Perestroika opens the way for
ECONOMY • USSR
Is all this to say that a "new 1929" has already begun? Will the plummeting prices in Wall Street trigger off an economic crisis as grave as the one in October 1929? These questions are badly put for two reasons.
First, for a collapse of stock market pricindependent social set off a serious crisis of overes to production, there must be a number of accompanying factors. The stock market certainly shows itself to be the weakest link in movements the chain. But other links must crack before the chain will give way. Financial institutions have to go down, abruptly stopping credit expansion; big industrial firms must
THE FIRST meeting of the independent clubs and go bankrupt; orders, current production and jobs have to decline noticeably. All that has societies existing in the USSR was held in Moscow on not yet happened, but it could in the
August 20-23. According to Pravda, today there are months to come.
Neither in 1929 did everything change several thousand throughout the country.
from "Black Friday" to 30% unemploy-
This meeting had the stamp of approval of the Moscow ment in the United States, and to 40% in party authorities and the Soviet press. Ogonyok,
Germany in one go. It took more than two years to get to this catastrophic result.
Moscow News, 20 Vek i Mir, reported the event, even if
Nobody dares to predict what the state of the world economy will be looking ahead
These clubs represent a very broad spectrum of two or three years from now.
concerns. Overall, they define themselves by a triple no
A new expansion in the
— no to violence, no to a single truth and no to debt mountain
The following article was originally published in the
Paradoxically, for capitalism, the method that the imperialist governments have en-
Austrian magazine, Profil. Both it and the accompanying visaged to stop the crash in Wall Street is documents indicate the possibilities for independent more serious than the crash itself: the injecorganization that have been opened up by Gorbachev's tion of new credits, swelling the amount of money in circulation again, and a new expansion in the debt mountain. The fact that these measures are accompanied, against all logic, by a momentary lowering of interest rates only serves to underline the "after us, the deluge" character of this pseudotherapy.
The persistent US balance of payments deficit inundates the world with depreciating dollars. Is it possible to "attract" foreign capital to the United States by lowering interest rates? We can expect the
Japanese and European capitalists to react in their usual way. The other day it was learned that in greater Los Angeles, three- quarters of big property holdings already belong to foreigners!
This is crunch for the short-sighted policies of Ronald Reagan. He is plugging the gaps in the fortress by filling them with dynamite — hardly a way to prevent future explosions.
More than ever, the debt spiral is widening. In the short term one can foresee a reduction of consumer's buying power - a new step towards recession.
Also, there are the debts of the third world, of the US, of the Japanese banks and stock markets, of the public authorities and social security in Europe, which are beginning to tumble.
The whole snowball has been rolling for over a year. The rest is only a question of chronology: generalized crisis in 1987 or
418000
International Viewpoint • November 9, 1987 in a partial way. chauvinism and racism. reform course. A SEVERYUKHIN
A LL THE SIGNS indicate that the
process of change in the Soviet Union has entered a new, and • perhaps decisive, phase. After Gorbachev's speech at the January plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU, the liberalization is no longer merely verbal but is being put into practice.
The official decisions have created legal possibilities for many forms of social activity previously considered, if not anti-state, at least "reprehensible" and "harmful." Instead of the traditional principle, "everything that is not permitted is forbidden, " the opposite principle began to prevail, "everything that is not forbidden is permitted."
Nonetheless, the liberal proclamations at the top will change nothing unless real forces exist in society that are capable of taking advantage of the new possibilities. The tempestuous growth in 1987 of various kinds of associations, clubs and groups embracing every conceivable tendency has shown that such forces do exist in the
Despite their many calls for citizens' and democratic initiatives, the authorities have clearly shown themselves to be perplexed by the new social movements. Even the functionaries in the reformist wing of the leadership have no experience in maintaining contacts with independent representatives of various social layers. Insofar as many of the newly arisen groups do not consider it necessary to register and others, as far as possible, avoid contact with the bureaucratic structures, these groups have been described by the officials as "informal associations." Press focus on right wing group
Some new organizations quickly obtained juridical status, and began to develop contacts with the mass media. Thanks to the "policy of glasnost"," they achieved a relative independence. Others remain in a semi-legal position, since they have no confidence in official tolerance.
From the outset, the attention both of the Soviet and Western press was focused mainly on the extreme rightist group "Pamyat'," which represents Great Russian
chauvinism and anti-semitism. But already by the spring of 1987, many left organizations had been formed, and had begun to arouse interest. The best known of them is the Moscow Social Initiative Club (KSI), whose formation actually dates back to the autumn of 1986.
