[PEN-L:9462] Analysis of recent Russian protests (2/2)

[Michael Eisenscher <meisenscher@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

>Subject: Analysis of recent Russian protests (2/2)
>
>>Program Commission, I have to conclude that we are still a
>>long way from fully resolving this problem. This forces you
>>to think more deeply about the motives that permit
>>amendments to be made to the program.
>>Let us start with the last-mentioned of the motives
>>above--the need for editorial refinement of the text. There
>>is no limit to the refinement process, of course, and
>>therefore the present text of the CPRF Program is entirely
>>susceptible of editorial improvement. This can be done, but
>>whether it needs to be done is the big question. In my
>>opinion, the text adopted by the Third Congress treats the
>>problems enumerated in the first five points fairly
>>accurately, and it is irrational to assign a party congress
>>the functions of editorial commission.
>>A desire to improve the text is completely
>>understandable, but one can go too far. We could easily fall
>>here into the common mistake that Engels warned against long
>>ago: slipping from the formulation of program goals into
>>commentary on them. This shortcoming was very evident in the
>>3rd Program of the CPSU (1961), whose authors forgot that
>>the program should be a summary of the goals and principles
>>of party activity, not a commentary on them.
>>Certainly, commentaries (both scientific and highly
>>popularized ones) are essential, but not in the program
>>itself. The job of preparing them falls to the ideological
>>subdivisions of party organs and to the party's scientific
>>contingent. Unfortunately, in the two years that have passed
>>since the last congress, little has been done in this
>>direction.
>>Lenin once said that the party program is its banner
>>raised on high. A banner is exactly right--a simple, vivid
>>symbol visible from everywhere, a guide on the field of
>>battle. But it is not a map of the terrain, nor an
>>operational plan, without which, of course, you cannot get
>>by and which must be carefully developed.
>>And that is why Lenin's party of Bolsheviks, famous for
>>their amazing tactical flexibility, did not hurry to change
>>their program at every occasion. And there was need--two
>>wars and two revolutions! The time to review the program,
>>that is review not just tactics but also strategy, came only
>>on the very eve of the socialist revolution when it became
>>clear that in the age of imperialism it would not be
>>accomplished in the way that people in the 19th century had
>>pictured it. And then the revision finally became absolutely
>>necessary after the revolution was victorious and the
>>program had been, in this way, fulfilled.
>>Then afterward the party was very solicitous of its
>>second program, adopted in 1919. Even such a major political
>>and socioeconomic change as the transition to the New
>>Economic Policy [NEP] did not occasion a modification of the
>>program. After the fact Gorbachev used it as a foundation,
>>and we all know what happened with that.
>>Now let us look at the content side of things.
>>Have we fulfilled even one of the goals of our program?
>> No, unfortunately we have not so far.
>>Perhaps we have formulated our goals incorrectly? I
>>think our general goals have been set correctly, namely our
>>general goals, the overall guidelines. In some ways we will
>>clarify and develop them, especially when it comes to
>>specific ways of achieving them. And we are doing this and
>>doing it continuously, but this does not change the essence
>>of the program goals.
>>Perhaps we are already the ruling party? But even if
>>we were to become it, we would not have to change our
>>program but work and work by the sweat of our brow in order
>>to fulfill at least the minimum program.
>>Perhaps we have ceased to be the party of the working
>>people? Or we are no longer the party of patriots and it is
>>time to throw out this point, as some of our idiotic
>>"leftist" comrades advise?
>>Perhaps we have renounced Marxism-Leninism as our
>>theoretical foundation like the Social Democrats? No, far
>>from renouncing it, we are striving to develop it
>>creatively, for Marxism is a generalization and essential
>>conclusion from all the achievements of world science and
>>culture. Many decades have already passed since Marx,
>>Engels, and Lenin, and during them human thought has not
>>stood still. We have made some steps in this direction, and
>>the results are already included in our program.
>>Some will say that we included the wrong things, or did
>>it in the wrong way. Well, all right, let us discuss this
>>issue. That is, offer scientific arguments and--most
>>important--measure the conclusions in practice. And here we
>>move on to another equally important question: the procedure
>>for adoption and political and scientific testing of program
>>propositions. I would like to recall how the existing CPRF
>>Program was developed and adopted.
