflage and that it was done for show only, for even on such occasions Khrushchev made haste to orientate the Communists that they should be “cautious” and “not raise the value” of the Yugoslav revisionist clique, etc. Typical in this respect is his speech at the 5th Congress of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany, in July 1958, in which he said among other things, “In our struggle for the common cause we must not devote to the Yugoslav revisionists greater attention than they deserve. They want their value raised, that people should think they are the center of the world.... We shall not contribute to the fanning of passions, to the aggravation of relations. Even in the situation that has arisen in our relations with the Yugoslav Communist League it will be useful to preserve a spark of hope, to seek acceptable forms for some questions.”
The Khrushchev group have always tried to explain this “tolerance” and “cautiousness” as well as the need for “contacts” with the Yugoslav revisionists by the argument that on fundamental questions Yugoslavia’s foreign policy is in accord with that of the Soviet Union and that all and every rapprochement with it had no ideological, but only a state character. They even said that “we maintain contacts and are seeking for normal relations also with the United States of America and West Germany, let alone with Yugoslavia”. Such arguments are false and they help Khrushchev to conceal his true features as an ally of Tito and supporter of revisionism. Their falsity is clearly shown by the following facts:
First, Yugoslavia’s foreign policy has nothing in common with the peaceful policy of the Soviet Union. This is clearly indicated in the Moscow Statement which characterizes the Yugoslav revisionists as disrupters of the socialist camp and splitters of the national-liberation movement and of the forces for peace, who carry on their disrupting and splitting activities under the pretence of following an extra-bloc policy.
Secondly, the rapprochement of the Khrushchev group with the Tito clique is mainly of an ideological nature. This is shown by the declarations that “Yugoslavia is a socialist state”, that “we must become acquainted with her experience”, that “we must study it, meditate upon it”, etc. This is testified also by the character of the contacts that have been and are being established between them. In reality, under the mask of cooperation in state relations, the Yugoslav revisionists are seeking to deeply penetrate wherever doors are open to them, with a view to spreading their revisionist viewpoints, and all this is being done with the full knowledge of Khrushchev and under his direct incitation. Experience has shown what a danger the Yugoslav revisionists pose when doors are opened to them, how they make use of all and every means to conduct their subversive activities against socialism and communism. If in the future we do not bar their activities, this will undoubtedly lead to very harmful consequences for the Parties and peoples with whom they will find a loophole to interfere and grounds to act. Those who ignore this fact are actually to ignore the Moscow Statement of 1960.
Thirdly, the falseness of Khrushchev’s statements is evident also if we compare his attitude towards the Yugoslav revisionists with the attitude he has adopted and continues to adopt towards the People’s Republic of Albania, a socialist country, a member of the socialist camp and of the Warsaw Treaty, towards the Party of Labour of Albania, a signatory to the Moscow Statement. With regard to the People’s Republic of Albania and the Party of Labour of Albania, Khrushchev violated all and every norm in both Party and state relations. In fighting our Party of Labour he did not take into account the fact that he might “raise the value” of the “Albanian dogmatists”, or the fact that he “maintains relations also with the United States of America and West Germany, or even with the Tito clique”, or the fact that little Albania, not by words but by deeds, has resolutely struggled and are struggling, hand in hand with the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries, for the triumph of the peaceful policy of the socialist camp, of the liberation movement of the peoples against imperialism and revisionism, and of socialism and communism.
Hence it also clearly follows that Khrushchev and his group “want contact” with the Tito clique, that they are working for a rapprochement with them and that they close their eyes to the splitting activities of that clique, because Tito’s revisionist viewpoints coincide with those of Khrushchev’s on many questions, and because Khrushchev and Tito are united against socialism and communism by a common revisionist platform. The Khrushchev group and the Tito clique have directed all the fire of their traitorous fight against the Party of Labour of Albania and other Parties and all true Marxist-Leninists who stand on correct Marxist-Leninist positions and are consistently fighting against modern revisionism.
