Fausto Bertinotti during the discussion: "This party is based on common political inspirations. I want to remind you all the way we have behind us. The rejection of Stalinism belongs to our political identity. Without this rejection, many of us would not be in this party. In any case, the rejection of Stalinism has been conceded by any party participating in the founding of the EL and is one of its founding elements. The rejection of Stalinism has nothing to do with our past, but with our future. When referring to our past, when we reject Stalinism, we reject of course all the bad practices, including practices worse than Stalinism. What we radically refuse is the very concept of power which we associate with Stalinism. From there we start to imagine and to have an idea of our future society. Without that refusal, we would not be able to imagine our idea of socialism. That is why this is a very firm point." <//span>
Helmut Scholz: Now I suggest to fulfill the obligation to discuss the letter of the Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia, because we have postponed it already at two meetings. We should not postpone it again.
Hassan Charfo (CPBM):
Firstly: If the EL wants to become a party of all-European character, we think that no party, no communist party should be excluded. There is a list of at least 27 European communist parties, from eastern, central and western Europe, who are not engaged, not invited to the actions of the European Left Party. So, we ask the EL to solve this problem, if we really want the unity of the Left in Europe. In that list there are very important parties, for example the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, the Communist Party of Ukraine, the communist parties of Moldova, Poland, Turkey, etc. They should be invited to the activities of the EL. The EL should call a meeting, which could gather all those parties and discuss with them why they are not engaged, how they see the form of unity of the Left in Europe and to invite them to engage, to participate in the activity of the EL. Such a meeting could be very useful.
A second point: There are some barriers in the statute of the European Left Party. For example, in the preamble there is criticism regarding Stalinist practices. Bad practices in former socialist countries existed not only because they were Stalinist practices. They were negative practices because they were not democratic. If we only mention the word Stalinist, it will mean, that we recognize the practices of Mao, Pol Pot, Ceausescu etc. So I think, a general formulation would be better, if we could substitute the word “non-democratic” for the word “Stalinist”.
A third point: The individual membership, as a provision of the EL statute, could, as I think, be an instrument of interference in the internal affairs of fraternal parties. That’s why individual membership as a provision of the statute is for us unacceptable.
Helmut Scholz:
Thank you. Are there comments, remarks?
Fausto Bertinotti (Chairman):
A few remarks with some information about the meeting in Prague, which generated this letter on the part of the Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia:
During the EL foundation congress in Rome, the Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia asked for a meeting with the leadership of the European Left Party. This demand has been examined by the executive board, and we took the initiative to have a meeting with them in Prague. This meeting was particularly useful. We had a conversation with the Chairman of the Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia, Miroslav Grebeniček, and held a press conference together with him. The whole meeting was very cooperative, and we thanked the party for their cooperation, their courtesy and their politeness. The party chairman did not make any remark on the statute of the European Left Party on that occasion. And during our joint press conference, to our greatest satisfaction, the Chairman of the Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia announced future steps for the Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia to change from the status of observer to a full member of the EL. On a question of a German journalist he answered, one should talk about politics in short time. That’s why we agreed that this meeting was a success for both sides.
Then the letter arrived. Any party is fully free to decide on their own status, whether they want to be a full member or an observer. I think that we should be free, and are free from any kind of pressure. Any party should be free to establish their own kind of relationship with the European Left Party, an already existent entity. We would then establish relationships with those parties wanting them. The number of observer parties has been growing last time.
Recently, we went to Budapest to see the Chairman of the Workers' Party. Helmut Scholz took part in that meeting. We have contacts with other forces which are not forcefully members or observers of the European party, on the basis of the line we gave ourselves. That is a sort of enlarged circles. All members of the European Left are truly associated in a permanent way, and the parties who decided to be just observers are permanently associated. With those parties interested in having mutual relations, we will have bilateral relations. Cooperation and some common initiatives are also possible. There’s no closing, no shutting down to anybody with any position.
But one thing must be clear: The European Left Party does exist, and it exists on the basis of a precise statute. It’s the legitimate choice of any party to be a full member, to be an observer or to do anything else they want to do. I think this is not the case to reopen the discussion. I would like to remind you of the points which are the founding basis for our working together. The process is open for anyone – any party, communist or not, recognizing these statues, coming from EU member states or countries that are associated or will be associated to the EU. There is no exclusion. There is instead a certain type of political homogeneity for a common political initiative. Certainly, we also feel the need to have relations with parties from non-EU member states because our point of view is far from any Eurocentrism. But as we saw during our discussion today, political Europe is the basis of our political minimum, our political initiative.
