206

p Present-day Social-Democracy is the reformist, Right- opportunist wing of the working-class movement. Its ideologists, mainly of the Right wing, champion the capitalist system and anti-communism. The significance of the struggle against anti-communism in the social-democratic movement is determined chiefly by the fact that it is directly linked with the implementation of the strategy of the Communist parties of capitalist countries to set up a wide anti-monopoly front that could overwhelm imperialism. The unity of the working class itself, which is still disunited, is the key condition for the formation of this front. In the industrialised states, notably of Western Europe, co-operation between Communists and Social-Democrats is vital to the achievement of working-class unity. These parties have the largest following among the West European proletariat and also among the proletariat in Japan, Australia and New Zealand.

p Anti-communism penetrates the working-class movement side by side with reformism as a consequence of bourgeois ideological and political influence on the working class. This influence is spread by Right-wing Social-Democrats.

p However, the aforesaid by no means signifies that bourgeois, imperialist anti-communism is identical with its Rightwing social-democratic variety. On the contrary, it is quite evident that whereas anti-communism is intrinsic to the ideology and policy of the imperialist bourgeoisie, it is alien from the class and ideological standpoint to the workingclass movement, of which Social-Democracy is a part. This fact strongly influences the character of the Right-wing social-democratic variant of anti-communism. It makes the struggle of the Communists to expel anti-communism from the ranks of the Social-Democrats a means of ending the split of the working class and uniting it under the banner of common class interests and aims.

207

p The contradiction inherent in the anti-communist platform of Right-wing Social-Democracy, namely, its virtual transition to the class positions of the bourgeoisie and the objective need for preserving a certain anti-capitalist orientation, is the principal factor determining the specific feature of this variety of anti-communism, a feature that is seen mainly in the fact that with the aggravation of capitalism’s contradictions reformist policy is finding it has to adapt itself to the requirements of capitalist reality.

p Further, this specific feature manifests itself in the character of the problems raised by the ideologists of Right-wing Social-Democracy as regards their basic anti-communist concepts. It springs from the very substance of social- democratic ideology as an ideology of opportunism. The fundamental ideological divergences between the Communists and the Social-Democrats embrace issues such as the ways and means of transition to socialism, the very content of the terms “socialism”, “freedom”, “dictatorship” and “ democracy”. These ideological divergences also predetermine the specifics of the Right-wing social-democratic variant of anticommunism, which is called “democratic” anti-communism.

p In the social-democratic movement anti-communism developed over many decades. Its foundations were laid long before the formal rupture with Marxism, at a time when opportunism was nascent in the working-class movement. Its prehistory is traced from the revisionism of Eduard Bernstein to the social-chauvinism of the leaders of the Second International during the First World War and to the antiSovietism that sprang up after the Great October Socialist Revolution.

p The present phase of social-reformism and of its anticommunist ideology owes its specific feature to socialism’s economic, social and political achievements and to the exacerbation of capitalism’s internal contradictions.

p The imperialist bourgeoisie is aware of the possibilities afforded by the utilisation of the “democratic” variant of anti-communism in its anti-labour policies. These 208 possibilities stem from that variant’s formal “anti-capitalist” orientation. The social-reformists characterise their platform as being opposed to both imperialism and communism, as a “third way”, as the way to “democratic socialism”. The “ democratic” verbiage and “anti-capitalist” orientation of Rightwing social-democratic anti-communism render a substantial service to imperialist propaganda against Marxist-Leninist ideology, to the attempts to keep the foundations of the capitalist system intact at all costs. The more far-sighted ideologists of imperialism strive to make the utmost use of the Right-wing social-democratic variant of anti- communism and help to disseminate it in order to emasculate socialism from within. This was seen in bold relief during the events of 1968 in Czechoslovakia, where the counter- revolution used the disguise of “democratic” and “humane” socialism.

p The specific of contemporary social-democratic anti- communism manifests itself also in the forms of anti-communist propaganda. Its proponents understand that in face of socialism’s achievements it would be futile to launch undisguised slander, direct ideological and political provocations and unsubstantiated, crude attempts to discredit the sociopolitical system in the countries of the socialist community.

p “Democratic” anti-communism camouflaged with pseudosocialist verbiage is unquestionably beginning to forge into the forefront. In the capitalist countries public opinion regards the term “anti-communist” as almost synonymous with the terms “reactionary” and “conservative”. For instance, Willy Brandt, leader of the Social-Democratic Party of Germany, pointed out that anti-communism was used as a camouflage for the struggle against every kind of progress.^^18^^

p Nonetheless, anti-communism remains a key element of the ideological platform of modern Social-Democracy, particularly of its Right wing. The entire range of the theories used and evolved by the Right-wing Social-Democrats for anticommunist purposes may be divided into two large groups. These are, first, the theories designed to “refute” or smear the 209 Marxist-Leninist teaching as a whole or its individual components. Second, these are theories that boil down to attempts to discredit social development in the socialist countries, notably the Soviet Union, and the revolutionary working-class movement. The reverse side of the anti-communist theories is an apologia of the capitalist socio-political and economic system, which is likewise formalised as a system of concepts.

p For a long time the Right-wing Social-Democrats sought to prove that Marxism was obsolete. Initially, when Right-wing opportunism first made its appearance in the working-class movement, these attempts took the shape of a striving to “ correct” and “renew” some Marxist propositions. This brought about Right-wing Social-Democracy’s complete rupture with the ideology and practice of Marxism, manifested not only by the departure from Marxist propositions in most of SocialDemocracy’s programme documents but also by a total renunciation of Marxism as the ideological foundation of the Workers’ Party. Social-Democracy moved from the “philosophical neutrality” of the leaders of the Second International to “ideological neutrality”, to the thesis that no theory was needed for the struggle for socialism.

p In order to make the social-democratic rank-and-file forget Marx and give them a misconceived idea about Marxism, the reformist leaders propagated pseudo-Marxism, “ Austrian Marxism”, proclaiming as “Marxists” Bernstein, Kautsky, Marcuse and Mao Tse-tung, and others. Today this thesis has taken the form of the theory about the “pluralism” of Marxism-Leninism and is an attempt to discredit the theory of Marx, Engels and Lenin.

p Another method used in the attempts to undermine the ideology of scientific communism is to run a dividing line between the “young” and “humanist” Marx and the “ mature” Marx, and between Leninism and Marxism. This is one of the principal orientations of the anti-communist methods of falsifying Marxist-Leninist theory.

p The social-democratic theorists counterpose Leninism to Marxism mainly in basic issues of the socialist revolution and 210 in questions relating to the principles underlying the organisation and functions of the Party of the working class. All that Lenin had done to deepen and creatively develop Marxism is declared as “running counter” to the heritage of Marx.

p By falsifying the integral Marxist-Leninist theory in this manner, the Right-wing Social-Democrats endeavour to prove that the sphere for the application of Leninism is limited. Leninism, they assert, is a purely Russian theory, whose practical value is confined to pre-capitalist society, in other words, Leninism is applicable, at best, in underdeveloped countries, where the working class is weak and the peasants are the predominant force. Assertions of this kind synchronise with the preachings of bourgeois anti- communism.

p The political and ideological aim of these fabrications is obviously to belittle and primitivise Leninism, to portray it as a local doctrine that has no international significance and is inapplicable under developed capitalism. Thereby the goal is set of proving that Leninism is inacceptable in developed capitalist countries, which are the main sphere of socialdemocratic activity.

p Growing importance is being attached to Right-wing social-democratic anti-communist misrepresentation of the practice of Marxism-Leninism and of the socio-political development of real socialism.

p The method for misrepresenting socialist and communist construction follows a considered and formally logical pattern. Practically every major problem of the creation and development of the socialist states has been interpreted in an anti-communist spirit by the social-democratic ideologists.

p Following in the footsteps of the bourgeois ideologists, they misconstrue the nature of the socialist revolution, asserting, for instance, that the material conditions did not exist for the Great October Socialist Revolution because capitalist development had not reached an adequate level 211 in Russia at the time. Directly linked with the attempts to separate Leninism from Marxism, this assertion carries to an absurdity the fact of pre-revolutionary Russia’s certain economic lag behind the leading capitalist countries of the early 20th century—Germany, Britain and the USA. However, the monopolisation of the capitalist economy was progressing in Russia, too, while the organisation level of the working class was very high. Russia held an important position in the world capitalist economy, being a focal point of imperialist contradictions and a weak link of the imperialist system. Lenin’s theory of imperialism, in which he creatively developed Marx’s teaching in the new historical conditions, and his observation that the socialist revolution was inevitable in Russia were borne out by the entire course of subsequent events.

p While going to all lengths to belittle the significance of the Soviet experience, the ideologists of Right-wing SocialDemocracy put a false colour on the economic foundations of the socialist system, refusing to acknowledge the socialist character of the economy of the Soviet Union and other countries of the socialist community and maintaining that only a form of “totalitarian state capitalism” exists in these countries. Closely linked with this thesis is their distortion of the nature of socialism. “International communism,” declares a programme document of the Socialist International headed Aims and Tasks of Democratic Socialism, “is the instrument of a new imperialism.... By producing glaring contrasts of wealth and privilege it has created a new class society.”^^19^^ The regularity existing under capitalism (where property and class distinctions, in the main, coincide) is thus mechanically spread to socialist society, which is free of antagonistic classes. These assertions are, of course, designed for politically inexperienced people in the capitalist countries. However, as the truth about socialism’s achievements becomes known to an ever larger number of people, these propagandist theses, as their own authors themselves admit, lose their efficacy.

