From: nyxfer%panix.com@UMCVMB.missouri.edu (N.Y. Transfer)
Subject: ANALYSIS:Aiding or Raiding the USSR?
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Originator: daemon@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: University of Missouri
Resent-From: "Rich Winkel" <MATHRICH@UMCVMB.missouri.edu>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 19:53:00 GMT



Via The NY Transfer News Service ~ All the News that Doesn't Fit


                   Aiding or Raiding the USSR?

                          By Sam Marcy

(Copyright Workers World Service: Permission to reprint granted if
source is cited.)

The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank have announced
they will lend the Yeltsin government in Russia as much as $24
billion, some of it outright aid with presumably no strings
attached. This deal is likely to affect relations between the
former Soviet Union and the U.S. in a most profound way. It will
also add a new burden to workers in both countries.

The U.S. is about to get more and more deeply involved in the
affairs of Russia in particular. And the workers in the former USSR
will over time become more educated about the true nature of U.S.
magnanimity when it comes to loans or credits.

What is the World Bank?

The IMF and the World Bank, which interchange staffs, bring
together a small nucleus of bankers and financiers who dominate the
world economy's financial and economic structure. As of 1991, 153
countries, covering the vast majority of the human race, were
members.

Many countries throughout the world that have dealt with the IMF
and World Bank have learned to their grief that the relationship
becomes more and more a burden. They soon find themselves unable to
get out of its grip.

Superficially, the IMF is set up so that population, economic
stability and other factors are weighted so there is a modicum of
equality among the members. How does it actually work out? Well,
the Netherlands, with a population of 10-15 million, has the same
share in the bank--2.5 percent--as China with its population of 1.1
billion.

There's another small difference: The Netherlands is an exploiting,
imperialist country whose ruling class has lived off the sweat and
blood of colonial peoples. China, despite some of its socialist
achievements, is an oppressed country. In China the government is
in daily conflict with pro-imperialist forces.

India has a slightly larger share, 4.3 percent of the total assets.
But that's only because it's bracketed with Pakistan, Bangladesh
and some smaller countries.

The managing director, always a European, comes from France at
present. The president of the World Bank is always from the U.S.

The countries with the most invested are the U.S., France, Britain,
Germany and Japan. Originally India was one of the inner group, but
it was replaced by Japan. India is hugely indebted; Japan is a
creditor nation.

The U.S. at one time completely dominated the organization, lock,
stock and barrel. But over the decades, capitalist Japan and
Germany have made their economic and technological weight felt to
the extent that the U.S. now has to treat them as partners.

Each country is assigned its quotas according to its economic
strength. Given the tremendous decline in production since
perestroika was introduced, Russia and the republics's share will
probably be about the same as China's. But Boris Yeltsin, the
leader of the counterrevolutionary cabal now in power, says that
"out of pride" Russia should be higher than China.

Attitude toward Third World

The workers of Russia should know who they will be dealing with at
the World Bank. For instance, there is the bank's chief economist,
Lawrence Summers. On Feb. 10 the Washington Post cited a lengthy
internal memo he wrote in which he said, "Just between you and me,
shouldn't the World Bank be encouraging more migration of dirty
industries to the LDCs [less developed countries]?"

He proceeded to list the reasons, noting that "underpopulated
countries in Africa are vastly underpolluted."

Summers then explained, the Post reported, that "carcinogenic
emissions are of greater concern in a country `where people survive
to get prostate cancer' than in one where a fifth of the population
dies in childhood and that countries with the lowest wages should
have `a given amount of health-impairing pollution. ... I think
the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the
lowest-wage country is impeccable, and we should face up to it' "

As you can imagine, this generated a strong backlash. Later he
apologized, saying it was only meant as irony. Some joke.

The Post let a little sunshine into what are usually dark areas. Up
until now, there has been nothing but praise for the Harvard MBAs
and other hotshots who run these powerful institutions.

They want it both big and small

There's a curious contradiction in the package deal being offered
to Russia. The big business press here will try to make it appear
to U.S. workers to be smaller than it is, while at the same time
the press must make it look larger than life to Russian workers.

Also, the architects of this deal, especially those in the United
States, have had to craft it with a view to the presidential
primary elections here. But it is also framed to make it appealing
to the Congress of Deputies now meeting in Russia.

There are dozens of countries belonging to the IMF and World Bank
whose governments haven't the slightest idea of when this package
deal was arrived at and who was or was not consulted about it.
These smaller nations must soon try to learn how much each one must
pledge to the package. While they have to account for the
expenditure in their own countries, they have little say over how
it is spent.

The big problem with this package is that it is mainly the work of
the seven nations called the G7: the United States, Britain,
France, Germany, Italy, Canada and Japan. The U.S. government is
the principal lender. Germany has already contributed much more to
the former Soviet Union, but that is pursuant to an agreement to
withdraw Soviet troops from Germany, which will take a period of
time.

