PUTIN IS CONSOLIDATING THE POWER OF BUREAUCRACY AGAINST CAPITALIST ELEMENTS AND THE PROSPECTS OF POLITICAL REVOLUTION: A TROTSKYIST ANALYSIS BY ANTHONY BRAIN.
YELTSINISM INCREASED SOCIAL INEQUALITIES IN RUSSIA.
Martin Wollocatt in the September 5th edition of the Guardian wrote an article entitled:”Private grief”. He pointed out that social inequalities massively increased under Yeltsin. Before Yeltsin came to power in 1991 there were inequalities due to a Bureaucratic caste ruling. There were inequalities in food; transport; accommodation; and education. At the heart of this caste was the Soviet Communist Party who ruled in their interests. Special Communist Party shops existed for these Bureaucrats. (Wollocatt 1998)
As analysed in this book Yeltsin increased social inequalities due to the Bureaucratic pillage which cut back dramatically on resources to nationalised industries and other public services, with examples of health and education spending being cut. There were also concessions to Capitalists who became billionaires. Rich Bureaucrats also gained massive fortunes. There has been a massive redistribution of wealth under Putin back to the Bureaucrats who lost out under Yeltsin. Finally there were concessions to workers due to the fears of revolutionary upheavals turning into potentially full blown Political Revolution. Only a revolutionary party can complete a process of Political Revolution.
RUSSIAN BUREAUCRACY OPPOSES U.S. IMPERIALIST MILTIARY ATTACK ON IRAQ IN 1998.
The Russian Bureaucracy felt threatened by U.S. Imperialist threats of military attacking Iraq during 1998. They realised U.S. Imperialism was attempting to dominate the world (taking advantage of Russia’s decline) which would put more pressure on the Bureaucrats to restore Capitalism. Everytime U.S. Imperialism succeeds in dominating more areas globally this emboldens them to intervene in supporting Capitalist restorationst forces within all workers’ states, with one of their key aims is to overthrow the Russian Bureaucracy. In order to limit these kinds of threats the Russian Bureaucracy uses its influence in other workers’ states and Third World countries to bargain with Imperialism. If Imperialism threatens them they can aid their struggles but will betray these struggles if Imperialism gives them room to manoeuvre.
In my opinion Russia is still ruled by the same Bureaucratic caste as in Soviet times. The difference is that the Russian Bureaucracy has imploded. There are however different layers within this Bureaucracy. This is why the Yeltsin and Putin’s administrations are different. Yeltsin represented a concillationist wing of the Bureaucracy towards Imperialism. Sections of the Yeltsinites were intermediaries between their section of the Bureaucracy and the emerging Bourgeoisie. They were a transitory layer.
It would be a mistake however to characterise Yeltsin as a Capitalist restorationst. In order to survive in power he had to defend sections of the Bureaucracy threatened by Imperialism during such situations when American bombed Iraq for three days in December 1998 and NATO’s Yugoslav war of 1999. Additionally in 1998 he had to defend middle-ranking Bureaucrats from pauperisation when Imperialism tried to bankrupt Russia during 1998. One can speculate whether if the Capitalists were in a stronger position if Yeltsin would have become a Bourgeois rather than a Bureaucrat. As this book has shown Yeltsin had to concede to the Bureaucrats threatened by Imperialism. This ultimately led to a political coup which replaced Yeltsin with Putin.