212

p The Communists have never made a secret of the fact that under socialism, where material abundance is yet to be achieved, income distinctions are inevitable as a transitional phenomenon that is being steadily overcome. “ Socialism,” Lenin noted, “is not a ready-made system that will be mankind’s benefactor. Socialism is the class struggle of the present-day proletariat as it advances from one objective today to another objective tomorrow for the sake of its basic objective, to which it is coming nearer every day.”^^20^^ Socialism has abolished the division of people into exploiters and exploited, into haves and have-nots, and in this is manifested the practical attainment of its cardinal aim of putting an end to all forms of social distinctions. As social practice demonstrates, the remnants of these distinctions are eradicated with the rise of the general standard of living, which is becoming a pressing requirement of socialism’s economic development and one of the vital economic conditions for the rapid growth of production. Socialism’s achievements eloquently show all mankind the advantages of its economic system. The practice of real socialism is a reliable instrument in the struggle against bourgeois and reformist ideology. By helping to shape a socialist consciousness among the working class and other working people of the capitalist countries, the example of socialism thereby expedites the maturing of the political conditions for the future socialist revolutions in these countries.

p A central theme is the falsification by the Right-wing Social-Democrats of the political system in the socialist countries, which they characterise as a “totalitarian dictatorship”. Questions related to democracy and its correlation with dictatorship, notions of socialist democracy and the dictatorship of the proletariat attract the heightened attention of the Right-wing social-democratic theorists. Today these questions have become particularly acute because the burden of the struggle for democracy in the capitalist states is borne by the working class, which heads all the democratic forces.

213

p Democracy is a painful issue for the Right-wing socialdemocratic ideologists. In their writings the word “ democracy” is used perhaps more frequently than any other. They proclaim democracy the panacea for all socio-economic ills. The content that they give the word is eloquently shown by the fact that Social-Democracy, which, as Bruno Kreisky, Chairman of the Socialist Party of Austria, said, “is the only possible alternative to communist dictatorship”, is described as the sole consistent champion of democracy.^^21^^ The Austrian Socialists now lay claim to be the “ideological headquarters” of Social-Democracy. The Congress of the Socialist Party of Austria in April 1972 set itself the task of defining the main socio-political objectives of Social-Democracy. In its resolution the Congress used the word “democracy” in every possible manner and noted that all the economic and political problems of social development can only be resolved in the “spirit of democratic socialism, which signifies the consummation of democracy”.^^22^^ The term “consummated democracy” is rather a linguistic than a theoretical innovation. The abstract character and vapidity of the term “ consummated democracy” (as of the notorious theses about “pure” or “absolute” democracy) are further testimony of the refusal to analyse this problem from the class positions of the proletariat.

p With “consummated” or “unlimited” democracy the Austrian Right-wing socialist ideologists link their understanding of socialism, to which they allegedly aspire. As regards the formula “consummated democracy”, one can with equal vagueness define socialism as, say, the “triumph of truth” or the “realm of reason”. To be guided by these definitions of socialism means not to see the real ways of building it.

p Joining hands with the ideologists of imperialism, the Right-wing Social-Democrats continue to harp on the “ totalitarianism” and “anti-democratic” character of the social system in the socialist countries. “While in the sphere of capitalism democracy and the welfare state are gradually taking shape, in most of the rest of the world a more or less 214 camouflaged dictatorship holds sway,” it is contended, for instance, in the Programme adopted by the Socialist Party of Austria in May 1958.^^23^^ “The Socialists,” the Programme states, “are adamant and uncompromising opponents of both fascism and communism. They reject any minority dictatorship and, equally, majority coercion that flouts the human rights of the minority.”

p This thesis is typical of the programmes of most SocialDemocratic parties and of the writings of Right-wing socialdemocratic ideologists.

p The anti-communists deliberately distort the substance of the problem of the correlation between dictatorship and democracy, stripping these concepts of their class content, identifying the formal judicial and class content of the concept dictatorship and seeking to attribute to the dictatorship of the proletariat of the socialist state the features and methods typical of the dictatorial, fascist regimes in capitalist countries. Far from being accidental, this juggling of concepts is the logical outcome of Right-wing Social-Democracy’s complete rupture with Marxism, of its rejection of the class analysis of social-political factors.

p For Marxist-Leninists, democracy and dictatorship are not antipodal but interrelated concepts that have a clear-cut class content. As for the social-democratic theorists, who pose as proponents of “pure” democracy, they prove in practice to be only supporters of bourgeois-democratic systems.

p The class approach to democracy from the positions of Marxism-Leninism signifies not the negation but, on the contrary, the true assertion of democracy. Far from removing democracy, the dictatorship of the proletariat consolidates it for the working masses, i.e., for the overwhelming majority of the population. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the guarantee of socialist democracy.

p Socialism signifies the implementation of an incomparably higher democracy than any form of bourgeois democracy. Indeed, democracy is effective only when the means of production belong to the working people, i.e., the overwhelming 215 majority of the population, this being possible only with the triumph of socialism. “Proletarian democracy...,” Lenin wrote, “has brought a development and expansion of democracy unprecedented in the world, for the vast majority of the population, for the exploited and working people.”^^24^^

p Moreover, for the working class the dictatorship is not an end in itself but the means of eradicating exploitation and building the new, socialist society. Experience shows that the exploiters do not cede their positions voluntarily. In order to break their resistance the proletariat has to possess absolute political power, i.e., exercise dictatorship. The method for suppressing the exploiting classes depends on the resistance of these classes to the new system, on the concrete internal political and international conditions for the socialist revolution in a given country.

p In whatever form the dictatorship of the proletariat is established violence is not its main aspect, as the anti- communists assert. Its principal objective is to carry out the gigantic task of restructuring society on a socialist foundation. This creative task is carried out by the working class under the leadership of the Communist Party and in alliance with the other strata of working people, with the masses participating in the state administration. The struggle for socialism is thus a struggle for the broadest democracy. After fulfilling its historic mission of ensuring the full and final victory of socialism, the dictatorship of the proletariat ceases to be necessary and evolves into a state of the whole people in which the leading role continues to be played by the working class. Such is the historical experience of developed socialism. Regardless of the attitude to it of the socialdemocratic ideologists, this experience is the real truth of history.

p In their attempts to prove that the socialist social system is “anti-democratic”, the Social-Democrats submit the theory that genuine democracy is inconceivable without a multiparty system. They argue that the existence of one party is tantamount to totalitarianism, which rules out all political 216 freedom. This absolutisation of the multiparty principle by the social-democratic theorists degenerates into a dogma. “No Socialist,” wrote Jules Moch, a prominent member of the French Socialist Party, “can make allowance, at least in a country that is not illiterate, for the concept of a single party even if it is open to all and if the most complete democracy reigns in it.”^^25^^

p The Right-wing Socialists charge the Communists with aspiring to “suppress” all other parties in the course of the struggle for power. It is indicative that in this issue the Social-Democrats find a common language with the bourgeois ideologists and with the Right-wing revisionists.

p In this question, it must be noted, the attitude of the Communists to the issue of the number of parties in the period of the struggle for socialism is falsified and distorted. Prior to its counter-revolutionary rising, the Socialist-Revolutionary Party was, together with the Bolshevik Party, at the helm of the state. It was only its action to seize power that placed it outside the pale of the law.

p Developments have demonstrated that depending on specific historical conditions, in a socialist country there may be one or several parties, the crux of the matter being not the number but the programmes and concrete actions of these parties. Where they co-operate for the attainment of common aims, the cause of socialism triumphs. In other words, the Communists are not against a multiparty system. They are against counter-revolution, against inter-party antagonism, against reaction.

p Antagonistic parties exist only where there are antagonistic classes. When class antagonisms are surmounted, the need for antagonistic parties falls away. The concrete conditions of the struggle for socialism in one country or another may lead to the formation of one party of the working class or to the need for two or more parties, which, while championing the specific interests of different strata of the population, direct their efforts toward the attainment of the common goal, socialism.

