To Friends of Russian Labour Review In the past two weeks there has been a lot of correspondence circulating concerning Russian Labour Review. Most of the correspondence has been written by representatives (self proclaimed or otherwise) of the production group, but the opinions of the people not even directly involved in the editorial process have also been heard. It is very significant that the opinion of the majority of the people who have worked on the journal has not been heard, and really hasn't been asked. It is especially significant since relationships like this were the main reason that Russian Labour Review left KAS-KOR. The reason that Russian Labour Review is no longer produced by KAS-KOR should go on record. Russian Labour Review originally was conceived as a project of KAS-KOR. As those who cenceived of the project could not produce it themselves, Vlad Tupikin and Mikhail Tsovma were hired to produce the magazine. So KAS-KOR, owning the means of production (computer equipment) and possessing the capital to launch the project became the publishers, but not the producers of RLR. Tupikin and Tsovma were not allowed to take part in the collective decision making process, despite repeated requests. This effectively meant that they were totally unaware of the financial situation of RLR and were not allowed to make decisions on budgetary matters. (A third worker at RLR, Akai, later found out about considerable donations made to RLR at a time when KAS-KOR was claming to be bankrupt and threatening to suspend RLR's publication.) Foreign representation was appointed by Kirill Buketov without the knowledge or consent of the rest - one example of how RLR worked. So needless to say, there was a keen awareness that there was no democracy in KAS-KOR - certainly no workers' control - and that two people (Boris Kravchenko and Kirill Buketov) were on the editorial board of the RLR, used the project to enhance their political prestige, (the benefits of which ae obvious) but actually contributed very little to nothing to the work process. Furthermore, other people who were highly interested in the project or had contributed a lot of their time and energy to it, were not included in the editorial group. (This includes Laure Akai, Renfrey Clarke, Alexander Tarasov and others.) The idea of course came up that RLR might very well be produced on a more democratic basis if it were not produced by KAS-KOR. This decision to be independent was not of a personal nature, but of a very political one. For us, being able to control the product of one's labour is the fundamental goal of workers' struggle. It was particularly painful to realize that KAS-KOR, in respect to its employees, functioned more like a capitalist business (albeit a poorely run one) than a project in which all workers participated equally. Of course one thing that moved the publication finally in that direction was the fact that KAS-KOR closed down a Russian language publication which Tupikin and Tsovma had helped to organize and had threatened to close down RLR, for lack of funds. It is important to note at this time that KAS-KOR "lost" US$32,000 in funds on a bad investment project. From what we know, the decision to make this investment was made solely by Kirill Buketov and Edward Vokhmin; Boris Kravchenko was in Paris and Kostya Sumnitelny was opposed. The workers of RLR didn't know about it at the time, but had they had a voice in the decision making process, they would have earmarked a few thousand for RLR and the now defunct, Russian language "Workers' Action". 5,000 would have sustained both for a year. Some people now try to excuse this atrocious misuse of funds by claiming that they were trying to protect their "buying power". This is not quite right. The dollar lost very little value against the rouble and most high priced goods are priced in dollars, so that value remains constant. The small loss in buying power could have easily been ofset by just KEEPING THE MONEY IN THE BANK, where normally interest rates on hard currency accounts are around 25%. Boris Kagarlitsky writes that "During the months when KAS- KOR crisis developed I've heard a lot about funds, property and very little about politics." We feel that this assessment is correct. We care much more about politics and about a proper collective atmosphere than we do about raising funds and creating a movement in name only. In connection with this we, would like to sever ties with people who we feel are primarily interested in RLR as a feather to stick in their hat, or with people who aren't willing to do any of the shit work. This includes the former boss, Kirill Buketov, whose main contribution to the project has been and continues to be to (mis)represent it. If Kirill is so interested in helping RLR, instead of bilking American left (who really need their money), he should do more to retrieve the $4,000 which KAS-KOR invested with his relatives two month ago and which they now refuse to return. If this money is returned, Boris Kravchenko and Edward Vokhmin have said it should be used for RLR. If this money is returned, RLR doesn't need a big appeal campaign. We'd also like to comment on AFL-CIO. Yes they are in Russia and yes their influence is reprehensive. But the issue as it has been used is just a red herring. Our "International Coordinator" writes that I "would like to publicize the AFL- CIO role as much as possible and appeal for money for you (Kirill) and RLR... I just need some ammunition on my side to counter any attacks." The AFL-CIO had absolutely nothing to do with the reason why RLR left KAS-KOR. We also doubt this was a big reason that KAS-KOR finally split. (Kagarlitsky apparently shares this view.) We know that there were problems there, that Boris and Kirill weren't speaking to each other for two months, etc.. The reason obstensibly for the cold war there was because they felt Kirill wasn't doing his share of the work. The main reason of course that we doubt that the AFL-CIO's money caused Kirill to leave is because he was the one to ask for it. The AFL-CIO has given KAS-KOR money for four years for different projects. