Prospects for the left in Russia
RUSSIA
Entrepreneurs, was operating behind the scenes.
However, since the January price shock the only consistent opposition has come from the remnants of the former ruling Communist Party (CPSU),
A round-table discussion including a series of street meetings of "traditionalist"
Communists in Moscow this year.
The latest one, on Mayday,
INTRODUCION by Poul Funder Larsen T HE sixth Russian
Congress of People's Deputies, which ended on April 22, consolidated the Yeltsin government's position, despite some skirmishes between the ruling circles and the more conservative body of deputies during over two weeks of proceedings.
However, the situation in
Russia is far from stable, with the free fall of the economy continuing as economic links between enterprises are broken and a further round of price liberalization - in this case for fuel - looming. The population's living standards have declined very steeply since the
January price reform, but the picture is uneven: some groups of workers have been granted large wage increases, particularly in the decisive "strategic"
industries, such as fuel processing - miners for example get between 10,000 and 15,000 roubles a month. Other workers in relatively profitable industries, or industries still receiving massive government subsidies, have also been able to keep their heads above water. Groups like pensioners, students, many white collar workers and workers in less privileged industrial branches have seen their real income plummeting almost daily.
Such workers may receive 1,000 roubles a month or even less and it is estimated that around 50 million Russians now live below the poverty line. This has provoked some reaction from certain especially hard hit groups, including protests by students and invalids and a wave of strikes among 24 some extent workers in munici- teachers, health workers and to International Viewpoint # 229
May 25, 1992 pal transport.
While at the end of April the main concern of the liberal press was international recognition" of Russia's economic reform - that is, admission to the International Monetary
Fund (IMF) and the World Bank
- doubts about the reform were growing among the population. A survey in the liberal
Nezavisimaya gazeta on April
30 showed that only 6.4% of the respondents fully supported the government. 23.7% supported it on the whole, while 64.8% disagreed with it either partially or strongly.
No political expression
However, the rising dissatisfaction has not so far found expression in any political force capable of challenging the dominance of right wing Yeltsinism.
During the Congress of People's Deputies, an opposition crystallized spanning a number of groups - both from the "liberal democratic" and "Communist" camps - particularly around the question of a reform programme that would protect the interests of the state enterprises and foster the formation of a national capitalism, as opposed to the programme put forward by Yeltsin's economics minister, Gaidar, which would mean strong dependence on international capitalism.
At the congress this position was defended by, among others, the chairman of the parliament, Ruslan Khasbulatov, but it is clear that the powerful lobby of enterprise managers, organized in Arkadii Volsky's Congress of Industrialists and drew a crowd of some 50,000.
Among the Communist forces, the leading role has been played by the Russian Communist Workers Party (RKRP), a neo-Brezhnevite formation claiming 150,000 members, but also involved have been more moderate groups such as Roy
Medvedev's Socialist Workers
Party (SPT), the Russian Communist Party (RKP) and the
Union of Communists, these last two both originating from the CPU's Marxist Platform.
### Chauvinistic rhetoric
Another active group which has attracted much media attention is Trudovaya Rossiya, but despite its reliance on nostalgic slogans calling for the resurrection of the Soviet
Union and chauvinist rhetoric which has drawn Russian nationalist leaders around the fringes of the movement, it has won no substantial support beyond its own ranks.
Unfortunately, this is also true of the far less numerous democratic socialist forces grouped around the Party of Labour project or the various anarchist and left socialist organizations.
The Moscow Federation of Trade Unions (MFP), which pursued an independent line throughout last autumn, supporting the call for a Party of Labour and organizing a demonstration against the government's policies on October 23 (see // no. 216), has been strikingly passive since January, despite the onslaught on its members' living standards.
The prevailing passivity among workers and the feeble stand taken by organizations, including the so-called independent ones, claiming to represent it, have increased the left's isolation.
There are thus very many reasons for a debate on the left's strategy and tactical choices. International Viewpoint invited three leaders of the Moscow left to discuss the current situation and the perspectives for socialists: Alexander Buzgalin, economics professor at Moscow University and a leader of the Party of Labour, which is due to convene its first congress this summer; Boris Slavin, political commentator on Pravda, the only mass circulation daily open to left wing views, and a member of the Russian Communist Party, and Vadim Damier, historian and co-foun der of the Green Party, and now a leader of an anarcho-communist grouping.