217

p The question of the number of parties is decided in the course of the class struggle itself. Ultimately, for the working people the important point is not how many parties participate in political life but how they conform to their interests and ensure them. The social homogeneity achieved in Soviet society unites all citizens so solidly that there is no necessity for a multiparty system. The fact that the CPSU has become the only political party in the USSR is the result of an objective historical process, of a bitter class struggle.

p Despite the fabrications of the anti-communists, the CPSU, which unites in its ranks millions of the finest representatives of the Soviet people, reliably guarantees socialist democracy and ensures the interests of Soviet society as a whole. Marxism-Leninism has nothing in common with dogmatic attempts to give the single-party system the character of a universal law for all countries and historical periods. At the 1960 Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties it was clearly stated that the Communists were in favour of cooperation with the Social-Democratic parties not only in the struggle to raise the living standard of the people and extend and preserve their democratic rights, in the struggle for world peace, but also in the struggle for power and the building of socialism.^^26^^

p This general principle is a major element of the platform of the Communist parties, notably in industrialised capitalist states. “We believe,” said Enrico Berlinguer, General Secretary of the Italian Communist Party, at a joint sitting of the CPSU Central Committee and the Supreme Soviets of the USSR and the Russian Federation in commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the USSR, “that we can and should not only advance toward socialism but also build socialism with the participation of various political forces, organisations and parties.”^^27^^

p By rejecting the theory of scientific communism and the experience of existing socialism the Social-Democrats do not, in their positive programme, go beyond the framework of 218 bourgeois liberalism, and endeavour to reduce the struggle for democracy to attempts to achieve “social partnership” with the bourgeoisie and confine the struggle for socialism to patching the vices of capitalism. The bourgeois and reformist ideologists give out for “capitalist achievements” what is being attained by the working class of a number of capitalist countries at the price of tenacious class battles, in a situation witnessing an acute struggle between the two systems, and under the impact of the growing successes and prestige of world socialism.

p The hard-line price and income policy, spelling out the freezing of wages and an intensification of exploitation, which the bourgeois state initiated with the aid of capitalist methods of economic regulation and programming, whose apologists included the social-reformists, shattered the myth about “social partnership” and the “welfare state”, bringing more and more people round to the realisation that reformism as the theory and practice of Right-wing SocialDemocracy cannot put an end to the omnipotence of the monopolies.

p In spite of the assertions of the Right-wing Social- Democrats about “class co-operation”, recent years have witnessed a further intensification of the class struggle and massive actions by the working people of the USA, Britain, France, Italy, Japan and other countries to back up their economic and political demands. It is indicative that precisely at a time when the bourgeois and reformist ideologists stepped up the dissemination of the myth that “social peace” had been achieved as a result of partial reforms there was a steady upswing of the working-class struggle in the industrialised capitalist states. For example, in the period from 1958 to 1971 the number of people involved in strikes in these countries increased from 13,500,000 to 48,000,000. Even among the Right-wing Social-Democrats pronouncements were made in which it was frankly admitted that reformism and the policy of “class co-operation” had limited possibilities. One of these pronouncements came from Giuseppe Tamburrano, a leader of 219 the Italian Socialist Party, who wrote in early 1971 that the Socialists would “be hard put to maintain that the reforms effected in England and the Scandinavian countries have introduced socialism or set these countries on the road to socialism”.^^28^^

p The fact that social-reformism cannot put an end to monopoly rule has been made abundantly clear by the scientific and technological revolution, whose achievements are widely used by the monopolies to strengthen their positions. The concomitant upswing of the struggle of the working people is compelling the social-democratic leaders to abandon some of the political slogans that only yesterday were regarded as traditional and, in order to retain their influence among the masses, to aggravate some areas of their relations with the bourgeois state.

p Many specific political issues are now being gradually reconsidered by the leading Social-Democratic parties of Western Europe. Quite significant in this context is SocialDemocracy’s change of attitude to some foreign policy issues. The peace policy of the Soviet Union and the other countries of the socialist community has given the lie to the “ communist aggression” fiction spread by anti-communist propaganda most intensively during the cold war years. At the same time, the internationalisation of the economy, the scientific and technological revolution and its influence on the manufacture of armaments, especially of weapons of mass destruction, are making imperialist aggressive policy particularly dangerous, enhancing the importance of international problems and linking their settlement directly with the destiny of nations.

p The Communist Party of the Soviet Union has done much to foster contacts and co-operation with the Social- Democrats on international issues. Delegations of some Social- Democratic parties (for instance, of Finland, Japan, Britain and other countries) have visited the Soviet Union, where they could see the successes of communist construction for themselves.

220

p Today Social-Democrats head or are members of the governments of many capitalist countries. The settlement of international security issues and the organisation of beneficial international co-operation, which constitute one of the prime aims of Soviet foreign policy, thus depend on them to a large extent.

p This consistent foreign policy of the Soviet Union and the other countries of the socialist community is yielding fruit, the evidence being, among other things, the renunciation by many Social-Democrats of the “Atlantic solidarity” and “communist aggression” doctrines and the broadening of Left-wing trends in a number of leading Social- Democratic parties, particularly the Labour Party of Great Britain, the Social Democratic Party of Germany and the Social Democratic Party of Sweden.

p International issues are now evolving into factors widening the split between realistic and anti-communist forces in the social-democratic movement. Whereas initially, for example, the US aggression in Vietnam was condemned only by the Socialist Party of Japan, the New Democratic Party of Canada and the Left socialist parties not affiliated to the Socialist International, subsequently most of the Social-Democratic parties had to reckon with the demands of the peoples for an end to the US aggression in Indochina. The Government of Sweden was the first Social-Democratic administration to establish diplomatic relations with the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and to extend economic assistance to it. The governments formed in Norway and Denmark by the Social-Democratic parties likewise recognised the DRV and established diplomatic relations with it.

p Positive changes have taken place in the attitudes of the Social-Democrats also in important international issues such as European security and relations with the Soviet Union and other socialist countries. In this area note must be made primarily of the signing and ratification of the USSR-West Germany treaty that was a significant foreign policy act of 221 the government headed by the leader of the West German Social-Democrats, Willy Brandt. West Germany signed treaties with the Polish People’s Republic and other socialist countries on the basis of the same principles as those that underlie its treaty with the Soviet Union. Peace-loving world opinion welcomed the ratification of these treaties and the expansion of contacts between West Germany and the USSR on state level. On December 21, 1972 representatives of the German Democratic Republic and West Germany signed a treaty on the principles governing relations between these two countries. This, too, was a major milestone toward converting Europe into a zone of peace and international cooperation. The realistic foreign policy of the West German government, headed at that time by Willy Brandt, which contributed toward an improvement of the situation in Europe, was one of the key factors of the SDP/FDP coalition’s victory at the parliamentary elections in West Germany in November 1972. Commenting on these developments, Leonid Brezhnev noted: “The treaties between the USSR and the FRG, and between Poland and the FRG, which formalised the inviolability of the existing European frontiers, the set of agreements on West Berlin, and the treaty on the principles governing relations between the GDR and the FRG..., the final break-through of the diplomatic blockade of the GDR—all these are important steps in Europe’s progress towards peace and security. And all this is not any one country’s gain alone, but a big victory for reason and realism in international relations.”^^29^^

p Differentiation is deepening in the Social-Democratic parties under the impact of the growing might and prestige of the world socialist community, the aggravation of modern capitalism’s contradictions and the pressure of the working people. It has now become quite apparent that Social- Democracy is by no means a homogeneous and united movement. The differentiation in the Social-Democratic parties signifies, above all, the creation of new conditions for achieving working-class unity in the anti-imperialist struggle and 222 for the key issue of the struggle for this unity, namely, cooperation between the Social-Democrats and the Communists.

p The most adamant adversaries of co-operation with the Communists are the Right-wing forces in the social- democratic movement, who are aware that this co-operation directly threatens their conciliatory, anti-communist positions. Reflecting the attitude of these forces, Mannheimer Morgen wrote in December 1972 that there was no possibility for a political or ideological rapprochement with the Communists and that such rapprochement could be effected only if the Communist parties ceased to be what they were. Bruno Pittermann, Chairman of the Socialist International, expressed himself in the same spirit. In an article published in Arbeiterzeitung, organ of the Socialist Party of Austria, on January 7, 1973 he said that discussions between the SocialDemocrats and the Communists were possible only in “ democratic countries”, while in the countries “governed by the Communists”, chiefly in the Soviet Union, Social-Democrats were suppressed and persecuted as enemies of the state. One can only guess the sources of information that were used by the Chairman of the Socialist International, who with serious mien wrote of mythical suppressed Social- Democrats in the USSR. What does not require guesswork is the bluntly anti-communist political aim of utterances of this kind.

p However, the consistent drive of the Communist parties for co-operation with the Social-Democrats is yielding tangible results. In Finland, the Communists and the Social- Democrats jointly participated in the government in 1966-1971 and this resulted in a series of measures that directly conformed to the interests of the people and in the enhancement of Finland’s international prestige.

p In Japan, the Left-wing candidates, mainly Communists and Socialists, were successful at the elections to local organs of self-administration held in 1971 and 1972 in six prefectures, that have nearly one-fourth of the country’s 223 population. At the close of 1972 the candidates of the united Left front headed the municipal councils in 49 Japanese cities. At the parliamentary elections on December 10, 1972 the Socialists and the Communists made impressive gains: their parties received nearly 17 million votes (over 32 per cent of the votes cast at those elections).

p The Left wing in the Italian Socialist Party has strengthened its position substantially. The decision of the extraordinary congress of the Italian Socialist Party of Proletarian Unity (July 1972) on the party’s self-disbandment and on the entry of its members into the Italian Communist Party was a major step toward uniting the Italian working-class movement. The fact that over 67 per cent of the ISPPU membership joined the Italian Communist Party enhanced the latter’s strength and unity. Of identical significance was the decision passed at the close of 1972 by Italy’s three largest trade unions—the General Italian Confederation of Labour, the Italian Federation of Trade Unions and the General Union of Italian Workers—on a merger into a federation, which had been opposed for a long time by the Right-wing elements. However, the new federation proved its viability soon after it was formed: in January and February 1973 it led two national strikes involving 20 and 14 million people respectively.

p At the end of June 1972 the struggle of the French Communists for working-class unity was marked by a major success—the signing of a joint government programme by the Communist and Socialist parties of France. This development had a long prehistory of complex and contradictory relations between the Communists and the Socialists. Among the French Socialists anti-communist feeling combined with a sense of class solidarity, which was strengthened when serious danger loomed: during the period when fascism ran amuck and the Popular Front was formed, during the years of joint struggle in the Resistance movement, and during the period when the one-man regime was established and consolidated.

