What do we see in the crisis in Russia?
Is the struggle between Yeltsin and the Russian parliament a modern version of the old struggles when the bourgeoisie was a rising class? The 17th-century struggle in England between Oliver Cromwell and Parliament is an example of that.
Cromwell was a revolutionary representing the interests of the rising bourgeoisie. Parliament, on the other hand, was a representative of the older ruling classes of society.
Of course, Cromwell--though a revolutionary with respect to England--was not revolutionary at all with regard to the Irish people's aspirations for freedom. He was downright reactionary. Few bourgeois leaders ever see their subjugation of oppressed nationalities for what it is: a reactionary throwback to an older society. Not even Napoleon saw the justice of oppressed nations as against the French revolution.
But what do we have in Yeltsin and the Russian parliament? Should we analyze them on the basis of their pronouncements and debates alone? Certainly they are important in understanding the political processes in Russia.
Carter's national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski is attempting to gauge the situation in Russia; we think he has come up with a singularly significant revelation. For the past eight years, Brzezinski says, roughly since Gorbachev came into office, there has been a remarkable outflow of money from Russia into banking centers like Singapore and Hong Kong.
What does this tell us?
This tells us that the new bourgeoisie in Russia--which seemed to constantly accuse communists of lack of patriotism--have a strange way of expressing their patriotism. They cede control, if not ownership altogether, of the country's vital resources to imperialist monopoly.
They get so-called hard currency in dollars. Then they use the dollars not to rebuild or build their country's industrial and technological infrastructure, which has been neglected for almost a decade now. No, they send the dollars abroad in order to line their pockets.
They enjoy the fruits of their treachery while the workers and peasants continue to toil under conditions not just of mismanagement by the bourgeoisie--but outright sabotage of socialist industry.
Who is Yeltsin? Does one need to know his background, his history, the various changes in his political career in order to understand him now? It may of course be very helpful to have some acquaintance, even with his autobiography.
Yeltsin a stooge of imperialism
But one thing is as clear as crystal. It is unmistakable. He is a minion, a tool, a miserable stooge of imperialism--most of all of U.S. imperialism.
Just consider this fact, broadcast throughout the whole world and also in Russia: Scarcely a few hours had elapsed sinced Yeltsin decided to abolish the Russian parliament by decree when none other than the president of the U.S. picked up the telephone to congratulate Yeltsin and offer political and diplomatic support. This was the recognized head of the imperialist world, and he was speaking as well for U.S. imperialism's allies.
One would think this dependence on Clinton would be an undiluted embarrassment to Yeltsin and his supporters. But no. Without Clinton's support, Yeltsin and his counter-revolutionary camarilla don't believe they could last a day.
Nor is there any kind of dispute in the U.S. ruling class as to whether the president acted wisely to so quickly offer unstinted support. Nothing so much tells a true story of the relations of the new ruling group in Russia, led by Yeltsin, as their dependence on the political support of a foreign power, an imperialist oppressor.
How could a great state like Russia with 170 million people become so dependent on an imperialist power? Is there a dependent country on this planet whose leaders would not blush at going through such a demeaning process as getting loans from the U.S. in exchange for broad political concessions?
Under these circumstances our attention is inevitably drawn to what the U.S. press calls the Russian parliament. This body is in fact what is left of what was once the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, which had both legislative and executive authority. It was responsible to the Congress of Peoples Deputies, whose organ it was.
Both the Supreme Soviet and the Congress of Peoples Deputies were class institutions of the proletariat and the peasantry. They constituted the basis for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
It certainly would be a fortunate development if the current parliament could be counted on to act as a representative of workers and peasants against the bourgeois counterrevolution headed by Yeltsin. Unfortunately this is not the case.
Would the parliament defy Yeltsin?
The big question, then, in view of Yeltsin's decree to dissolve the parliament, is whether it would defy his reactionary, pro-imperialist edict.
This body's ambition in the past few years was to act as a bourgeois parliament. Even so, one must examine the basic content of its political policies over this period.
This parliament has not attempted to fortify or strengthen the socialist infrastructure of Russia. On the contrary, it sees its role, to the extent that there is agreement among its members, as retaining some of the existing socialist infrastructure while giving way to privatization at every step.
It is not a bastion of support for the class interests of the workers and the peasants. Whenever the Russian parliament tries to limit the process of dismantling and privatizating it is always in a half-hearted manner.
It has issued decree after decree upholding its own authority as against Yeltsin's. But the parliament has not seriously tried to involve the masses in this struggle. Certainly it has never called upon the masses to support it on issues that they could easily understand.
The parliament has vied with the Yeltsin machine for power--but has not exercised its power even in a case where it seemed easy. It could have taken firm control of the bank and financial institutions of the USSR. Instead, it permitted the Yeltsin government to interfere with its own power to appropriate and spend state funds. This power belongs to the legislative body even in a bourgeois state.
The parliament defies Yeltsin's edict
Nevertheless it would be important for a revolutionary workers' organization in the USSR not to disregard the parliament altogether. This is especially true since the parliament made the bold move of defying Yeltsin's edict and naming its own choice, Alexander Rutskoi, for president.
This situation raises the possibility of dual power. It would of course be a classical case of dual power if the Russian parliament represented the working class as against Yeltsin representing the bourgeoisie.
But this is precisely what is in question. None of the parliamentary leaders even claims to be the instrument of the workers.
The current Russian parliament may be properly regarded as the relatively progressive bourgeois wing of the Russian government as against the counterrevolution headed by Yeltsin. Yet it must be borne in mind that it is a conglomeration of groupings torn by divergent social and class interests that incapacitate it from acting decisively and in a timely way.
Whether the parliament does or doesn't act, the need of the hour in Russia is clear: It is up to the working-class groups--in particular, the communists--to organize the struggle against the Yeltsin counter-revolutionary government, its agents and its servitors, and to make clear to all the laboring people that Yeltsin is an instrument of imperialist domination.
In a general way it would be correct for revolutionary groups to give the bourgeois parliament the kind of critical support the Bolsheviks gave the Kerensky government in the struggle to defeat the Kornilov counterrevolution in the summer of 1917.