[page 5]
SMIR
985:
in Revolt
ORT GROUP
UPPOR your fight!s
gour fight!
them. Once drawn into struggle they proved
themselves to be no less militant than the men. For
example, in Stockport in the massive power loom
weavers' strike of 1840, 24 men and boys and 21
women and girls were arrested for harassing scabs.
Under the influence of the dockers' struggles, in 1911
15,000 unorganised women workers in 25 firms in
Bermondsey struck against low pay. In the course
of the strike, they were organised into a union by the
Federation of Women Workers and won a pay
increase.
By Margaret Creear
FOR MARXISTS, the movement of the miners' wives and the many thousands of other women who have supported the miners in this dispute, is a welcome continuation on a higher level of the upsurge of militancy amongst working class women in recent years. It underlines the increased polarisation brought about by the deepening crisis in capitalist society and is an indication of the willingness of this section of the working class to struggle to defend jobs and their communities. Many of the wives intend to remain organised and politically active after the strike, understanding the need to continue the struggle against the capitalist system. It is therefore important to set this movement in its historical context, to analyse what processes led to the increased activity amongst women and what implications this struggle will have for the future.
The first point to be made is that this movement stands in a long tradition of female militancy which predates even the establishment of the labour movement. Women were involved in spontaneous demonstrations and 'riots' for example against increases in food prices and, in the sixteenth century uprisings amongst woollen workers in the cottage industries. As capitalism developed mass production and drew women into factory labour, they formed Benefit Societies which provided basic insurance against illness and funds for strikes and lockouts.
When women workers were excluded from the craft unions due to fear of both female and unskilled labour which they represented, they built their own trade unions or joined the mixed unions prepared to recruit
Womens militant tradition
The whole history of the labour movement points to the conclusion that, in spite of the disadvantages they experience, women workers have been prepared to move with their class. At times of confident class movement even the 'unorganisable'-homeworkers, housewives, domestic workers have been organised, even if only temporarily.
Women not only involved themselves in trade unions but built political organisations. In their book One Hand Tied Behind Us, Jill Liddington and Jill Norris catalogue the struggle of thousands of working class women for the vote, which they saw as a means of influencing legislation which determined their pay and conditions and their right to organise. For working class women it also represented part of their struggle for increased education and health facilities for their class. In addition to their contribution to the building of the Independent Labour Party and the early Labour Party, they built their own women's organisation. Alan Hutt, in the Post War History of the British Working Class (pg 48) states:
[page 6]
MIR Jan 1985: Women AND THEN THE ACCUSED (KOLLED ON THE FLOOR AND SIRIKE HIS AGAINST Miners wives have drawn wider political conclusions from their experience during the strike. But do the Labour leaders understand that without a struggle legislation for women's demands will remain a dead letter? Photo: D. Pearson "Even more spectacular in many ways (than the growth of the LP) was the spread of organisation amongst women. In 1919 there were 271 Labour Women's Sections, in 1920 there were over 425, in 1921 there were 650, several having around 800 to 900 members. The aggregate membership being. 70,000."
This reflected the revolutionary mood in society at that time. Similarly, the Women's Organisation grew during the '26 general strike. The National Women's Officer's report at the 1927 Women's Confernce described the important role the WO played in the '26 strike in the mining areas, where they had sections based on pit villages. "The number of Women's Sections in April 1926 was 1,642, an increase of 192 on the previous year. In April 1927 this was increas. ed to 1,728. Membership has grown more quickly than before, especially since the lockout. Our estimate now reaches nearly 300,000 individual women members.
In addition to the WO of the LP there were also the Women's Co-operative Guilds which were particularly aimed at organising women in the home. At the end of the First World War they had 32,000 members, in 1930, 67,000 members in 1,400 branches. They campaigned on such issues as birth control, maternity care and education for girls. Their writings and reports give a graphic picture of the lives of working class women between the wars. The significance of such organisations should not be underestimated. Women are sometimes referred to as 'backward' members of the class almost as if it were biological. Although such descriptions are partly based on historical ignorance of the contribution that sections of working class women have made to the labour movement, there are other factors, some of which will be dealt with later, which may cause women to be hesitant about undertaking or supporting a struggle.
One of these has been the isolation of women in the home and their material responsibility for the home and the welfare of children. Isolated in individual households, they experience a remoteness from the labour movement, are subject to the indoctrination of the media and may even not be aware fully of the issues at stake. This of course has also been a problem in the miners' strike for those miners who have not been active on the picket line. In future strug gles the labour movement in any case will have to pay attention to ending this isolation. The Women's Organisation of the LP and the Women's Co-operative Guilds were an attempt to overcome this problem. Recently, we have seen committees of wives at Hindle Gears and Cammell Lairds and the most extensive and effective organisation in the form of the miners' wives' groups. The extent and effectiveness of women's organisation such as the Guild and the WO was strongly influenced by the drawing of women out to work, raising their consciousness and confidence. Women workers, especially textile workers played an important role and undoubtedly amongst the miners' wives, the number of women who work and have some experience of trade union organisation has helped in developing some of the groups. Struggle for equal pay However, women, particularly married women, only represented a small proportion of the workforce until recent times. By 1931 only 10% of married women went out to work. In some industries and in clerical work, marriage bars were enforced to end women's employment once they married or became pregnant.
By 1951, the number of married women workers had risen to 21.7%. The boom years following the war led to a mssive extension of jobs, especially parttime jobs in the public sector and the service industries. By 1977, 57.9% of the female workforce were married. The latest figures indicate that this has risen to 62% which includes almost 55% of women with dependent children. Women are now 40% of the workforce in Britain.
The drawing of women out to work in such large numbers in the boom years was a major contribution to the raising of working class living standards and aspirations. But we also saw a contradictory process taking place as far as working class women were concerned. On the one side reformism became deeply rooted in the labour movement. It was argued that capitalism had solved its problems, it could deliver the goods. It was simply a question of 'humane' management of the existing system. For women the quadrupling of further and higher education led them to believe that even if their jobs were monotonous and low paid their children might escape through education and acquired skills...a belief which has now been totally shattered by youth unemployment which is fuelling the anger of working class women against 5
[page 7]
Photo: Laurie Sparham (IFL) Rag trade homeworking today. In 1930 the Women's Co-operative Guilds organised 67,000 women in the home. capitalism.
At the same time as reformism was becoming entrenched, women were going out to work in such numbers and for a prolonged period of time that it raised the confidence of some sections of workers who began to feel that they were the equal of the men they worked with. We saw the struggles around the question of equal pay which challenged a fundamental assumption of capitalism that irrespective of their contribution to society, women are always secondary, subservient in work and in the home. The struggle for Equal Pay was instructive from several points of view. There had been intermittent struggles around this demand since women had first gone out to work. The first recorded demand was in 1833 by the Powerloom weavers. The first resolution calling for equal pay was carried at the TUC in 1888. Both wars saw attempts by women workers, labelled 'dilutees', to gain the male rate for the job, often with the assistance of the men they worked with. The '45 Labour government dismissed the demand as inflationary. In the thirties and the sixties clerical and civil service workers took up the issue. USDAW launched a campaign in 1961. In the mid sixties the Women's Advisory Committee opposed Labour's wage restraint policy on the grounds that it made the struggle for equal pay more difficult. In 1970, 30,000 rag trade workers starting in Leeds came out on strike. But the major battle was at Ford Dagenham in 1968 when 187 women machinists struck against a grading system which put them all on the bottom two grades. They demanded upgrading to take account of the skills involved in their work. The strike was made official and the women won a temporary victory. Undoubtedly this was the most significant strike in achieving the Equal Pay Act.