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ It is not clear to anyone, except Kirill and Renfrey, that ASTI (the remaining two members of KAS-KOR) is under any more control from the AFL than KAS-KOR used to be. Instead we think the whole thing is a pretense being used to sucker certain people into giving more money for the "labour movement". +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Maybe Buketov and Clarke are right when predicting that ASTI (the remaining three members of KAS-KOR) will be under more control from the AFL-CIO than KAS-KOR used to be, but, firstly, this should be proved by their future practice, secondly, the financial relations between KAS-KOR and AFL- CIO were laid down long time ago when Andrei Isayev was still the director of KAS-KOR. ####################################################### This brings us to a point raised by Boris Kagarlitsky. He tells people not to send any money here. We would like to respond to this by saying that we have indeed seen great misuse of funds in this country. It is however ironic that Kagarlitsky gives this advice following being turned down for a subsidy of $3,000 a month to help tha labour movement. His proposal was very vague and obviously the person approached felt it lacked a concretefunction. We wonder if Boris warns you not to send money to everyone, including himself, or just not to RLR or to Kirill's planned "association". We would like to say that nobody should give money to any organization which will not provide an accounting for their money. RLR will hopefully be run very tightly. If we don't know how the money will be controlled, and if we are not absolutely convinced that the money will not be divested or otherwise misused, we will leave. We also will tell people if that happens. (We would like to add that we had warned people - for example, Alex Chis and Peter Waterman - previously about making donations to KAS-KOR but they didn't listen and these donations have been lost.) Furthermore, we feel that a large scale appeal may be inappropriate for us at this time. We would like to be self- sufficient; we realize that this is very hard to do, but we would eventually like to see RLR support itself on subscriptions and reader donations. We want to improve the quality of the journal and distribute it better. We hope this will help us keep afloat. Of course now we have problems with computers and printersand this has caused additional delay in RLR's publication. We want anybody who is considering helping us to know that they will either see a completed project or are entitled to have their contribution back. We realize that people spend their valuable time working for money and if it is good enough of them to want to help, we don't want to abuse their trust. There are several other points which we wish to clear up. The first point is that we don't agree with the tactic of using famous names to sell magazine. We believe that if people are interested enough in buying RLR they are sophisticated enough to understand that it isn't necessarily "big names" that ensure the quality of the journal. We do intend to publish articles by leading authorities in their fields, but we want you to know that the journal is basically produced by people who, though they might lack fame abroad, are commited to the political struggle of workers. We also would like you to consider the fact that different people have different reputations here and abroad; a name which may not be known in the West may have considerable authority here and a name with considerable authority in the West is often less well regarded here. Finally we would like to respond to anticipated charges of "sectarianism". The three of us and Alexander Tarasov, whose name is usually used in connection with ours, have different political views, ranging from individualism to anarcho- syndicalism to Marxism. Yet we share a common project (if not the common language in which the project can find expression). We want RLR to be a more broadly based project and if we want somebody to work on it, it isn't because of "personal" reasons (as Kirill writes) or sectarian politics, but because of lived experiences with these people that either leads us to believe that they will spoil the project or because they have done something directly detrimental to workers whose struggles we would hope to promote. Thus Andrei Isayev won't be able to take active part in our group because he harassed many of his (former) employees at the paper "Solidarnost" and when workers felt they might lose their jobs unjustly (as they proposed to introduce a contract system which wouldn't offer workers the job security they had had) tried to form a union, Isayev refused to deal with them and went as far as to threaten them with lock-out. Now he claims that Tarasov, Tsovma and Tupikin (who were employed there) left for "personal reasons" but he is a liar (and a bureaucrat), and documents can be provided that show his statements are false . This country has suffered too long with people pretending to be fighting for the rights of workers so as to amke a political career. We hope you can understand that we ourselves are workers, not professional politicians, whom we have no essential trust in. None of us wants our project to be taken over or influenced by any party, any professional politicians or any dubious characters. This letter has been prepared by members of RLR who would have otherwise gone unheard from. It has not been approved by the entire collective; other people have spoken on RLR's behalf on their own initiative, so we feel we are entitled to do the same. Furthermore, we feel that certain facts have been manipulated, ignored or changed as people obviously think this makes for better fundraising. We'd rather go bankrupt than raise funds on a fraudulent premise. Finally we have also been miisrepresented a number of times, the most offensive being the claim (by Kirill) that Akai and Tsovma are not interested in labour movement and by Renfrey that most of the former KAS-KOR activists support Kirill's position. (See "Dear Friend"). As far as we know, Renfrey is the only one. We hope that all these things will work themselves out. WE are looking forward to giving you news on the situation in this country and on doing this witha much more clear political perspective. More importantly, we are looking forward to creating a new publication for workers here and a couple of us will no doubt be active in a new "Confederation of Labour". We hope that you will like the contents of issue no.3 of RLR and are looking forward to any comments you might have on it. In Solidarity, Laure Akai Mikhail Tsovma Vlad Tupikin