Kominform bildades i Szklarska Porqba i Poland on 22-28 September 1947. I samband med grundandet så antog de deltagande partierna ett antal resolutioner och rapporter gavs. En del av dessa finns här nedan på engelska. Den bild av läget som presenteras är nog helt främmande för “normalläsaren” i väst. Indoktrineringen i den imperialistiska världsbilden har varit framgångsrik. Alla “socialister” som tjatar om “stalinism” så fort någon försöker belysa de argument som framfördes av partierna i öst har bidragit alldeles utomordentligt till att den imperialistiska bilden av historien har fått hegemoni.
Den kommunistiska rörelsen är internationell till sin karaktär och vi bör dra lärdom av tidigare generationers arbete. Idag är det väl känt att idén om ett världsparti är skadlig och att varje parti måste behålla sin självständighet. Kominterns (Kominforms föregångare) försök att styra den kinesiska revolutionen fick t.ex. mycket allvarliga konsekvenser. I Sverige bidrog Kominterns dåliga råd till att SKP förvandlades till en harmlös svans till socialdemokratin.
1. COMMUNIQUE: On the Informative Conference of Representatives of a number of Communist Parties.
2. DECLARATION of the Conference on the International Situation.
3. Resolution on Interchange of Experience and Coordination of Activities of the Parties Represented at the Conference.
4. The struggle for a lasting peace, for a people’s democracy!
5. A. Zhdanov – The international situation.
6. Thirty Years of the Great October Socialist Revolution in the USSR.
7. Edvard Kardelj – The communist party of Yugoslavia in the struggle for the independence of the yugoslav peoples. for the people’s power, for economic rehabilitation and socialist reconstruction of the economy.
8. Wladislaw Gomulka (Wieslaw)—The activities of the central committee of the workers’ party of Poland.
9. Comments on the Decisions of the Conference of Representatives of the Nine Communist Parties.
On the Informative Conference of Representatives of a number of Communist Parties
At the end of September, an informative conference was held in Poland with the participation of the following Parties: the Communist Party of Yugoslavia—Comrades E. Kardelj and M. Djilas; the Bulgarian Workers’ Party (Communists)— Comrades V. Chervenkov and V. Poptomov; the Communist Party of Rumania—Comrades G. Dej and A. Pauker; the Hungarian Communist Party—Comrades M. Farkas and I. Revai; the Polish Workers Party—Comrades W. Gomulka and G. Minc; the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolshevik)—Comrades A. Zhdanov and G. Malenkov; the Communist Party of France—Comrades J. Duclos and E. Fajon; the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia—Comrades R. Slansky and S. Bashtovansky and the Communist Party of Italy—Comrades L. Longo and K. Reale.
The participants in the Conference heard informative reports of the activities of the Central Committees of the Parties represented at the Conference made by comrades E. Kardelj and M. Djilas for the Communist Party of Yugoslavia; by Comrade V. Chervenkov for the Bulgarian Workers’ Party (Communists) by Comrade G. Dej for the Communist Party of Rumania; by Comrade Revai for the Hungarian Communist Party; by Comrade W. Gomulka for the Polish Workers’ Party; by Comrade G. Malenkov for the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks); by Comrade J. Duclos for the Communist Party of France; by Comrade R. Slansky for the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, and by Comrade L. Longo for the Communist Party of Italy.
After exchanging their opinions on these reports, the participants in the Conference decided to discuss the question of the international situation and the question of the interchange of experience as well as that of coordination of the activities of the Communist Parties represented at the Conference.
A report on the international situation was made by Comrade A. Zhdanov. The participants in the Conference exchanged opinions on the report, arrived at the complete agreement on the present international situation and on the tasks arising therefrom, and unanimously adopted a declaration on the question of the international situation.
A report on the interchange of experience and the coordination of the activities of the Communist Parties was made by Comrade W. Gomulka. On this question the Conference has decided, in view of the negative effect caused by the absence of contacts among the Parties represented at the Conference, and taking into account the need for mutual exchange of experience, to set up an Information Bureau.
The Information Bureau will consist of representatives of the Central Committees of the above-mentioned Parties.
The task of the Information Bureau will be to organize interchange experience among the Parties, and if need be, to coordinate their activities on the basis of mutual agreement.
It was decided that the Information Bureau would publish a printed organ.
The Information Bureau and the editorial office of its official publication will be located in the city of Belgrade.
DECLARATION of the Conference of representatives of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, the Bulgarian Workers’ Party (Communists), the Communist Party of Rumania, the Hungarian Communist Party, the Polish Workers’ Party, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks), the Communist Party of France, the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia and the Communist Party of Italy on the International Situation
The representatives of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, the Bulgarian Workers’ Party (Communists), the Communist Party of Rumania, the Hungarian Communist Party, the Polish Workers’ Party, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks), the Communist Party of France, the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia and the Communist Party of Italy, having exchanged views on the international situation, have agreed upon the following declaration.
Fundamental changes have taken place in the international situation as a result of the Second World War and in the post-war period.
These changes are characterized by a new disposition of the basic political forces operating on the world arena, by a change in the relations among the victor states in the Second World War and their realignment.
While the war was on, the Allied States in the war against Germany and Japan went together and comprised one camp. However, already during the war there were differences in the Allied camp as regards the definition of both war aims and the tasks of the post-war peace settlement. The Soviet Union and the other democratic countries regarded as their basic war aims the restoration and consolidation of democratic order in Europe, the eradication of fascism and the prevention of the possibility of new aggression on the part of Germany, and the establishment of a lasting all-round cooperation among the nations of Europe. The United States of America, and Britain in agreement with them, set themselves another aim in the war: to rid themselves of competitors on the markets (Germany and Japan) and to establish their dominant position. This difference in the definition of the war aims and the tasks of the post-war settlement grew more profound after the war. Two diametrically opposed political lines took shape: on the one side the policy of the USSR and the other democratic countries directed at undermining imperialism and consolidating democracy, and on the other side, the policy of the United States and the Britain directed at strengthening imperialism and stifling democracy. In as much as the USSR and the countries of the new democracy became obstacles to the realization of the imperialist plans of struggle for world domination and smashing of democratic movements, a crusade was proclaimed against the USSR and the countries of the new democracy, bolstered also by threats of a new war on the part of the most zealous imperialist politicians in the United States of America and Britain.
Thus two camps were formed—the imperialist and anti-democratic camp having as its basic aim the establishment of world domination of American imperialism and the smashing of democracy, and the anti-imperialist and democratic camp having as its basic aim the undermining of imperialism, the consolidation of democracy, and the eradication of the remnants of fascism.
The struggle between the two diametrically opposed camps —the imperialist camp and the anti-imperialist camp—is taking place in a situation marked by a further aggravation of the general crises of capitalism, the weakening of the forces of capitalism and the strengthening of the forces of Socialism and democracy.
Hence the imperialist camp and its leading force, the United States, are displaying particularly aggressive activity. This activity is being developed simultaneously along all lines —the lines of military strategic measures, economic expansion and ideological struggle. The Truman—Marshall plan is only a constituent part, the European sub-section, of the general plan for the policy of global expansion pursued by the United States in all parts of the world. The plan for the economic and political enslavement of Europe by American imperialism is being supplemented by plans for the economic and political enslavement of China, Indonesia, the South American countries. Yesterday’s aggressors—the capitalist magnates of Germany and Japan—are being groomed by the United States of America for the new role, that of instruments of imperialist policy of the United States in Europe and Asia.
The arsenal of tactical weapons used by imperialist camp is highly diversified. It combines direct threats of violence, blackmail and extortion, every means of political and economic pressure, bribery, and utilization of internal contradictions and strife in order to strengthen its own positions, and all this is concealed behind a liberal-pacifist mask designed to deceive and trap the politically inexperienced.
A special place in the imperialists’ arsenal of tactical weapons is occupied by the utilization of the treacherous policy of the right-wing Socialists like Blum in France, Attlee and Bevin in Britain, Schumacher in Germany, Renner and Scherf in Austria, Saragat in Italy, etc., who strive to cover up the true rapacious essence of imperialist policy under a mask of democracy and Socialist phraseology, while actually being in all respect faithful accomplices of the imperialists, sowing dissension in the ranks of the working class and poisoning its mind. It is not fortuitous that the foreign policy of British imperialism found its most consistent and zealous executor in Bevin.
Under these circumstances it is necessary that the anti-imperialist, democratic camp should close its ranks, draw up an agreed program of actions and work out its own tactics against the main forces of the imperialist camp, against American imperialism and its British and French allies, against the right-wing socialists, primarily in Britain and France.
To frustrate the plan of imperialist aggression the efforts of all the democratic anti-imperialist forces of Europe are necessary. The right-wing Socialists are traitors to this cause. With the exception of those countries of the new democracy where the bloc of the Communists and the Socialists with other democratic, progressive Parties forms the basis of the resistance of these countries to the imperialist plans, the Socialists and the British Labourites—Ramadier, Blum, Attlee and Bevin—by their servility and sycophancy are helping American capital to achieve its aims, provoking it to resort to extortion and impelling their own countries on the path of vassal-like dependence on the United States of America.
This imposes a special task on the Communist Parties. They must take into their hands the banner of defense of the national independence and sovereignty of their countries. If the Communist Parties stick firmly to their positions, if they do not let themselves intimidated and blackmailed, if they courageously safeguard democracy and the national sovereignty, liberty and independence of their countries, if in their struggle against attempts to enslave their countries economically and politically they be able to take the lead of all the forces that are ready to fight for honour and national independence, no plans for the enslavement of the countries of Europe and Asia can be carried into effect.
This is now one of the principal tasks of the Communist Parties.
It is essential to bear in the mind that there is a vast difference between the desire of the imperialists to unleash a new war and the possibility of organizing such a war. The nations of the world do not want war. The forces standing for peace are so large and so strong that if these forces be staunch and firm in defending the peace, if they display stamina and resolution, the plans of the aggressors will meet with utter failure. It should not be forgotten that the war danger hullabaloo raised by the imperialist agents is intended to frighten the nervous and unstable elements and by blackmail to win concessions for the aggressor.
The principal danger for the working class today lies in under-estimating their own strength and over-estimating the strength of the imperialist camp. Just as the Munich policy untied the hands of Hitlerite aggression in the past, so yielding to the new line in the policy of the United States and that of the imperialist camp is bound to make its inspirers still more arrogant and aggressive. Therefore, the Communist Parties must take the lead resisting the plans of imperialist expansion and aggression in all spheres—state, political, economic and ideological; they must close their ranks, unite their efforts on the basis of a common anti-imperialist and democratic platform and rally around themselves all the democratic and patriotic forces of the nation.
Resolution on Interchange of Experience and Coordination of Activities of the Parties Represented at the Conference
The Conference states that the absence of contacts among the Communist Parties participating at this conference is a serious shortcoming in the present situation. Experience has shown that such lack of contacts among the Communist Parties is wrong and harmful. The need for interchange of experience and voluntary coordination of action of the various Parties is particularly keenly felt at the present time in view of the growing complication of the post-war international situation, a situation in which the lack of connections among the Communist Parties my prove detrimental to the working class.
In view of this, the participants in the Conference have agreed on the following:
- To set up an Information Bureau consisting of representatives of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, the Bulgarian Workers’ Party (Communists), the Communist Party of Rumania, the Hungarian Communist Party, the Polish Workers’ Party, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks), the Communist Party of France, the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia and the Communist Party of Italy.
- To charge the Information Bureau with the organisation of interchange of experience, and if need be, coordination of the activities of the Communist Parties on the basis of mutual agreement.
- The Information Bureau is to consist of two representatives from each Central Committee, the delegations of the Central Committees to be appointed and replaced by the Central Committees.
- The Information Bureau is to have a printed organ—a fortnightly and subsequently, a weekly. The organ is to be published in French and Russian, and when possible, in other languages as well.
- The information Bureau is to be located in the city of Belgrade.
THE STRUGGLE FOR A LASTING PEACE, FOR A PEOPLE’S DEMOCRACY!
The democratic, progressive forces of all countries, all those who treasure the peace and freedom of the peoples, the honour and national independence of their native lands, received the decision of the conference of representatives of the nine Communist Parties with a feeling of great satisfaction.
The decisions of this Conference expose the instigators of a new war, the rampant imperialist aggressors, who are striving to enslave the countries of Europe and to bring about the world domination of American imperialism.
By turning to account their profits of milliards, accumulated in the course of the war, and by taking advantage of the post-war economic difficulties of a number of European countries, the American imperialists want to escape the impending economic and political enslavement of the peoples of Europe and Asia.
The events that have taken place since the Conference— sabotage by the Anglo-American bloc at the UNO Assembly of the proposals aimed at curbing the war-mongers, the march of fascist reaction in the countries of South America, the offensive of the fascist movement of de Gaullists in France, not to mention a number of other facts—have fully borne out the analysis of the international situation given in the declaration of the representatives of the nine Communist Parties. The two lines, two policies in international relations have become more accentuated in this past period.
The imperialist and anti-democratic camp has intensified its propaganda and preparations for a new war. The Anglo-American imperialists continue to impose and reinforce the monarcho-fascist regimes in the countries dependent on them; continue to wreck the democratic organisations of the working class, to use corrupt politicians, known for their criminal ties with the fascist Hitlerite regimes.
The policy of enslaving Europe economically, the preparations for a new war, the destruction of the democratic forces are veiled with hypocritical phrases about saving “Western democracy”.
The Anglo-American imperialists boast about their democracy; their press, cinema, literature depict the domination of the handful of industrial magnates as a model example of democracy. However, genuine democracy is possible only where the people possess real political power, where the people can use this power against the landlords and capitalists. What democracy can there be in the USA today when the imperialist bourgeoisie, holding the reigns of political power is the supreme master of all the tools and means of production? There is not very much of a difference in England and France where parties, which call themselves Socialist parties, are in power.
The right-wing Socialists, slavishly devoted to the imperialist bourgeoisie, resort to pseudo-socialist demagogy, cover up and justify the bandit actions of the American imperialists.
The imperialist and anti-democratic camp is counter-balanced by the anti-imperialist and democratic camp, headed by the USSR and the countries of the new, people’s democracy: Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Rumania, Hungary, Albania.
The countries of the new democracy, which have recently thrown off the yoke of their oppressors together with their Anglo-American imperialist masters, have introduced socio-economic and political reforms themselves in these countries are governing the country’s life and promoting its development along the path to socialism.
These countries have become genuine democratic, independent and sovereign states.
In contrast to the policy of the imperialist camp the USSR and the countries of the new democracy stand for peace and international cooperation on democratic principles.
The experience of the war and that of the post-war period has shown that henceforth the bourgeoisie of Europe have definitely taken the path of betrayal of the national interests and rejection of the sovereignty of their countries. This same experience has shown that the working class, headed by Communist Parties, is the most consistent leader of all the patriotic and democratic forces who defend the sovereignty and independence of their country.
As a result of the Second World War and the post-war development, the forces of democracy and socialism have grown to be as strong as never before, whereas the camp of imperialism has grown weaker and has lost its former power.
The united strength of the democratic forces far exceeds the forces of imperialism. The champions of peace and democracy must close their ranks to smash the offensive of the imperialists on the vital interest of the popular masses, to expose the war mongers, to defend the sovereignty and independence of every country from the encroachments of the U.S. imperialists.
The tasks of establishing a lasting peace meets the vital interests of all peoples. A lasting and durable peace is possible only if there is mutual respect for the independence and sovereignty of big and small nations, if there is real equality and recognition of the right of all peoples to set up their own state order, without the interference of the imperialist birds of prey.
The struggle for a lasting peace, for a people’s democracy is the paramount task of all progressive and democratic forces of the world, a task which answers the supreme interests of all peoples.
The Communist Parties everywhere can, and must, take upon themselves the role of leader and organiser of the popular masses in the struggle for a lasting peace, for a people’s democracy.
The journal “For a Lasting Peace, for a People’s Democracy!”’ will exert every effort to help the Communist Parties rally their peoples into a powerful united camp, closely brought together by their vital interests in the struggle against the imperialist and anti-democratic camp.
Our journal will help the Communist Parties exchange experience, will help strengthen the mutual contacts and fraternal solidarity of the working peoples of the different countries in their great struggle for a lasting peace and a people’s democracy.
The journal also sets itself the task to further elaborate questions of the great and invincible theory of Marxism-Leninism, the concrete application of this theory and its theses by the Communist Parties in conditions of the given country.
Among the important tasks of the journal is that of reporting on the activities of the Communist Parties to consolidate the democratic and patriotic forces of the people for struggle against the danger of a new war, on the achievements of the democratic forces in each country.
We shall conduct a struggle against bourgeois ideology, against opportunist and revisionist theories propagated by the enemies of the working class.
The journal will carry material showing the experience of socialist construction in the USSR, the experience of state and economic construction in the countries of the new democracies, material reflecting the activity of the democratic forces in countries.
From the pages of our journal will resound the voice of the peoples against the war mongers.
We warmly salute all democratic and patriotic forces of the peoples who are fighting for the honour, freedom and national independence of their countries!
We salute the fraternal Communist Parties, which are heading the struggle of all the anti-fascist, freedom-loving elements against the Anglo-American plans of expansion to enslave Europe.
For a lasting peace, for a people’s democracy!
ZHDANOV—THE INTERNATIONAL SITUATION*
The Post-War World Situation
The end of the Second World War brought with it big changes in the world situation. The military defeat of the bloc of fascist states, the character of the war as a war of liberation from fascism, and the decisive role played by the Soviet Union in the vanquishing of the fascist aggressors sharply altered the alignment of forces between the two systems—the Socialist and Capitalist—in favour of Socialism.
What is the essential nature of these changes?
The principal outcome of World War II was the military defeat of Germany and Japan—the two most militaristic and aggressive of the capitalist countries. The reactionary, imperialist elements all over the world, notably in Britain, America and France, had reposed great hopes in Germany and Japan, and chiefly in Hitler Germany: firstly as in a force most capable of inflicting a blow on the Soviet Union in order to, if not having it destroyed altogether, weaken it at least and undermine its influence; secondly, as in a force capable of smashing the revolutionary labour and democratic movement in Germany herself and in all countries singled our for Nazi aggression, and thereby strengthening capitalism generally. This was the chief reason for the pre-war policy of “appeasement” and encouragement of fascist aggression, the so-called Munich policy consistently pursued by the imperialist ruling circles of Britain, France and the United States.
But the hopes reposed by the British, French and American imperialists in the Hitlerites were not realized. The Hitlerites proved to be weaker, and the Soviet Union and the freedom-loving peoples stronger than the Munichists had anticipated. As a result of World War II the major forces of bellicose international fascist reaction had been smashed and put out of commission for a long time to come.
