Letters

‘New thinking,’ changes to CPs
seen as a retreat into reformism

For the greater part of its history, the
Communist Party of Canada has worked to
transform the revolutionary impulse of
Canadian workers into support for Stalinist
concepts of what constitutes socialism and
revolutionary practice. It has taken the
upheavals within Eastern Europe and the
Soviet Union to move the CPC towards
questioning this heritage.

The leadership has outlined its stance in
two documents, ‘Socialism in Transition”
(Tribune, Jan. 15, 1990) by the B.C. provin-
cial executive and “The CP and Canadian
Socialism” (Tribune, Jan. 29, 1990) by
George Hewison.

Much of the B.C. provincial executive’s
document is taken up with an extremely
limited critique of Stalinism. To the all
important question of the source of Stalinist
totalitarianism and violence, we are told
that “the Stalinist interpretation of the dic-
tatorship of the proletariat has been at the
base of a set of interconnected dogmas
which have led to a pattern of restriction on
democracy and violence against the people
by governments officially proclaiming
adherence to Marxism-Leninism.”

There is no equation whatsoever between
Stalinist “Marxism-Leninism” and genuine
Marxism. The science of Marxism, as app-
lied by Marx and Lenin, required a com-
plete loyalty to the facts. “Marxism-
Leninism,” on the other hand, was the

' mantle created to cover up.the actionsof the

degenerate Soviet bureaucracy. The bureau-
cracy chose to name this anti-science after
Marx and Lenin because, with the advent of
the Russian revolution, the prestige of
Lenin and the Bolsheviks could not have
been higher among the world’s working
people. By claiming to be the rightful heir to
the Bolshevik heritage, the Soviet bureau-
cracy could find no better ideological dis-
guise for their corrupt, and absolutist rule.

While the B.C. provincial executive
proves that it has not grasped the counter-
revolutionary nature of Stalinism, George
Hewison proves unable to provide a critical
analysis of the latest creation of the Soviet
bureaucracy, the so-called “new thinking.”

Surely we could have expected Hewison
to be more circumspect, given that most of
what this bureaucracy has produced in the
name of Marxism over the last 60 years was
nothing more thana series of lies and distor-
tions. Instead, Hewison is already attempt-
ing to stuff reality into this “fresh, new”

- ideological strait-jacket.

Early on Hewison asks the question,
“Does new thinking change the fundamen-
tal character of the class struggle?” This
remarkable formulation suggests that fun-
damental changes in the class struggle occur
merely asa result of a change of mind on the
part of the Soviet bureaucracy. The first
question we should ask is not whether these
views alter the class struggle, but whether
they accurately portray real changes in the
class struggle.

So what is “new thinking?” First, it
expresses a lack of confidence in the revolu-
tionary capacities of the working class.
Thus Hewison refers to a “new thinking
theorist” who suggests it is time to re-
evaluate “the holy of holies ... the role of
the working class in Marx’s theory of the
class struggle .. .” Lest we forget, Marx con-
tended that it was only the working class
that had the capacity to bring about the
destruction of capitalism and create a
society free from exploitation. :

Second, it promotes illusions about
progressive traits within imperialism. Thus

Hewison imagines ‘“‘an element of realisnr
within imperialist circles” that “rises above
its Own propaganda about the death of
socialism to assess the damage done to its
system by neo-conservatism which has
aggravated the capitalist crisis.””

Despite unanimous support amongst
‘imperialist circles” for more severe deficit
cutting measures than even the Tories are
willing to institute, Hewison suggests there
is “considerable debate over the continuing
effectiveness of right wing, as opposed to
more liberal, supply-side economics to

~ reduce deficits and indebtedness .. ..”

Perhaps Hewison has had the opportun-
ity to listen in on these debates but from
down here it appears that “imperialist cir-
cles” are quite unanimous in their resolve to
‘continue the offensive against the working
class.

To complete our picture of new thinking,
we must leave Hewison and go right to the
horse’s mouth. From the No. 5, 1989 edition
of “Communist,” the CPSU Central
Committee’s theoretical journal, Georgi
Shakhnarazov argues that the struggle for
“social progress and national development”
must be carried out “excluding methods of

‘New thinking
expresses a lack of
confidence in the
working class ... Marx
contended that only the
working class could
bring about the
destruction of
capitalism.’

dangers all just aims must be attained by
political means.”

This does not mean “withdrawing the

socialist demand for (private property’s)

abolition. However, private property must
be overcome by economic means.”

Similarly, the B.C. provincial executive
concludes that it is wrong to say that the
“social revolution must be the result of a
single revolutionary blow, the so-called
sharp break ....” Social revolution is
instead “the product of an extended histori-
cal period in which socialist governments
could be won and lost and won again many
times.”

Now, we can debate all we want about
whether or not these ideas are correct. But
let us call things by their right names. Lack
of confidence in the revolutionary potential
of the working class, illusions about pro-
gressive trends within imperialism, denun-
ciation of the armed struggle and illusions
that socialism can be achieved through
“economic,” evolutionary or electoral
means are all hallmarks of reformism and
social democracy.

