WW in 1988: On the eve of the Soviet Party Conference
Published Oct 24, 2008 8:20 PM
Below are excerpts from an article by Sam Marcy that appeared
originally on May 26, 1988, during economic changes in the USSR promoted by
Communist Party leader Mikhail Gorbachev. The full text can be found in the
Archives section of workers.org in the book “Perestroika: a Marxist
Critique.”
The cheering in the imperialist press for perestroika seems to get louder with
each passing day.
Where are the reforms leading? What is their true overall direction? Is
perestroika, as the imperialist bourgeoisie hopes, a move away from the
socialist perspective, from socialist planning? Or is it only a temporary
retreat meant to lay the basis for a swifter momentum in socialist construction
at a later date?
[T]he rebellions that recently took place in Armenia and Azerbaijan, the first
of their kind since the Revolution and the Civil War, should be a matter of
great importance [at the 19th Conference of the Communist Party]. Adequate
representation by all sides would be especially necessary, with reports from
the people concerned. There is scarcely an issue of more significance to
socialist construction than the national question.
A remark by Gorbachev about the procedure for selecting delegates to the
Conference is altogether disturbing and may breach the usual procedures by
which Conferences and Party Congresses are organized. The Bolshevik Party was
founded as the militant working class organizer of the vanguard. Its
ideological standpoint as a proletarian party meant that the leadership had to
ceaselessly strive to see to it that the social composition of the Party
corresponded to its ideological position as the vanguard of the working class.
From its very inception the Party leadership sought to enroll workers, peasants
and the rural poor, women and all the disadvantaged as the bulwarks of the
future socialist dictatorship of the working class and the peasantry.
Even if this has been abandoned, even if only a formality or a shell remains of
it, nevertheless, at the last Congress what was significant from the point of
view of formality was the predominance of workers. There were also many from
the collectives, many women, and many from the various nationalities in the
USSR. Now we see a change with respect to the social composition of the
Conference. Gorbachev recently said in a speech to editors and Party leaders,
“There must be no more quotas, as we had in the past—so many
workers and peasants, so many women and so forth.”
This sounds really alarming. He then buttressed his remark by saying,
“The principal political imperative is to elect active supporters of
perestroika.” What about those who are not supporters? If it’s only
for supporters, why have the Conference at all?
What about democratization? Is it only for the supporters of perestroika, even
the most extreme ones who can scarcely be differentiated from outright
bourgeois types? Doesn’t this make a mockery out of the whole
democratization process? It is well known that there is a considerable amount
of opposition in the Party to perestroika.
If perestroika is to be the great turning point in Soviet society about which
Gorbachev and his supporters are continually exhorting the population, does it
not rate an open discussion in the Party?
In all previous five-year plans, great enthusiasm was evident, coming
particularly from the masses. But now it seems that no matter how much
exhortation there is, no matter how many times the masses are told and retold
that they are now co-owners in plants and industries, it does not seem to take
hold. It must be that a good many feel alienated from ownership and that the
restructuring plans have caused apprehension and uncertainty among the mass of
the workers, although there is no evidence of an opposition movement in the
working class.
The issue is how the changes will affect the workers, and most immediately how
a price restructuring will affect them. A great eagerness was shown by the
administration to restructure the prices of some 200,000 items, including food,
household utensils, so forth and so on. This restructuring would supposedly put
prices more in line with costs and ultimately benefit the workers, but it
appears to be an upward movement, not a downward one.
Price is nothing but the monetary expression of value. Value is another name
for the amount of socially necessary labor time spent in the production of an
article. Has not the progress of socialist construction in the USSR shown that
scientific-technological development ought to reduce the amount of socially
necessary labor? This should mean the reduction of cost. But the projection of
the perestroika economists is that prices have to be raised. Putting prices in
line with costs and the adoption of new cost accounting methods all adds up to
a redistribution of the national income in a way that spreads apprehension and
fear among the workers. This is reflected in the lower bodies of the Party,
which, while by no means as faithful a representation of the working class as
they should be, are nevertheless more significant than the cheerleaders for the
reforms from the bourgeois intelligentsia of the USSR.
It is this problem that has to be addressed. If the stagnation of Soviet
industry is so great, can it be due merely to the existence of lethargy and the
prevalence of bureaucratic methods? Or is it due to a slowly but surely
developing momentum toward modifying the social system in the direction of
bourgeois norms, toward encouraging individual acquisitiveness, favoring
individual entrepreneurs, vastly extending managerial prerogatives, stimulating
competitiveness among workers—instead of promoting cooperation and
solidarity and reawakening genuine mass enthusiasm? Isn’t this what has
to be discussed?
The problem of perestroika lies in the fact that this is an attempt to change
social conditions, to redistribute the national product in another, more
unequal way. It lies in the attempt to foist bourgeois norms, bourgeois
incentives and bourgeois economic doctrines upon a socialist economy. They
bring in their train all of the evils of a capitalist market economy. You
can’t improve it by calling it market socialism.
The issue is whether perestroika is oriented in the direction of strengthening
the socialist perspective or whether it is an attempt at a throwback to favor
the upper crust of Soviet society. The lesson of Poland ought to be sobering to
the Gorbachev supporters, and even more so the lesson of Yugoslavia with its
galloping inflation, its subordination to the imperialist IMF, its chronic
unemployment and the reemergence of national antagonisms.
Articles copyright 1995-2012 Workers World.
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email:
[email protected]
Subscribe
[email protected]
Support independent news
DONATE