At last, at last! The seizure of power by the counterrevolutionary cabal led by Boris Yeltsin is bearing its rotten fruit.
None other than the acting prime minister himself, Yegor Gaidar, had to admit in a speech at the opening of the Russian Supreme Soviet on Sept. 22 (recently made available in English) that industrial production in Russia is declining so rapidly it is down by 20 percent since its peak. Such a development is catastrophic and can only be explained on the basis of the government's effort to dismantle, destroy and vandalize the socialist construction--the product of 75 years of revolutionary effort on the part of the workers, the collectivized peasantry and the working intellectuals.
Robert S. Strauss, until recently U.S. Ambassador to Russia, has had to come back home to explain the sharp deterioration in the economic situation and the resulting political struggles that are reaching an acute stage.
U.S.-backed plans in trouble
It should be remembered that Yegor Gaidar was the principal architect of the government's economic plans to dismantle socialist industry and inaugurate extensive, massive privatization. Until now the privatization has mostly affected industry in the consumer field and has only barely touched the heavy industries--the great scientific-technological infrastructure of the former USSR.
Gaidar was publicly recommended by U.S. Ambassador Strauss for the post of prime minister. The stark fact the Clinton administration-elect must face is that the U.S. monopolies' choice candidate to guide the Soviet economy into capitalist channels is under severe attack. This indicates growing anti-U.S. imperialist feeling in the population and growing disillusionment with the Yeltsin-Gaidar collaborators with imperialism.
The political situation has markedly changed in the last year. The high-flown demagogy of Yeltsin has become muted. There is now a clearly visible political polarization in Russia. Indeed, one may say the situation has in embryonic form all the elements of dual power.
It would be wrong, however, to conclude at this time that the polarization in the former Soviet Union has reached a level comparable to such great historical instances of dual power as the early struggles in England of the nascent bourgeois elements against feudalism that led to the Cromwellian revolution, or the struggle of the Third Estate against the royalist power in France, or the most brilliant modern example--that of the Soviets of workers, soldiers and peasants against the Kerensky regime in Russia in 1917.
Those were genuine classical examples of the emergence of dual power, when the so-called legal, sovereign power was challenged and ultimately overcome by a new, rising class power: the bourgeoisie in the case of England and France; the Soviets of workers, peasants and soldiers in Russia.
An example of dual power in U.S. history was the struggle of the Northern bourgeoisie against the Southern slaveocracy. For a long time the industrial bourgeoisie of the North vied with the Southern slaveocracy, now bending to it for a protracted period of time, now challenging it. But in the end, the continuing political, legislative and judicial confrontations ended in the fierce, bloody struggle of the Civil War.
The irrepressible conflict, as it was often called, became inevitable not only because chattel slavery was becoming ever more unendurable and the Black masses ever more rebellious, but because the struggle was one between two diametrically opposed social systems, one based on chattel slavery and the other based on wage slavery. The former became utterly incompatible with the growing might of the industrial bourgeoisie and the tremendous technical strides it was making in every field of endeavor.
Struggle over central bank
A highly significant aspect of the current phase of dual power is the struggle over the central bank. In a period of counterrevolutionary transition such as has been taking place in the Soviet Union, with a multitude of bourgeois groupings competing over how to divide up the property created by socialist construction, one of the most important and delicate of all problems relates to the central bank.
It is not very easy to determine who really controls this or that significant enterprise or industry. The very concept of ownership has become fuzzy since the effort to dismantle everything of real value in the USSR. The most delicate one is the central bank of Russia. Who exercises the real authority there?
In his analysis of the Paris Commune, Lenin stated that one of its mistakes was its failure to take control of the Bank of France. Indeed, it was a mistake. But it is understandable also, for the bank is not just a vault packed with gold but the lender and dispenser of credit. The daily operations of the bank as an institution for deposits, borrowing and lending are very complex and require discretion, especially in a period of transition from one form of ownership to another. Those in the workers' movement of Paris would hesitate before interfering, if for no other reason than that they could make huge mistakes.
The central bank of Russia legally is controlled by the Congress of Deputies, which chartered it and to whom it is responsible. But the Congress of Deputies, through the Supreme Soviet and its executive body, the Presidium, has not demanded of the bank that the borrowing aspect of the government be first approved by the appropriate agents of the legislators. Suffice it to say that the struggle at this time is strictly over whether to have a hard line on credit and loans, such as Gaidar wants, or an easier policy, which Yeltsin supports.
