Debate on the national question IN THE INTERVIEW on these pages, Boris Kagarlitsky offers some interesting facts and points of view, both about the activities of the Marxist left in the Soviet Union and the way he sees the working class and national questions. On the latter point, we have a disagreement with him that is worth pointing out again, (A discussion of this was already initiated by a response to another article by him in IV159) Kagarlitsky's point of view with regard to the non-Russian national movements seems, moreover, to be common among the Marxist left in Russia
Let us first note what we agree about. We agree about the right to self-determination, and therefore the freedom of the non-Russian republics to separate. Kagarlitsky and his comrades are waging a campaign against the Great Russian chauvinism of Pamiat (the Russian far-right organization) and its anti-semitism. We also agree about the need for pointing out the lack of concrete proposals for workers self-management in the programs of the national democratic movements in the non-Russian republica. we obviously agree also on denouncing the political crimes of the Stalinist past.
However, the relationship between national and social consciousness among the non-Russian workers is a complex problem that has to be analyzed concretely and which apparently takes a different form in different republics. In Armenia and Lithuania, national demands have been in the forefront of the mass mobilizations. There is no doubt, on the other hand, about the mass character of the fronts, and it is clear therefore that they also have broad working-class support. The relationship between national and social consciousness is more complicated in Ukraine, in particular in view of the differences between the eastern and western
The problem becomes complicated also, when, as in Estonia, there is a Russian-speaking working class, and we have a difference regarding the analysis of their situation. The Russian workers certainly are not in the "dominant" position in Estonia. (They are unskilled workers holding jobs Estonians do not want). They went there to find jobs. But "bureaucratic centralism facilitated the process by financing the hiring and housing of these workers," and "the Russian language is dominant in the federation and sometimes regionally." (IV1 59).
What is more, the forced assimilation of the Baltic republice (and of Moldavia), and still worse on the basis of the secret agreements between Stalin and Hitler, as even the Soviet press has revealed, calls for a special sensitivity to the national sentiments being expressed there
On the Caucasus, where the situation is very complicated, simplistic judgements should be avoided. At the root of the problem are grave errors committed by the Bolshevik authorities in the 1920s. The responsibility of the Russian central bureaucracy for the poisoning of the present situation in the Caucasus is damning. Gorbachev's recent military intervention in Azerbaijan shows that even in these times of glasnost the national minorities of the USSR have good reasons to fear the brutality and cynicism of the central state. Even the Soviet liberal press has denounced this "punitive expedition" (Les Nouvelles de Moscou of February 16,
In general, the Russian left has tended to pay most attention to analyzing bureaucratic manipulation and free-market points of view within the national movements. It is necessary to examine that. But a double standard cannot be applied. As Kagarlitsky himself explains in his interview, the Marxist left in Russia has also been led to stand on the same ground or even to collaborate on specific questions with sections of the appa. ratus and free-marketeer forces that are no less manipulative
The tone taken in criticisms of the minority national movements is also very important. Arrogance is apt be to seen by oppressed nations as an expression of the chauvinism of the
In taking up the national question in the USSR, it is necessary (especially when you are in Russia) to put the primary stress on the crimes of Stalinism and to denounce, in addition to Pamiat, the Great Russian chauvinism and manipulations of the central apparatus. The role of the left in Russia is clearly to explain this past to the Russian working class (in particular in Estonia) and get It to recognize the need for giving priority to the minority languages and, beyond that, to recognize the right of self-determination of the oppressed nations not only in words but also in practice.
The Marxists in these oppressed nations, on the other hand, need to criticize explicitly the weaknesses of the national movements and to advance, in particular in the Baltic republics, a program that can also gain the confidence and support of the Russian workers,
Catherine Verla / Erdal Tan 17
USSR degree that there are workers in it. But we cannot talk with the present leadership of the Moscow and Leningrad UFTs. There are also apparently a significant number of Pamyat' members in the Moscow UFT, even though Pamyat' considers the October Revolution a catastrophe and is anti-socialist. The UFT is akin to the Zubatov movement [Police unionist movement in Russia preceding the 1905 revolution].
