1-03-08, 9:21 am

Editor's Note: Vladimir Lakeev is a Deputy (city council member) to the Moscow City Council and 2nd secretary of the Moscow City Committee of CPRF. In this interview, Lakeev discusses the upcoming Russian elections set for March. The interview was conducted last November by John Bachtell, a member of the national board of the Communist Party USA and the organizer of the Communist Party in Illinois.

PA: Could you describe what it’s like out on the campaign trail? What is the response of the people to the campaign? How are you campaigning? I assume there are big rallies and that kind of thing?

Vladimir Lakeev: So far the campaign has shown, to any independent, intellectually astute observer, that there is currently no such thing as a free election in this country. Since Mr. Putin was appointed #1 in the electoral list (he is running on the ticket of the United Russia Party), all the government’s administrative resources, all the power structures and ministries, are being used on behalf of his party’s campaign.

The Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF) has three top candidates: The party’s leader, Gennady Zyuganov, Zhores Alferov, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist, and Nikolay Kharitonov, an expert in agriculture. The United Russia Party has no top 3 – they can only boast of Putin. All their other candidates have been spread evenly throughout all the regions of the Russian Federations. What are the so-called administrative resources they have at their disposal? They include utilization of police and special agents who prevent us from handing out our leaflets, information bulletins, and newspapers on the campaign trail, even though this is against the law. The regime obviously cannot ban such activity or prevent it entirely, but they really try to make it as hard as possible.

In recent days, we have even had to use our immunity as parliamentary deputies and our deputy cards to get our activists released from the police stations where they have been detained for handing out campaign literature.

PA: This was all across the country or in just some cities?

VL: Throughout the entire country.

PA: Zyuganov was saying that you are planning to put out 15 million copies of Pravda (the Communist Party newspaper). Do you think you are going to have a problem getting it out?

VL: I am quite sure that the paper will be able to be distributed, because we put them into mailboxes. Our task is not to give away as many copies of Pravda as possible in the streets, although we do distribute some there to mark our presence. Usually we distribute them by putting the paper into the slots of people’s mailboxes in a direct mailing. We also use commercial structures like courier services to deliver and distribute leaflets and Party literature.


Currently some of the police and militiamen – they are called militia here – are attempting to find fault with our material, saying that it contradicts the law on political parties, that it is against the constitution. They have no right to do this; it is not their prerogative; they are not authorized to do this in any way – especially because all our campaign materials have been screened by the Electoral Committee of the government.

PA: You mention that they are trying to prevent you from getting your message out. Is the mass media part of what is blocking you? Are they more or less blocking your campaign?

VL: Well, according to the Constitution and the electoral law, there are time slots on television and space allotted for paid ads in newspapers, where we can publish or give our message through the media. However, it is really staggering that the United Russia Party has refused to take part in any political debates on television. I suppose one of the reasons is that they really have nothing to say, no program, nothing to present. Also, according to recent legislation when you speak on television or radio, you cannot criticize your political opponents, you can only talk about your own program!

PA: Comrade Zyuganov also mentioned in one of his speeches that you have held mass rallies of 20-30,000 people. Is that usual across the country now?

VL: That it is true. We have had quite a few mass public rallies, for instance in Krasnodar in the south of Russia and some other regions, and in Moscow we had a huge rally.

But continuing with the issue of the infamous misuse of government administrative resources in the electoral process, we have these so-called “special documents,” where people can declare they cannot vote in person, because they will be away from home on the actual day of the elections. These special documents allow someone to cast his or her ballot not in their own community, but elsewhere, wherever it is convenient for them. It is something like an absentee ballot, but you actually go to the polls. However, in some of the government structures, like schools and police departments, employees are forced to take an absentee ballot, they are simply made to do it, and then they are told to go to a particular locality to cast it, according to the order of the administration. In this way they are obviously controlling the outcome of the voting.

PA: In the United States, there are sometimes absentee ballots for dead people.

VL: Dead souls! We also have quite a few dead people on the electoral lists. We believe that the elections in rural areas will be rigged for the most part.

PA: What is the composition of the current state and federal Dumas. Who holds power at the mayoralty level in Russia’s towns and cities? How many seats does the Party have? What is the total number of CPRF deputies?