The harder line would mean immediate mass unemployment, because it would entail the closing of factories on a mass scale. That would suit the wishes of the imperialist banks and the IMF. Yeltsin, for all his braggadoccio about taking the firm measures he said Gorbachev was fearful of, is now evincing the same tendencies, only under more aggravated economic conditions.
Whether there's looser credit or tighter credit, however, monetary policy alone cannot solve the basically economic problem of what to do with industry and agriculture--which road to take, socialist or capitalist.
Yeltsin vs. Congress of Deputies
Examining in broad outline what is going on in the former USSR, one can easily see that now, more than at any time since the beginning of the counterrevolutionary efforts to dismantle socialist construction, the crisis has reached unprecedented proportions. A certain form of dual power, be it only in embryonic form, has arisen in Russia.
The Yeltsin/Gaidar government is being challenged, ever more frequently, by the Russian Supreme Soviet. Everything seems to be moving in the direction of an open conflict between the Yeltsin/Gaidar governing counterrevolutionary cabal and the Congress of Deputies, which is scheduled to meet on Dec. 1.
The Supreme Soviet is something like the executive committee of the Congress of Deputies. Before the breakup of the Soviet Union, the Congress of Peoples' Deputies was elected by universal suffrage throughout the USSR. About 2,500 deputies met once a year to discuss key legislative issues.
The Supreme Soviet, composed of 542 members elected from the ranks of the Congress, ruled on legislative issues, and the Council of Ministers acted as its executive body.
Since the breakup of the Soviet Union, there is now a new Congress of Deputies for Russia only. It still contains a huge number of so-called conservative and Communist deputies. Many are said to be in opposition to the Yeltsin/Gaidar pro-capitalist reforms, or at least to their pace.
The leader of the congressional opposition, Ruslan Khasbulatov, who is strenuously opposing the Yeltsin/Gaidar camarilla, is himself a former associate or lieutenant of Yeltsin. Seeing the growing acuteness of the economic situation and the desperate condition that the workers and the mass of the population are experiencing under the dismantling of socialist construction, and in fear of a genuine mass Communist revival, he has taken on the role of an opponent of the pro-capitalist reforms.
The problem we have is how to evaluate the class character of the Congress of Deputies as against the counterrevolutionary Yeltsin/Gaidar camarilla. Superficially, the Congress as a whole is on record for the reforms, having moved to the right after the attempt at what has been described as a coup d'etat against the Gorbachev government in August 1991. At that time the Yeltsin cabal rammed through the Congress of Deputies a series of legislative acts that empowered Yeltsin to rule by decree. Clearly, the Congress had panicked under the impact of the reactionary developments that followed the coup attempt. But this empowerment to rule by decree is due to expire on Dec. 1.
Yeltsin decreed economic changes
It is extremely important to note that almost all of the bourgeois reforms, the various acts of privatization and so on, are the result of decrees issued by Yeltsin. They were not initiated or approved by either the Supreme Soviet or the Congress of Deputies.
Yeltsin's constituency, so to speak, has not been tested during the period in which his marauding and vandalizing of socialist construction was to be effectuated. His reforms were not sanctioned by legislative action. All the changes instituted during his tenure have been the result of decrees on his personal initiative, approved only by his cabal of economic and political bureaucrats.
The meeting of the Congress of Deputies scheduled for December provides the opportunity to attempt to nullify the decrees with a definitive vote of no confidence that would force Yeltsin's resignation. All of this is within the province of legal procedures. But these matters have to be seen in light of the class composition of the Congress of Deputies.
From a formal point of view, these Communist Party deputies were all representatives of the working class, collective peasantry and intellectual workers. They were not then considered, nor did they consider themselves, as "democrats," spokespersons for "humane," "civilized" society.
A great many of them, perhaps all, were members or officials of the Communist Party at the time they were elected. Yeltsin, too, it must be remembered, was elected as a Communist deputy and served on the Politburo as an alternate. It seems many ages ago, but in truth it was just recently that almost all of them, including Gorbachev, renounced their Communist heritage.
Because of the havoc and devastation caused by the attempt to push through a thoroughgoing counterrevolution socially and politically, and the inability to establish a semblance of orderly transformation from socialist construction to capitalism, the country seems to be teetering on the verge of collapse.
