e. Let us take the Programme of the

t defines the Party’s approach to this
ular question.

Aaa Communist parties are independent
ithe > Suape their policies with due regard
(a “Seed conditions prevailing in their
meres. They base relations between
2 a on equality and the principles of
4, tian internationalism. They coordi-
actions, consciously and of their
at Will, as components of a single in-
penal army of labour.”

iL clear-cut and unambiguous passage
if od tely refutes everything our ideologi-
My ouents are writing and saying today.

(

ality of all parties, for voluntary co-

nation of their actions and full respect
‘ a independence. es
Perhaps there are other statements
- XY our Party which depart from the
‘Mental principles set forth in its Prog-

jmunist Party of the Soviet Union and see .

Makes it plain that the CPSU stands for the ~

All these are perfectly clear and definite
statements without the slightest ambiguity.
And it is not a question of secret documents.
They have been published in the U.S.S.R. and
other countries in tens of millions of copies
and therefore are not difficult to obtain. But
let us proceed further.

The 23rd Congress of the CPSU in 1966
once again took up the question of relations
between the fraternal parties, of the princi-
ples of internationalism. “‘Greater unity (of
the communist movement — B.V.),”’ it de-
clared, ‘‘calls for the observance of the col-
lectively defined rules governing relations
between parties, those of complete equality
and independence, non-interference in each
other’s internal affairs, mutual support and
international solidarity. The Communist
parties possess vast experience in revolu-
tionary work, and none can find the right
conclusions for the problems that arise be-

fore them better than they can themselves.
-The CPSU is opposed to any and all

internationalist approach that had marked
all the preceding congresses was once again
manifest.

Our Party consistently carries out the
principles set forth in its basic documents —
the Programme and congress decisions —
without the slightest departures. No one can
cite a single fact that would bear out the
bourgeois propaganda fabrications. But
there is no dearth of facts of the contrary
order, confirming the unfailing observance
by the CPSU of the collectively worked out
principles of relations between fraternal
parties.

In his speech at the 25th CPSU Congress
Fidel Castro, First Secretary of the Central:
Committee of the Communist Party of Cuba,
said: ‘‘Our people take pride in their rela-
tions with your great country. These rela-
tions are a model of internationalism,
mutual understanding, respect and trust.
The Soviet Union, which has rendered help of
decisive importance to our people, has never

of the world, and in particular, in Western
Europe, on the other.

Here no holds are barred. Latterly the
bourgeois ideologues have concocted a spe-
cial concept which they claim mirrors the
present situation in the European com-
munist movement — the concept of
“Eurocommunism.”’ It would appear that
the West European Communists advocate a
brand of communism of their own, while the
Communists of the socialist countries stand
for something altogether different.

That this sheer fantasy is obvious. For all
the European Communist parties have un-
derscored time and again at their congresses
that they stand for the only communism
there is — scientific communism, founded by
Marx, Engels and Lenin. Needless to say,
each party, in full conformity with the prin-
ciples of scientific communism, applies its
precepts in the way best suited to the specific
conditions and features of their countries.
But this does not alter the main thing — that

*boatswain of the Soviet ship, Pola

2 meets the leader of the stevedore brigade in Haiphong harbor.

ADRV woman receives up-to-date training ina GDR plant.

ail

| tis. Let us look at the facts.

f Common knowledge that prior to the
lfties there was a period when the prin-
Sf equality in relations between our and
: parties was not always strictly ob-

- But it is equally well known that our
.,.uned such lapses and took steps to en-
3 at they should never be repeated. The
oe plenary meeting of the CPSU Cent-
i) UMittee unanimously adopted a deci-
i, Wtich declared: ‘‘In all our relations

tk with the fraternal Communist and
€rs’ parties, Soviet administrative and
} bodies and all our personnel abroad
ni 8uide themselves strictly by the
‘ist principles of socialist inter-
tins, complete equality, respect for
Iii, 2 Sovereignty and due regard to the
lal features of the various countries.”
as confirmed later by the 20th Con-
ae the CPSU. 2
as Veloping this line further, the 21st Con-
oe the CPSU, held in 1959, stated:
*€ are no ‘superior’ and ‘subordinate’
in the communist movement. All the
dng UNist and Workers’ parties are equal
iit dependent. All of them bear responsi-
Y for the destiny of the communist
s*Ment, for its failures and its success-
}, “nd further: ‘‘It is precisely because all
Parties have equal rights that they main-
hh, “lations of confidence and voluntary
eration, that they voluntarily and con-
nts Y seek joint action as component ele-
~SOf a single great army of labour.”

i. Itself, on its own initiative, strongly ~

le countries of people’s democracy, |

hegemonic trends in the communist move-

ment. The CPSU stands for truly inter-

nationalist equitable relations between all
rties.”’

