u

a tLjs l

' THE REASONERA JO U R N A L OF DISCUSSION

Edited bv

J O H N SAVILLS and e / P . T H O M P SO ,j r s r r c ;

(] T ° leave error unrefuted is to encourage intellectual immorality ” - MarxU»«me

llha Case for Socialism - Continued

In the second place, The Keascner has almost been drowned in infancy

by the waters of argument about discussion it selft what is the place for dis

cussion, how do ideas grow and develop, how can theoretical controversies (which can never be decided, initially , by majority decisions) take place within the structure of a party of action where, rightly, the discipline of

majority decisions must prevail^

The contributions in this number from Ronald Meok, Doris Lessing, and

Professor Hyman Levy show the very wide implications of this controversy! indeed, the discussions around the rights of minorities, and this unofficial

publication* have revealed a central place of conflict between the needs of united, disciplined action on the one hand: and the claims of honest and un

restricted discussion and enquiry on the other.

In this controversy, we have been guided by one main consideration* the discussion must continue. And it must be more : rank and searching than any at present Veing conducted in official Communist .journals. For example, the Communist Party cannot effectively pursue its aim of unity if Communists are unwilling to enter an honest and self— c n tical discussion of the serious criticisms of Communist method and thoory put forward by Socialists who hold the general position of Profeasor G.D.i .Cole. The discussion must take place across the barriers of party loyalties! for this reason, wo publish amorur the documents in this number certain views of two non-Communists, Paul Sweer r and Leo Huberman. , interpretive of the Soviet Union, which pose questions which Communists must consider and discuss. Further, we publish a letterfrom Lawrence Daly, until recently a member of the Scottish District Committee of the Communist Party, who has recently resigned his membership cf the party. We regret his decision. But is it possible to consider realist

ically the problems of recruiting, the need for a party of 5 0 ,0 0 0 , questions of unity, etc ., if we are unwilling to receive and reply to the arguments of responsible Communists who have left the party on political grounds?

The discussion must continue; it must be honesti it must cross party

barriers"! How thtT discussion shall be conducted; the personal positionof the editorsl the continued existence of The Reaaoner as an unofficial pub

lication - all theso are secondary questions.

X X X X X

It may be that discussion cf the right way to discuss must be carried

to some conclusion before the uiscussion itself can begin in earnest.

But let us be cloar what thi-j di^cujssioji is about. There are some

Communists who are so concerned with urgont day-to-day struggles that they

mistake the discussion for a distraction of energies. They are preparedto admit full discussion on certain immediate tasks and problems! and, within defined limits, discussion on certain questions of organisation and verbal alterations of programmo. Discussion which doos not have an immediatebearing on these tTask3 and questions they regard with impatience.

We do not agree with the view, implied by a correspondent in our first

number, that individuals must cease political activity while fundamental review of theory and policy take3 place. The shock of the "revelations" had this initial effect upon many of us: but this phaso is now surely passing? Events such as the B.M.C. strike and the Suez crisis underline the fact that activity and discussion must go together and strengthen each other.

X X X X X

But this is no argument for any limitation of the discussion. Even questions of the mo3t general theory, such as the nature of dogmatism, have the most direct bearing upon our political work: first , because they concern

PROBLEMS 07 PRES DISCUSSION IN POLAND

(Translator's notej This contribution by Helena Eilstein was originally pub

lished in Praeglad Kulturalny (tfeekly Organ of the Polish Counoil for Culture

and Art) No. 29 , 26 July 1956. In its issue No. 30 P.K. published a further latter from the author protesting against cuts the editor had made in her .ar

ticle , and quoting in full the missing passages. In the present translation these have been restored. The ambiguities, obscurities, and contradictions are in the original - no attempt has been made by the translator to tamper with the style or arrangement of the article - with one or two minor exception*. The article reflects, in the translators' view, the struggle between "the old and the new" not only in the author's mind but also in the ranks of the Polish Workers' Party. Phrases or words underlined in the

the translation were italicised in the original. A. Dressier).

THE RETURN to democracy in our party and country, to public discussion

of our national affairs, raises for Marxists a number of specific problems.

Post-Stalinism ia a difficult period in tho life of a Marxist-Leninist

party. It is a time of intense maturing of party cadrea and of the growth in the political consciousness and activity of party sympathisers. At the same time this is a difficult period of re-education, of painful prooeeses of

moral revival.

In this situation a clash of ideas and attitudes in the party itself is unavoidable. There are bound to be differences in the level cf people's understanding of the distortions of the past. There will won be differences in the degrees of sincerity and enthusiasm with which people will welcome the revival! it is quite understandable that there exist certain sections among the followers of the party who adapted themselves to past errors - who, to

tell the truth, profited by them.

Take, for example, this matter of the "cult of the individual". It is by no means restricted exclusively to the sphere of ideas and conscience.

This cult, as all other similar cults, created its own specific priesthood which in its turn strove to maintain the cult as the basis for its own exis

tence.

The creation - during the period of Stalinism — of the social insti- tution of the "classic" as the universal^and infallible_authority^yhoee ut- terano’eV must for ever determine our s’olu^ions of theoretical and practical

problems, f i n d s its counterpart, in the material sphere, in the existence of groups” '*’ dogmatists, drones of science, art and philosophy - in 3hort, of a priesthood which itself becomes a real force and a social institution of great influence. This priaethood - as any other priesthood - can even

agree, i f need be, to the overthrow of a hitherto revered deity; but it cannot agree to the destruction of such ingredients of the "religionieation of

public life " as the sibylline books, the infallible oracles, the excommunication of the erring believers, and the complete submission of the faithful.

The struggle with dogmatism is first and foremost a struggle for *the intellectual growth of the mass of the party membership, and the sympathisers with Marxism - for their re-education towards a proper understanding of the inter-relationship Of theory and reality. But an essential and inesoapable first step is the removal of dogmatic drones from positions of influence - from editorial offices, from educational institutes, from university chairs,

in the countries of the socialist camp.

Similar considerations could be applied to any other sphere of life , e .g . to the search of the party for methods of economic management appro

priate in a people's state.

'-f

* DOCUMENTS - Dieouesion in Poland -Continued

. . . 1 * 7 'J l d , b e n , l v e * ° ' M " J‘ »“ at t h . dictatorial, or.cular, pr..u.ptuous

s : . #L T S i£n l^ " s 8S"b :,coup r no“io■ciouslywheid m&vba hv n i *■ oncept nowhere formulated,and con-

T T o i t r J . t r ^ £ ’t h V ~

to in flH ra t8blntoSth6,‘partySactivelt ' “st f " ° “ llou“ »nd oareerl.t alement.

