textfiles/politics/SPUNK/sp000950.txt

       EXPOSICION.... Translated version of Frank Harrison's
       article on the Ex-USSR

       FREEDOM INTERNATIONAL SECTION 84B, WHITECHAPEL HIGH ST.
       LONDON E1

       The Disintegration of the State - Russian Perspectives
       (Frank Harrison)

       In order to speak of politics in the modern era - an era
       which began with the French Revolution - one must consider
       the supremacy of the bureaucratic state. This era has seen
       how all previous political unions have been replaced by the
       state. The city dweller has become the base of all social
       analysis. It is taken for granted that patriotism is a good
       thing and the capacity of governments to mobilise their
       citizens and resources has become the measure of their
       efficiency, legitimacy and a form of self-justification.

       Such a model is to be found equally in the East as in the
       West. Soviet and North American patriotism have become the
       choice of their respective political elites. Kropotkin
       pointed out that the new economic forms of political
       organisation would become associated with a new economic
       order brought into being by the industrial revolution.

       This Statist view has come to dominate the modern mind. This
       naked and little questioned power - accepted as the norm -
       is responsible for the crimes of colonialism, the domination
       of the third world by the developed world. However, there is
       some resistance to recognising this model of the State.
       Inequality, class struggle, regional and linguistic
       conflicts and indifference threaten the legitimacy of this
       political sphere. Pluralism doesn't always function
       smoothly, that is to say, when pluralism doesn't function
       neither does the sate. The authority of the State is
       rejected: Catholics in Northern Ireland, Kurds in Turkey,
       Serbs in Bosnia etc. are starting to grasp for a new
       political reality. This is the current crisis of the State.
       The State is seen as the enemy in the ghettos of the USA, in
       the Sik temples in India, on a Catholic street in Belfast
       and when it appears in any place in the former Russian
       Federation.

       Each State requires certain conditions to be fulfilled in
       order to sustain its authority, these are:

       - a culture of obedience - a recognised source of authority
       - Corporatism and a sense of commitment in the Civil and
       Armed Services.  - an ability to give privilege to the
       interrelated elites (political, cultural, economic,
       military...)  - quasi governmental organisations who co-
       ordinate necessities and expectations in such a way so that
       the government can act as intermediary - an ability to
       generate state interests which supersede local conflicts
       (relating to, for example, religious/linguistic conflicts
       and/or standard of living expectations)

       All these mechanisms taken together lay the foundations of
       the psychological and organisational adhesion of any given
       State. In the former USSR it was the Communist Party which
       formed the nucleus of these integrated mechanisms until it
       collapsed (over the last three years).

       The first question which arises for those who are pleased to
       see the collapse of a State should be: Out of the Russian
       Federation will there be formed a new federation of States
       or is a new Russian imperialism a possibility? Will there be
       a return to centralism in Russia or are there other options?

       The collapse of the State should be a cause of celebration
       since we have been 'brainwashed' with the concept of the
       State to the point that Yeltsin, having declared himself the
       new Russian dictator, the West applauds and is pleased that
       Russia is back on the road towards reunification.
       Fortunately they are mistaken.

       Previous speakers have shown an interest/concern with
       nationalism. I find myself in agreement with someone who in
       the 1930s who was asked if he would betray the State or his
       friend answered, 'I hope I would betray the State' because I
       would never betray my friend. For me nationalism is the same
       as tribalism. In my written work I claim that the modern
       State is the product of the French Revolution. Kropotkin
       wrote that the factor which characterised the dehumanisation
       of society was the technical structure. However,. the State
       dominates our consciousness, it is the 'norm' it is accepted
       as the natural state of things. But the State exists by the
       skin of its teeth. Wherever you will find a state you will
       find it owing its existence to the lies of political
       propaganda and the powers of its police. When the lying ends
       the state collapses as it has done in Russia. It collapsed
       in the former USSR but it has also collapsed in the Russia
       of today; today Russia is neither a government nor a nation;
       today it is made up of 89 governments. The capacity for
       integration lies only in the Communist party. When the
       Communist Party lost its legitimacy so did the State. Does
       the Russian State have the power to reintegrate itself if it
       doesn't exist? My answer is NO. The Russian State as the
       Soviet State no longer exist and will not exist again.
       However, the dominant factor is the remaining reunificatory
       capacity within the old Soviet Union within contemporary
       Russia. In this I feel we can see an example of the failure
       of the modern State. I think and I hope that the elites of
       all states are trembling.

       This cannot be seen as a victory for anarchism but rather
       the end of the capacity of such politics  to promote
       integration.

       When we look towards Russia we see total institutional
       confusion, Moscow and its politics are pure theatre; the
       Supreme Court, the Presidency, Yeltsin etc... are mere
       actors. They entertain us because they have no power. But
       what of the future? I suggest five possibilities.

       The first is 'Military Fascism'; the military could come to
       represent an active force for reunification, I don't think
       this will happen. Today there are more officers that
       soldiers in the armed forces and the youth are voting with
       their feet. They will not enlist. Moreover the military are
       very divided. Nor does the economy give them money for
       equipment. Today these forces have neither the personnel,
       the material nor the unity/solidarity that they need. Today
       Military Fascism is not possible.

