"How can you call that

Scan page 10

smells like capitalism to me." 10 SOCIALIST ACTION AUGUST 1987 Balance of the Afghan Under thé new law, moreover, workers are to get pay raises, or cuts, based on performance. In his speech to the Central Committee, Gorbachev stated: "It is particularly important that the actual pay of every worker be closely linked to his personal contribution to the end result, and that no limit be ser" (emphasis added).

This measure is bound to increase social inequalities in a nation where bureaucratic privileges already set millions of Communist Party functionaries apart from the rest of society.

Another aspect of the new law is the decision to lift retail price controls on food, clothing, and housing. At present, government subsidies on such items run to $114 billion a year.

According to leading Soviet economists, the cost of living for the average worker will increase sharply within two or three years, as the government subsidies are gradually phased out.

Resistance from workers

Leonid I. Abalkin, a Soviet economist who helped draft the new economic guidesheet Subscribe to International Viewpoint!

A biweekly magazine published under the auspices of the Fourth International.

Introductory sub: 3 issues for $3.

Six-month subscription: $25.

One-year subscription: $47.

3435 Army #308, S.F. CA 941 lines, conceded in an interview with The New York Times (July 4, 1987) that "the idea of market prices goes against the sentiment of the Soviet people." ..Abalkin noted that persuading the Soviet people to give up their job security and their low-cost, subsidized housing and food will be "a most formidable problem."

Already there are signs that Soviet workers are uneasy with Gorbachev's economic plans.

A woman living in a working-class housing block near Moscow is quoted in lime magazıne (July 27, 1987) as sayıng:

"Whenever meat is available, the price is too high. If they raise the rent on this apartment, we will not be able to afford it. The authorities cannot raise prices because the people would 'have even less."

A 63-year-old teacher from the Ukraine is quoted in Time as follows: "I don't want life to turn into a race for rubles. How can they call that communism? This democratization smells like capitalism to me."

Leon Trotsky, one of the leaders of the Russian Revolution, explained in the 1930s that the fundamental tendency of the bureaucracy that usurped power under Stalin is to sap the fondations of the Soviet workers' state.

In the "Transitional Program," the fonding document of the Fourth International, Trotsky wrote:

"Either the bureaucracy, becoming more and more the organ of the world bourgeoisie in the bosom of the workers' state, will overturn the new property forms and precipitate the country towards capitalism; or the working class will crush the bureaucracy and will open a way out towards socialism."

Trotsky's words ring truer today than ever before.

Applause from imperialists

Meanwhile, the ruling classes in imperialist nations loudly applauded new Soviet law on economic restructuri A New York Times editorial (July stated: "The Communist giant now sets to undo the Revolution of 1917 with the the 1g.

out the —63-year-old teacher from the Ukraine Revolution of 1987... Western leaders can welcome such a trend... They can even encourage the process with agreements, where interests coincide."

A good indication of what the U.S ruling class means by "common interests" was spelled out by Peter G. Peterson, a one-time U.S. secretary of commerce and now the chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations.

In an article in the New York Review of Books (June 25), Peterson wrote: "I believe it is in our interest for the Soviets to concentrate on domestic reform and on ways to create links with the international economy."

By "links," Peterson was referring to decrees on foreign trade and investment adopted by the Soviet government during the last year.

One decree, adopted in September 1986, granted 20 industrial ministries and 70 large-scale enterprises the chance to directly trade with the capitalist nations. This measure opened the first significant breach in the state's monopoly of foreign trade.

Another decree, adopted in January 1987, authorized joint-ventures with U.S. corporations, thereby opening up the borders of the Soviet Union to imperialist investment capital. [See June 1987 Socialist Action.] Time magazine (July 27, 1987) put its support for the Gorbachev "reforms" in similar terms:

"Gorbachev may represent the West's last chance, at least in this century, of better integrating the Soviet Union into the world economy. There it could come under pressure to behave like a Western country, competing for capital and markets, lowering the barriers to foreign investment, and even making its currency convertible."

"Peaceful coexistence"

For Mikhail Gorbachev, the goal of economic restructuring is closely tied to the Soviet Union's foreign policy. At a recent forum on peace and disarmament in Moscow, Gorbachev stated:

"Before my people, before you, and Nicaragua's dependence on Moscow for oil would "demonstrate that [the conflict in Nicaragua] is a conflict within the American continent, and not an East-West dispute."