A second point: This party is based on common political inspirations. I want to remind you all the way we have behind us. The rejection of Stalinism belongs to our political identity. Without this rejection, many of us would not be in this party. In any case, the rejection of Stalinism has been conceded by any party participating in the founding of the EL and is one of its founding elements. The rejection of Stalinism has nothing to do with our past, but with our future. When referring to our past, when we reject Stalinism, we reject of course all the bad practices, including practices worse than Stalinism. What we radically refuse is the very concept of power which we associate with Stalinism. From there we start to imagine and to have an idea of our future society. Without that refusal, we would not be able to imagine our idea of socialism. That is why this is a very firm point.
On the basis of these two elements – the geo-political location and the common inspiration we founded this party. They concern more the future than the past. They concern our ideas of conflict, participation, democracy, and transformation of society.
A further firm point is our openness to cooperation, to relations with those who remain or choose to be observers or even members of the European Left party. But no one has a privileged status towards the EL. Communist parties cannot be privileged compared to others because of their name. The Communist Refoundation doesn’t have any brother parties. It gathers, with whom it needs, with whom it shares common targets for society, if that party belongs in any of its attitudes to the left in general. Regardless of being communist, green or socialist, if a party is interested in having relations with the EL, we declare ourselves ready to have these bilateral relations. We can have mutual exchanges, lead a dialogue on how we see the world and how we understand politics. We can even have joint actions. Such parties may also be interested in being associated to the EL or being full members. If they share our views, our basic elements, we would of course take such a party’s potential membership into consideration. But of course these relations start from some mutual consensus.
The EL is a party, that exists already. You cannot want to get into a relation by demanding that the EL, this existing party, shall change itself. Bilateral relations demand mutual recognition. Everybody in this room is required to recognize the decisions that we have made in the past. And if we on a point which we consider important cannot find a consensus, then different positions can exist, as it is the case on the question of individual membership in the EL. In that case we did not choose for a prevailing opinion. Instead we accepted the independent position and opinion of each party and required mutual acceptance of the fact that we are in a phase of experimentation. So what I’m asking for is that you respect this way of construction, which I personally am ready and willing to strenuously defend, at least until our next congress.
Vaclav Exner:
I do not intend to speak as long as the chairman did. But I think that such an approach to the discussion cannot solve the problems we have. I agree that in Prague we had a very good meeting. But that was a discussion about things we all agree, not about the remarks of the CP of Bohemia and Moravia. We see the possibility to make the EL an all-European party. For us Europe reaches from Portugal to the Ural, from Norway to Malta. Our purpose is clear: We want to have a left party embracing the political spectrum of all Europe, not only the part of Europe that is joined within the EU. We must discuss how to do away with the obstacles for cooperation on the part of the radical left in the political spectrum of Europe.
At the Congress in Rome it was said that our remarks to the EL statute and manifesto should be solved till the 1 st EL Congress. Now, according to the position of comrade Bertinotti no solution is possible and needed. That is no good approach to the problems. We agree that there are different possibilities of association with our parties. The situation of the Left in Europe is very bad. We see this in elections, we see it in our meetings, too. What to do with this? In this discussion, he who agrees, is good, who does not agree, is bad. That is not the way to solve the problem before the EL. Therefore I think we must continue the discussion. We see that the EL can take an initiative towards other parties which are now out of our meetings. Such an initiative could have positive results.
The same is to be said about the discussion on our past. Yes, if we say that only a part of this past is bad, and it is called Stalinist, we can do so. This is the practice. But in theory, we must have a thorough discussion. We should not only speak about what we call Stalinist, but everything that led to the defeat at the end of the 80s and beginning of the 90s as well as the defeat in the 70s in western Europe. Such is the position of the Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia. As for the next congress, we see a chance to have there more parties as are here now.
Pedro Marset (Treasurer):
I think this is a very interesting debate. And I’m grateful to the comrade of the Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia to have opened the debate on this subject after the brilliant introduction by our chairman. I think that I can add a few things. The first one is that building the EL is a historical process. It takes time and cannot be solved in one year – all the different aspects and questions that are in the building of the EL. We have to be patient and see this historical process in its real time frame.