The February 18th 1998 Guardian article shows that the Russian Bureaucracy’s opposition to U.S. Imperialist military action was restraining them. U.S. Imperialism had to take them into account due to Yeltsin’s threat a few days earlier that if they went too far on Iraq it could provoke a Third World War. Bourgeois propagandists tried to create the persona of him being a buffoon. Marxism in contrast analyses that individuals’ action does not represent their eccentric characteristics but have a social base. Yeltsin’s threat came from sections of the Bureaucracy who feared U.S. Imperialist global domination
U.S. Imperialism’s aim (at the least from the late 1990s) was to overthrow Saddam Hussein’s regime and replace it with one more compliment to U.S. Imperialism’s oil interests. They did this by killing millions through sanctions and humiliating Hussein’s regime through UNSCOM inspecting the Bath Party H.Q. Under Clinton in 1998 U.S. Imperialism wanted to bomb Iraq in order to force an internal counter-revolution. The international opposition delayed any attack until December 1998. American Imperialism tried to find a formula which would save face from immediate bombing during February 1998. This was important in keeping their global hegemony. This is why they used Kofi Annan’s visit to Iraq to make a deal.
French Imperialism opposed U.S. bombing of Iraq fearing a pro-US regime would mean ending their ownership of large parts of that economy and losing billions of Francs in commerce. The Chinese Bureaucracy opposed any American Imperialist attack on Iraq for identical reasons as the Russian Bureaucracy did. Their motives were the same.
There were differences however on demands between French Imperialism on the one side, and the Russian and Chinese Bureaucracies on the other were putting forward in February 1998. French Imperialism called for quick compliance with UNSCOM. Both the Russian and Chinese Bureaucracies called for diplomats from 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council to accompany UNSCOM in their inspections within Iraq. (Tran; Black; and White 1998) This would have given those Bureaucrats more power in determining how those inspections were carried out. U.S. Imperialism would not accept this because it would weaken their regime game strategy. Trotskyists would have opposed the Russian and Chinese Bureaucracies participating in Imperialist-run operations in Iraq. We however don’t make the mistakes of certain Ultra-Lefts who cannot distinguish these Bureaucrats from Imperialism.
AUGUST 1998 FINANCIAL CRISIS CAUSED BY ATTEMPTS OF IMPERIALISM TO PAUPERISE RUSSIA. OTHER CAUSES WERE THE SHOWDOWN BETWEEN DIFFERENT WINGS OF THE BUREAUCRACY.
In a 29th August 1998 article in the Guardian James Meek wrote an article entitled:”A week that shook the world”. This particular article describes well how the financial crisis was exacerbated by inter-Bureaucratic conflicts. Banks refused to hand out deposits. Shops closed on the pretext of not knowing how much money to charge customers. Workplaces stopped paying suppliers and paying tax.
Bankers advantageously used the crisis to get more payments by the central Bureaucrats. Shopkeepers wanted to charge more money so they could profiteer. They were either retail Bureaucrats; or petty and big Capitalists. Bureaucrats in the workplaces were utilising the crisis to get more resources. (Meek 1998 A)
There were dangers that if compromises weren’t made between various Bureaucrats the masses could rise up and threaten them with destruction by Political Revolution. Another reason this was a danger to the Russian Bureaucracy that the workers were very angry at their pauperisation. This danger was echoed by General Lebed who Meek quotes as saying:
““I get the impression that the executive and the legislature are trying to sweep each other away," said Gen Lebed.”But if they fail to understand the situation in the country, both of them will be swept away." (Meek 1998 A)
IZVESTIYA ADMITS YELTSIN LOST POLITICAL POWER DUE TO AUGUST 1998 FINANCIAL CRISIS.
In late August 1998 the Russian paper Izvestiya wrote in its front page: ”Yeltsin surrenders power”. (Meek 1998) This showed there had been a decisive shift among Russian Bureaucrats against Yeltsin. The financial crisis engineered by Imperialism was aimed at bankrupting large layers of Bureaucrats and workers in order to make maximum profits for speculative Capitalists.
