Workers of the USSR — Unite!
AT THE beginning of May, Novokuznetsk, the largest city in the highly industrialized
A
FTER the strikes ended the strike committees were transformed into
Kusbass mining area, hosted the first more permanent structures, such as workers' commitunion wide Congress of Independent tees, and a workers' political workers' organizations. Novokuznetsk organization, the Union of Toilers and the whole of Kusbass (almost 4000 of Kusbass (STK) was set up at a kilometres from Moscow) established conference in November 1989.
This organization displays both
Itself as a central region for the workers' features of a political party and of movement in the USSR when tens of a trade union.
thousands of workers from mines and
Since the strikes there have been permanent tensions between the metallurgical factories went on strike in workers committees and the Com-
July 1989 — a strike which also involved munist Party apparatus in Kusbass, the other mining areas of the Soviet Union.
which has tried to block the workers' activities. There are different assessments of the relationship of forces in this struggle, but during the Congress a worker from Kusbass expressed his view of the situation after the elections to the Soviets in
March: "For 9 months we have been coexisting with the local Soviets. For a period there were two powers in Kusbass — but now we are in opposition. However we have wide popular support."
In any case it was the workers' committees of Kusbass that were the driving force in setting up the Congress and it was the workers from this area that dominated the proceedings — at least numerically, with slightly more than 50% of the more than 300 delegates.
Official press covers conference
The Congress gathered in the centre of heavily polluted Novokuznetsk, which is dominated by two huge metallurgical combines, in a conference hall hitherto devoted primarily to party meetings. A large part of the Soviet press was present at the Congress — with Pravda, Trud and
Argumenti i Fakti on the front benches — and parts of the proceedings were broadcast live to the whole of Kusbass.
Besides the participants from Kusbass there were groups from the other main mining (and striking) areas, in Donbass,
Karaganda and Vorkuta. There were also delegations from the big industrial centres in the Urals and Western Siberia (Sverdlovsk, Chelyabinsk, Novosibirsk and so different groups from Moscow, and Kiev as well as
Leningrad, Gorky from the Baltic and Azerbaijan. '
Almost 70% of the participants were workers. The overwhelming majority of these weremale, and the average age was surprisingly high, with 81% being older and most between 35 and 45.
than 30
Already during the constitution of the
POUL FUNDER LARSEN Congress the first discussions erupted, concerning the election of an editing commission with the task of rewriting and drafting resolutions. The proposal made by the chair, composed of two leaders of the STK, Vyacheslav Golikov and Mikhail Kisljuk, plus a representative of the Donetsk miners, meant the domination of Moscow intellectuals. Several speakers criticized this and demanded that more workers should be included, while others complained about one of the members, a Kusbass professor, and allegedly a strong apologist for the CPSU. Finally, however, the proposal was carried with about a quarter of the delegates voting against.
"The question of unity is essential"
In his speech opening the formal discussions Vyacheslav Gorlikov stressed the prominent position of the working class in the struggle for reform and the need for working class unity: "The command-administrative system is a source of bureaucracy, social inequality and crime. In the struggle against this, the workers' committees are a step forward. We have come from groups of intellectuals to a real labour movement. These committees can facilitate a genuine reform. But it is necessary to unite our forces. The question of unity is essential. We must intervene in both the economic and political debates. We can't change economic life without taking part in politics."
Golikov also touched upon the issue of the market reform, coming out in favour of freedom for the enterprises and a market economy combined with social guarantees, though he didn't elaborate much on this topic. Regarding the aims of the Congress both Golikov and Natalya Kotikova, a leader of the Moscow Workers' Club and co-organizer of the congress, emphasized the need for a confederation uniting all fine, very heterogeneous, independent workers' organizations on an all-union basis. That is, a movement of workers' organizations rather than a free trade union or a political party. The general debate following the speeches of Golikov and Kotikova gave an indication of the different political ideas present in the emerging workers' movement — but also a picture of the diversity of struggles and experiences of these groups scattered over a vast area. Most of the contributions were characterized by a very strong anti-bureaucratic sentiment against both the party bureaucrats and the bureaucrats of the official trade unions (with, by the way, the central trade union confederation being one of the "sponsors" of the congress).