The founders of the KSI were the sociologists F. Pelman and B. Kagarlitsky, the journalist G. Pavlovski and the philosopher M. Malyutin. At first, this group concerned itself with the (more or less) youth magazine Komsomolskaya Pravda. Later, however, it transformed itself into an independent organization whose goal, in Kagarlitsky's words, was "to consolidate the left wing of the perestroika[restruc-
The activity of the KI was based on socialist ideas and Marxist traditions. In Brezhnev's time, Pavlovski was editor of the left samizdat journal Poiski, and Kagarlitsky participated in the underground Young Socialists group. Both were jailed at the end of the Brezhnev era, and regained their freedom only thanks to the political changes that had come about in the country.
The majority of the activists and members of the KSI, however, had little if any were pulled directly main in the party, for example M. Malyutin. The KSI brought together in particular the attempts to transform the "radical reform" proclaimed by Gorbachev from a theoactivity at the base. discussions were organized. Working groups on the probmanagement, the rights of the working class and so on were set up. The materials and activities of the club were publicized in the written and electronic press. And radical-left youth and student groups, whose numbers multiplied rapidly after the January plenum, worked with the
Alongside the KSI, other big left-oriented associations arose. The Perestroika Club in Moscow and Leningrad brought together mainly young scholars, jurists, sociologists Moscow Perestroika group did not have a clearly defined program of work, and its ranks included people of widely varying views. As a result, the members of the club spent more time in disputes with each other than in practical work. Although in the documents of the Perestroika group, the principles of its activity were defined as socialist, it was generally suspected of "liberal Westernism," and people preferred to collaborate with the ideologically more clearly-defined KSI. Ecological/cultural groups formed
In Leningrad, alongside the relatively small Perestroika group, the Council for Ecological Culture (SEK) and the culturaldemocratic Epicenter Movement sprang up. The demonstration by SEK supporters against the demolition of the venerable Hotel Angleterre became a topic of discussion in the leading Soviet papers. Moreover, the Epicenter created its own news journal, Merkur, of which hundreds of copies were circulated in Leningrad. In August 1987, Merkur even got a favorable mention in the official press, an event unprecedented in the history of samizdat.
Larger left groups have also sprung up in Riga, Vilna, Kiev and other big cities. In May, the most radical of them came to Moscow for the conference of All-Soviet Social and Political Correspondence Courses Club (VSSPK). This organization had declared as its objective from the beginning to raise the most radical demands ("No collaboration with the authorities," "Fight for a democratic socialism," "Revolutionary self-management by the masses," and so on). But because of differ-
USSR ences of opinion in its own ranks, this organization proved unable to adopt consistent documents and to do work.
Moreover, not only the VSSPK suffered from internal divisions. A sharp conflict also arose between the KSI and the Perestroika group. The KSI suffered a split. In May 1987, a very moderate group left, and based itself on a Fund for Social Initiative (FSI). A month later, new frictions developed, and the KSI divided in fact into two groups, each claiming the name of the old KSI. Nonetheless, the movement continued to develop. A month after the split, one of those involved in this event declared in astonishment that each of the competing groups was bigger and stronger than the original united KSI had been.
Despite all the conflicts, efforts to work together continued. Already in May, the Council of the KSI in Moscow decided to hold a conference of the progressive groups throughout the Soviet Union in Moscow at the latest by August of this year. The authorities agreed to let the conference take place, on the condition that it be designated "an informal meeting dialogue among groups working in the framework of perestroika." Because of the factional struggle in the Moscow groups, the preparation for this all-Soviet meeting became fraught with tensions. Nonetheless, the congress opened on August 20, with 250 delegates representing 40 groups.
Over the four days, more representatives came from groups in the provinces. After the end of the congress's work, the organizing committee of the conference reported that altogether 600 delegates representing at least 50 groups of various kinds — environmental, cultural-democratic and socialist - had participated in the meeting.
The first days were poisoned by clashes between the delegations from the Perestroika groups and the organizing committee, which was made up of representaNovember 9, 1987 • International Viewpoint
----- photo credits and running heads -----
5
USSR tives of both factions of the KSI. The Perestroika group supported the formation of a broad union of clubs and groups without any ideological boundaries or clearly defined program. Against this, the KSI presented the project of building a federation of socialist clubs.
Radical demands raised by Marxist groups
There were sharp disputes even over the agenda. Compromise proposals failed to clear up the situation. At the same time, Marxist political clubs entered into sharp polemics with some participants in the conference, the members of the liberal and pacifist group Doverie (Confidence) and the Democracy and Humanism Seminar, who were former dissidents.