It should be remembered by those calling for further legislation today that this legislation was conceded by a reformist Labour government not because of a belief in abstract principles or from the goodness of its heart but under pressure from industrial action Although the legislation by women workers.
legitimised their demands many sections of workers have since learned that without a willingness to struggle, eg at Tricos, legislation will remain a dead letter.
Another aspect of the Equal Pay struggle which contributed historically to the so-called backwardness of women workers, or more precisely in this case the scepticism they feel towards the leadership of the movement, was the equivocal support they received when they advanced this demand. It is often pointed out that many women workers don't fight for equal pay because they have been convinced to regard themselves as secondary breadwinners. However, the Labour leadership itself has contributed to this view. Reformism bases itself on the idea that there is a fixed section of the national cake which is available to workers. Any advance, therefore, for one section of the working class must be compensated for by sacrifices by another. This approach, combined with an acceptance of the ideology of canitalism in relation to women's rôle in the home, has never actually prevented capitalism from using women as a pool of cheap labour for factories and offices. It has simply facilitated discrimination against women in terms of wages, opportunities and conditions. Reformism blocks women's demands It has also meant that the programme of the Labour movement has often lagged behind the consciousness and demands of women workers. A recent survey for the Department of Employment demonstrated that under pressure of women going out to work, many traditional views are changing amongst both women and men. When women were asked if married women should have the right to work whatever their family situation, 71% of the women agreed, 47% very strongly. Although husbands were more traditional in their views than their wives, there had been a significant change. In the coming period it will be essential for the labour movement's programme and leadership to build on these changes counteracting further traditional, discriminatory views on women. These questions will be posed particularly sharply in the near future. The recession was a blow to women workers along with the rest of the class. The struggle for equal pay appeared more difficult at a time when the right to work at all was being threatened. However many sections of women fought tenaciously to hold on to what they had gained. The mid to late seventies was marked by struggles for trade unionisation in sweatshops, the continued growth of the public sector trade unions, accompanied by struggles over low pay and cuts in public expenditure and struggles against redundancies which led to factory occupations for example at Lee Jeans and Meccanos. One aspect of this period was the willingness of fresher layers of workers, who had little previous experience of struggle, to fight, where 6
[page 8]
MIR Jan 1985: Women other sections were more hesitant. A sure sign that women workers have drawn the lessons from these disputes, particularly the role played by leadership, and that the growing aspirations they developed during the boom years have not been wiped out by the recession, is the debate that is now taking place in the movement on the question of positive action and positive discrimination.
These issues are dealt with fully in the Militant pamphlet Positive Discrimination or Class Action. Militant supporters are opposed to a negligent, dismissive or patronising attitude to working class women in the movement. Women are seriously underrepresented at all levels of the trade unions and labour movement particularly at leadership level regionally and nationally. This is a reflection of the difficulties experienced by women at rank and file level and of the failure of the trade unions to adequately fight for their members. We have therefore supported any provision which can be made to encourage and enable the mass of working women to be active through the provision of special schools and courses, crèches, babysitting, transport where necessary, meetings in works' time etc. We also support discussions on issues relating specifically to women on the agenda of mixed meetings and all male meetings. The responsibility for recruiting women to the labour movement and for fighting for their interests is not the monopoly of women but the responsibility of male workers too. Positive action of this kind is essential if the demand of TU democracy of the Broad Lefts is to be translated into a concrete reality in many unions. In NUPE, for example, 2/3rds of the membership is female and half are part timers. Positive action is necessary to ensure that these women trade unionists can participate in the election and accountability of the leadership and in determining the policy of a union in which they have such a big stake. Militant has only opposed those measures which we regard as no more than a token change eg. the reservation of seats for women on various committees which are no guarantee of a genuine change for the mass of women, and simply paper over the difficulties.
However, women want to change their organisations and to participate in them to struggle more effectively on issues such as jobs, pay and conditions. In the coming period, the national minimum wage will be a central demand. Already we have seen the magnificent struggles against low pay in the 78-79 winter of discontent and the CPSA and NHS disputes. Millions of women would be recruited to the trade unions and involved actively if this demand were part of a serious campaign. The lack of urgency and caution of the Labour leaders in taking up such a demand is not just a question of prejudice against women. It illustrates the minefield which the most reasonable demands of women workers represent, particularly in a period of capitalist crisis, for the reformist leaders who consider capitalism to be eternal. Already the old, old story of the right wing is being sung by Hattersley. 'If low paid workers are to advance, then this means sacrifices for the better paid. Any advance towards a minimum wage can only be considered as part of a package of wage restraint'. The 'Left' such as Michael Meacher MP, have supported the demand for a statutory minimum wage. But women workers would point out that, welcome as legislation is in legitimising their demands, the Equal Pay Act did not give them equal pay any more than the Sex Discrimination Act ended discrimination against them. A national minimum wage requires more than legislation—it requires a struggle. No movement which takes this demand seriously can obey anti-trade union legislation which outlaws solidarity action. One factor in workers being low paid is their lack of industrial muscle. They require blacking, solidarity action and secondary picketing to ensure a victory.
Womens double exploitation Considering the proven ability of capitalism to avoid legislation and the rulings of the wages councils, the labour movement must have the right to police such legislation through the opening of the books of firms not paying, with the back up of the threat of nationalisation by a Labour government of any firm refusing to pay. But we also have to explain to women workers that a large number of the low paid are concentrated in the public sector, where expenditure cuts have hit both jobs and pay. A major struggle could force the payment of the minimum wage to a large section of workers. However, the main problem would remain. Because of the rapid decline of British capitalism especially the decimation of manufacturing industry the capitalists would attempt to reverse these gains. We support all workers struggling for reforms but in the end only an end to capitalism itself will secure these demands and more on a permanent basis. But it isn't just the demands raised by women at work which represent a minefield for the reformists. Under capitalism, women are doubly exploited as workers but also as women in the home with the main responsibility for child rearing. Any crisis in the economy is reflected in all the institutions with which capitalism surrounds itself. Unbearable pressures are exerted on the family at times of economic crisis and at the same time, women's increased involvement in work outside the home leads them to question their role in it.
The history of the labour movement shows that when there is a movement of the class, women will use it to improve their position both as workers and within the home through campaigns related to violence, sexual harassment, health provision and especially, maternity care, education, birth control and chilcare. Anyone reading the account of work. ing class lives in 'Maternity' will have no doubt about the benefit of such reforms. Although fundamental. ly, birth control, for example, did not change women's
[page 9]
role in society, for millions of women it meant less of the chronic ill health and weariness brought about by endless childbearing and rearing and added to the combativity of the present generation of women.
Yet such reforms which attempted to combat the worst of women's oppression under capitalism did not automatically receive the support of the labour movement. In the case of birth control it was often put forward by the ruling class as a means of dealing with poverty which confused the issue. But issues
BOUR PORT
18000
JOBS
NOT YOUNG MOLL LIS 30
Labour Women's Festival, 1982. During the 1926 Miners Strike the LP Women's Organisation grew to 300,000.
shantine barn afton
sucn as birtn control, uvurct, avuruuu nave vivtu been surrounded in a moral fog by capitalism backed up by the Church to prevent workers from seeing that such oppression of women is not natural but fostered in the interests of the capitalist system and the needs of private property.
In the early '20s and '30s one of the main battles being fought by the Labour Women's Organisation and the Guilds was for birth control. At the : 27 Women's Conference it was second in importance only to the resolutions on the '26 strike and the nationalisation of the mines. Some activists had been arrested for distributing what was termed 'pornographic' literature-ie. leaflets on birth control. After their work and support in the General Strike, the women felt they had the right to ask for support on this issue at the LP Conference. The resolution was moved by a miners' wife. But their appeals fell on deaf ears and they were defeated. This was a setback both for the women and the movement as a whole.
