SELECTIONS FROM MOTHER ANARCHY NO.5 OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 1993 NO SUBSCRIPTION PRICE NO COPYRIGHTS CONTACT ADDRESS: P.O.BOX 500 MOSCOW 107061 RUSSIA e-mail: cube@glas.apc.org ********************************************************* THE LIES BEHIND THE LITTLE OCTOBER COUP D'ETAT The Little October Coup D'Etat may well prove to be a turning point of tremendous importance in Russian history, despite the seemingly apathetic reaction to the events that took place. We have yet to fully understand the events of the consequences they will have on the political future of the country. There are however many people who are researching the events that led up to the coup and are collecting eye witness testimony. Already a picture is being clearly painted of what really transpired immediately prior to and after Yeltsin signed his infamous decree no.1400 disbanding the parliament. The coup was in no way and unexpected move on the part of Yeltsin. It was rather the culmination of a long battle that he had had with the parliament. But this battle, contrary to how it was portrayed in the media, was not a battle between communist apparatchiki and a progressive democrat. It is important to point out that the parliament which was disbanded was a democratically elected organ, for all that's worth. It was a parliament whose majority were committed to reforming the Russian economy along capitalist lines. It was a parliament which was considered heroic as it supported Yeltsin and helped bring him to power during the August putsch, which was (supposedly) representative of the victory of the reformist path over the legacy of communism. It was hardly a "hardline" parliament. (If one was to read the communist press prior to the second coup, one could see exactly what they thought of Rutskoi and the parliament.) What then was the real problem between Yeltsin and the parliament? There are many differing opinions about what laid at the foundation of the problems between the parliament and Yeltsin. Obviously to some extent the parliament opposed the form of economic reforms that had taken place in Russia and were concerned about their results. The Gaidar Plan had many opponents, even amongst international economists who favoured Russia's transition to a market economy. But perhaps more importantly, the parliament served as a check against Yeltsin's personal power. Yeltsin had "ruled by decree" and the parliament was in a position to challenge him. Also many of Yeltsin's henchmen were being charged with corruption and his entire government was being discredited. Add to this the increasing unpopularity of the course of reform amongst the working people. Yeltsin had to wage war against the parliament and to blame them for the disastrous state of the Russian economy and he had to act quickly before the courts found his cronies guilty of corruption and before the economy further deteriorated. The coup was carefully planned by Yeltsin and the top men in his team. (Some ex-deputies have said that it was in fact his cronies that pushed for these tactics more than Yeltsin and that he was used as a populist figurehead. I don't know how much truth there is to these claims, but it is clear that others were deeply involved.) The parliament knew in advance that it would be disbanded; the signal was the return of Gaidar. Already immediately following Yeltsin's appearance on TV, the nature of Yeltsin's role as dictator became clear. The mass media was immediately subordinated to his rule. There was no mention of the fact that the parliament protested and announced Rutskoi president until 6PM the next day. The media did its best to portray the defenders of the White House as lunatics. It was just a stroke of luck that the only organized forces that appeared to protest the move were representatives of the so-called "red-brown alliance"; although many people joined up at their protest most people were just so alienated by them that they did nothing. This was just what the media needed to perpetuate the idea that the parliament was filled with communist and nationalist fanatics. They had hoped that public sentiment would be roused against them and that the whole issue would just blow over. When guns were being collected and distributed, they didn't mention it in the media until it had gotten to the point were everybody knew there was an armed force in the making. They were portrayed then as lunatics who wished to impose their dictatorship over the masses - who supposedly stood behind the transitionary dictatorship of Yeltsin. As a standoff became more and more inevitable, the Yeltsin team set to work creating conditions which would make it appear as if they were protecting the public from a dangerous group of armed insurgents. On the 27, 28, 29th, there was an incredible police force encircling the White House. At any time they could have easily gone in and arrested the relatively few people who were camped out there. Publically they were claiming to be giving them a chance to put down their guns and go home while secretly they were planning on leading them into a trap. I personally had to deal with those pigs on those days - not because I was trying to get to the White House, but because I had to go home through the metro station nearest to the White House. I remember having to walk at least a kilometer in the snow out of my way, so well blocked was any and all approaches to the White House. I was charged at by special troops with full riot gear and machine guns, just for walking down the street. The atmosphere was so tense that I felt that they would open fire into the crowd at any moment. (Most of whom were just trying to find a way to get home after work.) This atmosphere is in strong contrast to that of the 2nd and 3rd of October. October 4th was announced as the deadline for the defenders of the White House to give up their weapons. It is significant to add that Poltaranin (one of those cronies cleared of corruption charged immediately after the coup) clearly warned journalists to be careful on the 3rd. On the 2nd and 3rd, just at the time when police presence should have been played up, they disappeared altogether from the area around the White House. What took place on Oct.2 and 3 was due to the fact that the police and the troops were under orders not to act, or at least to act minimally, and essentially to let the storming of the Mayor and Ostankino happen. With few exceptions, we have heard many different witnesses describe the events of Oct.3 as a provocation. Few people took place in the initial rally, and it was few who initiated the violence. The police took no concrete measures to seal off the area, which would have been amazingly simple to do as the demonstrators had to cross a bridge; to have cordoned off the bridge would have been to stop or reroute the demonstration. Indeed we have seen them tackle crowds much greater in size with incredible ease. The only thing they seemed to have done is to fire warning shots in the air, which served to create a charged atmosphere rather than scare people off. In fact, they ran away, and it is now thought that they ran not because they were afraid of the people (as the communist romantics would have it) but because they wanted the crowd to follow suit and to begin their run towards the White House. As most witnesses agree, the crowd was mostly made up of unarmed people - not the type that would scare the troops. When one stunned journalist asked why the were just standing around letting the demonstration build up and gain momentum, he was told "We've got other goals. We have other orders." This irregularity was so striking that even the conservative and pro-Yeltsin press had to question it. As the aforementioned journalist was to