2 Communist Successors and Narratives of the Past Party Factions in the German PDS and the Russian CPRF, 1990–2005 Thorsten Holzhauser and Antony Kalashnikov Introduction and Theoretical Context In the decades following the demise of state socialism in Eastern and Central Europe, transition societies have developed various historical narratives of the state socialist past. Being the main representatives of this legacy in the political arena, (post-)communist successor parties have been faced, more than other actors, with the need to account for the past. Indeed, collective memory of the state socialist experience became a fundamental part of suc- cessor parties’ political identity and political strategy. However, there has been some debate over the factors that influence and shape the identity and strategy of successor parties in former Eastern Bloc states. “Internalist” con- ceptions focus on the alignment of forces within a party and the key choices of party elites. “Externalist” approaches, by contrast, see institutional and sociopolitical contexts as determining the nature of (post-)communist suc- cessor parties. 1 This chapter seeks to clarify the debate between “internal- ist” and “externalist” approaches by focusing on the memory discourses within Germany’s Party of Democratic Socialism (PDS) and the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF). 2 We arrive at a mixed conclusion: While party leaders and factions determined party identity, nationally spe- cific sociopolitical and institutional contexts were crucial in determining the parameters of a party’s discourse. Our methodology stems from discomfort with the way the internalist/ externalist debate has taken shape. Most studies of (post-)communist suc- cessor parties are limited to single-case investigations. These investigations set out to explain why a party made this or that decision with respect to iden- tity or strategy—i.e., why key actors perceived a given “choice” as advanta- geous. The most careful studies have noted that these actors differed with regard to the ideological “lens” through which they interpreted favorable and unfavorable outcomes. For instance, many have noted a three-way fac- tional cleavage between orthodox Marxist-Leninists, social democrats and statist nationalists within the CPRF, 3 whereas the PDS has been described as a “pluralist” party polarized between orthodox communists and reformers. 4 15032-1014d-1pass-r01.indd 41 30-01-2018 11:24:24