The second question is that the history of the working class movement has shown us in the First International, in the Second International that one thing is to be to have big ambitions. But the reality the aims of the First and the Second International were accomplished mainly on the level of the nation-states. Something similar is happening now. It is one thing is to have a very interesting idea of all Europe from the Atlantic to the Ural, but the political reality is that we now have one place where the class struggle is being decided: That is our participation in the European Parliament, where decisions are being taken, that affect the daily life of thousands and millions of workers and citizens of this continent. So the concrete way to play a role in Europe is not from the Atlantic to the Ural, but within the political space we now have: in the EU. That means that at present we have to concentrate on this frame. In the future, we can look to enlarging the membership of the EL. So that’s why I said that we have to see the EL as a historical process, not something that we have already accomplished at this moment.
And finally, I think that for all of us, the communist and left parties, is it a meaningful question to condemn Stalinism. Not for other parties, not for other persons, not for the liberals or the greens, but for us it is very important. Because Stalinism was the way of thinking, that, if one wants to achieve an aim, one need not use the democratic way of achieving it, but can go directly to that aim, and if necessary, destroy, kill, or put aside everybody and everything in one's way. That is a mistake. And we have to say very clearly that it is a mistake for us and our history. It is a mistake to take only the aim into consideration. Important is also the way, the democratic way to achieve that aim. That’s why I think it is so very interesting to put into our preamble this very clear condemnation of Stalinism, because it was a huge mistake, it was a historical failure in the working class history, a historical failure because it affected the confidence and the reality of working people, the left people. That’s why I think that both questions have to be seen within a longer perspective: Maybe in 10 years time or 5 years time, it (the condemnation of Stalinism) will not be so important. Then, it’s something of the history, of the past. But now I think it’s important for us to say this.
Wolfgang Gehrcke (PDS):
Comrade Charfo is right that we have decided in Rome that we will examine our statute till the 1 st Congress of the EL. Doing this, we shouldn’t discuss within the categories of what is good and what is bad, but in the categories of what was successful, where have we made mistakes, where there were failures, and where we have to make corrections. Of course you, comrades from the Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia, have the right to ask questions and to urge for the discussion of your questions and remarks.
From your three questions – the third one was individual membership in the EL. We have not yet had enough experience to decide whether it was a mistake to do it like we did or it opens new ways. So, I propose not to close the door, but to try and get the experience and then decide.
The second problem you have discussed is of a very serious nature – the problem of Stalinism. I want to be very frank. I don’t think that it makes much sense to try to find another word for a political category which is politically defined and shows a political process. We could think of many words like non-democratic, non-socialistic, but the thing that we must break away from is Stalinism. When we do not do that, it would be the end of the EL. Not only the end of the EL, but also the end of the European left movement. I’m convinced that only the break with Stalinism, which we must openly express, opens the door for future development. I also want to stress that Stalinism is not a problem of eastern European countries or the parties from there. I come from a party that was not an east European, but despite of that, was a Stalinist party. We are all marked by Stalinism. I belong to the elder generation, and there once was a time when the communist parties agreed that Stalinism is the Leninism of the future. Stalinism was not invented by our enemies, it is our history. We created it and the term as well. We have to discuss this and break away from Stalinism not because our political enemies want us to do so, but because we want to: it is necessary for us and for our political movement to discuss and understand our own history. Therefore, I believe that it would not be wise for us to change this point in our statute or in our minds.
To the first point – concerning the region of Europe – I share Pedro’s opinion and ask you again to take into consideration that we are just at the beginning. We cannot unite everyone yet. We must cooperate and grow and learn together. My personal vision is not a United Nations of the Left, in which everyone, regardless of his or her political views, can be a member. I believe that we need a common political understanding, and that, we have signed. It is our Manifesto.
Stelios Pappas (SYN):
First of all, I want to say, we are very proud that we are from the first steps in the initiative of creating the EL. We started by discussing two provisional texts. One with the principals advanced by all our parties and the second, why we need a European Left Party. There were big discussions among us in the first group of parties. It was a very interesting process, and I think that it was successful. The experience since the founding congress, I believe, makes everybody very hopeful about the future.
Why have we founded a European Left Party? European integration is a reality, it is not just in our minds. It has started long before we created the European Left Party. That’s why we say we were late to create this party. European capitalism is developing very fast, but we go very slowly. That’s why we need to make more progress in this political and economical environment. From the very beginning we also decided that we do not want another international body like the one we had before. We want to have good cooperation with all the left parties around the world, but we do not want to restore the broad alliance of left parties we had in the previous century.
