THE IS THEORISTS argue that whatever the formal differences between the economic and political structures in Eastern Europe and the capitalist world, fundamentally both the economics and the politics are the same. Hence, they try to point out in the December basically the same as in the USSR!
If we are to take this seriously then we are faced with a vital political question in the conditions of hastern euroDe today. will the rulers or bastern Europe attempt to stabilise their rule through moving from a political dictatorship to some form of bourgeois democracy? This is the traditional capitalist approach to the problem of power, particularly in the non-colonial parts of the world: in times of acute crisis they may turn to fascism or military dictatorship, but subsequently they turn to some form bourgeois democratic state. Why not the same in the USSR?
There is a very simple answer to this. The power of the Soviet bureaucracy is very different from the power or the capitalist class in the capitalist world. It is not based on the economic ownership of means of production. It is exclusively based upon its political control over the society.
East European bureaucrats at 'work .
the bureaucrats who presently dominate the USSR, the functionaries of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, will have to preserve their full-time posts on the basis of membership dues - another name for extinction. They cannot maintain tnew position of privilege through their property ownership the bureaucrats in the USSR are neter нат capitalists. It just means that while the capitalists can preserve their rule by turning from dictatorship to democracy, the bureaucrats must fight tooth and claw to beat down movements for democratisation.
Now, the need to modernise the economy and possesses the most advanced technology for such production it is only good sense to import from that Where we attack the bureaucracy over the issue of economic growth as a whole is that its continueo political dietatorship leads to disastrous disaccumulation in the form of huge amounts of waste. bureaucracy is not the driving force of economic growtn — it is a dead-weight obstacle to effective growth. Bureaucratic planning in Poland had arrived at an impasse in 1970. The subsequent leadership, desperately trying to appease the economic frustrations of the masses, but refusing to dismantle its own political dictatorship, turned to the West in a wildly extravagant way, running up huge debts and then trying to make the working class pay for this new piece oi cconomc mismnanagcnch In such a situation, revolutionary Marxists should not support demands either that the Polish leadership stop trading with the capitalist world or that it should expand its trade with the capitalist world still further. The central question instead should be the right to destroy the menace of bureaucratic control over the economy, by creating a genuinely democratic political order that could plan the growth of domestic production a thousand times more rationally, and at the same time give workers a real incentive to produce, by enabling them to decide democratically on how the surplus product from their labour should be distributed.
The IS comrades, on the other hand, are led to denounce trade with the capitalist world, claiming that the Polish regime is helping to produce world inflation by such trade. This amounts to nothing more than an attack on the interests of the Polish workers. For it 1s the Polish miner or shipyard worker who wants to buy a German or Japanese radio set or an Italian designed Car But, claim the IS comrades, what we object to is not the influx of plant from the West to produce consumer goods or chemical fertilisers for the peasants. What we object to is the allocation of much of the investment resources to projects which do not benefit the masses: Ru if that ie the chiection then the IS are calling
2 BATTLE OF IDEAS 20 January 1977 The Soviet Stake in Eastern Europe THE UNDERLYING ISSUE here is one of absolutely vital political importance — the dynamic of the Soviet bureaucracy's activity in Eastern Europe. The s theorists argue that tne key to the situation economic exploitation of Eastern Europe.
The importance of this issue can easily be appreciated by anyone familiar with the problems of the Czechoslovak workers' movement 1968; and exactly the same problems confront the growing opposition movement in Poland today. These movements must be armed with an absolutely clear theory of the dynamics of the Soviet bureaucracy's activity in East Europe. In particular what the Soviet bureaucracy's basic interests are and what margin of Ceausescu of Rumania - rejected Russian economic plans. Bureaucratic Power and Bourgeois Democracy TO PROVE THAT THE BUREAUCRACY in East Europe is capitalist the IS has come out with the view that the bureaucracy is forced to compete with the capitalists in the West and this competition force them to accumulate furiously. As yet the IS has found no objective reason flowing from the social position of the bureaucracy to justify this assertion. Instead they offer purely idealist explanations such as the latest contribution in the December issue of their journal International Socialism. The (wisely)
anonymou. author declares the following:
*The world system continues to dominate their (i.e the East European states - - O.M.) internal running because the bureaucracy is committed above all to trying to "catch up and overtake" its capitalist neighbours."
sine evicent trutn tnat tne worle economy continue to determine the internal functioning of the East curoDcan stares — a rumn tar rormca une oasis o Trotsky's entire critique of "socialism in one country"
-S HYCT entirelv idealist basis: a subiectivi commitment by the bureaucracy. So presumably all the bureaucracy has to do is change its views and the world economy will cease to dominate the options acE UC sasE CurODCdl SidiCs. manoeuvre internal movements for change in a country like Poland have in the face of the threat of Soviet intervention. Few more burning political questions face the dissident movements in Eastern Europe today.
