p The fourth period of Marxism’s struggle against revisionism takes its rise in the postwar period, viz., from the end of the forties to the beginning of the fifties. The whole world remembers what a favourable situation was created for the liberation movement of the peoples after the Second World War: the Soviet Union had emerged triumphant from its capitalist encirclement and become the embodiment of the hopes and dreams of the world’s workers; a world system of socialism had been created; many countries in Asia and Africa had cast off the yoke of imperialism; the fraternal Communist Parties had gained immensely in prestige, and many of them held key positions in governments, in parliaments and among progressive social forces. All these tremendous gains forcefully demonstrated once more in practice the strength and vitality of MarxismLeninism.

p Obviously, this was bound to worry the bourgeoisie. It again began to seek ways of infiltrating into the communist movement and erode, disrupt and weaken it from within. After all, had it not done this once in the Social- Democratic parties? What was to prevent it from repeating the experiment with the communist parties? Shaken by the gigantic ideological and organisational strength of the European Communist Parties in the fight against fascism, the world bourgeoisie did everything it could to safeguard Europe from the dangerous communist “pestilence”, which 74 had spread to all countries of that continent. A violent crusade was launched against the Resistance fighters, and the Communist Parties were hounded and exposed to provocations. A virulent organised campaign was started to deprive Communists of their seats in parliament and of ministerial posts in the government, especially in countries like France and Italy.

p The moral and physical terror to which the Communist Parties of Europe were subjected gave the bourgeoisie a definite advantage. With the help of the Right SocialDemocratic forces it succeeded in inflicting a severe defeat on the liberation movement in Greece, where it brutally crushed the country’s progressive, revolutionary forces. It became abundantly clear that a new world policeman had appeared upon the European scene in the person of American imperialism, which took the lead of Europe’s reactionary forces.

p Nor is that the whole story. The bourgeoisie now began most carefully to consider how, in what ways it could plant its agents within the newly emerged world socialist system. It persistently sought the weak links in this powerful mechanism, tried to trace lost trails by which it could penetrate into the heart of the socialist community of nations. The combined imperialist circles concentrated all their efforts and resources against the young socialist states. Well aware of the fighting power of the Communist Parties in these countries, demonstrated so heroically in the struggle against fascism, the imperialists were determined to use every means to penetrate into the very heart of these Parties in order to weaken and soften up their revolutionary muscles. Bearing in mind the influence which the Rightwing ideologues of Social-Democracy used to enjoy in these countries, as well as the vanity and conceit of some of the leaders who had wormed their way into the Communist Parties, world imperialism had no great difficulty in taking in hand some of the politically unstable ideologues. It did not take long for these forces to come into action and start on the job of disintegrating the community of socialist states.

p Here again we find the revisionist onset starting with attacks on the doctrinal positions of Marxism-Leninism. At first this was done very subtly, correctly and decorously. Nevertheless, despite the verbal smoke screen, a number 75 of theoretical treatises reflected fairly clearly concepts which attempted to revise the basic postulates of Marxism- Leninism, such as dialectical and historical materialism, the teachings about the socialist state, about the party of a new type, about the alliance of the working class and the peasantry, about internationalism, and the nationalities and agrarian policies. The old familiar tunes about “ obsoleteness”, “deformation”, “degeneration” and •similar gems of critical opinion concerning scientific socialism were repeated in numerous articles, pamphlets, books, treatises and essays.

p At first this criticism was of an abstract nature, but then it assumed a quite concrete and definite angle. It was spearheaded against the system of socialism built up in the U.S.S.R. This was all the more unexpected and surprising since, after the triumphant victory which the forces of socialism had won in the fight against fascism, there was, objectively speaking, no room whatever left for such meaningless criticism. But the fact remains and you cannot erase it from history.

p These things of the past could well have been left to rest in the annals of history, but for certain vexatious circumstances which compel us to revert to them. The thing is that some revisionist theoreticians, who had played almost first fiddle at the time, began even to boast of the part they had played in disrupting the world socialist system. Some talked themselves into a confession that the fight against the C.P.S.U.—the Party of Lenin—the fight against the U.S.S.R.—the bulwark of the anti-imperialist struggle of the world’s working people—had been the happiest moment in their lives. Springing to life on the well-manured soil of the American and European press, radio and television, Milovan Djilas, that fire-eater of modern revisionism, urged the reactionary forces to undertake a crusade against the U.S.S.R. Dedijer, too, has crawled out of his fusty hole and is digging up the hatchet against the Soviet state. Expelled from the ranks of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, they are at great pains to remind us that at first they were Social-Democrats, then orthodox Marxists, and now, like the Bernsteinians, having received a good tip, have turned away from communism, become disillusioned in Marxism. It goes without saying, the vicious circle is complete. But these turncoats are not novel or original in their behaviour. To every person who is more or less versed in the laws of 76 political struggle it is clear that at the back of these renegades stand the imperialists.

