Category Archives: The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R.)

Alliance Marxist-Leninist: The Cominform Documents

meeting_cominform_1949_november_hungary

THE COMINFORM DOCUMENTS

INTRODUCTION (by N. Steinmayr); For Alliance and Communist League. Published on web June 13th 1999.

The Cominform documents have been published – in their original versions in both Russian and English – in The Cominform: Minutes of the Three Conferences 1947/48/49 (edited by Giuliano Procacci, in Fondazione Giangiacomo Feltrinelli, Annali, 1994, Feltrinelli Editore, Milano, ISBN 88-07-99050-4).

The volume contains both the original texts (the bulk of which had never been published before) and some introductory essays and notes. This critical edition resulted from an agreement of scholarly cooperation between the Russian Centre of Conservation and Study of Records for Modern History and the Feltrinelli Foundation.

As known, nine European communist parties (from the USSR, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Yugoslavia, France and Italy) joined the Cominform and participated at its three Conferences – respectively, in September 1947, in June 1948, and in November 1949. No other conferences were organized from 1950 until its disbanding in 1956.

The reasons of its decline may be found in the emergence of Khrushchevite revisionism and in the new changes in the international situation (namely, the Chinese revolution and the Korean war). I have selected below only a few sections from the original documents which highlight some interesting and revealing aspects, i.e., the presence of revisionist, centrist positions in the international communist movement at that time and Dimitrov’s role in Bulgarian-Yugoslav-Soviet relations.

These original sources, as well, contribute to explain – in retrospect – the origins of the revisionist degeneration that later became apparent in the international communist movement. I have numbered the various sections of the original documents I quote. The extracts are preceded by some notes that I present.

EXTRACT 1:
FROM THE REPORT BY A. A. ZHDANOV (SOVIET DELEGATION) “ON THE INTERNATIONAL SITUATION” AT THE FIRST CONFERENCE (25 September 1947) .

NS:
I have selected the definition of people’s democracy. In this famous report by Zhdanov, outlining the “two camps” theory, the main task of the communists appears to be the defence of peace and democracy against US-led imperialist expansionism, rather than the advance of socialism. There is no mention of the dictatorship of the proletariat as the main feature of the socialist society. But the crucial phrase is mentioned of the “transition to socialism”. It was this very key step that the revisionist Dimitrov would neglect in his policies for Bulgaria.

EXTRACT 2:
THE REPORT BY V. CHERVENKOV (BULGARIAN DELEGATION) “ON THE ACTIVITY OF THE BULGARIAN WORKERS’ PARTY (COMMUNISTS)” AT THE FIRST CONFERENCE (23 September 1947)

NS:
This emphasizes the special relationship existing between Bulgaria and Yugoslavia. Reference is made to the meeting which took place at Lake Bled from 30 July to 1 August 1947 between a Bulgarian delegation, headed by Dimitrov, and a Yugoslav delegation, headed by Tito. At the end of the meeting, a joint declaration was signed (on 1 August) and announced, providing for a conclusion of a treaty of friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance which they intended to sign.

In a harsh telegram sent to both governments on 12 August, Stalin criticized the initiative, both because it had been taken without prior consultations with the Soviet government and because it might feed Anglo-American opposition to a treaty signed by a country, such as Bulgaria, which would have lost the status of conquered nation won only with the entry into force of the peace treaty on 15 September 1947.

In early July, in fact, both Tito and Dimitrov had informed Moscow of their intention to imminently sign this Yugoslav-Bulgarian treaty. But Stalin, in his answer to Dimitrov on 5 July, had instructed them to wait until the peace treaty came into force. The Yugoslav-Bulgarian announcement of 1 August 1947, therefore, was a deliberate violation of Stalin’s directives.

Extract 3:
FROM THE SPEECH BY T. KOSTOV (BULGARIAN DELEGATION) AT THE SECOND CONFERENCE (21 JUNE 1948).

NS:
I have selected quotations relating to:
a) Yugoslav-Bulgarian relations, with particular regard to the Macedonian question (it is now stated that it was Yugoslavia which had had territorial and hegemonic pretentions in the Balkans against the USSR), and:
b) mistakes and defects in the Bulgarian Workers’ Party (Communists), apparently corrected thanks to Soviet advice.

It must be taken into account that:

(a) during that period of time, both Dimitrov and Kostov were the two most prominent leaders in the Bulgarian party (the former held the position of Central Committee chairman, the latter was first secretary). Both of them had remained in Moscow until November 1945 and Kostov had been appointed party secretary thanks to Dimitrov’s personal intervention and backing;

(b) Kostov was replaced by Dimitrov as party general secretary at the fifth party congress in December 1948 (the post of party chairman having been abolished). Soon afterwards, Dimitrov began a discussion of “mistakes” made by Kostov, accusing him of nationalism and “intellectual individualism”. Kostov was purged from the party in March 1949 while Dimitrov died of natural causes in July.
In December Kostov and others were accused of being agents of the Anglo-Americans and having committed treason in connection with the Balkan federation proposals (aimed at making Bulgaria an appendage of Yugoslavia, thus severing links with the Soviet Union and the people’s democracies). But no blame was attached to Dimitrov in connection with these proposals, while Kostov was executed immediately after the trial (he was partly rehabilitated in 1956 and completely exonerated in 1962). Kostov’s trial can eventually be regarded as an episode in the struggle for leadership within the Bulgarian party after Dimitrov’s death.

According to J.D. Bell, in The Bulgarian Communist Party from Blagoev to Zhivkov (1986):

“When the charges against him were read to the court, Kostov admitted that he had tried to keep the prices of certain Bulgarian goods from Soviet officials, but he pleaded innocent to the rest of the charges and repudiated his confession. Even after the final guilty verdict was pronounced, he remained unrepentant. ‘I never served English intelligence,’ he said, ‘never participated in the criminal plans of Tito and his clique . . . I have always held the Soviet Union in devotion and respect . . . Let the Bulgarian people know that I am innocent!’”
(Bell, op. cit., p. 106);

(c) It is a well-known fact that it was Dimitrov that had publicly and ardently expressed himself – at variance with Soviet positions – in favour of a Balkan federation until early 1948. (The Soviet-Yugoslav split began to emerge in March). In an interview on 17 January 1948, he expressed himself in favour of a large federation including Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Albania, Romania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland and eventually Greece. The rebuke came from Pravda on 28 January and on 2 February, at the second Congress of the Fatherland Front, Dimitrov made self-criticism expressing Bulgarian acceptance of the Soviet line;

(d) new documents have recently been declassified in Yugoslav, Bulgarian and Soviet archives with regard to the meeting on 10 February 1948 between delegations from these three countries (Bulgaria being represented by Dimitrov, Kostov and Kolarov).

The meeting’s proceedings amounted to a harsh reproach by the Soviets for Dimitrov’s statement about a federation in Eastern Europe and for Tito’s attempts to send a Yugoslav division into Albania. Emphasized once more were both the incorrectness of these steps and the inadmissibility of any action taken without informing the USSR. The Yugoslav and Bulgarian delegations admitted their “mistakes”.

What resulted from the meeting was the signing on 11 February, as proposed by the Soviet side, of agreements in which an obligation was recognized for consultation on international questions to take place between the USSR and Yugoslavia and between the USSR and Bulgaria.

EXTRACT 4
FROM THE REPORT BY G. MALENKOV (SOVIET DELEGATION) AT THE SECOND CONFERENCE (23 JUNE 1948).

NS:
We discover that Moscow was not in favour of the Communist Party of Albania (CPA) even after the official Soviet/Cominform split with Yugoslavia. Its entry was regarded as “inexpedient” and, it was argued, it would have complicated Albania’s international position, since it hadn’t been admitted to the UN and since its independence was allegedly guaranteed, at that time (i.e., June 1948), by “an agreement between three Powers” reached six years before!

The reference is, in fact, made to the agreement between the governments of the USSR, USA and Great Britain, according to which on 17-18 December 1942 each of the threee powers had made a similar declaration concerning the repudiation of the Italian occupation of Albania and support for the re-establishment of its independence. But already in November and December 1946, the Council of Foreign Ministers in New York had agreed to consider Albania an associated power with regard to the application of the peace treaty with Italy and had also recognized Albania’s right to an indemnity of five million dollars, which was to be paid by Italy in respect to war damages.

Finally, in February 1947, the peace treaty with Italy was signed (and later ratified by Tirana on 24 October 1947): Albania was not one of its signatories but ranked among the victorious states. Accordingly, Italy was bound to respect Albanian independence and Albanian legal and administrative sovereignty was sanctioned over the island of Sazan.

But, indeed, the CPA’s admission to Cominform was rejected on the basis of rather preposterous justifications on the part of the Soviet representative at the second Cominform conference in 1948! And also, Albania hadn’t been admitted at the UNO due to Anglo-American opposition: by 1947 both Washington and London had established diplomatic links with all Eastern European states – except Albania (whose gold, looted by the Germans, continued to remain kept in the vaults of the Bank of England in London).

What about all the Soviet and Cominform calls for struggle against the new American imperialist and warmongering plans to enslave Europe? Particularly in the light of the consistent Marxist-Leninist policies which had been implemented in Albania since its liberation, there can be no doubt that the Albanian communists’ continued exclusion from Cominform – even after Yugoslavia’s withdrawal from the organization – was masterminded by hidden and powerful revisionists within the Soviet leadership.

From Hoxha’s memoirs, it becames crystal clear that Stalin was personally determined to support Albania’s political stands and its independence at that crucial time. For its part, the CPA immediately and unconditionally supported the Soviet and Cominform positions on Yugoslav revisionism. The 9th Plenum of its Central Committee convened between 27 and 30 June 1948, having on its agenda analyses of the three letters addressed to the Communist Party of Yugoslavia by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (on 27 March, 4 and 22 May 1948) and the Cominform resolution on Yugoslavia. Unanimous solidarity with and support for the stands adopted by the CPSU and the Cominform against Yugoslavia were expressed. Consequently, all the agreements and conventions which had been signed with Yugoslavia – except the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Aid of July 1946 (later abrogated by Belgrade in November 1949) – were denounced by Albania. These decisions were made public on 1 July 1948 in a communiquè of the CPA’s Central Committee.

EXTRACT 5
THE REPORT BY M. A. SUSLOV (SOVIET DELEGATION) ON “THE DEFENCE OF PEACE AND THE STRUGGLE AGAINST WARMONGERS” AT THE THIRD CONFERENCE (16 November 1949):

NS:
This emphasizes and further develops – along the positions expressed by Zhdanov two years earlier – the necessity of maintaining peace and independence as the main task of the communist and workers’ parties. However, two years had elapsed. What had happened to the “transition” correctly discussed by Zhadanov? Was the establishment of a socialist society now forgotten? What about the dictatorship of the proletariat as the indispensable transition stage towards communism?

All these political stands, which effectively dump class struggle for socialism in favour of class collaboration, became included in the final Cominform resolution on “The Defence of Peace and the Struggle against the Warmongers”. As for the other resolution on “Working-Class Unity and the Tasks of the Communist and Workers’ Parties”, this was unanimously approved on the basis on Togliatti’s report on the subject: similar revisionist and right-wing stuff calling for “peace, bread and democratic liberties”! The third approved resolution dealt with “The Communist Party of Yugoslavia in the Power of Murderers and Spies”.

Extract 6
THE SPEECH BY V. CHERVENKOV (BULGARIAN DELEGATION) AT THE THIRD CONFERENCE (17 November 1949).

NS:
Directs a sharp criticism to Kostov who now becomes the scapegoat for former Bulgarian attempts to detatch, together with Tito, the country from the anti-imperialist, democratic camp (namely, the USSR) and to prevent the consistent advancement towards socialism in Bulgaria.

As for Dimitrov’s role in preventing the transition from the first stage of the anti-fascist, democratic revolution to the second, socialist stage, see “Alliance (Marxist-Leninist), n. 12, January 1995 (“Georgii Dimitrov and the Bulgarian Communist Party”).

Kostov was to be executed in December, while Dimitrov had died in July. It was also widely known that they had both coordinated Bulgarian policies towards the USSR and Yugoslavia during the forties. According to Chervenkov, Bulgaria had been able to strengthen its socialist foundations and fight nationalistic deviations only thanks to the Soviet Communist Party and Stalin, who is referred to as the “direct teacher and leader” of the Bulgarian people. Not even a passing reference is made to Dimitrov in Chervenkov’s whole report.

EXTRACT 7:
THE SPEECH BY V. POPTOMOV (BULGARIAN DELEGATION) AT THE THIRD CONFERENCE (18 November 1949);

NS:
Deals with the condemnation of Yugoslav revisionism. I have only selected a few quotations referring to the Balkan federation proposals. Not even in this report is mention made to Dimitrov. In fact, the Bulgarian delegates’ speeches at the third Cominform Conference do imply Dimitrov’s serious responsabilities for right-wing errors which had occurred in the international communist movement and in Bulgaria. From these proceedings, as well, Marxist-Leninists can hardly draw the conclusion that Dimitrov had been an outstanding and consistent Communist fighter during his lifetime.

THE EXTRACTED DOCUMENTS

1. FROM THE REPORT BY A. A. ZHDANOV (SOVIET DELEGATION) “ON THE INTERNATIONAL SITUATION” AT THE FIRST CONFERENCE (25 September 1947) (pp. 219, 227,229,251):

“…The new democratic power in Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Albania, supported by the mass of the people, has proved capable of carrying through in a very short time progressive democratic changes…a new type of state was created – the People’s Republic, in which power belongs to the people, large-scale industry, transport and the banks belong to the state, and the leding force is a bloc of all the classes of the population who work, headed by the working class. As a consequence, the peoples of these countries have not only been delivered from the clutches of imperialism, they have laid the basis for transition to the path of socialist development…The aim of this [anti-imperialist and democratic] camp is to fight against the threat of new wars and imperilalist expansion, to consolidate democracy and to uproot what remains of fascism…All the forces of the anti-imperialist and anti-fascist camp have rallied to the task of ensuring a just and democratic peace. This is the soil on which the friendly cooperation of the USSR with the democratic countries on all questions of foreign policy has grown and strengthened. These countries, and in the first place, the countries of new democracy – Yugoslavia, Poland, Czechosiovakia, Albania – which played an important part in the war of liberation against fascism, together with Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary and, to some extent, Finland, which have joined the anti-fascist front, have all become in the post-war period staunch fighters for peace and democracy, for their own freedom and independence against all attempts by the USA and Britain to reverse the trend of their development and drag them back under the imperialist yoke…The Communists must be the leading force in drawing all anti-fascist, freedom-loving elements into struggle against the new American expansionist plans for subjugating Europe…A special task falls to the Communist Parties of France, Italy, Britain and other countries. They must take up the banner of defence of the national independence and sovereignty of their countries…”

2. FROM THE REPORT BY V. CHERVENKOV (BULGARIAN DELEGATION) “ON THE ACTIVITY OF THE BULGARIAN WORKERS’ PARTY (COMMUNISTS)” AT THE FIRST CONFERENCE (23 September 1947) (pp. 103):

“. . . We can regard Bulgaria’s international position as having been normalised. The basic line of our foreign policy consists in safeguarding at all costs our national independence and state sovereignty, in co-operation with all freedom-loving peoples. The fundamental principle of this policy, as Comrade Dimitrov has frequently stressed, is eternal friendship with our liberator, the great Soviet Union, fraternal alliance with the new Yugoslavia, and close collaboration with all the other Slav countries and with the other democratic peoples.

The conference held at Bled and the decisions adopted there mark the beginning of a new phase in relations between the new Bulgaria and the new Yugoslavia and signify a big step forward in establishing close rapprochement between them. Decisions were taken at Bled on co-ordinated action and common defence of peace in the Balkans.

We are going to conclude treaties of friendship and mutual aid with Yugoslavia, Romania, Czechoslovakia and Poland which will still further strengthen Bulgaria’s position in the world. . . .”

3. FROM THE SPEECH BY T. KOSTOV (BULGARIAN DELEGATION) AT THE SECOND CONFERENCE (21 JUNE 1948) (pp. 561, 563, 565, 567, 569):

“. . . Comrade KOSTOV says that the CC of the Bulgarian Workers’ Party (Communists) received with amazement and alarm the news of the anti-Marxist and anti-Soviet stand of the leaders of the KPJ, because they realise that in the present international situation, which calls for cohesion of all democratic forces under the leadership of the Soviet Union, any split in the democratic camp plays in the hands of the imperialists and is a stab in the back for the forces of democracy. The Bulgarian communists have further ground for anxiety because they were moving towards closer relations with Yugoslavia, going so far as a federation, which was to have strengthened the position of democracy in both countries and facilitated their progress along the road to socialism.

The policy of the present leaders of the KPJ is leading to rupture of the line which had been marked out and advanced for rapprochement between Bulgaria and Yugoslavia. . .

. . . Comrade Kostov turns to the question of Bulgaro-Yugoslav relations and, in particular, speaks about the Macedonian question. After the First World War, says Comrade Kostov, Royal Yugoslavia annexed part of Western Bulgaria which remains to this day within the frontiers of Yugoslavia. During the Balkan Wars part of Eastern Macedonia (the Pirin region) became part of Bulgaria. The population of Eastern Macedonia speak Bulgarian and are linked economically with Bulgaria.

The process of forming the Macedonians into a nation was intensified after the creation of the Macedonian People’s Republic within the Yugoslav Federation. Even today, however, this process cannot be reagrded as complete.

Proceeding from the principles of the teaching of Lenin and Stalin, and considering the national question to be a subordinated one, we proposed to the Yugoslav comrades to consider as fundamental the possibility of a closer rapprochement between our two countries which must result in the near future in the creation of a federal state. The national question, too, could find its solution within the framework of a federation. In that there would be no special obstacles to the solution of this question, because in a federation there would be no frontier between Macedonia and Bulgaria.

Until the federation was formed we undertook, on the advice of the Soviet comrades, to promote the national development of the Macedonian people. To this end a hundred teachers were invited from Yugoslav Macedonia, agreement on this being arrived at between Comrades Dimitrov and Tito at Bled. In spite of this, differences continue to exist.

The Yugoslav comrades, especially Djilas, Vukmanovic and Kolisevski, still consider that the Macedonian question should be settled separately from the creation of the federation. Anybody who does not agree with their view they accuse of Greater-Bulgarian chauvinism. They want simply to annex the Pirin region to Yugoslav Macedonia and thereby to weaken Bulgaria. . . .

. . . In the light of the current behaviour of the leaders of the KPJ it has become clear that they were never sincere when they discussed the question of federation, that in their federation Bulgaria would not have had equal rights, that, in reality, they were trying to bring it about that, by means of federation, Tito’s Yugoslavia would become hegemon of the Balkans against the USSR. Evidently, Comrade Kostov concludes, the question of federation must be put aside for the time being. . . .

. . . Comrade Kostov proceeds to describe the situation in the Bulgarian Workers’ Party (Communists) and to criticise certain mistakes made by and defects in this Party. Alongside great achievements there are, says Comrade Kostov, major defects and mistakes in the Party’s work. Inner-Party democracy does not prevail at the level it should. Criticism and self criticism have not yet become the basic driving force in the Party. The CC itself does not yet work as a firmly welded collective, and command methods in relation to the Party organisations have not yet been fully outgrown. There has been no Party Congress for 20 years: since 9 September 1944 the CC has confined itself to convening enlarged plenums and conferences.

Comrade Kostov mentions the unfavourable state of affairs in respect of the Party’s social composition. There are persons in it who ought to be merely candidates for membership. Certain Party members have in the past sabotaged government decisions on grain-procurement. Some have joined the Party with venal aims and some Party organisations are being torn apart by squabbles over the allotment of jobs. Within a short space of time the Party has increased its membership twentyfold, from 25,000 to 500,000.

Taking account of the danger inherent in excessive growth of the Party, the CC has taken measures to restrict recruiting, and at the moment recruiting is suspended until the congress takes place, when a probationary period for candidates for Party membership will be laid down.

Comrade Kostov says that he considers his Party’s line to be fundamentally correct. They have achieved serious successes, smashed the forces of reaction, strengthened the Fatherland Front and proceeded to lay the foundations of a socialist economy. A correct general line does not mean, however, says Comrade Kostov, that the Party is free from mistakes and defects. The Party has these: underestimation of the class struggle, illusions about the possibility of softening this struggle in the conditions of present-day Bulgaria, failure to have a clear notion of the roads and tempos of developoment, talk of harmoniously combining the state, co-operative and private sectors in the economy, and so on. But all these mistakes have been corrected in good time, often thanks to advice from the CC of the VKP(B) and comrade Stalin personally.

All these mistakes of ours resulted in a number of cases in slowing down the pace of our struggle and our advance. In some cases, though, we ran too far ahead, as with the formulation about complete liquidation of the antagonistic classes. . . .

. . . On behalf of the Political Bureau of the Bulgarian Workers’ Party (Communists) Comrade Kostov declares his agreement with the conclusions of Comrade Zhdanov’s report on the situation in the KPJ.”

4. FROM THE REPORT BY G. MALENKOV (SOVIET DELEGATION) AT THE SECOND CONFERENCE (23 JUNE 1948) (pp. 601, 603):

“. . . We must also, says Comrade Malenkov, tell the Information Bureau that the CC of the CP of Albania has also expressed desire that their Party join the Information Bureau. We should like to state our view on this, namely, that it must be explained to the Albanian comrades that for the present it would be inexpedient for their Party to enter the Information Bureau. Our motives for this decision are these. The independence of Albania is at present guaranteed by an agreement between three Powers, Albania has not yet been admitted to the United Nations Organisation and there can be no doubt but that joining the Information Bureau in this international situation would complicate Albania’s international position, which is delicate enough even without that. It seems to us that the Albanian comrades agree with these reasons. We think that the Albanian comrades, too, should be kept informed of the activity of the Information Bureau. . . .”

5. FROM THE REPORT BY M. A. SUSLOV (SOVIET DELEGATION) ON “THE DEFENCE OF PEACE AND THE STRUGGLE AGAINST WARMONGERS” AT THE THIRD CONFERENCE (16 November 1949) (pp. 699, 701, 705):

“. . . The change in the relation of forces in the world arena in favour of the camp of peace and democracy evokes fresh outbursts of frenzied fury in the camp of imperialism and warmongering. . . .
. . . In this situation in which the danger of another war is intensifying, a great historical responsibility is imposed on the Communist and Workers’ Parties. They must use every means of struggle to ensure a firm and long-lasting peace, subordinating all their activity to this, the central task at the present time . . . .

. . . It is the duty of the Communist and Workers’ Parties in the capitalist countries to merge together the fight for national independence and the fight for peace, tirelessly to expose the anti-national, traitorous nature of the policy of the bourgeois governments, which have been turned into direct bailiffs for American imperialism, to unite and weld together all the democratic and patriotic forces of each country around the slogans of doing away with the shameful slavery to America and going over to an independent external and internal policy which corresponds to the national interests of the people. The Communist and Workers’ Parties must hold high the banner of protection of the national independence and sovereignty of their countries.

The Communist and Workers’ Parties must unite the broad masses for defence of democratic rights and liberties, tirelessly explaining to them that defence of peace is inseparably bound up with defence of the vital interests of the working class and all the working people, that the fight for peace is at the same time a fight against poverty, hunger and fascism.

Particularly important tasks face the Communist Parties of France, Italy, and Britain, West Germany and other countries whose peoples the American imperialists want to use as cannon-fodder for carrying out their aggressive plans. Their duty is to develop still more strongly the fight for peace, to frustrate the criminal designs of the Anglo-American warmongers.

To the Communist and Workers’ Parties of the people’s democracies and the Soviet Union falls the task, while opposing the imperialist warmongers and their accomplices, of further strengthening the camp of peace and socialism, for the defence of peace and the security of the peoples. . . .”

6. FROM THE SPEECH BY V. CHERVENKOV (BULGARIAN DELEGATION) AT THE THIRD CONFERENCE (17 November 1949) (pp. 749, 751, 753, 755, 757):

“. . . At the present time the question of the defence of peace and national independence is the decisive question for the working class and the Communist Parties.
Since the time of the first conference of the Information Bureau, says Comrade Chervenkov, our Party has achieved important successes on the consolidation of people’s democracy in Bulgaria. . . .

. . . the people’s democracy of Bulgaria has been substantially reinforced, both economically and politically, in the past two years. One of the most important factors in this reinforcement is the nation-wide and profound nature of Bulgarian-Soviet friendship, which is a most important driving force in our social development. . . .

. . . Our working people see Comrade Stalin as our direct teacher and leader. . . .

. . . ruthless struggle against any manifestations of nationalism within the CP is a direct duty, an absolutely necessary precondition, or more correctly, a component part of the fight for peace.

Comrade Chervenkov stresses that nationalism not only helps the warmongers, it is actually the ideology of the enemies of peace, the enemies of the Soviet Union, the warmongers themselves. Nationalists are direct agents of imperialism. . . .

. . . What we are dealing with is a plan by the imperialists to subvert the Communist Party from within, to implant nationalists espionage agents in the Party. . . .

. . . Comrade Chervenkov says that with the direct aid of the CC of the VKP(B) and of Comrade Stalin personally – for which the Bulgarian people will be forever grateful – Kostov, the former secretary of the Party’s CC was exposed.

What did Kostov turn out to be? A British spy. He confessed that he had been recruited by British intelligence so far back as 1942 and that since 1944 he had had links with the Tito clique.

On the orders of the Anglo-American intelligence agents in our country and in conjunction with the Tito-ites, Kostov formed in the Party and the state apparatus a group of persons, spies like himself, who sought by various ways and means, exploiting our weakness, trustfulness, and carelessness, to damage the Party and the state primarily in the economic sphere, and to prepare, with the Tito-ites’s help, to detach Bulgaria from the Soviet Union, restore capitalism, and bring Bulgaria into the camp of imperialism.

This separation of Bulgaria from the Soviet Union they proposed to bring about by using the slogan of a federation of the Southern Slavs and a Balkan Federation. Of course, says Comrade Chervenkov, Kostov’s federation of the Southern Slavs had nothing and has nothing in common with what we mean by an alliance of the Southern Slavs, since Kostov’s federation of the Southern Slavs was to have been directed against the USSR. The Kostovites wanted to unite Bulgaria with Yugoslavia, and counted on military help from the Tito-ites…

. . . Our successes, says Comrade Chervenkov, would have been very much greater but for the wrecking done by the Kostovites. They did damage mainly through distorting in practice the policy of the Party and the governrnent, thereby creating discontent among the people. They harmed us especially in the sphere of our econornic policy, in our relations with the peasants. . . .

