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 !"
<that's ready to take power> 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.
 
***************************************************************
**
 