Bureaucrats try to block independent organization
A delegate from Novosibirsk opened with a strong attack on the central TUs: "All the bureaucrats in the unions must be purged. We must expose their methods and condemn them in public." Among many others a representative of the Workers' Political Club in Gorky told of the local bureaucrats trying to prevent the formation of their club "In Defence of Perestroika"! He pointed to the United Front of Toilers, which is supported by parts of the trade union bureaucracy, as a dangerous opponent of the democratic workers' movement, and called for all workers to
The aversion to the CPSU was a guiding thread in many of the speeches — even in some by the 22% of delegates who were still keeping their party membership card. A series of demands against its privileges were put forward, for example that the party apparatchiks should account for their savings and all party pensions should be abolished. So the meeting was suspicious when Alexander Yevladov, from the CPSU Central Committee mounted the podium to greet the 1. The delegates from Moscow made up 7.2% of the congra, ho Deinal megation 4.3%, with the rest of 1 1 the delegations being smaller. June 18, 1990 • #187 International Viewpoint
----- pull-quotes on this page -----
USSR
USSR congress. In his short speech he struck a cautious and conciliatory chord; "I am not here to defend the CPSU. The party is going to be rebuilt....Lech Walesa has voiced a very good idea: we have to balance our policy. The CPSU is being altered; we must follow a left-centre course."
At a press conference after his speech, Yevladov developed his ideas on the attitude of the CPSU to the new organizations: "I don't consider opposition like this: one party in government, and one party in prison. Of course there are extremists in all movements, but the real question is: what is the essence of the organization? I think we need an organization like this. It is natural to unite one's forces."
Abolition of all kinds of privilege
In the present political conjuncture the CPSU is obviously still the main political force in the Soviet Union, due to its huge apparatus and dominant influence in all spheres of social life. A representative of the Marxist Platform in the CPSU, a left opposition inside the party, tried to address this fact in one of his contributions: "We shall not hand over the party to Ligachev. There are many good Communists in the CPSU....But the abolition of all kinds of privileges for the party bosses is a precondition for change." He also pointed to another differentiation inside the independent workers' movement, as important as the one between the CPSU and the opposition: "Today there are two main tendencies in the workers' movement: a social democratic and a Marxist one "
This was particularly clear in the parts of the discussion dealing with the role of the market and the question of workers' self-management in the factories. In a very popular intervention a delegate from Kusbass put forward a line of reasoning typical of many of the participants: need economic independence for the regions. This should be combined with a market reform after a transition period. It is true that the political and economic struggle is linked together, but for some time we must give priority to the economy, that is a reform of the price system. This reform of prices must not lead to impoverishment." At the same time he put forward some highly popular political demands including genuine public control of the KGB, dissolution of the party schools and taxation of the institutions of the CPSU.
Other speakers — including a representative of the Anarcho-Communists -supported the call for free market reforms but the discussion on the character and consequences of these reforms was never very specific and the content of the term 12 the absence on a real discussion od. he "market reform" was never clarified. In International Viewpoint #187 • June 18, 1990 market economy and other lines of economic development a representative of the central trade unions had good reason to ask: "Will this new organization be able to solve the problems connected with the market reform? I doubt any organization will be able to do so."
Anyway, references to a "market economy" were included in the final version of the, rather vague, declaration on the new organization (the main resolution): "The "Confederation of Labour' speaks for the economic self-government of the enterprises and for the development of regulated market-relations, together with the implementation of broad social programmes for defending and improving the lives of working people." According to leaders of the left at the congress, passages of a more liberal orientation were removed from the document because of pressure from delegates.
A recurrent theme in almost every intervention of the debate was the question as to what type of organization should be set up. A representative of Polish Solidarnosc in his speech of greetings, was clearto encourage those forces among the delegates who were looking towards the creation of an independent trade union. But given the obvious heterogeneity of the forces present — as well as from a geographical, professional and organizational point of view — most of the delegates supported the concept of a confederation of workers' organiza-
Urals delegation takes different position
In this respect, the delegation from the Urals seemed to express views that were not in tune with those of the majority. In a very lucid contribution a representative the Chelyabinsk People's Front addressed the question of organization in a thoroughly political way: "The Russian Revolution was a historical step forward, but the bureaucrats usurped the power. We are now on the threshold of a new political revolution. But this will not succeed without the working class as its
"During the strike last year the workers had control, but now the power has returned to the bureaucrats. To put an end to this we need a workers' movement. We must unite the forces that are in favour of socialism." Other speakers from the Urals supported this position. One proposed: "We should form a workers' party. We also need an organ for this, a daily paper." And another added: "What we have got today is minor concessions. But our fight is directed against the whole system. This organization should be a political party waging that
The social and political background of these radical attitudes is the severe crisis that the Ural region, the main industrial centre of the Soviet Union, is facing. A participant from Chelyabinsk explained at a press conference: "In the Urals the workers are not as strong as here in the Kusbass. This is partly because of the many military enterprises in the region. They are imposing very strict rules on the workers, and people are afraid of losing their jobs because it will mean a loss of social privileges. The Ural region is in a very bad ecological state, even worse than here. There is no democracy in the Urals today - the struggle for democracy has hardly started there. We didn't like Gorbachev's attitude when he visited the region recently — his speeches only expressed dictatorship. The situation in the whole region is extremely tense."?
