Report on the trip to St. Petersburg and conversations with V. Volkov, April - May 2001
Part 3
As you can see, May 1st was the day of spring and exploration for me. On the next day, I went in for more discussions with Volkov and Yulia on social and philosophical problems. This time, I was a guest at their apartment, while Lena was at work, and wasn't able to join us. During a break in the discussion, held mostly in the study of Volkov, I took this picture of the couple. As you can see, Yulia was quite sympathetic towards me, while Volkov was more skeptical. |
|
This time in our discussions, I tried a new technique: capturing the outline of our arguments on my notebook computer. At first, I felt an opposition from both of them to this kind of formalism, but I felt that in this way our differences can be made more clear, and our arguments will be more careful.
The issues which we raised on that day, and on the previous one (while walking around Kronstadt) included:
1) Are the modern highly educated professionals part of proletariat? According to Volkov, they are, since they are wage earners. According to my view, as a tendency, they are becoming more and more independent of any kind of supervision, and hence in some instances have already managed to eliminate it.
2) Volkov, it seems to me, put out a view that essentially there was no difference between ruling fraction represented by Khasbulatov, in 1993 events, and the fraction represented by Yeltsin. According to him, Yeltsin won the struggle against the Parliament (fraction of Khasbulatov) because he is a single figure around which it is easy to unite. To me, such an analysis seems superficial. This is a substitution of mathematical concepts of "single" and "plurality" for a careful class analysis of the events. In my opinion, both Yeltsin and Khasbulatov represent two very different fractions of former Soviet bureaucracy, and struggle between these two dominates the history of the last 10 years, since the break up of the Soviet Union. Khasbulatov represents those directors of state enterprises who want to see a return to the former Soviet Union. Yeltsin represents the forces of the former bureaucracy which wants to see Russia capitalist. This later fraction has had, in 1993, somewhat more progressive momentum behind it than the former fraction. This is obvious from many comparisons between the two: how the representatives of both speak, the kind of forces they are able to master, the TV programs they put out, etc. And so, as a result of a greater force, the fraction of Yeltsin won in 1993 again, as they did in 1991 in August (when Yeltsin represented the Parliament against the G.K.Ch.P.).
It seems to me that what is said above is very obvious to any kind of independent inquiry. However, it seems to me that people like Volkov understand the world not through their own investigations, but through reading second-hand reports like those of the World Socialist Web. And many of these "socialist sites" are poorly written. It is much better to go to the original sources, read eyewitness reports, etc. Volkov is simply following the party line in his arguments.
This is a problem with any organization. If the organization is sound, it will raise an individual to a higher level of consciosness that s/he is able to attain on his/her own; but if the party is fake, then perhaps in some ways the consciousness will be raised, but in many others it will be oppressed under a load of falsehoods. In a situation where there is no sound party, it is better to be a lone wolf (although it is very difficult).
3) Among other paradoxes, Volkov denies that peasants have played a revolutionary role in history. Examples of this are obvious, even in XX century: China, Cuba, and to a lesser extent Russia and Yugoslavia. However, it seems that Volkov blindly following Marx (who said that peasantry by itself can not win a revolution) insists that peasants are non-revolutionary! This is a logical mistake: from the fact that a class can not win a struggle, if not led by representative by another class, we can not say that this class is non-revolutionary. If we're to follow this logic, then we will say that working class has no revolutionary potential, because in the Russian revolution it was led by representatives of intelligentsia.
In addition, Volkov, together with the organization he represents, denies the revolutionary meaning of Chinese and Cuban upheavals. People like Castro, Che, and Mao are no revolutionaries to him! The measures which they adopted, to Volkov, are "pseudo-revolutionary"! This appears like dogmatism par excellence to me.
In my opinion, modern "revolutionaries" display a fantastic ignorance about the revolutionaries of the past. For example, they've heard about the French revolution, but they make no effort to study it. In my opinion, to be a revolutionary, one must study revolutions.
