-
u
a tLjs l
' THE REASONERA JO U R N A L OF DISCUSSION
Edited bv
J O H N SAVILLS and e / P . T H O M P SO ,j r s r r c ;
(] T ° leave error unrefuted is to encourage intellectual
immorality ” - MarxU»«me
-
llha Case for Socialism - Continued
In the second place, The Keascner has almost been drowned in
infancy
by the waters of argument about discussion it selft what is the
place for dis
cussion, how do ideas grow and develop, how can theoretical
controversies (which can never be decided, initially , by majority
decisions) take place within the structure of a party of action
where, rightly, the discipline of
majority decisions must prevail^
The contributions in this number from Ronald Meok, Doris
Lessing, and
Professor Hyman Levy show the very wide implications of this
controversy! indeed, the discussions around the rights of
minorities, and this unofficial
publication* have revealed a central place of conflict between
the needs of united, disciplined action on the one hand: and the
claims of honest and un
restricted discussion and enquiry on the other.
In this controversy, we have been guided by one main
consideration* the discussion must continue. And it must be more :
rank and searching than any at present Veing conducted in official
Communist .journals. For example, the Communist Party cannot
effectively pursue its aim of unity if Communists are unwilling to
enter an honest and self— c n tical discussion of the serious
criticisms of Communist method and thoory put forward by Socialists
who hold the general position of Profeasor G.D.i .Cole. The
discussion must take place across the barriers of party loyalties!
for this reason, wo publish amorur the documents in this number
certain views of two non-Communists, Paul Sweer r and Leo Huberman.
, interpretive of the Soviet Union, which pose questions which
Communists must consider and discuss. Further, we publish a
letterfrom Lawrence Daly, until recently a member of the Scottish
District Committee of the Communist Party, who has recently
resigned his membership cf the party. We regret his decision. But
is it possible to consider realist
ically the problems of recruiting, the need for a party of 5 0
,0 0 0 , questions of unity, etc ., if we are unwilling to receive
and reply to the arguments of responsible Communists who have left
the party on political grounds?
The discussion must continue; it must be honesti it must cross
party
barriers"! How thtT discussion shall be conducted; the personal
positionof the editorsl the continued existence of The Reaaoner as
an unofficial pub
lication - all theso are secondary questions.
X X X X X
It may be that discussion cf the right way to discuss must be
carried
to some conclusion before the uiscussion itself can begin in
earnest.
But let us be cloar what thi-j di^cujssioji is about. There are
some
Communists who are so concerned with urgont day-to-day struggles
that they
mistake the discussion for a distraction of energies. They are
preparedto admit full discussion on certain immediate tasks and
problems! and, within defined limits, discussion on certain
questions of organisation and verbal alterations of programmo.
Discussion which doos not have an immediatebearing on these tTask3
and questions they regard with impatience.
We do not agree with the view, implied by a correspondent in our
first
number, that individuals must cease political activity while
fundamental review of theory and policy take3 place. The shock of
the "revelations" had this initial effect upon many of us: but this
phaso is now surely passing? Events such as the B.M.C. strike and
the Suez crisis underline the fact that activity and discussion
must go together and strengthen each other.
X X X X X
But this is no argument for any limitation of the discussion.
Even questions of the mo3t general theory, such as the nature of
dogmatism, have the most direct bearing upon our political work:
first , because they concern
-
PROBLEMS 07 PRES DISCUSSION IN POLAND
(Translator's notej This contribution by Helena Eilstein was
originally pub
lished in Praeglad Kulturalny (tfeekly Organ of the Polish
Counoil for Culture
and Art) No. 29 , 26 July 1956. In its issue No. 30 P.K.
published a further latter from the author protesting against cuts
the editor had made in her .ar
ticle , and quoting in full the missing passages. In the present
translation these have been restored. The ambiguities, obscurities,
and contradictions are in the original - no attempt has been made
by the translator to tamper with the style or arrangement of the
article - with one or two minor exception*. The article reflects,
in the translators' view, the struggle between "the old and the
new" not only in the author's mind but also in the ranks of the
Polish Workers' Party. Phrases or words underlined in the
the translation were italicised in the original. A.
Dressier).
THE RETURN to democracy in our party and country, to public
discussion
of our national affairs, raises for Marxists a number of
specific problems.
Post-Stalinism ia a difficult period in tho life of a
Marxist-Leninist
party. It is a time of intense maturing of party cadrea and of
the growth in the political consciousness and activity of party
sympathisers. At the same time this is a difficult period of
re-education, of painful prooeeses of
moral revival.
In this situation a clash of ideas and attitudes in the party
itself is unavoidable. There are bound to be differences in the
level cf people's understanding of the distortions of the past.
There will won be differences in the degrees of sincerity and
enthusiasm with which people will welcome the revival! it is quite
understandable that there exist certain sections among the
followers of the party who adapted themselves to past errors - who,
to
tell the truth, profited by them.
Take, for example, this matter of the "cult of the individual".
It is by no means restricted exclusively to the sphere of ideas and
conscience.
This cult, as all other similar cults, created its own specific
priesthood which in its turn strove to maintain the cult as the
basis for its own exis
tence.
The creation - during the period of Stalinism — of the social
insti- tution of the "classic" as the universal^and
infallible_authority^yhoee ut- terano’eV must for ever determine
our s’olu^ions of theoretical and practical
problems, f i n d s its counterpart, in the material sphere, in
the existence of groups” '*’ dogmatists, drones of science, art and
philosophy - in 3hort, of a priesthood which itself becomes a real
force and a social institution of great influence. This priaethood
- as any other priesthood - can even
agree, i f need be, to the overthrow of a hitherto revered
deity; but it cannot agree to the destruction of such ingredients
of the "religionieation of
public life " as the sibylline books, the infallible oracles,
the excommunication of the erring believers, and the complete
submission of the faithful.
The struggle with dogmatism is first and foremost a struggle for
*the intellectual growth of the mass of the party membership, and
the sympathisers with Marxism - for their re-education towards a
proper understanding of the inter-relationship Of theory and
reality. But an essential and inesoapable first step is the removal
of dogmatic drones from positions of influence - from editorial
offices, from educational institutes, from university chairs,
in the countries of the socialist camp.
Similar considerations could be applied to any other sphere of
life , e .g . to the search of the party for methods of economic
management appro
priate in a people's state.
-
'-f
* DOCUMENTS - Dieouesion in Poland -Continued
. . . 1 * 7 'J l d , b e n , l v e * ° ' M " J‘ »“ at t h .
dictatorial, or.cular, pr..u.ptuous
s : . #L T S i£n l^ " s 8S"b :,coup r no“io■ciouslywheid
m&vba hv n i *■ oncept nowhere formulated,and con-
T T o i t r J . t r ^ £ ’t h V ~
to in flH ra t8blntoSth6,‘partySactivelt ' “st f " ° “ llou“ »nd
oareerl.t alement.
