The left divided
Former railway worker Gregory A. Lemenko is Co-Chairman of the Union of Work Collective
Councils of Ukraine, and a member of the Odessa Regional Committee of the Socialist Party. He was interviewed by David Mandel. • Let's start with the ouster of President Leonid Kravchuk in Spring 1994 LEMENKO: The demand for early elections arose in 1993. The standard of living of the overwhelming majority of the population was falling sharply. The regime was surrounded by an atmosphere of militant nationalism. The demand for new elections was constantly raised in worker circles and among the left parties. The best organised section of the working class, the Donbass miners, struck over this demand and there were demonstrations in front of the Supreme Soviet. The right-wing parties for a time blocked the demand for early elections, but Kravchuk, "the fox", was more sophisticated. He understood that the left was likely to win any elections. So he re-opened the debate on the legalisation of the Communist Party, which had been banned (illegally) after the August 1991 coup. The expected right-wing opposition to re-legalisation suddenly disappeared, and the Party was re-established. This seriously weakened the left. It provoked an immediate division in the Socialist Party, which had been set up after the ban on the CP, and which represented an unified, organised force. Only one in ten of the Socialist Party's 200,000 members stayed. Most returned to the CP. Others set up an Agrarian Party, following the Russian example. Those who stayed in the Socialist Party believed in a different kind of socialism than that which existed under the old regime. Those who went back to the CP might admit that mistakes had been made in the old days. But those who stayed in the SP are generally people who are much more critical of the past. One fundamental difference is the CP's demand to restore the Soviet Union. The Socialists understood that there was no practical way of realising such a demand. Nor is it desirable. A political union would be premature. And it would be a mistake to join with Russia under the Yeltsin regime. The left in Russia is even weaker than in the Ukraine and Byelorussia. And republics like Moldavia and the Baltic states could only be brought back into a union by force, which would be a crime. As for the Ukraine, we would be split between a [more nationalist, Ukrainian speaking! west and [a more industrial, mixed Russian and Ukrainianspeaking] centre and east. There could be a civil war.
• Tell us about the left parties' election campaigns The central leadership of the Socialist, Communist and Agrarian parties reached an agreement on co-operation. Where this agreement was respected, it worked very well. In Zaparozh'e, Donetsk, Lugansk and Kharkhov we scored a total knock-out against the centre-right, not to mention the far right. Unfortunately, the agreement was broken in many other regions, typically by ambitious local and regional candidates of one of the parties. Money was a big problem. We didn't even have enough for paper! The Communist Party did rather better - they inherited most of the SP treasury when they re-formed, they have a number of well placed individuals and businessmen, and they had the support of most of the left deputies in the outgoing parliament, each of whom had two full-time assistants, paid by the state, and who could be used for electoral organising. • Your programme? The candidates of all the parties proclaimed some version of the Socialist Party's programme: respecting the predominance of the state-owned economic sector, a ban on buying and selling land, maintenance of the collective farming system (or at least not destroying it by force), free medical care, education, the right to a job, and social guarantees. Even the nationalists proclaimed all this —just crossing out from our original programme the points like a common economic space in the ex-USSR, equal status for the Russian language in Ukraine, etc. • Russian and western commentators say that Ukraine's economic situation is worse than Russia's precisely because successive governments have not decisively embraced market reforms. It's not true. Russia is simply richer in natural resources. They have oil and gas, we have none. The Kuchma government of 1992-3 was a market government. Economy Minister Viktor Pinzenik was known as the "Ukrainian Gaidar". Pinzenik later admitted that he and Kuchma had consciously unleashed inflation. Why? To destroy the more-or-less normal functioning of the nationalised economy. To force changes.