224

p Considerable progress toward achieving united action by the Communists and Socialists was made with the adoption in December 1970 of a joint declaration in which the two parties agreed in their evaluation of some of France’s political and economic prospects. It is important to note that in this document the Socialist Party agreed that the aim of the two parties was not to reform but to replace the capitalist system. In the document this replacement was described as a “revolutionary change”.

p At the close of March 1972 the Communists and the Socialists decided to adopt a joint government programme, the impetus for this decision coming largely from the programme for a Popular Action democratic government that was published by the Communist Party in the autumn of 1971 and received the approbation of large sections of the French working people. Further, the Socialist Party adopted an action programme at its national conference on March 12, 1972. A joint programme calling for far-reaching political, economic and social changes was signed on the basis of these two documents. The essence of these changes was stated in the programme, which consisted of four parts devoted respectively to social issues, the democratisation of the national economy, the promotion of democratic rights and freedoms, and foreign policy.

p As was noted by Georges Marchais, General Secretary of the French Communist Party, at the FCP’s national conference in July 1972, the joint programme, naturally, does not contain all the recommendations made in the FCP programme, but neither does it contain anything that conies into conflict with the Communist programme, the decisions of the FCP’s 19th Congress and the principle of proletarian internationalism. Its aim is to facilitate the creation of the most favourable conditions for continuing the struggle of the working people to persuade the majority of the nation that socialist reforms are necessary.

p The leaders of the Communist and Socialist parties said they were confident that their joint programme could serve 225 as the action platform of all the democratic forces in France. This confidence was confirmed, in particular, when the Left wing of the Radical-Socialist Party subscribed to the joint government programme on July 12, 1972. This is noteworthy not least because the Right-wing leadership of the Radical-Socialists headed by Jean-Jacques Servan-Schreiber (which had expelled the Left-wing group for aligning itself with the joint programme of the Communists and Socialists) had lately pressed for a “democratic coalition” without Communists with the basic aim of trying to undermine the growing Communist-Socialist unity and isolating the Communist Party. The failure of these manoeuvres, that had wide support from a number of bourgeois parties, was a major success of France’s democratic forces.

p The enormous significance of the Communist-Socialist joint government programme is evidenced by the savage attacks of bourgeois circles, which have fished out the myth about the striving of the Communists to “subordinate” all the Leftwing forces, about the threat of a “Communist dictatorship”. Moreover, this is borne out by the violent attacks of the Trotskyists, the Maoists and other ultra-Leftists, who, in keeping with their adventurist principle of “all or nothing”, argue that the programme “gives nothing” to the working people.

p However, as Georges Marchais declared at the FCP national conference, the existence of the joint government programme substantially changes the balance of political forces in France and is evidence of the major changes taking place in the French working-class movement.

p One cannot assume, of course, that the adoption of the joint programme will automatically lead to the removal of the divergences between the Communists and the Socialists. The distance between them is preserved on account of the different and even antipodal approach of these parties to key ideological issues. The French Communists stress that only an active struggle by the working masses themselves can translate the programme’s provisions into reality.

226

p The joint programme was an important factor of the major success scored by the Left forces at the parliamentary elections in France in March 1973. The united Left front (which was not joined only by tiny Leftist groups) received almost 11 million votes, or two million votes more than at the previous parliamentary elections. In assessing the results of the 1973 elections, it must be taken into account that the Left forces were opposed by a powerful coalition of government parties, which had the state propaganda machine at their disposal and had acquired considerable prestige on account of their realistic foreign policy. Progressive opinion and the leaders of the Left parties drew attention, moreover, to the massive propaganda campaign in which the bourgeois parties intimidated electors with the “threat of a communist dictatorship”, “mass collectivisation” and other fabrications distorting the actual aims of the joint government programme of the Left forces.

p Nonetheless, the Left forces made substantial gains, widening their political support among the French working people, in whose direct interest it is to restrict the power of monopoly capital and enforce the democratic sociopolitical reforms envisaged in the joint government programme.

p It is thus evident that the leaders of some Social- Democratic parties are beginning to adopt a more realistic approach to pressing problems of internal and international policy and shake off many of the anti-communist prejudices of the past. It is symptomatic, for example, that the Council Conference of the Socialist International in Helsinki in May 1971 did not, as had been the case at all its previous sittings, adopt an openly anti-communist resolution. More, at the Special Bureau Meeting in Amsterdam on April 7-8, 1972, it was declared that “member Parties of the International should be free to decide their own bilateral relations with other parties”, although the proviso was made that “ SocialDemocracy neither should nor could make any ideological concessions to communism”.^^30^^ This was an indicative decision, 227 although it was not fundamental inasmuch as its aim was to avert an aggravation of the disagreements over this issue at the 12th Congress of the Socialist International. At the congress itself the question of relations with the Communists was not on the agenda, but it was found that there were sharp differences in the attitude of individual Social-Democratic parties. For instance, K. Sorsa, Secretary of the Social Democratic Party of Finland, spoke of the “need for an unbiassed approach to the initiatives of the ruling parties of the socialist countries” and declared that the Finnish SocialDemocrats would continue discussing practical and ideological questions with the Communist parties of the socialist countries and that his party’s contacts with the CPSU and the Communist parties of other socialist countries “were extremely useful from the standpoint of both national and party interests”. The importance of co-operation with the Communists in the struggle against reaction was noted by Francois Mitterand, First Secretary of the Socialist Party of France. However, representatives of other parties, in particular the Austrian Socialist Party, urged the continuation of the ideological struggle against the Communist parties, against what they called “communist dictatorships”. The Chairman of the Socialist International, Bruno Pittermann, repeated the anti-communist thesis that the renunciation of force in ideology, which, he said, should be shown chiefly through “ permission for the operation of Social-Democratic parties in the communist countries”, must be a condition for co-operation with the Communists.

p The new aspects in the practical policies of the Social- Democratic parties have sprung from the changes in the social basis of social-reformism resulting from the enlargement of the social composition of the labour force under presentday state-monopoly capitalism. However, this same social basis predetermines the inconsistency of the changes in the policies of the Social-Democratic parties. The processes now taking place in the international social-democratic movement are so complex, multiform and contradictory 228 that it would, of course, be premature to draw any hard and fast conclusions.

p The aggravation of the divergences in the Social- Democratic parties is a dual process: realisation of the danger of anti-communism and attempts to surmount the policy of class co-operation with the bourgeoisie, on the one hand, and, on the other, the sowing by the anti-communists of more sophisticated and camouflaged forms of attacks on the communist movement. There was an activation of anti-communism in the Socialist Party of Austria and in the Social Democratic Party of Italy, whose leaders proposed forming a coalition of all “non-communist democratic forces” with the undisguised aim of combating the growing influence of the Communists and isolating the Communist parties. This attitude had the unqualified support of the monopoly bourgeoisie, which spares no expense in its efforts to widen the split among the working class and prevent united action by the Social-Democrats and the Communists.

p Today, when the conditions and possibilities for achieving united action by the Communists and the Social- Democrats are becoming more favourable, the anti-communists, too, are changing their tactics. Compelled to reckon with the aspirations of the social-democratic masses, who are demanding a revision of the old political attitudes and the abandonment of anti-communism, the social-democratic ideologists are beginning to evolve their own “models of co- operation”, requiring the Communist parties, as a condition for joint action, to abandon, neither more nor less, their ideological principles, the principles of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism. For example, the aforementioned Giuseppe Tamburrano in his report on relations with the Communist parties at a special seminar held by the Socialist International in Vienna in December 1970 proposed that a condition for a dialogue with the Communists should be the admission by the Communist parties of capitalist countries that the society created in the Soviet Union and other states of the socialist community “has nothing to do with 229 socialism”.^^31^^ Alwar Alsterdal, a leader of the Swedish Social Democratic Party, who is likewise styled as an expert on questions of relations with the Communists, declares that the Communists’ offers of co-operation are always based on the latter’s conditions, which the Social-Democrats cannot accept, and suggests that co-operation is possible solely on the condition that the Communists renounce the principles of Marxism-Leninism.^^32^^

p This formulation of the issue demolishes the very idea of co-operation and fosters the split of the working class in the anti-imperialist struggle. Pronouncements of this kind by the Right-wing socialist ideologists are founded on the untenable thesis that the ideological and political divergences between the Communists and the Social-Democrats preclude co-operation between them. However, the practical results of the struggle waged by the working class bear out the opposite thesis championed by the Communists, namely, that ideological divergences cannot and should not serve as a barrier to co-operation among the parties of the working class, whose interests they are called upon to express. This concerns not ideological “co-operation”, which is indeed impossible between true revolutionaries and reformists, but a joint struggle against monopoly capital, a joint struggle for the basic interests of all segments of the working people.

