DANIEL EXCLUDED FROM AMNESTY IN USSR
The Soviet bureaucrats have decreed an amnesty for thousands of prisoners as a gesture of "socialist humanism" in honor of the fiftieth anniversary of the Russian revolution.
But the gesture has a hollow ring when the best-known victims of bureaucratic injustice are excluded from the amnesty -- in particular, the two Soviet writers, Andrei D. Sinyavsky and Yuli M. Daniel, who were convicted in 1966 of "anti-Soviet propaganda" for daring to publish their satirical works abroad.
Sinyavsky is serving a seven-year term, Daniel is serving five years.
Sinyavsky and Daniel are listed as "particularly dangerous state criminals" to whom the amnesty does not apply.
Also excluded are persons convict-— ed of active participation in "gross violations of public order." The New York Times reported November 1:
"This means that a young Soviet dissident, Vladimir Bukovsky, will have to serve the three-year sentence imposed on him in September."
Bukovsky was convicted for taking part in a demonstration last January to protest the arrest of the editors of Phoenix 66, a clandestine literary magazine.
The editors, including Yuri Galanskov and Aleksandr Ginsburg, are still in prison awaiting prosecution on charges of "anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda." They also do not qualify for the amnesty.
The amnesty freed all first offenders serving terms of up to two years whose crimes did not fall in the excluded categories. Persons with longer sentences had their sentences reduced.
For those who are being released, the amnesty is certainly an occasion for celebration. Nevertheless, it requires a very highly refined cynicism to try to palm off such a gesture as a flowering of proletarian democracy. The fact remains that all outspoken critics of the regime, convicted solely for their ideas, are still in jail.
"PRAVDA" SETS THE LINE FOR CP ATTACK ON OLAS
By George
Pravda is setting the line for an attack by the Communist parties internationally against OLAS [Organization of Latin-American Solidarity]. Previously Pravda was quite close-mouthed about the organization founded in Havana last August, barely mentioning the conference, although on the eve of that gathering it published a significant part of an article by Iwvis Corval4n, disagreeing in a eneral, veiled way with the Cuban line. @corvaldn is head of the Chilean Communist party. The full article, entitled, "Which Way Forward in Latin America?" appeared in the July, 1967, World Marxist Review.
Now, although no names are mentioned (Pravda does not refer to "OLAS" or "the Cuban leaders"), the target is quite obvious and the tone has become quite sharp.
The attack came in the form of an article commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of the October revolution. Dozens of such commemorative pieces by Communist leaders from around the world have been printed in Pravda in anticipation of November 7. The author is Rodolfo Ghioldi, billed as a member of the executive of the Central Committee of the Argentine Communist party. According to Le Monde, Ghioldi is in Moscow; his contribution was not sent from afar, then, but was composed under circumstances that facilitated consulting with the Soviet bureaucratic apparatus on one point or another.
Is it an accident that the Soviet displeasure with OLAS begins to take open form in the Soviet press in the wake of the death of Che Guevara; and that the first mouthpiece chosen is an Argentinian?
Prefatory to his main purpose, the attack on OLAS, Ghioldi hits on some points worth mentioning, though not worth reproducing in toto. His first remarks are general, on the impact and significance of October. He points out that colonial or dependent countries can now make the "democratic, agrarian, and antiimperialist" revolution because of the Soviet Union's existence. What he thinks about their making a socialist revolution, comes later -- during that attack on OLAS.
Citing Soviet economic gains and the hardships endured by Argentine workers, he goes, at some length, into the trade squeeze the U.S. applies to underdeveloped economies. All this is to show how good and revolutionary the Soviet policy of economic construction and "free trade" is. Saunders
His apology for Soviet trade policies is clearly to counter OLAS criticism of Soviet aid (not trade) to oligarchic governments in Latin America. Of course, Soviet spokesmen, and their capitalist sympathizers, have equated criticism of this unjustifiable political aid with opposition to free trade, something the Cubans are actually vitally in favor of.
But let us hear from Ghioldi himself:
"The progressive role of the Soviet Union in the realm of trade relations has enormous importance, for trade relations with socialist countries are established on a just basis, with fair prices, without any military-political conditions, and they are mutually advantageous.
