CONTENTS

CRITIQUE NOTES

ARTICLES

BOB ARNOT : The Continuing Disintegration of The Russian Economy

SIMON CLARKE, PETER FAIRWEATHER,VADIM BORISOV :   The Workers' Movement in Russia 1987-1992

HILLEL TICKTIN : The Nature of An Epoch of Declining Capitalism

PETER KENNEDY : A Critique of Existing Theories of Thatcherism and a Contribution to a Marxist Theory of Capitalist Decay

GEOFF BARR : Marx and The Anti-Poll Tax Movement

MICK COX : Trotsky - His Enemies and Friends and The Soviet Crisis

SURVEY

MATTHEW JONES : Polish Elections - A Shift To The Left

REVIEWS

HILLEL TICKTIN : Review of Henryk Grossman's The Accumulation of Capital and The Breakdown Theory

CRITIQUE NOTES

The Twentieth Anniversary of Critique

This issue of Critique marks the twentieth anniversary of the journal. Its first major conference was in October 1972, held at Imperial College London and Critique was announced at that time. It first appeared in May 1973. The print order was 2,500 copies and that issue has been reprinted twice. The editing, proof reading and typesetting left much to be desired but subsequent issues gradually improved particularly with the advent of the personal computer. The idea of the journal originally emerged in a discussion in a class on the social structure of the Soviet Union.While the views of some former members of the Editorial Board have evolved in a more nationalist or reformist direction, the rest of the original board have remained broadly in the same political position. Some may regard this as a defect. The world has evolved and we must evolve with it. Yet the most important events that occurred in those twenty years came as no surprise to Critique theorists. The disappearance of the Soviet Union was long predicted in these pages and more importantly, it was explained. The Soviet Union was a temporary system existing for historically contingent reasons in a period of world transition. Uniquely among journals, especially left journals, Critique was convinced that the USSR was so highly contradictory that it could not last. It was more critical of the USSR than Reagan or left journals which considered the USSR to be capitalist. It has been proved right in its method and prognosis.

On January 22nd 1994 Critique, assisted by the journal Radical Chains, held a successful conference at the Conway Halls in London. Over 300 people attended the conference which was structured around three plenary sessions. In the first session Hillel Ticktin and Ken Tarbuck, debated whether capitalism was in decline and what was the theoretical meaning of the concept of decline. In the second session Mick Cox, Istvan Meszaros and Frank Furedi discussed the realities of the "New World Disorder". In the final session Sandy Smith, Bob Arnot and Simon Clarke considered what had happened to the Soviet Union and the prospects for the future. There were also ten workshop sessions on themes ranging from International Money to the Palestinian Question. The conference also saw the launch of a new campaign to defend socialists in Russia. The Committee to Defend Russian Socialists and Labour Movement (CDRS) can be reached through Mark Osborn, 243 Bellenden Road, London SE15.

The success of the conference cannot be measured solely by the numbers who attended, but more importantly by the non-sectarian nature of the theoretical debates that were stimulated. Critique intends to repeat the conference again next year as well as organising a number of regional conferences this year. The first of these will take place in Glasgow on March 12th.

Critique sees itself as helping to provide the theoretical articles required for the recuperation of a genuine Marxism, untainted by the decades of Stalinism and social democracy. At this time, many on the left have given up in despair. Yet the analysis in Critique could only lead to optimism. If the problem was Stalinism, then the potentialities today are greater than they have been since 1917. The objective structures of Stalinism and social democracy have crashed. In any case, post-war social democracy was largely dependent on Stalinism directly and indirectly. It is a dependent phenomenon which is dying with the source of its strength.

