Dutt now leads his readers on to observe that “the same gospel of separation” is preached by “the most reactionary right wing nationalist elements” wishing to spread the notion of ”a ’third force’ independent of either socialism or capitalism” (p.15).
Having started by misrepresenting what the Chinese say concerning world contradictions, and going on to create his own “Gospel of Separation” and laying it at the door of the Chinese, Dutt tries to bring us by sleight of hand and the use of innuendo – to lead his readers to the conclusion that the Chinese position is really that of “the most reactionary right wing nationalist elements”. To support his case Dutt introduces the question of non-alignment.
There are, of course, certain countries which have adopted a genuine policy of non-alignment or neutralism. But this has nothing in common with the sham theory of “non-alignment” or a Third Force which is enunciated by those who deny the class struggle and seek to present the imperialists in a “reasonable” light. And the leading exponent of this theory, which in fact stands for alignment with the imperialists, is none other than Broz Tito.
At this point we would expect Dutt the analyst, who is rarely short of the apt phrase or telling extract with which to buttress his argument, to comment on the role of Yugoslavia in spreading the idea of a sham “non-alignment” and endeavouring to isolate the liberation movements from the international working class struggle.
Dutt could have quoted, for example, the statement of the 81 Parties which condemned the Yugoslav revisionists who “under the pretext of an extra-bloc policy engage in activities which prejudice the unity of the peace-loving forces and countries”. Or he might have chosen an extract from a speech of Nuritdin Mukhitdinov, member of the Presidium of the Central Committee at the 21st Congress of the C.P.S.U., on 30th January, 1959:
The Yugoslav revisionists, who are betraying the great principles of proletarian internationalism and international solidarity to further their own narrow, nationalistic and chauvinistic interests, are coming to the aid of the imperialists in their subversion of the Afro-Asian countries.
But we look in vain for any reference to Yugoslavia’s or Tito’s treacherous manoeuvring with the “uncommitted” powers.
No doubt Dutt was somewhat inhibited by the memory of the Krushchev meeting with Tito on 26th August 1963 at the White Villa on the Yugoslav island of Brioni for talks which, in the words of Soviet News, took place “in an atmosphere of complete understanding”. Krushchev remarked:
The identity of views and actions of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia in the international arena is an essential factor of world politics.
Or possibly Dutt has the even more explicit article in Pravda of 10th February 1963 in mind:
Yugoslavia’s stand on the main international problem – war and peace, peaceful coexistence, disarmament, abolition of colonialism (our emphasis), the German problem and a number of other questions – is identical.
It certainly seems odd that the Chinese who, according to Dutt, preach the gospel of separation, which “represents the interests of the right wing upper class elements of the national bourgeoisie who fear the advance of the workers and peasants”, should be one of the fiercest opponents of Tito, the chief advocate of this very policy. And odder still that Dutt himself omits, in a full-scale report on this most important question, all reference to the role of the Yugoslav League of Communists in this connection.