The struggle of the day care.
in the LO. But the social-democratic local organization in Söderhamn is considering independent social not doing election work this year because the social-democratic leadership in the provincial parliament is closing the hospital.
Not everyone thinks that the social democrats' practices are the best way to combat the bourgeois parties. A lot of women active in the unions consider themselves po-
AN INSIGHT into the political struggle developing in the litically independent, or belong to another section of the workers' movement. Focus-
Soviet Union is provided by the following article. It was written ing a union congress on the need for a soby the best known leader of the independent social clubs, the cial-democratic electoral victory amounted to contempt for their views.
first legal political organizations not controlled by the state to be permitted since the establishment of the bureaucratic
Campaign against pornography
It was published in the February 6 issue of Rinascita, the
Italian Communist Party weekly. Obviously, the conflict in the
There were many new, interesting and important elements in the conference, for
Soviet Union concerns all the Communist parties, and the example, the retail clerks' campaign
Italian CP — which has good contacts in Moscow - has its against pornography. It is their members who are forced to sell trash every day; it is from them that effective boycott action has to come.
Personally, I met a lot of old friends that I had not come across for many years. A journalist on the Göteborgstidning, who was covering the conference, was involved in the Women's Tribunal in Göteborg in
1981. [This was the largest national women"s meeting held in Sweden and marked the culmination of the movement of the
1970s.] We made some comparisons.
In 1981, we brought 700 people from the entire country, depending entirely on vol-
We set up work groups for unteer forces.
various areas half a year in advance. We let women talk about what they had never talked about in public before, we let experiences and knowledge come forward that previously had barely seen the light of day.
The Women's Tribunal was an overwhelming experience. It brought together the best that a long effort in women's work had produced. The LO conference had no creche
- a thing that would have been unthinkable at the tribunal. Many single mothers came to it. Three young men looked after dictatorship. own bones to pick. BORIS KAGARLITSKI
W HEN THE conference of the
independent left groups concluded on August 28, 1987, with the formation of the Federation of Socialist Clubs (FSOK: Federatsiya Sotsialtichestkikh Klubov), it seemed to many of the participants in the assembly that it would be nearly impossi-
A few weeks before the meeting held, members of the organizing committee for the conference, which was formed in the Social Initiatives Club (KSI), greeted ering its forces, and events had unexpectedly accelerated. However, in the following months it emerged clearly that such a speed-up was not always to everyone's liking.
Even before the removal of Boris Yeltsin from the post of first secretary of the Moscow City Committee of the CPSU, there had been events indicating that the conservative forces were becoming active. At the time of the All-Union meeting of revolutionary solidarity clubs in Moscow (October 10-12), FSOK activists were accused by the spokesperson for the Komsomol [CP youth organization] Central Committee, A. Filatov, of carrying out "anti-Soviet propaganda." Besides this, in the meeting which discussed problems related to the social developments, some delegates who represented clubs belonging to FSOK were not allowed to enter the hall, although they showed their credentials.
About a month later, on November 9, a group of activists of the Federation were stopped at the 1905 Avenue subway stop, 7 because they were collecting signatures on May 2, 1988 • #140 International Viewpoint
----- pull-quotes on this page -----
clubs
USSR a petition demanding full clarity on the Yeltsin affair. After Yeltsin was booted out of his post, the situation got a lot worse. The premises used by the socialist clubs were closed under a wide variety of pretexts.
Radical anti-bureaucratic measures
Official personalities who sympathized with the movement began to predict that the new conference of the clubs scheduled for January 28, 1988 "would be postponed, if it can ever be held." Not a single club had lost its legal status, but while only a short time ago the clubs' activity had been considered "useful rank-and-file initiative," we now felt that we were regarded as "politically immature people" or even "harmful individuals."
In substance, the situation that was devwas characterized by the consolidation and growing strength of the conservative groups in the apparatus. The socialist clubs from the outset were regarded by these groups as something definitely hostile. In its statement, the FSOK called for the implementation bureaucratic measures, extension of the political rights of the workers and the consistent application of an economic reform that would guarantee the workers' social gains.
Particularly irritating for the bureaucrats was the point in our statement that talked about the right of the clubs to run their own candidates in elections to the Soviets. Nonetheless, it was more than evident that this hostility to the clubs did not depend so much on this or that paragraph in our statement, which in any case was only a scrap of paper. They were more worried about the fact that the clubs were carrying on concrete activity aimed at mobilizing, as far as was possible, the broadest strata of the population, and thereby giving life to a real anti-bureaucratic movement from below. So, it is not surprising that FOK activists coming onto the streets to collect signatures and explain their positions aroused an unhealthy reaction from the bureaucrats.
