Gorbachev's reforms and daily life A MARXIST student of the Soviet Union just returned from the USSR gave the following interview to Catherine Verla in January. The Central Committee plenum that launched a new stage in Gorbachev's reform course concluded at the end of that month.
the special schools in the capital. It turned out that a lot [of the students] were children of leading comrades.... In the first place, they went to school in government cars. Secondly, these were not schools but palaces, with heavenly quarters, fountains, swimming pools. When the influential papas found out about the investigations, they put the heat on the editors, applied 'muscle,' to 'stop this thing!' "
The Pravda report continued: "Speakers talked about the need for increasing the authority, prestige of our union, they criticized its leadership for passivity: With my own eyes, I have seen staunch correspondents broken, but I don't remember a single case of the USSR Journalists' Union defending any one of them, was heard in the hall."
The electronic media are also a focus of attention. The March 3 Pravda ran a long article on the reconstruction of the TV, under the rubric, "Monthly TV Survey," in which it was said: "The party has given the mass media the tasks of not limiting themselves to critical ardor but presenting the whole truth." What the article called for in fact was a better and more attractive presentation of economic and technical problems.
A back-page article two days before had denounced the illegal circulation of video cassettes smuggled in from the West in vintage Stalinist terms as "poison" responsible for rising criminality. It noted: "Are the punishments strong enough, one wonders, if you consider that the dissemination of home video is being used by some to propagate alien ideas."
The "reconstruction" as it has appeared in the pages of Pravda since the January plenum is a tightly controlled but contradictory process. Nevertheless, it is revealing a great deal about the workings of Soviet society and the party apparatus. The contradictions are likely to sharpen, and the revelations Increase. and the revelations increase.
Question. It would be interesting if you told us first about how the population been affected by the changes underway, and how does it see them?
Answer. In the streets you don't get the impression of any important changes. Even when you talk to people, there are no very visible signs. Life, the queues, supplies -nothing has changed for the moment in Moscow. So, you could think that everything is as it was before.
The feeling of change, and that is in itself significant, comes from reading the papers, going to the movies, to the theater, watching television - in a nutshell from everything that has to do with communications and the media. There, you see fantastically rapid change, both in what is being said and the way in which it is being said. But you don't see anything like that in the streets.
This is not a society in ferment, as Poland was in 1980, where you had the impression that everything was starting to move. Let's say that what is moving is above all - aside from talk - in the cultural field, creative work in the fields of literature, theater, cinema, art and the management of cultural affairs. The major events have been the various congresses of writers, artists, theatrical workers and so on.
Q. What are the most striking features of this "renewal"?
A. There are three things that should be said. In the first place, the terms used to describe the process underway have changed a lot. They have gone from "acceleration" (of economic development) to "revolutionary reform" . I could quote you a bit from Sovetskaya Kultura: "You can't go on living the way we have been living. The Twenty-Seventh Party Congress told the party and the people that they have to transform themselves and reconstruct before it is too late. It called on us to radically reshape all the mechanisms of our society, our state, to profoundly transform our consciousness."
The first time you read that, it strikes you. The second time also. But the fifth time, when you see that real life is not changing, you wonder if you are seeing the introduction of a new set of pat phrases. This is especially so when they say that this "revolutionary" process "will take a lot of time". . This is in tune with the official afraid walls slogan that you can read on walls in Moscow, "Don't be afraid to go forward boldly and decisively."
The second point that should be stressed is the "focusing" of the publications. At the beginning, the "renewal" affected magazines and papers published in outlying areas, such as the magazine Eko published in Novosibirsk; or of a cultural nature, such as Literaturnaya Gazeta, which are produced for intellectuals. Now you find "radical" articles in Pravda, and even in the theoretical review of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU).
As an example, you could take the trajectory of Tatiana Zaslavskaya. Three years ago, her ("secret") report to the Central Committee on the economic situation and the stalling of the necessary reforms circulated only in samizdat form. In February of this year, she published an article taking up the same themes in the magazine Eko. In September, she was published in Kommunist.
Q. Do you find in these published texts what she said in her first report?
A. In the context of the present situation, they are at least as critical. She is taking up the reform in a more and more frank way. She says that the regime does not know the society, that it is ignorant of the social interests of the different social groups and classes, that these interests are anta-
International Viewpoint 23 March 1987
gonistic, and that a reform has no chance unless it tries to take account of these interests; that elements (especially in the apparatus of the intermediate bureaucracy) are opposed to the reform because it would endanger their material situation.
Q. What does she say about the workers?
A. She does not separate them out from other working people. She says that in every layer of society, there are elements of resistance, especially in the intermediary administrations, that is in the industrial ministries, the regional administrations and so on.