. . . All the preparation for the coming elections to the organs of state power is proceeding under the sign of ruthless criticism of shortcomings and determined reorganisation of our work. Comrade Chervenkov says that the whole of the Party’s work is being subjected to thorough criticism, along with the work of the state apparatus and of the social and economic organs. The working people are being very vigorously involved in creative criticism of shortcomings and weaknesses.

Speaking of the Party’s immediate tasks, Comrade Chervenkov emphasises that it is first of all necessary to purge the Party, from top to bottom, of Kostovites and of all who maintain a conciliatory attitude to them. This task will be carried out. Although a Party purge has not been formally announced, purging of the Party’s ranks is going on, and after the Kostov trial this purge will be pursued still more vigorously.

It must be said, Comrade Chervenkov observes, that we exposed Kostov in good time. That we owe to the VKP(B) and Comrade Stalin.

The fight against the Kostovites, says Comrade Chervenkov, has welded our Party together as never before. Vigilance has been heightened, inner-Party democracy has been extended and strengthened, and the process of Bolshevik tempering of the Party is progressing. We realise that Kostov was not, of course, alone. Kostovites have hidden themselves in the Party. But they will not be able to go on hiding after the exposure of Kostov and his principal associates. . . .”

7. FROM THE SPEECH BY V. POPTOMOV (BULGARIAN DELEGATION) AT THE THIRD CONFERENCE (18 November 1949) (pp. 935, 937):

“. . . The Tito-ites now not only do not conceal their territorial pretentions regarding Bulgaria, they quite openly and impudently speak of their intervention to seize the Pirin district – Bulgarian Macedonia. They are negotiating with the Greek monarcho-fascists not only about strangling the national liberation movement in Greece, and not only about dividing Albania with them, but also about forming a united front against Bulgaria. . . .

. . . The task of Trajcho Kostov’s gang was, with the aid of the Tito-ites, to take all power in Bulgaria into its hands, and then to wrest it from the Soviet Union and the front of peace and democracy, and behind the screen of some sort of federation to join the country to Tito’s Yugoslavia, i.e., to make it an actual colony of American imperialism. . . .

. . . Comrade Poptomov notes that the Tito clique, which previously did all it could to prevent the realization of a South-Slav federation, is now trying to appear as a warm supporter of such a federation, trying in this way to speculate on the fraternal feelings of these two Slav peoples, trying to give the slogan of a South-Slav federation an anti-Soviet character which would help to bring about a breakaway of the South Slavs from the Soviet Union. This same speculation is being practised by the Tito-ites with the slogans about a Balkan and a Balkan-Danubian federation, in an attempt to create a bloc of the peoples of South-Eastern Europe directed against the Soviet Union. . . .”

END

Bill Bland: The Cominform Fights Revisionism

 

download

A paper prepared for the Stalin Society in London by Bill Bland; ca 1998.

INTRODUCTION

As we have seen, the Marxist-Leninists in the leadership of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Communist International had no interest in saving a Communist International dominated by revisionists, but worked to create a new international, based on Marxist-Leninist principles and free of all revisionist trends.

THE FIRST CONFERENCE OF THE COMINFORM (1947)

The Founding of the Cominform (1947)

In October 1947 it was announced that the Communist Parties of nine European countries — Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, France, Hungary, Italy. Poland, Romania, the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia — had set up, at a secret conference held in September at Szklarska Poreba in Polish Silesia during September, an ‘Information Bureau of the Communist Parties’ (Cominform), with its headquarters in Belgrade. Its purpose was to:

“. . . organise the exchange of experiences”.

(‘Keesing’s Contemporary Archives’, Volume 6; p. 8,864).

and,

” . . . where necessary, to coordinate the activities of the Communist Parties on the basis of mutual agreement”.

(‘Keesing’s Contemporary Archives’, Volume 6; p. 8,864).

It should be noted the Communist Party of Albania was not invited to join the Cominform. The reasons for this omission will be discussed later.

The Cominform, it was stated, would consist of two members from each participating Party and would issue a publication, the title of which was later stated to be ‘For a Lasting Peace, for a People’s Democracy’.

The principal initiative in forming the new organisation was taken by Stalin:

“He (Stalin — Ed.) founded the so-called Cominform in September 1947″.

(Isaac Deutscher: ‘Stalin: A Political Biography'; Harmondsworth; 1968; p. 570).

“As early as June 1946, Stalin had spoken with Dimitrov* and Tito* about the need of establishing an Information Bureau . . . rather than simply reviving the Comintern, on which Stalin heaped a torrent of insults and abuse which caused Dimitrov to become alternately pale and flushed with repressed anger”.

(Eugenio Reale: ‘The Founding of the Cominform’, in: Milorad M. Drachkovitch & Branko Lazitch (Eds.): ‘The Comintern: Historical Highlights: Essays, Recollections, Documents'; Stanford (USA); 1966;; p. 260).

The anti-revisionist programme of the new organisation required a new leadership. The Italian revisionist Eugenio Reale*, one of the two Italian delegates to the founding conference, notes:

“. . the absence . . . of those old veterans of the Comintern. . . The most notable leadere of the last period of the Comintern was Manuilsky*. . . . who during the final ten years had held more actual power than Dimitrov the titular secretary-general. Manuilksky was removed from the arena of international communism shortly after the dissolution of the Comintern in 1943″. (Eugenio Reale: ibid; p. 257).

At the founding conference of the Cominform, on the spot leadership was effected by Andrey Zhdanov* and Georgi Malenkov*, of the Soviet Union:

“The Soviet delegation was headed by . . . Zhdanov and Malenkov”.

(Adam B. Ulam: ‘Stalin: The Man and his Era'; London; 1989; p. 660).

with Zhdanov taking the leading role:

“It was Zhdanov who appeared in the role of master of ceremonies at the founding session of the Cominform”.

(Eugenio Reale: op. cit.; p. 257).

but behind the scenes the real leadership was carried out by Stalin:

“Stalin was its (the foundation conference’s — Ed.) absolute master, without even condescending to put in an appearance. We were made conscious of this fact in the course of our debates by the existence of a direct telephone line between our Szklarska Poreba castle and the Kremlin. Zhdanov was at our end of the line (or sometimes Malenkov) and from the other end came orders from Stalin personally, as I was to learn during a brief conversation with Zhdanov”.

(Eugenio Reale: ibid,; p. 258-59).

The main report at the conference, delivered by Zhdanov, laid down the line of the Marxist-Leninists for the next five years:

“The report made by Zhdanov . . . has a special importance for the course followed by the Communist movement until the death of Stalin. . . . The tactical and strategic line of the Communist Parties . . . was defined for the next five years by Zhdanov’s report and the statement of the nine Parties, which did no more than sum up the main ideas of the report”.

(Fernando Claudin: ‘The Communist Movement: From Comintern to Cominform'; Harmondsworth; 1975; p. 466-77).

The manifesto agreed upon at the founding conference analysed the postwar international situation as one in which two mutually antagonistic camps had come into being, namely:

“. . . . . the imperialist anti-democratic camp with the basic aim of establishing the world domination of American imperialism and the routing of democracy, and the anti-imperialist, democratic camp with the basic aim of disrupting imperialism, strengthening democracy and eliminating the remnants of Fascism. The struggle between the two is taking place in an atmosphere of the intensification of the general crisis of capitalism, the weakening of the f orces of capitalism, and the strengthening of the forces of socialism and democracy”.

(Manifesto of Communist Information Bureau (September 1947), in: ‘Keesing’s Contemporary Archives’, Volume-6; p. 8,864).

The manifesto described the Marshall* Plan as

“. . . only the European part of a general plan of world expansion being carried out by the USA”.

(Manifesto of Communist Information Bureau (September 1947); in ‘Keesing’s Contemporary Archives’, Volume 6; p. 8.664).

and condemned the role of right-wing social-democracy in striving to conceal the true character of imperialism:

“The Right-wing socialists . . . strive to conceal the true predatory essence of the imperialist policy . . ., bringing disintegration into the ranks of the working class and poisoning their outlook”.

(Manifesto of Communist Information Bureau (September 1947), in: ‘Keesing’s Contemporary Archives’, Volume 6; p. 8,664).

Criticism of French and Italian Revisionism (1947)

A main political content of the first conference of the Cominform was a strong criticism of the revisionism of the French and Italian Communist Parties.

“The conference served largely as a platform from which issued forth vigorous, scathing criticism of opportunism, legalism, bourgeois parliamentarism and other such ailments with which the French and Italian Communist Parties were said to be afflicted”.

(Eugenio Reale: op. cit.; p. 254).

For this reason, the French and Italian Commnunist Parties had received only a few days notice of the meeting:

“We Italians were not kept informed of preparations for the establishment of the Cominform. . . . The French and Italian Parties were given notice just a week before the meeting”.

(Eugenio Reale: ibid.; p. 259).

but Parties which were to play an accusatory role were given longer notice, arrived earlier and had discussions on the plan of campaign:

“When Longo* and I arrived at the conference site, we learned that nearly all the delegates of the other Parties had already arrived, some of them several days earlier. Only later did I realise with what care preparations had been made: everything had been arranged with minute precision and consummate skill. The work was to begin upon arrival of the French representatives, Stalin’s two envoys already were conferring with the members of the other delegations, and I was conscious of some embarrassment on the part of our colleagues when we appeared on the scene”.

(Eugenio Reale: ibid.; p. 259-60).

The criticism of the French and Italian Communist Parties was opened by Zhdanov:

“At the foundation conference, Zhdanov castigated the French and Italians for allowing inertia to govern their conduct, for collaborating with the bourgeoisie of their countries, and for meekness towards the Catholics and the Social-Democrats”.

(Isaac Deutscher: op. cit.; p. 570).

However, for reasons which will be discussed later, the representatives of the Yugoslav Communist Party — Milovan Djilas* and Edvard Karelj* — were allotted a prime accusatory role in relation to the French and Italian Communist Parties:

“The Yugoslavs . . . had spent three or four days deliberating with the Soviet delegates on the spot. . . .The Yugoslavs alone gave the impression of having assumed the role of Soviet partners. . . . Two special honours were accorded the Yugoslavs: Djilas and Kardelj shared the distinction of opening fire on the lopportunism’ of the French and Italian Parties, and Belgrade was selected as the capital of the Cominform. . . .

The Soviets had come well supplied with material suitable for denouncing French and Italian ‘opportunism’, and had put it at Kardelj’s and Djilas’ disposal at the preliminary meetings just before the conference. Thus the Yugoslavs were amply provided with ammunition to attack us. . . .

Many years after our Szklarska Poreba conference, Kardelj told me that his violent attack …. had been prepared with Zhadnov’s & Malenkov’s assent. . . . This was the reason for the later arrival of the French and Italian delegations, the Russians having arranged it this way to allow sufficient time for determining the proper attitude to be adopted towards us”.

(Eugenio Reale: op. cit.; p. 260, 261).

“Kardelj admonished the French and the Italians. The new revisionism, he explained, could be found in Togliatti’s* and Thorez’* hope for a new epoch of peaceful parliamentary action and in their subservience to the Vatican and Gaullism. . . . Djilas was even more categorical:
‘The French Party has yielded step by step to reaction and has permitted the disbandment and disarmament of the Resistance”.’

(Isaac Deutscher: op. cit.; p. 570-71).

“At the September 25 session Kardelj delivered his indictment of the Italian Communist Party. . . . A people’s democracy — as the Italian and French comrades should have borne in mind — could never be initiated by Communist participation in a bourgeois government. Furthermore, Kardelj asserted, the Italian Communist Party had realised too late the real meaning of American policies and had coined the opportunist slogan ‘Neither London, nor Washington, nor Moscow!’, when it was obvious that liberty could not be secured without Moscow. . .

The attack by Djilas was even more aggressive and violent than Kardelj’s. He began by asserting that the French and Italian Communists had placed their countries at the mercy of American imperialism, first by permitting the resistance forces to be dissolved, then by making one concession after another to the forces of reaction, and finally by tolerating their own exclusion from the government. The two parties had committed their major error when they declared that they would never sway from the path of parliamentarism. According to Djilas, the French Communist Party was completely undisciplined; anyone could join or quit it at will; the Party members did not feel themselves bound by any pledge. There was only one guiding principle: increase the membership at any price. The defeats suffered by the two Western Parties could be accounted for, above all, by this ‘political and ideological liberalism’ of the leaders, by their fear of assuming responsibilities, and by the absence of genuine revolutionary vigilance”.

(Eugenio Reale: op. cit.; p. 265-66).

“If the workers’ parties drown in parliamentarism, everything is done for. It is no overstatement to say that there has been a tendency towards revision of Marxism-Leninism, towards a deviation — as Browderism in the United States was a deviation. After the war, certain communists thought that a peaceful, parliamentary period of appeasement of the class struggle was ahead — there was a deviation towards opportunism and parliamentarism. in the French Party, the Italian Party, as in other Parties”.

(Edvard Kardelj: Statement at Cominform Meeting (September 1947), in: Phlip J. Jaffe: ‘The Rise and Fall of Earl Browder’, in: ‘Survey’, Volume 18, No. 12 (Spring 1972); p. 56).

The representatives of the French and Italian Communist Parties accepted the criticisms unreservedly:

“In their public statements, the French and the Italians admitted they had erred gravely”.

(Adam B. Ulam: op. cit.; p. 661).

“The next day Longo spoke briefly, admitting the validity of the criticisms levelled against the Italian Party, and promising that they would be taken into account. . .Then Duclos* replied to the criticisms and accusations. The secretary of the French Communist Party behaved like a small shopkeeper caught in a swindle: he humiliated himself, admitted his mistakes, made innumerable excuses and promises”.

(Eugenio Reale: op. cit.; p. 266).

In his final speech to the conference, representative of the French Communist Party Jacques Duclos admitted:

“There was opportunism, legalitarianism and parliamentary illusions. . . If we courageously carry out this self-criticism before the Party, we shall arouse among the masses a state of mind favourable for the fight. The French people must be mobilised against American imperialism”.

(Jacques Duclos: Statement at Cominform Meeting (September 1947), in: Philip J. Jaffe: op. ci; p. 57).

The question arises: why was it arranged that the representatives of the Yugoslav Communist Party — shortly itself to charged with revisionism -should be allotted the leading role in the criticism of the revisionism of the French and Italian Communist Parties? For one reason, it involved the Communist Party of Yugoslavia setting the precedent for intra-party criticism within the Cominform, so making it more difficult for that party to object to criticism of itself:

“In the ensuing months another of Stalin’s objectives for the Cominform of which nothing was said during our meeting — and for good reason — became apparent: the groundwork had been laid for Stalin’s move against Tito”.

(Eugenio Reale: op. cit.; p. 261).

Thus, when the Yugoslav Communist Party, in the following year, refused the invitation to a meeting of the Cominform to participate in a critical discussion of its own policies, the Cominform could strengthen its case by pointing out that the party had made no bones about criticising other Parties:

“When the Information Bureau was set up, the Communist Parties based their work on the indisputable principle . . . that any Party had the right to criticise other Parties. At the first meeting of the nine Communist Parties, the Yugoslav Communist Party took full advantage of this right”.

(Communique: Meeting of Information Bureau of the Communist Parties (June 1948), in: ‘The Soviet-Yugoslav Dispute'; London; 1948; p. 68).

Undoubtedly, the anticipated dispute with the Yugoslav Communist Party, was responsible for the failure to invite the Communist Party of Albania to join the Cominform since, at the time the organisation was established, this Party was dominated by Titoite revisionists. The 8th Plenum of the CC of the CPA, which was held in February 1948,

” . . . agreed to such forms of economic ties between Albania and Yugoslavia which would have led to the elimination of the Albanian state”.

(‘History of the Party of Labour of Albania'; Tirana; 1982; p. 234).

Thus:

“. . . the condemnation of Tito offered an explanation for the absence of the Albanians (from the Cominform – Ed.). They were much under the influence of their Yugoslav comrades, and it was thought wiser not to include them in the Cominform, in order to isolate Tito better and thus settle his case more easily”.

(Ivan Avakumovich: ‘The Dissolution of the Cominform’, in: ‘Contemporary Review’, Volume 190; No. 1,087 (July 1956); p. 29).

THE SECOND CONFERENCE OF THE COMINFORM (1948)

The second conference of the Cominform was held in Yugoslavia in January 1948. Only one item was on the agenda, namely,

“…press and propaganda”.

(—–: “The Evolution of the Cominform’, in: ‘The World Today’, Volume 6, No. 5 (May 1950); p. 217).

For the Cominform journal ‘For a Lasting Peace, for a People’s Democracy’, a new editorial board was appointed, headed by:

“Yudin*, the Russian delegate to the second Cominform meeting”.

( — : ‘The Evolution of the Cominform'; ibid.; p. 217).

who represented

“. . . the conception of the new generation of Soviet ideologists, for whom Marxism is inseparable from Stalinism”.

( –: ‘The Evolution of the Cominform'; ibid.; p. 218).

THE THIRD CONFERENCE OF THE COMINFORM (1948)

The Expulsion of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia

On 18 March 1948 the Yugoslav government was notified:

” . . . that the Government of the USSR had decided immediately to withdraw all military advisers and instructors”.

(‘Correspondence between the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia and the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks)'; Belgrade; 1948 (herafter listed as ‘Correspondence’); p. 21).

from Yugoslavia, on the grounds:

” . . . that they were not being treated in a friendly spirit in Yugoslavia”.

(‘Correpondence'; p. 21).

On the following day, 19 March 1948, the Yugoslav government was informed of a decision to the effect that the Soviet government:

“. . . orders the recall of all their civilian specialists from Yugoslavia”.

(‘Correspondence'; p. 21).

These actions on the part of the Soviet government were followed -between March and June 1948 — by a mutually critical correspoondence between the leaderships of the two Parties.

On 4 May 1948 the Central Committee of the CPSU proposed:

” . . . that this question be discussed at the next meeting of the Inform Bureau”.

(‘Correspondence'; op. cit.; p. 64).

Tito* and Kardelj rejected the proposal on 17 May 1948:

“We are not able to accede to the suggestion that this matter be decided by the Cominform Buro”.

(‘Correspondence'; op. cit.; p. 65).

The CC of the CPSU replied on 22 May 1948, pointing out that:

“. . . at the time of the organisation of the Inform Buro all Communist Parties started from the uncontested policy that each Party should submit reports to the Inform Buro; and similarly that each Party had the right to criticise other Parties. . . .

The Yugoslav comrades . . . think that the Yugoslav Party and its leadership should be placed in a privileged position and that the statutes of the Inform Buro do not apply to them; that they have a right to critice other parties, but they themselves should not be subjected to a criticism by others. . . .

By refusing to appear before the Inform Buro thay mean to say that the CC of the CPY . . . are now preparing their party and the Yugoslav people for the betrayal of the united front of People’s Democracies and of the betraval of the united front of People’s Democracies and of the USSR”.

(‘Correspondence'; op. cit.; p. 66, 67, 68).

The Second Conference of the Cominform was thus held in June 1948 in the absence of any representative from the Communist Party of Yugoslavia. Here the leading role in the criticism of the CPY was taken by the representatives of the French and Italian Communist Parties which had been so strongly criticised at the first conference of the Cominform:

“At the second conference of the Information Bureau, Togliatti* emerged as the most uncompromising enemy of the Yugoslavs, anxious to avenge the previous year’s insults by a frontal assault upon the Yugoslav Communist Party. The French Party acted similarly. Etienne Fajon, the second-place French delegate at Szklarska Poreba, was given the task of drawing up the indictment against the Yugoslavs at the plenary session of his Party”. He pointed out that those who had attacked the French and Italians last year as deviationists had just been unmasked themselves, and with good reason”.

(Eugenio Reale: op. cit.; p. 262).

On June 28 1948, the Cominform announced that the Communist Party of Yugoslavia had been expelled from the organisation.

The Cominform statement asserted that the leadership of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia had gravely deviated from Marxist-Leninist principles.

Firstly, it had followed a policy of hostility to the socialist Soviet Union:

“An undignified policy of defaming Soviet military experts and discrediting the Soviet Union has been carried out in Yugoslavia. A special regime was instituted for Soviet civilian experts in Yugoslavia, whereby they were under surveillance of Yugoslav state security organs and were continually followed. The representative of the CPSU (B) in the Information Bureau, Comrade Yudin, and a number of official representatives of the Soviet Union in Yugoslavia, were followed and kept under observation by Yugoslav state security organs.

All these and similar facts show that the leaders of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia have taken a stand unworthy of Communists, and have begun to identify the foreign policy of the Soviet Union with the foreign policy of the imperialist powers, behaving towards the Soviet Union in the same manner as they behave towards bourgeois states. Precisely because of this anti-Soviet stand, slanderous propaganda about the ‘degeneration’ of the CPSU (B), about the ‘degeneration’ of the USSR, and so on, borrowed from the arsenal of ounter-revolutionary Trotskyism, is current within the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia. . .

The Yugoslav leaders think that by making concessions they can curry favour with the imperialist states. . . . In this they proceed tacitly from the well-known bourgeois-nationalist thesis that ‘capitalist states are a lesser danger to the independence of Yugoslavia than the Soviet Union’. .

Such a nationalist line can only lead to Yugoslavia’s degeneration into an ordinary bourgeois republic, to the loss of its independence and to its transformation into a colony of the imperialist countries”.

(Resolution of Information Bureau of the Communist Parties (June 1948), in: ‘The Soviet-Yugoslav Dispute: Text of the Political Correspondence'; London; 1948; p. 62, 69, 70).

Secondly, it had based itself not on the working class but on the peasantry and was neglecting the struggle for socialism in the countryside:

“In home policy, the leaders of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia are departing from the positions of the working class and are breaking with the Marxist theory of classes and class struggle. They deny that there is a growth of capitalist elements in their country, and consequently a sharpening of the class struggle in the countryside. This denial is the direct result of the opportunist tenet that the class struggle does not become sharper during the period of the transition from capitalism to socialism. as Marxism-Leninism teaches, but dies down, as was affirmed by opportunists of the Bukharin* type, who propagated the theory of the peaceful growing over of capitalism into socialism. . . .

In the conditions obtaining in Yugoslavia, where individual peasant farming predominates, where the land is not nationalised, where there is private property in land, and where land can be bought and sold, where much of the land is concentrated in the hands of kulaks, and where hired labour is employed — in such conditions there can be no question of . . glossing over the class struggle and of reconciling class contradictions without by so doing disarming the Party. . The leaders of the Yugoslav Communist Party, by affirming that the peasantry is ‘the most stable foundation of the Yugoslav state’, are departing from the Marxist-Leninist path and are taking the path of a populist kulak party. Lenin taught that the proletariat, as the ‘only class in contemporary society which is revolutionary to the end . . . must be the leader in the struggle . . . of all working people and the exploited against the oppressors and exploiters”.

(Resolution of Information Bureau of the Communist Parties (June 1948), in: ibid.; p. 62-63).

Thirdly, the leaders of the Party, which should have been the leading force in society, had dissolved it into the multi-class People’s Front, which was the leading force in society:

“According to the theory of Marxism-Leninism, the Party is the main guiding and leading force in the country . . . . the highest form of organisation and the most important weapon of the working class.

In Yugoslavia, however, the People’s Front, and not the Communist Party, is considered to be the main leading force in the country. The Yugoslav leaders belittle the role of the Communist Party and actually dissolve the Party in the non-party People’s Front, which is composed of the most varied class elements (workers, peasants engaged in individual farming, kulaks, traders, small manufacturers, bourgeois intelligentsia, etc., as well as mixed political groups, which include certain bourgeois parties. …..

The fact that in Yugoslavia it is only the People’s Front which figures in the political arena, while the Party and its organisations do not appear openly before the people in its own name, not only belittles role of the Party in the political life of the country, but also undermines the Party as an independent political force…

This policy . . . threatens the very existence of the Communist Party, and ultimately carries with it the danger of the degeneration of the People’s Republic of Yugoslavia”.

(Resolution of Information Bureau of the Communist Parties (June 1948), in: ibid.; p. 64).

Fourthly, the Yugoslav Communist Party does not operate on the basis of democratic centralism and had rejected fraternal criticism from the Cominform:

“The bureaucratic regime created inside the Party by its leaders is disastrous for life and development of the Yugoslav Communist Party. There is no inner-Party democracy, no elections, and no criticism and self-criticism in the Party. . . . The majority of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia is composed of co-opted, and not of elected members. The Communist Party is actually in a position of semilegality. Party meetings are either not hald at all, or meet in secret a fact which can only undermine the influence of the Party among the masses. This type organisation of the Yugoslav Communist Party cannot be described as anything but a sectarian-bureaucratic organisation. It leads to the liquidation of the Party as an active, self-acting organisation. . . .

The most elementary rights of members in the Yugoslav Communist Party are suppressed, . . . the slightest criticism of incorrect measures in the Party is brutally repressed. . . .

Such a disgraceful, purely Turkish, terrorist regime cannot be tolerated. . . .

The criticism made by the Central Committee the Communist Party of the Soviet (B) and Central Committees of the other Communist Parties of the mistakes of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia . . . . rendered fraternal assistance to the Yugoslav Communist Party. . .

However, instead of honestly accepting this criticism and taking the Bolshevik path of correcting these mistakes, the leaders of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, suffering from boundless ambition, arrogance and conceit, met this criticism with belligerence and hostility”.

(Resolution of Information Bureau of the Communist Parties (June 1948), in: ibid.; p. 64-65).

The resolution concluded with the announcement of the expulsion of the Yugoslav Communist Party from the Cominform:

“The Information Bureau unanimiously concludes that by their antiParty and anti-Soviet views, incompatible with Marxism-Leninism, by their whole attitude and their refusal to attend the meeting of the Information Bureau, the leaders of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia have placed themselves in opposition to the Communist Parties affiliated to the Information Bureau, have taken the path of seceding from the united socialist front against imperialism, have taken the path of betraying the cause of international solidarity of the working people, and have taken up a position of nationalism.

The Information Bureau considers that, in view of all this, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia has placed itself and the Yugoslav Party . . . outside the ranks of the Information Bureau”.

(Resolution of Information Bureau of the Communist Parties (June 1948), in: ibid.; p. 68-69).

