[page 15]
ar Comrades, May I reply to the criticisms voiced by vid Buckner in Scottish Socialist No. 4, my interview with Leonid Plyushch? My interview does not deal with the oretical issue of how to characterise the riet Union (state capitalist, workers state, v class, transitional society, ctc.) I hed to prioritise in the discussion with ushch those issues which are of nediate and direct relevance to the sgie for socialism in both eastern and tern Europe, the Soviet Union etc., zely, the relation between socialism and 30 сгасу.
The bourgeoisie and the social ocracy (e.g. Shirley Williams attack on demecratic". The Stalinist regimes of tskyism) attack the socialist ideal as Soviet Union and Eastern Europe have assisted the bourgeoisie in this, with result that large sections of the western pean working class identify "communism" i the type of bureauciatic dictatorship exists in these so called "socialist" stries.
Therefore a key task for the socialist ement in western europe is not only to sarize through propaganda the "soviet el" of workers democracy, but to fight ery way possible the repression and uction of democracy that exists in the R and Eastern Europe. The fight against aucratic dictatorship, against the ssion of the working class and national rities in those countries, is not just line, but an essential and integral part y strategy for revolution in the west. nterview was meant to relate to this, or this reason only did not deal with hch's "state capitalist" views.
Is Plyushch a marxist? His own answer to
this is as follows: *I felt and feel that the way out of this difficult situation lies in the construction of a new society, in which there will be no class, national or other antagonisms. But l cannot call my views pure Marxism, classical Marxism, because 1 feel that great changes have taken place in the world in our century and that today classical Marxism must be developed further..... I thought and still think that Marxism must be enriched and made fruitful by arming itself with the best that has been developed in this century by bourgeois philosophy and science.
This further development of Marxism, this dialogue with all humanistic ideologies.
I call neo-Marxism" (interview with DIYALOH, a Ukranian language journal).
This further development of Marxism, the opposition to dogmatic and sterile "official Marxism" of the stalinist regimes, is, in my opinion, what Marxism is.
GUS FAGAN