[Via Communist Internet... http://www.egroups.com/group/Communist-Internet ] . . ----- Original Message ----- From: Miroslav Antic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: NATO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sorabia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; News <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; BALKAN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; SNN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 'YAHOO' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 4:24 PM Subject: VALENTIN KUPTSOV: "THERE IS NO SENSE IN RENAMING THE COMMUNIST PARTY" [WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK] STOP NATO: NO PASARAN! - HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK --------------------------- ListBot Sponsor -------------------------- Sopranos fanatics, this one is for you. Tony Soprano's autographed Suburban is available for purchase on eBayTM. James Gandolfini has personally signed the vehicle. Find this and over 800 other Sopranos items for sale on eBay. http://www.bcentral.com/listbot/ebay ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Nezavisimaya Gazeta July 24, 2001 VALENTIN KUPTSOV: "THERE IS NO SENSE IN RENAMING THE COMMUNIST PARTY" The future of the Communist Party has again become a fashionable subject. Shortly before the Genoa summit, President Putin reminded the party of his idea to change its name for the Russian Social-Democratic Workers' Party (RSDRP). In fact, it was a clear hint that the communists' methods of political struggle have become obsolete. But the implementation of the president's idea would call for changing the party's programme, which entails the splitting of the "red" electorate and a fall in the party's influence. Valentin KUPTSOV, first deputy chairman of the Communist Party Central Committee, talks with Anna ZAKATNOVA about the objective and subjective reasons for which communists rejected the idea of transformation of the communist party into a social democratic one. Question: The president suggesting changing the name of the party, but you seem to be adamantly against the idea. At the same time, the party leadership said more than once that it is the successor of the Soviet Communist Party and hence the successor of the Russian Social Democratic Workers' Party. Answer: It was not the first time Vladimir Putin mentioned the idea. And we replied once again that the question is not discussed in the party and will not be discussed in the next ten years. They have been suggesting the idea since 1993. In 1991-94, we actively discussed the possibility owing to the shock effect of the developments on the party. When the operation of the party was suspended, many timeserving ideas on surviving in that situation and gaining legitimacy were advanced. This is when the Socialist Workers' Party led by Lyudmila Vartazarova and Roi Medvedev was created. It had over 120,000 members. In other words, a roof was created under which many communists worked without thinking of the name of the organisation. It did not matter to them if it was called a socialist or a communist party. We also pondered the idea in 1993 at the 2nd restoration congress of the party, when we won the case heard by the Constitutional Court, hoping to gain more freedom of action and win over centrists. But the problem was buried in the past five years. Parties are not renamed at the suggestion of presidents; the idea should be born and grow within the party itself. But none of the 18,000 primary cells suggested renaming the party. This is why we will retain our name, which meets our policy goals. And then, even if we change the name of the party, nothing will be changed in the party itself. It will remain in opposition to the authorities. Question: A change in the name would also entail changes in the programme. When the president speaks about a potential social-democratic future of the Communist Party, he probably expresses the wishes of the bulk of society, which prefers predictable stability. Answer: The Russian Social Democratic Workers' Party was a good name for a party at the beginning of the past century. Social democracy today has seriously transformed and the experience of the past ten years shows that it is insufficiently protecting the rights of hired labour, that it limits social guarantees and strengthens the role of capital. The image of social democrats has plummeted in the world, especially after 13 social democratic governments supported NATO and became accomplices to the bombing of Yugoslavia. Their prestige dwindled even in their own countries. We will not give up our programme, which stipulates several provisions that are very close to social democracy, such as the recognition of the right to private property, the right to political plurality, and a fundamentally new attitude to religion. We differ from any social democratic party in the West because the Communist Party believes that power must belong to the people and not to oligarchs. Power belongs to capital in the countries of social democracy, and in Russia, too. In fact, capital has become part of power structures of the state. Question: But your party is collaborating with businessmen, too. Answer: It is one thing to collaborate and quite another thing to hand power over to oligarchs. Why not support those etatists who work in the interests of Russia now that the country is being sold out to Western capital? This is the situation now. And we will support Putin only when he works for Russia. But when he goes against the interests of the majority, we don't support him and protest against the land and tax codes and the law on hard currency regulation. Because they do not stipulate the priority of state interests and the interests of working people. I think this is happening also because oligarchs have grown stronger organisationally. Arkady Volsky's Russian Union of Producers and Entrepreneurs is the politburo of oligarchic capital, which is dictating conditions to the president. I think that in these conditions the role of the opposition is to consistently and resolutely protect the interests of the popular majority. Question: There are quite a few social democratic parties in Russia. Does the Communist Party have a chance to fit into this overcrowded political niche? Answer: When advancing this idea, one should remember that there is no social base for it. One should also take into account the experience of creating such parties. There are about 15 social democratic parties or socialist parties in Russia, with such prominent members as Mikhail Gorbachev, Konstantin Titov, Gavriil Popov, Martin Shakkum and Ivan Rybkin. They seem to have set themselves a normal task of creating a party; they are rallying funds, relying on the capabilities of the Socialist International and establishing broad international ties. But what is the result of all this? They do not enjoy great prestige in society, as only about 1% of the electorate vote for them all. The experience and practice of the social democratic movement in Russia shows that the electorate does not trust it. Question: The electoral base of social democracy is traditionally the nascent middle class, while you are supported by semi-marginal groups of population. Answer: I don't envision stable development of social democracy in Russia in the next few years because it does not have the requisite social base. All social democratic parties rely on the middle class. In our split society, there is barely about a thousand oligarchs and 5-7% of the population who service them, while some 60% of the population are impoverished people with seriously impaired social guarantees. One can voice any wishes, but society rejects social democracy now. The bulk of society supports the Communist Party, the Liberal Democratic Party, Fatherland, Unity, SPS and Yabloko. An artificially grown social democracy will bring nothing. ______________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
