(2 of 4)
Is the "new look" of Communism genuine? Some political observers think it could be and argue that bringing Communists into Western governments might speed their conversion from revolutionary, potentially disruptive outsiders to evolutionary insiders. It might also widen the gap between the local parties and Moscow. The Soviets, in fact, do not conceal their irritation with the independence shown by some of their Western comrades. Soviet Party Boss Leonid Brezhnev recently complained that "some have begun to interpret [proletarian internationalism] in such a way that little is left to internationalism."
Some political analysts have argued that the Communist parties would allow themselves to be voted out of office if and when the electorate rejected their programs. According to this argument, the Communists in Europe have clung to power illegally only when the Soviet army was at the border, ready to enforce a coup with armed might. But there is always the possibility that a Communist government in Western Europe might not need Russian help if it had firm control of the country's police and internal security forces and key segments of the armed forces.
The strongest argument in favor of allowing Communists to participate in Western governments is that neither the U.S. nor any other country has the right to block from office a party freely elected by the voters. This argument would have more validity if the Communists differed from other leftist parties merely in their programs. Yet history advises skepticism where Communists are concerned. Unlike Socialists, they have not sought the democratic evolution of a Marxian society; instead, until very recently they have always stressed the radical transformation of a society by authoritarian means.
For all their talk about democracy, the Communist parties themselves are closed and often conspiratorial societies. The Italian party, widely regarded as the paradigm of humanistic Communism, does not permit dissent to grow within the ranks. Decisions are imposed from above, and a political control commission enforces the orthodoxy of the moment. French Party Leader Georges Marchais has stated his belief in a democratic multiparty political system. Exactly what he has in mind, however, may not be reassuring; in 1974, for example, a French party congress praised the "democratic achievements" of the near-totalitarian regimes of Eastern Europe. No wonder Harvard Sovietologist Adam Ulam concludes: "Communist parties have always tried to maximize their power to the point where they would eventually achieve a one-party state." If progressive party leaders like Berlinguer are sincere, they still may not be able to deliver on their promises that their parties would observe the rules of democracy. Irving Howe, editor of the socialist quarterly Dissent, warns that in a moment of crisis "the old Stalinists and younger neo-Stalinists . . . could become a serious force pressing for an authoritarian 'solution.' "