One would think that the resounding defeat of Boris Yeltsin's pro-capitalist supporters in the March 17 union treaty referendum in the USSR would have convinced them to abide by the decision of the masses, and drop plans for civil war.
Whichever way one reads the vote, it was carried out in accordance with the strictest parliamentary procedures. The proponents of capitalism made no allegations of fraud, misconduct, coercion or anything that smacks of illegal procedures. That should have settled the issue.
In fact, the vote was more than a referendum on the union treaty. It was a sharp setback to those encouraging and promoting the restoration of capitalism. The margin was somewhere near 75% for the union treaty and against disunion and separatism. It astounded the world bourgeoisie and forced some of them at least for the moment to reconsider their expectations that the USSR would be dismembered.
It seems that the Yeltsins should at least have known enough to lay low for the time being. But nothing of the sort is happening.
To the contrary, very extreme elements of the bourgeois opposition to socialism have stepped up their campaign of lies, slander and intimidation. At the present moment, this is directed against the Russian parliament. Progressive forces there have become more vocal and are gathering strength, particularly after the referendum victory. But the counterrevolutionary elements are continuing relentlessly on a course of capitalist restoration.
In order to understand this, it is necessary to go over some background.
Chief is the utterly incredible letter published in Komsomolskaya Pravda on Jan. 22. It can be found in English in the March 6 issue of The Current Digest of the Soviet Press (Vol. XLIII, No. 5).
This so-called open letter calls for Gorbachev's resignation. It was written by Stanislav Shatalin, a former principal adviser to Gorbachev. He has long been known as an out-and-out supporter of bourgeois restoration. Shatalin is a mathematical economist and author of the notorious 500-day plan to dismantle the USSR's socialist system and introduce the "free" enterprise system. His letter is astonishing, only because he either didn't realize its significance or he is so far removed from the masses in the USSR and so involved in dealing with the new crop of bourgeois politicians there that he didn't realize what effect it would have once the masses got wind of it.
Shatalin's "500-day plan," he tells us, was submitted to the Soviet parliament, which listened to it attentively and seemingly, according to his version of things, might have passed it. He was so overwhelmingly confident of his notorious plan to restore capitalism that he went to the length of divulging to the Deputies of the Soviet parliament that he thereafter "flew off for two weeks in the U.S., where all the leading economists gave a high rating to the professional level of the `500 days.'|"
Thus, even before his plan was fully discussed and voted upon in the Soviet parliament, he rushed off to the U.S. to get it approved by the imperialist bourgeoisie here. This is precisely what U.S. bankers and industrialists demand of their client states in the Third World. This is what they have demanded of the oppressed masses everywhere. There are dozens of countries that, under the whiplash of U.S. imperialism and dire economic necessity, regularly submit their economic plans to the IMF, first and foremost, and the World Bank or other institutions that are instrumentalities of U.S. finance capital.
So here we have the USSR. Until Gorbachev got in as general secretary, it was regarded as at least the second greatest world power. And now their plans for reconstruction must first be submitted for examination and approval by "the leading economists" — the leading flunkies — of U.S. finance capital. They naturally gave Shatalin's quick fix for restoring capitalism a high rating for its "professional level."
How could he possibly get himself to make such a brazen confession? It's especially remarkable since the Supreme Soviet rejected Shatalin's "500-day plan" last fall. "This was a catastrophe," he laments.
At the time he wrote the letter, Shatalin knew full well that the union treaty referendum, which was scheduled to be held not even two months later, was regarded as a test, a contest between the pro-capitalist, pro-restorationist elements in the USSR and those who are for socialism. In truth, the referendum was all about this. Shatalin must have thought that the masses are either ignorant, unconcerned, or supporters of the restoration of capitalism.
It is not clear at this writing whether the Soviet media made much of Shatalin's confession that he presented his economic plan first to the U.S. for approval before the parliament voted on it. What is clear is that the masses got the message and understood its significance.
Then Shatalin was off to the U.S. again. He and a number of others, most of whom are in the pay of the U.S. in the first place, consistently try to line up elements of U.S. imperialism to either directly intervene in Soviet affairs or at least to stop the USSR from any attempt at conducting normal trade and commercial relations.
There is a stable of Soviet professors, politicians, writers and think tank specialists now on the payroll of various arms of the U.S. government. These types are different in one respect from the earlier ones who defected, like Arkady Shevchenko and the others. This current crop is free to leave the USSR and take on positions in U.S. educational, cultural and even political institutions — for pay — as part of the USSR's new "openness."
It is they who are trying to block efforts on the part of the USSR to solicit aid, technical assistance and personnel that would substantially help the USSR in some key industries such as operating unexploited oil fields in the USSR.