Mankind now has the classic choice between socialism and barbarism. Unfortunately barbaric aspects of this century seem to be repeating themselves. War, nationalist and religious antagonisms, starvation, mass killings and increasing repression have been the lot of many countries all over the world. In the developed countries, we are witnessing the rise of anti-Semitism, anti-immigration campaigns, a declining standard of living for many and the break up of the welfare states. Although there is no direct limitation on Marxist literature, it has become more and more difficult to produce Marxist analyses. Universities discriminate against Marxists with a greater intensity than previously, publishers look askance at Marxist works and formerly left journals have become at best liberal. The cunning of the capitalist system and the capitalist class show itself in that no laws are needed to stop Marxist analyses appearing in the media. Employers ensure that their editorial policy is maintained and the state assists by making clear what it likes and does not like. The danger of unemployment and the threat of non-promotion has turned many an honest individual into a liberal by day and a Marxist by night. Marxists seem to be doomed to a life of loneliness, marginalisation and penury, if they do not adapt to the climate and revise their Marxism to excise the role of the proletariat.

No-one could predict the exact form of social reality this century but the failure to achieve socialism is not the fault of Marx or Marxism. Still less is it the fault of the proletariat. The epic battles fought by the proletariat have not yet been crowned by victory. No one said the proletariat would win easily. Marx's insightful paragraph in the 18th Brumaire, quoted by Trotsky in his 1905, and often used since, now seems to be the work of a prophet. The proletariat, he says, finds its victories turn to dust. It wins only to lose in the end. It constantly battles to win but only wins when there is no other choice. We live in an epoch of transition in which the victories of the proletariat are already incorporated in the nature of the epoch itself. The bourgeoisie has adapted in order to survive. The economy is no longer a classical capitalist economy. In a real sense capitalism is in decline. In this issue, Hillel Ticktin discusses the question of decline while Peter Kennedy discusses the nature of Thatcherism in the context of decline. The complexity of the epoch has prevented many from understanding the direction of society. Some continue to analyse capitalism as if it simply grows more and more mature and ever stronger over the years. They fail to understand the nature of socialisation and the necessary decline of value itself.

As argued above the empirical reality in the world looks grim if not barbaric. In a society in decline that might be expected. The only force which can rescue it remains the working class, in the sense of a collectivity of all those who sell their labour power. Today that is the vast majority of the population in the developed countries.

THE FORMER SOVIET UNION AND THE FAILURE OF THE MARKET

Developments in the former Soviet Union continue to follow the predictions made in this journal. The Yeltsin regime has failed in its attempt to introduce the market and the effect of its bloody dissolution of the old Parliament and the new elections is to set the seal on its failure. Only those blind to reality, like the writers of the Economist, could possibly believe that there has been any real move to the market, that the market has any real support or that the population has benefited in any sense from the Yeltsin reforms. Large sections of the intelligentsia have shifted away from support for Yeltsin and capitalism. The workers never supported the move to the market in any genuine sense. They always opposed unemployment, relocation, bankruptcies, a declining standard of living and harder work.

Only when Yeltsin identified the market with the abolition of privilege, full employment and a Western standard of living did they support him and the market. Now that he has been exposed as a brutal dictator only interested in defending the privileges of the elite, he has lost support.

The election of 12th December showed that close to half of the population abstained from voting. Given the suppression of any section of the left from the ballot and hence the removal of any real choice for many, that was not surprising. In fact, voters were given the choice of supporting a new elite/ruling class or the old elite. It is not surprising that those who voted then preferred the old elite to a new and more ruthless section of that elite. The rise of Zhirinovsky was only to be expected. After all, the old red-brown coalition held about a third of the deputies in the old Congress of Deputies. Inevitably their supporters voted for Zhirinovsky and Zuganov, the leader of the Communist Party.