The Washington Post reported on June 4 that Nicaraguan Vice President Sergio Ramirez had informed top Mexican officials that the Soviet reductions would leave Nicaragua virtually with no oil by the end of June. Mexico had suspended oil shipments to the Nicaraguan government in 1985 after the Sandinistas fell behind in payments. Nicaragua reportedly owed Mexico $250 million.

"Good-will" gestures

On June 6, Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega announced that the government was cutting oil consumption by 5 percent and raising the price of gasoline by 177 percent to 500 córdobas (or $7.14) per gallon. Due to the need to increase the price of gasoline, Ortega said, it was necessary to raise the price of 54 basic consumer goods. The yearly inflation rate is currently estimated at 777 percent.

According to Nicaraguan economists cited in the U.S. press, the move to cut fuel consumption came immediately after the Soviet Union said it was cutting oil shipments to Nicaragua. (Facts on File, June 15-22, 1987)

Another "good-will" signal by the Soviet bureaucracy to the U.S. government came in May, when Gorbachev told Mexican Foreign Minister Bernardo Sepulveda that he disclaimed any interest in encouraging "socialist revolutions" in Latin America. Gorbachev, according to The New York Times (May 25, 1987), "took pains to say he did not want to meddle in Latin American relations with the United States."

A dramatic demonstration of this approach was the announcement that Gorbachev would make a long-awaited tour of Latin America this fall that would not include a visit to Cuba or Nicaragua.

The New York Times reported that Gorbachev is expected to use this visit to "curry favor with moderate countries [Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay] and show greater willingness to rein in Moscow's troublesome clients."

These highly significant gestures by the Soviet bureaucracy can only make the Nicaraguan Revolution more vulnerable to the continued attacks and pressures from U.S. imperialism and its "moderate" capitalist allies in Latin America.

Scan page 11

.. S. Korean masses fear betrayal Send to: 3435 Army St., Rm. 308, San Francisco, CA 94 SOCIALIST ACTION AUGUST 1987 11 (continued from page 1: “Contragate hearings cover-up war policies”)

presidential candidate Roh Tae Woo shocked the nation with a series of reform proposals that included the key opposition demand of direct presidential elections before the Seoul Olympics. On June 30, President Chun agreed to the reform package.

This move temporarily took the steam out of the demonstrations. Roh was portrayed as an independent voice within the party who could be responsive to the people.

The movement, however, leaped into motion again on July 9. An estimated 600,000 to 1 million people demonstrated in Seoul to mark the funeral of a student injured by police. Over 200,000 demonstrated in other cities the same day.

These were the largest South Korean protests in over 25 years. Ironically, the U.S. State Department had issued a statement the week before stating, "The situation in Seoul has returned to normal."

The situation in Seoul and South Korea is far from "normal," and its ultimate outcome is impossible to predict.

"People Power"

The slogan of "People Power" has been a big part of the Korean demonstrations. This slogan refers to the mass mobilizations which swept Ferdinand Marcos out of the Philippines in February 1986.

The use of this slogan is a good sign insofar as it reveals the solidarity the Korean demonstrators feel toward the Philippine workers and peasants.

But the movement of the Filipino masses was derailed into support for a capitalist politician, Corazon Aquino. If the lessons of the Philippine experience are not fully absorbed by the Koreans, identification with "People Power" could also lead to some serious mistakes.

The government established by the February insurrection in the Philippines revealed itself to be anti-working class, using the military to break strikes and disperse peasants protesting for land. The land reform package put together by Aquino, one of the largest landowners in the country, has been criticized by the capitalist World Bank as "too conservative" and "unworkable."

The workers and peasants of the Philippines must rise up again to achieve fundamental change in that country.

The danger of a similar result in South Korea is compounded by the presence of two major capitalist politicians who seem to hold a political monopoly over the mass Kim Young Sam and Kim Dae Jung, leaders of the opposition Reunification Name Address City State Zip Tel. Democratic Party, are quite similar to Aquino in their political and economic policies for the region.

The two Kims, while preferring a more liberal atmosphere, have little difference with the country's current economic policies. Yung-Hwan Jo, a professor of political science at Arizona State University who has close ties to opposition leader Kim Young Sam, told the San Francisco Chronicle:

"Both the main opposition political party and the ruling military-backed party have the same views on this question [economic progress].... Even if the opposition comes to power, it should not affect the economic directions pursued by the country."

