According to the original CIS treaty, Russia is the legal successor of the Soviet Union. In the broad sense, this succession has affected many aspects of contemporary political and social life. Thus, in the political and social spheres Russia has inherited the "vanguard" of the former CPSU from the USSR - the Russian Communist Party and the "school of communism" represented by the Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Russia. Both these structures, equal in their current political sense, are nevertheless closely related. Besides their Soviet origin, they are also united by the fact that both the party and the trade unions are monopolies, largely unnatural. Indeed, in what other country could trade unions celebrate May Day jointly with the government party? All this is considered normal in Russia; and while it is so, any civilized leftist movement in Russia is out of the question.
The CPRF has been unnaturally combining communist form (symbols, flags, paraphernalia, portraits) and nationalist content, hidden behind patriotic slogans. This dual nature of the CPRF became the reason for the party's domination of two considerably different electoral poles, while at the same time having various functions. Communist leader Gennady Zyuganov is now a Maurice Torez (one of the founders of the Communist Party of France) and leader of the French ultra right Le Pen, combined in one person. Two consequences follow.
Monopolizing the left, the CPRF in essence is a blockage on the way of developing diverse party institutions. For this very reason numerous social-democratic projects have been defeated. The present social democrat parties, led by Gorbachev and Titov, have slight chances of success. On the other hand, having settled down in the national-patriotic electoral field, the CPRF has been retaining development of such "political monsters" as nazi and fascist organizations. While it is so, neither Barkashov's nor Limonov's affiliates can count on success in the elections. This blocking and, in general, positive function of the CPRF should be taken into account.
It is superfluous to assert once again that Zyuganov's party is in a system crisis. Leadership of the CPRF is to face a series of scandals, those in the most remote groups included. After personal actions at the federal level, the process will be resumed in regional and local branches. Each CPRF's organization will happen to have its own "Zyuganov," its own "Seleznevs, Gubenkos and Goryachevas." It is not ruled out that having restored, for instance, Svetlana Goryacheva's party membership the Ussuriysk communist organization might do away with "Zyuganovs", whereas the Moscow branch under Kuvayev will certainly "sweep" all "Seleznevs" from its ranks.
The CPRF will collapse. What would emerge on the left to replace it? For instance, in Ukraine influence of the communist party reduced considerably in the latest Supreme Rada elections, while local social democrats and socialists strengthened and make a strong opposition to it. What about Russia?
The fact that the Kremlin political consultants have no answer to this question is alarming. There's the only conclusion: the process of "collapse or semi-collapse of the CPRF" (as Gleb Pavlovsky puts it) has been let to take its course and nobody is doing serious steps in this direction. This is extremely dangerous. Who can guarantee that the nationalist component of the CPRF wouldn't get loose and stimulate appearance of a political mutant in the form of a fascist organization, rather than contemporary social-democratic party, the latter being expected by many? It wouldn't be a marginal organization, as Limonov's National Bolshevik Party or Barkashov's Russian National Unity, but a fairly independent one, with contacts in business and industry, and political influence. (Translated by Andrei Ryabochkin)