The Left and Labour in Russia Under Putin

[Psy]

Boris Kagarlitsky talked about the Russian left.

Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTo9r4THEVA)
Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-XL3qHaGPc)
Part 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20jFOk0V23k)
Part 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9menelKBa0)
Part 5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcLoxAB95TY)
Part 6 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iY0eMclIu8Y)
Part 7 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCrIg0R5p0A)
Part 8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmogiHX-dpE)
Part 9 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oV16XL_i7wY)
Part 10 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcdmoQnHmu8)
Part 11 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5jc_ZCqXrw)
Part 12 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7D9oFgJ2y6Y)

[Die Neue Zeit]

Holy moly! THE Boris Kagarlitsky in Toronto?! Wow! [And his NGO, too! :cool: ]

P.S. to gilhyle: Regardless of your opinion on him (http://www.revleft.com/vb/social-democracy-t74352/index.html), it will be necessary to work with people like him (http://www.revleft.com/vb/united-social-labour-t75056/index.html).

[Die Neue Zeit]

Part One was a long and cozy introduction, but the most important thing to note is that COMRADE Kagarlitsky spoke of what I call "apocalyptic predestinationism":

http://www.revleft.com/vb/done-challenges-overcoming-t74557/index.html

Here he said that the New Left thought that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a good thing. There was this notion that, with the coming of capitalism, resistance would follow shortly. Stalinists thought that the "Soviet Man" couldn't adapt to capitalism.

In Part Two, he talks about Soviet organized labour, and the lack of self-organization. This was key for the union to be an easy tool for capitalist restoration, INCLUDING the retention of union loyalty.

He then highlights three types of resistance shortly afterwards (two covered in Part Two):

1) Resistance from above ("red directors" who wanted a role in the process), which included strikes led by the "red directors" (but they won since the Yeltsin coup in 1993, since the privatization strategy was altered)
2) Resistance from lower-ranking Stalinists (Russian Communist Workers' Party) with an irrelevant and inadequate view of politics (because of what I call "traditional schematism" on their part)

In Part Three, he continues to talk about #2, and the reorganization of the CPRF which defeated the Stalinist reaction (since masses flooded into the CPRF). Ironically, the CPRF moved to the right even more, even attacking the Russian revolution itself as being "Jewish." However, the elderly rank and file are apolitical, voting for tradition and not knowing the CPRF's platform.

3) Spontaneous riots and protests consisting of workers (for backlogged wages)

He talks about the Keynesian measures of the Primakov government. The protests then stopped.

Then he talks about the Putin era: In 2005, a mass movement emerged in reaction to the monetarization of welfare benefits and social services.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Breakfast and a shower interrupted my summary.

In Part Four, the 2005 mass movement was described as being not just of elders, which was misportrayed in the media.

Committees were formed during the protests continuing in 2006 (but not in Moscow itself, because the monetarization was abolished in the city)! The police were extremely reluctant to disperse the rioters. Also, the usual media crap about the head of state being always good and the government taking the blame (harkening back to Russian boyars). :rolleyes:

Since then, it has been easier to protest (and Russian protests are more dynamic than those in the rest of Europe).

In Part Five, he talks about the lack of general knowledge regarding the names of deputies! He also says that the liberal protesters are overrated, contrary to Western media accounts.

Now he talks about the new labour movement, based on the unreported growth in manufacturing (Western media talks too much about oil). There's also continued protectionism in car manufacturing, which ironically encouraged foreign companies to invest (and create jobs): Ford Motors, General Motors, Toyota, BMW, Hyundai, etc. What is happening, therefore, is that the old Soviet carmakers are losing their market share to these companies that are investing in the country, but are protected against Brazilian car manufacturers, for example.

For other products, it's like LEGO: the parts are manufactured outside, but because of protectionism, they have to be assembled inside. This creates the jobs, especially for younger workers who haven't been exposed to Soviet paternalistic enterprises. This has created pre-conditions for class consciousness.

He then talks about some workers being sent to Brazil, where they learned union organization tactics. In 2006, more strikes occurred.

In Part Six, he basically says "from one strike in one area to another," and then talks about strike coverages in the media and his experiences with government propaganda outlets.

Then he talks about "a new generation of leaders who are much more militant" (with limits), and a couple who openly declare themselves Marxists. Again, there are trade-unionist limits.

When shifting to the left proper, he says that the Stalinist left has gone down (and the CPRF has become just nationalist). During the monetarization protests, he says that two trends came up before stabilizing (thus not growing): Trotskyists and neo-Stalinists. The youth communist league disintegrated because of the CPRF sham. And then he talks about failed attempts at "left unity," because of differing politics (but a common basic ideology); no common political project was defined.

In Part Seven, he talks about a restart, tied more with the labour movement (with more common political ground). He ends on an optimistic note.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I will have to highlight his repeating of Lenin's error in equating socialism with "state-capitalist monopoly made to benefit the whole people." (http://www.revleft.com/vb/social-proletocracy-marx-t80882/index.html) :( He didn't address the wage-slavery question, even if he talks about democratic planning. :(

In the Q&A portion of the discussion, Boris Kagarlitsky had this to say, however:

"After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the new left - the anti-Stalinist left - had to become somewhat more critical towards what can be called 'minority nationalisms.' In that sense, it doesn't mean we support Great-Russian chauvinism or imperialist approaches, but at this stage there is a growing suspicion about minority-nationalist projects as basically representing very much the same kind of policy as the big empire but in a kind of miniature format."



Was "Comrade" Stalin indeed right in his 1922 opposition to Lenin (which is NOT the current "Marxist-Leninist" position)? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/nationalities-soviet-union-t61251/index.html)

[Ultra-Violence]

thanx for the summary really helped!

[Awful Reality]

This is a great speech, I enjoyed it.

I agree that the dissolution of the USSR was good in that it has created better conditions for socialism to take hold.

[Die Neue Zeit]

thanx for the summary really helped!

A belated "You're welcome" is in order.