Social democrats call for broad organization
At the other end of the political spectrum were the representatives of the Social Democratic Association, who called for as broad an organization as possible. One of them even tried to water down the concept of a workers' organization: "The task of this new organization is to facilitate a democratic revolution. It should be broad with other social organizations as its members. The peasants and intellectuals should also be included in its declaration."
These ideas fitted nicely into the purely democratic orientation which a part of the speakers proposed for the new organization. Gleb Yakunin, a priest and a People's Deputy, who mounted the platform in vestments, expressed this clearly: "We need a mass democratic movement....the bloc 'Democratic Russia' is trying to unite all democratic forces. You should affiliate to this....The idea of organizing a party will only lead to splits."
It was evident at the Congress that the de facto abolition of the sixth clause of the Soviet constitution affirming the leading role of the Communist Party has altered the whole political scene. At the founding conference of the Union of Workers of Kusbass last autumn, the delegates were still spending much time discussing whether they could use the term "political" without running the risk of being outlawed. Now these kinds of considerations are almost forgotten. At this congress a handful of new parties or preparatory committees for parties were represented, including social democrats, anarchists and different kinds of Marxists.
Among the odder creatures one could find Siberian anarcho-syndicalists under the slogan "For a free Siberia and independent trade unions" and the newly formed Marxist Workers Party - Party of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
But it was another proposal for the formation of a party that led to the most heated discussion. Nikolai Travkin, People's Deputy and former CPSU member was given 20 minutes by the chair —
as opposed to 7 minutes for delegates — to promote his idea of a new People's Party. In a calculated speech with strong populist appeal Travkin attacked the ideology of the system - "the communist
— which according to him was blocking every possibility of change because of its "socialist" and "egalitarian" rhetoric. He then put forward so far — the ideas that the new deputies or a strong president or the market as such could cure the problems of society. Seemingly only Travkin's own project could do the trick! He therefore called on people to withdraw from the CPSU and invited the congress to affiliate to his new party that will be set up in the near future. Populist project causes controversy
The presentation of Travkin's project provoked strong reactions from the delegates. A lot of different, and mostly justified, criticisms were voiced about the idea of a People's Party. "It is absurd to create a People's Party - a party must defend a certain social class"; used to be in the CPSU, now he is searching for a new career"; "We don't need a political party because trade unions can give workers what they want"; "we shall not give up the struggle in the CPSU, when we don't even know what party we are creating". So in the end Travkin's proposal was voted down. Even so, this populist project with no visible content was able to attract much interest and exercise considerable influence on the discussion.
On the second day of its work, the congress carried the declaration of the new organization, its main resolution. This resolution was clearly moulded by the strongest political forces in the majority, notably a group of intellectuals of a social democratic colouring from Moscow.
Significantly it was a leader of the Social Democratic Association, Galina Rakitskaya, who presented the final version of the new declaration. But it was another leader of this new social democratic organization, who in his contribution to the congress most graphically stated the attitude of this current. He urged the participants to get rid of all Bolshevik ideas and return to Plekhanov. And then he went on: "We must build a coalition". This was a particularly popular concept among the realpolitiker present at the congress. The pragmatic CPSU representative Yevladov returned to this idea at his press conference, stating: "The future is with the coalitions."
It was clear that this group of Moscow intellectuals with reformist leanings some of them organized social democrats, others members of the CPSU - played an important ideological role in the congress. Inside this group many would have preferred to end the congress after the adoption of the main resolution. They explained that any further discussion on more specific resolutions would be "counter-productive" opinion, the discussions on the first day. Their objective was clearly to limit the debate and avoid the adoption of more radical resolutions. They were not able to push through this idea, but the fact that they managed to dominate the majority of the congress ideologically points to two things: firstly that many of the new workgroups are politically quite weak. And secondly that in the unfolding political situation the social democratic currents — in possible coalition with parts of the apparatus — have some obvious possibilities to win influence over many of
Delegations present from seven republics
The debates were of course influenced by the ever more burning question of the national struggle and the mass movements in the Baltic area and Transcaucasia. The congress was attended by delegations from seven republics - the Russian Republic (RSFSR), Ukraine, Byelorussia, Azerbaijan, Latvia and Lithuania (the last two now being independent nations).
