DEMAND RELEASE OF ISMAEL FRIAS
Ismael Frias, a well-known Peruvian Trotskyist leader, was’ arrested by the political police May 29 together with two leaders . of the metal workers union, Oswaldo Walderramane and Alejandro Vento,
The arrests were among those following the suspension of constitutional guarantees decreed by the Belatinde government on the excuse that this was required by the tense situation in Lima after police fired on spectators at the national sports stadium, [See World Outlook May 29.]
The immediate reason for the arrest of Frias, Walderramane and Vento appears to be their connection with a successful strike conducted by the metal workers and with a strike of bank employes which was still under way at the end of May.
Révolution Africaine, the Algiers weekly to which Ismael Frias contributed during a stay of some months in Algeria, has pro~ tested the arrests and demanded the immediate release of all the political prisoners in Peru, including Hugo Blanco, the outstanding Trotskyist peasant leader who is still in prison at Arequipa.
RUMANIA TURNS AWAY FROM THE COMECON
By E. Germain
The British liberal bourgeois daily The Guardian published extensive excerpts June 16 from an article in the authoritative Rumanian economic weekly Viata Economica [Economic Life] that openly accuses the Soviet bureaucracy of trying to "dismember Rumania" through "supra=national economic plans" of the COMECON [Council for Mutual Eoonomic Aid, the body designed to co-ordinate economic rela. tions and economic planning among the European workers states], _ Through this article the conflict between the Soviet and Rumanian bureaucracies has been publicly acknowledged in a way that leaves no doubt that the Bucharest leaders intend to take their case against Khrushchev to the Rumanian people.
Formally, the Viata Economica article. is only a polemio against an article by the Soviet economist Professor Y.B.Valev that appeared in an obscure Soviet academic journal, the Moscow Univer~ sity Herald, Professor Valev proposed the establishment of a “Lower Danube economic complex" in a sector cutting across the frontiers of Bulgaria, the USSR and the most important economic regions of Rumania. This. would include the Ploesti.oil center, the steel plants of Galat, the most fertile agricultural parts of the. Dobrudja,.and the capital city of Bueharest,
. — Qu
- While acknowledging the "“asademic freedom" of Professor: Valev. to set forth his views, the Viata Economica article expresses astonishment at their endorsement" by a university journal, particularly” since they "disregard Rumania's sovereignty and propose the dismem berment of her territory and national economy, © In..other words, the: Bucharest leaders accuse Khrushchev of endorsing Valev!s. opinions and of plotting the dismemberment of Rumania with the help of "groups. of men, divorced from the people, with no patriotic sentiments and no loyalty to Marxism-Leninism and ‘to the real interests. of the Social ist camp,"
At first “sight it might appear that this dispute : is - only a case of the Rumanian bureaucracy espousing narrow economic nationalism.and opposing progressive international planning as proposed by ~ the COMECON and the Soviet Union, . Marxists, ‘of course, know that the world's productive forces have long since outgrown’ the constrictive borders of the national state. One of the many crimes of Stalin and the Soviet bureaucracy ‘after World War -II. was..to transfer the theory of "socialism in one country" to each of the East European states, where capitalism had been overthrown: by bureaucratic-military means, "and to set up "national" bureaucracies, strictly controlled by the Kremlin and committed to the absurd enterprise of building. a selfsufficient "socialist" economy in each country. Today ‘the chickens: : seem to have come home to roost, if we:are to believe appearances, and Moscow faces the consequences -of the economic nationalism which it was guilty of fostering in Rumania in the first place.
There is, of course, a grain of truth-in this interpretation of ‘the conflict between Rumania and the Kremlin, But it leaves out of account ‘two essential features of the | situation.
If Marxists are. in favor of international planning: and a division of labor among workers states, itis only on condition that. it meets with the approval of the peoples involved. Marxists reject all attempts to impose such measures by bureaucratic, administrative means, <A “Lower Danube economic complex" -- if it is economically . advisable -~ would have to be democratically conducted by the inhabitants of the region itself and not by technacrats in Moscow or War--saw, Restructuration of the Balkans along lines of “economic regions" makes sense only within the framework of a Socialist Balkan Federation that safeguards the rights of all the nationalities involved ane does not strengthen some states at the expense of others, oe
All attempts to impose "supra~national plaming" by bureaucratic~administrative means can only provoke strong opposition, not: only among the bureaucracies but also among the peoples involved; it can only strengthen political and economic nationalism and give | ita } powerful popular base.