Representatives of the authorities intervened resoundingly when dissidents spoke and when radical demands were raised by socialist and Marxist groups (abolition of pre-censorship, erecting a monument to the victims of Stalinism in Moscow, rehabilitation of those persecuted under Brezhnev, punishment of the high party functionaries responsible for the decay of the economy and corruption.) In the corridors rumors went around that the congress might still be
Under these conditions, the warring groups began to unite. Both factions of the KSI and the Perestroika group joined together, and according to a participant in the conference "functioned like a wellcoordinated command." Quickly, agreement was reached between the KSI and the Perestroika group that two organizations would be set up at the same time - the Association of Social Initiative Groups, with an open membership and a broad general democratic program, and a Federation of Socialist Clubs.
Some members of the Perestroika delegation had further hesitations, and announced that such premature and too radical. In the course of the conference, however, the relationship of forces changed. The radical groups (Obshchina, Young CommunardsInternationalists, the Ernesto Guevara Brigade, and so on) found a common language. Both they and the youth clubs not represented in the KSI Council determined the psychological atmosphere of the congress in its last stage. They had not gathered here to go away with empty hands, but to make concrete decisions. Without this determination and pressure, the congress could not have been successful.
The events of the four-day meeting were sensational, even for many participants in the discussions. In the statement of the socialist social clubs, which was read by B. Kagarlitsky on August 23, 1987, the movement's independence was proclaimed, as well as its right "to express and defend its 5 intermediary: • interests independently and without any International Viewpoint • November 9, 1987
"We recognize the constitutional role of the CPSU in our society," the statement went on to say, "but the party is not a homogeneous whole. Its ranks also include those who bear a direct responsibility for the abuses and errors of the past years; and those who who have filled the ranks of the bureaucracy, forming the mass of selfsatisfied functionaries cut off from the needs and hopes of their people.... We will endeavor to support the leaders and ordinary members of the party who represent healthy and progressive forces."
The Socialist Clubs declared their firm intention to combat bureaucratic conservatism, fascist-like groups of the same stripe as Pamyal' and any form of extremism "from above and below."
It was said that "racism and chauvinism, fascism and Stalinism" were widespread in certain social layers and represented a direct threat to the social movement.
The statement called for a change in the electoral system, a broadening of the function and authority of the soviets in all areas, for granting the clubs the right to run their own candidates in elections to the soviets without any restrictions, as well as for access to the mass media.
A series of participants in the discussions even stressed the need for expanding social guarantees at the same time as developing the market in order to compensate in an effective and democratic way for redistributions of wealth that might arise through the operation of the market. In addition, the management of workers' collectives as a guarantee of the success of the reform, and about the need for taking up the fight against bureaucratic attempts to manipulate the self-management bodies.
The statement proclaimed the principle of freedom of information, demanded the abolition of pre-censorship and liquidation of the "special stocks" [reserved sections] in libraries and archives, and called for the establishment of independent cooperative publishing houses, as well as the right to demonstrate. At the insistence of the radical youth groups, a point was included in the statement on solidarity with revolutionary and left forces in the capitalist and underdeveloped countries. Monument to the victims of the repression
The statement was signed by 16 groups, including the KSI, Perestroika, Obshchina and the Moscow section of the VSSPK. At the same time, on the basis of the conference press center, G. Pavlovsky set up an information agency. A special working group was also formed that took on the task of organizing a campaign for erecting a monument to the victims of the repression. The idea for such a monument was already raised at the Twenty-Seventh Congress of the CPSU, but had previously been successfully suppressed by the party leadership.
In addition, a Working Group on the Question of Extremism (RGE) was set up It is to coordinate the efforts of the left clubs fighting the Pamyat' nationalists and "fascism and Stalinism." The creation of such an anti-fascist center has aroused serious disquiet among the right-wing extremists. Only a few days after the end of the conference, unidentified persons broke into the home of an active member of the RGE, N. Lvov, and carried off all the papers and tapes of the Pamyat' leaders. Another activist was threatened with a "settling of accounts." Such events, however, can no longer change the course of things. Dozens of progressive groups established contact at the conference, affirmed common principles and began joint work on various
Little media coverage of conference
It can be said that the movement got to know itself. Its activists no longer feel isolated and hemmed in. Many questions that on the eve of the conference aroused vio lent polemics and even splits have now been resolved in constructive discussions Of course, differences between the left and right wings of the movement - between the supporters of "revolutionary pressure" on the bureaucracy and the more cautious groups — continue to exist. But it is clear to all that such differences of opinion must not interfere with common work.
