594

p Comrades,

p We asked to speak today because this is the tenth anniversary of the armed rising in our country that broke out on June 14, 1959, and we want to pay tribute publicly, here at this Meeting, to the memory of the 11 slain comrades of our Central Committee and nine other members of our Party. To this day, we have not been able to fill their places, at least in terms of quality. The rising, which some regard as a failure and which in fact was crushed by armed force in a matter of months, aroused the dormant energy of our people, depressed by terror, and left so profound an imprint on all our society that before two years were over Trujillo was assassinated by his closest associates under the protection of the US Embassy, with a view to replacing the hated dictator by a less obnoxious and more pliable lackey. This was an attempt to forestall the imminent social unrest, the symptoms of which were in evidence, with hundreds of political prisoners in the jails, daily assassinations in the streets and public unanimity in rejecting what was rightly described as America’s bloodiest tyranny.

p Together with the more than 100 Dominicans who died in this rising, the tenth anniversary of which we mark today, Venezuelan and Cuban Communists, too, who had brought the fresh breath of Sierra Maestra to our Central Cordilleras, gave their noble lives for another country before their own victory was assured. Among the dead were Argentinians and citizens of the United States and other American countries, men who had made the liberation of our people their life’s cause.

p This rising ten years ag6 had not been conceived as a spark lighting the flames of insurrection at the price of human lives. True, it bore features of a somewhat mechanical imitation of the victorious Cuban revolution. Breaking out as in Cuba, it was thought, the rising would end in victory. Yet it did not. But it was a product of the social and political reality of our own country, and its vitality breathed new life into the nation. It was sparked by the national realities and the new situation on the continent after the victors of Sierra Maestra came to power under the very noses of the imperialists.

p Many battles were fought in Latin America in these ten years. The struggle 595 reached high tension, as illustrated by the crushing defeat inflicted on the mercenaries at Playa Giron. Fidel Castro took that opportunity to announce to the world that Cuba, having won independence, was beginning the transition to socialism and that Cubans were determined to defend their independence to the last drop of blood. What was amazing there was not the emergence of a country independent from imperialism, but that socialism had become a reality on American soil. Our own struggle reached the point of armed collisions with US imperialist troops. The heat of struggle throughout awakened America has never been as great since the wars for national independence against the Spanish crown. The struggle of today is more important than those wars, however, be cause defending that basic gain, now undone, it draws upon the great content of our epoch, merging with the greatest forces of our time—the world, socialist system and world proletariat—as part of the grand battle of the peoples for socialism.

p What happened in Santo Domingo in 1959 was no novelty either for our continent or for the rest of the world. In fighting against oppression the peoples know of no borders and the national distinctions of the freedom-loving fade away. In Latin America, this tradition dates to the wars of independence, though its most striking illustration came with Che Guevara’s death in the heart of America. The world was staggered by his immortal exploit. It was not simply the death of a heroic group of fighters traceable to impropitious circumstances and signifying the end of a struggle. It was a stage, and the power of that instructive example will multiply a hundred-fold sooner or later, with the mass of the people taking their destiny into their own hands.

p In the ten years since the victory of the Cuban revolution, which may be considered the beginning of the revolutionary upswing throughout the continent, the Latin American Communist Parties, in many cases, have not gone beyond the propaganda stage. And, save for a few well-known exceptions, there are even less grounds to say that they have begun to play "an ever more decisive role in the anti-imperialist movement." On the whole, they are stilJ far from being at the head of this process. We were poorly equipped in terms of theory, and theory, Lenin taught, is the most essential weapon at times of crisis and confusion.

p Less than a month before the outbreak of the April events in 1965, which compelled the imperialists to land troops in Santo Domingo, our Central Committee, attended by a deeply-convinced minority, discussed whether or not the revolutionary way was practicable or whether to come out for holding reelections. The view was rife in other countries, and this on the eve of successful military coups, that peaceful transition to socialism was possible. The exponents of this view pinned their hopes solely on the goodwill of some benevolent ruler or some progressive ministers. In some cases, too, reluctance to collaborate with the new forces that line up alongside the Communists, becoming their allies in the world and continental revolutionary process, undermined the movement at a time when even the minimum of revolutionary unity could have turned the scales.

