Marx-Engels | Lenin | Stalin | Home Page
Designing the Empire
Towards turning the socialist countries into Russian dominions. Changes in the Bulgarian leadership dictated by Moscow. Zhivkov’s “clock” is wound up in Moscow. The Danubian complex and the Rumanians’ “fall-out” with the Soviets. The official elimination of the Information Bureau. The reformist illusions of the Italian and French parties—Togliatti, the father of “polycentrism”. Unforgettable meeting with two beloved French comrades, Marcel Cachin and Gaston Monmousseau. The vacillations of Maurice Thorez. Destruction of the unity of the communist movement, a colossal service for world imperialism.
The theses of the 20th Congress and especially the attack made on Stalin in Khrushchev’s “secret” report enthused the revisionist elements, both in the parties of the socialist countries and in the other parties. Following the example of the rehabilitation of the enemies of socialism in the Soviet Union. the “cases” of Rajk, Kostov, Gomulka. Slansky and other enemies, condemned by the dictatorship of the proletariat, were brought up again.
All the counter-revolutionary subversion which the Khrushchevite clique carried out within the Soviet Union also served its aims in foreign policy. At first, its main aims in this direction were: to strengthen its domination in the parties and former countries of people’s democracy, which it thought were under its control, and to clamp down on those parties and countries which still had not submitted to it; to place the communist and workers’ parties of the capitalist countries completely in its service; to win the trust of American and world imperialism by attacking socialism in the Soviet Union and elsewhere, while propagating “creative Marxism” through a series of opportunist theses.
Khrushchev thought that by slandering Stalin he would make the Soviet Union and especially himself “acceptable” to everybody. He calculated that in this way world reaction would be satisfied, all the other parties would gather round him, Tito’s heart would be softened and they would be reconciled, and, together, like a reunited family, they would reach accord and join hands with imperialism and world capitalism on their course. Khrushchev and the Khrushchevites would say to them: “We are no longer those communists with knives between their teeth, as in the days of Lenin and Stalin. We are no longer for world revolution, but for collaboration, peaceful coexistence and the parliamentary road. We opened up the concentration camps set up by Stalin and rehabilitated the Tukhachevskies and Zinovievs, and we may even go so far as to rehabilitate Trotsky.
“We freed the Solzhenitsyns and allowed them to print their anti-Soviet books. We flung Stalin out of the Mausoleum and burned his corpse. To those who called this action of ours against Stalin a crime, we said: ’Do you want this dead horse? Then take it!’”
As I pointed out above, Khrushchev had to get rid of his opponents, not only in the Soviet Union but also in the countries of people’s democracy. Those who believed in the Marxist-Leninist line of Stalin had to be culled from the party leaderships. Likewise, those who were against Tito, with whom Khrushchev had come to agreement, had to be purged; while those who had condemned Tito’s agents in their own countries had to rehabilitate these traitors and themselves be removed from the leadership. Khrushchev used all methods: Gottwald died, Bierut died, Gomulka and Kadar were returned to power, Dej turned his coat, Rakosi and Chervenkov were liquidated. We were the only ones whom Khrushchev was unable to liquidate.
Of course, in seeking rapprochement with American imperialism, Khrushchevite revisionism intended to come out on the arena as its powerful partner, a country with developed industry and agriculture, able to compete with those of the United States of America (as was loudly proclaimed), and with its own colonial empire, part of which would be the countries of the socialist camp.
Khrushchev and company had begun their work for the making of this “empire” and now they continued it further. In some places this work went smoothly, in others there was friction, while in Albania these ambitions were never realized.
Bulgaria, for example, never caused the Soviet revisionists any trouble. After the deaths of Dimitrov and Stalin, apparently the “authority” of Velko Chervenkov could no longer be imposed on the Bulgarian Communist Party. He had become an obstacle in Khrushchev’s way and, without doubt, the Soviet intrigues, the intrigues of Khrushchev, who seized power and did what he did, must have played a part in his liquidation.