"The peoples have been convinced beyond question that the Soviet Union is pursuing a new and just international line. Of course this cannot help but annoy the imperialists. Imperialism, especially American imperialism, is greatly concerned to prevent by any means the establishment of normal trade relations petween Latin-American countries and the Soviet Union.
"The experience of the Soviet Union, the experience of the revolutions that have taken place in other countries, have demonstrated and confirmed the truthfulness of Marxist-Leninist principles, whose adaptation to contemporary conditions is reflected in the documents of the conferences of Communist and Workers parties of 1957 and 1960. Maoism and tendencies like it carry out attempts to displace Marxist- Leninist positions in fundamental questions of contemporary life. In these attempts they proceed for the most part from nationalistic positions. The conditions of chaos created in the People's Republic of China by the adventurist line of the ‘great leap forward' and the ‘cultural revolution' show to what tragic extremes the departure from Marxist-Leninist conceptions of the revolution may lead -away from the construction of socialism, from proletarian internationalism, from the doctrine of the Communist party as the organized revolutionary vanguard of the proletariat. At the present time we are witnesses of the fact that the true revolutionary gains of the working class and people of China, won in 1949, are being endangered. The distinctive features of Maoism are chauvinism and anti-Sovietisn.
"And it is rot surprising therefore that the so-called ‘left national forces,' coming out without the Communists and even against them, finding themselves to one
degree or another under the influence of Maoism, should set the gears of bourgeois nationalism into motion again. The most typical thesis of these groups proceeds from the assertion that Marxism-Leninism does not exist, or that if there is something like it, it is a purely Russian national phenomenon, as a result of which the Marxist-Leninists of Latin America are nothing but agents of Moscow. If we leave aside the provocatory essence of such declarations and the outright falsification of the true situation -- in fact each Communist party, in accordance with its responsibility before the world revolutionary movement, itself determines its own political line -- it becomes crystal clear that the petty-bourgeois tendencies deny the international significance and value of Marxism-Leninism. And this leads to the denial of certain wellknown positions of V.I.Lenin regarding this question, stated in particular in his work Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder.
"V.I.Lenin wrote: 'Now we have before ourselves quite considerable international experience, which speaks with full clarity, that certain basic features of our revolution have not a local, not an exclusively national, not only a Russian, but an international significance.' ‘But at the given historic moment the situation is such that the Russian model shows all countries something, and quite an essential something, about their own inevitable and close future.' 'The experience proved that in certain quite essential questions of the proletarian revolution it inevitably awaits all countries to do what Russia did.'
"Together with the denial of the international significance of Marxism- Ieninisn, the petty-bourgeois nationalists have created a conception of local or continental exceptionalism with the aim of justifying the departure from Marxist-Leninist teachings. Having substituted another system of ideas for Marxism, they try to lay a base for this operation which they have carried out. Among the substitute ideas are: rejection of the necessity for the activity of the Communist parties; belittling of the role of the working class as a revolutionary force; denial of the theory of the hegemony of the proletariat; rejection of the Leninist principle of the vanguard role of the proletariat; and the assertion that there exist several vanguards. In the above listing alone, the degree of scorn and ignorance with which these grouplets approach theory is already apparent: if Marxist-Leninist ‘theory does not justify their actions, down with the theory.
"Maoism and its related currents promote extreme adventurisn, applying ‘attack theory' to every situation, regardless of the presence of the objective and subjective conditions. It proposes that revolution may be brought in from without, artificially stimulated across borders, and consider the nature of the revolution to be separate from the process of class struggle in the countries themselves. These adventurist, subjectiv-— ist tactics, spiced with Bakuninism in some cases, with Blanquism in others, usually lead to quite tragic results, as happened in Indonesia. Moreover, these groups blindly persist in their demand of 'an eye for an eye,' thus getting into a dangerous situation of playing with war. The most impassioned criticism is directed toward the Soviet Union, which is planning and realizing the construction of communism. The Trotskyist argument about the impossibility of constructing communism in a single country is revived. The pettybourgeois nationalists likewise stubbornly insist that the Latin-American countries must pass over directly to the socialist revolution, discarding the preparatory stages of the agrarian, anti-imperialist, and democratic revolution. In their indefatigable desire to prove the 'weakness' of Marxist-Leninist positions, they try no less than to deny the basic postulate of the unity of the world socialist systen, the proletarian movement in the capitalist countries, and the national liberation movement in the dependent countries.