remark in the Moscow Tribune, "Could this have been a trap to encourage the violent elements on parliament's side to provide the justification the government needed to respond with the force it had sworn not to initiate?" [John Helmer, "Moscow Crisis: The First Spark", Moscow Tribune, Oct.5,1993] After listening to various testimonies, this seems like the obvious answer. It is clear for example that the storming of Ostankino was also allowed. Ostankino was on everybody's lips as a fair target as Yeltsin continued to control the media and use it for his campaign against the parliament. The pseudo-revolutionary dreams of storming Ostankino were being openly discussed five days before it became a reality. The OMON (special troops) were in place in the telecenter and the media celebrities were told to go home. The road to Ostankino was lined with military vehicles. Yet instead of offering any resistance to the volunteers sent from the White House, they actually cleared the road for them and let them pass at the intersection of Prospekt Mira and Ulitsa Koroleva. Then the volunteers hung around for more than an hour before things got rolling. Just like at the Mayor's, the first shots were fired by Yeltsin's troops, not by the demonstrators. Unfortunately there were many civilian casualities on the 3rd and the 4th. (The exact figures are still unknown. On the first days after Bloody Monday, the Yeltsin government released ridiculously low and falsified figures in the media. There is some evidence that summary executions were carried out and that they unofficial deaths themselves number 100-200 people.) Many, many people were killed or wounded just because they were walking in the wrong place or were too close to the action. This is another strange question. How come the police can keep people from getting anywhere near to Red Square when some politician blows into town, but when they are shooting up a street and bullets are flying everywhere, they let people pass? Myself and two other friends were let out onto the scene while shooting was going on by the army. Later we had to run for our lives as Yeltsin's troops opened fire at us, in what was described in the media as a "sniper incident". Had we had been killed, we would have been more innocent victims of the cruel, heartless communist insurgents, more reason to hate and repress them. The fact of the matter is that Yeltsin had snipers situated near the scene and special agents in the crowd who were trying to provoke violence. I recall seeing a woman in the crowd take a revolver out of her trench coat and fire into the air. She then went and disappeared amongst the troops who were ocuppying the Mayor's. I was totally confused by it until I saw this incident in a larger context. At a meeting of witnesses, I found that I was not the only person who saw such a thing. Also, why is it that some people saw about 10 soldiers firing into the air in the Otradnoye section of Moscow the next day? There are two theories: one is that they were trying to illicit a response and weed out armed rebels, and the other is that they were trying to create a panic. Although the first seems much more plausible, there are reasons to give precedence to the second, seemingly odd scenario. First of all, the media carried out a fear campaign by warning that there were armed insurgents throughout the city. There were rumours that they were going to occupy Kiev St., etc.. The public was panicked as they were convinced that these "snipers" were firing into the public randomly and were about to wage war against the civilian population. And in fact there was much needless firing done upon the people. But, so far, from all the people I've spoken to, I've only heard two stories about communist snipers. These "snipers" were in both cases quickly killed by special troops. (In one of the cases an American woman was mistaken as a "sniper" and seriously wounded by Yeltsin's troops.) On the other hand, there were many prolonged incidents of "sniper fire", during which many people were killed and wounded, but in every case there was no trace of communist "snipers" - only Yeltsin's troops. I was caught in the most widely publicized sniper incident, and I can say that there probably were none there. We had witnessed tanks rolling onto the White House and went to find a telephone. We walked up Novy Arbat St. (see map). Just before we reached the intersection of Novy Arbat and the Garden Ring Rd., we encountered Yeltsin's troops who were trying to panic us. We turned right on the Garden Ring Rd. and were standing a few feet off the corner. Yeltsin's troops then began to fire into the crowd, which was a few hundred people. We ran into a courtyard, only to have to stop in the archway on the building because from the upper windows (or roof) of the building, they were shooting into the courtyard. The troops we had past on Novy Arbat were also shooting into this courtyard, right along with the other shots. They were not shooting up at the place where the shots were coming from, nor were the people in the building shooting at the troops. This was not a shoot out at all; instead it was just shooting at the crowd, most of whom were just looking on at the action foolishly. (And who were allowed to approach the area by Yeltsin's troops.) Some pro-Yeltsin people, upon learning that there were no snipers there, excused the troops, saying that they just acted nervously. But this is impossible. This was not something that happened real quickly; this particular "sniper incident" went on literally for hours. This should be compared to the incidents when there really were people on the rooves. They were swiftly killed. At the incident which I was at, they weren't even being shot at. How long do you think it should take someone to realize that the people are screaming and running and not firing weapons at you and that gunfire is coming from the house (especially when it's dark and you can see green and red streaks coming down). Should it take ten minutes? Twenty minutes? An hour before you realize it? Then, how long do you think it should take hundreds of troops, dozens of tanks, to subdue these supposed snipers? A few hours? Well, they were shooting until the next morning, and even 2 days later. Yes, you had single soldiers sitting in trees shooting at rooftops while they allowed pedestrians to walk by and do their shopping on Novy Arbat, where supposedly communist snipers were hiding out, but all the shops were open for business.. The supposed sniper incidents not only don't make any sense as told by the government, but contradict all eye witness accounts. For example, supposedly there were communist snipers on the roof of the Mayor's office, but this was at the same time as it was taken back by Yeltsin's troops. One journalist from the Moscow Times, an American who got caught in the Mayor's on Oct.4, tells of how he made his way slowly up to the rooftop. At the end of the story, Yeltsin's troops, went up on the roof and, having been reassured the building was secured, he made his way down. Yet the Russia media talks of the "snipers" on the roof of this building. They also talk about the "snipers" on top of the Hotel Mir and the World Trade Center. Well, how the hell did they get there? Did they fly? The defenders of the White House would have had to storm these places, both heavily guarded even on normal days, to get onto the rooves. But they didn't do this. It was Yeltsin's people on these rooves. Witnesses from the World Trade Center (businessmen) have told how they were let in and let up onto the roof. Yet, in every news report here, these people were communist snipers firing into the innocent crowd. It seems to me that there is only one possible conclusion to draw: that Yeltsin's