European ’revisionists' anger Moscow

Press, Volume CXVI, Issue 34133, 21 April 1976, Page 15

European ’revisionists' anger Moscow

(By

DEV MURARKA.

of the "Observer" Foreign News Service)

MOSCOW, April 20. A new and significant split is developing in the world Communist movement. Unlike the PekingMoscow division, it is not a schism between itwo giant ruling parties, but a conflict between the Soviet Union and the “revisionists” of the West European Com(munist parties. The Italian Communists, of course, have been revisionist for nearly’ two decades, but in recent years the French, the Spanish, and a few other Communists have also begun to voice ideological sentiments which directly challenge the Soviet Union’s, stand.

It is a matter of practical politics more than ideology: the European Communists feel that their increasing respectability with the voters is due to their moderation, their declaration of belief in plurality of parties and Western-style democracy, and their criticism of Soviet views and actions, such as the treatment of dissidents at home and military’ action against Czechoslovakia.

It was for these reasons that the French Communist Party leader, Mr Georges Marchais, once considered to be one of the most loyal West European Communist leaders by Moscow, refused even to attend the recent Soviet Communist Party’ congress; instead, he sent a deputy. But the matter did not stop there. Even, at the congress, some Soviet delegates, and some of the minor foreign Communist leaders, such as

Mr Gus Hall, of the United States, criticised the attitude of the West European parties. Immediately after the congress, the Soviet Communist Party’s chief ideologist, Mr I Mikhail Suslov, in a sharp, ; thinly-veiled attack on the new “revisionists” of Europe, called them opportunists. Subsequently, a bitter denunciation of all sorts of revisionism. Left as well as Right, was made in a pamphlet suggestively and provocatively entitled, “Revisionism in the Service of Anti-Communism." i All this has been noted by ithe parties concerned, and [they have even counteriattacked. In every counter- ; attack these parties find it iopportune to assert, in addition. that they will continue |to go their own way. ir- ■ respective of what Moscow thinks. Tlte "revisionist'’ parties are basically’ those who hope to have a share in political power in their countries in the foreseeable future. The Italian party is perhaps the nearest to power, notwithstanding Dr Kissinger’s recent dire warnings. The French party, too, is quite optimistic about sharing power within the next decade, but its leaders are afraid that being dubbed as obedient tools of Moscow will damage their electoral I prospects. Therefore, they [can no longer endorse the (Soviet line, be it on questions of ideology or foreign affairs. | But if these parties (imagine that their problem was understood in Moscow, so far the Soviet side has shown little sign of appreciating it. On the contrary, the sharpening of the

polemical tone against them has made them even angrier and more obstinate in opposing the Soviet line. It is notable, for instance, that, despite great efforts. Moscow has so far been unable to convene a conference of European Communist parties, though preparations for it have been dragging on and ion.

( Infectious example? What worries Moscow is (also the fear that the example lof the European Communist parties may become infectious, not so much in East Europe, where Soviet control is overwhelming, but in the ■ Third World countries, where [there are also some powerful I Communist parties. For the ! time being, however. Soviet [experts think that they will be able to isolate the’West European Communists. Their argument is that these parties do not have the problems that are facing the parties of the affluent countries. Nowhere in the Third World, not even in India, do the Communists stand a chance of coming to power through elections. Even if they did, they are haunted by the fate of the AllendeCommunist coalition in Chile Therefore, they are unlikely to agree with the Italians and the French that parliamentarianism is the best road for future success. i On the other hand, even (these parties may come to feel that solidarity with the I Soviet Union is no longer [necessary, either for their exi istence or success. Some of ■them may develop closer ties with one or the other of the West European revisionist parties, to the erosion of Sovliet influence. In the long run the probj lent appears to be insoluble I for Moscow. The Soviet party • cannot endorse many of the revisionist tenets for fear that I their application will be expected, even demanded, at (home. For instance, how can Moscow endorse the concept (of the plurality of political (parties and abandon the die (tatorship of the proletariat? To do so would negate the (Soviet system. The prospects are that the split will become even wider in the coming years and the cohesion of the Communist movement will be less and less as time passes. This is not a prospect 'which is viewed with any (pleasure in Moscow.—O.F IN.S. Copyright.