RaviIsloNisu by a London correspondent + a a RT
In. the course of tho conflicting tondencies within the international Gommunist movement, the serious menace of Khrushchovite revisionism becomes daily cloarere Within the Soviet Union, Khrushchov preserves tho hierarchical nature of the bureaucracy, but unlike Stalin ho allows the burvaucracy more scope for — the expression o* its opinions without foar of the chopper. He seoms to be allor ing industrial management groater flexibility, although in no way dininishing the effoctive control of the guardian party bureaucracy. We hear of increased food prices for the proletariat and at tho same time of concessions to the poasaniry (new allies for the bureaucracy). We even hear of Khrushchov's intorest in real istic costing, we hear nothing of an honest appraisal of the incomes structure in tho Sovict Unione We hear of moans about embezzlement but nothing fundamontal about the root causes of this ombezzgloment, arbitary planninge Yovtushenko may be willing to act as a front for Khrushchov and seoms to be a pleasant young man but this in no way can blind Marxists to Khrushchov's tactics. He is determined to appear as a reformer who is frustrated by evil stonebottoms waiting in the wings. All the economic problems can be put down to "thieves" and “idlers" against which he, poor suffering Khrushchoy, has to wage a continuous struggle.
Revolutionaries are not to be so deluded. The apparent "liberalism" now in vogue in the Svoiet Union is the result of a pressure the bureaucracy cannot resist but hopes to deflect. The "liberalism" of Khrushchov does not extend to the Chinese who are morally ontitled to the maximum possible economic aid. Thore on the contrary he grows mean and indifferent.
Within the Buropean Communist Parties, the Togliatti tondency comes closest to Khrushchov's standpoint and requires determined Marxist criticism. Togliatti's serpentine dismantling of Marxism should be ruthlessly exposed for what it is — a disarming of the Italian workers when militant policies will be required to meet the new economic tensions in the Common ilarket. His notion of polycentrism is particularly poisonous at the very period when a highly organised International is- vital to defend tho world interests of the proletariat.
The dangers of the liberal breeze in the Communist Parties cannot be underestimated. In this country it is often difficult to distinguish "Khrushchovite" from loft centrist. “Organising tho Left" mst in no way take the place of” 100% Leninist soction prepared on critical occasions to put the whole programme of rovolutionary Marxism within any such “organised left.“