Soviet Congress Sees a Fine Economic Mess, but There Agreement Ends

The discussion of economic matters at the Congress of People’s Deputies proceeds amid disquieting signs: In some regions of the country, tea and detergents are being rationed, and people are sporadically hoarding certain goods that have never been in short supply before. On the whole, the consumer-market situation shows more and more signs of disequilibrium. According to expert estimates, only 20% of each ruble in circulation is actually backed with goods--and the excess of money over goods keeps growing.

It is clear that the discussion of economic affairs at the Congress mirrors the current situation, the more so since, due to live television coverage, virtually the entire population is taking part in the debate. This is vividly confirmed by opinion polls. For instance, we hear demands that the Congress discuss the so-called Popov Report on measures to accelerate economic reform, put forward by a group of Moscow deputies. In much the same manner, all proposals made at the Congress evoke instantaneous response. This is particularly true of suggestions containing radical and extraordinary elements, although they often propose diametrically opposite things.

However, all are unanimous in the opinion that, so far, the economic reform has not produced any tangible results, and that the current critical situation should not be allowed to last long.

Objectively speaking, two polar approaches prompt themselves: Either we recognize that the reform is a flop and move backward to the administrative system or admit that the reform was only partial and make a dramatic step forward in effecting it. We know that in principle the second option has been chosen. At the current Congress, there are no people who want perestroika processes to be curbed, at least no one has said so. In this respect the debates at the Congress mirror rather accurately the prevailing sentiments in society, a majority of which stands for change.

There is no shortage of critical statements and remarks, and nothing is off-limits for deputies. The problem is to make the proposed program constructive and realistic. There is broad agreement that “holes” in the budget should be patched, notably through cutting military expenditures, freezing large numbers of unfinished construction projects in industry (their value is 150 billion rubles, which is more than enough to offset the budget deficit) and slashing administrative costs. Finally, it is important that we find a way to end enormous losses in the agrarian sector (grain losses alone are equal to our grain imports, for which we have to pay in hard currency). Conflicting viewpoints are expressed only on the funding of space projects.

It is also very well understood where additional funds should be channeled: pensions, education and public health and, finally, importation of consumer goods that are in short supply.

The most difficult question is how all this should be done. We have been speaking about unprofitable and wasteful projects “of the century” for quite some time. Some of them already have been frozen. Yet suddenly, in the years of perestroika, there has emerged another “great” plan, a plan to build a gas processing complex in western Siberia (according to preliminary estimates, it will cost 41 billion rubles, although some say the costs may go up to 100 billion). In other words, the old economic system is still here.

However, views of the deputies differ precisely on this point: They offer various recipes for curbing the “command-and-administer” system of economic management. Speaking in simple terms, one can discern two tendencies. One is toward putting market mechanisms in operation without delay and making them work, the other is toward using the same old command measures to get out of the crisis (“desperate diseases must have desperate remedies”). Although the latter proved its inefficiency, say, during Khrushchev’s “thaw,” there are still illusions on this score reflecting a nostalgic feeling for a “hand of iron.” It should be said that such illusions persist in certain strata of society and make themselves felt in some remarks at the Congress. In this sense the mirror of the economic debate is doing its job fairly well.

Well, thank God, we’re witnessing the pluralism of opinion. Outward, deceptive unanimity is much worse, as we know from the recent history of our country.

However, for all its accuracy in reflecting images, the mirror has one deceptive trait: It turns the image from right to left, making it difficult, say, to read texts.

It has been a custom in Soviet public life for a rather long time to describe as “leftists” those who were undoubtedly considered “rightists” several decades ago--advocates of commodity-money relations, a traditional parliamentary system and so forth. Whereas “rightists,” in modern parlance, are those who favor an authoritarian economy, pay leveling and so on. But then, with a certain amount of experience one can make out who’s who. The difficult thing is to read the text the right way.

Odd as it may seem, it is deputies representing trade unions (fortunately not all trade union deputies) who advocate all kinds of wage “ceilings,” oppose the right of workers to choose jobs where pay is higher (more often than not the cases in point are in the new cooperatives) and favor the preservation of various control mechanisms in the economy.

Of course, one should not be surprised: For too long a time the official trade union movement was a driving belt of the state and perestroika proceeds with difficulty in it. Besides, deputies from trade unions were chosen in a multistage procedure, not by direct voting of rank-and-file members. But let us hope that time will finally sort things out.

Meanwhile, the heated debates at the Congress focus on ways of preventing the economic ship from hitting the rocks. But the distance to the rocks is perilously short.