Class character of Congress
Of course, if the Congress of Deputies could be characterized as an organ of working class authority and power, then this would be a clear-cut example of the classical situation of dual power. Unfortunately, this cannot be said at the present time. The Congress of Deputies, as it has been constituted during Yeltsin's tenure, has not yet clearly and unequivocally attempted to completely break with his pro-capitalist, pro-imperialist position.
On several occasions, the Supreme Soviet has had the opportunity to do just that and then ask for support from the Congress of Deputies. But it has fallen far short of the mark. It had many opportunities to vote a no-confidence resolution, but failed to do so. Many of its members have made strong condemnatory speeches against the Yeltsin regime, but have not taken resolute action and passed a no-confidence vote, which would mean to ask for the resignation of the governing reactionary cabal. Had the Supreme Soviet done so, it would have the effect of a mandate to the Congress of Deputies to do likewise.
The Yeltsin/Gaidar cabal, on the other hand, are so fearful of the Congress of Deputies' meeting on Dec. 1 that they have repeatedly threatened to dissolve the Congress. Yeltsin has demanded of the Supreme Soviet that it postpone the meeting until sometime in March, at which time an expected economic pickup would presumably help stave off a no-confidence vote. But the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet has rejected that demand. So now, two weeks before the Congress meets, the Yeltsin cabal faces its most acute problem: how to maneuver or coerce the Congress of Deputies to give them more time and avoid a no-confidence vote.
Why have the Yeltsin/Gaidar cabal confined themselves to merely asking for a delay in the Congress, while hinting that Yeltsin has the presidential power to dissolve the Congress altogether? Because they hope to be able to convince the International Monetary Fund to extend old loans, mostly contracted by Gorbachev and Yeltsin, and they also hope to obtain credits from the so-called Club of Paris, the biggest consortium of private imperialist banks. But there has been not even a hint from either the IMF or the Paris club that more credits, let alone cash, will be forthcoming--unless mass privatization takes place first. That is a prior condition for any negotiations with the Yeltsin counterrevolutionary group. Former Ambassador Strauss has said publicly that he is trying to win more consideration for the Yeltsin government as regards loans and credits.
(It should never be forgotten that before the Gorbachev administration, the Soviet Union was considered one of the most credit-worthy countries in the world, and the banks were eager to lend it money.)
Prospects of revolutionary opposition
The Congress of Deputies has certainly not proclaimed total opposition to the reforms. It has committed itself only to a slower pace. To oppose them in principle is qualitatively different, and hasn't happened.
In that sense, this Congress corresponds to the early period of the French Revolution, when the Girondists were in power and had a moderate approach to the royal power, wanting to achieve a modus vivendi with a constitutional monarchy similar to that in England. But that proved impossible and the Girondists gave way to the revolutionary dictatorship of the Jacobins.
At the present time, a revolutionary dictatorship of the working class and collectivized peasantry can only be achieved if the Communist organizations achieve authority over the most militant, most class-conscious and socialist-oriented. That would enable them to reconstruct society in the direction of communism.
It would, of course, be a singular development if a genuinely socialist, working-class grouping were to emerge in the Congress of Deputies and fling a revolutionary challenge to the counterrevolution. It would stimulate the inexhaustible revolutionary energy of the multimillion-strong working class and collective peasantry and enable them to spring into action. It would give confidence to the Communist organizations to organize an all-union struggle against the destructive, vandalist character of the pro-capitalist and pro-imperialist Yeltsin/Gaidar regime.
Yes, only a small grouping in the Congress of Deputies, if it got on its feet and loudly and clearly acted as a revolutionary tribune, would sound the tocsin for revolutionary class struggle as the only alternative to the chaos and destruction that has been the lot of the working class for more than six years. Enough time has elapsed to clarify in the minds of the millions the true significance of the "democratic," "humane" reforms which Gorbachev began and which Yeltsin and his cohorts have furthered and deepened.
The next period will surely reveal that the seeming lethargy in the forces of the working class is merely a symptom of the disorientation and confusion caused by the official collapse of the CPSU and its failure to respond to the onslaught of counterrevolution. The inherent objective tendencies of the multinational working class and collective peasantry will inevitably break through the welter of confusion, deceit and betrayal and come into their own.