In general the discussions and decisions of the congress were characterized by an internationalist approach to the national question, and not flawed by Great Russian chauvinism. However each time the
USSR discussion of the nationalities surfaced, the tension in the atmosphere in the hall rose rapidly. Several times during the proceedings delegates from the floor demanded that the chair bring forward the resolution on Lithuania calling for an end to the blockade (see IV186). When the chair refused to do so "because there are more important questions on the agenda there was a wave of protests including shouts that "you are against Lithuania".3
During the discussion and vote on resolutions on the last day of the congress, a heated exchange of views on the national question erupted more than once. When a resolution saying that the leadership of the CPSU committed a crime by invading Azerbaijan and demanding the immediate withdrawal of the Soviet troops from Baku was drafted, an excited dispute took place. Some delegates advised the congress to abstain from what they saw as "premature judgements" (four months after the intervention!) but a large majority rejected this view and carried the resolution. In this connection one can mention another resolution drawn up by, among others, the Shield, a trade union for Red Army officers. This text demanded the resignation of the Minister of Defence Yasov, because of the massacres in Tbilisi and Baku. The resolution also attacked the military-industrial complex as one of the main sources of poverty in Soviet society, and called for the right to strike to be extended to workers in military enter2. Gorbachev visited the Urals at the end of April. 3. The resolution on Lithuania was re-drafted by the Friting aried, fion it shan evot, and it seems, 13 finally carried, though I missed the vote. June 18, 1990 • #187 International Viewpoint
USSR prises.
The chairman of the Latvian Workers Union introduced one further aspect of the national question in his first intervention at the congress. "When we are organizing our confederation we have to take into account in the regulations that the Baltic republics are claiming independence. Therefore we have to give the confederation an international status, so that the organizations from, for example, the Baltic states can affiliate." A Lithuanian speaker, greeted with applause, devel oped this point: "The conservatives think that the links with the Baltic states will now be broken. But they are wrong: our liberation will not mean a break with the movements in Russia." This was also the position of the Russian delegates, and the amendment about international membership was carried without much difficulty.
All motions had to pass the editing commission, and during this process many amendments and, apparently, whole resolutions were removed. Still the congress, during its last session, had to vote on more than 15 resolutions many of them addressing, in a very lucid manner, central political questions in the Soviet Union ioday.* Some resolutions dealt with "local" subjects - for example, one expressing solidarity with workers on strike in kindergartens in the Kusbass area and another stating support for the independent Siberian newspaper Sibirskaya Gazeta threatened with closure by
Delegates commemorate
Novocherkassk massacre
In a resolution with historic significance the delegates remembered the victims of the Novocherkassk massacre in 1962, in Khrushchev's time, when participants in a workers' demonstration were slaughtered by troops. The resolution compared this episode to the 1905 massacre and called for the immediate rehabilitation of the
A resolution concerning the Chernobyl disaster, and the criminal conduct of the government in dealing with it, sparked a short and emotional discussion on nuclear power. Speakers from the floor put forward radical amendments to the rather moderate resolution, demanding a stop to the building of new nuclear power stations and a referendum on the future of nuclear power in the USSR.
Other resolutions centred on the origins and consequences of the economic crisis in the country, attacking different aspects of the party and state leadership's policies. Some of these documents contained interesting anti-bureaucratic demands; for example a call for abolishing the partystructures in all factories and condemnation of the whole system of privileges and secret supplies for the bureaucracy. One 14 could also find a few hints on the eco• nomic ideas at large in the new organizaInternational Viewpoint #187 • June 18, 1990 tion, such as the demand put forward in the resolution on agriculture that the resources now monopolized by the Agroprom agro-industrial complex should be transferred to the local soviets.
But there was no attempt made by the majority to create the foundations of an economic and social programme for the new organization. The question of self-management in the factories and in society was hardly touched upon in any concrete fashion and the idea of support for struggles in the face of a market reform was largely absent. This will inevitably retard the organization seriously, as the issue of the market and it social effects is becoming an unavoidable challenge for all workers' organizations in the Soviet
A politically very interesting and revealing debate took place around a draft resolution on the defence of workers' rights, supported by the left wing at the congress.