4) As a result of our discussions, we both agreed that people who have access to Internet are the ones towards whom revolutionary thinkers should first reach out. This appeared to me as an improvement on the initial position of Volkov, who insisted that it is proletariat whom we should try to reach first of all. Hence, building a modern revolutionary party involves building a consensus around various ideas among thinking people around the world via the medium of Internet.
Moreover, building the party of the future means producing creatively (whatever it is that you do) and organizing production in such a way as being independent of bureaucracy and capitalists.
Volkov believes that such a kind of independent organization is impossible. He doesn't understand that to take power in the society means first of all to take charge of its production. This can be done in a series of steps. First, people opposed to the regime can move up to important positions within the old system. Then, they start functioning on their own, outside the old system, first on its periphery, then gradually acquiring more and more significance. This is what happened in the bourgeoisie coming to power, for example in the course of the English and French revolutions.
Moreover, Volkov, at least in his words, is striving after "capturing influence over the masses". As one criteria of success, Volkov boasted that there are reference links from Yahoo to WSW site, and hence there are many "hits". I think it is much better for the present to acquire right ideas by oneself. I am not after "capturing influence over the masses"; I am after the truth, even it if means standing alone.
Meanwhile, Volkov claims to have found answers to all his questions in the writings of WSWS. To me, this appears like being a sectarian. As Hegel would say, "by the little which satisfies our thirst we can judge how much really has been lost". Judge for yourself, by checking their site.
As a result of discussions on 2 May, I got quite sick. I don't want to hear another regurgitation of David North or Nick Beams. And so, for the rest of the day, we (Yulia, Volkov, and I) walked together around Nevsky Prospect, and in the evening watched "Solaris" - a thoughtful 1973 science-fiction movie by Tarkovsky. We ask aliens: who are you? And they reply by pointing to ourselves, our consciousness. That may be more than we can stand. I highly recomment that you see that movie, if you didn't yet.
| On May 3, I went riding on my bike around St. Petersburg. First, I visited the Russian Navy museum. Among things I have seen there, I saw the original hrivna, and this explained to us the origin of the modern "ruble". It turns out that ruble means a hrivna that is cut in half (see and read picture on the right, click to enlarge). |
|
Then, I visited St. Petersburg's main yacht club. There, I understood that it is not yachts which are important in my life. Rather, it is the theory - of society, of the universe. This is the theory of what I call "the vortex". Tourism, yachts, bikes, women - all of this is secondary. They can distract from the main goal of life. We should go for these things only once we have had enough of theory, and there are no co-thinkers with whom to share.
And so, following my ideas, when I came back home in the afternoon, I bought something to eat, and went on to read the history of the U.S. from my Encarta 2001 encyclopedia. That, at least, is more informative than Volkov.
On that day, I saw the news in the evening. The main topic on the news was war in Chechnya. This event serves to highlight the corruption within our society. Thus, we heard about a number of soldiers running away from the army. And we hear about unlawful detentions of civilians by the army. Moreover, we hear about the case of Borodin, who is known for taking bribes from a Swiss firm for reconstruction of Kremlin. The state is reminding its citizens to pay the taxes; otherwise, something "bad" may happen - and on TV we see one guy who has to pay additional 40 000 rubles.
The main international event is the continuing civil war between Macedonians and Albanians. This is a sequel to the break up of Yugoslavia. To Volkov, of course, this is still "a war of elites".
