British Communists

Press, Volume XCV, Issue 28261, 26 April 1957, Page 10

British Communists

British Communists, the 25,000 or so who remain in the party, have an extraordinary appetite for punishment. They digested Mr Khrushchev’s explicit exposure of Stalin (and the implied exposure of himself and all the rest of the Stalin team). They showed no great distaste for the mess created by Russian tanks in Hungary. They have swallowed the numerous resignations of their former comrades (chiefly intellectuals, it seems) almost with enthusiasm, and have confirmed in office the leaders who put all this before them. A minority, led by Professor Hyman Levy, admitted they had had enough; but, remarkably enough, some of them come back for more. Mr Peter Fryer, the “ Daily “ Worker ” reporter who was expelled because another newspaper printed his account of events in Hungary after it had been suppressed by his employers, applied for readmission to the party, in an attempt to convert it into “ a genuine “Communist Party”, whatever that may mean. If he wanted it to be a party with a philosophy instead of a reflection of the Moscow line, his rejection showed how hopeless his idea really was. Nothing about all this should surprise those who remember the twists of British Communist policy in the days when even Hitler was

an acceptable friend. Mr Harry Pollitt and the other leaders have preserved their authority with remarkable skill; but, as Mr Christopher Hill reminded the party congress, “We are all “ responsible ”. If enough members of the Communist Party believed that it had some room for democracy they could have isolated the authoritarian leadership. Proceedings at this congress (called a year ahead of time to restore party solidarity, in which it has not been obviously successful) should help to reduce the influence of Communists in British trade unions. Their influence has been out of all proportion to their insignificant numbers. Their strategy had an important effect on the development of the recent British strikes. The “ Man- “ Chester Guardian ” describes this as an “ugly pattern. The “ intention—coolly and skilfully “directed—was clearly to play “on confused loyalties to cause “ the maximum disruption in “ basic British industries ”. Mr Jack Jones, M.P., a veteran unionist, has denounced the “ trickery and deceit ” by which the strike was extended to men not directly concerned. Now that British workers can see plainly the demands the Communist Party makes on its members, unions should less easily fall in with Communist plans.