The hidden terms of the Gorbachev-Reagan summit

Scan page 12

A lot more than just an arms reduction agreement was worked out by Gorbachev and Reagan at the summit. The Soviet bureaucracy backward in order to secure deals for trade What is new, however, is how fast the bureaucracy is moving to new, however, is how fast the bureaucracy not only sell out the Nicaraguan revolution, but to undermine the sell out the Nicaraguan revolution, but to un planned economy within its own borders.

SOCIALIST ACTION JANUARY 1988 11

Willing to bend

The hopes of a desperate world yearning to be freed from the threat of nuclear annihilation received a big boost from the mass media's euphoric treatment of the Gorbachev/Reagan summit meeting. The actual agreements, centering on the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces treaty (INF), however, are really quite modest.

The INF treaty, signed with great fanfare in Washington by the two heads of state in mid-December, provides for a less-than-10percent reduction in the world's supply of nuclear warheads. Moreover, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council, "U.S. cuts under INF represent only 90 days of warhead production."

This fact gains greater significance when account is taken that no restrictions have been placed on aircraft, ship, and submarine-launched cruise missiles. Moreover, the fissionable materials removed from the dismantled missiles will remain stockpiled for new warhead production.

Stanley C. Pace, the chief executive of General Dynamics, the nation's leading arms maker, noted approvingly that the INF treaty would not seriously limit cruise missile production-whether armed with nuclear or conventional warheads.

Nevertheless, it can't be denied that the summit reflects a change in relations between the two great powers that promises to be followed by further agreements to slow, at least temporarily, the nuclear arms race.

What is the source of this shift which has been in the making in the months and "peaceful coexistence."

preceding Gorbachev's arrival in Washington? A shift which is exemplified by President Reagan's sudden switch from "evil empire" characterizations of the Soviet Union to his "discovery" that Gorbachev, unlike his predecessors, did not believe in the "Marxism philosophy of a one-world Communist state."

The source is not to be found in any sudden shift in Gorbachev's "philosophy,' any more than in the new nuclear arms concessions he made.

Reagan, knows full well that Gorbachev has been, and remains, prepared to make many more arms concessions than he has thus far made. And Reagan also knows that all of Gorbachev's Stalinist predecessors have categorically rejected the goal of a world society based on a socialist order.

Reagan knows that, on the contrary, their guiding "philosophy"-whether it was called "socialism in one country" or "peaceful coexistence" has been to conclude a long-term deal with world imperialism to jointly maintain the global status quo. ("Socialism" was to be permitted, according to the standing offer made by Stalin and his successors, only within the borders of the Soviet Union.)

Ever since the Stalinist-led bureaucracy usurped political power from Soviet workers in the mid-1920s, it has done its best to convince imperialism of its sincere commitment to the preservation of capitalism outside of Soviet borders. That has meant, in programmatic commitment as well as in practice, a foreign policy which hinged on working to block workers everywhere else from taking the anticapitalist path blazed by the Russian workers and peasants in October 1917—in exchange for peaceful relations.

Under the banner of "peaceful coexistence," the anti-capitalist revolution was betrayed by the Stalinist parties in Europe and Asia in the turbulent period of world capitalist crisis preceding and immediately following World War II.

But Stalinist hopes for long-term peaceful coexistence with world imperialism have been repeatedly dashed. The capitalist world certainly welcomes the help it receives from the Soviet bureaucracy, which can be counted on to shore it up in critical situations—in exchange for little more than a temporary easing of relations. But it is relentlessly driven by its own long-term needs toward rolling back the socialist revolution-especially in the Soviet Union.

World capitalism must find new markets for its surplus products, as well as new fields in which to invest its surplus capital, or drown in its own wealth. But so long as the nationalized and planned economy and state monopoly over foreign trade continue to exist in countries where capitalism has been abolished, they constitute major barriers to profitable and safe investment.

Shifting the blame

The historic need of capitalist imperialism in a world of finite markets is to break down these barriers. This is the force driving the arms race. And so long as capitalist economic forces dominate the world, the arms race can only end in nuclear annihilation of life on earth.

