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.
Serbian News Network - SNN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.antic.org/