p The attitude of the Communists to Social-Democracy is quite clear-cut. In the Central Committee report to the 24th Congress of the CPSU it is stated: “In accordance with the line laid down by the 1969 International Meeting, the CPSU is prepared to develop co-operation with the Social- Democrats both in the struggle for peace and democracy, and in the struggle for socialism, without, of course, making any concessions in ideology and revolutionary principles. However, this line of the Communists has been meeting with stubborn resistance from the Right-wing leaders of the SocialDemocrats. Our Party has carried on and will continue to carry on an implacable struggle against any attitudes which 230 tend to subordinate the working-class movement to the interests of monopoly capital, and to undermine the cause of the working people’s struggle for peace, democracy and so- cialism.”^^33^^

p The need to combat anti-communist ideology and policy is especially obvious today when ideological problems have become one of the main spheres of the struggle between reaction and progress. On the other hand, any disagreement with the Communists does not signify hostility for communism. Lenin did not regard the ideological and political differentiation between the various contingents of the working class as an insurmountable barrier to joint action for the common interests of the working people. He stressed that international unity was possible even “under existing deep-seated political differences”.^^34^^ At the same time he emphatically denounced unprincipled unity with Right-wing elements, who speak in the name of the working class but in fact pursue a conciliatory policy of co-operation with the bourgeoisie. Thus, for the Communists class unity signifies a consistent, principled struggle against social-reformism, against Right and “Left” opportunism.

p When the Communists speak of anti-communism in the social-democratic movement they mean that it is the outcome of the influence of bourgeois ideology and have in mind the fact that the Social-Democratic parties are an inalienable part of the working-class movement in the capitalist countries and cannot be sweepingly characterised as “bourgeois agents”. “Regarding Social-Democracy as the bulwark of capitalism was the source of the idea of social-fascism,” William Kashtan, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Canada, justifiably noted. “From this perhaps grew the idea at one time of the communist world movement that the main blow had to be dealt against Left-wing Social- Democracy.”^^35^^

p The exposure of and struggle against anti-communism require that a thorough account should be taken of the diversity of its forms and manifestations and a concrete and real- 231 istic assessment should be made of the forces opposed to communism. It is particularly important to take this into consideration when analysing the anti-communism among the Social-Democrats, for the conscious anti-communism of the bourgeoisified Right-wing leaders of the Social- Democrats should in no way be identified with the “traditional” distrust of the Communists that still persists in the ideology of leaders who nonetheless adhere to firm anti-imperialist, anti-monopoly positions, much less with the anti- communist prejudices of rank-and-file Socialists that are due to an inadequate level of class consciousness and come into conflict with their actual class interests.

p Notwithstanding the assertions of the Right-wing socialdemocratic ideologists, the practical struggle waged by the working class shows that an alliance between the Communists and the Social-Democrats benefits both sides, while anticommunism only plays into the hands of the imperialist bourgeoisie.

p With the interests of working-class unity underlying their policy, the Communists constantly make new concrete proposals for co-operation. The united front policy helps to uproot anti-communist views and surmount the distrust of the Communists among the middle and lower echelons of the social-democratic movement. The conditions obtaining under state-monopoly capitalism dictate the need for the unity of the working class, of all working and exploited strata of the population of the capitalist countries in the struggle against the monopolies. This has to be reckoned with also by the leaders of the Social-Democrats. One of the major tasks of the entire international working-class movement is to translate this need into a reality.

p The unity and close cohesion of the working class are the decisive condition for the success of its struggle against its class adversary. However, this unity, “owing to the splitting, disuniting and dulling conditions of capitalism, is not achieved with immediacy, but only at the cost of persistent effort and tremendous patience”.^^36^^

232

p Under bourgeois economic, political and ideological pressure some groups of the working class fall short of the development level reached by the working-class movement as a whole, are inclined towards conformism and fear the most acute political forms of the class struggle. This makes the inculcation of a class, revolutionary consciousness among the working masses one of the central problems of the ideological struggle in the capitalist countries. The Communist parties, which are the vanguard of the entire anti-imperialist struggle of the working class, play the leading role in resolving this problem. The Communists, who are armed with Marxist-Leninist theory, with the experience of the struggle of the entire communist movement and with the experience of real socialism, have the mission of helping the working class to understand the social significance of the measures instituted by state-monopoly capitalism, showing the reactionary character of these measures and making the people see from their own experience that they have to unite in the struggle against the combined forces of monopoly capital.

p The change of the world balance of strength between socialism and imperialism and the accompanying turn towards detente have in recent years, as we have already noted, led to an animation of the ideological and political discussions in the Social-Democratic parties and to a partial modification of the guidelines of these parties, particularly in the sphere of foreign policy. At the same time, the leaders of some SocialDemocratic parties are intensifying the ideological and political struggle against the Communists in their countries and looking for new and more flexible forms of ideological subversion against the socialist states. An analysis of the anticommunism, its ideology and policy brings to light the complexity of the struggle waged by the Communists to promote the class consciousness of the workers in the capitalist countries, where the Right-wing Social-Democrats are in power and have the support of most of the working class, and shows the need for united action by the Communists and the Social-Democrats.

233

p The peace policy pursued consistently by the Soviet Union and the other countries of the socialist community is gradually bringing the capitalist world round to the realisation that it has to regulate its relations with the socialist countries on the basis of peaceful coexistence. The influential political forces in West Germany that cannot avoid acknowledging this fact include the leadership of the Social Democratic Party. Their transition to a realistic stand on some foreign policy issues is today exercising a positive influence on the situation in Europe. For that reason the Communist parties of the socialist community welcomed the positive role played by the foreign policy initiated by the Brandt Government. In a principled assessment of the political stand of the Social-Democratic leaders, Erich Honecker declared at the 8th plenary meeting of the Central Committee of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany: “Although in foreign policy they react to the changed balance of strength in the world more realistically and with greater mobility than their predecessors in government office, this has brought no change at all to their socio-political and ideological concepts. In this respect their views and actions are unquestionably determined by bourgeois principles.”^^37^^ To make this situation clear the SUPG and the other Communist and Workers’ parties underscore the incompatibility between MarxistLeninist and social-democratic ideology and the fundamental distinctions between socialist and bourgeois ideologies.

p The SDPG policy-makers likewise repeatedly declared their fundamental irreconcilability to Marxism-Leninism and the communist working-class movement. At the 12th Congress of the Socialist International Willy Brandt said that “inter-state treaties and multilateral agreements do not remove fundamental ideological contradictions”.^^38^^

p In the theses headed Social-Democracy and Communism, Ulrich Lohmar, a leading SDPG ideologist, wrote unambiguously: “In the sphere of ideology and strategy the SocialDemocrats and the Communists have no common aims.” Therefore, he noted, “there are no grounds for the 234 Social-Democrats to suppress their desire to see the world not capitalist or communist but social-democratic”.^^39^^ Relative to the socialist countries these words express the hope and desire to reverse their development from socialism. In this strategic objective the Right-wing social-democratic politicians are basically at one with imperialist ideologists like Brzezinski, who urges the “social-democratisation” of the socialist countries. Precisely in this context the fundamentally anti-communist resolution of the SDPG leadership under the heading “Social-Democracy and Communism” (February 1971) declares: “Social-democratic policy cannot set itself the objective of liberating the Communist-governed countries, including the GDR. The erosion of the communist order can take place only from within.” Further down in the resolution it is stated: “We do not rule out the possibility of this development and would welcome it.”^^40^^ A policy aimed at “erosion from within” mirrors the basic changes in the international situation. The incompatible contradiction between socialism and imperialism has by no means disappeared. But in the new situation, where the struggle between the two systems is not conducted by military means, the socialdemocratic leaders consider that ideology must be used more effectively as a weapon in this struggle.

p Taking the new situation into consideration, the SDPG leadership charts its policy on the basis of a long-term strategy. The central element of this strategy is the creation first of a social-democratic Western Europe as the alternative to really existing socialism and influencing the latter ideologically. Anti-communism, too, must be adapted to this policy. Hence the currently predominant attempt to use “flexible” and long-term anti-communism as the means of generating anti-socialist tendencies, principally in the GDR.

p The overall intensification of anti-communist activity during the past three or four years is an indication of the policy pursued by the social-democratic politicians in West Germany. There has been an increased spate of statements, decisions and publications directed against the theory and 235 practice of the communist movement and against the theoretical and practical activity of the socialist countries.

p The reason for this activation of anti-communism lies in the processes that began to take shape in West Germany as a result of the class battles in the 1960s and on the threshold of the 1970s. In the Federal Republic of Germany the social and political contradictions are growing more apparent, a fact that even the leading social-democratic politicians have to admit. These contradictions pose the working class, particularly young people, with the question of resolving basic present-day social problems and the question of future development with growing urgency. All this is taking place at a time when the socialist countries are convincingly demonstrating their settlement of these basic present-day issues and advancing concrete plans that guarantee the future in a world of peace and social justice. This is attracting increasing interest in the theory and practice of the communist movement in, among other countries, West Germany. The German Communist Party, which is waging a struggle for social progress, for anti-monopoly democracy and the socialist remoulding of social and political relations in West Germany, has been functioning legally in that country since the end of 1968. It offers all peonle who want fundamental social changes a real, scientific alternative.

