Gently smiling jaws?

The following is a good example of what we thought of Gorbachev when he was still everyone's hero and the man who was going to brilliantly modernise the USSR.  Jack Lane had a general idea of what might happen without party control, long before most people in the West had heard of the Chechins.  The only extra thing we need to say is that the various states of the former USSR are still struggling to get back to the level of wealth and security they enjoyed back then.  The degree to which Thatcherite policies has improverished the former Leninist states has been scandalously under-reported.

Jack Lane argues that Gorbachev is following an old Russian tradition of grand gestures that usually fail to come off. But his plans for a 35-nation conference could disrupt the European Community, and are certainly intended to do so.

Gorbachev is preoccupied with his internal problems at present. His basic solution to these problems is to acquire more power for himself, and to downgrade the party in favour of the state machine. This will only exacerbate his problems.

Gorbachev has made the same mistake as Khrushchev. He assumes that there is a repressed urge amongst the Russian masses to be like the West. That it is simply a matter of lifting the lid and directing the vigour of the society towards a free market bourgeois future. The awful truth is that Russians react to being driven, not led, and the only dynamic forces that exist are the various nationalisms. The party was the only political force that could transcend and mediate these nationalisms. The authority of the state alone will only heighten the conflicts.

The grand dramatic gesture that Gorbachev specialises in has a long tradition in Russia. The Tsars went in for it in a big way. Alexander II became the darling of all radicals with his plans and promises for democracy in Russia in the early 19th century. But his plans collapsed when Poland, at that time split between Russia, Prussia and Austria, decided to take a hand in its own future.

Nicholas I freed the peasantry from serfdom in 1861. And he did it overnight. It did not quite succeed. Another Tsar spent some time in prison because of his concern for the inmates. However the numbers did not noticeably lessen afterwards.

Gorbachev is in keeping with this tradition. For example, he announces a multi-party system, and his henchmen then explain that there has always really been a multi-party system if you looked closely enough because there have always been different opinions and tendencies within the Party. So much for multi-party systems.

All major political parties arise out of civil wars or revolutions. American and European experience shows this. Parties that deserve to be called such will only come about in Russia in the same way. In other words they will arise despite Gorbachev and not through his patronage.

Even though he has enough on his plate with Russia, Gorbachev will no doubt continue his international schemes.

The biggest of these is his proposal to sponsor a Pan-European 35-nation conference. The hype about this is likely to start soon, and it is worth considering why he is doing it at all. No doubt the media as well as most political leaders will be true to form and accept his every pronouncement at its face value. First and foremost it will be sold as being in some way necessary for peace in Europe - a reliable way to get people to stop thinking.

The fact is of course that Europe is already at peace, and the only dangers to peace are the various non-peaceful developments that Gorbachev has started. His claims to be a peacemaker need to be taken with a large pinch of salt. His contribution to peace has been his acknowledgement of defeat in the Cold War. Promoting peace because you have lost a war is not exactly proof that you are some sort of pacifist. Gorbachev is smarting under this defeat and is resourceful enough to find other ways of regaining the initiative in the world similar to that which Russia had in the Cold War era. To do that he has adopted a who-dares-wins attitude and is prepared to pull the house down. He destroyed the cold-war pattern of Europe. And he is determined to be the architect of the house that is built on the ruins.

The development towards a politically integrated Europe has been one of the main factors in deciding the Cold War in favour of the West. And Moscow has always been very conscious of this and has done its best to prevent it. Gorbachev has faithfully continued this policy, but he realises that more imaginative ways are needed to disrupt the process. The tactic is to appear to be more European than the Europeans who have built up the Community.

So he becomes the Pan-European and plans a bigger agenda than that of the European Community. The crucial element is that it entails the disruption and destruction of what exists. All grand schemes like Pan Americanism, Pan Arabism, Pan Africanism etc. involve the promotion of one particular nation at the expense of others. A Pan-Europeanism would be no different. The European Community is being built by 12 free nations, and not at any nation's expense. Moscow could never be the focus of such a development. After 70 years of the Soviet Union, it seems that the non-Russian nations want only to leave as quickly as possible.

Lenin called Tsarist Russia 'the jailer of nations'. But when the Tsarist jail fell apart, he built a new Leninist one and put most of them back into it. Stalin recovered the remaining escapees, all but Poland and Finland.

Moscow could never be the focus of an enlarged European Community. It can have a variety of relationships with other nations, from outright suppression to killing them with kindness. But a free alliance is never on the agenda. Moscow does however fully appreciate the value of sheer size. It is therefore naturally envious of a neighbour that shows every sign of just growing and growing. And if you can't beat them you had better join them. Or else pretend that you will join them, and get people to focus on grand schemes that have less and less substance the more they are pursued.

Gorbachev must be very encouraged by developments so far. He has played the German card exactly as Moscow was doing in the 1950s, with predictable results. This is a nice softening-up process for his European plans. He must be hopeful that Europe as a whole will become obsessed and preoccupied with its divisions and its nationalisms, rather than with what it has in common or the virtues of continuing integration of the European Community.

Gorbachev could be very successful in Britain in particular. He already has Thatcher in his pocket, and he could resurrect all the Left's antagonism to Europe. What a coup - to have both the Left and the Right on your side.

This is already happening. Ken Coates is a dyed-in-the-wool opponent of the EEC and European integration. He is now an MEP and boasts in Tribune (March 16th) of his grand plans to have the European Parliament and the Supreme Soviet meeting together regularly because "they were doing similar things." And surprise surprise, Mr Sheverdnadze is very impressed and a "Vadim Zagladin offered a careful four-point programme for its realisation." And Coates is very impressed that the Russians are so impressed.

Coates has a great record in messing up good causes. He personifies the Left that has lost all ability for practical reform and is forever promoting fine but unrealistic schemes.

Coates was the leading light in the Institute for Workers Control during the 1960s and 1970s. His moment of truth came in 1977 when the Bullock proposals were published. This practical opportunity for an advance into a new era for the movement was scoffed at by Coates & Co. and was counterpoised to the pure idea of workers control.

Kinnock took his cue from Coates. Left and right combined and Bullock was killed off. That opened the door for Thatcherism. Thanks a lot, Ken.

Let us hope that Kinnock has learned some lessons, and that he will not join Coates in his latest fantasy. Let us hope that Kinnock will concentrate on making the European Parliament a real parliament to serve Europe and the Labour movement.

A prize for statesmanship should be awarded to the first political leader who tells Gorbachev to take a running jump into the Black Sea when he states his plans for the 35-nation conference. More timid spirits could go along, agree that war is bad, peace is good, the sky is blue although it is sometimes grey, and meanwhile press on regardless with integrating the European Community.

Click here to return to Labour and Trade Union Review