How is it that the U.S., now the world's biggest debtor nation--
that is, the biggest borrower--is also forced by circumstances to
become the biggest lender? Is this not a very acute contradiction
that is bound to lead to an explosion?

Yet this contradiction is not discussed in the big business press
here. The only question raised is whether, in Bush's own words, "It
is in our own interests and will redound to our benefit." Bush says
it will.

Generosity or `interest'?

Here we have a little admission from Bush that it's not all
generosity. It's in "our" interest. But who does he mean by this?
Does he mean, for instance, the workers who have been on strike
against Caterpillar for more than five months? Does the word "our"
mean the hundreds of thousands who have been displaced as a result
of the advances of technology, and who will never get their jobs
back? Just who does he mean by "our" and what does he mean by
"interest"?

Of course he means the bankers and the industrialists. They are
rubbing their hands at the prospects for advancing their interests
through this deal.

If it is to benefit anybody, it will be the bankers and
industrialists, not just in the U.S., but in all the leading
imperialist nations--Britain, France, Germany and also Japan,
although Japan has many competing interests with the U.S. They see
a broken-down, dismantled USSR, which just a few years ago they
called a "superpower." Then they stood in awe, perhaps even fear,
of the USSR. Now they feel on the verge of being able to lay their
hands on its fabulous wealth.

What Gorbachev thought he was doing

It is now more than six years since Gorbachev took over in the USSR
as general secretary of the Communist Party. He tried to get the
world capitalists to make concessions to him in the form of loans
and credits. In return for these concessions, he offered to open up
the USSR to investments by these capitalists. He promised them full
freedom to operate on an open market.

It should also be noted that from practically the first month
Gorbachev took over, the imperialists praised and then flattered
him as a great, wise leader. He never seemed to take the advice of
August Bebel, who said that any workers' leader being praised by
the enemy should ask himself why. Bebel had headed the German
Social Democratic Party in the 19th century when it was militant
and progressive.

Henry Kissinger, the former U.S. secretary of state and a principal
adviser to the old Rockefeller dynasty, says Gorbachev, whom he
knew well, just wanted to liberalize communism but couldn't do it.
This really means Gorbachev thought he could maintain a socialized
economy where the workers owned the means of production, while
allowing capitalism to grow in areas like agriculture and the
service industries. He would also let foreign capitalists come in
and invest in the huge industries like oil, gas, metallurgy, even
gold mining, as long as they behaved themselves politically and
didn't infringe on the sovereignty of the USSR.

Gorbachev was a conciliator to world imperialism. He thought the
two systems--capitalism and socialism--could work together
peaceably. And in response to his concessions, the U.S. in
particular would considerately allow the USSR to become part of
that small, inconspicuous group of seven bandit imperialist nations
that run the world capitalist system--when it isn't running them).

No concessions from imperialists

After six long years, it became very clear in both the
disintegrating USSR and the U.S. that Gorbachev's plan to remodel
the Soviet Union to suit the leading world capitalist financiers
would not succeed. The capitalists took advantage of every
concession. They gave none in return. They wouldn't even let
Gorbachev or the USSR put a foot in the door of the IMF or World
Bank. He got something called an associate membership for the USSR,
but nobody knew what this status meant.

It certainly didn't mean the IMF or the World Bank would open their
cupboards and lend money or give aid to the USSR. In one way or
another, Gorbachev had to go because the biggest, most powerful and
most predatory bankers and industrialists in the oppressor,
imperialist countries no longer had any use for him. At home in the
USSR, his plans proved to be a series of disasters, one after the
other.

Boris Yeltsin then came to the rescue. Of whom? Not the workers,
not the peasants, not the ordinary working people who had built the
vast land called the USSR with 70 years of work and struggle. The
USSR had had so many monumental victories--in industry, agriculture
and military affairs, not to speak of its achievements in outer
space. The chaos and dislocations that have taken place in the USSR
cannot be regarded as arising from socialist construction.
Yeltsin promised so much when he was Gorbachev's opponent. Now the
country is in a worse situation than when he took over. None of the
promises Yeltsin made has been kept. Most important, he promised to
quickly improve the economic situation for the mass of the people
if only he could push through his program of privatization. He has
so far completely flopped in this.

But the imperialist countries' bankers and industrialists are eager
to help him because they feel he is their last card.

They have decided to go full steam ahead at this time for two
reasons: First, they have become confident that Yeltsin will be
obliged to fully cooperate with them and carry out the IMF and
World Bank's "recommendations." Second, the imperialist system is
in the throes of its deepest economic crisis since the early 1930s.
This time no "small" wars like the massive invasion and destruction
of Iraq can be the means to reverse the process of economic
decline.

The democrat dictates to congress

Right now, the Congress of Deputies, Russia's parliamentary body,
is in session. The package deal the imperialists have worked out is
calculated to entice them into accepting the diktat of the
imperialist banks. If that doesn't work, many will be bribed--and
have been already--or bludgeoned.