The third striking point is the evolution of the themes being taken up. At the start, they talked especially about "openness," and criticized corrupt and incompetent functionaries - and in general, the stubborness of the Brezhnev period. Now, there is also a refocusing on the themes of "democratization," "social justice" and economic reform, with the last two themes being profoundly intertwined.
Q. What content is given to these words?
A. The notion of "democratization" is given very varied meanings. They talk about "democratization in economic, social and political life," they talk about self-management. For example, there was an article in September in Literaturnaya Gazeta, reprinted in October in Pravda, that criticized the form of elections to the soviets, and put forward the idea that there should be several candidates. That was above all an avowal of the formalistic character of these elections and of the functioning of the soviets.
But the party seemed untouchable, at least until Gorbachev's January 27 speech [on the occasion of the Central Committee plenum]. The repeated postponements of the plenum that was to touch on cadre policy very likely indicated internal struggles. The touchstone of what Gorbachev is willing and able to do will be the extent to which the job security of the bureaucrats is really put in question. He knows that it was this thorny problem that probably determined the fate of his more remote forebear, Khrushchev.
The first accounts of the plenum, which was finally announced with much fanfare, show that the small changes proposed by Gorbachev have run into considerable resistance.
Q. What is being said, and what debates are there on "democratization" in planning and in the enterprises? 12
A. At the enterprise level, ney At enterprise level, they are talking more about giving free rein to the workers' initiative, making more or less clear references to self-management. In fact, what they are interested in is leaving more leeway for the economic players through relying more on indirect means of managing the economy.
Q. But that could mean several things - dictating planners* choices by the system of prices, taxes and credit instead of administrative orders, or orienting toward more systematic reliance on market mechanisms.
A. None of that is yet clear, and there is a lot of pragmatism and caution. In some articles, it is being said that the very notion of self-management is unclear (cf. Kommunist of last September). The most interesting thing in all this is rather what it reveals about the present society than any positive plan, which is still in the dark.
Q. Democratization of decision making at the level of the big economic questions has not been raised?
A. No, never really.
Q. And "social justice"? What does that involve?
A. It is contradictory. First of all, in some articles, notably Zaslavskaya's, it is explained that the USSR is an inegalitarian society, that there are inequalities among regions, social inequalities, inequalities in education.
But there is also a line of talk on inequality, which is closely linked to the debates on price reform. For example, there is criticism of subsidized rents. This is very ambiguous. Some criticize the fact that you can pay the same rent for very different types of housing, or that the way in which rent subsidies are applied enables privileged layers to benefit from them, while there is a general scarcity.
But housing subsidies are also criticized - and this may be the dominant line - because they make it possible to obtain housing without regard for the "real cost." And here what is being challenged is the whole range of prices for major goods and services that have been kept very low for decades.
Q. We'll come back to social inequality and the reform. But are they talking about the bureaucrats privileges?
A. At the time of the party congress, the party secretary for Moscow, Eltsyn, published an article criticizing some "legal" privileges of the bureaucrats. It made a big impact. This is a very touchy issue, as shown by the letters to the press. Since the congress, with the exception of some rare articles, articles there has been there has very little evocation of these privileges. You might wonder if the question was raised around the time of the congress in order to put pressure on the delegates.
In the articles that are now talking about "social justice," there are more allusions to the mechanisms of distribution, to the standard of living of the general population, that outside the bureaucracy, I might say. There is a systematic campaign against corruption (in all its forms and first of all in commerce).
In Komsolka, they tell about a group of youth who call themselves Robin Hood's Children and attack those who exploit their positions for wrongful gain. Another theme that has popped up recently is criticism of the present judicial system and this is no unimportant question for the population, or, it seems, for the KGB).
There was for example an article in December 1986 in Literaturnaya Gazeta that denounced the veil of secrecy cast over crime statistics. It reported a large number of cases of summary justice (such as the execution of innocent people and denounced the practice of assuming that any person is guilty. It also highlighted the almost insurmountable obstacles to any demand for judicial review.
What emerges from all these publicaitons is important, a "stripping naked" of the present society and its contradictions. In particular, there have been a lot of articles on youth, on the fact that they are totally alienated from the system, about youth gangs "on the fringes" (and there is an astonishing variety).
There was also recently the film made in Riga in Lithuania which presented interviews with young people returning from Afghanistan, who explained that after what they went through their lives were shattered. And the debate over the environment continues in full swing. It may be that it is from this angle that the stakes in planning are being discussed most directly. One of the sore points is the "death" of the Aral sea, which is "shrinking" at a rapid rate.
Q. Regarding social justice, you mentioned the criticism of the present system of distribution. If I understood correctly, the idea is to drop distribution by administrative means in favor of distribution by the "economic" mechanisms. The objective that lies behind this technocratic term is to assure a more direct link between the work performed and real remuneration of the workers in goods and services. We were just talking about "social justice." Isn't what this involves what this involves International Viewpoint 23 March 1987
in fact "equality" and "social justice" for the strongest? for the strongest?
