Though the majority of the left was united in denouncing the recent attempted coup in the Soviet Union, opinion has varied widely as to what the future will bring for Soviet workers. PATRICK BAKER asked OLIVER MACDONALD of New Left Review for his views on the prospects for the Soviet state(s). What do you think has happened in the Soviet Union -a step forward for democracy, a gain for the working class; or is this the first step of the 'new world order', the beginning of unbridled capitalism in the Soviet Union?
What has happened with the attempted coup and its reversal is the speeding up of a process that was already underway, which would have worked itself through, but much more slowly.
Namely the disintegration of the Soviet Union and support for the Communist Party, the growing powers of the republics and so on prompted by the 'he coun was threatened union treaty, which was perceived by the coup-makers catastrophic break-up of the USSR.
This shows who the coup-makers were: those who were extremely worried about the break-up of the union -those tied into the union apparatus, the KGB, the military, the diplomatic corps - and also representatives of the central ministries and the big all-Soviet enterprises. What it was not was a coup inspired by stalinist ideals Their sole ideal was order. It was not at all a coup for a return to stalinism, the glory of communism and the CPSU. Indeed it's significant that some of the most prominent stalinists opposed the coup. So it was more a case of the market with a heavy hand?
Whether they were for the 'market' -more precisely, a capitalist market - or not is another question. They were for the existing power of the Soviet state and its apparatus - in other words, the nomenklatura.
Then there was a reaction against the coup, and it's important to see what sort of reaction it was. There was a substantial mobilisation in Moscow and Leningrad, but there was no great Page 8 Sept. 28, 1991 No. 8 popular seizure of power across the country. So why did it fail?
It failed because the mobilisation led by Yeltsin was sufficient to break the unity of the coup-makers, and their repressive force. The disintegration of the bureaucratic command system had already gone too tar - there was very little political energy behind it. So we are talking about the collapse of the old syster, rather than a popular revolution. But it does nail down the coffin lid on the old system...
Well, it gets the body two thirds in, anyway. So when the system collapses what do you have left? Republican governments. It's clear that Yeltsin and those around him were not expecting this.
What is important is to characterise Yeltsin's politics, now he has the power. This is difficult to do, because Yeltsinism has until now been a negative force. He has a huge, but heterogeneous, support in ant communist It's only now he has to decide what he stands for, and then make it happen. Yeltsin has not put forward programme as yet. So we must interpret. gestures and tactics.
For example, at the beginning of the year he strongly supported theBaltic republics, this led some to sav 'Yeltsin takes a strong stand on the national question'. Others say that this was entirelv tactical, and haa mucn more to do with undermining Gorbachev.
Then if we come to Yeltsin's socio economic programme, he has been championing the capitalist market - but some would say this is another stick to beat Gorbachev, not a matter of principle. So things are unclear. So what is Yeltsin's trajectory?
It's too early to say whether Yeltsin is preparing an authoritarian regime. He is the product of a very primitive political differentiation in Russia - we don'thave properly formed parties, let alone parties linked to different social groups.
This pushes Yeltsin in authoritarian directions - because when you have big popular movements that aren't properly structured, this shifts all the power into the hands of the leader, and he tries to solve the internal contradictions by acquiring more and more power. What about the USA? They've said they'll only deal with a Soviet superstate, with Gorbachev.
Nell, they're trying to put the union together again, as is Yeltsin. Rebuilding the Soviet state is the only way the republics will be kept in the orbit of Yeltsin and Gorbachev aren't fighting - he is backing Gorbachev, and GorHuge crowds outside the Russian parliament opposing the Stalinist coup bachev is deriving his authority from Yeltsin.
Now Yeltsin has the political authority, and is trying to drag as many of the instruments of power into his control as possible. Gorbachev is in no posiBut he still has one card to play On the economic level, the pressure will be for immediate solutions to conThese are not the marketisation experiments Iv with the big industrial enterprises. Yeltsin has declared himself in favour, but he won't do much in the next 18 months if he's got any sense. I suspect they'll try to privatise small business. What will happen to the Communist Party?
