Commentary No. 37, Apr. 1, 2000
"What are Communist Parties Today?"
The French Communist Party has just held an historic meeting in which it renewed its leadership. It was considered a great victory for Robert Hue, the current Secretary-General, who is generally considered someone who has wanted to expunge the last traces of a Stalinist past from the party, especially in the forms of internal organization of the party. He was opposed by a small group of "orthodox" Communists, who said that he was trying to "social-democratize" the party. Hue denied this, saying that the French Communist Party would not simply be a somewhat more left-wing social-democratic party but would stand for something distinctive.
It is not however clear to most observers, and perhaps not to Hue himself, what this something distinctive is. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, there are no longer too many parties around the world that call themselves Communist parties. There remain such parties, of course, in the one-party states where they still govern, notably China, Vietnam, North Korea, and Cuba. And while there are differences among these parties, they still more or less resemble the version the whole world knew before 1989.
But in the east/central European states as well as in the states that constituted the U.S.S.R., almost all the ex-Communist parties have changed their names, and now have programs that seem "social-democratic" to many observers. For example, they almost all insist that they are in favor of permitting (indeed encouraging) private enterprise in their countries. The Russian Communist Party did retain the name, but their program too does not seem very "Leninist." The Czech party too refused to go along with the change in name, and has remained perhaps the most "orthodox" of these parties.
Outside the countries that constituted the ex-socialist bloc, there are only a few countries in which Communist parties were (and to some extent still are) politically important. The largest such party was in Italy, and it has gone avowedly social-democratic. The group that refused to go along calls itself Refondazione Comunista. But it should be noted that this group includes many of the historically strongest anti-Stalinists. In South Africa, the Communist Party holds on to the name. It is a member of the government, whose world market policies are in the hands of Communist ministers, and these ministers are not exactly waving the banner of the nationalization of basic industries.
So what do such parties stand for? First, let us note that they continue to get important percentages of the votes. In a number of the countries of east/central Europe and the former U.S.S.R., they have won elections and formed governments, without in any way trying then to reinstitute the pre-1989 structures, at least in most cases. Quite the contrary! The ex-Communist, still "socialist" President of Poland spoke strongly in favor of joining NATO, for example. In France and Italy, the parties get under 10% of the votes, but still enough to be taken into consideration in the formation of coalitions. And in South Africa, the historic alliance between the African National Congress (the clearly dominant party) and the South African Communist Party remains a political reality.
If one asks why such Communist or ex-Communist parties get the votes they do, it seems clear that, in part, it is nostalgia on the part of a group of older persons and, probably in far larger part, because they represent a "social" protest vote against the worst ravages of the world capitalist system. These parties speak for the defense of the rights of workers and poor persons. But then so do social-democratic parties of more traditional lineage, for the most part. So even does the Democratic Party in the United States.
So is there a future for such Communist parties? Or are they destined to merge into an enlarged social-democratic party, as many believe (and some fear) will happen in France in the next decade or so? Of course, the same question could be asked of the Green parties around the world, and especially in western Europe. What we are really asking about is the future of the world left in organized form. It seems clear that there are a range of positions in the world "left" parties, going from those who want to become centrist quite officially (Blair's Third Way) and those who wish to cut their ties with groups that even smell of "centrism," with a whole series of in-between positions as well as persons who insist on "ecumenicism." Furthermore, there are differences as to what base should be considered essential politically: the less well off, the workers, the "minority" ethnic groups, the women, or some combination of these. And once again, there are arguments between those who insist on making priorities among these groups and those who wish to be "ecumenical."
We may not know for another decade how these debates, which are now quite active everywhere, will sort out. And therefore we may not know for another decade whether there is, or can be, any role for parties that call themselves "Communist" distinctive from that played by parties that eschew this name. At the present time, to be a Communist is almost a matter of historical sentiment, the embrace of a tradition of combat. And this embrace is exactly the reason why others refuse the appellation, because they associate it with Stalinist terror and Leninist centralized party structures.
What being or not being a Communist today does not indicate is a particular political program, either in the short run or even in the long run. It may once again mean that, although for the moment there are no signs of it. But if being a Communist party does not come to represent more than a memory of the past (positive or negative), then there will not be much point to it.
[Copyright by Immanuel Wallerstein. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to download, forward electronically or e-mail to others and to post this text on non-commercial community Internet sites, provided the essay remains intact and the copyright note is displayed. To translate this text, publish it in printed and/or other forms, including commercial Internet sites and excerpts, contact the author at iwaller@binghamton.edu; fax: 1-607-777-4315.
These commentaries, published twice monthly, are intended to be reflections on the contemporary world scene, as seen
from the perspective not of the immediate headlines but of the long term.]
Email this Commentary to a colleague
______________________________________________
Go to List of Commentaries