First Published: Frontline, Vol. 4, No. 21, April 27, 1987.
Transcription, Editing and Markup: Paul Saba
Copyright: This work is in the Public Domain under the Creative Commons Common Deed. You can freely copy, distribute and display this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit the Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line as your source, include the url to this work, and note any of the transcribers, editors & proofreaders above.
The process of socialist renewal initiated by Soviet Communist Party General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev is being followed with keen interest on the U.S. left. For the most part, U.S. activists are evaluating the changes within the context of whatever ideological framework they already held regarding Soviet society; fundamental re-evaluations of long-held premises are not at this stage taking place. But across the political spectrum there is a new atmosphere surrounding discussion of the Soviet Union, and a widespread opinion is taking hold that a shift of major significance is indeed underway.
Gorbachev’s new policies have aroused the most enthusiasm among activists involved in the peace movement, where Soviet disarmament initiatives have been so striking and unambiguous. David Cortright, national director of SANE, told Frontline that “recent Soviet foreign policy initiatives are tremendously positive – for example the test ban. In regard to the Euromissiles Gorbachev has shown great flexibility and a willingness to make concessions.” Cortright added that “The international and domestic initiatives are related. The Soviet Union can’t address internal social and economic needs without reducing the needs of the military .... This is an exciting period in Soviet history, which augurs well for the evolution of the Soviet system. Gorbachev is a real visionary.”
Carolyn Cottom, executive director of the Nuclear Weapons Freeze, commented, “We’ve been very heartened by the political reforms because of the great concern about Soviet treatment of their citizens, And the fear of the Soviets [within the U. S.] is real. Any movement in the Soviet Union helps to lessen that fear, and thereby helps toward ending the arms race. The Soviet freeze on testing is part of the political reform. It is clear now that the U.S. is the obstacle to arms control. The Soviets have demonstrated that they are willing to do it.”
Jack O’Dell, international affairs director of the Rainbow Coalition and a long-time peace activist, said in a telephone interview that “The Soviet peace initiatives have been magnificent. The proposal for eliminating nuclear weapons by the year 2000 has given great hope to the people of the world. And it’s shown people that the obstacle to disarmament is with the U.S. and not the Soviet Union.”
Among many of the socialist currents in the U.S. left, evaluations of the Soviet changes at this stage tend to be cautious. But even prominent figures who have long been harsh critics of the Soviet Union and retain basic differences with Marxist-Leninist ideology are initially giving Gorbachev’s program high marks. Michael Harrington, national co-chair of the Democratic Socialists of America, told Frontline:
“Overall, the changes have been extremely positive. One positive change has been a loosening up in evaluations of Soviet history, for example allowing writers to write about Stalin. They appear to be re-evaluating the political demonology which Stalin promoted. Also, they are more forthright in admitting problems, for example regarding the Chernobyl disaster. After the initial reaction, their coverage was good.
“Gorbachev is a liberal technocrat,” Harrington continued. “I don’t think what is happening will lead to democratization as we define it. I don’t see any tendency toward the party being fundamentally challenged. But I didn’t expect there to be that tendency.” On Soviet foreign policy, Harrington stated that “Under Gorbachev there’s the greatest possibility for arms control since the Cold War. But Reagan’s insane insistence on Star Wars and other intransigent policies is holding things back. Gorbachev’s international initiatives are very positive.”
David McReynolds, a leading figure in the War Resisters League and the Socialist Party, said in a telephone interview that “Something very significant is going on in the Soviet Union. The Soviets have a very clear internal agenda. World opinion hasn’t moved them. I think the current agenda is designed to relate to their own internal needs. And I look forward with a great deal of hope for internal changes.”
