Debate on the national question IN THE INTERVIEW on these pages, support The relationship between velles de Moscou of February 16, Boris Kagarlitsky offers some inter- national and social consciousness is 1990). esting facts and points of view, both more complicated in Ukraine, in par- In general, the Russian left has about the activities of the Marxist left ticular in view of the differences tended to pay most attention to anain the Soviet Union and the way he between the eastern and western lyzing bureaucratic manipulation and sees the working class and national regions of the republic free-market points of view within the questions. On the latter point, we The problem becomes complicat- national movements. It is necessary have a disagreement with him that is ed also, when, as in Estonia, there is a to examine that. But a double stanworth pointing out again, (A discus- Russian-speaking working class, and dard cannot be applied. As Kagarlitsion of this was already initiated by a we have a difference regarding the sky himself explains in his interview, response to another article by him in analysis of their situation. The Rus- the Marxist left in Russia has also IV159). Kagarlitsky's point of view sian workers certainly are not in the been led to stand on the same ground with regard to the non-Russian "dominant position in Estonia. (They or even to collaborate on specific national movements seems, moreo- are unskilled workers holding lobs questions with sections of the appaver, to be common among the Marx- Estonians do not want). They went ratus and free-marketeer forces that ist left in Russia. there to find jobs, But "bureaucratic are no less manipulative.
Let us first note what we agree centralism facilitated the process by The tone taken in criticisms of the about. We agree about the right to financing the hiring and housing of minority national movements is also these workers," and "the Russian lansell-determination, and therefore the very Important. Arrogance is apt be to freedom of the non-Russian repub- guage is dominant in the federation seen by oppressed nations as an lics to separate Kagarlitsky and his and sometimes regionally. " (IV159). expression of the chauvinism of the comrades are waging a campaign What is more, the forced assimila- dominant nation. against the Great Russian chauvin- tion of the Baltic republice and of in taking up the national question ism of Pamiat (the Russian far-right Moldavia), and still worse on the in the USSR, it is necessary (especialorganization) and its anti-semitism. basis of the secret agreements ly when you are in Russia) to put the We also agree about the need for between Stalin and Hitler, as even the primary stress on the crimes of Stalinpointing out the lack of concrete pro- Soviet press has revealed, calls for a ism and to denounce, in addition to posals for workers' self-management special sensitivity to the national sen- Pamiat, the Great Russian chauvinin the programs of the national demo- timents being expressed there. Ism and manipulations of the central cratic movements in the non-Russian On the Caucasus, where the situa- apparatus. The role of the left in Rusrepublice. We obviously agree also tion is very complicated, simplistic sia is clearly to explain this past to the on denouncing the political crimes of judgements should be avoided. At Russian working class (in particular the Stalinist past. the root of the problem are grave in Estonia) and get it to recognize the
However, the relationship between errors committed by the Bolshevik need for giving priority to the minority national and social consciousness authorities in the 1920s. The respon- languages and, beyond that, to recogamong the non-Russian workers is a sibility of the Russian central bureau- nize the right of self-determination of complex problem that has to be ana- cracy for the poisoning of the present the oppressed nations not only in lyzed concretely and which apparent- situation in the caucasus is damning words but also in practice. ly takes a different form in different Gorbachev's recent military interven- The Marxists in these oppressed republice. In Armenia and Lithuania, tion in Azerbaijan shows that even in nations, on the other hand, need to national demands have been in the these times of glasnost the national criticize explicitly the weaknesses of forefront of the mass mobilizations. minorities of the USSR have good rea- the national movements and to There is no doubt, on the other hand, sons to fear the brutality and cyni- advance, in particular in the Baltic about the mass character of the cism of the central state. Even the republica, a program that can also fronts, and it is clear therefore that Soviet liberal press has denounced gain the confidence and support of they also have broad working-class this "punitive expedition" (Les Nou. the Russian workers. *
Catherine Verla / Erdal Tan 17 March 26, 1990 • #181 International Viewpoint
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 sıgnificant number of Pamyat' members in the Moscow UF1, 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 UFT. • And yet, the analyses of the current reform by what you describe as the right and left have a number of points in common.
We agree that the current reform concept leads only to chaos and the disintegration of the economy and coun try. But they dream of a return to the past, and we dream of a democratic reform. 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 members understand the need for centralism. Decentralization 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 framework that makes it work for common goals. This is what Ota Sik called the macro-economic framework. What is principally new in this model of socialism -and the workers are 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 or 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 also be a private sector.
The UFT calls for the shutting down the cooperatives, whose high incomes and prices 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 organization of work, will allow them to earn more money for social investment, and also create a basis for self-management.
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 labour.
The government's reform aims to 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 gov-
International Viewpoint #181 • March 26, 1990 ernment reform is apparently a phase the workers will have to live through [until they develop their own reform programme]. 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, it destroys it at others. It will result in a crazy market, in chaos.
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. The economy is effectively dominated by monopolies. To create competition you need a strong central state capable of taking investment decisions that will create conditions for competition. Paradoxically, the creation of a market requires the creation of central planning that at present does not exist. We are not, then, opposed in principle to the market. Of course, there may well be contradictions between the socialist 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. This sounds very similar to the analysis of the small number of Marxist social scientists in different Moscow institutes and at the university.
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, they have not asked Sergeev to join.
It is as if you have a sick person before you. Sergeev makes a good diagnosis: infected 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 would think it was two different organizations. Khramov, an oceanographer by profession, is a social democrat in essence. He has moderate positions on relations to 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 conciliationist.
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 government is our opponent. You don't appeal to your opponent. You fight him. He is 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 Western left. • 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 hos-
USSR tile 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 concerns. But on the other, he does everything 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 will be very different from the Sajudis. So even in Lithuania, class differences are beginning very much to be felt. In Latvia, where workers' clubs have emerged, their leaders joined the Popular 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 the working class. Even Egeryonok, one of the leaders of the workers' movement inside the Popular Front of Latvia, wrote in the P.F.'s paper, 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 divisions.
In Estonia, on the other hand, the 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 Interdvizhenie?
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 nonnational, 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 differently.
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 chair these meetings — that also says something. • You say it is a coalition of the nationalist 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 national 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 the national divis us, he an shoret: 19 and when I asked one what he thought,
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 political rights to the republic's minorities. That sounds very progressive.
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 have their own minorities. There is a lot of irrationality and illusion in these national movements, the illusion that once independence is won, all the problems will go away. In Armenia, the movement calls for independence
MOSCOW 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 Nagorno-Karabakh. An officer who recently returned from the Transcaucasus said he saw pitched battles there the likes of which he had not seen even during his service in Afghanistan.
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 aid. • 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 higher education who have gone down
WE DONT WANT TO RUSSIA. WE WANT TO SEE THE EVIL EMPIR TOURS OF BUSSIA 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 closures? If a real market is introduced, it is clear that many mines will be shut as unprofitable.
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 dumped 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 done on a democratic basis. * SEE
PRAI E!
DANZIGER
20
The Christian Science Monitor. Los Angeles Times Syndicale
International Viewpoint #181 • March 26, 1990
USSR
The Lviv strike committee - The role of workers in the Ukrainian national movement
T HIS REGION, which was only incorporated into the Soviet Union at the end of the second world war and which has a history of extremely stubborn resistance to Stalinist power, is the most militant center of the awakening of the Ukrainian nation, a process that led in September to