Meek in a 26th August 1998 Guardian article entitled: “Russia: a nation drifting into chaos”, showed that if the onslaught continued that within seven weeks Russia would have lost all its gold and hard currency reserves. Before the Bureaucrats moved on them the Russian Central Bank had to spend 430 million dollars in issuing emergency supplies of dollars caused by decline of the Rouble. The Bureaucrats were also forced to suspend the Russian stock market due to a 10% drop in the value of Roubles compared to Dollars. (Meek 1998)
Due to this onslaught by speculative Capitalists it even hit upper and middle echelons of the Bureaucracy who had gained under Yeltsin previously. This played into the hands of the Military-Industrial complex. It is the intermediary layers of the Bureaucracy who determines which wing of them rules in Russia. The Military-Industrial complex moved decisively to force a candidate for Prime Minister which would carry out more of their interests. Primakov was the candidate they pushed.
The Russian Communist Party was in a stronger position to bargain due to the changed balanced of forces within the Bureaucracy. They pushed for a turnaround in economic policy; constitutional changes; and a major say in the next post-Kiriyenko government. (Meek 1998) Yeltsin manoeuvred by trying to re-appoint Chernomyrdin as Prime Minister. In order to pull this off he was prepared to grant Chernomyrdin as Prime Minister Major powers by offering him control of the KGB; army; and police. (Meek 1998) This manoeuvre failed due to Yeltsin’s weakened power.
The Military-Industrial complex wanted a transitional period before they removed Yeltsin. Yeltsin could be used by them as a bargainship with Imperialism. They could use the threat of removing him if Imperialism went too far. Another factor influencing their decision for a transitional period was they needed time to consolidate their power. There was a danger that layers of the Bureaucracy who just broken from Yeltsin could still block them fearing they would take revenge on them for the humiliation and pauperisation those Bureaucrats suffered under Yeltsin. In August 1998 they wanted a Prime Minister who would give them resources and consolidate their power sufficiently that Yeltsin could be eventually kicked out.
Meek quotes Capitalist representatives such as Olga Beklamishcheva who wanted to make a deal with the Military-Industrial complex in order to salvage what they could of the Capitalists. This was out of sheer weakness because these Bureaucrats determined their future. They were not sure what Chernomyrdin would do as Prime Minister. The Capitalists saw how he selected his cabinet would indicate quite a lot about his intentions.
LUZHKOV CRACKS DOWN ON TRADERS IN MOSCOW IN AUGUST 1998 CHARGING HIGH PRICES. WEAKENING OF THE MONOPOLY OF FOREIGN OF TRADE LIMITS HIS ABILITY TO STOP HIGH PRICES ON IMPORTED FOOSTUFFS.
Meek’s August 26th 1998 article shows that the Moscow mayor Luzhkov stopped high prices being charged. This was to stop petty and big Capitalists; and other retail Bureaucrats enriching them at the expense of most Bureaucrats. He also feared a revolutionary upheaval of the Masses. Under Yeltsin the Monopoly of Foreign Trade was weakened due to the concessions with foreign capital. The Monopoly on Foreign Trade was however not completely destroyed because key sections of industries controlled by Bureaucrats were protected from foreign capital. If the Monopoly of Foreign Trade had been completely overturned Russia would have become a Semi-Colonial Capitalist country. Meek wrote:
“ Ordinary Muscovites were shielded from a steep rise in prices only by roving bands of tax police, enforcing Mr Luzhkov's attempts to halt inflation by decree. But the tax police are unable to shield the shopkeepers from the steep price increases of the imported foodstuffs on which the capital depends” . (Meek 1998)
FINANCIAL CAPITALIST FIRMS COLLAPSE IN RUSSIA DURING AUGUST 1998 FINANCIAL CRISIS.
Most of the Capitalist banks in Russia went bankrupt in 1998. Meek in the August 29th article mentions in passing that SBS Agro went into receivership. I remember reading Russia today in the autumn of 1998 that the main functioning bank was the state owned central one called Sherbank. This is one piece of evidence that Russia is a workers’ state and not a Capitalist state. In a Capitalist state, sections of Financial Capitalists would have been bailed out. Under Capitalism the role of the government/state is to prop up key Capitalist firms.