| I didn't think that I was going to meet Volkov again. So, on the 4th May I read a
little bit in the morning, and then went on a ride around St. Petersburg. Some physical
exercise is necessary for the proper functioning of our mind. First,
I visited Peter and Paul fortress, i.e. walked outside the wall. There I saw people
absorbing the first rays of the sun. One view from that fortress is on the right. Then, when I started to go back, I saw a young woman sunbathing without the bra. That was a beautiful scene, but I (maybe out of modesty) forgot to capture it on my camera. |
|
| I decided to ride my bike back home by a different route, and so I stumbled upon two women who were waiving to someone across the street. The building across the street turned out to be "Kresty" - a famous jail. Its photograph, from my bike, I insert on the right. This seems to me like the right place for real people in our decomposing society. On the picture, in the upper left corner, you can see a net which separates the prison windows from the street - so that the inmates can not throw messages onto the pavement. |
|
| Then, as I was riding along, I saw a teenage girl under a remnant of a bridge. I suppose she was running away from all that noise which her parents call "real life". She was truly underground. And since that image reminded me of my own adolescence, and since that appears to be the origin of life, I captured the girl on my camera, before she saw me. The prison and the girl are much more about real life today in St. Petersburg than all the museums, etc. which are shown to tourists. |
|
| Finally, as I was riding by my map of the city, I managed to stumble upon the Piskarev cemetery. It is known as the common burial ground for all the people who died during the blockade of Leningrad by fascists. People from many different parts of the Soviet Union are buried there. There is a classical music all over the burial ground. It was nice to stop there for a rest from my bike and listen to some Bach. The photo, as I was leaving the place, shows the central monument. |
|
I suppose in the future there will be many more such cemeteries, as the coming civil war and World War III promise to be the most bloody and catastrophic events of all times. And so: the girl underground, the jail "Kresty", the civil war in former Yugoslavia and the disintegration of the former Soviet state - all these are episodes of the same big picture.
When I came back home, telephone rang. It was Volkov. He wanted to meet with me in the evening in the city. But I didn't feel like going anywhere, because I was tired from my ride, and because I felt oppressed by Volkov. So, I invited him to our house, for a discussion. He came in the evening, with Nikita (a very thoughtful 11 year old boy). Volkov was more respectful on that day than on previous ones. I suppose my ignoring him for while have had its effect. So, we discussed from 9 in the evening until 12 our differences, starting from the war in Chechnya. The conversation continued on the next day, in the afternoon, for I was invited to Volkov's house before taking the train.
Again, Volkov argued that in Chechnya we are not seeing a civil war because we don't see there guerrillas who are putting forth socialist demands. But such a view of a civil war appears to me to be highly schematic. Civil war, by definition, is a struggle between two or more fractions of population taking on the most violent form. Slogans under which a civil war is fought never remain stationary but progress, together with the course of the war. For example, during the civil war in the U.S., the North originally fought against the secession of the southern states, and only later - for abolition of slavery.
It's a difficult question which position to adopt towards the civil war in Chechnya. Similar wars we should expect to see in the future on the whole territory of the former Soviet Union, and later perhaps China. We can not support either the regional elites (beyond which we find lurking the face of uncle Sam), nor the Moscow bureaucrats. I suppose further investigation of the conflict is necessary.
| We have also discussed the need to separate Russian nationalism from socialist goal. This topic is timely, for according to Volkov, in the present "the initiative is taken over by nationalists with red flags". To me, this doesn't seem accidental. Every movement against imperialist domination initially takes the form of a nationalist movement. This, for example, we have seen in China, in the beginning of XX century - the Boxer rebellion (see picture on the right), and later in the formation of the Nationalist Party (Kuomintang) under Sun Yat-sen. Gradually, and through the process of a civil war, the Nationalist Party gave rise, and was defeated by, the Communist Party of China (within which there were various tendencies: Trotskyist, Stalinist, and liberal). Hence, we may expect to see a similar dialectic in reference to all the various Communist parties in existence today. These parties may give rise to some leftist tendencies all over the world, which may unite and defeat their parent parties. |
Boxer Uprising
|
I can add that the movement in China was not the only instance of a progressive nationalist movement against foreign domination. Another "recent" example of such a movement is India, which struggled against British domination from XIX century up to the closing days of the WWII. And I believe the struggle still continues today, in the transformed form of extreme hostilities in relations between Indian and Pakistan.
