BA CKGUOUND:

Communist Semantics The problem of Communist semantics and the re-

lated difficulty of establishing meaningful communica- tions between the Communist and the non-Communist worlds have been brought into exceptionally sharp focus as a result of recent controversies surrounding the situ- ation in Southeast Asia. Whether emanating from Hanoi, Peking or Moscow, Communist pronouncements on the Southeast Asia imbroglio have clearly demon- strated that, in spite of divergent approaches and pos- tures, Communists of all denominations persist in using a particular jargon, which makes it very difficult to start a dialogue that might contribute to the clarifica- tion of the issues under debate.

‘War Is Peace’; ‘Freedom Is Slavery’ The difficulties arising from the ambiguity of Com-

munist semantics and the inevitable conceptual differ- ences between East and West, are well illustrated by Communist references to such basic concepts as war, peace, democracy and freedom. In non-Communist ter- minology, each of the four words has a clearly defined meaning. In accordance with the traditionally accepted concepts of Western civilization, peace cannot be war, war cannot be peace, democracy is incompatible with the rule of a few and freedom cannot be equated with dictatorship. However, Communist terminology does not admit such limitations imposed by the irreconcil- ability of antithetical concepts. (This was the point George Orwell so brilliantly made in citing the slogans of an imaginary Communist society: ‘LWar is Peace,” “Freedom is Slavery,” ” Ignorance is Strength.“)l The tendency to equate verbally what cannot be equated conceptually is clearly reflected in recent Communist attempts to reconcile a much-advertized dedication to world peace with a simultaneous commitment to par- ticipate in or support so-called wars of national libera- tion.*

While recent diplomatic and polemical exchanges have invested the problem of Communist “doubletalk” and “doublethink” with increasing significance, the problems inherent in Communist semantics are not new. Ever since the early Bolsheviks undertook to revolution- ize the world, the Communists have shown consider- able interest in developing a language of their own. However, in the initial phases of the Bolshevist move- ment the efforts to deprive words of their original mean- ings were dictated by practical rather than ideological considerations. At that stage, the use of a hermetic language was designed to conceal revolutionary activi- ties rather than to provide Marxist ideology with a par- ticular linguistic framework.

Like all revolutionary movements, the Communist movement developed clandestinely. Haunted by the

George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four (London, 1~). %‘tatement of the North Vietnam Foreign Ministry, Jan. 4 1966;

“The Revolutionary Vanguard of the Working Class,” Prav&z, Oct. 13, 1966; ‘The Leaders of the CPSU Are Betrayers of the Declara- tion and Statement,” Jen-min Jib-puo, Dec. 30, 1965.

police, shadowed by the agents of the dreaded tsarist Okhrana, the early Bolsheviks had to take great care when corresponding with each other or even talking to each other. To protect themselves they developed a particular jargon which only the initiated could un- derstand. How deeply the conspiratorial nature of the early Bolshevist movement, and the concern for safety, influenced the development of Communist semantics is well illustrated by the fine distinction Lenin and his associates made between reform., in the singular, and reforms, in the plural. In their correspondence, the early Bolsheviks never used the word revolution; in- stead they resorted to the harmless word reform. It was understood that when used in the singular, reform stood for revolution, that is, something desirable; but when used in the plural, reforms were equated with opportunism, a highly undesirable trend which “did not require the removal of the main foundations of the old ruling c1ass.“3

‘Aesopian Language’ Evolves from Conspiratorial Needs It was in accordance with these early traditions that

Lenin and his associates later developed what is known as the “Aesopian language” of international commu- nism. But while in Aesop’s fables words did not lose their original meaning, ;;1 the language of the Com- munists the meaning of the words became e~osslv dis- torted. In trying to”exploit the potential& tierent in the symbolic content of words, Communists mani- pulated or adulterated them to the point that words stood for something entirely different from what they were intended to convey.

Since, in the opinion of Communist theoreticians, language belongs to neither the base nor the super- structure but is a product of the two (Stalin remarked that from the functional point of view language was

%enin, “Controversial Questions,” Selected Works (London, 19361, VoL 4, P. 16.