- ^ s j s r ^ ' s s s r . r

= ^ ■ £ £ 2= ~ r ? , r ^ S r w , ? -

th . n a «e 'r :‘ o T f n " b ^ y S ^ l a i f . r H “ * S * ? * " " S i”

u f p ' T ”" 1” ¥ ^The recently initiated changes'in olr life co“ u t “ . 1 ^ " S N ^ r t T ” 4,

*h° z \ 'r r bs s a w s i s s r a c?eth tt ~ -gariaation. The great revival cf cur party ^ d ^ t a ^ L 'a t 'i ^ v l ^ h l 'y

aocompanied by a struggle of ideas and attitudes within the party itself

5 S i " S ^ S . * 2 i ^ e ^ S ^ L T ^ I c t n y ^ ^ t r ’ dftfl0 i“ i ; •come in their own attitudes the distortions created by somiTaapects°ofVparty

" ^ “ - ^ • u S U p S s ! ' 4

s ^ T ^ i S r f 'a r wear| ^ o r e comprehensive . However, not alT I R i t t V . and tabooVVan’ £ - £ “

! r S f ^ c t ‘ L „ ^ : e ° ; ndS ° f th0se wh° ■*)8t welcome and^pprcve

more t h ^ ” cniince o ^ e l v e T " t S e ' f ^ t h Y ^ * “ «■*»* " “ « «

» u » c S ° * i 81 f T “ ? must g0' fcand ln ^ ^ S r S J S ^ ^ S a Ttempts at .t-aCt8 . fcates to criminal and counter-revolutionary

o o m b a t ^ i l and1 revis ioniam! WhU8 ^ ° n ° Ur Vital

vorninIhth!BI t9r i s » \ °"ever> complicated by the fact that the process of ex-

inff the nt i f’T>r̂ rS ° I P8St and their fatal , ^ e process of reach-Pr«fer "to liauidate" ° f , PUbliC °P inion. i« often abused by those who would + k v v t J* 7 0ur P168® ^ troubles by silencing protest r*th«r

o L “E %“ f - ^ 9 n“ i0n ‘ ° ”aga a ^ l i b e r a ? , , u n o o m S f o ^ g .t £ £ r i .J H ” ?? iifficultifla. This is the pernicious Sttitutoof X S E

tEm»t?n« £ Jtly been aocused by official pronouncements of our party of at- tempting to stop the process of democratisation.

Prom all these points of view this is a most difficult oeriod for Marxint

of^etri^rle all, thi® the? muet re-learn the Leninist methodsa b i l i t ^ S J n ^ n J Jeadinf . f ° l8 of the party in the nation's life . . The ability to o o n ^ ^ ^ n c o i t i o n s _of freedom of speech, the ability to put

L

/ DOCUMENTS - Discussion in Poland - Continued

forward genuine arguments based on the fullest acquaintance with the facts of the masses, and not on concealment and political deceit serving the "good oause"} the ability to gain influence in the activities of various societies, organisations, clubs, in conditions' of the true democratisation of public life- this is an art, a science, and a system of habits which to a large ex

tent must be re-leamed and perfected by the party active at all levels. . .

The democratisation of public life which just now is meeting with oer- tain objective difficulties puts the party into a position which Stalinism tried to prevent with all the means at its disposal (weakening in the process

the party's political skill and flexibility ): into a situation in which postulates can be advanced "from below" which the leadership considers to be incapable of immediate realisation, but the correctness of which the party lead

ership neither can nor 'vante to deny. And how the unity of public opinion is to be achieved in a situation when Communist 3elf-criticism has given rise in certain individuals and circles to resentment because we shut our eyes to altogether monstrous things, because wo could not prevent them, because we

kept silent; it has created doubts whether we shall be able to make up for all the injustices (at least for those that can still be repaired) and to protect the nation against a return to the old methods in the future.

These are the "dark sides" of our present situation. But the essence of the past can in no way be encompassed in the wordSj "t he era of Stalinism.11 On the contrary "the era of Stalinsim" i3 i conaoious* and completely one-sided abstraction, an abstraction which ip useful if in one word one wants to ex- press the complex accumulation of errors and monstrous perversions connected with the Stalinist methods of government . . .

And yet this past epoch belong to history as one of the periods of the victorious struggle of the popular masses for a society free of oppression.The post-Stalin period finds our country in a fairly advanced stage in the building of Socialism . . . Irrevocable changes have taken place in the economic basis of a society engaged in building Socialism^ the political, economic, educational and cultural achievements of a revolutionary decade have resulted also in irrevocable changes in the nation's consciousness. Under the leadership of the party great, docisive successes have been achieved in

regard to the socialist transformation of the political consciousness of the

popular masses and the creation of a real, not a sham, not an idyllic moral and political unity of important sections oY~society. Fundamental structural changes have already been accopted by the nation. That does not mean, of course, that an intensive struggle for the mobilisation of the masse3 around the party's programme for further advances has become unnecessary. It only means that the preconditions for such an ideological struggle are given; that the party can wage a real struggle for mcFIYisatlon in support of its pro

gramme in the conditions of democratisation.

Poxnan has shown how very neoe33ary thin ideological struggle of the party for the masses is to-day, how indispensable it isTTo demonstrate to" the

masses that the party is the only, tho true, the national advocate'of their interests; how' indispensable is the ability of explaining difficulties, of win

ning confidenoe ba3od on understanding.

As soon as the "paralysis o f f r e e speech" gave way to free discussion between the party and the nation, Communists discovered that they*"had to listen to many criticisms, not only about the pa3t but also about the present, far-from-impressive, temp of reform in many sphered of life and in many areas of the country. All theso avalanches of harsh resentment, reproachos, and impatient prodding to which the Communists are exposed have one strikingly

uniform point of departure. All critical discussion starts from a comparison of Commuhist practice with the idoal proclaimed by the Communists themselves: a social and moral ideal the basic features of which axe approved even by tKe critics. These people recognise the new basic features in the Communist programme, the new economic structure of society, and the new relationship between people . . . Severe critioi3m of the activities of our party was recently voiced in the columns of our press by people who, maybe, hafce not much

36

DOCUMENTS — Discussion in Poland - Continued

to say for us Communists but who have quite unambiguously proved, both at home and abroad, that they "prefer u s ", that they have "chosen" us and that they are determined to stick to their choice. It is not a matter of complimenting these critics but of understanding the attitudes which they repre

sent. Against their errors we must wage an ideological struggle, i .e . through hone8t and public discussion. But the difference between ideological and armed struggle is~tKat the latter is waged againBt somebody while

the former often is waged for somebody. . .