THE FOURTH CONFERENCE OF THE COMINFORM (1949)

The 4th Conference of the Cominform was held in Hungary in November 1949, and adopted three resolutions.

The first resolution, entitled ‘The Defence of Peace and the Fight against the Warmongers’, was introduced by Mikhail Suslov* (Soviet Union). It confirmed the basic analysis of whe world situation made at the 1st Conference in 1947, but stated that since that time the danger of war had increased:

“The entire policy of the Anglo-American imperialist bloc is subordinated to the preparations for another war. . .The Anglo-Anerican bloc is conducting its preparations for a new war along every line”.

(Resolution of the Information Bureau on ‘Defence of Peace and the Fight against the Warmongers’, in: ‘Meeting of the Information Bureau of Communist Parties in Hungary in the Latter Part of November 1949′; Prague; 1950; p. 8, 10).

But, declared the resolution,

” . . . the people do not want war and hate war”.

(Ibid.; p. 10).

Therefore,

“…it is of the utmost importance today to unute all genuine peace supporters, regardless of religious beliefs, political views or party affiliation, on the broadest platform of fighting for peace and against the danger of a new war with which mankind is threatened”.

(Ibid.p. 12).

so that

“. . . the struggle for stable and lasting peace. . should now become the pivot of the entire activity of the Communist Parties and democratic organisations”.

(Ibid.; p, 11).

The second resolution, entitled ‘Class Unity and the Tasks of the Communist and Workers’ Parties’, moved by Palmiro Togliatti (Italy), declared that:

“. . . unity of the working-class movement and solidarity of all the democratic forces is not only necessary for the accomplishment of the daily and current tasks of the working class and labouring masses generally, it is also necessary for the solution of the fundamental problems confronting the proletariat, as the class which leads the struggle for the abolition of the power of monopoly capital and for the reorganisation of society on socialist lines”.

(Resolution of the Information Bureau on ‘Working Class Unity and the Tasks of the Communist and Workers’ Parties’, in: ibid.; p. 21).

This programme necessarily involves:

“. . irreconcilable and consistent struggle in theory and practice against the right-wing Socialists and reactionary trade-union leaders”.

(Ibid.; p. 20-21).

and

” . . . will make it possible to develop the struggle in the capitalist countries for the formation of governments which would rally all the patriotic forces opposed to the enslavement of their countries by American imperialism”.

(Ibid.; p. 21).

This

” . . . unity of the working class can be won only in an irreconcilable and consistent struggle in the realm of theory and practice against the Right Socialists and reactionary trade-union leaders”.

(Ibid.; p. 20-21).

A third resolution, entitled ‘The Communist Party of Yugoslavia in the Power of Assassins and Spies’, was introduced by Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej* (Romania). It characterised the leaders of the Yugoslav Communist Party as:

“. . . enemies of the working class and the peasantry, enemies of the peoples of Yugoslavia.”

(Resolution of the Information Bureau on ‘The Communist Party of Yugoslavia in the Power of Assassins and Spies’ (November 1949), in: ‘Meeting of the Information Bureau of Communist Parties in Hungary in the Latter Half of November 1949′; Prague; 1950; p. 27).

who had

” . . . betrayed the interests of the country and destroyed the political sovereignty and economic independence of Yugoslavia”.

(Ibid.; p. 27).

In consequence:

” . . . the fight against the Tito clique of hired spies and assassins is the international duty of all the Communist and Workers’ Parties”.

(Ibid.; p. 28).

The Dissolution of the Cominform

After Stalin’s death in 1953, the Cominform ceased to be active in the struggle against revisionism:

“After 1953, the Cominform in practice eased to exist (though its formal disbandment did not take place until April 1956)”.

(Fernando Claudin: op. cit.; p. 467).

Indeed, between 1953 and 1956 the Cominform journal some articles favourable to Tito regime:

“The anti-Tito campaign died down as relations between Moscow and Belgrade improved after Stalin’s death. The Cominform journal followed suit and began to publish again articles favourable to Marshal Tito’s regime”.

(Ivan Avakumovich: op. cit.; p. 29).

In April 1956, an announcement in ‘Pravda’ stated that:

“. . the eight Communist Parties in membership of the Cominform (those of the USSR, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, France and Italy) had unanimously agreed that the organisation should be dissolved because it had ‘exhausted its function’, and had also agreed to cease publication of the Cominform journal ‘For a Lasting Peace, For a People’s Democracy”.

(‘Keesing’s Contemporary Archives’. Volume 10; p. 14,829).

The statement gave as the reasons for the dissolution basically the same reasons given by the revisionists for the dissolution of the Comintern, namely:

“. . . the fact that Socialism had passed beyond the framework of a single country, and had been transformed into a ‘world system'; the formation of a wide ‘peace zone’ that included non-Socialist as well as Socialist countries . . . ; and the strenthening of Communist Parties in capitalist, dependent and colonial countries”.

(‘Keesing’s Contemporary Archives'; Volume 10; p. 14,829).

In fact, the dissolution was a gesture of appeasement towards the Tito revisionists:

“Its (the Cominform’s — Ed.) dissolution precedes Tito’s coming visit to Moscow. It is yet another concession to him in an attempt to improve relations”.

(Ivan Avakumovich: op. cit.; p. 30).

The news of the dissolution:

” . . . was warmly welcomed in Yugoslavia”.

(‘Keesing’s Contemporary Archivest, Volume 10; p. 14,829).

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES

BROZ, Josip (‘TITO’), Yugoslav revisionist politician (1892-1980); in Balkan secretariat of CI (1935-37); secretary-general, YCP/LCY (1937-66); marshal (1943); Premier (1945-53); President (1953-80); chairman, LCY (1966-80).
BUKHARIN, Nicolay I., Soviet revisionist politician (1888-1938); deputy chairman, ECCI (1919-26); member, ECCI political secretariat (1926-29); editor-in-chief, ‘Izvestia’ (1933-37); found guilty of treason and executed (1938).

DIMITROV, Georgi M., Bulgarian revisionist politician (1882-1949); director, West European Bureau CI (1929-33); arrested in connection with Reichstag Fire (1933); to Soviet Union (1934); secretary-general, CI (1935-43); to Bulgaria (1945); secretary-general, BCP (1945-49); Premier (1946-49),

DJILAS, Milovan, Yugoslav revisionist politician (1911- ); Vice-President (1953-45); expelled from Party (1954); imprisoned (1956-61, 1962-66).

GHEORHIU-DF.J, Gheorghe, Romanian revisionist politician (1901-65); General/First Secretary, Roman Workers’ Party (1945-65); Minister of Communications (1944-46); Minister of Economy (1946-52); Premier (195261); President (1961-65).

KARDELJ, Edvard, Yugoslav revisionist politician (1910-79); to Soviet Union (1934); to Yugoslavia (1937); Vice-President (1945-53); Minister of Foreign Affairs (1948-53); President, Federal Assembly (1963-67); secretary, CC, LCY (1958-66); President, CC, LCY (1966-69).

LONGO, Luigi, Italian revisionist politician (1900-80); ICP representative on CI (1933-36); to Spain (1936); inspector-general, International Brigades (1936-39); to France (1939); in Italian concentration camp (1942-43); deputy secretary-general, ICP (1945-64); secretary-general, ICP (195472); president, ICP (1972-80).

MALENKOV, Georgi, Soviet Marxist-Leninist politician (1901-88); member, Defence Council (1941-45); USSR Deputy Premier (1946-53); secretary, CPSU (1953); USSR Premier (1953-55); USSR Minister of Power Stations (195768); expelled from CPSU by revisionists (1961).

MANUILSKY, Dmitry Z., Soviet revisionist politician (1883-1959); member, political secretariat, ECCI (1926-43); Ukrainian Deputy Premier and Minister of Foreign Affairs (1944-50).

MARSHALL, George C., American military officer and politician (1880-1959); chief-of-staff with rank of general (1939-45); President’s special representative in China (1945-47); Secretary of State (1947-49); Secretary of Defence (1950-51).

MOLOTOV, Vyacheslav M., Soviet Marxist-Leninist politician (1890-1986); member, ECCI political secretariat (1928-30); USSR Premier (1930-41); USSR Deputy Premier and Commissar/Minister for Foreign Affairs (1939-49); USSR Minister of State Control (1956-57); Ambassador to Mongolian People’s Republic (1957-60); USSR Representative on International Atomic Energy Committee (1960-62); expelled from CPSU by revisionists (1962); readmitted (1984).

REALE, Eugenio, Italian surgeon, diplomat and revisionist politician (1905); Ambassador to Poland (1945-47); expelled from IPC (1956).

SUSLOV, Mikhail A., Soviet revisionist politician (1902-82); secretary, CC, CPSU (1947-92); member, politburo, CC, CPSU (1955-82); editor-in-chief, ‘Pravda’ (1940-50).

‘TITO’ — see: BROZ, Josip.

THOREZ, Maurice, French revisionist politician (1900-64); secretary-general, FCP (1930-64); Minister of State (1945-46); Deputy Premier (1945-46).

TOGLIATTI, Palmiro, Italian revisionist politician (1893-1964); secretary-general, ICP (1927-64); member, CI secretariat (1935); Minister without Portfolio (1944); Vice-Premier (1945).

YUDIN, Pavel F., Soviet Marxist-Leninist philosopher and politician (1899- ); director, Institute of Red Professors (1932-38); director, Institute of Philosophy, USSR Academy of Sciences (1938-44); director, RSFSR Association of State Publishing Houses (1937-47); editor-in-chief,
‘Sovetskaia Kniga'; Deputy High Commissioner in Germany (1953); Ambassador to People’s Republic of China (1953-59).

ZHDANOV, Andrey A., Soviet Marxist-Leninist politician (1896-1948); secretary, Leningrad, CPSU (1934-44); secretary, CPSU (1944-48); murdered by revisionists (1948).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Avakumovich, Ivan: ‘The Dissolution of the Cominform’, in: ‘Contemporary Review’, Volume 190; No. 1,087 (July 1956).
Claudin, Fermando: ‘The Communist Movement: From Comintern to Cominform';
Harmondsworth; 1975.
Deutscher, Isaac: ‘Stalin: A Political Biography'; Harmondsworth; 1968.
Jaffe, Philip J. ‘The Rise and Fall of Earl Browder’, in: ‘Survey’, Volume 18, No. 12 (Spring 1972).
Reale, Eugenio: ‘The Founding of the Cominform’, in: Milorad M. Drachkovitch & Branko Lazitch (Eds): ‘The Comintern: Historical Highlights: Essays, Recollections, Documents'; Stanford (USA); 1966.
Ulam, Adam B.: ‘Stalin: The Man and his Era'; London; 1989.
___’Correspondence between the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia and the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks)'; Belgrade; 1948.
‘The Evolution of the Cominform’, in: ‘The World Today’, Volume 6, No. 5 (May 1950).
‘History of the Party of Labour of Albania'; Tirana; 1982.
‘Meeting of the Information Bureau of Communist Parties in Hungary in the Latter Half of November 1949′; Prague; 1950.
‘The Soviet-Yugoslav Dispute: Text of the Political Correspondence'; London; 1948.
‘Keesing’s Contemporary Archives’

Resolution of the Information Bureau Concerning the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, June 28, 1948

 

tito_usa

The Information Bureau, composed of the representatives of the Bulgarian Workers’ Party (Communists), Rumanian Workers’ Party, Hungarian Workers’ Party, Polish Workers’ Party, The Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks), Communist Party of France, Communist Party of Czechoslovakia and the Communist Party of Italy, upon discussing the situation in the Communist Party of Yugoslavia and announcing that the representatives of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia bad refused to attend the meeting of the Information Bureau, unanimously reached the following conclusions:

1. The Information Bureau notes that recently the leadership of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia has pursued an incorrect line on the main questions of home and foreign policy, a line which represents a departure from Marxism-Leninism. In this connection the Information Bureau approves the action of the Central Committee of the CPSU(B), which took the initiative in exposing this incorrect policy of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, particularly the incorrect policy of Comrades Tito, Kardell, Djilas and Rankovic.

2. The Information Bureau declares that the leadership of the Yugoslav Communist Party is pursuing an unfriendly policy toward the Soviet Union and the CPSU (B). An undignified policy of defaming Soviet military experts and discrediting the Soviet Union, has been carried out in Yugoslavia. A special regime was instituted for Soviet civilian experts in Yugoslavia, whereby. they were under surveillance of Yugoslav state security organs and were continually followed. . . .

The Information Bureau denounces this anti-Sovict attitude of the leaders of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, as being incompatible with Marxism-Leninism and only appropriate to nationalists.

3. In home policy, the leaders of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia are departing from the positions of the working class and are breaking with the Marxist theory of classes and class struggle. They deny that there is a growth of capitalist elements in their country, and consequently, a sharpening of the class struggle in the countryside. This denial is the direct result of the opportunist tenet that the class struggle does not become sharper during the period of transition from capitalism to socialism, as Marxism-Leninism teacbes, but dies down, as was affirmed by opportunists of the Bukharin type, who propagated the theory of the peaceful growing over of capitalism into socialism.

The Yugoslav leaders are pursuing an incorrect policy in the countryside by ignoring the class differentiation in the countryside and by regarding the individual peasantry as a single entity, contrary to the Marxist-Leninist doctrine of classes and class struggle, contrary to the well-known Lenin thesis that small individual farming gives birth to capitalism and the bourgeoisie continually, daily, hourly, spontaneously and on a mass scale. . . .

Concerning the leading role of the working class, the leaders of the Yugoslav Communist Party, bv affirming that the peasantry is the ‘most stable foundation of the Yugoslav state’ are departing from the Marxist-Leninist path and are taking the path of a populist, Kulak party. Lenin taught that the proletariat as the ‘only class in contemporary society which is revolutionary to the end . . . must be the leader in the struggle of the entire people for a thorough democratic transformation, in the struggle of all working people and the exploited against the oppressors and exploiters!

The Yugoslav leaders are violating this thesis of Marxism-Leninism. . . .

4. The Information Bureau considers that the leadership of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia is revising the Marxist-Leninist teachings about the Party. . .

The Information Bureau believes that this policy of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia threatens the very existence of the Communist Party, and ultimatelv carries with it the danger of the degeneration of the People’s Republic of Yugoslavia.

5. The Information Bureau considers that the bureaucratic regime created inside the Party by its leaders is disastrous for the life and development of the Yugoslav Communist Party. There is no inner Party democracy, no elections, and no criticism and self-criticism in the Party. . . .

It is a completely intolerable state of affairs when the most elementary rights of members in the Yugoslav Communist Party are suppressed, when the slightest criticism of incorrect measures in the Party is brutally repressed. . . .

The Information Bureau considers that such a disgraceful, purely Turkish, terrorist regime cannot be tolerated in the Communist Party. The interests of the very existence and development of the Yugoslav Communist Party demand that an end be put to this regime.

6. The Information Bureau considers that the criticism made by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (B) and Central Committees of the other Communist Parties of the mistakes of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, and who ill this way rendered fraternal assistance to the Yugoslav Communist Party, provides the Communist Party of Yugoslavia with all the conditions necessary to speedily correct the mistakes committed.

However, instead of honestly accepting this criticism and taking the Bolshevik path of correcting these mistakes, the leaders of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, suffering from boundless ambition, arrogance and conceit, met this criticism with belligerarice and hostility. . . .

7. Taking into account the situation in the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, and seeking to show the leaders of the Party the way out of this situation, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (B) and the Central Committees of other fraternal parties, suggested that the matter of the Yugoslav Communist Party should be discussed at a meeting of the Information Bureau, on the same, normal party footing as that on which the activities of other Communist Parties were discussed at the first meeting of the Information Bureau.

However, the Yugoslav leaders rejected the repeated suggestions of the fraternal Communist Parties to discuss the situation in the Yugoslav Party at a meeting of the Information Bureau. . . .

8. In view of this, the Information Bureau expresses complete agreement with the estimation of the situation in the Yugoslav Communist Partv, with the criticism of the mistakes of the Central Committee of the Party, and with the political analysis of these mistakes contained in letters from the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (B) to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia between March and May 1948.

The Information Bureau unanimously concludes that by their anti-Party and anti-Soviet views, incompatible with Marxism-Leninism, by their whole attitude and their refusal to attend the meeting of the Information Bureau, the leaders of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia have placed themselves in opposition to the Communist Parties affiliated to the Information Bureau, have taken the path of seceding from the united socialist front against imperialism, have taken the path of betraying the cause of international solidarity of the working people, and have taken up a position of nationalism.

The Information Bureau condemns this anti-Party policy and attitude of the Central Cominittee of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia.

The Information Bureau considers that, in view of all this, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia has placed itself and the Yugoslav Party outside the family of the fraternal Communist Parties, outside the united Communist front and consequently outside the ranks of the Information Bureau.

[...]

The Information Bureau does not doubt that inside the Communist Party of Yugoslavia there are sufficient healthy elements, loyal to Marxism-Leninism, to the international traditions of the Yugoslav Communist Party and to the United Socialist front.

Their task is to compel their present leaders to recognize their mistakes openly and honestly and to rectify them; to break with nationalism, return to internationalism; and in every way to consolidate the united socialist front against imperialism.

Should the present leaders of the Yugoslav Communist Party prove incapable of doing this, their job is to replace them and to advance a new internationalist leadership of the Party.

The Information Bureau does not doubt that the Cominunist Party of Yugoslavia will be able to fulfill this honourable task.

Source: Royal Institute of International Affairs, The Soviet-Yugoslav Dispute (London and New York, 1948), pp. 61-70., excerpts.

Vietnam & Trotskyism: Three letters from Ho Chi Minh

ho-chi-minh

Sent from China to the Vietnamese CP in 1939

(* Ho Chi Minh refers in these letters to a number of Chinese communists, by names translated from Chinese to Vietnamese, and the editors have been unable to establish their identity. The names are left in the French-Vietnamese translation).

First Letter

Kwelin, 10 May 1939

Dearly beloved comrades,

In the past, in my eyes and those of a good number of comrades, Trotskyism seemed a matter of a struggle between tendencies within the Chinese Communist Party. That’s why we hardly paid it any attention. But a little before the outbreak of war, more exactly since the end of the year 1936 and notably during the war, the criminal propaganda of the Trotskyists opened our eyes. Since then, we have set ourselves to study the problem.

And our study has led us to the following conclusions:

1. The problem of Trotskyism is not a struggle between tendencies within the Chinese Communist Party, for between communists and Trotskyists there is no link, absolutely not one link: It is a question that concerns the entire people: the struggle against the Fatherland.

2. The Japanese fascists and foreigners now it. That’s why they seek to create divisions to deceive public opinion and damage the reputation of the Communists, making people believe that Communists and Trotskyists are in the same camp.

3. The Chinese Trotskyists (like the Trotskyists of other countries) do not represent a political group, much less a political party. They are nothing but a band of evil-doers, the running dogs of Japanese fascism (and of international fascism).

4. In all countries, the Trotskyists give themselves fine names in order to mask their dirty work and banditry. For example: in Spain they call themselves the United Marxist Workers Party (POUM). Do you know that it’s they who constitute the nests of spies in Madrid in Barcelona and in other places in the service of Franco?

It is they who are organising the infamous ‘fifth column’, the espionage body of the army of the Italian and German fascists. In Japan, they call themselves the Marx-Engels-Lenin League (MEL). The Japanese Trotskyists lure youth into their league, then they denounce them to the police. They seek to penetrate the Japanese Communist Party with the aim of destroying it from within. To my mind, the French Trotskyists now organised around the Proletarian Revolution Group have settled on the aim of sabotaging the Popular Front. On this subject, I think you are surely better informed than I. Here in China, the Trotskyists are regrouping around formations such as The Struggle Against the Japanese, Culture and Red Flag.

5. The Trotskyists are not only the enemies of Communism, they are also the enemies of democracy and of progress. They are the most infamous traitors and spies.

Perhaps you have read the charges in the proceedings against the Trotskyists in the Soviet Union? If you have not read them, I advise you to read them and to get your friends to read them. This reading is very useful. It will help you to see the true repugnant face of Trotskyism and Trotskyists. Here, I have taken the liberty of extracting some passages directly concerning China.

Before the tribunal, the Trotskyist Rakovsky has sworn that, in 1930, when he was in Tokyo (as representative of the Soviet Red Cross) a person highly placed in the Japanese government said to him: “We are now expecting a change of strategy from the Trotskyists. I won’t enter into the details. I only want to tell you that we expect from the Trotskyists actions which favour our intervention in the affairs of China”.

Replying to the Japanese, Rakovsky said: “I will write to Trotsky on this subject”. In December 1935, Trotsky sent his followers in China instructions in which he underlined several times this phrase: “Do not create obstacles to the Japanese invasion of China”.

Thus, the Russian Trotskyists wished to sell to the Japanese part of their Fatherland – Siberia and the Maritime Provinces – they now wish to sell to the latter our Fatherland, China!

And the Chinese Trotskyists, how have they acted? That is what you are in a hurry to know, isn’t it?

But, beloved comrades, I cannot reply to you till my next letter. Haven’t you recommended that I write short letters?

I hope to see you again soon.

PC Line
(Ho Chi Minh)

Second Letter

Dearly beloved comrades,

Before I reply to you on the activities of the Trotskyists in China, permit me to introduce half a dozen of their ring-leaders, known traitors, who have written on behalf of the Fourth International. Tran Doc Tu (Chen Duxiu), Banh Thuat Chi, La Han, Diep Thanh, Truong Mo Dao, Hoang Cong Luoc.*

Chronologically, here are the acts they have committed:

In September 1931, at the time of the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, Japanese Security made contact with the first three. The two parties signed a pact: the Trotskyist group agreed not to advance any propaganda against the Japanese invasion. Japanese Secunty agreed to make over to the Trotskyists a sum of three hundred dollars monthly as well as other supplementary sums, according to the ‘results of the services rendered’.

From this moment, Chen Duxiu (Tran Doc Tu) and his accomplices immediately set to work. With the Japanese funds, they published magazines and satirical pamphlets to propagate ideas such as: ‘In occupying Manchuria, the Japanese wanted to rapidly settle the conflict and suspend it, they did not aim to make themselves masters of China’.

Scarcely had these ideas been propagated in the columns of their publications than Shanghai was attacked in turn in January 1932 by Japanese troops.

At this moment, what do the Trotskyists say? Do they recognise that they were wrong? Do they cease collaborating with the occupier? Absolutely not! While the soldiers of the 19th army spill their blood to defend the Fatherland, the Trotskyists, in acts as in words, continue to commit crime upon crime. On one side, they write: ‘The war for Shanghai doesn’t concern the people at all. It is not a case of a national revolutionary war. It is a case of imperialist war’. On the other side, they spread false rumours, put forward slogans of a defeatist character, gave away defence secrets, etc.

But that’s not all. Trotskyists such as Hoa Van Khoi and Cung Van Thu, in secret liaison with the police and the Japanese bosses, infiltrated into the workers’ strike at Shanghai and employed all means to sabotage the movement. To the point where they managed to have the most talented activists in the strike arrested.

In 1933, Generalissimo Phung Ngoc Tuong and General Cat Hong Xuong, members of the Communist Party, organised an anti-Japanese resistance force at Kal Gan. At this time, the CCP being underground, liaison between the centre and the North was proving difficult. Profiting by this situation, the Trotskyist Truong Mo Dao, calling himself a ‘representative of the Communist Party’, tried to transform the anti-Japanese war into a civil war with the slogan: ‘March with the Japanese, struggle against Chiang Kai Shek’. In the end, he was unmasked and expelled by General Cat. A short time later, in the course of a journey of the latter to Tientsin, Truong Mo Dao had him assassinated by his followers.

In my next letter, I shall tell you how the Trotskyists of China have pursued their activities as traitors to the Fatherland.

Fraternal greetings
PC Line

Third Letter

Beloved Comrades,

In my last letters, I told you how the Trotskyists received their salary from the Japanese and how they sought to sabotage our heroic struggle at Shanghai and our patriotic movement at Kal Gan. Today, I will tell you the rest of their crimes.

Having fallen back to Fukien, the 19th Army again took up its struggle. It formed an anti-Japanese Government and led the propaganda for the united front thanks to the signing of a pact with the Chinese Red Army. Shortly before this, the 19th army was one of the most anti-communist forces. But confronted by the danger which menaced the Fatherland, it agreed to forget the quarrels and hatred in order to aim at one single end: the struggle against the invaders.

Obeying the orders of the Japanese, the Trotskyists immediately went into action: on one side, they fomented regionalist sentiments amongst the population—the 19th army having come from Kwangtung—to combat the new government. On the other side, they sought to enfeeble the Red Army. The way in which they accomplished the second task is the following: among the many revolutionary militants, they applied to join the Red Army. In the beginning, in order to win over confidence, they led very positive actions. Once placed in more or less important posts of responsibility, they began to commit criminal acts. I will cite you some examples: In battle, when it was necessary to retreat, they gave the order to advance. When it was necessary to advance, they gave the order to retreat. They sent reinforcements and arms to places where they were not needed. But where they were needed, they didn’t send them. They painted with poison the wounds of combatants, above all of the cadres of the army, with the aim of making them have their arms and legs etc. amputated. These criminal acts were luckily discovered in time. What luck for the Communists!

Since 1935, the Communists have led a campaign of great scope for the formation of a national Front against the Japanese. The people, and particularly the workers and peasants, have actively taken up this programme. In the Kuomintang, the idea of a national Front is making progress. During this time, it has been proved that the Trotskyists are playing a double game, having recourse at the same time to lies and to treachery. They say to the masses: ‘You see, the Communists have sold out to the bourgeoisie. The Kuomintang would not fight against the Japanese!’ Addressing the Kuomintang, they say: ‘The National Front! It’s nothing but a ruse of the Communists. To fight the Japanese you must destroy the Communists’.

Towards the end of 1936, the politics of uniting against the Japanese triumphed in the events of Tay An. Faced with the defeat of their politics of civil war, the Trotskyists Truong Mo Dao and Ta Duy Liet decided to organise the assassination of Vuong Di Triet, one of the most convinced followers of the National Front.

Now, I am talking to you about 1937, the period that preceded the war. Everyone united to fight the Japanese except the Trotskyists. These traitors met clandestinely and adopted the ‘resolution’ of which here are some extracts: ‘In the war against the Japanese, our position is clear: those who wanted the war and have illusions about the Kuomintang government, those concretely have committed treason. The union between the Communist Party and the Kuomintang is nothing but conscious treason’. And other ignominies of this kind.

