June 27--How interesting that Boris Yeltsin, the darling of the imperialists and the leader of the bourgeois grouping in the Congress of Soviet Deputies, is suddenly calling for a delay of the 28th Party Congress scheduled to open on Monday, July 2. Why the change?
Earlier the bourgeois restorationists were for speeding up the Party Congress. Obviously, the pendulum has swung away from them to some limited extent.
Of course, Yeltsin's move is only a symptom of what lies beneath the political surface. But it is a significant one, and is more substantial than the attempt by the bourgeois `Democratic Platform' group to delay the Congress. What brought it on was the reestablishment last week of the Russian Communist Party (RCP), which elected Ivan Polozkov, the Party first secretary from Krasnodar, as its leader over a bourgeois, Oleg Lobov.
Polozkov is described in the imperialist press as a "feisty defender of orthodox Marxism" and leader of a struggle against the newly established cooperatives, which are a thinly disguised form of bourgeois private property.
In the documents prepared for the founding congress of the RCP, we at last hear a refreshing voice setting out a course to halt capitalist restoration. For the first time since the inauguration of the Gorbachev administration, the leftists in the Party have drawn up a programmatic document that, in a principled way, attacks the current leadership in the USSR--meaning both the Yeltsins and the Gorbachevs--for leaning to the capitalist road.
While the resolutions passed at last week's founding congress of the RCP are not yet available here, and have not been quoted in any of the imperialist media, excerpts from a draft document prepared by the Leningrad Initiative Committee for reestablishing the RCP were published in Leningradskaya Pravda on March 20 and were carried here in the journal Current Digest of the Soviet Press, Vol. XLII, No. 18.
Draft Theses of program for RCP
The Draft Theses of a Program for the Revival of the Russian Communist Party said that the "contradictory economic foundation" of socialism, which contains "traces of capitalism," gives rise to "a tendency whereby part of society usurps the free time of others, and some people become enriched at others' expense ... [leading] to the emergence of a class of new `socialist' bourgeoisie, which strives for political power. A struggle goes on in society ... to combat petit bourgeois and private-owner attempts to live at others' expense. ... "
The document defined the Communist Party as "a political party of the working class, acting in conjunction with the peasantry and the intelligentsia, that turns into a nonclass public organization as social inequality diminishes. ...
"The ruling party's position does not make it immune to the effect of the contradictions and opposing tendencies that exist in society. In fact, its position aggravates the manifestation of those contradictions and tendencies within the party, since it is joined by people with convictions and political goals of their own, including lobbyists, idlers and careerists. ... Only by ridding itself of them and developing criticism and self-criticism can the party strengthen itself. ... "
The theses called for a congress of the RCP to "enable Communists to come to the 28th CPSU Congress ideologically and organizationally unified and capable of directing the congress's efforts toward the development of the Party as a communist one, and of preventing its degeneration into a social democratic party that would objectively relegate the interests of the majority of the working people to the background and lead to a restoration of capitalism. ... "
The document sets as the "highest-priority tasks of the elected RCP Central Committee" to draw up "a program for Russia's socioeconomic development that will ensure its revival and rule out inequitable relations with other republics within the USSR, and its enslavement to foreign capital and local shadow capital; to arrange the broadest possible discussion of this program, and submit it to the Congress of Russian Republic People's Deputies; and to prepare for the 28th CPSU Congress. ... "
In April, a month after the above Draft Theses were drawn up, the first RCP initiative congress met in Leningrad. It adopted for discussion a document that contained the following passages:
"The RCP within the CPSU is beginning its operation under conditions of an acute economic and political crisis, which is proceeding under the banner of restructuring. ... Petit bourgeois and bourgeois aspirations to get rich and live at others' expense are growing stronger. The logical continuation and expression of these aspirations is the orientation of the economy toward the uncontrolled forces of the market; this orientation, which runs counter to the worldwide trend toward socialization, ripened during the period of `developed socialism' and is being glorified by the creators of that phenomenon, who have now changed their colors and are portraying themselves as the superintendents of restructuring.
"The elimination of public property will lead to a strengthening of negative tendencies in the economy and benefit only our country's emerging stratum of super-rich, with their emphasis on private enterprise and legalization of accumulated capital, their thirst for profits and their individualism.
"The congress appeals to Communists who are Russian Republic and USSR People's Deputies, and to members of the Union group to raise the question of suspending the Law on Property and submitting the question to a nationwide referendum." (This Law on Property has opened the door to private ownership in the form of long-term leasing of land and equipment as well as the establishment of privately owned cooperatives.)
The two documents quoted above speak volumes. The fact that the follow-up meeting establishing the Russian Communist Party did take place and elected Polozkov is an indication of the reemergence of a truly progressive opposition.
Referendum on socialism vs. capitalism?
