Marxist Platform of Bulgarian Socialist Party
by Prof. DrSc Mincho Minchev

The theme, which has gathered us today, is a theme of
exclusive importance. Its meaning is determined by two
fundamental facts. The first one - the specific, unknown in
history so far, state of contemporary imperialism; the
second one - the broken unity of the international
communist and workers movement.
Disunity of communist movement is taking place for more
than half a century now. Practically, the whole second half
of the 20-th century has passed through different phases of
the deepening disunity of our movement.
Was that in the natural course of events, or was that
accidental?
The unequivocal answerr to this question can be given,
only after sequential and profound analysis of the set of
diverse circumstances, which acted from the beginning of
the 20-th century up to our days. In this respect, one of
accompanying problems, which must be solved, is the
determination of the subjective and objective reasons,
resulting in the present critical and tragical condition of
the communist and workers movement.
The necessity to find the answers to these questions is
indisputable. But, if we discuss these questions only, we
shall inevitably become isolated in the frameworks of an
academic, purely theoretical analysis. Today's state of the
world, imposes upon us the task to look for the answers to
other questions, namely on these, which life dictates,
which have fatal importance not only for us, the
communists, not only for our peoples, but also for the
whole mankind.
Two of these questions have direct, practical importance:
- why the unity of communist and workers parties is
necessary;
- how to achieve it?
I would like to concentrate your attention on giving
answers to these two question.
During the whole of the 20-th century capitalism has
undergone a dramatic development. It has passed through
several deep economic crises and still survived. It has
imposed upon mankind two bloody world wars, it has suffered
heavy political and military losses. It has demonstrated
definitively, that it is a social order, which is unfair,
severe and dangerous for the existence of the mankind.
At the same time, during the expiring 20-th century,
capitalism had its indisputable victories. It managed to
escape from the deadly grasp of the great catastrophic
economic depression at the end of the 20-ies and the
beginning of the 30-ies. After the 50-ies, capitalism
managed to make the technological progress work for the
benefits of the capital. It has created some zones of
welfare in the world, in effect, transforming the people,
living there, into hostages of the interests of the
bourgeoisie, and the leaving the remaining peoples in a
colonial ghetto, where they are exposed to a severe, though
hidden exploitation.
Already at the beginning of the 20-th century the
bourgeoisie managed to divide and temporarily weaken the
socialist and workers movement. The bourgeoisie gradually
integrated into the system of its society the opportunistic
social - democratic parties. Thus, these parties were
gradually transformed into reserve political engines of
capitalism.
But the other - the revolutionary marxism remained, and
for seventy years after the Great October Socialist
Revolution, world bourgeoisie lived in a deadly fear of the
communist movement. And the bourgeoisie conducted its
struggle against it seriously, persistently and in a clever
way, that has allowed it to triumph today upon the huge
spaces of the former socialist block.
Yet in the beginning of the First World War V.L.Lenin
predicted the near downfall of capitalism and analyzed its
state, and specified its then condition, as the last phase
of its existence. But it has appeared, that the imperialist
epoch will be much longer and the changes in the very
capitalist social relations, are much deeper and more
complex, than these, assumed V.I.Lenin and his direct
followers.
Imperialism, described by him, has finished with the large
crisis at the end of the 20-ies, the beginning of the
30-ies. Then capitalism survived and came into a new phase
of its own development, which lasted for almost six decades
and switched into, (ten years ago), an absolutly other, new
mode of its existence - the mode of global expansion. Today
it has finally overlapped the borders of the individual
states and is moving towards overcoming of the borders of
the separate economic regions.
This process of unlimited expansion is accompanied, by an
unprecedented in history concentration of capitals, which
are under the control of transnational corporations. And,
as paradoxically it may seem, first of all that provokes
the resistance of a part of the bourgeoisie from the
regional economic structures of capitalism. Thus, the
contradiction between globalism and regionalism in the
bourgeois block itself arises. That is a serious factor for
destabilization of capitalism as of social and economic
system in a global scale, upon which we should pay special
attention.