Yeltsin has been trapped into a scene over which he has no control. Although the repression of the old Parliament, with its 1,500 and more killings, according to the independent Nezavisimaya Gazeta, will go down in history as an historic crime, it is clear that he did not expect that result. Although the government had contingency plans for physically capturing the Parliament, its weakness led it to take steps which it had not previously contemplated. There can be no question but that the section of the elite around Yeltsin had no compunction in wiping out the other side. At the same time, they killed many who were not on the other side precisely because of their miscalculations. As a result they are politically beleaguered and the other sections of the elite will never forgive them. The bitter divisions within the elite are now cast in stone. At the same time, the inevitable failure of the reforms has caused increasing sections of the intelligentsia as well as the working class to move from apathy into open opposition. The strikes in Vorkuta, the Urals and in Siberia which preceded the election can only grow.

THE REGIME IS TRAPPED

Yeltsin then cannot go forward and yet he cannot go back. In fact, his assumption of almost dictatorial power, attempt to control the regions, direct repression of political opposition etc. is a return to the old Stalinist form. The arrests of members of the Party of Labour (Kagarlitsky et al) and trade unionists and attempts to force confessions remind one of the old role of the KGB and police. The rise of anti-Semitism on both sides of the political divide is another aspect of a return to the past. The increasing role of the army and forces of law and order show clearly the nature and direction of the regime. If Yeltsin then proceeds with the reforms he will be faced with huge levels of unemployment, with the accompanying riots, strikes and direct violent opposition. That is inevitable. It is extremely unlikely that the reformers will then win any form of election, even one as controlled from above as this one. Even apart from elections, the instability of such a society can only move in one of two directions. Either the workers will find their voice and demand power or the elite will use populism to control the workers. Then all the forces of chauvinism, anti-Semitism and war will be released.

Since Yeltsin's advisers can see this scenario as well as anyone else, they are advising a strategic retreat. Such a retreat can only mean a return to the old economic forms with more centralised economic decision making. It can be masked by calling the new co-ordinating bodies by names implying privatised forms but the reality will be a retreat backwards. This is the only possible solution for the elite at this time. The alternative is so bloody and so risky that the indigenous elite is unlikely to take it unless forced to do so by the IMF or what is the same thing: US capital.

We have argued in the last issue that neither gradualism nor shock therapy can work. Hence Yeltsin is trapped. Until the working class does act, the former Soviet Union is doomed to decline and increasing horror. Bob Arnot's article on the economic reforms in Russia provides a well documented historical account of their failure.

The situation in the non-Russian sections of the former Soviet Union is, if anything, worse. They are trapped in the same nether world but without the resources of Russia. Given the Russian nature of the old elite, the local elites, as in the Ukraine are considerably weaker in relation to their workers. As a result, they have been forced time and again to compromise with them. They cannot easily permit the same extremes of wealth, enormous growth of criminal elements in production, and rapid impoverishment of their populations, without dire consequences. The absurd growth of banks in Russia to the point where there are now 2,000 banks, has arisen because it is the simplest method of enrichment for the old elite. It is also the most visible and the most vulnerable to attack. It can only be copied with caution elsewhere. Privatisation, similarly, has to be more carefully done. The elite in the Ukraine and other non-Russian republics is inevitably being reined into the Russian orbit, in order that they might survive. Zhironovsky's threat to reduce subsidies to these republics has already been carried out. There can be no question but that the whole area will logically return to the fold of Russian control, even if in a new form.

The nationalists are trapped even more than Yeltsin. If the market reforms succeed, which in our analysis is highly unlikely, then Russia will be so powerful that the rest of the former Soviet Union will inevitably be colonised. If Russia fails, which is more likely, then Russia will become ever more bellicose and attempt to exploit the surrounding regions in order to prop up its own elite. If the workers do mount a successful attack on their elite, then the local elites will all be threatened. Nationalism cannot succeed in the twentieth century. It has failed everywhere and must fail in the conditions of the post-Stalinist world.

