SHARP NEW CRITICISMS MADE IN MOSCOW

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30587, 2 November 1964, Page 13

SHARP NEW CRITICISMS MADE IN MOSCOW

(N.Z J 3 .A.-Reuter —Copyright) MOSCOW, November 1. “Pravda” today denounced “stagnation” and “fallacious” administrative methods, in sharp new criticisms believed aimed against Mr Khrushchev. The Communist party newspaper made no mention of the former Premier, but its long editorial was generally taken as another attempt to explain the Kremlin reshuffle two weeks ago.

“Pravda” called for a “firm and consistent struggle against bourgeois and reformist ideology, against chauvinism and petty bourgeois adventurism . . . any forms of opportunism, dogmatic or revisionist distortion of theory, stagnation and slugglish thought.”

Western observers said it was not clear whether some of these denunciations applied to Mr Khrushchev, or whether they represented a restatement of Russia’s case against Chinese Communist ideology.

There have been no direct criticisms of China since Mr Khrushchev was replaced, but in the past Peking was often accused here of “petty bourgeoise adventurism.” Western observers said “revisionism” might also be an epithet applied to Mr Khrushchev. On foreign policy, “Pravda” said: “Peaceful co-existence of States with different social systems is the only alternative to world war.” The Soviet Union, it said, "is actively pursuing a course towards improvement and development of relations with all capitalist countries.” A summary of the newspaper’s editorial was issued by the Tass news agency before “Pravda” reached subscribers. The summary made no direct reference to Mr Khrushchev, but Western observers said several of its criticisms appeared to apply directly to the former Premier. “Pravda” said the Com-

munist Party saw its “most important task” in the improvement of the principles of Socialist democracy, “strict observance of Socialist legality and eradication of any violation of law and order.” Transition to communism “means the utmost development of the freedom of the personality and rights of Soviet citizens,” it declared.

Western observers said the “Pravda” calls for free citicism and greater freedom for Soviet citizens reflected a demand made by the late Italian Communist party leader, Palmiro Togliatti, in a memorandum he wrote shortly before his death in the Crimea last August. The editorial said collective leadership was the Communist party’s “greatest”’ political asset, and it denounced the cult of personality. Mr Khrushchev is reliably

reported to have been accused of violating collective leadership principles and of creating a new personality cult. “Pravda” made no direct reference to this, but noted that party rule “envisaged a number of measures directed against excessive concentration of power in the hands of individual officials. . . On agriculture, Mr Khrushchev’s pet interest, it said only that “certain successes” had been achieved. “Pravda” said it was “most fallacious” to think “that it is possible to solve intricate economic problems through administrative measures.” Western observers said the article appeared to hint at a possible area of dispute between Mr Khrushchev and economic leaders, when it said Socialist planning must give scope “for independent economic activity of enterprises.”