- ^ s j s r ^ ' s s s r . r
= ^ ■ £ £ 2= ~ r ? , r ^ S r w , ? -
th . n a «e 'r :‘ o T f n " b ^ y S ^ l a i f . r H “ * S * ? *
" " S i”
u f p ' T ”" 1” ¥ ^The recently initiated changes'in olr life
co“ u t “ . 1 ^ " S N ^ r t T ” 4,
*h° z \ 'r r bs s a w s i s s r a c?eth tt ~ -gariaation. The
great revival cf cur party ^ d ^ t a ^ L 'a t 'i ^ v l ^ h l 'y
aocompanied by a struggle of ideas and attitudes within the
party itself
5 S i " S ^ S . * 2 i ^ e ^ S ^ L T ^ I c t n y ^ ^ t r ’ dftfl0
i“ i ; •come in their own attitudes the distortions created by
somiTaapects°ofVparty
" ^ “ - ^ • u S U p S s ! ' 4
s ^ T ^ i S r f 'a r wear| ^ o r e comprehensive . However, not
alT I R i t t V . and tabooVVan’ £ - £ “
! r S f ^ c t ‘ L „ ^ : e ° ; ndS ° f th0se wh° ■*)8t welcome
and^pprcve
more t h ^ ” cniince o ^ e l v e T " t S e ' f ^ t h Y ^ * “
«■*»* " “ « «
» u » c S ° * i 81 f T “ ? must g0' fcand ln ^ ^ S r S J S ^ ^ S
a Ttempts at .t-aCt8 . fcates to criminal and
counter-revolutionary
o o m b a t ^ i l and1 revis ioniam! WhU8 ^ ° n ° Ur Vital
vorninIhth!BI t9r i s » \ °"ever> complicated by the fact
that the process of ex-
inff the nt i f’T>r̂ rS ° I P8St and their fatal , ^ e
process of reach-Pr«fer "to liauidate" ° f , PUbliC °P inion. i«
often abused by those who would + k v v t J* 7 0ur P168® ^ troubles
by silencing protest r*th«r
o L “E %“ f - ^ 9 n“ i0n ‘ ° ”aga a ^ l i b e r a ? , , u n o o
m S f o ^ g .t £ £ r i .J H ” ?? iifficultifla. This is the
pernicious Sttitutoof X S E
tEm»t?n« £ Jtly been aocused by official pronouncements of our
party of at- tempting to stop the process of democratisation.
Prom all these points of view this is a most difficult oeriod
for Marxint
of^etri^rle all, thi® the? muet re-learn the Leninist methodsa b
i l i t ^ S J n ^ n J Jeadinf . f ° l8 of the party in the nation's
life . . The ability to o o n ^ ^ ^ n c o i t i o n s _of freedom
of speech, the ability to put
L
-
/ DOCUMENTS - Discussion in Poland - Continued
forward genuine arguments based on the fullest acquaintance with
the facts of the masses, and not on concealment and political
deceit serving the "good oause"} the ability to gain influence in
the activities of various societies, organisations, clubs, in
conditions' of the true democratisation of public life- this is an
art, a science, and a system of habits which to a large ex
tent must be re-leamed and perfected by the party active at all
levels. . .
The democratisation of public life which just now is meeting
with oer- tain objective difficulties puts the party into a
position which Stalinism tried to prevent with all the means at its
disposal (weakening in the process
the party's political skill and flexibility ): into a situation
in which postulates can be advanced "from below" which the
leadership considers to be incapable of immediate realisation, but
the correctness of which the party lead
ership neither can nor 'vante to deny. And how the unity of
public opinion is to be achieved in a situation when Communist
3elf-criticism has given rise in certain individuals and circles to
resentment because we shut our eyes to altogether monstrous things,
because wo could not prevent them, because we
kept silent; it has created doubts whether we shall be able to
make up for all the injustices (at least for those that can still
be repaired) and to protect the nation against a return to the old
methods in the future.
These are the "dark sides" of our present situation. But the
essence of the past can in no way be encompassed in the wordSj "t
he era of Stalinism.11 On the contrary "the era of Stalinsim" i3 i
conaoious* and completely one-sided abstraction, an abstraction
which ip useful if in one word one wants to ex- press the complex
accumulation of errors and monstrous perversions connected with the
Stalinist methods of government . . .
And yet this past epoch belong to history as one of the periods
of the victorious struggle of the popular masses for a society free
of oppression.The post-Stalin period finds our country in a fairly
advanced stage in the building of Socialism . . . Irrevocable
changes have taken place in the economic basis of a society engaged
in building Socialism^ the political, economic, educational and
cultural achievements of a revolutionary decade have resulted also
in irrevocable changes in the nation's consciousness. Under the
leadership of the party great, docisive successes have been
achieved in
regard to the socialist transformation of the political
consciousness of the
popular masses and the creation of a real, not a sham, not an
idyllic moral and political unity of important sections oY~society.
Fundamental structural changes have already been accopted by the
nation. That does not mean, of course, that an intensive struggle
for the mobilisation of the masse3 around the party's programme for
further advances has become unnecessary. It only means that the
preconditions for such an ideological struggle are given; that the
party can wage a real struggle for mcFIYisatlon in support of its
pro
gramme in the conditions of democratisation.
Poxnan has shown how very neoe33ary thin ideological struggle of
the party for the masses is to-day, how indispensable it isTTo
demonstrate to" the
masses that the party is the only, tho true, the national
advocate'of their interests; how' indispensable is the ability of
explaining difficulties, of win
ning confidenoe ba3od on understanding.
As soon as the "paralysis o f f r e e speech" gave way to free
discussion between the party and the nation, Communists discovered
that they*"had to listen to many criticisms, not only about the
pa3t but also about the present, far-from-impressive, temp of
reform in many sphered of life and in many areas of the country.
All theso avalanches of harsh resentment, reproachos, and impatient
prodding to which the Communists are exposed have one
strikingly
uniform point of departure. All critical discussion starts from
a comparison of Commuhist practice with the idoal proclaimed by the
Communists themselves: a social and moral ideal the basic features
of which axe approved even by tKe critics. These people recognise
the new basic features in the Communist programme, the new economic
structure of society, and the new relationship between people . . .
Severe critioi3m of the activities of our party was recently voiced
in the columns of our press by people who, maybe, hafce not
much
-
36
DOCUMENTS — Discussion in Poland - Continued
to say for us Communists but who have quite unambiguously
proved, both at home and abroad, that they "prefer u s ", that they
have "chosen" us and that they are determined to stick to their
choice. It is not a matter of complimenting these critics but of
understanding the attitudes which they repre
sent. Against their errors we must wage an ideological struggle,
i .e . through hone8t and public discussion. But the difference
between ideological and armed struggle is~tKat the latter is waged
againBt somebody while
the former often is waged for somebody. . .
