New Problems for Imperialism

WHILE the Kremlinological experts speculate on the future of Molotov and the exact whereabouts of Khrushchev, the dispute in the Soviet Communist Party rages on. It is now clear that the arguments about peaceful co-existence and the peaceful road to socialism are not only between the Russian leaders and those of China and Albania, but also reflect a deep crisis of policy within the Russian leadership itself.

These fundamental questions are being decided behind the backs of the world communist movement. Nothing has yet been published to give the real political position of Molotov, Malenkov and the 'anti-party group'.

At the 22nd Congress, Molotov and the others were accused of complicity in the murder of communists in the 30s. Their expulsion from the party was demanded and the question was raised of putting them on trial for their crimes.

Nothing more is mentioned of these demands. Molotov is still supposed to be returning to his post in Vienna as a representative of the USSR-though unofficial sources are now rumouring that he has been dismissed and his second-in- command has taken over in Vienna.

'Pravda' charges Molotov with alleging that Lenin never talked about the peaceful co-existence of different social systems. We are not told where Molotov is supposed to have made this dreadful statement. Nor are we given a single direct quotation from Lenin's work which shows that it is false.

This is the way in which the 'discussion' is conducted. The point of view of the Chinese and their supporters is distorted and suppressed. (See, for example, the statement of the British CP pretending to answer the arguments of the Albanian party, published in last week's ' World News'.)

Communist Party members must demand the publication of all sides in this dispute. The old Stalinist methods must be eliminated from the conduct of discussions as well as from the organization of purges.

NEURAAL DE THE SOCTALIST Let Molotov Speak THE mounting struggle for wages in Britain and the debate in government and diplomatic circles here and in the US about the future of the United Nations are not separate questions. In Britain, the capitalist class wants to keep the working class down while it prepares, through great mergers and entry into the European Common Market, to take its place as a 'modern' capitalist state.

On the international scale, the United Nations is seen as an instrument through which the imperialist powers bring some stability for their system of exploitation of the underdeveloped nations.

Only if this is done can they go forward to a new phase of economic expansion and higher profits. Those liberals and 'socialists' who ask us to give support to the UN as the solution to international problems like war and colonialism are nothing but servants of imperialism.

Lord Home, the Foreign Minister, recently attacked the handling of the Congo crisis by the UN force there; he was pandering to the 'old colonial' element in the Tory party and the British ruling class. The main body of the Tories will continue, together with the American government, to support thè UN.

fly to the United States. His visit, which has been kept a close secret, is to seek longterm U.S. aid, and to reassure Americans that his Government has no inclination toward the Soviet bloc?

Is comment necessary? Only The Newsletter has consistently exposed the imperialist basis of the whole UN operation. Did not the 'socialist' apologists for the UN (particularly those around 'Tribune' and the 'New Left ') assure us that 'at least' the UN had kept the main Cold War protagonists out of the Congo and prevented another Korea?

And is the Congo now 'saved' from involvement in the plans for both Cold and Hot War by the imperialists? This example brings out very clearly the role of the 'fake Lefts' in the Labour movement; they provide means by which the working class is harnessed to the aims of imperialism.

We can take this further by comparing President Kennedy's ' State of the Union message' with recent articles in the British press.

Kennedy said, 'Our instrument and our hope is the UNand I see little merit in the impatience of those who would abandon this imperfect world instrument because they dislike our imperfect world ... No policeman is universally popular —particularly when he uses his stick to restore law and order on his beat.? (My emphasis, C.S.)

'The Observer' (Jan. 14) naturally welcomed this speech and contrasted it with Lord Home's recent outburst, continuing, 'Mr Hammarskjöld saw the UN as a positive force in helping a constructive and peaceful transition from colonialism. The Congo, despite mistakes and setback, has broadly proved him correct. Britain would be better advised to concentrate on improving the practical application of this UN role, through better administration, sounder finance, and more efficient military organisation, rather than By Cliff Slaughter nying its validity.? (My lasis, C.S.)

"Tribune' (Jan. 12) tagged along faithfully with an article advocated within the UN an "Appeal Tribunal . . . to adjudicate (!) upon issues between nations or within nations when the principles of the Charter are involved.

With such an extension of its authority the UN would begin to fulfil the purposes of World Government. ... a UN force should have the duty of applying decisions if necessary. That would discourage outbreaks of force by separate nations or communities. In time the power of intervention should grow even to the sphere of personal liberty ...

It (the UN) remains not only the hope of peace but of the recognition of the right of every people to decide its own way of life without the pressures of external powers?

No doubt the workers and peasants of the Congo are impressed....

There is an unbroken line of agreement from Kennedy, through the respectable liberalism of 'The Observer', always faithful to imperialism, and the 'Left' in 'Tribune'. No wonder Lenin said that nobody could really fight against imperialism without consistently fighting against the opportunists in the Labour movement.

Brockway's article repeats the "Tribune' line 'deploring' the action of Nehru's government in expelling the Portuguese from Goa, on the grounds that above all the authority of the UN in all such disputes must be maintained. What sort of anticolonialists are these?

The answer is, the same sort as Kennedy and Macmillan, objectively speaking, for what they really want is the peaceful evolution of independent bourgeois governments who keep up the ties of the colonial countries with the great banks and monopolies in the advanced countries.

They have a place in the "democratic' set-up of the free world, and their politics reflect their determination to preserve the privileges of their social class.

(A further article next week.)