Eastern Europe is in turmoil. Solidarnosc is in the Polish government. Despite a ban, miners in the Soviet Union are on strike. Honecker is deposed by his mass population. Many on the left, not only (ex-)Stalinists, are confused by all this. Where is this going? Will capitalism be restored in Eastern Europe? Will capitalism finally achieve a definitive victory over socialism and communism? Alain Tondeur and Alain van Praet discussed these kinds of questions with Ernest Mandel, Marxist economist and member of the leadership of the Fourth International.
Question : In your book on the Soviet Union and Gorbachev [1] you assess the historical significance of the reforms of the new leadership. Can you elaborate on that?
Mandel : It is not so much an assessment of the reforms that are being carried out, but of the changes that are taking place in the Soviet Union. They can be summed up in one sentence: society has been set in motion, and this applies above all to the masses of the people. This revival of political action, of self-activity and, increasingly, of self-organization of tens of millions of people in the country with the largest working class in the world, means a radical change in the world situation. It can only be compared with the victory of the Chinese revolution or the Spanish revolution of 1936-37. And even then, what is happening now surpasses those historical events in terms of the number of workers involved. In this sense, it is undoubtedly the most important change since the Second World War.
Question : How can Gorbachev's project be summarized in this context? It is a project of the bureaucracy, but Gorbachev himself speaks of a revolution. Is it a revolution?
Mandel : The word 'project' is ambiguous in this context, because it presupposes a coherent theory and ideology for the long term, which the bureaucracy does not have. The bureaucracy is essentially pragmatic. It responds to the most urgent problems. I would rather say that it is an attempt to break through the extremely serious crisis that has been gripping the Soviet Union and the Eastern European countries for several decades now. This crisis is expressed in a decline or stagnation of economic growth, in a lowering of the standard of living and above all in the almost total loss of credibility of the political power structures and thus of the Communist Party. This loss of legitimacy in the eyes of the masses threatens the bureaucracy with a social explosion in the medium term. In order to respond to this threat, the modernist wing of the bureaucracy has decided on radical reforms in order to maintain and restore its control over society and thus be able to secure its power and privileges.
This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
So it is a question of radical changes, not of revolution. But the interaction between the awakening of the masses before the reforms, the effect of the reforms and the subsequent broadening of autonomous mass movements can of course lead to a process that ends in a real revolution. Such a revolution can only be a revolution from below, a popular revolution of tens of millions of people.
Question : Are Deng Xiaoping, Ceaucescu and Honecker right when they opposed Gorbachev in order to defend the interests of the bureaucracy?
Mandel : This question confronts us with a problem in the philosophy of history. History shows us that when a society is ripe for revolution, whether social or political, everything a government does ultimately ends up fostering the explosion. I believe that the reformers' options are somewhat more realistic from the point of view of bureaucracy than those of the conservatives. The conservatives are certainly heading for a catastrophe. The example of East Germany is sufficiently clear in this respect. The reformers have little chance of surviving.
The sharp differentiations within the working class in the Soviet Union make the idea of maintaining some control over the masses less absurd than the idea of keeping them passive by means of brute force.
Question : Among the "scenarios" you mention in your book, that of a political revolution is among the most likely. What are the fundamental elements for such an assessment?
Mandel : Mind you, that is not quite what I wrote. I say that the political revolution is the most likely 'scenario' in the long run, not in the short run. In the short run I do not at all rule out changes in favour of the conservatives. But if that happens, it can only be beneficial for the revolution in the long run. That is what happened in Russia in 1905 and after the first rapid development of Solidarity in 1980. Those earlier events are very valuable for understanding the current political developments in the Soviet Union.
Question : Isn't there much more restoration of capitalism in the short term, for example in Poland and Hungary, which were the first to implement reforms that are now being implemented in the Soviet Union?
Mandel : You have to make a fundamental distinction between the situation in the Soviet Union or China on the one hand, and that in countries like Hungary, Poland or Yugoslavia on the other. Everything depends above all on the objective relationship of forces between the social forces. In the Soviet Union the pro-capitalist social forces, the small and middle bourgeoisie, are completely marginal and bear no relation to the 125 million workers. Even the peasants, 15 percent of the population, are a social minority. China, despite enormous progress, has remained a backward country in which the peasants are still by far in the majority. That, incidentally, is the fundamental explanation for the defeat of the Peking Commune. Deng could count on army divisions from the least developed, least informed and least cultivated regions to organize the repression.
Hungary, Poland and Yugoslavia form a third category. In these countries the small and middle bourgeoisie is not unimportant, although a minority. It constitutes a social force. And much more than in the Soviet Union or China it has ties with international capital, with the banks. Trade with capitalist countries also weighs much more heavily here than in the Soviet Union or China. The triangular struggle between the bureaucracy, the small and middle bourgeoisie and the proletariat therefore takes place under different conditions in Poland or Hungary than in China or the Soviet Union.
