💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › politics › SPUNK › sp000950.txt captured on 2022-03-01 at 16:44:48.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
EXPOSICION.... Translated version of Frank Harrison's
article on the Ex-USSR
FREEDOM INTERNATIONAL SECTION 84B, WHITECHAPEL HIGH ST.
LONDON E1
The Disintegration of the State - Russian Perspectives
(Frank Harrison)
In order to speak of politics in the modern era - an era
which began with the French Revolution - one must consider
the supremacy of the bureaucratic state. This era has seen
how all previous political unions have been replaced by the
state. The city dweller has become the base of all social
analysis. It is taken for granted that patriotism is a good
thing and the capacity of governments to mobilise their
citizens and resources has become the measure of their
efficiency, legitimacy and a form of self-justification.
Such a model is to be found equally in the East as in the
West. Soviet and North American patriotism have become the
choice of their respective political elites. Kropotkin
pointed out that the new economic forms of political
organisation would become associated with a new economic
order brought into being by the industrial revolution.
This Statist view has come to dominate the modern mind. This
naked and little questioned power - accepted as the norm -
is responsible for the crimes of colonialism, the domination
of the third world by the developed world. However, there is
some resistance to recognising this model of the State.
Inequality, class struggle, regional and linguistic
conflicts and indifference threaten the legitimacy of this
political sphere. Pluralism doesn't always function
smoothly, that is to say, when pluralism doesn't function
neither does the sate. The authority of the State is
rejected: Catholics in Northern Ireland, Kurds in Turkey,
Serbs in Bosnia etc. are starting to grasp for a new
political reality. This is the current crisis of the State.
The State is seen as the enemy in the ghettos of the USA, in
the Sik temples in India, on a Catholic street in Belfast
and when it appears in any place in the former Russian
Federation.
Each State requires certain conditions to be fulfilled in
order to sustain its authority, these are:
- a culture of obedience - a recognised source of authority
- Corporatism and a sense of commitment in the Civil and
Armed Services. - an ability to give privilege to the
interrelated elites (political, cultural, economic,
military...) - quasi governmental organisations who co-
ordinate necessities and expectations in such a way so that
the government can act as intermediary - an ability to
generate state interests which supersede local conflicts
(relating to, for example, religious/linguistic conflicts
and/or standard of living expectations)
All these mechanisms taken together lay the foundations of
the psychological and organisational adhesion of any given
State. In the former USSR it was the Communist Party which
formed the nucleus of these integrated mechanisms until it
collapsed (over the last three years).
The first question which arises for those who are pleased to
see the collapse of a State should be: Out of the Russian
Federation will there be formed a new federation of States
or is a new Russian imperialism a possibility? Will there be
a return to centralism in Russia or are there other options?
The collapse of the State should be a cause of celebration
since we have been 'brainwashed' with the concept of the
State to the point that Yeltsin, having declared himself the
new Russian dictator, the West applauds and is pleased that
Russia is back on the road towards reunification.
Fortunately they are mistaken.
Previous speakers have shown an interest/concern with
nationalism. I find myself in agreement with someone who in
the 1930s who was asked if he would betray the State or his
friend answered, 'I hope I would betray the State' because I
would never betray my friend. For me nationalism is the same
as tribalism. In my written work I claim that the modern
State is the product of the French Revolution. Kropotkin
wrote that the factor which characterised the dehumanisation
of society was the technical structure. However,. the State
dominates our consciousness, it is the 'norm' it is accepted
as the natural state of things. But the State exists by the
skin of its teeth. Wherever you will find a state you will
find it owing its existence to the lies of political
propaganda and the powers of its police. When the lying ends
the state collapses as it has done in Russia. It collapsed
in the former USSR but it has also collapsed in the Russia
of today; today Russia is neither a government nor a nation;
today it is made up of 89 governments. The capacity for
integration lies only in the Communist party. When the
Communist Party lost its legitimacy so did the State. Does
the Russian State have the power to reintegrate itself if it
doesn't exist? My answer is NO. The Russian State as the
Soviet State no longer exist and will not exist again.
However, the dominant factor is the remaining reunificatory
capacity within the old Soviet Union within contemporary
Russia. In this I feel we can see an example of the failure
of the modern State. I think and I hope that the elites of
all states are trembling.
This cannot be seen as a victory for anarchism but rather
the end of the capacity of such politics to promote
integration.
When we look towards Russia we see total institutional
confusion, Moscow and its politics are pure theatre; the
Supreme Court, the Presidency, Yeltsin etc... are mere
actors. They entertain us because they have no power. But
what of the future? I suggest five possibilities.
The first is 'Military Fascism'; the military could come to
represent an active force for reunification, I don't think
this will happen. Today there are more officers that
soldiers in the armed forces and the youth are voting with
their feet. They will not enlist. Moreover the military are
very divided. Nor does the economy give them money for
equipment. Today these forces have neither the personnel,
the material nor the unity/solidarity that they need. Today
Military Fascism is not possible.
