To Friends of Russian Labour Review

In the past two weeks there has been a lot of correspondence
circulating concerning Russian Labour Review. Most of the
correspondence has been written by representatives (self
proclaimed or otherwise) of the production group, but the
opinions of the people not even directly involved in the
editorial process have also been heard. It is very
significant that the opinion of the majority of the people
who have worked on the journal has not been heard, and
really hasn't been asked. It is especially significant since
relationships like this were the main reason that Russian
Labour Review left KAS-KOR.

The reason that Russian Labour Review is no longer produced
by KAS-KOR should go on record. Russian Labour Review
originally was conceived as a project of KAS-KOR. As those
who cenceived of the project could not produce it
themselves, Vlad Tupikin and Mikhail Tsovma were hired to
produce the magazine. So KAS-KOR, owning the means of
production (computer equipment) and possessing the capital
to launch the project became the publishers, but not the
producers of RLR. Tupikin and Tsovma were not allowed to
take part in the collective decision making process, despite
repeated requests. This effectively meant that they were
totally unaware of the financial situation of RLR and were
not allowed to make decisions on budgetary matters. (A third
worker at RLR, Akai, later found out about considerable
donations made to RLR at a time when KAS-KOR was claming to
be bankrupt and threatening to suspend RLR's publication.)
Foreign representation was appointed by Kirill Buketov
without the knowledge or consent of the rest - one example
of how RLR worked. So needless to say, there was a keen
awareness that there was no democracy in KAS-KOR - certainly
no workers' control - and that two people (Boris Kravchenko
and Kirill Buketov) were on the editorial board of the RLR,
used the project to enhance their political prestige, (the
benefits of which ae obvious) but actually contributed very
little to nothing to the work process. Furthermore, other
people who were highly interested in the project or had
contributed a lot of their time and energy to it, were not
included in the editorial group. (This includes Laure Akai,
Renfrey Clarke, Alexander Tarasov and others.) The idea of
course came up that RLR might very well be produced on a
more democratic basis if it were not produced by KAS-KOR.

This decision to be independent was not of a personal
nature, but of a very political one. For us, being able to
control the product of one's labour is the fundamental goal
of workers' struggle. It was particularly painful to realize
that KAS-KOR, in respect to its employees, functioned more
like a capitalist business (albeit a poorely run one) than a
project in which all workers participated equally.

Of course one thing that moved the publication finally in
that direction was the fact that KAS-KOR closed down a
Russian language publication which Tupikin and Tsovma had
helped to organize  and had threatened to close down RLR,
for lack of funds. It is important to note at this time that
KAS-KOR "lost" US$32,000 in funds on a bad investment
project. From what we know, the decision to make this
investment was made solely by Kirill Buketov and Edward
Vokhmin; Boris Kravchenko was in Paris and Kostya Sumnitelny
was opposed. The workers of RLR didn't know about it at the
time, but had they had a voice in the decision making
process, they would have earmarked a few thousand for RLR
and the now defunct, Russian language "Workers' Action".
5,000 would have sustained both for a year. Some people now
try to excuse this atrocious misuse of funds by claiming
that they were trying to protect their "buying power". This
is not quite right. The dollar lost very little value
against the rouble and most high priced goods are priced in
dollars, so that value remains constant. The small loss in
buying power could have easily been ofset by just KEEPING
THE MONEY IN THE BANK, where normally interest rates on hard
currency accounts are around 25%.

Boris Kagarlitsky writes that "During the months when KAS-
KOR crisis developed I've heard a lot about funds, property
and very little about politics." We feel that this
assessment is correct. We care much more about politics and
about a proper collective atmosphere than we do about
raising funds and creating a movement in name only. In
connection with this we, would like to sever ties with
people who we feel are primarily interested in RLR as a
feather to stick in their hat, or with people who aren't
willing to do any of the shit work. This includes the former
boss, Kirill Buketov, whose main contribution to the project
has been and continues to be to (mis)represent it. If Kirill
is so interested in helping RLR, instead of bilking American
left (who really need their money), he should do more to
retrieve the $4,000 which KAS-KOR invested with his
relatives two month ago and which they now refuse to return.
If this money is returned, Boris Kravchenko and Edward
Vokhmin have said it should be used for RLR. If this money
is returned, RLR doesn't need a big appeal campaign.

We'd also like to comment on AFL-CIO. Yes they are in Russia
and yes their influence is reprehensive. But the issue as it
has been used is just a red herring. Our "International
Coordinator" writes that I "would like to publicize the AFL-
CIO role as much as possible and appeal for money for you
(Kirill) and RLR... I just need some ammunition on my side
to counter any attacks." The AFL-CIO had absolutely nothing
to do with the reason why RLR left KAS-KOR. We also doubt
this was a big reason that KAS-KOR finally split.
(Kagarlitsky apparently shares this view.) We know that
there were problems there, that Boris and Kirill weren't
speaking to each other for two months, etc.. The reason
obstensibly for the cold war there was because they felt
Kirill wasn't doing his share of the work. The main reason
of course that we doubt that the AFL-CIO's money caused
Kirill to leave is because he was the one to ask for it. The
AFL-CIO has given KAS-KOR money for four years for different
projects.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It is not clear to anyone, except Kirill and Renfrey, that
ASTI (the remaining two members of KAS-KOR) is under any
more control from the AFL than KAS-KOR used to be. Instead
we think the whole thing is a pretense being used to sucker
certain people into giving more money for the "labour
movement".
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Maybe Buketov and Clarke are right when predicting that ASTI
(the remaining three members of KAS-KOR) will be under more
control from the AFL-CIO than KAS-KOR used to be, but,
firstly, this should be proved by their future practice,
secondly, the financial relations between KAS-KOR and AFL-
CIO were laid down long time ago when Andrei Isayev was
still the director of KAS-KOR.
#######################################################

