16.01.1997

Painful conclusions

Around the left

One weakness of the revolutionary left has been its instinctive ‘worship’ of spontaneous movements. The bigger the movement, the more they normally bow before it. This was graphically revealed during the 1989-1991 upheaveals in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. The fact that masses of people were on the streets protesting against the ‘Stalinist’ regimes and defying the state blinded nearly all the revolutionary left to the fact that these were counterrevolutionary movements. Some even deluded themselves into believing that the spontaneous anti-communism on display was Leon Trotsky’s hoped-for political revolution. 

The recent events in Serbia - which also see mass defiance of a state euphemistically labelled ‘communist’ by some - is thus in essence a re-run of 1989-1991. Given this, you might expect the left to give it the thumbs up and assume its traditional role as cheerleader for ‘anti-Stalinist’ counter-revolution. Funnily enough though, its response is distinctly cool.

We see Militant writing that the leaders of the opposition movement, Zajedno (‘Together’), are using the demonstrations as a

“means of ensuring they are the new political and economic leaders of Serbia with its subsequent privileges. They would like to see Serbia proceed much faster down the road of privatisation with attacks on living standards, and it is a reactionary formation” (January 10).

This is undoubtedly correct. It goes on to note: “The demonstrators’ initial demands for democracy were progressive. However, because of the lack of a central role for the working class leading this movement, more reactionary ideas have taken hold.” All true, of course. But what we would really like to hear from Militant is exactly how this movements differs from the ones that swept Eastern Europe and the USSR - which they got so enthusiastic about, at one point declaring that the “red 90s” were now upon us.

The same goes for Workers Power. In its own words, “There were echoes of 1989 on the streets of Belgrade ... when similar demonstrations started across the states of Eastern Europe.” But something appears to have gone wrong yet again, as it points to how the “opposition is itself steeped in Serb nationalism” and is making “demands for greater marketisation”. Like Militant, it believes the “nationalism and reactionary programme of the opposition needs to be exposed and fought” (January).

It is good that both Militant and Workers Powers are not fooled by Zajedno or the bourgeois media, which is painting the demonstrations in heroic colours. It only seems logical for them to proceed to reassess their views on the 1989-1991 period, painful as it might be.

Don Preston