This was accompanied by another serious loss to the world capitalist system generally. Whereas the principal result of the World War I had been that the united imperialist front was breached and that Russia dropped out of the world capitalist system, and whereas, as a consequence of the triumph of the Socialist system in the U.S.S.R., capitalism ceased to be an integral, world-wide economic system. World War II and the defeat of fascism, the weakening of the world position of capitalism and the enhanced strength of the anti-fascist movement resulted in a number of countries in Central and Southeastern Europe dropping out of the imperialist system. In these countries new, popular democratic regimes arose. The impressive lesson given by the Patriotic War of the Soviet Union and the liberating role of the Soviet Army were accompanied by a mass struggle of the freedom-loving peoples for national-liberation from the fascist invaders and their accomplices. In the course of this struggle the pro-fascist elements, the collaborators with Hitler—the most influential of the big capitalists, large landowners, high officials and monarchist officers—were exposed as betrayers of the national interests. In the Danubian countries, liberation from German fascist slavery was accompanied by the removal from power of the top bourgeoisie and landlords, compromised by collaborating with German fascism, and by the rise to power of new forces from among the people who had proved their worth in the struggle against the Hitlerite conquerors. In these countries, representatives of the workers, the peasants and the progressive intellectuals took over power. Since the working class had everywhere displayed the greatest heroism, the greatest consistency and implacability in the struggle against fascism, its prestige and influence among the people have increased immensely.
The new democratic power in Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Rumania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Albania, backed by the mass of the people, was able within a minimum period to carry through such progressive democratic reforms as bourgeois democracy is no longer capable of effecting. Agrarian reform turned over the land to the peasants and led to the elimination of the landlord class. Nationalization of large-scale industry and banks, and the confiscation of the property of traitors who had collaborated with the Germans radically undermined the position of monopoly capital in these countries and redeemed the masses from imperialist bondage. Together with this, the foundation was laid of state, national ownership, and a new type of state was created—the people’s republic, where the power belongs to the people, where large-scale industry, transport and banks are owned by the state, and where a bloc of labouring classes of the population, headed by the working class, constitute a leading force. As a result, the peoples of these countries have not only torn themselves from the clutches of imperialism, but are paving the way for entry onto the path of Socialist development.
The war immensely enhanced the international significance and prestige of the U.S.S.R. The U.S.S.R. was the leading force and the guiding spirit in the military defeat of Germany and Japan. The progressive democratic forces of the whole world rallied around the Soviet Union. The socialist state successfully stood the strenuous test of the war and emerged victorious from the mortal struggle with a most powerful enemy. Instead of being enfeebled, the U.S.S.R. has became stronger.
The capitalist world has also undergone a substantial change. Of the six so-called great imperialist powers (Germany, Japan, Britain, the U.S.A., France and Italy), three have been eliminated by military defeat (Germany, Italy and Japan). France has also been weakened and has lost its significance as a great power. As a result, only two “great” imperialist world powers remain—the United States and Britain. But the position of one of them, Great Britain, has been undermined. The war revealed that militarily and politically British imperialism was not so strong as it had been. In Europe, Britain was helpless against German aggression. In Asia, Britain, one of the biggest of the imperialist powers, was unable to retain hold of her colonial possessions without outside aid. Temporarily cut off from colonies that supplied her with food and raw materials and absorbed a large part of her industrial products, Britain found herself dependent, militarily and economically, upon American supplies of food and manufactured goods. After the war, Britain became increasingly dependent, financially and economically, on the United States. Although she succeeded in recovering her colonies after the war, Britain found herself faced there with the enhanced influence of American imperialism, which during the war had invaded all the regions that before the war had been regarded as exclusive spheres of influence of British capital (the Arab East, Southeast Asia). America has also increased her influence in the British dominions and in South America, where the former role of Britain is very largely and to an ever increasing extent passing to the United States.
World War II aggravated the crisis of the colonial system, as expressed in the rise of a powerful movement for national liberation in the colonies and dependencies. This has paced the rear of the capitalist system in jeopardy. The peoples of the colonies no longer wish to live in the old way. The ruling classes of the metropolitan countries can no longer govern the colonies on the old lines. Attempts to crush the national liberation movement by military force now increasingly encounter armed resistance on the part of the colonial peoples and lead to protracted colonial wars (Holland—Indonesia, France—Viet Nam).
The war—itself a product of the unevenness of capitalist development in different countries—still further intensified this unevenness. Of all the capitalist powers, only one—the United States—emerged from the war not only unweakened, but even considerably stronger economically and militarily. The war greatly enriched the American capitalists. The American people on the other hand, did not experience the privations that accompany war, the hardship of occupation, or aerial bombardment; and since America entered the war practically in its concluding stage, when the issue was already decided, her human casualties were relatively small. For the U.S.A., the war was primarily and chiefly a spur to extensive industrial development and to a substantial increase of exports (principally to Europe).
But the end of the war confronted the United States with a number of new problems. The capitalist monopolies were anxious to maintain their profits at the former high level, and accordingly pressed hard to prevent a reduction of the wartime volume of deliveries. But this meant that the United States must retain the foreign markets had absorbed American products during the war, and moreover, acquire new markets, inasmuch as the war had substantially lowered the purchasing power of most of the countries. The financial and economic dependence of these countries on the U.S.A. has likewise increased. The United States extended credits abroad to a sum of 19,000 million dollars, not counting investments in the International Bank and the International Monetary Fund. America’s principal competitors, Germany and Japan, have disappeared from the world market, and this has opened up new and very considerable opportunities for the United States. Whereas before World War II, the most influential reactionary circles of American imperialism had adhered to an isolationist policy and had refrained from active interference in the affairs of Europe and Asia, in the new, post-war conditions, the Wall Street bosses adopted a new policy. They advanced a program of utilizing America’s military and economic might, not only to retain and consolidate the positions won abroad during the war, but to expand them to the maximum, and to replace Germany, Japan and Italy in the world market. The sharp decline of the economic power of other capitalist states makes it possible to speculate on their post-war economic difficulties, and, in particular, on the post-war economic difficulties of Great Britain, which makes it easier to bring these countries under American control. The United States proclaimed a new frankly predatory and expansionist course.
The purpose of this new, frankly expansionist course is to establish the world supremacy of American imperialism. With a view to consolidating America’s monopoly position in the markets gained as a result of the disappearance of her two biggest competitors, Germany and Japan, and the weakening of her capitalist partners, Great Britain and France, the new course of United States policy envisages a broad program of military, economic and political measures, designed to establish United States political and economic domination in all countries marked out for American expansion, to reduce these countries to the status of satellites of the United States, and to set up regimes within them which would eliminate all obstacles on the part of the labour and democratic movement to the exploitation of these countries by American capital. The United States is now endeavouring to extend this new line of policy not only on its enemies in the war and to neutral countries, but in an increasing degree to its wartime allies.
Special attention is being paid to exploitation of the economic difficulties of Britain, which is not only America’s ally but also a long-standing capitalist rival and competitor. It is the design of America’s expansionist policy not only to prevent Britain from escaping from the wise of economic dependence on the United States in which she was gripped during the war, but, on the contrary, to increase the pressure, with a view of gradually depriving her of control over her colonies, ousting her from her spheres of influence, and reducing her to the status of a vassal power.
Thus the new policy of the United States is designed to consolidate its monopoly position and to reduce its capitalist partners to a state of subordination and dependence on America.
But America’s aspirations to world supremacy encounter an obstacle in the U.S.S.R., the stronghold of anti-imperialist and anti-fascist policy, and its growing international influence, in the new democracies, which have escaped from control of British and American imperialism, and in the workers of all countries, including America itself, who do not want a new war for the supremacy of their oppressors. Accordingly, the new expansionist and reactionary policy of the United States envisages a struggle against the U.S.S.R., against the labour movement in all countries, including the United States, and against the emancipationist, anti-imperialist forces in all countries.
Alarmed by the achievements of Socialism in the U.S.S.R., by the achievements of the new democracies, and by the post-war growth of the labour and democratic movement in all countries, the American reactionaries are disposed to take upon themselves the mission of “saviours” of the capitalist system from Communism.
The frank expansionist program of the United States is therefore highly reminiscent of the reckless program, which failed so ignominiously, of the fascist aggressors, who, as we know, also made a bid for world supremacy.
Just as the Hitlerites, when they were making their preparations for piratical aggression, adopted the camouflage of anti-Communism in order to make it possible to oppress and enslave all peoples and primarily and chiefly their own people, America’s present-day ruling circles mask their expansionist policy, and even their offensive against the vital interests of their weaker imperialist rival, Great Britain, by fictitious considerations of defence against Communism. The feverish piling up of armaments, the construction of new military bases and the creation of bridgeheads for American armed forces in all parts of the world is justified on the false and pharisaical grounds of “defence” against an imaginary threat of war on the part of the U.S.S.R. With the help of intimidation, bribery and chicanery, American diplomacy finds it easy to extort from other capitalist countries, and primarily from Great Britain, consent to the legitimization of America’s superior position in Europe and Asia—in the Western zones of Germany, in Austria, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Egypt, Iran, Afghanistan, China, Japan and so forth.
The American imperialists regard themselves as the principal force opposed to the U.S.S.R., the new democracies and the labour and democratic movement in all countries of the world, as the bulwark of the reactionary, anti-democratic forces in all parts of the globe. Accordingly, literally on the day following the conclusion of World War II, they set to work to build up a front hostile to the U.S.S.R. and world democracy, and to encourage the anti-popular, reactionary forces— collaborationists and former capitalist stooges—in the European countries which had been liberated from the Nazi yoke and which were beginning to arrange their affairs according to their own choice.
The more malignant and unbalanced imperialist politicians followed the lead of Churchill in hatching plans for the speedy launching of a preventive war against the U.S.S.R. and openly called for the employment of America’s temporary monopoly of the atomic weapon against the Soviet people. The new warmongers are trying to intimidate and browbeat not only the U.S.S.R., but other countries as well, notably China and India, by libellously depicting the U.S.S.R. as a potential aggressor while they themselves pose as “friends” of China and India, as “saviours” from the Communist peril, their mission being to “help” the weak. By these means they are seeking to keep India and China under the sway of imperialism and in continued political and economic bondage.
The New Post-War Alignment of Political Forces and the Formation of Two Camps: the Imperialist and Anti-Democratic Camp, and the Anti-Imperialist and Democratic one.
The fundamental changes caused by the war on the international scene and in the position of individual countries has entirely changed the political landscape of the world. A new alignment of political forces has arisen. The more the war recedes into the past, the more distinct become two major trends in post-war international policy, corresponding to the division of the political forces operating on the international arena into two major camps: the imperialist and anti-democratic camp, on the one hand and the anti-imperialist and democratic camp, on the other. The principal driving force of the imperialist camp is the U.S.A. Allied with it are Great Britain and France. The existence of the Attlee-Bevin Labour Government in Britain and the Ramadier Socialist Government in France does not hinder these countries from playing the part of satellites of the United States and following the lead of its imperialist policy on all major questions. The imperialist camp is also supported by colony-owning countries, such as Belgium and Holland, by countries with reactionary anti-democratic regimes such as Turkey and Greece, and by countries politically and economically dependent on the United States, such as the Near- Eastern, South-American countries and China.
The cardinal purpose of the imperialist camp is to strengthen imperialism, to hatch a new imperialist war, to combat Socialism and democracy, and to support reactionary anti-democratic pro-fascist regimes and movements everywhere.
In the pursuit of these ends the imperialist camp is prepared to rely on reactionary and anti- democratic forces in countries, and to support its former adversaries in the war against its wartime allies.
The anti-fascist forces comprise the second camp. This camp is based on the U.S.S.R. and the new democracies. It also includes countries that have broken with imperialism and have firmly set foot on the path of democratic development, such as Rumania, Hungary and Finland. Indonesia and Viet Nam are associated with it; it has the sympathy of India, Egypt and Syria. The anti-imperialist camp is backed by the labour and democratic movement and by the fraternal Communist parties in all countries, by the fighters for national liberation in the colonies and dependencies, by all progressive and democratic forces in every country. The purpose this camp is to resist the threat of new wars and imperialist expansion, to strengthen democracy and to extirpate the vestiges of fascism.
The end of the Second World War confronted all the freedom-loving nations with the cardinal task of securing a lasting democratic peace sealing victory over fascism. In the accomplishment of this fundamental task of the post-war period the Soviet Union and its foreign policy are playing a leading role. This follows from the very nature of the Soviet Socialist State, to which motives of aggression and exploitation are utterly alien, and which is interested in creating the most favourable conditions for the building of a Communist society. One of these conditions is external peace. As embodiment of a new and superior social system, the Soviet Union reflects in its foreign policy the aspirations of progressive mankind, which desires lasting peace and has nothing to gain from a new war hatched by capitalism. The Soviet Union is a staunch of the liberty and independence of all nations, and a foe of national and racial oppression and of colonial exploitation in any shape or form. The change in the general alignment of forces between the capitalist world and the Socialist world brought about by the war has still further enhanced the significance of the foreign policy of the Soviet state and enlarged the scope of its activity on the international arena.
All the forces of the anti-imperialist and anti-fascist camp have united in the effort to secure a just and democratic peace. It is this united effort that has brought about and strengthened friendly co-operation between the U.S.S.R. and democratic countries on all questions of foreign policy. These countries, and in the first place the new democracies—Yugoslavia, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Albania, which played a big part in the war of liberation from Fascism, as well as Bulgaria, Rumania, Hungary and to some extend Finland, which have joined the anti-fascist front—have proved themselves in the post-war period staunch defenders of peace, democracy and their own liberty and independence against all attempts on the part of United States and Great Britain to turn them back in their course and to bring them again under the imperialist yoke.
The successes and the growing international prestige of the democratic camp were not to the liking of the imperialists. Even while World War II was still on, reactionary forces in Great Britain and the United States became increasingly active, striving to prevent concerted action by the Allied powers, to protract the war, to bleed the U.S.S.R., and to save the fascist aggressors from utter defeat. The sabotage of the Second Front by the Anglo-Saxon imperialists, headed by Churchill, was a clear reflection of this tendency, which was in point of fact a continuation of the Munich policy in the new and changed conditions. But while the war was still in progress British and American reactionary circles did not venture to come out openly against the Soviet Union and the democratic countries, realizing that they had the undivided sympathy of the masses of the masses all over the world. But in the concluding months of the war, the situation began to change. The British and American imperialists already manifested their unwillingness to respect the legitimate interests of the Soviet Union and the democratic countries at the Potsdam tripartite conference, in July 1945.
The foreign policy of the Soviet Union and the democratic countries in these two past years has been a policy of consistently working for the observance of the democratic principles in the post-war settlement. The countries of the anti-imperialist camp have loyally and consistently striven for the implementation of these principles, without deviating from them one iota. Consequently, the major objective of the post-war foreign policy of the democratic states has been a democratic peace, the eradication of the vestiges of fascism and the prevention of a resurgence of fascist imperialist aggression, the recognition of the principle of the equality of nations and respect for their sovereignty, and general reduction of all armaments and the outlawing of the most destructive weapons, those designed for the mass slaughter of the civilian population. In their effort to secure these objectives Soviet diplomacy and the diplomacy of the democratic countries met with the resistance of Anglo-American diplomacy, which since the war has persistently and unswervingly striven for the rejection of the general principles of the post-war settlement proclaimed by the Allies during the war, and to replace the policy of peace and consolidation of democracy by a new policy aiming at violating general peace, protecting fascist elements, and persecuting democracy in all countries.
Of immense importance are the joint efforts of the diplomacy of the U.S.S.R. and that of the other democratic countries to secure a reduction of armaments and the outlawing of the most destructive of them—the atom bomb.
On the initiative of the Soviet Union, a resolution was moved in the United Nations calling for a general reduction of armaments and the recognition, as a primary task, of the necessity to prohibit the production and use of atomic energy for warlike purposes. This motion of the Soviet Government was fiercely resisted by the United State and Great Britain. All the efforts of the imperialist elements were concentrated on sabotaging this decision by erecting endless and fruitless obstacles and barriers, with the object of preventing the adoption of any effective practical measures. The activities of the delegates of the U.S.S.R. and the other democratic countries in the agencies of the United Nations bear the character of a systematic, stubborn day-to-day struggle for democratic principles of international co-operation, for the exposure of the intrigues of the imperialist plotters against the peace and security of the nations.
This was openly demonstrated, for example, in the discussion of the situation on Greece’s northern frontiers. The Soviet Union and Poland vigorously objected to the Security Council being used as a means of discrediting Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Albania, who are falsely accused by the imperialists of aggressive acts against Greece.
Soviet foreign policy proceeds from the fact of the co-existence for a long period of the two systems—capitalism and socialism. From this it follows that co-operation between the U.S.S.R. and the countries with other systems is possible, provided that principle of reciprocity is observed and that obligations once assumed are honoured. Everyone knows that the U.S.S.R. has always honoured the obligations it has assumed. The Soviet Union has demonstrated its will and desire for co-operation.
Britain and America are pursuing the very opposite policy in the United Nations. They are doing everything they can to renounce their commitments and to secure a free hand for the prosecution of a new policy, a policy which envisages not co-operation among the nations, but the hounding of one against the other, violation of the rights and interests of democratic nations, and the isolation of the U.S.S.R.
Soviet policy follows the line of maintaining loyal, good-neighbour relations with all states that display the desire for co-operation. As to the countries that are its genuine friends and allies, the Soviet Union has always behaved, and will always behave, as their true friend and ally. Soviet foreign policy envisages a further extension of friendly aid by the Soviet Union to these countries.
Soviet foreign policy, defending the cause of peace, discountenances a policy of vengeance towards the vanquished countries.
It is known that the U.S.S.R. is in favour of a united, peace-loving demilitarized and democratic Germany. Comrade Stalin formulated the Soviet policy towards Germany when he said: »In short, the policy of the Soviet Union on the German Question reduces itself to the demilitarization and democratization of Germany. The demilitarization and democratization of Germany is one of the most important guarantees for the establishment of a solid and lasting peace«. However, this policy of the Soviet Union towards Germany is being encountered by frantic opposition from the imperialist circles in the United States and Great Britain.
The meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers in Moscow in March and April 1947 demonstrated that the United States, Great Britain and France are prepared not only to prevent the democratic reconstruction and demilitarization of Germany, but even to liquidate her as an integral state, to dismember her, and to settle the question of peace separately.
Today this policy is being conducted under new conditions, now that America has abandoned the old course of Roosevelt and is passing to a new policy, a policy of preparing for new military adventures.