But the regime eventually lost control of its creation, and the movement became revolutionary. This could happen to the • And yet, the analyses of the current reform by what you describe as the right and left have a number of
We agree that the current reform concept leads only to chaos and the disinteeconomy and country. But they dream of a return to the past, But this will be a reform that calls for a considerable amount of centralism. In this, incidentally, we have allies in the ecological movement, whose as it is occurring now means only the brigandage of the ministries, which are producers' monopolies.
A real programme of restructuring the economy requires strong central planning instruments. But these instruments should be used to introduce market relations, in the sense of creating conditions that empower consumers, make possible a de-monopolization policy and create conditions for competition. But this is competition in a framegoals. This is what Ota Sik called the mac-
What is principally new in this model of socialism - spontaneously demanding the same — is the ending of ownership as abstract state property and its transfer to the soviets at different levels, from the national to the micro-district.
And from below there should be control by self-management organizations associations of self-managing enterprises. Collective property, i.e. worker-owned enterprises, is also possible, that is, a cooperative sector, though I personally do not like that idea too much. There would The UFT calls for the shutting down the International Viewpoint #181 • March 26, 1990 cooperatives, whose high incomes and and crooked practices have aroused so much popular anger. We oppose this. Rather, they can be taxed or restricted in their use of hired labour. But is not labour in the state sector hired? • Can you elaborate on how you see the workers' attitudes toward the market?
The workers are for the market. The whole question is how they understand it. All workers in some degree believe that the market will enable them to resolve certain problems that at present cannot find resolution. But while the liberals, like Shmelev and Popov, identify the market with capitalism and intend to use it as an excuse for demanding privatization, the issuing of shares, the admission of multinationals; the workers feel that the introduction of certain market incentives will allow for a more rational organızauon of work, will allow them to earn more money for social investment, and
We in the New Socialists see the introduction of market elements by the government as bringing certain elements of rationality to the economy and at the same time intensifying class contradictions and social resistance. That is the other side of the coin. The government's market reform will activate the workers, and that is very positive. Thus, until now the situation has been one of general labour shortage and a sellers' market for
The government's reform change this, to create a buyers' market. But it is very unlikely that it will get as far as creating mass unemployment. The workers will respond with a wave of strikes and demonstrations. So the government reform is apparently a phase the workers will have to live through [until they develop their own reform pro-
The current market reform will not yield the hoped-for results. At best, it will introduce some market relations, but in combination with traditional bureaucratic relations. Creating a certain market rationality at some levels, destroys it at others. It will result in a cra-
When the state fixed prices, even if they were often artificial, at least there was an attempt to take into account production costs. With this reform, you will find different prices in different parts of the country. There will be tens and hundreds of isolated markets. Money will stop being the universal means of exchange. economy is effectively dominated by monopolies. To create competition you
La strong central state capable of taking that will create conditions for competition. Paradoxically, opposed in principle to the market. Of course, there may well be consocialist organization of labour and the commodity character of the economy. But these are contradictions that must be resolved in the course of an entire historical epoch. similar to the analynumber of Marxist social scientists in different Moscow institutes and at
Yes, we work with them. They have formed a "Club of Marxist Researchers". Some have recently published articles critical of the reform in the popular economic journal EKO, which lately has also published material by Broué on Trotsky and by Tony Cliff, though, frankly, publishing Cliff is really going too far! Characteristically, Sergeev to join.
It is as if you have a sick person before you. Sergeev makes a good diagnosis: intected eye, a head cold, autitis. But his cure is: off with the head! It is hard to say to what extent that corresponds to the attitudes of a part of the workers.
Meanwhile, the liberals point to this and say: see what a mean person he is? We only want to poke out the eyes. On the other hand, I feel that a currency reform, one of the UFT's key demands aimed at
"unearned income", is inevitable. So is rationing. • Tell me something of the Sotsprof, the Federation of Socialist Trade Unions, in which you are involved. Reading some of their documents, I was surprised to see that they want to include unions of cooperators in the federation. But many cooperatives use hired labour - so are not they organizations of employers?
That is a big problem. I agree that many of the cooperators are really private entrepreneurs. But since it is a federation, if the cooperators enter it, they will probably be marginal. In any case, the Sotsprof still has not held its founding conference; so it is still not clear who will have the upper hand and what the Sotsprof will be.