It's been banned, and we don't know what the popular perception of its role in the coup is. Important people in the CP were involved in the coup, but its leading organs didn't back it and large elements at the base opposed it. Significant numbers still support the CP when asked in a poll if communism would survive as a force in the USSR, 43% said 'no', over 30% said 'yes' A substantial number also said Gorbachev would survive as President. We should expect communists to retain political support in Russia. As an example, if you take all elections in Europe in the last 18 months, the biggest communist vote wasn't in Italy; it was Czechoslovakia, where the CP got over 18% - and it had resisted a popular revolution.
The fact the CP is banned means their influence on various layers is massively diminished. Direct political pressure towards rebuilding a socialised conomy is very slight But there could be real problems if those that support some form of socialism can't express their view. I suspect Yeltsin will allow a reformed maybe 2 CPs, one hardline, one social democratic.
Gorbachev's project was to integrate the USSR into the world market, while of markat socialism, and restoring the CP's popularity. So would it have been better if the coup hadn't happened at all? Have the social guarantees that went with Gorbachev's market socialism been destroyed in the defeat of the coup?
The crucial point is that forces identified by the population with communism were seen to be trying to smash democracy. That was a terrible blow to the left.
Does that mean the people who emerged victorious from the coup are on the left? No. Does it mean that now the coup is defeated, there is a radiant future for the left in the USSR? Certainly not -I think there's a very bleak future for the next period. But our criterion for judging politics isn't what's good for us - that would be machiavellian, the sort of politics the coup-makers had.
We should be saying what thousands of east European communists said: We must never be military opponents of the peoplé- even if they're being led in a direction we oppose. But well go on we think that the coup was a despicable attempt to reimpose a dictatorship. But we must also say that the idea that the heterogeneous forces of anti-communism around Yeltsin have got good solutions to the USSR's oroblems is also wrong But there is a tendency for people here to think that what the Soviet people are ideas. We must be very cautious about , is simply symbols, not socialist that. So what are they rejecting?
Experience from eastern Europe suggests that most workers think they have experienced socialism, and it failed. What they're rejecting is what they have been told is socialism, and the ideological baggage with it. Their idea of socialism is primarily an economic sys tem - which they reject.
Economic failure leads them to believe that the socialist solution is not possible, and there is only one other mechanism - capitalism - and that Anybody in Yeltsin's position, who wasn't very sure of where they stood, and trying to stabilise their position, would answer: blame communism. This is politically very powerful - we've seen it in Poland.
prepared to go through two years of hell with the Balcerowicz Plan.
They blamed it all on the communists, despite there being hardly any left. It is only now that this anti-communist basis of politics is wearing thin.
So we should have no illusions that the USSR is going to be rebuilt. It is very unlikely that, part or the storiet Union nrain years. the Ukraine will be Though it may be in a Soviet economic bloc of some sort.
OK. But the most likely development is the creation of a number of states out of the Soviet Union. In the Ukraine now, the basis of the political fight is who is the strongest leader of a separate Ukrainian identity - it is entirely geared around separation from Russia. So are we going to see a 'Europe of nations' - but possibly warring nations in the USSR. as we're seeing at the moment in Yugoslavia?
This is a big danger. And these are not small nations we are talking about - the Jkraine is well over 50 million people Without question we will be in a highly volatile and fragmented situation in the ex- Soviet Union. Maybe we'll see a united Europe, under the umbrella of the EC?
But the EC hasn't got an umbrella. Usually by this people mean a military umbrella - and the only umbrella of this sort is sitting in the Soviet Union, but I'm not clear w ho is holding the handle!
The EC hasn't got an umbrella of its own - look at what is happening in Yugoslavia. Some of the states in it would dearly love the EC to have one, but others have no such intention. And the Americans have no intention of the EC having a military umbrella.