It remained for Politburo member Yegor Ligachev to put it in a correct and very popular form which the ordinary workers, collective peasants and progressive intelligentsia can understand. He proposed that there be an all-union referendum on whether to have socialism or go back to capitalism.
That is the crux of the issue. It is the real core question. Nothing goes more to the heart of the political struggle in the USSR, which was brought on by the Gorbachev administration.
Of course, this comes only after five long years of unanimous votes, vague hints of disagreement, or open disagreement on minor issues. Never before was the axis of the struggle posed as sharply as it should have been.
There were many opportunities to do so in this long period since Gorbachev took over. The best would have been the 19th Party Conference, which was called specifically to endorse Gorbachev's program for the decentralization of industry, the autonomy of enterprises, the leasing of land, the establishment of bourgeois cooperatives, the abolition of the monopoly on foreign trade, and much more.
At that conference, the bourgeois elements seemed all but triumphant. The imperialist media were gleeful at this exercise of "Soviet democracy" and particularly flattered its leader.
What has caused the sudden swing in the pendulum? It's the slow quantitative changes which are emerging as a new qualitative phenomenon. It's the desperate economic crisis which is raging throughout the country. The crisis is an artificial one brought on not by forces supposedly inherent in the socialized economy but by reintroducing the forces of the capitalist market and its accompaniment, private property.
For example, take what has always been regarded as a bright spot in the economy of the USSR in relation to the capitalist world: its excellent credit rating. Its debts were always meticulously paid on time, in fair weather or foul, even when the crops had failed or the country faced a heightened nuclear threat. The USSR was probably the most credit-worthy country in the global market.
And today? The USSR cannot make its interest payments on time. An article in the Washington Post of June 27 says that the Soviet Union was unable to pay more than $2 billion owed to foreign creditors and suppliers. Soviet Foreign Ministry spokesman Gennadi Gerasimov said, "We are experiencing some commercial difficulties. ... Our perfectly immaculate record on the external market of always paying our debts is now under question." It's a pity that Gerasimov did not explain why.
The reason is that the Gorbachev leadership has abolished a fundamental lever of the socialist economy, the monopoly of foreign trade. Instead of having a single ministry deal with the imperialist world, they gave 14,000 different enterprises the right to buy and sell as they thought fit! Such were the great initiatives of the Gorbachev administration.
Let the market decide, they said, echoing the imperialist economists and the ruling class they serve.
Well, comrades, the market has decided. It decided that the Soviet Union must be a debtor nation beholden to the capitalist banks. And why did that happen? Because the new bourgeois elements with the freedom to buy and sell as they saw fit bought up whatever they could, draining the Soviet treasury.
Where did it go, whatever it was they bought? Not to the masses. Not to those who stand in line for the daily necessities of life. It was squandered on luxury items or the kinds of services that the capitalist class insists upon whenever they enter a new market.
The bourgeois savants advised the Gorbachev administration to abolish the foreign trade monopoly just at a time when the chief exports of the Soviet Union--oil, gas and even gold and other raw material products--were sinking in price on the world market. In addition to that, the USSR had to pay more dollars to the U.S. because of poor grain harvests.
Soviet oil exports declined 10% last year, reflecting a commensurate decline in production. Imperialist economists say this is because the government hasn't invested enough in new technology for exploration and drilling. They of course are urging the USSR to open its oil fields to foreign investors.
It was Gorbachev's own advisers who decided that it wasn't worthwhile to invest more capital in modernizing raw materials industries because that would make the USSR a Third World raw material producer. Instead, where did they put the money? That's a good question and the more progressive elements of the Soviet Congress should ask for an accounting.
Reliance on raw material export does put the Soviet Union at the mercy of the imperialist world market, where oil for instance is once again entering a stage of overproduction. Only a socialized, centralized plan, democratically developed, can balance the various elements of the economy and avoid not only errors in judgment but the perils of the capitalist market.
Polozkov closed down bourgeois co-ops
It is not an accident that Polozkov was elected leader of the Russian Party. One basic reason, admitted by all, is that he took a strong stand against the bourgeois business cooperatives, closing down 332 of them and calling them a tumor on society.
Can cooperative enterprises contribute to the development of socialist construction? A two- or three-month experiment in some areas could easily have proven what their economic value is to socialist society. Instead, they went to the lengths of passing legislation which permitted nobody knows how many cooperatives to be established. These cooperatives are known to fleece the public while generating bribery and corruption as byproducts.
The economic theories of Gorbachev have proven bankrupt. They are unworkable, as anyone can see now. They have tried to blame everything--the shortages, the demoralization--on the policies of past leaders. Even if all that were true, which it is not, five long years of the Gorbachev administration have made things worse. There have been no improvements anywhere. The economy continues to contract as planning is dismantled, shortages of consumer goods are worse than ever, and for the first time since the Revolution there is a decline of the gross national product and of industrial activity, not just a slowdown in the rapid pace of progress.
