‘No' to ballot-box surrender

Press, 31 March 1981, Page 25

‘No' to ballot-box surrender

Bv

DAVID WEDGWOOD BENN

in London A West European Communist party, if it gets into power, should not necessarily relinquish power in the face of subsequent electoral defeat. This is the remarkably candid advice volunteered by two Russian professors, who are, however, distinctly unenthusiastic about the idea of Communists joining governments in the West, at least in present circumstances.

Professor Yuri Krasin and Professor Boris Leibzon expound their views in a book which appeared in Moscow recently titled “Revolutionary Theory and Revolutionary Policy.”

The main thrust of their argument, which is aimed at the ideas Of Euro-Com-munism, is not new, but unlike ‘ most Siviet authors, who have confined themselves to

defending Russia against criticism by Western Communists, Krasin and Leibzon have carried matters a stage further by discussing, in unusual detail, what "line the Western Communists should follow.

They raise the issue of whether a ruling Communist party in the West should allow itself to be voted out of office. “Communists in a number of Western countries are asked before every election: ‘lf you are elected, will those who disagree with you have the right to oppose you and. at the next election, choose other representatives in your place and form a react i o n a r y government?’ Many people believe that this question has to be answered in the affirmative,” say the Soviet authors. They are against giving any such pledge. They maintain that “the readiness to allow a reactionary government to

come to power after elections cannot be regarded as a sign of consistent democracy.” Hitler, they recall, acquired office by constitutional methods. However, they immediately go on to challenge the idea of elections in a much more thorough way.

“Since the establishment of socialism is itself only possible thanks to the winning of power by the working class and to the leading role of its revolutionary vanguard, is it possible to talk about parties taking turns in power?

“How can there be any talk about freedom for parties opposed to socialism, if these parties are already using every opportunity to wage a struggle against the working class and its party.” The Soviet authors concede that it might De possible in the West for "progressive,” parties to take

turns in office during some pre-Communist transitional period, and they emphasise they have nothing against “multi-party" systems of the type which exist in some East European States. What they rule out is iny kind of competitive party system after the establishment of Communist Party rule. By then, they say,' there will be “not rivalry between forces fighting against each other, as under capitalism, but co-operation, a division of functions in the struggle for the commoi cause.”

Krasin and Leibzon say nothing which could bt construed as mollifying Moscow's Euro-Communist critics. They .(emphasise, for instance, that whilt any revolution needs the support of a “political majority” this should not be confused with tht notion of an “arithmetica majority” of the popu lation. That is. a men counting of heads. They dismiss the idea o. workers’ self-management free of Communist Party control, as being likely tc cause “anarchy in production” and “disorganise the socialist economy.” The “pluralist model of Socialism,” they say, is very vague and indefinite; it contains a number ol unrealistic Utopian features, and a great deal of it runs counter to the principles of socialism. In spite of this hard-line analysis, Krasin and Leibzon are careful to avoid arguing that revolution in the West needs to be violent, still less that it is imminent. (They talk about “a long siege”). However, they seem sceptical about the value of West European Communists joining non-Com-

munist governments, without being in a position to impose their , wiil. They see a risk that this might simply prop up the status quo: “The monopolistic bourgeoisie must not be allowed to pull its chestnuts out of the fire with the help of Communists,” say the authors. In what may be a criticism of the Italian Communists, they argue that “if a working-class party accepts government responsibility for rescuing the capitalist system, it will lose its revolutionary position. But if its anticapitalist aims are clearly se out in a government programme, can one seriously reckon on agreement'with bourgeois parties? These are the objectve limitations to co-oper-ition in government beween Communists and ourgeois parties.” Such coalitions might, o the Soviet authors fear, tave a politically corruptng effect on the Western Communist parties themselves: “Co-operation within the framework of .he existing system, involves the potential threat of Communist parties becoming integrated into the system of State monopoly capitalism, as once happ'ened to the sociallemocrats.”

They express concern :hat parties which become indifferent to ideology may find themselves reduced to “some kind of weathercock which turns in whatever direction the wind is blowing.” Predictably, the professors are worried that Eurocommunism has produced attempts “to dismember the world Communist movement along regional lines.” — O.F.N.S. Copyright