REPORTS, BACK
By Pierre Frank
‘It “has been widely “pe ported in the world press that the leadership of the French Communist party LpcF] decided to send a delegation to the Communist party of the Soviet Union in order to obtain. "more complete.-information and. the. necessary explanations concerning the circumstances and methods by which the changes decided on by the CC of .the CPSU were. carried out"; i.e., how Khrushchev happened | to be »removed from his poats in the, party and the government.
The delegation gave its report: to the Central Committee of the ‘PCF Friday November 6, It was unanimously accepted with thanks for. the explanation offered. .However, on reading the report. made by Georges Marchais, who headed. the delegation (or rather on reading the long extracts published in the November 9 issue of 1'Humanité), it appears that things weren't quite as cordial in Moscow as ‘was made out. While we are-informed that "the discussion was ardent and always marked by a great spirit of understanding, of fra- _ ternity and friendship," the. whole report is marked by an. embarrassment which the total absence: of warmth does not help to hide,
Also” a few slaps are aimed at the Italians. The leadership . of the PCF told the Soviet representatives: that they preferred "to have a.frank discussion. ... rather than. begin with public criticism." They did not approve, they say, giving “untimely replies to the journalists" who questioned the delegation.
Let's turn now to Marchais' report. to see ‘what can be learned from it. . First of all, the representatives. of the CPSU told them
right off: "The decision which we just took was _on our own. responsibility. What is essential for-our brother parties is the assurance that there will be no change in our policy. Emphasis added,
For all the fine talk about fraternity, the brother parties could not have: been more flatly invited to keep their noses out of what goes on in the Soviet Union,
The Tass: news agency and the Italian CP paper LtUnita both denied the authenticity of a text which, the Soviet censorship had . permitted the bourgeois journalists .in' Moscow to send out, containing charges levelled at Khrushchev to justify ousting him. The Marchais report repeats a great many of these criticisms. Let us therefore take.a look at the revelations, since it will be accepted as a "genuine" text, among the Communist parties, representing the "genuine" views of the Soviet leadership. i
The "positive role" of Khrushchev is recognized "in the elaboration and application by the ¢¢C of its political line,.. including the struggle against the cult-of the personality of Stalin.' this political line, we are told, is. "correct, “unchanged, untouchable,"
it is ‘added, Khrushchev "had. a ‘tendency to make ‘important dectetone. coneerning the: jeadership of the -party by himself" ; he "began to lose his sense of modesty." His "boasting" is denounced, "a tendency to limitless boasting" about his merits as a leader. He invited to the sessions of the Central Committee "some hundreds of guests," thus’ making the "work of elaboration" by members of this body very difficult. He is also charged with having made. at the CC "Yan unscheduled speech on economic problems without a preliminary discussion" in the Presidium; and he confided “more and. more. impor-= tant: missions to members of his personal entourage." He is likewise | charged with having intervened “in questions where he had..no. ‘business".on "the occasion of certain trips in the socialist countries," In his. , Personal attitude" he was given to "ill-considered utterances," Finally, concerning the Sino-Soviet dispute, which in the vocabulary of these bureaucrats is called "the struggle for .the.. unity of the Communist movement," he is charged with "some extravagances" which, however, "did not alter the. correct application. of the: right. line." All the documents, in this question, whether public. or not, retain their worth because "all of them were always approved by the Presidium." ce,
~~ We learn finally. that after the discussion in the Presidium, "Comrade Khrushchev admitted the main criticisms made of him. He referred to his state of health, to his age, and declared that he
*Not so long ago, a journalist who sent out a false report of Khrushchev's.death was expelled from the Soviet Union. In the current . instance the bourgeois journalists have not even been reproved.
@14-
could no longer carry out his tasks, He offered his resignation" in a. letter to the. full. members and alternates of the Central Committee.
The Marchais delegation even learned that the elimination of Khrushchev received "the unanimous approval of the [Soviet] party, as well as the Soviet people, who did not fail to perceive the negative consequences of the faults that-appeared in the recent period."
We will. put down these criticisms. The future will show whether the list is to grow longer. In any case it can be noted that there is a "line't that is both "correct" and "untouchable" whether it involves: the past, present or -- why not? :--- the future. At the same time there: is a kind of fate which causes a person raised to the highest summit, “democratically" it seems, to begin to cultivate the cult of his personality as he grows older, to indulge in "extravagances" (which in the case of Stalin cost the lives of many revolutionists).
Another peculiarity that has become manifest since the death of Stalin should also be noted. After Malenkov, after Bulganin, it became Khrushchev's turn to recognize that he had lost the capacities needed to hold a post in the leadership. One hears an echo of the "confessions" of the Moscow frame-up trials, this time, fortunately, as a farce and not a tragedy. No political "differences, seemingly, are involved; in the one case it concerns "criminals," in the other incompetents.” _ mo . =
The decisions, the Marchais delegation declared, "were adopted in accordance with democratic rules,"
The Waldeck Rochets, the Duclos, Leroys and other Marchais are genuine authorities on the question of democracy, At this very Central Committee meeting, Waldeck Rochet referred on this point to - « « Thorez! It would be interesting to know whether Marchais and Go. tried to see Khrushchev. According to rumor they asked permission from the representatives of the CPSU to do so, but the request was not granted. If this was so, why don't they mention it? Since Khrushchev, we are told, remains a member of the Central Committee of his party, is it necessary to seek a higher authority for permission for members of the central committees of other Communist parties to meet him? If the rumors are not true, this means that the champions of “internal democracy" in the party cross off an opposing » opinion and trust the statements of a single side. We learned long ago from Lenin: "In, politics, those who take people at their word are hopeless idiots.
The leaders of the PCF claim that the measures are the responsibility of the CPSU alone and that it is not up to them to either approve or disapprove, Nonintervention is a doctrine belonging in general to the fictions of diplomacy. On the strictly organ= izational level, it is not up to the leaders of the PCF to designate the top leaders’ in the Soviet Union, but isn't it their duty to pass
judgment on what has. just occurred, on the how as well as the why? They did not vote to kill the Old Bolsheviks, Tukhachevsky and the other Soviet marshals, the many revolutionary victims of Stalin, but at the time they. dian't say thet this was an internal affair, that it was not up to’ them to either approve or disapprove, they howled for their deaths Like” jackals,
Today they feel ill at east. They would like to move a bit away from their fellow bureaucrats in the Soviet Union, However, — they are afraid to speak like the Italians. They prefer to attack | the Communist students who are not joining them in fishing for- time, and who will not be fobbed off by the quibbles of pettifogging hacks. They have’ been caught up in the death throes of Stalinism. The Communist militants who have been hoodwinked so long are not buying this one. The appeals for increased practical work appear for what they actually are -- a diversionary effort by a powerless, bankrupt leadership.
LET