Stalin - Regarding the statement of Mr. Morrison

 A source: Stalin I.V. Works. - T. 18. - Tver: Informational publishing center "Soyuz", 2006. S. 558–563

Mr. Morrison raises two sets of issues in his statement: domestic and foreign policy issues,

1. Domestic policy

Mr. Morrison claims that freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of the individual do not exist in the Soviet Union.

Mr. Morrison is deeply mistaken. No country has such freedom of speech, press, personality, organizations for workers, for peasants, for intelligentsia, as in the Soviet Union. Nowhere are there so many workers 'and peasants' clubs, so many workers 'and peasants' newspapers, as in the Soviet Union. Nowhere has the organization of the working class been brought to such a degree as in the Soviet Union. It is no secret to anyone that the entire working class, literally all the workers of the USSR, are organized in trade unions, just as all peasants are organized in cooperatives.

Does Mr. Morrison know about this? Obviously he doesn't. Moreover, he apparently does not want to know about it - he prefers to draw material from complaints emanating from representatives of Russian capitalists and landowners, expelled from the USSR by the will of the Soviet people,

In the USSR there is no freedom of speech, press, organizations for the enemies of the people, for the landowners and capitalists overthrown by the revolution. There is also no freedom for incorrigible thieves, for saboteurs, terrorists, murderers sent by foreign intelligence, for those criminals who shot at Lenin, killed Volodarsky, Uritsky, Kirov, poisoned Maxim Gorky, Kuibyshev. All these criminals, from landlords and capitalists to terrorists, thieves, murderers and demolitionists, are striving to restore capitalism in the USSR, restore the exploitation of man by man and flood the country with the blood of workers and peasants. Prisons and labor camps exist for these gentlemen, and only for them.

Is Mr. Morrison really seeking freedom of speech, press and personality for these gentlemen? Does Mr. Morrison think that the peoples of the USSR  will agree to give these gentlemen freedom of speech, press, personality, and hence the freedom to exploit the working people?

Mr. Morrison is silent about other freedoms that have a deeper meaning than freedom of speech, press, etc., namely, he does not say anything about the freedom of the people from exploitation, about freedom from economic crises, from unemployment, from poverty. Perhaps Mr. Morrison is not aware that all these freedoms have long existed in the Soviet Union? But it is precisely these freedoms that are the basis of all other freedoms. Is it because Mr. Morrison is shyly silent about these fundamental freedoms, because these freedoms, unfortunately, do not exist in England and the English workers still continue to be under the yoke of capitalist exploitation, despite the fact that they have been in England for six years now. the power of the Labor Party?

Mr. Morrison argues that the Labor government is a socialist government, that radio broadcasts organized under the control of such a government should not be obstructed by the Soviets.

Unfortunately, we cannot agree with Mr. Morrison. The first time after the coming to power of the Laborites, one might think that the Labor government would take the path of socialism. However, later it turned out that the Labor government is not much different from any bourgeois government that is trying to preserve the capitalist system and ensure impressive profits for the capitalists.

Indeed, in England the profits of the capitalists are growing from year to year, while the wages of the workers remain frozen, and the Labor government protects this anti-worker, exploitative regime by all means, including the persecution and arrest of workers. How can such a government be called socialist?

One could think that with the coming to power of the Laborites, capitalist exploitation would be eliminated, measures would be taken to systematically lower prices for consumer goods, and the material situation of the working people would be radically improved. Instead, we have in England an increase in the profits of the capitalists, a freeze on the wages of workers, an increase in the prices of consumer goods, etc. But we cannot call such a policy socialist.

As for the British radio broadcasts to the Soviet Union (BBC), they, as you know, in most cases are aimed at ensuring that  to encourage the enemies of the Soviet people in their efforts to restore capitalist exploitation. It is clear that the Soviets cannot support such anti-popular propaganda, which is, moreover, interference in the internal affairs of the USSR.

Mr. Morrison argues that Soviet power in the USSR is a monopoly power, since it represents the power of one party, the Communist party. If we think this way, then we can come to the conclusion that the Labor government is also a monopoly government, since it represents the power of one party, the Labor party.

However, this is not the point. The fact is that the communists in the USSR, firstly, do not act in isolation, but in a bloc with non-party people and, secondly, in the historical development of the USSR, the Communist Party turned out to be the only anti-capitalist, people's party.

Over the past fifty years, the peoples of the Soviet Union have experienced in practice all the main parties that existed in Russia: the party of landowners (Black Hundreds), the party of capitalists (cadets), the party of Mensheviks (right-wing "socialists"), the party of social revolutionaries (defenders of the kulaks), the party of communists ... The peoples of our country, in the course of the unfolding of revolutionary events in the USSR, threw away all the bourgeois parties and made a choice in favor of the Communist Party, believing that this party is the only anti-landowner and anti-capitalist party. This is a historical fact. It is clear that the peoples of the USSR fully support the Communist Party, tested in battles.

What can Mr. Morrison oppose to this historical fact? Doesn't Mr. Morrison think that for the sake of a dubious opposition game, one should turn back the wheel of history and resurrect these long-dead parties?

2. Foreign policy

Mr. Morrison argues that the Labor government stands for the preservation of peace, that it does not threaten the Soviet Union in any way, that the North Atlantic Pact is a defensive pact, not an aggressive one, that if Britain has embarked on an arms race, it is because it is forced to do this, since after the Second World War the Soviet Union did not sufficiently demobilize its army.

There is not an ounce of truth in all of these claims by Mr. Morrison.

