PDS

["Chris, London" <100423.2040@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Perhaps a few comments are permissible from the outside.

I understand that the title of the Spiegel article means "Lusting for
Power", which sounds like a typical bit of sensationalism. My impression is
that the PDS is more sophisticated and clever than to have its agenda
totally limited by the manouevrings of German party politics, even
while it plays on them.

I caught a newspaper headline shortly after the Conference of the SPD
that replaced Scharping with Lafontaine. The latter was quoted as
saying he wished to make the PDS capable of hope ("hoffaehig"?)

All this is a complex dance, related to the particular balance of forces
created by the German electoral system, which is so different from
the British and the American. After the election results the courtships
occur. The culture assumes some sort of coalition government. The battles
take place in terms of whether the CDU can frighten the SPD so much with the
revelation that they would like to get into bed with the Red Socks
that it can never consider such a coalition.

In that sense I guess on the basis of relative crashing ignorance
that after the PDS triumph in East Berlin this year, the change in the
SPD conference marks the beginning of the breakdown of the quarantine
in which the PDS was placed by the bourgeois parties of Germany.

That is surely to be welcomed, however limited in its implications, and even
if Berlin itself remains run by a grand coalition of CDU/SPD still.

For this to come about it must mean that the PDS cannot decline to
contest power. It must seek for example to have its members serve as
mayors in the districts of East Berlin in which it was the largest party.
What is political activity for after all?

I was interested to hear in a personal conversation with a PDS deputy
last year that in the all Berlin representative assembly with its
all party working groups on various issues, that it seemed easier at times
to have objective discussions about what was needed with CDU representatives
than with SPD representatives, who were more politically frigid.

The Communist Manifesto points out that the working class is the largest
class and in a revolutionary way, should seek to represent the nation.
What is wrong even within all the limits of the actually existing situation
with putting forward proposals, eg on housing, that represent the interests
of the great majority of the population.

As well as the PDS starting to take postions in local goverment the
other interesting example we have is members of the South African
Communist Party in the Government of National Unity despite the fact that
its economic policy accepts massive constraints imposed on it by
international finance capital. Joe Slovo, of course served in it before his
recent death, and the deputy finance minister is Alec Irwin, a member of the
party who is regarded as very able.

"A Party membership book" does not instruct that it is always necessary
to remain in opposition. It may be possible to argue within government.

IMHO

Chris B
London.





------------------------------

From: "Wolfgang Haible, Bibliothek" <HAIBLE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 12:05:33 -0100
Subject: PDS

The new ,Der Spiegel" (a right magazin) includes an article about
the PDS ,Geil auf Macht". You can read the text in German:
http://www.uni-stuttgart.de:80/bda/int/spon/magazin/deut01.html)
Lucian wrote about revolution experience. 1989 the SED is at the end.
But you know why Marx says, revolution is necessary: 1. To make an end
with the ruling class, but also important 2. to develop themselves
(damit die Revolutionaere sich selbst veraendern). KPD was from 1928
directed from Stalin. 1945 SED (or KPD) was installed from the Red Army.
Thalheimer wrote at that point the working class and KPD have do to
their own thing against USA and others and friendly with the Soviets
but they have not same interests. But nothing happened (keine
selbstaendigen Aktionen). The Red Army still stand in GDR until the
end. So the PDS became ,Staatspartei", they never learnt to live in
capitalism, to engage the masses and/or to make opposition. Now, after
a short time of opposition, our ,Parteifuehrung" or part of it, want
again in the government with SPD (and Green Party?).  If someone
become ,Buergermeister" (major) of a city, he says, I forget my
,Parteibuch" (party-membership-book?), he makes policy for all(!)
peoples. That's our problem - more in future than now.
May be, somebody knows what is ,Millerandismus".
Under what circumstances is it allowed or good for communists or
socialists to go in the government as part from a coalition?
Here I think, we have to learn a little bit, and for me it is
worth your experience all over the world with this problem.
I am interesting, I hope you also.

Comradely, Wolfgang


     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---



     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------