Class groupings out in open
So it can be seen that the struggle between opposing class groupings in the USSR is now way out in the open. At last the issues have to a large degree become clarified. At last it is possible to call things by their right names. In the earlier period the bourgeois elements were called progressives, radicals and innovators. Now they have been unmasked as pro-capitalist and pro-imperialist.
As we wrote just two weeks ago, Soviet society including the Party itself is now divided into nothing less than two class camps. Gorbachev is moving to the right. The Democratic Platform, which is threatening to break with the CPSU at the upcoming 28th Congress, is an outright bourgeois restorationist party.
A large part of the Party still holds to the center. Gorbachev is trying to conciliate between the opposing classes by setting up a bourgeois parliament and reintroducing the capitalist market.
Gorbachev concealed his real program
From the very beginning, Gorbachev's real program was not revealed to the Soviet people or Party, although he immediately got a warm welcome from the leaders of Western imperialism, beginning with Margaret Thatcher. There was no open discussion in the leading Party bodies or the Soviets. Despite all the talk of openness and glasnost, the practice continued of presenting unanimous decisions which hid political differences and deceived the membership and the people.
Had those opposed to the Gorbachev grouping been able to make their position clear in documents, the entire course of the struggle might have been different.
At the beginning, Gorbachev accused the old guard of supporting a command and administrative apparatus that resulted in a stagnant economy. There was no real discussion on why it was growing slowly. No one at that point suggested the abandonment of centralized planning for a capitalist market. If those who entertained this reactionary idea had spoken their minds, they would have summarily been dismissed from their political posts.
However, it is now abundantly clear that the Gorbachev grouping was aiming at fundamental political changes of such a profound character that they entail the transformation from one social system to another. Can refusing to spell this out be called anything less than an outright conspiracy? Naturally, it was necessary to call a Party congress before introducing any of these innovations. But instead of raising these problems to the highest body of the Party, a congress of elected delegates, the Gorbachev grouping utilized the political apparatus to change the character of the leadership. They ousted Politburo members who were opponents of perestroika and then called a Party conference which was rigged to approve Gorbachev's schemes.
The big question before all the groupings now is how to deal with the upcoming 28th Party Congress. The bourgeois faction, the so-called Democratic Platform, has openly stated that it will split from the Party at the end of the congress. It is useless to argue with them, or try to hold onto them. They have revealed themselves as the bourgeoisie within the Party. The struggle should really be conducted with the centrist elements for control of the Party, while directing the heaviest blow at exposing the bourgeois elements.
The struggle should be not so much to win the delegates at the congress as to utilize the congress for mass propaganda to win back the Communists at large and not leave them at the mercy of the bourgeoisie and their collaborators.
Gorbachev's policies have led the country to the point where the state apparatus in Leningrad, the cradle of the Revolution, is clearly in the hands of the bourgeoisie. Control over the Russian Republic has been captured by the Yeltsin grouping, which is veering in a nationalist direction and is holding out its hands to the imperialist bourgeoisie.
Russian Party must disavow chauvinism
The Congress of the Party in the Russian Republic is the one sign of a revival and an attempt to save the socialist system. It has become the center for the struggle against the bourgeoisie. Its principal programmatic thrust has to be to bring its message to the mass of the workers, peasants and progressive intelligentsia. Conciliation with the center on the basis of maintaining the Party as such is an illusion. This can only lead to further deterioration of the economy and further demoralization of the masses.
The leadership of the Russian Party can only play a progressive role if it takes an internationalist position with respect to the other Soviet republics as well as abroad. It must disavow the chauvinism stimulated by Yeltsin and any concept of reinvigorating bourgeois nationalism of the old-time Great Russian variety. This is regarded by the other republics as a retreat to the oppressive role that Russia played in the pre-revolutionary period under czarism.
Referendum vs. mass struggle
Ligachev's call for a referendum has enormous political and class significance. Yet it is questionable whether a nationwide referendum is the appropriate form of rallying the masses, except perhaps for propagandistic purposes.
No struggle between two diametrically opposed social systems can be overcome by a parliamentary mechanism such as an electoral referendum. No revolution or counterrevolution has ever succeeded on that basis alone. No social system has ever surrendered its existence on the basis of what Marx called parliamentary illusions.
The struggle to save the USSR from ultimate degeneration can only be done by a relentless and determined mobilization of the broad masses of the people, the workers, peasants and progressive intelligentsia, to cleanse the society of bourgeois practices and the penetration of imperialist capital. Imagine, the USSR a financial debtor to the imperialist banks 70 years after the Revolution!
No, no. The proletarian masses, the majority of the people, can overcome and defeat the attempt to restore all the evils of the past, which would bring even more onerous ones in the future if imperialist finance capital had its way.