The Sotsprof really has two faces, two leaders — Khramov and Volovik. If you read their respective documents, you organizations. Khramov, an oceanographer by protile to the national movement. But even in Lithuania, where the Workers' Union is a part of the Sajudis, the national movement, the leader of the Workers Union, Kazimir Suoka, who is also a loyal member of the Sajudis, is constantly complaining that the Sajudis does not care a damn about the workers' interests.
Suoka himself, of course, does not always represent the workers. On the one hand, he does complain about the Sajudis' failure to take up working class coneverything to orient the workers toward the Sajudis. There are also a significant number of Polish and Russian speaking workers in Lithuania, and even Lithuanians, who, while not enemies of the Sajudis, do not identify with it. • What exactly is the Workers' Union in Lithuania?
It was founded by Suoka as a sort of working class wing of the Sajudis. But now it is becoming clear that if the
Workers' Union finally develops its own personality, it
USSR national, class basis.
But at present this is not possible in Estonia, as the national split is very deep. I hold the leaders of the National Front very much responsible for this. At the beginning, the Russian speaking population looked favourably upon that movement. If the issues had been posed, not on a national, but on a social and democratic basis, the situation would have evolved
So, on the one hand, the national movements in the Baltic have been a force for pluralism in the country as a whole. They have led to the emergence of new democratic possibilities. They helped shift the political process from a dead point. I am not at all attacking them across the line and totally distancing myself from them. But along with the democratic potential that they contain, there is also a strong national-bureaucratic element. The fact that the Vice Prime Minister of Estonia is Edgar Saivis, a leader of the P.F., and that members of the Central Committee of the Estonian C.P. not only meet together with members of the P.F., but they actually
ГОРБИ fession, is a social essence. He has moderate positions on relations the authorities.
He does not want politics in the
Sotsprof, no conflicts with the authorities, no stirring up of the class struggle. He is a moderate, and his positions are con-
Volovik, on the other hand, adheres to the model of fighting unions.
In Vorkuta recently he aroused the ire of the authorities when he stated: The govis our opponent. You don't appeal to your opponent. You fight him.
an engineer by profession. He worked a half a year as a worker in a factory and now he works full time for Sotsprof. He is one of the most promising potential leaders of the New Socialists.
And so, there are two positions in the Sotsprof: one oriented to the Western social- democratic model; the other) to the West-
• Let's talk now a little about the national movements.
In the Baltic, these are movements based to a large extent upon the liberal and nationalist parts of the local apparatus, on the one hand, and the nationalist intelligentsia, on the other. They have working class support, to be sure, but they do not have firm roots in the working class. In Estonia, the working class, which is almost totally Russian speaking, is hoswill be very different from the Sajudis. So even in Lithuania, class differences beginning are very much to be felt. In Latvia, where workers' clubs have emerged, their leaders joined
Popular the
Front, but now they also all complain that it does not give a damn about the workers and makes no effort to overcome national divisions within class. Even Egeryonok, one of the leaders of the workers' movement inside the Popular Front of Latvia, wrote in the P.F.'s
Atmoda, that the P.F does not respond when the workers make efforts to heal these divisions. This is very telling.
Of course, the local bureaucracy is very much interested in maintaining national on the other hand, the
In Estonia, national confrontation has taken on a clear class character, since the working class is Russian speaking, while the intelligentsia, the bureaucracy and the cooperators are Estonian.
• What of the organization of Russian workers in Estonia, the Interd-
It has two tendencies. One is conservative, oriented to the UFT. That is at present the majority. Then there is a minority, oriented to us, the New Socialists, led by Konstantin Kignadze, one of the founders of Interdvizhenie. He is for the creation of a socialist party on a nonchair these meetings — that alsu says • You say it is a coalition of the intelligentsia and the national-liberal sector of the apparatus. But what does the former think will happen after independence? One of them gave an interview in Canada in which he said that the P.F. was just using the Communists as a shield against Moscow, but once independence is achieved, they will be chucked out.