Guest Author: Edmund Demaitre

“Communist Semantics” is Edmund Demaitre’s second contribution to this journal. (See Commu- nist Affairs, III/4, July-Aug. 1965 for his article “Italian Communism: Debate and Dilemma” and the accompanying curriculum vitae.) Since 1947, following almost 15 years as a correspondent for French and British newspapers, Mr. Demaitre has concentrated on studies of Marxism and the inter- national Communist movement.

“Communist Semantics” is a foretaste of the dic- tionary of Communist concepts which the author is now preparing and which, he remarks, will en- compass “in an analytical form all aspects of com- munism from alienation to Zhdanovism.”

1

Iv I JANUARY-FEERUARY 3

“as indifferent as a machine”),* the efforts to develop a Communist jargon might seem, at fust sight, rather surprising. At a second look however, the motivation behind the attempts to divest words of their original meaning becomes clearly perceptible. The motivation derived, firs& from the ecumenical-messianic nature of the Communist dispensation, and, second, from dialec- tical materialism, which provides the basis for the over- all Communist view of the world.

According to one of the fundamental tenets of the world Communist movement, Marxism-Leninism is neither a creed nor a philosophy; it is a science whose laws are both universal and incontrovertible. The very claim to the universal validity of these laws implies that the objectives of Marxism-Leninism are unlimited; it is on a world scale that its revolutionary action, aimed at the destruction of the bourgeois capitalist sys- tem, is to develop, regardless of the local character some of its operations may assume. And since the un- even development of capitalism results in the uneven development of communism, as exemplified by the emergence of Communist systems in one or several counties, Communist actions require close coordina- tion on the basis of a global strategy and a unified Marxist-Leninist ideology. In the words of a Soviet thectr+ian, “loyalty . . . to ideological unity based on Marmsn-Leninism forms the foundation of the Com- munist movement.“6

An ideology, like everything else, is formulated in words; if the ideology is called on to provide the unify- ing element for global action, the words in which the ideology is expressed should convey identical concepts -regardless of the racial, cultural or national peculiari- ties of the people to whom the words are addressed. Thus, when a Soviet theoretician specifies that “the successful struggles for peace, democracy, national inde- pendence and socialism” are the prerequisities of ideol- ogical unity, it is understood that peace, democracy, independence and socialism are to be interpreted in a strictly Marxist-Leninist sense-more precisely, in the sense of what the theoretician happens to regard as the authentic formulation of Marxist-Leninist thought.

Uniform Definitions for Unified Global Ideology

The need for a unified ideology designed to promote the successful coordination of revolutionary action on a world-wide scale thus accounts, at least in part, for the Communists’ efforts to couch their message in a particular jargon. It also explains why the supporters of Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy react so violently against attempts to reinterpret the meaning of certain key woti such as class, dictatorship or alienation. They view such attempts as potential heresies that might dis- rupt the ideological unity of the world Communist movement. It is in this light that the apparently tal- mudistic squabbles between leading Marxist theoreti- cianesuch as the Lenin-Trotsky controversy over the meaning of socialism, the Zinoviev-Lukacs quarrel about the interpretation of consciousness, or the Stalin-

*Stalin, Marxism and Problems of Linguistics (Moscow, 1954). p. 1%

a. Knskov, “Militent Action Program of the Communist Move- ment,” Partiinaia Zhizn, No. a4 December 1965.

Bukharin dispute concerning deviation-acquire their proper significance.

To implement what could be best described as a lin- guistic Gleichchaltung (making uniform by admin- istrative or other forcible means), designed to invest the key concepts of Marxist-Leninist ideology with a uniform meaning, is not easy. For in spite of its claim to embody universal truth, Marxism-Leninism contains many so-called “empty areas,“B mainly ethics, aesthet- ics, and, until recently, sociology. This fact is now admitted by some of the most prominent contemporary Marxists, such as George Lukacs in Hungary and Adam Schaff in Poland.? The lack of explicit doctrinal for- mulation thus increases the difficulty of def- cer- tain concepts or transforming the meaning of particu- lar words. Marx, for instance, never offered a unified theory or even a reliable definition of either the classes or the dictatorship of the proletariat. Even though Lenin attempted to defme these terms with an allegedly sci- entific precision, the correctness of his definition of class, dictatorship and proletariat is now openly ques- tioned by many Austrian, French and Italian neo- Marxists.s

