Search

LITTLE in the way of dispassionate analysis has yet appeared on the history of communism in the satellite area. As soon as it appeared that communism had a future, as well as a past, in the general area bounded by the Baltic and the Black, the Aegean, and the Adriatic seas, there developed a spate of partisan work. But those fewwho have attempted scholarly accounts, like Borkenau or Seton-Watson, have been forced, by the very paucity of detailed data, to make generalizations which will require reconsideration.' Among these generalizations is that which holds east European communism to be essentially a proletarian movement. It may be admitted that there are intellectuals among the leaders or even that Communist guerrilla armies contain many peasants. Nonetheless, it is always assumed that the hard core of the Communist movement, that which imparts to the movement its revolutionary elan, is made up of urban industrial workers, in short, by the proletariat. This generalization finds itself in strict accord with Marxist theory, having been proclaimed by Marx himself as one of history's immutable truths ;2 and whoever has followed the activities of a satellite party knows that party congresses issue statistical bulletins to prove that the social composition of the party meets traditional Marxist standards. In the historian's mind the rise of Christianity is associated with slaves, the emergence of Calvinism with merchants, and the upthrust of communism with factory workers; these associations are basic to the historian's interpretation, because they are the key to the motivation he ascribes to each of these movements. It would seem a bold act, indeed, to challenge the association of communism and the proletariat, as it applies to the east European area. Except for that dwindling sect known as the Trotskyites, even the fact that the first Communist revolution occurred in a land where, statistically speaking, the proletariat barely existed has not altered the views either of the Communists themselves or of scholars, on this matter. One great advantage the historian of communism enjoys, in contrast with his brethren who are concerned with primitive Christianity or sixteenth-century Calvinism, is his ability to talk with participants in the movement and to observe them at first hand.3 Although most east European Communist parties are inaccessible to

The dilemmas posed for American policy makers in attempting to fight a guerrilla war in a foreign country are posed clearly in Professor Schlesinger's analysis. To what extent regular units of the North Vietnamese army can realistically be considered guerrillas is a question which he neither asks nor answers; yet there is substantial food for thought in his article. It leaves unanswered, however, a very basic issue, since it seems to indicate that no regular government can ever (should ever?) fight or win a guerrilla war. Not only is such a proposition of doubtful validity, but it seems to leave the initiative entirely in the hands of extra-legal forces willing to fight for what they believe, even though they may be small minorities.