Russia: nationalism on the march (1994)

From the September 1994 issue of the Socialist Standard

In recent years Russia has provided a continuous stream of surprises for many outsiders. The most recent was what happened at the last election in December, when the misnamed Liberal Democratic Party received a third of the vote. This party, under its leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky is actually a manifestation of fascism.

Zhirinovsky has an aspiration to be President of an enlarged Russia. He has made it plain that as President he would not only aim to control Russia as it is at present, but would extend his rule to include all lands of the former empire of the Soviet Union. It should be noted that Zhirinovsky’s empire would also include such territories as Finland and Alaska. When he says such things it is not just idle talk — it is all meant for the ears of the Russian military who have lost the glamour and prestige they enjoyed in the old USSR. Indeed, it is estimated that between 60 and 80 percent of the army voted for Zhirinovsky last December.

Nationalism and patriotism have a great influence on the sorrowful people of Russia. Economic conditions are worse then they were before the break-up of the Soviet Union and many now dream of the “good old days” — good old days, of course, that never were. The former “Communist” leaders — who are actually supporters of state capitalism, and like Zhirinovsky, extreme nationalists too — attempt to pep up the working class with patriotic talk and unrealistic reforms. They do not speak of genuine socialism or communism and give no hope to a largely helpless and apathetic working class. Across the political spectrum, nationalism and reformism are the vogue, a situation that can only help the likes of Zhirinovsky.

Military posturing

The present nationalist madness was reflected in a recent article by Andrei Kozyrev, Russian Foreign Minister, in the New York Times of 18 March. He stated that America and the West should not attempt to threaten Russia, claiming that no-one should forget that Russia was still a great military power with a huge nuclear arsenal. Aggressive-sounding noises from some in the West were inappropriate, he added, as Russia had a massive resource of conventional weapons and good strategic positions in many key areas. No-one should believe that American world hegemony was assured, he argued.

The more pro-US President Yeltsin finds himself in a relatively isolated position. He did nothing to prevent an amnesty being granted to those who took part in last October's nationalist and Communist revolt, and earlier all the Communist leaders were released who took part in the events to depose Gorbachev. Yeltsin has certainly lost much of his former confidence. Some say he is seriously ill, but whatever the truth of that matter, he is severely hindered in his fight against the more extreme nationalists due to the lack of a mass political party supporting him. Since December the fascists and Communists have had control of the Russian Parliament and Yeltsin’s influence is now weaker than ever. The so-called “experts” in the bureaucracy give him conflicting advice, and he seems unsure about precisely which course to take.

The next Presidential election takes place in 1996. However, Zhirinovsky and the Communists are hoping to unseat Yeltsin well before then, and they will stop at nothing to do so. 'The two principal names that have been put forward as challengers to Yeltsin are Zhirinovsky himself and that of Viktor Chernomyrdin, the Prime Minister. Interestingly, no-one has mentioned reformers like Gaidar or Yavlinski, who at one time commanded quite some support among the working class. Evidently, few now have confidence in such people since the earlier reforms have not brought about the hoped-for prosperity.

Crime explosion

Undoubtedly, working class confidence is at a fairly low ebb. Living conditions are poor and organised crime has reached horrendous levels, affecting a great many workers. Poverty and the rise in nationalism have encouraged large numbers to emigrate, especially those of German origins, while those of Jewish origin emigrate to Israel, even though some have been sent back on the grounds that they are not Jewish enough.

There could yet, of course, be a backlash against the rising tide of nationalism. Parties to the left of the Communists in Russia are as yet relatively insignificant, but, as movements like the Black Hundreds reappear, so have small groups of Trotskyists and anarchists of various hues. What Russia needs most of all though is a strong, democratic socialist movement to consistently counter the increasing myths about nationalism and the old state-capitalist regime. Let us hope that there are some in Russia now emerging who see the importance of such a movement and have the courage and tenacity to bring it into being.

D. Szczescie