Workers World, Vol. 21, No. 30
July 23 – When a government shake-up takes place in the Soviet Union, the press here devotes endless columns in the search for some political significance in the changes. In their eagerness to find either foreign policy “hard-liners” or so-called “liberalizers” in the USSR economy, they more often than not go far astray.
The tendentiousness of the capitalist press with regard to events in the Soviet Union is understandable. It is based on a built-in class bias against the USSR.
When a political appointment is made in the Soviet Union which does have some new social or political significance, but doesn’t fit into the perspective of the imperialist world outlook for the Soviet Union, it is either casually dismissed or given the kind of scant news coverage which makes it virtually impossible to find.
Thus, when the USSR Presidium a few years ago appointed Dmitri Ustinov as Defense Minister, the capitalist press might have found enough in this event to demonstrate that the appointment did in fact have social and political significance. Ustinov is the first civilian to head the Soviet military establishment since the early days of the Soviet Republic, when Leon Trotsky was appointed Defense Minister. The appointment of Ustinov, a civilian, in the age of the atom bomb and missile weaponry, was a demonstration not only of the strength of the Soviet social system but its stability as well, and could be regarded as an affirmation of the peaceful policy of the Soviet Union.
Invariable the appointment of military leaders to traditionally civilian posts has been regarded as a sign of instability, and their replacement by civilians as more or less a signal of an emerging period of stability. The bourgeois press, which has on occasion pointed this out, did not do so in the case of the appointment of Ustinov.
Cabinet shakeups in the contemporary period of imperialism have become more and more frequent as instability becomes more the rule than the exception. So much is this the case, particularly in Western Europe, that the Cabinet has been more or less regarded as a revolving door where this is a continual exit and entry of ministers. Capitalist governments have been known to fall and the transition period lasts many months, without a government, so to speak.
The truth of the matter, however, is that while ministers come and go, the capitalist system of exploitation does not depend upon them for its existence but upon the repressive forces of the state.
Moreover, the economic laws governing the capitalist system operate as an external force and are not dependent on the will of its capitalist administrators. They merely administer the affairs, well or badly as the ruling class may determine, and only an upheaval in the form of the intervention of the masses on a truly great scale materially alters their political situation by either changing the degree of exploitation or abolishing it altogether when the mass struggle is successful.
The laws of the capitalist system operate automatically with “good” or “bad” capitalist administrators. All without exception are forced to serve the needs of capitalist exploitation. It is only a question of tactics, of how best to either deceive the masses with demagogic phrases, violently suppress the, or use a combination of both.
In periods such as the present one, when the ruling class is still dependent upon parliamentary or electoral methods, mass deception and chicanery are more the rule in administering the capitalist state. Suppression, the supplementary weapon, is generally held in reserve.
It is in this context that one ought to examine Carter’s Cabinet reshuffle. It is nothing like Nixon’s so-called Saturday Night Massacre, even if much of the capitalist press has exaggerated it to dizzying heights. There is nothing in it which can even remotely gain the favor of the masses or command more than their passing interest. For the most part it seems like a change of personalities only. The press and the media do much to convey this impression.
But behind the new names there may nevertheless lurk a shade of difference, not in general political direction, but in a quickening of the pace to the right. It is, however, of a totally masked character.
It is almost impossible for a President who is involved in the midst of preparations for an election campaign to disclose substantive changes in policy, even if those changes are merely of degree. The need to hide from the electorate that which is contrary to their interests figures most prominently in the calculations of the White House in the present shakeup of the Cabinet.
The exit of the camarilla of Califano, Blumenthal, Schlesinger, Adams, and Bell may not be worthy of even a footnote in history. But it does throw some light on the present predicament of the Carter administration, arising both from foreign policy and from domestic problems which have a worldwide character – the deepening of the capitalist crisis, the quickening of the arms race, the galloping inflation, and now the upward growth of unemployment.