A federal Europe is what some undoubtedly want- but as time goes on, it becomes increasingly difficult.
So the Soviet Uhion is disintegrating.
The question is whether it is possible to prevent conflict between the republics and move towards economic revival.
These are questions the left has to focus on.
On the first question, face the fact that the USSR has broken down. Therefore, whoever is running the show in Russia has to accept the right of these nationalities to statehood. Yeltsin's remarks boundaries catastrophic if they are an indication of his ideas. They were subsequently withdrawn, but there are those in his entourage who are very dubious on this.
One consequence of the collapse of the Soviet state and the coup is that power sentiment in Russia will no longer be expressed through the old institutions of the USSR and the CP, but as Great Russian sentiments.
Desperate All of these economies of the ex-Soviet Union are now desperate to be integrated into the world market, but whether that happens is up to the West. Gorbachev tried this great gamble - he realised that it is impossible for the USSR to develop in isolation socialised economy in one country. The more the economy advances, the more. impossible it is.
He was trying to push into the world economy, without going capitalism. Things came to crisis point at the G7 Summit. Pressure was put on Bush, but he didn't budge - partly because he doesn't have the resources (though others do). So Gorbachev's attempts to use all his carrots to get into the word economv taled. Inat was another background to the coup.
He could not say We are now going to be treated as a normal economy, with no barriers to trade, capital transfer and so on! The West's response was No way are we allowing down the capitalist road.' So we're not on track towards a united Europe - but one divided West/East, like the world is North/South?
Yes. The problem is not aid - that's a red herring.
anity Into of labour of the world economy. There's this huge campaign for a free market in astern hand with resolute opposition to free furope, international trade.
So Poland has abolished all tariffs on Western imports - but the West refuses the left has to to do the same for Polish exports. Also, most of the 'aid' is designated for privatisation - it's not designed to im PHOTO: Jeremy Nicholl/KATZ are great it's business. chemicals cartels say. threatens their market. over to sentiments"
you in until you go ment, and so on.
selling to the West, investing. The real question is free the institutions and division world dominance?
but this goes hand in those struggles. everyone, but The ball is now in his court, but which way will George Bush play it? prove output. What is really important is private investment - but that's not aid, Papers say that eastern industry is so backward they have nothing to sell us, but that's not what the EC steel or They are up in arms against free trade, because it If the east Europeans could sell goods Europe? without tariffs or quotas, that would make a real difference. It would improve their balance of payments position, they could get hard currency, then buy equipAlso, Western capital won't invest while barriers are up. Capital invests to get cheap labour, then sell the product: back to the West. If they are barred fron They there is no point Does the new situation mean an end to Soviet support for third by 1996. world struggles, and so US It means an end to Soviet support for The USA may be militarily strong enough to destroy it doesn't have the economic strength for world leadership.
There are strong centrifugal forces in the West, as well as enormous pressure towards a single European economic pace of the El EFTA, and perhaps Soland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary Both of these factors point towards a more powerful Germany, now that the USSR is gone as a power in Europe, and Russia greatly weakened. What should we say to the new governments of eastern 'If you want strong national economies, don't privatise. The textbook 'big bang' plan of privatisation - as with the Balcerowicz Plan in Poland - is crazy. Capitalism doesn't work by textbooks - the only stability it has brought to Poland is that of the grave.
said the economy would decline, then recover to a better position than before. Instead, it's declined and stayed there. Now the most optimistic bredictions of the World Bank say that Poland will be back to its 1989 position Any Thatcherite would tell you - you privatise when business is booming, not when it's in crisis. What is needed is ational planning to pick the industries hat are likely to fare best in the world market and to subsidise them.
Who knows - if the people see in a wep of eat that heared inequite perhaps they'll begin to wonder whether it's such a good idea at all.
No. 8 Sept. 28, 1991 Page 9
Marxism