Around this time in a Democratic administration, the progressives and various other lefties start complaining and losing their illusions after yet another Democrat turns out to be a staunch defender of the status quo and an aggressive militarist to boot. But all of the complaints are tempered by the sobering realization that the American two party system affords them no alternative but to put their hopes in the Democrats time and time again as the party formally closer to their viewpoint. How can we achieve any reform, they ask, if we don't vote for the party that at least bothers to pretend like they want what we want?
But as shown by the collapse of the Soviet empire, the answer is not to engage with "reformist" factions of the regime, thus lending popular support to the status quo, but instead to reject all of its offers and pretenses of legitimacy. Without the support of the people, no regime, regardless of how brutal, can exist for long. So we must stop lending this regime our support, or, if we choose to do so, we must admit that we are the very bulwarks of the status quo we pretend to reject.
In the 1970s, the Soviet Union was enjoying its most prosperous and tranquil period. The crises and atrocities of the Stalinist era were behind them, as was the turbulence of the de-Stalinization period under Khrushchev. The reign of Leonid Brezhnev ushered in an ear of material prosperity never before enjoyed by the Russian people, and the police state mutated from its ferocious and nearly genocidal previous form to a gently nagging Big Brother. Dissidents were no longer executed, but merely harassed and exiled from the major cities. There were no more witch hunts for nonexistent enemies of the people, and the various nationalities were largely left unmolested under corrupt satraps more intent on maintaining their lavish lifestyle than breaking their people’s national spirit. The implacable Western enemies were undergoing various internal crises, with Carter’s ineptitude following Nixon’s corruption in short order and the debacle of Vietnam temporarily deranging America’s war machine and stunting expansionist drive. The USSR was left free to try to spread its brand of communism in the Third World.
Nevertheless, many problems faced the USSR. Abroad, it had become crystal clear that nobody wanted the sort of impoverished and despotic socialism that the USSR was peddling. Though some petty dictators or bloody insurgents might declare their allegiance to the ideals of Marx and Lenin, their only motivation was to tap into the pipeline of money, weapons and technical assistance that was draining the USSR’s own limited resources. Domestically, this was the period of stagnation – zero growth in the GDP, and a growing lag behind the modernizing economies of the West, which was then entering its post-industrial period. The USSR was left an industrial giant producing goods that did its people little good – many tanks and tractors, but few consumer goods. Despite the relentless exploitation of the USSR’s vast natural resources, it was harder and harder every year to meet the economy’s needs for materials and the population’s needs for even basic staples.
More importantly, in retrospect, was the crisis of confidence and loyalty that the regime was undergoing. Ironically, the attempt to humanize the regime and to reduce the bestiality of the police state only undermined its support further. The Communist Party and its government were becoming jokes among the people, who, more and more, simply ignored it as much as possible and retreated into the cocoons of their private life, leaving the government to a cadre of increasingly old and tired men who had started their careers during the revolutionary founding and were now running out of ideas and energy. Parades and public propaganda went on as before, but nobody was paying attention aside from some sarcastic comments and relentless attempts to pilfer whatever materials were being used. Jokes abounded, about Brezhnev’s age and senility, about the widespread stealing, about the hopelessness of the conflict with the West.
Here is a small sampling of those jokes, to give the reader a flavor of the curiously apathetic and humorous attitude which the Soviet citizenry had assumed toward their country, and because they are a little known gem of modern anarchist thought:
Brezhnev is visiting a zoo and sees a giant turtle. He asks the zoo keeper how long such animals live. About 300 years, is the answer. Brezhnev sighs and replies sadly, "Just when you get used to an animal, it just dies on you."
An open letter from the workers of Factory N. to the workers of Chicago (parodying a common propaganda device used by Soviet newspapers): "Comrades, it has come to our attention that under the capitalist exploiters, you often undereat. If this is true, could you please package everything which you have undereaten and send it over here, we are hungry!"
An unconscious patient is brought to the hospital with a high fever. The doctor asks the family, "Have there been signs of delirium?" The wife answers fearfully, "Yes, doctor, it is terrifying to hear his mad ramblings. Last night he told me that world communism would prevail!"
Two prison guards are walking through the camp. One sees a particular inmate and spits in disgust. "Look at this enemy of the people!" The other objects, "No, I don’t think this one is a political prisoner. He’s just here for child molestation." The first guard replies, "So what, does this make him a friend of the people?"