VL: The State Duma has about 450 deputies, which is the federal Lower House, and there the CPRF has 50 seats. The Moscow State Duma has 35 deputies, 4 of whom are Communists. There has been an interesting trend recently…. We are finding in larger and medium-sized cities, among people who are more affluent and educated – people who have brains and can put two and two together – that they are now tending to vote Communist, but in smaller towns and rural areas, where the population tends to be somewhat backward, they vote for United Russia or for the radically nationalistic Liberal Democratic Party headed by Vladimir Zhirinovsky. Unfortunately, people who are not well-educated or well-versed in politics, become victims of the social demagoguery of either United Russia or political clowns like Zhirinovsky.

PA: Beyond these elections, and beyond the work in the electoral field, what are the major issues facing the population now? How are you organizing people to defend their interests?

VL: One of the major problems we face is the incredible social stratification in Russia today. In the Russian Federation, the incomes of the richest 10 percent of the population are now on average 43 times higher than those of the poorest 10 percent. In Soviet times, the ratio was 4 times higher for the wealthiest 10 percent. In Western Europe, on the other hand, the gap between richest and poorest stands at between six and 10. The second problem is that the people have lost all the social advantages they used to have, like free medicine and healthcare, free education and housing. Number three is the complete collapse of agriculture and the loss of the country’s food independence. And lastly we have the obviously abnormal development of the national economy, which is now based primarily on fuel, on the extraction and export of oil and gas. Because of this, new high tech or science-oriented industries are not being developed, and the country is consequently going backwards.

In terms of foreign policy, of course, the prestige of the country is quite low, and the former friendly ties with traditional allies like Cuba and China have been broken. The disintegration of the Soviet Union was also responsible for the disintegration of the Russian people, of the nation, which is now split, so that tens of millions of Russians, ethnic Russians, live outside the borders of Russia and are quite often the subject of discrimination.

The overwhelming majority of university graduates cannot find a job in their major field of study. The alcoholization of the population is rampant, and today we are second in the world in terms of the number of suicides. Due to all this, this period of so-called reforms, we have lost about 11 million people. Even in Moscow, where people are relatively well off, the mortality rate is higher than the birthrate. Added to this, there is unbelievable graft and corruption among government officials. The government is huge and much more cumbersome today. In terms of the number of officials it is much bigger than it was during the Soviet Union. All the political parties in their manifestoes say that they want to make life better; obviously they don’t say they want to make life worse. For instance, there was until recently a political party called the Party of Life – which is quite attractive – no one in their right mind would call their party the Party of Death. And there’s a party called A Just Russia – who wants an unjust Russia?

We feel it is very important for our party to have political slogans and ideas that won’t be stolen or used by our opponents. First of all, there is the slogan of nationalization. Currently, the public sector is only 10 percent of the entire national economy. No government in the world is able to run or influence economic developments in such a situation. The recent food crisis, which was caused by price hikes in a variety of staples, has shown just how serious the agricultural crisis really is. The CPRF is demanding the nationalization of all strategic resources and energy deposits, especially our oil and gas fields, as well as transportation pipelines and the distribution of the country’s strategic resources. We also believe that aerospace industry should be in the hands of the government, as well as power stations, the steel industry, and other metal works. We also want to nationalize air transport, the railways, and basic utilities, which are the blood vessels of the economy. We are not calling for the nationalization of retail services, food processing, light industry, or small and medium-sized enterprises. We are not about to nationalize them. We also believe that it is in the interest of the public to have government-enforced price controls, especially on medicines and gasoline, because, obviously, higher gas prices lead to an overall increase in the price of goods. We want controls on the price of electric power and on basic food staples such as bread. Most of these proposals have been tabled in the State Duma, but the ruling party has blocked them.

Regarding the so-called Civilization Fund, the $500 billion dollars that is deposited overseas in US banks, we believe these funds should instead be channeled into the development of new industry and to help solve social problems. We want to develop free housing, especially for young people. Now mortgages are accessible to only 10 percent of the population. We are proposing a 5 percent mortgage for young families: When the first child is born, 25 percent will be written off, 50 percent when the second child is born, and with the third child the entire loan will be written off.

PA: Some say that Putin is stealing some of your ideas and implementing them in an effort to undercut your campaign.

VL: Well, yes, they do that sometimes, but one thing they don’t dare to steal from us, or use, is nationalization, because this is our “brand.” They are not going to use this idea because they are afraid of it. Putin himself has repeatedly said there will be no redistribution of property. This is because the powers-that-be believe that nationalization and redistribution of property could lead to social conflicts and unrest, even to civil war. Our position is directly opposite to theirs, because we believe it is the present social discrepancies that could lead to unrest and social conflict, even armed conflict. Another slogan which will never be stolen from us is our call for the restoration of a union of states on a voluntary basis – including Russia, Ukraine, Byelorussia, and possibly Kazakhstan. Another is our call for the elimination of the Presidency, basic changes in the Constitution, and a transfer of power to the Soviets.