p Despite the innumerable statements about “extending democracy”, all sorts of reforms and a more attentive account of the “social component”, the Government of West Germany led by Social-Democrats considers that its main task is to stabilise the existing socio-political system.

p Another factor is that the present aggravation of the class struggle is taking place not in a cold war situation but in an atmosphere of detente. Mirrored, in particular, in the signing and ratification of the treaties with the USSR, Poland, Czechoslovakia and the GDR, this gainsays the lie about the “threat from the East” and creates favourable conditions 236 for deflating the anti-communist prejudices in the public mind.

p The influence of these factors is reflected in the West German trade unions and in the social-democratic estimation of reality in the Federal Republic of Germany, particularly by the Young Socialists in the SDPG.

p In recent years the social-democratic and the trade union leaders have repeatedly qualified as a “socio-political scandal” the fact that in West Germany 2.7 per cent of the population own 70 per cent of the “production potential”. Taking into account the ensuing glaring political and social inequality in West Germany, the social-democratic politicians are growing more and more apprehensive of the attitude (negative, from their point of view) which the workers are adopting toward the monopoly capitalist state. They are demanding a “serious approach to the integration of the workers” and are calling upon the trade unions to display a sense of responsibility for their country “as a whole”.

p To this it must be added that “many young SocialDemocrats who have in recent years come into contact with the Communists and with communist activity are articulating the fear that Social-Democracy may fall into the trap of anti-communism instead of concentrating on the struggle against the opposition from the Right, which in internal policy is a much larger force”^^41^^ in the FRG, Influential leaders of Social-Democracy see in these phenomena two “dangers”, which they strive to forestall. First, they are apprehensive about the increased readiness of social- democratic workers to enter into joint actions with the Communists, for instancq, in repulsing the attacks of the Right-wing forces, safeguarding political or social rights or in the struggle to extend these rights. Second, they fear for the political credit which they had earned by their policy from a section of the monopoly bourgeois elite. They are therefore stepping up their anti-communist activities among the working class of the FRG.

237

p In this area, a major part is played by the SDPG ideologists and politicians whose efforts are directed toward further elaborating and disseminating the concept of “democratic socialism” as an alternative to really existing socialism and Marxism-Leninism.

p At the same time, they are trying to guide the new theoretical discussion into an acceptable channel, believing that the concept of “democratic socialism” will help them to substantiate their policy theoretically. With the aid of this concept they hope to “put the world in order” on the basis of social-democratic principles.

p But on closer scrutiny their policy will be found to be directed toward making capitalism “more tolerable”, extending the influence of Social-Democracy to the national liberation movement and eroding the socialist countries from within. The resolution adopted by the SDPG leadership in February 1971 states that “democratic socialism” is designed to “serve as the political alternative to communism in the future as well”.^^42^^ What is the content of “democratic socialism” as seen from the explanations given by its protagonists?

p It is a more or less rounded-off doctrine, which was evolved in the 1940s and the 1950s by some Social-Democratic parties, including the Social Democratic Party of Germany. In the economic sphere it preaches the renunciation of socialised means of production, while in the political sphere it rejects the need for a class struggle and the seizure of power by the working class. The Godesberg Programme defines socialism as a “permanent task of winning and preserving freedom and justice”. Freedom, justice and solidarity are interpreted as everlasting ethical “basic values” existing, so to speak, “in themselves”, separately from society’s material conditions of life, from production, the relations of production and the class struggle. The Draft Economic and Political Programme for 1973-1985 declares: “Social-democratic policy strives to achieve the aims of the Godesberg Programme: a new social order conforming to 238 the fundamental values of socialism.”^^43^^ In practice, this spells out the defence of capitalism, private ownership of the means of production and the capitalist state. As understood by the Social-Democrats, “democratic socialism” means nothing more than “democratised capitalism”. Essentially, the theoretical inventions of the social-democratic leaders are designed to obscure the class content of the existing system and create illusions about the actual relations of power and about the social system. Their “democracy” is aimed at securing the “voluntary” integration of the working class into state-monopoly capitalist society.

p They hope to achieve a “just distribution of property” by legislation while remaining on the soil of state-monopoly capitalism. They thereby wish to give the impression that social contradictions can be surmounted under the existing system, that the workers are equal in that society, that present-day capitalism is itself moving toward socialism and that nothing remains for the working class but to submit to this spontaneous process.

p The ultimate objective of these arguments is to disarm the working class ideologically.

p The social-democratic politicians and the politologists and futurologists associated with them tirelessly picture capitalism as the society of the future, and in this connection frequently speak of capitalism’s capacity for “change”. This was expressed in the following words by Vice-Chairman of the Social Democratic Party of Germany Herbert Wehner in an interview carried by the party’s theoretical organ Die Neue Gesellschaft under the heading “On the Road to Social Democracy”: “I was recently asked if it is true that the Social-Democrats no longer have the intention of overthrowing capitalism. I replied that they indeed have no intention of doing so. Since capitalism is not something that can be overthrown, the thing to do is to change it.”^^44^^

p In elaborating on “democratic socialism” as the present social-democratic theory and as an alternative to the theory and practice of really existing socialism, the social- 239 democratic ideologists and policy-makers devote much attention to the question of ownership of the means of production and to the question of power. This is not accidental. Ownership and power are the central categories of any social theory. The answer to all the other socio-political issues depends on who has the means of production and the political power.

p A resume of what is said in the resolutions of the SDPG congresses and in the speeches and articles of its leaders will make it clear that instead of demanding the abolition of private ownership of the means of production, which was an important component of the social-democratic programmes, they dwell on competitiveness, the market economy, the policy of growth and so forth.

p The social-democratic ideologists are now trying to dispute the significance of the question of ownership of the means of production, depict capitalist ownership as the basis and guarantee of political freedoms under capitalism and peddle the idea that public ownership of the means of production is the mainspring of the “totalitarian” political system of socialism.

p This approach to the ownership of the means of production underlies the above-mentioned resolution adopted by the SDPG in February 1971. That document reaffirms the proposition of the Godesberg Programme that private ownership of the means of production must be recognised: “To this day, as is recorded in the Godesberg Programme, it is axiomatic that private ownership of the means of production has the right to be upheld and supported if it does not obstruct the building of a just social order.”^^45^^

p In the Manifesto of the Communist Party Karl Marx and Frederick Engels characterised the question of ownership as being the basic question of the movement and showed that the abolition of capitalist ownership of the means of production was the decisive condition of society’s reorganisation. They wrote: “The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations. . . . The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all 240 capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class....”^^46^^

p But this is exactly what the social-democratic leadership does not want. On the contrary, it pursues a policy of preserving and fostering capitalist ownership.

p The social-democratic ideologists argue that the question of ownership will be decided by “social control of the economic means of power with the help of the state”. In reviving the idea of economic control by the bourgeois state R. L6- wenthal refers to Marx and Engels.^^47^^ But Marx and Engels had in mind a proletarian state, while the Right-wing socialdemocratic leaders suggest public control through the imperialist state, this being tantamount to self-control by the monopolies.

p In order to blur the actual relations of ownership, the Right-wing social-democratic leaders declare that today the owners of the means of production exercise their property rights to a very small extent and that, therefore, the basic question is not the form of ownership but control of property.

p The pseudo-theoretical point of departure of this thesis is the unscientific and practice-rejected interpretation that had been characterised by Marx as a tendency to separate capital as property from the functions of capital, and ownership of the means of production from the disposal of the means of production. “The disposal of the means of production,” wrote Ulrich Lohmar, “is an essential question when the matter concerns how to tie in equality and freedom, social duty and personal interest.” Social-democratic policy wants to resolve the contradiction between public and private interests “by participating in economic management, by creating employee ownership with the purpose of redistributing the ownership of the means of production and by state tentative regulation and the establishment of social and political aims”. However, Lohmar has had to admit that “no substantial headway has been made in any of these 241 three orientations”.^^48^^ The concentration of production and capital continues in West Germany under the government headed by Social-Democrats.

p Further, the social-democratic ideologists argue that exploitation, social injustice and poverty can be abolished in countries where the social system is based on private ownership. In order to conceal the discrepancy between words and reality they often speak of changes in the relations of ownership. For instance, Georg Leber, who was Chairman of the Building Workers Union and a minister in the Brandt Government, said that an “evolutionary solution” had to be found for the problem of ownership of the means of production in order to counter the revolutionary solution recommended by the Communists.^^49^^ “For the Social- Democrats,” writes another social-democratic ideologist, “property is a major condition for a balanced distribution of society’s material goods and the preservation of the independence of its members. They want not the expropriation but the allotment of property.”^^50^^ These recipes for the solution of the question of ownership of the means of production are suggested mainly as an alternative to socialist ownership.

