ALLIANCE
Marxist-Leninist (North America)
REPRINT SERIES:
COMPASS
June 1995 No. 117; Communist League
DIMITROV: REPLY TO A READER
Introduction
We thank you for your critical letter on our articles
dealing with Dimitrov.
With respect, we do not think you are being completely
frank when you say that your letter merely asks for 'clarification' of
our position. You express - as you have every right to do -- fundamental
disagreement with our characterisation of Dimitrov as 'a pioneer of revisionism'.
In present circumstances, where no Marxist-Leninist
International exists, each organisation or party which aspires to Marxism-Leninism
must necessarily make its own analysis of the world and determine its own
policy on that basis. It must then consider with an open mind any criticism
which may be levelled at its analysis, and correct this analysis with a
self-criticism where this is seen to be appropriate.
In this spirit, we have studied carefully your thesis
that Dimitrov's political principles, in particular those adopted at the
7th Congress of the Comintern in 1935:
" . . do not appear at variance with the principles upheld by Marx,
Engels, Lenin and Stalin". (Your Letter: p. 3).
and our considered, collective response follows.
Revisionist Praise for Dimitrov
The first point which must cast doubt on the thesis
that Dimitrov was a Marxist-Leninist is the fact that the revisionists,
while denigrating Stalin, heap praise upon Dimitrov. For example, at an
international conference held in Sofia in June 1972 to commemorate the
90th anniversary of Dimitrov's birth, the Soviet revisionist Boris
Ponomarev said:
"Dimitrov's heritage in the sphere of theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism
has withstood this test, preserving its topicality to this day".
(Boris Ponomarev: 'Georgi Dimitrov's Ideological Heritage and Contemporaneity',
in: 'Georgi Dimitrov and the Unification of the Revolutionary and Democratic
Forces for Peace, Democracy and Socialism'; Sofia; 1974; p. 46).
while Tito sent a message saying:
"Georgi Dimitrov was one of those revolutionaries who constructively
applied and directed the teaching of Marx, Engels and Lenin in accordance
with the special needs of each country".
(Josip Broz Tito: 'His Thoughts and Ideals are still Alive today and
are of Topical Importance', in: ibid.; p,. 126-27),
In other words, the same revisionists who present Stalin
as 'a mass murderer' extol Dimitrov as 'a great Marxist-Leninist', Furthermore,
as the Albanian historian Shyqri Ballvora points out, they
hail the 7th Congress of the Comintern as representing a change in the
strategy of the Comintern in the direction of the formulations later adopted
by the 20th Congress of the CPSU under Khrushchev, that is, as heralding:
" . a new strategy of the international communist movement. According
to them, this new strategy was worked out more completely later, at the
20th Congress of the Soviet revisionist party".
(Shyqri Ballvora: 'The Historic Importance of the 3rd Communist International
and the Exposure of Revisionist Distortions of its Role and Place in History',
in: 'Socio-Political Studies', Volume 1 (1984); p. 149).
Ballvora holds that the revisionists are mistaken in
this analysis and that the decisions of the 7th Congress of the Comintern
were completely in accord with the principles of Marxism-Leninism:
"The 7th Congress of the Comintern in no way questioned the Leninist
idea of the leading role of the proletariat and its communist, Marxist-Leninist
revolutionary party in the revolution and socialist construction. On the
contrary, it stressed forcefully that the transition from capitalism to
socialism can by no means be carried out . . . without . . . violent proletarian
revolution and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat".
(Shyqri Ballvora: ibid.; p. 138).
But if this is so, why should the revisionists claim
that the line of the 7th Congress of the Comintern represented a change
in its strategy in the direction of the formulations later adopted by the
20th Congress of the CPSU under Khrushchev?
Clearly, it is necessary to examine the formulations
of the 7th Congress of the Comintern in greater detail than Ballvora has
done in the passage cited above.
United Front and Popular Front
'COMpass' has always endorsed the Leninist tactics of
endeavouring to bring about the formation of united fronts of the working
class around specific progressive objectives.
The 'Popular Front' (more correctly, People's Front)
is a different kettle of fish, since it aims to include in the front members
of the capitalist class and their political parties. Thus, Dimitrov welcomes
the inclusion of the French Radical Party in the French Popular Front:
"The practical implementation of this policy in France . . . has given
ample proof of the real possibilities of the Popular Front".