The conviction that these principles must as fully as possible
be realised in our life is not based on the assumption that there
are no longer class-
enemies in our midst who would exploit freedom of speech for
their own aims; but it i3 based on the assumption that if the enemy
puts his yiews in open dis-
cussion, we shall be able to mobilise public^ opinion against
nis demagogy. . .
The hypocrisy bred during the era of Stalinism presented the
ideological
unity of the karrist-Leninist party and the moral and political
unity of a nation engaged in building Socialism as something
embodied in the heart and
the mind of a single "corpus mysticus" (it was hypocritically
proclaimed that the "word had become flesh" in our country);
hypocrisy even succeeded in combining this view with the thesis put
forward at the same time about the shar
pening class struggle.
Unity of the party on theory, unity in action, the working out
of an agreed party view on current political problems (a metter of
course amongst people linked by a common idea) , and the moral and
political unity of the masses rallying round the party is real only
because, to say the least, such unity does not degenerate into an
idyllio " h a r m o n y of soul*"J becauseTt
not a*"miracle of unanimity in all matters, and attained at a
moment'_s_notioe Wm ouVVxcVanVe ‘oT views "or struggle of ideas.
The public discussion of
The problems "of our social life will often*TaTl to delight our
ears with the divine harmony of angelic rhoirs; freedom of public
expression cannot depend
on whether all people write'exclusively about important and
timely matters though everybody will consider his contribution
important, intelligent and
correct.
The introduction of principles of maximum public discussion is
bound
to lead to people (who objectively or subjectively are the
allies of the party) criticising the party ’ 3 actions in a manner
not always just or well-considered. And the Communists, while not
breaking the alliance, while not questioning the
critics ' place in the moral and political unity of the nation,
will nevertheless have to refute them for the sake of the common
cause and the strengthen
ing of national unity. . .
Maximum freedom of speech for our citizens will lead again and
again to questions and problems being raised publicly to which the
leaders of the party
and its leading organs will net be able to give immediately a
satisfactory reply. After a ll, they are not councils of omniscient
gods, but a group of the most experienced workers whos'e tasTTYt in
Vo study tno life of our society with the utmost application of
theoretical competence, based on their knowledge of the facts, in
order to work out and arrive at mature decisions. Characteristic of
our present position is the charging and synchronising of many such
"circuits" linking the masses and the leadership, but so far they
have not yet gone into action. But this, after a ll, is the correct
way in which
democracy should funct ion.
The errors of the period of Stalinism can only be overcome if
the party and its leading organs prove able to rely not on the
stifling of the voices
of those who have "evil thoughts" but on the ideological
strength of the Marxist front, on the continuous raising of the
intellectual level of its cadres} on its growing ability to
mobilise the membership whenever neoessary} on the experience and
skill of the leading party active to resolve doubts, to recognise
difficulties, and to transmit correct analyses convincingly and
without delay. The renunciation of the contempt - characteristic
ofStalinism - of the intellectual potentialities of the masses
(this attitude was much more widespread among the party active than
was its indifference
-
^DOCUMENTS - Discussion in Poland - Concluded
for the needs of the masses) requires now methods in the
struggle to estab
lish the authority of the party and its leadership. The
Stalinist method was based on the spreading of fairy-tales about
the good uncle or the devil who had abundant surprises in store for
the humble masses. But when Leninist norms of democracy are
observed and the masses are released from their
"aubmiesiveness", and are allowed not only to express their
gratitude but also their views and demands, the authority of the
leadership cannot be based only
on initiative from "above" to satisfy the needs of the masses
and to improve the methods of govern raent. It will also have to bo
founded on an attitude to criticism from "below" in accord with
party and state legality, on a
proper attitude to the postulates and projects that are an
expression of the political activity of society. A "proper
attitude" does not at all mean
that all such critical views or even those at one time or
another most popular must be accepted.
The authority of the leadership depends also on its ability to
convinoe the party and the nation of the impossibility of acceding
to certain
The Stalinist method of safeguarding authority was based on the
principle of infallibility . In the conditions of democracy, the
authority of the party and its leading organs must be based both on
the corredtness of their polioy and on their self-critioism and
ability to declare publicly that it has no solution to offer for
certain problems - that these must be discussed and solutions found
with the help of public opinion.
The otalinist method which reliod on treating the masses as
political adolescents, actually reduced them to that level. In
conditions of demo- cratisation the method of strengthening the
authority of the party and its loading organs must be based on an
appeal to reason. The first maxim of all systems of education is
that by appealing to reason, and only in this way, can the mind be
formed and developed.
—0O0-
AM AMERICAN ASSESSMENT OF THE STALIN SKA
(Vfe publish below extracts from the editorial comments, "After
the Twentieth Congress", in the July-August number cf the American
Socialist journal, Monthly Review, edited by Leo Kuberman and Paul
M. Sweezy. Readers will find the entire issue valuable, including a
"Critique of the Stalin Sra" by Anna Louise Strong.)
THE THEORY that what has been happening in the USSR is a case of
a socialist democracy correcting its errors is not satisfactory.
The problem here . . . lies in the idea of "error" a3 a historical
concept. Undoubtedly errors do happen and havfe a place in
historical explanation. In wars, particularly, crucial decisions
can often be traced to one or a few people, and if they go wrong
they can only be desoribed as errors which would not have been
committed if their consequenoes had been correctly foreseen.But in
making use of this kind of explanation, we must be sure that we can
pinpoint the cruc ial decisions find identify those who were
responsible for
making them. And we must certainly not attempt to explain
gradual and cumulative historical processes as the result of a long
series of "errors" committed by many different people, for used in
this way the notion of error loses any definite meaning and becomes
a mere substitute for serious analysis. . .
During the 1920s, the Soviet Union was a backward peasant
country with few friends and many powerful enemies. The leadership
was divided three waysi there were those who looked to a world
revolution for salvation (Trotsky),
-
D0CUKEHT3 The Stalin Sra - Continued
those who favoured going alow and hoping for the beet
(Bukharin), and tho.e
who oallad for a tramsndoua effort to develop the country ' ®*nd
atrerurth to enable It to oome through Whatever teats might lie
ahead (Stalin ). After bitter politioal atruggles whioh left their
mark on every
thing that waa to follow, the third group won out and pursued
its P * licy with ruthlees determination. The oountiy waa
industrialised at break
neok epeed; a vast educational program was improvised and
strained to
limitj dieoipline was literally forced upon a new and un* r^ * *
‘To these enda a huge bureaucracy was hastily bui-t up, andmachine
was kept in order and whipped on by a ubiquitous aecret police.