p .Besides, many new phenomena appeared in those ten years, phenomena of practical value from the standpoint of verifying the conclusions contained in 596 the 1960 Statement signed by all the Communist and Workers’Parties in existence at that time. The worth of a document or resolution should not be judged by the numbers and qualities of its signatories, the number of pages in it, or even the audacity of its ideas. Its test lies in whether or not its aims are achieved in the course of time. To extol the 1960 Document for having been a dream of unity is to deny that unity was not achieved by it and its compromise decisions. To repeat the old method on the illusory assumption that compromise will prevail despite the differences having become still more serious, is to expect differences to be put out of the way with the help of signatures rather than of convictions.

p The polemics in the world communist movement over the past ten years could have borne fruit if the elements of national division, in many cases the prime cause of differences, had not been pushed to the fore. That was the overriding motive behind the conflicts that pitted the People’s Republic of China and her Communist Party against the contingent of the world communist movement represented here.

p Our Party regards the peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems as a vitally important element of the foreign policy of the socialist countries in the epoch of transition from capitalism to socialism. ’And we acknowledge the fact that the draft of the Document shows accurately the connection between peaceful coexistence and the struggle of the oppressed peoples. However, we disagree with that proposition in the Document which concerns the methods of that struggle, where the word “including” is used in relation to the armed way, as though the peoples need special permission in choosing it. If it is recognised that imperialism is straining at the leash to start a thermonuclear war, it is no less true that it has sent troops to Vietnam and Santo Pomingo without a minute’s hesitation. In those cases the choice was no problem requiring anybody’s “permission”, although there may be more or less long periods when violence is not in evidence, or no more than sporadic. But at present, the world communist movement must not repeat the contentions of 1960 and present a particular unconfirmed possibility as a general rule, portray it as a “possibility” for all the revolutions of the world.

p If the peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems is a correct policy, then working out a policy governing relations between states of the same social nature should be doubly correct. Our Party takes a clear and firm stand in relation to the theses and policies of the Communist Party of China. At home, we contend with five pro-Chinese sects and have been compelled more than once to resort to arms to contain their barbarian instincts. Yet our Party cannot reconcile itself to the fact that rank war hysteria is whipped up in response to the ideological struggle against positions which, I repeat, we consider incorrect. I say this on the strength of Comrade Brezhnev’s sober speech. War between socialist states can be nuclear, like war against imperialist aggressors. And if in the latter case the material destruction may be disastrous for all man’s gains, a war between socialist states would, in addition, inflict moral damage on socialism, the hope of the peoples. We reject China’s claims to Soviet territory just as firmly as we reject the West German drive to revise the frontiers resulting from the Second World War. But we 597 take the liberty to recommend that anger should not be allowed to become a factor of action.

p A new situation has arisen in the world -as a result of the split in the world communist movement and it will continue to develop unless something unforeseen happens. The balance of world forces, too, has changed and is no longer as favourable to peace and socialism as it was augured to become in the past decade.

p This new correlation of world forces and the fact that-imperialism’s nature will not change, make an illusion of universal disarmament., a sweet dream, but certainly not an attainable goal. If we should really examine the new problems arising in the world over the past decade, that issue should be treated in the Main Document from the following angle: "The possibilities of the struggle for disarmament in the conditions of a world-wide socialist society". We did not come to a session of the World Peace Council and are not here to draft slogans exposing imperialism’s aggressive nature. Our purpose here is to work out a platform of anti-imperialist struggle, and setting goals unattainable in the presence of the imperialist world system is to reduce that platform to a programme of the peace champions.