(Georgi Dimitrov: 'The Popular Front against Fascism and War' (November
1936) (hereafter listed as 'Georgi Dimitrov (1936)', in: 'Selected Works',
Volume 2; Sofia; 1972; p. 146).
which he characterises as a bourgeois party:
"The majority of these parties and organisations, political as well
as economic, are still under the influence of the bourgeoisie. . . . Such,
for instance, is today the situation in France with the Radical Party".
(Georgi Dimitrov: Report to the 7th World Congress of the Comintern
(August 1935) (hereafter listed as 'Georgi Dimitrov (1935)1)1 in: 'Selected
Works', Volume 2; Sofia; 1972; p. 36).
Although a Popular Front is a front which includes representatives
of the bourgeoisie, Dimitrov maintains that it does not represent class
collaboration in the usual sense of the term. He asserts that it is pseudo-Left
elements who are
". . . incorrectly identifying the policy of the popular front with
the policy of class collaboration with the bourgeoisie".
(Georgi Dimitrov (1936): op. cit.; p. 149).
But what is 'class collaboration'? It is defined as
" . . . the 'theory' and practice of reformism, which results
in subordination to the capitalist class; the policy that seeks
to harmonise, or reconcile, the interests of the capitalists and the workers
-- interests which are antagonistic and irreconcilable".
(L. Harry Gould: 'Marxist Glossary'; San Francisco; 1946; p. 21).
In other words, Dimitrov claims that the united front
against fascism constitutes an example of the exceptional cases where the
working class and the capitalist class have common interests:
"Under certain conditions, the working class may collaborate for a
period with the capitalists when the interests of both temporarily coincide,
e.g., during the People's War against Fascism, or in the colonial national-liberation
struggles against the imperialists".
(L. Harry Gould: ibid.; p, 21).
Dimitrov's Definition of Fascism
In December 1922, while Lenin was still politically
active, the 4th Congress of the Comintern defined fascism as the establishment
by the bourgeoisie of an open terrorist dictatorship in the conditions
where it has become impossible for it to rule effectively through
the machinery of 'parliamentary democracy'.
"INTERNATIONAL FASCISM. . .
The bourgeoisie . . . are . . . therefore resorting everywhere to the
creation of special white guards for use particularly against all the revolutionary
efforts of the proletariat and to a growing degree for the defeat by brutal
means of every attempt by the workers to improve their lot.
The characteristic feature of Italian fascism --
'classic' fascism, which has for the present triumphed throughout the country
-- consists in this, that the fascists not only form strictly counter-revolutionary
fighting organisations, armed to the teeth, but also try by social demagogy
to gain a footing among the masses, among the peasantry, the petty bourgeoisie,
and even among some sections of the working class, cleverly using the inevitable
disappointment in so-called democracy for their own reactionary purposes.
There is a danger of fascism now in many countries, in Czechoslovakia,
Hungary, practically all the Balkan countries, Poland..."
(Theses on Tactics, 4th Congress of Comintern (December 1922), in:
Jane Degras (Ed.): 'The Communist International: 1919-1943: Documents',
Volume 1; London; 1971; p. 421).
At the 7th Comintern Congress in 1935, however, Dimitrov
took over the definition of fascism adopted by the 13th Plenum of the ECCI
in December 1933:
"Fascism in power was correctly described by the 13th Plenum of the
Executive Committee of the Communist International as the open terrorist
dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist
elements of finance capital".
(Georgi Dimitrov (1935): op. cit.; p. 8).
It is clear at first glance that this definition differs
radically from the 1922 Comintern definition in that it attributes the
imposition of fascism no longer to a capitalist class, but to finance capital.
Furthermore, this definition attributes the imposition
of fascism not to finance capital as a whole, but only to certain elements
of finance capital -namely, the 'most reactionary', 'most chauvinistic'
and 'most imperialist' elements of finance capital.
But this is in clear violation of Lenin's
classic definition of imperialism as 'the monopoly stage of capital':
"Imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism. . . .
Imperialism is the epoch of finance capital and of monopolies".
(Vladimir I. Lenin: 'Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism'
(January-July 1916), (hereafter listed as 'Vladimir I. Lenin (1916)'),
in: 'Selected Works', Volume 5; London; 1935; p. 80-81, 111).