*
gamble succeeded. The great testing came in World War I I , and
the So
Union survived. But the time of troubles was still not *o
hburdens of reconstruction were added those of a cold war in which
the USSR, while no 1oncer isolated, was now faced with the menace
of unilateral atomic
annihilation. Under these circumstances the forced march under
“he d
line of the knout continued. Even the mastery of atomic weapons
and aainin* of a giant ally in China brought no immediato release
from strain an
hard on these events came the Korean War, with its
ever-present
threat to explode into World War I I I .
Such was th . Stalinist state at the time of the death of Stalin
jjillMlf.
It embodied a gigantic contradiction, in ^ . alns andfairly be
described as superhuman; in its methods and attitude towaratne
rights and dignity of « ■ . * £ £ « & subhuman. ^ ^ t o ^ t
h . matter
cond'indust rial p o w ^ with an educated citizenry and
surrounded by friends and
allies* on the other hand, it was govomed by the methods of an
oriental es
potism rather than of a nidem oivilissd society » i . «j thft
breaking point by three events of 1953 ~ the death 01 Dtaxi ,the
end of the Korean War, and the Soviet achievement of the H-bomb.
Some-thing had to give , and something did give. There was
apparently a shortIh*™ crisis which ended with the downfall of
Beria. T h e r e a f t e r the newi Â-pcihit) following the logic
of the situation in which it .ound itself,r a p i d l y set about
mending the country's international fences a n d redressingth?
hilance of its internal structure. The 20th Congress can be taken
as
an official proclamation to the Soviet people and the world at
large tha
is or the way to regaining its equilibrium and, barring
accidcr.ts,tends to continue along its present course for a long
time to como.
The essence of t h is theo ry is that "Stalinism" was an
extremely dynamic a fnnnrtlv self-contradictory phenomenon. Growing
up under one set
C o m p l e t e l y altered those conditions and thereby made
its own conditions, it completely alter ^ thQ 11&rxi#n thoory
0f capital-
S » S society whioh » • * C M i f l o T ^ o £ f t S l S d ’ i T
b S S .
requirements of further p ^ g ^ s e called not for „ ut
rath6r
Marxian sense of a caS^supcr-tructurc up to reasonably civilised
stan-
dards^^Conceivably* this might have entailed a political
revolution more or leBS comparable to J r t a i n bourgeois
Political r e f e ^ o f ^ e a r l i e r ^ ^
? 5 i S i ifstalin is^m eth o dt , but it also g a i n e d it ,
basic Marxian ideas
^ StaliaismjV0and^mhon S 2 * •• the l^adership S c J d iteelf
capable cf adapting tc the new situation . . .
How far. then, is the 1^b0X*Jî ^ 1^
vPe0everynrea3onOforabelieving that
viet world likely to go? 9“ ' It a lsH o n ta in s an implicit
war-the process is genuine and important, » w *ning against
exaggerated hopes or expectations.
' staliniem incorporated the ' S X i ncmendaci-ty, duplioity,
brutality, and above all arbitrary
-
COKRBSPOWPEHCE - T. Ttfvuo - Continued
Does anyene, even the bitterest opponents of democratic
centralism,
think the achievement of socialias in this country now a matter
of debate only? If so let them say so openly, but I refuse to argue
the point ser
iously here. I am merely going to assert that even assuming that
socialism will be achieved purely on the basis of victory at the
polls, we are engaged in a fundamental all-embracing struggle that
will go on for a very long timet that we shall be faoed throughout
this struggle with huge politics
and organisational problems, with the need for great flexibility
^
combined with consistertcy of purpose, and that we shall never
™the Conmunist-Party becomes the active day-to-day leadership of
the wor 1 .g class in all its activities, linking this with the
struggle for socialism.
In this struggle we need ideas, organisation and cohesion. No
deba i.g
society or anything like it could conceivably do the job.
Prom all this I conclude we do need centralism in the Communist
Party,
as indeed you do in any serious political party. (And which one,
when it comae to t £ test, haaj't got it?) As . natter of fact
centralism M l have defined it is very well understood throughout
the l a b o u r movement ir.
this country, and nowhere more than in the trade unions.the
basic organisational principle on which the unions have been built
up,
and they could not have been built up without it.
The only question really up for discussion is in ^aC* > not
have■hnuld have any centralism or not, but what sort of centralism
we should have,
and bow much. As to the type of centralism I imagine few w°
ul
-
CORRESPONDENCE - J , Lyons - Continued
Then our National Congresses oust cease to be the empty and
dreary parades that they have been of late and oust become what
they should be, bodies whioh lay down policies after debating them,
thrashing them out on
the floor, one by one. A number of procedural alterations are
required
to allow this to happen. But as with other organisational
changes the really important thing is the extent to whioh we use
them in the right manner.
To make the democratio part of democratic centralism work,
therefore, the indispensable requirement is the-unflagging
determination to make it work, organisational improvements though
there must be. This determination will be aided by an understanding
that the vigorous functioning of democracy is essential to correct
policy making and that in itself, when it comes
to be observa bis to those outside the Communist Party, it is a
reassuring demonstration of our good faith and sound principles, I
am sure that the Communist Party will never become the mass party
of the working class until it can plainly be Been that while it is
disciplined, centralised and self- sacrificing, it i 8 also
thoroughly democratio in terms of the experience and
traditions of our own labour movement,
«Yet it muet be democracy "plus", just the same.
J. LYONS (London)
DISCUSSION & DEMOCRACY
Heartiest congratulations on your initiative in publishing The
Reason- er. My only regret is that it wasn’ t done years ago.
The discussions taking place in the Communist Party are the most
im
portant in its history. Our. job is to r,ake sure that this
discussion re
sults in the strengthening of Marxism in Britain. This is not
inevitable! the reverse could happen - we could degenerate into a
sect like the S .P .G .B . This discussion will be fruitful to the
extent to which it draws in the rank and f ile , makes them feel
that its their party, that they take a part in formulation of
policy, that theory and policy are not just the affair of the
leaders. Once that atmosphere develops then you 'll get the
enthusiasm and the elan of long ago.
. Of course we want a party of 50,000j but wo want quality as
well ao that we keep all those recruits we make. In my opinion our
most important job is to win back all those people who have teen
driven out of the party or
resigned in disgust. (I could name 50 from Nottingham alone).
Then we'll have our mass party, mass in influence and links with
ordinary people.
To make this discussion as wide as possible and to bring in all
these
ex-party members I suggest discussion groups are set up in
*>very town. This way we will all have an opportunity to let our
hair down without some bureaucrat telling you that you're
undermining the leadership. *•»
PAT JORDAN (Nottingham)
-
CORRESPONDENCE - L. Daly — Continued
"THE LONO ROAD BACK"
The Beasoner fulfils a vital need at the present time when we so
much
require the widest and most thorough discussion - in a free,
frank, honest,
and serious way - of the fundamental questions which flow from
the 20th Congress. The anti-Stalin criticisms - whatever their
validity - have revealed deep divergenc ea of opinion between many
members of the British Communist Party on tte one hand and the
party leadership on the other.