troops fired deliberately into crowds of spectators and then tried to blame everything on the communists to villianize them in the eyes of the public and to justify the political repressions that were then made against them. There are still many unanswered questions about what went on at the White House that day. For example, why was it that armed defenders of the White House were allowed to escape through a system of secret tunnels which lays under the White House? Were there summary executions made after Yeltsin's troops moved into the White House? (Some doctors who saw the bodies on the scene speak of professional style killings (bullets in the head) and scores upon scores of dead.) Did Yeltsin's troops fire on people who had surrendered? (They did continue to bombard the White House for hours after a white flag was raised.) What is clear is that, despite Yeltsin's calls for parliamentary elections, he is trying to legitimize his effective dictatorship. After the events of Bloody Monday, the censorship and political repression of the Stalinist era were back. Papers appeared with large white spots in them and editors learned that they would have to self-censor themselves if they are to exist. Martial law was introduced, and close to two hundred thousand people were harassed. In addition, racist policies were put into effect that called for the targeting of and deportation of people from the former Soviet republics and China, most notably people from the Caucasus. People were summarily stopped and arrested on the streets; some were sent to work camps (ostensibly to earn the money for their train tickets home) and others were just deported; most of these people were fleeing war-torn areas and some had already been granted refugee status. Yeltsin calls this "a war on crime". We know that this is just the tip of the iceberg in what will be a Russian chauvinist, nationalist regime. Soon, there will be elections. They are supposed to be democratic, but no doubt many political parties will be prevented from participating in them. But, this is democracy a la Yeltsin. Democracy with no real opposition allowed. Welcome back to 1934. Laure Akai ********************************************************* WHAT FREEDOM, WHAT DEMOCRACY?! by Mikhail Tsovma MOSCOW, OCTOBER 5, NOON While the building of parliament in Moscow was on fire and changed it's colour from white to black, Russia drowned more and more into the depths of authoritarianism. Thousands of spectators gathered on October 4 around the White House to see the storm troops seizing the parliament. In the crowd however there's no unity since not only Yeltsinites but also the people who consider his actions criminal and anti-constitutional gather there. Even among those who speak in support of Yeltsin there are a lot of people who see no need to kill that many people to get rid of the "Communist parliament". During the last three days the media fed people with a mixture of preaches to sit home and to go defend the president. Information was scarce and very ideologically one-sided. Those who had a chance to watch Western TV broadcasts or listen to "Radio Liberty" were much more in touch with the events than those who stuck to the Russian media. On October 4 while the troops stormed the parliament the media changed its accent trying to manufacture public support for the actions of Yeltsin and his companions. The arrest of Khasbulatov, Rutskoi and Makashov was put into heavy rotation while the comments were made that these people were the only ones who started the bacchanalia of killings. Yeltsin didn't appear on TV this day. WHO WERE THE SNIPERS? One of the cornerstones of the media campaign on October 4 were "the snipers", that is armed putchists who spread all over the city and whose numbers it was impossible to guess. One of the doctors who was evacuating the injured from the parliament was interviewed by Russian TV and said that there was a considerable number of people shot near the White House in the morning and during the day right in their hearts, necks and heads. This was presented by the media as the evidence of the crimes of the putschists. In fact it is, but it appears more grounded to say that these were the people killed by the KGB and special police troops loyal to the government. Though there were quite a lot of arms in the White House there were hardly any "snipers", that is people specially trained in shooting, among its defenders. It is more probable that those who were shot were shot by the snipers of KGB. (During the August 1991 coup there was much worries about whether these special KGB troops will take the side of Yeltsin or not.) Since none of these special troops declared their loyalty to the parliament, it's hardly so that the Communist "snipers" killed people in dozens around the parliament. It is also interesting to learn how it happened that considerable numbers of armed people leaked from the White House and spread around the city. The parliament was blocked from all sides and since its defenders didn't have tanks it was almost impossible for them to get out... until they were let out by the government. The story about "unprofessional actions of the police and the military" is an old one and it is usually used by the authorities to justify more repression and the use of more troops. This is what happened during the clash between communists and the police on the 1st of May this year. This is what happened on October 3 when the authorities let the opposition to "defeat" special police troops on the streets of Moscow. This is probably how they provoked more violence during the storm of the White House. DEMOCRACY IS THE POWER OF DEMOCRATS (ARMED) For the whole day October 4 central Gorky Street was blocked by barricades erected by the sympathizers of Yeltsin who searched people's bags looking for arms. None of these people had an ID saying that he has the right to do it, they just said that they were "representing the structure". In his appeal to the Muscovites in the evening of October 3 vice-premier Yegor Gaidar urged the people to come defend the building of the Moscow city Soviet (currently - the mayor's office). On October 4 after the storm of the White House he was asked by a journalist whether he thinks this appeal could have lead to more bloodshed on the streets of Moscow. He said that since the army and police troops are part of the society they can no longer be just manipulated and that they will act only if they see that there is enough public support of their actions. That is why the public support of the "democratic government" was crucial. He also said that the government was ready to give out arms to those who gathered around the mayor's office. CENSORSHIP OF THE MEDIA There are clear signs of the coming authoriatarian regime. Even the programs of CNN transmitted through Moscow and Russian TV channels get censored - in the evening October 4 sound dissappeared during one of the street interviews with a person who was speaking unfavourably of president Yeltsin. The same happened on several occasions to a TV journalist of Channel 1 while she interviewed vice-premier of the government Sergei Shakhrai. On October 5 not all the papers managed to appear. Censorship is implemented in all the major papers. "Nezavisimaya Gazeta" appeared on Tuesday with 2 blind spots, while "Moskovsky Komsomolets" (Moscow's largest boulevard paper that was attacked on October 4) and "Moskovskaya Pravda" didn't appear. In "Komsomolskaya Pravda" censors look through all the materials including advertisments. Seven communist and nationalist papers were closed the day before. MORE FREEDOM, MORE DEMOCRACY On October 4 it was announced that the Ministry of Justice (sic!) declared illegal a broad variety of "pro- communist