Kremlin Split

Scan page 3

The great unknown in present capitalist diplom acy and politics is the more -Orless open political rift in the uppermost echelons of the Stalinist bureaucracy in the Soviet Union.

French President •Giscard d'Estaing was the accidental victim of the Stalinist infighting during his state visit to Moscow ten days ago; Brezhnev abruptly cancelled a scheduled meeting with him, following sharp public remarks on "ideological competition' in the wake of the Helsinki summit.

Brezhnev's subsequent explanation - that he was forced to stay at home for two days after having caught a chill from driving with the car window open - was universally treated as a 'diplomatic' illness. Nonetheless, the French government remain eager to encourage the architect of the Helsinki 'detente'.

Though the diplomatic incident is passed, the veiled "ideological' struggle of the Stalinist chiefs continues. They are divided not on any issue of principle, but on how to pursue closer collaboration with the capitalist powers without losing influence in the workers' movement in the capitalist countries.

This is, of course, a dilemma which capitalist politicians such as Giscard d'Estaing privately feel the greatest sympathy for. Brezhnev appears to be maintaining his position by means of a delicate balancing-act.

Last month he publically received Konstantin " Zaradov, author of a recent Pravda article which prostituted the ghost of Lenin to belatedly and hypocritic ally denounce as 'opportunist' the moves by the Italian and Spanish Com urge is pitieso of cition no steps were taken to analyse the history of this undoubted opportunism, or its course in decades of bureaucratic degeneration in the Soviet leadership itself. This was followed by a similar article in the theoretical journal of the Bulgarian Communist Party a fortnight ago.

The Bulgarian party is traditionally closest to 'hard-line' tendencies in the Stalinist movement, and has never significantly deviated from the line emanating from Moscow. The author of the piece in New Times, Dimiter Mitev, writes:

•. to regard as absolute the peaceful road of amnesty in the previous week had completely failed and Colonel Jaime Neves of a commando group at Amadora near Lisbon (one of the few consistently loyal to the government) declared on 26th October that: "an armed conflict is necessary"

The centrists of the PRP-BR, syndicalist counterparts of the British International Socialists, have melodramatically declared that it is necessary to go "underground" at this stage in order to defend the revolution.

However, of considerably greater importance now than gestures of this kind is the political mobilisation on policies which will make it possible for the working class to resolve the power struggle. Such policies are consistently avoided by the PRP, who have done nothing to force a break between the mass workers' parties and the leadership of the Armed Forces Movement.

The big demonstration in Lisbon on the night of Thursday 23rd October supported by the various groups in the so-called revolutionary united front' , was still dominated by the Stalinists and their bankrupt calls for the return of Vasco Goncalves.

Only a break from such political leadership can make possible the necessary challenge for power. development creates among the revolutionary forces and the masses "legalist' illusions.

"If the Communist Parties" he added, he added in their own countries by the peaceful road, they must be ready to use all forms of class struggle, including armed struggle, since the reactionary forces do not give up armed resistance until they are politically isolated and are placed in a hopeless position."

'REFORMIST'

But on the other side of the scale to these formal endorsements of revolutionary policies, Brezhnev has also served up - without committing himself definitely to them -more 'reformist' positions. Three weeks ago one of his acknowledged proteges, the economist Eduard Pletnev, published in Pravda an article arguing that the economic crisis in the West is 'cyclical' - and that the policy of 'detente' will therefore survive, through the economic recovery of capitalism.

This position reflects the main line of policy which Brezhner has tried to pursue with Kissinger and the governments of western Europe in recent months. His simultaneous "left' phrases certainly reflect strong pressure from within the bureaucracy not to pursue 'peaceful coexistance' with such obvious enthusiasm that the. Communist Parties in the west sacrifice their "revolutionary' credentials completely, bringing the risk of them losing their value as bargaining counters in Soviet foreign policy CONFERENCE It is against this background that the Byzantine manoeuvres around the calling of a conference of European Communist Parties are taking place. Latest unofficial reports indicate that the conference will be convened, in December or early January.

Like all Stalinist conferences, it will carry out no real discussion on anything at all, but will merely act as a rubber-stamp for agreements made in bargaining sessions behind closed doors before hand.

While the Soviet Communist Party and its supporters would like the conference to adopt a joint -even if vague and elastic - political platform, an important minority are insisting on no more than a communique which would (among other things) leave each party explicitly free to follow its own 'autonomous' path.

This important minority includes the Spanish and Italian parties, and also the governments of Rumania and Yugoslavia. Both of these wish to develop their own independent agreements with the capitalist powers, including the United States, and to leave themselves free to negotiate independently with Peking.

A major diplomatic delegation returned recently to Belgrade from Peking, setting Yugoslav-Chinese:

Berlinguer, Italian CP leader, denounced as opportunist by Zarado „relations on a friendly basis while 'the Chinese Stalinists continue to denounce the Moscow bureaucrats as the rulers of a 'fascist' state and the major threat to peace in Asia.

The splits among the Soviet bureaucrats concerned with foreign policy - and this includes the whole top stratum - are certainly also affected by the problem of pursuing "peaceful "coexistence' against the thrust of China's (equally reactionary)…. foreign policy.

Not only did the Peking leadership make a bid for closer relations with Western European capitalism by supporting (against Moscow) Britain's membership of the Common Market, but they even went so far as to censure US imperialism - in the person of Kissinger on his recent eighth trip to China - for moving too close to the Soviet bloc.

But as far as Kissinger and all other intelligent capitalist politicians are concerned the new 'triangle' emerging in world diplomacy is something to be welcomed. It means they can look forward to Moscow competing with Peking to offer imperialism the benefit of its services as "peacemaker' aga nst revolutionary movements internationally.