The IS theory involves trying to show that the interests of the USSR in Eastern Europe are similar to, for example, American interests in Latin America:
Thus the US capitalists have a direct stake in the not intervene militarily in these countries over issues concerned with trade relations. But it will intervene against attempts to destroy its ability to siphon vast profits out of those countries' resources owned by American capital. Of course, trade relations do have their role - unequal exchanges, ete are of some importance, but they are not the fundamental thing. Nor is the form of the political regime in a Latin American country the decisive issue: it has importance only in its relation to the criteria of economic exploitation. Is there the same dynamic in the relations between the Soviet bureaucracy and the East European states?
Back in the late 1940s when IS theory was first being established, the comrades pointed to Soviet pillage in Eastern Europe via so-called "joint companies'. Whole theories of Soviet ImDCTa Sm WCIC DascE OnICS activities. But after the cessation of these enterprises ine s ineonsis sulunsis co nar imocnansm oocralcu via Comecon direction of investment projects and via unequal exchanges.
But this theory in its turn was cast to the wind by the Rumanian decision to reject Comecon plans for Rumanian development and pursue independent economic priorities. Then the IS comrades told us that il was crucial tor the soviet leadership to stop the growth of economic ties between East and West European states: Chris Harman, in particular, insisted that the decision of the Czechoslovak authorities in 1968 to turn to the West Germans for economic aid in the form of credits was a crucial factor in the Soviet invasion. But in the light of subsequent experience, particularly in Poland, this cannot be taken seriously.
Polish trade with the advanced capitalist countries was In fact, the source of competition between these states and the capitalist world is not the whim of the bureaucracy but the basic social nature of these states A victorious socialist revolution in any country would lead to fierce competition at every level between it and the capitalist world. The only way to end the pressure of the world capitalist system on the workers states will be through the victory of the workers in the capitalist world over the imperialist bourgeoisies.
The task of any genuine socialist government in a workers state would be to give every assistance to the workers movement in the capitalist countries, and this would lead to an enormous intensification of competition at every level. The bureaucracies, on the other hand, continually seek ways of escaping from this international competition. The whole aim of detente for the Soviet leadership has been to seek economic deals with the west to gel arouna tne crisis ol bureaucratic planning and to try to raise living standards in order to divert the masses from a political struggle against the bureaucratic dictatorship.
In Poland, alter the regime's tallure to crush the workers' offensive in 1970, Gierek tried to borrow heavily from the capitalist West to modernise Polish industry and raise workers' living standards.
considerably larger than its trade with the USSR in 1975 something the Czechoslovaks had never considered - - yet there was no crushing Soviet military intervention in Poland Such notions of Soviet domination of Eastern Europe being primarily geared to economic exploitation just cannot be taken seriously in the light of these experiences. The theory is hot a realistic guide to action.
Hungary 1956 - The execution of Secret Police agents, a symptom of political revolution Indeed the situation is almost the exact reverse of tne s nouon. tne sovier bureaucracy nas alowca 1. Polish clients to make a massive turn to trade with the West precisely to enable Gierek, the Polish CP leader, to preserve what is essential for the Soviet bureaucracy in rolano. nerek was suboorca lu ns rade will En West — he was even provided with a 100 million dollar loan in hard currency by Brezhnev to get it going in 1971 — precisely in order to prevent a new working class threat to the bureaucracy's political control in Poland.
It is this political control which is decisive for the bureaucracy in the USSR. For if there was a genuine democratisation in any East European society its impact on the situation in the USSR would be enormous, Western manufactured goods being unloaded at a Polish port.
threatening the Soviet bureaucracy with extinction. It was this threat in Hungary in 1956 and in Czechoslovakia - not small change about credits from the West — that made invasion essential for the interests of the Soviet leadership.
This does not mean that the Soviet leaders do not care at all about economics. They were angry with President Ceaucescu of Rumania and they are worried about the huge debts that the Polish leadership has acquired in the West. But the source of these worries is not that these things threaten SovieT super-protits from exploitation in Eastern Europe: it is a fear that a weakening of economic links will threaten the Soviet Union's political control over the East European states.
For the imperialist powers in the West the internal political regimes in neo-colonial countries can be altered flexibly provided arrangements are made to defend the economic exploitation. For the Soviet bureaucracy the position is exactly the reverse: the economic relationships of the countries the Soviet bureaucracy controls can be altered flexibly, providec that whatever economic arrangement that is mad defends the political domination from Moscow. Volume 3 Number 2 ..... Winter 1976
----- pull-quotes -----
issue of International Socialism that you had capitalist societies growing up in Egypt and Syria in the 1960s and that the economic dynamies in Brazil are
economic resources of the Latin American countries by owning mines, factories etc. The United States will
60p $1.50 Denise Avenas PART 1 NATIONAL
REVOLT IN SOUTHERN AFRICA