Dissolution of a Spectre

Last week, to the intense interest of every government in the world, Pravda, the newspaper of the Russian Communist Party, announced the dissolution of the Communist Third International (Comintern). Meeting in Moscow on the 15th day of May, four days before the arrival of Joseph E. Davies (see above), the Executive Committee of the Third International had proposed its own dissolution. The proposal had the force of a decision freeing Communist parties throughout the world from direction by Moscow. The Executive Committee urged the workers of Fascist or Fascist-occupied countries to be saboteurs and the workers of the United Nations to aid their governments. The aim: "friendly collaboration between nations on the basis of their equal rights."

"The logic of things is stronger than any other logic," said the pragmatist, Joseph Stalin, on the 25th anniversary of the Bolshevik revolution. The logic of things indicated to Stalin that the U.S.S.R., so long isolated from the rest of the world, was isolated no longer. Russia had a 20-year treaty of alliance with Great Britain, backed by an enormous fund of gratitude and confidence among the English people; the Red Army had the admiration of millions of people throughout Europe who were inclined to think Russia the most promising, as it had been the most successful, of the Allied powers; Russia's relations with the U.S. were excellent. All this had come about, not because of, but in spite of, the Communist Third International.

The Act and the Tradition. But no matter how logical it was, the dissolution was a tremendous act. It was not merely a protestation by Russia that she no longer distrusted the Western nations; it was also a protestation that they no longer had to distrust her. This protestation cost Stalin and the Soviet Government part of their tradition.

Since Marx and Engels, in the Communist Manifesto of 1848, proclaimed that "a spectre is haunting Europe--the spectre of Communism," Marxists had always, in theory, worked for world revolution. The First International had been broken after the defeat of the Paris Commune in 1871; the Second (Socialist) International had been irreparably weakened by World War I; but neither had committed suicide. And the Third International was a creation of modern Russia's founder, Stalin's master, Nikolai Lenin. Summoned by that greatest of revolutionaries, 51 delegates from 30 countries, including the U.S., met in Moscow in March 1919 to try to unite the working-class movements of the world.

But from the beginning the Third International failed to win dominant working-class support outside of Russia. Communist uprisings in Europe were bloody miscalculations. In China the Communists had perhaps their greatest chance in 1927, and failed. After that the prospects of world revolution dwindled, and Russia, through Stalin, worked nationalistically to strengthen socialism in one country.

"Vash Khod." Since the Nazi invasion of Russia, the Third International has been one of the greatest obstacles to true understanding between Russia and Britain, and between Russia and the U.S. Stalin might have removed that obstacle before; why did he choose this moment to do so? In Washington, Messrs. Churchill and Roosevelt were discussing moves in a war in which Allied unity is essential for victory. Doubtless they also discussed the future--perhaps the still distant future--of the United Nations and of Europe. Whatever the message Joe Davies took to Moscow, Marshal Stalin could say Vash Khod--your move.

The obvious response, and unquestionably a long-desired one, was a Second Front. But it was highly unlikely that any decisions in that matter remained to be taken last week. If there was not going to be a Second Front, the British and U.S. Governments would scarcely have been so pleased over the dissolution of the Comintern, for they would soon appear guilty of not adequately returning the Russian courtesy. More probably:

1) The U.S. and British Governments would agree to Marshal Stalin's views on eastern Europe;

2) The meeting between Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Stalin, unembarrassed by the spectre of International Communism, would now take place.

For the United Nations, it meant a great strengthening of propaganda v. the signatories of the Anti-Comintern Pact, who no longer possessed anything to be anti, except the nations they had made war upon. For anti-Communists in the West, as Socialists slyly pointed out, it meant liberty to attack the Communists without offending Russia. For liberals and progressives it meant, they hoped, some chance of unity in the future. For the world it would mean good luck if it meant internationalism of a better sort.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.