p Despite the serious growing pains experienced by the world communist movement, particularly with regard to inter-Party contacts and relations between socialist states, the teaching of Marx, Engels and Lenin has spread to new sections of human society in the past decade, with the validity of its basic postulates reaffirmed at every step by the failures of imperialist aggression, the emergence of new forms of struggle, the inclusion in the struggle of new .social strata especially due to capitalist scientific and technological development, the wholesale proletarianisation of intellectual groups and scientists and, at the same time, the rising cultural and technical level of the working class. What we see in the developed capitalist countries proves what the brilliant realities of Soviet growth have been proving since the early century—that now the destiny of mankind is determined by the proletariat.

p The modern armies, which have more sophisticated weapons and in larger quantities than before, are breaking free from the control of the exploiters. No longer can the soldier be an ignorant fanatic, for then he would not learn the use of modern arms. He realises under the impact of the popular struggle that he should not be cannon fodder for the monopolies; in the struggle against war he acquires the anti-imperialist spirit. In Latin America, too, where the traditional armies were, in effect, bands of hired killers serving the tyrants, expansion of armies and technical equipment taught the more receptive elements among the servicemen to spot the enemy where he really is and in serious crises go over to the people’s side with their arms.

p The war in Vietnam which reflects the beastly visage of imperialism as in a mirror, has drawn new strata into the active struggle against aggression and the imperialist monopolies. In some countries the campaigns for peace in Vietnam at first bore the stamp of humanistic and Christian solidarity. Yet now solidarity with Vietnam is increasingly a factor spurring the growth of political consciousness and anti-imperialist orientation; it is now, in one form or another, the focal point of unity for all those forces the world over which, despite various disparities, are coming to grips with imperialism. That is why we see and 598 acknowledge a profound anti-imperialist orientation in the solidarity of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries with Vietnam. It gives reason to think that achieving new forms of unity by still unknown and probably slow methods is a hope worth nourishing.

p So far, this unity is only a wish, although serious efforts, like the convocation of this Meeting, are being made to attain it. However, the absence of the Parties of five socialist countries, and of other Parties that deemed it undesirable for them to participate in this Meeting, shows that relations between Communist Parties and between socialist countries leave much to be desired, and the definitions in the Main Document reflect relations as we would like to see them, or as they should be, but not quite as they are. Obviously, if our epoch is generally viewed as that of transition from capitalism to socialism on a world scale, then the experience of the past ten years that we are trying to analyse in the Document, as well as the actual power of the socialist world system, presented as one of the integral parts of the united revolutionary stream of our time, give us no leave to indulge in wishful thinking. Elements of internal struggle have come into evidence quite openly in the socialist system, that immortal gain of mankind, a struggle we must not hush up and should mention in the introduction to the Document, indicating the distribution of our forces and the process of the debate at this Meeting.

p The other phenomena of the past decade insufficiently analysed in the Main Document are the successes and setbacks of the national liberation revolution— a new element witnessed in many countries that does not quite fit in under the general head of the "non-capitalist way of development". In 1960 that definition enabled us to pinpoint a new phenomenon, comparing it to what had occurred in Mongolia. Today, ten years later, after setbacks and victories that require study, we should not repeat that appraisal so lightly. It is not enough in the analysis to set Latin America apart from other countries where neocolonialism is dominant; this may enable us to probe more closely a reality different from that of other countries, but it also sets Cuba apart from the other liberated countries.

p In socialist Cuba, too, there are aspects worth studying, aspects consistent with the novelty of the present stage. These should be examined and compared with growth in other countries that shook off neo-colonialist domination and where important processes are under way, considerable setbacks occur from time to time and much experience has been accumulated.

p The practi.ce in Egypt, where financial enterprises and banks are being confiscated, though without a Communist Party heading that process, is not to be compared indiscriminately with the practice of other neo-colonial countries fighting for their economic independence. The latter, which have close ties with the socialist world system by virtue of their national interests, make use of some of its formulas and pursue primary accumulation of capital to develop large-scale industry with the help of international credits or the gratuitous aid of the socialist world. But they do so on a basis of pre-capitalist relations of production, and there is always the danger of a large-scale reversal.