It is because of such irresponsiveness by the official movement that such issues often become the subject of single issue campaigns, eg. the recent campaign for abortion. Yet when the TUC raised its little finger the largest-ever demonstration in favour of abortion took place.
Already working class women have fought to retain nurseries, transport, against closures in the NHS and education services, and there is increased opposition to sexual harassment at work. It is inevitable that these issues will be raised in the trade union movement. The oppression of women is one of the biggest indictments of capitalism. If the demands for good quality, flexible childcare, youth facilities, a crash house building programme, an expansion in the NHS, education and training were included in a socialist programme they would encourage women's involvement in the movement and enable all workers to understand that capitalism has distorted every aspect of their lives and will increase their determina-
8
tion to see an end to it.
But how can such demands be fought for by a Labour leadership obsessed by the language of "priorities". . Even the demand for a nursery place for every child appears unrealistic to reformists. But on the basis of a planned economy under workers control and management the resources could be generated and organised to provide for this elementary right if women are to take part on a truly equal basis in society.
In the coming struggles, millions of women will move into action. Their anger and bitterness against a system which condemns the majority of them to low paid monotonous work is added to by the fact that no matter how hard they work, how hard they try to feed, clothe and bring up their children, or keep their home clean and comfortable, capitalism undermines, belittles and trivialises their efforts.
The miners' wives have demonstrated the audacity and organisational ability of women when they move into struggle. They have also demonstrated the rapid raising of consciousness women are capable of in the course of struggle, rejecting old ideas and grasping the basic ideas of Marxism, eg in relation to the state. They have remarked that nothing will ever be the same again. If that is to be translated into reality it is the duty of Marxists to reach such women and offer them a clear alternative.
The emancipation of women is not an optional extra in the struggle for a socialist society. Marxism offers an end to the exploitation of women as workers and as women, through ending capitalism and building a socialist society which will provide the resources necessary to free women from domestic drudgery • and the material responsibility for childrearing. Women therefore will look to the Militant with high aspirations. We must make sure we build a movement and put forward a programme which will channel all their considerable abilities and energies into the struggle for socialism.
[page 10]
MIR Jan 1985: R
ussia
From bureaucrat
to dissident
analyses memoirs.
Peter Taaffe the recently published of Pyotor Grigorenko.
THE FIGURE of Grigorenko is familiar to those who followed the so-called "dissident" move ment in Russia in the 1960's and early 1970's. Because of his determined and heroic opposition to Stalinism he was the on- Ly Red Army General to have been exiled by the regime.
He was also one of the most prominent victims of the barbaric "psychiatric" treatment meted out by the KGB to its opponents. Grigorenko has now recounted these and many other experiences in an interesting biography which was published in this country in 1983. For Marxists the book is of special interest. Grigorenko came from the bureaucratic elite itself. He was personally acquainted with the summits of the bureaucracy, Brezhnev, Kruschev, Andropov and many others. He traces out his evolution from a case-hardened "Stalinist" to an implacable opponent of the regime. The book is quite fascinating in showing the inner mechanics of the bureaucracy. The most illuminating pages are those which deal with the post-Stalin era.
In the aftermath of Stalin's death, even the bureaucracy itself, at least at its lowest levels, was shaken by the revelations of Kruschev at the 20th Party Congress. But Grigorenko was not just a liberal critic of the regime.
At a certain stage in his development he approaches a "Trotskyist" criticism of the Stalinist regime. The chapters which deal with the "rebirth of Leninism" are the most interesting in the whole book. But Grigorenko also supplies an invaluable account of the blunders of Stalin in the collectivisation adventure, in the decimation of the officer corps during the purges of the 1930s and the criminal blunders of the great "war leader"
At the time of the Nazis' attack on Russia on 1941, as a raw young organiser from a peasant background in the Komsomol (Young Communist League) in 1924 he participated in the struggle against Trotsky. "I could not stay on the sidelines. I read The Lessons of October and I read the periodical press. I was uneasy. Could Trotsky possibly be right? Might the creation of a socialist society be impossible? Would we perish if the world revolution did not come to our aid? At just this time Stalin's essay 'Trotskyism or Leninism' appeared in The Workers newspaper. With characteristic simplicity (today I will call it over simplicity) Stalin refuted Trotsky's affirmations one by one. We could, he wrote, succeed at building socialism in our country. The delay of the world revolution must not stop us... We were obliged to carry out the cause of the world revolution ourselves. I agreed with Stalin's every word. He liberated me from all doubt. From then on his essay was with me always. I never tired from explaining it to my friends. It was my best weapon during the arguments with the Trotskyists.
Revolution isolated
The leaders of the Russian Revolution Lenin and Trotsky never conceived that they could build socialism in one country, let alone in a backward, predominantly peasant country like Russia. The beginning of socialism would require a higher level of technique-productivity of labour-than even the most highly developed capitalist country. Russia never possessed either the economic base or the cultural resources to proceed to build "socialism in one country". The Russian Revolution was envisaged as the beginning of the international revolution. Only on an international plane through a world plan of produc-
tion would it be possible construct socialism.
However the Russian Revolution could be the spark which could set in train a series of revolutions in Germany, France, Italy, Britain and throughout Western Europe, in turn spreading to the citadel of world capitalism, America itself. These revolutions would come to the aid of Russia with enormous economic and cultural assistance. The lag of the world revolution, entirely due to the betrayal of the revolution in Germany in 1918, in Italy in 1920 etc by the leaders of the Social Democracy led to the isolation of the Russian Revolution. Its economic and cultural backwardness, together with the decimation of the flower of the Russian proletariat in the Civil War, were the factors which led to the usurpation of power by the bureaucratic elite, personified by the rise and triumph of Stalin.
Stalinism in its initial stage based itself on those like Grigorenko, with little theoretical or political education, from a backward rural background (Grigorenko came from a small farm in Ukraine). However the young Grigorenko was to question many aspects of the regime in the following years. He witnessed and protested at the ruinous effects of the forced collectivisation. But Grigorenko did not connect Stalin with the crimes of the bureaucracy. Like many other fervent Stalinists at the time it was not the great "helmsman" but his underlings who were "responsible" for the crimes which he saw at first hand.
Some of the best passages reinforce the evidence furnished by Leopold Trepper in his monumental work "The Great Game" which completely shatters the myth that despite any other "drawbacks" Stalin was at least "a great war leader". In the purge trials of 1937 to 1938 Stalin slaughtered 70% of the officer corps of the Red Army.
Chief amongst those who went to the firing squad were outstanding military leaders such as Tukachevsky and Yakir. The former had developed the theory of the Blitzkrieg long before the Nazis had either developed or carried through this method of warfare. The actions of Stalin were no mere caprice on his part. As Trotsky pointed out the purges at the time were a one-sided civil war to decimate
to begin
[page 11]
Molotov (foreground), Ribbentrop and Stalin at the signing of the 1939 Hitler-Stalin Pact. The Russian armed forces were completely unprepared for the Nazi invasion in 1941. the last remnants of the Bolshevik Party.
Stalin feared any outstanding figure associated with the heroic period of the Russian Revolution. In the event of a revolt of the Russian proletariat these figures, not withstanding their previous capitulation to Stalin, could have become a focal point of opposition. So also the officer corps, particularly outstanding generals like Tukachevsky and Yakir, could have become a pole of attraction to those who opposed the untrammelled, ruthless and blood thirsty regime of Stalin. Traditionally the Stalinist apparatus in the party and the government teared too great an independence on the part of the officer corps. The recent removal of Marshal Ogarkov as the Russian chief of Military staff is connected with the fear of the party and state bureaucracy of the officer corps becoming an oppositional force. Hence the denunciations of unnamed generals who it seems harbour "Bonapartist" tendencies.