These differences have led in not a few cases to resignations,
rightly or wrongly, from the Party. As one of these, I would like
the chance to say my piece, knowing that most comrades will rcspect
my sincerity; as I do theirs
It should be realised that misgivings about the party
leadership's attitude are not confined to what we call "the
intellectuals", though an attempt was made to give this impression,
here, when reporting the 24th Congress.
I am no "intellectual” , having been a coal-miner all my life;
and I have been a party member for 16 years (since the age of 15).
Others in this area who agree with me, including coal-miners,
cobblers, and housewive*, are as
deeply concerned as any "intellectual" with the political and
moral issues arising from the Kruschev speech. Their attitude is
simply expressed by
saying, ” -/e can't go round the doors and state an honest case
for the party
now. We A1.9, still playing 'about turn' when the Soviet leaders
sa/ so, and the workers feel, therefore, that we can quito easily
defend similar mistakes and crimes in the future as readily as we
did in the past. They will not trust us, unless we change our
attitude - and the party leadership shows no
• sign of doing so ," Such comrades realise that, whether we
like it or not, the mass of the workers are concerned about the
issues which were spotlighted at the 20th Congress,
and_,__inde_ed_, were concerned about them years before that
Congress took flace. However inadequate and hypocritical British
capitalist democracy may "be," "tho average worker does feel that
he has the right, more or leas, to express his own opinion freely
on political and other affairs, worship freely in his own way, get
a fair trial if ho is arrosted, listen to different points of view
and make up his owr. mind, travel almost where he likes
(if he can afford it) and so on.
Workers cherish these rights, however restricted, and have
refused to gave any substantial political support to the C.P.
largely because they feared that many of these rights would
disappear i# it ca;ne to power.
It would now appear that their fears were justified. That this
ha3 now been officially confirmed will make them more, not leas,
suspicious of the C.P. in this respect, unless wo can show in
futuro, not by words, resolutions, etc, but by deeds, that we
genuinely regret our mistakes; and carry through certain measures
to ensure that they will never occur again. The workers respect
Communists as individuals, agree with ?0jS of their policy, and
admire their militancy - hence the C ,P . 's industrial support.
But they steadfastly refuse to send them to Parliament, or to
organs of local government (with a very few exceptions) because
they fear abuse of political powor. It will be objected that what
they really fear is tho split vote and that
it is the "two-party system" which prevents the C .P .'s
advance. Those who do will have to explain why it is that the
Labour Party had substantially overcome the same obstacle in 30
years whereas the C.P. hasn't made the slightest progress in this
respect in 36 years.' Comrades ask, "Well,what should be done now?"
Here are only a few cf the measures which, I believe, i f carried
out would help to oonvince British workers that we had begun to put
loyalty to Socialist principles before blind loyalty to the Soviet
leader9t
1) Object to assertions in the Soviet press that the Soviet
people unanimously approve the anti-Stalin revelations, when this
is plainly untrue, (Inkoyan, "Some people took it badly" -
interview in India),
2) Demand freedom of expression of opinion in the Soviet preasi
e .g . for
-
C0RR3SP0NDENCE — L. Daly — Continued
those who disagree with the criticisms of Stalin. Why not the
same kind of controversy in Pravda, etc. , on these questions, as
there was in the Daily Worker?
3) Invite to Britain Communists, Socialists, arid others
imprisoned during ths Stalin era, in order to make some assessment
oursslves as to events in the Soviet Union, e t c ,, in past
years,
4) Demand an open hearing of the evidence against Beria (and
those executed and imprisoned as meribers of tho "Beria gang"). To
date wo have ouch less proof that Beria was an "imperialist agent"
than we had about Tito, Butf as with Tito, we have swallowed the
allegations against Beria without question. No lessons learned, no
real change of attitude. What' if Kruschev is the "imperialist
agent" to-morrow?
5) Request the publication of critical contributions from
brother Communists (e ,g , Togliatti's statement) and Socialists in
the press of the Soviet
Union, in order to develop the atmosphere of froc, frank, and
democratic discussion,
6) Call an international conference of all Communist and Workers
parties (inoluding the Yugoslavs) to discuss questions of Common
interest, and •specially the question of international
working-class unity.
In general the Communist Party must demonstrate in every
possible way that it will approach questions of concern to the
movement in the spirit of honest enquiry and respect for the facts.
No more blind loyalty, based on false conceptions of international
solidarity.
The operation of some of the above proposals at least wouid be a
first step on "the long road back". There is room for hope, but
only if the C.P. begins to show the workers by deeds that a genuine
change has been made. Can the leadership respond to the challenge?
My opinion is that it cannot, but I hope it will yet prove me
wrong,
LAV7RENCE DALY (West Fife)
v.%
LABOUR - COMMUNIST RELATIONS
The Tribune, reporting your first issue, deliberately sought to
present the journal as that of an opposition group in the Party. If
that were true, I would consider it a bad thing. I see however that
the Tribune report was incorrect, and was simply an expression of
the aim of certain elements on that journal, which is to
disintegrate the Communist Farty, However, I had hoped to see a
letter from you in Tribune repudiating the suggestion.
I am rather worried that The Reasoner seems to be supported
mainly by intellectuals. That is , o7""course, not surprising. It
is .the intellectuals sho have had to-*do much of the work as
publicists in justification of various phases of Soviet and British
Coumunist policy. But the danger of a split between workers and
intellectuals in the party on our attitude to our past mistakes
seems to be real. When arguing that we need to be self critical,
not only among ourselves, but to our friends in the labour
movement, I was attacked by party comrades as showing the typical
weakness of an intellectual, remote from the class struggle (as
though any open Communist during the Cold War period was ever
allowed to forget the
class struggle.') But more serious, the same comrades suggested
that the party's main political task had been, and should continue
to be, propaganda for the USSR. The conception of the party as
little more than a British- Sorist Friendship Scoiety is bound to
lead to the assumption that it has no
-
4 : .CORRESPONDENCE - Rodney Hilton - Continued
function in the transformation of Britieh eooiety. With this
attitude, our failure to carry weight a3 a political body in the
local labour move
ment is not surprising.
It seeme to me that the key to the situation, that is not only
the question of relations between workers and intellectuals in the
party, but also the wider political issues precipitated by the 20th
Congress, is the
relation of Communists to non-Comrcunista in the Labour
movement. The failure to make any headway on this question is muoh
more serious than the failure of our leadership and press to show
any positive reaction to the de
struction of the myths that have borne them up so long. R .P
.Dutt, analysing the motives which make Labour men suspicious of
Communists, wroto about democratic methods, the use of force, and
all the old subjects of division between reformists and
revolutionaries. But ho evaded the real point, namely that Labour
men and women who should be our closest allies and friends have
become convinced that we are incapable of independent thought. They
have concluded, with some justification, that British Communist
policy,
even i f made in Britain, was done under Moscow patent.