These ideas find their root within the
petty-bourgeoisie. This blurring of class
lines reflects their position as a force existing
between the two great contending classes,

the working class and the bourgeoisie.

Furthermore, all of these ideas are found
within Stalinist “Marxism-Leninism.” This
should not be surprising. Both new thinking
and Stalinism find their origin in a petty-
bourgeois formation of a special type, i.e.
the Soviet bureaucracy. How else can we
describe this collection of party officials,
trade union functionaries, intellectuals, fac-
tory managers and so on who, in their out-
look, aspirations and privileges replicate the
petty-bourgeoisie within capitalism.

There is, however, one enormous. differ-
ence between Stalinism and new thinking.
New thinking reflects the thought of a
bureaucracy in the midst of a deep, ongoing
crisis. The development towards more and
more blatant social-democratic formula-
tions is occurring at a time when entire CPs
and sections of CPs are denouncing com-
munism and taking up the social-democratic
mantle.

The bureaucracy has so tarnished the
image of Marxism and communism that, in
the face of mounting mass resistance, it
finds that image to be a dangerous liability.

The fact is that a return to a genuinely
Marxist approach will not come from the
bureaucracy or its political representatives.
It will find its source in the historically sig-
nificant return to activity on the party of the
Soviet and Eastern European working
class.

The remaining CPs in government (with
the important exception of Cuba) are inflict-
ing increasing hardships on the working
class. Asa result, the working class is begin-
ning to fight back. In the process of learning
from their struggles the working class of
these countries will rediscover the need for
solidarity and internationalism. With expe-
rience will come the understanding that the
road out of their suffering lies in the direc-
tion of taking power.

It is then that we can speak of a rebirth of
Marxism because the link will have been
made between their struggles and the Bol-
shevism of that great Russian working class
that established the first working class state
in 1917.

Gorbachev and his new thinking coun-
terparts are trying to block this process
through measures aimed at limiting the
right to strike, particularly the right to wage
political strikes.

At the same time, imperialism stands
forth and triumphantly proclaims the death
of socialism and the victory of the most
destructive and violent system of exploita-
tion yet devised, capitalism. This triumphal-
ism ignores the reality that capitalism is in
worse shape than at any time since the end
of the Second World War. The imperialists
dance their victory jig on the very edge of
sudden intensification of the economic cri-
sis.

Capital, in the face of his deepening crisis,
is intensifying the offensive against the
working class and its allies among the
farmer and fishermen. Sooner or later, the
working class will respond to this offensive
and millions will awaken to political life.

For the first time in decades, there will be
an openness among workers to the posing
of revolutionary solutions to their problems.
At the same time, others will attempt to
divert any developing movement into the
dead-end of reformism. If the CPC moves
in the direction indicated by its leadership, it
will be calling to the working class from the
camp of reformism.

Mike Barker,
Vancouver

Bashing
cultures
exactly

what the
rich want

The *recent issue of French lan-
guage rights is an historic problem
brought into the contemporary light.
It’s an example of anti-French senti-
ment that should not be ignored.

Until very recently, Saskatchewan’s
French-speaking community has been
mute, at least publicly, on this issue.
Predictably, the anti-French senti-
ment is creeping into our province.
What is at play here is another crass
example of division of people into
groups with hate-mongering at its
roots.

If I were a member of the franco-
phone community, I would not take
this issue too lightly. The anti-French
sentiment is an uninformed attack
against language rights, veiled-as an
economic concern. It is not different
from attacks against other minority
groups which took place in the past
and which continue to this day.

In the past Indian children were
beaten and abused for speaking their
indigenous languages in the early
boarding schools. There are people
alive who still recall those punish-
ments, and the effect this had on the
entire Indian nation.

Japanese Canadians will still recall
the camps in British Columbia where
they were held purely for racist rea-
sons. More recently, the Sikh com-
munity and culture has been attacked
for wanting to retain vestiges of its
religion and culture ....

Rather than supporting acts that
attack people’s culture, whether
francophone, Sikh, Cree or other
Canadian, we should understand the
only way we are going to survive is to
pull together and try more toleration
and understanding.

The French language issue is being
veiled as an economic one. People are
expected to respond to this issue on
whether we can afford it. I believe that
the expenditure on this issue is minor
compared with ‘waste and outright
corporate thievery in this province
and country. French-bashing is exactly
what the rich of this country like to
hear, because it takes the pressure off
them to pay their share.

Sure, I support French language
instruction. But at the same time, I
would ask the same act of solidarity
and understanding for Indian land
claims as well as a unified demand for
the settlement of these claims. These
claims are as valid as the French lan-
guage rights issue.

It might even be more so, for it was
the indigenous people of this country
who “moved over” to accommodate
not only the French, but the British as
well, back in 1649. It’s time to ignore
our minor differences and recognize
that in unity, mutual understanding
and support, there is strength.

Priscilla Settee,
Aboriginal Women’s Council,
Prince Albert, Sask.

Pacific Tribune, March 26, 1990 e 5