The conviction that these principles must as fully as possible be realised in our life is not based on the assumption that there are no longer class-

enemies in our midst who would exploit freedom of speech for their own aims; but it i3 based on the assumption that if the enemy puts his yiews in open dis-

cussion, we shall be able to mobilise public^ opinion against nis demagogy. . .

The hypocrisy bred during the era of Stalinism presented the ideological

unity of the karrist-Leninist party and the moral and political unity of a nation engaged in building Socialism as something embodied in the heart and

the mind of a single "corpus mysticus" (it was hypocritically proclaimed that the "word had become flesh" in our country); hypocrisy even succeeded in combining this view with the thesis put forward at the same time about the shar

pening class struggle.

Unity of the party on theory, unity in action, the working out of an agreed party view on current political problems (a metter of course amongst people linked by a common idea) , and the moral and political unity of the masses rallying round the party is real only because, to say the least, such unity does not degenerate into an idyllio " h a r m o n y of soul*"J becauseTt

not a*"miracle of unanimity in all matters, and attained at a moment'_s_notioe Wm ouVVxcVanVe ‘oT views "or struggle of ideas. The public discussion of

The problems "of our social life will often*TaTl to delight our ears with the divine harmony of angelic rhoirs; freedom of public expression cannot depend

on whether all people write'exclusively about important and timely matters though everybody will consider his contribution important, intelligent and

correct.

The introduction of principles of maximum public discussion is bound

to lead to people (who objectively or subjectively are the allies of the party) criticising the party ’ 3 actions in a manner not always just or well-considered. And the Communists, while not breaking the alliance, while not questioning the

critics ' place in the moral and political unity of the nation, will nevertheless have to refute them for the sake of the common cause and the strengthen

ing of national unity. . .

Maximum freedom of speech for our citizens will lead again and again to questions and problems being raised publicly to which the leaders of the party

and its leading organs will net be able to give immediately a satisfactory reply. After a ll, they are not councils of omniscient gods, but a group of the most experienced workers whos'e tasTTYt in Vo study tno life of our society with the utmost application of theoretical competence, based on their knowledge of the facts, in order to work out and arrive at mature decisions. Characteristic of our present position is the charging and synchronising of many such "circuits" linking the masses and the leadership, but so far they have not yet gone into action. But this, after a ll, is the correct way in which

democracy should funct ion.

The errors of the period of Stalinism can only be overcome if the party and its leading organs prove able to rely not on the stifling of the voices

of those who have "evil thoughts" but on the ideological strength of the Marxist front, on the continuous raising of the intellectual level of its cadres} on its growing ability to mobilise the membership whenever neoessary} on the experience and skill of the leading party active to resolve doubts, to recognise difficulties, and to transmit correct analyses convincingly and without delay. The renunciation of the contempt - characteristic ofStalinism - of the intellectual potentialities of the masses (this attitude was much more widespread among the party active than was its indifference

^DOCUMENTS - Discussion in Poland - Concluded

for the needs of the masses) requires now methods in the struggle to estab

lish the authority of the party and its leadership. The Stalinist method was based on the spreading of fairy-tales about the good uncle or the devil who had abundant surprises in store for the humble masses. But when Leninist norms of democracy are observed and the masses are released from their

"aubmiesiveness", and are allowed not only to express their gratitude but also their views and demands, the authority of the leadership cannot be based only

on initiative from "above" to satisfy the needs of the masses and to improve the methods of govern raent. It will also have to bo founded on an attitude to criticism from "below" in accord with party and state legality, on a

proper attitude to the postulates and projects that are an expression of the political activity of society. A "proper attitude" does not at all mean

that all such critical views or even those at one time or another most popular must be accepted.

The authority of the leadership depends also on its ability to convinoe the party and the nation of the impossibility of acceding to certain

The Stalinist method of safeguarding authority was based on the principle of infallibility . In the conditions of democracy, the authority of the party and its leading organs must be based both on the corredtness of their polioy and on their self-critioism and ability to declare publicly that it has no solution to offer for certain problems - that these must be discussed and solutions found with the help of public opinion.

The otalinist method which reliod on treating the masses as political adolescents, actually reduced them to that level. In conditions of demo- cratisation the method of strengthening the authority of the party and its loading organs must be based on an appeal to reason. The first maxim of all systems of education is that by appealing to reason, and only in this way, can the mind be formed and developed.

—0O0-

AM AMERICAN ASSESSMENT OF THE STALIN SKA

(Vfe publish below extracts from the editorial comments, "After the Twentieth Congress", in the July-August number cf the American Socialist journal, Monthly Review, edited by Leo Kuberman and Paul M. Sweezy. Readers will find the entire issue valuable, including a "Critique of the Stalin Sra" by Anna Louise Strong.)

THE THEORY that what has been happening in the USSR is a case of a socialist democracy correcting its errors is not satisfactory. The problem here . . . lies in the idea of "error" a3 a historical concept. Undoubtedly errors do happen and havfe a place in historical explanation. In wars, particularly, crucial decisions can often be traced to one or a few people, and if they go wrong they can only be desoribed as errors which would not have been committed if their consequenoes had been correctly foreseen.But in making use of this kind of explanation, we must be sure that we can pinpoint the cruc ial decisions find identify those who were responsible for

making them. And we must certainly not attempt to explain gradual and cumulative historical processes as the result of a long series of "errors" committed by many different people, for used in this way the notion of error loses any definite meaning and becomes a mere substitute for serious analysis. . .

During the 1920s, the Soviet Union was a backward peasant country with few friends and many powerful enemies. The leadership was divided three waysi there were those who looked to a world revolution for salvation (Trotsky),

D0CUKEHT3 The Stalin Sra - Continued

those who favoured going alow and hoping for the beet (Bukharin), and tho.e

who oallad for a tramsndoua effort to develop the country ' ®*nd atrerurth to enable It to oome through Whatever teats might lie ahead (Stalin ). After bitter politioal atruggles whioh left their mark on every

thing that waa to follow, the third group won out and pursued its P * licy with ruthlees determination. The oountiy waa industrialised at break

neok epeed; a vast educational program was improvised and strained to

limitj dieoipline was literally forced upon a new and un* r^ * * ‘To these enda a huge bureaucracy was hastily bui-t up, andmachine was kept in order and whipped on by a ubiquitous aecret police. *

gamble succeeded. The great testing came in World War I I , and the So

Union survived. But the time of troubles was still not *o hburdens of reconstruction were added those of a cold war in which the USSR, while no 1oncer isolated, was now faced with the menace of unilateral atomic

annihilation. Under these circumstances the forced march under “he d

line of the knout continued. Even the mastery of atomic weapons and aainin* of a giant ally in China brought no immediato release from strain an

hard on these events came the Korean War, with its ever-present

threat to explode into World War I I I .