The one-sided, and misleading explanation for the summit agreement put forth by the mass media's opinion-molders focuses on concessions made by Gorbachev on the terms of the reduction in nuclear missiles. These are characterized as "assymetrical;" that is, the Soviet top bureaucrats have agreed to dismantle a higher proportion of their side's missiles than the United States and its allies are required to do.

The credit the mass media freely grants to Gorbachev as peacemaker, however, serves to support imperialism's major propaganda weapon; that the Soviets initiated the nuclear and conventional arms buildup to further their "plans for world conquest."

This spurious premise includes the notion that every authentically indigenous revolution, such as in Cuba or Nicaragua, is in reality a "Communist plot to take over the world." In this way they seek to shift the blame for the arms race and at the same time rationalize military intervention against peoples who rise up against political, economic, and social injustice.

But assymetrical missile-reduction is the least of the concessions made by Gorbachev. The Stalinist leader has signaled—beginning well before the summit itself-far more substantial accomodations to the needs of imperialism under the heading of "regional understandings."

Hidden "understanding" on Nicaragua In regard to Central America, Gorbachev has made amply clear that the Soviet bureaucracy is prepared to help stabilize the region for imperialism. This includes a promise to qualitatively reduce its material assistance to the Nicaraguan Revolution.

Veteran New York Times columnist Flora Lewis provides a revealing account of this Soviet offer in a Dec. 18 Times op-ed article. Lewis writes:

"Chief Soviet arms control negotiator Victor Karpov, said in Paris this week that Mr. Gorbachev had told President Reagan he would stop all military deliveries to the Sandinistas if the U.S. stopped financing the contras...

"During the summit meeting, Valentin Falin, head of the Novosti press agency and a member of the Soviet delegation, said that President Daniel Ortega was told in Moscow last month that he had 'no alternative' to a political settlement.

"Mr. Falin said Moscow supported the Guatemala five-nation's peace plan for Central America... He repeated: 'There is no alternative. We assured him [Mr. Ortega], that in the practical fulfillment of the Central America peace plan, he would have our full trust and support."

And Lewis concludes:

"It could hardly be made plainer that Moscow does not want Nicaragua to spoil its drive for better relations with the U.S. and is prepared to leave the Sandinistas to their own devices if the U.S. stops helping the contras."

Pressure to "fulfill" accord The peace plan initiated by Costa Rican President Oscar Arias was accepted by the Sandinistas only after considerable arm-twisting by Gorbachev. This pressure included cutting off vital oil supplies denied Nicaragua by all other nations.

Soviet Ambassador to Mexico, Rostial Sergueev, made this goal explicit when he announced the reason for the Soviet suspension of oil to Nicaragua. A Mexican newspaper, Excelsior, reported last June 3, that Sergueev had stated that the Soviet reduction of oil shipments was intended to "demonstrate that [the conflict in Nicaragua] is a conflict within the American continent, and not an East-West dispute."

The Soviet bureaucracy renewed oil shipments only after the Sandinistas (continued on page 12)

Scan page 13

... U.S. - Soviet summit "The Soviet bureaucracy renewed oil shipments only after the Sandinistas acquiesced to the Arias peace plan..."

(continued from page Il) against U.S. invasion. His speech also acquiesced to the Arias peace plan in early implies a revolutionary mobilization of Latin American toilers. Such a policy could August. But the Soviet leadership has continued to pressure the Sandinistas to begin with protests against Yankee make further concessions to the U.S. intervention and grow into an anti-capitalist imperialists. struggle in their own lands.