Stalin's military blunders If Stalin had been a conscious agent of the Nazis he could not have been more successful in sabotaging the military defence of Russia. Grigorenko gives examples of Stalin's crimes drawn from his own experiences. He personally participated in the fortifications on the Western front. Yet, as he remarks, "they were blown up without having fired even once at the enemy. I do not know how future historians will explain this crime against our people. Contemporary historians ignore it. I cannot offer an explanation mysell. The Soviet government squeezed billions of roubles (by my calculations not less than 120 billion) out of the peo ple to construct impregnable fortifica tions along the Western boundary from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea. Then, right before the war in spring of 1941, powerful explosions thundered 'along the entire 1200 kilometer length of these fortifications. On Stalin's personal orders reinforced concrete coponiers, semi-coponiers, tens of thousands of permanent fortifications were blown into the air. No better gift could have been given to Hitler's Barbarosa plan." Grigorenko 'asks:"How could this have taken place? Stalin's justifications must be that he was insane".
There are many other examples of Stalin's blindness, empiricism and "insanity". Hitler's invasion plans, including the exact date of when it was to begin, had been supplied to Stalin but he chose to ignore it as "Nazi propaganda".
• So unprepared were the Russians' armed forces that the Nazis succeeded in destroying most of the MIR Jan 1985: Russia:
Russian planes while they were still on the ground! Moreover it is not generally realised that at the outbreak of the Second World War the Russian armies had a greater fire power than that of Nazi Germany. Stalin had replaced the flower of the Red Army with military, idiots like Voroshilov. This "genius advocated the use of cavalry to confront the tanks of the Nazis! Grigorenko shows that it was the release from prison of those like Rokossovsky and Zhukov, together with many other generals who were awaiting execution in the Stalinist dungeons at the time of the invasion, which was a crucial factor in preventing the complete triumph of the Nazis. Other factors were the barbarism of the Nazi regime which completely repelled the peoples of Russia. The advantages of a planned economy also allowed Russia to produce the weaponry to defeat the Nazis despite the fact that Hitler had the industry and resources of the whole of Europe at his disposal. At the outbreak of the "great helmsman" was so'
war the shaken by the scale of the disaster and fear of the wrath of an outraged people that he was incommunicado for a period of days.
Grigorenko's accounts of the military blunders and crimes of Stalin and the bureaucratic elite he represented. But invaluable first hand evidence is supplied which shatters once and for all the myth built up around Stalin which even people like Michael Foot accepted in the past:
"Of course, the achievements of the Stalin era were monumental in scale. Under his guidance the Soviet Union was collectivised and a largely peasant people were made literate. Thanks to these achievements, the Russian armies which were broken by the Ger- 10 mans in the First World War repelled and destroyed them in the Second... who in the face of these colossal events, will dare to question Stalin's greatness? How superhuman must be the mind which presided over world-shattering these developments?'-Michael Foot, writing in Tribune, 13 March, 1953. Grigorenko and Brezhnev During the period of the '30s, like many others, Grigorenko's life hung by a threat. At one stage Stalin made enquiries about Grigorenko's alleged "sabotage" to his superior. He was protected from the firing squad by his commanding officer. It was during the 1930s that Grigorenko first made acquaintance with Brezhnev who was to eventually rise to the position of chiet bureaucrat. His pen portrait of Brezhnev describes not just one individual but a social type which still dominates Russian society. "It is not gratuitously that Brezhnev's many facial expressions. His smile reminded me of the smile of a marionette. During my nine months of service under the Party leadership of Brezhnev I observed on him a whole repertoire of expressions. The first was an obsequious, servile smile; he donned this in the presence of higher-ups. It covered the area between his ears, the end of his nose to his chin and it looked as if it had been glued on or as if somewhere someone was pulling strings, since it suddenly would appear in full scale without any transition; someone pulled a different string and it disappeared just as suddenly.' Brezhnev was usually seen in public with a chest full of war medals. But everyone Grigorenko comments:
knows that Brezhnev did not see battle, but still they depict things as if
[page 12]
Brezhnev had himself led an attack. He too remembers the past rather poorly. If he had had a better memory he would be ashamed to have received the order of the Hero of the Soviet Union for participation in the battle actions of any army in which not one of the commanders or members of the military council received such an honour"
However the most interesting chapters of Grigorenko's book are those which deal with the period following the death of Stalin and particularly the aftermath of the 20th Party Congress where Kruschev detailed the crimes of Stalin. He points out that in the early 1960s things were "very strained in both my service and civilian lives. My attitude towards the leaders became increasingly critical. It was more and more difficult for me not to react to the illegalities and pompous trivialities of the rulers of my country. When we went through the second post war currency reform (devaluation) I protested. Stalin's devaluation which was openly extortionate had not aroused the protest in me but I had changed. Kruschev's declaration that no one gained or lost anything from his reform angered me.
20th party cong
Kruschev's measures provoked discontent in the population. At the same time Grigorenko came up against the dead hand of the bureaucracy. "I began to hear account after account of how difficult it was to get backing for any new inventions. However significant and innovative, the government seemed to prefer sticking with the old. Technologically we were about 15 years behind the United States. I couldn't believe we were doing everything possible to catch up. It angered me. I had many acquaintances from various strata: directors of big enterprises, officials of the State Planning Commission, heads of agricultural organisations, teachers, workers, collective farmers-all were dissatisfied. All talked about instances of inefficiency, illegality, bureaucracy, stupidity. There was no agency or bureau to which we could take our dissatisfaction and so it began to appear in ordinary conversations."
Grigorenko wrestled with the dilemma, what to do. "I found it difficult to tolerate the hypocrisy of the rulers, but at the same time I knew that speaking out would ruin my entire way of life, one which suited me perfectly. Therefore I strove to suppress my mood of protest by my own strength of will and with the help of my work."
Thus at this stage even within the bureaucracy the impasse of the regime provoked a profound questioning
mood. "I'm tired of my General's insignia" writes Grigorenko, " of my high pay, of my special refreshment bars and stores." At another stage he declares "What do I care about some collective farmers or workers who are rotting in prison or concentration camps? I'll go on living as I please. Enjoy my life," And then reproaching himself "What a rat you are, Pyotor Grigoryevich"
This period of wrestling with his conscience came to a head at the Lenin District Moscow Party Conference which Grigorenko attended as delegate on 7 September, 1961. All the accumulated bitterness and discontent which he felt for the regime spilled out in an astonishing outburst at this gathering of the bureaucracy itself. Intervening in a discussion on the programme of the "Communist Party" he declared: "What is our experience on the question of the state and the personality cult. Stalin puts himself above the party. This the central committee itself has established. Even more importantly there is in the experience of our party the case of a man who was not only alien to the party but who was hostile to our entire system and who turned out to be in charge of the highest organ of the government, the state, and the party. I am thinking of Beryia. If his was an isolated case we might have no cause for alarm." Grigorenko then went on to show other " deviations" and crimes of Stalinist leaders.
"Let us imagine Kruschev had been destroyed like Voznesensky and others. After all, it was pure coincidence that Stalin died so early. He could have lived till 90". . This naturally caused a stir in the audience of bureaucrats. However his next statement produced uproar: "we are approving a project for a programme in which the personality cult is condemned but the question arises: Is everthing possible being done to prevent the repetition of a personality cult while the personality itself is perhaps arising."
The chairman of the conference naturally tried then to prevent Grigorenko from going on. But the audience roared "let him continue" and a decision in favour of Grigorenko continuing was carried by a majority of those present. But then Grigorenko goes to the heart of the Stalinist regime. "I consider that the principal paths along which the development of the personality cult took place were, in the first place, the abolition of the party maximum, and that very few people return to work at production, that they became bureaucrats, that they allowed the struggle for the purity of the ranks of the party to weaken
"Just look, if you will: How often it
11
is written that someone stole or deceived customers, and then it is reported that so and so has been given a party penalty. Is it permissible for such people to be kept in the party?" After making further criticisms of the regime Grigorenko went on to say: "My concrete proposals are the following: to strengthen the democratisation of elections, and to strengthen similarly the wide-scale replacement of officials and also our reponsibility to voters. We must also abolish all conditions which give rise to violations of the Leninist principles involved, in particular high salaries and lack of replacement of officials. We must struggle for purity within the ranks of the party.