and nationalist organizations" that supported the parliament including fascist Russian National Unity and social-democratic Party of Labour. The list of organizations was kind of weird since there was nothing about the Civic Union (the association of entrepreneurs and industrial managers) which supported paliament and declared it's loyalty to Rutskoi, but Confederation of Anarcho-syndicalists was in the list together with "pro- communist and nationalist organizations" though it declared that it supports neither Yeltsin, nor Rutskoi and instead called upon people to stop work and create popular organizations from below. Presidential decree disbanded Moscow City and district Soviets. Moscow Soviet deputees were arrested and beaten at the police stations, some of them were released in the morning, October 5. Moscow is returning to its everyday life with metro stations surrounding the White House opened and the curfew introduced from 23.00 to 5.00 for an uncertain period. ********************************************************* AN ANARCHIST STATEMENT ON THE FIGHTING IN RUSSIA We can understand the desires of many Russian people to get off the economic course set by Yeltsin/Gaidar and the world economic order. The results for the general population have been disastrous. These problems cannot be solved by "peaceful" politics means, as Yeltsin suggests. The fact that he attempted a coup d'etat and dissolved the parliament attests to that. Most people however cannot bring themselves to fight their condition. Everything has been painted black and white for them. Either Yeltsin or Rutskoi. Plus which, those who were the first to actively oppose the putsch are by and large communists and fascists whom most people wouldn't want to have anything to do with. But, howver much they want to make all struggles seem like a choice between two forces, that is not the case. There are other potential forces out there, but unfortunately they have yet to be organized. The force that needs to be created is one of working class people and others who are tired of being robbed by their bosses and the system but who don't wish to revert to authoritarian means to attempt to rectify their situation. This force, we feel, is potentially a large segment of the population. While volunteers and troops fight it out to see who will lead the people, business goes on as usual at the large multinationals which have invaded the country. Nobody is fighting against them. both sides promise their rule will be more beneficial for workers, yet in any case the worker will be bound to his or her job, forced to work to buy back the goods they produce, without much say as to what will happen to the product of their labour. Basically as powerless as ever. Even in the best of all circumstances, all that one can hope for is an improvement in their material standard of living within a framework of misery. True this is important for most people, but there are better options for an immediate improvement of your material situation than fighting it out in a power struggle. A few steps away from the White House are chic Western stores, fast food restaurants and commercial kiosks. If you are hungry now, go help yourself. There's lots of money to be found there as well. Let the world see what the Russian working class has come to: a group of people on the verge of starvation, completely shut out from the consumer wonderland and the world of economic "progress" that Yeltsin hails as the new Russia. Send a clear message to McDonald's and Pizza Hut that they won't make millions free and clear, that the workers want their profits back! Let the mafiosi and the speculators know that your power is greater than the fear and economic power that they wield over you right now! DOWN WITH BUSINESS! LONG LIVE PROLETARIAN SHOPPING! At factories across the country, workers are urged to continue work peacefully. These are the same workers who don't earn enough money to live on, who might not get paid at all, who for years worked and slaved to fund the state and its bureaucracy. A change in management may or (more likely) man not improve your condition. But think if you were able to control your own labour- to manage and control you own labour entirely. Enough of making other people rich and wasting your life in the process! Stop all work and get rid of your bosses! LONG LIVE THE GENERAL STRIKE! WORKERS' CONTROL WITHOUT THE BOSSES! ORGANIZE YOURSELF! WE ARE NOT POWERLESS! MUJERES LIBRES ******************************************************** NO POLITICAL SOLUTIONS The Russian people, it is said, are in a political crisis. More correctly put, they are in a crisis of politics. The present problems facing the country - from social to economic- are all resultant of politics. By this the reader should not understand that these problems are resultant of bad politics, but of politics in general. Over and over again the Russian people are told that if they elect the right politicians, reforms will be carried out and their lives will be better. Whoever is in power will blame other politicians, past or present, for whatever problems there are in the country (unless of course they can find an enemy or national minority to blame); most opposition political groups suggest that you help them into power to remedy the situation (either by voting them in or making a revolution or coup d'etat). This is the situation world round : politicians telling the people that what will save them is only new politicians. There is increasing evidence that people in many countries have lost faith in political leadership. Take for example in America where there is a large awareness that most politicians are corrupt and that no matter who they vote for the government will work in the interests of the rich. The people, by and large, don't vote. Of the small majority who do vote, many do so because they genuinely want to have a political voice but usually wind up voting for the "lesser of two evils". Many also vote out of a sense of duty. By and large nobody cares enough to find out about all the issues or a given politician's stand on this or that. They don't feel a connection with these issues and feel that the government will do what it wants anyway, so why bother. And this is fine with the politicians. Only when they feel that they can mobilize people around a specific issue to win a campaign will they try to inform the voters. Then, of course once a campaign is won, the issues change, promises are broken. Many people then wait for their chance to vote someone out, vote someone in... But many also loose faith in politics in general. The Russian people are mostly looking for political solutions. For them there is enough of a difference between the current political pretendents to tend towards one side or another, if only in reaction towards the policies of the other. Much of the present support of Yeltsin is due strictly to the perception of his opponents as hard-line communists (whether or not this is what they really are). At the same time, many of those who support the parliament now do not actually support their policies, but see in them the only safeguard against sped up economic "reforms" and the only alternative to Yeltsin's dictatorship. Rutskoi was denounced by communists many times for selling out to Western capital; he and almost the entire parliament supported Yeltsin's ascent to power and wanted to and still want to carry out economic reforms (just not at the same rate as Yeltsin wants). Yet most of the communists are now supporting Rutskoi. There are some groups that have called on new elections, who want to get rid of both Rutskoi and Yeltsin. This too is a political solution, but as they have not made the possible alternatives clear to people, it's not a