To realize that contradiction us it is necessary to
specify the concepts, which we use. The universalization of
world history, that began, about 500 years ago, is an
objective process, which proceeds at accelerated rates. Now
in the epoch of technological revolution, the capitalism
has created two models of universalization, namely, through
globalization and through regional integration. But both
models have a common distinctive characteristic - the
economic expansion of the capital.
The difference between the two models of universalization
is that while the regionalization is carried out mainly as
an economic integration, the globalization is mainly a
process of total unification of all elements of social
life. Globalization leads now to a division of the world,
not on poor and rich nations, as it is at regionalism, but
it leads to the formation of a global supranational elite
and of a huge ocean of poverty.
Regionalism has transformed the workers of the most
developed capitalist countries into secondary collective
exploiters of the poor countries from the so - called third
world. That, namely, has brought to the spread of petite
bourgeoisie notions among the proletariat of the developed
Western countries in the second half of the 20-th century.
The case of globalism things stand quite more different
and more complex. Here we have a qualitatively new stage of
imperialism, that has not been familiar to V.I.Lenin, which
is characterized by the global expansionism of anonymous
supranational forces. The purpose of these forces is the
establishment of a new domination over mankind, which now
is a domination of a neoslavery a type.
We can witness how during the constantly intensifying
technological and informational integration, the
supranational elite of the world financial oligarchy has
consolidated. That occurs not only because the
technological and informational achievements make that
integration objectively necessary, but also due to the
disunity and weakness of the main alternative force to
capitalism in general - the communist and workers movement.
The modern technological progress gives equal opportunities
both to capitalism and socialism. That is the question:
does or does our movement not possess forces and
possibilities to resist the incoming new informational and
technological slavery? The answer is short - yes it does!
But how shall we produce that counteraction? The only way
is to use our well - tested method for realization of world
universalization - the internationalism.
Globalization is the bourgeoisie variant of mankind
unification. Our variant - that is the socialist (and why
not the proletarian) internationalism. If the communist and
workers movement manages to unite in a world scale, then,
on this basis, it will be possible to begin the creation of
a widest anti - imperialist front against the offensive of
the transnational capitalist oligarchy. And that is only
still a possible, a desired future. The present situation
demonstrates just the opposite - that is a tragic state of
a crisis. Just after the Second world war a crack in the
united, until then, communist movement appeared. During the
following years that crack expanded and accepted
catastrophic sizes. Next followed the disintegration of the
socialist system in the USSR and East Europe. Thus our
movement, as a whole, ceased to play the role of a decisive
political subject in world politics. The contemporary
capitalism, actually, has remainened without a historical
alternative.
Relations of cold alienation gradually have been
established between the communist parties during the past
fifty years. Very frequently the alienation between the
individual communist parties is greater, than between them
and the different petite bourgeois parties in the
corresponding countries. Sometimes, even between the
existing in the same country several communist parties,
there is more enmity, than between them and the right
political forces. That is an absurd situations and nothing
can justify it.
Intolerance to criticism from one fraternal party to
another has turned during that time into a norm of
behaviour and it has produced incalculable harmful effects
to the communist movement. To a considerable degree, it
promoted the occurrence in our movement of such leaders,
who neglected the international essence of Marxist -
Leninist ideology, its values, purposes and means of
struggle. The excuses about the exclusive national specific
character of each individually taken country, were more
often used to hide the petite bourgeoisie nationalism. That
nationalism gradually turned to be the core of the politicy
of a considerable number of communist parties, opening to
petite bourgeois elements the way upwards to the top of the
state authority in the former USSR and the countries of
Eastern Europe. Where is today the overwhelming part of
these leaders?. We all well know today, that they have
simply passed to the camp of reaction, hidden even now
behind phrases about "the protection of national
interests". And all that began with the non dialectic
absolutisaiton of the so - called "national specific
character".
The overestimated evaluation of such a specific character
has resulted, during the last half - century, in serious
deviations from the basic principles of our theory and
practice, which were bequeathed to us by K.Marx, F.Engels
and V.I.Lenin, together with their collaborators and
followers. In our movement from here down to opportunism
there were only several steps to pass.