Finally, Stalinism, in our opinion, is not just another undemocratic practice, it is a whole political culture. It is a culture of the relations between parties, it is a culture of barbary, a sad thing. It is a bad culture of life. That’s why we need to distance ourselves from it.
Jean-François Gau (FCP):
I will be very short. But I must say something on Stalinism. We all agree that the discussion shall continue. We cannot demand others to accept political positions, they cannot accept. We are not a new International, we are a structure, working on the European level. We shall not only try to overcome our differences but these differences can be an enrichment for us, too. To develop ideas through common action is in the interest of the working people in our countries.
The category of Stalinism does not belong to the kind of problems I just mentioned. One can have one’s own view on one’s history, but it is important to distance oneself very clearly from Stalinism. I also do not think that this is a problem only for the east European parties. It concerns all parties which today call themselves communist. As to the French Communist Party – I do not know, whether there are many parties here, that have been calling themselves communist since 1920. There are only very few comrades alive, which have participated in the foundation of our party. They remember and accept their history with its lights and shadows. We have spoken here on the 8 th of May. There were many French communists which were shot dead during WWII. When they were executed, they shouted: “Long live France!”. Some of them even shouted: “Long live the German people!” But quite a lot shouted: “Long live Stalin!”. They did not want Stalin's Gulag or concentration camps. They shouted that because Stalinism was our system of thinking. That was our view on communism. If we today do not fear the word communism, keep professing communism and even imagine that it would make sense in our time, we could not do this, if we did not make a clear break with Stalinism and with all the practices linked to it. If we did not thoroughly criticize everything linked to Stalinism within ourselves and the whole movement. This does not mean to downgrade the achievements of our comrades, or of the parties who believed in Stalinism at that time.
I think, this view is equally accepted by the communists of all generations in my party of all generations. This is the precondition for that we today are able to profess communism. That’s why I think, that th word “Stalinist” in the statute of the European Left Party does not hurt anybody. cannot be replaced in any way. It would be a big blow against the future, if we would not have this word in our statute.
Hassan Charfo:
Comrades, I am really surprised by this kind of discussion. I hope everybody knows that the Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia is not a Stalinist party. We are in favour of deleting the word “Stalinist” from the preamble of the statute, not to defend Stalinism, but because we are convinced that this formulation is very short and does not cover what happened in the decades-long experience of the former socialist countries. And in our movement, of course.
At first, the word “Stalinist” in the preamble can evoke many interpretations on what Stalinism means. Today in our files we found a speech of Michael Schumann (PDS). For Schumann Stalinism means all the experience of a former socialist country – all bad experience. That means, we have to reject all experience of the former socialist countries. This is a bad affirmation, it is not true, it has nothing to do with the objective situation. In the experience of the former socialist countries there were negative and positive aspects. We must reject the negative aspects and support the positive aspects and make use of them. If the socialist experience in Czechoslovakia was so bad, why is the position of Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia now so strong? In the European parliament the Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia holds 25% of the seats of Czech Republic. Does that mean that our experience with socialism was so bad? No, it is not true.
Secondly, Schumann says that the Stalinists called themselves Marxist-Leninists. That proves that the word Stalinist leads to many interpretations. Because it evokes so many interpretations, we want to substitute this word with the more-encompassing term “non-democratic“.
Thirdly, this formulation of the statute reminds me of Stalinist practices in the former socialist countries. Let me explain what I mean. (Interruption: This is absolutely unacceptable, more respect, please.) You do not know, what I want to say. One moment, please. In the constitution of former socialist countries, it was mentioned thatthe leading role of the party should be respected. In practice, just the contrary happened. This means that the important thing is practice, not the constitution. The formulation in the constitution does not solve the practical problem. That’s why I wanted to say, if we want to change Stalinist practices, we should change it in real life, not by writing it in the statute.
Final point: To say that the EL exists now, and who wants to join it, can do so. Who wants to be an observer, can be an observer. Who wants to leave the party, let him leave. I think this is not the way for uniting the European Left.
Helmut Scholz:
This was a necessary discussion on the subject. I guess, we have to continue the discussion, not just today, but permanently. We have to deepen the understanding of what we are really speaking about. It is also obvious that there is a clear dissens on the subject. The majority of the parties have expressed one view, the CPBM has expressed its view. Now it is up to each party to decide what to do. I hope we will find ways to continue this discussion, because the Left still has a lot to learn, if it wants to be a real emancipatory Left, a new force in the eyes of the public opinion of our countries, an alternative political force in Europe. I think, we have to go in that direction.