When the war approaches, the Japanese promises materialise. The Trotskyists of Shanghai receive 100,000 dollars each month for their activities in the centre and south of the country. Those of Tientsin and Peking 50,000 each month for their activities in Hoa Bac, in the north, against the 8th army and against patriotic organisations.

Towards the middle of 1937, the Trotskyists were discovered and arrested in the ‘special zone’ (Dac Khu). According to the confession of Ton Ngia Ha, they had settled on these objectives: 1. To destroy the 8th army. 2. To hinder the development of the National Front. 3. To spy 4. To organise the assassination of activists.

Before the popular tribunal of the ‘special zone’, the Trotskyist Hoang Phat Hi, amongst other confessions, declared that in the course of the fourth interview with Truong Mo Dao, the latter had given him the following instructions: ‘You must actively study the methods and the system of organisation of the Red Army. After that, you will organise brigades of youth to carry out the tasks of sabotage. Our aim is to provoke disorder within the Red Army and to liquidate its activists’. Truong Mo Dao added: ‘We must persuade a section of the cadres of the base to follow us, raise their nostalgia for their native land, encourage their desertion and furnish them with a little money. That’s one of the means of causing the disintegration of this army’.

The Trotskyist Quach Uan Kinh has sworn that Ton Ngia Ha charged him with advancing defeatist propaganda amongst the combatants by demonstrating to them that ‘China cannot win’ for ‘even if we end up driving out the Japanese, the Americans and the English will still be there to oppress us’; that ‘not only can we not win, but our land will be destroyed if we continue the war’; that ‘China is too weak to struggle against Japan, England and America at the same time’. Truong Mo Dao finished his instructions with these words: We must exploit the policies of the National Front to denounce the Communists and say that they have sold out the working class. Our aim is to foment discontent amongst the combatants’. Under the pretext of educating them, the Trotskyists organised the most backward elements of the army in small groups, then, profiting by the harsh conditions of life in the army, they encouraged them to desert with arms and ammunition. In liaison with the bandits, they created disorder behind the lines of the 8th army while it was in full combat.

This is the background of the Trotskyists in their struggle against the 8th national revolutionary army. In my next letter, I will talk to you about the ignoble methods that these traitors have employed in attempting to destroy the other anti-Japanese forces.

PC Line

Source

The Contribution of J.V. Stalin to Marxism-Leninism

1510870_673860229323097_505833051_n

M.B. Mitin
M.D. Kammari
G.F. Aleksandrov

… The theoretical works of Comrade Stalin and the practical revolutionary-creative struggle for communism led by him has had a powerful transforming influence on science. Already the foundation of Marxism itself was a great revolution in science, and in our epoch the teachings of Marx and Engels, raised by Lenin and Stalin to a new, higher level, have become the scientific basis for the transformation of social relations, technology and nature itself.

Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin — the continuator of the immortal work of Marx and Engels, the friend and companion-in-arms of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin and continuator of his works of genius — is the greatest thinker of our modern epoch, a treasure of Marxist-Leninist science. He has enriched and developed materialist dialectics — a powerful means for the scientific understanding of social sciences, he has greatly and fruitfully influenced the development of natural sciences.

The Academy of Science of the USSR marked the occasion of the 70th anniversary of the birth of Comrade Stalin with a large series of sessions of its General Council and all its sections and scientific councils of numerous institutes. In a number of lectures, in an atmosphere of general enthusiasm, the great contributions of Comrade Stalin to the development and continuation of Marxism-Leninism and the creation of a new Soviet science and technology were summarized.

On December 26, 1949, representatives of historical and philosophical disciplines filled the conference hall of the Section of History and Philosophy, the hall in which 20 years ago Comrade Stalin gave a magnificent talk to the conference of Marxist agricultural workers that enriched the treasure of Marxism-Leninism. The sessions held were part of the sessions of the Academy of Sciences devoted to the seventieth anniversary of the birthday of the beloved leader.

Eminent Soviet scientists take their places at the presidium.

For the talk on the topic “J.V. Stalin — of Marxist-Leninist Science” the podium is given to Academician M.B. Mitin.

J.V. Stalin, loyal follower of Lenin, continuator of his cause, made an invaluable contribution to the development of Leninism — the speaker says. During an earlier period of the political activity of Comrade Stalin, at the time of his stay in the Caucasus, he already showed himself to be the most stalwart and consistent follower of Lenin. Already during these years, the speaker emphasized, Comrade Stalin created a number of original works of Marxist-Leninist theory, that represented by themselves a serious contribution to Leninism. In the Leninist spirit he approached questions of ideology, tactics, organization, the theoretical and practical training of the Bolshevik party.

The significance of the theoretical works of J.V. Stalin is great. He generalized all the ideological inheritance of V.I. Lenin, gave the theoretical substantiation of Leninism. Comrade Stalin gave the classical definition of Leninism: “Leninism — he wrote — is Marxism of the era of imperialism and the proletarian revolution. To be more exact, Leninism is the theory and tactics of the proletarian revolution in general, the theory and tactics of the dictatorship of the proletariat in particular” (J.V. Stalin Problems of Leninism, Foreign Languages Press, Peking 1976, p. 3 [The Foundations of Leninism].)

In this definition Comrade Stalin emphasizes the continuous unity, integrity and progression of the teachings of Marks and Lenin. He pointed that the basis of Leninism is Marxism, that without understanding and beginning from Marxism there is no way to understand Leninism. In this way, Comrade Stalin drew attention to what is new that is connected with the name of Lenin, what Lenin contributed to the development of Marxist theory on the basis of the generalization of the new experience in the class struggle of the proletariat in the epoch of imperialism and proletarian revolution.

Comrade Stalin always emphasizes that the theoretical basis of Leninism is Marxism. It is known that relatively recently there was an attempt in our philosophical literature to “complete” this statement of J.V. Stalin with the consideration that, along with Marxism, Leninism is based on the Russian classical revolutionary-democratic philosophy of the 19th century.

No doubt the significance of the classical philosophical thinking of the19th century is great as the most advanced and most revolutionary thinking of the pre-Marxist period. However, it is completely wrong to consider Russian classical philosophy as the theoretical basis of Leninism along with Marxism. Leninism, as pointed out repeatedly by Comrade Stalin, has one theoretical basis, and this basis is Marxism.

The work of Comrade Stalin The Foundations of Leninism written in 1924, right after the death of Lenin — is an outstanding creative development of Marxist-Leninist science. A powerful force of theoretical generalization, of deep knowledge of history, runs through this whole work, there is the complete recognition of the treasure of ideas of Lenin — all this characterized the role of V.I. Lenin as the creator of Leninism, as the continuator of Marxism for a new historic era. The work of Comrade Stalin The Foundations of Leninism and a number of other works of J.V. Stalin (The October Revolution and the Tactics of the Russian Communists, Concerning Questions of Leninism, The Results of the Work the XIV Conference of the R.C.P.(B.), Questions and Answers and others) as a whole formed a united work on the question of Leninism.

Comrade Stalin showed the international significance of Leninism. He exposed sharply and straight-forwardly the attempts to distort Leninism, that attempted to restrict Leninism to the peculiar situation of Russia, that attempted to turn Leninism into a “purely Russian” phenomenon.

Comrade Stalin showed that the main thing in Leninism consists of the teachings on the dictatorship of the proletariat, that all other constituent parts of Leninism: the peasant question, the national question, the teachings on strategy and tactics… should be approached as a consequence of this main essence to which they are organically linked. In this way, Comrade Stalin emphasized the truly militant, revolutionary character of Leninism, which fights for the liquidation of capitalism and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the construction of a new society.

Comrade Stalin shows with a tremendous convincing force that Marxist theory is the guide to action, that thanks to Lenin the Bolshevik party possessed a great weapon, with which it could seize the most inaccessible fortress.

Lenin died in 1924. All the burdens due to the solution of the historical task of the construction of socialism in our country was carried out by Comrade Stalin. Under his leadership a gigantic transformation was accomplished that had no precedent in history and that radically changed the face of the country.

The epoch of Stalin is the epoch of the victory of socialism in one-sixth of the earth and the step-by-step transition from socialism to communism in the USSR. The international-historical significance of this victory is invaluable. The USSR was the first to pave the way towards socialism. The inexhaustible experience of the construction of socialism in the USSR is an example for all countries, for all fraternal communist parties.

Comrade Stalin creatively developed Leninism for this new epoch, showed the laws of this epoch, gave an answer to most complicated questions posed by revolutionary practice. Comrade Stalin enriched Marxist-Leninist theory with new statements and new directives corresponding to the new experience in the class struggle of the working class in the USSR and the whole world. What J.V. Stalin contributed to Marxist teachings is a new, higher stage in the development of Leninism. J.V. Stalin is a theorist of victorious socialism, the founder of the scientific theory of socialist society.

The victory of socialism in the USSR resulted in the creation of a new social-economic formation. The new social and state formation that has been created, developed and strengthened, displays social features specific only to this formation. Socialism has become part of the everyday life of millions of toilers. New social relations among people have emerged. The relations of production, i.e. the relations among people engaged in the social process of production, are built on the basis of the comradely co-operation and socialist mutual assistance. A new man of the socialist epoch has been formed.

J.V. Stalin made an all-sided analysis of the socialist mode of production, which is a superior mode of production to capitalism. He made the analysis of the radical difference between socialism and capitalism, the characteristics of the superiority of this mode of production as a higher stage, a more progressive social system that any former one, as a higher type of social organization of labor. J.V. Stalin thoroughly investigated the laws of this new formation.

Following V.I. Lenin’s indications, Comrade Stalin developed a rigorous, scientific, theoretical and practical program for the socialist industrialization of our country. The socialist method of industrialization, he pointed out, is radically different from methods of industrialization in capitalist countries. Capitalist countries accomplished their industrialization by a ruthless exploitation of the toilers, the plundering of colonies, by means of conquests, plundering, burdensome loans. Capitalist industrialization resulted in the impoverishment of the toiling masses, the enlarging of the reserve army of labor and the formation of a huge mass of unemployed. It resulted in the sharpening of the economic crisis of capitalism, in mass misery and suffering for the toiling masses. The Soviet method of industrialization is based on the domination of social property over the instruments and means of production, on the internal sources of socialist accumulation for the development of industry. Following V.I. Lenin’s considerations, Comrade Stalin worked out in theory and put into effect in practice a rigorous plan for the collectivization of agriculture. This was one of the most complicated tasks of the socialist revolution; nevertheless Soviet power successfully accomplished this task. As a result, in the Soviet village a revolution occurred whose significance, as pointed out by Comrade Stalin, can be compared to that of the October 1917 Revolution. Comrade Stalin created the theory of the collectivization of the countryside, he is the founder of the kolkhoz system.

On the basis of the collectivization of the countryside the former exploiting class in our country — the kulaks — were liquidated. All these social changes produced the conditions for the victory of socialism in all spheres of the economy of the USSR.

The victory of socialism in our country was established from the legal point of view with the adoption of the Constitution of the USSR of 1936. The Soviet Union entered a new period of development. Then de facto the question of the construction of communism was raised, the step-by-step transition from socialism to communism. In connection with the victory of socialism in the USSR new aspects and features of the new social formation were brought out. J.V. Stalin’s historical contribution is based on the discovery of the laws of socialist society, on the deep theoretical generalization of this new epoch, on the concretization and development of Leninism on the question of the state, classes, labor, the driving forces, nations in socialism and communism.

In the Report to the XVIII Congress of the C.P.S.U.(B.) (March 1939) on the question of the state, Comrade Stalin stated: “We cannot expect the Marxist classics, separated as they were from our day by a period of 45 or 55 years, to have foreseen each and every zigzag of history in the distant future and in every separate country. It would be ridiculous to expect the Marxist classics to have elaborated for our benefit ready-made solutions for each and every theoretical problem that might arise in a particular country 50 or 100 years afterwards, so that we, the descendants of the Marxist classics, might calmly doze at the fireside and munch ready-made solutions.” (J.V. Stalin, Problems of Leninism, Foreign Languages Press, Peking 1976, p. 931.)

Stalin’s statements regarding the possibility of the construction of communism in our country, regarding the preservation of the state in the period of communism in the case of capitalist encirclement, enriched Leninism with a new theoretical weapon, they gave to the Bolshevik party, to the working class, to all toilers of the Soviet country a great perspective, clarity of goals and inspired new achievements. They clarified with a powerful driving force, the subsequent development of the Soviet country, towards the heights of the new social formation. Comrade Stalin continued the work of Lenin on the question of the state which the latter could not conclude due to his early death.

J.V. Stalin first of all developed the complete characteristics of the classes of socialist society in the USSR. The essence of his explanations of the class content of socialist society may be summarized as follows:

a) The consolidation of socialism in the USSR implied the complete liquidation of all exploiting classes and strata in our country.

b) The victory of the October Revolution and the consolidation of socialism in the USSR resulted in a change in the social nature of the working class, peasantry and intelligentsia.

The social groups in Soviet society experienced radical changes: “…the working class of the USSR is an entirely new working class, a working class emancipated from exploitation, the like of which the history of mankind has never known before” (ibid., p. 801 [On the Draft Constitution of the U.S.S.R.]). Also “… the Soviet peasantry is an entirely new peasantry, the like of which the history of mankind has never known before” (ibid., p. 802).

c) Soviet socialist society consist of two classes — workers and peasants; the intelligentsia is a social stratum but not a separate class; the workers, peasants and laboring intelligentsia have equal rights in all spheres of the economic, political, social and cultural life of the country.

d) In the future, when all class differences will be overcome, the workers, peasants and intelligentsia will become the laborers of the communist society. In this way, on the basis of the generalization of the experience of Soviet socialist society, J.V. Stalin established that under socialism, as the first phase of communism, classes still exist, certain class differences among them are still preserved, that these classes have a new, socialist nature, but that only in the highest stage of communism will these class differences disappear.

These theoretical considerations were embodied in the Constitution of the USSR; they are a step forward in the development of the theory of Leninism, they enrich Leninism with new theoretical values. The existence of two classes under socialism, the existence of substantial class differences between them, are based on the existence under socialism of two forms of socialist property. Formerly it was more or less accepted that under socialism just one form of property would exist based on the socialized instruments and means of production. This question could not be posed in a more definite way since the required conditions did not exist. J.V. Stalin developed and concretized the teachings of Marx, Engels and Lenin on socialism, established that under socialist property may exist in two forms: the form of the consistently-socialist, state property, which is the whole people’s property, and in the form of cooperative-kolkhoz property, the property of the collective producers.

The thesis of the two forms of socialist property under socialism was substantiated by Comrade Stalin. He elaborated the question of the socialist nature of the kolkhozes, the question of the forms of development and consolidation of the kolkhoz. All these form an eminent contribution to Marxist-Leninist science, which make it possible to expound the laws of development of socialist society.

J.V. Stalin concretized the Leninist teaching on the question of work under socialism and communism. Regarding this question, the main thesis could be summarized as follows:

1. Socialism and work cannot be isolated from each other; the socialist formation is first of all a formation that has no loafers or parasites, where the famous Leninist thesis: “he who does not work, neither shall he eat,” that work is an obligation of all toilers, were put into effect. “Socialism — said Comrade Stalin – does not in the least repudiate work. On the contrary, socialism is based on work. Socialism and work are inseparable from each other.” (J.V. Stalin, Problems of Leninism, p. 663. [Speech Delivered at the First All-Union Congress of Collective-Farm Shock Brigaders.])

2. Under socialism work becomes an affair of popular honor and glory, it has a directly social character: the worker is honored, is a sort of social figure, society pays attention to him and he receives from society a great moral and material reward for work well-done.

3. Developing the famous consideration of Marx, Engels and Lenin on the question of socialism and communism, Comrade Stalin gave the following definition of these two stages of the new social formation. He pointed out that by equality Marxism understands:

“…c) the equal duty of all to work according to their ability, and the equal right of all working people to receive in return for this according to the work performed (socialist society); d) the equal duty of all to work according to their ability, and the equal right of all working people to receive in return for this according to their needs (communist society). Moreover, Marxism proceeds from the assumption that people’s tastes and requirements are not, and cannot be, identical and equal in regard to quality or quantity, whether in the period of socialism or in the period of communism.” (J.V. Stalin, Problems of Leninism, p. 741-742. [Report to the XVIIth Party Congress.])

The positions of Comrade Stalin are a development of the Marxist-Leninist teachings on socialism and communism. We have here a more concrete formulation of the main principles of socialism and communism based on the practical experience of the construction of socialism in the USSR.

J.V. Stalin, developing the Leninist ideas on socialism, and based on the victorious construction and consolidation of socialism in the USSR, discovered the new driving forces of socialist society that were unknown before and were absent in previous social-economic formations, namely: the moral-patriotic unity of the peoples of the USSR, Soviet patriotism.

Comrade Stalin discovered the driving forces of the development of the socialist society, which is a discovery of fundamental significance for Marxist-Leninist science. Comrade Stalin brought out new forms of social development, new stimulation for the development of socialist society. J.V. Stalin also discovered the special role played by self-criticism in the development of the Soviet country. Comrade Stalin’s positions are well-known, that we need self-criticism as much as we need air and water.

The all-sided explanation of the significance of self-criticism, its tremendous role, the extent to which the party requires self-criticism as a means of proper leadership of the country, its significance as an objective law in the development of the socialist society — these are all serious steps forward in the development of the Marxist-Leninist teachings of socialism.

In the works of Marx and Engels the national question is considered in the era of pre-monopoly capitalism. The national-liberation movement was studied in a number of countries: Ireland, Poland, Hungary, India and China.

Lenin, based on the main ideas of Marx and Engels, developed the views of the founders of Marxism with regard to the national question, created the teaching of the national question in the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution. Lenin substantiated and proved that the national question is a part of the general question of the proletarian revolution, of the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Lenin created a solid system of views on the question of the national-colonial revolutions in the era of imperialism. He linked up the national-colonial question with the question of the overthrow of imperialism.

The contribution of Stalin in the subsequent development of the Marxist-Leninist teachings on the national question is specially great. J.V. Stalin is the creator of the theory and the Bolshevik program of the national question. J.V. Stalin elaborated the Marxist theory of nations, the question of the origin of the nation, the peculiarities of the development of nations in Western Europe and in the East. He formulated the basics of the Bolshevik approach to the solution of the national question, substantiated the Bolshevik principle of the international unity of the workers.

By developing the theory of socialist society, the basis of the teachings of the Soviet socialist state, Comrade Stalin produced a scientific substantiation of the main problems and questions connected with the construction of the multinational Soviet state. The Soviet Union is for the whole world an example of brotherhood of peoples never before seen in history. The friendship of the peoples of the Soviet country has become one of the sources of the strength of our state, one of the sources of Soviet patriotism.

In the report delivered on the 27th anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution, Comrade Stalin gave the classical definition of the essence and strength of Soviet patriotism: “The strength of Soviet patriotism — said Comrade Stalin — lies in the fact that it is based not on racial or nationalist prejudices, but on the people’s profound loyalty and devotion to their Soviet Motherland, on the fraternal partnership of the working people of all the nationalities in our country. Soviet patriotism harmoniously combines the national traditions of the peoples and the common vital interests of all the working people of the Soviet Union.” (J.V. Stalin, On the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union [also in Works, Red Star Press, London, 1984, Vol. 15, p. 422-423].)

J.V. Stalin further developed the Leninist theory of the national question with respect to Soviet socialist society. He elaborated a very relevant thesis that determines the development of the culture of the peoples of the USSR. This thesis reads: the development of the culture of the peoples of the USSR is national in form but socialist in content.

Comrade Stalin points out that the slogan of national culture was a bourgeois slogan as long as power remained in the hands of the bourgeoisie, and the consolidation of the nation took place under the leadership of the bourgeoisie. The slogan of national culture, national in form and socialist in content, became a proletarian slogan when the proletariat achieved power, and the consolidation of the nation began to develop under Soviet power. “In point of fact – wrote Comrade Stalin – the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat and of the building of socialism in the U.S.S.R. is a period of the flowering of national cultures that are socialist in content and national in form; for, under the Soviet system, the nations themselves are not the ordinary ‘modern’ nations, but socialist nations, just as in content their national cultures are not the ordinary bourgeois cultures, but socialist cultures.” (J.V. Stalin, Works, Vol. 12, p. 379. [Report to the XVI Congress of the C.P.S.U.(B.)])

This thesis has a fundamental significance and determined a whole program for the practical work in our national republics, a program based on solid ground.

In his article “The National Question and Leninism” (1929) and in the Political Report to the XVI Congress of the Party (1930) J.V. Stalin put forward new and most important positions about bourgeois nations and socialist nations. Formerly socialism was conceived in a very general manner, as the system that leads to the abolition of the nation. J.V. Stalin showed that socialism does not lead to the abolition of nations, but only to the abolition of bourgeois nations. He showed that based on the ruins of the old, bourgeois nations appear new, socialist nations that are far more solid and stable than any bourgeois nation, since they are free from antagonistic class contradictions. The statement of J.V. Stalin that in history there exist two types of nations – bourgeois and socialist, that bourgeois nations are linked to the fate of capitalism and that they should disappear with the collapse of capitalism, while the appearance of socialism leads to the creation on the basis of the old nations of new, socialist nations – these statements are a new, great contribution to the development of the Marxist-Leninist teachings on the national question, to the development of the teaching on socialism.

The huge and inexhaustible experience of the development of the Soviet multinational state, the development of Soviet nations was scientifically generalized by J.V. Stalin. What was given by him in the course of the elaboration of the question of bourgeois and socialist nations – is a new page in the Marxist-Leninist theory of the national question. In this respect J.V. Stalin also studied the question of the future of nations and national languages.

J.V. Stalin, a great representative of creative Marxism, is a continuator of the best qualities, features and traditions of V.I. Lenin. As is well known, from his very earliest works Lenin never failed to emphasize that a real Marxist should be able to take account of real life. Lenin reiterated many times the famous thesis of Marx and Engels, that “our teaching is not a dogma but a guide to action.”

J.V. Stalin developed further, elevated to a new, higher stage the teaching of dialectical and historical materialism. His work “Dialectical and Historical Materialism” represents one of the most eminent works of Marxist-Leninist philosophy. It stands together with such works of the classics of Marxism-Leninism as Marx’s “Capital,” Engel’s “Anti-Dühring” and Lenin’s “Materialism and Empirio-Criticism.” In this genius work the bases of dialectical and historical materialism are given in an extremely concise and compact way. Comrade Stalin made in this work a generalization of the contributions of Marx, Engels and Lenin on the teaching of the dialectical method and the materialist theory. He developed all this on the basis of the newest results of science and revolutionary practice.

J.V. Stalin is a great leader of the peoples of the USSR and the working people of the whole world, a coryphaeus of Marxist-Leninist science. He combines within himself colossal theoretical power and tremendous experience in leadership. J.V. Stalin is the leader of the CPSU(B) and the Soviet state. The power of the Stalinist leadership is based on mobilizing and inspiring directions, that are always aimed at what is most important, most relevant, most necessary for the fruitful and successful solution of the tasks that confront the working masses. The power of the Stalinist leadership is based on the brilliant dialectical analysis of phenomena, on the capability of considering facts and events in their development, in their interrelation, in their contradiction. Its power is the genius capability of looking forward into the future, in foreseeing the development and calling for the necessary actions. The power of the Stalinist leadership consists of a tough critique of the shortcomings, of helping those that lag behind, of assisting all that is new, progressive and capable of pushing a positive development in the decisive breakdown of the old, obsolete, that has become a brake on development. The power of the Stalinist leadership is based on the deepest Leninist faith in the creative and inexhaustible power of the popular masses.

…Prof. M.D. Kammari delivered a paper on the development of the Marxist-Leninist theory on the national question by Stalin.

The name of Stalin, a genius continuator of the great teaching and work of Lenin, is linked – said the speaker – to the solution of one of the most important questions of the socialist revolution. This question as well as others was elaborated by Stalin in close co-operation with Lenin.

Lenin and Stalin in their approach to the national question started off from the main ideas drawn by Marx and Engels. Lenin and Stalin developed these ideas in the era of imperialism and the proletarian revolution, in the era of the construction of communism in the USSR; they merged and generalized these ideas into a solid system of views on the national-colonial revolutions, linked the national-colonial question with the question of the liquidation of imperialism, they explained the significance of the national-colonial question as a constituent part of the general question of the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The works of J.V. Stalin give an all-sided scientific substantiation of the program and the policy of the Bolshevik party with respect to the national question and they are a directive for all communist parties: they are like a shining candle that sheds light on the path of the peoples of the colonies and dependent countries towards freedom and independence.

From the very first steps of his revolutionary career, J.V. Stalin together with V.I. Lenin defended and developed the idea of the hegemony of the proletariat in the revolution, the principle of proletarian internationalism in the construction of Russian Social-Democracy against the Bundists, Caucasian federalists and nationalists, who disguised themselves with socialist phrases.

In his work The Social-Democratic View of the National Question (September, 1904), J.V. Stalin made a remarkable contribution to the national program of the RSDLP.

Already in this period J.V. Stalin proved himself a leading theoretician of the national question. He mastered the Marxist dialectical method and gave an exceptionally deep, dialectical, classical, proletarian organization and solution to the national question. In this work lies the embryo of the ideas subsequently developed by Comrade Stalin in his classical work Marxism and the National Question (January, 1913), written on the eve of the First World War, when nationalist feelings in the working class were strengthened and fostered by the social-chauvinist parties of the Second International, the Bundists, Liquidators and Trotskyites in Russia. The work of J.V. Stalin the became a major statement of Bolshevism internationally before the war of 1914. This was a theoretical statement and the Bolshevik program regarding the national question as well. In his work, two theories, two methods, two programs, two ways of thinking regarding the national question are opposed to each other: that of the parties of the Second International and that of Leninism.

Comrade Stalin elaborated here the foundation of the Bolshevik approach to the national question: the requirement of considering the national question from the concrete historical, dialectical standpoint, in a discontinuous interconnection with the international situation corresponding to the era of imperialism, as a part of the general question of the revolution. Stalin substantiated the programmatic slogan of the party on the right of nations to self-determination and the principle of the international solidarity of workers as a required starting point for the solution of the national question.

By founding the Marxist theory of the nation, J.V. Stalin laid a solid theoretical basis for the program and the policy of the Bolshevik party regarding the national question, he created an invincible weapon for the struggle of Marxism-Leninism against any variety of the ideology and politics of bourgeois nationalism.

