The Disintegration of the State - Russian Perspectives  (Frank Harrison)

In order to speak of politics in the modern era - an era which began with
 the French Revolution - one must consider the supremacy of the bureaucratic
 state. This era has seen how all previous political unions have been
 replaced by the state. The city dweller has become the base of all social
 analysis. It is taken for granted that patriotism is a good thing and the
 capacity of governments to mobilise their citizens and resources has
 become the measure of their efficiency, legitimacy and a form of 
self-justification.

Such a model is to be found equally in the East as in the West. Soviet and
 North American patriotism have become the choice of their respective
 political elites. Kropotkin pointed out that the new economic forms of
 political organisation would become associated with a new economic order
 brought into being by the industrial revolution.

This Statist view has come to dominate the modern mind. This naked and 
little questioned power - accepted as the norm - is responsible for the
 crimes of colonialism, the domination of the third world by the developed
 world. However, there is some resistance to recognising this model of the
 State. Inequality, class struggle, regional and linguistic conflicts and
 indifference threaten the legitimacy of this political sphere. Pluralism
 doesn't always function smoothly, that is to say, when pluralism doesn't
 function neither does the sate. The authority of the State is rejected:
 Catholics in Northern Ireland, Kurds in Turkey, Serbs in Bosnia etc. are
 starting to grasp for a new political reality. This is the current crisis
 of the State. The State is seen as the enemy in the ghettos of the USA,
 in the Sik temples in India, on a Catholic street in Belfast and when it 
appears in any place in the former Russian Federation.

Each State requires certain conditions to be fulfilled in order to sustain
 its authority, these are:

- a culture of obedience
- a recognised source of authority
- Corporatism and a sense of commitment in the Civil and Armed Services.
- an ability to give privilege to the interrelated elites (political,
 cultural, economic, military...)
- quasi governmental organisations who co-ordinate necessities and 
expectations in such a way so that the government can act as intermediary
- an ability to generate state interests which supersede local conflicts
 (relating to, for example, religious/linguistic conflicts and/or standard
 of living expectations)

All these mechanisms taken together lay the foundations of the psychological
 and organisational adhesion of any given State. In the former USSR it was
 the Communist Party which formed the nucleus of these integrated mechanisms
 until it collapsed (over the last three years). 

The first question which arises for those who are pleased to see the 
collapse of a State should be: Out of the Russian Federation will there be
 formed a new federation of States or is a new Russian imperialism a 
possibility? Will there be a return to centralism in Russia or are there
 other options?

The collapse of the State should be a cause of celebration since we have
 been 'brainwashed' with the concept of the State to the point that Yeltsin,
 having declared himself the new Russian dictator, the West applauds and is
 pleased that Russia is back on the road towards reunification. Fortunately
 they are mistaken.

Previous speakers have shown an interest/concern with nationalism. I find
 myself in agreement with someone who in the 1930s who was asked if he would
 betray the State or his friend answered, 'I hope I would betray the State'
 because I would never betray my friend. For me nationalism is the same as
 tribalism. In my written work I claim that the modern State is the
 product of the French Revolution. Kropotkin wrote that the factor which
 characterised the dehumanisation of society was the technical structure.
 However,. the State dominates our consciousness, it is the 'norm' it is
 accepted as the natural state of things. But the State exists by the skin
 of its teeth. Wherever you will find a state you will find it owing its
 existence to the lies of political propaganda and the powers of its police.
 When the lying ends the state collapses as it has done in Russia. It
 collapsed in the former USSR but it has also collapsed in the Russia of
 today; today Russia is neither a government nor a nation; today it is made
 up of 89 governments. The capacity for integration lies only in the
 Communist party. When the Communist Party lost its legitimacy so did the
 State. Does the Russian State have the power to reintegrate itself if it
 doesn't exist? My answer is NO. The Russian State as the Soviet State no
 longer exist and will not exist again. However, the dominant factor is the
 remaining reunificatory capacity within the old Soviet Union within
 contemporary Russia. In this I feel we can see an example of the failure
 of the modern State. I think and I hope that the elites of all states are
 trembling.

This cannot be seen as a victory for anarchism but rather the end of the
 capacity of such politics  to promote integration.

When we look towards Russia we see total institutional confusion, Moscow
 and its politics are pure theatre; the Supreme Court, the Presidency,
 Yeltsin etc... are mere actors. They entertain us because they have no
 power. But what of the future? I suggest five possibilities.

The first is 'Military Fascism'; the military could come to represent an
 active force for reunification, I don't think this will happen. Today
 there are more officers that soldiers in the armed forces and the youth
 are voting with their feet. They will not enlist. Moreover the military
 are very divided. Nor does the economy give them money for equipment.
 Today these forces have neither the personnel, the material nor the
 unity/solidarity that they need. Today Military Fascism is not possible.