The past year shows that the impetuous rapprochement of the Khrushchev group with the Yugoslav revisionists has been coupled with the fiercest attacks on the Party of Labour of Albania or, as they now say, on Albanian “dogmatism”. This is not accidental. In his stand towards the Yugoslav revisionists, Khrushchev has had various tactical waverings since 1955. He has been unable to attain all at once his purpose of having complete rapprochement with the Tito clique. The main obstacle has been the resistance of the Communist and
Workers’ Parties in various countries, the resistance of the Communists who are true to Marxism-Leninism, who, regardless Khrushchev’s “advice”, have always considered revisionism as the main danger to the communist movement, as is stated in the Moscow Declaration of 1957 and the Moscow Statement of 1960, and considered Yugoslav revisionism as its most concentrated and aggressive manifestation.
The Party of Labour of Albania, which has been waging an irreconcilable ideological struggle against Yugoslav revisionism, is one of the Parties that have obstructed Khrushchev’s rapprochement with the Yugoslav revisionists. This was noticed from the very outset by both the Khrushchev group and the Tito clique. To reduce our Party to silence, they have resorted to all kinds of measures and pressure. Khrushchev and his group told us, “You are raising the value of the Yugoslav revisionists in the eyes of imperialism,” “You are quarrelsome and hot-blooded,” “You are not waging a principled struggle, you need tact and skill,” “You want to wrest the banner of the struggle against revisionism,” and so on and so forth. But our Party, convinced of its correct path, did not stop in its activity for the defence of the purity of Marxism-Leninism.
Khrushchev’s waverings and the obstacles on his road towards a rapprochement were understood also by Tito, who more than once warned Khrushchev and even foolishly suggested to him the way to follow. Let us recall here Tito’s speech of November 1956, soon after the counter-revolutionary coup in Hungary was put down. Tito said among other things, “We have said that it was not only a question of the personality cult, but of a system which had made it possible to pursue a personality cult, that herein lay the roots of the issue, that this was the thing to be fought, and that it was the most difficult thing to do.” Tito added, “These roots lie in the bureaucratic apparatus, in the methods and attitude, in ignoring the role and aspirations of the working masses, in Enver Hoxhas, Shehus and various other leaders of some western and eastern Parties, who resist democratization and the decisions of the 20th Congress and who have greatly contributed to the consolidation of Stalin’s system and are seeking at present to revive it and make it prevail. Herein lie the roots and this is what must be mended.” This call was reiterated later. Tito repeated this after the 22nd Congress, in his Skopje speech, apparently to advise Khrushchev not to stop, but to carry to the end his hostile activity against the Party of Labour of Albania. In this speech Tito said that the Albanian leaders Hoxha and Shehu pose a great danger to peace in this part of the world, that they want to make troubles and create a new, dangerous hotbed of war,... fighting against the progressive course which is being pursued in the Soviet Union, that there can be no better fate for the Albanian people as long as such leaders as Hoxha and Shehu remain in power.
It must be said that the advice of “Comrade” Tito has met with a positive response in Khrushchev’s anti- Marxist activity.
The course of up-to-date events has shown that contact with the Tito clique has become an interesting and attractive object for the U.S. imperialists as well as for the Khrushchev group. It serves as an automatic indication of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable to the one or the other side. And this is explained by the fact that the Tito clique maintains as good relations with the U.S. imperialists, whom it faithfully serves, as with the Khrushchev group, with whom it is bound by the same ideals.
* * *
The above are some facts witnessed by the year 1961 which most effectively prove two main things: First, Yugoslav revisionism has not changed at all, it remains what it always has been. The evaluation made by the 1960 Moscow Statement with regard to Yugoslav revisionism and to the task to further unmask it remains fully valid. Secondly, Khrushchev and his group are consciously seeking to draw nearer daily to the Yugoslav revisionists and to work in close cooperation with them to split the camp of socialism and to destroy the international communist and workers’ movement.
As to our Party of Labour, it has stood and still resolutely stands on
the position of the 1960 Statement of 81 Communist and Workers’
Parties. It considers that a resolute and uncompromising struggle must
be waged against revisionism, until its complete destruction. Any
slackening of revolutionary vigilance against it, any weakening of the
principled fight against it, as Khrushchev and his followers are
striving for, under whatever pretext, will inevitably lead to the
revival and invigoration of the revisionist trends which heavily damage
our great cause. Without ruthlessly unmasking revisionism, and in the
first place the Belgrade revisionist clique, we cannot properly unmask