It should be noted, however, that, contrary to a once widespread belief, the Communists never attempted to develop a “class language” that would reflect in lin- guistic form the basic antagonism between the bour- geoisie and the proletariat. In attacking the idealistic theories of Professor N. I. Ma&‘, Stalin emphasized that while language can and often does reflect class differences, a “class language” cannot exist, since the words and expressions that acquire different meanings according to the classes which use them make up less than one per cent of the entire body of linguistic ma- terial. His conclusion was somewhat clumsy, but, at least, it was unequivocal: “the class character of lan- guage formula is erroneous and non-Marxist.“10

Stalin Calls language ‘An Instrument of Struggle’

However, Stalin also stressed that since language was the most important means of communication it was also “an instrument of struggle for the development of society.“” This implied that even though there was no such thing as a “class language,” there was, and should be, a “party language,” since it was the Party that was called on to formulate the general principles which provide the guidelines for a world-wide class struggle.

In whatever form these guidelines were presented, the meaning attributed to the words used in formulat- ing Communist theories and politics had to be in accord with the dialectical materialist interpretation of the world. This implied the deliberate changing of the content of words without changing their “material shell.” Thus, the phenomenon which Clausewitz de-

BOst-Pmblerne, No. lo, lg6q, 7Lukacs repeatedly emphasized the etistence of “empty areas”

in Marxist aesthetics, Schaff in Marxist ethics.

Tierre Fougeyrollas, Le Marzivne en question (Paris, 1959). Ch. IV, Rinascita, Aug. aa, 1964

Trominent Soviet linguist who died in 1934. -x3.&q op.cir. p. 53. ‘Vbid., p. 29.

4

fmed as “action in a resisting medium” was still called war, but the content of the word was modified so as to express a meaning in accord with the basic premises of dialectical materialism.

In order to understand the scope and the technique of these linguistic modifications, the interrelationship between Communist linguisticsl* and the closed system of dialectical materialism should be briefly examined. Marx called language “the direct reality of thought.“‘3 This implied that it is in words and combinations of words that the reflection of the objective world becomes fixed in man’s consciousness. In developing this idea, Lenin added that “man’s consciousness not only reflects the objective world but creates ;,.“I4 He did not suggest, of course, that consciousness influences Being directly; but by stressing the role of consciousness in man’s cre- ative activities, Lenin’s statement underscored the sig- nificance of language in reflecting reality, a process which determines the correct understanding of all cosmic or social phenomena.

If words provide the material for reflecting the ob- jective world in man’s consciousness, their content has to be changed if consciousness is to reflect reality cor- rectly-that is, in the Marxist-Leninist sense. Words express the logical content of ideas deriving from ab- stractions, but the logical meaning of an idea exists only in relation to other ideas and meanings. There- fore, it was in the logical system of materialist dialec- tics (the methods by which Communists arrive at their conclusions, to be distinguished from dialectical ma- terialism, the “scientific,” systematized world view of the Communists), that the Communists had to re- interpret the meaning of words.

According to the materialist dialectics, it is in a language system resting on so-called formalistic con- ceptions that the bourgeois idealistic world view is rooted. The three traditional laws of thought that determine the idealistic interpretation of the world are the Aristotelian laws of Identity (A is A), Non-Con- tradiction (A is not Non-A) and the Excluded Middle (X is either A or Non-A). In accordance with this system of thought, war is war; war is not peace; and revolution, for instance, may be either war or peace or, for that matter, anything else. In the opinion of the Communists, the views resting on these logical con- clusions are erroneous.

In questioning the validity of the Aristotelian laws of logic, Communist philosophers point out that these laws consider Being rather than Becoming since they view all phenomena in their static rather than in their dynamic state. According to dialectical materialism, the basic reality is matter in motion. Thus, all phe- nomena should be considered in the light of their in- trinsically dynamic nature. If we now apply the three basic laws of dialectical materialism-the Law of Unity and Struggle of the Opposites, the Law of the Passage of Quantitative Changes into Qualitative Changes, and the Law of the Negation of the Negation-to a concept

‘2Here and thereafter Yinguistics” refers to semantic studies and experiments without considering phonology, morphology, etc.

lVJuoted by V. Afanasyev in Mars-id Philosophy (Moscow, nd), P- ‘35.

Xeain, Collected Works (Moscow, fgbo), vol. XXXVIII, p. ain.

such as war, the following semantic variations may result: war is both peace and war; beyond a certain point, quantitative changes in war may result in peace; not war (i.e., peace) is not peace.