The discussion, of which we print extracts below, took place in Moscow in April. *
RUSSIA plistic use of the terms "left" and "right" or "Communist" and "non-Communist" to describe the situation here. In fact the left wing, just like the right wing, is composed almost entirely of Communists. Today there are Communists among the liberals and in the right wing parties and on the left and even in a neo-fascist group like Pamiat.
Thus I don't think that a reunited CPSU can be reborn because of the way it broke up, through a betrayal by the leaders who moved over from orthodox Stalinism via social democratic positions to liberal democratic, pro-free market, positions. Both Gorbachev and Yeltsin followed this Alexander Buzgalin: I would rather not use the word "betrayal" since these were traitors from the start, or to put it more clearly bureaucrats isolated from the people, pursuing their own interests as a
АТТРАКЦИОН ВЫХОД ИЗ КРИЗИСЯ
КАССА
"Way out of the crisis"
H OW do you view political
developments over the last few months? We have seen certain polarization between the ruling liberal elite and the conservative Communist forces - but why has the socialist left been so marginal to this development?
Alexander Buzgalin: Traditionally, democratic left wing forces have been quite weak in this country. Layers of the old nomenklatura [the ruling elite under the former system], the new nomenklatura and the new entrepreneurs have developed a political expression while forces rising from below have been rather weak. This objective sociological fact is probably the main reason but there are also subjective factors.
The most important is that the left is dispersed and the sharpening of national conflicts has polarized the situation in a way that squeezes the democratic left. But now, perhaps, everyone understands that Gorbachev's perestroika was a bureaucratic struggle against bureaucratism in which a new elite and not the people triumphed. Perestroika produced powerful national conflicts and we saw a parade of sovereignty declarations in the struggle for power with Gorbachev. This happened in Russia first of all, then it spread to the Republics before going even further.
Now, this "patriotic" discourse has become dominant. That part of the old Communist movement that has taken up the patriotic banner now finds itself on the same side of the barricades as right wing forces in the European sense of the word - including some extreme rightists such as monarchists - against the pro-free market right wing liberalism of Yeltsin and his supporters. Under such circumstances it is extremely difficult to promote a third road.
Boris Slavin: I agree with your appraisal of the reasons for the weakness of the democratic left. But I would like to emphasize more strongly that the left wing here has always been identified with the Communist movement, and that movement had a totalitarian, Stalinist character. The attitude towards Communists today is therefore still extremely negative, though this is now changing a bit.
However I would warn against a simprivileged social force. From this derives the logic of their behaviour: they were prepared to adopt any position which would uphold the privileged status of the bureaucracy; if this was Stalinism, they were Stalinists, if it was Brezhnevism, they were Brezhnevites; when the time came to be social democrats, that is what they became, and so on. But one thing they will never be is democrats in the real sense of the word, because then they would have to smash their own bureaucratic system.
Boris Slavin: I agree, but I would not say that the left wing has no political influence today. Recently it has developed quite rapidly. Since last August we have already three parties that are officially registered: the Socialist Workers Party (SPT), the Russian Communist Workers Party (RKRP) and the Russian Communist Party (RKP). Now the Party of Labour (PT), which could have a wide sphere of influence, is preparing to register.
In membership terms these parties, with the possible exception of the RKRP, are still small, but they are growing. So, I don't think we should be too pessimistic. There are also signs of a possible unity of left forces emerging. First this may take the form of a congress, but it is quite possible that a united force can be formed with its own publications and influence in the press, a force that can make itself heard.
Vadim Damier: In my opinion there is no left wing movement in this country today, despite some rudimentary developments which can become something more under favourable conditions. Firstly it is necessary to distinguish between the radical left, the soft left and the "left" which is 25 prepared to work with the most extreme May 25, 1992• # 229 International Viewpoint
International Viewpoint # 229 • May 25, 1992
RUSSIA right wing, proto-fascist forces. This last type is left wing only on paper.
The soft left has two characteristic features. First, they make certain concessions to the liberal pro-market spirit of the time. If you look at these organizations' grammes you will find they are essentially in agreement with the concept of a market economy, even if they want the most socially just model of such an economy.
Secondly, the soft left is wary of actions on the streets. Last autumn they initiated quite large protests. But from mid-December onwards, they abandoned this and the majority of people who are now taking to the streets to protest are strongly influenced by the "national-patriotic" forces.
The majority of those who attend the protests in Moscow are neither Stalinists nor national-patriots; they are merely people suffering from the current economic situation who have taken the only way possible of expressing their discontent. They have been abandoned to the monstrous nationalist coalition of "left"
and right by the soft left.