We must also include political and ideological phenomena in our analysis. In the Soviet Union, the revolution took place 72 years ago. There are hardly any survivors of the then aristocracy and bourgeoisie. In China, on the other hand, the revolution took place in 1949 and there are still many survivors of the old social classes. But the revolution was without a doubt a popular revolution, carried out in the countryside by poor peasants thirsting for historical revenge on the old propertied classes that had made them suffer for centuries. No one can think that these peasants would be prepared to bring back their old exploiters.
In Eastern Europe the situation is different. There (except in Yugoslavia) a new social regime has been imposed by a foreign power, by the army and police of the Soviet Union. So there national feelings and the striving for independence and self-determination work against the Communist Party. This is not the case in China and the Soviet Union, where the revolution is identified with the acquisition of national sovereignty or even with national pride. The policy of the CPs, which in Eastern Europe consisted of integrating those who were called “the national bourgeoisie” by force, terror and manipulation, has there moreover been translated into the preservation of political structures such as a parliament with political parties that are linked to the CPs via national fronts. What is happening now contradicts, by the way, what the supporters of the totalitarian theory claim. For these structures appear not to be manipulated 100 percent and even to be given a certain autonomy. In Poland, CP allied parties have even turned against their former masters and formed an anti-CP bloc in parliament with Solidarity.
Question : So in these countries the restoration of capitalism is not completely ruled out?
Mandel : Indeed. But you must be clear: such a restoration is not excluded provided that... Provided that the triangular struggle, which is a real social struggle, ends in a victory for the pro-capitalist forces and a defeat for the working class. That is the great difference between our analysis and that of the bourgeois media or of neo-Stalinist dogmatists.
What I rule out is a gradual, gradual, imperceptible peaceful restoration of capitalism. That is just as impossible as the gradual, imperceptible and peaceful abolition of capitalism. That is a reformist illusion and it will not happen. There will be resistance from the working class. We are facing a struggle and a struggle is never decided in advance by one party or another.
Question : But can't you say that the working class has illusions about capitalism and seeks its restoration? Does the working class automatically arrive at the program of political revolution when it goes into action?
Mandel : You have to keep two things apart: activity and consciousness. As for activity, I repeat a banality that is often forgotten. When the working class mobilizes, it is not primarily for an idea, a program, or a clear project. It mobilizes to defend its immediate interests. The working class in these countries will not remain passive when faced with a catastrophic decline in living standards due to rising prices, when the IMF imposes radical austerity policies, when companies are closed and people are laid off en masse, not to mention the inhumane dismantling of social security. It will react harshly and explosively. Walesa, who is a leader with a great sense of what is happening in the working class and who is at the same time a very shrewd politician, speaks openly of a “civil war.” I would like to know between whom such a “civil war” would take place. What he means when he speaks of a civil war is an explosion of the working class. Because I don't see it happening at this moment that Polish soldiers will start a civil war against a general strike of Polish workers. So it is clearly a warning to his worthy capitalist friends in the West: "Give us money or there will be a social explosion!" That is the scenario that is now set in motion. The working class is resisting, defending its immediate interests. It can be defeated, because resistance by the working class does not automatically lead to a victory of the working class. But the workers will resist with all their might, I am absolutely convinced of that.
Then there is a second dimension, the political-ideological one. Here too, things are more positive than you might think. A figure: in Hungary, polls indicate thirty percent support for the CP, which has changed its name, if free elections were to be organized. The claim that socialism, even its 'inhuman variant', has no credit at all is a simplification. At the level of 'average consciousness' the matter is still open and for capitalism the matter is certainly not yet settled.
Question : Your book shows that in the long term you do not consider the 'scenario' that was played out in Prague in 1968, in which a section of the bureaucracy takes initiatives for political revolution, very likely. But does not historical experience with crises in workers' states point in the direction of such violent outbursts?
Mandel : In Czechoslovakia, the bureaucracy in 1968 was aware of the fundamental movements in society that threatened its power. There was still no substantial self-activity of the working class and it tried to stay ahead of this with bold reforms. In doing so, it partly strengthened the social movement, but it also came up against the wait-and-see attitude of a large section of the working class. In this sense, a parallel can be drawn with what is happening now in the Soviet Union. The situation changed just before and after the intervention of the Warsaw Pact troops. When people realized the enormous pressure that Brezhnev and his followers were exerting on Dubček, they began to mobilize around the Communist Party. At first this was more for national reasons than for anti-bureaucratic motives, but little by little these elements were combined. There was the beginning of self-organization in the enterprises, the renewal of trade union structures, the beginning of workers' councils and the beginning of self-management. And during and after the invasion of the Warsaw Pact troops, a real revolutionary movement developed, which was finally crushed by "normalization." You have to realize the scale of this. Half a million members were thrown out of the CP, which would be equivalent to 6 to 7 million party members in the Soviet Union.
Question : Exactly: haven't we underestimated the vitality of the communist parties, however bureaucratic they may be?
Mandel : Partly, yes. Not for all countries, but certainly for the Soviet Union, East Germany and Czechoslovakia. In Poland and Hungary, everything is still open. In Yugoslavia, on the other hand, there is no doubt about it.
