STALINISTS STILL
IN last week's Spectator the Soviet Communist Party Praesidium was compared to the French Assembly. The new elections to it, by perpetuating deadlock, carry the Parallel farther. The anticipated triumph of Mr. Khrushchev has not in fact taken place, and it is fairly clear that so long as the Praesidium has the final say, and remains vigilant, the Party Secretariat can no longer be effectively used against it as ItWas in Stalin's day. This in itself is a precarious position, but there are other pieces which can be brought into play. The most important, far outweighing the promotion of several 4hrushchevites to be non-voting 'candidates' of the Prae- "Mtn, is Marshal Zhukov's rise to the same position. His Presence represents in itself a source of real power of its own. The Congress was remarkable for very little in the way of Policy changes. It is true that an impression of far-reaching reform in the Soviet attitude was given by the repudiation of Stalin. (It is pleasant to know that those closest to Stalin think the same about him as the rest of us. But they have not repudi- ated his policies or his theories, except for some crackpot pro- ductions of his dotage.) What the lesser bosses disliked was their to submit to Stalin's 'individual leadership' and ending to speeches, as they, all did at the last Congress, with 'Glory 10 great Stalin ! ' (Khrushchev's speech at the eighteenth Con- gress ended : 'Long live the towering genius of all humanity, the teacher and guide who is leading us victoriously to Com- 11111nism, our beloved Comrade Stalin ! ') It may seem odd that It took them three years after Stalin's death to find this out, but lve, must remember that their survival was due entirely to their talents as yes-men and their willingness to hunt down and shoot Illy colleague who ventured a doubt. There have already been articles in the English press welcoming these statements as signs of a wonderful change of heart. One might have thought that a few deeds would be required as surety from men whose qualifiCations consist mainly of lasting out a twenty-year rat- race with little more than the odd scar.
For what is most striking about the pronouncements on foreign affairs is their entirely Stalinist quality, a compound of maniac acquisitiveness and low cunning. Several speakers, including Mr. Khrushchev, said that 'socialism' might come by parliamentary means in certain circumstances. Instead of leaving it at that and sitting back in the hope of seeing the flies walk into the parlour, they had to elaborate. The 'circumstances' turned out to be—as in Eastern Europe! Mr. Khrushchev did indeed say that the Marxist-Leninist thesis of the inevitability of war was no longer true. So far, so good. But When does it cease to be inevitable? Not yet. On the contrary, so long as 'imperialism' continues to exist, the 'economic basis giving rise to war' is preserved. It can only be prevented from actually producing a war when the 'peace' and labour movements in capitalist countries are strong enough to thwart their capitalists. This they can only do in 'united fronts.' To put it another way—war can be avoided if, and only if, non-Communist governments can be induced by Communist- led political movements to accept the Communist terms of the moment. Mr. Malenkov made similar statements at the last Party Congress, and indeed Stalin had been doing so since 1927. Communist speeches, especially about peace, have not had much connection with the facts of Soviet policy.
Repudiating Stalin is certainly the way to peace. This, however, will involve more than repudiating Stalin's habit of killing leading Communists. What is needed is an abandon- ment of his schemes to enslave the rest of the world.
Previous page
