MARCH 1 MEETING IN MOSCOW
A number of months have passed since the downfall of Khrushchev. For the European workers states, for most of the Communist parties, the change meant at the same time the naming of two new "leaders" for the Communist world -~ Brezhnev and Kosygin -- because of the privileged place held by the Soviet Union and its Communist party. How the change has worked out, nobody as yet knows outside of the very narrow circle which engineered it. Where the new leadership is headed is still less known. Does the new leadership itself know?
Since the downfall of Khrushchev, in place of his more or less impulsive but frequent declarations, almost total silence has reigned. It took Kosygin's trip to Asia and the American bombings in North Vietnam to prove that he really had a voice. Insofar as he made himself heard, however, it must be acknowledged that he said very little.
In the same period, the Chinese were likewise far from loquacious concerning Sino-Soviet relations. Without the least doubt, the aggressiveness of American imperialism, on the one hand, and the danger of a rupture due to the course taken by Khrushchev, on the other, contributed to bringing the two big workers states together on a government level against imperialism and to muting the differ- . ences at the party level.
The chancelleries of the capitalist states no doubt discuss
among themselves about international relations involving the USSR and China. .It is quite probable that they have their own sources of information and in any case they can go directly to the highest authorities. But this is not the lot of members of the Communist parties; nor that of the working masses throughout the world, beginning with the Soviet masses themselves.
On this point as on many others, the limits of "de-Stalinization" are shown, Truth to tell, it is in this field that "de-Stalinization" is hardly visible; the determination of international and: national policy remains the prerogative of a leadership which no longer employs such violence as formerly, which is no longer subjected to the will of a single man, which rests on.a nucleus that is finding it difficult to achieve internal equilibrium but to which the masses must only submit and approve. ‘"De-Stalinization,” it cannot be repeated too often, represents a liberalization of the regime, not at all its democratization.
The modification of certain relations in Soviet society and the end of monolithism among the parties are realities that can be denied only under penalty of committing gross political errors; yet the results of the post-Stalinist process must not be overestimated so long as the bureaucracy is not confronted by actions undertaken by the masses,
It is excellent that the Soviet and Chinese governments have drawn together in the face of the Yankee aggressions in Vietnam; it confirms that imperialism will not be able to drive a wedge between the workers states, that just the contrary will occur. But on the party level, the silence on the most fundamental current strategic problems facing the workers movement is much worse than the polemics of the past years despite their excesses, misrepresentation of positions and insults. The differences have not disappeared, the problems remain and cannot be solved by the bureaucrsts through maneuvers and jerry-rigged combinations.
Perhaps the most typical example of the present situation in the official Communist movement is provided by the fate of the international conference of parties advocated about a year ago in Suslov's report as a way out of the Sino-Soviet conflict. The proposed conference was to be preceded by a preconference. Last July the Khrushchev leadership set December 15 as the date and invited twenty-five Communist parties to join the Communist party of the Soviet Union in working out a document which in the given circumstances could be only a condemnation of the Chinese.
The Brezhnev-Kosygin leadership began by postponing the date of the preconference to March 1. In place of the hullabaloo that was heard when the meeting was scheduled, the official silence was complete when the meeting opened.
It was only in a semi-official way that it was learned that
of the twenty-five parties invited, a half dozen failed to show up (in addition to the parties lined up with the Chinese Communist party, the Rumanian CP abstained from attending), and that a number of parties that did attend are against convoking a conference to which the Chinese CP remains opposed. Among these parties are such important ones as the Italian CP, the strongest CP among the European capitalist countries, the Polish party whose leader Gomulka occupies -@ toperank position in the official Communist apparatus. The Cubans have been holding to an independent position as was shown when they joined the Rumanians in voting for the proposal of the Albanian delegation calling for the United Nations to proceed to a vote, despite an agreement against this between the Soviet Union and the United United States.
Of the parties invited to the meeting, hardly half would follow the CPSU into such a tribunal of party apparatuses. Under these circumstances, the silence is understandable. The conference was held on March 1 but its purpose was considerably changed. Instead of being set up to make a genuine decision, it became purely consultative. On the day the meeting opened, the Chinese broke the silence to give the new Kremlin team a taste of the fire they had poured on Khrushchev. It could be interpreted as a warning to stand up more firmly against American pressure in Vietnam.
In any case, March 1 marked one of the severest blows dealt to the authority of the Soviet bureaucracy. Some parties openly dispute that authority, others came to the conference to debate and not to. approve. The CPSU could hardly get a majority among the leaderships. Even if the new and provisional Soviet leaders were to bring out a new political line, only the last of the yes-men, like those in the leadership of the French Communist party, would approve it without reserve, and it remains to be seen how long even this will last.
In the opinion of some commentators, Khrushchev created an illusion through his talkativeness; at present the bureaucratic machine is to be seen as it really is -- in theory a vacuum, in political practice completely empirical. It functions through inertia, without any real capacity to solve the gigantic problems that have arisen with the development of the workers states, the colonial revolution, the workers movement and relations with the capitalist world.