Immediately after the 20th Congress, Chervenkov, who was prime minister at that time, was attacked over the “cult of the individual”, the “mistakes” he had committed, etc. However, Velko did not seem to have been one of those who created a cult around themselves. He was used more as a “scapegoat” in order to justify the “corrections” which were made with the rehabilitation of Kostov and company. Chervenkov made way without any fuss and left his post as prime minister in favour of Anton Yugov, who did not keep this position for long, either.
In Dimitrov’s time, Anton Yugov was minister of internal affairs, while with the advent of Chervenkov, he became deputy prime minister and later, prime minister. During the war, Yugov fought in the underground movement and fought well. He was one of the main and most dynamic leaders, especially in the uprising which led to September 9, 1944, the day of the liberation of Bulgaria. When I went to Bulgaria for the first time I noticed that Dimitrov showed special respect for Yugov, kept him close and, it seemed, had great faith in him. Irrespective of certain shortcomings in Yugov, to the extent that I knew him, my opinion is that after the death of Dimitrov he was the clearest ideologically and politically amongst the Bulgarian leaders, a man determined in his opinions, courageous and a good organizer. I have had contacts with him many times in Bulgaria, in Moscow, and also in Albania, when he visited our country, and he always showed himself frank, friendly and ready to talk with me.
Yugov knew the political, economic and organizational situation in Bulgaria well and, from my impression, he knew this not only from reports, but more from his contacts. He went all over the country and was a man of the masses. Not only did he know how to organize, but he was a man who took decisions and knew how to defend them. In other words, Yugov was not a leader who could be made to conform quickly or a “yes-man”.
In the organization of the Bulgarian Communist Party under the leadership of Dimitrov, Yugov had his own role. The same thing must be said, also, in regard to the restoration of industry and the organization of agricultural cooperatives, which were built following the example and course of the Soviet collective farms.
When Chervenkov was removed from the post of general secretary of the party, he was replaced by Zhivko1, while Yugov remained where he was, as deputy prime minister. As the cunning devil he was, Khrushchev preferred Todor, who would do the work for him better. Khrushchev could not manoeuvre with Yugov as he wanted. Did Yugov like this Khrushchevite solution? Certainly not and he expressed it. Whenever we were together, it was quite clear that Yugov had utter disregard for Zhivkov.
One fine morning Yugov, too, was liquidated quietly like Chervenkov. We never heard the reasons for this liquidation, but we can guess them. He must have been in opposition to Zhivkov, i.e., to Khrushchev. In a word, he must have been against the colonization of Bulgaria by the Khrushchevite Soviet Union, against the loss of the independence and sovereignty of Bulgaria. Yugov must have refused to become a marionette in the hands of the Khrushchevites, as Zhivkov did.
Together with Yugov’s good qualities as a leader, in my opinion he also had some personal shortcomings. His main shortcoming was his conceit, which took concrete form in his boasting and the expressions which he used to boost himself and his work. I travelled through Bulgaria with him, he accompanied me to see cities, plains, agricultural cooperatives, historical sites, factories, artistic performances, etc. I enjoyed the beauties of the country and felt the affection of the Bulgarian people and the Bulgarian communists for our people and Party. Yugov’s company was always pleasant and very instructive.
However, wherever he went he seemed to want to show off. We travelled by car, passed through many villages and Yugov never failed to tell me, not only the name of each cooperative, but also how many hectares of land, how many cows, how many horses, and even how many goats, let alone the hectares of vineyards, the type of grape and the number of fruit trees it had. Everything with statistics! Well, I thought, but even statisticians can be wrong! But no, Yugov, the “man with the ready answer”, wanted to impress me that he “had everything at his fingertips”.
When they put on a folklore performance for us, he would jump up and join in dancing and singing. He was a bon vivant2
Despite these things, Yugov was a good man and I retain pleasant memories of him. I believe he has not degenerated politically and ideologically.