And if there are 'most imperialist' elements of finance
capital, then clearly there must be 'less imperialist' elements. In other
words, Dimitrov accords with the pioneer of revisionism, Karl Kautsky,
who characterises imperialism not as the monopoly stage of capitalism,
but as a policy:
"Kautsky . . . decisively attacked the fundamental ideas expressed
in our definition of imperialism. Kautsky said that imperialism must not
be regarded as a 'phase' or stage of economy, but as a policy; a definite
policy 'preferred' by finance capital. . . .
Kautsky's definition is not only wrong and un-Marxian.
It serves as a basis for a whole system of views which run counter to Marxian
theory and Marxian practice all along the line".
(Vladimir I. Lenin (1916): op.cit. p. 82. 94)
Dimitrov's un-Marxist definition of imperialism and
fascism also 'serves as a basis for a whole system of views which run counter
to Marxian theory and Marxian practice all along the line'. For if fascism
is the dictatorship of the 'most reactionary', 'most chauvinistic' and
'most imperialist' elements of finance capital, then there must be 'less
reactionary', 'less chauvinistic' and 'less imperialist' elements within
finance capital which are not pro-fascist in policy and so may
be recruited into a popular front against fascism.
The 4th Congress of the Comintern in 1922 correctly
put forward for colonial-type countries the slogan of an anti-imperialist
united front including the national bourgeoisie:
"At first the indigenous bourgeoisie and intelligentsia are the champions
of the colonial revolutionary movements. . . .
In the conditions prevailing in the West, (i.e.,
in non-colonial-type countries -- Ed.) . . . the slogan put forward is
that of the proletarian united front, but in the colonial East the slogan
that must be emphasised at the present time is that of the anti-imperialist
united front".
(Theses on the Eastern Question, 4th Congress of Comintern (November
1922), in: Jane Degras (Ed,): op. cit.; p. 388, 390).
On the basis of Dimitrov's false and anti-Marxist-Leninist
definitions of fascism and imperialism, the 7th Congress of the Comintern
took over the 1922 Congress's conception of the anti-imperialist united
front, which was correct for colonial-type countries, and applied it
incorrectly to imperialist countries.
The Formation of a United Front or Popular Front Government
Dimitrov's theses support the formation of a united
front or Popular Front government:
"A situation may arise in which the formation of a government of
the proletarian united front, or of an anti-fascist Popular Front,
will become not only possible but necessary".
(Georgi Dimitrov (1935): op. cit.; p. 63).
Dimitrov is somewhat vague about the manner in which
such a government could come into being. However, he makes it clear that
he is speaking of a government formed before the victory of a socialist
revolution:
"I am not speaking here of a government which may be formed after the
victory of the proletarian revolution".
(Georgi Dimitrov (1935): op. cit.; p. 63).
that is, he is speaking of a government formed through
the parliamentary process, as in France:
"The policy of the Popular Front . . . found a strong echo amid the
working people of all countries. The practical implementation of this policy
in France . . . has given ample proof of the real possibilities of the
Popular Front".
(Georgi Dimitrov (1936): op. cit.; p. 146).
Yet although such a government is to be formed without
socialist revolution, through the parliamentary process, it should
carry out a programme of revolutionary demands, that is, a programme
that makes significant in-roads into the power of the capitalist state:
"A united front government . . . should carry out definite and fundamental
revolutionary demands. . . . For instance, control of production, control
of the banks, disbanding of the police and its replacement by an armed
workers' militia, etc."
(Georgi Dimitrov (1935): op. cit.; p. 68).
It is true, as Ballvera says, that Dimitrov does not
completely discard at this time the Marxist-Leninist principle:
" . . . that the transition from capitalism to socialism can by no
means be carried out . . . without . . . violent proletarian revolution
and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat".
(Shyqri Ballvora: ibid.; p. 138).
In the 1930s, when the Comintern was still functioning
and Stalin was still in an influential position in the CPSU, it was impossible
to put forward within the frontiers of the Soviet Union a political line
which was openly in violation of this principle. Thus Dimitrov's 1935 formulation
states:
"Final salvation this government cannot bring. . . . It is necessary
to prepare for the socialist revolution".
(Georgi Dimitrov (1935): op. cit.; p. 69.