Such was th . Stalinist state at the time of the death of Stalin jjillMlf.

It embodied a gigantic contradiction, in ^ . alns andfairly be described as superhuman; in its methods and attitude towaratne

rights and dignity of « ■ . * £ £ « & subhuman. ^ ^ t o ^ t h . matter

cond'indust rial p o w ^ with an educated citizenry and surrounded by friends and

allies* on the other hand, it was govomed by the methods of an oriental es

potism rather than of a nidem oivilissd society » i . «j thft breaking point by three events of 1953 ~ the death 01 Dtaxi ,the end of the Korean War, and the Soviet achievement of the H-bomb. Some-thing had to give , and something did give. There was apparently a shortIh*™ crisis which ended with the downfall of Beria. T h e r e a f t e r the newi Â-pcihit) following the logic of the situation in which it .ound itself,r a p i d l y set about mending the country's international fences a n d redressingth? hilance of its internal structure. The 20th Congress can be taken as

an official proclamation to the Soviet people and the world at large tha

is or the way to regaining its equilibrium and, barring accidcr.ts,tends to continue along its present course for a long time to como.

The essence of t h is theo ry is that "Stalinism" was an extremely dynamic a fnnnrtlv self-contradictory phenomenon. Growing up under one set

C o m p l e t e l y altered those conditions and thereby made its own conditions, it completely alter ^ thQ 11&rxi#n thoory 0f capital-

S » S society whioh » • * C M i f l o T ^ o £ f t S l S d ’ i T b S S .

requirements of further p ^ g ^ s e called not for „ ut rath6r

Marxian sense of a caS^supcr-tructurc up to reasonably civilised stan-

dards^^Conceivably* this might have entailed a political revolution more or leBS comparable to J r t a i n bourgeois Political r e f e ^ o f ^ e a r l i e r ^ ^

? 5 i S i ifstalin is^m eth o dt , but it also g a i n e d it , basic Marxian ideas

^ StaliaismjV0and^mhon S 2 * •• the l^adership S c J d iteelf capable cf adapting tc the new situation . . .

How far. then, is the 1^b0X*Jî ^ 1^ vPe0everynrea3onOforabelieving that

viet world likely to go? 9“ ' It a lsH o n ta in s an implicit war-the process is genuine and important, » w *ning against exaggerated hopes or expectations.

' staliniem incorporated the ' S X i ncmendaci-ty, duplioity, brutality, and above all arbitrary

COKRBSPOWPEHCE - T. Ttfvuo - Continued

Does anyene, even the bitterest opponents of democratic centralism,

think the achievement of socialias in this country now a matter of debate only? If so let them say so openly, but I refuse to argue the point ser

iously here. I am merely going to assert that even assuming that socialism will be achieved purely on the basis of victory at the polls, we are engaged in a fundamental all-embracing struggle that will go on for a very long timet that we shall be faoed throughout this struggle with huge politics

and organisational problems, with the need for great flexibility ^

combined with consistertcy of purpose, and that we shall never ™the Conmunist-Party becomes the active day-to-day leadership of the wor 1 .g class in all its activities, linking this with the struggle for socialism.

In this struggle we need ideas, organisation and cohesion. No deba i.g

society or anything like it could conceivably do the job.

Prom all this I conclude we do need centralism in the Communist Party,

as indeed you do in any serious political party. (And which one, when it comae to t £ test, haaj't got it?) As . natter of fact centralism M l have defined it is very well understood throughout the l a b o u r movement ir.

this country, and nowhere more than in the trade unions.the basic organisational principle on which the unions have been built up,

and they could not have been built up without it.

The only question really up for discussion is in ^aC* > not have■hnuld have any centralism or not, but what sort of centralism we should have,

and bow much. As to the type of centralism I imagine few w° ul

CORRESPONDENCE - J , Lyons - Continued

Then our National Congresses oust cease to be the empty and dreary parades that they have been of late and oust become what they should be, bodies whioh lay down policies after debating them, thrashing them out on

the floor, one by one. A number of procedural alterations are required

to allow this to happen. But as with other organisational changes the really important thing is the extent to whioh we use them in the right manner.

To make the democratio part of democratic centralism work, therefore, the indispensable requirement is the-unflagging determination to make it work, organisational improvements though there must be. This determination will be aided by an understanding that the vigorous functioning of democracy is essential to correct policy making and that in itself, when it comes

to be observa bis to those outside the Communist Party, it is a reassuring demonstration of our good faith and sound principles, I am sure that the Communist Party will never become the mass party of the working class until it can plainly be Been that while it is disciplined, centralised and self- sacrificing, it i 8 also thoroughly democratio in terms of the experience and

traditions of our own labour movement,

«Yet it muet be democracy "plus", just the same.

J. LYONS (London)

DISCUSSION & DEMOCRACY

Heartiest congratulations on your initiative in publishing The Reason- er. My only regret is that it wasn’ t done years ago.

The discussions taking place in the Communist Party are the most im

portant in its history. Our. job is to r,ake sure that this discussion re

sults in the strengthening of Marxism in Britain. This is not inevitable! the reverse could happen - we could degenerate into a sect like the S .P .G .B . This discussion will be fruitful to the extent to which it draws in the rank and f ile , makes them feel that its their party, that they take a part in formulation of policy, that theory and policy are not just the affair of the leaders. Once that atmosphere develops then you 'll get the enthusiasm and the elan of long ago.

. Of course we want a party of 50,000j but wo want quality as well ao that we keep all those recruits we make. In my opinion our most important job is to win back all those people who have teen driven out of the party or

resigned in disgust. (I could name 50 from Nottingham alone). Then we'll have our mass party, mass in influence and links with ordinary people.

To make this discussion as wide as possible and to bring in all these

ex-party members I suggest discussion groups are set up in *>very town. This way we will all have an opportunity to let our hair down without some bureaucrat telling you that you're undermining the leadership. *•»

PAT JORDAN (Nottingham)

CORRESPONDENCE - L. Daly — Continued

"THE LONO ROAD BACK"

The Beasoner fulfils a vital need at the present time when we so much

require the widest and most thorough discussion - in a free, frank, honest,

and serious way - of the fundamental questions which flow from the 20th Congress. The anti-Stalin criticisms - whatever their validity - have revealed deep divergenc ea of opinion between many members of the British Communist Party on tte one hand and the party leadership on the other.