The events that occurred in November-December 1987 at Moscow University demonstrated once again how effective and real bureaucratic opposition to perestroika can be when the apparatchiki feel they are facing real threats.
It all started on November 16, when a party member, Anatolii Gallamov, who did International Viewpoint #140 • May 2, 1988 not belong to any of our clubs, made a proposal to the students for calling an assembly to support a revolutionary perestroika. The following day, in front of the main lecture room in the humanities faculty of the university, a few hundred students started to protest energetically against the sacking of Yeltsin. Finally, a petition was approved calling on the Central Committee of the CPSU to publish all the materials on the Yeltsin case. The students formed an initiative group to take charge of continuing to collect signatures on the petition.
Toward the end of the assembly, Aleksei Vassilevskii — a member of the Obshchina ["Community"] club, which belongs to the Federation - arrived and announced that the FSOK had already been collecting signatures on a similar petition for a week. This was enough to provide a pretext for the administration accusing everyone present of being "instigators from Obshchina" and "having nothing in common with
Yeltsin meeting called off by college administration
The students, however, had no intention of getting involved in a confrontation. The initiative group quickly began a dialogue with the university administration and declared itself ready to make a compromise. On the basis of the agreement reached, the students suspended the collection of signatures, and the administration promised to put the conference hall at the disposal of the students on November 20 to hold a new assembly. A Central Committee member had supposedly been invited to participate who could answer all the questions raised on the "Yeltsin case."
Thus, the affair proceeded quite peacefully up to the scheduled date of November 20, when hundreds of students anxious to take part in the assembly were disagreeably surprised to find the conference hall closed. And what was still more peculiar was that Gallamov had disappeared, no one knew
The formal pretext for cancelling the assembly was that sometime before it was to be held, some representatives of the Moscow City Committee of the party came to the university and met with "some local social representatives." But they did not meet with the bulk of the students, and movement activists had no opportunity to ask them any important questions. It was also learnt that on the day in was "invited" to a meeting with representatives of the party leadership at the university and, in his own words, he was "in fact kidnapped." Every indication was that the university administration considered the cancelling of the assembly to be a great victory. The second secretary of the Komsomol organization at Moscow University solemnly told me that "at Moscow University, assemblies of this sort will no longer be held." As often happens in cases of this sort, such a solemn promise soon proved to be empty. A new assembly was held before a month went by.
The reason for the new actions by the students were the actions of the university administration itself, which intended to use its November "victory" to make a clean sweep of the "trouble-makers." Gallamov and another party member, Vladimir Grabarnik, were accused of violating party discipline, while non-party activists were informed that the imminent winter examination session would be their last, unless they made a public statement repenting their "errors". But there were no mass repentances, and on December 15 a new assembly was held at
But this time, although the student initiative had not been authorized, as it was before, the administration was forced to give those who turned up a hall in the auditorium. But, as a "preventative measure," it sent in about a hundred "loyalist" students, whose task was to challenge the "troublemakers." At any rate, on this occasion, the administration did not feel so secure as it had the previous time.
After the second assembly, in fact, neither Grabarnik nor Gallamov were expelled from the party. What is more, Grabarnik had no problem in defending his thesis on Nikolai Bukharin in the Faculty of Economics, although he had been prevented from doing this for a long time.
Stalinists dream of rapid
"normalization"
The situation that developed at the university, as can be seen, was not just important for its own sake. It brought out into the open the tension and contradiction-ridden circumstances in which the left clubs found themselves. Almost every day, news arrives in Moscow about similar clashes in the provinces.
The attitude taken toward the left clubs has become one of the essential criteria for assessing how the local bureaucrats relate to the changes. While the clubs seek constantly to avoid confrontations and avoid destabilizing the situation, the other camp is constantly looking for clashes. Naturally,
----- photo credits and running heads -----
8
all this is not surprising. In the present situation, a very tense patter of relations can only benefit the Stalinist wing of the apparatus, which dreams of carrying out a rapid "normalization." The less stable and relaxed the situation is, the greater will be the conflicts and the louder the "murmuring" in bureaucratic circles about the need to "re-establish order" and put an end to "the laxity of democracy. " Such words are also heard on occasions in demonstrations at Moscow University.