This holds all the more so inasmuch as international economic collaboration and planning among workers states, in order to be acceptable to the workers and peoples concerned, must not only be
based upon popular consent and. selfeadministration, but also upon the strictest equality. As Lenin so often pointed out: precisely in multinational institutions or structures, the slightest suspicion of inequality, the slightest indication that a “big" nation intends to continue exploiting a "small" one, means inevitable ruin and col-_ lapse for the enterprise and justifies any reaction of the "small nation to break loose from the bonds tmposed upon it.
It is self-evident that in the case of Rumania we are oonfronted with precisely such a case of unequal economic relations between workers states, imposed by the Soviet bureaucracy. The article in Viata Economica points out among other things that the "Lower Danube economic complex" would receive 72% of its electrical | power from Rumania, 21% from Bulgaria and only 7% from the Soviet Union, while expenditures would not at all be. ‘in proport lon to: these contributions,
The “Lower Danube economic complex" plan is only part of a more general attempt by the Soviet bureaucracy to impose forms of an international division of-:labor on Rumania which would freeze that country in its agricultural status.as an exporter of foodstuffs and raw materials, The vice-premier of the Rumanian government, Alexandru Birladeanu made clear in an interview granted to the Ger~ man AP correspondent in Bucharest on June 14 that fundamental differences exist between the: Kremlin-dictated COMECON line and the Rumanian government,
Marxists are aware that international trade based upon world market prices implies unequal exchanges, i.ee., the exploitation of economically backward countries by the advanced . ones. More labor of the former is exchanged against less labor of the latter, Trade between COMECON countries happens to be’ based on world market prices, Any attempt to freeze a country in its status as a producer’ of pri-~ mary products thereby implies an attempt to submit it to long-term exploitation by its. more advanced trade partners, The Yugoslavs. rightly rebelled against such plans when Stalin attempted it; the . Rumanians are reacting in. similar fashion in face of a comparable venture under Khrushchev.
The Rumanian government- is moat certainly a bureaucratic one, retaining many features of Stalin's period. But faced with the’ .” formidable. task of resisting economic. and political pressure from the Kremlin -- including an attempt by Khrushchev to foster a pro- Russian faction in the Rumanian Communist party! -- it has no choice but to, turn to its own people for popular support. This explains why the Rumanian CP's April "declaration of economic independence". was distributed throughout the country =- 1,500,000 copies, ‘MThis~ also explains why Vice-Premier Birladeanu declared in his interview that by August 23 [the twentieth anniversary of Rumania's liberation], all political prisoners in ‘the country will be freed,
Khrushchev; for his part, is up against the no less formidable
cele
problem of whether to "discipline" or “appease” the Rumanian bureau~ cracy without driving it directly into the arms of Peking. The Sino- Seviet conflict has made it immensely difficult for the Kremlin to impose its line on Communist party by administrative means, On the other hand, knras chev may well fear that if the Rumanians succeed in getting away with their rebellion, the whole COMECON might disintegrate, The Hungarians and the Poles are as eager as the Rumanians-to increase trade with capitalist countries, and Khrush~ chev is in the worst possible position to reproach the Rumanians for seeking “capitalist credits »" since that is exactly what he is doing himself, : o.
To reduce in the least way the economic integration achieved under the COMECON is certainly no step forward, But. history doesn!t advance along a straight line. The road from Stalin's bureaucratic supercentralism to the creation of a truly democratic international federation of workers states passes through the breakdown of the bureaucracy's Power and privileges.
The Rumanian ‘conflict is “symptomatic ‘of the widening challenge to the power-.of the. Soviet bureaucracy both within the USSR and its sphere of influence.
FREEDOM WON. FOR FRANCISCO ABARCA
The vigorous campaign mounted since last January by various Belgian socialist and trade-union groups in behalf of the Spanish anarchist, Francisco Abarca, came to a successful conclusion when the Belgian courts decided that it would be illegal to grant the demand of Swiss authorities for his extradition. Abarca was released from St-Gilles prison on June 12.and on June 18 the Belgian government granted him the right of political asylum,
The case won international attention when Belgian authorities arrested him at the request of the Swiss poiice., They aocused him of participation in a publicity action undertaken by the Iberian Council of Liberation LICL] to which he belongs. This consisted.of planting a device in. the baggage room of a Spanish airline which set the place on fire, The ICL called on the telephone to warn airport officials so that there would be no loss of life. The publicity | action was part of a campaign undertaken by the ICL to discourage tourists from going to Spain in response to luring advertisements placed by the fascist government about cheap vacations there,
Abarea, as one of the outstanding figures in the ICL, upheld the moral right of the organization to engage in such actions and argued that he came under the category of a political refugee. He did not actually participate in the given incident,
The danger was great that the Belgian