Where then, is a striving for ‘‘leadership”
by Moscow?

The very same line without the slightest
deviation was confirmed by the 24th and 25th
Congresses of the CPSU. At the 25th Con-
gress, held quite recently, General Secre-
tary Leonid Brezhnev voiced in his report
our Party’s dedication to internationalism
with the utmost clarity. “‘We Soviet Com-
munists consider defence of proletarian In-
ternationalism the sacred duty of every
Marxist-Leninist,”’ he said. :

Attempts were made in the West to twist
the meaning of these words and ascribe to
our Party a desire to impose on the fraternal
parties something they do not want. But the
smear was anticipated and fittingly rebuffed
already at the 25th Congress. “Communists
of different countries,” Leonid Brezhnev
said in his report, ‘follow each other’s work
with interest and understandable attention.
Differences of opinion and approach to some
question may arise among them from time to
time. Hostile propaganda has repeatedly
sensationalized this. But Marxist-Leninists
approach such questions from inter-
nationalist positions, concerned about
strengthening the unity of the whole move-
ment, and discuss the arising problems in a
true comradely spirit in the framework of
the inviolate standards of equality and re-
spect for the independence of each Party.”
In other words, here too the same genuinely

made any demands on us, never set any con-
ditions, or told us what we should do.
Throughout the entire history of interna-
tional relations, which for thousands of years
were dominated by egoism and force, there
never were such fraternal relations between
a powerful country and a small country.
Socialism alone makes such relations be-
tween peoples possible.”’

The same idea was expressed by Enrico
Berlinguer, General Secretary of the Italian
Communist Party, in an interview published
in Il Messaggero ‘‘the Italian Com-
munist Party,’’ he said, ‘‘is absolutely inde-
pendent of the Soviet Union. There can be no
question of any dependence or of directives
of any kind. The Soviet Union has never
made the slightest attempt to tell us what we
should and should not do, not only as regards
our activity in Italy, but also as regards our
activity and participation in the interna-
tional working-class movement.”

This should be ample proof of the utter
falsity of the bourgeois propaganda smears
concerning the stand of the CPSU on proleta-
rian internationalism. It only remains to
ask: why do publications laying claim to re-
spectability publish deliberate lies?

_ The point is that behind the lie there is a
very simple political stratagem. The im-
perialist forces have long been casting about
for expedients that could be used to split the
communist movement, set one party against
another, and above all to drive a wedge be-
tween the CPSU and the other Communist
parties of the socialist countries, on the one
hand, and the fraternal parties in other parts

: they all are working towards the same ulti-

mate goal, and in doing so are guided by the
same theoretical conclusions and principles.

To return to the motives behind the
bourgeois theorists’ concoctions, let us see
what the notorious ‘‘Sovietologist,’’ Zbig-
niew Brzezinski has to say. ‘“‘For many years
now I have maintained,” he said in an inter-
view published in the Italian weekly L’Es-
presso on April 25 this year, ‘‘that it is in the
interests of the United States and also in the
interests of international political stability
(sic), that communism should become as
pluralistic as possible. From this standpoint
Eurocommunism is unquestionably a posi-
tive thing.”

And so, it is in the interests of im-
perialism, of ‘‘political stability,” that is, the
preservation of the socio-political status quo,
that communism should become “as
pluralistic as possible,’ in other words,
should be fragmented into the greatest pos-
sible number of factions at loggerheads with
one another. This is making things plain. Mr.

Brzezinski unquestionably throws light on

both the overall character of the present
political strategy of imperialism towards the
communist movement, and the sources of
the current campaign to misrepresent our
Party’s position on proletarian inter-
nationalism.

But no distortion can survive confronta-
tion with the facts of life. For life as it is and

the policy of the CPSU as it stands demolish ©

the falsifications peddled by bourgeois prop-
aganda.
— New Times

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—AUGUST 27, 1976—Page 5

a