After Brezhnev finally died at the ripe old age of 297 (or so it seemed), he was followed by a slew of other top functionaries of his generation, who themselves were ancient and careworn invalids, and died within months of their accession to the top post. Finally, the Party’s cadre of old and trusted leaders being depleted, the reform faction assumed power under Mikhail Gorbachev, a promising technocrat only in his 50s.
At this point I must pause to dispel a popular misconception, perpetuated particularly by the propaganda arms of Two Party oligarchic states such as the US. Because the only real sign of flexibility and responsiveness to popular desires and changing conditions in a Two Party state is the regular official transfer of power between the two Parties, which have long been denoted in reference to early French republicanism as "Left" and "Right," great emphasis is placed on this apparent and peaceful transfer of power as an indication that some sort of popular control over the levers of power is exercised. Two Party states violently castigate One Party states for lacking this mechanism and point to the lack of this ritualistic transmission of offices back and forth between two parties as proof of intolerable tyranny. And, in addition to being a card to play against One Party competitors, the transmission does confer tangible internal propaganda benefits as well, since all the acts of the previous party can be renounced, giving the second party in the rotation a blank slate to perpetuate the same policies with renewed support from the public. A great example of this is the Afghan escalation under Obama, which is presented as a new start for this 9 year old war. All the defeats and failures of the past 8 years are attributed to the mismanagement of the bad old party, and the public is asked to renew its support for the faltering war effort since it is now in the hands of the Democrats. In a terrific testament to the power of this propaganda line, despite the fact that Obama hasn't even bothered to change Defense Secretaries or remove the Bush era high command, the public has by and large embraced this argument.
However, the reality is that One Party states face the same pressures as Two Party states from changing conditions and pressures from public opinion, and within a single party factions exist which can be described as progressive and conservative, right and left, and so forth. This dynamic can be seen today in the US Congress, which is completely controlled by the Democratic Party. As power is wielded solely by this one party, factions within that party appear, which are now being referred to as the progressive and moderate wings, and they continue the same heated struggle for power even in the absence of effective opposition from the Republican Party.
The program put forth by the reform faction of the Soviet Communist Party headed by Gorbachev was vastly ambitious and far reaching, much more so than for example, the tepid reforms often promised by the succession of the various Democratic standard bearers. Gorbachev proposed an end to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, a reorganization of the economy to permit private ownership of small and medium size businesses, and a new openness in the media about the deficiencies of the regime and Soviet reality. To place it in modern American context, this program would be as radical as well, pulling American forces out of Afghanistan, breaking up the trusts that dominate all major American industries and permitting entry into the market of independently funded concerns, and allowing new industries to emerge rather than using laws to maintain entrenched capital interests, such as by ending the War on Drugs, and by beginning to release into wide circulation movies and television programs about the American prison state, America’s current global colonial activities (as opposed to limiting coverage to only the permitted topics of the declared wars in Iraq and Afghanistan), discussing the effect that systemic commercialization of values is having on younger generations, or the effect that agribusiness and the pharmaceutical trust are having on public physiology.
Despite widespread opposition to such an ambitious program from conservative elements within the Party and society at large, the dire state of the Soviet economy following the collapse of world oil prices in the 1980s and the abject failure of the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan allowed Gorbachev’s faction to put forth most of their desired reforms. Small enterprise began to flourish, and many devastating critiques of the society appeared on the screen and in print. However, instead of strengthening the regime as intended, these reforms had the effect of further undermining its popular support. The stories told by the returning Afghan veterans and aired in the media shocked even the most conservative segments of the public, which, like those in the US, had previously convinced themselves that Soviet arms were intrinsically noble and victorious. The tales of the condition of Soviet youth, meant to be cautionary tales, instead provided nihilistic role models that galvanized the youth in further rejection of all cooperation with the regime.
I still recall the effect one such movie had on me as a youth. It was called Assa, which is supposedly the first word spoken by Noah when he landed his arc after the flood, and so was used to mean the first communication in a new world. The final scene of the movie is an interview, as a typically pig faced communist manager interviews a new musical ac for her club. She asks him a series of questions that were familiar to any Soviet citizen, but the answers were so abrupt and dismissive as to make one feel almost giddy that something like that was possible.
Occupation? (all Soviet citizens were required to work. Unemployment was a crime under Soviet law.) The musician answers, "None" but the interview continues. Education? (musicians were required to show education at a state music academy) None. Place of residence? (all Soviet citizens were required to maintain a place of residence and register it with the police. One could not move except by trading with somebody else for their residence, or through sponsorship by a state controlled industry). The musician answers her "None," and his friend adds, "He’s a poet, he lives in the world." But instead of ending the interview and calling the police, the manager simply continues droning on while the musician turns his back, walks out and begins performing. At the time this was electrifying, the irrelevant communist and the bold singer of a new world. Here is the scene, I think it plays without translation, and you get to see what strange buildings we all lived in, like thick cold concrete tombs.