I have been a deputy for some time now, and I understand the difference between the separation of powers, so called, and the main principle of Soviet power, which is that the legislative and executive bodies are basically part of the same political structure. In the Soviet era, the State Soviets would pass legislation, and then the executive committees of the same Soviets would put the legislation into practice. Therefore, before passing any legislation, the deputies would carefully consider how they intended to translate this legislation into reality. Now deputies don’t have to think about that – they don’t give a damn actually, because while they pass the laws, someone else has to implement them. There are quite a few laws today which simply don’t work. For instance recently, because it had grown so out of hand, drinking beer in the street was banned – but still everybody continues to drink in the streets. In our capital, which numbers 10 million people, only 300 people have been detained or fined for drinking beer in public – 300. That is why the slogan of eliminating the Presidency, as such, and reinstating the Soviets, will never be used by anyone else.

PA: Are there other parties or forces which you could work with, even if only on some issues?

VL: The recent electoral law does not allow the formation of electoral blocs or coalitions. Because we do not face this dilemma, since we are prevented from joining ranks with anyone, we went on our own. Among the deputies, there are people who are quite close to us in the their political views, in A Just Russia, for instance, and in the party called Patriotic Russia – not the leaders of course. Sergei Mironov, the chairman of A Just Russia, was handpicked by the government to serve as leader of “the main party for socialism.” Now he even tries to forget this himself. He tries to forget that when he was head of the Council of the Federation in the Upper House, he three times approved and signed into law parliamentary decrees to extend President Putin’s term of office.

We are open to joining forces with smaller left-wing organizations, with youth groups and trade unions, and some other social movements, smaller independent ones which do not play a major role in the electoral campaign. Frankly speaking, we have not so far managed to get along well with the trade unions. Somehow we cannot find a common language. We have not been able to find a common language with the larger trade union organizations. But we have found common ground with a number of relatively smaller unions such as the machinists, the locomotive engineers, and the air traffic controllers.

PA: Why is that? Is it because the trade unions are dominated by Putin’s forces?

VL: The top leadership of the trade unions blindly follows the political course of the government, because the government allows them to be masters of the rich and extensive trade union property. In Soviet times trade unions enjoyed a position of prestige and acquired huge assets. That profit now goes to the top leadership of the unions. This hotel, by the way, belongs to the Moscow Federation of Trade Unions.

PA: What role is the Party playing within the trade unions to change them?

VL: Unfortunately, there is no intense struggle within the trade unions. The people who are put forward by the government for the top posts in the so-called Federation of Free Trade Unions of Russia are accepted and approved. We can speak of some struggle at the level of the independent unions. We did try to put forward our own people at trade union congresses, but we would lose by a ratio of seven-to-one. So far it’s a problem. Like in your country as well?

PA: I know you have given a lot of thought to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Maybe you could share with us some of your thinking about why it happened, if you’ve reached some consensus on the major causes of the collapse, and how you see socialism being different in the future?

VL: We have given a lot of thought to this. After the Great October Revolution, the people were pioneers, but they were sailing in uncharted waters, and as a result there were gross errors and miscalculations. After that came the arms race which obviously sapped the economy. Another major problem was that there were a number of newer socialist states that were politically and economically weak and required a lot of assistance from us.

There were also very obvious efforts to win over or buy off top Soviet leaders. The special services of the West were very active in the Soviet Union trying to form a fifth column and spheres of influence. But no external reasons were really that important or play such a significant a role. The main errors were in domestic political and economic policy. First of all, the so-called “shadow economy,” an underground, under-the-carpet economy, began to take shape. At this point, criminal bourgeois elements succeeded in corrupting part of the governmental apparatus, forming liaisons and creating structures with, I repeat, a portion of the government. In this way they were creating the organization and the cadre, the personnel for a counter-revolution.

Quite a few serious mistakes were committed during the development of the Party. Most of the people who then joined the Party did it not because they were committed, but because they were loyal, simply loyal, and because they wanted to have a career. Obviously, major ministerial posts should go to members of the Party, but it went to extremes. Even in smaller units like laboratories or collective farms – and in structures even smaller than these, the organization had to be headed by members of the Party. So people who otherwise would not have been communist decided to become members of the Communist Party. The membership of the Party in 1990-91 was 19 million; now we have 200,000 members. Today the core of these are staunch, committed Communists who were formerly in the CPSU (Communist Party of the Soviet Union).