With his elimination, Khrushchev named Todor Zhivkov as the leader of Bulgaria or, more precisely, the “steward of the Soviets in Bulgaria. Dimitrov raised the prestige of the Bulgarian Communist Party and of Bulgaria very high, but Todor Zhivkov completely reversed this process. This element without personality came to the top with the aid of Khrushchev, and became his docile lackey. At the time I met Dimitrov I never heard of Zhivkov. Later, in the time of Chervenkov, I saw him once or twice. Once he gave me an alleged talk about Bulgarian agriculture and another time he accompanied me somewhere outside Sofia to a field of strawberries.
When he talked to me about agriculture it seemed that it was not Zhivkov’s mind talking but his notebook. He was Yugov’s opposite. In a small notebook marked A-Z, he had noted down figures about everything—from the population of the country to the number of strings of tobacco. In other words, he bored me with figures, without any conclusion, for a whole hour. Another comrade who was with him spoke much better about the Bulgarian economy, in general, and about industry, in particular. I completely forgot Zhivkov. Later, however, when Chervenkov was removed, he emerged as first secretary(!). We were astonished, but we had no reason to be surprised. I met him in this function, too! He was just what he had been. There was only one change: in order to distinguish himself from the past, he had assumed some new poses; he no longer brought up his notebook, smiled frequently, sat with his cap on and used more “popular expressions”.
Even after this I never had a serious conversation with him. Many times we dined together with the comrades of the Bulgarian leadership; Zhivkov took us from one of Czar Boris’ palaces to the other, from the palace of Sofia to that of Eksinograd in Varna, but he never said anything of consequence, merely indulging in idle conversation to pass the time.
The metamorphosis of Zhivkov came about gradually through the education which Khrushchev gave him. Zhivkov’s watchword became “With the Soviet Union forever!” His subjugation to Khrushchev was complete. It was Zhivkov who “created” and launched the idea, “Let us synchronize our watches with that of Khrushchev”. Khrushchev’s tactics towards the communist and workers’ parties became those of Zhivkov; today he would speak against Tito, tomorrow pro Tito, today he would open the borders for fairs with Yugoslav participation, tomorrow he would close them, today he would claim Macedonia and tomorrow say nothing about it. By following the road and “advice” of Khrushchev, Zhivkov became a “personality” and, simultaneously with the build-up of his “personality” the Khrushchevite revisionists got everything in Bulgaria under their control. Every corner and sector of Bulgaria is run by the men of the Soviets. Nominally, the Bulgarian government, party and administration exist, but, in fact, everything is run by the Soviets. The Khrushchevites have turned Bulgaria into a dangerous arsenal. Bulgaria has become a bridge-head of the Russian social-imperialists against our country and the other Balkan countries. This is the work of Zhivkov and his team, who eat the bread of Bulgaria and serve Soviet social-imperialism.
As the facts of history show, Dej and his associates also were and still are satellites of Khrushchev. They swung whichever way the wind blew. In the close friendship between Tito and Khrushchev there were also quarrels which were caused by the Hungarian, Polish and other events, hence there were tiffs and periods of sulking, then the friends would kiss and make up. Without the slightest political scruple, Dej threw himself completely into the whirlpool of Khrushchev’s treacherous anti-Marxist activity in which he was caught up and tossed to and fro at will.
I shall speak later about what occurred in 1960 in Bucharest and Moscow, but here I want to point out only that in these events Dej once again displayed his unchanging essence as a person who could raise and lower any flag without the slightest qualm. There are certain key points and moments in the life and activity of the man which, taken together, provide the portrait of him. This is Dej: in 1948 and 1949 a resolute and zealous anti-revisionist and anti-Titoite; after 1954 an enthusiastic and zealous pro-revisionist and pro-Titoite; in 1960 a pro-Khrushchevite of the first order, although later, it seemed, he was waving this flag in order to manoeuvre with two or three flags simultaneously. In short, a politician who turned with the political breeze, who followed the line of “with this side and with that side”, with Tito, with Khrushchev, and with Mao Zedong, indeed even with his successors and with American imperialism. He and his successors could be and were with anyone, but they were not and could not be with consistent Marxism Leninism.