Secondly 'Capitalism' as a system of recuperation didn't
work, doesn't work and will not work in Russia. It is not a
question of accepting or rejecting the capitalist ideology
which has indeed been culturally rejected. The 'free
enterprise economy' can only survive and grow if two
conditions are fulfilled: 1) Give the workers higher levels
of employment and remuneration 2) Have some comparative
advantage vis a vis the rest of the world - an advantage
used by the State to generate investment in the country and
sell outside of its frontiers within the framework of
monetary stability.
But when the state industries are being shut down,
unemployment is reaching 20 million and savings are
annihilated by hyper inflation running at 1 000% pa economic
dislocation is the outcome and we come to realise that
capitalism is not the means for bringing about Russian
reunification.
Thirdly 'Constitutional Federalism'; the fragmentation
caused in part by the economic decline has favoured the
appearance of an initiative aiming at a 'constitutional
solution' which consists in producing a document which
defines the sharing of power in equal parts between the
Centre and the Regions/Republics and also a Justice System
which would have the power to resolve the various disputes
between the factions and parties which make up the
organisation of the State. On the 12 July 93 the delegates
to the Constitutional Assembly gave their consent to such a
document and gave the President the power to dissolve
parliament and call elections. The Federal law took priority
over the laws of the various Republics and the vice-
presidency was abolished. However, the evidence suggests
that the Regions and the Republics have no intention to
subordinate themselves to Moscow; the leaders of the
Republics have rejected the priority of the federal law.
There was a tendency for the Republics to declare themselves
independent. Amur, Vologda, Sverdlovsk, St. Petersburg and
Primorsky Krai this summer.
But there is no tradition of independence of this kind in
Russia and the conflict between Yeltsin and the
Constitutional tribunal is a part of the 'theatre' which the
national Russian government is a part of today.
Russia has collapsed and the new documents will not bring
back the old system nor will they bring into being a new
one.
The political analysts indicate that Russia is in a pre-
party state. There do not exist national political groupings
and without these the state cannot resuscitate itself.
In order for Yeltsin to win enough power he will have to
draw on institutions and persons and move towards a form of
power that we can call 'Civil Fascism' which is the fourth
possibility. When I wrote this (July 93) I suggested that
Yeltsin might attempt a 'coup d'etat', a constitutional
seizure of power calling on the forces of democracy in
Russia, but that this also would fail because such a
constitutional fascism was based on the belief that only a
minority was democratic. I believe that this plan is also
destined to fail due to the fact that local organisations in
Russia are not keen to collaborate with the 'actors' in
Moscow. There will be no massive mobilisation of support for
Yeltsin who, moreover, has never enjoyed majority support.
In the April referendum only 6 out of 10 voted and of these
only 6 out of 10 voted for Yeltsin. We are speaking of a man
whose popularity in April was not that of the majority and
whose popularity is currently in decline.
The political logic of the old regime put the Communist
Party in a position of 'infallible doctrine' to justify
social and political authoritarianism. With the
disappearance of this not only is there a political vacuum
but also a distrust of secular ideologies. There is now the
possibility of a call to the myths of nationalism, race,
religion and blood especially if the situation deteriorates;
crime rises and life expectancy falls.
Fascism could come about in Russia due to the absence of
politics.
My conclusion as an anarchist is a positive one. I look
towards the fifth possibility which will be as envisaged by
Proudhon 'Decentralised Federalism'. Russia has this
capacity which could serve as an example to other states. I
am no expert on Spanish matters, but I understand that there
was a strong federal tradition in this country before the
dictatorship. The federalist capacity which exists in every
state also exists in Russia but there is no guarantee that
it will be successful.
When a central regime admits its inability to control local
authorities the development of a federalist system could
prove the best solution for Russia in these times. The
system is characterised by a multiplicity of local
authorities and constant change in the political sphere at a
local level. Vaclav Havel, president of the Czech Republic
concluded that in this post-Leninist situation there exists
the remains of an 'evil' in a moral sense reflected in
racism, nationalism, aggression and crime. Havel is
confident that once this 'evil' is eliminated a new social
integration will come into being, I concur. I conclusion
when I think of the possibilities which inspire me I think,
not of Havel but of Bakunin and Proudhon.
I suggest that we continue to focus on the ideals of the
French Revolution properly speaking that is to say liberty,
equality and fraternity.
Bakunin said that he would not consider himself to be free
as long as one single person did not enjoy liberty: 'if
there is one person who is not free I am not free'.
Perhaps we can say that the end of communism in Europe marks
the beginning of history.
There exists the possibility of outcomes other than those
which prevail in Bosnia: an indication of the renovation of
the anarchist solution understood in the Proudhonian sense
of 'order without authority'.