CENSORS SARTRE
_ The process of “de-Stalinization," introduced in the Soviet Union by Khrushchev, has led to many welcome changes from the viewpoint of the working class. But the rule of the bureaucratic caste remains basically unchanged, and many of the revolting customs of Stalin's day have undergone but little modification.
One of these is censorship -- a censorship that even extends to loyal friends and defenders of the Soviet Union. A current example is provided by the handling of Jean-Paul Sartre's explana~ tion of why he cancelled an opportunity to make a tour of the United States. Sartre's explanation contains strong denunciation of the American aggression in North Vietnam. ' [See World Outlook April 9.]
. It was translated and printed in the April 6 issue of Izvestia -- but with an amputation. This was the first paragraph of Sartre's answer to the question: "Certain newspapers say that you are more willing to condemn the Americans than the Soviets."
"In view of the facts, that's a straight lie," responded Sartre. "Together with Merleau-Ponty, in my magazine Les Temps Modernes, I condemned the Stalinist labor camps when their existence was proved. I violently condemned the Soviet intervention in Budapest in an interview in Express of which the gist was reproduced in most dailies," -
Sartre then went on to explain that despite his criticisms, he did not equate the two camps of "the East and the West." “It is necessary to know which side you are on," he said, "without losing sight of the critical judgment that is an intellectual's duty."
All of Sartre's statement supporting "the East" was printed in. Izvestia, except the paragraph recalling his condemnation of the Stalinist labor camps and Khrushchev's’ intervention in Budapest. "De-Stalinization" is a good thing -- but even Sartre should watch that tongue of his.