THE LEFT IN RUSSIA

At this time there are no substantial left wing organisations in Russia or the Ukraine. The Party of Labour is possibly the only political organisation that is both anti-Stalinist and anti-capitalist, and which has some very limited influence in the intelligentsia. It was originally composed of anarcho-syndicalists, the Socialist Party of Kagarlitsky, the faction of the Marxist platform associated with Professor Buzgalin plus some input from the official trade unions. Its programme, however, still shows its critical faith in the market and lack of faith in the proletariat. As a party it has no real presence because it is far too small, with a maximum of 200 members. It would be little more than a groupuscule if it were not the case that very small groups in Russia are still capable of getting very considerable electoral support. Some on the left both in Moscow and in the West see the Party of Labour as a danger to the genuine left.

It is, however, difficult to see such a small confused grouping constituting anything other than a source of confusion. Furthermore, the very nature of the Russian scene is one of total confusion. Former dissidents have become Stalinists and former Stalinists have moved to the left. The Party of Labour has no future but some of the honest individuals in or near to it will certainly move to the left. The absurdity of the present scene was graphically demonstrated to the editor after a recent conference of the Left in Moscow. He was approached by someone, after he had declared that only international socialism could save Russia, who explained that they agreed with the proposition that world revolution was inevitable and, what is more, they had worked it out, using mathematics, that the revolution would take place in 1994! A number of people produced their own written final solutions to the issues in Russia which were even more confused. At the same time, it is clear that there are people, both old and young, who stand for authentic socialism, as opposed to Stalinism or social democracy.

The far left has come into existence divided into numerous tiny grouplets, often affiliated to groups in the West. Its members command respect for their ability, determination and intellectual integrity. At the same time, they appear to have imported the sectarianism of the groups in the West.

Above all there can be no indigenous conceptualisation or theorisation because of the awful legacy of Stalinism. Without a theory and without a substantial base in the intelligentsia, the workers are bereft of hope. Confusion reigns everywhere. No-one is confused about the continued rule of the old elite or that the elite has tried to introduce the market in its own interests. On the other hand, most people cannot see the possibility of introducing genuine socialism. That is either regarded as a failure or a utopia for the agenda of the 22nd century. The analysis in Critique, however, would point to the impossibility of a capitalist or market solution in the former Soviet Union. Hence the only way out is indeed socialism. It is not a question of foisting some archaic plan on the population but pointing to the only possible road forward. Without socialism the peoples in that part of the world are doomed to a never ending series of cycles of so-called renewal or reform and failure. It is impossible to say that they are likely to descend into barbarism since they have never left that condition. A society in which millions perished in the purges down to 1953 and then remained subject to a profound atomisation cannot be said to have been anything less than barbaric.

WHERE ARE WE GOING?

If barbarism is the future then the former Soviet Union leads the world. Yet it is true that the world is locked in a long term downturn in a declining capitalism, in which the capitalist class cannot accumulate until it has broken the historic stalemate with the working class. Its apparent elephantine trumpeting at the disintegration of the Soviet Union as the historic victory of capitalism now looks like the braying of an ass. Not one country in Eastern Europe, including Eastern Germany, has successfully moved to capitalism. The enormous cost of absorbing East Germany has effectively broken the European Union and weakened Germany. The German ruling class is on the defensive. It must, therefore, defeat the German working class to maintain its position both internally and internationally. The battles in Germany are, therefore, crucial to the position of the working class the world over. The end of the Cold War did not signal an end to socialism but the renewal of class warfare in a wider, more bitter and more determined form. Stalinism was the essential stabiliser of the world economy, its elimination means that the ruling class cannot revive the process of accumulation until it has now found a new stabiliser. It is trying to use the old, decaying forms of social democracy but it knows that social democracy is far too weak to hold back the working class. It was counting on the revival of capitalism in the East to act as a market and basis for accumulation in an area where the workers had no apparent means of defence. The workers have blown that dream out of the water. The election of 12th December 1993 showed the bourgeoisie that the parties of capitalism have very little support. The parties of Stalinism/semi-fascism received a massive protest vote, which is no danger in itself to the capitalist class in the West. It does, however, show them what can happen if a credible socialist party should appear. Then they would be out of business not only in Russia but in the West. That day must come.