ON THE COMINFORM

9 The Cominform and the Revisionist Degeneration of the Communist Parties...

9

The Cominform and the Revisionist Degeneration of the Communist Parties in the Capitalist Countries

From the first conference of the Cominform we find for the first time the Soviet Union's criticism of the popular front policy of the Western parties, without mentioning the name of the originator of this revisionist line - Dimitroff, who advocated and implemented his popular front policy even in the world socialist camp, while at the same time feigning his loyalty to Stalin !

The "parliamentary road to socialism" deviates from Marxism-Leninism and is revisionist. Togliatti. Criticism of the Yugoslavs at the 1st Cominform meeting A major political content of the first conference of the Cominform was a strong criticism of the revisionism of the French and Italian communist parties.

The conference served largely as a platform from which powerful, scathing criticisms of opportunism, legalism, bourgeois parliamentarism and other such grievances with which the French and Italian communist parties were plagued emerged. This criticism came officially from Yugoslavia and not from the Soviet Union - Pravda had still praised Yugoslavia until just before the founding of the Cominform - in September 1947. This was an excellent tactic by Stalin to play off the revisionism of the CP of France and Italy against Yugoslav Titoism. First against the former (1st Conference of the Cominform in 1947), then against the latter (2nd Conference of the Comiform in 1948 - previously threaded through Stalin's letters to the CP of Yugoslavia).

Later, Togliatti criticised the Moscow Declaration because it still condemned Titoism. He demanded that the condemnation of Titoism be withdrawn ! (Togliatti, 10 January 1963, "Let us return the discussion to its true limits" [article in: "L'Unità"])

On the third day of the 1st Kominform Conference, the Yugoslav revisionists presented their criticism against the Italian and French Communist Parties. They said that the Italian and French model of people's democracy should not be initiated under the leadership of a bourgeois government. The Yugoslav delegates also criticised the opportunist slogan of the CP of Italy: "Neither London, nor Washington, nor Moscow." They said that the defeats suffered by the two Western parties were mainly the fault of their leaders with their political and ideological liberalism. The Yugoslav delegates stressed that after the war, certain communists thought (for example, the Browderists) that a peaceful, parliamentary period of abatement of the class struggle had dawned - that there was a corresponding deviation of opportunism, especially on the question of parliamentarism, both in the French and Italian parties, as well as in other parties.

This criticism is a Marxist-Leninist criticism, even if it was put forward by the Yugoslavs with the intention of arming themselves against accusations of their own revisionism! One must not try to invalidate the criticism of French and Italian revisionism by the fact that they were put forward by revisionist Yugoslavs who concealed their own revisionism behind them. One cannot side with one revisionist camp to fight another!!! This is nothing else than neo-revisionism, namely criticism of revisionism in words and defence of revisionism in deeds.

The transition of the CP of France to revisionism began at the 7th World Congress and finally came out openly only after the death of Stalin.

The 'Popular Front' in France formed on the anniversary of the storming of the Bastille (14 July 1935) in Paris. In January 1936, the parties agreed to support each other and entered parliament. It was actually the bloc of a capitalist wing that gave itself an official name, the coalition thus formed, in January 1936 through the programme 'Rassemblement populaire' (Rally of the People). Blum ended the period of the Popular Front government with his resignation on 7 April 1938.

The leaders of the CP of France and Italy turned out to be traitors to the revolution and to socialism. Their sharp criticism against Titoism at the second conference of the Cominform does not change this. Behind their criticism of Titoism, they cleverly concealed their own revisionism. They only let their mask fall after Stalin's death and the Khrushchev revisionists came to power.

Enver Hoxha writes about France and Italy in his book "Eurocommunism is anti-communism" :

"In France and Italy, governments of the bourgeois type came to power. The participation of the communists in them did not change their character. Their propaganda and agitation, the demonstrations and strikes led by the CP of France were not in the line of wresting power from the bourgeoisie. (...) took the form of a struggle for reforms (...). It did not follow the Marxist-Leninist path. The French Communist Party failed (...) to transform the struggle for national liberation into a people's revolution, it evaded the struggle for the armed seizure of power. What should we call this conduct of the French Communist Party? Betrayal of the revolution.

"Whereas in Italy conditions were favourable for advancing the revolution (...) the party was in favour of a parliamentary solution within the legality of the bourgeois order. Its broadest aspiration was to participate in the government with two three ministers. In this way, the Italian Communist Party got caught up in the interplay of bourgeois politics and made one unprincipled concession after another. It voluntarily took up arms before the bourgeoisie. It abandoned the revolutionary road and took the parliamentary road, gradually transforming itself from a party of revolution into a bourgeois party of social reform of the working class."

It was mainly under the Trotskyist influence of the Titoists that the world socialist camp first split, and from this, after the death of Stalin, the world revisionist camp split. One faction pursued the path of separation from the Soviet revisionists, while the other faction continued to lick their boots. Mao also took advantage of this division by trying to harness the faction of separation from the Soviet revisionists to his cart. This also included the factions that had formed, especially in Western Europe, which included the Maoist parties on one side and the Eurocommunists on the other. As a result of this process of disintegration of the revisionist world camp, innumerable currents of revisionism emerged, which more openly or covertly falsified Marxism-Leninism, betrayed it and gradually replaced it with bourgeois ideology. And we point out again that this development of betrayal of the world revolution was already emerging in the Cominform.

Enver Hoxha writes aptly in: "Eurocommunism = anti-communism:

"These innumerable anti-Marxist currents developing in today's capitalist and revisionist world are the fifth column in the ranks of the world revolution." (page 93)