"Economic progress" in South Korea has meant increasing attacks on the Korean workers' standard of living and increasing dependence on the world market. The current South Korean debt is $47 billion.

Power sharing and diplomacy Politically, the opposition has shown a large capacity to make concessions to the ruling party. Kim Dae Jung, supposedly the more liberal of the two Kims, proposed on June 30 that an interim government be formed to supervise national affairs until 12 months for $6. 6 months for $3.

Enclosed is a contribution. [] Please send me more information abou Socialist Action. Chun steps aside next February. The plan would include Chun as head of a "pannational" cabinet that would include opposition members.

The opposition's willingness to share power with the ruling party has alienated many activists, who see it as unprincipled and a sign that there may be little difference between the major capitalist parties.

Another question which has distanced many activists from the two Kims is the role of the United States in South Korea. Throughout the Korean crisis, anti-imperialist and anti-U.S. slogans have rung out alongside demands against the government. On June 17, hundreds of students forced the U.S. Consulate in Pusan to close. American flags were burned at different occasions.

In addition to opposition to U.S. support tor South Koreas string of military governments, many Koreans' resent the dependence of the Korean economy on the United States. Newsweek reported that in 1986 South Korea exported $34 billion worth of goods, 40 percent of which went to the United States.

At the same time, Korea was forced to import numerous U.S. products which could have been manufactured domestically at a much lower cost.

The two Kims have failed to address this issue. During the height of the June crisis, moreover, both Kims showed a willingness to come to terms with American diplomats in Korea. Many Koreans condemned this "hotel-room diplomacy."

The U.S. role The fact is that continuing the current economic direction in South Korea requires the continued support-economically and militarily—of the United States.

The United States, through the State Department, kept a close eye on the Korean crisis throughout its development. Department spokespeople admonished both sides to stop the violence and reach a political solution, while Secretary of State George Shultz and later Assistant Secretary of State for East and Pacific Affairs Gaston Sigur held top-level meetings with government and opposition leaders.

President Reagan's administration declared that it preferred a policy of "quiet diplomacy." After the ruling party announced its sweeping reform package, Sigur said, "We very much welcome coming forth with proposals to open the process of reform in Korea." He then stated, "All the credit belongs to the Koreans."

This hardly seems likely. In fact, the DJP only arrived at a united position on reforms after extensive discussions with Sigur. The United States apparently sees reforms as the most expedient way to defuse the mass movement at present. But the U.S. government's longstanding support to South Korea's repressive governments indicates that a change of tactics could occur should the political landscape change.

South Korea holds a very important position for the United States' global policies. Besides being a source of cheap labor and an important market for surplus American goods, Korea is a base for American military and political maneuvers throughout Southeast Asia and the Pacific. [See articles pp. 8-9.] The United States currently stations over 40,000 troops in South Korea. In addition, South Korea is the third largest recipient of U.S. aid since World War II, coming after Israel and U.S-occupied South Vietnam.

The United States has every interest in maintaining order in South Korea at any cost. It is not an ally for those struggling for an independent, democratic Korea.

Turn in Korean history The students and activists in South Korea have waged an important struggle and have set the stage for a major turn in Korean history. The upsurge has the potential to move forward toward building a democratic, independent, unified, socialist Korea.

The key problem to be solved if the struggle is to progress is the problem of leadership.

The present opposition leaders have proven themselves ready to concede questions of principle in order to gain power. They are inadequate to meet the demands of the masses struggling in the streets.

Unless a new leadership comes to the fore in time, the two Kims may be able to lead the movement into the hands of the imperialists and the South Korean military.

The student and workers' movements must put forward people with a clear vision of what is necessary to make the next step: The workers' needs must be addressed, and the movement must remain independent of the liberal capitalist elements of the opposition.

Unfortunately, many of the most radical student leaders have been imprisoned since late last year, following demonstrations in Seoul and Inchon. These students may be among the political prisoners recently released by the government, but that information is not available at present.

Korea's future depends upon the question of leadership. Observers can only echo the fears of a Seoul mother of a college freshman who told the San Francisco Examiner: "I just hope the students weren't sacrificed for nothing."

----- pull-quotes -----

nternational VIEWPOINT

Subscribe today to Socialist Action-