III. The American Plan for The Enthrallment of Europe.
The aggressive and frankly expansionist course to which American imperialism has committed itself since the end of World War II find expression in both the foreign and home policy of the United States. The active support rendered to the reactionary, anti-democratic forces all over the world, the sabotage of the Potsdam decisions which call for the democratic reconstruction of Germany, the protection given to Japanese reactionaries, the extensive war preparations and the accumulation of atomic bombs—all this goes hand in hand with an offensive against the elementary democratic rights of the working people in the United States itself.
Although the U.S.A. suffered comparatively little from the war, the vast majority of the Americans do not want another war, with its accompanying sacrifices and limitations. This has induced monopoly capital and its servitors among the ruling circles in the United States to resort to extraordinary means in order to crush the opposition at home to the aggressive expansionist course and to secure a free hand for the further prosecution of this dangerous policy.
But the crusade against Communism proclaimed by America’s ruling circles with the backing of the capitalist monopolies leads as a logical consequence to attacks on the fundamental rights and interests of the American working people, to the fascization of America’s political life, and to the dissemination of the most savage and misanthropic “theories” and views. Dreaming about preparing for a new war, a third world war, American expansionist circles are vitally interested in stifling all possible resistance within the country to adventures abroad, in poisoning the minds of the politically backward and unenlightened American masses with the virus of chauvinism and militarism, and in stultifying the average American with the help of all the diverse means of anti-Soviet and anti-Communist propaganda—the cinema, the radio, the church and the press. The expansionist foreign policy inspired and conducted by the American reactionaries envisages simultaneous action along the lines:
1) strategical military measures,
2) economic expansion, and
3) ideological struggle.
Realization of the strategical plans for future aggression is connected with the desire to utilize to the utmost the war production facilities of the United States, which had grown to enormous proportions by the end of World War II. American imperialism is persistently pursuing a policy of militarizing the country. Expenditure on the U.S. army and navy exceeds 11,000 million dollars per annum. In 1947-48, 35 per cent of America’s budget was appropriated for the armed forces, or eleven times more than in 1937-1938.
On the outbreak of World War II American army was seventeenth largest in the capitalist world; today it is the largest one. The United States is not only accumulating stocks of atomic bombs; American strategists say quite openly that it is preparing for bacteriological weapons.
The strategical plans of the United States envisage the creation in peace-time of numerous bases and vantage grounds situated at great distances from the American continent and designed to be used for aggressive purposes against the U.S.S.R. and the countries of the new democracy. America has built, or is building air and naval bases in Alaska, Japan, Italy, South Korea, China, Egypt, Iran, Turkey, Greece, Austria and Western Germany. There are American military missions in Afghanistan and even in Nepal. Feverish preparations are being made to use the Arctic for purposes of military aggression.
Although the war has long since ended, the military alliance between Britain and the United States and even a combined Anglo-American military staff continue to exist. Under the guise of agreement for the standardisation of weapons, the United States has established its control over the armed forces and military plans of other countries, notably of Great Britain and Canada. Under the guise of joint defence of the Western Hemisphere the countries of Latin America are being brought into the orbit of America’s plans of military expansion. The United States government has officially declared that it has committed itself to assist in the modernisation of the Turkish Army. The army of the reactionary Kuomintang is being trained by American instructors and armed with American material. The military circles are becoming an active political force in the United States, supplying large numbers of government officials and diplomats who are directing the whole policy of the country into an aggressive military course.
Economic expansion is an important supplement to the realization of America’s strategical plan. American imperialism is endeavouring, like a usurer, to take advantage of the post-war difficulties of the European countries, in particular of the shortage of raw materials, fuel and food in the Allied countries that suffered most from the war, to dictate to them extortionate terms for any assistance rendered. With an eye to the impending economic crisis, the United States is in a hurry to find new monopoly spheres of capital investment and markets for its goods. American economic “assistance” pursues the broad aim of bringing Europe into bondage to American capital. The more drastic the economic situation of a country is, the harsher are the terms which the American monopolies endeavour to dictate to it.
But economic control logically leads to political subjugation to American imperialism. Thus the United States combines the extension of monopoly markets for its goods with the acquisition of new bridgeheads for its fight against the new democratic forces of Europe. In “saving” a country from starvation and collapse, the American monopolies at the same time seek to rob it of all vestige of independence. American “assistance” automatically involves a change in the policy of the country to which it is rendered: parties and individuals come to power that are prepared on directions from Washington, to carry out a program of home and foreign policy suitable to the United States (France, Italy, and so on).
Lastly, the aspiration to world supremacy and an the anti-democratic policy of the United States involve an ideological struggle. The principal purpose of the ideological part of the American strategical plan is to deceive public opinion by slanderously accusing the Soviet Union and the new democracies of aggressive intentions, and thus representing the Anglo-Saxon bloc in a defensive role and absolving it of responsibility for preparing a new war. During the Second World War the popularity of the Soviet Union in foreign countries was enormously enhanced. Its devoted and heroic struggle against imperialism earned it the affection and respect of working people in all countries. The military and economic might of the Socialist State, the invincible strength of the moral and political unity of Soviet Society were graphically demonstrated to the whole world. The reactionary circles in the United States and Great Britain are anxious to erase the impression made by the Socialist system on the working people of the world. The warmongers fully realize that long ideological preparation is necessary before they can get their soldiers to fight the Soviet Union.
In their ideological struggle against the U.S.S.R. the American imperialists, who have no great insight into political questions, demonstrate their ignorance by laying primary stress on the allegation that Soviet Union is undemocratic and totalitarian, while the United States and Great Britain and the whole capitalist world are democratic. On this platform of ideological struggle—on this defence of bourgeois pseudo-democracy and condemnation of Communism as totalitarian—are united all the enemies of the working class without exception, from the capitalist magnates to the Right Socialist leaders, who seize with the greatest eagerness on any slanderous imputations against the USSR suggested to them by their imperialist masters. The pith and substance of this fraudulent propaganda is the claim that the earmark of true democracy is the existence of a plurality of parties and of an organized opposition minority. On these grounds the British Labourites, who spare no effort in their fight against Communism, would like to discover antagonistic classes and a corresponding struggle of parties in the USSR. Political ignoramuses that they are, they cannot understand that capitalists and landlords, antagonistic classes, and hence a plurality of parties, have long ceased to exist in the USSR. They would like to have in the USSR the bourgeois parties which are so dear to their hearts, including pseudo-socialistic parties, as an agency of imperialism. But to their bitter regret these parties of the exploiting bourgeoisie have been doomed by history to disappear from the scene.
The Labourites and other advocates of bourgeois democracy will go to any length to slander the Soviet regime, but at the same time they regard the bloody dictatorship of the fascist minority over the people in Greece and Turkey as perfectly normal, they close their eyes to many crying violations even of formal democracy in the bourgeois countries, and say nothing about the national and racial oppression, the corruption and the unceremonious abrogation of democratic rights in the United States of America.
One of the lines taken by the ideological “campaign” that goes hand in hand with the plans for the enslavement of Europe is an attack on the principle of national sovereignty, an appeal for the renouncement of the sovereign rights of nations, to which is opposed the idea of a “world government.” The purpose of this campaign is to mask the unbridled expansion of American imperialism, which is ruthlessly violating the sovereign rights of nations, to represent the United States as a champion of universal laws, and those who resist American penetration as believers in a obsolete and “selfish” nationalism. The idea of a “world government” has been taken up by bourgeois intellectual cranks and pacifists, and is being exploited not only as a means of pressure, with the only purpose of ideologically disarming the nations that defend their independence against the encroachments of American imperialism, but also as a slogan specially directed against the Soviet Union, which indefatigably and consistently upholds the principle of real equality and protection of the sovereign rights of all nations, big and small. Under present conditions imperialist countries like U.S.A., Great Britain and the states closely associated with them become dangerous enemies of national independence and the self-determination of nations, while the Soviet Union and the new democracies are a reliable bulwark against encroachments on the equality and self-determination of nations.
It is a noteworthy fact that American military-political intelligence agents of the Bullitt breed, yellow trade union leaders of the Green brand, the French Socialists headed by that inveterate apologian of capitalism. Blum, the German social-democrat Schumacher, and Labour leaders of the Bevin type are all united in close fellowship in carrying out the ideological plan of American imperialism.
At this present juncture the expansionist ambitions of the United States find concrete expression in the “Truman doctrine” and the “Marshall plan”. Although they differ in form of presentation, both are an expression of a single policy, they are both an embodiment of the American design to enslave Europe.
The main features of the “Truman doctrine,” as applied to Europe are as follows:
- Creation of American bases in the Eastern Mediterranean with the purpose of establishing American supremacy in that area.
- Demonstrative support of the reactionary regimes in Greece and Turkey as bastions of American imperialism against the new democracies in the Balkans (military and technical assistance to Greece and Turkey, the granting of loans).
- Unintermitting pressure on the countries of the new democracy, as expressed in false accusations of totalitarianism and expansionist ambitions, in attacks on the foundations of the new democratic regime, in constant interference in their domestic affairs, in support of all anti-national, anti-democratic elements within these countries, and in the demonstrative breaking off of economic relations with these countries with the idea of creating economic difficulties, retarding their economic development, preventing their industrialization, and so on.
The “Truman doctrine”, which provides for the rendering of American assistance to all reactionary regimes which actively oppose the democratic peoples, bears a frankly aggressive character. Its announcement caused some dismay even among circles of American capitalists that are accustomed to anything. Progressive public elements in the U.S.A. and other countries vigorously protested against the provocative, and frankly imperialistic character of Truman’s announcement.
The unfavourable reception which the “Truman doctrine” was met with accounts for the necessity of the appearance of the “Marshall Plan”, which is a more carefully veiled attempt to carry through the same expansionist policy.
The vague and deliberately guarded formulations of the “Marshall plan”, amount in essence to a scheme to create a bloc of states bound by obligations to the United States, and to grant American credits to European countries as a recompense for their renunciation of economic and then of political independence. Moreover, the cornerstone of the “Marshall Plan” is the restoration of the industrial areas of Western Germany controlled by the American monopolies.
It is the design of the “Marshall Plan”, as transpired from the subsequent talks and the statements of American leaders, to render aid in the first place, not to the impoverished victor countries, America’s allies in the fight against Germany, but to the German capitalists, with the idea of bringing under American sway the major sources of coal and iron needed by Europe and by Germany, and of making the countries which are in need of coal and iron dependent on the restored economic might of Germany.
In spite of the fact that the “Marshall Plan” envisages the ultimate reduction of Britain and France to the status of second-rate powers, the Attlee Labour government in Britain and the Ramadier Socialist government in France clutched at the “Marshall Plan” as at an anchor of salvation. Britain as we know, has already practically used up the American loan of a 3,750,000,000 dollars granted to her in 1946. We also know that the terms of this loan were so onerous as to bind Britain hand and foot. Even when already caught in the noose of financial dependence on the USA, the British Labour government could conceive of no other alternative than the receipt of new loans. It therefore hailed the “Marshall Plan” as a way out of the economic impasse, as a chance of securing fresh credits. The British politicians, moreover, hoped to take advantage of a creation of a bloc of Western European debtor countries of the United States to play within this bloc the role of America’s chief agent, who might perhaps profit at the expense of weaker countries. The British bourgeoisie hoped, by using the “Marshall Plan”, by rendering service to the American monopolies and submitting to their control, to recover its lost positions in a number of countries, in particular in the countries of the Balkan-Danubian area.
In order to lend the American proposals a specious gloss of “impartiality,” it was decided to enlist as one of the sponsors of the implementation of the “Marshall Plan” France, as well which had already half sacrificed her sovereignty to the United States, inasmuch as the credit she obtained from America in May 1947 was granted on the stipulation that the Communists would be eliminated from the French Government.
Acting on instructions from Washington, the British and French governments invited the Soviet Union to take part in a discussion of the Marshall proposals. This step was taken in order to mask the hostile nature of the proposals with respect to the USSR. The calculation was that, since it was well known beforehand that the USSR would refuse American assistance on the terms proposed by Marshall, it might be possible to shift the responsibility on the Soviet Union for “declining to assist the economic restoration of Europe,” and thus incite against the USSR the European countries that are in need of real assistance. If, on the other hand, the Soviet Union should consent to take part in the talks, it would be easier to lure the countries of East and South-East Europe into the trap of the “economic restoration of Europe with American assistance.” Whereas the Truman plan was designed to terrorize and intimidate these countries, the “Marshall Plan” was designed to test their economic staunchness, to lure them into a trap and then shackle them in the fetters of dollar “assistance”.
In that case, the “Marshall Plan” would facilitate one of the most important objectives of the general American program, namely, to restore the power of imperialism in the countries of the new democracy and to compel them to renounce close economic and political co-operation with the Soviet Union.
The representatives of the USSR, having agreed to discuss the Marshall proposals in Paris with the governments of Great Britain and France, exposed at the Paris Conference the unsoundness of attempting to work out an economic program for the whole of Europe, and showed that the attempt to create a new European organization under the aegis of France and Britain was a threat to interfere in the internal affairs of the European countries and to violate their sovereignty. They showed that the “Marshall Plan” was in contradiction to the normal principles of international co-operation, that it harboured the danger of splitting Europe and the threat of subjugating a number of European countries to American capitalist interests, that it was designed to give priority of assistance to the monopolistic concerns of Germany over the Allies, and that the restoration of these concerns was obviously designated in the “Marshall Plan” to play a special role in Europe.
This clear position of the Soviet Union stripped the mask from the plan of the American imperialists and their British and French coadjutors.
The all-European conference was a resounding failure. Nine European states refused to take part in it. But even in the countries that consented to participate in the discussion of the “Marshall Plan” and in the working out of concrete measures for its realization, it was not greeted with any special enthusiasm, all the more so since it was soon discovered that the USSR was fully justified in its supposition that what the plan envisaged was far from real assistance. It transpired that, in general, the U.S. government was in no hurry to carry out Marshall’s promises. U.S. Congress leaders admitted that Congress would not examine the question of granting new credits to European countries before 1948.
It thus became evident that in accepting the Paris scheme for the implementation of the “Marshall Plan”, Britain, France and other European states themselves fell dupes to American chicanery.
Nevertheless, the efforts to build up a western bloc under the aegis of America are being continued.
It should be noted that the American variant of the Western bloc is bound to encounter serious resistance even in countries already so dependent on the United States as Britain and France. The prospect of the restoration of German imperialism, as an effective force capable of opposing democracy and Communism in Europe, cannot be very alluring either to Britain or to France. Here we have one of the major contradictions within the Anglo-French-American bloc. Evidently, the American monopolies, and the international reactionaries generally, do not regard France and Greek fascists as a very reliable bulwark of the United States against the USSR and the new democracies in Europe. They are, therefore, staking their main hopes on the restoration of capitalist Germany, which they consider would be a major guarantee of the success of the fight against the democratic forces of Europe. They trust neither the British Labourites nor the French Socialists, whom, in spite of their manifest desire to please, they regard as “semi-Communists”, insufficiently worthy of confidence.
It is for this reason that the question of Germany and, in particular of the Ruhr as a potential war-industrial base of a bloc hostile to the USSR, is playing such an important part in international politics and is an apple of discord between the USA and Britain and France.
The appetites of the American imperialists cannot but cause serious uneasiness in Britain and France. The United States has unambiguously given it to be understood that it wants to take the Ruhr out of the hands of the British. The American imperialists are also demanding that the three occupation zones be merged, and that the political separation of Western Germany under American control be openly implemented. The United States insists that the level of steel output in the Ruhr must be increased, with the capitalist firms under American aegis. Marshall’s promise of credits for European rehabilitation is interpreted in Washington as a promise of priority assistance to the German capitalists.
We thus see that America is endeavouring to build a “Western bloc” not on the pattern of Churchill’s plan for a United States of Europe, which was conceived as an instrument of British policy, but as an American protectorate in which sovereign European states, not excluding Britain itself, are assigned a role not very far removed from that of the “49th State of America”. American imperialism is becoming more and more arrogant and unceremonious in its treatment of Britain and France. The bilateral, and trilateral talks regarding the level of industrial production in Western Germany (Great Britain—USA, USA—France), apart from constituting an arbitrary violation of the Potsdam decisions and, are a demonstration of the complete indifference of the United States to the vital interests of its partners in the negotiations. Britain and especially France, are compelled to listen to the America’s dictates and to obey them without a murmur. The behaviour of American diplomats in London and Paris has come to be highly reminiscent of their behaviour in Greece, where American representatives already considering it quite unnecessary to observe the elementary decencies appoint and dismiss Greek ministers at will and conduct themselves as conquerors. Thus the new plan for the Dawesization of Europe essentially strikes at the vital interests of the peoples of Europe and represents a plan for the enthrallment and enslavement of Europe by the United States.
The “Marshall Plan” strikes at the industrialization of the democratic countries of Europe, and hence at the foundations of their integrity and independence. And if the plan for the Dawesization of’ Europe was doomed to failure, at a time when the forces of resistance to the Dawes Plan were much weaker they are now, today, in post-war Europe, there are quite sufficient forces, even leaving aside the Soviet Union, and if they display the will and the determination they can fell this plan of enslavement. All that is needed is the determination and readiness of the peoples of Europe to resist. As to the USSR, it will bend every effort in order that this plan be doomed to failure.
The assessment given by the countries of the anti-imperialist camp of the “Marshall Plan” has been completely confirmed by the whole course of developments. In relation to the “Marshall Plan”, the camp of democratic countries have proved that they are a mighty force standing guard over the independence and sovereignty of all European nations, that they refuse to yield to brow-beating and intimidation, just as they refuse to be deceived by the hypocritical manoeuvres of dollar diplomacy.
The Soviet government has never objected to using foreign, and in particular American credits as a means capable of expediting the process of economic rehabilitation. However, the Soviet Union has always taken the stand that the terms of credits must not be extortionate, and must not result in the economic and political subjugation of the debtor country to the creditor country. From this political stand, the Soviet Union has always held that foreign credits must not be the principal means of restoring a country’s economy. The chief and paramount condition of a country’s economic rehabilitation must be the utilisation of its own internal forces and resources and the creation of its own industry. Only in this way can its independence be guaranteed against encroachments on the part of foreign capital, which constantly displays a tendency to utilise credits as an instrument of political and economic enthrallment. Such precisely is the “Marshall Plan”, which would strike at the industrialisation of the European countries and is consequently designed to undermine their independence.
The Soviet Union unswervingly holds the position that political and economic relations between states must be built exclusively on the basis of equality of the parties and mutual respect for their sovereign rights. Soviet foreign policy and, in particular, Soviet economic relations with foreign countries, are based on the principle of equality, on the principle that agreements must be of advantage to both parties. Treaties with the USSR are agreements that are of mutual advantage to both parties, and never contain anything that encroaches on the national independence and sovereignty of the contracting parties. This fundamental feature of the agreements of the USSR with other states stands out particularly vividly just now, in the light of the unfair and unequal treaties being concluded or planned by the United States. Unequal agreements are alien to Soviet foreign trade policy. More, the development of the Soviet Union’s economic relations with all countries interested in such relations demonstrates on what principles normal relations between states should be built. Suffice it to recall the treaties recently concluded by the USSR with Poland, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria and Finland. In this way the USSR has clearly shown along what lines Europe may find the way out of its present economic plight. Britain might have had a similar treaty, if the Labour Government had not, under outside pressure, frustrated the agreement with the USSR, the agreement which was already on its way to conclusion.