popular one. Seemingly the choice of government would make a difference in the life of people here. There are however many factors which superscede the people's will. These range from foreign to extra-national intervention to the designs of government. Yet, no matter what government is in place, the people's ability to understand their will and to exercise it freely will be hindered. The legitimacy of government lies on the belief that people cannot run their own lives and coordinate society orderly. It lies in the belief that if people had the chance to freely exercise their will, their greed and violence would take over, and that they would hurt other members of society to get what they want. It is aided by the creation and perpetuation of increasingly more complicated structures which make the running of society seem to be so incredibly complicated that it can only be done with a large bureaucratic apparatus in place and that in no way can it be run by the people themselves. The Stalinists claim that greed and violence has taken over society, but this is because there isn't a strong government to control it. Fear and law would stop this. But wasn't Stalin the most effectively violent man of the century? And what about the greed of the nomenclatura? These things might have been seen, if it were not for the belief in the government. These things could not be prevented because the government protected itself with an enormous army. The Yeltsinists imply that the prospective nomenclatura would rob the people's wealth and shoot people in the street. But isn't it the greed of Yeltsin's supporters, the speculators, foreign businesses and bosses who are growing rich off keeping the value of the rouble low and paying peanuts for labour and resources that is responsible for the current mass poverty and resultant upsurge in violent crime? People wouldn't tolerate this except they believe the lies of the Russian government that suffering through this unbearable nightmare is the only way to a better nightmare and that if this doesn't make any sense to you then that's only because you don't understand how to run a country. In any case, the government, the army and the police (its henchmen) orchestrate a system where most people cannot freely determine the value of their labour, where industries can be legally owned by persons or bodies other than the workers, rendering them unable to freely dispose of the product of their labour - to use as they need or to trade with other workers for goods they need or would like but cannot themselves produce. Land cannot be freely acquired. If some individual or group of individuals got it into their stupid heads that they would live better, for example, if they kept the profits of their labour instead of contributing to the bosses' country club fund or the state's nuclear arsenal, if somebody, having no place to live built his or her own house, if a starving person, realising that a person who works 40 hours a week should be able to feed themselves but sees they can't now decides to take over a piece of land and farm it -then the powers that protect you and me from such irrational and greedy actions being carried out by the people step in and exercise control. But any of these actions would be rational given the situation. What isn't rational is working your butt off (for the good of everyone), receiving a wage on which you can only afford bread, potatoes and tea (never a home or anything else), watching the "democrats" getting rich off the property they sold to themselves, or from the money (skimmed from your labour) that they invested in buying your labour so that they can take what you make and re-sell it to you at a profit for their efforts. People, living under years of government, years of promises of political solutions, have begun to think very irrationally. They begin to believe outrageous claims and support people and conditions they really don't want to support because they have been convinced that there is no other way. The Russian people are now going through a phase of optimal public stupidity. One ex-Komsomol leader claims to be God and people follow...people refuse to believe that Stalinist purges happened, and if they did, then only to the guilty...there is an unprecented belief in the horoscope and faith healers...people forget that Yeltsin was part of the nomenclatura...people stand in line for hours to look in Western department stores...workers who had their strike crushed by Yeltsin blindly and fervently support him. The only remedy to this will be when people begin to get interested in taking back active control of the processes that rule their lives and work with each other to make life enjoyable rather than crossing their fingers and heading off to the ballot box. Sceptics of course argue that this alternative may not - or definitely will not- lead to any great life. The question is not whether or not this will lead to a workers' paradise (although what could be worse than waiting 40 years to get an apartment, working all the time, being unable to feed yourself or your family, hoping anxiously that there will be no civil war, that the value of the rouble compared to the dollar won't fall, watching government corruption hopelessly etc. etc.?). The point is to start a tradition where people will help themselves and each other (a tradition which to some extent exists in many countries where people take initiative to do something, without waiting for the government to decide to set up the program, in other words, where people respond to the immediate needs of the community in a timely and logical manner). The Russians in many ways have been conditioned out of such responses as such initiative was threatening to the totalitarian nature of the Soviet government. Still they are capable of organising things for themselves, as has been evident in times of extreme crisis, such as during the last coup when they organised shelter, free food, distribution of gas masks, etc. for the diffence of the White House, all on their own initiative. I would suggest, that as an alternative to political Russian roulette, that people would be better off meeting with each other, trying to create alternative institutions which can be influential paradigms for the future. The pseudo-left are trying to get together a "kinder, gentler, platform" as they have some chance of winning some power in this somewhat pluralistic government. They, in general, support the idea of government and bureaucratic rule. They offer no alternative to it whatsover. It is ridiculous to think that any politician will come up with a program that will call for less government and more freedom. (If any have that is because business is the substitute government.) Right now there is no political solution for the Russian people. The international business community has its eyes on Russia as the market which will save it from crisis. Large investments have already been made. There is probably only one forseeable course for the Russian economy; this course may bring them a VCR in every home eventually, in the very best of circumstances, but, as the market demands, it will be at the cost of a constant underclass, and a steady rate of unemployment. This is not the solution that people want, but it is the only one that they will get. ******************************************************* (MOTHER ANARCHY NO.5, cont.) OBVIOUSLY A PROVOCATION OF THE GOVERNMENT by Mikhail Tsovma Two days after the succesful storm of the parliament in Moscow gunshots are still to be heard around Moscow and this "obvious fact" of the existence of Communist fighters and "snipers" pushes people to embrace the martial law, the curfew and police and military troops loyal to president Yeltsin as the saviors of