"We must write directly in the programme about the struggle against careerism, against deceit of the party and the state for the sake of personal advantage, something which is incompatible with party membership. If a Communist in a leading position is servility, nepraum, or in any way sing-
presses criticism, he must be subjected to a severe party penalty, obligatorily removed from the position he occupies, and sent to do physical work in industry and agriculture". In the words of Grigorenko, this was met with "applause" • Grigorenko's statements mirror in outline the criticisms which Trotsky said would be taken up by the proletariat in its struggle against the bureaucracy. It is all the more remarkable that they emanated from within the charmed circle of the bureaucracy itself. Even more striking is the fact that those bureaucrats gathered at this conference approved of Grigorenko's speech!
Questioning
bureaucracy
It was Trotsky who pointed out that in the event of a political revolution the movement of the proletariat would infect the lower and middle layers of the bureaucracy itself. They would be drawn behind the movement of the masses. In the post-Stalin era the simmering discontent at all levels in society burst out. Following Grigorenko's speech a large crowd gathered in the hallway with one young man shouting, "they have been allowed to get too far out of hand! They pull rank even at a party conference. The General was speaking as a Communist-and then they let loose the big star-that Marshal-in order to shut his mouth. Those big shots have gotten out of hand"
Nevertheless the bureaucratic tops managed to pressurise the conference, not without great difficulty, into com-
[page 13]
Andropov and his predecessor, Brezhnev. Despite Brezhnev appearing in this poster with a chest full of medals, Grigorenko comments: "Everyone knows that Brezhnev did not pelling Grigorenko to surrender his credentials as a delegate. The Stalinist bureaucracy then unleashed the full Grigorenko. One Pravda journalist told Grigorenko: "your statement that the party was lucky that Kruschev and others survived and that Stalin died early sounds like pure irony, pure mockery. But the most painful of all is your declaration that the personality cult originates in high salaries, lack replacement personnel, bureaucratisation. Also painful your proposals on the democratisation of elections, on the responsibility for elected officers, on the institution of broad-scale replacement of officials, on the struggle for purity in the ranks of the party and the expulsion from the party of careerists, bribe takers and other rascals"
A furious onslaught was launched against Grigorenko. The terror at the effect of his speech was shown in one particularly revealing encounter with a top party official, Serdyuk. At an official hearing this creature immediatedenounced Grigorenko:
don't suit him-can you believe it! Why didn't you think about your own high salary?"
Response from youth 'I didn't distinguish from the party" declared Grigorenko. "You don't distinguish yourself! Don't play at being holy!
You differentiate and distinguish in everything very well indeed. You thought about your own high' salary when you gave your speech. You are convinced that as a highly trained specialist you had a right to such a salary. But you were thinking about my high salary."''He stressed the word my and throughout the tirade insulted me by using familiar rather than formal address." Serdyuk continued, "you want to have removability of high positions— don't you! Well you don't think about your own removability. You are a specialist and don't need to be removed and replaced. You don't think about being removed yourself. You want to have me replaced"
on: "He wants democracy, you see. So every good-fornothing can meddle in the work of government and party institutions and hinder the efforts of conscientious officials. He wants free elections, you see, so that all kinds of demagogues can slander the conscientious Communists and can hinder the people from electing those who are most worthy. He spouted demagogy like that and then he had the effrontery to complain we didn't deal with him lawtully, you see! Well we aren't going to waste our time in your clever :MIR Jan 1985: Russia see battle".
listen to your demagogy here! You can go." Enraged Grigorenko declared to his wife: "They were gangsters! They were dissolute, demoralised men". His wife calmly declared, "you have only just found that out. I've known it for a long time but now that you know about it, conduct yourself according ly. Don't put your head in the beast's Grigorenko's criticisms found echo amongst students and his speech was published in clandestine leaflets. Perplexed and worried at the response which his mild criticisms of the regime evoked, Grigorenko then "out of habit went to Lenin for answers. Once again I sat down with his works, seeking proof that the present party line had been diverted from Leninism, seeking the which we could correct ourselves". Grigorenko's evolution in his opposition to the Stalinist regime, his groping for solutions to the problems he saw around him, is an indication of the process which will unfold and is unfolding at this present time, in a much sharper form amongst the Russian proletariat.
In Poland and the other states in Bastern Europe it is perhaps unlikely in the first instance that the opposition to Stalinism will look towards the works of Marx, Engels or Lenin. These figures are wrongly identified with the Stalinist regime. They are connected in the eyes of the masses (particularly Lenin) perhaps with the national oppression of the states of Eastern Europe by the Russian Stalinist regime. But in Russia the figure of Lenin is still revered as the founder of the state. The regime officially bases itself on "Marxism". It is forced to circulate the works of Marx, of Engels, of Lenin in millions of copies. A brief acquaintance with these works, particularly with Lenin's State and ИБА НЕРУШАМА!
(AN РАВДА Брежнева Зі пис ван.
КОНСТВИЕ BCEM ЕВРОПЫ Revolution, would allow the average discerning citizen to compare the simple measures which Lenin proposes for a healthy workers' state with the untrammeled rule of the bureaucratic Grigorenko misunderstands much in Lenin's writings. He sees a contradiction in Lenin's writings on such things as the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' and 'democracy' as well as on 'freedom of the press'. But Lenin's alleged "inconsistencies" are entirely due to the different circumstances in which he wrote at different times. Because he is not theoretically equipped with a knowledge of the basics of Marxism or the objective reasons which allowed the rise of the Stalinist dictatorship, Grigorenko draws a number of wrong conclusions. Nevertheless, basing ourselves on the material of Grigorenko, it is possible to see how the opposition to the Stalinist regime can move from isolated criticisms of Stalinism to seeing the need for a political revolution. 'Alliance of True Leninists'
For instance, Grigorenko recalls that: "During the war I had been close to one radical officer and we had talked a great deal about the country and the party. I did not agree with many of his conclusions but concurred with his idea that after the war it would be necessary to change the course of the party sharply. During one conversation he mentioned that some people felt preparations for such changes should be taking place now. There was an organisation he said calling itself the 'Alliance of True Leninists' which was organised on the principle of a chain.
'Each member of this alliance knew only the person who had enlisted him
[page 14]
in it and those who he himself had enlisted. He might enlist ten members, but each would only know him. They would not know each other. It was impermissible also to know anyone outside your own cell, or group. If another member whom you did not know should try to enlist you in the Alliance you had to agree to enlistment without revealing that you were already a member. If one member was arrested, all those connected with him would act as end links of the organisations. The organisers of the Alliance believed in the infiltration of like thinkers into all of society, without creating any organisation, in as much as any organisation would be easily discovered through connections within it and organised activity"
Grigorenko comments "at the time I did not agree to join the Alliance, but the idea intrigued me. Such a chain seemed indestructible, and it could accomplish quite a bit since it combined ideological unity ('true Leninism') with a broader sort of initiative".
What this interesting little snippet shows is that during the war, when the blunders and crimes of Stalin and the bureaucracy must have been quite evident to widespread sections of the officers in particular, the idea of dealing with these gangsters in the aftermath of the war had already occurred to the more far-sighted and daring elements.
