III. Existential system crisis and the decline of totalitarianism from the periphery
T
he compliant socialist subject does not need to be satisfied with the system. The history of communism after 1956 provides numerous outbreaks of social dissatisfaction. In a totalitarian state, the party can use violence against rebellions in the form of protests, demonstrations, or strikes. However, it becomes increasingly difficult for the party to handle a protest if it is well organised and has a determined leadership, as in such a case the protest cannot be easily presented as the work of “counter-revolutionaries” or “hooligans.” Moreover, the protest produces new political forces that may establish themselves as a political entity in the system. To label these forces as “opposition” – as it occurs frequently – is wrong, because the banning of political opposition under communism cannot be disputed. Their recognition would entail political pluralism, i.e. an untenable situation for totalitarianism. Therefore, if the non-communist political forces are not agents of the party-state, they should be regarded as resistance and not as opposition, even if they aim for the status of political opposition and at times refer to themselves as “democratic opposition” for tactical reasons. The non-communist political forces can only be legally active in socialism if they unconditionally recognise the leading role of the party in the state and society. However, since only those activities are considered legal that are deemed lawful by the state party at the given time, the apparently unsteady criterion of legality is not sufficient for a satisfactory classification of political forces in totalitarianism. Thus, it is useful to additionally differentiate between autonomous and heteronomous political forces. The criterion of autonomy makes it possible to take into account the degree to which the state party’s unrestricted claim to power
non-communist political forces
47
Mackow.indd 47
2020-12-09 14:18:05