If the Labor government really stands for  preservation of peace, why does it reject the Peace Pact between the five powers, why does it oppose the reduction of armaments of all the great powers, why does it oppose the prohibition of atomic weapons, why does it persecute people who defend the cause of preserving peace, why does it not prohibit the propaganda of war in England?

Mr. Morrison wants to be taken at his word. But the Soviet people cannot take anyone's word for it; they demand deeds, not declarations.

Likewise, Mr. Morrison's assertions that the USSR did not sufficiently demobilize its army after World War II are untenable. It has already been officially announced by the Soviet government that it demobilized, that its army is now approximately the same in size as in the peace period before the Second World War, that the armies of the British and Americans, but their size, on the contrary, is twice as large as before the second world war. However, these irrefutable facts continue to be contrasted with unfounded allegations.

Maybe Mr. Morrison would like the USSR to have no army sufficient to defend itself? The army in general represents a great burden on the state budget, and the Soviet people would willingly go to the liquidation of the regular army if there were no outside threat. But the experience of 1918-1920, when the British, Americans, French (together with the Japanese) attacked the Soviet Union, tried to tear away from the USSR Ukraine, the Caucasus, Central Asia, the Far East, the Arkhangelsk Territory and tormented our country for three years, - this experience teaches us that the USSR must have some minimum necessary regular army in order to defend its independence from the imperialist invaders. There has not been such a case in history when Russians attacked the territory of England, but history knows a number of cases when the British attacked Russian territory and captured it.

Mr. Morrison claims that the Russians refused to cooperate with the British in the German question, in the question of restoring Europe. This is completely untrue. Mr. Morrison himself hardly believes his statement. In fact, as you know, it was not the Russians who refused to cooperate, but the British and the Americans, since they knew that the Russians would not agree to restore fascism in Germany, to turn West Germany into a base for aggression.

With regard to cooperation in the economic  restoration of Europe, the USSR not only did not refuse such cooperation, but, on the contrary, itself proposed to implement it on the basis of equality and respect for the sovereignty of European countries without any dictate from outside, without the dictate of the United States of America, without enslaving the countries of Europe by the United States of America.

The claims of Mr. Morrison that the communists came to power in the people's democratic countries by violence, that the Cominform is engaged in the propaganda of violent actions, are also untenable. Only people who have set themselves the goal of slandering the Communists can make such statements.

In fact, as you know, the communists came to power in the people's democracies through general elections. Of course, the peoples of these countries has thrown out the exploiters and all kinds of agents of foreign intelligence. But this is the will of the people. The voice of the people is the voice of God.

As for the Cominform, only people who have lost all sense of proportion can claim that it is engaged in the propaganda of violent actions. Literature Cominform has been published and is being published is known to everyone. It completely refutes the slanderous fabrications against the communists.

In general, it must be said that the method of violence and violent actions is not the method of the communists. On the contrary, history shows that it is the enemies of communism and all kinds of agents of foreign intelligence services who practice the method of violence and violent actions. Examples are not far to seek. Recently, in a short time, the prime minister of Iran, the prime minister of Lebanon, and the king of Transjordan were killed. All these killings were committed with the aim of forcibly changing the regime in these countries. Who killed them? Maybe communists, supporters of the Cominform? Isn't it funny even to ask such a question? Maybe Mr. Morrison, being more knowledgeable, could help us sort out this case?

Mr. Morrison argues that the North Atlantic Pact is a defensive pact, that it does not pursue the goals of aggression, that, on the contrary, it is directed against aggression.

If this is true, then why did the initiators of this pact not offer the Soviet Union to take part in this pact? Why did they cut themselves off from the Soviet Union? Why did they imprison him behind the back and in secret from the USSR? Hasn't the USSR proved that it is able and willing to fight against aggression, for example, against Hitler's and  Japanese aggression? Did the USSR fight aggression worse than, say, Norway, which is a party to the pact? How to explain this amazing incongruity, to say the least?

If the North Atlantic Pact is a defensive pact, why did the British and Americans not agree to the proposal of the Soviet government to discuss the nature of this pact at the Council of Foreign Ministers? As you know, the Soviet government proposed to discuss at the Council of Foreign Ministers all the pacts that it had concluded with other countries. Why are the British and Americans afraid to tell the truth about this pact and refuse to discuss the North Atlantic Pact? Is it because the North Atlantic Pact contains provisions on aggression against the USSR and that the initiators of the pact are forced to hide it from the public? Is this why the Labor government agreed to turn England into a military air base for the United States of America for an attack on the Soviet Union?

That is why the Soviet people qualify the North Atlantic Pact as an aggressive pact directed against the USSR.

This is especially evident from the aggressive actions of the Anglo-American ruling circles in Korea. More than a year has passed since the Anglo-American troops are tormenting the freedom-loving and peaceful people of Korea, destroying Korean villages and cities, killing women, children and the elderly. Can these bloody actions of the Anglo-American troops be called defense? Who can say that British troops in Korea are defending England against the Korean people? Wouldn't it be more honest to call these actions military aggression?

Let Mr. Morrison indicate at least one Soviet soldier who would discharge his weapons against any peaceful people. There is no such soldier! But let Mr. Morrison explain plainly why British soldiers are killing civilians in Korea? Why does an English soldier himself die away from his homeland in a foreign land?

That is why the Soviet people regard contemporary Anglo-American politicians as the instigators of a new world war.

Truth. 1951 August 1.

Note

G. Morrison has been the British Foreign Secretary since March 1951.