ON THE COMINFORM

5 Cominform and the question of people's democracy as a modern type of...

Stalinism, that is the further development of the Marxist-Leninist doctrine of revolution, of the transition of the people's revolution to the socialist revolution under the created conditions of the victory of the Great Patriotic War.

It was victoriously implemented by Enver Hoxha in Albania, further developed and thus practically confirmed. However, this form was based firstly fundamentally on the precondition of the strong dictatorship of the proletariat of the Soviet Union as the basis and lever of these people's democracies and secondly as a new form of establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat in those countries which the Soviet army had already liberated (or Albania as an exception, which was able to liberate itself from fascist subjugation without the invasion of the Soviet army. This is very important.) and had thus snatched them from the grasp of world imperialism. Without these preconditions, the people's democracies as they emerged would not exist.

The popular-democratic revolution of the proletariat does not replace its immediate continuation into the socialist revolution, but directly and immediately prepares the ground for the socialist revolution. These two revolutions are neither to be equated nor separated by an artificial intermediate stage, but are successive, merging forms of a unified process of permanent revolution (see the teachings of Hoxhaism on the people's revolution and its transition into the socialist revolution under the leadership of the Communist Party of Albania: Revolutionary elimination of military and political oppression and ending of economic exploitation by the fascist occupation as a prerequisite for the transition to the dictatorship of the proletariat and the construction of the socialist economy). One must not stop halfway there. The socialist struggle is the indispensable and immediate continuation of the [!!] democratic, anti-fascist struggle led by the communists , in order to consolidate the people's revolution and ensure the victorious transition from the people's revolution to the socialist revolution, otherwise the people's revolution must fail. The modern revisionists preached to hold back in the class struggle, preached to stop the class struggle. Supposedly, attacking the bourgeoisie too sharply would harm the road to socialism. We Stalinist-Hoxhaists teach just the opposite: any retreat from the class enemy encourages it to fight against the revolution and socialism. Without sharpening the class struggle of the proletariat, the road from popular revolution to socialist revolution remains an illusion. This is betrayal of the working class and that is why we fight this betrayal propagated by the neo-revisionists today.

Within the framework of a democratic world camp, one cannot permanently unite the masses of millions of toilers in class struggle on the basis of the capitalist conditions of a bourgeois democracy, because it cannot eliminate them itself. These millions of toilers remain as members of exploited classes as long as they belong to a democratic world camp. Only in the socialist world camp can the labouring masses of millions unite under the leadership of the proletariat to form a lasting alliance, exploitation and oppression be eliminated, the dictatorship of the proletariat consolidated and socialist economics built up, etc., etc..

A democratic world camp can perhaps loosen the fetters of fascism, can ease the situation and the struggle of the working class but can never eliminate the class fetters of capitalism.

A democratic world camp finds ready-made forms of capitalist relations. The socialist world camp must first create the new forms of socialist relations.

A democratic world camp must never replace the socialist world camp, because only the latter has a longer lever and a broader basis for triggering the world socialist revolution than socialism "in one" country. The rule of the world bourgeoisie cannot be broken in a peaceful way, with a democratic world camp. With a democratic world camp one cannot establish a dictatorship of the world proletariat.

A socialist world camp must not be confused with a petty-bourgeois "peace, friendship and egg-cake" world camp (cf. Mao's petty-bourgeois pacting: "good" capitalists / "bad" capitalists) and certainly not sold out to this petty-bourgeois pacting with the bourgeoisie. The proletarians have no principles to give away, neither to the bourgeoisie nor to the petty bourgeoisie. The tactics of the democratic world struggle must not be misused to disarm the world socialist camp, but must rather contribute to strengthening, enlarging and consolidating the world socialist camp. We criticise Shdanov not for advocating the exploitation of the possibility of the democratic world front, but for inadmissibly deriving from it in the Cominform a principled class line, namely, to replace the socialist world camp with the democratic world camp - and all this at a time when the peaceful "breathing space" was over and the Cold War was already in full swing, when one had to concentrate again on military questions of protecting the socialist world camp and continuing the world revolutionary war of liberation, and thus the democratic possibilities of changing class relations in the world immediately after the end of the war had long since been buried by the imperialists (1948 ! !!).