Interview with Soviet anarchist
Direct action and left unity THE tradition in pre-revolutionary Russia of different forms of revolutionary populism and anarchism, embodied in thinkers like Bakunin and Kropotkin, has experienced a renaissance in the Soviet Union since the mid-80s, with the appearance of a variety of anarchist and anarcho-syndicalist currents. The strongest of them is the Confederation of Anarcho-Syndicalists (KAZ), which has supporters in several dozen cities, was active in the creation of the workers' organization, the Confederation of Labour (KT) in May 1990 and also participated in the initiative around the open letter on "People's Self-Management"!
IV talked to Dmitri Kostyenko, a young left wing activist and former member of KAZ, on the recent history of the anarchist movement in the Soviet Union. The interview was conducted in Moscow in late May by Poul-Funder Larsen. 40000000*
• AZ was founded in 1989, but could you briefly describe the development of the anarchist groups before that time?
Inside the Federation of Socialist Clubs, which was created in 1987 as one of the first expressions of organized political activity in opposition to the apparatus, there were some anarchist groups. At the time political differentiations were not very developed. Most of the currents (liberals, Socialists, anarchists and so on) came together in one movement "in defence of perestroika."
There were various anarchist groups scattered across the country - in Leningrad, Kharkov in the Ukraine, Khabarovsk in the far east and so on. A journal called Obshchina ("Commune") was something of a rallying point for the anarchists. In its first phase it was distributed as classical samizdat, with people copying it by hand, later it became the journal of the KAZ. In May 1988, the first anarchist demonstration took place in Moscow, organized by Obshchina. In its initial phase the movement was —
and to an extent still is - dominated by students and people from various alternative", sub-cultural circles. • Was KAZ founded on a precise political platform, or was it perceived as a loose conglomeration of currents based in anarchism?
You can say that KAZ, after its founding congress on May 1, 1989, tended to monopolize anarchism in the Soviet Union. A short statement of principles was adopted, but in reality there were many different currents within the framework of the new organization - anarcho-individualists, anarcho-communists and even anarcho-capitalists.
I was active in the Moscow branch of KAZ, which maintained an independent profile. We organized a protest in front of the Chinese Embassy after the June 1989 massacre. We also took part in the setting up of a meeting on the Novocher. kassk incidents with the veteran revolutionary Piotr Siuda. Before the elections to the regional and republican soviets in March 1990 we supported some of the democratic demonstrations. In some places the local organizations went a step further, running candidates on the "Democratic Russia" slates.
The second KAZ congress in March 1990 marked a step towards the clarification of its programme. Here anarchosyndicalism was adopted as the basic framework. Following that, some groups - from Leningrad, Saratov and Kazan - broke with KAZ and a part of them decided to form a new organization. Consequently, in the summer of 1990, at an ecological protest camp at Balakovo on the Volga, the Association of Anarchist Movements (ADA) was founded on a non-syndicalist basis. The split between KAZ and ADA was not really a split between right and left, because there were groups within both camps that maintained rightist positions.
Meanwhile, the left wing of the anarchists, the anarcho-communist current, went through a serious crisis. This current was strong in Moscow, Leningrad and also in the industrial centre of Dnepropetrovsk in the Donbass, but it was seriously weakened by splits. Some of its leaders in Moscow broke away and joined the radical bourgeois party, the Democratic Union, while some of its leaders in Leningrad went over to Trotskyist positions. • What does the syndicalist position of KAZ mean in practice? It seems quite reasonable to have a clear orientation towards the workers' movement.
Within KAZ it resulted in a kind of witch-hunt initiated by some of the rightwingers, against what they termed the "anarcho-hippies". At the same time it meant that the organization gave strong support to the Confederation of Labour
(KT) which was founded in May 1990. Different groups participated in this, but as a whole, the KT is not a left organization - it basically supports a market economy and has a liberal outlook. In the summer of 1990, KAZ set up an information agency on the workers' movement, called KAZKOR, which issues a regular bulletin. This bulletin was soon transformed into an organ for the KT. Some of the leaders of KAZ are now on the council of KT. But there are few real activities going on in this framework.