First of all, it should be noted that the ouster of the five Cabinet officials has left entirely intact the officials of the foreign policy establishment. The big guns in the administration on foreign policy – Brzezinski, Vance, and Turner of the CIA – remain at their posts. This doesn’t mean that the Carter foreign policy is not in crisis, but that it is too sensitive an area to tamper with at the present time, in light of the coming election and the enormous danger any change holds for the administration’s tottering fortunes abroad.
However, the exit of at least one of the policy advisers of the Carter administration does indicate a greater sensitivity to the question of the arms build-up, U.S. imperialist aggression abroad, and the importance of the oil and gas crisis in relation to foreign policy. The resignation of Schlesinger is important because it indicates that the Carter administration believe that a hawk on foreign policy like Schlesinger, and a symbol of the large oil interests to boot, is a liability to the administration insofar as the coming election is concerned.
His resignation, however, has to be explained lest it is taken to mean a softening of U.S. aggressive, interventionist policy abroad. It’s not that at all.
It is important to note in this connection that Carter’s announcement through Brzezinski of a further delay in the pullout of U.S. troops from Korea was timed within a day of Schlesinger’s resignation. This was to demonstrate a continued U.S. resolve of aggressive aims in the Pacific and in the Far East. And the staging of the largest Strategic Air Command (SAC) exercise in 20 years was calculated to reinforce the “no change in foreign policy” position.
But doesn’t dropping Schlesinger from the Cabinet indicate a loosening of ties with the oil interests and with rightist policies in general, and not merely an election ploy? No.
Ideologically and politically, Schlesinger is an out-and-out ultra-rightist and properly belongs in a grouping with the Reagan-Connally-Jesse Helms fraternity. In reality he belongs squarely in their political caucus, in that particular segment of the ruling class establishment.
But he has no independent roots there. He is merely a military intellectual and a technocrat. He has served as head of the CIA, as chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, and as head of the Defense Department. As such he has accumulated a vast and rich experience and has become a valuable “public servant.” (The term “public servant” in the terminology of the ruling class means a servant of the huge, dynastic, financial and industrial monopolies in the country.)
Always, however, Schlesinger has been the devil’s advocate for the ultra-right in previous administrations, including Gerald Ford’s and Nixon’s. It is one thing, however, to be an open advocate of the ultra-right in its own capitalist constituency, so to speak. It is another thing altogether to be a devil’s advocate for the ultra-right in another and opposing political grouping of the ruling class, such as in the Ford administration, which in its time played the role of the more moderate right, as against the ultra-right.
When one wishes to serve as a devil’s advocate of the ultra-right in an opposing grouping which seeks to occupy the role of moderate right, one must observe the amenities of keeping silent publicly or being ousted. That explains Schlesinger’s falling out with the Ford administration when he evinced an insensitivity to Ford’s need to observe the amenities of silence on the defense budget in an upcoming election year. Schlesinger went somewhat beyond the established rules of working inside the Ford political machine and was therefore summarily ousted.
He spouted more or less openly on the subject of “preventive nuclear war,” a ghastly projection for a public figure. And this when he was head of the Defense Department and a public figure in the Ford administration on the eve of a new presidential election campaign.
The fact that his ouster took the form of a struggle with then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger masked the issue and confused public opinion.
His present ouster as Energy Secretary will scarcely raise a hue and cry from the ultra-right. He is, after all, in the other political caucus of the capitalist establishment. His private opinions, such as his opinion of SALT, have not done much good for the ultras. Besides, he has discredited himself by the very nature of the position that he holds as Energy Secretary and therefore the Carter administration has unloaded most of the blame for the gas and oil shortage and the mismanagement on him.
While he has stoutly defended the oil interest, they too may find it to their advantage to retire him. Undoubtedly he will be rewarded for his “good service,” but no tears will be shed for Schlesinger anywhere. The oil companies, however, have almost unanimously expressed “sincere regret.”
Last updated: 11 May 2026