Oil production in the USSR is down at a time when it is badly needed. The reasons are not clear, except for possible sabotage by reactionary elements. The vast oil fields need modernization — technology as well as technical assistance. This might have to come from the imperialist countries, due both to neglect in the Gorbachev years and prohibitions the imperialists placed against the USSR in importing oil field technology. Much of the oil technology equipment is outmoded, judged by modern standards.
For many years, even dating back to Lenin's time, Soviet leaders had hoped to secure Western oil technology and to permit it to operate in the USSR on a capitalist basis. In Lenin's time, the idea was to encourage — the proper word would be entice — capitalist entrepreneurs to come and exploit some of the natural resources like oil in the USSR. This was regarded as a form of state capitalism — that is, a capitalism that is strictly controlled by a workers' state.
The imperialist enterprise would operate under the strict limitations of the Soviet government, and would have no rights of ownership. The imperialist monopolies would be subject to all the laws of the Soviet government, especially the labor laws. There would be careful limits to prevent the capitalist entrepreneurs from engaging in any type of political activities or carrying out any form of economic intercourse in the USSR that would be harmful to the construction of socialism.
Any number of capitalists in the U.S. today, including some of the strongest oil monopolies, are very anxious to exploit the Soviet oil fields, despite the tremendous booty they believe they have obtained as a result of the aggression in the Middle East. None has so eagerly awaited the results of the referendum as the various monopolies that are interested in stretching out to reach the Soviet Union.
Thus, we learn from the March 23 New York Times business section that a conference of oil industry experts met at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service on March 21. They discussed prospects for investment opportunities in drilling and exploiting oil and gas in the Soviet Union.
The result of the Soviet referendum has thrown these oil specialists into confusion and uncertainty. Many took the floor to discuss prospects for obtaining contracts and commencing operations in the USSR. But the mood, according to the New York Times, was plainly down. Almost all expressed uncertainty about their plans in light of the result of the referendum.
The Times reports that there were "several high-ranking Soviet oil and gas officials" at the conference. They described the benefits U.S. investors might derive from doing business in the USSR if they brought with them new capital and technology that could raise production. Such Soviet delegations are normally invited to such conferences. But this time there was something new. Stanislav Shatalin was at the conference, although he is not a specialist in oil or oil technology nor was he appointed by the Soviet government to represent it. It is not clear in what capacity he arrived. Who paid for his visit?
The New York Times article describes Shatalin as the "author of the rejected 500-day plan for transformation of the Soviet economy and a former adviser to president Mikhail S. Gorbachev." He was given the floor to offer his advice. He said that under current conditions "if I was a banker I would not invest a single cent in our economy." He also said that "the Soviet Union is backing away from a free-market system," according to the Times.
Thus he came not to solicit help for the Soviet Union, as the official delegation did, but to discourage it. Could Shatalin be regarded as anything else than an agent, a flunky of U.S. imperialism? Instead of being an adviser for the Soviet Union, he is an adviser to the imperialists. But that in itself would be no more than small potatoes if a decisive struggle between capitalism and socialism were not in progress.
Here it is necessary to observe that the Pentagon is, to say the least, not altogether unmindful of the situation in the USSR. It is no dispassionate observer sitting on a mountaintop as this historic battle unfolds.
As the March 18 issue of Time magazine indicates, the Pentagon is already making plans to intervene in a possible Soviet civil war. The title of the article in itself is significant. It is called "Operation Steppe Shield." According to Time, Washington is worried that a show of U.S. military muscle might be needed if civil war engulfs the USSR. Actually, that is exactly what the Pentagon hopes for.
"Pentagon and CIA officials also have begun a careful evaluation of plans to redeploy units from the Gulf," Time continues. "Some warships previously bound for home ports may be delayed. Officials hint that ground troops normally based in Europe but set to return to the U.S. will do so — but maybe not quite as soon as they would hope.
"There is nothing farfetched about the idea that there might be a civil war in the USSR," concludes Time. "Senior American intelligence officials believe there is a `very real' possibility of widespread disorder; several analysts compare 1991 with 1917."
What the article does not say — and leaves completely to the reader to find out — is that the U.S. along with 13 other capitalist countries militarily intervened in the civil war in the Soviet Union immediately after the Bolshevik Revolution. In one of the truly epochal revolutionary developments, all the imperialist powers were finally forced to withdraw.
That's worth pondering for the Pentagon — especially at a time when it is flushed with a dubious victory in the Gulf that will eventually lead to its undoing as an imperialist power despite all the braggadocio coming from Schwarzkopf, Powell, Cheney and Bush.
The temporary victory won by imperialism at the cost of so much blood of the oppressed people will ultimately be dissolved in a revolutionary maelstrom that will set imperialism back with the kind of a defeat from which it can never recover.
Last updated: 19 February 2018