The point now is to prove that this is no longer the case. The
Labour movement judges our attitude largely by the party press, and
by this standard
little would seem to have happened. Surely event3 such as Poznan
should make it obvioua that sunshine storios about happy workers in
Karlovy Vary are no substitute for realistic Marxist estimates of
the progress - or lack of
it - made towards Socialism in the Popular Democracies. In fact
the Dail^ Worker and World News have become simply boring on the
subject of economics ̂IHTpoLitics in thVSocialiat half of the
world. '’Enemy'1 discussions about
Soviet and Eastern European trends, such as those in the
Observer, aro readable simply because they discuss problems, oven
though in an unfriendly way.
Our press admits no problems until they cause a crisis which
cannot be concealed, and consequently is incapable of discussing
then.
And so it is my hope that The Eeasoner, for lack of any other
Communist
expression of opinion, may perform the all-important function
osf a bridge between us in. the Communist Party and the thousands
who see the need for the British revolutionary tradition to be
embodied in a Marxist political par y.It doesn't have to be a
bridgo across which Communists leave the party, and it shouldn't be
a bridge flung out to seduce Labour workers from their present
allegiance. But it could be a bridge for ideas to cross abou- the
creation, in whatever forms, of the unity of the Labour
movement.
RODNEY HILTON ("forcestershire)
BEWARE OF ATTESTS TO STIFLE THE DISCUSSION
From various sources are appearing subtle threats that the
discussion
flood released by reports from the 20th Congress must not wander
any further
from orthodox streams.
The Daily Worker of 23rd July reports Bulganin in Poland
attacking
"opportunists Bnd wavering elements" who came out of their
corners inside Socialist countries and sowed their inimical seed3 m
the press, including
the press of Poland . . .
In Budapest the debates at the Petofi Circle have been praised
by the rnmmnnist nawaoaoer Szabad Nep as contributing "to the
formation of sincere public opinion to be l i W k S T t o , which
we have unfortunately gone without for vears." Szabad Nep continued
with the democratic viewpoint that
"People don't want' to l e the dumb extras of history, but
people who take a role*thinking with their own heads." Afterwards
the Central Committee of the Hungarian Communist Party attacked
"enemy, demagogic views expressed
-
CORRESPONDENCE - J . Johnson - Continued
at the meeting and declared that the Petofi Circle was a focal
point for reactionaries attacking the party.
Editorial comment in the Daily Worker on the resignation of
Rakosi contained the warning paragraph, "?n all Communist Parties
the greatest freedom of discussion needs encouraging and welcoming,
but freedom to tear parties a- part would be the denial of freedom
to all who wish to advance the cause of
scientific socialism and strengthen the party which ia its
organised expression.
Possibly it is true that there are "wavering elements" in the
Communist Parties and Socialist countries, but it is the leadership
responsible for many grave errors who share a great responsibility
for m y existing disunity and any further attempt at suppression of
criticism will only lead to the gap between the party and the
people widening.
Nikita Kruschev may get away with it when speaking in the Urals
but I doubt whether he would convince British people that the
quelling of the Poznan demonstration which 7/as under the slogan
"'7e want bread" was a crushing defeat for reaction. Here is a
clear example of our need to be objective in our policy toward
Socialist countries and while retaining solidarity with Socialists
everywhere, we must revoke sectarianism disgu:3ed 3s support for
the governments of these countries.
The Communist Party is , as we often describe it , "standing at
the crossroads". Our only opportunity in winning a following in the
ranks of the
working class .and its allies is by continuing the crea*
discussions unrestricted, boldly admitting and thon correcting
errors.
To build unity there also needs to be a radical elimination of
the con
ception, previously dominant at all levels in the party, that
those leaders of the labour movement who did not agree entirely
with Communist Party methods were either partly cr conpletely
reactionary.
I think that the most effective reply to any critics of the
existence of The Reasoner should be that we certainly have nothing
to lc.ne by debate, and there are the minds of the millions of
members of Britain's labour move
ment to gain,
JIK JOHNSON (Northumberland)
MARXISM ~ SCir.ICJ AND DOG HA
It is time we seriously examined our claim to be guided by a
scientific study of politics. Whether we drop the last part of the
!»;arxist- Leninist-Stelinist title or the la3t two parts uoes not
affect tho point
that we do claim to be in sole possession of a certain body cf
scientific knowledge and technique, *
I would make three points about this claim.
Firstly, Marxism is certainly the only science which in the la3t
hundred years has not completely changed its fundamental theories
several times. Modem physics, though it may have developed from the
physios of 1348, would appear completely unrecognisable to a
scientist of that date. It would be
universally admitted that modem physics does provide a great
deal more accurate picture of reality than did 19th century
physics, and the picture will be more accurate still in 2056, Any
science that does not develop like
this ia no more valid than astrology.
Secondly, a science develops by the constant examination of
newly-ob
served facts, fitting them into the framework of the existing
theories, if
-
CORRESPONDENCE — E. Sleight — Continued
necessary by enlarging or remaking the framework to fit the
facts. Sciences which aim at changing the world, as well as
explaining it , like medical
science or political scienoe, develop by constant examination of
results - "the operation was successful and the patient died an
hour later" is a grim Joke, not a picture of a soundly-based
science.
Let us, therefore, examine two recently-observed facts, results
of the application of Marxism in the Soviet Union. First fact - of
1,966 delegates to the 17th Party Congress, 1 ,108 were later
arrested on charges of anti- revolutionary crimes. Second fact —
"last year the amount of housing space per person in the Soviet
Union was only 23 square feet, which is only the equivalent of the
1913 level and lower than the 1926 level . , . the allocation (of
new building) is still largely on the basis of one family one room
with two or three families sharing kitchen and bathroom,"
It may be objected that these two unfavourable facts are
arbitrarily selected from a number of more creditable facts such as
the increased industrialisation of the Soviet Union in spite of a
hostile world. But I am in
terested in ends more than means. Industrialisation is only a
means to an
end - to higher profits in a capitalist country, to higher
standards of living
in a socialist country. If personal security and decent living
accomodation are not regarded as priorities in the aims of the
Russian Communist Party, I can only reply that the British worker
doos so regard them and I suspeot the Russian worker does too.
What is particularly disturbing is that these two aims have in
fact
been largely achieved, under capitalism, by a British Labour
Movement in the
course of its struggle, a struggle not guided by Marxism. But
they have
not been achieved after 39 years of woricing-clas3 power in the
Soviet Union.