Finally, we also discussed the goal of our movement. Volkov traditionally calls it by the name of "socialism". But it seems to me this word may not inspire people today and doesn't really describe all the progressive movements that are going on. First, the words "socialism" and "communism" have been used by such leaders as Stalin (in the past) and Zuganov (in the present). Obviously, we can not dress in the same rags with these political figures. Hence, there are two paths open to us. One is to explain that people like Stalin, Mao, etc. used such words as "socialism" and "communism" incorrectly, that the Soviet Union was not a socialist society, etc. However, such a traditional Trotskyist argument appears not to take into account other progressive movements of our times. These are: a) fight against racism, which exists not only in capitalist societies; b) feminism, which means women taking charge of their lives; c) movement of the oppressed nationalities for self-rule and self-determination, e.g. Palestinians in Israel and Kurds in Turkey; d) movement against enviromental pollution, i.e. "the Greens"; e) movement for freedom of sexual expression and behavior. This is more than socialism conceived. This is "vortex".
It is difficult to say that all these modern movement can be encompassed within the concept coined in the first half of the XIX century - "socialism". The term has come to mean in reality state ownership of industries and land resources. It has lost its original meaning, i.e. society as a whole taking control of itself. "Socialism" really means socialization and not state ownership of the productive resources, on the one hand, and private ownership and family structure, on the other. Moreover, modern "socialism" involves a fight against bureaucracy, which was not conceived in the XIX century.
Finally, we shouldn't forget that progressive movements are not happening only within the social sphere, but also include such movements as our struggle to conquer space, understand the secrets of how atoms and molecules work, and apply this to all kinds of "everyday" technology and problems. Hence, again, the concept of a vortex seems better fit to describe it.
| On this philosophical note, our discussions with Volkov ended. His family has seen me to the train station, on 5 May, 2001, and I left St. Petersburg thinking to myself. During the next day, our train, as is usual, was besieged by people who were trying to sell something - from a little boy trying to re-sell some ice cream that he just bought at a corner store, to a lady walking through the cars, offering to sell hrivnas, rubles, dollars, etc. This seems to happen because we, people traveling on train, have some kind of money, while most of the people living in the small towns we've passed have nothing, and hence they're forced to peddle everything, including themselves (I mean prostitution). On this last picture you can see women gathered around our car trying to sell plush toys. |
|
When I was approaching Kiev, a recent song by B-2 (a Russian band) was playing in my mind:
Nobody is writing to the colonel,
Nobody is waiting for the colonel.
Summary
1. "Vortex" may be a new name, and hence concept of the movement formerly called "socialist".
2. Each revolution/vortex is both unique and not unique. Specifically, the vortex of the Russian development presents us now with 2 parties desiring Restoration, which they understand in different way.
3. The concept of "power" and "wealth" changes over time. We must orient ourselves at definition which says that "wealth is knowledge". First, take control of the social production (one of its aspects). Then, unite and project your control on the society as a whole.
4. Principal contradictions of the modern epoch are:
people - bureaucracy
people - capitalists
capitalist states - non-capitalist states
among various imperialist states
There are also contradictions within the bureaucracy in the former "socialist" states, which lead to civil wars.
5. In Yugoslavia and Chechnya we see beginnings of a civil war. There is a progression of slogans under which every civil war is fought.
6. Movement against capitalism may start in part as a nationalist movement.
7. Building a modern revolutionary party involves first of all development of common ideas via the medium of Internet. Do not deal with those who are sponsored by Western "socialist" organization.
8. Whenever I stray away from the main purpose of my life, which is thinking on the theory of the movement, I experience strong feelings of depression. Hence, it is a kind of force that I am experiencing that is pulling me in the right direction.
P.S. Февраль 2002 г. - после посещения Волкова в Питере, и вторичного прочтения этого письма, я считаю Волкова оппортунистом, если говорить языком Ленина, т.е. человеком который руководствуется в своих взглядах не правильностью аргумента, а деньгами которые поступают на его содержание из-за границы, от оппортунистической "социалистической" организации Запада. Поэтому, всякий словесный аргумент не имеет смысла.