In this crisis, the real difficulties arise from the impossibility of meintaining the status quo; i. Coy conditions favorable to maintenance of the Soviet bureaucracy, in face of changes in the mass movements on the one hand and the capitalist world on the other, particularly American imperialism which is displaying the dangerous aggressiveness of a wounded wild beast,
Antibureaucratic manifestations in the Soviet Union as well as in the workers states and the Communist parties are still weak and politically confused. This was a virtually inevitable result of
the decades of Stalinism with all the theoretical and political degeneration it entailed. Nevertheless, one of the most positive developments of the present period is the way the younger generations are seeking, in opposition to the traditional leaderships, a program different from the petty reforms held out by the usurpers of the October Revolution.
This is true not only of the youth of the underdeveloped countries who aspire to transform conditions in these countries in a revolutionary way, but also of the vanguard youth in the workers: states who wish to breathe something besides the stale air in which they have been kept. It is true, too, of the youth in the capitalist countries who are not duped by the propaganda about a "welfare state.
These are only the first detachments turning toward the revolutionary Marxism that has been defended by a few under adverse circumstances for many years.
The depths. reached by the international crisis of Stalinisn, revealed by the downfall of Khrushchev, and the decomposition of the bureaucratic leadership, shown by such. things as the circumstances of the March 1 meeting in Moscow, indicate the brightening perspective for the development of revolutionary Marxism and the construction of a new international leadership,
In the light. of this perspective, the revolutionary Marxists are inspired to attack the old bankrupt leaderships more audaciously than ever both within and outside the traditional organizations.
ONE OF MALCOLM X'S LAST INTERVIEWS
- The March-April issue of the Young Socialist, which was published on the eve of the assassination of Malcolm x, carries one of the last interviews with the martyred Negro leader. It was granted ~to editorial board members Jack Barnes and Barry Sheppard after Malcolm X returned from Africa.
The interview is of exceptional interest in revealing how far Malcolm X's thinking had developed. His break with the Black Muslim's was clearly motivated primarily by political reasons:
"It didn't involve itself in the civil or civic or political struggles our people were confronted by," he told the two editors of the Young Socialist. ". . . So the only way it could function and be meaningful in the community was to take part in the political and economic facets of the Negro struggle. And the organization wouldn't do that because the stand it would have to take would have been too
militant, uncompromising and activist, and the hierarchy had gotten conservative. It was motivated mainly by protecting its own selfinterests."
The trip that Malcolm X took through Africa had great impact on him. He reveals the following, for instance:
"But, when I was in Africa in May, in Ghana, I was speaking with the Algerian ambassador who is extremely militant and is a revolutionary in the true sense of the word (and has his credentials as such for having carried on a successful revolution against oppression in his country). When I told him that my political, social and economic philosophy was black nationalism, he asked me very frankly, well, where did that leave him? Because he was white. He was an African, but he was Algerian, and to all appearances, he was a white man. And he said if I define my objective as the victory of black nationalism, where does that leave him? Where does that leave revolutionaries in Morocco, Egypt, Iraq, Mauritanis? So he showed me where I was alienating people who were true revolutionaries dedicated to overturning the system of exploitation that exists on this earth by any means necessary.
"So, I had to do a lot of thinking and reappraising of my definition of black nationalism. Can we sum up the solution to the problems confronting our people as black nationalism? And if you notice, I haven't been using the expression for several months. But I still would be hard pressed to give a specific definition of the over-all philosopny which I think is necessary for the liberation of the black people in this country."
In describing his experiences going from country to country in Africa, Malcolm X stressed the influence of the militancy displayed on the African continent upon the thinking of black Americans.
"So you can't separate the African revolution from the mood of the black man in America. Neither could the colonization of Africa be separated from the menial position thst the black man in this country was sstisfied to stay in for so long. Since Africa has gotten its independence through revolution, you'll notice the stepped up cry against discrimination that has appeared in the black community."
Malcolm X spoke out strongly against the U.S. role in the Congo and Washington's ties with Tshombe. ~
"Probably there is no better example of criminal activity . against an oppressed people than the role the U.S. has been playing in the Congo, through her ties with-Tshombe and the mercenaries, You can't overlook the fact that Tshombe gets his money from the U.S. The money he uses to hire these mercenaries -- these paid killers imported from South Africa.-- comes from the United States, The pilots that fly these planes have been trained by the U.S. The
bombs themselves that are blowing apart the bodies of women and children come from the U.S. So I can only view the role. of the United States in the Congo as a criminal role."
He took a similar position on the U.S. role in Vietnam.
A number of other subjects were covered in the interview, including the civil-rights struggle in the South and the violence used by the white racists there against Negroes and the whites who dare to help them.
Malcolm X had some cogent things to say about the role of students and young people in revolutionary movements internationally.
Asked about the “world-wide struggle now going on between capitalism and socialism," Malcolm responded:
"It is impossible for capitalism.to survive, primarily because the system of capitalism needs some blood to suck. Capitalism used to be like an eagle, but now it's more like a vulture, It used to be strong enough to go and suck anybody's blood whether they were strong or not. But now it has become more cowardly, like the vulture, and it can only suck the blood of the helpless, As the nations of the world free themselves, then capitalism has less victims, less to suck, and it becomes weaker and weaker, It's only a matter of time in my opinion before it will collapse completely."
For a copy of the issue of the Young Socialist containing this important four-page interview with Malcolm X, write to the Young Socialist, Box 471, New York, N.Y. 10003. A one-year subscription to the Young Socialist (five issues) is $1.
MALCOLM X --