Thirdly, even the most up-to-date and carefully checked body of
scientific knowledge often has the most dangerous effect on its
practitioners.
The scientist sometimes regards himself as a sort cf high priest
of revealed truth and expects ordinary mortals to bow down to its
splendour. So long as he can argue like thisi "I believe sc-and-so
is correct because this-and- that supports the belief" then he may
be a useful citizen with a contribution to make to society. But
when he begins to say: "I know this is correct because it is
plainly set forth in such a textbook on such a page", then he i9 no
better than the man who claims ultimate authority for the
utterances of a Pope or a chapter in the Bible. At best he is a
fool, at worst a dangerous maniac.
Let us not 3hare the colossal conceit of the scientist pilloried
long ago by our own Shaw. We Communists are not in possession of
any supreme knowledge or mighty weapon beyond those of "human
reason. There are no such weapons. Our reason - yours and mine and
all of us - is adequate for the task before us. We can only fail if
we cease to trust it.
E. SLEIGHT (Yorkshire)
A LESSON FROM HISTORY
The panic which seized upon all classes of men during the
excesses consequent upon the Revolution is gradually giving place
to sanity. It has ceased to be believed that whole generations of
mankind ought to con
sign themselves to a hopeless inheritance of ignorance and
misery, because a nation of men who had been dupes and slaves for
centuries, were incapable of conducting themselves with the wisdom
and tranquillity of freemen so soon as some of their fetters were
partially looeened. That their con- duot could not have been marked
by any other than ferocity and thoughtlessness, is the historical
fact from which liberty derives all its r»- comnsndations, and
falsehood the worst features of its deformity.
-
COBRESPON BEHCK - P.B.Shelley - Continued
Suoh a degree of unmingled good was expected, ae it was
impossible to realise. If the Revo-lution had been in every respect
prosperous, then alsrule and superstition would lose half their
claims to our abhorrence, as fstters which the captive can unlock
with the slightest motion of his fin
gers, and which do not eat with poisonous rust into the
soul.
I ’• ' ‘The revulsion occasioned by the atrocities was terrible,
and felt in
the remotest oomer of the civilized world. But could they listen
to the plea of reason who had groaned under the calamities of a
social state, ac
cording to which one man rdot3 in luxury whilst another famishes
for want of bread? Can he Who the day before was a trampled slave,
suddenly become liberal-minded, forbearing, and independent? , This
is the consequence
of the,.habits of a state of society to be produced by resoluto
perseverance anjjl‘ indefatigable hope, and long-suffering and
long-believing courage, and the systematic efforts of generations
of men of intolloct and virtue. Such
ia the lesson which experience teaclres now.
But on the first reverses of hope in the progfess of liberty,
the san
guine eagerness for good overleapt the solution of these
questions, and for
a time extinguished itself in the unexpectedness of their
result. Thus many of the most ardent of the worshippers of public
good have been morally ruined, by what a partial glimpse of the
events they deplored, appeared to
ahow as the melancholy desolation of all their cherished
hopes.
Hence gloom and misanthropy have become the characteristics of
the age in which wc live, the Solace of a disappointment that
unconsciously
finds relief only in the wilful exaggeration of its own despair.
This influence has tainted the literature of the age with the
hopelessness of
the minds from which it flows. Metaphysics, and inquiries into
moral and
political science, have become little else than vain attempts to
revive exploded superstitions, or sophisms calculated to lull the
oppressors of mankind into a security of everlasting triumph. Our
works of fiction and
poetry have been overshadowed by the same infectious gloom. But
mankind appear to me to be emerging from their trance, I am aware
of a slow,
gradual, silent change.
P3RCY BYSSHE SHELLEY (Parnassus)
P .S , I send these reflections, which I wrote in the Preface to
my ''Revolt
of Islam" in 1817. The parallel between the French and Russian
upheavalsis not closet but I thought they might be of use in
characterising those features of revolutionary disillusionment in
the culture of your time, and in warning against those revulsions
of disappointed hope which can only lead
on to states of mind beneficial to the oppressors of
mankind.
"We had fed the heAft on fantasies,
The heart’ s grown brutal from the fare;
More substance in our enmities
Than in our love . . . "
W. B.Yeate
-
m« • v
/ . . . - . > . * ̂
̂ Th» Cm ® for Socialism - Continued
the very processes by which we interpret reality, decide policy,
and conduct discussion. eecond, because they have important
bearings upon the political relatione of Communists with the labour
movement,
I » /S*- -• . • . • •' *
Questions of general attitude, good faith, political honesty,
and party history, even when they have no obvious bearing qp the
immediate po- l^t_^oal line, can oe of the first importance in our
political, aeTwell as
personal, relations with people. tfhen Engels condemned the
early S.JD.F. it was not because of major disagreements with its
political line, but as a result of the abstract, didactic
opportunism revealed in its approaoh to the working-classi "People
who pa33 as orthodox Marxists have turned our ideas of movement
into a fixed dogma to be learnt by heart . . . and appear
as pure sects." And William Morris elevated the same question of
attitude to a similar level of political importance* ' • *‘ ‘.J f
y* ‘ i * k 1 r t V ' • . .
"I sometimes have a vision of a real Socialist Party at once
united and free , . , but the S .D .F . stands in the way. Although
the individual
member** are good fellows enough . . . the society has got a
sort of pod- antic tone of arrogance and lack of generosity, whioh
is disgusting and does disgust both Socialists and
Non-Socialists."
The Communist Party does not share the faults of the early S.
D.F. , nor does it express its sectarianism in the same way or to
the same degree* certain aspects of sectarianism are the inevitable
result of isolation during the Cold War, and will be shed not
through discussion but through breaking
this isolation, through activity among the peoplei but
discussion will hasten this process and is necessary to it .
I X X X X
This is not the heart of the question. The discussion, surely,
is first and foremost about Socialism? Second, it is about the
political hon- esty, independence, and effectivenes3 of the
Communist Party as a party capable of leading the British people to
Socialism.
British Communists have taken note of Engels* warnings against
purism and abstract propagandist sects: have studied Left-Wing
Communism, and have
learnt from Lenin that Communists must carry on activities
"right in the heart of the proletarian masses", participating in
every struggle for loving staii- dards, peace, and social
advance.
But in place of the clear analysis of imperialism, the
agitational explanation of the Socialist alternative, which Engels
and Lenin, Morris and Tom Mann, knew must be carried on alongside
and in the heart of every struggle, we have increasingly
substituted, for the first , an over-simplified myth of the "two
camps", and for the second, utopian propaganda about the Soviet
Union as the land of Socialism-realised.
Communists have won industrial strength through the courage,
milixancy and intelligence of their members in day-to-day
struggles* but the Communist Party has failed to emerge as a
political influence corresponding to the energy and quality of its
membership - despite repeated betrayals both of working-class
intorests and of Socialist principles by reformist Labour leaders -
precisely because the British people did not believe or trust this
central political message.