>>Work on it began even before the official restoration
>>of the party, which occurred at the Second Congress in early
>>1993. This congress, however, did not adopt a program at the
>>beginning, only a "program declaration," which was very
>>sketchy and preliminary. That is understandable--too many
>>theoretical and practical questions of party life and
>>activity under the new conditions remained open to be in a
>>hurry with final formulations.
>>An exchange of opinions on all these issues continued
>>in the party, and resulted in the preparation, after a year,
>>of the "Theses for Development of the CPRF Program,"
>>approved at a plenum of the Central Committee and
>>distributed to party organizations for further discussion.
>>This stage concluded at the all-Russian party conference in
>>April 1994, which adopted and published the "Program Theses
>>of the CPRF" as the foundation for continuing work.
>>Then followed one more cycle of general party debate
>>during which the Program Commission prepared and in the
>>autumn submitted to a plenum of the Central Committee what
>>was now the "Draft Program of the CPRF." They approved and
>>submitted it to the court of the entire party.
>>We remember that the discussion was certainly not
>>formalistic. An enormous number of assessments and proposals
>>were received, which forced the Program Commission to work
>>very seriously on polishing the draft. And only after this
>>was the updated draft approved by still another plenum of
>>the Central Committee and submitted to the Third Party
>>Congress.
>>But work still continued at the congress. About 10
>>fundamental additions and amendments were made to the text.
>>And so adoption of the existing program required, for
>>one thing, partywide discussion of five versions of the
>>text, and second, official decisions by three plenums, a
>>conference, and two party congresses.
>>But even that is not all. As we know, the most complex
>>theoretical issue of the party program concerning the
>>prospects of development of world civilization and Russia's
>>place in it became the subject of painstaking scientific-
>>theoretical work. The problem, as we recall, was posed by
>>the late Valentin Afanasyevich Koptyug. To discuss it the
>>party Central Committee (I emphasize, the Central Committee
>>itself, and not some other nonparty organization) in three
>>years conducted three major, purely theoretical conferences
>>on the problem of "stable development." It was subjected to
>>detailed, critical analysis, resulting in the proposal of
>>the socialist version of the idea of stable development,
>>cleansed of bourgeois and mondialist interpretations and
>>overlays. Only after this was it included in the program
>>under the name "optimal socialist development."
>>The reason I enumerated all these party and scientific
>>forums is certainly not to use their authority to claim that
>>we now have an absolutely irreproachable text in which not a
>>comma can be changed. No, I am far from such a thought, but
>>I consider it relevant to recall the history of the adoption
>>of the existing program in order to point out the high
>>standards we ourselves set and observed, which we must
>>continue to observe in the future when making such important
>>party decisions.
>>Unfortunately, at the present time in the matter of
>>making amendments and additions to the program we are not
>>fully observing these standards.
>>What do we have as the basis for debate right now? The
>>decision of the previous plenum to include this question on
>>the agenda of the fourth congress and the letter of the
>>Central Committee in which the question of amendments is
>>touched on in very general terms.
>>In fact party members were given a very abstract
>>invitation: "Send in your proposals!" So we are in the very
>>early phase of the debate, in the stage of free searching
>>with all the features characteristic of such stages. For
>>example, many of the proposals coming in indicate that their
>>authors are only superficially familiar--if at all!--with
>>the existing CPRF Program. Many of the things being proposed
>>are already reflected and fixed in the text. A number of
>>proposals begin, as it were, with a clean slate, as if the
>>party did not have an officially adopted program at all
>>before. Such instances illustrate that work on studying and
>>promoting the party program was apparently poorly organized
>>in many organizations.
>>But let us turn to sensible, practical proposals. There
>>are quite a few of them, too. The logic of the adoption of
>>party decisions demands that after they are reviewed and
>>summarized, the Program Commission uses this as the basis to
>>prepare a concrete draft of the changes and additions which
>>were examined by one of the plenums of the Central Committee
>>and then published for partywide discussion. It seems to me
>>that such a stage is absolutely essential in adopting
>>decisions of this degree of importance.