The exposure of the American plan for the economic enslavement of the European countries is an undisputable service rendered by the foreign policy of the USSR and the new democracies.
It should be borne in mind that the America herself is threatened with an economic crisis. There are weighty reasons for Marshall’s official generosity. If the European countries do not receive American credits, their demand for American goods will diminish, and this will tend to accelerate and intensify the approaching economic crisis in the United States. Accordingly, if the European countries display the necessary stamina and readiness to resist the enthralling terms of the American credit. America may find herself compelled to beat a retreat.
- The Tasks of the Communist Parties Uniting the Democratic, Anti-Fascist, Peace-Loving Elements to Resist the New Plans of War and Aggression
The dissolution of the Comintern, which conformed to the demands of the development of the labour movement in the new historical situation, played a positive role. The dissolution of the Comintern once and for all disposed of the slanderous allegation of the enemies of Communism and the labour movement that Moscow was interfering in the internal affairs of other states, and that the Communist Parties in the various countries acting not in the interests of their nations, but on orders from outside.
The Comintern was founded after the first world war, when the Communist Parties were still weak, when practically no ties existed between the working classes of the different countries, and when the Communist Parties had not yet produced generally recognized leaders of the labour movement. The service performed by the Comintern was that it restored and strengthened the ties between the working people of the different countries, that it elaborated theoretical questions of the labour movement in the new, post-war conditions of development that it established general standards of propaganda of the ideas of Communism, and that it facilitated the preparation of leaders of the labour movement. This created the conditions for the conversion of the young Communist Parties into mass labour parties. But once the young Communist Parties had become mass labour parties, the direction of these parties from one centre became impossible and inexpedient. As a result, the Comintern, from a factor promoting the development of the Communist Parties began to turn into a factor hindering their development. The new stage in the development of the Communist Parties demanded new forms of contact among the parties. It was these considerations that made it necessary to dissolve the Comintern and to devise new forms of connection between the parties.
In the course of the four years that have elapsed since the dissolution of the Comintern, the Communist Parties have grown considerably in strength and influence in nearly all the countries of Europe and Asia. The influence of the Communist Parties has increased not only in Eastern Europe, but in practically all European countries were fascism held sway, as well as in those which were occupied by the German fascists—France, Belgium, Holland, Norway, Denmark, Finland etc. The influence of the Communists has increased especially in the new democracies, where the Communist Parties are among the most influential parties in the state.
But the present position of the Communist Parties has its shortcomings. Some comrades understood the dissolution of the Comintern to imply the elimination of all ties, of all contact between the fraternal Communist Parties. But experience has shown that such mutual isolation of the Communist Parties is wrong, harmful and, in point of fact, unnatural. The Communist movement develops within national frameworks, but there are tasks and interests common to the parties of various countries. We get a rather curious state of affairs: the Socialists, who stopped at nothing to prove that the Comintern dictated directives from Moscow to the Communists of all countries, have restored their International; yet Communists even refrained from meeting one another, let alone consulting with one another on questions of mutual interest to them, from fear of the slanderous talk of their enemies regarding the “hand of Moscow”. Representatives of the most diverse fields of endeavour—scientist, cooperators, trade unionists, the youth, students—deem it possible to maintain international contact, to exchange experience and consult with one another on matters relating to their work, to arrange international congresses and conferences; yet the Communists, even of countries that are bound together as allies, hesitate to establish friendly ties. There can be no doubt that if the situation were to continue it would be fraught with most serious consequences to the development of the work of the fraternal parties. The need for mutual consultation and voluntary coordination of action between individual parties has become particularly urgent at the present juncture when continued isolation may lead to a slackening of mutual understanding, and at times, even to serious blunders.
In view of the fact that the majority of the leaders of the Socialist parties (especially the British Labourites and the French Socialists) are acting as agents of United States imperialist circles, there has devolved upon the Communists the special historical task of leading the resistance to the American plan for the enthrallment of Europe, and of boldly denouncing all coadjutors of American imperialism in their own countries. At the same time, Communists must support all the really patriotic elements who do not want their countries to be imposed upon, who want to resist enthrallment of their countries to foreign capital, and to uphold their national sovereignty. The Communists must be the leaders in enlisting all anti-fascist and freedom-loving elements in the struggle against the new American expansionist plans for the enslavement of Europe.
It must be borne in mind that a great gulf lies between the desire of the imperialists to unleash a new war and the possibility of engineering such a war. The peoples of the world do not want war. The forces that stand for peace are so big and influential that if they are staunch and determined in defence of peace, if they display fortitude and firmness, the plans of the aggressors will come to grief. It should not be forgotten that all the hullabaloo of the imperialist agents about the danger of war is designed to frighten the weak-nerved and unstable and to extort concessions to the aggressor by means of intimidation.
The chief danger to the working class at this present juncture lies in underrating its own strength and overrating the strength of the enemy. Just as in the past the Munich policy untied the hands of the Nazi aggressors, so today concessions to the new course of the United States and the imperialist camp may encourage its inspirers even more insolent and aggressive. The Communist Parties must therefore head the resistance to the plans of imperialist expansion and aggression along every line—state, economic and ideological; they must rally their ranks and unite their efforts on the basis of a common anti-imperialist and democratic platform, and gather around them all the democratic and patriotic forces of the people.
A special task devolves on the fraternal Communist Parties of France, Italy, great Britain and other countries. They must take up the standard in defence of the national independence and sovereignty of their countries. If the Communist Parties firmly stick to their position, if they do not allow themselves to be intimidated and blackmailed, if they act as courageous sentinels of enduring peace and popular democracy, of the national sovereignty, liberty and independence of their countries, if, in their struggle against the attempts to economically and politically enthrall their countries, they are able to take the lead of all the forces prepared to uphold the national honour and independence, no plans for the enthrallment of Europe can possibly succeed.
Thirty Years of the Great October Socialist Revolution in the USSR
The broad masses of the working class and working people, the progressive and democratic forces of the world marker the glorious thirtieth anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution in the spirit of great enthusiasm. When celebrating this outstanding historical date they unanimously expressed their determination to defend unswervingly the in cause of a lasting peace, of a people’s democracy.
Thirty years ago the Russian workers and peasants, under the leadership of the Communist Party, overthrew the power of the bourgeoisie and landlords, destroyed to its very foundation the old bourgeois state apparatus and created a state of a new type—the Soviet state. The bourgeois state was counter-balanced by the state of working people, bourgeois democracy by Soviet , socialist democracy, which is the highest form of democracy. The creation of the Soviet state signified a world historical step forward to in the liberation struggle of the working class. For the first time in the history of mankind a socialist state was created which gave real freedom to the working people, destroyed the domination of the exploiting classes and all and every operation of man by man. The Great October Socialist Revolution opened a new era in the history of mankind.
The October Revolution, which is a revolution of a new, socialist type, marked a radical turning point in the historical destines of world capitalism, in the liberation movement of the world proletariat, a radical turning point in the methods of struggle and forms of organisation, in the traditions, culture and ideology of the exploited masses of the world. It broke the front of world imperialism, overthrew the imperialist bourgeoisie in one of the biggest capitalist countries, it served as a revolutionary example to the working peoples of all countries and thus shook the foundation of imperialism not only in the centres of its domain, but also struck at its rearguard, undermining imperialist domination in the colonial and dependent countries, thus questioning the very existence of capitalism as a whole.
Inspired and guided by the Bolshevik Party, The Soviet people have realised the great dreams and hopes cherished by mankind through the centuries. Socialism is embodied in life, it has become a reality. The working people, who have once and for all cast off the yoke of exploitation, see the tangible results of their struggle. This victory, which is of the greatest historical significance was gained at the price of colossal efforts and sacrifices. The working class, the peasantry and all the working people of the USSR are indebted to the great Bolshevik Party for their victory, to Lenin and Stalin—the inspirers and organisers of the Great October Socialist Revolution. Socialism has brought to life such new driving forces of social development as the moral-political unity of the Soviet people, Soviet patriotism, the inviolable friendship of the peoples of the USSR all of which are unknown to capitalism.
The Soviet revolution of 1917 came into being and strengthened under the banner of the great ideas of Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin; it marked the victory of Marxism over reformism, the victory of Leninism over social-democratism, which serves capitalism as its ideological support.
The land of Soviets has traversed a long historical path in the past thirty years.
Neither intervention, nor blockade could turn back the onward march of history. The Soviet people, true to the ideas of Lenin and Stalin, stood the great test.
A large-scale socialist industry was built in the country, the socialist reorganization of the countryside—one of the most difficult tasks—was successfully solved.
Crushing the resistance of the capitalist elements and their agents—the Trotskyites, the Bucharinites, bourgeois nationalists,—who, in every way, tried to obstruct socialist industrialization and collectivization and thus disarm the USSR in the face of the enemy, the Bolshevik party confidently led the working people along the path of Lenin-Stalin.
The war against Hitler Germany clearly showed the enormous significance of the Lenin-Stalin policy of the socialist industrialization of the country and the collectivisation of agriculture in the destiny of the U.S.S.R. As a result of this policy the Soviet Union grew to be a mighty socialist industrial and collective-farm power. The full vigour of the brilliant foresight of Stalin was reflected in these plans.
The Soviet order has secured the steady rise in productive forces, which is impossible in any capitalist country. Industrial output in the Soviet Union has already reached the pre-war level; socialist economy is not, and can not be, menaced by destructives economic crises, inherent in every capitalist country.
The working people of the USSR. entering into the thirty-first year of the Great October Socialist Revolution, confidently face the future, are selflessly working to carry out their Five Year Plan. There is not a single branch of industry or agriculture in the Soviet country which is not forging ahead, which has not got its plan providing for increased output for a number of years o come.
We observe a different picture in the capitalist countries. The ruling circles of America, uneasy about the approaching economic crisis, are trying to avoid growing internal difficulties by preparing new imperialist adventures.
In his report on the thirtieth anniversary of the Great October Revolution, V. M. Molotov noted that the struggle against imperialism and its new plans for military adventures will “unite the peoples into a mighty army, unparalleled by imperialism, which denies the democratic liberties of the people, encroaches on the sovereignty of nations, which builds its plans on threats and adventures.
“Uneasiness and alarm are growing in the ranks of all imperialists, for it is clear to all that the ground under the feet of imperialism is rocking, that the forces of democracy and socialism are growing and strengthening with every passing day.”
The further sharpening of the general crisis of capitalism, the strengthening of the forces of socialism and democracy is giving rise to particularly aggressive activity in the imperialist camp, headed by the United States of America.
New links have fallen out of the chain of imperialism as a result of the Second World War. Profound democratic reforms have taken place in Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Albania. Democracy in Hungary, Rumania, Finland has scored major successes.
A great historical role was played by the Soviet union in these victories of the countries of the new democracy.
The influence of the Communist Parties has grown throughout the world. The peoples consider the Communists as the only true, genuine defenders of the national interests of the country and of the vital interests of the working people.
All the progressive and democratic forces in the capitalist countries, all that is noble and progressive in mankind regard the USSR as the bulwark of struggle for the peace, freedom and independence of the peoples, and are rallying in defence of the USSR,—the hope of all working people and of the exploited.
The thirty years existence of the USSR—the mighty power of victorious socialism—is a source of new strength for the ranks of the defenders of the peace and people’s democracy; it inspires them to take up a decisive and consistent struggle against the machinations of the instigators of a new war and their agents—the right-wing Socialists of all shades who have become the venal hirelings of Anglo-American imperialism.
The existence of the USSR vividly and convincingly proves that capitalism is doomed, that it is disintegrating and has become enmeshed in insoluble contradictions, that the working people themselves can, without the capitalists and landlords, create their state, govern it and advance to the complete victory of Communism.
The Great October Socialist Revolution showed the peoples the true path leading to universal peace and the progress of mankind; it was proof positive that the age of capitalism is drawing to a close.
The adventurist policy of the imperialists who are striving to start the conflagration of a third world war, constitutes the main danger to all the peace-loving peoples. The anti-imperialist and democratic forces must unite into one mighty camp to fight this danger, must develop a bold struggle against imperialism, against its policy of enslaving peoples and launching new military adventures.
“The feverish efforts of the imperialists, under whose feet the ground is rocking, will not save capitalism from impending doom. We are living in the age when all roads lead to Communism.” (V. M. Molotov).
The task of all genuine revolutionary democrats, of all progressive and patriotic forces of the people, the task of the Communist Parties is to organise resistance to the plans of imperialist expansion and aggression along all lines: state, political, economic and ideological, to unite all efforts on the basis of a common anti-imperialist and democratic platform. Courageous defence of the democracy, national sovereignty, freedom and independence of their countries is a sure guarantee that no plans of the American and English imperialists, aimed at enslaving the countries of Europe and Asia, will be put into effect.
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is thirty years old!
History has placed USSR, at the head of the progressive development of mankind, culture and the civilisation of nations.
The Soviet people are confidently advancing, inspired by the great, noble aims of their struggle, relying on the increasing and steadily strengthening economic power, on the planned socialist economy of the country, on their mighty heroic Soviet Army.
Under the banner of Lenin-Stalin, under the leadership of the Bolshevik Party the working people of the USSR will achieve the full victory of Communism.
The working people of the world warmly salute the glorious builders of Communism, salute their inspirer, the leader and teacher—the great Stalin!
EDVARD KARDELJ—THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF YUGOSLAVIA IN THE STRUGGLE FOR THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE YUGOSLAV PEOPLES. FOR THE PEOPLE’S POWER, FOR ECONOMIC REHABILITATION AND SOCIALIST RECONSTRUCTION OF THE ECONOMY*
The road traversed by the Communist Party of Yugoslavia from the time of the fascist invasion of Yugoslavia up to the present is a glorious of great victories and successes in the struggle for the independence of the Yugoslav peoples, for the people’s power, for the economic rehabilitation of the country and for its socialist reconstruction. Such great victories over a more powerful enemy could have been achieved only by a Party, steeled in the long struggle against the enemies of the people and which in that struggle reached a relatively high ideological level. It is precisely this that enabled the Party to take good advantage of all the means and possibilities opened to it by objective conditions for destroying the enemy and the traitors to the people.
It is a big mistake to think that it was only during the war that the Communist Party became closely linked with the wide masses of the people, that is, that it [has—Ed.] accidentally gained influence among the masses of the people because of certain ‘favourable’ conditions during the war. On the contrary, the Communist Party of Yugoslavia had gained strong positions among the masses of the people long before the war. The Party proved itself not only as a champion of the economic demands of the working class, the peasants and the working masses but as the only consistent political party in Yugoslavia which occupied a clear stand on the national question and which activated the masses in the struggle for the self-determination and equality of the peoples of Yugoslavia and for the democratic rights of the masses of the people. The policy of mobilizing the masses for the defence of the country against the approaching danger of aggression, played a particularly important role.
Parallel with this The Communist Party of Yugoslavia, working in complete illegality and under conditions of ruthless terror and persecution, strengthened and purged its ranks and extended its organisation throughout the whole country. There can be no doubt that the purge and organizational strengthening of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia after 1937, under the leadership of Marshall Tito, was a pre-condition to and one of the most important factors in the victory. The party entered the war, internally monolithic and imbued with a deep revolutionary spirit, while at the same time closely linked to the masses. Thus, our Party was already before the war one of the strongest political factors in the country.
This was even more clearly shown during the German-Italian attack on Yugoslavia in April 1941 and during the first months of the occupation.
- The Party in the Period of the National-Liberation War against the Invaders and Traitors of the People
In the April phrase of the war, the line of our Party was above all to strengthen with all forces resistance at the front against the aggressor’s armies, to remove incapable and treacherous officers and to transfer the leadership of the resistance on certain sectors of the front to capable patriots, to arm civilian population and especially the workers in the cities and organize them for battle together with the army, to strengthen the antifascist positions in the army, to emphasise the need for a democratic people’s government which could wage war against the invader, to continue the battle against the German-Italian aggressor with partisan tactics because of the superior strength of the enemy on the front.
Naturally our Party could not have achieved practical military successes with such tactics in the April phase of the war since the collapse of the old Yugoslav army was extraordinarily quick thanks to the traitorous role of the majority of the political and military leaders of the old Yugoslavia. The whole of reaction and even the general staff for the most part consciously acted in such a way as to end the war as soon as possible, figuring that they could in collaboration with the invader retain power no matter how the war finished. While one section of the reactionary forces was consolidating its position in cooperation with the invader, the other section—that is, the reactionary circles around the emigre government—was making preparations abroad to return to the country after the war with outside help and continue their old anti-people’s policies. It stands to reason that these gentleman never even thought seriously of fighting against the fascist aggression inasmuch as they were motivated exclusively by their class interests and the interest of their imperialist masters whose agents they were long before the war.
It goes without saying that the first and hardest blow of the invader after the enslavement of our country, was aimed at the Communist Party. Thanks however, to the internal firmness of, Party and to the rich experiences of long years of its illegal work, the Party not only succeeded resisting the terror, but it became the leading force in the liberation struggle of Yugoslavia.
The political line of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia after the April events was clear: unity of the patriotic forces in the struggle for national liberation, continuation of armed resistance to the invader in the form of diversionary tactics and sabotage, the unmasking and isolation of traitorous reaction of all shades from the masses of the people and strengthening the leading role of the working class in the national liberation movement as that was an imperative condition for a consistent struggle; unmasking the traitorous role of the reactionary circles in the emigre government o were responsible for the shameful capitulation; developing a widespread struggle against the invader and his collaborators, the native traitors; the political organizational preparation for a general people’s uprising in the right moment.
The preparation is for the armed uprising against the invader had both of their political and organizational aspects. From the political point of view the party fought for the widest possible development of the National Liberation Front parallel to with the application of the most varied forms of struggle against the enemy, including the boycott and sabotage, of the invader measures, passive resistance, hiding of food stuffs, and the placing of all sorts of economic obstacles in the path of the invader. Waging a struggle for the unity of all patriotic forces on the Platform of the struggle against the invader the Party endeavoured to achieve unity with the leadership of various the party groups as well but at the same time, independently of this, it created committees with a mass character in the National Liberation Front, and other unified mass organizations, from below. Thus the Party independently developed the mass struggle against the invader at the same time extending the hand of cooperation to all patriots and patriotic groups among the leading circles of other parties.