No one at the congress appears to have asked why,
if a Popular Front government had already carried out 'fundamental revolutionary
demands' which had changed the character of the capitalist state, a socialist
revolution should still be necessary!
The Decentralisation of the Comintern (1935)
On Lenin's insistence, the Comintern was a highly
centralised international organisation:
"All decisions of the Communist International's congresses and of its
Executive Committee are binding on all affiliated parties. . . . The Communist
International must be far more centralised than the Second International
was".
(Vladimir I. Lenin: 'The Terms of Admission into the Communist International'
(July 1920), in: 'Collected Works', Volume 31; Moscow; 1974; p. 211).
In fact, even under revisionist leadership, a centralised
Comintern was a significant barrier to the adoption of openly revisionist
ideas, since individual parties could raise objections to these ideas.
Consequently, as soon as the 7th World Congress of
the Comintern was over, its revisionist leadership initiated steps to decentralise
the organisation, giving individual parties 'day-to-day management' of
their affairs:
Lenin had in 1919 dismissed as 'a reactionary, petty
bourgeois dream' the concept that there could be a form of state intermediate
between the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and that of the proletariat:
"There can be no alternative but the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie
or the dictatorship of the proletariat. Dreams of some third way are reactionary,
petty bourgeois lamentations". (Vladimir I. Lenin: 'Theses and Report on
Bourgeois Democracy and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat' (March 1919),
in: 'Collected Works', Volume 28; Moscow; 1974; p. 463-64).
At the 7th World Congress of the Comintern in August
1935, Dimitrov had endorsed this view, dismissing as 'Right opportunism’
the concept that there could be some intermediate kind of state between
the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and that of the proletariat:
"The Right opportunists . . . tried to establish a special democratic
intermediate stage lying between the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie
and the dictatorship of the proletariat, for the purpose of instilling
into the workers the illusion of a peaceful, parliamentary passage from
one dictatorship to the other".
(Georgi Dimitrov (1935): op. cit.; p. 68).
By September 1936, however, Dimitrov had repudiated
this position and was presenting a state with a Popular Front government
as precisely such an 'intermediate state':
Although the 2nd World War broke out in September 1939,
it took the Comintern two months to publish an analysis of the character
of the war. This analysis appeared in November 1939 under the signature
of Georgi Dimitrov, who characterised the war as an unjust imperialist
war on both sides, but in which Britain and France were principal warmongers:
On the day of the German attack on the Soviet Union,
22 June 1941, leaders of the Comintern reorganised the ECCI so as to place
management of ECCI's work in the hands of a triumvirate of three leading
revisionists Georgi Dimitrov, Dmitry Manuilsky and Palmiro Togliatti:
"A meeting of the Secretrariat of the ECCI was held on June 22 (1941--
Ed.). . . . The decision of the Secretariat called for an urgent reorganisation
of the entire work of the ECCI apparatus. A group was formed, consisting
of Dimitrov, Manuilsky and Togliatti, for day-to-day management of all
the Executive's work".
(Institute of Marxism-Leninism: op. cit.; p., 479, citing: Central
Party Archives: 495/128/1335/1-3).
The Dissolution of the Comintern (1943)
In June 1943, the Comintern was dissolved, and this
was followed by the appearance of blatant open revisionism in the international
communist movement.
In 1944, the leader of the Communist Party of the USA,
Earl Browder, initiated the adoption by the Party of a totally
revisionist programme. He presented the agreement between the Soviet Union
and the Western imperialist powers at Teheran as an indication that inter-class
antagonisms had been largely eliminated, so that American capitalism could
be peacefully transformed into socialism by class collaboration through
the institutions of 'American democracy'.
William Foster, who was opposed to
Browder's Teheran theses, wrote to Dimitrov asking for his support in opposing
Browder, but Dimitrov wrote back supporting Browder:
In March 1946, Dimitrov publicly supported the concept
of peaceful transition to socialism, maintaining that
"in certain conditions socialism may be attained without an uprising.
These conditions now exist . . . "
(Georgi Dimitrov: 'The Young Workers' League must be a School of Socialism'
(March 1946), in: 'Selected Works', Volume 2; Sofia; 1972; p. 342).
The editor of Dimitrov's 'Selected Works', Spass Roussinov,
explains this change of line by 'changed conditions':
In November 1939, Dimitrov accepted the Marxist-Leninist
thesis that war was inevitable under imperialism:
"Wars are the inevitable accompaniment of imperialism".