These differences have led in not a few cases to resignations, rightly or wrongly, from the Party. As one of these, I would like the chance to say my piece, knowing that most comrades will rcspect my sincerity; as I do theirs

It should be realised that misgivings about the party leadership's attitude are not confined to what we call "the intellectuals", though an attempt was made to give this impression, here, when reporting the 24th Congress.

I am no "intellectual” , having been a coal-miner all my life; and I have been a party member for 16 years (since the age of 15). Others in this area who agree with me, including coal-miners, cobblers, and housewive*, are as

deeply concerned as any "intellectual" with the political and moral issues arising from the Kruschev speech. Their attitude is simply expressed by

saying, ” -/e can't go round the doors and state an honest case for the party

now. We A1.9, still playing 'about turn' when the Soviet leaders sa/ so, and the workers feel, therefore, that we can quito easily defend similar mistakes and crimes in the future as readily as we did in the past. They will not trust us, unless we change our attitude - and the party leadership shows no

• sign of doing so ," Such comrades realise that, whether we like it or not, the mass of the workers are concerned about the issues which were spotlighted at the 20th Congress, and_,__inde_ed_, were concerned about them years before that Congress took flace. However inadequate and hypocritical British capitalist democracy may "be," "tho average worker does feel that he has the right, more or leas, to express his own opinion freely on political and other affairs, worship freely in his own way, get a fair trial if ho is arrosted, listen to different points of view and make up his owr. mind, travel almost where he likes

(if he can afford it) and so on.

Workers cherish these rights, however restricted, and have refused to gave any substantial political support to the C.P. largely because they feared that many of these rights would disappear i# it ca;ne to power.

It would now appear that their fears were justified. That this ha3 now been officially confirmed will make them more, not leas, suspicious of the C.P. in this respect, unless wo can show in futuro, not by words, resolutions, etc, but by deeds, that we genuinely regret our mistakes; and carry through certain measures to ensure that they will never occur again. The workers respect Communists as individuals, agree with ?0jS of their policy, and admire their militancy - hence the C ,P . 's industrial support. But they steadfastly refuse to send them to Parliament, or to organs of local government (with a very few exceptions) because they fear abuse of political powor. It will be objected that what they really fear is tho split vote and that

it is the "two-party system" which prevents the C .P .'s advance. Those who do will have to explain why it is that the Labour Party had substantially overcome the same obstacle in 30 years whereas the C.P. hasn't made the slightest progress in this respect in 36 years.' Comrades ask, "Well,what should be done now?" Here are only a few cf the measures which, I believe, i f carried out would help to oonvince British workers that we had begun to put loyalty to Socialist principles before blind loyalty to the Soviet leader9t

1) Object to assertions in the Soviet press that the Soviet people unanimously approve the anti-Stalin revelations, when this is plainly untrue, (Inkoyan, "Some people took it badly" - interview in India),

2) Demand freedom of expression of opinion in the Soviet preasi e .g . for

C0RR3SP0NDENCE — L. Daly — Continued

those who disagree with the criticisms of Stalin. Why not the same kind of controversy in Pravda, etc. , on these questions, as there was in the Daily Worker?

3) Invite to Britain Communists, Socialists, arid others imprisoned during ths Stalin era, in order to make some assessment oursslves as to events in the Soviet Union, e t c ,, in past years,

4) Demand an open hearing of the evidence against Beria (and those executed and imprisoned as meribers of tho "Beria gang"). To date wo have ouch less proof that Beria was an "imperialist agent" than we had about Tito, Butf as with Tito, we have swallowed the allegations against Beria without question. No lessons learned, no real change of attitude. What' if Kruschev is the "imperialist agent" to-morrow?

5) Request the publication of critical contributions from brother Communists (e ,g , Togliatti's statement) and Socialists in the press of the Soviet

Union, in order to develop the atmosphere of froc, frank, and democratic discussion,

6) Call an international conference of all Communist and Workers parties (inoluding the Yugoslavs) to discuss questions of Common interest, and •specially the question of international working-class unity.

In general the Communist Party must demonstrate in every possible way that it will approach questions of concern to the movement in the spirit of honest enquiry and respect for the facts. No more blind loyalty, based on false conceptions of international solidarity.

The operation of some of the above proposals at least wouid be a first step on "the long road back". There is room for hope, but only if the C.P. begins to show the workers by deeds that a genuine change has been made. Can the leadership respond to the challenge? My opinion is that it cannot, but I hope it will yet prove me wrong,

LAV7RENCE DALY (West Fife)

v.%

LABOUR - COMMUNIST RELATIONS

The Tribune, reporting your first issue, deliberately sought to present the journal as that of an opposition group in the Party. If that were true, I would consider it a bad thing. I see however that the Tribune report was incorrect, and was simply an expression of the aim of certain elements on that journal, which is to disintegrate the Communist Farty, However, I had hoped to see a letter from you in Tribune repudiating the suggestion.

I am rather worried that The Reasoner seems to be supported mainly by intellectuals. That is , o7""course, not surprising. It is .the intellectuals sho have had to-*do much of the work as publicists in justification of various phases of Soviet and British Coumunist policy. But the danger of a split between workers and intellectuals in the party on our attitude to our past mistakes seems to be real. When arguing that we need to be self critical, not only among ourselves, but to our friends in the labour movement, I was attacked by party comrades as showing the typical weakness of an intellectual, remote from the class struggle (as though any open Communist during the Cold War period was ever allowed to forget the

class struggle.') But more serious, the same comrades suggested that the party's main political task had been, and should continue to be, propaganda for the USSR. The conception of the party as little more than a British- Sorist Friendship Scoiety is bound to lead to the assumption that it has no

4 : .CORRESPONDENCE - Rodney Hilton - Continued

function in the transformation of Britieh eooiety. With this attitude, our failure to carry weight a3 a political body in the local labour move

ment is not surprising.

It seeme to me that the key to the situation, that is not only the question of relations between workers and intellectuals in the party, but also the wider political issues precipitated by the 20th Congress, is the

relation of Communists to non-Comrcunista in the Labour movement. The failure to make any headway on this question is muoh more serious than the failure of our leadership and press to show any positive reaction to the de

struction of the myths that have borne them up so long. R .P .Dutt, analysing the motives which make Labour men suspicious of Communists, wroto about democratic methods, the use of force, and all the old subjects of division between reformists and revolutionaries. But ho evaded the real point, namely that Labour men and women who should be our closest allies and friends have become convinced that we are incapable of independent thought. They have concluded, with some justification, that British Communist policy,

even i f made in Britain, was done under Moscow patent.

