Noteworthy, although the idea to modify the bylaws was launched by the President of the Country and Party Chairperson, Vladimir Voronin, personalities unknown to the general public of the second or even third layer of the party hierarchy are the ones debating on the theoretical approach. The fact could be explained by the huge discrepancies between the declarations and policies promoted by the party elite and the Marxist principles shared by the lower level party members. For instance last year, during the Plenary the party leadership was accused of promoting a revisionist policy. And there are certain grounds to such accusations. Firstly, during the President inauguration ceremony, Vladimir Voronin stated that “society division into classes should be ended”. Secondly, he also made a series of liberal declarations especially with regard to economic development. And finally, the governmental press quoted President as saying he would neither build Communism, nor socialism.
All the aforesaid runs counter to the Marxist-Leninist principles provided in the Communist’s governing program, which makes its revision a must. Indeed, Communists’ inclination towards program revision is not a result of changes in their beliefs, but rather a constraint to promote an opportunistic policy conforming to the domestic and foreign political context. Firstly, Communist leaders acknowledged that being in opposition they failed to comprehend the changes happening in the recent decade in Moldova and worldwide, rather they exploited citizens’ nostalgic attitudes. Secondly, as a result of the non-stop protest rallies Moldova ended under close monitoring of the Council of Europe. Thirdly, Communist movements in the former Soviet Republics, especially in Russia and Ukraine, suffered a huge loss during the last year, thus tempering nostalgic attitudes towards the revival of the communist movement in the former Soviet republics. And last but not least, Republic of Moldova’s dependence on the credits provided by international financial organizations, forced the governing party to adopt an economic policy coordinated with those institutions.
That is why the debates launched in the Communist press are aimed to influence the party political course in view of keeping it within the doctrinaire limits. Indeed the middle and the most indoctrinated and conservative wing of the party gets its inspiration from Lenin’s works, especially from “What is to be done?”. The conclusion reached by Lenin in that work is that “leading role in fighting for the workers’ rights could be assumed only by a party endowed with advanced theory”. The said conclusion was based on Engels’ theory about the three forms of fight: economic, political and theoretical; as well as on Marx’s believes that theoretical principles may not be auctioned for achieving practical goals. Currently, one may say party elite totally ignores theoretical approach, whereas the policy it promotes is an opportunistic one.
The middle wing faces some difficulties in applying Leninist principles to modern realities. As 100 years ago, (when “What should be done?” was written) there was a working class in Russia, as well as an “advanced theory”, i.e. the Marxist one. The latter two determined Lenin to establish the Bolshevik party so as to seize the power in the interests of the working class, and later on in order to edify a Communist society. On the other hand, totally different things happen in Moldova nowadays. There is a Communist Party in power opting for the same Marxist-Leninist values and for building Communism. However the party theoreticians acknowledge their failure to grasp the class structure of the modern Moldovan society. Also, the working class, which they are supposed to represent, has disappeared. Consequently, Communists cannot decide whose interests to represent. After two years of governing, Moldovan Communists are still optimistic that the working class would reemerge one day. The example they cite in this respect is pretty annoying, namely “Topaz” factory whose shares have been recently sold by the Communists to a private venture, began to hire workers. The examples leads us to the conclusion that Communist authorities would use privatization of the state property to stir a contradiction between the labor and capital, so as to be able justify their existence as defenders of the exploited workers in the future. They call this a dialectic approach. Indeed, if the power is in the Communists’ hands, then why don’t they hire workers at the state factories so as to avoid the conflicts between labor and capital? Of course, Communist theoreticians are trying to find an answer to the question, which still is very annoying. They believe workers were spoiled as the hegemony during the soviet times, whereas nowadays they refuse to work for meager salaries. Probably, this also explains why more than 600,000 Moldovan proletarians prefer to be exploited in the capitalist Europe and refuse to return in Moldova, knowing that the Communists, who recommend themselves as their defenders, are in power.
Also due to the soviet time spoiling, nowadays the working class prefers to sell its labor at a very high price, which scares potential investors away. If Communist theoreticians were consistent in their syllogisms, they would have to conclude that their victory in 2001 parliamentary elections was the result of the spoiled citizens’ expectation that once they bring Communists to power they would get in return living standards they enjoyed during URSS. If so, then the next natural conclusion would be that URSS was an empire of evil, which contributed to the degeneration of the working class, fact proven by the lack of foreign investments. The latter in its turn would tarnish the enforcement of the ruling party’s electoral program. As a result the party would have to comply with the existing realities, namely to get bourgeois.