(Georgi Dimitrov (1939): op. cit.; p. 449).
In April 1948, however, Dimitrov put forward the concept
that, as a result of new international conditions:
"a new world war today is neither inevitable nor imminent".
(Georgi Dimitrov: 'A New World War today is neither Inevitable nor
Imminent' (April 1948), in: 'Selected Works', Volume 3; Sofia; 1972; p.
227).
In February 1952, Stalin refuted this revisionist concept
of Dimitrov's, emphasising that war remained inevitable under imperialism:
"Some comrades hold that, owing to the development of new international
conditions since the Second World War, wars between capitalist countries
have ceased to be inevitable. These comrades are mistaken. . . .
To eliminate the inevitability of war, it is necessary
to abolish imperialism".
(Josef V. Stalin: 'Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR' (February
1952), in: 'Works', Volume 16; London; 1986; p. 327, 332).
To sum up,
Contrary to the mythology which international revisionism has built
up around him, INCONTROVERTIBLE FACTS CONFIRM THAT DIMITROV WAS A PIONEER
OF MODERN REVISIONISM.
You make the point that the Albanian leader Enver Hoxha
paid tribute on several occasions to Dimitrov as a 'heroic Marxist-Leninist
figure'.
Now it is undoubtedly true that Hoxha was a staunch
Marxist-Leninist and we differed from his assessment of Dimitrov only after
exhaustive examination and re-examination of the facts had convinced us
beyond doubt that it could not be reconciled with those facts.
However, it is necessary to bear in mind that in
a Marxist-Leninist Party democratic centralism necessarily
operates, so that it is not always possible to know whether an individual
member of such a Party -- even a leading member -- agrees with the line
of that Party or not.
It must be remembered that in both the Communist
Party of the Soviet Union and the Party of Labour of Albania there were
numerous concealed revisionists in influential positions, so that at times
both Stalin and Hoxha were in a minority on certain questions.
In any case, it is always dangerous for a Marxist-Leninist
organisation or party to accept without question the line of any
other organisation or party. This is illustrated by the nature of the influence
which the Soviet revisionists were able to exert on the international communist
movement after they had secured control of the Communist Party of the Soviet
Union. If the line of a party or organisation is correct, it will stand
up to any scrutiny; if it does not stand up to such scrutiny, then it needs
to be, and should be, amended.
It appears that you are suggesting that because the
PLA regarded Dimitrov as a Marxist-Leninist, the CL must be wrong in holding
a contrary view. We do not accept this thesis.
Facts show that the Cominform's characterisation
of Tito in 1948 as a revisionist was correct. When, therefore, in 1955
Khrushchev 'rehabilitated' Tito as a 'Marxist-Leninist', those who later
formed the Communist League were correctly able to characterise Khrushchev
as a revisionist and so to reject the line of the infamous 20th Congress
of the CPSU the following year.
And yet, after 20th Congress of the CPSU, we find
Enver Hoxha telling the 3rd Congress of the PLA:
"The 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union has made
a profound Marxist-Leninist analysis of the decisive role played in the
building of socialism and communism by the masses of the people, and the
great damage caused by the cult of personality, alien to Marxism-Leninism.
. . .
These incorrect and non-Marxist conceptions on the
individual . . . were developed and cultivated over a long period in regard
to Comrade Stalin. . . .
The great error of J. V. Stalin lies in the fact
that not only did he accept the praises and flatteries addressed to him,
but he himself supported and encouraged these anti-Marxist viewpoints.
The cult of personality and the leadership practice
of J. V. Stalin were marked by the open violation of Leninist principles
of the collective leadership of the Party, were marked by violations of
the Leninist norms of the Party. The contempt of J. V. Stalin for the norms
of Party life and for the principle of collective leadership of the Party,
the solution of problems in an individual manner on his part, the contempt
for Party opinion, taking even severe measures against those who expressed
a contrary opinion to his own, could not fail to cause, and did cause,
great harm, producing grave deviations from Leninist rules of the life
of the Party and the violation of revolutionary legality. . . .
He did not show the necessary vigilance on the eve
of the Patriotic War against Nazi Germany; he did not devote the necessary
attention to the further development of socialist agriculture and to the
material well-being of the collective farms; he supported and incited an
erroneous line in the Yugoslav affair".