       Secondly 'Capitalism' as a system of recuperation didn't
       work, doesn't work and will not work in Russia. It is not a
       question of accepting or rejecting the capitalist ideology
       which has indeed been culturally rejected. The 'free
       enterprise economy' can only survive and grow if two
       conditions are fulfilled:  1) Give the workers higher levels
       of employment and remuneration 2) Have some comparative
       advantage vis a vis the rest of the world - an advantage
       used by the State to generate investment in the country and
       sell outside of its frontiers within the framework of
       monetary stability.

       But when the state industries are being shut down,
       unemployment is reaching 20 million and savings are
       annihilated by hyper inflation running at 1 000% pa economic
       dislocation is the outcome and we come to realise that
       capitalism is not the means for bringing about Russian
       reunification.

       Thirdly 'Constitutional Federalism'; the fragmentation
       caused in part by the economic decline has favoured the
       appearance of an initiative aiming at a 'constitutional
       solution' which consists in producing a document which
       defines the sharing of power in equal parts between the
       Centre and the Regions/Republics and also a Justice System
       which would have the power to resolve the various disputes
       between the factions and parties which make up the
       organisation of the State. On the 12 July 93 the delegates
       to the Constitutional Assembly gave their consent to such a
       document and gave the President the power to dissolve
       parliament and call elections. The Federal law took priority
       over the laws of the various Republics and the vice-
       presidency was abolished. However, the evidence suggests
       that the Regions and the Republics have no intention to
       subordinate themselves to Moscow; the leaders of the
       Republics have rejected the priority of the federal law.

       There was a tendency for the Republics to declare themselves
       independent. Amur, Vologda, Sverdlovsk, St. Petersburg and
       Primorsky Krai this summer.

       But there is no tradition of independence of this kind in
       Russia and the conflict between Yeltsin and the
       Constitutional tribunal is a part of the 'theatre' which the
       national Russian government is a part of today.

       Russia has collapsed and the new documents will not bring
       back the old system nor will they bring into being a new
       one.

       The political analysts indicate that Russia is in a pre-
       party state. There do not exist national political groupings
       and without these the state cannot resuscitate itself.

       In order for Yeltsin to win enough power he will have to
       draw on institutions and persons and move towards a form of
       power that we can call 'Civil Fascism' which is the fourth
       possibility. When I wrote this (July 93) I suggested that
       Yeltsin might attempt a 'coup d'etat', a constitutional
       seizure of power calling on the forces of democracy in
       Russia, but that this also would fail because such a
       constitutional fascism was based on the belief that only a
       minority was democratic. I believe that this plan is also
       destined to fail due to the fact that local organisations in
       Russia are not keen to collaborate with the 'actors' in
       Moscow. There will be no massive mobilisation of support for
       Yeltsin who, moreover, has never enjoyed majority support.
       In the April referendum only 6 out of 10 voted and of these
       only 6 out of 10 voted for Yeltsin. We are speaking of a man
       whose popularity in April was not that of the majority and
       whose popularity is currently in decline.

       The political logic of the old regime put the Communist
       Party in a position of 'infallible doctrine' to justify
       social and political authoritarianism. With the
       disappearance of this not only is there a political vacuum
       but also a distrust of secular ideologies. There is now the
       possibility of a call to the myths of nationalism, race,
       religion and blood especially if the situation deteriorates;
       crime rises and life expectancy falls.

       Fascism could come about in Russia due to the absence of
       politics.

       My conclusion as an anarchist is a positive one. I look
       towards the fifth possibility which will be as envisaged by
       Proudhon 'Decentralised Federalism'. Russia has this
       capacity which could serve as an example to other states. I
       am no expert on Spanish matters, but I understand that there
       was a strong federal tradition in this country before the
       dictatorship. The federalist capacity which exists in every
       state also exists in Russia but there is no guarantee that
       it will be successful.

       When a central regime admits its inability to control local
       authorities the development of a federalist system could
       prove the best solution for Russia in these times. The
       system is characterised by a multiplicity of local
       authorities and constant change in the political sphere at a
       local level. Vaclav Havel, president of the Czech Republic
       concluded that in this post-Leninist situation there exists
       the remains of an 'evil' in a moral sense reflected in
       racism, nationalism, aggression and crime. Havel is
       confident that once this 'evil' is eliminated a new social
       integration will come into being, I concur. I conclusion
       when I think of the possibilities which inspire me I think,
       not of Havel but of Bakunin and Proudhon.

       I suggest that we continue to focus on the ideals of the
       French Revolution properly speaking that is to say liberty,
       equality and fraternity.

       Bakunin said that he would not consider himself to be free
       as long as one single person did not enjoy liberty: 'if
       there is one person who is not free I am not free'.

       Perhaps we can say that the end of communism in Europe marks
       the beginning of history.

       There exists the possibility of outcomes other than those
       which prevail in Bosnia: an indication of the renovation of
       the anarchist solution understood in the Proudhonian sense
       of 'order without authority'.