What we have here is no mere wanton juggling of words but logical conclusions drawn from what Marxist philosophy describes as the doctrine of the development of universal connections. And this accounts not only for the perplexing eccentricities of Communist semantics but also for the categorical rejection by Marxist-Lenin- ist theoreticians of all efforts to clarify some of the more obvious semantic problems with the help of non-dialec- tical methods, ranging from analytical philosophy to mathematical logic. All these efforts are dismissed by Marxist-Leninists as “semantic idealism,” which has no other purpose than to prevent, by the usage of words, the understanding and correct interpretation of objec- tive reality.

It is against this theoretical background that the in- tricacies of Communist semantics should be considered. The technique of distortion, which ranges from simple eristic manipulations to more sophisticated methods (in- cluding what semanticists describe as the manufactur- ing of synthetic truth), is best illustrated by a few concrete examples involving some of the key words in Communist terminology.

Wars Conducted by Communists Are ‘Just* Let us take the ominous but simple word war. Since

Marx considered revolution-that is, violence-to be one of the main driving forces of history, Communists could not take a negative attitude toward war. In fact, Lenin declared repeatedly that Clausewitz’s famous dictum that “war is simply the continuation of politics by other means” was fully approved by Marx and Enge1s.l” This justified an unreserved commitment to policies that considered violence to be the most effective means of solving international differences. But since such a rigid commitment would have alienated the sympathies of many militant left-wingers, particularly in the highly industrialized and thus strategically im- portant countries of de West, the formulation had to be made somewhat more elastic. Therefore, Lenin specified that “we are opposed to imperialist wars, but we have always declared it to be absurd for the revolu- tionary proletariat to renounce revolutionary wars that may prove necessary in the interests of socialism.“‘e The statement provided the theoretical basis for the distinction between “just” and “unjust” wars.

The distinction was, of course, highly arbitrary. It rested neither on international agreements, such as the Covenant of the League of Nations outlawing war, nor on the traditional differentiation between aggressive and defensive wars, but on a world view that considers dedication to the cause of Communist world revolution the only criterion of national and international moral- ity. This was what Lenin had in mind when he de- clared that “if war is waged by the proletariat after it has conquered the bourgeoisie in its own country

Tenin, “Collapse of the Second International,” Se&ted W&x, pp. 179-180.

%enin, “Military Program of the Proletarian Revolutioq” Co& lected Works (New York ~gga), vol. XIX, pp. 361-366.

5 Iv i JANUARY-FEBWMY

and is waged with the object of strengthening and ex- tending socialism, such a war is legitimate and holy”” (italics added).

Here the technique of distortion consisted of adul- terating the content of a word by injecting into it ex- traneous elements, such as the moral obligation to pro- mote world revolution. As a result of the distortion, the meaning of the word war was bound to change in accordance with the political and social structure of the power engaged in the hostilities. If the word war was to be interpreted as Lenin interpreted it, wars conducted by non-Communist powers were unjust and thus impermissible; but wars conducted by Commu- nists were just and therefore permissible. Moreover, since world revolution, which “just” wars were to pro- mote, promised to eliminate the source of international conflicts, wars conducted by Communist powers were considered essentially peaceful and thus morally com- mendable actions. In developing Lenin’s original thesis, the sixth Congress of the Communist International did not hesitate to declare that “revolutionary war of the proletarian dictatorship is but a continuation of revo- lutionary peace policy by other means.“18

The last sentence provides the key to the Communist usage of the words war and peace. Neither war nor peace is objectionable or desirable in itself; their mean- ing, and the approach to them, depends on whether it is peace or war that serves the momentary interests of the world Communist movement and the power which is leading it. This was clearly spelled out in the Theses of the sixth Comintern Congress, which declared that“‘the international policy of the U.S.S.R. is a peace policy which conforms to the interests of the ruling class in Soviet Russia.0’o

In this context, the word peace acquired an entirely new connotation. It no longer expressed mankind’s moral aspirations or even the rational self-interest of individuals or nations living in an era in which the development of weapons of mass destruction made peace more desirable than ever. Since the usefulness of peace as an instrument of promoting the interests of the ruling class in the Soviet Union became the chief criterion of its desirability, the meaning of the word peace was made relative. It should be added that the authors of the Theses did not attempt to conceal the reasons that prompted them to distort the essential meaning of the word. They openly admitted that peace was important only as an instrument of propaganda and diplomacy. “The policy of peace,” the Theses declared, “provides the best basis for taking advantage of the antagonisms between imperialist states.““O And the Theses added, with somewhat surprising candor, that “the peace policy of the Soviet Union . . . is merely another and more advantageous form of fighting capi- talism.“21

17Lenin, “Left-Wing Childishness and Petty-Bourgeois Mental- ity: Selected Works, vol. VII, p. 357.