We saw both the period of the flowering of the Dej-Khrushchev friendship and the period of rifts in this friendship.
Khrushchev thought that he had Dej in his waistcoat pocket like the small ivory knife which he would bring out and toy with in meetings. He thought he would use Dej just like this knife. Judging that the situation was ripe, after 1960 Khrushchev brought up the annexationist plan under which the Rumanian territory from the province of Bucharest up to the border with the Soviet Union, would be united economically with the Soviet Ukraine in an “industrial agricultural complex”. This was a very clumsy idea. Dej had swallowed many other things, but this time he kicked out.
Only when Khrushchev trod on Rumania’s corns, did Dej silence the attacks on us, but even after this Dej never had sufficient civil decency, let alone the Marxist-Leninist courage, to make the slightest self-criticism over all the things he had said and done in regard to our Party. This revisionist, who kissed Tito’s hand, never sought forgiveness from our Party.
It was said that Dej died of cancer. We sent a delegation to his funeral as a mark of friendship with the Rumanian people. There, Ceausescu, who had replaced Dej, hardly shook hands with our delegation. We repaid this new revisionist, who from the time he came to power took as his permanent motto the policy of agreement with all the revisionist and imperialist chiefs—with Brezhnev, Tito, Mao, Nixon and the whole of world reaction, in the same coin.
On assuming power, this person, who was one of the lesser minions of Dej, made a complete exposure of him and by strengthening his positions, he is struggling to become “a world figure” like Tito, to take his place, thanks to a certain hypothetical resistance to the insidious pressure of the Soviets.
Even after the contradictions which the Rumanians had with the Soviets, their state relations with us remained just the same—cold, stale, tasteless and unpleasant. We do not have party relations with the Rumanian party and we will not have them, so long as that party does not publicly acknowledge the mistakes it has made in regard to our Party.
Of course, we greatly regret that Rumania has been turned into a capitalist country like Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union and others and is socialist only in name.
All these Dejs, Zhivkovs, Ceausescus, etc., are the offspring of revisionism, whom Khrushchev and the Khrushchevites have used and are still using for their own purposes.
The Soviet Khrushchevites replaced Marxist Leninist trust and friendship with the domination of the great “socialist” state, in order to create the “socialist family”, the “socialist community”, in which Brezhnev and the Soviet marshals rule today with the iron fist by threatening any “wayward son” of the family with the bludgeon of the Warsaw Treaty.
Khrushchev and Co. were intolerant of any kind of criticism or complaint from the others, opposed to any kind of discipline and mutual control, however formal. For them the joint meetings, statements and decisions were formal and null and void if they hindered them in their plans.
Why did the Khrushchevites eliminate and, moreover, blacken the Information Bureau? They did this because the Information Bureau had condemned Tito, because they considered it the offspring of Stalin, which had earned a “bad reputation” in the eyes of the imperialists. It is clear that here they were not concerned with the organizational forms, because, after all, what difference would there be, in form between the Information Bureau and the “bureau of contacts”, which Khrushchev proposed (and which was never created)? The aim was to rehabilitate Tito and please imperialism.
Later, however, at a consultation of the parties of the socialist camp, the proposal for this “bureau” was rejected, partly because the Khrushchevites had changed their minds about it and partly because it was opposed, especially by the Poles. They (Ochab and Cyrankiewicz) were very actively opposed to this idea. Indeed, even when it was decided to publish a joint organ, they said:
“Well, then, let us have it eventually, because it seems we have to have it.”
From this fruitless meeting, I remember the enthusiasm with which Togliatti embraced Khrushchev’s idea and there and then advanced it further, by insisting on the creation of two “bureaus of contacts”—one for the parties of the socialist countries and one for the parties of the capitalist countries! The future father of “polycentrism” took matters even further and proposed that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union should not take part in the latter, “although,” added Togliatti, trying to sweeten the pill, “it will be our leadership.”
The Italian revisionist party was in the forefront of the hostile work against international communism, against the communist and workers’ parties and the countries of the socialist camp.