p At the Consultative Conference in Budapest our Party called for an open and detailed discussion of a number of important problems that have lately been the 599 object of international polemics. But our recommendation did not evoke the due attention. And today, here, the Meeting is trying to draw up a complete platform of anti-imperialist struggle on the strength of an analysis of the international situation which we consider incorrect and incomplete, an analysis which does not reflect the inner essence of the movement, the breadth of its action and the significance of its historical scope, thus impairing its ideology.

p The Consultative Conference approved what is now called reducing the issue to a democratic platform and left on the agenda of this Meeting but one item, the one that now figures as the title of the Main Document. At the end of July 1968, one of the sub-committees completed the scheme and draft of the Document now submitted for our approval after essential deletions, additions, amendments and discussions. It is supported by the majority of the Central Committees of the Communist Parties represented here.

p In our view, that draft violates the agreement reached in Budapest, because it contains as a limited democratic platform a number of contentions which should really be discussed in the restricted framework of the sittings of this Meeting, and only then, upon getting a majority vote, accepted as suitable for the whole movement. The theoretical points alternating with the slogans, are presented as a scientific analysis of the revolutionary reality on a world scale, substantiating the platform of the anti-imperialist struggle contained in Section Three. These views, which, we repeat, are regarded as scientific, were discussed in the narrow framework of the preparatory sessions and approved by means of alliances concluded on the strength of transient circumstances, with the final wording determined either through compromise or by vote.

p It should be remembered, moreover, that last year’s August events necessitated a reinterpretation of a number of problems. Old points of dispute reappeared and new problems were created by these events, which could not but reflect on the attitude of some Parties during the preparations for this Meeting. When this deepened the disparities, our Party concluded that it would be somewhat bold and inadvisable to go beyond the Budapest decisions.

p On May 5, 1875, in a letter from London, Marx wrote: "The mere fact of unification is satisfying to the workers, but it is a mistake to believe that this momentary success is not bought at too high a price" (Letter to Wilhelm Bracke). This referred to the Gotha Programme, with Marx sharply critical of the concessions the German Socialists made as the price of unity.

p Our attitude to these differences should be clear, for on many points we adhere to the same view as the majority that now approves the Document, because in the eyes of our people we are an integral part of the world communist movement, especially that section of it which has come to this Meeting, and we have, with the deepest sense of responsibility, participated in most of the meetings, from the Consultative Conference in Budapest on to the present day. However, authorship of this programme should not be attributed to us, for we considered it inadvisable from the first, being eclectical, leaving room for different interpretations and, largely, transcending the framework of the agenda. Our attitude also stems from the method of discussion adopted to produce the present definitions on ideological matters so highly important for our movement.

p We have heard all the speeches made so far and see that even before the 600 Meeting is over different interpretations are appearing of propositions written into the Document. Among other things, it defines the forces now jointly fighting imperialism without the necessary elucidation. The document also says that the "main contradiction" is between imperialism and a member of these forces— the socialist world system. Some stood up vigorously for this definition, but we hold—and it is down in our papers—that although the contradiction between imperialism and one of the streams may be more acute at some specific period, the main contradiction is still the one that reflects the whole content of the socio-historical process, that governs this historical process and determines the epoch. To be sure, this does not alter the obvious fact, one that should be recognised, about the main forces that determine the main contradiction. The Document is confused over the main contending forces and the main contradiction of the epoch, and so we see the first different interpretations of a truth which, if taken to be scientific, should have no different interpretations.

p The section of the Document described as the scientific substantiation of the platform of struggle, canonises the tactics of some Parties in its analysis of the forces. That is not scientific. Besides, it associates all the signatories of the Document with the policy of the Parties concerned, a policy that has nothing in common with the analysis of the international situation.

p Section Three of the Document, which is professed to be a platform of struggle and which some delegations regard as the only section worth discussing, not only considerably transcends the framework of the common agenda and the fixed topic of the Meeting, but also abounds in shallow ideological contentions. In this section we find the biggest disparities with our own programme.