It has to be stressed that despite the strong-arm methods and pressures, the clubs have been demonstrating an astonishing discipline and coolness. This is particularly important if you keep in mind that these are very diverse groups, that the link between them is very loose and that they lack a single coordinating center. It should also be noted that the average age of the members of some of the clubs is barely 25, and that their experience is very limited. sense or a very special sort of "political instinct" is solidly rooted in the ranks of the left radicals. It is true that sometimes you can hear statements about the need for "giving blow for blow" or "going underground." But such calls turn out to be very unpopular, like the attitude of people determined to demonstrate the inevitability of "political surrender." Different orientations have prevailed. The clubs have shown themselves ready to negotiate, and in cases where their rights have been restricted they have appealed to the authorities, but have never abandoned their
Therefore, it is easy to understand why in these circumstances the Stalinist apparatchiki turned their fire first against the party members that have joined the clubs. It is, moreover, only the presence of such people in the ranks of the left movement that reduces the possibilities for clashes and demonstrates the constitutional nature of the clubs' activity.
The bureaucratic measures against left activists have seriously complicated the lives of a lot of activists, but they have not broken their spirit. In November and December 1987, for example, there was a marked upturn in the movement. New groups joined the Federation of Socialist Social Clubs, thereby improving the understanding and collaboration among clubs that were already in the Federation.
The organizers of the November assembly at Moscow University knew very little about the KI Social Initiative Club and the FSOK before the "Yeltsin case" broke. Over December, many of them joined the KSI. There was a big increase in the press run of the FOK's bulletin, Svidetedel' ["Witness"), which changed its name to Levii Povorot ["Left Turn"]. According to the data proved by the editorial board, in addition to Moscow and Leningrad, this bulletin is published in abridged form in a further dozen cities.
An exchange of information and material between Levii Povorot and Merkur in Leningrad has started. These are presently the most widely circulated samizdat publications in the country. In this way the crisis has opened the way for a further strengthening of the left's positions to a certain
As regards the longer-term prospects, the movement will not be able to develop unless it can collaborate with the reform groups operating within the official structure of the party. This point is openly discussed in the statement that the FSOK drew up during the August conference. Everything that we said at that time and subsequently about the significance of the January plenum of the CPSU for the democratization of society was not said for the sake of respecting a political ritual.
It is quite evident that the decisions made at the official level are decisive today for the fate of perestroika, and that the official reform movement now has sufficient political strength to guarantee the advance of the reforms. In the conditions in which local conflicts are constantly arising, cooperation between the official reform groups and the radical left has become extremely difficult and marked by reservations on both sides. In the last analysis, all this benefits the
Moreover, a radicalization of the unofficial left groups themselves arising from constant conflict with the bureaucracy could frighten the official reformist circles and push them into "more moderate" positions, that is, in practice, positions more to the liking of the conservatives.
The November crisis brought out clearly enough the positions of all the actors in the political struggle. Now it is clear that the reformist groups in the leadership of the country do not want to, and cannot, apply their own line without taking account of the conservative wing in the apparatus. This
USSR wing has shown its capacity to influence the decisions adopted and to modify them. To a certain extent, conservatives and Stalinists managed to take the initiative into their hands. Thus, any error by the reformists, any slip in the perestroika process, will be seized on ruthlessly by these forces.
The Stalinists see the left clubs as their most determined foes, and they will use every means at their disposal against them. The glasnost policy does not offer them opportunities for resorting to repressive procedures, but they are doing everything possible to push the clubs onto a collision course, in order to make them into a sort of "second version of the dissidents." If the socialist groups are pushed to the sidelines of political life, it will be very difficult for them to extend their influence or to recruit new members. But at the same time the of-
Fficial reformers themselves possible strategies. It is difscious choice or simply a "political instinct" of the mass of functionaries defending their own interests. But, in any case, the fact cannot be denied that the enemies of the reform are not limiting themselves to BAS passive resistance and bureaucratic sabotage. They are trying to counter-attack, and they have had some success.
For its part, the left is striving to assess the new situation and to find new and effective methods of work. The movement is still very young, and is barely beginning to transform itself into a real political force. This does not mean, however, that even in taking its first steps the movement does not recognize the seriousness of the strategic
The socialist clubs continually point up their own role as the expression of the interests of a civil society in formation. In a certain sense, the capacity of the FSOK and other progressive associations to influence the course of events can be considered an index of the maturity of Soviet society and of its readiness for democracy. Without a rank-and-file movement, no success is possible for the reform, and that, in our opinion, is especially true now when people are united by the hope of seeing Stalinist normalization swept away. The future will tell to what extent the movement will be able to play a vital and effective role. However, here and now it it should be clear that the left cannot be ignored or cancelled out by
The socialist clubs have become an inseparable part of the Soviet political landscape. And, as Lenin said, this is " serious 9 and long lasting." * May 2, 1988 • #140 International Viewpoint