The point now is to prove that this is no longer the case. The Labour movement judges our attitude largely by the party press, and by this standard

little would seem to have happened. Surely event3 such as Poznan should make it obvioua that sunshine storios about happy workers in Karlovy Vary are no substitute for realistic Marxist estimates of the progress - or lack of

it - made towards Socialism in the Popular Democracies. In fact the Dail^ Worker and World News have become simply boring on the subject of economics ̂IHTpoLitics in thVSocialiat half of the world. '’Enemy'1 discussions about

Soviet and Eastern European trends, such as those in the Observer, aro readable simply because they discuss problems, oven though in an unfriendly way.

Our press admits no problems until they cause a crisis which cannot be concealed, and consequently is incapable of discussing then.

And so it is my hope that The Eeasoner, for lack of any other Communist

expression of opinion, may perform the all-important function osf a bridge between us in. the Communist Party and the thousands who see the need for the British revolutionary tradition to be embodied in a Marxist political par y.It doesn't have to be a bridgo across which Communists leave the party, and it shouldn't be a bridge flung out to seduce Labour workers from their present allegiance. But it could be a bridge for ideas to cross abou- the creation, in whatever forms, of the unity of the Labour movement.

RODNEY HILTON ("forcestershire)

BEWARE OF ATTESTS TO STIFLE THE DISCUSSION

From various sources are appearing subtle threats that the discussion

flood released by reports from the 20th Congress must not wander any further

from orthodox streams.

The Daily Worker of 23rd July reports Bulganin in Poland attacking

"opportunists Bnd wavering elements" who came out of their corners inside Socialist countries and sowed their inimical seed3 m the press, including

the press of Poland . . .

In Budapest the debates at the Petofi Circle have been praised by the rnmmnnist nawaoaoer Szabad Nep as contributing "to the formation of sincere public opinion to be l i W k S T t o , which we have unfortunately gone without for vears." Szabad Nep continued with the democratic viewpoint that

"People don't want' to l e the dumb extras of history, but people who take a role*thinking with their own heads." Afterwards the Central Committee of the Hungarian Communist Party attacked "enemy, demagogic views expressed

CORRESPONDENCE - J . Johnson - Continued

at the meeting and declared that the Petofi Circle was a focal point for reactionaries attacking the party.

Editorial comment in the Daily Worker on the resignation of Rakosi contained the warning paragraph, "?n all Communist Parties the greatest freedom of discussion needs encouraging and welcoming, but freedom to tear parties a- part would be the denial of freedom to all who wish to advance the cause of

scientific socialism and strengthen the party which ia its organised expression.

Possibly it is true that there are "wavering elements" in the Communist Parties and Socialist countries, but it is the leadership responsible for many grave errors who share a great responsibility for m y existing disunity and any further attempt at suppression of criticism will only lead to the gap between the party and the people widening.

Nikita Kruschev may get away with it when speaking in the Urals but I doubt whether he would convince British people that the quelling of the Poznan demonstration which 7/as under the slogan "'7e want bread" was a crushing defeat for reaction. Here is a clear example of our need to be objective in our policy toward Socialist countries and while retaining solidarity with Socialists everywhere, we must revoke sectarianism disgu:3ed 3s support for the governments of these countries.

The Communist Party is , as we often describe it , "standing at the crossroads". Our only opportunity in winning a following in the ranks of the

working class .and its allies is by continuing the crea* discussions unrestricted, boldly admitting and thon correcting errors.

To build unity there also needs to be a radical elimination of the con

ception, previously dominant at all levels in the party, that those leaders of the labour movement who did not agree entirely with Communist Party methods were either partly cr conpletely reactionary.

I think that the most effective reply to any critics of the existence of The Reasoner should be that we certainly have nothing to lc.ne by debate, and there are the minds of the millions of members of Britain's labour move

ment to gain,

JIK JOHNSON (Northumberland)

MARXISM ~ SCir.ICJ AND DOG HA

It is time we seriously examined our claim to be guided by a scientific study of politics. Whether we drop the last part of the !»;arxist- Leninist-Stelinist title or the la3t two parts uoes not affect tho point

that we do claim to be in sole possession of a certain body cf scientific knowledge and technique, *

I would make three points about this claim.

Firstly, Marxism is certainly the only science which in the la3t hundred years has not completely changed its fundamental theories several times. Modem physics, though it may have developed from the physios of 1348, would appear completely unrecognisable to a scientist of that date. It would be

universally admitted that modem physics does provide a great deal more accurate picture of reality than did 19th century physics, and the picture will be more accurate still in 2056, Any science that does not develop like

this ia no more valid than astrology.

Secondly, a science develops by the constant examination of newly-ob

served facts, fitting them into the framework of the existing theories, if

CORRESPONDENCE — E. Sleight — Continued

necessary by enlarging or remaking the framework to fit the facts. Sciences which aim at changing the world, as well as explaining it , like medical

science or political scienoe, develop by constant examination of results - "the operation was successful and the patient died an hour later" is a grim Joke, not a picture of a soundly-based science.

Let us, therefore, examine two recently-observed facts, results of the application of Marxism in the Soviet Union. First fact - of 1,966 delegates to the 17th Party Congress, 1 ,108 were later arrested on charges of anti- revolutionary crimes. Second fact — "last year the amount of housing space per person in the Soviet Union was only 23 square feet, which is only the equivalent of the 1913 level and lower than the 1926 level . , . the allocation (of new building) is still largely on the basis of one family one room with two or three families sharing kitchen and bathroom,"

It may be objected that these two unfavourable facts are arbitrarily selected from a number of more creditable facts such as the increased industrialisation of the Soviet Union in spite of a hostile world. But I am in

terested in ends more than means. Industrialisation is only a means to an

end - to higher profits in a capitalist country, to higher standards of living

in a socialist country. If personal security and decent living accomodation are not regarded as priorities in the aims of the Russian Communist Party, I can only reply that the British worker doos so regard them and I suspeot the Russian worker does too.

What is particularly disturbing is that these two aims have in fact

been largely achieved, under capitalism, by a British Labour Movement in the

course of its struggle, a struggle not guided by Marxism. But they have

not been achieved after 39 years of woricing-clas3 power in the Soviet Union.