Y&eses of the VI World Congress of the Communist Interna- tional, Ir&mational Press Correspondence, No. 8% Nov. 28, 1928.

l~lbid. *OZbid. *‘Ibid.

Semanticists describe synthetic truth as a statement whose truth or falsity depends on information on the physical world. In distorting the meaning of words, Communists frequently resort to manufacturing syn- thetic truth or something strongly resembling it. The differences between the synthetic truth of the semanti- cists and the quasi-semantic truth of the Communists is that the latter is predicated on information of a social or political rather than a physical nature. How the meaning of words can be changed with the help of this technique is rather well illustrated by the handling of the word freedom.

‘Freedom’ Exists Only in a Communist Society

Five years ago the memorable 20th Congress of the Soviet Communist Party approved the new Party pro- gram, which stated that life in the Soviet Union is based on the principle of the broadest democracy. The Party program added: “Socialist democracy includes both political freedoms-freedom of speech, of the press and of assembly, the right to elect and to be elected-and also social rights . . . . Soviet society insures the real freedom of the individual.” However, the program de- clared no less emphatically that “the dictatorship of the proletariat and the leadership of the Marxist-Lenin- ist party are indispensable conditions for the triumph of socialist revolution.”

The nature of the dictatorship to which the program referred was clearly defined by Lenin: “The scientific concept ‘dictatorship’ means nothing more or less than unrestricted power absolutely unimpeded by laws and regulations, and resting directly on force.“** In the light of this definition it becomes fairly obvious that, in order to reconcile two antithetical concepts, Com- munists have had to attribute to the word freedom a meaning which is quite different from the one which the word usually conveys.

The transmutation was implemented by producing a quasi-synthetic truth, i.e., a statement predicated on supplementary information. The information consisted of a series of axiomatic dicta, the first of which in- vested Marx’s exciting speculations with the authority of the exact sciences. According to Marx, man, who was originally free, lost his freedom as a result of the development of productive relationships and the private ownership of the means of production. Once man suc- ceeds in changing productive relationships by destroy- ing the entire structure of bourgeois-capitalist society, he will regain his freedom and thus put an end to his alienation.2s In the Soviet Union, productive relation- ships have changed; the means of production are owned collectively. On the basis of these facts, the Commu- nists would argue that in the Soviet Union men are free-even if they lived under a dictatorial regime “resting on unrestricted power unimpeded by laws and regulations.”

The conclusion implied, of course, that the meaning of the word freedom was changed from freedom of choice-which is the traditional interpretation of the

**LaniIl, “State and the Proletarian Dictatorship,” Seletied works, vol. VII, p. 254,.

*aKarl Marx, Economic-Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 (MOP cow, 1959) *

6 COMMUNIST AFFhIRs

essence of freedom-to the more complex freedom from selling products, including uncompensated labor, to private owners of the means of production. It is in line with this interpretation of freedom that Comxnunists in- sist on using the eccentric argument that there is com- plete freedom in the Soviet Union or in Communist China but no freedom in the United States, Great Brit- ain or Sweden.

The word democracy was subjected to similar mani- pulations. As understood in the Western world, democ- racy means the rule of the people and the respect for individual rights. It implies not only the right to vote, the right of choice and majority rule, but also insti- tutionalized guarantees with regard to the individual’s right to free speech, freedom of conscience, a fair trial, and SO on. Lenin recognized that democracy was a powerful word that could not be dismissed as a mere shibboleth of bourgeois capitalism. But since the dic- tatorship of the proletariat excluded, ipso facto, the set- ting up of democratic institutions, the meaning of the word democracy had to be changed in a way that would allow its use in describing the totalitarian Communist state.