International Viewpoint n° 272 — December 1995 9
* Ukraine While prime minister, Kuchma got special powers from the Supreme Soviet, and virtually ruled by decree for three or four months. One of his first decrees deprived the workcollectives of all their powers. As representative of the corps of directors, he carried out the will of the managers in the enterprises. Henceforce, the councils had an advisory role, but their main power, the right to veto the appointment of a director, was taken away. A new law on social organisations also made it impossible to register our regional and national unions of work collective councils and give them official status. Maybe we are to blame for not mobilising workers to resist these moves. But it all happened so quickly. The lett deputies in the Supreme Soviet opposed these measures, but there were few of them. Eighty percent of the deputies were former CP members, but there were only three real socialists among them. Many deputies were members of the Corps of Directors, or close to that body. They were frightened by the scope of our [the unions'] activities. We had a million members. In reality we were a political organisation. • If Kuchma had been such a bad Prime Minister; how come he was elected president? First of all, he claimed that he had not been free to follow the policies he had wanted. He posed as a martyr. Second, while things were bad when he resigned as prime minister, they were much worse by the time he stood tor election as president. Third, the climate was so unfavourable for them that the right did not bother putting forward their own candidate. They knew he would have been trounced. • But the nationalists were happy with Kravchuk's candidature, weren't they? Yes, Kravchuk was their candidate. But our comprador bourgeoisie was too smart to put all its eggs in one basket. Kuchma spent a huge amount of money on his election campaign. He has never explained where it all came from. Kravchuk won a majority in the more nationalist areas, and scored highest in the first round. Kuchma won in the south and east. The Socialist-Communist-Agrarian candidate Aleksandr Moroz came third. Kravchuk's big mistake in the second round was his declaration that his leading position in the first round was an endorsement of his former policies. The Socialist Party took no position in the run-off, but some of our members had illusions about Kuchma. Who turned out to be an ultra-marketeer! He has set a pace for privatisation which outstrips even the Russian programme. And he intends to break any resistance across his knee. He has appointed former KGB head Marchuk as Prime Minister. The Supreme Soviet adopted Kuchma's market programme in December 1994. Since then, it has been practical impossible to stop him. We've seen the privatisation of small and middle-sized enterprises. About 40% remains in state hands — essentially the major military-industrial enterprises and the land. Privatisation of what's left will bring no improvement to the economy. And even if there was a sudden upsurge in demand, most enterprises would not be able to resume 10 International Viewpoint n° 272 — December 1995 normal production for several years. Their skilled workers and engineers have all left. And there has been no new investment for six or seven years. The old equipment is not being repaired. It is being stolen piece by piece and sold for a few pennies. Kuchma came back to parliament this spring, saying he needed more powers in order to "restore the economy to health". In fact, what he needs this power for is to ensure that he can't be stopped from carrying out policies that benefit those who gave him financial support during the electoral campaign. He has also learned from our neighbour's experience. President Gamzakhurdia of Georgia was unable to concentrate all power in his own hands. And he ended up running round the country, chased by men with Kalashnikovs. That first Kuchma government was a market one. But they kept claiming that they did not know what future system they were building. And they kept asking the supreme soviet to define policy for them. Kuchma knew exactly what he was doing, of course. And he said it plainly in 1994, atter he was elected president: "there is no alternative to market reform, no alternative to capitalism". • What about the trade unions? Workers no longer have illusions in privatisation. But the interests of the union leadership and the rank and file has sharply diverged. The leadership has property - rest homes, sanatoria, office buildings — which means that they are not directly dependent on the support of the members. Individual unions have shown significant activity, including our own Odessa regional federation. The most militant union in the Ukraine is the Machine and Instrument Builders Union. They have initiated a series of protest actions. They have not always met with a very active response from below, which gives their leaders cause to reflect. Public sector workers, teachers and medical personnel are preparing for a general strike over wages. As for the rest, the unions are mainly mere slogans. There is little resistance in practice. Union leaders in the enterprises are still dependent on management. And if they decide to strike, it only hurts the workers — the government doesn't give a damn if the plant shuts down. • And the general mood of the workers? Maybe active resistance will pick up in the autumn, when it gets colder. The cost of communal services — electricity, gas, hot water, rent — has risen so much that two thirds of the urban population no longer pay. The Supreme Soviet recently approved a law providing for eviction of those who fall 12 months behind in their payments. But the real income of workers is only 8 to 10% of what it was in 1991! In Moscow they say: "Russians hitch up slowly, but ride fast!" Ukrainians are no different. But I wouldn't like to see a spontaneous rising, since I'm not sure the left would be able to lead it. On the other hand, there are fascist organisations ready to lead impoverished and desperate people.