J.V. Stalin foresaw the future by linking up the solution of the national question with the growth of imperialism in Europe and the inevitability of the growth of democracy in Asia, with impending imperialist wars and the “complications” created by them, i.e. crises and revolutions.

This prediction of Comrade Stalin was completely borne out in the period of the First World War and especially in the period of the Great October Revolution.

J.V. Stalin points out two stages in the elaboration of the national question by the Bolshevik party: the pre-October stage, when the national question had not yet become an international question and was associated with the solution of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, and the October stage, when the national question became an international question, when it merged with the question of the liberation of the colonies and became associated with the fate of the socialist revolution. These positions of Stalin together with his positions on the three periods in the history of the national-liberation movements — the period of pre-monopoly capitalism, the period of imperialism and the Soviet period — have an invaluable significance for the policies of the communist parties and for historical science as well. The victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution opened a new, Soviet stage in the solution of the national question and in the development of Marxism-Leninism in general. The October Revolution, as pointed out by Stalin, gave birth to a new era in the history of humankind, a new era in the history of the oppressed nations. The era of exploitation “without revolt” in the colonies is over, a new era has commenced, the era of the leadership of the proletariat and in the colonies, the era of its hegemony in the revolution.

J.V. Stalin made an all-sided elaboration of the question of the alliance of the proletarian revolution with the national-liberation movements of the peoples of the colonies and dependent countries, the question of the strategy and tactics of the communist parties, the idea of the hegemony of the proletariat in these movements; he substantiated and further developed Lenin’s statement on the possibility of the transition of backward countries to socialism, skipping capitalism under the conditions of the support from proletarian revolutions in the developed countries. These ideas have become a great, transforming, creative revolutionary power capable of raising hundreds of millions of people to the struggle for their liberation.

The hegemony of the proletariat is new and decisive in the national-liberation movements, which gives these movements consciousness, organization, stability, an invincible power which leads to their victory over imperialism.

J.V. Stalin constantly emphasizes that the existence the Soviet Union is a decisive factor that facilitates and guarantees the success and final victory of all national-liberation movements of the peoples of the dependent countries and colonies, since the very existence of such a state constrains the dark forces of reaction, its successes inspire the oppressed peoples in the struggle for their liberation, facilitates this liberation. The liberation of the peoples of the countries of peoples’ democracies in Europe and Asia bears witness of the greatness of the liberating role of the Soviet Union, as the liberator of peoples from the yoke of imperialism.

Comrade Stalin brilliantly foresaw that China would follow the path of the anti-imperialist popular revolution towards the creation of an anti-imperialist, popular power which would lead China to the socialist path of development. The creation of the People’s Republic of China implies a new powerful blow against the whole colonial system of imperialism, which is undergoing a profound crisis, it elevates to a higher stage the struggle of the peoples of Asia and the whole colonial world in general. This victory implies a serious strengthening of the forces of peace, socialism and democracy, led by the USSR.

J.V. Stalin shows that the national question is posed and solved in Leninism differently as it was in the period of the Second International. J.V. Stalin points to the existence of four main elements in the Leninist theory of the national question:

“The first point is the merging of the national question, as a part, with the general question of the liberation of the colonies, as a whole…

The second point is that the vague slogan of the right of nations to self-determination has been replaced by the clear revolutionary slogan of the right of nations and colonies to secede, to form independent states…

The third point is the disclosure of the organic connection between the national and colonial question and the question of the rule of capital, of overthrowing capitalism, of the dictatorship of the proletariat…

The fourth point is that a new element has been introduced into the national question — the element of the actual (and not merely juridical) equalisation of nations (help and co-operation for the backward nations in raising themselves to the cultural and economic level of the more advanced nations), as one of the conditions necessary for securing fraternal co-operation between the labouring masses of the various nations.” (J.V. Stalin, Works, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1953, Vol. 5, pp. 52-60. [From Concerning the Presentation of the National Question.])

J.V. Stalin developed the Leninist thesis about the two tendencies in capitalism with regard to the national question: the tendency towards the formation of nations and national states and the tendency towards the “unification” of nations under the power of financial capital. J.V. Stalin argues that these tendencies are irreconcilable contradictions for imperialism since imperialism cannot “unite” without exploiting a nation. The struggle between these two tendencies enriches the analysis of capitalism in the period of imperialism and this contradiction is one of the sources of its structural weakness, internal instability, of the collapse of multinational bourgeois states, of the collapse and bankruptcy of the policies of the bourgeoisie with regard to the national question. The bankruptcy of the policies of German, Japanese, and after them Anglo-American imperialism in the colonies and the dependent, “Marshalized” countries, is a brilliant confirmation of the strength and significance of the Leninist theses.

For communism these two tendencies, emphasizes J.V. Stalin, are two sides of the same question: the liberation of the oppressed nations from the yoke of imperialism and their unification into a unified socialist world economy voluntarily and on the basis of total equality. Stalin together with Lenin created and strengthened the multinational socialist state, put into practice the national policy of the Soviet power, defined the paths and forms leading to the formation of a fraternal commonwealth of nations on the basis of the Soviet system, under the leadership of the working class and its party, defined the path for the formation and development of socialist nations and their culture.

Comrade Stalin brilliantly solved the complicated and intricate questions of relations between nations, accomplished a gigantic practical work in the foundation of the national Soviet republics and their unification into the USSR.

There is no single Soviet republic in whose formation and consolidation Stalin did not take a decisive and leading part.

J.V. Stalin brilliantly generalized the masses’ revolutionary experience in the construction of the Soviet state. He posed the question of the federation, developed the most convenient forms of unification of Soviet republics into a unified state. He showed the superiority of the Soviet federation compared to bourgeois federations.

Soviet power established the complete political and legal equality of nations and liquidated national oppression. This achievement of the party and Soviet power has historic and world-wide significance. But this is not enough, J.V. Stalin pointed out. “The essence of the national question in the R.S.F.S.R. — said J.V. Stalin at the X Congress of the R.C.P.(B.) — lies in abolishing the actual backwardness (economic, political and cultural) that some of the nations have inherited from the past, to make it possible for the backward peoples to catch up with central Russia in political, cultural and economic respects.” (J.V. Stalin,Works, Vol. 5, p. 39.)

This great historical task was accomplished by the party under the leadership of Stalin on the basis of the Leninist-Stalinist national policy, on the basis of the policy of industrialization and collectivization, the liquidation of the exploiting classes, the construction of socialism. The history of socialism and the social conquests of the peoples of the USSR was established in the Stalin Constitution. The great Stalin Constitution of the USSR declares that all nations and races, regardless of their past and present stage of development, regardless of their strength or weakness, should be entitled to equal rights in all spheres of the social life. The Soviet Constitution prosecutes any expression of the propaganda of national hostility as a severe offence against the pillars of the Soviet state. In Soviet society there are no privileged, oppressed, unequal nations or races. It is not national origin but individual capabilities, individual labor, that determine the place of a citizen in Soviet society. Comrade Stalin showed that on the basis of the Soviet system there were created and consolidated new Soviet, socialist nations which, according to their class structure, spiritual attributes, their socio-political orientation, radically differ from the old bourgeois nations.

Soviet nations are socialist nations, liberated from exploitation, from class antagonism with new Soviet, socialist moral and political characteristics, psychological types, consisting of fraternal classes, the working class, peasantry and intelligentsia, whose class boundaries are disappearing. These are nations that are building communism, freed from the remnants of capitalism, that are coming together and jointly constructing communism by means of all-sided socialist competition and fraternal co-operation.

The great commonwealth of socialist nations was created under the leadership of the Bolshevik party, under the leadership of the Russian working class, thanks to the correct, Leninist-Stalinist national policy, of disinterested assistance to formerly oppressed nations and considerate stand towards the particularities of their mode of life and culture. Thanks particularly to the accomplishment of this policy, the Russian working class and Russian people won the trust and support of all peoples of the USSR and all progressive peoples of the world. Comrade Stalin developed and raised to a higher stage the ideology of proletarian internationalism, the friendship of peoples, he showed that the source of friendship of the peoples of the USSR is the Soviet, socialist system, the internationalist policies of the working class, its party and state.

As a result of the accomplishment of this policy and the construction of socialism, the friendship of the peoples of the USSR has flourished, new relations of trust and fraternal co-operation have been established between them.

The multinational socialist state has survived a great test during the Great Patriotic war against the fascist invaders, under which any other state would have collapsed. There is no other state that could have emerged more strengthened and with the friendship of its people more consolidated than the Soviet state; Soviet patriotism, the friendship of peoples, the moral-political unity are powerful driving forces of Soviet society. Comrade Stalin generalized the experience of the war by stating that in the Soviet state the “national question and the problem of the co-operation of nations has been solved better than in any other multinational state” (Bolshevik, No. 3, 1946, p. 4. Translated from the Russian). The Soviet system gave to the peoples of the USSR a unique power. The works of J.V. Stalin have served and now serve our party and all fraternal communist parties as a weapon in their struggle against bourgeois nationalists, against the nationalist-fascist Tito clique, against right socialists and similar agents of Anglo-American imperialism, the speaker emphasizes.

The theory of culture as national in form and socialist in content has great significance in the struggle against nationalism, for the education of the working people in the spirit of internationalism, for the friendship of peoples, and makes possible the flourishing of the national cultures of the peoples of the USSR.

Comrade Stalin exposed the chauvinist theory of Kautsky, according to which the proletariat having come to power should take the path of assimilation. Comrade Stalin generalized the experience of the socialist revolution in the USSR and stated that it revived many new nationalities that were formerly “forgotten,” it “gave them new life and a new development.” Comrade Stalin foresaw that the same thing would happen in other multinational countries; as a result of a revolution in countries such as India, “scores of hitherto unknown nationalities, having their own separate languages and separate cultures, will appear on the scene.” (J.V. Stalin, Works, Vol. 7, p. 141. [The Political Tasks of the University of the Peoples of the East.])

These statements of J.V. Stalin expose and overturn different bourgeois-cosmopolitan theories of the modern Anglo-American imperialists, who carry out a policy of forcible assimilation, swallowing all nations and races by the “superior” Anglo-American race. J.V. Stalin’s prediction in his work The National Question and Leninism regarding the preservation of nations, national languages and cultures, have great theoretical and political significance. Comrade Stalin, the speaker points out, gave a clear perspective of the development of socialist nations, national languages and cultures, both in the period of the victory of socialism in our country and in the period of the victory of socialism in other countries and in the whole world. Here with unique strength Stalin’s scientific predictions manifest themselves as dialectical-materialist, showing him to be a great theorist of creative Marxism. These statements of Stalin have a leading significance for all social sciences, for philosophy, the science of the state, law, language, the theory of literature, art and culture in general, as well as for the practice of the communist parties in all countries of the world, especially concerning the national question.

In the USSR under the leadership of the party of Lenin-Stalin a great cultural revolution is being carried out, which has involved all tribes and peoples of our country in the process of conscious historical creation. Gigantic efforts are being made to develop the national cultures and languages, an experience that has world-wide historical, scientific and practical significance. The great socialist revolution opened a new era in history, created a completely new world of social relations among people, nations, races, a new world of concepts, ideas, feelings, features that forced the creation of new words, enriched and developed the national languages. It is not surprising that the languages of the peoples of the USSR, both ancient and modern, those less developed or more developed, are now being filled with new forms, are undergoing a revolution, they experience leaps to qualitatively different states. As for culture and languages the struggle of socialism against reactionary bourgeois-nationalist, feudal-clerical and other similar tendencies and elements comes to a victorious end with the victory of socialism, with the victory of the principles of socialist internationalism, the Leninist-Stalinist national policy.

Comrade Stalin teaches that “every nation — no matter how large or small it might be – possesses its own peculiarities, its own specific features that only belong to that nation and not to any other nation. These peculiarities are a contribution of each nation to the treasure of world culture, which makes the latter more complete and rich. In this respect all nations — both small and large — are entitled to equal rights and all nations are different from each other.” (J.V. Stalin, Bolshevik, No. 7, 1948, p. 2. Trans. from the Russian). Comrade Stalin teaches that internationalism in culture implies respect for the cultural creativity of all peoples, not the suppression of national cultures, but assistance to their development.

That is why, points out M.D. Kammari, it is completely logical that it has been particularly the peoples of the USSR, educated by the party of Lenin-Stalin in the spirit of socialism, proletarian internationalism and friendship of the peoples, who saved world civilization from the fascist invaders and at the present time lead the camp of socialism and democracy, stand in the leadership of the struggle for socialism, democracy and democratic peace in the world.

The works of J.V. Stalin are a weapon in the struggle against all kinds of anti-patriotic, cosmopolitan ideologies and phraseologies in the service of Anglo-American imperialism. The works of Comrade Stalin are an irreplaceable weapon in the struggle with all kinds of nationalism, racism, imperialist ideology and policies.

The name of J.V. Stalin — the genius follower of the great teachings of Marx, Engels and Lenin — has become a symbol and a banner of the liberation of peoples from the yoke of imperialism, the banner of proletarian internationalism. The great ideas of Leninist-Stalinist friendship and brotherhood of peoples that stand for a new world, concludes Professor Kammari, are currently inspiring hundreds of millions of people in all parts of the planet in the struggle for their liberation.

… Academician G.F. Aleksandrov gave a talk on the topic “The Struggle of J.V. Stalin for Militant Marxist-Leninist Philosophy.” The speaker began his talk by reminding the audience that J.V. Stalin from the very beginning, as a pupil and companion-in-arms of V.I. Lenin, stood firmly for the struggle for the elevation of the working class, for its socialist education and political organization. Comrade Stalin gave an all-sided substantiation of the idea of the role of revolutionary theory in the workers’ movement. Lenin’s and Stalin’s statement on the merging of the struggle of the working class with scientific socialism has special significance. The workers set out to construct a new world, communism. History has never provided an example of such construction. Unlike capitalism, socialist society cannot move forward spontaneously; it is formed, built and created consciously, according to a plan. The science of socialism and communism has a particularly important significance for the struggle of the working class. It was not in vain that the Bolshevik party, Lenin and Stalin, both before and after the Great October Revolution, strengthened the fervent agitation of Bolshevik ideals among the masses. It is not a coincidence that this task had been confronted for the past third of the century in the Soviet epoch. It would not be impossible to reach communism if the working class, the laboring peasantry, the intelligentsia, the popular masses, did not know the goals of this construction and the path towards its successful accomplishment. This is why the struggle of the party for the communist education of the Soviet people has acquired such significance in the epoch of the step-by-step transition to communism.

Comrade Stalin established a continuous link between the content and tasks of militant revolutionary theory and the situation and state of the working class. Marxism-Leninism is substantiated and developed by the working class, as the class ideology of the proletarian masses, of the communist party. The Leninist idea on the expression of the line and class struggle within the party played the most important role in the process of creating a party of a new type, in the class education of the Russian and international proletariat. This idea was adopted and developed by Stalin.

Already in his article The Class Struggle, written in 1906, Comrade Stalin expounded the question of the historical necessity of the construction of the proletarian party, its role in the political struggle of the proletarian masses, its ideological leadership in this struggle.

The Leninist-Stalinist party oriented and inspired the workers’ revolutionary movement, raised its political, class level and the militant character of its struggle against the bourgeoisie, against imperialism; one can say that the communist party saved the workers’ movement from bourgeois domination, from its division by the activity of the intelligence services of the bourgeoisie.

Comrade Stalin put forward and substantiated the tremendous significance of the implementation of the teachings of dialectical and historical materialism in the political struggle of the working class, in the practical activity of its party. Comrade Stalin gave an all-sided development and scientific substantiation to this deepest consideration that “mastering the Marxist-Leninist theory means assimilating the substance of this theory and learning to use it in the solution of the practical problems of the revolutionary movement under the varying conditions of the class struggle of the proletariat” (History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks), Short Course, p. 355.) Dialectical and historical materialism, therefore, requires a deep and exact study of the contemporary conditions of the class struggle, the implementation in practice of the materialist analysis of the political activity, the position of all classes involved in the class struggle. Lenin and Stalin defined struggle, the development of opposites, contradictions, as the essence of Marxist philosophy. They demanded that revolutionaries expose the main contradictions in society with a dialectical and materialist approach to the analysis of the perspective for the development of the struggle between these opposites, that they engage in an unconditional and purposeful struggle for the fastest and complete victory of the revolutionary class, the proletariat.

It becomes clear from here, continues Academician G.F. Aleksandrov, that the ideology of a communist party, its philosophical science, serves one goal — the ideology of the proletariat in its class struggle against capitalism, for communism, for the scientific substantiation of the policies, the revolutionary tactics and strategy of the party. This is the essence of the ideology of the Leninist-Stalinist party. If the ideology of the bourgeoisie, its philosophical-historical system, collapses under the merciless blows of the practice of the class struggle, the development of natural sciences, if they burst, in the words of Great Lenin, like soap bubbles, then this is a result of the very fate of the bourgeoisie, the irreversible collapse of its social and state system.

If the ideology of the proletariat, its philosophical basis, dialectical and historical materialism — in every single experience in the class struggle, in every single step forward, in the development of natural sciences found a proof of its principles, enlarged its influence on the working class and dealt powerful blows to the ideology of the bourgeoisie, then this is a reflection of the historical fate of the working class, of its great role as the gravedigger of capitalism, as the builder of communism.

In the defeat and collapse of bourgeois ideology, in the victories and triumphs of Marxist-Leninist philosophy is clearly seen the irreversible result to which the modern class struggle leads: the victory of the proletariat of all countries over the bourgeoisie, of the socialist camp over the capitalist camp.

Lenin and Stalin raised high the banner of militant Marxism in the party, gave an all-sided substantiation and developed the genius view of Marx and Engels on the irreconcilable struggle between proletarian and bourgeois ideology, as a law of class struggle. They were guided by this view throughout their revolutionary experience.

J.V. Stalin gave the deepest Marxist-Leninist analysis of the modern class struggle by showing that the struggle of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie had become an axis around which modern life turns. He also showed that the current struggle between dialectical materialism and idealist obscurantism comprises the ideological form of that very same class struggle of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Bourgeois ideologists and philosophers, defeated by Marxism, always resort to cunning manoeuvering. They try to conceal the disgusting bourgeois essence of their thinking by pretending that they stand above classes, parties and ideologies. They pretend that they represent a “third force,” that stands above the class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Lenin and Stalin proved that in the struggle between modern classes, in the struggle between two camps — the socialist camp and the imperialist camp — there is no room for a “third force.” This so-called “third force” always stood and stands now on the side of the bourgeoisie against the proletariat.

Lenin and Stalin teach that in a class society there is no room for an ideology, a philosophy that stands above classes. Lenin and Stalin put forward this question in a clear and exact manner — there is no “third,” “middle” line in philosophy: either the revolutionary materialist thinking of the proletariat, or the religious-mystical narcotic of the imperialists. There is no middle road here. The defence of objectivism is a class expression, the expression of bourgeois ideology.

By means of his genius materialist analysis of the modern class struggle, his fearless exposure of the deepest contradictions of the modern epoch, the scientific elaboration of the paths and ways of achieving victory for the international working class over imperialism, Comrade Stalin gives a classical example of how Marxist-Leninist philosophy should be understood and applied.

Every passing day confirms the genius Stalinist analysis of the modern epoch. This is how materialism — the philosophy of the Marxist-Leninist party — triumphs and idealism — the ideology of the imperialist bourgeoisie — finally collapses. The Stalinist conclusion on the inevitability of the collapse of imperialism and the undoubted victory of the proletariat is based on the creative application of dialectical and historical materialism in the analysis of the phenomena of modern social life, of the modern class struggle. Stalinist analysis ideologically arms the camp of peace, democracy and socialism, gives a scientific substantiation to the struggle waged by this camp.

Comrade Stalin teaches that Marxism-Leninism is not a dogma, but a guide to action. The party of the working class, says Comrade Stalin, is “not a school of philosophy or a religious sect. Is not our Party a fighting party?” (J.V. Stalin, Works, Vol. 1, p. 66. [The Proletarian Class and the Proletarian Party.])

Dialectical materialism requires a clear materialist analysis of reality, a struggle that can accomplish scientifically determined tasks that breaks down the obstacles posed by practice in the course of the struggle of the working class. Marxists translate the center of gravity to the application in life of the ideas of scientific communism. In this light, with the Marxists of the Leninist-Stalinist school “there is no discrepancy between word and deed… the teachings of Marx completely retain their living, revolutionary force.” (J.V. Stalin, Works, Vol. 4, p. 318.) It is necessary to emphasize and always remember — the speaker says — that the Leninist-Stalinist philosophical science does not only imply that revolutionaries are bound to act with decision, to struggle with passion, but to act in struggle based on a deep knowledge of the laws of development of society. We owe to Comrade Stalin the great achievement of the total defeat of bourgeois ideology that denies the necessity for historical development, the achievement of the exposure of all advantages of the deep scientific knowledge of the laws of development of society for the proletarian masses and their communist parties. He showed that by mastering the laws of development of society one can lead the working class with confidence, one can see more than the proletarian class as a whole. This is the point, argues Comrade Stalin. “The ideologists push forward, and it is precisely for this reason that the idea, socialist consciousness, is of such great importance for the movement.” (J.V. Stalin, Works, Vol. 1, p. 120. [Briefly About the Disagreements in the Party.]) The knowledge of the laws of development has a tremendous significance for the class struggle of the proletarian masses, induces the movement forward, accelerates the course of history towards the socialist revolution. And in the epoch of the dictatorship of the proletariat this leads to communism. This significance makes it possible to elaborate the correct political strategy, to take account of the experience of the revolutionary struggle in all countries, to determine correctly the main direction of the proletarian movement in a given country for a given historical period.

The political strategy of the party, based on the knowledge of the laws of development of society, accelerates historical development, leads the movement along the shortest path, prevents the working class from having unnecessary victims, from experiencing unnecessary sufferings in the struggle for the overthrow of capitalism. Failing to understand the laws of development of society means betraying the revolutionary, Marxist method, means closing ones eyes to the development of life and acting blindly and randomly.

Comrade Stalin placed special importance on the question of the scientific forecast of the development of social life by the revolutionary party and its leaders. Revolutionary theory provides knowledge of the laws of development of society, of the perspectives of this development. This is why theory, argues Comrade Stalin, “gives practical workers the power of orientation, clarity of perspective, confidence in their work, faith in the victory of our cause.” (J.V. Stalin, Works, Vol. 12, p. 148. [Concerning Questions of Agrarian Policy.]). In the Report on the Results of the First Five-Year Plan Comrade Stalin said: “The communist party is invincible, if it knows its goal, and if it is not afraid of difficulties.” (J.V. Stalin, Problems of Leninism, Foreign Languages Press, Peking, 1976, p. 630.)

These statements of Marxist-Leninist theory have an exceptional significance for the understanding of the whole revolutionary spirit, the whole scientific content of materialism. These statements argue that only the Leninist-Stalinist stand in philosophy can provide the objective and correct analysis of the development of society, that reflects the historical truth, the objective course of the development of society.

In our time these words of Great Lenin acquired a new and brilliant confirmation: “by following the path of Marxian theory we shall draw closer and closer to objective truth (without ever exhausting it); but by following any other path we shall arrive at nothing but confusion and lies.” (V.I. Lenin, Collected Works,Vol. 14, p. 143. [Materialism and Empirio-Criticism.])

Only the communist party has the courage and boldness to face historical necessity openly and declares to the whole world the indubitable and consistent party character of its ideology. This is possible because this class, proletarian point of view is the only scientific one and coincides with objective reality. The more principled, persistent and consistent is the application in life by the communist party of the analysis of the social phenomena and the ideological struggle, the more exact, complete and true will be the knowledge achieved. The class interests of the proletarian masses, the goal of the communist party, on the one hand, and the laws of objective development, on the other, follow the same direction: the broader and richer the knowledge of the development of society achieved by the party, the more exact and complete will be the analysis of any phenomenon of social life and development of society, the closer will it be merged with the interests of the communist parties, with the interests of the working class.

Our party — concludes Academician G.F. Aleksandrov — is called communist because its goal is the construction of communist society. To defend the party character of philosophy and of any other field of human knowledge means to struggle in a selflessness manner, with the ardent and inflexible revolutionary will of the Leninist-Stalinist school, to fight for the line of the communist party for its goals.

From ‘The Seventieth Anniversary of Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin’, published in Izvestia Akademii Nauk SSSR, Seria Istorii i Filosofii, Tom VII, Izdatelstvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, Moscow, 1950, pp. 3-30.

Translated from the Russian by ‘Inter’.

Source

Thoughts on Georges Soria’s Denunciation of “Trotskyism in the Service of Franco”

soria_trotskyismby Espresso Stalinist

Recently I was reading a PDF of the 1938 pamphlet Trotskyism in the Service of Franco: Facts and Documents on the Activities of the P.O.U.M. in Spain by Georges Soria. Soria was a representative in Spain of the French communist paper L’Humanité and also wrote for the International Press Correspondence of the Comintern. The material for the pamphlet was originally published as a series of articles reporting on the situation of the Spanish Civil War.

Forty years after its original publication, Soria is said to have denounced the work and its contents as a forgery.

The work has subsequently been dismissed as a fabrication for a number of years. It is now cited by Trotskyists as evidence of a “Stalinist” campaign to smear the P.O.U.M. as fascist agents. Jeffrey Meyers, a biographer of George Orwell, called it “a vicious book” and Orwell himself dedicated lengthy passages in his novel “Homage to Catalonia” to blaming the Communists for similar accusations, and for the loss in Spain as a whole. The pamphlet has become a tool to denounce the heroic role of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party of Spain (PCE) in the Spanish Civil War as counterrevolutionary.

The copy of the full pamphlet in its 1938 form on the Marxists Internet Archive (MIA) comes with an editor’s note that cites the original author apparently claiming the work and its contents are a complete forgery:

“Forty years later, in a work about the Spanish civil war (Guerra y revolución en España 1936-1939, III, 78-79), Soria himself stated – without mentioning anything about his own role in disseminating the accusation  – that ‘the charge that the POUM leaders were ‘agents of the Gestapo and Franco’ was no more than a fabrication, because it was impossible to adduce the slightest evidence’ and the whole story was ‘an extension into the international arena of the methods that constituted the most somber aspect of what has since been called Stalinism’” (Marxists Internet Archive).