Thirdly, even the most up-to-date and carefully checked body of scientific knowledge often has the most dangerous effect on its practitioners.

The scientist sometimes regards himself as a sort cf high priest of revealed truth and expects ordinary mortals to bow down to its splendour. So long as he can argue like thisi "I believe sc-and-so is correct because this-and- that supports the belief" then he may be a useful citizen with a contribution to make to society. But when he begins to say: "I know this is correct because it is plainly set forth in such a textbook on such a page", then he i9 no better than the man who claims ultimate authority for the utterances of a Pope or a chapter in the Bible. At best he is a fool, at worst a dangerous maniac.

Let us not 3hare the colossal conceit of the scientist pilloried long ago by our own Shaw. We Communists are not in possession of any supreme knowledge or mighty weapon beyond those of "human reason. There are no such weapons. Our reason - yours and mine and all of us - is adequate for the task before us. We can only fail if we cease to trust it.

E. SLEIGHT (Yorkshire)

A LESSON FROM HISTORY

The panic which seized upon all classes of men during the excesses consequent upon the Revolution is gradually giving place to sanity. It has ceased to be believed that whole generations of mankind ought to con

sign themselves to a hopeless inheritance of ignorance and misery, because a nation of men who had been dupes and slaves for centuries, were incapable of conducting themselves with the wisdom and tranquillity of freemen so soon as some of their fetters were partially looeened. That their con- duot could not have been marked by any other than ferocity and thoughtlessness, is the historical fact from which liberty derives all its r»- comnsndations, and falsehood the worst features of its deformity.

COBRESPON BEHCK - P.B.Shelley - Continued

Suoh a degree of unmingled good was expected, ae it was impossible to realise. If the Revo-lution had been in every respect prosperous, then alsrule and superstition would lose half their claims to our abhorrence, as fstters which the captive can unlock with the slightest motion of his fin

gers, and which do not eat with poisonous rust into the soul.

I ’• ' ‘The revulsion occasioned by the atrocities was terrible, and felt in

the remotest oomer of the civilized world. But could they listen to the plea of reason who had groaned under the calamities of a social state, ac

cording to which one man rdot3 in luxury whilst another famishes for want of bread? Can he Who the day before was a trampled slave, suddenly become liberal-minded, forbearing, and independent? , This is the consequence

of the,.habits of a state of society to be produced by resoluto perseverance anjjl‘ indefatigable hope, and long-suffering and long-believing courage, and the systematic efforts of generations of men of intolloct and virtue. Such

ia the lesson which experience teaclres now.

But on the first reverses of hope in the progfess of liberty, the san

guine eagerness for good overleapt the solution of these questions, and for

a time extinguished itself in the unexpectedness of their result. Thus many of the most ardent of the worshippers of public good have been morally ruined, by what a partial glimpse of the events they deplored, appeared to

ahow as the melancholy desolation of all their cherished hopes.

Hence gloom and misanthropy have become the characteristics of the age in which wc live, the Solace of a disappointment that unconsciously

finds relief only in the wilful exaggeration of its own despair. This influence has tainted the literature of the age with the hopelessness of

the minds from which it flows. Metaphysics, and inquiries into moral and

political science, have become little else than vain attempts to revive exploded superstitions, or sophisms calculated to lull the oppressors of mankind into a security of everlasting triumph. Our works of fiction and

poetry have been overshadowed by the same infectious gloom. But mankind appear to me to be emerging from their trance, I am aware of a slow,

gradual, silent change.

P3RCY BYSSHE SHELLEY (Parnassus)

P .S , I send these reflections, which I wrote in the Preface to my ''Revolt

of Islam" in 1817. The parallel between the French and Russian upheavalsis not closet but I thought they might be of use in characterising those features of revolutionary disillusionment in the culture of your time, and in warning against those revulsions of disappointed hope which can only lead

on to states of mind beneficial to the oppressors of mankind.

"We had fed the heAft on fantasies,

The heart’ s grown brutal from the fare;

More substance in our enmities

Than in our love . . . "

W. B.Yeate

m« • v

/ . . . - . > . * ̂

̂ Th» Cm ® for Socialism - Continued

the very processes by which we interpret reality, decide policy, and conduct discussion. eecond, because they have important bearings upon the political relatione of Communists with the labour movement,

I » /S*- -• . • . • •' *

Questions of general attitude, good faith, political honesty, and party history, even when they have no obvious bearing qp the immediate po- l^t_^oal line, can oe of the first importance in our political, aeTwell as

personal, relations with people. tfhen Engels condemned the early S.JD.F. it was not because of major disagreements with its political line, but as a result of the abstract, didactic opportunism revealed in its approaoh to the working-classi "People who pa33 as orthodox Marxists have turned our ideas of movement into a fixed dogma to be learnt by heart . . . and appear

as pure sects." And William Morris elevated the same question of attitude to a similar level of political importance* ' • *‘ ‘.J f y* ‘ i * k 1 r t V ' • . .

"I sometimes have a vision of a real Socialist Party at once united and free , . , but the S .D .F . stands in the way. Although the individual

member** are good fellows enough . . . the society has got a sort of pod- antic tone of arrogance and lack of generosity, whioh is disgusting and does disgust both Socialists and Non-Socialists."

The Communist Party does not share the faults of the early S. D.F. , nor does it express its sectarianism in the same way or to the same degree* certain aspects of sectarianism are the inevitable result of isolation during the Cold War, and will be shed not through discussion but through breaking

this isolation, through activity among the peoplei but discussion will hasten this process and is necessary to it .

I X X X X

This is not the heart of the question. The discussion, surely, is first and foremost about Socialism? Second, it is about the political hon- esty, independence, and effectivenes3 of the Communist Party as a party capable of leading the British people to Socialism.

British Communists have taken note of Engels* warnings against purism and abstract propagandist sects: have studied Left-Wing Communism, and have

learnt from Lenin that Communists must carry on activities "right in the heart of the proletarian masses", participating in every struggle for loving staii- dards, peace, and social advance.

But in place of the clear analysis of imperialism, the agitational explanation of the Socialist alternative, which Engels and Lenin, Morris and Tom Mann, knew must be carried on alongside and in the heart of every struggle, we have increasingly substituted, for the first , an over-simplified myth of the "two camps", and for the second, utopian propaganda about the Soviet Union as the land of Socialism-realised.

Communists have won industrial strength through the courage, milixancy and intelligence of their members in day-to-day struggles* but the Communist Party has failed to emerge as a political influence corresponding to the energy and quality of its membership - despite repeated betrayals both of working-class intorests and of Socialist principles by reformist Labour leaders - precisely because the British people did not believe or trust this central political message.