‘Socialist Democracy’ Is Dictatorship In order to overcome the considerable semantic difli-

culties, Lenin produced a theory that distinguished be- tween so-called “bourgeois democracy” and Soviet or “socialist democracy.” In Lenin’s interpretation of the word, democracy no longer implied either freedom of choice or the respect of the rights of the minority. On the contrary, Lenin declared that in accordance with the nature of what he called Soviet democracy, minori- ties should be forcibly excluded from it. In fact, he considered the suppression of minorities to be the main criterion by which the difference between false or bour- geois democracy and real or Soviet democracy should be judged. He declared that “democracy for the vast majority of the people, and suppression by force-that is, exclusion from democracy of the exploiters and op- pressors of the people--this is the change democracy undergoes during the transition from capitalism to commu.nism”24 (italics added). Stalin expressed the same view when he said that “by democracy we mean that definite classes are in control of state power.““”

In both Lenin’s and Stalin’s formulation, democracy is thus equated with dictatorship. However, dictator- ship does not predicate the wielding of power by a class only; it can be wielded by a small group or even by an individual without affecting the allegedly democratic character of the system. “Soviet socialist democracy,” Lenin wrote, “is not contradictory to individual man- agement and dictatorship in any way . . . the will of the class may sometimes be carried out by a dictator, who at times may do more alone and who is frequently more necessary.“2B It was this interpretation that en- abled Stalin to describe the Soviet constitution as “the only thoroughly democratic constitution in the world.“”

24Lenin, “State and Revolution,” Selected Worb, vol. VII, p. 81.

26Stalin, Martim and the National Question (New York, lgsa), P. 69.

*%enin, ‘Speech to 9th Congress of CPSU,” Selected Works, vol. VIII, p. aaa.

27Stalin, Problems of Leninism (Moscow, lg4o), p. 579.

In the post-Stalin era the word democracy continues to be interpreted in the same sense; democracy and dictatorship are not considered contradictory terms. In providing the theoretical guidelines for the world Cam- mu&t movement, the Soviet journal Kommunist has stressed that democracy “does not weaken the state power, it makes it an even more effective means of struggling for communism.“z8 Pravda has emphasized that “a profound continuity exists between the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the state of all people.“28

That the Soviets still interpret the meaning of the word democracy differently from the Western world was clearly illustrated after the recent trial of the So- viet writers Andrei Sinyavsky and Yuli Daniel. In dis- cussing the world reaction to the writers’ trial, Pravda denounced the foreign critics, including several West- ern Communists, in whose opinion the trial “jeopar- dized the development of democracy in the Soviet Union” or “violated the freedom of creative en- deavors,” declaiming: “As for the arguments of the foreign defenders of the calumniators, their arguments about democracy, these have nothing in common with us. Loyal to Lenin’s precepts, the Soviet people inde- fatigably and consistently build history’s first truly democratic society. . . . The Party consolidates and promotes socialist democracy, drawing ever broader masses of the people into the affairs of the state and society.“So

While the term socialist democracy was coined to camouflage, or to reconcile, the contradiction between democracy and dictatorship, the expression people’s democracy was used to conceal the fact that dictator- ship existed at all. In the interpretation of the Com- munists, the difference between socialist democracy and people’s democracy was this: in a socialist democracy, that is, in the Soviet Union, all power is in the hands of the Communist Party representing the proletariaq while in the so-called people’s democracies the Com- munist Party is merely one of the many parties repre- sented in the government. This implied that people’s democracy was not the same as dictatorship of the pro- letariat-even though the Communist parties wielded exclusive and unrestricted power in the various people’s democracies. It was admitted, however, that while peo- ple’s democracy was not identical with the dictatorship of the proletariat, essentially it performed the same functions. Here again the meaning of words was dis- torted so as to make possible the verbal identification of democracy with dictatorship.

The examples quoted merely illustrate the most typi- cal methods of semantic manipulation. They do not indicate even remotely the extent of such manipula- tions which encompass every key word in Communist terminology. Nationalism, internationalism, capitalism, colonialism, self-determination, aggression, alienation, revisionism, independence, militarism, subversion, na- tional liberation and many other terms acquire an un- usual meaning or connotation after being passed

~~Kommunist, September 1963, No. 14. 2QPravda, Dee 6, 1964. SoPravda, Feb. an, x966.

Iv I JANUARY-FEBRUARY 7