Forced underground
Grigorenko writes, "The thought of such a mass ideological organisation simply would not leave me. If I had known one of the Alliance members I would have joined right then. The officer who had attempted to recruit me died at the front, and I never met any other members. Several times I met people whom I suspected of Alliance activity, but I never strove to enter in permanent contact with them, though I believe the Alliance still existed and believed also that democratic trends in the CPSU arose from such a movement. I believe the organisation may still exist today, and it is precisely for this reason that I do not name the officer who proposed that I join the Alliance. I do not want to give even one small bit of evidence to the KGB"
If such organisations have sprung up amongst army officers, ie from within the bureaucracy, imagine the developments amongst the mighty Russian proletariat. This proletariat, numbering 120 million strong, is potentially the most powerful proletariat on the planet. Grigorenko's writings allow us to anticipate many such movements developing amongst the proletariat. Indeed he gives invaluable information on oppositional movements of the Russian working
Lenin with the delegates to the 2nd All-Russian Congress of Miners, 1921. The demands of Grigorenko's underground organisation echoed Lenin's conditions for a healthy workers' state.
class which have been suppressed by the bureaucracy.
Grigorenko founded an underground revolutionary organisation: "Alliance for Struggle for the Rebirth of Leninism". An introductory leaflet was produced on the 46th anniversary of the October Revolution. Another leaflet called for a: "struggle for the ousting of the government of bureaucrats and parasites, for free elections, control of the government by the people, and for frequent replacement of all persons in high positions, including the very highest". • These very simple demands echo the demands of Lenin for a healthy workers' state:
No standing army, but ed people.
All officials to be elected by workers' organisations with right of recall.
All officials to receive the same wages as a skilled worker (because of a shortage of technicians the Bolsheviks were compelled to allow a clearly defined maximum differential of four to one: Lenin described this
"capitalist frankly as differential").
Popular participation in all administrative duties; direct management and control by Soviets ('When everybody is a bureaucrat, nobody is a bureaucrat").
the the
In view of the experiences of Stalinism the proletariat, as in the Hungarian revolution, would add one other condition to those of Lenin for a healthy workers' state-never again
13
to permit a one-party regime.
Another leaflet criticised the food and bread shortages: "it answered the letter of the Central Committee which had claimed: 'that bread shortages existed because slices were cut too thickly in the dining halls'! The elements, no matter how imperfectly formulated, of an alternative programme for an opposition party striving to overthrow the bureaucracy is outlined in Grigorenko's writings at this stage. Moreover his efforts found a ready response particularly from the youth.
Nevertheless he showed extreme naîvety in the methods employed to gather recruits to his cause. Thus, he went to the 'Hammer and Sickle' factory in Moscow himself personally to distribute leaflets. On another occasion he went to a railway station to distribute a leaflet 'to the public at large' wearing his general's uniform! Inevitably Grigorenko was arrested with his sons and others who belonged to his organisation.
Grigorenko arrested
His accusers stated: "you have created an underground organisation which has set itself the task of overthrowing the Soviet government. Dealing with that is the task of the organs of state security and not of party commissions". Grigorenko replied "you are exaggerating. I did not create an organisation which set as its purpose the overthrow by force of the existing structure. I created an organisation for the dissemination of undistorted Leninism, for the exposure of its falsifiers" • The KGB accuser then stated: "If the matter only concerned propaganda of Leninism why have you chosen to go underground? Teach it within the system of party and political education and at meetings"
[page 15]
Jan 1985: Russia
Sakharov and Solzhenitsyn, "intellectual" capitalist position. Grigorenko, on the ‹ answers... seeking proof that the present Grigorenko replied: "You know yourself that this is impossible. That Leninism has to be preached in the underground is best evidenced by the fact that the present party leadership has departed from Leninist positions and thereby lost the right to leadership of the party. Thus Communist Leninists have the right to struggle against the leadership." The bureaucracy was of course incapable of answering the points which Grigorenko raised in his interrogation.
One such interrogation concerned a leaflet he had produced on the "dispersal by shooting of the workers' demonstration at Novocherkassk" His interrogator stated: "You write in your leaflet that the troops shot down the workers at Novocherkassk, but after all the whole matter was quite different than you say it was." Grigorenko replied: "How?". His interrogator: "well violations of public law had taken place"
Grigorenko then replied: 'There were violations of public order in your version but in actual fact the Novocherkassk workers went out on the streets in a peaceful fashion. If there were hooligan or terrorist gangs which could only be dealt with with guns, why was this not reported in the press?" • Interrogator: "It was reported". . Grigorenko: "Where? In what newspaper? I did not read any such reports anywhere." His interrogator, quite embarrassed, added, 'in the local press. They convicted the troublemakers and the local press reported it". • Grigorenko said: "Well of course! They merely finished beating to death those who had not been shot on the streets. I know all about that.
"The local press briefly reported that there had been a trial of the initiators of public disorders and that fifteen persons were convicted in order
dissidents who adopted a completely prother hand, initially "went to Lenin for party had been diverted from Leninism".
to frighten the entire population of the city. Out of the fifteen, nine were sentenced to execution and, the sentences carried out. What interests me is not that-but who was guilty of firing upon a demonstration; who was guilty of the murder of several hundred people including women and children.
"And in particular I would like to know why the members of the politburo-Mikoyan and Kozlovpreferred bullets to words in their communications with the workers. This was a heinous crime. The bloodshed on the streets of Novocherkassk, Tbilisi, Temir-Tau, Priluki, Alexandrovov and other cities, has become an insurmountable obstacle between the party and the workers".
Psychiatric torture
These revelations about the movements of the proletariat and its brutal repression show the tremendous subterranean opposition which existed in Russia then and which is even greater today. An indication of the fear, bordering on terror, which Grigorenko's actions stimulated amongst the higher reaches of the bureaucracy is revealed by the fact that he learned later in 1965 that all the statements that he made during his interrogation had been taped and the tapes had been heard by all members of the Politburo.
Despite his hostility to the bureaucracy, and the devastating criticisms of its rule, Grigorenko's opposition took mostly the form of an appeal to the more "enlightened" sections of the bureaucracy to reform itself. Later on he was "ashamed to recollect what a rooster I must have seemed at the time. I suffered a great deal before I realised that I had no
14
sympathisers at the Lubyanka, that not a single person I dealt with was guided by conscience and honesty, and that to feel oneself superior to the interrogator, to be able to outwit him in the investigation is, at the very least, a mistake"
After his capture by the KGB Grigorenko was subjected to the most barbaric treatment in the psychiatric prisons of the Stalinist regime. His persecutors used the fact that he had suffered from shell shock during the war to dlagnose him as "insane" . He was tried, in his absence, before a military collegium of the Supreme Court of the USSR. The methods employed in these "psychiatric prisons" have been well documented by those like Bukovsky and others. However, the details provided by Grigorenko make the blood run cold.
The whole purpose of these prisons is to demoralise and break the spirit of those who oppose the regime. Drugs are administered which not only make the patient sophorific but adversely affect the bowels, producing incontinence. Grigorenko was eventually released in 1965 and it was subsequently discovered that Brezhnev opposed this. Because of his previous experience with Grigorenko he wanted to keep him locked away in the regime's hellholes.
Once out of prison Grigorenko found himself participating in the growing dissident movement of the 1960s and 70s. At the same time he was compelled to look for the most menial kind of work. He was forced to work as a street worker in Yalta and as a janitor. But he was still able to take up the cause of those who had suffered at the hands of the Stalinist regime. He is perhaps best known in the capitalist West as the champion of the oppressed nationalities and minorities of Russia.