That is an illusion. If they get independence, they will close ranks even more against the people. This is because they will lose the support of the workers. This has already happened in Estonia. It is still not so clear in Latvia and Lithuania.
The intelligentsia must choose between the people and the apparatus. I have such strong reservations about the movements because camps are being formed on a national basis, but the real problems cannot be solved in the framework of individual republics. • That may be true objectively. But you have the problem of people's consciousness. You remember that Lenin said — it is easy to be an internationalist when you belong to the big nation.
But you and I, Jews, do not belong to big nations. But seriously, our comrades are genuine internationalists. I was very much struck when I was in Karaganda to see a total absence of national and ethnic divisions. And there are many nationalities: Kazakhs, Russians, Tatars, Ukrainians, and many other groups who were exiled there. The miners were very united, and whe natasha divis mah an shered: 19
THE EVIL EMPIRE!
The Christian Science Monitor. Los Angeles Times Syndicate
USSR Go down in the mine. Everyone there is wearing masks and covered with dirt. There you will see if the national question poses itself. They have a totally different approach from that of the Popular Fronts of the republics. • The Lithuanian Supreme Soviet just voted a law that guarantees cultural rights and equal civil and politrepublic's minorities. That sounds very pro-
This occurred only after the Poles, who live compactly in a district outside of Vilnius, declared themselves an autonomous region. The Lithuanians had no choice. It has not come to this yet in Estonia. The Estonians come out against the imperialist oppression of small peoples by the Soviet regime and by the Russians.
But as soon as their own Russian minority starts to talk this way, they declare that Estonia is one and indivisible. In Georgia, the national movement is also pushing for independence from the Soviet Union. But when the Abkhazians or the Southern Ossetians want separation from Georgia, they will not hear of it. Paradoxically, Georgia is probably the republic that presently stands the closest to separation. They have no internal Russian minority to pose problems but they irrationality and illusion in these national movements, the illusion that once independence is won, all the problems will go away. In Armenia, because the Soviet government will not allow them to start a war with Turkey and Azerbaijan to win back their ancestral lands. Of course, they would be trounced in such a war.
On the other hand, the Azeris want out because the Soviet Union will not guarantee their republic's integrity against the Armenians who want Nagornoreturned from the Transcaucasus said he saw pitched battles there the likes of which he had not seen even during his
It is one thing, then, to support the democratic right to secede. But this does not mean that socialists must lend their support to all secession movements. • Let's conclude by returning to the working class. Are the miners a special group of workers?
I think they are all over the world. They have a very high level of collectivism. They live closely, in their own isolated communities and they have a very developed sense of solidarity and mutual • What are their social origins? In Vorkuta and Karaganda they are the children of convicts. In the Kuzbass they are not first generation, but indigenous Siberians. The Kuzbass and the Donbass miners are one of the few cases of an hereditary working class that is several generations old. There is also a rather large strata of intelligentsia, people with into the mines to earn good wages. But for all the particular traits of the miners, I believe that in the coming year, other groups of workers will mobilize: engineering workers will start to move, perhaps metallurgy, transport for sure. • Are the Donbass miners worried about the prospect of mine sures? If a real market is introduced, it is clear that many mines will be
They are indeed worried. But the fact is that many really do need to be closed. The miners understand this. But the point is not simply to close them, but to create new work places, a new economy, retrain the miners, cultivate the land, restore it ecologically. There is a lot of coal as waste. Some say that the region could live for a whole generation just on reclaiming the coal from these huge waste piles. But you need new technology for this.
This calls for huge capital investments and democratic control over them. If the free market is allowed to decide, there will be a Thatcher-type solution: the area will be abandoned, and that will be that. The miners understand that there are two ways to go. They have posed the question of reprofiling the region's economy in a very serious manner.
They know this cannot occur spontaneously through market forces. Nor can they count upon the directors, who do not care what happens. It calls for a thought out, long-term strategy, and this can only be for independence
WE DONT WANT TO SEE
20
International Viewpoint #181 • March 26, 1990 higher education who have gone down
RUSSIA.
WE WANT TO SEE
TOURS
RUSSIA
----- pull-quotes on this page -----
done on a democratic basis. * PRAI DANZIGER