p With the concepts about “creating working-class ownership” and about the “social duty of big proprietors”, the SDPG leaders strive to give the working people who support them the illusory impression that their theories about property can be translated into reality. But in fact they obscure the actual relations of power. The official social- democratic concept of power is undeniably directed against the workers and young people, who insist that it is possible and necessary to socialise private ownership of the means of production. These workers and young people regard, for example, the struggle for a better “quality of life” (the term the social-democratic leaders use to describe their proposal for reforming social policy, and policy in education, public health, transport and so on) as follows: “If what is understood by ‘quality of life’ is taken seriously, it will be hardly 242 possible to avoid affecting the nerve centre of the entire capitalist system.”^^51^^ This is evidence of a stirring of a class feeling in the question of property.

p In reply to the anti-capitalist demands of the “Young Socialists”, Herbert Wehner declared: “What they say about property irritates me more than anything else.”^^52^^

p The leading social-democratic ideologists argue that the question of society’s class structure has likewise lost its significance. A fundamental article contributed to the discussion about the “basic values of democratic socialism” states: “The Godesberg Programme . . . quite definitely propounds the proposition that our society is no longer divided into structurally demarcated classes—- The class distinctions have weakened and the class contradictions have abated.”^^53^^ In West Germany the exacerbation of the contradictions between the exploiters and the exploited and the unceasing class struggle undeniably refute these assertions. The scope of the strike movement in recent years has clearly reaffirmed the class, antagonistic nature of West German society. Some contingents of the working class wage a struggle against exploitation and for the preservation of their jobs both during economic upswings and during recessions.

p From time to time the class contradictions in West Germany compel the SDPG leaders to admit that “Social- Democracy is aware how far our modern society ... is removed from the actual equality of opportunities and social jus- tice”.^^54^^ They constantly console their rank and file and electors and declare that the building of social democracy is an exhaustless never-ending task.

p More, they depict the economic power of the monopolies in isolation from state power, as though the two were independent of each other; in other words, they deny the natural link between economics and politics.

p Marxism-Leninism has proved that in a society torn by class antagonisms the state is the most potent instrument by which the economically predominant class exercises its political supremacy. This applies fully to West Germany where 243 the political power is characterised by the intertwining of monopoly and state power in a single mechanism, which while not being free of contradictions gives the monopolies not only political power but also new sources of profit. The big monopolies influence legislation and state policy mainly through their economic power, their close tie-up with the state bureaucracy, the entrepreneurial associations and the parties represented in the Bundestag.

p The SDPG leaders make every attempt to camouflage this fact. They portray the imperialist state and capitalist ownership of the means of production as being “neutral” relative to classes. The state, they declare, has the task of “balancing” and “harmonising” differing interests. However, the fact that despite all manipulations the working class refuses to identify itself with state power, with the exploiter-state, which endeavours to divert it from the struggle for its rights, refutes the assertion about the state’s class neutrality.

p The state is by no means the factor that “balances” monopoly capital, although in its concrete policy it has to take the interests of other classes and strata into consideration in order to strengthen the imperialist system. The extent to which the imperialist state and the given government have to pursue a policy affecting individual issues, albeit partially, is a question of the alignment of the class forces, of the class struggle. But this is the very issue which the social- democratic fiction about the state’s class neutrality seeks to consign to oblivion.

p If the aims which the SDPG leaders combine in their concept of “democratic socialism” are summed up, it will be found that a) they stress that social democracy is incompatible with scientific communism; b) with their interpretation of “democratic socialism” they strive to break the resistance of critical opposition in the SDPG ranks; c) the socio- political ideas underlying “democratic socialism” pursue the aim of “theoretically substantiating” the policy that in fact strengthens the positions of state-monopoly capitalism in its struggle against the West German working class; and d) the 244 SDPG leaders regard “democratic socialism” as the alternative to real socialism.

p “The purpose of the slogan of democratic socialism,” Erich Honecker said at the Central Conference of Functionaries of the Association of Free German Youth, “is to deceive the workers and divert them from the struggle for emancipation from absolute state-capitalist rule. We Communists have no illusions whatsoever about the attitude of the SDPG leaders to the basic issues of society. We have never regarded the SDPG as a force striving to clear the road for a social revolution... . Our aspiration for normal and even goodneighbour relations with West Germany thus by no means signifies that we support a mixture of socialism and capitalism.”^^53^^

p The SDPG leaders combine their efforts to theoretically substantiate their ideology and programme with a series of political, organisational and propagandist measures— including the use of the levers of state power—in order to foster anti-communism among the West German working class.

p Their anti-communist activity today unfolds mainly in three directions.

p First, tightening discipline in the SDPG by ideologically “protecting” the membership against the influence of scientific socialism and live socialist practice and by drastic organisational measures.

p Second, disseminating anti-communism among the West German working class.

p Third, distorting the theory and practice of the German Communist Party in order to isolate it from the working class and prevent the spread of its influence in the workingclass movement.

p These three orientations are closely interconnected.

p The growing incidence of political and social actions in the Federal Republic of Germany, particularly since the close of the 1960s, and the accompanying, albeit still limited, growth of working-class consciousness has affected the Social Democratic Party differently.

245

p The aggravation of the social and political contradictions in West Germany has led to some local actions against the provocations of the Right-wing forces and against inflated rents and transport rates. In these actions the Social- Democrats, particularly the Young Socialists, consciously and openly co-operated with the Communists. These joint actions reached one of their highest levels during the massive movement for the ratification of the FRG’s treaties with the Soviet Union and Poland in April and May 1972.

p The SDPG leadership is taking various measures against these “menacing” tendencies in the party. One of these measures is “reideologisation”, which has been mentioned above. A segment of the Young Socialists, municipal politicians, many social-democratic members of trade unions and some other elements are demanding social changes in West Germany. The SDPG leaders are trying to direct the current dialogue in their party into the desired channel, emasculate the “radical” demands and return the “Leftist critics” to the party platform by means of “talks” between the party’s leaders and the Young Socialists.

p The intra-party dialogue is used by the SDPG leaders for high-pressure indoctrination of the membership in a spirit of “democratic socialism”, the main subjects of discussion being property, worker participation in factory management, democracy and the character of power. The overriding aim is to make membership ideologically immune to the influence of socialist theory and practice and to the widening social and political contradictions in the capitalist system.

p The fact that SDPG members hold high office in the Federal Government is used by the party leaders as another means of curtailing political discussion in the party, particularly among functionaries belonging to and actively working in the trade unions. Alleging that the responsibility they now bear is the only means by which “social democracy” can be achieved, the party leaders urge solidarity in and with the party, a solidarity which they identify with their policy.

p Lastly, they have recourse to organisational repressions 246 against members favouring or taking part in joint actions with the Communists. On November 14, 1970 the SDPG Council in Munich passed a decision stating that no united action was possible with the Communists and obliging all SDPG organisations, in cases where party members conducted joint actions with members of the German Communist Party, SED—West Berlin and other communist organisations, published joint statements, signed joint appeals, leaflets, invitations and so on, and also in cases where Social- Democrats co-operated in publications brought out by the German Communist Party and the FDJ, to make it plain to these members that their behaviour was prejudicial to the party and where necessary to take party disciplinary action against them.^^56^^

p At a meeting on February 26, 1971 the SDPG leading organs felt it was necessary to pass an additional decision establishing the boundaries of party membership and to reemphasise: “The Party Council, the Party Board and the Control Commission expect all Party members to acknowledge unambiguously the decision on the incompatibility of joint actions with Communist organisations regardless of their orientation.”^^57^^

p The ceaseless efforts of the SDPG leadership to draw a dividing line only on the Left and its tolerance of Rightwing extremist elements, including in the party itself, can only be explained by the fact that its policies are oriented basically not toward the interests of the people (despite all the declarations to the contrary) but toward the requirements of the ruling elite of the monopoly bourgeoisie. This explains its readiness to make concessions to the Right-wing forces.

p Parallel with the intensified anti-communist indoctrination of the membership, the SDPG leadership continues to disseminate anti-communism among all sections of the West German working class. In this context there have recently been some new developments compared with the decade following the adoption of the Godesberg Programme: the SDPG leaders have again begun to give more 247 attention to the working class of West Germany. This manifests itself in different forms.

p The strong emphasis that the SDPG leaders place on the party’s links with the working class is designed to step up anti-communist activity at the factories. In addition to a resolution providing for general measures to intensify SDPG political work at the factories, the Central Conference of Social-Democratic Workers, held in October 1970, passed a special decision headed the “Struggle Against Communism”.

p This decision mirrors the numbing fear that the SDPG leaders have for the Communists at the factories. Despite the latter’s numerical weakness, they are the most consistent champions of the workers. This is seen, in particular, in the work of the production councils and most strikingly during strikes and the struggle for higher pay.

p In this struggle, especially during strikes, the SDPG is mostly restrained, “neutral” or conciliatory, while the Communists openly side with the strikers and actively help them. For that reason at the factories the Communists frequently enjoy more influence than could be expected, judging by the numerical strength of their factory cells.

