GIVEN RET JOB AT SOVIET CONGRESS
‘Stalin died March 5, 1953 -- thirteen years ‘ago. Yet the dic- | tator has not yet been laid’ to rest in the Soviet Union. In fact at the twenty-third congress ‘which opened in Moscow March 29, Stalin seemed to be enjoying at least the status.of a living corpse among the bureaucrats whom he’ hand- selected for: positions of power and privilege under his dictatorial regime. If there was no thought, for the moment, of reviving the famous "cult of the personality," steps were clearly underway to slow down if not to reverse ‘the socalled "de-Stalinization" process initiated by Khrushchev at the twentieth. congress in 1956.
One. of the proposals under consideration by the delegates at the current congress of the Communist party of the Soviet Union was to revive the title of "General Secretary" which Stalin assumed in’ 1922. This proposal was made by Nikolai G. Yegorychev, secretary of the party's Moscow city committee.
Yegorychev raised the question of partially rehabilitating Stalin by stating that the "cult of the personality" and the notorious. practices associated with it have been "decisively rejected by i the party"” and “there will never be any return to that past. mons,
After this reassuring opening, the Moscow bureaucrat got. to the business at hand:
‘“"At the same time the party also resolutely rejects every attempt to cancel out the heroic history of our people, which under the: party's leadership has trod the hard but glorious path of struggle and victories. for. almost half a century." a Po
The point to this is the theory that Stalin, despite all his crimes, must be credited with accomplishing some good. Otherwise how are the achievements of:the Soviet Union to be explained?
The Trotskyist answer to this is that they were achieved despite Stalin and that they are due to the inherent power of a planne economy 5 even one. ‘suffering from grave bureaucratic shackles and. distortions. =
“Stalin! s heirs, like their late master, however, in order to justify their bureaucratic rule are compelled to identify the workers state with their own regime and to represent the achievements as due to their special capacities. Unfortunately for them, this leaves them completely incapable of offering a Marxist explanation for the. vicissitudes of the Soviet government since Lenin s time.
The embarrassment faced by Stalin's heirs is understood by every serious student of Soviet affairs. It is generally known even among the better informed correspondents of the bourgeois press.
Thus Bernard Feron, correspondent of the Paris daily Le Monde, wrote on this subject [March 29]: "In a general way the history of the party must be brought into some order. It happens, as it enters its fiftieth year, that the Soviet regime, which is supposed to be the best in the world, in fact presents the peculiarity of having been headed by traitors,.tyrants or incompetents. At least that is the impression given by the official textbooks. At the beginning, of course, there was Lenin, who was perfect but whose closest companions bore the names of Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin. Then there was Stalin, who in accordance with the euphemism employed the past ten years, imposed the cult of the personality. Finally there was Khrushchev, who was a muddle—headed, incompetent figure. It is understandable that the members are disconcerted, since they are called on to revile all those who for years they had to venerate and praise. After decades, those in the saddle for the moment put a cross on all those who lost in the political battles. Hence the rehabilitations are only too often decided on as were the condemnations, more for opportunistic reasons than for concern about historic truth. These procedures can be effective in the short run. Over a longer period they destroy the confidence of the citizens and the members; they undermine the foundations of the regime."
. Feron asks whether a partial rehabilitation of Stalin at present will not upset the work of the twentieth and twenty-second congresses. He thinks that the question is quite serious since there have been many indications that the Kremlin is considering trying to remove some of the tarnish on Stalin; and this has led to considerable uneasiness and even protests from intellectuals.
; "The debate would-be much clearer if Mr. Khrushchev and his comrades had presented a serious analysis of Stalinism in 1956; if they had really posed the problem of democracy in the party and in a socialist country. But, for reasons easy to understand, they claimed that the organism remained perfectly healthy during «the period -of ‘the “'cult,' that the general policy applied by Stalin was correct and that it was sufficient ‘to condemn the excesses :of the former dictator. The author of the secret report sought to:make up for the insufficiency of thought by a certain bitterness. Thus it was easy for the unreconstructed Stalinists to declare that the picture was made too black and that corrections are required.'
The question ‘should ‘be taken up ‘Dy the historians,’ Feron continues. After being the only star on the Soviet scene for thirty years, Stalin was swept into the ashcan. It is high time that the historicans indicate the true place occupied by all those who played. a role in their time. "But are they ready to conduct this work to the end by, for example, studying Trotsky's activities? It is to be feared that once again,:an examination of the past is only a pretext, that certain peoplé are seeking the partial rehabilitation of Stalin. : only to restore Stalinism.". °°. -
The truth is that the bureaucratic caste that seized power in the Soviet Union, destroying.the Bolshevik party build by Lenin and liquidating all the revolutionary leaders who remained faithful to Marxism-Leninism, still holds. power. Since Stalin's death, the caste has made considerable concessions in face of.mass~ pressure, but it has not started to reform itself nor does it intend to. For that matter, it has not even as yet acknowledged its own existence. But to bring out the truth about Stalin's rule, Khrushchev's rule and the rule of Brezhnev-Kosygin it is necessary.to establish the elementary fact of the existence of the conservative, parasitic social forces they have represented. Recognition of this fact, how-ever, would constitute a mortal danger to the continued special privileges of the bureaucratic caste and its monopoly of the Soviet government. a
Deep-going trends are undermining the position: of the purean~cratic caste. Internationally, the Soviet’ Union -- second in stréngth only to the United States -- should be playing a much more vigorous role against the thrust of American imperialism toward world domination. To be subjected to the rule of a parasitic layer that shuts its eyes to the clear danger represented by such moves as the imperialist invasion of Vietnam'is becoming increasingly intolerable. Similarly.athome the incapacity ofthe bureaucratic caste to eliminate the gravé:contradictions hampering a:swifter rise in productivity is becotiing more and more: irritating. On the political: level, the Soviet workers, students and intellectuals are growing impatient with the interminable delay in restoring Soviet democracy. Rallying Stalin against these forces will not stop them from advancing and finally burying the dead dictator and his heirs along with hin.