The radical left is quite small, consisting first and foremost of the left of the anarchist movement. There are also a variety of Trotskyist organizations and a number of independent Trotskyists. In spite of our numerical weakness we try to be quite active; in Moscow we regularly organize small demonstrations and
To sum up, one can say the soft left has a badly worked out programme, is indecisive and is not too strong numerically either, while the radical left has the necessary will, but we are few and have only small possibilities for influencing what is happening in the country. The situation is getting worse in the absence of a really strong and independent workers' move-
• It seems as if a number of militant workers' groups that earlier pursued a relatively independent line (notably the independent miners' union) have been co-opted by the Yeltsinites and are now confining themselves to
"loyalist" positions. And how do you view the actual and potential role of the official trade unions?
Alexander Buzgalin: The situation is very complicated; first of all, a large part of the workers' movement sees itself as a group supporting the present government, while fighting for certain concessions and changes in policy, but unwilling to mount any comprehensive challenge. This is also true for the independent miners' union, which was formed out of the strike movement.
The reason has to be sought in the cha26 sely the character of the hired worker. He- racter of the working class or more preciis hired by the state, which appears as the universal capitalist, and worked under conditions of strong social guarantees and a total repression of all initiative from
This led to passivity, an inclination to put parasitic demands on the state and a badly organized basis for the workers' movement. At the same time another possibility exists, based on those elements of socialism that exist in our country. I am talking here of the potential for self-regulation shown during the 1989 strikes but which we did not manage to organize.
We are now seeing in for example the Kuzbass a situation where former strike committees are the main opponents of the struggle for humane conditions by other sectors of workers. Such separatism, fragmentation and isolation was a cardinal feature of the former regime.
As for the future, I fear the deterioration of the economic situation will lead to spontaneous explosions benefitting the national Communist and chauvinist movements, since they provide an available
Unfortunately, workers' organizations based on the rank-and-file are not appearing: there are outbursts of strike action which disappear without leaving lasting traces; attempts to sustain such structures have all been unsuccessful. At the first congress of the independent workers' movement in Kuzbass in May 1990 a group oriented in a socialist direction -that is towards self-management and col lective ownership — was set up.
But all attempts to revive and reactivate it have failed, except for the formation of some local groups which still exist, such as the Rabochii ("worker") Union in the
Urals/Volga region and some small independent trade unions.
Boris Slavin: The official line towards the working class is one of divide and rule. A sign of this is the tenfold increase in miners' salaries, which are now 13,000 to 15,000 roubles a month at a time when a teacher or a health worker receives
1,000 to 1,500. Such an abyss didn't exist even under Stalin, who always privileged the miners. At that time the difference was about one to six, now it is one to ten or
Such differences mean conflicts between the various parts of the workers' movement, and for the time being there is no union force that can bring all the branches together. This is the main weakness of the union movement, and from it flows the main task of the left; to unite the workers movement. However to do this, the left has first to unite itself. If it does this it can link up with the mass workers' movement that will begin at some point, triggered off by new price rises — at least if the government persists in its ultra-libe ral economic policies. We should expect : rise in working class activity this autum and if the left can unite and link up witl the progressive trade union movement, wi have every reason to be optimistic.
Vadim Damier: As a historical paralle! one could say that it resembles the firs period in Poland after the removal c General Jaruzelski. It is a time when, in sense, the official and independent trac unions change places. Forces supporti by the new trade unions come to pow The leadership of the independent mine union has even made a statement sayi that it does not support the current wi of strikes in Kusbass and other regir since it does not want to interfere with government's economic programme : the move to a market economy.
However not everyone in these uni thinks like this. There is an opposition spots where more radical views car found, such as in the miners' union
There are still elements supporting: management, not as an alternative for organization for the whole of society in terms of the transformation of sper enterprises into the collective propert the labour collectives, still a clear adv:
compared to the prevailing bourg
The official trade unions have structural weaknesses. Firstly, in n places they do not reach down to the ra and-file. Usually the official trade uni were never really trade unions in the p per sense of the term, but rather organi.
tions dealing with social insurance or 1
Their second weakness is the level bureaucratization, although in this sen:
they do not differ markedly from the nev independent trade unions which hav become bureaucratized very quickly.