The practice of a formal, that is selfishly calculated and
protocol dialogue was established between many communist
parties. And that has brought much harm to our movement. It
is time to put an end to speaking on "different languages"
and to formal dialogue practices.
Before we return to our forgotten common language, we must
return to our common roots. There, yet in the Manifesto,
K.Marx and F.Engels have defined the communist parties as a
special type of political organizations, which stand
outside the system all other, bourgeois parties.
But is that possible, generally speaking? If not - why? If
yes - how? The stormy history of all the 20-th century has
proved that it is possible, real, and even necessary.
Moreover - a refusal from such a definition and a refusal
from such a status, has always lead the corresponding
communist party to the idea not to "overthrow" capitalism,
but to the idea to "overcome" capitalism. That means
expectation of the "natural" development of that formation,
of the gradual development of circumstances, due to which
it will change and "something" new will be produced. Let us
say, socialism!
In basis of such expectations lays the presumption, that
history happens "by itself" and, consequently, the
acceptance of the status quo with all its elements, is
considered to be a demonstration of "common sense ", of
realism in politics. All that, half a century ago, gave
birth to the opportunism in our movement. Reformist parties
gradually transformed into an integral part of the
bourgeois political system. They have become harmless for
the capitalist social system. Therefore, today, there is no
need to look for the presence of that sort of parties in
the workers movement. They are a part of the bourgeois
camp, expressing the interests of the so - called "middle
class", that is, i.e. the petite bourgeoisie or the
bourgeois renegade layers of the working class.
The so - called eurocommunist parties engaged the place in
right end of the spectrum of left parties, disengaged by
the social - democracy during the 80-ies. They began their
movement to the right by unfair interpretations of
A.Gramsci ideas. Later, and quite logically, these
communist parties evolutionized into common petite
bourgeois political organizations, refusing finally the
principles of revolutionary class struggle.
Yet in 50-ies, a lot of communist parties denied the
class approach at analysis of social processes, denied the
revolution, as the radical form of overcoming the dangerous
social crises into which capitalism periodically occurs.
Later on a refusal was enforced from the dictatorship of
the proletariat, regarded as a completely new type of state
organization, and than, as well, quite logically, came the
refusal from the dominant role of the social forms of
ownership within the framework of the social system, which
was supposed to be a socialist one
The logic of such a metamorphosis is solid. Once accepted,
it imposes that the preliminary defined by that logic route
of refusal from revolutionary Marxism, be followed almost
always. The same logic was followed by the permanent and
usually ungrounded criticisms of some comrades from the
Western communist parties against the practices of
socialism in the countries of Eastern Europe and the former
Soviet Union in the past. Some theoreticians, and
sometimes-certain leaders of these fraternal parties as
well, had objections even against the socialist character
of the revolutions in our countries, the socialist
character of our social system in general.
These leaders of the communist parties in Western Europe
have long ago left our movement. Yet the questions to them
and to all these, who still share their ideas still
remains, i.e. why did they not experiment in their own
countries, once they had a better variant for the socialist
structure of society? And why did they, after all, reject
the formational model of society development?
Now we, who have witnessed the destruction of socialism in
Eastern Europe, are expecting the West European model of
socialism. Come on, give it to us, comrades! But do not say
that before that internationalism has to be replaced by
some form of moderate nationalism, deriving from the
national specifics of the individual countries. Do not fool
yourselves that such a type of socialism may be realized
without the strong power of the working class, i.e. without
the power hegemony of the proletariat and without the
conscious vanguard character of the political subject - the
communist party. The attempts in that direction, that
failed, are much more numerous, than the failures in our
model of socialism, that fell apart not because it followed
the rules, as written by the classics, but exactly because
it did not follow them to the end.
Notwithstanding any "national specifics", the communist
parties represent political, ideological, theoretical and
moral communities of a special type. They aim to overthrow
capitalism and they bear the idea of a completely new type
of state structure. And this namely makes the communist
parties, regardless of the specific national terrain on
which they act, responsible not only before their peoples,
but also before the whole mankind, before the world
history.