The Italian and French “communists” had great illusions about bourgeois democracy and the parliamentary road. In the period immediately after the Second World War, both these parties took part in the first bourgeois governments. And this was a tactic of the bourgeoisie to avoid strikes and chaos, in order to re-establish the economy and especially to strengthen not only its economic positions but also its military and police positions.
This participation of communists in the bourgeois governments was a flash in the pan. The bourgeoisie threw the communists out of office, disarmed them, pushed them into opposition and promulgated such electoral laws that, despite the great number of votes the communists had received, the number of their deputies in parliament was reduced to the minimum.
As became clear later, even at that time, Tito and Togliatti ate from the one trough, and that is why the Italian party came to the aid of Tito’s party, although not openly at first. Togliatti, who was a disguised inveterate revisionist, and all the leadership of the Italian Communist Party, which participated in the Information Bureau, were sorry that Tito was condemned. They voted for this condemnation along with the others, because they did not have the courage to come out openly against it, but time showed that the Italian revisionists were among the most ardent in their desire to kiss Tito.
Khrushchev’s visit to Belgrade and his reconciliation with Tito opened the way for Togliatti and Co., not only to go to Belgrade to meet the Titoites and make peace with them, but also to develop their disruptive revisionist views openly against Stalin and the Soviet Union, not only as a state but also as a system. Togliatti and his followers openly took the side of Tito and did not follow Khrushchev’s zig-zag tactics. On his part, Khrushchev manoeuvred with Togliatti, too; he praised him and gently reproved him, in order to keep him in check.
The leaders of the Italian party, such as Togliatti, Longo and company proved especially susceptible to the revisionist theses of the 20th Congress and, in particular, to Khrushchev’s slanders against Stalin. Shortly after this congress, in an interview given to the magazine “Nuovi Argomenti”, Togliatti launched his attacks on the socialist system, the dictatorship of the proletariat and Stalin. Here he also launched his idea of “polycentrism”, which was the idea of the fragmentation and splitting of the international communist movement.
As to the leaders of the French Communist Party, such as Thorez, Duclos and others, however, it is a fact that at first they were dismayed at Khrushchev’s “secret” report against Stalin and did not accept it. After this report was published in the Western press, the Political Bureau of the French Communist Party made a statement in which it condemned this report and expressed its reservations about the attacks on Stalin. Thorez personally, told me in regard to this problem: “We sought explanations from the Soviet comrades, they gave them to us, but we are not convinced.” I pointed out to Thorez, “You are not convinced, while we do not agree in the least.” Thus Thorez and the French Communist Party had long been aware of our opinion of the 20th Congress and of the Khrushchevites’ slanders against Stalin.
The French and the Italians were like cat and mouse. I had talked with Thorez and Duclos about the stands of the leaders of the Italian Communist Party against the Marxist-Leninist line, in defence of the Titoite revisionists and against our Party. At first, they and the French as a whole seemed to behave well towards us. We stuck to our views and they to theirs. We continued our ceaseless attacks against the Titoites and they seemed to have no trust in Tito. We were on the same course in our stand towards the Italian leaders, too.
Prior to the events which brought the split, Comrades Marcel Cachin and Gaston Monmousseau, two glorious veterans of communism, came to our country. Our whole Party and people welcomed them with joy and affection. I had very open and cordial talks with them. They visited our country, spoke to me about it with great sympathy, and wrote in glowing terms about our Party and people in “L’Humanité”. Monmousseau also published a very pleasant book about our country. Sitting with me in front of the fire, he told me about the visit he made to Korça and his participation with the cooperativists of Korça in the grape harvest. In the course of our talk, I asked the author of “Jean Bécot”, who is from Champagne, the place of famous wines:
“Comrade Monmousseau, what do you think of our wine?”
He replied pince-sans-rire3
I laughed heartily and said:
“You are right, but tell me, what should we do about it?”
Monmousseau went on to speak for a whole hour about wine and this helped me greatly. I listened with admiration to the old man whose cheeks were glowing and eyes sparkling with enthusiasm, who had the colour of the wine of his birthplace, Champagne.