A. Before the gainers were also the strongest, but under the conditions of bureaucratic organization of planning, which also involved social advantages. Now the gainers are to be the strongest with respect to the market. In my opinion, they are talking about social justice in order to put over a very "liberal" line in the economic sense of the term [that is, free enterprise].
I think that that is not to the liking of the workers and a large part of the bureaucracy, but for different reasons. The former will see it as meaning that they are going to have to work harder; and, as for the bureaucrats, a lot of them have nothing to gain in seeing their incomes linked to their economic performance."
Q. Doesn't this turn to reliance on "economic mechanisms" threaten to bring greater inequalities at the end of the day?
A. Yes, especially among the population at large, and it threatens to wipe out a certain minimum of material security that exists now, even if it is really very minimal. The logic is the withering away of the social wage in general (subsidized prices, nearly free housing, etc.), which is made possible precisely by these subsidies.
This would tend to eliminate certain mechanisms by which the workers can defend themselves today. The relationships in the factories at present are very different from what we know in capitalist enterprises. This does not necessarily mean that they are "better," if only because of the absence of trade-union rights. But what is striking is that precisely in the absence of such rights the workers can impose a tempo of work that is generally recognized to be much less than what prevails in capigalist factories.
In "normal times," the management neither has an interest in, nor the means for, increasing the intensity of labor (except on the eve of inspections to verify fulfillment of the plan, when everyone runs like crazy - for example they talk about a "bicycle-racer syndrome"!) It should not be forgotten that in the USSR, the demand for labor is far greater than the supply! But where there are "too many" workers, they cannot fire people.
Q. Are people talking openly now about "the right to a job" and unemployment?
A. The right to a job remains, Lite, i hain mut in nues. but job security is being put in question. Today, neither de jure nor de facto can a worker be fired for economic reasons. This is first of all because the plant managers have an interest in having the largest possible number of workers to fulfill and overfulfill the plan - and get the bonuses.
With the reform, it would become necessary and possible to fire workers. In her article in Kommunist, Zaslavskaya says that the plant managers questioned said both that in the present situation they had a lack of labor power and that, in a situation where there was more autonomy for the enterprise, it would be necessary and possible to reduce the number of workers.
Q. To go back to the question of the reform, is there any different project than what they have already been able to try out in the past?
A. At the beginning, (the first period of the Gorbachev reign), things were very fluid; there was no plan. Little by little, we are seeing the emergence of the elements for a reform. But it is not possible to get a clear overall view of what the reform will be.
By comparison with the 1960s, the starting point of the debate over reform is less technical. They are talking a lot about the "human factor," the social cost of the reforms, the necessary relays for mobilizing the workers. We might say that there is a more social approach to reform and the conflict of interests that could be brought on by its implementation.
This was the question evoked by Zaslavskaya's report, which said that without taking account of social interests and without a social base, the reform would fail. In fact, a whole part of the debate on social justice intersects with, and carries forward, the debate over the reforms. For example, in her article in Kommunist, Zaslavskaya raises the problem of unskilled workers, who risk being the losers from technical progress.
On the other hand, there has been a lot of experience and debate on the role and place to be given to the market and to autonomy for accounting purposes. But so far these have been only partial experiments.
Q. You speak of technical progress. What role can that play with respect to the social and economic blockages?
A. This question leads us back to the problem of the lack of motivation in general, as it is maintained by the system itself. According to Zaslavskaya, two-thirds of the workers are working at less than a real workday. A majority of plant managers say that they would rather nave that they would rather have less responsibilities.
They have gone from Brezhnev- Ten have fl style technological fantasy (all the problems can be solved by importing technology from the West) to an understanding that there will be no progress without a transformation of motivation, without attacking the method of administrative orders. Unless this is done, the technological innovations cannot be carried through.
. It is in this connection tha hey are putting forward the them of democratizing management?
A. In fact, there is still a gulf between the talk about democratization and what is being said about economic reform. Introducing economic mechanisms (more market play) is being presented as the means for solving the big problems. Of course, they are also saying that the workers have to feel that they are the masters in their factories. But that sort of talk has been very common for a long time.
Q. What about the brigades [work teams]?
A. This question is not being discussed very much today. In 19851986, organization in brigades was to be generalized throughout the entire economy. But now this has faded as an issue, or a panacea.
Q. Could you say something about the workers' attitude to the brigades?
A. It varies a great deal. The brigades were often seen as an attempt to break the solidarity and egalitarian sentiment that is common among the workers. The objective was also to put an end to the complicity between the workers and the plant management as regards carrying out the plan. The results have been very ambiguous. There has been not inconsiderable resistance, but it is hard to evaluate.
