EVOLVING RUSSIA
THINGS have been going ill of late for Axis propagandists. Air Chief Marshal Sir Arthur Harris has been oelebrating the dropping of the first roo,000 tons of bombs on Germany by recalling Goering's assurance that no British bomb would ever fall on the Ruhr. Hitler, by his message to Mussolini affirming the certainty of victory, has inconveniently aroused memories of a previous affirmation of the certainty of the fall of Stalingrad.
And Dr. Goebbels, intent before all things on exhibiting Germany as the saviour of Europe from the terrors of Bolshevism, and still cherishing a hope of splitting the United Nations on that issue, finds himself faced with the sudden and utterly unlooked-for dis- appearance from the scene of the organisation which above all others typified the aggressive aims of Bolshevism against a bourgeois world. And, by a coincidence, for it can hardly have been more than that, some twenty-four hours after the dissolution of the Communist International was announced, Marshal Stalin was entertaining the British and American Ambassadors and President Roosevelt's special envoy to a banquet at the Kremlin, and giving as his sole toast " the Armed Forces of Great Britain and the United States." It was a symbolic act that reflected a solid fact, for relations between the three great Allied Powers were never closer or more cordial than they are today. The war has affected the general attitude of all of them, but however each may have moved in relation to other States each of them has moved steadily towards the other two.
That the dissolution of the Comintern, or Third International, will powerfully stimulate that process, as it has done indeed in the few days since the decision was announced, cannot be doubted. Little has been heard of the Comintern since_ the war, its head- quarters having been removed to a distant centre in Siberia, but there it always was, with the decisive and provocative articles of its constitution on record, for Goebbels to quote for his own ends when he thought he could gain something thereby at Madrid or Lisbon or the Vatican City, or even, by more subtle means, in certain quarters in countries allied with Russia. Even by sober people who troubled little about the Comintern and its activities its demise will be wholeheartedly welcomed, for it stood for acti- vities completely irreconcilable with the maintenance of settled peace in society. AT late as 1928, which was after Trotsky and his gospel of world-revolution had been defeated by Stalin, the Sixth World Congress of the Comintern laid it down that " The overthrow of capitalism is impossible without violence, i.e., without armed uprisings and wars against the bourgeoisie." That was fundamental—in theory at any rate, and who could say what the relation between theory and practice would be when a favourable opportunity for action offered?
The consequences of the Comintern's death and burial will be various. They are fully foreseen in Berlin, and Dr. Goebbels, as is customary when the Allies have achieved a notable success, either in the field or in diplomacy, has put out a succession- of explanations, most of them incompatible with each other. Everywhere outside the Axis countries,. in neutral as much as in Allied capitals, Premier Stalin's decision has been cordially acclaimed. The Comintern, whether active or quiescent, stood essentially for an ideological offensive. Through the orders it issued to the national Communist Parties, which accepted them without question, it has interfered, or at any rate looked like inter-. feting, to an appreciable extent in every country where a Com- munist Party existed. That has naturally been resented, in differing degrees,—not acutely in Great Britain, where a naturir tolerance would have required a force much more formidable than Mr. Pollitt and his friends could assemble to disturb it, but very sharply in predominantly Roman Catholic countries like Spain and Portukal. Feeling in Switzerland, which has to watch its Com-1 munists closely, was markedly anti-Comintern ; so, for tempera- mental more than any other reasons, it was in the United States while to Russia's neighbours, like Sweden and Turkey, the Comintern stood pre-eminently for those aspects of Russian policy which those countries viewed with the greatest misgiving. That the . Anti-Comintern Pact, on which the Axis partnership pro- fessedly rests, becomes meaningless when there is no Comintern to be anti is a small matter ; acquisitive aggression is much more potent as a common motive ; but it is a considerable satisfaction, and a not inconsiderable asset in the military and diplomatic fields, that a factor which created some reservations within the Allied camp, and aroused unconcealed suspicions in the minds of men like Dr. Salazar and President Inonii, should have ceased to exist. Premier Stalin's timely decision is an act of real statesmanship. It needs no better comment than Mr. Churchill's terse " I like it."
The question of the greatest immediate interest here is, of course, the effect the dissolution of the Comintern will have on the Communist Party of Great Britain, and in particular on the decision the Labour Party has to take at its annual conference next month on the Communists' application for affiliation. On the face of it one objection to granting the application should be removed, for the great argument against that was that the Com- munist Party was bound by the decisions of a foreign body sitting at Moscow. That contention now falls to the ground, as the Communists are eager to point out. But the question what the Communist Party of Great Britain stands for remains. Since Russia was attacked in 1941 it stands, of course, for the defeat of Hitler, an aim for which it evinced 'singularly little enthusiasm down to that date. Does it stand for revolution and class-war and the destruction of capitalism by force—holding, with the lately deceased Comintern, that " the overthrow of capitalism is impos- sible without violence " ? The Labour Party can still impale the Communists on one spike or other of a two-pronged argument. If they are revolutionaries there is no place for them in the Party ; if they are not there is no raison d'etre for their existence as a separate entity and their right course is to dissolve their organisa- tion, as the Comintern has done, and join the Labour Party or its constituent bodies as individual members. That reasoning may prevail at the Labour Party Conference, for opposition to the Communist application is based on a profound mistrust of the Communists and their methods. If it does not, and the Com- munists are admitted to the fold, their presence will clearly swing the whole Labour Party powerfully to the Left, with results that may mean a split in the enlarged party in the near future. But how far British Communists, cut off from the source of their .inspiration and stimulus, will be capable of maintaining an effec- tive existence still remains to be seen.
When all is said it is as an impressive Indication of the evolution of Russia that the dissolution of the Comintern is most significant. Russia, of course, today is not Communist. Her society is based on straightforward State Socialism, in which room is found once more for private property, some private trade and a wide differentiation in earnings, though private employment of labour is still excluded. So fundamentally have the doctrines of Marx and Trotsky been modified. But another modification hardly less important, if at all, is in progress. For the academia internationalism which for a time was current there was gradually being substituted, even before the war, a renewed consciousness of nationhood. To that the war has, of course, given a powerful stimulus, and the name of Russia has a new meaning to millions who till then thought of themselves primarily is members of Socialist soviets. Premier Stalin has been visibly guiding his great country in that direction, and if Russia can combine a _constructive and unaggressive nationalism with a sane Socialism and a capacity for co-operative internationalism the services she can render to herself and the world may be immense. The consequences of her evolution to ourselves will be far-reaching. We have just completed the first of the twenty years for which Britain and Russia have pledged themselves to work together in war and peace for the good of one another and of mankind. A study of the articles of the Anglo-Soviet Treaty concluded a year ago reveals the magnitude of the responsibilities the two nations have undertaken in common. In that connexion the old question, can two walk together unless they be agreed, presents itself afresh. Unless" there be a large measure of agreement they cannot. That large measure happily exists as between Britain and Russia. It is larger than ever since the disbandment of the Comintern. It will be larger still when a Second Front is launched on the continent of Europe. The two pillars on which the structure of European peace must be based stand firmer today than ever.
Previous page