Resolution calls for working class independence
The resolution started with a description of the conditions facing workers today, as their rights are being attacked and the possibility of electing managers turns out to be fraud. It also proclaimed the principle that the workers' movement must be independent inside the democratic movement. Finally it tried to connect its analysis with suggestions of activity at the factory level (a point scarcely touched upon in the other resolutions) urging the workers' clubs to arrange meetings and demonstrations and stating that is necessary to build strike and workers' commitin the factories. This resolution created outrage among the authors of the declaration. For example the social democrat Rakitskaya argued that "it differs from the main resolution". Maybe so -in any case it was rejected by a majority
At the congress there was a left current consisting of groups and individuals from the left-wing in Moscow, the delegation from the Urals and some of the representatives from the mining districts. Generally speaking this current, numbering perhaps 25% of the delegates, did not stand out as a well-defined alternative to the majority, but more as a loose conglomerate of related political views. This is hardly surprising given the short span of time since the emergence and formation of many of these groups and the huge distances that separate many of them from each other, which makes common discussions a matter of great difficulty.
The assessment of the discussions and decisions of the congress also differed among the delegates from this current. A left wing leader from Moscow drew quite a negative balance-sheet of the congress: "What we have seen is a very strange alliance berween parts of the local nomenklatura here in Kusbass, with people like Golikov and Kisljuk, and right-wing intellectuals from Moscow. It is actually damaging for the workers' movement. Our resolution on self-management and against privatizations was suppressed. We managed to avoid some of the most ultraliberal phrases in the declaration but there has been no genuine political discussion here."
However the general mood at the congress was far more favourable to the outcome of the proceedings. Among the organizers from Kusbass and also at the grass-roots level, there was satisfaction and relief because the congress had produced some results, namely the formation of the new trade union - the Confederation of Labour (Konfederatsia Truda).
The Confederation of Labour is based on the principle of collective membership. Any type of political group that supports the declaration of the organization can affiliate to it. The congress elected a council of 58 people representing the organizations present at this first congress (of whom perhaps three support the views of the left wing). This body is going to convene approximately three times a year and will elect a coordinating committee and a president at its first meeting in Donbass in June. Until then four coordinators — in Moscow, Sverdlovsk, Kusbass and Donetsk — will be in charge of this new organization.
Varying assessments of congress
While the assessments of the congress went from enthusiasm and optimism to outright scepticism, a more balanced view was put forward by another delegate from the left: "With the organizations involved, and the relationship of forces among them, the outcome of the congress was predictable. The groups attending were extremely heterogeneous with both workers' organizations, like the strike committees, and intellectual 'debating societies' involved. The single most important decision was the launching of the Confederation of Labour. But the most positive aspect was clearly that we were able to make a lot of new contacts and to form a left current during the congress."
So if the Novokuznetsk Congress was perhaps only a small step forward for the workers' movement as a whole, it could give the process of mutual discussion and cooperation among the Marxists on the Soviet left a significant push in the right direction. * 4. Of all the resolutions only the declaration was dis. tributed to the participants during the congress. The rest were only read out by the chair and were not available in print. Thus the outlines here are based on the author's notes.
point in Black
THE CRISIS sweeping over the African continent provides an eloquent refutation of the "triumph of capitalism" currently being celebrated by
Western bourgeois ideologues. In Gabon, West
Africa's richest French-speaking state, the mysterious death of an opposition leader has led to widespread rioting and a French military intervention. This follows similar unrest over the past few months in a whole series of former French
At the same time, Nigeria has experienced popular upheavals and an attempted coup. In Zaire, large-scale student protests have met with brutal repression from the Mobuto regime. On opposite sides of the continent, both the Ethiopian and Liberian regimes seem doomed in the face of rebel insurrections. International Viewpoint asked Claude Gabriel from the United Secretariat of the Fourth
International, who has written extensively on African politics, for his assessment of recent developments on the continent. The
AFRICA es the problem of whether bourgeois democratic forces exist. Then for us there is another problem; whether a genuine workinterview was conducted by Bernard Gibbons in Paris on June 1, 1990.
H OW do you assess the
importance of the events of the past few months in black Africa? Does the widespread unrest open up revolutionary possibilities?
There is a very sharp acceleration of the elements of political and social crisis on the African continent today, in black Africa — I leave aside southern Africa - in its totality. There have been very impor tant demonstrations, riots and strikes in countries like Kenya, Mozambique, Nigeria as well as in a whole series of former French colonies — Senegal, the Ivory Coast, Gabon, the Cameroon, and Benin. To this list we must now add Zaire, a former Belgian colony which has traditionally played an important role in imperialist strategy in central Africa.