p It should be added that the ideologues of revisionism on all occasions go out of their way to stress the services they had rendered during the bloody war with fascism. Djilas and Dedijer, for example, keep on reminding us that they were colonels of the Yugoslav liberation army. But, it is fair to ask, whafr else could they do? Everyone knows that Hitler gave no quarter to Social-Democrats either, whether “Left” or Right. They themselves were unfit to mobilise the masses, and the latter, in turn, could not take their stand under a renegade banner. Obviously, they had no alternative but to join the Communists, thanks to whom they became colonels. Therefore, these renegades’ participation in the struggle against fascism was not a matter of duty or conscience, but of necessity and the hopelessness of their plight. How right Engels was, who said of such leaders: "When educated men and generally newcomers from among the bourgeoisie do not fully adopt the proletarian standpoint, they are only harmful.”  [76•*  Does not the present conduct of all these Djilases and Dedijers who have stopped to treachery and betrayal confirm this?

p Having created a Right-revisionist bridgehead within the socialist camp, world imperialism concentrated its material and ideological resources on extending the splitting activities of the revisionists within the socialist countries and rallying behind them the reactionary anti-socialist forces. The tragic events in Hungary in 1956 showed clearly that the Right revisionist forces are in the employ of imperialist reaction and act according to a single strategic and tactical plan. It was a serious political lesson, which alerted the fraternal Communist Parties and enabled the proper deductions to be made from it.

p The dialectics of the class struggle, however, has its own logic and its own laws. As was to be expected, in the course of the sharp principled struggle with Right revisionism within the Marxist-Leninist movement, a “Left” revolutionarism began to take shape, which, as Lenin pointed out, "was not infrequently a kind of penalty for the opportunist sins of the working-class movement. The two monstrosities 77 complemented each other.”  [77•*  It was this kind of “Left” revolutionarism that appeared in the middle of the fifties in the concepts of certain theoreticians who claimed to be “true” defenders of Marxism-Leninism. Nevertheless, on the major issues of the theory, policies, strategy and tactics of Marxism-Leninism these theoreticians obviously deviated towards “Left” adventurism, revealing a dogmatic approach in the assessment of many aspects of modern social and political development. Yet, for that time, it was merely a deviation from the Marxist-Leninist line. Of course, not every deviation from the line signifies that that line has been lost completely. But history knows no few occasions when deviations grew into hostile political trends. Deplorable though it is to admit, on this occasion the “Left” deviation grew into a political trend which has nothing in common with Marxism-Leninism.

p And so the facts show that the revisionism of today, like that at the beginning of the century, has grown to international magnitude and recreated great difficulties within the Marxist movement. ’To be sure, those who cannot bring themselves to fight it and who try to play it down are increasing the danger of it still more,

p Lenin was profoundly right when he repeatedly warned of this danger. In his article dedicated to the 25th anniversary of Marx’s death, Lenin wrote: "What now crops up in practice only over individual side issues of the labour movement, as tactical differences with the revisionists and splits on this basis—is bound to be experienced by the working class on an incomparably larger scale when the proletarian revolution will sharpen all disputed issues, will focus all differences on points which are of the most immediate importance in determining the conduct of the masses, and will make it necessary in the heat of the fight to distinguish enemies from friends, and to cast out bad allies in order to deal decisive blows at the enemy.”  [77•**  Lenin’s words have come true.

p It must be admitted that the imperialist bourgeoisie during the last decade has improved its methods of work, and, backed by the Right and “Left” revisionists, has embarked on a new offensive against socialism. The events in 78 Czechoslovakia have revealed, on the one hand, the finely adjusted mechanism of the modern political and ideological struggle of the bourgeoisie against socialism; on the other hand, the unity and links of revisionism with anti-communism. This is no longer the purely doctrinal and ideological struggle it was before. It is an intricate, highly confused and very subtly devised struggle, a struggle involving the use of state policy and hidden actions, a struggle starting as an “ undercover” form of creeping “quiet” counter-revolution. A struggle in which intelligence services, state institutions, imperialist monopolies, Right-wing Social-Democratic theoreticians and opportunist elements within the Communist Parties have joined. An active part in it was taken by all propaganda media: radio, television, the press, and secret networks. Foul means were used here, such as bribery, favours, blackmail and intriguing. Last but not least, weapons were stored in the event of the “quiet” counterrevolution preparing the ground for their use, first and foremost against the Communists.

Special stress therefore should be laid on the fact that it is the present generation of Communists who will be charged with the great mission of taking the cause of antirevisionism into their own strong hands and defending Marxism-Leninism in this sharp ideological and political struggle. They have the strength for it. And real Communists direct the fire of their Marxist-Leninist weapon first and foremost against the revisionists on the Right and “Left”. The task now is to defeat revisionism in open ideological struggle and thereby do one’s paramount duty to the international working class.