peace and calmness of Muscovites. This situation, of course, is exactly what Yeltsin was looking for when he started his coup d'etat on September 21st and there are clear signs that he or at least somebody from his team were the people who worked hard to reach this result. Communist fighters and "snipers" somehow leaked through the lines of police and troops surrounding the White House on the day that the troops started the storm of the parliament and caused many deaths among the government troops and civilians, the media reports. Gunfire is heard in various districts of Moscow, but it is quite likely that, like in Moscow's northern suburb of Otradnoye (in the evening of October 5), policemen are just firing machine guns into the air. What is it if not an outright provocation designed to make people believe they need more law and order. Even the Moscow-based English-language periodical Moscow Tribune which seems to undoubtedly believe in the stories about Communist snipers published several materials revealing how the forces of law and order were too reluctant when dealing with the rioters on Sunday, October 3 during the clashes on Oktyabrskaya and Smolenskaya Square. "we've got other goals. We have other orders", - a police officer is reported to say when asked why the police, at least 120 strong, had acted slowly and done so little to stop 40 rioters, when the clashes were just beginning. (John Helmer, Moscow Crisis: The First Spark, Moscow Tribune, Oct.5.) Sometime after when the riot was gathering its strength Muscovites witnessed demonstrators forcing police to retreat, attacking them with their own equipment and fighting their way over the Moscow river and across the Ring Road to parliament. (Reuters, Oct.3, 14:54.) The police troops that were blocking the bridge across the Moscow River were rather poorly equiped (helmets, shields and rubber batons only) and stood in the line one-man thick only. It's worth mentioning that during less dramatic oppositional demonstrations in Moscow police forces were much broader represented and were acting much more fearlessly, managing to stop the demonstrators where and when needed. An hour and a half after the beginning of the demonstration (time that is usually more than enough for the police to predict the movement of the demonstrators and block the streets where needed) police troops once again were defeated on Smolenskaya Square not far from the White House. These victories inspired the opposition to storm the TV centre later in the evening, which somehow appeared to be unprotected. Soon after the beginning of the storm Yeltsin declared a state of emergency in Moscow, the government declared that it has been forced to use force "to end the actions of political adventurists an IS DOING EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO AVERT MASS BLOODSHED". (Reuters, Oct.3, 17:51 and 19:04). At 19:56 Moscow mayor Yuri Luzhkov blamed "bandits" for the deaths of two policemen and two interior ministry soldiers and the media reported that troops loyal to president were brought to Moscow. WHO WERE THE SNIPERS? One of the cornerstones of the media campaign on October 4 were "the snipers", that is armed putchists who spread all over the city and whose numbers it was impossible to guess. One of the doctors who was evacuating the injured from the parliament was interviewed by Russian TV and said that there was a considerable number of people shot near the White House in the morning and during the day right in their hearts, necks and heads. This was presented by the media as the evidence of the crimes of the putschists. In fact it is, but it appears more grounded to say that these were the people killed by the KGB and special police troops loyal to the government. Though there were quite a lot of arms in the White House there were hardly any "snipers", that is people specially trained in shooting, among its defenders. It is more probable that those who were shot were shot by the snipers of KGB. (During the August 1991 coup there were much worries about whether these special KGB troops will take the side of Yeltsin or not.) Since none of these special troops declared their loyalty to the parliament, it's hardly so that the Communist "snipers" killed people in dozens around the parliament. Witnesses that were among the spectators of the storm of the White House on Oct.4 report that there were government snipers who were shooting "in all directions" (Moscow Tribune, Oct.5) and particularly civilians. October 6 issue of Izvestiya, Russia's biggest newspaper, features a story "Troops Near The White House Shot Everything That Moves" describing how the soldiers started shooting at the windows and roofs of buildings around the parliament if they saw anybody moving there. This went on for about two days and none of the specially trained anti-terrorist detachments of KGB were involved in the fight against the mythical snipers. During the "sniper incident" on Novy Arbat (the only one described in the media as far as I know) soldiers from APCs shot in various directions, including the house on the embankment of the Moscow River near the parliament where dozens of people and TV crews gathered to see the fight. After the people on Novy Arbat tried to escape into one of the courtyards they were met by gunshots from the neighboring streets and the windows of the houses that composed the courtyard - the area was totally in the control of the police troops and there were no "Communist fighters" there. It is also interesting to learn how it happened that considerable numbers of armed people leaked from the White House and spread around the city. The parliament was blocked from all sides and since its defenders didn't have tanks it was almost impossible for them to get out... until they were let out by the government. The story about "unprofessional actions of the police and the military" is an old one and it is usually used by the authorities to justify more repression and the use of more troops. This is what happened during the clash between communists and the police on the 1st of May this year. This is what happened on October 3 when the authorities let the opposition "defeat" special police troops on the streets of Moscow. This is probably how they provoked more violence during the storm of the White House. Currently the media reports dozens of cases when journalists were arrested by the forces of law and order, severely beaten up, held in Lefortovo KGB prison (together with the leaders of parliament and dozens of civilians, including children), their films exposed. (Izvestiya, October 6.) I doubt that any of the policemen or military will be punished for these actions - they feel that this is their time and that they can do whatever they want without being punished or anything like that. This is what they were doing for years, but what's going on now is just outrageous. And it's not just the police and the military since every other high-rank "democrat" is trying to make revenge on his opponents. Yeltsin had his fun destroying the paliament, Moscow's mayor Luzhkov gladly witnessed (and sanctioned, I'm sure) arrests and beatings of Moscow City Soviet deputees that bothered him a lot about the legal grounds of his multiple political and business activities. Heads of local administrations are disbanding troublesome Soviets in their regions. In the situation where there are virtually no political organizations that really represent the interests of different social groups, Soviets were almost the only opposition to the governmental course (though the one that can be called the real opposition), but with them being disbanded, oppositional organizations and papers closed, and martial law and censorship introduced, the road for Yeltsin's triumphant