Before we went to the 81 parties’ Meeting in Moscow, Maurice Thorez asked to come to our country for a holiday. We welcomed him with great pleasure. We thought (and we were not wrong) that he was sent by the Soviets to “soften us up”.
When he was on holiday in Durrës, I told Thorez about all the vile things the Soviets had done to us.
Maurice listened attentively. He was astounded because he did not know these things. They had hidden everything from him. I spoke about the Bucharest Meeting and our stand at that meeting. He said that they had been informed about the stand of the Party of Labour of Albania at the Bucharest Meeting by the delegation from their party, and since this stand had impressed them, he had set out for Albania with the intention of talking about this question with us. Thorez said that the Bucharest Meeting was useful and did not pronounce himself at all on whether or not it was in order. He did not criticize our stand in Bucharest and when he had heard me out, all he said was:
“Comrade Enver, you must clear up these things they have done to you with the Soviet leadership.”
As to the struggle against Titoism, Maurice Thorez approved everything. We saw him off by ship for Odessa.
In Moscow, before I spoke at the 81 parties’ Meeting, Maurice Thorez invited us to dinner. This time it was obvious that he had come from Khrushchev to persuade us not to speak against the revisionist betrayal at the meeting, but he failed in his mission. We did not accept the mistaken “advice” he gave us.
Maurice Thorez criticized us in the meeting, but in moderate terms. However, after I had spoken, Jeannette Vermeersch, Thorez’s wife, met me and said:
“Comrade Enver, where are you heading on this course you have begun? We do not understand you.”
“You do not understand us today, but perhaps you will understand us tomorrow,” I replied.
Everyone knows how things turned out for the French Communist Party. It, too, set out with determination on the revisionist road. It betrayed Marxism-Leninism and, with some nuances, followed the line of Khrushchev and Brezhnev.
Meanwhile Togliatti had no such zig-zags as the French, and came out openly, like Tito, with his revisionist views, which he left as his behest to Longo and Berlinguer in his “Testament”. He is the father of “polycentrism” in the international communist movement. Of course “polycentrism” was not to the benefit of Khrushchev who aimed to wield the “conductor’s baton”, just as it is not to the benefit of the Khrushchevites who are ruling in the Soviet Union today. The followers of Togliatti countered, and still counter, the meetings of Khrushchev and Brezhnev with the “meetings” of communist parties of the capitalist countries of Europe, Latin America, etc. The French, who leaned towards Khrushchev, did not approve Togliatti’s proposals and fought them. I shall say no more in this direction because I have written elsewhere about this theory and the anti-Marxist actions of these revisionists.
The Italian revisionists have never looked on socialist Albania or the Party of Labour of Albania with a kindly eye. In the first years following Liberation, we had a perfunctory visit from the elderly Terracini who came to Albania together with a young woman artist. He stayed one or two days and left as silently as he came. Later, Pajetta came. He stayed two days, decorated Mehmet and me with the “Garibaldi” Order of the Spanish War and the Resistance, and he too, departed just as silently, The Italian revisionists wrote almost nothing about socialist Albania in their organ “Unità”. Perhaps they did not want to upset the Italian neo-fascists who were in power, whose armies we had smashed in the war, or perhaps it was because we exposed their comrade, Tito!
The Italian Communist Party, with a longstanding opportunist line, was openly a front to catch votes. There were continual squabbles in the leadership over positions, salaries, nomination of deputies and senators. One leader of that party, who was removed from his position by Togliatti, met us and complained to us, but immediately after this, as soon as they threw him a bone and made him a senator, he became as quiet as a lamb.
I remember a meeting I had in Karlovy Vary with one of them, a member of the leadership of Togliatti’s Italian Communist Party.
“I am against Togliatti and his views,” he told me.
“But why?” I asked.