The National Liberation Front, it is true, was joined by certain groups from the old political parties together with individuals from the leadership of these parties, who were brought into the camp of the national liberation struggle by their national and patriotic sentiments. It should, however, be particularly emphasized at the same time that the leadership of the old political parties as a whole, as well as all kinds of reactionary and pseudo-democratic cliques ‘oriented to the west’, immediately took the line of the collaboration with the enemy. Some did this openly, others tried for some time to mask themselves, but the course of events very soon brought them out into the open and they were compelled to show themselves to the people in their true colors—that of the accomplices and helpers of the invaders. Of course, this development of the ruling cliques in old Yugoslavia, is not accidental, did not start only during the war. It is generally known that the present emigre Yugoslav ‘democratic coryphaeus’, whom reactionary American and other imperialist entrepreneurs depict As the persecuted victims of ‘Communism’ are persons who at first prepared and signed the agreement with Hitler, and later, when this trick did not quite the work according to plan, tried to bring about, as rapidly as possible, the capitulation of the old Yugoslav army. Later when these gentlemen and their supporters continue this line by collaborating with the invader, they were only running true too type.
Whence this consistent treachery of these gentleman? The explanation is to be found in the fact that these reactionary gentlemen were the same during the war as they were before it—the enemies of the people. The privileged wealthy class and different capitalist exploiters and their accomplices, together with the rest of the reactionary the clique their feared every democratic movement of the masses during the war as much as they did before it. They saw in every movement of the popular masses a growing danger to them, danger to their order. There is, therefore, nothing surprising in the fact that these reactionary gentlemen in the struggle between the democratic forces and the occupation troops unhesitatingly decided to go over to the invaders, the defenders of the imperialist system. National treachery to became a lawful percept in the activities of these reactionary circles. Our reaction remained true to this percept also during the war—both as regards the section which openly supported Hitler, as well as the section with a ‘Western orientation’. The imperialist invaders meant more to this treacherous reactionary company than did the people who had taking to arms. They basely and mercilessly trampled upon all the national interests in their fear that their exploiting class interests and the interests of their imperialist masters might be menaced when the people are armed. Had there been no active national liberation movement and armed uprising the reactionary clique would have perhaps been able to mask their traitorous role before the people, to a certain extent, as was the case in some other countries. The development of the armed struggle, however, demanded that everyone show where he stand. The traitors came out into the open more and more and all those who were honest and patriotic abandoned their camp.
It is clear that in such a situation, it would not have been sufficient to have four fought for the National Liberation Front only on the basis of a coalition of the leaderships of political parties. It was necessary to fight in every way for the unity of the masses from below. The struggle of our Party for the formation of committees with a mass character in the National Liberation Front from below, parallel with the endeavours to achieve unity with the leaderships of the various parties to the parties as well, speeded up the unmasking of the pseudo-patriotic phrase-mongers and helped to adopt a clear-cut attitude; either for the National liberation movement leading towards a general peoples armed uprising, or for the collaboration with the invader. The development of the armed uprising itself brought this differentiation out to the full. Under the conditions of a sharp armed struggle which extended to every corner of our country, everyone who took a ‘centre’ position was soon forced to show on whose side he stood.
The organizational aspect of the preparation for the armed uprising consisted, in the first place, in the establishment of completely illegal military committees, which was undertaken immediately after the April defeat in 1941. The military committees were entrusted with the task of carrying out all organizational preparations, for organizing the collection of arms, training military cadres and organizing sabotage and by diversionist activities. At the same time of Hitler’s attack on the Soviet Union, we already had a whole network of such committees throughout Yugoslavia which were capable of assuming the role of direct military leaders in the armed uprising in its first phase.
Those who slandered our Party often advanced the ‘argument’ against the National liberation movement of Yugoslavia, to the effect that the National liberation uprising developed fully only after Hitler’s attack on the Soviet Union, and not before. With this ‘argument’ they wished to ‘prove’ that during the war the Communist Party of Yugoslavia was not thinking of the interests of national independence but of other interests. To what extent this ‘argument’ is false and slanderous is best shown by the fact that our Party as far back as April 1941 began founding military committees with concrete military tasks. On the other hand, it is also clear that it would have been impossible to have developed the people’s uprising on a large scale at the time when Hitler was on the shores of the English Channel and when not a single army in Europe offered any resistance to the German and Italian fascist hordes. Besides, the masses of the people were not yet ready, after the April defeat to take up arms on a mass scale.
These were the main reasons which let the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia to call upon patriots in the country in June 1941, to develop broad partisan activity against the invader with the prospect of its growing into a general people’s armed uprising. As far back as July and August, partisan activity extended throughout the whole of the country and rapidly began to develop into a general uprising of the people. In September, a considerable part of the territory had already been liberated, while towards the middle of that same month the Politbureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia left Belgrade in order to go to the liberated territory. The Supreme Headquarters of the partisan detachments headed by Marshall Tito as Supreme Commander, and the various National Headquarters were formed.
Our military forces grew steadily until the end of the war. Many offensives were launched, enormous sacrifices were made but the forces of the National Liberation Army steadily grew and the liberated territory extended from year to year. The broad masses of the people responded to the call of the Communist Party to take up arms. The line of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, as regards the development of partisan warfare as the main form of the armed struggle against the enemy, proved to be correct. The victory of the line of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia in the national liberation movement was assured in the first place by four factors, by four basic elements in its tactics.
The first factor was undoubtedly the clear course of the Communist party of Yugoslavia regarding the armed uprising from the first day of occupation. The Party fought ceaselessly for cooperation with all parties and all patriotic groups which were ready to take part in the armed uprising. Our Party, however, did not make the development of the uprising dependent on the results of these endeavours. Our Party fought for the masses by developing the armed uprising, by setting up a people’s power on the liberated territory and by the widespread development of the national liberation movement throughout the entire country. The Communist Party of Yugoslavia came to the fore not only as the initiator and organizer of the national liberation struggle, as the leading force in the national liberation war. It is clear that it is precisely this role that closely linked our Party to the masses.
At that time, there were people even in our Party diehard dogmatists who said that partisan warfare can be only a means of aid and no way the main factor in an armed uprising. They said that the cities, and not the forest and the outskirts, would decide the fate of an armed uprising. That is why they considered it a mistake to take workers from the cities for the partisan detachments, or even that the Party leadership should leave the cities with part of it assuming military leadership. Actually, all such and similar theories were the result of opportunism which feared warfare. The victory of the line of the central Committee of our Party proved, in opposition to all such opportunistic theories, that under conditions of brutal fascist occupation it was precisely partisan warfare combined with may-sided activities in the cities that was the best, quickest and the only possible road to victory.
It is understood that the Communist Party of Yugoslavia led by Comrade Tito did not stop at the organization of the original partisan detachments. Comrade Tito, as supreme commander of the partisan detachments, at the very beginning outlined a clear course for the formation of regular units. The original partisan detachments were more or less connected with a certain territory and were led by permanent territorial headquarter commands. Even though these units were of a mass character and their heroic struggle inscribed a glorious and heroic chapter in the history of the development of our national liberation uprising, it was clear that to stop at the original partisan detachments, would have meant losing the war. It was necessary to create an army which would not only be capable of inflicting damage upon the enemy but which could destroy and defeat him and which would be capable of waging frontal warfare, of taking towns and fortifications, of liberating the country. That is why the Supreme Headquarters, as soon as conditions were ripe, began as far as back as the end of 1941 and the beginning of 1942 to take the best units and fighters from the partisan detachments, forming operational brigades out of them which would not be bound to a definite territory. These were the first regular units of our army which were transferred from place to place and which operated according to the unified operational plan of the Supreme Headquarters. Divisions and corps grew out of these brigades and the National Liberation Army came into being which by its discipline and experience in warfare and because of its striking power and manner of waging war, was essentially different from the partisan detachments which were and remained in the main the starting point for the organization of the mass armed uprising. In this connection, Comrade Tito characterized this process, at the end of 1942 as follows.
“The creation of the people’s army is the greatest success of the people’s uprising in Yugoslavia up to now.
“The process was a long and difficult one because our people’s army grew up out of small partisan detachments composed of unarmed patriots, peasants, workers, honest intellectuals, and the youth of towns and country, who rose up against the invader and his hirelings.
It was necessary, at the cost of enormous sacrifices to wrest from the enemy each rifle, each bomb, each bullet, each machine-gun, each gun. each mortar, and to resist the numerous offensives of the numerically and technically superior enemy who wanted at all costs to suppress the people’s uprising, to smash the partisan detachments and brigades. hence, our people’s army was not created from above by decree, forcibly, nor was it armed by munitions makers… On the contrary, each soldier of our brave people’s army in bitter fighting and with his own blood, captured and is capturing arms from the enemy which was shamefully turned over to it in April of last year by the traitors of our people, by various higher officers and generals in the former Yugoslav army.
“The formation of divisions and corps, the creation of our people’s army, took place at a time when all conditions were ripe, when an imperative need for this arose, when numerous brigades and battalions had already been formed, when these brigades and battalions were equipped with almost all kinds of arms (except aviation), when it had become impossible to command all the brigades, battalions, and divisions in the same way as hitherto, and finally, when a great part of our territory had been liberated and the need arose for offensive operations on a large scale……” (Tito: The Struggle for the Liberation of Yugoslavia, p. 304)
From all this it clearly follows that the Communist Party of Yugoslavia in developing the partisan war and the armed uprising did not generally regard it as the sole means for weakening the enemy, for inflicting damage upon him, for putting the pressure on the traitorous domestic reaction, but considered it from the very beginning as the road to the complete victory of the people over the invader and over his accomplices in the country.
The second important factor in the victory of the National Liberation Front in Yugoslavia, of which we have already spoken here. The unity of the National Liberation Front did not consist merely in an unified political platform. They development of the National Front was determined especially by two factors:
1) The National Liberation Front demanded of every member political group and of every individual member that they in one way or another actively help in the national liberation struggle. There were, especially in the beginning, various politicians who were prepared to adopt, in words alone, the general political platform of the National Liberation Front but not to accept an armed uprising and partisan warfare. There was no small number of persons who were democrats and patriots in word but who in practice at the same time said that the uprising should wait until the end of the war when our allies would liberate us. These persons and political groups wanted the National Liberation front to be a non-militant organization which would simply issue general declarations, because they wanted to find in it a temporary shelter until the forces of reaction would again recover their leading positions. The Communist Party of Yugoslavia not only did not agree to the inclusion of such persons and political groups in the National Liberation front, but unmasked them before the masses of the people as a reserve force of the invader, as a hidden stronghold of the enemy. Such a policy on the part on the Communist Party of Yugoslavia and the National Liberation Front gave the latter exceptional fighting strength and at the same time exposed all the traitorous manoeuvres of the so-called ‘democratic center’ which on the one hand used pseudo-liberal and pseudo-democratic slogans and, on the other hand attached the Communist Party and the National Liberation Front, alleging that they were leading the Yugoslav peoples into adventures, to unnecessary sacrifices instead of waiting to be liberated by the allies. The National Liberation Front was joined by all those who were genuine patriots and democrats. In fact, the way of the development of the National Liberation Front was at the same time the way of isolating the reaction from the masses, and the way of unifying the working people and all patriotic and democratic elements under the leadership of the working class.
2) This political substance also correspond to the organizational development of the National Liberation—that is the People’s Front—as the Front was renamed after the liberation of Yugoslavia. The great liberation struggle demanded the unity of the people under a unified leadership. All this led to the consolidation of the leadership of the National Liberation Front and all its organizations. The main role in this respect was played by the unity of the local Front organizations which completely paralyzed the activity of various local political groups of the old reactionary parties. Thus the People’s front became a huge, unified, militant organization of the people which did not and does not operate on the basis of coalition, or on the basis of parity committees, but on the basis of unified, mass, local Front organizations. This development of the People’s Front as a separate but united mass organization of all genuine people’s democratic, patriotic forces in our country under the leadership of the working class, played a decisive role in the mobilization of the masses for the liberation of war, for routing the invader and native traitorous reaction which served him.
The third factor in the victory of the national liberation movement were the national liberation committees as organs of power first made their appearance in our country in 1941 as soon as the first part of our territory was liberated. They developed over a period of years from the lowest forms to the highest and became the base for the unified system of state power from the bottom to the top.
The national liberation committees naturally did not come into existence accidentally. It was clear to the leadership of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia and to the National Liberation Front that the fate of the armed uprising against the invader depended on the participation and the fighting determination of the broad masses of the people, that is the working people of town and country. Moreover to mobilize these essential sections of the people, it was not enough merely to put forward national-liberation slogans. Speaking of this, Comrade Tito, for instance, said:
“It is understood that the correct solution of the national question and the correct solution of the social question and further the clear prospect of a thorough social transformation in the new Yugoslavia were of great significance in strengthening and stabilising the People’s Front. It is more than certain that without such clear prospects our peoples would not have been able to endure such difficult conditions in the liberation war.” (Tito: Report to the Second Congress of the People’s Front of Yugoslavia).
There were, indeed, people who said the formation of national liberation committees and the realization of certain revolutionary democratic demands of the masses of the people would repel certain strata and political groups from the National Liberation Front. The Communist Party of Yugoslavia fought resolutely against such points of view. Had the People’s Front of Yugoslavia followed such a course, it would not have had the masses or more correctly speaking the masses of the people would not have been ready to make such sacrifices and fight with arms in hand as they did having before them not only prospects of national liberation but the realization of their democratic and social aspirations. It was borne out in practice that the linking up of the national liberation uprising with the process of the people’s democratic revolution not only did not weaken the striking power of the uprising, but drew the masses of the people strongly to it and gave it indestructible stability and vitality.
It was necessary to break and destroy the old, hated power which oppressed the people in the interests of the exploiters, it was necessary to guarantee that the new Yugoslavia would no longer be a prison of the peoples—as the old one was—but a state which would be built up on the basis of self-determination and equality of all its peoples. It was necessary to stress clearly that the cursed anti-democratic and anti-people’s power of the past would never again return. It was necessary to prevent the return of the dynasty as the center of all traitorous and anti-people’s cliques. It was necessary to give the workers, peasants and all working people the guarantee that they would be able to build a better life for themselves than they had in the old Yugoslavia. It was necessary to prove all this in practice to the masses of the people on liberated territory.
This is why the old state apparatus was immediately torn down to its foundations and a new form of state power created everywhere on liberated territory. The slogan of the National Liberation Front was: “All power on liberated territory—insofar as this was not limited by purely military needs—belongs to the national liberation committees, that is, the people should take it into their own hands; the peasants, workers, all working people and all honest patriots.
“That was a form of people’s power which was known to the peoples”, said Comrade Tito, speaking of the people’s committees, “known because they have waited and yearned for it for a long time, have carried it in their heart. It was precisely that form of power which best corresponded to the interests of peoples of our country…” (Tito: Report to the Second Congress of the People’s Front of Yugoslavia).
Having much in common with the Soviets, the national liberation committees were built up in accordance with actual conditions in Yugoslavia and according to the specific developments of our national liberation uprising.
It is quite clear that the national liberation committees, as well as certain revolutionary-democratic measures which they put into effect, infuriated the traitorous anti-democratic cliques in our country, which were ready to ally themselves with the devil himself in order to wrest that powerful weapon from the hands of the people. On the other hand, the national liberation committees swiftly gained great popularity among the people. During the war they played a tremendous role in consolidating the working masses of our country around the National Liberation Front led by the Communist Party of Yugoslavia. It was this strength and popularity of the national liberation committees that is, the true people’s power which made possible decisions such as those taken by the Second Session of AVNOJ (the Anti-Fascist Council of the National Liberation of Yugoslavia) as the supreme organ of the people’s power on liberated territory in Jajce on November 29th, 1943. This session proclaimed the removal of the emigre government from power, banned the dynasty from returning and made Yugoslavia a federative state on the basis of national equality. It also finally confirmed the national liberation committees and the whole structure of state power which was based on all of them, including AVNOJ—as the sole legitimate organ of all the peoples and of the state power in the country. This step greatly raised the prestige of the people’s power and marked the final turning-point in the balance of forces in favour of the National Liberation Movement and the people’s power. It can be said that the development of the national liberation uprising and the people’s power in Yugoslavia represents a specific example of linking a national liberation war with a democratic people’s revolution under the leadership of the working class striving in its development to a higher socialist form.
The fourth factor in our victory was our clearly-defined relationship with the allies in the war. The entire policy of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia and the National Liberation Front was directed towards strengthening the unity of the anti-Hitler bloc as a precondition to the victory over the fascist invaders. In spite of this, however, we did not refrain from publicly criticizing that, which it was necessary to criticize in the relations between the allies so that the masses of the people would have a clear picture of the position and relationship of forces. It was exactly because of this that the Communist Party of Yugoslavia could without difficulty throw off the influence of certain opportunistic tendencies which appeared in the final phases of the war. Some people were ready to believe that after the war there would begin a period of peaceful, parliamentary development of imperialism, and not a period of the further sharpening of the general crisis of capitalism and all its internal contradictions, a period in which at the first opportunity the reactionary imperialist forces would again attempt to free themselves from the pressure of democratic forces and to untie their hands for new imperialistic expansion if not hampered by the democratic forces.
The Communist Party of Yugoslavia shattered these illusions during the war and immediately following it. The peoples of Yugoslavia freed themselves of such illusions by their own experiences. In this respect the armed uprising was the best teacher. It was most clearly seen at the front who was a truly sincere friend and who was not. Had there not been an armed uprising of our people, they could not have possibly seen this, they could not have exposed pseudo-democratic phraseology. The masses of the people, however, knew of the reasons for the very poor help in arms, given to the National Liberation Army of Yugoslavia by the Western allies and with their own blood had to pay for the support which the chetniks of Draza Mihailovic and other traitors received from abroad up to the last day of the war. They saw many instances of insincerity on the part of the Western allies in the war and followed the insidious political manoeuvres of certain imperialist circles regarding the second front. All these and other bitter experiences taught the masses of our people not to judge the allies by their words alone but also by their deeds. That is why our peoples had no illusions regarding imperialist “democracy”, or the “improvement” of imperialism.
On the other hand, the masses of our peoples, on their own experience, were daily convinced of the great liberation role of the Soviet Union and its unselfish help to our liberation struggle. Our peoples saw that the Soviet Union was bearing the brunt of the war and followed closely its unselfish policy of helping all enslaved peoples. That is why they understood that the struggle of the Soviet Union was in full measure their own struggle. It was precisely during the war that our peoples best understood that the fraternal alliance Moscow—Belgrade was the basic guarantee of their independence. The Communist Party of Yugoslavia constantly pointed to these facts for it always maintained the viewpoint that a clear understanding of international relations and a correct position on this question was an extremely important factor in the struggle for the mobilization of the masses, for shattering harmful illusions and for the isolation and liquidation of traitorous reaction in our country.