p The increased activity of the SDPG leadership relative to the working class and, in particular, their anti- communist activities at the factories, demonstrate that the German Communist Party has become a factor that can no longer be ignored. This explains the all-out effort of the SDPG leaders to isolate the German Communist Party, to prevent it from becoming a major political force in the working-class movement. On this issue the social-democratic politicians side with the provocateurs of the CDU/CSU. In response to Rainer Barzel’s appeal for solidarity against “radicalism on the Left”, Willy Brandt declared in the Bundestag on October 21, 1971: “It is not necessary to urge the German Social-Democrats to fight the Communists.. . Acting on our own convictions ... we are waging that struggle already today.”^^58^^ In this struggle the SDPG leaders are stepping beyond the framework of ideological warfare, using the 248 levers of state power against the German Communist Party. In early 1972 at a conference of Lander prime ministers, with the overwhelming participation of Social-Democrats, a decision was passed that transcended the Fundamental Law in that it closed the civil services (including teaching jobs at general educational schools and institutions of higher learning) to members of the GCP. This decision is being implemented and in fact signifies official support for the actions against the Communists.

p The political methods that the Right-wing social- democratic politicians and propagandists use against the Communists have undergone little change. True, from time to time the SDPG press urges the lifting of the ban on the GCP. However, as in past years, the hard line and old methods predominate in the struggle of the SDPG leaders against the Communists in West Germany: facts are most brazenly juggled and distorted in order to slander the Communist Party. Here two central “arguments” are used: first, the Communist Party is charged with pursuing anti-democratic objectives; second, it is alleged that it is not a national force, not independent, that in foreign policy it does not champion the interests of the West German working class but follows in the wake of socialist states—the Soviet Union and the GDR.

p The first lie is supported by the social-democratic politicians by depicting the political aim of the Communists, the establishment of a socialist system, as undemocratic and “totalitarian”.

p The second assertion, namely, that the GCP is not independent and that in foreign policy it represents the interests of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries, is evidence that anti-Sovietism remains the basis of socialdemocratic anti-communism. This assertion seeks to stir nationalism and rests on a distortion of the principle of proletarian internationalism that has underlain the activities of the Communists as representatives of the working class since the days of Marx and Engels. The SDPG ideologists 249 and politicians are making use of the fact that the class consciousness of many workers is still not sufficiently mature on account of the long influence of social-democratic ideology and policy.

p From the beginning of this century the social-democratic ideologists have done much to confuse the workers’ notions about the relationship between the class struggle and national interests. They have adopted (or supported) the socialchauvinistic attitudes of “their own” monopoly bourgeoisie and completely ignored the fact that since the emergence of imperialism and in the epoch of transition from capitalism to socialism the class struggle is being waged as an international struggle and that ever since the establishment of working-class rule in one and then in other countries it has been raised to the state level and thereby brought into inter-state relations. This fact has received contradictory expression in the public mind, while the anticommunist politicians, often with success, keep bringing the sense of proletarian solidarity into conflict with bourgeois patriotism and the nationalism of the masses. We know from history that even when there is a worldwide revolutionary upswing bourgeois nationalism can gain the upper hand over proletarian internationalist duty.

p Today nationalism prevents the working class from utilising the favorable international conditions created in the world by the achievements of socialism and by the weakening of imperialism and reaction. The Communists of West Germany support the foreign policy of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries, including the GDR, chiefly because socialist foreign policy is the policy of the working class exercising power and conforms to the interests of the West German workers and all other peace-loving people. Moreover, this policy of peace fetters the aggressive forces in the FRG and creates for the West German working class better conditions in its struggle for an extension of political and social rights.

p The fundamental coincidence of the policy pursued by 250 the socialist countries with the aspirations of the West German working class emanates from the common class interests of the workers of socialist and capitalist states. This is the foundation of the attitude of the Communists, including the Communists of West Germany, to the Soviet Union and other socialist countries and to their foreign policy.

p The Communists’ policy of organising working-class united action is of pressing political significance to the SDPG leadership, which for that reason concentrates its attacks on this unity, using the old methods of slandering and falsifying its content and aims. They have evolved three groups of “arguments” against united action by the Social-Democrats and the Communists.

p The first group contains the contention that united action is a Communist tactic and method aimed at strengthening the Communist Party. It is alleged that the GCP is out to play a role in politics at the expense of the SDPG. Where the Communists rule, they hold, the Social-Democrats are deprived of political power.

p The Communists have clearly enunciated the aims and tasks of united action policy. In the Main Document of the 1969 International Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties it is stated: “Communists, who attribute decisive importance to working-class unity, are in favour of co- operation with the Socialists and Social-Democrats to establish an advanced democratic regime and to build a socialist society in the future.”^^59^^ In calling for united action the Moscow Meeting appealed to all opponents of imperialism and to all people prepared to fight for peace, freedom and progress, stating that the central point of the programme for united action is that peace must be defended and ensured against all imperialist acts of aggression in all parts of the world. A component of this paramount task is the struggle against the threat of fascism, for democracy in all spheres of social life.

p Inasmuch as the aim of the united action policy is to uphold the interests of the working class and strengthen its 251 position in a given country’s political and social life, the question arises of the content of the policy pursued by the party representing the working class: how far it is consistent with the elementary interests of the working class and whether it strengthens or weakens the position of the proletariat in the class struggle? The answer to this question necessarily evokes communist criticism of the policy pursued by the SDPG leadership because that policy weakens the position of the working class by subordinating its interests to those of its class enemy.

p In connection with this criticism the SDPG leaders advance their second group of arguments against the united action policy: they allege that the Communists regard the SDPG as their principal enemy, that they pursue the united action policy in order to prejudice the SDPG, weaken it and discredit it in the eyes of the people, that the Communists are trying to drive a wedge between the SDPG leadership and the rank and file. They assert that the Communists want united action of the working class against the socialdemocratic leadership and are thereby becoming an auxiliary detachment of reaction and undermining democracy.

p Here, too, they deliberately falsify the aims of the Communists urging united action. Not only the statements of the GCP but its day-to-day struggle prove that it is fighting the state-monopoly system and the ultra- reactionary, openly revanchist forces assembled in the CDU/CSU. The SDPG leadership has the support of the West German Communists on issues in which its attitude is realistic and harmonises with the interests of the working class, for instance, in some areas of current foreign policy. The Diisseldorf Congress of the GCP stated: “The GCP supports any action of the Government that ... is conducive to realistic steps towards peace and European security” and will “make every effort to prevent the CDU/CSU from returning to power”.

p The Communists criticise the policies of the SDPG’s Right-wing leaders not because they are at the helm of that 252 party but because their policies are helping to stabilise the state-monopoly regime and strengthen its main political forces to the detriment of the working class.

p The optimism of the Communists that united action will be achieved and their unflagging efforts, despite hostility and negative responses, to attain that aim are founded on the objective class interest of the workers in peace, democracy and social and political progress.

p The third group of arguments against united action allege that the Social-Democrats and the Communists have nothing in common in ideology or politics and that, therefore, there are no grounds for talks, much less for joint action. Indeed, there are fundamental ideological divergences between the Communists and the Social-Democrats. Hence their different and even antipodal assessment of present-day realities and of the prospects for the class struggle. That is precisely why the Communists consider it necessary and state their readiness to discuss these divergences. By means of a theoretical discussion, which is already in progress throughout the world, including the Federal Republic of Germany, the Communists intend to make the basic issues of the class struggle clear to the proletariat and thereby reinforce its anti-imperialist actions.

p The SDPG leaders declare they are prepared to conduct a dialogue with the Communists of other countries but refuse to sit down to talks with the Communists of West Germany. They calculate that stepped up propagation of “democratic socialism” will harness the working class more tightly to the state-monopoly system. In particular, as was stated by Kurt Bachmann in a talk on the relations between the Communists and the Social-Democrats in West Germany, they are out to prevent the emergent peaceful coexistence with the socialist countries from leading to a new, friendly attitude of the West German workers to the Soviet Union and the GDR and to their shedding their anti-communist feeling.^^60^^

p The allegation that the Communists and the Social- Democrats have nothing in common in politics likewise serves 253 the SDPG leaders as a means of hindering joint action by the Communists and the Social-Democrats. We have already shown the untenability of the attempts to prove this allegation. The struggle for higher wages, the strikes of the West German workers, the actions against the provocations staged by the Right-wing forces, the support for the realistic foreign policy of the Government led by the Social-Democrats toward the socialist countries, the demands for worker participation in the management of production and the economy, the changes that have taken place in the relations of ownership and property, and the demand for equal opportunities for education demonstrate that the Communists and the SocialDemocrats have common political aims. This community of aims is founded on common class interests that unite the Communists and the Social-Democrats. The difference between them is that the Communists are consistent in their struggle to give the working class the leading role in politics and the economy. They urge the abolition of monopoly capital rule and show that socialism has to be established in West Germany. The policy of united action of the workingclass is aimed at achieving these objectives.

It is only a joint struggle with the Communists for the basic and day-to-day interests of the workers and other working people that can guarantee the future of the Social-Democratic Party as a political movement with particularly close ties with the working class and contiguous strata of the population. But this signifies that anti- communism, which is a major component of social- democratic ideology and policy and a serious obstacle to united action, must be surmounted. This conclusion is prompted by the history of the social-democratic movement, particularly the German social-democratic movement, from 1917 onwards. Social-Democracy can have broad prospects as an independent political movement firmly linked with the working-class movement only if it renounces anti- communism. For this reason, too, the struggle for united action meets with the interests of the social-democratic movement itself.