Although a large number of journalists took part in the work of the conference, the mass media maintained a virtual silence (with the sole exception of the Mayak radio station, which broadcast a short report on the congress a few days after it ended). It was quite clear that the directors of the official press were awaiting a reaction from on
In the meantime, information about the discussions conducted and the decisions made began to spread in Moscow and naturally showed up rapidly in samizdat publications. Shortly afterward, the conference was mentioned in a Voice of America broadcast. The Western radio stations, however, had no serious information, and offered their listeners nothing substantial. Nonetheless, they gave the first prod to the official press. It had to take up the congress material before it was scooped by Western
On September 5, 1987, a quite thorough report on the conference finally appeared in Ogonyok, one of the country's most popular and widely-circulated weekly magazines. In the article, the founding of the Federation of Socialist Clubs and the statement were not mentioned, but otherwise the account was a fair one. In the meantime, the clubs belonging to the Federation and Pavlovsky's press center have declared their intention to publish their own collection of material giving a full and "unedited"
version of the activity of the clubs and groups. For their part, the leaders of the campaign for erecting a monument to the victims of Stalinist repression have begun collecting signatures and have been circulating their materials more widely. This activity has become a gain of glasnost'
Overcoming its own contradictions and weaknesses, the movement has become a real factor in the country's political life. The real meaning of the decisions adopted is still to be analyzed. One thing, however, is clear: For the first time in the Gorbachev era, it is possible to speak not only about reform initiatives from above but also about a social movement from below. *
USSR take advantage of supplementary aids for perestroika in the USSR? • Lubtsev The latter view is closer to our hearts. The impression given by this meeting is not a simple one, far from it. Everything we heard can be divided conventionally into two parts. The first was constructive proposals for the clubs participating in the solution of ecological and production problems. The other aspect was
"Whatever is not theoretical, and requires discussions in order to be able to define clear positions.
For a long time, we pretended not to have any parallel groups. They existed and were forbidden is permitted"
springing up where we did not how how to work. Today, our district already has a certain experience. Concrete work clarifies things. The real leaders become leaders, and the big talkers with the aura of standing apart become emperors who have no clothes. Whether we wanted it or not, the dis-
KNOWN AS the publication par excellence of the advanced wing of Gorbachev's supporters, Moscow
News published an interview in its September 13 issue about the August meeting of the independent social
Gennadi Zhavoronokov conducted the interview. G.
Pavlovski, was described as a "member of the Council of the Social Initiatives Club"; Y. Lubtsev as the chief of the propaganda department of the Communist Party committee in the Brezhnevski borough of Moscow; and
N. Bellayeva as a collaborator of the State Law Institute.
The interview is translated from the French-language version of the paper, Les Nouvelles de Moscou.
U
NTILthe recent past, many people linked the very notion of parallel groups to all sorts of excesses. They imagined uncontrollable groups of youth more or less opposing society. Today, we see them as individuals who want to really participate in the processes of transforming our lives. Where did the idea for this dialogue meeting come from?
• Pavlovski First of all, we realized that there was no coordination of the activities of these groups, which sometimes expressed different interests. It was this and nothing else that aroused a reaction of rejection both from the population and the judicial bodies. The word parallel become an insult, although it only meant that an individual or group of young people engaged in their favorite occupations outside an official group.
Then in the pages of the weekly
Sobesednik, the Social Initiatives Club proposed holding a conference. The Moscow
Party Committee helped solve all the technical problems.
The meeting proceeded in a stormy way.
It turned out that every group interpreted democracy in its own way — "We are the only ones who know how the monuments have to be protected," "We are the only ones who know how to maintain the ecological balance," and so on. Someone de"kindergarten" of democracy. But, after all, it was only an initial experiment. Extremism is not rational, even in words. What juridical argument can there be put forward to avoid confusing enthusiasm and interest with inadmissible manifestations? • Bellayeva First of all, a few words about extremism. Lately, this word is coming up often. Groups attribute this to others, without realizing that they are going off half-cocked themselves. This is quite dangerous. We are seeing the seeing the appearance of a phenomenon of "extremists fighting extremists." Yuri Vasilevich, this first discussion meeting might be considered an additional burden on the Party organs placed on you by the social groups. But could it be seen as an opportunity to cussion meeting was the occasion for the appearance of a new youth organization. What will be the attitude of the Komsomol [the CP's official youth section]? Will it take a good neighborly attitude or will it seek points of interaction? • Pavlovski The Komsomol was aware of this meeting, but in practice it showed no interest. [A storm of objections.]