He listed one or two -arguments”, but in the end the true reason emerged:
“Togliatti does not allow publication of the speeches I make in parliament. Both Togliatti and Pajetta not only do not publish them in Italy, but also intervene with the Soviets to ensure that they are not published in Moscow, either. Please, Comrade Enver, intervene with Khrushchev about this.”
Of course, I was astonished and told him there and then:
“How can I intervene? I could have an influence whether or not they are published in Albania, let us say, but in the Soviet Union? You must address yourself to the Soviet comrades. They are the hosts there and decide this.”
After the break with the Khrushchevites he, too, had “contradictions” with the Italian revisionist leadership. But these were not on a principled basis, they were nothing but squabbles over positions and money. As soon as he was made a senator he, too, quietened down and never raised his voice. This is what the Italian revisionists were and still are—collaborators with both the Italian and the international bourgeoisie.
All this revisionist activity ruined, destroyed the Marxist-Leninist cooperation and harmony which existed in the international communist movement. Khrushchev and the Khrushchevites rendered world imperialism an incalculable service and placed themselves directly in its service. Khrushchev and the Khrushchevites of every hue, wherever they were, consummated that work of sabotage which imperialism and its lackeys had been unable to achieve in whole decades. By slandering Stalin, the Soviet Union, socialism and communism, they lined themselves up with the capitalist slanderers and weakened the Soviet Union, and this was the dream and the aim of the capitalists. They disrupted that monolithic unity which the capitalists fought, raised doubts about the revolution and sabotaged it, a thing which the capitalists had always tried to do. They carried the quarrel and split into the ranks of various communist and workers’ parties, bringing down or elevating to their leaderships cliques which would better serve the hegemonic interests shaken by the great earthquake. These enemies have attacked Marxism-Leninism in every direction and in every manifestation and replaced it with the social democratic reformist ideology, thus opening the way to liberalism, bureaucracy, technocracy, decadent intellectualism and capitalist espionage in the party, in other words, to degeneration. What world capitalism had been quite unable to do, the Khrushchevite clique did for it. However, neither American imperialism nor world capitalism considered this colossal aid, this great sabotage which Khrushchev and the Khrushchevites carried out against Marxism-Leninism and socialism, sufficient. Therefore, the attack of the bourgeoisie and reaction began on the revisionist parties, in order to deepen the crisis to the maximum, not only to discredit Marxism-Leninism and the revolution, not only to deepen the split amongst the communist and workers’ parties and to advance their rebellion against Moscow, but also, through all these activities, to weaken, to subjugate and enslave the Soviet Union, as a great political, economic and ideological power regardless of the fact that the Khrushchevite ideology was not Marxism, but anti-Marxism. World capitalism, headed by American imperialism, had to fight to prevent Khrushchevite hegemonism from remaining alive and consolidating itself on the ruins which it caused.
Therefore, American and world imperialism intensified the work of sabotage in the countries of the socialist camp in order to undermine the colonial empire which Khrushchev was designing. In the suitable climate which the Khrushchevites’ slogans created, not only obedient pro-Khrushchev chiefs like Zhivkov, but also the agents of the Americans, the British, the French, the West Germans, and Tito, became more active. From the very nature of revisionism itself, as well as from the pressure and work of agents of imperialism, in many parties individuals who were dissatisfied with the way things were going to wards “democratisation” and liberalization, began to raise their heads. In Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Rumania, the enemies of socialism wanted to go at a gallop on the road of the restoration of capitalism, flinging aside the tattered demagogic disguise which the group of Soviet leaders wanted to preserve. The traditional links of the bourgeoisie of these countries with the West and the desire to escape as quickly as possible from the fear of the dictatorship of the proletariat (although the Khrushchevites had destroyed it), orientated these enemies towards Washington, Bonn, London and Paris.
Khrushchev hoped to get the demons back into the bottle from which he had released them. But once released, they wanted to browse at their pleasure in the pastures which the Khrushchevites considered their own and were obedient no longer to Khrushchev’s “magic flute”. Then he had to contain them by means of tanks.
1. Ironical diminutive for Zhivkov.
2. “Jolly fellow”.
Next: 8. My First and Last Visit to China