There are two basic tendencies in th official trade unions. One is a more conci liatory line towards the government pur sued by the leadership of the Russian trade unions — the Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Russia (FNPR). The second, more centrist, and to an extent more radical tendency, mainly exists in the big cities; Moscow, Leningrad and a
Another feature of the workers' movement at present is the total lack of solidarity. Every branch, every sector, every enterprise and every region is trying to grab what they can for themselves, without considering the consequences for
• So your overall estimate of the balance of forces within the working class and the workers' organizations
is not too favourable. But how can the left wing, with its modest forces, intervene in the current situation? What kind of methods and demands can be raised to link up with struggles? And what role can slogans such as self-management play at a time when large-scale privatization approaching?
Boris Slavin: I think the idea of self-management is good and necessary and that it can play a role in the period of privatization, when the rulers of the country are trying to create a situation where the controlling interest of the shares will be in the hands of a private owner, a capitalist, and not the labour collective. In this way, the idea of self-management can represent the interests of the collective, and it can unite many collectives that want to keep the controlling interest and ownership of
However, I disagree with the idea that self-management should be the main slogan or the form in which a new society can be built in Russia. I do not envisage a perspective in the near future of generalized self-management or the possibility of conquering power on this basis.
If the left wing manages to found a genuine movement and can then set up a genuine coalition with other democratic forces on the level of government or in an election campaign and then get into power while maintaining these democratic concepts, the idea of self-management could be revived.
But in many ways the idea has suffered setbacks, for example as regards the election of labour councils in the enterprises; the government is now planning to obliterate those councils, which means that the potential for the idea of self- management, which started to grow around
1986-87, is declining.
Vadim Damier: On the left here there are concept of self-management as an integral social model, a fundamental alternative for the whole of society.
The second, supported for example by the
Rabochaya Partiya
("Workers' Party") of
Tikhonov and others, is that property should remain popular and public, but that the enterprises should be given to the collectives, which should have full rights to dispose of their property economically.
That is, the labour collective should run the enterprise, appropriate the profit for itself, allocate the work and so on. Finally, the third conception, supported by most of the soft left and most of the more radical elements in the trade unions, is the notion of self-management as one of the forms of
Personally, I do not believe that the left can come to power through some sort of shortcut, and certainly not in coalition with the democrats. I think self-management organized as a structure from above cannot solve the country's problems. Only the self-organization of the workforce from below can do the job. Without this we will repeat what happened during the first years of perestroika, when there were quite strong and broad mass movements, but above these movements rose some leaders, who turned them into support groups for themselves.
In the coming months we will see a continuation of current economic policy, and we can therefore expect large-scale closures of public enterprises. The unemployment benefit is miserable, so what can be done? The only thing we can advise - and here the left can play a certain role — is to prepare a sitdown strike and a
RUSSIA factory occupation.
Alexander Buzgalin: I think the idea of self-management can be useful in different contexts. First in the struggle for different models of privatization, destatization or rather debureaucratization of property relations. The first step is for the collective to become the manager, either through a model with the collective exercising full economic control or through collective ownership. As regards this activity there are certain contacts in the labour collectives and the unions.
Secondly, we must fight for rank-and-file democracy, for self-management in the social and political spheres. This is important, for example, for tendencies to self-management in residential neighbourhoods. Such tendencies collapse and are reborn all the time. They arise, they get bureaucratized, they fall apart and then after a while they appear again in another district or in the same with a new initiative. This process has been going on continuously for three years, as is absolutely logical; since it has not been possible to unite on a higher level each of the isolated
The third aspect is the application of the idea of self-management and rank-and-file democracy, or more simply the idea of democracy to the economy, in politics, and in the social sphere, in the struggle with the existing regime which is becoming increasingly statist and authorita-
Finally, we have to support functional self-management; that is, support the different tendencies to bring together social organizations such as trade unions, consumers' associations, ecological organizations, the women's movement, youth organizations and so on in the management of economic and social processes at an overall level. For example, we will soon hold a round table on an alternative economic programme where leaders of consumers, the union of labour collectives, trade unionists and intellectuals will
The perspective is to convene a conference on this at the same time as the congress of left forces, which is also in the pipeline. This would be a real step for-
Vadim Damier: It seems to me that the most important task at the moment is to develop some concrete collaboration in action in the mass movement rather than work out concepts which try to include everything. No discussions or political manoeuvres will be enough to change the course of this government. This can only be changed by mass actions from below, so we have to go further than the idea of 27 forming simply an electoral alliance. * May 25, 1992#229 International Viewpoint