DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT

New Zealand Listener, Volume 29, Issue 730, 10 July 1953, Page 5

DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT

Sir-Replying to Mr. Sid Scott: I contended that the dictionary definition of proletariat, namely, "the whole body of wage-earning workers," does not apply in Russia today, and that quotations from Lenin, Stalin, etc., used by Mr. Boswell and Mr, Scott sustained this contention. Mr. Scott now says that the quotations used do not apply. Well, he used them first; what was the point of using them if they do not apply? He again repeats that Lenin saw the dictatorship of the proletariat "as an alliance between certain classes," which obviously means that there are other classes not in the alliance. As all classes are (at any rate, theoretically), "toilers,’ Mr. Scott once more demonstrates that the dictatorship of the proletariat is in fact that of a minority, "an autocratic minority ruling the rest. Mr. Scott’s guileless acceptance of the wording of the 1936 Soviet Constitution is most touching. When one instances cases of Soviet actions contradicting Soviet professions, it is astonishing how often the Communist de--‘clares one to be wrong’ because the Constitution, or Lenin or Stalin says so and so, which shows the contradiction to be impossible. John Dos Passos, notable student of international affairs, wrote of this Constitution in 1951: "A Constitution was promulgated on the Western models. The ‘entire vocabulary of Western government was borrowed and applied to the machinery of despotism. It was from the success of Soviet propaganda in calling evil things by good names that Hitler learned the lesson he stated in Mein Kampf." As for the voting; our press carried. dated May’ 15, 1953, a Reuter dispatch from Vienna dealing with Communist elections in Hungary. It said: "Voting will be for a single list of candidates chosen by the (Communist) Independsence Front’s central committee and it will be.impossible .to vote. against it." Mr, Scott blandly declares: "As there aré no longer: antagonistic classes in the Soviet Union, there is no need for separate political parties." But if that be so, why the frequent "purges" and "liquidations" running from top to bottom? Why the maintenance of the vast machinery for ruthless suppression of "counter-revolutionary". or "déViationist" activities? More than _ that: why not throw the political field open so that nobody need take his life in his hands if he wishes to nominate somebody else besides those chosen by the autocratic Communist committee? If all the lions are now blissfully lying down with the lambs, the squashing of strikes or other demonstrations by means of troops and tanks seems, as Alice might say, "Curiouser and curiouser."

J. MALTON

MURRAY

(This correspondence is now closed.-Ed.)