You have to understand that there is a fundamental difference between the power structures in Eastern Europe, with a few exceptions (Romania), and the power structure of the bourgeois class. There is a difference in vertical social mobility. In our kind of countries it is almost impossible to climb from the small or medium bourgeoisie to the tops of the bourgeoisie, you have to be a millionaire for that. To say the opposite is absolute nonsense. In Eastern Europe it is different. The intertwining of the small and medium bureaucrats and the working class in these workers' states is not comparable to the relations between the small and medium bourgeoisie and the working class in the capitalist countries. This does not translate so much into the climbing of workers to the tops of the nomenklatura, but into the fact that small and medium bureaucrats can cope when the masses are on the move.
Question : The rapid intensification of the crisis of bureaucratic rule offers the bourgeoisie opportunities to intensify its ideological offensives against "socialism." And on the economic front, the bureaucracy's attempts to introduce market mechanisms offer new perspectives to capitalism in crisis. Doesn't imperialism gain most from Gorbachev's reforms?
Mandel : On the ideological level, the bourgeoisie and its ideologists inside and outside the workers' movement are rejoicing: "communism is bankrupt, capitalism has defeated socialism, the only way to a better society is through reforms of capitalism, without questioning capitalism as such..." On this point, there is a consensus among politicians in the West. We combat these sounds with great conviction and with coherent argumentation. But although we are certainly right in the long term, our arguments currently carry less weight than what is now the reality and what is being spread around by the media. Take the sad example of China. Everyone has already forgotten the magnificent significance for the future of communism of the Peking Commune and only the bloody image of repression remains. This is a defeat for the left and the far left in the world. Whatever we say or do, the image of this defeat continues to hang over our subtle analyses and historical comparisons.
If we look at the facts and the perspectives, a different picture emerges. In this, the pro-imperialist and bourgeois ideologists will be disappointed. There will be a turnaround. Let us take the example of China again. The capitalists, the bankers, the imperialists, those who made the most ideological noise about the Tiananmen Square massacre, now talk less and less about it and deal more and more with Deng. Profits are more important than human rights. It is the healthy forces of the international workers' movement that: will support the struggle for socialist democracy in China to the end. We have won that point for the medium and long term. The irreconcilable struggle for human rights and for democratic freedoms is being waged by our camp alone. The same will happen in Poland or the Soviet Union. For example: Kuron, a brave man who spent eight years in the Stalinist dungeons, is currently Minister of Labour in Poland. In a government that is pursuing the kind of crisis policy that we know so well in the West. Under such circumstances, a Minister of Labor cannot become anything other than a Minister of Police. Such comrades are naturally conflicted, for they do not have the mentality of a cop.
But as long as they are in a government that is not there to defend the interests of the working class, but to implement moderation policies, they will be forced to restrict democratic rights. That is inevitable. And here too, the task of the left and the far left is to wage an uncompromising fight for the unlimited right to strike. So in the medium term, things will be very different from what they are now.
You have to add something to that. The bourgeoisie is afraid! It fears that those in charge will lose control. They do not want destabilization and certainly not a successful political revolution or general strike like in France in 1968. Such a strike in Poland or the Soviet Union would have repercussions all over the world. In such a situation the bourgeoisie will do nothing to abolish the most essential things: control over the state organs, over the army and the police, over the local nomenklatura and, ultimately, over the Soviet nomenklatura.
Question : Will the bourgeoisie launch a Marshall Plan for Eastern Europe, to trigger a new long wave of expansion for its economy?
Mandel : I think on a very modest scale, because you would have to think of big capitalists who buy up loss-making companies in the short term and privatize them, that is to say, privatize losses. The industries in these states have developed against the logic of a market economy. One is incompatible with the other. In that logic, these industries must be dismantled, these countries must return to the situation before the Second World War. Our comrade Catherine Samary, [2] who is one of the specialists in this field, uses a formula that describes this situation very well: “The restoration of capitalism is possible, but it will not be Sweden but Turkey”. The majority of Western capitalists are not prepared to finance such an operation without political and social stabilization.
It should also be remembered that the Marshall Plan did not appear on the scene in 1945. Dollars were only injected into the continent when there was political, social and military stabilisation of capitalist Europe and when the rising workers' struggle had been defeated.
Can such a plan at this moment bring about a new economic upswing? I do not think so. Poland and Hungary have little weight in the world market. It is different when we talk about China or the Soviet Union. That would mean a major change in the world situation. If those two countries were integrated into the capitalist world market, two of the most important events of this century, the Russian Revolution and the Chinese Revolution, would be erased. But we are still far from that, there will be no question of such a change. Capitalism continues to struggle with growth problems and is in a long downward spiral. A new recession is absolutely inevitable. There will be a succession of economic, social, political and cultural crises, in the Third World and in the imperialist countries. These crises will be combined with the crises in the East. In such a new world situation, the credibility of socialism will increase.
More than ever, the future does not belong to capitalism, torn by insoluble contradictions. And to the extent that socialists and communists do their duty, the future belongs to socialism. (12-10-1989)
_______________ [1] “Beyond Perestroika” by Ernest Mandel has been published by Verso. [2] See her excellent “Plan, Market and Democracy”, published as a Notebook by the IIRE in Amsterdam. And her book “Le Marché contre L'Autogestion” (La Brèche) about Yugoslavia.
