In the last several years some of the old parties of the Communist International have begun to distinguish themselves in theory and practice from their past in a form that has been given the name of Euro-communism. These Euro-communist parties have gone to very great lengths to disassociate themselves from the traditions of the world, communist movement as defined by the Soviet Union. In this attempt they have abandoned the crucial concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat and stressed the responsiveness and utility of bourgeois democracy as the only road to socialism for advanced capitalist nations. This attempt to “update” theory has been a way of giving a veneer of theoretical credibility to a political practice whose existence has been apparent for a number of years. Of course, Euro communism is more than just a deviation from Marxism-Leninism. It is also an attempt to deal with the crisis through which Marxism has been passing for the last several decades while using the same theoretical tools of this crisis-ridden Marxism to achieve different conclusions. In this sense Euro-communism is instructive to those who wish to break with ossified Marxism yet lack the tools necessary for making this break in a critical and comprehensive manner. By studying the historic roots of the Euro-communist movement and its perception of its role and outlook, we will come a long way to more clearly seeing how important advanced theory is to changing the direction of the communist movement and how easy it is to deviate without it. We will also see how political opportunism, the practice of these parties, has affected their theory.
1. W at does Claudin see as the roots of the Euro-communist movement? What does this say about the character of Eurocommunist attempts to disassociate from the Soviet model? In this light, how should we interpret Carrillo’s critique of the Soviets?
2. What is socialism to Carrillo? Does he discuss the role of the dictatorship of the proletariat as a transitional period between capitalism and communism?’ What does the mean for the political practice of a Party?
3. How credible is Carrillo’s idea of “healing the split” between social-democracy and the communist parties through the convergence of “scientific socialism” and. “democracy?” What does this formulation betray in terms of the class struggle in theory and ideology?
4. From what Carrillo tells us, does Euro-communism signify a break with the past internal political practice of the European C.P.’s? Relating the internal practice of the Party to its external aspects, what is the relationship of the Party to the masses in the struggle for socialism that Carrillo provides? How might we approach this relationship differently?
Santiago Carrillo, Euro-communism and the State, pp. 65-109.
Fernando Claudin, Euro-communism and Socialism, pp. 37-64, 147-165.