elections is clean. Long live the real freedom of choice, the choice between the Big Brother and yourself! POSTSCRIPT Vecherniya Moskva, Moscow evening paper on October 6, reported that none of president's decrees implemented censorship and that the censorship that existed was dictated by the needs of the moment and that they won't work anymore. Nezavisimaya Gazeta, one of the pro-democratic, pro-Yeltsin papers appeared on that day with about half a page of blank space plus some published information lacking the starting sentences. The editor-in-chief of the hysterically pro-governmental Moskovsky Komsomolets said on TV that blank spaces in some of the papers is he fault of the editors. He also went as far as to declare that there will be no blank spaces in his paper because they publish the truth and nothing else but the truth and the truth can't be censored. Do you love me, Moskovsky Komsomolets? Yes, I love you, Big Brother! *************************************************************** ** DECREE Couple of minutes ago a decided to appoint myself as the Third Concurrent President of Russia. I proclaim that the First and the Second Concurrent Presidents are just plain pretenders. I command all Russian authorities to obey my orders and disregard all decrees of the pretenders. Who elected me? Well, who elected Yeltsyn to disband the parliament? Who elected Yeltsyn to disobey constitutional court? Who elected Rutskoy to replace Yeltsyn? Already dissolved parliament did it? The laws of Russian politics today are: "I do what I want." "I am what I claim myself to be." So, I order the Commander of St.Petersburg garrison to provide me with an armored vehicle by the time of my arrival to the Finland Railway Station of St.Petersburg (a la Vladimir Illich), and the Commander of Moscow garrison to supply a tank when I arrive to the White House (a la Boris Nikolaevich). It is well known that since 1917 the main precondition for taking power in Russia is making a speech from the top of an armored vehicle. The topics of such speech are quite standard as well: "Jest' takaja partia!" - "There is such a party !" and "Otechestvo v opasnosti!" - "Fatherland is in danger". I'm ready to participate in the presidential elections in December, but only on one condition: radio and TV will be subordinated to my government completely, my opponents will get radio-TV time of 15 minutes per month, all other time will be devoted to my political campain - then we will see who is going to win very easily. In addition, I agree to take power in other CIS countries with more then one President and government or without any governments at all. I would consider applications of those netters who want to become the ministers in my government. No experience required (as always in Russia). Grisha, the President of All Russias. (Downloaded from GlasNet soon after Yeltsin's famous decree of Sept.21.) ************************************************************** THE VOLUNTEER MEDICAL BRIGADE A perfect example of constructive self-organization is the Maximilian Voloshin Volunteer Medical Brigade which was formed on Oct.1, 1993 in anticipation of the events in Moscow of Oct.3-4. Different left democrats and socialists (including anarchists) got together and formed the brigade, the purpose of which was to help the wounded as much as possible until they could be treated by doctors. The team worked from Oct.2-4, helping dozens of wounded- primarily people who were somehow caught in the crossfire. Money and medicine was donated by citizens who appreciated the fact that somebody was trying to do something to alleviate the situation. The brigade faced several problems. First of all, they had not adequately prepared themselves for situations such as they faced at Ostankino where there were scores of wounded. They had to position themselves far enough from the battle to be safe and this made it difficult for them at times to attend to the wounded. But they were not alone; the entire medical community in fact was unprepared for dealing with so many serious injuries (mainly gunshot wounds) all at once. So the fact that they were there to help out was extremely important. Another problem the brigade faced was interference from Yeltsin's troops. On the fourth, the brigade was not allowed through to the White House to help the wounded. As one member, Petya Ryabov writes, "Despite our flag with a red cross on it and our medical supplies, the military did not allow us through; they didn't even allow doctors through. Instead they subjected us to a humiliating search and even took a gas mask away from one of us. As if it were a weapon and not a self-protection devise." Despite the problems the brigade had, it was deeply appreciated by those it helped. Hopefully a few people learned the value of acting on one's own initiative. *************************************************************** *** ETHNIC CLEANSING A LA RUSSE By Laure Akai Of all the repression which has taken place after the September coup, by far the most outrageous has been the racist measures taken by the government to cleanse the capital on a racial basis. Immediately following the blasting of the White House on October 4, special troops and regular police began a round up of all "illegal aliens" in the city. Thousands were deported and many more thousands fled, terrified for their safety. The legal basis used for this mass operation was the "propiska" or permit system, a relic of the Stalinist past which required citizens of the former Soviet Union to have a permit to live in Moscow (or any other region) stamped in their passport. Normally this could only be obtained by birthright, a special invitation to study or work, or through marriage. For years there was a market of fake marriages to get around the system. Without a propiska, finding work or a place to live in Moscow was virtually impossible. But in the last few years, as visa regulations were relaxed and as apartments began to appear freely on the market for rent, more amd more people simply ignored these rules and came to live in Moscow. Most of these people are ethnically Russian, but also a large number of others have settled here, including many Armenian and Georgian refugees, many traders from Central Asia and China, and a great deal of Americans and Europeans. The operation to crack down on illegal residents, which resulted in over 5,000 deportations within the first two weeks alone was targeted almost exclusively on dark-skinned peoples of the Soviet Union. There was no effort at all to conceal the fact that the prime targets in this operation were people first and foremost from the Caucasus, and from Central Asia. Searches and identity checks were conducted on dark skinned people as "whites" were left alone. This harassment of people of colour has been going on for some time in Moscow, and indeed has always existed to a certain extent in the Soviet Union Every day people of colour are stopped and harassed, often having to pay regular bribes to the police to avoid arrest. Now the government, using the pretext of the propiska system, have institutionalized this racism. Most Russians blame people of colour, more specifically "Caucasians", for the astronomical crime rate in the city. Government officials, police and even the TV news claim that "80% of all the crime committed in Moscow is commited by Caucasians". If this figure is based on arrest records, it is because of the fact that these people are much more likely to be arrested than white skinned people. The police and the government claim that they are "fighting crime", but in a city where the Russian mafia carries on their business in the open, where law enforcement officials are famous for taking bribes, where police peddle guns and where