Into thia situation there comes the speech of Kruschev, setting out in all its grotesque barbarity the political distortions and violations of human rights which have taken place - and which we have for so long denied -

The Case for Socialism “ Continued

IB th . country which, to a great degree, we t«r . » ? * J . £ . 0Urfor th* explanation of Soolalism In general and in ritiah terms.

For months Communists have been seeking to disentangle many

thos. deriving from specific “ « J “ » S U o t snd threat,

tut ional fem e, those deriving < 1

individual lsadarsi those o r g a n .sn.iona ^ a-tAd in ths theory snd practice■Stalin era' which have in their turn been reflected inof other Communist Parties. Wo have now reached a point whe re , ag , u

standing of the essential character of Sooiallet J ° ° ley 0 f=achieving an under-

M S .^ ?£ S 5?&r-»rrss8: ss.problems, our own traditions.

To sunreat that we have now "had" the discussion, that this or that To o fjQ r.mo that ww c'an forscet these unpleasant

ststement "answers” these problems, that we can forge ^ ^ ^

matters and return to our old tasks in tne old way,

cialist theory itself.

So C o m m u n i s t Party, no party aiming at socialism, ^

thusiasm of i t s members if there is t o be ^ m hibi on cl s _ ,

x : s r . : & M r r r 0: £ & , - « * . . « . * i .

why discussion of "the Stalin businoss" must and will go on.

s r r . thiV r * r ^ : . s i s s

day-to-day struggles,that the K ruschev r e v e l a t io n s - w h i l e it i s ru do not

which only the Soviet people can ^ “ a f f e c t the whole p o l i t i c a l

8tandingeof°theBriti8hCommuni8t Party, and its. relations with the British

p e o p le .

A reader from Ql&sgow expresses thisi

. , „ hriaflv One lives in a Lancashire••Two people have ^ n t l y p u t^t Jriefly. wQre 8 ing about the

E S 2 ?

datum of the discussion i . that we ^ T ^ a ^ - C political and economic change among people who r g to use

tolerjnoe end a kindly c o n t e m p t .^ » J J ere.a ^ ^ ^

“d o i n g ‘ he d U e ^ r k i n v a d e Union, and other organisations."

This is not an Issue of sudden origin, B o r ^ i t

blow over". It is ridiculous o aay a that they are concerned, andearned with 'the Stalin business’ . ” The fact thax xn y ^ ^

were ooncerned long before the 20th , infiuenoe - goes to themuniat - often with wide respect and industrial inriueno

-The Case for Socialism - Continued

5

polls. So long aa the British workers auspect the independence, the honesty, and the authoritarian tendencies of the Communist Party, this discrepancy between industrial and political influence is likely to remain.

The records of any T .U .C . or Labour Party Conference during the past

ten years show how "the Stalin business" has been used by reformist leaders

to divide the movement, and how the quarrel about human rights and liberties, in which more than once we have taken the wrong side, has become embedded in the history and even in the structure of our labour movement.

Nor have the Kruschev revelations in any sense "re-habilitated" Communists on those questions where we have been mistaken; although they have created a situation within which, if we ourselves draw the right lessons arid take the right initiatives, we can regain our honesty and independence of judgement and action.

But "the Stalin business" is here to stay. It will not be forgotten next year nor in ten years time. At the worst, the capitalist .class will see to that. Nor will Communists, in ten years time, be able to look with indifference upon those aspects of the history of the first Socialist re

volution which destroyed - by torture, death, and slander - many of its

own best sons. The "business" is part of Socialist historyi it forms acentral experience to which Socialist theory must constantly return.

So long as we refuse to face these faots, honestly and publicly, we are self-defeated in our work, and the return from every political action of Communists is diminished. ’ Fine comrades will redouble their efforts and expend their energies in day-to-day struggles: they will succeed in allev

iating suffering here, and in restraining imperialism there: but few results will accrue in the deepened political consciousness of the British people and the direct political influence of the party. The goal of Socialism will be

brought little nearer.

X X X X X

What is necessary?

First, we must jerk our explanation and agitation for Socialism

sharply out of the old ruts of pro-3oviet propaganda: we must dissociate our propaganda of fraternal solidarity with the people of the Soviet Union,

our explanation of their problems and achievements, from the old uncritical acceptance of particular leaders, particular actions, particular forms of

political and social expression.

Second, we must re-create - and first of all within ourselves and our party - a much clearer understanding of the character of Socialist society, not only in its economic basis but also in its social relations and polit

ical institutions, and in relation to contemporary British conditions. This

is not at all a quostion of writing certain democratic safeguards into our

programme. It is a question of rekindling enthusiasm and imaginative understanding, of commencing an analysis of social reality with fresh eyes and open

minds.

Third, we must take our refreshed Socialist understanding, and carry the agitation for Socialism in Britain into the heart of every day-to-d*y-#

struggle, rai-sing the question of Socialism with a new bite, urgency and confidence! • not as a peroration to our speeches, nor as a gleam to warm our hearts in a hopeless timei not as the ultimate target blue in the distance beyond foothills of new Labour Governments and People's Governments:

but as a practical, common-sense, desirable, and (within political reason) immediste pbssibility.

X X X X X

Collection Number: AD1812

RECORDS RELATING TO THE 'TREASON TRIAL' (REGINA vs F. ADAMS AND OTHERS ON CHARGE OF HIGH TREASON, ETC.), 1956 1961 TREASON TRIAL, 1956 1961

PUBLISHER: Publisher:- Historical Papers, University of the Witwatersrand Location:- Johannesburg ©2012

LEGAL NOTICES:

Copyright Notice: All materials on the Historical Papers website are protected by South African

copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, or otherwise published in any format, without the prior written permission of the copyright owner.

Disclaimer and Terms of Use: Provided that you maintain all copyright and other notices contained therein, you may download material (one machine readable copy and one print copy per

page) for your personal and/or educational non-commercial use only.

People using these records relating to the archives of Historical Papers, The Library, University of the

Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, are reminded that such records sometimes contain material which is uncorroborated, inaccurate, distorted or untrue. While these digital records are true facsimiles of the

collection records and the information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, Historical Papers, University of the Witwatersrand has not independently

verified their content. Consequently, the University is not responsible for any errors or omissions and

excludes any and all liability for any errors in or omissions from the information on the website or any related information on third party websites accessible from this website.

This document is part of a private collection deposited with Historical Papers at The University of the

Witwatersrand.