p The section covers nine points: aid to Vietnam, struggle for peace, for peaceful coexistence, against proliferation of nuclear weapons, against imperialist aggression in relation to some socialist countries, against colonialism (and solidarity with the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America), against the revival of fascism, against racialism and its consequences, for the democratisation of social life. This section would be signed by any bourgeois democrat, any American Quaker and any peace champion, and yet is presented "to the peoples of the socialist world system, the workers and Communists of the world" as a "platform of united action”.

p A platform appeal for unity of action to all "Communists of the world, all opponents of imperialism, all who are prepared to fight for peace, freedom and progress", could actually be one of two things: either an action programme for Communists fighting against imperialism, which should not then coyly conceal the alternatives advanced by the world communist movement, or a programme of action the Communists offer other forces, possible allies in the struggle against imperialism, in which case there is no need to transcend the narrow^ democratic platform referred to in the original Budapest agreement.

p Of the Gotha Programme Karl Marx said what is quite applicable to this platform: "Its political demands contain nothing beyond the old democratic litany familiar to all: universal suffrage, direct legislation, popular rights, a people’s militia, etc. They are a mere echo of the bourgeois People’s Party, of the League-of Peace and Freedom. They are all demands which, in so far as 601 they are not exaggerated in fantastic presentation, have already been realised" (Selected Works, English edition, Moscow, 1962, Vol. 2, p. 33).

p Let us see what is set down as the aim of communist unity. The first and foremost is peace. It is now 25 years since the Second World War. The peace referred to in the Document has been achieved to one extent or another, and may be safeguarded by sustained popular struggle and deterrent military superiority. Peace is a reality we must vigorously safeguard; yet it is but one of the means in the struggle against imperialism, not the supreme and cardinal aim of the forces fighting for communism. Freedom and progress are notions contained in any bourgeois programme, are attainable in any bourgeois society, unless we define clearly what freedom and what progress we Communists demand.

p This topic is discussed directly in the draft Document, which reads: "The main link of united action of the anti-imperialist forces remains the struggle against war for world peace." One could not limit the Communists’ aim any more than by saying that the fight for peace is the "main link". Yes, thermonuclear war can be averted. What is more, mankind must avert it. But as long as the source of all wars survives, peace will always be insecure, will be daily imperilled by aggressive groups and the insatiable appetite of the imperialists. In that case, the main direction of the joint actions of the anti-imperialist forces should be to destroy imperialism, to remove the exploiting regimes throughout the world.

p In addition, there is the demand concerning fruitful economic, scientific, technical and other co-operation among countries with different social systems in the interests of social progress. The most one can achieve thereby is full development of the capitalist system in the whole unfree world, which will not accomplish the central task of the Communists of the world: to eliminate all forms of exploitation.

p At the latest Preparatory Committee sitting our Central Committee presented a 17-point programme containing concrete demands. It was rejected out of hand after the majority of the Central Committees said that the structure of the Main Document should not be changed. We fell back on Marx’s recommendation when, realising that the circumstances prevented us from going beyond the framework of the Budapest understanding, we proposed: "The right thing is simply to confine ourselves to an agreement on struggle against the common enemy”.

p The unity programme, restricted to general democratic slogans and submitted for the consideration of Communists, makes no mention of the dictatorship of the proletariat, whereas that is the alternative which the world communist movement should offer to the crisis-bound capitalist society. That is the alternative which retains its historical validity despite the difficulties experienced by the socialist world in carrying it out. It was reaffirmed by the successful practice of socialist construction and is doubly valuable today, what with the general crisis of capitalism and the concentration of production in the hands of the monopoly minority so obvious that all can see it without any theoretical exercises, and with the growth,qf the proletariat on a world scale clearly indicating the historical future of mankind.