theft and corruption takes place in the government, this is a laughable exuse. The general population has been by and large supportive of these deportations. Most Russians, newly impoverished, insecure about the future, etc., are seeking people whom they can blame and take out their frustrations on. Before the coup, the police had called on people to inform on their neighbours if they expected them of being illegal aliens. Hundreds of people called on the first day of the appeal. Now 40,000 citizens have volunteered to help patrol the streets, keeping an eye out for crime and "suspicious individuals". During the operation numerous human rights abuses were reported. Most typically people were grabbed and sent to detention centres, without being able to contact friends, relatives, their embassy, and often without a chance to argue their position. There have been reports of people having their posessions and documents stolen and of one man having his papers bearing his refugee status torn up. Some people were sent to special "work camps" to earn the money for their "trip home". Those who have been arrested and deported include people who were passing through Moscow or who had legal status. One businessman was arrested at a hotel as he tried to register and 65 Chinese students were held and may still be deported. Embassies and businesses have reported harassment of their employees. Sometimes the scenes have been truly ugly. At one Moscow food market, Russian merchants reportedly helped police turn over the fruit stands, beat and arrest traders from Azerbaijan. The remaining vendors, now devoid of much competition, have raised the prices on their own vegetables. Although human rights groups have petitioned the government and foreign embassies have lodged their protests, the government is totally non-plused. And why shouldn't they be when around them the major powers of the world carry on similar campaigns with impugnity? Latching on the main theme of the 90's, Russia wants to bleach out its population, and shut up its borders for those without money, or those with dark skin. The rest are welcome. People are encouraged to write letters of protest to the Russian government and to picket consular offices in their cities. For more information write to the Moscow Institute for the Study of Racism, Fascism and Nationalism. (cube@glas.apc.org) *************************************************************** ** WHY IT WAS THAT YELTSIN HAD A VICTORY by Sonya K. On the CNN they said everytime that all the Russian people love Yeltsin and they want his reforms. This is not exactly so. There are some people who benefit of the reforms, but they are small portion of people. Then there are others who still like Yeltsin because they remember him as a populist and they don't have such bad time economically. But during the last putsch, it was divided amongst the people. Many people felt sympathy with the parliament but they were afraid of the Barkashovtsy (fascists) and extreme communists who also supported the parliament. Yeltsin made a big propaganda against these people and said that there will be Stalinism again if the parliament will win and that it was their fault that the economy is so bad. He made some people take his side only because they think he is better than parliament people. So people were afraid to act against Yeltsin because they are afraid of these communists and because they are afraid to take any side in a political conflict. People took a side of Yeltsin two years ago and now many of these people feel betrayed by him. The market reforms did not bring no economic prosperity to Russia, but made the people very poor. Only they lived worse during the Great Patriotic War and War Communism times. But in those times they could understand why they were starving. Now, there is no reason because the shops are full with food. In the beginning they told people that you must wait for the economy to fix itself and then you will live as in America. People want to believe this so they waited and they tolerated everything. Now already many years have passed since beginning of perestroika and only the mafia and Mayor Luzhkov live well. Many people understand now that Yeltsin is liar and that his reforms are just way to rob people again. What could people do? They did nothing, but now they have Yeltsin in complete control of the country and he is looking like a dictator. There is something in Russian mentality that likes dictator, because it represents stability. Some people are tired of crisis of power so they choose dictator. But others see that dictator is bad thing and they are sad that Yeltsin shot the White House. People think that he should have negotiated with parliament and let the people have an election soon so they could decide what to do. Now people see that Tsar Boris does not want to have a fair elections, but he wants to guarantee his power. He promised that there will be presidential election also, but it won't be. People distrust him because he lies and because his friends are very rich and corrupt nomenclatura men who steal money from the city and from the people. They don't believe his promises any more. The problem for people is that they believe that they need the strong government to save Russia. They see that people have become morally sick and that all the young people care about is the money. The are making crime and this makes harder for everybody. The people don't trust the other people any longer. They are fighting with each other. This is one reason why they cannot work together and make a real opposition. Another reason is that people spend all time worrying about money and where can you buy bread for cheap. The rest the people try to forget about real life and they watch Mexican soap operas about rich and beautiful people and they think their problems are not so bad. They try not think about the politics. They think only that goverment should be strong. If they participate in politics, it is only that they choose one side or another, and usually this choice is not intelligent one, but is based on who makes the best promises and who is the person that already is not discredited in the media. This is not the good way. Also now very popular are the nationalist and the fascist ideas. Russian nation feels insulted because it is not the great power anymore and because they are not the masters. They lived very well before, especially in the Moscow which got special priveledges. Now they feel a resentment against many people, especially against the countries who spit on the Russians. They feel like their people are persecuted minority in Estonia because they can't be citizens if they don't speak Estonian. It makes no sense for people to speak Estonian, people think, in old imperialist thinking. This thinking is still alive, but even more. They are jealous that people live better in this country. The idea to invade these places and make Russian Empire again is very popular. It is special conditions which make the people turn into Nazis, like in Germany before the World War 2. There are many conditions the same, if you think about this. This reason is one reason why people were happy when Yeltsin kicked off the Caucasians from Moscow. They think these people are all criminals because they have dark skin they think a lower culture than Russia, so they are not people who work, but only criminals. If the people can vote, they will vote for the person like Yeltsin, but not he. It is a very strange situation in our country. The people don't like this, they don't like this, but they always make the same mistakes. They wait for new leader to come and hope he will solve all problems, but it only becomes worse. *************************************************************** **