It’s worth noting MIA are not the first ones to use these quotes to “disprove” the Soria pamphlet. Many scholarly and non-scholarly books have used them as well.

As the MIA editor’s note shows, the original source for these quotes from Soria is the book “Guerra y revolución en España 1936-1939.” This source is not available to me. However, I did find another source that details the full unedited quotes by Soria which are being cited as proof his work is a forgery: the book “Spanish Civil War: Revolution and Counterrevolution” by Burnett Bolloten.

Within this source there is enough information to argue that the way the quotes from Soria are often presented is quite deceptive. Here I will present only what are actual quoted words from Soria, and omit the words and phrases MIA inserted between them. The first quote that is commonly used is that Soria said that:

“[…] the charge that the POUM leaders were ‘agents of the Gestapo and Franco’ was no more than a fabrication, because it was impossible to adduce the slightest evidence.”

The second quote, which MIA and others present as being about “the whole story,” (more on this later) meaning about the entire contents of Soria’s pamphlet, says:

“[…] an extension into the international arena of the methods that constituted the most somber aspect of what has since been called Stalinism.”

These passages in quotes are the only portions of the editor’s note that were actually said by Soria. Now I will present the full and unedited Soria quotes in their original context as cited in Bolloten’s book. All portions in brackets [ ] without the annotation “E.S.” appeared in brackets in the original Bolloten text. The first full quote reads as follows:

“Forty years later however, in an attempt to exculpate the Spanish Communists from responsibility for the death of Nin, he [Soria – E.S.] stated that ‘the accusations leveled against Nin in Spain in the form of the couplet: ‘Where is Nin? In Salamanca or Berlin?’ were ‘purely and simply…an extension into the international arena of the methods that constituted the most somber aspect of what has since been called Stalinism.’”

So Soria was not, in fact, talking about his pamphlet, but rather the story surrounding the disappearance of Andrés Nin, the founder of the P.O.U.M., where he was freed from prison by fascist agents. Soria then blames the NKVD for the death of Nin, which is what he dismissed as “an extension into the international arena of the methods that constituted the most somber aspect of what has since been called Stalinism.”

Bolloten even goes on to condemn Soria for his “attempt…to exonerate the PCE by shifting responsibility for the crusade against the P.O.U.M. and for the disappearance of Nin to the phenomenon of ‘Stalinism’” (507). So the Soria quote specifically speaks of the charges against Nin and one story of his disappearance.

The MIA editor’s note however, frames this quote as being about “the whole story,” implying that it’s about his original work and all charges of the P.O.U.M. acting as agents (either de-facto agents or actual spies) of Franco or Hitler:

“the whole story was ‘an extension…[Soria quote continues as above].”

As we can clearly see however, in this first quote Soria was not talking about his pamphlet or the “whole story,” but specifically about the alleged liberation of Andrés Nin from prison by fascist agents, which Soria recounts in the pamphlet, though he does not mention the involvement of the Gestapo but rather implies that fascist agents may have been involved.

Bolloten then cites the second Soria quote used by MIA in the same paragraph, which contains even greater pronounced differences with the MIA citation. The original says:

“On the one hand, the charge that the leaders of the POUM, among them Andrés Nin, were ‘agents of the Gestapo and Franco’ was no more than a fabrication, because it was impossible to adduce the slightest evidence. On the other hand, although the leaders of the POUM were neither agents of Franco nor agents of the Gestapo, it is true that their relentless struggle against the Popular Front played the game nolens volens of the Caudillo [General Franco]” (Bolloten 507).

So despite Soria claiming that the charges of the P.O.U.M. leadership, including Nin, being fascist spies was without evidence, he still blamed the P.O.U.M. for taking an ultra-left position and undermining the popular front in Spain, which still rendered de-facto service to the fascists. In other words, even if the Trotskyists and ultra-lefts in the P.O.U.M. were completely innocent of all charges and were not agents of the Gestapo or Franco, they “only” offered de-facto, and not de-jure, service to Franco.

The phrasing here says that even though he claims there is no evidence of the P.O.U.M. leadership being fascist agents and spies, Soria does not deny the fact that they rendered service to Franco, using the phrase, “nolens volens,” meaning “whether willing or unwilling.”

The editor’s note on MIA omits this second phrase for obvious reasons. There are a number of other interesting points regarding these full, unedited quotes that are worth pointing out.

In these quotes Soria does not denounce his original work – merely the specific charge that the P.O.U.M. leadership were spies of the Gestapo and Franco. He does say it was “impossible to adduce the slightest evidence,” which can be said to imply that the documents and sources he cites in the pamphlet are, at least in part, forgeries. However, this is not stated specifically. In fact, Soria does not mention his work at all! This is implicitly stated by the editor’s note on the MIA page, which states that Soria spoke “without mentioning anything about his own role in disseminating the accusation.” His “role,” of course, was the pamphlet!

To some extent MIA makes a valid point about Soria never mentioning his own “role” in the charges that he claims was a “fabrication…[without] the slightest evidence.” Assuming the work is a complete fabrication, Soria never claimed to have been coerced to write the pamphlet, and never mentions an outside party forcing him to do so. Therefore, even in the case that it is a complete forgery, until there is proof that Soria authored it under the influence of an outside force, the blame must be placed not on the Soviet Union, “Stalinism” or the PCE, but on Soria the author for allegedly forging the evidence in his articles in the first place, and allowing those articles to be published as a pamphlet.

It’s also worth repeating that though Soria expresses his belief that the charges against the “P.O.U.M. leadership” being fascist spies was false and without evidence, this does not mean everyone in the P.O.U.M. was innocent of such activities, and Soria says explicitly that the P.O.U.M.’s actions still helped Hitler and Franco, even if unwillingly. One must ask then: how does this in any way exonerate the P.O.U.M.?

Furthermore, why Soria should choose forty years after the publication of the original document, long after such a “confession” of forgery could have had any effect whatsoever on the anti-fascist war in Spain or its outcome is unclear, thought it must be pointed out that these words were said after Soria became sympathetic to the Eurocommunism of the PCF, and during the era of “de-Stalinization,” where the virtues of making slanderous statements and denunciations regarding the Stalin era were looked upon with favor both inside and outside the Soviet Union. The pace for this was set by the many utter falsehoods uttered by Khrushchev at the 20th Congress, and the decades of revisionism that followed.

CONCLUSION: Until there is more direct evidence that Georges Soria denounced his articles and the documents he cited in them as forgeries, there is no reason to “dismiss” them from consideration as evidence, and though he later claimed the charges against the P.O.U.M. leadership were baseless and there was no evidence for them, implying that at least part of the original work was false and/or mistaken, the conclusion that Soria admitted his work and all of its contents were complete forgeries cannot be supported by the existing facts.

https://www.marxists.org/history/spain/writers/soria/trotskyism_in_service_of_franco.htm

The Lie About Stalin: 22nd June 1941

58843_426322744145483_113819470_n

V.M. Zhukhrai

The leader of the German fascists, Adolf Hitler, whilst instructing his own propagandists, said: ‘If we want to score a victory, we must actively make use of lies. They have to be big. The bigger the lies the quicker people will believe them. When we score a victory, nobody will ask us whether we spoke the truth or whether we lied’. Goebbels, the minister for fascist propaganda and developing the ideas of his fuehrer said that a lie repeated a thousand times becomes a truth. And it was according to this Hitlerite recipe that our enemies used their criticism of Stalin’s activity as soon after he had died. And here is a probable lie. In the newspaper Glasnost (Openness) where we had been preparing material concerning the case of Kirov’s murder, there are examples of lies given which were poured over Stalin and our party. I do not wish to quote all of the examples, you probably know them already, and so I will stop on just one example. In the press it is said that when the Bolsheviks took the Crimea, they executed by firing squad 100 thousand officers of the White Guard. At that time the whole of Kolchak’s army consisted of 26 thousand men, 6000 of whom were officers. You can see what I mean about lies, can’t you? Therefore, our comrades asked to explain several interesting moments in the life and activity of Stalin, which in much, reveal the methods of our class enemies and which in practical examples illustrate the fallacy of this lie. Many people have already read my book ‘Stalin – the truth and the lies’. Now my new book has been published entitled ‘Stalin and politics’, and also articles have been published concerning the case surrounding the murder of Kirov and the case concerning Tukhachevsky. In other words, we have fulfilled the task of somehow assisting our propagandists in the preparation for the socialist revolution, because they have been in the main, going along with this lie. Those comrades who have given speeches before me have very good reports. I was very pleased with them. Our conference was a lot worse than this one. The reports have simply been excellent at your conference. Excellent reports.

And so, Comrades, allow me to stop on several questions. The first thing which is usually asked is why Comrade Stalin, on the 22nd June 1941 did not go on the radio and make a speech to the Soviet people? And enemy of Soviet people Khrushchev, carrying out the will of his masters on the other side of the Atlantic, declared that Stalin had become confused, afraid, locked himself away in his dacha (country house) and sat there for three days. What? Stalin, a professional revolutionary, a man who back in 1902 in Baku, walking at the front of a demonstration under a red banner, where tsarist troops had opened fire killing 45 workers, was never afraid of anybody or anything. All those Comrades who knew Comrade Stalin say this. And Zhukov, even though he was an enemy of Stalin at heart, did much so that Khrushchev did what he did, unfortunately. Vinogradov, second in command of the rear around Moscow and who had met Comrade Stalin every day, told me about this. He says that a significant number of our military leaders, including Zhukov, became quite nervous, the only calm, even-tempered person being Stalin. Do you know what Rokossovsky says concerning this? That is to say, that all the data we have indicates that this business concerning Stalin locking himself away for three days at the start of the war, is nothing but a Khrushchevite lie, since that same Khrushchev himself was at this time in Kiev, and could not have seen how Stalin was behaving. Nevertheless, such a lie was released, and it was from here that I first of all started, when writing a book, a book I had been working on for almost 20 years or so, and had to verify all the facts which were on hand. Therefore I began by finding out the real reason why Comrade Stalin, on the night of 22nd June 1941, suddenly at the start of the second night left the Kremlin, when all the country’s leadership were at their posts expecting an attack from fascist Germany. Throughout that year Comrade Stalin had been leaving at 5 am. This pattern had been set, so he left at 5 am. And on the eve of such hard days, he had suddenly left! And while closely scrutinising this question, luck fell into my hands on two occasions.

First of all, I was well acquainted with Professor Preobrazhensky, a well-known academician and specialist in ear, throat and nose disorders. Preobrazhensky was the only doctor who in the period of 20 years had treated Stalin. Comrade Stalin had a very weak throat and in the latter years it became sore quite often because of angina; he had a very weak throat. However, he refused to have his glands removed. Boris Sergeivich knew this condition well. Speaking of which, when I began asking him about this, we then met to discuss this many times, for we were working together at the same institute and he had at one time saved my life.

He began telling me that on the night of the 22nd June 1941 he was called out to Volinskoe. And when he arrived he saw Comrade Stalin lying under a blanket on the couch inside the hall where meetings of the politburo usually took place, and who said in a broken voice: ‘Take a look to see what is wrong with me. I’m not feeling at all well. I can hardly talk or swallow’. And when, says Preobrazhensky, I took a look at Comrade Stalin’s throat I was horrified. What he was actually suffering from was terrible phlegmatic angina, an abscess in the throat. And when I took his temperature, it was well over 40. I said: ‘Comrade Stalin, you have to get to the hospital immediately or you will suffocate’. Stalin said: ‘Unfortunately that can’t be done now. And don’t mention a word to anyone about my illness. Not even the guards’. Zhukov confirms this in his memoirs: when he phoned Stalin and heard his irregular breathing, he could not say why he had stayed quiet for a long time. And when he told him that the Hitlerites had started attacking us, it was then that Stalin went to the Kremlin. And Stalin’s chauffeur, Mitryukhin says: ‘I watched Comrade Stalin coming out and could see him swaying. We knew that Comrade Stalin did not drink and was never drunk, but here he was, shaking; when he got into the back seat of the car and sitting behind me, I could see that this man was gasping for breath’. And it was in this semi-conscious state that Stalin arrived in the Kremlin. This is why he was laid up for three days without food. It is true what Lozgachev, one of Stalin’s bodyguards writes, that Stalin did drink one cup of tea. Therefore it was obvious that Comrade Stalin could not make a speech on radio under such conditions.

I was also lucky to have found out that Lilya Alexandrovna here, an old friend of mine and wife of Vice General Vlasik, also knew about these things very well. We together met Comrade Stalin’s personal guard, Colonel Borisov from the personal guards, the so-called ‘ninth’, which was standing on the night of the 22nd at the gate of Volinskoe dacha. And he has this on tape; for the three whole days that Stalin was there all the time, nobody came over to the dacha. Only Preobrazhensky came over who was brought over by Poskrebyshev and nobody else. And Comrade Stalin did not leave to go anywhere either. Well it has been said that diaries, records by some of the secretaries had been found, and let this be on the conscience of Boldin and Gorbachev. I do not believe these records. I know that Comrade Stalin did not allow anybody to record who came to see him. Lenin had such records made but Stalin did not. And Molotov at the same time confirms that they had not seen Stalin for three days. Also, Peoples Commissar of the Naval Fleet, Kuznetsov, who noted that he was with Stalin on the 24th June writes in his memoirs: ‘I could not find Stalin for three days. I arrived at the Kremlin, phoned all the telephone numbers, but Stalin was nowhere to be found’. So. This is the way things stand concerning this lie about Stalin.

Source

Enver Hoxha on the Path of Khrushchevite Revisionism in the Soviet Union

enver_1949

“Khrushchevite revisionism in the Soviet Union has undergone several stages, in compliance with which its forms, methods and tactics of struggle and action to carry out in practice its anti-Marxist and traitorous course and to camouflage it, have also changed.

The first stage was that of the building up, maintenance and establishment of the betrayal, accompanied with a great and scandalous noise and with a sham ‘optimism’ to distract the minds of the people. It was characterized by the frantic campaign of attacks on J. Stalin, to discredit the ideas of Marxism-Leninism and the cause of the Bolshevik Party, under the fraudulent pretext of the ‘fight against the personality cult and its consequences.’

[....]

In the ideological field the revisionists replaced the ideas and the consistent Marxist-Leninist line of Stalin on all the fundamental questions with the ideas and the anti-Marxist line of modern revisionism. Opportunists and various Trotskyist, Bukharinist and Zinovievist enemies, nationalists, and others, in the Soviet Union were proclaimed as ‘victims of Stalin’ and where placed on the pedestal of ‘martyrs’ and ‘heroes.’ The renegade Tito clique in Yugoslavia was rehabilitated and Titoism was proclaimed as a variant of ‘creative Marxism-Leninism’ and of ‘socialism.’ In various socialist countries condemned traitors were rehabilitated and revisionist cliques attached to Khrushchev’s chariot were brought to power. They launched the slogan of unity with the social-democrats on a national and international scale ‘in the joint struggle for socialism,’ and the way was paved for the complete ideological, political and organizational rapprochement and merger of the communist parties with the social-democratic parties.

[…]

In the political field Khrushchev and his group besmirched and discarded the Marxist-Leninist theory and practice about the class struggle and the dictatorship of the proletariat, calling it a ‘Stalinist distortion’ and proclaiming the whole historic period of Stalin’s leadership a ‘dark, anti-democratic period, a period of violations of socialist legality, of terror and murders, of prisons and concentration camps.’ The road was thus opened for the liquidation of the dictatorship of the proletariat and for its replacement with the bureaucratic and counterrevolutionary dictatorship of the new ‘socialist’ aristocracy which was born and was developing, all this being covered with the deceptive slogans of ‘democratization’ and of ‘restoration of freedom and socialist justice’ allegedly ‘lost and now regained.’

In the economic field the Khrushchevites declared as erroneous and incorrect the Stalin line and methods of development and management of the socialist economy in all branches, especially in that of agriculture, rejected Stalin’s directives on further improvement and development of socialist relations of production in the historic period of the transition from socialism to communism, and, under the pretext of overcoming the economic ‘stagnation’ and difficulties allegedly created as a result of the Stalin ‘dogmatic’ line, undertook a series of ‘reforms’ which paved the way to the gradual degeneration of the socialist economic order and to the uncontrolled operation of the economic laws of capitalism.

In the field of international relations the Khrushchevite revisionists proclaimed as ‘erroneous,’ ‘rigid’ and ‘dogmatic’ the Stalin foreign policy line, the line of the blow for blow fight against imperialism and of determined internationalist support for the revolutionary and liberation struggle. They replaced it with the ‘peaceful coexistence’ policy as the general line of the foreign policy of the Soviet state.

[….]

The anti-Stalin campaign served the Khrushchevite renegades to pass over to the second stage—to that of the efforts for the strengthening and stabilisation of the betrayal in the economy, policy and ideology, at home and in foreign relations. This is the stage of the codification of the viewpoints of Khrushchevite revisionism and of the large-scale implementation of its policy.

N. Khrushchev and his group completely liquidated the Marxist-Leninist proletarian party, they transformed it into a weapon of the revisionist counter-revolution, they replaced the Leninist norms of party building with revisionist norms and, finally, they proclaimed it a ‘party of the whole people.’

[…]

In the field of international relations this stage was characterized by the complete establishment of the counter-revolutionary alliance of the Soviet leadership with U.S. imperialism for sharing the domination of the world, at the expense of the freedom and independence of the peoples of the vital interests of the socialist countries, of the cause of revolution and socialism. The selling out of the interests of the liberation struggle of the Congolese people, the bargainings with U.S. and West-German imperialism to the detriment of the national interests of the German Democratic Republic, the treachery towards the Cuban people in the days of the Caribbean crisis, the joint plots with the U.S. imperialists and the Indian reactionaries against the People’s Republic of China, the signing of the ill-famed Soviet-U.S.-British treaty on the partial prohibition of nuclear weapons tests, the sabotage of the revolutionary struggle of the Vietnamese people against the U.S. aggressors, and of the just struggle of the Arab people against the imperialist-Israel aggression, etc.—all these, and other acts, are links of the long chain of the counterrevolutionary alliance of the Soviet revisionist leadership with U.S. imperialism.

[….]

All this counter-revolutionary line and the anti-Marxist-Leninist viewpoints of the Khrushchevite revisionists were consecrated in the decisions of the 22nd Congress of the CPSU, especially in the program of the CPSU adopted at this congress, which, due to the dominating position of the Soviet leadership in the revisionist camp, became the main code of the trend of international modern revisionism.

At this ill-famed congress were repeated openly and publicly now the monstrous attacks and calumnies against Stalin. This showed, in the first place, that the feelings of sympathy towards J. Stalin had remained alive among the Soviet people and this greatly worried the Khrushchevite leading clique; in the second place, that this clique was obstinately advancing on its anti-Marxist road, and in the third place, that it needed the ‘bogy of Stalinism’ in order to defeat the ever more resolute resistance which was rising in the international communist movement against its treacherous line.

[….]

The struggle of the Marxist-Leninist parties and forces, and life itself, which is the best judge of every policy, rejected the line and theories of the Soviet revisionist leadership, exposed their anti-Marxist and counter-revolutionary essence. Difficult days have come for the Khrushchevite revisionists. Khrushchevite revisionism has entered the third stage, which is the stage of its decline, of its deep and general crisis, the stage when treachery develops but yields bitter fruits and brings defeats to the revisionists.”

 – Enver Hoxha, “The Demagogy of the Soviet Revisionists Cannot Conceal Their Traitorous Countenance”

Happy 135th Birthday Joseph Stalin: Celebrate a Life Lived in Service to the People!

December 21st, 2013

This is the Espresso Stalinist, inviting you all to keep this time of year a time of celebration, love, revolution and socialism. This is the true meaning of this day. Thank you, Koba. Thank you for all you did for us.

Thank You, Koba

by Charlie Mann

I could never have known
That I would learn so much
From just one man.
By now, he is merely
Words,
On paper and
on screens,
Perhaps the odd bust that
Survived repression;

But no living man has
Encouraged me,
Chastised me,
Taught me,
Emboldened me,
Given me
Courage,
Confidence,
Strength and
Determination
quite so much -

I salute you,
Tovarich,
Our revolution lives on.

Link to Poem

Happy 135th Birthday Joseph Stalin: Celebrate a Life Lived in Service to the People!


IMG_0217

Stalin_1902


young-Bolshevik-Stalin


01w/11/arve/G2356/005


1465987_10151819721457826_1912433515_o
1512638_10151819722177826_576682349_n
stalin
1525202_10151819722717826_26100703_n
1488890_10151819723302826_1365587649_n
1511049_10151819723867826_1128544534_n


Tehran-Conference2
00733518.jpg


Stalin1952

1509851_10151819725212826_1207788968_n
1526645_563815900372632_75816373_n

On the Narodniks

Arrest_of_a_Propagandist

“The method of combating tsardom chosen by the Narodniks, namely, by the assassination of individuals, by individual terrorism, was wrong and detrimental to the revolution. The policy of individual terrorism was based on the erroneous Narodnik theory of active ‘heroes’ and a passive ‘mob,’ which awaited exploits from the ‘heroes.’ This false theory maintained that it is only outstanding individuals who make history, while the masses, the people, the class, the ‘mob,’ as the Narodnik writers contemptuously called them, are incapable of conscious, organized activity and can only blindly follow the ‘heroes.’ For this reason the Narodniks abandoned mass revolutionary work among the peasantry and the working class and changed to individual terrorism. They induced one of the most prominent revolutionaries of the time, Stepan Khalturin, to give up his work of organizing a revolutionary workers’ union and to devote himself entirely to terrorism.

[….]

The Narodniks maintained that Socialism in Russia would come not through the dictatorship of the proletariat, but through the peasant commune, which they regarded as the embryo and basis of Socialism. But the commune was neither the basis nor the embryo of Socialism, nor could it be, because the commune was dominated by the kulaks–the bloodsuckers who exploited the poor peasants, the agricultural labourers and the economically weaker middle peasants. The formal existence of communal land ownership and the periodical redivision of the land according to the number of mouths in each peasant household did not alter the situation in any way. Those members of the commune used the land who owned draught cattle, implements and seed, that is, the well-to-do middle peasants and kulaks. The peasants who possessed no horses, the poor peasants, the small peasants generally, had to surrender their land to the kulaks and to hire themselves out as agricultural labourers. As a matter of fact, the peasant commune was a convenient means of masking the dominance of the kulaks and an inexpensive instrument in the hands of the tsarist government for the collection of taxes from the peasants on the basis of collective responsibility. That was why tsardom left the peasant commune intact. It was absurd to regard a commune of this character as the embryo or basis of Socialism.”

 – History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks)

“By Narodism we mean a system of views, which comprises the following three features:

1) Belief that capitalism in Russia represents a deterioration, a retrogression. Hence the urge and desire to ‘retard,’ ‘halt,’ ‘stop the break-up’ of the age-old foundations by capitalism, and similar reactionary cries.

2) Belief in the exceptional character of the Russian economic system in general, and of the peasantry, with its village commune, artel, etc. in particular. It is not considered necessary to apply to Russian economic relationships the concepts elaborated by modern science concerning the different social classes and their conflicts. The village-commune peasantry is regarded as something higher and better than capitalism; there is a disposition to idealise the ‘foundations.’ The existence among the peasantry of contradictions characteristic of every commodity and capitalist economy is denied or slurred over; it is denied that any connection exists between these contradictions and their more developed form in capitalist industry and capitalist agriculture.

3) Disregard of the connection between the ‘intelligentsia’ and the country’s legal and political institutions, on the one hand, and the material interests of definite social classes, on the other. Denial of this connection, lack of a materialist explanation of these social factors, induces the belief that they represent a force capable of ‘dragging history along another line, of ‘diversion from the path,’ and so on.”

V.I. Lenin, “The Heritage We Renounce”

“The Narodnik theory stands revealed still more clearly in the notions on the peasantry. Throughout the draft [of the Socialist-Revolutionaries] the following words and phrases are used without discrimination: the toilers, the exploited, the working class, the labouring masses, the class of the exploited, the exploited classes. If the authors stopped to think over the last term (“classes”), which escaped them unguardedly, they would realise that it is the petty bourgeois as well as the proletarians who work and are exploited under capitalism. What has been said of the legal Narodniks can be said of our Socialists-Revolutionaries: to them goes the honour of discovering an unheard-of type of capitalism without a petty bourgeoisie. They speak of the labouring peasantry, but shut their eyes to a fact which has been proved, studied, weighed, described, and pondered, namely, that the peasant bourgeoisie now definitely predominates among our labouring peasantry, and that the well-to-do peasantry, although entitled to the designation labouring peasantry, cannot get along without hiring farm-hands and already controls the better half of the peasantry’s productive forces.

Very odd, indeed, from this point of view, is the goal which the Party of the Socialists-Revolutionaries has set itself in its minimum programme: ‘In the interests of socialism and of the struggle against bourgeois-proprietary principles, to make use of the views, traditions, and modes of life of the Russian peasantry, both as toilers in general and as members of the village communes, particularly its conception of the land as being the common property of all the toiling people.’ This objective seems, at first blush, to be a quite harmless, purely academic repetition of the village-commune utopias long since refuted both by theory and life. In reality, however, we are dealing with a pressing political issue which the Russian revolution promises to solve in the very near future: Who will take advantage of whom? Will the revolutionary intelligentsia, which believes itself to be socialist, utilise the toiler conceptions of the peasantry in the interests of the struggle against bourgeois-proprietary principles? Or will the bourgeois-proprietary and at the same time toiling peasantry utilise the socialist phraseology of the revolutionary-democratic intelligentsia in the interests of the struggle against socialism?

We are of the view that the second perspective will be realised (despite the will and the consciousness of our opponents). We are convinced that it will be realised because it has already nine-tenths been realised. The “bourgeois proprietary” (and at the same time labouring) peasantry has already made good use of the socialist phrases of the Narodnik, democratic intelligentsia, which harboured illusions of sustaining “the toiler traditions and modes of life” by means of its artels, co-operatives, fodder grass cultivation, ploughs, Zemstvo warehouses, and banks, but which actually promoted the development of capitalism within the village commune. Russian economic history has thus proved what Russian political history will prove tomorrow. The class-conscious proletariat has the duty to explain to the rural proletarian, without in any way withholding support of the progressive and revolutionary aspirations of the bourgeois labouring peasantry, that a struggle against that peasantry is inevitable in the future; it has the duty to explain to him the real aims of socialism, as opposed to the bourgeois-democratic fancies of equalised land tenure. With the bourgeois peasantry,against the survivals of serfdom, against the autocracy, the priests, and the landlords; with the urban proletariat against the bourgeoisie in general and against the bourgeois peasantry in particular — this is the only correct slogan for the rural proletarian, this is the only correct agrarian programme for Russian Social-Democracy at the present moment. It was this programme that our Second Congress adopted. With the peasant bourgeoisie for democracy, with the urban proletariat for socialism — this slogan will have a far stronger appeal to the rural poor than the showy but empty slogans of the Socialist-Revolutionary dabblers in Narodism.”