Often going over to brigade organization was purely symbolic. In any case, this system has not brought the expected fruits. Today, there is a lot of talk about including engineers in the framework of the brigades in order to try to reinforce their "responsibility" for defining and achieving objectives.
The introduction of the engineers is supposed to change the nature of these collectives, a section of which have apparently reproduced the "faults" that the brigade system was supposed to combat - solidarity among brigade members, maintenance of a form of wage equality.
Q. This seems somewhat to be a counterpart of the "quality groups" and individualized renumeration.
A. It has been said that above all
3
International Viewpoint 23 March 1987 later pret
Mikhail Gorbachev - telling fishy stories the engineers who at present earn less than the skilled workers should be paid more. On this level also, "egalitarianism" is being denounced. Overall, under Khrushchev and Brezhnev, white-collar workers and those with higher education experienced a relative decline in their material situation by comparison with the workers. "Catching up" is not just a question for engineers. Quite recently, the minister for health was dismissed for delaying the introduction of new wage scales.
Q. All that is not very revolutionary...
In any case, on the official level, they are not talking about replacing the present system of administrative management but of complementing the existing system with so-called economic tools.
The official line reflects a compromise. But the underlying debates among "specialists" are often more polarized. The gamut is very wide. It goes from ultra-free-enterprise currents ("everything for the market") to currents that want to link economic reform with democratization of the society.
Q. And what about the private sector? Two interpretations are possible of the measures that have been announced: One is that they only want to legalize what exists, in order to be able to suppress better what goes beyond that. The other is that goes there is a certain desire to widen the room for private initiative, notably in the services and agriculture, which could in fact improve the quality of day-to-day life. What do you think about that?
A. For the moment, the modifications remain marginal. The professions concerned are limited in number. 14 to the workers? (DR)
and there are also geographical restrictions. There is apprehension. But the first interpretation is too Machiavellian. Rather, you can see an impact of the Hungarian experience.
Q. In the background to these reforms, let's talk a bit about the arms question.
A. It is clear that the disarmament proposals made by the USSR are designed, among other things, to enable it to lighten a great burden it has had to bear and to free resources for reform. The Soviet spokespersons do not conceal this interest.
2. Some people, such as Castoriadis, have rightly pointed out the concentration of resources in the arms industry. Can reconversion of this to civilian industry be envisaged?
A. There is no economic obstacle to this. A partial reconversion already occurred under Khrushchev, as well as after World War II. It is a question of political choices.
Q. And the conservatism in the army?
A. The army has never held a predominant or decisive place in national polities, even though it is a real interest group. It is the Political Bureau that has the last word, and that is a "civilian institution," you might say.
Q. Without getting involved in guessing games, how do you think these events are likely to develop?
A. I think that the USSR is heading for a political crisis, probably the most serious the country has known since the 1920s. We are seeing an attempt to redefine the terms of the bureacracy's rule and the way the society is run. That is always risky. For the moment, there is no coherent plan, precisely because of the resistance. The forces favorable to the reforms have the initiative at the top level. But the anti-reform forces in the apparatus are still far from having said their last word.
Other "remedies" for the crisis have also been proposed. In the
October 1986 issue of the magazine
Molodaya Guardiya, you find "tough"
talk. What is needed to get out of the crisis is a vigorous type of person.
It denounces the perversions of the intellectuals and sings the praises of manual labor. Women's place is in the home. A good censorship system is needed for the theater and literature considered decadent or overly liberal.
The counteroffensive will come when the attempts at reform can be portrayed as failures. If there are no substantial changes in a year or two, there will be the basis for a counteroffensive. In the meantime, the struggle is going on under cover. There is a fight. People feel it. They know it. They say it. But the adversaries are anonymous, as in all the previous struggles. If you get a chance to find out who they are, it is after they have been defeated. You can interpret the talk and initiatives concerning democratization as an attempt by the reformers to build up popular pressure for the reform and against recalcitrant elements in the apparatus. This is a kind of authoritarian populism.
Q. In many respects, the situation resembles that in Czechoslovakia in 1967, when the reformers still lacked popular support. Dubcek's appeal for democratization was essential in order to combat the blockages. A. But it may be doubted whether these attempts to gain popular support will get a positive response, if there International Viewpoint 23 March 1987
are no concrete results in daily life, because in the media the reform can easily be seen by the workers as a threat to their interests, since if it were consistently applied it would mean a deterioration of their situation.
Q. Novotny also tried to play on that against the initiators of the Prague Spring.
A. There are probably elements of a crisis coming simultaneously at the top and in the society. The crisis in the society will be all the more powerful inasmuch as the population is being encouraged to mobilize (in
"controlled" and "responsible" way of course, but not without some reality, even against the apparatus. The process of limited democratiza-
USSR