One-Man Rule Is Bad

The generation of Russians taught by Pravda that Stalin was the greatest agriculturalist, philologist, geneticist, political scientist and military commander was told last week, just as categorically: "No matter how experienced leaders are, no matter what knowledge and talents they possess, they cannot succeed in replacing the whole collective. The most important principle is that decisions should be based on the experience of many, should be the fruit of collective creation."

When this principle is violated, certain leaders begin "to conduct themselves like autocrats . . . as if they alone knew everything, as if only they can say anything relevant and forceful, and as if it is the task of others only to support their opinion. In such an environment, there is created favorable ground for lack of principle, for alien morals, for toadyism and servility."

Having so crisply and accurately described Stalin's reign, Pravda added that of course it didn't mean Stalin: "The circumstances of wartime made possible certain peculiarities in the methods of leadership which in certain degree were justified." But, it continued, "leaders cannot take a critical statement aimed at them as a personal offense."

At the very least, Pravda's little sermon represents 1) a step in the unmaking of the Stalin legend, 2) one more indication that Russia is not now ruled by one man, i.e., Malenkov, but by a directorate. In New York, the Daily Worker, which has been having the devil's own time trying to find a party line to follow, significantly hedged its bet last week. After an initial hesitation, the Worker had firmly called the new regime "the Malenkov government." Last week, in a classically awkward phrase, it urged Eisenhower to meet with "heads of the Soviet state like Malenkov."

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