>>But we do not have such a draft yet. Less than a month
>>is left until the congress, but the debate continues in the
>>very initial stage. It is going on "in general," not around
>>a specific subject. And even if the party receives the text
>>of a draft of amendments by the time of the pre-congress
>>plenum, there will no longer be enough time for a partywide
>>discussion of it. Nor will there be any certainty that we
>>will truly improve our program. The reason things are behind
>>should be sought in the fact that we gave ourselves too
>>tight a schedule. And we need to decide whether to meet it
>>"at any cost" or to adjust its times.
>>In view of the above, I personally am inclined to
>>conclude that work on amendments should be continued, but
>>continued in a serious manner without haste to adopt them at
>>the next congress no matter what. The draft should be
>>prepared and submitted for discussion by the whole party. At
>>the same time there should be careful scientific-theoretical
>>testing of it, for which a series of scientific conferences
>>should be organized under the aegis of the Central
>>Committee. After that, discussion at another plenum, and
>>possibly even call an all-Russian party conference for this.
>>In other words, prepare in a really fundamental way and
>>bring this question to the fifth congress. As for the
>>upcoming fourth congress, it should make a serious
>>contribution to this cause.
>>In the first place, at the highest party forum we
>>should discuss the problem itself and ways and approaches to
>>solving it. The congress can summarize certain results of
>>the exchange of opinions occurring in the party, determine
>>the main areas in which the program should be refined, and
>>possibly work up a general conception of this.
>>It seems that such a conception cannot emerge as the
>>result of purely theoretical debate; it cannot be
>>"invented." Only innovations that have already been tested
>>in reality, in practical party work, can and should be put
>>in the program. In the last two years there have been many
>>important events in which the party participated in one way
>>or another; they were all reviewed by the party and
>>reflected in the documents of party conferences and plenums,
>>in the pre-election platforms, and elsewhere. These are
>>precisely the documents that should be the foundation for
>>development of the draft of amendments and additions being
>>made to the program.
>>>From the mass of developments in recent years the most
>>important and deserving of inclusion in the program, it
>>seems to me, are propositions concerning the relations of
>>socialism and patriotism, the specific cultural-historical
>>features of Russia, and new trends in the development of the
>>social class basis of the Communist Party. Nonetheless, they
>>will require careful critical analysis and singling out the
>>things in them that have truly been confirmed in practice.
>>As Lenin said during discussion of the draft of the second
>>program: "The program must describe reality with absolute
>>accuracy. Then our program is invincible" (Complete Works,
>>Vol. 38, p. 159).
>>In the second place, the proposals received during the
>>debate and the materials prepared by the Program Commission
>>will not simply disappear. No one is preventing us from
>>considering them during preparation of extensive resolutions
>>of the congress on the broadest range of issues, including
>>program issues. Among them are, for example, the questions
>>of a minimum program, questions of the party's agrarian and
>>ethnic policy, and so on.
>>At the last plenum we were probably in a hurry and took
>>a somewhat casual attitude toward a very important problem.
>>It is not too late to correct this mistake. I think that the
>>pre-congress plenum of the Central Committee could propose
>>that the party congress clarify the corresponding point of
>>the agenda, formulating it in approximately this way: "On a
>>Conception (Principles, Main Areas) of Making Additions and
>>Amendments to the CPRF Program." Needless to say, this
>>question is for the plenum to decide, but the final word
>>belongs to the congress alone.
>>In conclusion I would like to emphasize: The program
>>must be respected, the program should be promoted and
>>studied, and the program must be fulfilled. I must note with
>>concern that the people who latched onto the idea of
>>amending the program with special zeal are the same ones who
>>in the two years since its adoption have not done the first
>>thing, the second, or the third either. The psychological
>>motivation here is simple: How can you respect, study, and
>>fulfill it if it needs to be changed?
>>Our most important challenge is not to let ourselves be
>>caught up by such an attitude. And in light of this
>>challenge, I hope that comrades will correctly understand
>>the motives and essential points of the proposals set forth
>>in this article.
>>
>
>
>