The orientation towards the KT is perhaps some kind of last resort, because during the summer of 1990 there was an attempt by KAZ to set up their own trade union, "Resistance". However, this initiative ran into the same problems as the other attempts to create new, independent trade unions. The membership was small, scattered across many trades and dominated by intellectuals. So in the end it failed. • The anarchist groups are better at attracting young activists than most other parts of the Soviet left. Can you profile some of these groups?
In Moscow KAZ is the strongest force, but there are six other groups. One example is the group Autonomous Youth, which came into being in the autumn of last year, based on radical anarchism and the idea of direct action. They were in particular engaged in anti-militarist activities, picketing military installations, and also carrying out an action at the Ministry of Defence. However, they have more or less vanished in the last few months.
Another instance is the Union of Anarchists, which is a part of the ADA. They pursue a very sectarian line and are strongly opposed to KAZ. Politically, they are not far from the Democratic Union and have adopted some of the methods of this organization. They jump out in some square or street shouting "Gorbachev is a fascist" - then in five minutes the militia arrive and take them away, and that is the end of it.
A third group are the so-called Socialist Populists (Socialistov Narodnikov) who see themselves as the heirs of the pre-1917 Social Revolutionary Party. This group contains very diverse currents from ultra-rightists to anarchopopulists. They are united by some kind of idea of a Christian commune as the basis of society.
The group I am working in - the Initiative of Revolutionary Anarchists — has carried out some protests against the price rises, and we are also organizing discussions and education on topics such as the left in the West. • How do you view the development of KAZ?
USSR
The third congress of KAZ in November 1990 was attended by groups from 28 cities; only half of the local organizations. A major discussion at the congress was the question of the relationship between the KAZ and the Democratic Russia movement, which is led by supporters of Boris Yeltsin. Some of the deputies from KAZ who have been elected to local soviets, often on Democratic Russia slates, have been sliding towards liberalism. At the congress a resolution supporting the Open Letter on People's Self-Management and rejecting Democratic Russia was unable to win a majori-
I took part in the fourth KAZ congress which took place in Samara at the beginning of May 19912. This organization is clearly in crisis, since only 40 delegates from groups in 12 cities were present. KAZ is still defending the collective ownership of the economy and putting forward a perspective of a self-managed society - therefore they are critical of the various privatization schemes, which will only benefit the nomenklatura and the mafia. They advocate a democracy based on soviets, not a parliamentary one, but they have a concept of free competition among the collectively owned enterprises which we do not agree with. Instead we support a system of planning from below. • How do you see the process of uniting the left? Do you give unity among the anarchists precedence over unity on the left as a whole?
I support the creation of a broad left recomposition uniting all non-Stalinist currents. We have two common enemies: the old nomenklatura and the new pro-bourgeois tendencies.
In that struggle I think that there are some real possibilities for us, because one party, the CPSU, has led the country into crisis and the other, the so-called Democrats, are stirring up strong social contradictions. In this process it is very important to stay clear of the "patriotic" tendencies like the United Front of Toilers (UFT) in order to create a genuine left alternative.
We want a common front of left organizations, but right now the main problem is the weakness of all socialist groups. To start overcoming that we have to link up with the movements.
Therefore we are, for example, very active in preparing a camp this summer against an atomic power station and other types of polluting industry at Zaporozhe in the Ukraine. * 1. For information on the Confederation of Labour, see International Viewpoint, no. 187, June 18, 1990. The "Open Letter on People's Self-Management" appeared in /V no. 194, November 12, 1990. the Volga, was called Kubishev, after Stalin's chair 9 2. Until recently Samara, a major industrial centre on man of the Supreme Council on National Economy. July 8, 1991 • #210 International Viewpoint