In addition to this, all these facts taught our peoples something more. They taught them to differentiate between genuine democracy, genuine democratic power, and formal, alleged ‘democracy’ , false ‘democratic’ power.
Opinions, for example, appeared to the effect that every government in which Communists participate is already a government of the new people’s democracy. Such a view is naturally wrong and very dangerous. Rich experiences show that reactionary forces were often prepared to cooperate with the Communists in a government as long as they felt stronger they were ready to trample upon all democratic principles and all parliamentary forms only to free themselves from the control of the working class and of working people as represented by the Communist Party. Precisely for this reason the democratic forces in Yugoslavia, headed by the Communist Party, took steps to safeguard the people’s power from all possible attacks by various imperialist agents and various anti-democratic and reactionary plots. The Communist Party of Yugoslavia maintained the view that new, people’s democracy begins where the working class, in alliance with all the other working masses, hold the key positions in state power which guarantee the stability of the people’s democratic power and which can prevent imperialist reaction from wresting from the people the democratic achievements of their liberation struggle. Naturally, the calumniators—the agents of imperialism—clamoured and are still clamouring that this is dictatorship. Our peoples reply, however, that it is unity safeguarding genuine people’s democracy and our national independence from your anti-democratic plots and dictatorships and from your imperialistic expansion.
Concluding Part of Edvard Kardelj’s Report
- A key role of the party in the Political and Economic Construction of the New Yugoslavia
The policy of the Communist Party was victorious. The reactionary forces in the service of imperialism routed while, The enormous majority of the people’s masses already the during the war firmly united in the People’s Front headed by the Communist Party. The Communist Party of Yugoslavia, the People’s Front, and Comrade Tito, as leader and organizer of the struggle of the people for national independence and people’s power, enjoy the unbounded confidence of the people’s masses.
The old system of the state power was destroyed not only as far as its internal substance and personnel were concerned, but in form as well. What is essential in this change is the fact that the people’s power, founded on people’s committees and enjoying their active support is a higher type of democracy as compared with parliamentary democracy. One sometimes hears from poorly informed people that the new democracy, is actually an old parliamentary democratic form with a new substance. As far as Yugoslavia is concerned, such an assertion does not correspond to reality. What is characteristic for the development of people’s democracy in Yugoslavia is precisely the fact that it did not develop along lines of bourgeois parliamentary democracy. People’s democracy in Yugoslavia is the result of a persistent and bloody struggle for the national liberation and independence of our people, a struggle in which the process of people’s democratic revolution developed some simultaneously. It is actually a specific form of Soviet democracy which corresponds to our conditions and to the specific conditions of the development of our national liberation developed simultaneously. It is for this very reason that in the defence of our people’s power such a unity of our working people has been attained unprecedented in the history of the peoples of Yugoslavia.
All the administrative territorial units in the Federative People’s Republic of Yugoslavia and in its people’s republics (towns, cities, districts and regions) are governed by the people of these territories themselves through their organs of power that is to say, through the people’s committees, which they elect every three years by direct and secret ballot People’s committees govern all affairs of local significance and at the same time they also carry out on their territories tasks of general significance, in keeping with the instructions issued by the higher organs of state power in their administrative territorial unit. Thus a higher type of self-government has been embodied in our people’s committees which differs radically from self-government in the countries of bourgeois democracy.
Together with the National Assembly and the Presidium of the peoples republics, that is the federative People’s Republic of Yugoslavia and with the governments of the people’s republic and Federal Government, the people’s committees represent reunification of state power, the unification of the system of new, people’s democracy which stands incomparably higher than any bourgeois parliamentary democracy not only in substance but also in form.
Thanks to the fact that already during the war the old state apparatus had been completely crashed, a mortal blow was dealt the enemy, since this deprived him of every possibility of influencing state power even indirectly. We were able to build up a new apparatus within a relatively short time precisely because we were able to rely on the experience and cadres which the national liberation uprising and the development of the national liberation committees during the four years of war had given us.
We consider the building up of the new state apparatus as one of the most important and greatest victories of the People’s Front and of the Communist Party. This victory to a great extent facilitated the speedy organisational consolidation and ultimate strengthening of the people’s power after the liberation despite the stubborn attempts of the remnants of the routed enemy of the people, supported from abroad, to wrest from the people the achievements of their heroic liberation struggle.
In addition to this the New Yugoslavia, immediately after the national liberation, unhesitatingly embarked upon a course of speedy realization of the national and democratic demands of the peoples of Yugoslavia proclaimed in Jajce already in 1943. Yugoslavia soon grew up into a federative republic of free peoples with equal rights. The enemies of the people were thus deprived of one more weapon with which they had held the masses of the people in subjugation.
These victories and the structure of the People’s Front were the foundation on which the People’s Republic was built. Today it represents the unity of the working masses headed by the working class. The people’s government reflects the interests of the working masses, it is the organ of these masses in the struggle against capitalistic remnants and for the construction of socialism in Yugoslavia.
Having achieved such big victories, the peoples of Yugoslavia were able to pass on to the next stage of their struggle.
Such a policy on the part of the Government was inevitable. A situation, in which the working class in alliance with the other working masses holds power while the basic economic sources are in the hands of the overthrown capitalist bourgeoisie, cannot last long. Therefore, it is clear, that the government, which is the reflection of this alliance of working people headed by the working class, could not restrict itself merely to liquidating the various feudal remnants and capitalist monopolies but had to adopt a clear course leading to the elimination of capitalism in Yugoslavia generally, to the construction of socialism. The process of the development of the people’s democratic revolution inter-blended with socialist forms which have today become predominant. Whoever would attempt to raise a wall between these two forms of parallel development, would only prove that be in either badly informed or that he mechanically applies the teachings of Marxism-Leninism.
The national liberation committees already during the war introduced a series of measures which considerable weakened the economic positions of traitorous capitalist reaction. It is understood that after the liberation and strengthening of the people’s power, the new Yugoslavia unhesitatingly set out upon the road of socialist reconstruction.
Before fully embarking on this path it was necessary immediately after the war to carry out land reforms, consistently and resolutely.
The Law on Land Reform, in conformity with the Constitution, proclaimed the principle that the land shall belong to those who cultivate it.
According to this principle, there was confiscated first and foremost the large land-holdings in the hands of non-agriculturists. The Law defines as large land holdings those which cover areas of 25 to 35 hectares of arable land, or 45 hectares of total area. Such estates are taken complete with their entire live-stock and inventory, installations and buildings, Churches, monasteries and religious institutions are dispossessed of all lands exceeding 10 hectares. Only religious institutions of historical or other significance may, as an exception, be left up to 30 hectares of arable land and up to 30 hectares of forest land. The lands of all the three enumerated categories are taken without compensation.
Non-agriculturists, whose estates are small or medium, are dispossessed of the surplus exceeding the established 3 hectares and sometimes 5 hectares it depending on the financial standing of the owner. Landowners are dispossessed of land only in cases where their estate surpasses the maximum of 20-30 hectares of arable land, fixed by the Law of the people’s republics, taking in to account the nature and quality of the land. In these instances the government, under certain conditions pays out compensation to the amount of the annual income per hectare.
A land fund has been set up with the expropriated and confiscated lands. This fund amounts to 1,564,000 hectares, of which 1,075,000 hectares is arable and 489,000 hectares unarable.
Of this fund 246,000 families of farmers received 438,000 hectares, in accordance with the Land Reform Law while 60,000 families of settlers, mostly fighters in the Yugoslav Army received 359,700 hectares. The reminder of the land was used to form state agricultural estates or estates belonging to some state enterprises or institutions.
In this way the Law on Land Reform completely abolished large holdings while agrarian holdings were restricted so that their maximum limit were fixed at 30-35 hectares and in some republics even to 25 hectares of arable land. The Law also prohibits the future existence of private holdings which surpass this maximum limit. On the other hand, the number and area of state agricultural estates has increased considerably.
The land reform has brought the people’s power even closer to the working masses and contributed to the isolation of certain rich profiteering elements in the village. This of course has dealt a powerful blow to all capitalist elements in the village because this reform considerably weakened their pressure on the small peasant producer, and narrowed the limits of their activity.
The entire industry, excepting small local industry, was nationalized by the end of last year. Wholesale trade was nationalized as well, while only a part of retail trade remained in private hands. All banks and insurance companies, land, sea and river transport, etc. were also nationalized.
Naturally, all this, radically changed the socio-economic structure of our country. We can give a few figures as illustration of this.
This year, the state will receive over 30 milliard dinars from state enterprises as tax on turnover, that is to say, as revenue on accumulation from our state production. The significance of this figure can be understood if we take into consideration that the entire budget of the old Yugoslavia never reached such a figure. That explains why our present budget amounts to 85 milliard dinars, that is to say, practically three times more than the budget of the old Yugoslavia in terms of the present value of the dinar.
The following figures speak even more clearly of the present socio-economic structure of Yugoslavia.
The state sector includes 100% of banking, 100% of the industry of federal and republican significances, 70% of industry of local significance (including the cooperative sector). The state sector, including the cooperative sector, embraces over 90% of the value of industrial production. A part of the accumulation in the form of taxes on turnover, naturally is also turned over to the state by the private sector. Practically 100% of big trade and mechanized transport are covered by the state and cooperative sector. Of the total number of retail shops, approximately 44% are covered by the state and cooperative sector, while approximately 56% are in private hands. However, as regards the volume of trade, the state and cooperative sectors considerably surpass the private merchants. In this respect, I have at my disposal figures only for the second quarter of this year. In this quarter, of the total amount of retail trade, the state sector covered 33.95% (in value), the cooperative sector 49.19% and the private commercial sector 16.86%. In view of these facts, we shall set ourselves the task of expanding the network of our state retail trade shops and improving and expanding the work of our cooperative trade network. Here it should be noted that the wholesale-retail cooperatives in town and village alone supply approximately 11 million consumers. On the whole, the cooperative movement, although organizationally still rather weak and insufficiently active, occupies an extremely important place in the socialist construction of our country. In this connection a very important fact is that agricultural cooperatives alone in one way or another cover ¾ of all of our present holdings. It is also typical that the number of working: cooperatives, that is to say, the collective agricultural holdings of the artel type, have reached the figure of 612 and that they include approximately 30,000 farmsteads. Of course, these peasant cooperatives are the product of the small, most progressive part of the peasantry and cannot be taken as a general characteristic of the development of our agriculture. There can be no doubt, however, that they will play an important educational role in the village and will be an important instrument in the socialist reconstruction of our agriculture.
Finally, we must mention one more, perhaps the most important fact, namely, the enormous significance of the measures which have been carried into effect to ensure the economic independence of our country. Thanks to nationalization and other measures, the Government of the Federative People’s Republic of Yugoslavia, has in fact eliminated foreign capital in our country. Foreign capital held the most important branches of Yugoslav economy. It is characteristic, that, for example, of the total foreign capital invested, 52.1% was invested in four branches, namely in the mining industry, electro-industry, oil industry and in banking. It is clear, that these were positions from which foreign capital could best control the economy of Yugoslavia.
Today, these positions of foreign capital are liquidated; they are in the hands of the peoples of Yugoslavia.
All these results, of course, do not in the least mean that the danger of the development of capitalist elements in our economy has been completely done away with, or that the class struggle with the remnants of capitalism is no more. No, capitalist remnants are fighting for their existence and for their reinforcement. Commerce is the field of their activity. In addition to this, the small producer in the village represents a predominant form in agriculture and, as Lenin said, ‘capitalist trade tendencies’ are developing parallel with him. All these tendencies, however, could become dangerous only if we failed to keep account of them. However, both the political and economic means which can prevent the revival of capitalist elements are in the hands of the people’s power.
In the first place the ‘capitalist trade tendencies’ of the small peasant holding is in itself capitalistic. It is a question of linking this holding economically, organizationally and according to plan with the state sector in the struggle against capitalist elements in the village and in this way to change it from a reserve of capitalism into a stronghold of socialist development. Such an organizational weapon, which is capable of leading us directly to this goal, is the agricultural cooperative. I shall speak of it later, however.
If we bear all this in mind, then it is clear that Yugoslavia today is no longer a capitalist country, nor a country with a predominant capitalist sector, but a state typical of the transition from capitalism to socialism with predominantly socialist elements of economy which are the result of the struggle waged so far by the working class and the entire working people. On the other hand, the people’s power, that is to say, the democratic power of the working people, headed by the working class, contains, contains all the necessary elements and conditions for the further building of socialism in our country. All this is also borne out by the structure of our national income, which to a considerable extent reflects the significant socialist victories of our peoples.
Of the total of the present national income of the Federative People’s Republic of Yugoslavia (100%)—according to approximately exact estimates for general orientation—54% represents the total state accumulation, 20% the net income of civil servants and workers, 19% the net income of peasants (including also the income of agricultural cooperatives), 3.5% the net income of artisans (including artisan cooperatives), and the remainder of 3.5% the private sector (including also private capitalist elements and the private professions, etc.). However, a more detailed analysis of the 26% of the income which represents the small producer (including cooperatives), or the capitalist elements, shows that approximately 12% of this income is realized in the relations between the private sector and the state sector, 5—7% in the small-scale commodity exchanges of the producers among themselves, and only 7-9% for capitalist commodity exchange. This, naturally, does not mean that these figures cannot from time to time show certain fluctuations. Taken as a whole, however, the line of development is clear and all these figures obviously confirm what I have already said, namely, that present-day Yugoslavia is a country of transition from capitalism to socialism, with predominantly socialist elements. If we also bear in mind the significant successes in the development of the agricultural cooperatives, then this fact will become even more clear. In a word: the economic strength of capitalist elements in our country has been dealt a mortal blow.
All this has made it possible for the peoples of Yugoslavia to embark on their Five Year Economic Plan already this year, a plan which will completely alter the face of Yugoslavia. The Law on the Five Year Plan formulates the tasks of this plan as follows:
1) The elimination of the economic and technical backwardness of the country;
2) The consolidation of the economic and defensive strength of the country;
3) The consolidation and further development of the socialist sector of the national economy and of the new relations of production arising therefrom;
4) The raising of the general welfare of the working people.
We shall not dwell here in detail on the Five Year Plan; we shall mention only a few figures by way of illustration.
By 1951 the national income will have increased by 19.3% as compared with 1939, that is to say, from 132 milliards to 255 milliard dinars. The national income per capita will have grown from 8,464 dinars to 15,625 dinars. The value of agriculture production will have increased to 151%, that is to say, from 63,8 milliards to 96,7 milliard dinars. Whereas in 1938 new investments in old Yugoslavia amounted to 13,5 milliard dinars, the sum of 69,6 milliard dinars will have been invested by the end of 1951, while total investments during the realization of the first Five Year Plan will amount to 278,3 milliard dinars. The production of electric power will have been raised from 71 KW to 272 KW per capita in 1951 and even more in 1952 as certain of the most important electric-power plants of the first Five Year Plan will have been completed by then.
These figures alone show the magnitude of the Five Year Plan. It will actually transform the country and create firm foundations for our socialist construction. It will create the necessary material prerequisites for the final liquidation of capitalistic remnants in our country. At the same time, it will radically raise the living standards of our working masses.
It is clear, that preparations for the for the realization of the Plan demanded considerable preliminary reorganization of our entire state apparatus in the field of economic leadership. But despite the difficulties and many errors it can be said today—at the end of the third quarter of the first year of our Five Year Plan—that the Plan is being successfully carried out. The best illustration of the labour enthusiasm of the masses is the fact that the value of present industrial production amounts to 167% as compared to prewar production.
It goes without saying, that industrialization has also placed the problem of the further development of our agriculture on the order of the day. Industrialization demands a substantial increase of agricultural production. We cannot arrive at results such as will be necessary in the future on the basis of the existing backward smallholding structure of our agriculture. We are in danger of finding ourselves in a chronic crisis with respect to agricultural production of its development lags indefinitely behind the development of industry. It was, therefore, necessary, parallel to industrialization to devote our attention also to the question of the reconstruction of our agriculture.
The chief organizational means in the reconstruction of our agriculture is the cooperative movement. Already today the agricultural cooperatives in one form or another cover ¾ of all the peasant holdings in Yugoslavia. The consumers’ cooperatives are the predominant type in the cooperative movement. It is the policy of the state to give the greatest possible assistance to this movement in order to aid it in its further development towards higher forms and in order to develop within its framework also other elements of the cooperative movement, especially different types of processing and productive agricultural cooperatives in general. The State is striving to create in the village an organizationally uniform type of cooperative which will have its consumers section, its credit section with a savings fund, its workshops and possibly small enterprises for the processing of agricultural produce; furthermore, its machine-tractor equipment, its small local electric-power house if possible and necessary, etc. In a word: the present agricultural cooperative should become a vital economic unit which will be in the position to demonstrate to the peasant in practice the advantages of large-scale planned agriculture. Such cooperatives will get the necessary technical personnel. There is no doubt, that the development of such agriculture cooperatives will play an exceptional educational role in the village.
To the same end the state is developing a network of machine-tractor stations and devoting great attention to the development of the state sector of agriculture. During the current year and especially during 1949, the State holdings will already satisfy a considerable part of the demands of towns and villages for certain agricultural products and will cover practically the entire demand for certain other products. The State has also of late been devoting great attention to the development of farm holdings which are directly linked with factories or institutions, and which have the task of supplying these demands. All these are important means for the reconstruction of our agriculture.
The great victories in the field of economic construction and especially the successes in the fulfilment of the Five year Plan, have, naturally, strengthened the influence of the Communist Party and People’s Front even more.
In this struggle for the economic reconstruction of our country and in the preparations for and fulfilment of the Five Year Plan, the People’s Front has played an extremely important role.
“The People’s Front—said Comrade Tito—has introduced into the rehabilitation of our country the enormous working, creative enthusiasm of our peoples, the ardour of our youth, the self-sacrifice of our workers, peasants, people’s intelligentsia. Thanks to the People’s Front, alone our transport was re-established, destroyed bridges and railway-lines were built and our river and maritime transport were restored within record time. Great credit is due to the People’s Front for the fact that the majority of our devastated villages and towns has been rehabilitated. It is the merit of the People’s Front—and no small one at that—and in the first place of the workers in the Front, that our factories were restored so rapidly and that they commenced work so soon. The successful solution of various social. Cultural and educational questions in the new Yugoslavia is the great merit of the People’s Front. The Governments, both federal and republican, would not have been able to solve all these problems without the aid of such a strong, such a mass people’s organization as our People’s Front…” (Tito: Report to the Second Congress of the People’s Front of Yugoslavia).