Che Guevara's inspiring call to action, An editorial in the Nov. 11 issue of the "Let there be two, three, many Vietnams,"

French daily Le Monde, for example, notes that Nicaraguan President Ortega's decision was a revival of the spirit of proletarian to conduct indirect talks with the contras— internationalism crushed by Stalinism. The a demand the Sandinistas had categorically best defense of the Nicaraguan Revolution rejected for years—was made only after today could be summed up in the slogan Soviet insistence. "There is no doubt that "Two, three, many Nicaraguas. the Soviet Union, where Ortega was The real meaning of "peaceful visiting just a few hours before the coexistence" announcement of the opening of the Gorbachev has similarly made clear his dialogue with the contras, pushed Managua readiness to assist imperialism in mainin this direction."

taining its domination in the Persian Gulf, Toward the end of pressuring Nicaragua to "practically fulfill" the various terms of Southern Africa, and anywhere else imperialist interests might be threatened. But the Central American peace plan, the Soviet bureaucracy has, in fact, doled out what does Gorbachev expect in exchange?

Stalinist foreign policy has always been aid well below their capability. They are allowing the Nicaraguan economy- one of assisting and encouraging revolutionary tendencies within the imperialist devastated by the contra war and starved of credit and aid by U.S. imperialism and its camps. The Soviet bureaucracy's objective, allies—to slide into virtual collapse. however, is to gain decisive influence over This can only have the effect these forces, pressure its imperialist adversaries, and thus build for itself barcompelling the Sandinista government to accept a "peace" that would be used gaining chips to be used in quid-pro-quo destroy the Nicaraguan Revolution. trade-offs.

This assistance granted to revolutionary Meanwhile, Nicaraguan capitalists continue their economic sabotage. They continue to operate factories and farms well below capacity, causing increasing shortages of the most basic supplies. This has contributed heavily to the inflation rate of over 1000 percent in 1987: Some observers claim inflation in Nicaragua is on the verge of getting completely out of control, and its currency in danger of becoming worthless.

This economic tailspin, alienating and demoralizing supporters of the revolution as well as those more or less indifferent, weakens the capability to defend the revolution against a U.S. invasion.

Can Nicaragua fight back?

Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega confirmed the FLN's intention to add 80,000 workers to the militia, as was reported by Col. Miranda, a high-placed defector. This cannot be seen only as military preparation for resisting a direct invasion by U.S. troops. It must also be evaluated in conjunction with the Sandinista leader's pledge to lead the armed people in struggle against any attempt to take away the gains made by the tendencies—with rare exceptions—is also revolution. This points to a political conditioned. The price the Soviet bureaupreparation against invasion. crats demand of them is acceptance of a The logic of such a struggle would call class-collaborationist strategy, which serves for breaking the power of Nicaraguan to limit their struggle to reform, not capitalists, who use their control over the revolution, and to abandon the principle of nation's lands and wealth to strangle the proletarian internationalism. economy. This can only be done by a Without imposing such limits, the radical redistribution of land to every Soviet bureaucrats know, a revolutionary force might be set in motion that could not peasant who needs it and by establishing workers' control over all workplaces, be easily turned off—in which case it could including those agricultural enterprises not serve as a bargaining chip. operated exclusively with wage labor. A proof of this analysis can be seen, With U.S. armed forces poised to invade oddly enough, in the Chinese experience. In if their Nicaraguan victims can be the course of a long series of extremely successfully portrayed as violating the exceptional events, the Chinese Com"peace" accords, such a revolutionary munist Party came to governmental power in 1949 despite their stubborn adherence to mobilization of the workers would not be without great risk. But formidable as this Stalinist class-collaborationist strategy. But risk might be, it is the only way to save once in power they were beyond the the revolution from being dragged by its Kremlin's control. internal enemies into complete economic This ultimately led to the bitter break in crisis, thereby demoralizing some of its 1963 between Moscow and Peking. The best fighters and helping to pave the way Chinese Stalinists were no longer for a U.S. invasion. dependent on Moscow and would no longer Putting the Nicaraguan economy directly allow their interests to be traded off by into the hands of workers and peasants Stalin. would make the conquests of the revolution Chinese Stalinism now cuts its own China reveal a tendency common to all deformed and degenerated workers' states. These societies-in which capitalist rule has been overthrown, but in which a caste of privileged bureaucrats exercises a rigid dictatorship—are incapable of the efficient operation and development of a planned economy.