Should they fail to accept the imperialist-imposed privatization
and supervision, the imperialist banks will support Yeltsin's
penchant to rule by decree instead of by parliamentary legislation.

Yeltsin calls himself a democrat. He is a democrat who would rather
abolish this very fragile bourgeois parliament and rule by
dictatorial decree.

Despite the unrepresentative character of the Congress of Deputies,
the growing discontent and frustration in the country are so strong
they find a reflection in that parliament. That is why Yeltsin
would prefer to abolish it altogether.

Yeltsin took up where Gorbachev left off. Gorbachev thought he
would retain the basic socialized ownership of the means of
production and maintain a looser but united federation of all the
republics in the USSR. Yeltsin is headed in the direction, clearly
and unambiguously, of continuing the breakup of the USSR and
putting the nationalized industry up for sale by auction.

The imperialists are at last united in thinking the time is ripe to
intervene in full force to virtually seize the USSR's economy. No,
they're not moving in militarily--just financially and
economically. This package deal symbolizes all their hopes and
aspirations. It is calculated to guarantee a peaceful transition to
a full- scale capitalist system.

Soviet property on auction block

We used the word "auction" earlier. It's not hyperbole. It's
actually a process already going on in light industry in the USSR.

An April 14 Associated Press dispatch from Nizhni-Novgorod, Russia,
was titled "First Mass Auction of State Property Held in Former
Closed Zone." It describes the auction of a hairdressing shop, the
first in a series of auctions of state-owned businesses in that
city. The auction was organized with the help of a World Bank
affiliate. "It's the first serious attempt," wrote the AP, "of
privatization in Russia."

The World Bank's International Finance Corporation hopes to devise
"a plan to privatize in six months all 2,000 city- owned small
businesses, including cafes, barbers, tailors and shoe repair
shops." Admittedly, this is not a big deal even if carried far and
wide; it is still in the area of the service industries. However,
note under whose auspices this privatization is being done. It's
the World Bank, which works hand in glove with the IMF. Both are
controlled by the imperialists, with the lion's share in the U.S.
government's hands.

If this auction is to continue as planned, the sellers must of
course have bidders or buyers with money. Where does the money come
from? That is the big question. And it's all the more questionable
because these bidders or buyers of large shares refuse to divulge
the sources of their money.

It is true that inflation has reduced the value of the ruble, so
more rubles have to be printed. But those who have large sums of
money available not only refuse to reveal where it comes from but,
according to earlier reports, are attempting to change current laws
in Russia and elsewhere so they won't have to.

The existence of the "shadow economy" over a long period of time
was an admission of the shortcomings in socialist construction. On
the one hand it supplemented the economy; on the other hand, it
challenged it. Now the shadow economy has joined forces with the
bourgeois elements in the state apparatus. It spawns a social
grouping eagerly waiting for the imperialist loans and credits to
start coming in. They are not builders; they are wreckers. This is
widely acknowledged in the U.S. imperialist press.

Workers' demonstration in Nizhni-Novgorod

The IMF's overall objective with the loans and credits in the
package deal is to supply funds to rob the industrial and
technological apparatus of the USSR and to ravage its natural
resources. This is well understood in Nizhni-Novgorod. The first
auction, the AP reported, became the site of a significant
demonstration protesting the privatization of the hairdressing
company. An estimated "250 workers, mostly women, demonstrated
outside the auction hall. Many feared they would lose their jobs or
that necessities, such as bread and milk, would disappear as
shopkeepers stock more profitable goods."

The process that began with Gorbachev's maneuvers to accomplish
what he and many of his supporters thought was a means of enticing
foreign capital to help build the USSR turns out to be in truth a
process to bring back capitalism and ensure the enslavement of the
former USSR to the predatory imperialist powers. Could anything be
clearer?

Of course, this is not yet an accomplished fact. But the capitalist
reforms have accomplished the breakup of the union and poisoned
relations among the republics and the many nationalities. They have
revived greed and avarice, which accompany privatization. They've
brought back all the old prejudices and stimulated bourgeois
individualism as against socialist collectivism.

The net result is this: What was a narrow social grouping of
bourgeois elements, nurtured by the privileged bureaucratic
apparatus of the state and the party, has now grown to such
menacing proportions that it threatens to completely swallow up the
old state, and the party apparatus as well.

Yet communism lives, even as this process goes on. The workers'
demonstration in Nizhni-Novgorod may have been small, even in
comparison to others in Moscow and around the country, but it is
the wave of the future.

                               ###

This article originally appeared in Workers World newspaper.
A 10-week trial subscription is available for $2. A year's
subscription costs $15. Makes checks payable to Workers World,
and send to 46 W. 21 St., New York, NY 10010.Phone (212) 255-0352.
You may contact Workers World editors on New York Transfer or
PeaceNet at "workers."

-----
from the E.EUROPE/USSR Newsfeed - NY Transfer News Service
Modem: 718-448-2358  nytransfer@igc.org  nyxfer@panix.com

Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive