First Published: Unite!, Vol. 3, No. 11, December 1977.
Transcription, Editing and Markup: Paul Saba
Copyright: This work is in the Public Domain under the Creative Commons Common Deed. You can freely copy, distribute and display this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit the Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line as your source, include the url to this work, and note any of the transcribers, editors & proofreaders above.
Two months ago, in UNITE!, Vol. 3, No. 9, we pointed to an increasing danger that was developing internationally. The proponents of the “three worlds” are resurrecting the notorious traitor to Marxism-Leninism and the working class, Josip Tito, long standing revisionist from Yugoslavia.
We warned at that time that uniting with Tito or support of Tito as a leader of the “non-aligned” movement was opportunist. We recalled the 1963 position of the Communist Party of China, under the leadership of Chairman Mao: “One’s attitude toward Yugoslav revisionism is not a minor question, but a major question; it is a question that concerns not just one detail or another but the whole. It is a question of whether to adhere to Marxism-Leninism or to wallow in the mire with the Yugoslav revisionists.” (Whence the Differences, p. 109).
Events have shown that this warning was entirely warranted.
The October 14, 1977, Peking Review marks the 40th anniversary of the founding of the League of Communists of Croatia, one section of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia. Without any qualification or criticism, Peking Review quotes the Yugoslav revisionists: “The working class led by the Communist Party has grown from an oppressed class denied of its rights to the leading force of the revolution.” By printing this revisionist trash without any criticism, the Communist Party of China is endorsing Yugoslav revisionism and undercutting the struggle of the working class and oppressed peoples of Yugoslavia.
In the October 8, 1977, Daily News Release of Hsinhua (the official news agency in China), this betrayal is carried to its limit. A Hsinhua communique from Belgrade begins, “The Presidency of the Central Committee of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia at its 31st session today heard a report from Comrade Josip Broz Tito, President of Yugoslavia and President of the L.C.Y., a report on his visit to the People’s Republic of China, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and the Soviet Union.” (Hsinhua, Oct. 8, 1977, p. 8, our emphasis).
Continuing on the same path, Hsinhua also quotes these revisionists that the relations of Yugoslavia and China are those “between two independent socialist countries, both of which have embarked on socialist revolution and are playing important parts in international relations.” (Hsinhua, Oct. 8, 1977).
Referring to the arch-revisionist Tito as “Comrade” and to Yugoslavia as a socialist country goes against the verdict which the Party of Labor of Albania under the leadership of Enver Hoxha and the Communist Party of China under the leadership of Mao Tsetung issued in 1964:
Any attempt to reverse the verdict on the Tito Clique is a betrayal of Marxism-Leninism, of the 1960 statement, of the socialist camp, and of the international communist movement.” (“Sino-Albanian Joint Statement”, Peking Review, No. 3, 1964).
Historically, the Communist Party of China led by the great Mao Tsetung played a correct and valiant role in exposing and combating modern revisionism and the class collaboration of Tito. In the history of modern revisionism, Tito stands between Earl Browder of the U.S. and Khrushchev in the chain of betrayal. The stand of the Communist Party of China led by Comrade Mao Tsetung was an inspiration to the progressive people of the entire world.
Today, those that advance the theory of “three worlds” stand opposed to all that Mao Tsetung fought so hard to defend and develop. The restoration of Tito is an inevitable result of the theory of the “three worlds” which makes no distinction between the world of capitalism and the world of socialism, and completely liquidates the historic role of genuine socialist countries in the world revolution. By applauding Tito and Yugoslav revisionism, the theorists of the “three worlds” seek to obliterate the true nature and role of the socialist countries. A vivid example of this is the fact that this so-called strategic concept does not and cannot include the People’s Socialist Republic of Albania! And yet, the theorists of the “three worlds” have no trouble in placing revisionist Yugoslavia in the “third world” and as a “socialist” country.
The revival of Tito is not some misapplication of this “strategic concept” of the “three worlds”, but its inevitable logic. This is a vivid demonstration of the path down which the theorists of the “three worlds” would have the proletariat travel, and why this anti-Leninist theory is opposed and will be defeated!