In Soviet times, the process of renewal and regeneration in the Party was very slow, and physically debilitated, ill people for decades occupied key posts. This obviously had a negative affect on the development of science, for instance, and prevented the country from achieving major breakthroughs in the scientific field. I also believe that the Party committed quite a few errors in its relationship with the intelligentsia. Freedom of expression was limited, even when it wasn’t connected in any way with anti-Soviet and anti-Communist attitudes. The Party tried to give orders to intellectuals. Another major development that occurred in Soviet times was that there were quite a few capable scientists and scholars who didn’t receive a reasonable reward for their efforts. But they had plenty of free time, and they used that time to criticize the political and economic situation. Thus they became the mass base for a counter-revolution. Today, however, a major part of the intellectuals in this category supports the CPRF, although in the past they played a negative role.

PA: I was really impressed with the concert the other night and the number of very famous artists that are gathering around the Party again.

VL: Well, I wouldn’t exaggerate the process. The majority of the most popular and talented cultural figures still support the regime. Not for ideological reasons, of course, because you cannot ideologically support those who don’t have an ideology. It’s for practical reasons – they get paid.

Another mistake we made during the Soviet period was that we failed to provide democracy throughout the country on a large scale. The command administrative measures, which worked in the 1930's and 1940's during the war, were maintained, but they no longer worked in the 1970's and 1980's. We were unable to harmonize consumption and production, because often workers did not realize – they did simply did not know – what the ratio was between the concrete effort involved in their labor and the money they received as wages. It is difficult to say what the single main reason was, but I believe that if there had been more democracy and more creativity, this would have helped provide a more steady, sustained development. This includes democracy within the Party obviously. In the 1920's, you know, Grigory Zinoviev, one of the Bolshevik leaders, spoke quite seriously about forming a two-party system. He thought that in one, single party, hostile elements, that is, hostile to the spirit of the party, would band together, and eventually, because they had no vent for their feelings, emotions and ideas, this would lead to profoundly negative transformations in the party. We now can see that he was right to a certain degree. So there was an historical opportunity after the Revolution to have a two-party system comprised of the Bolsheviks and the Left-Socialist Revolutionaries. Lenin wasn’t against it. For him it was quite normal that there should be two parties within the framework of the system of the Soviets. He was quite calm about the divergences between these two groups. Unfortunately, in July 1918 the Socialist Revolutionaries attempted a coup, which was aborted, and the country then became a one-party state.

When we come to power – and we will – if we start banning all other media or introduce limitations on freedom, acting like it was then, we would end up with another edition of perestroika, a newer and even worse edition. It is not by means of rigid enforcement or administrative measures that we can increase our attractiveness and reach out to people, so that we can make a difference, and make the CPRF a party with a really huge following and political authority. We certainly believe that we will be able to achieve this, and that this will be achieved not only in this country but elsewhere as well. We are really encouraged by the achievements and the progress left-wing forces are making in the Western Hemisphere. Che Guevara was murdered in Bolivia, and now we have a democratically elected left-wing president in that country – Brazil, too, to a certain degree and Venezuela, of course.

PA: Everything you have described is very impressive and exciting, but I am curious about the kind of reaction you are getting, and if it is being in reflected in growth in the Party, especially among young people. How are youth responding to your ideas?

VL: Beginning with your last question, we make a big effort to reach out. We come out and we meet with people at rallies and other events, and we try to distribute our literature. Our voters are mostly in the 40-60 age group. Not all the veterans support the Party. Today the youth, both in rural areas and among industrial workers, are largely apolitical. In the universities, especially where the student body is more democratic, places where not only the children of rich parents study, the students are starting to listen to us, and some are joining and doing something. I know this from my own experience, because I have addressed quite a few student bodies. I hope that in time young people will understand the most important thing, that only socialism can provide equal opportunities for people. Today the government talks about the possibilities that exist and that young all have the same opportunities. But the potential is obviously different for the children of millionaires and the offspring of semi-paupers. I think that in the United States and Russia, young people are becoming interested in the possibility of a socialist transformation of society. But there is a subjective factor at work here. How long will it actually take for them to come to grips with the problem, to acquire an understanding of what kind of country they want to live in in the future? Nowadays, quite a few young people think about the Soviet past as a kind of beautiful legend, a fairy tale about a powerful, mighty state that enjoyed respect and had a commanding presence in the world. They really look forward to one day living in a powerful country like the Soviet Union once was. The government obviously uses these trends in their propaganda and in their rhetoric, but their words are far different from reality, and young people can see through it.