"Moreover, the idea of the contradiction between socialism and capitalism as the basic contradiction of our epoch is also denied. They do not wish to acknowledge that in the general antiimperialist movement the hegemonic role belongs to the world proletariat. In every way the Maoist theory is repeated that the decisive contradiction of today is that between the ‘third world' and imperialisn. Maoism and its henchmen with one sweep of the pen cancel the role of the world socialist system and the international proletariat.
"The existence of the Communist parties, firmly standing on Marxist- Leninist positions and guiding themselves by Marxist-Leninist ideology, impedes the spreading of revisionist ideas; therefore the Maoists do not stop short of attempts to bring division into the ranks of these parties, create certain difficulties in them. In this too is revealed the essence of the melancholy role Maoism and currents siding with it have taken upon themselves....
"The Soviet Union today is a mighty world power, ever so strong in all respects. The Soviet Union influences the life of the whole world and not only is not alone but is part of the world socialist system. This new situation guarantees support and aid to the growth and development of new states.
"The existence of the USSR and the world socialist system creates for countries that have freed themselves the necessary conditions for moving along the noncapitalist path of development. In its fifty years the Soviet Union has been the biggest and firmest hope of the people of the world for peace, democracy and socialism. The Soviet Union and the world socialist system are most important factors in international life. The Latin-American peoples turn their eyes to the Soviet Union and understand that they are not alone and will never be alone in their struggle."
Ghioldi's "commemoration" appeared in the October 25 Pravda; on October 27 a similar article, this time by Corval4én, came hot on its heels. But the main drift of Corvala4n's piece was not so much to attack OLAS as to defend the Latin- American CPs from the type of criticisms OLAS supporters make.
After the routine genuflections in the direction of the memory of October -his theme is how revolutionary workers throughout the world have and should keep close links with "the party of Lenin." Apparently he notices no change in character or line, from those early days of the Communist International, days he describes in telling how Recabarren first started the Chilean CP. The most interesting part of his apology for the "peaceful coexistence" line of most Latin CPs comes in the latter two-thirds of the article. It begins as follows:
"In 1918-1922 Communist parties were created in Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Uruguay, and Chile. The proletariat of these lands approached the historic year, 1917, with a certain degree of class consciousness already. Its ranks were growing in number. Marxism by that time had acquired considerable dissemination in Latin America. On this foundation the process of the formation of revolutionary parties of the proletariat had already begun. The October Revolution strengthened the positions of the revolutionaries in the labor movement of all countries and actively aided the development of the proletarian Communist parties then being born.
"One may say with full accuracy that these parties are the offspring of their own people, the consequence of the social development of their respective countries. But at the same time these parties are the fruit of the October Revolution, the consequence of the victory of Leninism over reformism, and of Marxism over revisionisn.
"IN SOME LATIN-AMERICAN CIRCLES TODAY IT IS CUSTOMARY TO SPEAK OF THESE PARTIES AS TRADITIONALIST, ORTHODOX, AND MODERATE. And that is only because they are loyal to the principles of Marxisn- Leninisn, proletarian internationalisn, loyal to the indeed traditional friendship with the party of Lenin, and because they_have long since discarded revolutionary _phrasemongering. These parties arouse the hatred of their enemies and cause them great fear. For these parties constitute in any situation the most reliable detachment of the revolutionary movement on the continent.
"All political movements and parties, including bourgeois ones, to one degree or another get caught up with various currents which, arising first ina particular country or in a few countries with similar levels of development, afterward spread throughout the world. On the scale of an individual country the degree of influence of such tendencies depends on the degree to which they reflect the interests of particular classes at the corresponding phase of their development.
