Yesterday I talked with farmers and workers. They are much more substantial philosophers than we are. What common sense they have, and, you know, when we tell them everything, tell them how things work out and what should be done to alter everything, then people will certainly think again.  In brief, the Soviet Communist Party favors a federation. Because the federation enables the use of a shorter way to reach the same goals. For as regards goals, we and you do not differ. . . . How Binding Are the Ties? As far as I know, the majority of the leadership both in the party and in the Supreme Soviet adhere to this, so it will be this way. And then there will be political sovereignty and economic independence, not mentioning the spiritual sphere, culture and the language. . . .  Inter-republican ties in our country are even closer than on the European market. And now Europe is going to unite in a confederation or federation.  Many politicians speak about it. Valery Giscard d'Estaing told me, ''Mr. President, prepare to deal with a federation of Western Europe.'' There are already signs of that state.  It is politics that follows economics and not vice versa. The need to orient oneself to the end results, to cooperate on an equal basis and to work more effectively brings about the need for a political superstructure that would serve these basic interests better.  I should say that all kinds of suspicions and political doubts concerning the federation have no real grounds. So I'll repeat: We all, including me, criticize the past experience and we are unanimous in our assessments and conclusions.  But we differ in principle in the following: We say it is necessary to transform and renew the federation and reveal its entire potential, and you go as far as to call for a withdrawal from the federation. Here our differences begin.  'More Catholic Than the Pope'  I don't think this is the best way. Although I said that the Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party and I personally cannot find ourselves in a situation when, so to say, I would be more Catholic than the Pope or more Lithuanian than you, I seem to care about the fate of the Lithuanian people more than you and to pretend that you care less about it.  After all, tackle your problems yourselves and lay your arguments on the federal round table. In this connection we should accelerate the drafting and passing of a law on the mechanism of the withdrawal of a constituent republic from the Soviet Union and of its self-determination.  There must be such a mechanism. If there is such a right, then there must be a mechanism of its implementation. I promise it will be developed, although I remain on my firm position: We need the federation. It is the second wind of socialism. . . .  Society now needs accord between people of all nationalities as never before. So let us seek such accord. I think the main condition for a sound, full-fledged life and development of our union, of the common home of Soviet nationalities and ethnic groups is this accord rather than the union's disintegration on ethnic grounds. . . .  In short, comrades, we are on the threshold of big changes in the operation of the party, in its structure, in its entire activity and status in society. And I shall say this: It is a bad thing that some comrades fail to feel it, do not see it, if they hurry to isolate themselves and look for freedom in a closed national space. This is no freedom.  The Soviet Communist Party will deliberate, work at its plenums and congresses, decide on union affairs, political questions, how perestroika should be developed, and meanwhile Comrade Brazauskas will be reading newspapers to learn what we have decided and what the fate of Lithuania should be in this connection. . . .  And what is then the party for? Or do you want to bury it here at first and then spread the experience further? Then go ahead and say so. We shall not be able to do without the party. Moreover, we already see new parties appearing here. We shall not be able to do without. Parties exist and will exist the world over, in any society.  True, one hears people say that a multiparty system will save all. But you know, when I look at it, I see some people simply trying to get more portfolios through a multiparty system, through creating new institutions.  It's all right. They think, ''We shall explain things to the people and squeeze everything within a framework.'' The main thing is to have more portfolios and then compete against each other. But what we do need is to get away from these portfolios, to make them fewer. Lots of portfolios and verbiage are not yet democracy.  We know dozens of states with 10 to 20 parties, but ruled by dictatorial regimes. And not all have been freed from them. Everything is determined, comrades, by the regime of political power, the level of democracy, the political process, the functioning of structures, public opinion, public movements that are capable of accumulating and expressing and making known public interests. . . .  All should be determined by the political process. I do not see anything tragic about a multiparty system if it emerges and meets the realistic interests of society.  Incidentally, after the October Revolution, the Government and an all-Russia Central Executive Committee were formed on a multiparty basis. So one should not dread a multiparty system. Neither should one artificially impose it. This is the first thing.  Second, a multiparty system is not a cureall. Democracy and openness are the main things, just as realistic participation and involvement of the people in all political and social processes and institutions.
LEAD: Following are excerpts from an address by President Mikhail S. Gorbachev at a meeting with Communist Party dissidents in Lithuania on Saturday, as recorded and translated by Tass, the official Soviet press agency: A Time of Baltic Euphoria My stay in the republic and participation in this meeting, at which both wings of the Communist movement in Lithuania are present, indicates that you, comrades, have not yet got out of the state of euphoria and that it is so far difficult to direct the process of the comprehension of what is happening in your republic into a deeper channel.