The Faithful Followers

New Zealand Listener, Volume 36, Issue 926, 10 May 1957, Page 10

The Faithful Followers

HE annual conference of the British Communist Party was expected to be lively, and newspaper reports have shown that the expectation was fulfilled. At the end of the congress the oldguard leadership remained in power: the rebels had been routed, with contumely, and everything appeared to be much as before. Yet the party had been shaken, perhaps more severely than may be inferred from the survival of Mr Harry Pollitt and his colleagues. Seven thousand members resigned in the past 12 months, mainly over Soviet action in Hungary; and the total membership is now only 27,000. The fanatical core may be untouched, but the party’s prestige can scarcely have been lower among British workers and intellectuals. The most interesting feature of the congress was criticism of policy by a small but outspoken minority. There had been earlier signs of independence in letters to the party’s official newspaper. It was surprising, indeed, to find that the letters had been printed. Editorial leniency seemed to be out of character and nothing more may be heard of it now that the old leadership is secure. As far as it can be judged from a distance, the Communist attitude rests on the belief that policy is sacred. Criticism appears to be confined to charges that the party line is not being followed closely enough: the line itself is not to be questioned. It can be changed as often as is thought necessary in Moscow, and for reasons which might not be intelligible, even to insiders; but the loyal party man appears to feel no need to question or to understand. The policy which was wrong last week may be right today, and supporters must be ingenious or brazen when they try to explain changes that are as surprising to them as to everybody else. The behaviour of men and women who give their loyalty to policies formulated in a foreign country is hard to understand but fascinating to watch. It is a curious and seemingly perverse extension of the state of

mind which accepts infallibility in human conduct. There are always people, embarrassing to true patriots, who believe that their rulers are right in all circumstances which touch national security. They are so fanatical that they confuse honest criticism with disloyalty. They speak of their country as if it were somehow a person, infallible in judgment and immaculate in action. Democracy would soon disappear if their attitude prevailed. British subjects who become Communists, and some who don’t, are able to give the same complete allegiance to Russia. Instead of saying that their own country is always right, they assume that it must be wrong, and project their faith beyond the seas. They would protest, perhaps, that their allegiance is really to an idea, of which Russia in its present condition is the best expression to be looked for in an imperfect world. But they will not agree that Soviet policy may at any point be doubtful or mistaken. There is a surrender of reason. As'a psychological experience, the results are roughly similar to those which follow a religious conversion. The total personality is involved in an act of faith; but instead of a belief in the soul’s destiny there is a belief in the destiny of Communism. It is strange, and a little alarming, to see how on this one issue a man’s critical faculties may be entirely suspended, while in his trade or profession he continues te be rational. There are ruthless and astute men in the Communist Party who believe only in themselves, and who understand the advantages of trouble-making. But they need the sentimentalists, the idealists gone astray, and the outsiders with chips on their shoulders; for the party must have its facade. There have always been such people, and they will outlive Communism. Meanwhile, they do the Communist cause more harm than good, a simple truth in human relations which only the Russians seem unable to understand. _

M. H.

H.