This anti-Marxist-Leninist practice of the Khrushchov group has had particularly serious repercussions in relations between socialist countries.
In saying at the 22nd Congress that the general line of the Soviet Union’s foreign policy was peaceful coexistence between countries with different social systems, Khrushchov consecrated, ideologically and terminologically, his abandonment of a socialist foreign policy, which must necessarily comprise different aspects, namely:
– solidarity and mutual aid between socialist countries on the basis of equality, according to the principles of proletarian internationalism;
– struggle against the export of counter-revolution and against aggression;
– aid to the working people of all countries and to all oppressed nations;
– support of the working people of all countries in the class struggle on an international scale for the common aim;
– peaceful coexistence between countries with different social systems.
In setting aside the first four aspects, which were reaffirmed in the Moscow Declaration of 1957 and the Moscow Statement of 1960, Khrushchov confirmed that he does not intend to follow a socialist foreign policy. In so doing he gives the term peaceful coexistence a meaning quite different from the Leninist concept. In this respect he applies the revisionist precept of only proposing what is acceptable to the bourgeoisie. Facts have demonstrated that this has been the case.
But let us look at the question of relations between the Soviet Union and the other countries of the socialist camp in more detail.
It is certainly not a socialist concept to sell things, principally industrial products, at a high price to fraternal countries, or to buy things cheaply, principally raw materials, from them, thus making profits out of trade transactions between socialist countries.
Relations between socialist countries which, on the pretext of co-ordination and international division of labour, deny some countries necessary industrial equipment and thus keep them on the level of agricultural producers and suppliers of raw materials, cannot be considered as normal.
Does this not also create the economic basis for ties of subjection?
This practice is, after all, against the interests of the whole socialist camp and consequently of the working class of the world. In the last analysis, it constitutes a negative factor in the development of the Soviet Union. It holds back the development of productive forces, whose rapid development is precisely one of the characteristics of a socialist economy.
But the Khrushchov group went further; they took serious economic steps against the People’s Republic of China and against socialist Albania: the unilateral recall without notice of experts, refusal to supply the spare parts required for machines of Soviet origin and breaking of trade contracts.
What is the aim of these measures?
Is this not giving pledges to imperialism?
Is this not trying to cause serious economic difficulties in these two socialist countries?
Is this not wanting to create objective conditions favourable to imperialist aggression against socialist Albania and China at a particularly difficult time when natural calamities had reduced agricultural production in 1960?
Is this not to weaken the whole socialist camp?
The “open letter” not only shamelessly denies these facts which are now widely known, but accuses the victims!
Must one recall that, as long ago as the summer of 1960, Burnelle informed our Comrade Grippa in an exchange of views of the steps taken by the Soviet Government towards China, and approved them, cynically calculating the grave consequences of these steps for the Chinese economy? It goes without saying that with such an attitude we consider Burnelle as no longer being a Communist in any sense.
But what should one say about the person who actually took these steps? Is it by such a procedure that the revisionists hope to bring to their knees the peoples and militants of a socialist country?
But the joint blockade of the revisionists and imperialists can no more bring down socialism in China or Albania than the imperialists’ blockade in the past could break the young Russian revolution.
Thanks to their tenacity, heroism and steadfast work, the Chinese people, guided by the Chinese Communist Party, and the Albanian people, guided by the Albanian Party of Labour, have not only overcome all the difficulties but have gone forward, basing themselves on their own efforts.
* * *
When Khrushchov slanders and maltreats the brave Albanian people building socialism and the Albanian Party of Labour, is that showing concern for the unity of the socialist camp?
When he gives assistance to the reactionary national bourgeoisie of India in its aggression by supplying it with arms against socialist China, is that socialist internationalism?
When Khrushchov suddenly and unilaterally decided to break contracts for the supply of cereals to Albania, threatening the courageous Albanian people with a terrible famine, is that the humanism which he so highly praises?
In trying to steal from socialist Albania its military fleet, by causing destruction to be carried out on the ships of the base of Vlora, did he not spectacularly show imperialism his goodwill, and has he not thus weakened the whole socialist camp and jeopardized the safety of the Soviet Union herself?
These facts, among many others, throw a harsh light on the nature of Khrushchov’s acts.
Faced with this situation, neither Communists nor the peoples of the world can remain indifferent.