 – V.I. Lenin, “From Narodism to Marxism”

Video: Lenin in Color with A Cappella Internationale

Communist Party of Mexico (Marxist-Leninist): Marcos’ Crusade Against the Revolutionary Perspective

Zapatista flag

Introduction

Twelve years ago, a revolt broke out in the south of Mexico, among the poorest and most oppressed in a poor country. The revolt was timed to mark the coming into force of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) on January 1, 1994, which opened Mexico to unbridled exploitation by U.S. imperialism. The rebels seized five towns in the largely indigenous state of Chiapas. Calling themselves the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN), after Zapata, the peasant leader of the Mexican revolution of 1910, their revolt galvanized the popular forces throughout Mexico and gained the respect of progressive forces throughout the world. Though the Zapatistas soon withdrew from the five towns under pressure of the Mexican army, they waged a low-level guerrilla war for several years and took part in mass political campaigns.

But the hopes that the Zapatistas aroused in Mexico have gone largely unfulfilled. Among other things, the Zapatistas, and particularly their leader, Subcomandante Marcos, not only refused to take up a vanguard role in the fight against the Mexican bourgeoisie, but denied the need for such a vanguard at all. Also, Marcos now portrays violence as the dark side of human history, ignoring its transforming role in the class (and national) struggle. As the Mexican Marxist-Leninists describe in this article, Marcos’ pronouncements have led the Zapatistas deeper into a position of support for the reformist and social-democratic forces in Mexico.

At the same time, certain reservations must be made as to this article. First, the indigenous peoples in Mexico are treated here as ‘ethnic’ groups rather than as oppressed nationalities (particularly in section VI: ‘The problem of the land and the ethnic question’). To ignore the fact that the indigenous peoples in Mexico who live in their communities and have been oppressed since the time of the Spanish conquest are oppressed nationalities is to downplay their role and the significance of their struggle.

Furthermore, there is a weakness in reference to the indigenous struggle, particularly the struggle for land, and its relation to the overall revolutionary struggle. In the last section of this article, the Mexican Marxist-Leninists state that, even if the indigenous people are granted territorial autonomy and carry out an agrarian reform, ‘Without the working class coming to power, it is clear that even with such a reform, sooner rather than later things will get worse with the differentiation of classes in this area, a product of the laws of the capitalist market.’ This is true, but in the sense that any reform can be reversed as long as the bourgeoisie continues to hold state power. The point, however, is not to use this fact to reduce the importance of such reforms, but to use these reforms to strengthen the consciousness and organisation of the working class and all popular classes to build toward the fight for revolution.

With this reservation, we recommend this analysis to readers worldwide as part of the fight to uphold the Marxist-Leninist world outlook against all attempts to oppose it ideologically.

George Gruenthal

When the EZLN’s struggle broke out in January of 1994, our party, and we are sure all revolutionaries in our country, hailed this event; we could see the magnitude of the armed movement and the radicalism of its slogans, could appreciate that this had every possibility of becoming the pole that would unite the class struggle and contribute enormously to awakening the working masses of town and country from their lethargy. We stand firm in our conviction that the EZLN was restoring the armed struggle of the masses by their actions. Unfortunately it was soon evident that the Zapatistas reversed themselves, they went back on their slogans, redrew their project, they discredited the revolutionary struggle and they retreated into the arms of social-democratic concepts to evade their responsibilities, rooting themselves in the pettiness of the petty bourgeois patriotic dream.

The Communist Party of Mexico (Marxist-Leninist) made public its sympathy with the armed Zapatista movement in a series of communiqués that called on them not to turn down the volume in the struggle of the masses and to make use of the effervescence and high spirits generated with the perspective of a national convergence of popular opposition to the regime and of the need for a Democratic and Popular National Constituent Assembly. Our efforts in that period in regard to the struggle of the masses were centred on raising that perspective.

Our organization proposed without the least hesitancy or the slightest fear of the fact that ‘others’ were the ones who provoked the fissure in the system, that the EZLN would be in a position to become the unifying factor of social discontent. We understood that the EZLN was in a position to put itself at the head of a powerful mass movement that went beyond its initial demands, which were already greater than those that they are raising today, since this was a war against the regime. When we discussed this with the Zapatistas, they stuck to their line of ‘not being the vanguard’ as a justification for leaving the mass movement without leadership. Now that the opportunists and the right-wing are congratulating them on such a line (moreover preaching it on every occasion), one must remember that this has caused a great deal of damage to the mass movement, shrinking it and diluting it for some time.

This is a line with serious consequences, for which the Zapatistas are directly responsible. It is a bitter truth that they cannot hide, no matter how much they try in their sweet-sounding speeches and campaigns. Particularly because the masses in the country to a certain degree were expecting orientation, directives and examples of consistent struggle.

The changes in the EZLN’s political line are not new, since the democratic convention of 1994 when they handed over leadership of the mass movement which they had convened to the bourgeois intelligentsia and social-democracy, rejecting the forces that were most consistent in defending the revolutionary line; there were many other facts of that nature, as were shown later. They already demonstrated a continuous abandonment of the tasks imposed by the situation generated by the uprising, which was: to contribute to the revolutionary struggle.

With the Zapatista march to the Federal District [Mexico City] we witnessed how the leadership of the EZLN and their supporters reached a peak in their crusade against the revolutionary perspective, to the satisfaction of the ruling class; naturally the class struggle does not stop at Marcos’s will.

In the Zapatistas’ campaign with their march throughout the country, and especially because of the interviews Marcos granted to Monsivais, Scherer and García Márquez, the zeal with which he sounded off against the revolutionary struggle became clear, without stopping to take account of the major significance of this in the emancipation of the exploited, without taking into account the contributions of the revolutionary movement. He identified himself with the slanderous, blackmailing and reactionary criticism of the bourgeoisie. The matter cannot be simply forgotten; we are obliged to give an answer from the trenches of those of us who have not fallen into the traps of bourgeois democracy. If we now return to this once again it is because of the Zapatista’s need to hitch themselves to such a policy that is so unfortunate for the exploited and oppressed masses of the country. Monsivais (yes, that intellectual enemy of the university student movement and of everything that rings of mass struggle outside of the bourgeois constitutional order) in an interview congratulated Marcos for the fact that the EZLN had gone over to civilised positions; he branded the initial objectives of the Zapatista struggle as delirious, but when the line changed, he was delighted. Marcos agreed with him without batting an eye and they were all happy. Monsivais was pleased with Marcos and Marcos reinforced Monsivais. In spite of all this, our party maintains that the slogans to which the struggle of the EZLN has limited itself as outlined in the San Andrés accords are completely valid, even if they would not provide a complete solution to the problem. At the time we put them forward, what has changed is the form of promoting them and their projection into the class struggle; now they have become the final objective of the Zapatista movement.

With the aim of rejecting revolutionary criticism, the Zapatistas through Marcos have a consistent formula in declaring that that is what they have always fought for, that others either were relics of ‘old conceptions,’ or even worse, others had made bad interpretations of their objectives. Put this way it sounds irrefutable; they deny what they said before and make one believe that they have taken a step foreword into the political environment in which they now travel, surrounded by social democrats and petty bourgeois cretinism.

This is their favourite manner of rejecting criticism of their political inconsistency and the game they are playing with the social democrats by discrediting the revolutionary movement in front of the masses and nullifying its action.

I. The revolutionary struggle and Marcos the rebel

Marcos stated that it was his contact with the indigenous communities that was the reason for losing his revolutionary convictions, calling those convictions a ‘loss of the vocation of death. This sounds very humanitarian and romantic, but with this he hands over all his contingents and followers to a life dedicated to making the capitalist system into a regime of exploitation ‘with a human face,’ and from then on any another struggle deserves to be rejected.

In our view it was not contact with the communities that made him ‘understand’ the new course of the struggle, but his incapacity to supersede the class nature of the movement to give him greater perspective. Marcos went into the jungle as a revolutionary element; the determining factor of his degenerating ideologically was in the weakness of his formation (as he himself recognised), the inability of the leadership, on the basis of the extremely tragic situation of the indigenous masses, to politicise them based on a proletarian outlook, and in the process of the movement, the flirtation with social democracy and the internal and external pressures have influenced them more, finally leading to the open rejection of the revolutionary struggle.

According to Marcos in his interview with Julio Scherer García, ‘The revolutionary tends to become a politician and the social rebel does not stop being a social rebel.’ In this way he is proposing again a very well-known thesis from the period of the guerrilla movements of the 1970s, particularly preached by the anarchist groups of that time, that ‘power corrupts’; that is, the masses should reject the seizure of power, they should take the means of production into their hands (which is really a trap in the class struggle for power). Even worse, the masses would be unable to take the affairs of the country into their own hands, to take power, because everything would end in corruption and the failure of every project; they have no confidence in the power of the masses to overcome and finally resolve any attempt to move backward in the class struggle. The Zapatistas say they ‘reject being the vanguard’; their rejection is more than that, they reject the revolutionary struggle even without being the vanguard.

Of course, Marcos is not that consistent, because in his interview with Carlos Monsivais he stated: ‘we are a serious revolutionary movement,’ although from his later rejection, it has become totally clear to all that the leader of the EZLN and its structure has decided to exchange revolutionary speeches for peace.

Returning to his interview, with Scherer and with Gabriel García Márquez, the one which Subcomandante Marcos used to rave against the revolutionaries, he made this a defining point of his social-democratic position by stating that it is not necessary to seize power, that power must be left to those who already have it, as this is how it is in the world. Who does not know that the upper classes have the power? Who does not know that in Mexico the financial oligarchy rules? Who does not know that the politics of the legal parties is the politics of the big bourgeoisie? Such senseless talk by the leadership of such an important movement is shameful.

In social activity, what is not political nowadays? Fundamentally, the Zapatista discourse tries to alienate the masses from the political struggle, under the pretext that everything political is corrupt, without putting this in class terms, that is, without differentiating between bourgeois politics with all its hues and proletarian politics. One must state dryly, Marcos is taking up social democratic politics of the left and rejecting revolutionary politics.

Certainly, revolutionaries propose to organise the masses so that they can wage political struggle, take power and transform their reality in all facets of social life, contributing historically to the popular struggles so that the masses gain certain more or less immediate objectives, but above all so that they can raise their level of consciousness and increase their forces in the struggle against their oppressors. While the Zapatistas, at first very quietly, but in the end completely openly, propose to assimilate the bourgeois slogan of making the masses people who should only take part politically in questions that have nothing to do with political power and the material base on which it rests, the ownership of the means of production. At another point of this Zapatista litany, they try to identify the radicalisation of the movements with defeat: ‘we will not force the movement to the point that it leads to defeat.’ This seems like a call to dignity with which the student movement confronted the regime; the background of this was that they refused to deepen the struggle for fear of repression, an attitude that leads to defeatism, but which also touches on dirty blackmail of the masses with the supposed ‘risks’ to force them to take down their banners.

With regard to the socialist perspective in Mexico, the Zapatista discourse followed the same patterns of classic social democratic, revisionist and big bourgeois language; in agreement with them, it identified socialism with the time of revisionism in power, when the revolutionary socialist processes degenerated into state capitalism from the middle of the 20th century until its complete bankruptcy a decade ago. We revolutionaries accept defeats in the class struggle of the proletariat in the process of overcoming all the historic situations and the errors that confronted the peoples with the return of wage slavery, with the idea that the working masses themselves and their broader participation in all levels of struggle will block their moves. We do not ask for the understanding of the oppressors because we do not receive gold from Moscow, we do not call on the representatives of the bourgeoisie who try to make us believe that there is no longer a revolutionary struggle. We call on the masses to exercise the revolutionary struggle to transform present society. We continue to be conscious of the fact that the class struggle is the motive force of history.

II. Revolutionary Violence

Violence is a fact of the class struggle. Given the antagonisms, social classes and even more those who have a revolutionary perspective always resort to the criticism of arms. Marcos, who embarked on a violent movement in response to the violence of the oppressors, now comes to give lessons of repentance, ‘Violence is always useless, but one does not understand this until one exercises it or suffers from it’ (interview with Scherer). One should not spit into the wind. The history of humanity has advanced by this ‘useless’ deed. What happened to the revolutions of the slaves, the serfs, the peasants, the bourgeoisie, the working class in history? What about the revolution for independence of 1810, the revolution of 1910-17, or the revolutionary guerrilla traditions in the history of our country? With his romanticism Marcos takes us back to the old outmoded bourgeois conception of violence as a dark symbol of human history, its black side, denying again any class distinction between the reactionary violence of the oppressor classes and the revolutionary violence of the dispossessed classes. And he continues hammering, ‘clearly a soldier, I include myself among them, is an absurd and irrational man, because he has to resort to violence to convince someone’ (interview with Scherer). A soldier, we say, is someone in arms in the service of a social class, his action is determined by the needs of the class or sector that has put him there or for which he has stood up. Even the generals in power in Latin America are clearly maintained by the needs of the local oppressor classes and of course by the burning needs of the imperialists, but not by their so-called ‘evil nature.’ The Zapatistas used arms not to convince, but to assert their interests and to put a halt to the increasing repression and extermination to which they had been subjected for many years. This is something that they should not forget; the peoples of the Lacandon jungle have an urgent need to resort to self-defence against the big landowners and the State.

In relation to other guerrilla groups, with the idea of not only questioning ultra-left errors or positions, but of rejecting the armed struggle, Marcos said that, ‘it is not ethical that all means are justified’ (interview with García Márquez). This is an old trick to which the ruling classes have resorted since the beginning of the Mexican revolution of 1910 to discredit the armed struggle.

But this is not the end. ‘He who must resort to arms to assert his ideas is very poor in ideas’ (interview with Scherer). That is to hit your head against the wall; it is not just using a phrase of the regime to combat the armed struggle, but the beginning of its abandonment, prettified by a good dose of humanitarianism. Marcos says he is a follower of Zapata, but how could one understand Zapata without the armed movement that he led?

One must remember that the masses resort to armed struggle, and especially to its highest form, the armed insurrection, not simply because of their desperate situation, but after a long process of struggles until they understand the significance of their aspirations and the need to assert them in a revolutionary way, confronting the ruling classes, being prepared to shed their blood in the struggle for their liberation.

In this way, translating the Zapatista logic into plain language one could say that because exploitation is a certainty in this world, and oppression is inevitable, one must convince the whole world of this for everything to change. But we do not try to impose our ideas of freedom by force of arms, because then they will become very poor ideas, or poor ideas. Such gibberish is contagious!

In summary, he would have us believe that open revolutionary struggle has been superseded and from now on we should limit ourselves to peaceful struggle. It is notorious that the position of the EZLN is now fully identified with classical liberalism of the bourgeois democracies.

They have tried to frighten the regime by stating that if the peace process is not begun, other armed groups will arise; yes, they will arise with or without you. This is the result of the sharpening of class contradictions, foreseen in general terms by the development of capitalism, and seen concretely by the anti-popular and pro-imperialist politics of the regime.

III. The Zapatista View of Capitalism

To the praise of the bourgeoisie and the shame of the tradition of struggle of our suffering Mexican people, the Zapatistas have brought us an old and stale slogan, ‘We do not believe that all businessmen are thieves, for some have earned their wealth by honourable and honest means’ (interview with Scherer). No, this is not a Christian sermon, where the thief is accused and the saint is rewarded. Capitalist exploitation is not simply a question of morals or robbery, but of social relations of production established between the owners of the means of production in private property and those who do not own anything but their own labour power to sell to the former. ‘Honest’ means of producing wealth do not exist; one is either a direct or indirect exploiter. If Marcos had to give a single example of his thesis, he would be faced with the same thing as all intellectuals of the system, a complete absurdity. The humblest of the bosses who crosses himself (before the Virgin of Guadalupe) must always exploit his workers to the maximum, the banker will demand the highest profit, the investor will seek the highest interest, the landowner wants to maximise his rent, the cattle raiser will seek the greatest profits. It is the law of the system.

Marcos asks for incentives for cooperatives such as that of Tephé [an indigenous community north of Mexico City which has built a water park on their land, attracting Mexican tourists – translator’s note] and ‘that their business potential be recognised, giving them advantages and possibilities in the market which are offered to the big hotel owners’ (interview with Scherer).

Well, to follow his logic of vitalising those sectors, we would first have to forget that the State today is in the service of the big monopolies. Who does not know that? Once this ‘simple detail’ is forgotten, with the best of results, assuming competition between hotel monopolies, what would be achieved is to create a new monopoly that would fight to crush the small businessmen or other small cooperatives. Why? Because the search for the greatest profits reigns, because without this they would succumb to the competition, because the social relations of capitalist production in their monopoly phase reign.

In case one tries to make them into small or medium-sized businesses with financial stability, they would again be faced with the constant threat of being devoured or subordinated to the more powerful ones. The independent companies in a monopolised branch create a factor of instability for the companies that dominate that branch and the independent companies always come into conflict with the prices and profits of the monopolies. By forgetting this Marcos fell into the trap of the regime which consists in promoting (in appearance) policies favourable to the small bourgeoisie, which in fact are subject to the whirlpool of big capital.

However it may be under the capitalist mode of production, by the law of the extraction of surplus value and the law of accumulation, the cooperatives in the Zapatista program will end up exploiting labour power, as the Pascual, the Excelsior and many others, or being cruelly subjected to elimination.

In the case of the small bourgeoisie and the cooperativists the main task is to integrate them into the democratic and revolutionary struggle to transform the present relations of production and to integrate them into a productive life where they do not become exploiters of the worker.

But this latter is not the expectation designed by the Zapatistas; for them what is at stake are: ‘the possibilities of constructing another type of relation, even within the market, which do not represent savage capitalism where some are devoured by others’ (interview with Scherer). This is also not new; it is a repetition of the social-democratic proposal for a ‘third way.’ Imperialist Europe is experiencing it; however the ‘domestication of the forces of capitalism’ has not brought about more than a change in the form of speech that obscures the significance of the capitalist market. The capitalists do not make economic or military war because they are evil, but only out of the need to survive. It is difficult to believe that Marcos really does not know this, or that the rest of the social-democrats, who are aiming to win the sympathies of the oligarchy, do not know this.

It is important to point out our differences especially on the question of the relations between the national oligarchy and imperialism, for the Zapatistas through Marcos recognise that the former will be devoured by the imperialists. In this sense, the dynamics of imperial rule in general always aims to consent to the national oligarchies, for the sake of being allowed to be guaranteed in the strategic sectors fundamental to consolidate their international control. The imperial rule over our country is based on the strategic alliance of subordination between the international financial oligarchy and the national financial oligarchy.

The Zapatista interpretation of capitalism is not as novel as some proclaim; those who state that Marxism is obsolete revive the most backward economist and populist theories, flavouring them with social-democratic discourse, but they have nothing new to offer. All they do is reveal their own class nature, sticking to them to this, they try to generalise the slightest social development.

The social-democratic discourse in the EZLN’s version follows: ‘recognizing differences’ are the new magic words to obliterate the existing contradictions. The meaning of this is very elastic, and acceptable to almost everyone; the Zapatistas speak of recognizing us as all being different and living in harmony, in the land of humankind. But humankind lives according to historic patterns which cannot be discarded; we recognise the differences between possessors and dispossessed, between exploited and exploiters, between oppressed and oppressors, but do we accept them? This is incompatible with our perspective of struggle.

Finally, we believe it is our obligation to give the lie to a grave error in the lessons that Marcos draws from the history of the 20th century, when he says: ‘When we declare that the new century and the new millennium are the millennium and century of differences, we are making a fundamental break with the 20th century: the great struggle of the hegemonic powers. The last struggle that we remember, between the socialist and the capitalist camp, led to two world wars. If this is not recognised, the world will end up being an archipelago in continuous war within and outside its territories. It will not be possible to live in this way’ (interview with Scherer). We should make clear three points:

  1. The struggle for world hegemony is a present-day matter, in which all the capitalist powers spurred on by their great transnational monopolies are involved, but also one in which North American power prevails.
  2. The world wars originated from the nature of the imperialist phase of capitalism for world domination; the First World War began before the proletarian revolution of 1917, the second had its cause in German expansionism that came to question English rule. To say that these wars were due to contradictions between socialism and capitalism is to follow in the footsteps of all that nebulous propaganda that tried to cleanse the capitalist powers of blame, above all the Western powers, who were the ones that pushed Germany (in the case of the Second World War) to fight against the former USSR.
  3. The world is already an archipelago at war for a new division of spheres of influence around the great Atlantic Alliance (NATO). We are seeing the scenes of war constantly shifting from one point of the globe to another; each time the imperialists run into more difficulties. The Atlantic Alliance is trying to prolong its existence by fighting against the countries that are not incorporated into it, but its internal contradictions, especially between Europe and North America, are heightened and turn into bitter disputes over who will get the greater share of the multiple booties of war.
IV. Marcos and his idea of legality

‘We call on one of the forces to assume its role, the Congress of the Union’ (interview with Monsivais). Already the ideologist of present-day Zapatismo has forgotten the role that to date the merchants of the chambers play in the life of the country, they have already forgotten the role played by parliament to negate the EZLN. We see here how they have linked themselves to an organ that is not of the people, but of the owning classes, an instrument of bourgeois democracy. This call is dangerous not only from the viewpoint of the search for a solution to their demands, but of the illusions that it created in the masses, since it promotes confidence in an organ of the dictatorship of capital. And what do the Zapatistas now say with regard to the consummation of the Indigenous Law? What role did the Congress of the Union play? Things will go badly by promoting such illusions, since despite the facts the Zapatistas go to the extreme of stating that there are only three people who show bad will towards them. After this they will again flirt with the forces of the left to dazzle them once more with new demonstrations of their legalism.

But earlier, in his notorious interviews he has already stated without blushing in the least that:

‘For us it is very important that the nation should say: ‘I assume it and I put it in writing; I make history. I recognize that everything that has taken place before was not good. Not only do I recognize this, but I will make every effort to ensure that this will not happen again’ (interview with Monsivais). Oh Marcos! Who leads the nation, little brother? The fact that things were not good sounds like the classic bourgeois lament: let’s start with a new slate. To put it this way is to place the solution of the indigenous and peasant question in the hands of the ruling classes, giving the message to all the people that this is also a viable solution for their demands.

‘The EZLN is not asking that the whole Army must leave before negotiations. We ask Fox to answer this question: Are you willing to enter into negotiations and to abandon a military solution? Are you the commander of the Army?’ The Zapatistas here fall into Fox’s populism. Fox is a representative of the oligarchy, his actions are subordinate to the strategy of bourgeois domination, and obviously, to the pressure that the masses can exercise against that. Therefore, it is not the will of the president that will resolve such a serious situation.

In his interview with Scherer, he says: ‘We propose to try to convince this government, not only Fox, that they can sit down with the certainty that there will be results if they take this seriously.’ We have seen enough of this already; now it is the ‘good will’ of the Zapatistas added to a policy of shady deals worthy of professional mercenaries.

V. The Zapatista view of the masses and their struggles

The Zapatista concept of the masses and their struggle is not notably different from the classical social-democratic view. Why should it be? For the Zapatistas society, more than being divided into classes, is divided into the State, the military and civilians. The Zapatistas never call on the working masses and the popular sectors for their support, but on ‘civil society’, that broad spectrum of oppressor and oppressed classes in the old Hegelian language that has long ago been superceded by Marxism. However, it has again been dredged up, first by social democracy to prevent the masses from looking at classes and to try to unite what cannot be united in the class struggle, rather than to do the opposite, to continuously help to separate the workers and peasants from the bourgeoisie and their pernicious influence.

They are especially trying to raise the banner of the so-called ‘new social actors’, who have been brought into the struggle in the last decades and who have been exalted by social-democracy in opposition to the working class in their role of vanguard. These new actors, with their special problems, who are part of various classes or class sectors, are influenced by openly petty bourgeois and deeply individualist positions and forms of life. They are trying to take them aside to a marginalised struggle from the strategic point of view, alienating them from their exploited and oppressed condition by the system in most cases. In civilian society, as has been shown above, the EZLN encourages parliamentary cretinism, reformism and bourgeois and petty bourgeois constitutionalism, and all kinds of actions that ‘do not shake up’ the masses or lead them to confront their oppressors in a revolutionary manner.

A serious mistake that Marcos made in the Federal District was when he called on the students to concentrate on the studies and to postpone their struggles until they had gotten their degrees. Immediately the opportunist sectors and reaction applauded this ‘brilliant’ suggestion. Of course this is not the first time that the Zapatistas fell into the opportunist swamp in the student movement; during the strike, at a specific moment they gave their support to the moderate groups. We call on the students not to pay attention to such nonsense; our party calls on them to fight, to absorb the great experiences in their demonstrations and to push for revolutionary action from their trenches, so that at the end of their studies they have a clearer consciousness and broader horizons of struggle.

VI. The problem of the land and the ethnic question

The central problem of the Zapatista struggle, as much as they may present it as an indigenous question, is materially speaking the problem of the land, and sociologically one of ethnicity.

The indigenous communities were systematically pushed deep into the jungle by the landowners, for whom the main thing is to have them available as labour power for the harshest tasks. (In the same way other indigenous peoples in our country were pushed into the most inaccessible and unhealthy areas.) The real solution to the problems of the Zapatista communities must begin with a broad agrarian reform that returns to these people their former territories and the infrastructure needed to overcome their historic backwardness, as well as granting them territorial autonomy. Without the working class coming to power, it is clear that even with such a reform, sooner rather than later things will get worse with the differentiation of classes in this area, a product of the laws of the capitalist market. Besides let us not forget the existence of a pole of economic and political power which will crush them even if Zapatismo obtains certain considerable benefits.