(Enver Hoxha: 'Rapport d'activite du comite central du Parti du Travail
d'Albanie au IIIe Congress du Parti' (Report on the Activity of the Central
Committee of the Party of Labour of Albania to the 3rd Congress of the
Party) (May 1956); Tirana; 1956; p. 180, 181, 182-83.
Again, those who later formed the CL published in 1968
their analysis of 'Mao Tse-tung Thought' as a brand of revisionism,
and the CL basically accepts this. Although it is clear from Hoxha's political
diary ('Reflections on China', published in 1979) - that he personally
had been critical of the CPC for some years - then in 1966 the PLA itself
was still maintaining:
"The Party of Labour of Albania greets the Chinese Proletarian Cultural
Revolution which aims at fighting unmercifully against the bourgeois and
revisionist ideology . . . (Applause) . . . Under the
leadership of the Communist Party of China and Mao Tsetung's Thought, she
(the People's Republic of China Ed.) marches triumphantly ahead. (Prolonged
applause. Ovations). .
In the forefront of present-day struggle against
US-led imperialism, against modern revisionism, stands strong and steadfast
the Communist Party of China and the great People's Republic of China,
headed by the prominent Marxist-Leninist, comrade Mao Tse-tung (Prolonged
applause. Ovations).
(Enver Hoxha: Report on the Activity of the Central Committee of the
Party of Labour of Albania (November 1966); Tirana; 1966; p. 219, 220).
Indeed, it was not until 1978 that the PLA first publicly
criticised Chinese revisionism:
"'Mao Tse-tung Thought' is a 'theory' devoid of the features of Marxism-Leninism.
- 'Mao Tse-tung Thought' is a variant of revisionism".
(Enver Hoxha: 'Imperialism and the Revolution' (December 1978), in:
'Selected Works', Volume 5; Tirana; 1985; p. 649, 658).
Should we have waited to characterise Khrushchev and
Mao Tse-tung as revisionists until the PLA had corrected its erroneous
line on them? We do not think so.
Is there any evidence that, before the counter-revolution
in Albania, the PLA was moving towards an amendment of its line on Dimitrov?
We believe that there is such evidence in relation to the Balkan Federation
affair.
The Balkan Federation Affair (1948)
Prior to the Second World War, the Communist International,
in conjunction with other organisations, fostered the concept of a Balkan
Federation:
"Albanian democrats and anti-Zogites, including some communists in
exile, had come into contact with the Comintern and had formed the political
organisation KONARE (National Revolutionary Committee -- Ed.). In contact
with Comrade Dimitrov, this organisation had adopted the Comintern's idea
about a 'Balkan Confederation"'.
(Enver Hoxha: 'The Titoites: Historical Notes'; Tirana; 1982; p. 285).
The situation changed following World War II. Spass
Roussinov, the editor of Dimitrov's 'Selected Works', tells us:
"After the 2nd World War the situation in the Balkans was radically
changed. The peoples of Bulgaria, Romania, Yugoslavia and Albania embarked
on the road of socialism. In Greece and Turkey capitalism still held sway.
Under these circumstances this slogan became meaningless".
(Spass Roussinov: Introduction to: Georgi Dimitrov: 'Selected Works',
Volume 1; Sofia' 1972; p. xxi).
Nevertheless, on 17 January 1948, Dimitrov was asked,
in a press interview in Bucharest, about the prospects for the formation
of a federation or confederation of Balkan states. He replied:
"If and when this problem becomes ripe for discussion, the democratic
countries - Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Albania, Romania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia,
Poland and perhaps Greece -- will decide how and when such a federation
should come about. What the people are doing now, is, in fact, to prepare
for such a federation in the future".
(Georgi Dimitrov: Statement at Press Interview in Bucharest (January
1948), in: 'Times', 29 January 1948; p. 4).
However, on 28 January 1948, 'Pravda' came out:
"..In direct rebuke of Mr. Dimitrov, the Communist Prime Minister of
Bulgaria. Mr. Dimitrov has commonly been supposed to be as keen as Marshal
Tito to create a wider federation or confederation. . . .
'The editors of 'Pravda' . . . believe that these
countries do not need a problematic and artificial federation or confederation
or Customs union of the countries concerned. What they do need is the consolidation
and protection of their independence and sovereignty"'.