That is why the People’s Front in our country is ever increasing its influence. That is precisely why the Communist Party of Yugoslavia is constantly fighting for the broadest activity of the People’s Front which today numbers approximately 7 million members, and it has its organization in every hamlet of our country, especially now, in the fulfilment of our Five Year Plan, the People’s Front is playing an extremely important role in the mobilization of our working masses.
It is clear, that all the successes we have achieved so far have further strengthened the internal unity of the People’s Front. It has taken firm root as a united mass political organization of the working people in the struggle for the rehabilitation and socialist construction of our country, it has grown so strong that no attacks by imperialist agents were able to break this unity. There is no doubt, hat this People’s Front is one of the greatest victories of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia and of the entire working people of our country.
“As it best represents not only the political unity of our peoples, but also the brotherhood and unity in a national sense”, stated Comrade Tito “no bourgeois political parties can replace the People’s Front. For that reason the People’s Front becomes a permanent, people’s political organization, for that reason it is irreplaceable and differs from all hitherto political parties and fusions of parties”. (Tito: Report to the Second Congress of the People’s Front of Yugoslavia).
Naturally, the struggle against the routed anti-democratic reaction and capitalistic elements has assumed a completely different form. It no longer has the form of the old political, interparty, platform struggle. The focal point of the class struggle has been transferred to the field of our economic and general state construction. In the sphere of economy the enemy’s activity is displayed primarily in his efforts to obstruct the fulfilment of our Five year Plan, all measures which the Government is introducing: he is acting as the profiteer, saboteur and parasite, or as the propagator of various harmful “theories” in connection with the construction of our country, etc. The class struggle is also expressed in the reactionary, anti-national activity of part of the church hierarchy or profiteering elements in the villages.
On the other hand, the enemy is contacting espionage and diversionist agents of the foreign imperialists. The internal balance of political forces in every country is today inevitably becoming a component part of the balance of forces on an international scale. The imperialistic expansion of the American monopolist circles is based today on an economic superiority unknown in the history of capitalism. Hence the tendency today, especially of American monopolists, to transform part of the national bourgeoisie of certain capitalist countries into their economic and political instrument, into an instrument for the enslavement of those countries, to transform them into semi-dependent, and even semi-colonial countries. American imperialist expansion is striving to colonize the civilized world, to “sacrifice” Europe, or at least to transform Europe into something resembling South America for the benefit of American monopolists. Capitalist reaction together with its rightwing “socialist” flunkeys in certain capitalist countries is actually an instrument of this expansion, directed against the independence of its own and other peoples. The tendency of big imperialists to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries is today stronger and more obvious than it was ever before.
This was attempted and is being attempted even today by certain foreign imperialistic circles, in Yugoslavia, where they rely on the remnants of routed traitorous reaction which is isolated from the people’s masses and from all genuine democratic elements in our country who, together with the Communist Party, are cooperating in the People’s Front in the great work of socialist construction in our country. Directed from abroad in the interests of foreign imperialists, the action of the enemies of the people’s power have today lost all party or political character. The struggle against them is actually assuming the form of a struggle for ensuring the peace and national independence. The peoples of Yugoslavia love their liberty and independence, are loyal to the traditions of freedom, that is why they do not want to be the slaves of the modern American “conquistadores”. That is precisely why the agents of imperialist reaction in our country cannot be allowed to undermine the strength and unity of our peoples.
Such are the results of the great and glorious struggle which the peoples of Yugoslavia began during the national liberation war, united in the People’s Front and headed by the Communist Party. Today, they are laying the firm foundations of their happier future and thus realizing that for which hundreds of thousands of fighters in the national liberation war gave their lives.
WLADISLAW GOMULKA (WIESLAW)
The Activities of the Central Committee of the Workers’ Party of Poland
As a result of the Second World War profound social and economic changes have taken place in Poland. The driving force behind these changes was the working class, headed by the Polish Workers’ Party.
Our Party holds the key positions in all the vital spheres of regenerated Poland from the very first day of the country’s liberation from the German invaders. Its membership today is close to 800,000. When we began to build the new Poland we only had about 20,000 members concentrated for the main part in partisan detachments, or among former partisans.
The structural changes in Poland’s state, political and economic order were introduced through peaceful channels i.e. through a bloodless revolution. This was made possible by the Soviet Army which, with the support of the Polish patriots, routed the German troops and liberated the Polish people from the yoke of fascism. It does not follow from this however, that these changes took place without a struggle or sacrifices. We passed through a period of an extremely sharp class struggle. expressed first and foremost in the armed subversive activities of the fascist-reactionary underground. We lost 14,876 persons, the majority of them Party members in the fighting against bandits and fascist assassins. We have, in the main, crushed the armed subversive activities of reaction, although not completely eradicated it.
It is evident from the aforesaid the aid that the process of the democratic regeneration of the country, following the liberation by the Soviet Army, was accompanied by a sharp class struggle in the course of which we suffered heavy losses. The Polish peaceful transition to social reforms and the Polish revolution which had been carried out and now continued within the legislative framework, do not mean at all that we have a class idyll; if anything it is a sharp and bloody class struggle.
When taking over state power, our Party did not have to overthrow the old state apparatus, for there was no such apparatus in general at the time. Our task was to build a new one since the old, pre-war apparatus had been crushed and buried under the ruins of German occupation. As for the occupation apparatus it was liquidated simultaneously with the defeat of the German invaders.
A similar situation existed, to a greater or lesser extent, in all the countries liberated from German occupation or from the domination of native fascism.
It was the most important and decisive period in all the countries to build up a new apparatus of state power.
Although the revolutionary-democratic parties in Poland, and in the other countries liberated by the Soviet Army, undoubtedly were in a more favourable position to build up their own state apparatus than were the workers’ parties of the countries where Anglo-Saxon troops entered. It seems to us nonetheless that even there it was possible to carry out fundamental changes in the new state apparatus. This is particularly true of the countries where the workers’ parties organized a wide-spread national-liberation struggle and had armed partisan detachments at their disposal.
The essence of the political and economic changes in Poland are not confined to reforms alone, reforms which have deprived the middle and big capitalist owners of their material base. The scope of these reforms should be grouped by the changes in the state order, the fundamental reorganisation of the whole state apparatus are gradually being eliminated. Our Party has a decisive influence in the state apparatus which greatly facilitates its task in guiding the development of social relations in Poland. This perhaps is the most essential in the structural reorganisation of Poland.
In connection with this I would like to note that an understanding of the actual state of affairs with regard to the important question of the relations of forces in the state apparatus of Poland as a whole, and not only in its leading bodies, gives a true picture of the Polish road to socialism.
The outstanding feature about it is that it is guided by a Marxist party and other genuine democratic, anti-imperialist parties, which constitute the main links in the state apparatus from top to bottom.
There is no doubt whatsoever that the working class and the people can win and retain power only by fighting reaction, even if this power has been won as a result of parliamentary elections. Assuming that genuine democratic parties in some country receive the majority in parliament and form a government of the people, it can be taken for granted that reaction will start a vigorous struggle to overthrow such a government. Under such circumstances a state apparatus loyal to the interests of the working people and at the disposal of a people’s government will be of vast importance to repel and rout the forces of reaction. We know that reaction invariably directs its main fire against the Communists in the government. The experience of Poland has shown how effectively the people can defend themselves and pass over to an offensive against the enemy when the working class and the working people are in possession of the most powerful and sharpest weapon,—state power.
The 1947 April plenum of the Central Committee of our Party characterised the structure of Poland’s economy and outlined measures for its further development. It classified the country’s economy into the following three sections:
- Small-scale production: this covers the bulk of the peasant farms, a considerable section of handicraft production and retail traders.
- Private capitalist economy: this includes big peasant households employing farm hands, private industrial enterprises, part of handicraft production, wholesale merchants and a large section of retail merchants, house proprietors, different kinds of speculators, etc.
- The form of economy containing a considerable proportion of socialist elements: state industry, trade, credit, transport, etc.
As far as cooperative trade is concerned it cannot as yet be included as a whole among the aforementioned economic divisions, but should be qualified in accordance with the actual role played by its separate branches.
The Party plenum defined that our state sector, and especially, our industry, contains within itself important socialist elements, but that it is as yet not consistently socialist. We are of the opinion that our state economy is not a capitalist economy, but an economy of a democratic people’s state, and hence should not be qualified as state capitalism. However, it cannot be regarded as a consistently socialist economy, inasmuch as only part of the surplus output produced within the framework of the state economy remains in the hands of the state and its planned distribution is made in conformity with public requirements. A considerable part of this production is intercepted by commercial capitalist elements.
The Party plenum formulated that the state sector of our economy can be defined as consistently socialist only after the portion of surplus production that finds its way into the hands of the commercial capitalist elements will be considerably restricted by us. In other words, when the capitalist elements will be curbed by state control and become state capitalist elements, within the people’s democratic state.
It is obvious that this can be achieved only by steadily developing the state sector and by increasing its weight in the national economy.
The transformation of the state sector in our economy into a consistent socialist sector, and the transformation of private capitalist elements into state capitalist elements will form the basis for the further advance towards socialism.
This can be attained only in sharp class struggle against capitalist elements who are trying to break away from the state. They are trying to intercept the maximum share of surplus output produced in the state sector and actually to transform this sector into a body catering to the capitalist class under the state trade mark. It is obvious that the realisation of these plans would ultimately signify the return from the people’s democracy to the capitalist system with all the political and economic consequences arising therefrom.
Thus, the general line of our Party is to curb the capitalist elements, to subordinate them to state control and transform them into state capitalist elements within the people’s democratic state.
The low level of production in agricultural and essential goods makes inevitable, and in a certain sense even desirable, the development under certain conditions, and within certain limits, of big peasant households, of handicraft and private industrial enterprises in the city. We also do not set ourselves the task of doing away with private retail trade.
It is clear, however, that the capitalist elements must be restricted so that the main feature of our development be the increasing predominance of state economy.
Experience has shown that in conditions of a people’s democratic state, when the political power and the economic key positions are once in our hands, the task of getting the capitalist elements to conform to the policy of the people’s state, although difficult, is nonetheless possible and realistic.
The subordination of capitalist elements to state control should be carried out in the following manner:
- To ensure the state and cooperatives the decisive role in wholesale trade. Major results have recently been achieved in this field, especially in the marketing of grain.
- To strengthen the position of the state and cooperatives in retail trade, particularly in the big industrial centres. Unless this is done, it will be impossible to bring commercial capitalist elements under state control.
We are carrying out this task by establishing state stores and extending the network of cooperatives, and especially stores with restricted numbers of consumers, in the big industrial centres.
- To develop extensively rural cooperatives in the field of supplies and sales, We are far behind in this work.
- To conclude agreements for the purchase of agricultural products. Such contracts have been successfully concluded for the purchase of technical crops—beets, tobacco, flax, hemp, vegetable fats, chicory. The object is to extent gradually the system of contracts to purchase other agricultural and livestock products. A corresponding price policy will make it possible, to a certain extent, to develop agriculture along lines favourable for the state.
- To organize agricultural associations which will lease agricultural machines to peasant households. The establishment of these associations will depend on the state’s plans for developing the production of agricultural machines and tractors, as well as on imports from abroad.
- To extend the cooperative network to handicraft production, first and foremost, to small handicraft enterprises and village craftsman, so as to supply them with raw materials and sell goods made by them. Experience in this field justifies hopes of its further successful development.
- Economic control of private industry by regulating supplies of raw materials, electric power, fuel. The conclusion of agreements to supply the state with a definite assortment of goods in corresponding quantities. We already have positive results with private textile enterprises.
- Systematic elimination of illegal private trade, speculation in foreign currency, illegal transactions between the state and cooperative apparatus on the one hand, and private elements on the other; measures against misuses, etc.
- To control prices in private retail and wholesale trade, in accordance with fixed prices and profits limited by the state. This control is already being practised on a wide scale and is yielding positive results on the whole.
- To regulate private trade with the object of cutting out superfluous links and eliminating from the latter obvious speculators.
- A corresponding tax policy in relation to private capitalist elements; this is to be done not for the purpose of obstructing the possibility of their further development, but in order to restrict their exorbitant incomes. Great success has recently been achieved in this field as witnessed by the fact that budget returns from private capital have doubled during the last sic months.
I will not dwell in detail on the principal aspects of our Three-Year Plan for economic restoration. The plan has been made public and in all probability the comrades are acquainted with it. Great efforts will have to be exerted to carry out this plan, which aims to increase considerably the pre-war level of consumption by fully restoring and reconstructing industry, by cultivating the hitherto unsown areas which will greatly increase the yield. Parallel with this large-scale measures have been taken to industrialise the country and develop its industry.
The first half of 1947 shows that, on the whole, the plan is successfully being carried out, although this year’s crop failure, caused by the drought, will present serious economic difficulties.
The fulfilment of the Three-Year Plan depends on the following principal conditions:
- The full utilisation of all reserves in our economy by observing a regime of economy.
- Increased productivity of labour by applying rationalisations measures, and by giving every support to the mass emulation movement among the workers, spontaneously started in some of our industries at the beginning of 1947.
- The formation of a labour army composed of the male population scheduled for military service.
- The further extension of a sound financial base in order to carry out the economic plan without inflation upheavals—this to be done through a corresponding tax policy.
- The extensive development of our exports, including agricultural, so as to increase imports of the necessary equipment and raw materials.
Poland’s foreign trade is developing successfully, and in all probability will reach close to 300 million dollars in exports this year. This sum corresponds approximately to the average yearly sum of Polish exports in 1936—1938 (taking into account the drop in the value of the dollar). Poland has trade relations with the Soviet Union and the countries of the people’s democracy, and on an increasing scale with capitalist countries. Thanks to its coal exports Poland has succeeded in receiving big trade credits from a number of European states. Apart from the usual trade agreements, Poland has lately concluded a number of agreements with the Soviet Union and with several countries of the people’s democracy. These agreements provide for the reciprocal exchange of technical experience, joint restoration and reconstruction of economic objects, extensive reciprocal use of transit, etc.
In order to have a picture of the national economy in 1945-47 and the level attained to date, it is necessary to outline in brief, the enormous destructions caused by the war. As a result of the war Poland (in its present borders) lost 40% of the industry, 67% of its big horned cattle, 55% of its horses, 83% of the cattle, 20% of the agricultural implements. To this should be added the enormous losses due to the exhaustion of the soil, the destruction of transport on land, sea and river, communications, housing in the cities, cultural institutions, etc.
Despite the rapid progress made in the past three years, Poland’s agriculture has still a long way to go to make up for the war losses. The same holds true for the acreage under crop, the harvest, the number of heads of horned cattle and hogs. Because of the big decrease in the yield per hectare, the increase in the in the harvest is comparatively insignificant, despite the rapid increase in the acreage cultivated.
The decrease in the crop yield is due, primarily, to the lack of fertilisers, especially manure, and to the lack of draught animals. On the whole there is an acute shortage in agricultural production. Thus, for instance, the gross output of rye and wheat in Central Poland this year barely reaches 60-70% of the per capita pre-war level.
The industrial output of Poland (in its present state borders) exceeds the pre-war production of Poland at the time. However, this increase is uneven. With output in heavy industry at 28.2% above the pre-war level, and that of electric power at 52%, we have barely reached 80% of the pre-war level in light industry. The output is even lower as regards a number of essential commodities (the production of shoe leather, for instance, is 23.9% of the pre-war level). This slow development of light industry is due, in the main, to the weak state of the country’s raw materials and agricultural base, to the limited possibilities of importing raw materials from abroad. Hence the acute shortage of essential industrial goods of mass consumption. This shortage is further accentuated by the obvious regression in small-scale industry and handicrafts compared with the pre-war period, even though the number of registered handicraft enterprises increased from 88,700 on December 31, 1945 to 135,900 on April 1, 1947. However, this is far behind the pre-war figure of 250,000 enterprises.
The general price index on the open market in August 1947 was 148 compared to April 1945. Taking real wages at the beginning of 1947 at 100, the index of real earnings of government employees in June 1947 was from 134 to 141. The real earnings of workers in middle and large-scale industry (bearing in mind the changes in social insurance and the introduction of paid vacations) reaches 80% compared with the pre-war real earnings. Despite the as yet low level of agricultural and essential commodity production, the real earnings today are indicative of the major changes in the distribution of the national income to benefit the working class.
The increase in real earnings far exceeds the growth in the productivity of labour which, for a number of reasons, such as the wear and tear of machinery, stoppages due to shortage of raw materials, lack of skilled workers, inadequate organisation and discipline in labour, etc., reaches two-thirds of the pre-war productivity.
As a result of the agrarian reform and of populating the Western areas, the fertile acreage per peasant house-hold in Central Poland will soon reach 7.7 hectares instead of the 5.5 before the war, i.e. an increase of 40%. We have not got as yet exact data about the new agrarian structure of the country. However, it can be stated that the elimination of landlords and big estates has greatly increased the proportion of the middle-class household in the Polish countryside.
The state still has about 10% of the total fertile acreage left following the introduction of agrarian reforms and populating the Western areas. This acreage can and must be put to use in the near future in the interests of strengthening the national economy in general, and agriculture in particular.
As a result of the nationalisation of industry the whole of the country’s large and middle-scale industry is owned by the state. Only about 15% of the general industrial output falls to the share of small private industry and handicraft trade. The state has also taken over all the banks.
At the same time the state and cooperative sector is to an ever greater extent taking over the key positions in wholesale trade.
Up to now the state’s contribution to the wholesale trade turnover is 50%, that of the cooperative sector 26% and that of the private sector 24%. Here, however, it should be noted that because of the unorganised market a considerable part of the agricultural production reaches the retailer directly from the producer thus by-passing the wholesaler. As the wholesale cooperative trade, in present conditions of the cooperative sector here too, it should be noted that it does not fully operate within the framework of planned economy. The state and cooperative network still play a small role in retail trade. At present the state’s contribution to the retail trade turnover is 2%, the cooperative sector’s 11% whereas that of the private sector reaches 87%.
In general the key positions in the national economy are in the hands of the state which owns large and middle-scale industry, the banking system and whole sale trade.
The most characteristic feature of political relations in Poland is the leading role of the working class in the political life of the people and the outstanding role of the Polish Workers’ Party in the bloc of democratic parties. We were able to achieve this by organising a united front of the working class and by cooperating with the Polish Socialist Party.
The united front of the workers and cooperation between the PWP and the PSP constitute the main driving force in Poland’s progress along the path to socialism. All the political and economic achievements gained, all our successes and victories are due to the united front of the working class and the cooperation between the two workers’ parties.