Rock music was allowed for the first time and formed the soundtrack for the revolution. The musician in the movie Assa is played by Victor Tsoy, an actual rock star who was one of the leading voices for rebellion. To his enduring fame, he died under mysterious circumstances in 1989, and so did not live to see the collapse of the system he did so much to undermine, nor to see the collapse of the freedom which replaced it. Here is another video setting a scene from one of his movies to his song, which perfectly encapsulates the defiant and dismissive attitude of the resistance. It is amazing to have lived in a period where music was actually revolutionary, rather than a meaningless commercial regurgitation of permitted themes. Perhaps this was what the 60s in America felt like. I hope so.
By allowing the people to see and hear these things, the regime wanted to show that it was humane, that it could change, that it deserved the loyalties of its people because it was on their side. But the only thing we took from it was that they were weak and growing scared of us. Gradually, all cooperation with the government, on all levels, from local police upward, simply stopped. Police and their volunteer auxiliaries were laughed at in the streets. Mothers of drafted soldiers would attack convoys of recruits being sent to boot camp, and take control of the trucks from their unresisting drivers, turning them around. The "brotherly socialist republics" rose in open revolt, while the Soviet soldiers refused orders to put down the uprisings, and instead turned on their officers. Here was freedom, intoxicating and beautiful, and it was within our grasp.
Finally, the hardliners within the Party decided that they had enough, that Gorbachev was too weak to restrain the forces he unleashed and attempted a putsch. What followed was beautiful. Without any previous organization or political programs, mass demonstrations gripped the major cities. The Kremlin was besieged. Once again, even the most elite units on which the hardliners counted to restore order in Moscow refused their orders and arrested their officers. Finally, the President of the Russian Soviet Republic, Boris Yeltsin, decided to throw his lot with the revolution and became its leader. He was no different from the other apparatchiks, a venal and corrupt alcoholic, but the revolution needed a focus. Within a few days, it was over, and the USSR ceased to exist, it collapsed in an instant like a house of cards. Statues were pulled down. The old all powerful bureaucrats and KGB minders were now unemployed, doddering old men who had to scrape garbage cans for their breakfast as children jeered and threw bottles, which they greedily scooped up to receive the deposit.
What followed was a brutal and ugly period. Everything was permitted, one could by heroin in the subway on the way home from work, if one had work. Industry collapsed and people were being paid in the products they manufactures, so that when one drove past a town with a towel factory, for example, the road would be lined with workers trying to sell towels. Hyperinflation set in and people living on fixed incomes were destitute. Retirees were forced to root through garbage to avoid starvation. Primitive accumulation of capital ensued, with street battles between warring mafia groups frequently employing RPGs in the streets of Moscow. The police forces had nearly ceased to exist and were powerless to stop the chaos. Stores were empty, completely empty, while the markets were full but the prices were out of reach for anybody except the criminals.
Much of this was blamed on the West, because so many hopes and trust were placed on Western aid arriving as had been promised so many times on Air America. In retrospect, and to one long residing in the West, the fact that anybody could have had actual faith in the fairy tale propaganda constructs blared at us from across the border seems laughable. At this point, only a few years later, only children and some stubborn Americans who tear up at the proud waving of Old Glory, can continue to believe the slogans of "freedom," "democracy" and Santa Claus. But at the time, because we presumed that everything the communists told us was a lie, and the communists told us the West was a bunch of predatory imperialists ready to pounce, we assumed the opposite to be true.
However, we quickly learned that both sides could be lying at the same time, and that most contests are not between good and evil, but simply different kinds of evil, like a mafia war. The West, which had made so many promises to the Soviet people in the past to help them rebuild if they threw off the yoke of communism, much less than coming with aid, instead came in aggressively to plunder the defenseless country, and within a few years, everybody who sided with the West and tried to implement Western principles was discredited as a puppet of predatory and deceitful enemies. Yeltsin was caught again and again taking money and direct orders from the Americans, until he could no longer show his red bloated face in public. I remember an incident during his reelection campaign when an American embassy worker was caught outside Yeltsin's campaign headquarters with an actual suitcase full of dollar bills. Yes, those actually exist. Meanwhile, American military forces inched closer and closer to the Russian border, relentlessly tightening a noose they continued to deny holding.