“Arms control will help the process of democratization,” McReynolds continued. “The real question is what is your bottom line on the changes? Our bottom line is restoration of or a movement towards internal democracy. Our bottom line is not the return of private property, as it is with some. With some in the progressive movement, their bottom line is not clear. Release of the dissidents did not change their tune. Some of them ought to look twice at who the dissidents really are and what they represent. Too many try to look at the Soviet Union from a Western perspective. ”
Joanne Landy of the Campaign for Peace and Democracy East and West, which has taken up the cause of many Soviet dissidents, was inclined to be more negative. Landy told Frontline that the reforms were “good but not good enough; basic changes have to come from below.” Landy said that the changes “give space within which grassroots movements can develop. The Cold War policy is the worst way to promote that kind of development.” On the shifts in economic policy, Landy said they appeared to be “changes rather than reforms, aimed at making workers more productive.”
Monthly Review editor Paul Sweezy, main proponent of the “theory of post-revolutionary society” which holds that the Soviet Union has eliminated capitalism but is not a socialist country, is hesitant at this stage to offer an overall assessment of the changes under Gorbachev. He did tell Frontline that “I am interested and hopeful and awaiting further development of the reforms. I don’t know enough to have any strong opinions one way or the other; this is just the beginning of what may be a long process. But so far it looks good.”
Richard Barnet at the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) told Frontline that the Gorbachev reforms are “encouraging – a real effort to deal with real problems.” Barnet noted that IPS has had a number of exchanges with the Soviets and that he notes “a much greater willingness to discuss new ideas, much more flexibility.
“There is a lot of skepticism in this country about the reforms,” Barnet added. “But the degree of skepticism is related to the degree of commitment to Reagan’s policies. It raises fundamental questions about the assumptions that are made about the Soviet Union.”
The Guardian newspaper, a prominent voice in the independent anti-imperialist left, has not yet published an editorial evaluation of the Gorbachev renovations. But it has carried a number of news articles portraying the reforms in a favorable light and Guardian editor William Ryan told Frontline “We look at the reforms in a positive way.”
Among U.S. communist forces, the Gorbachev initiatives are evaluated in relation to strengthening a socialist society that already enjoys solidarity and support. Communist Party USA (CPUSA) General Secretary Gus Hall has written a number of articles in the CPUSA press about the current changes. His emphasis is on the achievements of the Soviet people up to now that have laid the basis for the present advance:
“We should see the changes in the context of what has gone before. The past created the possibilities for the present changes .... We must struggle to keep our perspective, to avoid falling into the traps laid by the ruling class and the mass media .... Today’s developments are a sign that it [the Soviet Union] is a society strong enough, capable and confident enough, to embark on a process of correction and renovation.” (Political Affairs, March, 1987)
The assessment of the Line of March has likewise been that the Gorbachev reforms “are evidence of Soviet socialism’s underlying strength and its leadership’s maturity and self-confidence.” Analytic articles appearing in Frontline have focused on identifying precisely why these changes are occurring at this time and what structural forces they represent.
“The approach to intensive economic development taken during the 1930s under Stalin – however necessary it may have been to the period – was quite inadequate to the new challenges and possibilities of the post-World War II period .... What Gorbachev understands – and this is what makes him not only an agent of history but an extremely conscious one – is that the present juncture is an opportunity to affect an alteration in the Soviet political structure which, at long last, may be able to correct those negative features of socialist development which have occurred over the course of more than half a century. The vista opened up by Gorbachev is awesome.” (Frontline, March 2)
The Trotskyist trend, whose ideological identity is based on the premise that Soviet society could not possibly become democratic without a political revolution against the Soviet Communist Party, has tended to dismiss the Gorbachev reforms as simply the latest effort to “pacify” the Soviet masses. The largest U.S. Trotskyist organization, the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), carried a series of columns in its newspaper in January and February which restated the standard Trotskyist position that the Soviet Union is ruled by a parasitic caste and promised an assessment “in the coming weeks” of current policy changes, but so far that assessment has not appeared. Socialist Action, a split off from the SWP which is more closely aligned with the main political center of international Trotskyism in Europe, argues that the objective of“ Gorbachev and the faction of the Stalinist bureaucracy he represents ... is to preserve their privileges and monopoly on political power.”