Here I would like to introduce a more precise definition
with regard to the dispute about the importance of the
national specifics when discussing the activities of one or
another communist party. The national specifics exist and
nobody can argue this. Everybody has to take it into
account. But taking it into account must not necessarily
mean giving it an absolute importance. And that is what
happens in the practice most often.
The proletarian internationalism, as a theory and in the
practice, has, many times in the history, proved that it
does not in the least disregard the national specifics of
the countries in which the different fraternal communist
parties act. We were strong when the proletarian
internationalism and the fraternal solidarity between our
parties and our peoples acted in full strength.
The arguments, that the unification of the communist
movement on the basis of proletarian internationalism would
restrict the initiative of the individual parties sound
quite trivially. But this depends very much on the model of
such unification. Do the other Internationals, the
socialist one, the liberal one and others, in any way
restrict the initiative of their national members? Defining
the approximate frameworks of some principles, they give
freedom of action to their members in the individual
countries. Why shouldn't we do the same? It is important
that we unite on the principles.
The absolutization of the national specifics right now,
when, by means of globalization, the international
oligarchic capital entered the period of the decisive
battle for the final destruction of the communist movement
and for a global dictatorship without any restrictions, is
a form of extreme short-sightedness.
It is not only we, but also the world, the mankind that
need that the advance of the transnational capitalism is
stopped and the progressive, revolutionary forces in the
world be consolidated. For ten years already the
bourgeoisie has been carrying out openly a counter -
revolution in the vast areas from Oder to Kamchatka,
submitting to cruel exploitation and political persecution
hundreds of millions of people from the former so - called
"Soviet block" while we still care about what the different
imperialistic propaganda centers will say about our efforts
of unification.
The now triumphant oligarchic imperialism will certainly
meet any attempt for unification of the world communist
movement with a massive and merciless propaganda attack.
But should that make us leave our strategic goals? Have we
made our personal life choice to accept the communist credo
only to please the imperialist bourgeoisie?
Certainly not! Even more, what we stand for is not simply
the overcoming of capitalism, not simply "going beyond
capitalism" without providing the definition of what we
actually mean under that notion. We stand for the abolition
of capitalism. I hope every one here will agree with the
thesis that for hundreds of millions of people today need
revival of socialism in the theory and in the practice.
What we mean here is not a restoration, not going back to
that socialism of ours, that with all its errors and great
achievements, took place already, but the namely the
renaissance of socialism.
In order to achieve that it is necessary to start a
large-scale multilateral struggle against the contemporary
capitalism and this at a moment when capitalism seems to be
almighty and invincible. Our class enemy has been
triumphant for two five-year terms now. That is enough!
There was a time when economic and social miracles were
achieved in our countries for the period of two five-year
plans. Now we have just to get out of the state of the
political, social and psychological shock that we all had
to undergo due to the destruction of the socialist block of
the countries of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.
In order to get out of the shock state, in which the
communists are in the greater part of the world, it is
necessary to begin the unification of our movement. Today,
in the epoch of the accelerating process of capitalist
globalization, the creation of a unifying structure of the
communist and workers movement is simply more than
necessary.
This unification can commence even now, not by the
creation of some central body, similar to the congresses or
to the Executive committee of the Communist International,
but of a permanently functioning council for operative co -
ordination of the activities of the communist and workers
parties all over the world. And if that is not possible to
be done immediately, let us begin the unification on a
regional level.
The renaissance of socialism as a social system is
possible only after the preliminary renaissance of the
communist and workers' movement itself. The communist
parties must again, from ordinary political forces, closed
within the borders of their own countries, turn into a
powerful factor for the development of world processes.
But is this possible with the present state of our
movement? Unfortunately not! In order to make it possible
we have to realize that as the imperative requirement of
our time. That is the only way to mobilize the subjective
factor- the communist parties. That is the only way in
which they can most effectively use the objective
conditions of renaissance of socialism.
This is the task of the communists in the contemporary
world.