The traditions of social-democratism weight heavily on the Polish labour movement. In the past the Polish Socialist Party maintained a hostile and clearly unfriendly attitude toward the former Communist Party of Poland. The Communist Party of Poland, burdened with the traditions of Luxemburgism committed a number of errors in the past, especially on the national question. It was only during the Second World war and the German occupation that the Polish Workers party, composed of members of the former Communist Party, (disbanded as far back as 1938), and of other true democrats who joined the struggle for national and social liberation, came to the fore of the movement as a party fighting for the independence of Poland. This circumstance made it much easier for us to spread the Party’s political influence over the working class and other sections of the people.
Already at the time of the German occupation, and when the new Poland was coming into being, our Party full well realised that it would be extremely difficult to unite the ranks of the working class without cooperation with the Polish Socialist Party. Only such a unity, could ensure the working class a leading role among the masses. On the other hand it was clear to us that unless the pernicious traditions of social-democratism and Pilsudsktiism were uprooted from the ranks of the Polish Socialist Party, it would be impossible to create a people’s power and guide the regenerated Poland along the path of Socialist development. Hence from the very beginning of the liberation of Poland our cooperation with the Polish Socialist Party was closely linked with our strivings to bring about ideological unity on a Marxist basis.
During the occupation, the Polish Socialist party split into two groups: the one group, under the name of “Liberty, Equality and Independence”, represented the old ideology of the Polish Socialist Party, and had nothing but hatred for the Polish Workers’ Party and the Soviet Union. The other, which in the beginning called itself the “Polish Socialists” and later the “Workers’ Party of Polish Socialists” constituted the Socialist Party. It was this left party that we started to cooperate with already at the time of the occupation. The Workers Party of Polish Socialists was the embryo of the present Polish Socialist Party which was later joined, in a unorganised fashion practically en masse by the “Liberty, Equality and Independence” group, with the exception of a dozen of the most reactionary leaders. Part of them are now abroad where they continue to conduct their disruptive activities.
The Polish Socialist Party today is one of the extreme left among the social-democratic parties of Europe. It full well realises that the country cannot be governed regardless of, or without the Polish Workers’ Party. However, it would be incorrect to draw the conclusion that the Polish Socialist Party cooperates with us only because of the strength of our party. The PSP consciously desires this cooperation. The experience of history, and especially the experience of the last war has greatly influenced the policy of the Polish Socialist Party. It is now in the process of overcoming the harmful traditions of anti-Sovietism, Pilsudskiism and social-democratism. This is being greatly facilitated by the general achievements in the political and economic life of Poland, the direct outcome of the existence of a united front and cooperation between the two parties.
The three years’ experience of cooperation between the PSP and PWP, which has reunited in the united front of the working class, has yielded good results. We can confidently state that thanks to this, and this alone, we were able to save Poland from different political and economic upheavals and consolidate the foundations of the new people’s Poland. As every political phenomenon cooperation between the Polish Workers’ Party and the Polish Socialist Party is subordinate to the definite laws of development and cannot remain stationary. We would like this collaboration to develop also in the future in the direction of the organic unity of the two parties.
The united front greatly strengthened Poland’s working class, placed it at the head of the people, that as long as the interests of this class are represented by two parties, as long as different ideological trends exist in its ranks the working class cannot display its full strength.
Disagreements arise between the cooperating workers’ parties because of rivalry, incorrect understanding of party patriotism, on personal grounds. Experience in cooperation between the middle and lower party links has shown that for the most part differences on these questions have strained relations and have been utilised to disrupt cooperation. It is difficult for the 1,500,000 members of the Polish Workers’ party and the Polish Socialist Party, who have joined the parties during the last three years, to understand the ideological differences between the two parties, all the more so since they are cooperating and hold similar views on the principal question of state policy.
In answer to our call for organic unity the Central Committee of the Polish Socialist Party adopted a resolution stressing the need to consolidate the united front and strengthen cooperation with the Polish Workers’ Party.
Close to 1,500 joint meetings and conferences, attended by more than 300,000 members of the two parties, have been held during the last three months. A conference of leading functionaries of the two parties was held recently.
The object of these meetings was to popularise the idea of the united front of the working class and cooperation between the two parties. We shall continue to campaign for joint meetings, to which we hope to draw the members of the two parties and organize joint party meetings as a regular form of cooperation. We regard the campaign of the last three months as one of the biggest achievements of the united front.
It would, however, be unwise to assume that there is no danger to the people’s power in the country and that under no circumstances can it be turned back. Reaction is still holds some important positions in the country, especially since it has a strong economic base. A considerable part of the Polish intelligentsia is still imbued with reactionary sentiments. So far we have been unable to bring about radical changes in the teaching personnel and in the curriculum in the higher and secondary schools, and we have only taken the first steps in this direction. We face an acute shortage of qualified and loyal cadres in the sphere of science. The old hostile ideology and old conservative customs still predominate among certain strata of the population. There are still openings in other parties comprising the democratic bloc, which the class enemy tries to take advantage of. The youth is still organisationally scattered.
All this goes to show that reaction is still able to preserve its influence among certain sections of the people and to organise further struggle against the existing order. Reaction is likewise taking advantage of the economic difficulties of the country.
The economic structure and the political forms of the people’s democratic order in Poland do not in themselves preclude the possibility of the existence of parties representing the interests of propertied exploiting sections. However, such parties would inevitably become opposition parties and would not only fight against the people’s government, but also against the people’s social order. it should be borne in mind that old bourgeois ideology, which is the ally of every opposition party, still holds away in the masses. The banning of the activities of the old reactionary and fascist parties results in the supporters of these parties concentrating in the legal opposition party. In pre-war Poland the reactionary fascist parties enjoyed great influence. In the people’s Poland we banned these parties and as a result the reactionary elements flocked in great numbers to the opposition party, the Polske Stronniztwo Ludowe. The opposition parties in the countries of the people’s democracy do not want to be in the opposition within the framework of that given order, and hence try to break it down. The propertied classes deprived of political power, launch an offensive with the object of returning their former social and political positions, taken away from them by the new order. Fighting against the people’s democracy they, as a rule, violate the law. This has been proved by the disruptive activities of Mikolajczyk’s party in Poland, and by the hostile actions of the opposition parties in the other countries of the people’s democracy. The common feature of this opposition is its connection with international reaction, primarily with Anglo-American reaction. The opposition parties, sinking into the bog of national treachery are paving the way for foreign reaction’s interference in the democratic affairs of the countries of the new democracy.
The open ties between Polish reaction and the reactionary forces in Great Britain and the U.S.A. greatly helped to undermine the influence of Mikolajczyk’s opposition party, and to weaken the fascist underground. This was one of the principal reasons for the defeat of Mikolajczyk’s party in the elections. The negative attitude taken by Anglo-American circles on the question of Poland’s Western Frontiers on the one hand, and the positive stand taken by the Soviet Union on the other, caused a rapid decline in pro-British and pro-American sympathy in Poland, whereas sympathy for the Soviet Union greatly increased. The Polish people correctly identified the policy of Polish reaction and that of Mikolajczyk with the policy of British and American reaction. Apart from the harm caused by Churchill’s and Byrnes’ speeches, in which they demanded the revision of Poland’s frontiers in favour of Germany, they served also as excellent propaganda among the Polish people for the policy of the government, of the Polish Workers’ Party and of the democratic bloc. It was also excellent propaganda for strengthening the Polish-Soviet alliance.
We intend, also in the future, to base the power on the bloc of the democratic parties, on the alliance of workers and peasants, on cooperation with the progressive sections of the petty bourgeoisie. The present government relies on a five-party coalition, namely: the Polish Workers’ Party, the Polish Socialist Party, the Stronniztwo Ludowa, the Stronniztwo Democratishne and the Stronniztwo Prazi. The Stronniztwo Ludowa, as the party of the toiling peasantry which constitutes the bulk of the Polish people, is the most important element in the bloc.
The peasant movement in Poland has old and deep roots. In the course of its fifty year existence this movement vacillates between the nationalist conservative party of the people’s democracy, between the “sanatzi” which dominated prewar Poland (from May 1926 to 1939 and the Polish Socialist Party at the time.
Before the war the peasant movement was split into several parties, of which the Independent Peasants’ Party was disbanded because of social-radicalism. Several years prior to the war the peasant movement, which was completely isolated from power, suppressed and dissolved by the “sanatzi” united into a single peasant party under the leadership of the conservative leader Witos. This party was known as the Stronniztwo Ludowe. During the war and at the time of German occupation, the leaders of Stronniztwo Ludowa formed a bloc with the right-wing parties in Poland proper as well as in emigration. The group of left-wing peasant leaders split away from the party and, although formally maintaining ties with it, established their own leadership in 1943, and started to publish an illegal organ entitled “The People’s Will”. The group was headed by left-wing peasant leaders, the majority of them from the old Independent Peasants’ Party. The representatives of the left-wing of the peasant party along with the representatives of the left-wing of the Socialist Party. joined the underground Kraewa Rada Narodova. Following the liberation of Poland, the leaders of the “People’s Will” group took over the leadership of the Stronnitztwo Ludowa (this did not include the right-wing peasant leaders).
After the establishment of the Government of National Unity, in conformity with the decisions of the Crimea conference, Mikolajczyk on his return to Poland formed his own party, the Polsko Stronniztwo Ludowa. This party united all the reactionary leaders of the peasant movement, and also part of the moderate leaders. The former members of the “sanatzi” and the “Endecs”, who had no party of their own, joined the Polsko Stronniztwo Ludowe, en masse. Calling itself the party of the people, the Polsko Stronniztwo Ludowe tried to win for itself the dominant role. Actually, however, it became the party of the urban bourgeoisie and the rural rich, as well as of the Anglo-American agents in Poland. In their struggle against the people’s democracy Mikolajczyk and his party resorted to cunning tactics. Outwardly Mikolajczyk agreed with the new social reforms introduced, as for instance, with the expropriation of the landed estates and the nationalisation of the key industries, formally he was in accord with the changes made on Poland’s Eastern frontiers. However, Mikolajczyk considered the overthrow of the people’s government and the removal of the Polish Workers’ Party from power as his prime object. Thus, Mikolajczyk wanted to pave the way for the restoration of former, maybe somewhat reorganised, social relations in Poland.
As a result of the decisive offensive, launched in the main by our Party, as a result of Mikolajczyk’s defeat in the elections, and the internal crisis in the party, expressed in the withdrawal of a group of the more democratically-minded prominent leaders, and the creation of a left-wing group inside the PSL, Mikolajczyk’s party lost considerable influence and his positions both in town and countryside, were greatly weakened. Nevertheless, to this day his party constitutes a leading centre of anti-democratic forces. After the defeat of the PSL the radical peasant movement, organised by the Stronniztwo Ludowa, has noticeably increased its activities and spread its influence not only among the poor but also among the middle peasants.
In the localities we have organised joint meetings of the functionaries of the Polish Workers’ Party and the Stronniztwo Lodowe and occasionally with the Polish Socialist Party. These meetings have yielded good political results, have helped to form the peasant movement by guiding it along lines of cooperation with the working class movement. They have also helped ideologically to crystallise the Stronniztwo Ludowa.
As has earlier been pointed out the scattered nature of the youth organisations is a serious shortcoming in the people’s democracy of Poland. There are several youth organizations in the country, and each of them is affiliated to a corresponding political party, or to a definite political trend among the people.
We are trying to unite the youth into one body, are elaborating plans for the establishment of a single leadership of all youth organisations. At the same time, following the example of Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, we intend next year to organise labour battalions composed of the young men of conscript age, released from military service, as well as of voluntary groups of organised youth. These labour battalions would render economic help and would become a school for educating our youth in the spirit of people’s democracy.
The student youth are as yet greatly influenced by reaction. This is explained by the social composition of the student body which we are gradually changing in the course of the enrolment of new student youth. Special student preparatory courses for working-class and peasant youth have been organised for the purpose.
There are still weak spots in our political system of people’s democracy. Our main difficulties at present are cadres,—the lack of the necessary people. This is the bottleneck in our Party. Our central Party school has been functioning since the first days of Poland’s liberation. Up to now this school has graduated approximately 3,000 comrades from its three-month and six-month courses. We also have short-course district Party schools which have graduated 10,000 comrades. In addition to the Party schools we have schools of the Youth League of Struggle. there are also trade union schools attended by many of our comrades. However, we still need many years to prepare political cadres. The recent Plenum of the Central Committee of the Party advanced the task of raising the level of the ideological education of our Party members.
We have consciously permitted the mass entry of new members into the Party, for it is easier in our conditions to work having the support of mass organisations. A party of functionaries cannot replace a mass party, all the more so that we have a small number of politically highly educated Party members. We often have to send several thousand Party members to carry out different campaigns such as the drive against speculators and high prices, campaigns to collect taxes in kind, etc. Almost all members participated in the election campaign. We could not have accomplished all this without a mass party. The April Plenum of the Central Committee stopped mass recruiting into the Party, and now that permanent Party cards have been issued, we are purging the Party of alien and superfluous elements. We presume, this will reduce the Party’s membership by five percent.
If the question were asked what is the all-important condition for the successful advance to Socialism in Poland we would reply: first and foremost, the quantity and quality of our Party cadres, and the ideological level of the whole of our Party.
In our informative report we cannot pass over in silence the question of foreign policy. We cannot separate our struggle for social, economic and political reorganisation, for the complete rehabilitation of the country form the struggle for state sovereignty and for the security of our frontiers; we cannot separate it from our foreign policy.
Alliance with the U.S.S.R. is the keystone of our foreign policy. We are explaining to the people the vital necessity of consistently strengthening this alliance; we are explaining the correctness of this from the point of view of the interests of the Polish state. We are endeavouring to destroy all anti-Soviet centres, to uproot the old anti-Russian sentiments prevailing since the 18th and 19th centuries, to eliminate anti-Soviet prejudices which reaction has used to poison public opinion with in Poland from the very first days of the Great October Revolution. Realising that the complete elimination of this pernicious heritage calls for intensified efforts for many years to come we can state that a big turning point has already been made in this direction. As already stated, the principal lever in this question is the problem of our Western territories and the knowledge that the Soviet Union helped Poland to settle its frontiers on the Oder and the Nyssa. As is known the Polish Workers’ party was the first of the Polish parties to put forward the demand at the time of the war that the Western territories be returned to Poland. The territories wrested by the Germans are historically Polish, although after centuries of germanisation only 15 percent of the total population there at the time the territories had been returned, were Polish.
The Germans who for centuries tried to seize the Slav countries and who, in the last war, were defeated by the Slav peoples, are in the hands of Anglo-American imperialist warmongers and the organisers of a new war, who are reckoning on a new crusade against the Soviet Union and against the Slav countries. They once again want to turn these peoples into slaves of capitalism. The Polish frontiers along the Oder and the Nyssa are not only historically proved frontiers of the Polish state, but also constitute the westernmost frontier of the people’s democratic social system in Europe. The working class of other countries, their Communist Parties, and all the progressive revolutionary and democratic forces fighting against imperialism are just as interested in strengthening Poland’s Western frontiers along the Oder and the Nyssa, as are the Polish working class and the whole Polish people.
Slav solidarity is the second bulwark of our foreign policy. This solidarity is not only one of the underlying factors of our alliance with the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and in future with Bulgaria, but is also a source of economic and cultural friendly rapprochement with other Slav countries.
However, it should be noted that despite different traditions as, for instance, in Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia, Slav solidarity will gain an increasingly firm foothold in Poland as relations with the fraternal Slav peoples grow stronger and closer. In this respect the pact of friendship between Poland and Czechoslovakia has been most successful. The same holds true for the various economic, communications, and cultural agreements which strengthen the forces of democracy in our countries. The fulfilment of these treaties will sweep away the antagonism imbibed and supported for scores of years by reaction in the interests of Germany.
The third bulwark of our foreign policy is the struggle for strengthening the peace, based on the principle of Potsdam; the struggle for the complete eradication of all centres of fascism, and first and foremost for the denazification, demilitarisation and democratisation of Germany; the struggle against any likelihood of a new German aggression supported by its present defenders; against the menace to the sovereignty of the European people by American imperialism; against a Western bloc and all attempts to create an imperialist and anti-people’s coalition under the leadership of the U.S.A.
Guiding ourselves by these principles we are defending the United Nations’ Organisation against all attempts to turn it into an obedient weapon of the imperialist policy of the U.S.A. and their dependent states, we are defending the principle of unanimity of the great powers. These were our leading principles when we placed before the UNO the question of Spain, when we defended the Greek people against the intervention of foreign imperialist forces and against the suppression of the popular and working class movement, when we defended Indonesia against the aggression by the Dutch colonisers supported by the American imperialists.
While stressing our goodwill and desire to maintain friendly relations with the Anglo-Saxon countries, we nevertheless vigorously opposed their persistent attempts at political interference, against their attempts to form a stable political base in Poland with the help of Polsko Stronniztwo Lodowe and the fascist underground.
Proceeding from the above principles we took a negative stand on the question of the so-called Marshall Plan. By no means rejecting the possibility of using American credits, we, however, under no circumstances regard the Marshall Plan form of so-called American aid as a “life-belt” or as the “salvation of Europe”. On the contrary we consider it as a form of expansion threatening the sovereignty of the European states by the U.S.A. which bases itself on the restoration of the Western German bastion. the American imperialists are trying to direct the economic development of the European countries along their own channels and to reduce the European countries to an American semi-colonial state.
We are consistently defending our position. We are counterposing the conception of Europe as a vassal with the conception of the solidarity of the European nations, their cooperation in the economic and political spheres on the basis of the defence of their sovereignty.
We are transforming Poland into a strong link in the general chain of the democratic, anti-imperialist and peace-loving nations. The Anglo-American imperialists are trying to thrust us behind an iron curtain with the help of which they would like to separate the working class and the working people in the Land of Socialism, and in the countries of the people’s democracy from the working class and working people in the capitalist world.
However, we are not alone. With us is the great and mighty Soviet Union. With us are all the Slav peoples. With us is the world democratic and national liberation movement.
We see that the capitalist states, despite their rending internal contradictions are reaching agreement on the anti-Soviet and anti-democratic platform and are trying to unleash a new war. American imperialism in Greece strikingly reveals its intentions to enforce a reactionary-fascist regime on the other nations. We are of the opinion that we have been exposing U.S. imperialism much too inadequately. The Greek question must become the banner of struggle of all Communist Parties and all democratic forces against imperialism, and against the policy of their native reaction, which sells out the sovereignty of their countries to the American imperialists.
The class struggle now being waged in all countries, with the exception of the Soviet Union, is clearly developing into a struggle of two worlds,—into a struggle of the imperialist camp against the anti-imperialist camp. Such is our point of view. And since this is so, there is all the more reason why it is necessary to have an exchange of experience of the Marxist workers’ parties of the different countries, and to compare views so as to apply the best methods and the most correct tactics in order to defeat reaction in their own countries, and to paralyse the intentions of world imperialism.