LIBERAL BOURGEOISE TRIES TO MUDDLE CONTRADICTIONS WITHIN THE RUSSIAN DEGENERATED WORKERS’ STATE. ONLY TROTSKYISM CAN COUNTER THEM WITH OUR UNDERSTANDING OF TRANSTIONAL SOCIETIES; LAW OF UNEVEN AND COMBINED DEVELOPMENT; AND BUREAUCRACY.
Meek tried to create confusion on the nature of the struggle which was taken place (when he wrote) during 1998. He falsely claimed that Chernomyrdin represented the Capitalists. (Meek 1998) In reality Chernomyrdin was a Bureaucrat who as Prime Minister for six years resisted Capitalist inroads. This is why Yeltsin sacked him in March 1998. It is possible that the Communist Party could make deals with Capitalists under terms where the Bureaucracy predominated. That is why they are Bureaucrats and not revolutionaries. At the same time the main section of the Russian Bureaucratic caste does not want and actually fight Capitalist restorationist dangers because their future would be most of their privileges being withdrawn by a semi-Colonial Bourgeoisie totally subordinate to Imperialism. Meek deliberately misrepresented the Bureaucrats as Capitalists in order to influence the middle class intellectuals that the Capitalists were not seriously threatened in Russia.
Russia since 1917 is a transitional society between Capitalism and Socialism. It has and is a workers’ state because it prevents Capitalists gaining ownership over sectors of this economy. The state defends the property relations coming from that revolution against a complete Capitalist takeover. Even before the rise of Yeltsin there were features of the previous Capitalist society with the Bourgeois norms of distribution such as money; trade and accounting. Ernest Mandel defined it correctly in 1951 the contradiction within the Soviet Union was between the non-Capitalist mode of production and the Bourgeois norms of distribution.
Under Yeltsin the contradiction in Russia was between the essentially non-Capitalist nature of the economy and Capitalist elements trying to complete the transition to Capitalism. The Capitalists in that period made considerable inroads but they were destroyed by resistance of Bureaucrats and workers. Yeltsin’s weakening in 1998 and departure in 2000 led to Bureaucrats putting more resources in nationalised industries/sectors of the economy; and certain Capitalists were expropriated. Bureaucrats also today are having more control of the economy. I read in “Russia Today” that the Russian cabinet meetings were like the heads of the different economic sectors meeting.
In the Law of Uneven and Combined Development there can be features of previous societies within a predominant mode of production. The Bureaucrats (including its Military-Industrial wing) can make deals with Capitalists due to pressure of world trade by Imperialism and to enrich themselves. Despite the manoeuvres of Bureaucrats the workers’ state where most of their privileges rest upon are irreconcilable with the Capitalists. At a certain stage one has to predominate over the other. This means either the Capitalists are defeated by the Bureaucrats or the Bureaucrats will be overthrown by Capital through a Social Counter-Revolution.
RUSSIAN BUREUCRAY FELT THREATENED BY EXPANSION OF TALIBAN RULE IN AFGHANISTAN DURING THE SUMMER OF 1998.
Richard Galpin in a September 1st 1998 Guardian article entitled: “Taliban army menaces Central Asia”, describes how the Russian Bureaucrats handled the Taliban’s expansion of rule. (Galpin 1998) The Russian Bureaucrats felt threatened that as the Taliban expanded northwards near the Uzbek border, that they would intervene with Islamic Fundamentalist forces to overthrow ex-USSR Central Asian workers’ States. If Capitalism was restored there Imperialism would threaten Russia more.
Taliban forces were 12 to 25 miles from the Tajik border by September 1998. (Galpin 1998) The Russian army strengthened the borders of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. They had 25,000 troops in Tajikistan in case the Tajik Bureaucracy was attacked by the Taliban. Russian Bureaucrats were nervous due to the Tajik civil war from 1992 to 1997 which threatened the Tajik’s Bureaucratic rule.
