home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- INTERVIEW, Page 18Why Perestroika Cannot Succeed
-
-
- A Communist reformer before it was fashionable, Yugoslavia's
- MILOVAN DJILAS believes Gorbachev's changes are irreversible
- but that his attempts to fix communism will fail
-
- By RICHARD HORNIK and Milovan Djilas
-
-
- Q. Why did the Soviet bloc fall apart in 1989?
-
- A. Communism is strong only until it tries to reform. Even
- so, it had no choice but to try reform because its internal
- crisis was so explosive. Communism cannot be changed.
- Communists may change, but not communism. Without a
- totalitarian ideology, this system cannot exist. It must have
- absolute "truths."
-
- In countries where communism was introduced after a
- revolution, like the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, the process
- of change is slower because a relatively strong ruling class
- was formed from authentic national sources. The situation is
- quite the opposite in countries where communism was introduced
- after a Soviet invasion. Change is much faster and easier in
- those countries because the weakening of the system in the
- Soviet Union changed the international situation.
-
-
- Q. What was Gorbachev's role in all this?
-
- A. He started relatively well. Among Communists, he is the
- best man, but his weakness is that he still suffers under the
- illusion that he can improve the system without changing it.
- Now events are beyond his control. I don't believe he will
- change. So he will be attacked by conservative party
- bureaucrats on one side and by democratic elements and
- nationalistic movements on the other. I don't think he is in
- immediate danger, but if he continues his present policies, his
- position will become weaker and weaker. Perestroika in its
- present form cannot succeed.
-
-
- Q. What do you think will be the outcome of such failure?
-
-
- A. I don't believe the military as a whole would join with
- the conservatives who oppose Gorbachev. All changes that occur
- in the country occur in the army as well, though not as
- intensely. Even if conservative elements took over in the
- Soviet Union, it would not be for long and it would only
- provoke serious problems.
-
-
- Q. But is the process of change in Eastern Europe
- irreversible? Could democratic movements in the rest of the
- bloc survive a conservative takeover in the Soviet Union?
-
- A. I think the changes are irreversible everywhere,
- including the Soviet Union. They may stop for a period, and
- there could even be some reversals. This is, after all, a
- revolution. All social groups, including the ruling class, are
- discontented. Let me quote Lenin. He said that those on the top
- cannot rule with old methods and those at the bottom don't
- agree to be ruled with those old methods.
-
-
- Q. So the revolution has come full circle?
-
- A. Yes. It was inevitable.
-
-
- Q. Is that inevitable even in China?
-
- A. Someday the same thing will happen in China, but when and
- how I don't know. A system that is pressed to carry out such
- massacres must be really ill, in a deep crisis.
-
-
- Q. The Leninist system was able to achieve forced
- industrialization. What prevents it from achieving a
- postindustrial state?
-
- A. Modern industry needs more free men, more free initiative
- in every way. That also requires new forms of property. You
- cannot change the form of property without changing the form
- of power.
-
-
- Q. Are you saying that economic reform is impossible without
- political reform?
-
- A. The two are connected, but the essential reform is
- political because in Communist countries the economy, in the
- final analysis, is the means of politics. The economy is ruled
- and controlled by politics. You must change the political
- system first, because it is a tyrannical regime without respect
- for laws.
-
-
- Q. What exactly has failed in the past 70 years -- Marxism,
- Leninism or Stalinism?
-
- A. All of them, but differently. First Gorbachev really
- liquidated Stalinism. There may be some remnants for a while,
- but really it is finished. And with this revolution in Eastern
- Europe, Leninism is now finished too. Marx, like other
- important political philosophers -- Rousseau, Hobbes -- will
- find his place only in universities.
-
-
- Q. Did Marxism do any good?
-
- A. It probably played a part in decolonization. It had a
- serious role in fighting fascism. But in human society, it was
- completely negative.
-
-
- Q. Some vestiges are sure to survive. Would that include the
- mentality of people who have been encouraged to believe
- initiative is bad and that no one should live better than
- anyone else?
-
- A. That will pass very quickly.
-
-
- Q. What is the fatal flaw of Marxism?
-
- A. Marxism was originally strong and attractive. The method
- was scientific, and the vision was utopian. But Marxism in
- practice was different, and it was not verified by practice.
-
-
- Q. Why were the East Germans so surprised at the level of
- corruption and personal aggrandizement of their Communist
- officials? Surely they knew that the leaders rode in Mercedes
- while the people drove Trabants.
-
- A. The Communist system is corrupt. I am talking not only
- about the corruption of money. This is secondary. Power is
- corrupt. Every function depends on the Politburo. Therefore,
- it is enough in communism just to follow the line from the top
- and to be rewarded. If someone is intelligent and corrupt, he
- can easily climb to the top. This is characteristic of
- communism today. During the revolution, there were at least
- some people devoted to some aims, willing to suffer, willing to
- be killed. Now it is the opposite. The people at the top are
- stupid cowards. Primitive forms of corruption such as stealing
- money and sending currency abroad are not typical for
- Communists. For Communists, the typical corruption involves
- privileges like cars and apartments. What happened in East
- Germany is really astonishing. It was not so in Poland and
- Hungary.
-
-
- Q. Would you compare this period with the late 19th century,
- when the great empires crumbled?
-
- A. Yes, except this time the system is also changing. The
- best comparison for me is the middle of the 19th century.
-
-
- Q. You mean 1848?
-
- A. Exactly. But this time it is more important because the
- great powers have nuclear arsenals. In 1848 there were not many
- bloody revolutions in Europe, but Europe really started to
- change. Now the character of history is changing. The whole
- world will be influenced by what is happening in Eastern
- Europe. The West will not have to change its system, but it
- will have to adapt to these changes -- maybe one of the
- greatest events in modern history.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-