Secondly 'Capitalism' as a system of recuperation didn't work, doesn't
 work and will not work in Russia. It is not a question of accepting or
 rejecting the capitalist ideology which has indeed been culturally
 rejected. The 'free enterprise economy' can only survive and grow if two
 conditions are fulfilled:

1) Give the workers higher levels of employment and remuneration
2) Have some comparative advantage vis a vis the rest of the world
 - an advantage used by the State to generate investment in the country
 and sell outside of its frontiers within the framework of monetary
 stability.

But when the state industries are being shut down, unemployment is
 reaching 20 million and savings are annihilated by hyper inflation
 running at 1 000% pa economic dislocation is the outcome and we come
 to realise that capitalism is not the means for bringing about Russian
 reunification.

Thirdly 'Constitutional Federalism'; the fragmentation caused in part by the
 economic decline has favoured the appearance of an initiative aiming at
 a 'constitutional solution' which consists in producing a document which
 defines the sharing of power in equal parts between the Centre and the
 Regions/Republics and also a Justice System which would have the power
 to resolve the various disputes between the factions and parties which
 make up the organisation of the State. On the 12 July 93 the delegates
 to the Constitutional Assembly gave their consent to such a document and
 gave the President the power to dissolve parliament and call elections.
 The Federal law took priority over the laws of the various Republics and
 the vice-presidency was abolished. However, the evidence suggests that
 the Regions and the Republics have no intention to subordinate themselves
 to Moscow; the leaders of the Republics have rejected the priority of the
 federal law.

There was a tendency for the Republics to declare themselves independent.
 Amur, Vologda, Sverdlovsk, St. Petersburg and Primorsky Krai this summer.


But there is no tradition of independence of this kind in Russia and the
 conflict between Yeltsin and the Constitutional tribunal is a part of
 the 'theatre' which the national Russian government is a part of today.


Russia has collapsed and the new documents will not bring back the old
 system nor will they bring into being a new one.

The political analysts indicate that Russia is in a pre-party state. There
 do not exist national political groupings and without these the state
 cannot resuscitate itself.

In order for Yeltsin to win enough power he will have to draw on
 institutions and persons and move towards a form of power that we can
 call 'Civil Fascism' which is the fourth possibility. When I wrote this
 (July 93) I suggested that Yeltsin might attempt a 'coup d'etat', a
 constitutional seizure of power calling on the forces of democracy in
 Russia, but that this also would fail because such a constitutional
 fascism was based on the belief that only a minority was democratic.
 I believe that this plan is also destined to fail due to the fact that
 local organisations in Russia are not keen to collaborate with the 'actors'
 in Moscow. There will be no massive mobilisation of support for Yeltsin
 who, moreover, has never enjoyed majority support. In the April referendum
 only 6 out of 10 voted and of these only 6 out of 10 voted for Yeltsin. We
 are speaking of a man whose popularity in April was not that of the
 majority and whose popularity is currently in decline.

The political logic of the old regime put the Communist Party in a
 position of 'infallible doctrine' to justify social and political
 authoritarianism. With the disappearance of this not only is there
 a political vacuum but also a distrust of secular ideologies. There
 is now the possibility of a call to the myths of nationalism, race,
 religion and blood especially if the situation deteriorates; crime
 rises and life expectancy falls.

Fascism could come about in Russia due to the absence of politics.

My conclusion as an anarchist is a positive one. I look towards the
 fifth possibility which will be as envisaged by Proudhon 'Decentralised
 Federalism'. Russia has this capacity which could serve as an example to
 other states. I am no expert on Spanish matters, but I understand that
 there was a strong federal tradition in this country before the
 dictatorship. The federalist capacity which exists in every state also
 exists in Russia but there is no guarantee that it will be successful.

When a central regime admits its inability to control local authorities
 the development of a federalist system could prove the best solution for
 Russia in these times. The system is characterised by a multiplicity of
 local authorities and constant change in the political sphere at a local
 level. Vaclav Havel, president of the Czech Republic concluded that in
 this post-Leninist situation there exists the remains of an 'evil' in
 a moral sense reflected in racism, nationalism, aggression and crime.
 Havel is confident that once this 'evil' is eliminated a new social
 integration will come into being, I concur. I conclusion when I think
 of the possibilities which inspire me I think, not of Havel but of
 Bakunin and Proudhon.

I suggest that we continue to focus on the ideals of the French Revolution
 properly speaking that is to say liberty, equality and fraternity.

Bakunin said that he would not consider himself to be free as long as one
 single person did not enjoy liberty: 'if there is one person who is not
 free I am not free'.

Perhaps we can say that the end of communism in Europe marks the beginning
 of history.

There exists the possibility of outcomes other than those which prevail
 in Bosnia: an indication of the renovation of the anarchist solution
 understood in the Proudhonian sense of 'order without authority'.