Above all he was seen as the most energetic opponent of the crimes perpetrated by Stalin against the Tartar people. He was absolutely tireless in fighting for the restoration of the rights of these unfortunate people. Following the invasion of the Nazis the whole of the Crimean Tartar nation had been convicted of "treason" by Stalin. In 1944 the whole nation had been deported from the bountiful Crimea into the deserts and the arid lands of Central Asia. In the words of Grigorenko "this cruel, senseless deportation in which over 46% of the Crimean Tartars had perished had rallied the people"
Following the death of Stalin, a most stubborn and heroic campaign began for the restoration of the rights of the Crimean Tartars. They were demanding the right to return back to the Crimea, and the restoration of their na-
[page 16]
tionality. Stalin's heirs proved to be just as vicious towards the Tartar people. three times a commission of the Politburo had heard the case of the Tartars and then left things as they had been before.
The last time a delegation was received was in connection with the decree of the "Supreme Soviet" of 5 September, 1967. According to Grigorenko, "this was the most false, the most hypocritical decree of all those issued in respect to these people. It began with a declaration that the Crimean Tartars had been charged with treason to the motherland and that there was no basis on which this charge would be removed. But the annullment was justified by the fact that a new generation that had never known the war had come of age. The greatest treachery of all was that by this decree the Crimean Tartars were denied the right to their own nationality. They were referred to as "Citizens of Tartar nationality who previously lived in the Crimea"
Andropov, who subsequently succeeded Brezhnev, was one of those who stubbornly resisted the demands of the Crimean Tartars. Grigorenko's speech to a banquet of the Crimean Tartars held in 1967 received a tumultuous reception. Space does not permit the full speech to be printed here. But the response from the Tartars to one of the demands raised by Grigorenko completely shatters the charge of "treason" levelled against the Crimean Tartars. In no way did these people show any "pro-capitalist" or "pro-Nazi" tendencies.
The Crimean Tartars
On the contrary Grigorenko's call for "the re-establishment of the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic" was met in the words of the author with "standing applause and cries of "Hail the Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic". These alleged "anti-Soviet" peoples ended the meeting "in an uproar. You could barely make out what people were shouting but many begun to sing the Internationale". . There are not many procapitalist or pro-Nazi nations that are prone to sing the Internationale!
The Tartars then decided to return back to the Crimea and appropriately the official date chosen for the return was 21 April, Lenin's birthday! Grigorenko's speech had a devastating effect. The KGB complained that it had been reproduced in 8 million copies! The return of the Crimean Tartars met with the most brutal repression by the KGB. Some of them did manage to settle in their former homeland, but even today the Crimean Tartar problem has not been solved. In
act of the maint one of the most serious issues confron-
fact the national problem in Russia is
ting the Stalinist regime. It is completely incapable of satisfying the legitimate national aspirations of the Tartars, the Ukranians, the Lithuanians, the Latvians, and the other nationalities which make up Russia.
Grigorenko also gives some very interesting material which shows that the movement in Czechoslovakia had an effect within Russia itself Grigorenko was one of the very few who openly protested at the Russian intervention in Czechoslovakia in August 1968. He had left Russia by the time of the Polish events. However, the movement in Poland would have had an even more profound effect.
The Czechoslovak events took the form of a liberal national Stalinist opposition to the Moscow bureaucracy. The movement in Poland despite the religious overtones, involved a revolution, although incomplete, of the Polish proletariat. Following the demonstration against the Czechoslovak intervention Grigorenko was re-arrested.
The bureaucracy realised that in the wake of the Czechoslovak events a free Grigorenko could become a dangerous pole of attraction for those opposing the Stalinist regime. He was therefore imprisoned once more, this time for a total of five years. An international campaign secured his release and exile, this time in the USA. The book ends with Grigorenko as an admirer of the "political system" in America, of "Radio Free Europe" and of "Radio Liberty". He has also returned to the bosom of the Russian Orthodox Church! But this in no way undermines the merit and importance of the book as an illustration of the process of opposition that is now unfolding to the Stalinist regime in Russia.
Despite his subsequent degeneration
an heroic fighter against the Stalinist regime to an admirer of capitalist America there is much to be learnt from this book. One of the factors in Grigorenko's degeneration is the lack of theoretical understanding of Stalinism. The overwhelming majority of "dissidents" have no real understanding of the causes of the Russian revolution, or of the material reasons which led to its subsequent degeneration. They criticise this or that aspect of the regime but do not have a worked out analysis of the society, the state nor a perspective as to how the situation can and will be changed.
At the same time the inhuman persecution which is meted out to all opponents of Stalinism developed in them an almost inevitable loathing and hatred of everything to do with
15
the regime. They throw the baby out with the bathwater. In the case of Grigorenko the weak side of his character, his lack of theory was reinforced by his association with the 'intellectuals" within the opposition dissident movement. Those like Solzhenitsyn, Sakharov and others have adopted a completely procapitalist position. In the case of Solzhenitsyn he ended up as a supporter of the military-police dictatorship of Pinochet in Chile!
Things stand entirely differently with the as yet subterranean opposition of the proletariat in Russia. We already have had evidence in the trials of a group of young people recently who based themselves upon the works of Trotsky in their opposition to Stalinism. As we have pointed out in previous issues of the MIR it is the mighty Russian proletariat upon which a powerful opposition develop to the Stalinist autocracy. This book allows us to anticipate such a movement.
Workers' opposition
decisive
If an individual like Grigorenko, from within the charmed circle of the bureaucracy itself, can evolve in the direction he did then how much more dangerous are the groups of oppositional workers which surely exist in every industrial area of Russia at the present time. No amount of denunciations, lunatic asylums, nor all the other refined means of persecution developed by the KGB will be capable of stopping the movement of the Russian proletariat once it erupts. Russian tanks could be sent into Hungary in 1956. The threat of a military intervention in Poland was used in order to terrify the leaders of Solidarity and prevent them from completing the political revolution in 1981. But once a movement of the Russian proletariat in the direction of political revolution unfolds in Moscow or Leningrad or any other of the major cities (at least in European Russia), what forces could be used by the Stalinist regime to suppress such a movement?
It would be impossible to send Poles, Hungarians, East Germans, Czechoslovaks, ete against a political revolution in Russia. Un the contrary these regimes themselves will be facing imminent overthrow once a movement of the Russian proletariat developed. It is in this context that we view Grigorenko's valuable and important book. It gives us an insight into the workings of Stalinism and allows us to forecast its coming collapse in Russia and Bastern Europe.
[page 17]
MIR Jan 1985: Short story:
THE EVENTS below are a true account. The place name and character names are ficticious to protect those concerned. A slight blurring of the period in which the events occurred assists this minor deception.
"Thacker" Armstrong was vexed. When Thacker was vexed it usually meant bad luck for someone or other. The last time he had been this way little Ronnie MeCarthy had been the victim of a good scudding outside the club-merely for smirking at Thacker's scowling face as he lost the semi-final of the domino handicap. The committee had barred Thacker for three months and now he was forced to drink at inflated prices in the 'Three Horse Shoes' which hadn't improved his temper. "is a copper's "Ronnie Mac", rationalised Thacker, nark and somebody should have clipped him long afore me.
Everyone hearing this in the 'Shoes' knew it to be the truth, but they also knew that if the Pope or Joe Louis had been in Ronnie's place then they would have been clouted too.