(Editorial in 'Pravda' (January 1948), in: 'Times', 29 January 1948;
p. 4).
On 2 February 1948, at the 2nd Congress of the Fatherland
Front, Dimitrov expressed Bulgarian acceptance of the Soviet line:
"The critical notes of 'Pravda' . . . in connection with that part
of my last interview which refers to the question of a possible establishment
of a federation or confederation of Balkan and Danubian states, including
Poland, Czechoslovakia and Greece, . . . are wellfounded and are a timely,
valuable and useful warning around possible inexpedient exaggerations harmful
to the People's Democracies".
(Georgi Dimitrov: Report to the 2nd. Congress of the Fatherland Front
(February 1948), in: 'Selected Works', Volume 3; Sofia; 1972; p. 166).
Dimitrov died in July 1949, and in December at the trial
of Traicho Kostov and others, the Balkan Federation proposals were correctly
described as treasonable, but no blame was attached to Dimitrov in connection
with the proposals:
"The federation thought up by the titoists and Traicho Kostov's group
had as its aim fully to destroy the national independence of the People's
Republic of Bulgaria, making her a simple appendage of Yugoslavia. . .
.
For the Titoites and for Traicho Kostov's group,
. . . the federation was envisaged as a true assault upon our friendship
and collaboration with the Soviet Union and the People's Democracies, an
assault upon the socialist development of our country. The economic and
political submission of Bulgaria and her enslavement by Anglo-American
imperialists was being aimed at".
(Vladimir Dimshev (Prosecutor): Speech at: 'The Trial of Traicho Kostov
and His Group'; Sofia; 1949; p. 512-13).
Hoxha condemned the plan for a Balkan Federation as
having the aim of annexing the whole of the Balkans to revisionist Yugoslavia:
"Tito was a savage anti-Marxist, a nationalist, chauvinist and agent
of the bourgeoisie and imperialism. He was a 'Trojan Horse' in the socialist
camp, in the international communist movement and, more especially, in
the Balkans. By seizing on the idea of the 'Balkan Federation' he aimed
and struggled to annex the whole of the Balkans, including Albania, to
Yugoslavia".
(Enver Hoxha: op. cit.; p. 287).
Since Hoxha was aware that the plan for a Balkan Federation
had been revived by Tito:
" in contact with Comrade Dimitrov",
(Enver Hoxha: ibid.; p. 285)
it is difficult to believe that Hoxha still considered Dimitrov, the
accomplice of the traitor and fifth columnist Tito, to be a Marxist-Leninist
hero'!
WE HAVE CAREFULLY RE-EXAMINED OUR POSITION ON THE ROLE OF DIMITROV IN
THE LIGHT OF YOUR VALUED LETTER OF CRITICISM, BUT FIND NO REASON TO AMEND
OUR ANALYSIS.
Published by The Communist League (UK).
See Also: ON THE COMINTERN
Cominterns, History of Three Cominterns Alliance
19
Comintern and Take-over of by Revisionism:
Stalin
& Comintern
Comintern, Dissolution
of & Revisionist Take-Over of
Comintern Betrayal
of the Popular Front
Comintern Second Congress; Alliance
5
Comintern Sixth Congress: & the colonial revolution
Alliance
5
Communist Information Bureau:
Cominform
Documents & Commentary by NS
THERE ARE MANY OTHER ARTICLES
ON DIMITROV REVISIONISM:
Dimitrov & Reichstag Fire Reichstag
Fire-Compass112
Dimitrov Georgii Alliance 12:
Dimitrov
& Bulgarian Revisionism
Also
see on Cominform AND ALSO:
Dimitrov & Subversion of United Front Tactics;
United
Front
Dimitrov & "Popular Frontism" Betrayal
of the Popular Front
Dimitrov & Bulgaria, Revolution & History of
Dimitrov
& also:
Dimitrov & Balkan Federation; Stalin's opposition
to:
Dimitrov
Compass
112
Dimitrov & Popular Front in France
Compass 112a
GO TO ALLIANCE:
SUBJECT
INDEX
GO TO ALLIANCE:
CATALOGUE
GO TO ALLIANCE:
"WHAT'S
NEW PAGE";
GO TO ALLIANCE: HOME
PAGE ALLIANCE