Marcos maintains that ‘the fundamental thing in our struggle is the demand for indigenous rights and culture’ (interview with Monsivais). This is a false point; all this would be lost without material livelihood for the indigenous peasants. First they must own the means of production, and then the demand for indigenous territorial autonomy must be raised, in order to raise the ethnic groups in the general development of their life. If one raises only the demand for territorial autonomy, even if the bourgeoisie today does not want to yield on this, they may do this under certain circumstances. However, that autonomy by itself would still be amputated because it would be limited to an area with an independent administration with political powers for the ethnic groups as such, leaving intact the large private property in the land, and of course, the indigenous ethnic groups could not develop with such an enemy at their side. Besides, there would remain unsolved the problem of what the Zapatistas understand as rights and culture, since in the present-day terms that they have been using, it is a question of the right to exploit each other.

This petty bourgeois view of the indigenous problem has given rise to indigenous theory, sometimes presented as a problem of races. But it is rather a question of the systematic oppression of the ethnic groups in our country, expropriating their land eliminating all the agents who impede the capitalist relations of exploitation.

Although racism is an undeniable fact, it parts from those concepts. If we look outside our country, we see that the Japanese, who are not a white race, are accepted as such because they are an advanced capitalist society. Also it is not a problem of races since even the indigenous people have assimilated mestizo, black and white elements into their social activity as an ethnic group; they share a common life and a similar psychology, but not necessarily the same blood. Nowadays there is no more pure blood among the ethnic groups, and in spite of this the problem persists, and the ethnic groups also persist as historic social beings.

On the other hand, the Zapatistas have forgotten the thousands and thousands of indigenous people (separated not just in the last generation, but even several generations ago) who take part in the general social activity of the country, and are immersed in all the strata of capitalist society, exploiters and exploited, oppressors and oppressed. White, mestizo, Indian, black, Arabs, Asians, etc. make up the blood stream of our country. Moreover, without leaving this question aside, one must analyse the breakdown of social classes: bourgeois, proletarians, peasants, semi-proletarians and other middle strata. In the same way the ethnic groups have their class breakdown, in accord with the place that their members occupy in production: as exploiters, peasants, peons, day-labourers (agricultural proletariat) and artisans. They are subjected to a worse situation because of their ethnic oppression caused by the ruling class. These qualities should guide us in participating in their struggles, fundamentally their class nature, the particularity of the ethnic social organisation.

In the view of our party, even though the problem of the land and the question of ethnic territorial autonomy are problems which cannot be postponed, the guarantee that the ethnic problem would be fundamentally and decisively solved is by incorporating the ethnic groups into the struggle for socialism.

Our party does not reject a peaceful solution favourable to the Zapatista problem and to the mass movement itself, but this will not come from the defeatist line presently put forward, but by propelling the struggle of the masses. It is not a matter of simply signing a just peace agreement, but (if necessary) of making a dignified retreat in the armed struggle, without rejecting this, nor the class struggle in general.

As long as the Zapatistas continue along the line of abandoning the consistent struggle and are tied to all those groups in so-called civil society that are unable to take up a serious fight against the system, the results will not be favourable to the masses that they mobilise.

The Zapatistas and their leadership should see the nature of the capitalist system as it is, not in the light of indigenous subjectivism, and break with the concepts that seek to unleash the forces of capital within the ethnic groups. Otherwise, the tiger will make them swallow the mirrors and not the other way around as, they once preached.

Translated from the Spanish by George Gruenthal

Source

On Closed Speech of Khrushchev at the Twentieth Congress of the CPSU

large

George Gruenthal

Book Review:  Khrushchev Lied, by Grover Furr

Prof. Grover Furr has done a great service to Marxist-Leninists and all revolutionaries and to all those who are interested in historical truth. He has picked out 61 major statements from Khrushchev’s 20th Congress speech, checked them against other material, especially from the Russian archives that have recently been made public, and found that they are all lies. He gives extensive quotes from primary sources, as well as from internet web-sites that give English translations of the source material. Thus, he has made available and translated a wealth of material, especially valuable for those who do not read Russian.

In order to make the book more readable, Furr has divided it into two parts. In the first, with 221 pages, he presents each of 61 statements and the basic material that refutes them. In the second part, an Appendix of 194 pages, Furr presents additional documentation to back up the refutations. Thus, people who want to read the ‘short version’ can read only the first part; those who want the full details may find it easiest to read each chapter together with the corresponding chapter in the Appendix.

I will give several examples of Furr’s revelations to provide an idea of the scope of his book.

1) Khrushchev claimed that ‘Stalin acted not through persuasion, explanation and patient cooperation with people, but by imposing his concepts and demanding absolute submission to his opinion. Whoever opposed this concept or tried to prove his viewpoint and the correctness of his position was doomed to removal from the leading collective and to subsequent moral and physical annihilation.’

There are many facts that contradict this. We will mention only one, by Marshal Zhukov on military matters, which Furr quotes: ‘After Stalin’s death appeared the one about how he used to take military and strategic decisions unilaterally. This was not the case at all. I have already said above that if you reported questions to the Supreme Commander with a knowledge of your business, he took them into account. I know of cases when he turned against his own previous opinion and changed decisions he had taken previously’ (both quotes, Furr, p. 245).

2) Khrushchev implied, without actually stating it, that Kirov was killed by or on the orders of Stalin. Furr points out that very little of the material on Kirov’s murder has been published, or even made available to researchers. He does note that the well-known author on Soviet history, J. Arch Getty, pointed out that several Soviet and post-Soviet commissions had tried and failed to find evidence that Stalin was behind Kirov’s murder. Former Soviet General Sudoplatov, who provided much information (or misinformation) on Soviet activities to the West after the fall of the Soviet Union, stated in 1996: ‘No documents or evidence exist to support the theory of the participation of Stalin or of the apparat of the NKVD in Kirov’s assassination… Kirov was not an alternative to Stalin. He was one of the staunchest Stalinists. Khrushchev’s version was later approved and used by Gorbachev as part of his anti-Stalin campaign’ (p. 274).

3) Khrushchev claimed that Stalin was responsible for mass repressions in the late 1930s. But Furr points out that Khrushchev himself was guilty of mass repressions, both as Party head in Moscow and then as Party head of the Ukraine. Furr quotes from a note that Khrushchev sent to Stalin: ‘Dear Iosif Vissiaronovich! The Ukraine sends [requests for] 17,000 – 18,000 [persons to be] repressed every month. And Moscow confirms no more than 2,000 – 3,000. I request that you take prompt measures. Your devoted N. Khrushchev’ (p. 259). Furr thinks that Khrushchev was responsible for more repressions than anyone else except for Ezhov (Yezhov).

4) Furr points out that Stalin was always in favour of dealing with Trotskyites and other agents as individuals, not through mass repression. He also proposed carrying out political education of leading Party officials. Some of this has been known for a long time to those not blinded by bourgeois-Trotskyite propaganda. Stalin discussed this in ‘Mastering Bolshevism,’ in which he called for each of the leading Party cadre to select temporary replacements for themselves while they attended courses in Party history and ideology (see Furr, p. 280-281). As to the question of mass repression, Stalin stated: ‘how to carry out in practice the task of smashing the German-Japanese agents of Trotskyism. Does this mean that we should strike and uproot not only the real Trotskyites, but also those who wavered at some time toward Trotskyism; not only those who are really Trotskyite agents for wrecking, but also those who happened once upon a time to go along a street where some Trotskyite or other had once passed? At any rate, such voices were heard here at the plenum. Can we consider such an interpretation of the resolution to be correct?

‘No, we cannot consider it to be correct. On this question, as on all other questions, there must be an individual, differentiated approach. You must not measure everyone by the same yardstick. Such a sweeping approach can only harm the cause of struggle against the real Trotskyite wreckers and spies’ (p. 282, Furr’s emphasis).

In this connection it is also worth reading the section of Zhdanov’s speech at the 18th Party Congress in 1939, Amendments to the Rules of the C.P.S.U.(B.), on eliminating mass purges. This is not discussed in Furr’s book, but is available in the archives of Revolutionary Democracy at www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/zhd.htm.

5) After Khrushchev came to power, he and his supporters began a process of ‘mass rehabilitations’ of many high-level officials who had been repressed earlier. Without doing any investigation to see who was actually innocent of any crimes and who was really guilty, people were simply declared innocent. In so doing, crucial statements of people who had admitted their guilt were sometimes totally distorted to make them appear to be claiming innocence.

One example of this is a letter to Stalin written by Gen. Iakir, who had been found guilty of treason along with Marshal Tukhachevskii and was soon to be executed. Marshal Zhukov read from this letter at the CC Plenum in June of 1957 (the Plenum at which the ‘anti-Party bloc’ of Malenkov, Molotov and Kaganovich were expelled from the CC). However, a more complete version of the letter has since been published, in 1994. Zhukov had omitted from the text the words printed below in bold:

‘Dear, close com. Stalin. I dare address you in this way because I have told everything and it seems to me that I am once more that honourable warrior, devoted to Party, state and people, that I was for many years. All my conscious life has been passed in selfless, honourable work in the sight of the Party and its leaders. – then I fell into a nightmare, into the irreparable horror of treason… The investigation is finished. The indictment of treason to the state has been presented to me, I have admitted my guilt, I have repented completely. I have unlimited faith in the justice and appropriateness of the decision of the court and the government. Now each of my words is honest. I die with words of love to you, the Party, the country, with a fervent belief in the victory of communism’ (pp. 214-215).

Zhukov tries to turn an admission of guilt into a proclamation of innocence. It would be hard to imagine a more dishonest example of falsifying a quotation.

6) In 1936, Ezhov took over as head of the NKVD after the removal and later execution of Yagoda for being a member of the Rightist conspiracy. Ezhov had many people, including many who were innocent, arrested and executed from 1937 to 1938. This period was colloquially known as the Yezhovshchina. Ezhov was removed from his post in late 1938 and was arrested and executed the following year. He was replaced by Beria, who put an end to the mass arrests and, after investigations, had many innocent people released from prison. It was this writer’s understanding that Ezhov had been executed simply for taking a heartless, bureaucratic attitude towards these mass arrests.

In the last few years, however, many of the transcripts of the interrogations of Ezhov have been published, and Furr refers readers to the English translations of these on the Internet. They show that Ezhov organised these mass arrests and executions ‘to cover up his own involvement in the Rightist conspiracy and with German military espionage, as well as in a conspiracy to assassinate Stalin or another Politburo member, and to seize power by coup d’état’  (p. 57). Furr includes some 15 pages of documents on Ezhov’s case in his Appendix.

7) We shall shortly move on to areas dealt with in Furr’s book, and particularly some of the fables about Stalin’s behaviour during World War II.

However, we would like to first point out a short but fascinating account of the behaviour of the Trotskyites in the Spanish Civil War. Furr quotes Gen. Sudoplatov:

‘The Trotskyites were also involved in actions. Making use of the support of persons with ties to German military intelligence [the ‘Abwehr’] they organised a revolt against the Republican government in Barcelona in 1937…. Concerning the connections of the leaders of the Trotskyist revolt in Barcelona in 1937 we were informed by Schulze-Boysen…. Afterward, after his arrest, the Gestapo accused him of transmitting this information to us, and this figured in his death sentence by the Hitlerite court in his case’ (p. 269).

Schulze-Boysen was a German citizen who spied for the Soviet Union from within the SS. The Nazi military court which tried and executed him for this espionage confirmed Sudoplatov’s statement.  It declared: ‘At the beginning of 1938, during the Spanish Civil War, the accused learned in his official capacity that a rebellion against the local red government in the territory of Barcelona was being prepared with the co-operation of the German Secret Service. This information, together with that of Pöllnitz,’ [a member of the ‘Red Orchestra,’ the famous Soviet anti-Nazi spy ring] ‘was transmitted by him to the Soviet Russian embassy in Paris’ (p. 270).

8) Let us now take up some of Khrushchev’s lies, since repeated by many others, about Stalin’s actions during the war.

a) The first is that Stalin was not prepared for the Nazi attack on the Soviet Union. There is no question that Stalin knew that Nazi Germany would eventually attack the Soviet Union. The Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact was signed to delay that attack for as long as possible. Furr points out that, in these circumstances, Stalin could not have carried out a mobilisation of Soviet forces, as that would have given Hitler the opportunity to declare war and possibly make a deal with the Western allies. He quotes a statement from a German General-Major Marks in 1940 that ‘The Russians will not do us the favour of attacking us first’ (p. 88). Moreover, the Soviet Union could not rely on British warnings of an impending attack, since Britain clearly wanted to set Hitler against the Soviet Union, and then possibly make a deal with Hitler.

b) Nazi Germany attacked the Soviet Union in the early hours of June 22, 1941. In his speech, Khrushchev blamed Stalin for allegedly ignoring information about the impending attack. He quoted a statement by a Soviet Captain, Vorontsov, that had contained information from a Soviet citizen, Bozer, that ‘Germany is preparing to invade the USSR on May 14.’ This information is contained in a letter by Admiral Kuznetsov to Stalin of May 6, which has now been published in full. The letter concludes with Kuznetsov’s statement that  ‘I believe that this information is false, specifically directed through this channel with the object of reaching our government in order to find out how the USSR would react to it’ (pp. 344-345).

c) In his speech, Khrushchev also told of a German citizen who crossed the border with the Soviet Union on the eve of the invasion and stated that the Soviet Union would be attacked at 3 AM the following morning, June 22. Khrushchev claims that ‘Stalin was informed of this immediately, but even this warning was ignored..

Furr points out that the warning was not ignored, that the information was transmitted to Moscow as quickly as possible considering the need to find a reliable translator and to verify the information. In fact, after the attack the statement by the German soldier, Alfred Liskow, a self-declared communist, was published by Pravda and made into a leaflet to undermine the morale of the German soldiers by letting them know that there were opponents of the war and Hitlerism, friends of the Soviet Union, in their ranks.

Furr also refutes Khrushchev’s statement, again repeated by many others, that Stalin was demoralised at the beginning of the war and that he had withdrawn from any activities in those first days. Furr points out that the logbooks of visitors to Stalin’s office show that Stalin was extremely active in those days and quotes from Dimitrov, as well as Zhukov and the anti-Stalinists Volkogonov and Sudoplatov, all of whom testified to Stalin’s activity in the first days of the war.

Khrushchev also denigrated Stalin’s abilities as a wartime commander. In response, Furr quotes military figures such as Marshals Zhukov, Vasilevsky and Golovanov, all of whom testified in their memoirs not only to Stalin’s great abilities as wartime commander but also to the great respect felt for him by other commanders at the front.


To conclude, I would like to add a few remarks on Furr’s standpoint, his position and views toward Stalin and Soviet socialism.

Furr is an objective researcher and scholar, although he clearly also is sympathetic to Stalin and the Soviet Union under his leadership. In this way he is different from other researchers such as J. Arch Getty who, although he is not a sympathiser of socialism, was one of the first researchers in the post-Stalin period to dispel some of the myths behind the general anti-communist depictions of Stalin as some sort of ogre.

It is certainly necessary for researchers who adopt a proletarian class stand to start from objective facts; otherwise one becomes an idealist who wants the world to correspond to his ideological views, instead of vice-versa. Throughout the book, Prof. Furr starts from objective facts and follows them to their conclusions, which lead to a clear demonstration that Khrushchev lied throughout his ‘secret speech’ in 1956.

However, Furr does not go much beyond this conclusion. He correctly states that the facts overturn the ‘anti-Stalin paradigm’ that has been basic to much of the anti-communist view of Soviet history, both in the Soviet Union and the rest of the world, since the middle of the last century. But he barely discusses the significance of this. For example, there is little mention of the fact that Khrushchev’s speech was accepted by a large part of the international communist movement, that this led to the split in this movement between Marxist-Leninist forces and revisionists a few years later, and that the struggle between them is still of great significance for the world communist movement today.

Of course, one cannot rebuke Furr for not taking up a task that he had no intention of taking up. Furr does briefly discuss what he sees as the reasons for Khrushchev’s attack on Stalin in Chapter 12: ‘Conclusion: The Enduring Legacy of Khrushchev’s Deception.’ He says: ‘Stalin and his supporters had championed a plan of democratisation of the USSR through contested elections. Their plan seems to have been to move the locus of power in the USSR from Party leaders like Khrushchev to elected government representatives. Doing this would also have laid the groundwork for restoring the Party as an organisation of dedicated persons struggling for communism rather than for careers or personal gain. Khrushchev appears to have had the support of the Party First Secretaries, who were determined to sabotage this project and perpetuate their own positions of privilege’ (p. 200).

He then mentions other so-called ‘reforms’ that were carried out after Stalin’s death. These include: a shift towards ‘market’-oriented reforms; a shift from heavy industry, production of the means of production, towards light, consumer industry; from the Marxist-Leninist view that war is inevitable as long as imperialism exists to the avoidance of war with imperialism at any cost; a de-emphasis on the vanguard role of the working class in the revolution; the view that capitalism could be overcome through ‘peaceful competition’ by parliamentary means; and an abandonment of Stalin’s plan to move towards communism, classless society.

This writer is in agreement with the need to prevent the party from becoming an organisation of careerists. However, it is not at all clear that ‘contested elections’ would prevent bureaucratisation. (Besides, in choosing candidates for the Soviets, there were discussions of different candidates all along this line. For more on this, see the fascinating chapter of Sam Darcy’s memoirs: ‘How Soviet Democracy Worked in the 1930s’, in Revolutionary Democracy Vol. XI. No. 2, Sept. 2005, available at: www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv11n2/darcy.htm.). Rather, this writer thinks it would be more important to reinforce the Party maximum (maximum salary that a Party member was allowed to receive, regardless of what position he held) and limit other material privileges available to Party leaders. Nor is it clear why moving the ‘locus of power’ from Party leaders to government representatives would increase democracy. This writer thinks that it would have been more important to strengthen the struggle against revisionism. For example, the necessary fight against Titoism seems to have been itself carried out in a bureaucratic way, compared to the way the struggles against Trotskyism and Bukharinism were carried out in the 1920s. That may be why the Soviet Union and all the Eastern European countries except for Albania followed the path of Titoism less than a decade later. However, this is all the subject for much further debate.

‘Khrushchev Lied’ is available from Erythrós Press at: www.erythrospress.com/store/furr.html

Source

ICMLPO (Unity and Struggle): NATO: Organization of War and Terror

NATO_logo_lLIBYA NO-FLYZONE

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was founded 60 years ago by a coalition of Western capitalist countries, led by the U.S., as an organization of military encirclement, aggression, attack and war against the Soviet Union and the people’s democracies.

NATO was conceived as an instrument of aggression of the imperialist camp that was trying to reconstruct its forces under United States leadership, to apply its aggressive policy in all spheres: Economically by means of institutions like the IMF and World Bank; politically through different regional organizations, the Western alliance was lined up in battle order and fortified its system by founding NATO militarily. Contrary to what is generally stated and accepted, NATO was not created against a possible threat by the USSR, but it was founded with aggressive aims six years before the formation of the Warsaw Pact.

NATO’s objective was one of militarily encirclement, aggression and subversion, without excluding the use of force against the Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc; at the same time it would serve to repress the internal opposition in the Western capitalist countries.

The most concrete example is the clandestine creation in almost all the NATO countries of (counter-guerrilla) organizations such as Gladio, several of which still exist. Those forces, which have organized provocations, sabotage, assassinations and coups d’état in the European countries to prevent the development of a workers and popular opposition, have done it under the shelter of NATO and the U.S.

NATO was formed in 1949 by 12 countries as a “regional defense organization”. It spread quickly among other Western countries, and after the collapse of the USSR and the Eastern bloc, it was transformed into a “global” organization of 26 countries, including former states of the Eastern bloc.

In a document entitled “Strategic Concept for the 21st Century”, approved in 1999 in a summit on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of NATO, it clearly says that NATO is “a global military organization”. That is, the fifty-year-old great lie was acknowledged openly when NATO stated that the organization had a clearly fixed objective, which was the destruction of socialism and the Soviet Union. This was in contradiction with the fundamental principles of the UN, and therefore it was not “a regional and defensive organization.”

Today NATO is the armed branch of the global war of the capitalists and imperialists, an enormous war machine with a budget of 1,500 billion Euros, 22,000 employees and an army of 60,000 men prepared to intervene at any time; NATO organizes operations and interventions beyond the region established at its foundation (Afghanistan, former Yugoslavia, Somalia, and indirectly, Iraq, Sudan, etc.).

Presently NATO has dozens of military bases established in different countries, hundreds of bombs and nuclear warheads, weapons of mass destruction, both biological and conventional, etc. They are trying to extend this organization and thus permanently impose their order by force,

The financial, economic and social crisis that is shaking the world, and that is getting worse day by day, is increasing tensions and leading to an increasing militarization: the threat of war is palpable.

Worldwide military expenses have risen to $1,335 billion dollars in 2007. Clearly, these weapons will not be allowed to rot in warehouses. Therefore the idea of getting out of the economic crisis by means of war is being raised seriously.

The summit that the imperialist powers organized on the 60th anniversary of NATO debated its expansion towards the East, deploying anti-missile shields in Poland and the Czech Republic; plans against the workers, peoples, oppressed nations, and even against rival imperialist forces.

We, the members of the International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations (ICMLPO), call on the progressive forces and workers of the world to participate in the protests organized on this 60th anniversary of NATO, and to take part in the common demonstration planned for April 4 in Strasbourg, France.

Stop the militarization, reduce the budgets for arms and use that money to satisfy the needs of the peoples and youths!

  • Dismantle the military bases, destroy the nuclear arms!
  • Withdraw the NATO occupation forces!
  • Dissolve NATO, a military organization for aggression!

International Conference of Marxist-Leninists Parties and Organizations

March, 2009

Source

On this Day, 1917: Bolsheviki Seize Buildings, Defying Kerensky

1107_big

Bolsheviki Seize State Buildings, Defying Kerensky


Premier Posts Troops in Capital and Declares Workmen’s Council Illegal


NORTHERN ARMY OFFERS AID


And Preliminary Parliament, Forced by Rebels to Leave Palace, Supports Him


WOMEN SOLDIERS ON GUARD


Petrograd Conditions Generally Normal Save for Outrages by So-Called Apaches


Bolsheviki Seize State Buildings

Petrograd, Nov. 7–An armed naval detachment, under orders of the Maximalist Revolutionary Committee, has occupied the offices of the official Petrograd Telegraph Agency. The Maximalists also occupied the Central Telegraph office, the State Bank and Marin Palace, where the Preliminary Parliament had suspended its proceedings in view of the situation.

Numerous precautions have been taken by Premier Kerensky to thwart the threatened outbreak. The Workmen’s and Soldiers’ Committee has been decreed an illegal organization. The soldiers guarding the Government buildings have been replaced by men from the officers’ training schools. Small guards have been placed at the Embassies. The women’s battalion is drawn up in the square in front of the Winter Palace.

The commander of the northern front has informed the Premier that his troops are against any demonstration and are ready to come to Petrograd to quell a rebellion if necessary.

No disorders are yet reported, with the exception of some outrages by Apaches. The general life of the city remains normal and street traffic has not been interrupted.

Leon Trotzky, President of the Central Executive Committee of the Petrograd Council of Workmen’s Soldiers’ Delegates, has informed members of the Town Duma that he has given strict orders against outlawry and has threatened with death any persons attempting to carry out pogroms.

Trotzky added that it was not the intention of the Workmen’s and Soldiers’ Delegates to seize power, but to represent to a Congress of Workmen’s and Soldiers’ Delegates, to be called shortly, that the body take over control of the capital, for which all necessary arrangements had been perfected.

In the early hours of the morning a delegation of Cossacks appeared at the Winter Palace and told Premier Kerensky that they were disposed to carry out the Government’s orders concerning the guarding of the capital, but they insisted that if hostilities began it would be necessary for their forces to be supplemented by infantry units. They further demanded that the Premier define the Government’s attitude toward the Bolsheviki, citing the release from custody of some of those who had been arrested for participation in the July disturbances. The Cossacks virtually made a demand that the Government proclaim the Bolsheviki outlaws.

The Premier replied:

“I find it difficult to declare the Bolsheviki outlaws. The attitude of the Government toward the present Bolsheviki activities is known.”

The Premier explained that those who had been released were on bail, and that any of them found participating in new offenses against peace would be severely dealt with.

The Revolutionary Military Committee of the Workmen’s and Soldiers’ Delegates demanded the right to control all orders of the General Staff in the Petrograd district, which was refused. Thereupon the committee announced that it had appointed special commissioners to undertake the direction of the military, and invited the troops to observe only orders signed by the committee. Machine gun detachments moved to the Workmen’s and Soldiers’ headquarters.

In addressing the Preliminary Parliament yesterday Premier Kerensky charged the Military Committee of the Workmen’s and Soldiers’ Delegates with having distributed arms and ammunition to workmen.

“That is why I consider part of the population of Petrograd in a state of revolt,” he said, “and have ordered an immediate inquiry and such arrests as are necessary. The Government will perish rather than cease to defend the honor, security, and independence of the State.”

The Preliminary Parliament, in response to the Premier’s appeal for a vote of confidence, voted to “work in contact with the Government.” The resolution, which originated with the Left, was carried by a vote of 123 to 102, with 26 members abstaining from voting. A resolution offered by the Centre calling for the suppression of the Bolshevikis and a full vote of confidence failed to reach a vote. The Cabinet, however, considers the resolution adopted as expressive of the Parliament’s support.

The reported resignation of Admiral Verdervski, Minister of Marine, was denied after the Cabinet meeting. It was stated that all the ministers had agreed to retain their portfolios.

The Bolshevik Chairman of the Petrograd Council of Workmen’s and Soldiers’ Delegates, realizing that there are more ways than one of acquiring real authority, not only attempted its capture by armed force but also by a far more ingenuous plan, which was disclosed today. He formed a so-called Military Revolutionary Committee of the Petrograd Soviet, and informed the Headquarters Staff of the Petrograd military district that only orders sanctioned by the Military Revolutionary Committee would be executed.

On Sunday night the committee appeared at the staff offices and demanded the right of entry, control and veto. Receiving a natural and emphatic refusal, the military revolutionaries wired everywhere to the general effect that the Petrograd district headquarters were opposed to the wishes of the revolutionary garrison, and were becoming a counter revolutionary centre. This bid for the loyalty of the garrison has so far yielded no definite results, but obviously is extremely dangerous, especially in view of the fact that in the Petrograd garrison discipline is extremely lax.

It is said the Provisional Government intends to prosecute the Military Revolutionary Committee. It should be noted that the All-Russian Executive Committee of the Soviets is backing the Provisional Government. There is a general feeling of reaction against the Bolshevik-ridden Soviets, a feeling completely loyal to the revolution but impatient of disorders.

Source