The cause of Thacker's vexation this time was debt. He brooded upon it so deeply that he was unable to read a paper or listen to the wireless without constantly returning to the source of his discontent-debt. Debt had cast a lengthened shadow across his whole existence to the extent that studying form or trying to select 8 from 10 was Whilst Thacker had been in Durham last Saturday collecting a pair of cobbled shoes the Tallymen had been at his house. Isabel, his wife, had nervously informed him that their weekly budget was twelve and sixpence lighter as a result of their visit. "We're cleaned out" she said simply. , she said in answer to his question, "Oh yes"
"there's food, but that's all—no beer, no tabs, no He sat alone, imagining the scene, his ugly anger rising. Debt! The curse of the working man! Debt! Bastard Debt! Thacker sat staring out at the Terrace in black melancholia. The Terrace or Finchale Terrace (to give it its full name) was a double row of colliery cottages, about 80 in all, right out in the coun try. The old Finchale Drift-which was the reason for the existence of the Terrace-had been closed upon nationalisation of the coal industry but all the men were now employed at the nearby Adventure colliery. The fronts of the cottages faced each other but everyone's backyard looked out over fields and woods dropping down to the River Wear. 16 Settling a debt Thacker sat and gingerly rubbed his crotch as if to soothe pain. Pain! The thought made him scowl anew. On Saturday night he'd gone to the netty in the yard to empty his bowels and brood upon the debt. Trousers and braces around his ankles, he sat upon the bar over the ash pit awaiting nature to take its course when a lad, or lads, had silently lifted the night-soil hatch and stroked his testicles with a bunch of stinging nettles. The shock and the hurt had projected him forward with such velocity that he burst the By Bob Stothard (TGWU) door from its rusty hinges. The howling and cursing had brought curious neighbours to stare at the incongruous sight of Thacker de-bagged and knock-kneed in the moonlight clutching his groin. "I'll bet it was Dodds' young 'un!", cried Sweaty Thubron, "he hoyed a firework in my ash-pit last Bonfire night—I was sitting on it y'knaa!" There was general agreement amongst the stifled laughter of the onlookers.
"What about poor Mrs Appleby?", demanded Mrs Short, "she who has the lift-seat y'knaa! The dirty little buggers collected all the cats in the country, put them in and closed the lid! The poor. old lady nearly took a stroke when she went for a piddle and all them cats sprang out covered in you know what!" This time the laughter could not be contained and erupted with fury. Thacker had been in no position to stop the mirth and now he fumed at the memory as he watched the shadows lengthen along the Terrace. That he himself had indulged in similar antics when he was young was of no solace. Debt! It wouldn't cease its torment. His mind worked over and over as he pictured the oily salesmen on the doorsteps grinning over their canteens of shiny cutlery and gilt chiming clocks. "Half a crown down '" he heard them saying. The and half a crown a week, mental picture changed as he saw different men with books and leather satchels, their hard eyes piercing children sent to the door to fob them off their payment. Bloodsuckers! Leeches! In the little community where Thacker socialised debt was universally attributed to Jews. It was true, it seemed to Thacker, that all the Tallymen were, if not Jewish themselves, employed by Jews. Many protested bitterly that Jews preyed on the poorest by offering goods 'on the knock' which ended up costing twice their value. Thacker, however, thought this argument flawed. The old coal-owners-the Joiceys, Lambtons and Londonderrys-were as Christian as Durham Cathedral but no sane man would deny they were robbers albeit in a different guise. Anyway, he
[page 18]
would argue, look at Doctor Goldman: a gentleman if ever there was; and compared with Doctor Mackay, the pit doctor who blamed pneumoconiosis on Woodbines; a friend of the working man. Friday came and with it rain. Thacker dressed to collect his pay but his mood-with the prospect of his wages allowing a drink and a bet—had transformed itself from black despair to sharp aggression. On the way he fell in step with Chuck Short on the same errand.
"Turing out for a half in the 'Shoes'?", , enquired "I'm off to Durham to get a few bits and pieces," replied Thacker shortly, "but I'm out tonight!" That night Thacker drank in the club despite his suspension. The committee-men, recognising his mood, decided discretion to be the better part of valour and let him be.
At lowse, Thacker rose uncertainly to his feet and glared around at the company. "'The biggest-the most dreadful," he searched for words, "the very wursht thing for the working man is DEBT!"
, he announced. The club grew quiet, everyone intent on hearing:
"'There's not a man in this village without debtexcept Frankie Lewins and he's so tight when he walks his arse squeaks!"
A tumult of laughter rose up and Frankie, red-faced and insulted, squirmed out of the door. But tomorrow-Christ!-tomorrow," continued "I'm going to clear this village of debt! See if I don't!" A buzz went through the club as the men speculated. Thacker walked unsteadily to the door and supported himself against the jamb: "See if I , he bellowed back into the bar. Saturday morning came bright and clear and the Terrace bustled into life. Women pegged out the new washing and children could be heard gleefully play. ing beyond the midden towards the woods. Thacker rose thick-tongued and dressed. Isabel and the child had left early to take the bus to Durham and the cottage was quiet. With a steaming pot of tea Thacker took his seat at the window immediately noticing an unusual number of people strung out along the Terrace trying to look as if they had business to attend to. Some, more brazen than others, stood in little knots, shooting looks at his door, awaiting activity. Time passed and Thacker was immobile. In the distance the tinny phut of a motorbike could be heard, growing louder as it approached the Terrace. Thacker rose. The Tallyman rode into the Terrace and shut off the motor. He hauled the machine onto its stand avoiding a puddle left by yesterday's deluge. Taking his heavy book from the pannier he shifted the satchel from his back to his front and, whistling 'Silver Threads Amongst the Gold' knocked on the door of no 3-Mrs Gibbons. The door of Thacker's cottage opened and he stood blinking in the sunlight. The onlookers gasped as they took in the 12-bore double-barrelled shotgun in the crook of his arm. Instinctively they drew back as one. Thacker gazed down the street at the 17 Tallyman who had now moved to no 5-Chuck Short's-and was studying his open book oblivious to his fate.
"THIEF!"
• yelled Thacker, "THIEVING BASTARD!" The Tallyman looked up quizically and took in the throng and Thacker with a gun but did not comprehend.
"AYE! YE! YE AND YOUR KIND-THIEVING ROBBING BASTARDS!" Aghast, the Tallyman realised he was the centre of attention. "Me?! I've never stolen a thing in all my life!" , he protested, his voice constricted by sudden fear to a squeak. "LIAR!", , roared Thacker, "what are ye doing now if not robbing widows and hard-working men of their coppers in broad daylight? Ye come down here with your chatty gear which costs the bloody earth! You're a man who'd pinch a worm off a blind hen!" "I just collect the money-it's my job!" pleaded Thacker's intended victim.
"Ho! Just a job eh? Well I've got a little job just here for you!"
', snarled Thacker and cocked the hammers. The Tallyman was aware of a great weakness in his knees:
"Now wait a minute," he pleaded, "be careful that thing doesn't go off-you might hurt somebody- BE CAREFUL!"
"They'll have to send some bugger from Sunderland with a brush and shovel to collect youyou shit-house!" Thacker raised the gun and took aim. The Tallyman stiffened against the door of no. 5 in white fright.
Instantaneously, it seemed to Chuck Short, as he opened his door with his book and half-a-dollar ready, the Tallyman tumbled inside and a loud report sounded in the street. The Tallyman, unhurt, was on his feet in a twinkling and raced screaming through the cottage, through the backyard gate, over the midden and into the field. Thacker, robbed of his prize, dodg ed through his own house into the back street and instantly spied the fugitive. He fired the second barrel. Too hasty. On hearing the sound the Tallyman screamed but kept running through long grass clutching his hat and satchel. As Thacker re-loaded the throng rushed into the back street to watch the excitement. Thacker took aim-"too far away, bastard!"
, but fired anyway. The running figure jerked faster and ran harder.
During the course of the afternoon, Fatty Thomson the policeman pedalled his bike into the Terrace. No-one was able to assist him in his enquiries and it was suggested that he try the gypsies camped near the bridge.
After a decent interval Fatty pedalled away sweating and blowing and soon the tinny phut of a motorcycle could be heard near the woods. Little Bobbie Short had taken the Tallyman's thick book up to Thacker from where it had been dropped. Thacker in his turn had visited every house, except Frankie Lewins', with the book and had written on each page: "PAID IN FULL-WITH THANKS". - © MIR 1985
[page 19]