602

p For Parties in power, who make this concession in the name of unity, their own example is worth much more than definitions, their actual activity much more than this programme. But for us who are fighting today to win over the working class, who are fighting for the political power of the working class—for us this concession has a strong bearing on our political and revolutionary positions.

p Before approving or rejecting this Document as a whole, it should be determined whether we are standing on the shining platform of unity wrought by the 1960 Statement or whether we have just the fragments of a painfully maintained unity embodied in an eclectical compromise document drafted at the price of concessions and which has not stood the test of time.

p Once again compromise formulas and propositions have been worked out on political problems by combining different points of view, although the substance of the differences is still more distinct these days and the immense importance of the ideological and fundamental problems still more obvious.

p Public discussion may, indeed, to some extent impede the achievement of united action. But that discussion is already under way without the approval and permission of conferences. More, it is not always conducted in the best manner, and not always by the best possible means. The Document will not end that discussion, not even if it is signed by all those present. At best it will counterpose us to those who are not present here,_vor at least to most of them. But matters will not end there: discussion, even public discussion, by the participants in the Meeting will continue and, among other things, on issues dealt with in the Document.

p As recognised by our Budapest Conference, the movement needs new forms of relations and a more creative approach to formulating the basic propositions and analysing new phenomena. A document composed, as Engels said of the Gotha Programme, "in a limpid, colourless language", which expresses mere commonplaces or, for compromise reasons, repeats outworn formulas rejected by life—that is not the kind of document that helps unite the masses round the world communist movement in the struggle against imperialism.

p Our Central Committee decided against signing a document of that sort and reaffirmed that decision on learning that only insignificant amendments had been made to the Main Document at the latest sitting of the Preparatory Committee.

p We shall not put our signature under a Document which, despite its professions in the sphere of ideology and theory, does not, as we see it, produce appraisals of any of the,numerous new phenomena in the world of today. It is based on a number of fundamental postulates which we do not share and which are at loggerheads with those that we publicly uphold. It obscures the actual state of relations in the socialist camp and world communist movement and goes to the length of saying that no crisis exists in the development of socialism. Furthermore, it canonises the national policy of a number of Communist Parties that we are in no way obliged to share.

p While spelling out our stand, we have no intention of evading collective actions by the considerable part of the movement represented here, and do not call in question our participation with most of the Parties signing the Document 603 in the joint actions against imperialism, for building socialism. Simply, we do not agree with the ideological definitions contained in the Document and the method used in working them out.

p We declare our opposition, because we assume that this should be done now and not when this limited programme will be weighed against our own programme and its definitions.

p We do not call in question our participation in the anti-imperialist struggle together with the Parties signing the Document, and in the struggle for socialism together with those who wish to wage it, because we recognise the existence of differences, the existence of different tendencies in the movement, rich in its variety and bent on fulfilling the great task of our epoch by different forms and methods, some of which are effective and some are not.

p We are ready to carry through any task arising from the needs of the antiimperialist struggle on which agreement may be reached here or at meetings of some other kind.

p By rejecting this Document, we contribute, though at some risk, to the future true, agreed and even organic unity of the movement, in which different points of view, the result of differences in development and dissimilar cultural traditions, will be dialectically settled and overcome in the process of discussion, from which, I daresay, we shall bar but the opportunists and renegades.

p Our disagreement is no stumbling block. In expressing it, we merely wish to be loyal to our own principles and our own programme, and oppose the Parties signing the Document merely in the sense of practical competition with them in the anti-imperialist struggle and in the historical test of our present-day positions.

p As we see it, weaknesses are not overcome by superficial compromises that create the peril of an explosion some time later. The only way to remedy the existing weaknesses is to denude the roots of the evil, improving methods that have to be improved, taking into account the variety of practical forms the movement can take, and acting in concert against imperialism despite secondary disparities.

p We appreciate the endeavours of a large number of Parties to achieve unity. We appreciate the sincere efforts of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the facilities it has placed at the service of this desire for unity. We appreciate the important role played by the Hungarian Socialist Workers’ Party. They were the main organisers of these endeavours to produce agreement on united action in the anti-imperialist struggle, and we therefore express our gratitude to them.

p Though expressing disagreement, our Party does not seek isolation. Nor is its stand prompted by any nationalistic parochialism. We declare our readiness to maintain the closest of ties and relations with the Parties present here despite ideological disparities or differences over methods of achieving unity, in the name of joint action against imperialism and in the struggle for building socialism on a world scale.

Thank you.