The death of the rather silly illusion that outside forces would help Russia instead of taking advantage of her weakened condition, combined with the hardships experienced by most Russians in the economic collapse, left Russia open to a return of the discredited conservatives, who used the attacks by Western interests and their systematic dismemberment of Russian industry and looting of its resources, and the impoverishment of the people as proof that a return to a defensive, autocratic stance was necessary to prevent Russia from sinking to an entirely colonial status, living at the whim of Western masters, with the people reduced to the most abject poverty and servile status, like the countries of Central America for example. Better to be a slave to one of our own than to a bunch of foreigners, they argued with growing success.
While the younger generations adapted quickly and with relish to the new freedom and ignored politics as they focused on the myriad new things the world had to offer, the reins of power went back into the hands of old school functionaries who had relabeled themselves from communist to patriot and now handed power back to the same KGB and army men who during the 1990s used to beg for change under overpasses wearing their ridiculous rows of meaningless medals. The West enthusiastically backed and funded the reemerging apparatchiks, because it had taken everything it could from Russia and now needed somebody to negotiate the terms of its future servitude, and the old guard was a known quantity with whom the West felt they could deal advantageously. The window of freedom closed, with the only thing to show for it being a flood of single serving plastic crap from China and a flood of Internet porn.
What lessons can be drawn from these events for Americans who yearn for true freedom despite the relentless brainwashing of the Two Party state and its propaganda arms, which keep telling us, regardless of the obvious reality, that we live in the land of the free? First, that freedom is much closer than one thinks, because all states, regardless of how monolithic they appear, depend on the constant voluntary cooperation of their citizens. If we simply turn their backs on the state, it will cease to exist, like a dream upon the dreamer’s waking. The pigs who appear so powerful now, with their uniforms and their instruments of violence, cannot subdue all of us, or even a large probation of us if we simply stop fearing them. Instead of "hoping" and "waiting for change" and hopping to it every election cycle, doing the same thing but expecting different results like madmen, as we are urged to do by the propaganda slogans of the regime, we should spit in the faces of thee regime every chance we get until they look away in shame. Instead of tearfully applauding those young men and women who are so deluded by the state propaganda as to volunteer their lives to the state, we need to intervene with each person we know who considers such collaboration. We should embrace the soldiers and the police like our brothers and show them on whose side they should really be fighting. Instead of lining up to vote early in yet another meaningless contest between the "Left" and the "Right," between the "Change we believe in" and the "Change we deserve," we should piss in their polling booths and stand outside laughing in the flushed faces of the piggies as they run around squealing excitedly. Instead of pledging allegiance to the flag that symbolized our servitude and the violent subjugation of so many peoples around the world, we should tearing it down. If this was done, there would be no more cops, no more soldiers, no more prisons, no more colonies, and the vast and seemingly untouchable fortunes of the oligarchs who tower over us would crumble to nothing.
But second, we learn that freedom is not to be idealized, that it is a very tenuous state in which the weak suffer and the country lies open to depredations from the outside from those imperialist powers, which still hold their people in thrall. Absent a world revolution, this is a very significant hurdle to the winning of their freedom by the people of any particular country. We must never forget how Woodrow Wilson and the other imperlalist powers sent the soldiers who had been drafted and brainwashed for the "War to End all Wars" into the frozen depth of Russia to put down the October Revolution, and how these men, who expected to go home after the victory of World War One, instead allowed themselves to be deployed against their Russian brothers in attempting to crush the revolution there. Doubtless those American, French and English soldiers were more than a bit confused by their orders, but followed them anyway out of their loyalty to their flags and masters (though desertions were high and morale was low). We can expect any revolutionary regime to be attacked by such means.
Third, we must remember that most struggles are not of good vs. evil, but of evil fighting among itself for the carcasses of the good. And finally, we can learn that though the pigs, the hatchet men and the old women who tear up when they think of the flag may seem vanquished when they are forced to sit meekly and watch as the free individuals of the new world laugh in their mealy faces, they will reconstitute, like cockroaches driven from a kitchen, and return as soon as the freedom movement falters and the bourgeois fellow travelers begin to wonder if freedom is worth giving up their comfortable lifestyle of collaboration. On a small scale we already see this, the vanquished and humiliated Republicans are flocking to the tattered standards of Sarah Palin, waiting for the bourgeois middle of the road pussies to join them in their bid to regain power. To achieve permanent victory, the previous regime must be so utterly discredited that its minions can never reconstitute their cabals. But who has the time? I know I need all my spare time to try to figure out which health insurance company I am now obligated to give my money to.