This brings us to a point raised by Boris Kagarlitsky. He
tells people not to send any money here. We would like to
respond to this by saying that we have indeed seen great
misuse of funds in this country. It is however ironic that
Kagarlitsky gives this advice following being turned down
for a subsidy of $3,000 a month to help tha labour movement.
His proposal was very vague and obviously the person
approached felt it lacked a concretefunction. We wonder if
Boris warns you not to send money to everyone, including
himself, or just not to RLR or to Kirill's planned
"association". We would like to say that nobody should give
money to any organization which will not provide an
accounting for their money. RLR will hopefully be run very
tightly. If we don't know how the money will be controlled,
and if we are not absolutely convinced that the money will
not be divested or otherwise misused, we will leave. We also
will tell people if that happens. (We would like to add that
we had warned people - for example, Alex Chis and Peter
Waterman - previously about making donations to KAS-KOR but
they didn't listen and these donations have been lost.)
Furthermore, we feel that a large scale appeal may be
inappropriate for us at this time. We would like to be self-
sufficient; we realize that this is very hard to do, but we
would eventually like to see RLR support itself on
subscriptions and reader donations. We want to improve the
quality of the journal and distribute it better. We hope
this will help us keep afloat. Of course now we have
problems with computers and printersand this has caused
additional delay in RLR's publication. We want anybody who
is considering helping us to know that they will either see
a completed project or are entitled to have their
contribution back. We realize that people spend their
valuable time working for money and if it is good enough of
them to want to help, we don't want to abuse their trust.

There are several other points which we wish to clear up.
The first point is that we don't agree with the tactic of
using famous names to sell magazine. We believe that if
people are interested enough in buying RLR they are
sophisticated enough to understand that it isn't necessarily
"big names" that ensure the quality of the journal. We do
intend to publish articles by leading authorities in their
fields, but we want you to know that the journal is
basically produced by people who, though they might lack
fame abroad, are commited to the political struggle of
workers. We also would like you to consider the fact that
different people have different reputations here and abroad;
a name which may not be known in the West may have
considerable authority here and a name with considerable
authority in the West is often less well regarded here.

Finally we would like to respond to anticipated charges of
"sectarianism". The three of us and Alexander Tarasov, whose
name is usually used in connection with ours, have different
political views, ranging from individualism to anarcho-
syndicalism to Marxism. Yet we share a common project (if
not the common language in which the project can find
expression). We want RLR to be a more broadly based project
and if we want somebody to work on it, it isn't because of
"personal" reasons (as Kirill writes) or sectarian politics,
but because of lived experiences with these people that
either leads us to believe that they will spoil the project
or because they have done something directly detrimental to
workers whose struggles we would hope to promote. Thus
Andrei Isayev won't be able to take active part in our group
because he harassed many of his (former) employees at the
paper "Solidarnost" and when workers felt they might lose
their jobs unjustly (as they proposed to introduce a
contract system which wouldn't offer workers the job
security they had had) tried to form a union, Isayev refused
to deal with them and went as far as to threaten them with
lock-out. Now he claims that Tarasov, Tsovma and Tupikin
(who were employed there) left for "personal reasons" but he
is a liar (and a bureaucrat), and documents can be provided
that show his statements are false . This country has
suffered too long with people pretending to be fighting for
the rights of workers so as to amke a political career. We
hope you can understand that we ourselves are workers, not
professional politicians, whom we have no essential trust
in. None of us wants our project to be taken over or
influenced by any party, any professional politicians or any
dubious characters.

This letter has been prepared by members of RLR who would
have otherwise gone unheard from. It has not been approved
by the entire collective; other people have spoken on RLR's
behalf on their own initiative, so we feel we are entitled
to do the same. Furthermore, we feel that certain facts have
been manipulated, ignored or changed as people obviously
think this makes for better fundraising. We'd rather go
bankrupt than raise funds on a fraudulent premise. Finally
we have also been miisrepresented a number of times, the
most offensive being the claim (by Kirill) that Akai and
Tsovma are not interested in labour movement and by Renfrey
that most of the former KAS-KOR activists support Kirill's
position. (See "Dear Friend"). As far as we know, Renfrey is
the only one.

We hope that all these things will work themselves out. WE
are looking forward to giving you news on the situation in
this country and on doing this witha much more clear
political perspective. More importantly, we are looking
forward to creating a new publication for workers here and a
couple of us will no doubt be active in a new "Confederation
of Labour". We hope that you will like the contents of issue
no.3 of RLR and are looking forward to any comments you
might have on it.

In Solidarity,

Laure Akai
Mikhail Tsovma
Vlad Tupikin