The socialist form of production has at least one thing in common with capitalism: Both systems require feedback from society to regulate production; whether for use or for profit.

The capitalist motive force for production—profit—requires feedback from consumers. That is what is meant by "market forces regulating" the capitalist economy. Prices, under capitalism, are "set" by capitalists but are determined by socially necessary labor time.

The real value of each commodity-a social substance—must pass the test of the marketplace. Commodities produced at equal costs by competing capitalists do not necessarily sell at the same price. Relatively inferior quality may result in the product of an inefficient producer commanding a price lower than its cost of production. And more efficient producers selling average quality commodities at lower prices drive their competitors out of the marketplace-and ultimately out of business.

Market forces—the sum of millions of individual acts by consumers and thousar of investment decisions by capitalists-is what capitalists really mean when, they speak of freedom and democracy.

But while the market is indeed a kind of "democratic" process of "free" selection and rejection of society's product, it goes on behind the backs of society as a whole. Anarchy reigns over the capitalist market and inexorably results in critical imbalances between supply and effective demand. (A "demand" which has little to do with people's needs and everything to do with the purchasing power at their command.)

In a socialized economy, the productive needs of society are consciously determined. How much of each necessary product should be manufactured must be based on the available resources of labor and capital. An allocation of these productive forces is then organized for a given period of time according to a rounded plan. But here, too, social regulation is required since there is many a slip between an abstract determination of society's needs and the plan's concrete fulfillment.

Regulating economic production The regulating mechanism natural to a planned economy is a function of the In such a democratic productive system, the plan itself may have been put together by engineers and other specialists in some office, but must be submitted for approval by the workers themselves or their elected representatives. Even approved plans, however, remain subject to persistent observation and adjustment by workers in the actual process of production.

Contrast this with the tales of mismanagement which regularly emerge from the bureaucratized workers' states. These reports, mostly coming from the bureaucracy itself, relate industrial investment decisions made by all-powerful bureaucrats who have failed to take into account some small, but indispensable, detail necessary for the project's success. More commonplace are endless reports of shoddy products placed in the marketplace by bureaucrats who "fulfill" assigned quotas without regard to quality.

But most resented by the mass of consumers in these societies are the endless hours spent waiting in line for scarce goods, while the bureaucrats shop at nowaiting stores set aside only for them.

Without democratic regulation of the production and distribution system by the producers in socialized economies, such large and small miscalculations, bureaucratic mismanagement, and privilege virtually institutionalize waste and inefficiency. Such bureaucratic mismanagement, combined with well-organized suppression of criticism, induces widespread alienation, cynicism, and indifference among the workers over the productive process.

Workers' control vs. market forces Perestroika (the word means "restructuring") is the label Gorbachev has selected for his plan to "reform" the Soviet economic system. He has mentioned plans to open up the system to worker influence over management, including hints of "elections" of managers. Such elections, if actually implemented, will undoubtedly be Stalinist-style, featuring something like the fake democracy of their parliamentary electoral system, which allows workers to choose from hand-picked tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum candidates.

Real democracy in Soviet society is, for the bureaucracy, unthinkable. Bureaucratic privilege would crumble as swiftly, as control over management personnel and decisions shifted to workers. The bureaucracy itself would be ultimately swept into the dustbin of history.

Unable to reform the Soviet economic system in a way consistent with the socialist future, the bureaucracy is compelled to look to the capitalist past for a solution. Gorbachev's "reform" program is based entirely on the introduction of capitalist market forces to cure bureaucratic economic stagnation.

Bureaucratic mismanagement of the planned economy is not to be controlled by a conscious working class free to criticize, check and correct the bureaucracy's selfserving blunders. Quite the opposite! The "reforms" tend to free the bureaucracy from the plan itself. Competition among bureaucrats for markets is the intended "corrective" mechanism.

Martin Feldstein, past chairman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, explains his view of what Gorbachev seeks to carry out in an Aug. 26, 1987, Wall Street Journal piece titled "Soviet Reforms Mean Business." He describes the principal of