"In this respect Communism is distinguished by the fact that it is the most universal, most international of all political movements of the past or present. This is the scientific nature of the character of development in nature, society, and thought, and the scope of Communism is unlimited. It is the ideology and politics of the working class, the most advanced class, the most developed, united by general international interests.
"The struggle of the Communists for the liberation of humanity from all forms of oppression, for the liquidation of social and racial inequality, will be realized through consistent struggle for the liberation of the working class in each country, the struggle for independence, economic progress, and the flowering of the culture of all peoples.
"In none of its manifestations does Communism appear as an exotic growth or an alien force, as the enemies of Communism like to assert, continuing to stir up slander with obdurate stubbornness. Communism poses and solves national problems in all their completeness. In the theory and practice of Communists, patriotism and internationalism are combined, the interests of the workers of each country and those of the proletariat of the whole world, the interests of each people and those of all humanity.
"The national and international tasks of the Communists are most closely interconnected. The continuing possibility for new countries and peoples to find the path to the future depends both on the struggle of the working class of these countries and on international solidarity, on the international unity of Communists; on the joint action of the proletariat and progressive people of all countries against the interventionist and aggressive
policies of imperialism. In this regard the unwavering strengthening and expansion of solidarity with the heroic people of Vietnam, Cuba, the Arab countries, suffering Greece, with all people subjected to aggression and attacks by imperialism -- this line corresponds to the interests of our whole movement, to those of all peoples and each separate people.
"To the militaristic and interventionist policies of imperialism, and above all, that of American imperialisn, the Soviet Union opposes a consistent struggle for peace, for nonintervention in the internal affairs of the peoples, for the right of nations to selfdetermination.
"It resolutely takes the side of the peoples who in their striving for liberation become victims of imperialist aggression. The activity of the Soviet Union in this area leads to the isolation of reaction and imperialism on a world scale and country by country; it leads to the broadening of the paths to the winning of independence, democracy and socialism throughout the world.
"At a time when imperialism uses economic and trade relations with Latin- American countries, just as with other regions of the world, the Soviet Union strives to establish conditions that will aid independent development of the national economy.
"Between Chile and the Soviet Union agreements have been signed according to which the Chilean economy receives significant assistance toward getting the full value of its national product.
"The fact that Cuba was able to free itself from imperialist oppression and begin the construction of socialism clearly shows the peoples of our continent how the world has changed in the last fifty years, and it underlines the decisive role that the Soviet Union plays in this world. The existence of the land of the Soviets, its policies of peace, friendship and economic cooperation, the intransigence of its position in relation to imperialist intervention assures the Latin-American peoples of the groundlessness of the thesis of geographic fatality. These peoples are assured of the fact that they are by no means fated to remain throughout their lives in the backyard of imperialism. But rather they have powerful friends and may enter the path of independence. For this reason the fiftieth anniversary of the great October Socialist revolution is a holiday not only of the proletariat but of the broadest progres-— sive social forces of our countries.
"The fifty years that have passed since the memorable days of the uprising in Petrograd have demonstrated with full clarity that the fighters made no mistake in ascribing the greatest revolutionary significance to the closest alliance of the proletarians of all countries, the importance of unity in the ranks of the world Communist movement and friendship of all Communists with the party of Lenin, sincere friendship, heartfelt of a class character, the friendship of comrades in ideals and struggle, friendship forged in the common struggle for peace, democracy, and socialism."
Pravda's attack on OLAS constitutes, of course, nothing but the first salvo. A series of Communist parties, particularly in Latin America,can be expected to follow. They will name names and reach for the mud bucket.
It can be expected that not even Che Guevara will remain immune to these smear artists; in fact it is quite safe to bet that they will try to turn the murder of Guevara to factional advantage.
It is equally certain, however, that revolutionists throughout the world will rally in defense of OLAS and its projection of the need to make the revolution. And they will rally in defense of the Vietnamese people in the way proposed by Che Guevara, creating "two, three... many Vietnams."
Not even the conservative Soviet bureaucracy, with all the resources at its disposal, can long maintain the status quo in face of the revolutionary potential existing throughout the "third world," a potential that is finding such channels of expression as the Organization of Latin-American Solidarity.