Into thia situation there comes the speech of Kruschev, setting
out in all its grotesque barbarity the political distortions and
violations of human rights which have taken place - and which we
have for so long denied -
-
The Case for Socialism “ Continued
IB th . country which, to a great degree, we t«r . » ? * J . £ .
0Urfor th* explanation of Soolalism In general and in ritiah
terms.
For months Communists have been seeking to disentangle many
thos. deriving from specific “ « J “ » S U o t snd threat,
tut ional fem e, those deriving < 1
individual lsadarsi those o r g a n .sn.iona ^ a-tAd in ths
theory snd practice■Stalin era' which have in their turn been
reflected inof other Communist Parties. Wo have now reached a point
whe re , ag , u
standing of the essential character of Sooiallet J ° ° ley 0
f=achieving an under-
M S .^ ?£ S 5?&r-»rrss8: ss.problems, our own
traditions.
To sunreat that we have now "had" the discussion, that this or
that To o fjQ r.mo that ww c'an forscet these unpleasant
ststement "answers” these problems, that we can forge ^ ^ ^
matters and return to our old tasks in tne old way,
cialist theory itself.
So C o m m u n i s t Party, no party aiming at socialism, ^
thusiasm of i t s members if there is t o be ^ m hibi on cl s _
,
x : s r . : & M r r r 0: £ & , - « * . . « . * i .
why discussion of "the Stalin businoss" must and will go on.
s r r . thiV r * r ^ : . s i s s
day-to-day struggles,that the K ruschev r e v e l a t io n s - w
h i l e it i s ru do not
which only the Soviet people can ^ “ a f f e c t the whole p o l
i t i c a l
8tandingeof°theBriti8hCommuni8t Party, and its. relations with
the British
p e o p le .
A reader from Ql&sgow expresses thisi
. , „ hriaflv One lives in a Lancashire••Two people have ^ n t l
y p u t^t Jriefly. wQre 8 ing about the
E S 2 ?
datum of the discussion i . that we ^ T ^ a ^ - C political and
economic change among people who r g to use
tolerjnoe end a kindly c o n t e m p t .^ » J J ere.a ^ ^ ^
“d o i n g ‘ he d U e ^ r k i n v a d e Union, and other
organisations."
This is not an Issue of sudden origin, B o r ^ i t
blow over". It is ridiculous o aay a that they are concerned,
andearned with 'the Stalin business’ . ” The fact thax xn y ^ ^
were ooncerned long before the 20th , infiuenoe - goes to
themuniat - often with wide respect and industrial inriueno
-
-The Case for Socialism - Continued
5
polls. So long aa the British workers auspect the independence,
the honesty, and the authoritarian tendencies of the Communist
Party, this discrepancy between industrial and political influence
is likely to remain.
The records of any T .U .C . or Labour Party Conference during
the past
ten years show how "the Stalin business" has been used by
reformist leaders
to divide the movement, and how the quarrel about human rights
and liberties, in which more than once we have taken the wrong
side, has become embedded in the history and even in the structure
of our labour movement.
Nor have the Kruschev revelations in any sense "re-habilitated"
Communists on those questions where we have been mistaken; although
they have created a situation within which, if we ourselves draw
the right lessons arid take the right initiatives, we can regain
our honesty and independence of judgement and action.
But "the Stalin business" is here to stay. It will not be
forgotten next year nor in ten years time. At the worst, the
capitalist .class will see to that. Nor will Communists, in ten
years time, be able to look with indifference upon those aspects of
the history of the first Socialist re
volution which destroyed - by torture, death, and slander - many
of its
own best sons. The "business" is part of Socialist historyi it
forms acentral experience to which Socialist theory must constantly
return.
So long as we refuse to face these faots, honestly and publicly,
we are self-defeated in our work, and the return from every
political action of Communists is diminished. ’ Fine comrades will
redouble their efforts and expend their energies in day-to-day
struggles: they will succeed in allev
iating suffering here, and in restraining imperialism there: but
few results will accrue in the deepened political consciousness of
the British people and the direct political influence of the party.
The goal of Socialism will be
brought little nearer.
X X X X X
What is necessary?
First, we must jerk our explanation and agitation for
Socialism
sharply out of the old ruts of pro-3oviet propaganda: we must
dissociate our propaganda of fraternal solidarity with the people
of the Soviet Union,
our explanation of their problems and achievements, from the old
uncritical acceptance of particular leaders, particular actions,
particular forms of
political and social expression.
Second, we must re-create - and first of all within ourselves
and our party - a much clearer understanding of the character of
Socialist society, not only in its economic basis but also in its
social relations and polit
ical institutions, and in relation to contemporary British
conditions. This
is not at all a quostion of writing certain democratic
safeguards into our
programme. It is a question of rekindling enthusiasm and
imaginative understanding, of commencing an analysis of social
reality with fresh eyes and open
minds.
Third, we must take our refreshed Socialist understanding, and
carry the agitation for Socialism in Britain into the heart of
every day-to-d*y-#
struggle, rai-sing the question of Socialism with a new bite,
urgency and confidence! • not as a peroration to our speeches, nor
as a gleam to warm our hearts in a hopeless timei not as the
ultimate target blue in the distance beyond foothills of new Labour
Governments and People's Governments:
but as a practical, common-sense, desirable, and (within
political reason) immediste pbssibility.
X X X X X
-
Collection Number: AD1812
RECORDS RELATING TO THE 'TREASON TRIAL' (REGINA vs F. ADAMS AND
OTHERS ON CHARGE OF HIGH TREASON, ETC.), 1956 1961 TREASON TRIAL,
1956 1961
PUBLISHER: Publisher:- Historical Papers, University of the
Witwatersrand Location:- Johannesburg ©2012
LEGAL NOTICES:
Copyright Notice: All materials on the Historical Papers website
are protected by South African
copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, or otherwise published in any format,
without the prior written permission of the copyright owner.
Disclaimer and Terms of Use: Provided that you maintain all
copyright and other notices contained therein, you may download
material (one machine readable copy and one print copy per
page) for your personal and/or educational non-commercial use
only.
People using these records relating to the archives of
Historical Papers, The Library, University of the
Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, are reminded that such records
sometimes contain material which is uncorroborated, inaccurate,
distorted or untrue. While these digital records are true
facsimiles of the
collection records and the information contained herein is
obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable,
Historical Papers, University of the Witwatersrand has not
independently
verified their content. Consequently, the University is not
responsible for any errors or omissions and
excludes any and all liability for any errors in or omissions
from the information on the website or any related information on
third party websites accessible from this website.
This document is part of a private collection deposited with
Historical Papers at The University of the
Witwatersrand.