The left's verdict on the USSR: was August 1991 a capitalist counter-
revolution against a workers' state?
Submitted on 25 April, 2007 - 16:06
* Marxism and Stalinism
* Ex-USSR
Marxism and Stalinism
The left's verdict on the USSR: was August 1991 a capitalist counter-
revolution against a workers' state?
By Martin Thomas
In the new Workers' Liberty magazine [no.16], a wide range of
socialists offer their responses to the collapse of the USSR. This
article by Martin Thomas surveys the responses from a narrower
spectrum of the left, the Trotskyists.
Leon Trotsky. right up to his death in 1940, reckoned that the USSR
was a "degenerated workers' state". Some Trotskyists - the Alliance
for Workers' Liberty and others - believe that events since 1940 have
shown that the Stalinist states have been class systems of
exploitation parallel, not superior, to capitalism. Most Trotskyists,
however, continued to apply the description "degenerated workers'
state" to the USSR, and extended it, calling China, Eastern Europe,
and so on, "deformed workers' states".
After the attempted Moscow coup of 19-21 August, some of these
Trotskyists frankly recognised that their theories must be re*****sed.
Others so twisted their description of events as to try to make it
appear that there was an emerging mass socialist movement behind
Yeltsin.
As the French socialist weekly Rouge put it (12 September), the
attempted coup of 19-21 August 1991 in the USSR posed many questions
for all those Marxists who still considered the USSR to be a
"degenerated workers' state".
We used to believe that from a sharp crisis of these regimes would
arise forces - significant, at least, if not commanding a majority -
capable of opposing the road of a self-managed socialist democracy to
that of capitalist restoration. In fact such currents are marginal
today.
We used to think that in spite of the confiscation of power by a
parasitic bureaucracy, the existence of non-capitalist social
relations arising from the revolution of 1917 represented gains in the
eyes of the workers, who would mobilise to defend them.
In fact, it appears not so at all. Primarily the workers see in their
miserable living standards the expression of a productivity gap which
has widened again between the rich Western countries and the Eastern
bloc.
That does not exclude vigorous movements tomorrow of resistance to the
consequences of privatisation, but as of now the facts are sufficient
to render necessary a critical re-examination of the analysis and of
their consequences for practical activity.
Rouge's first comment on the coup (5 September) had been:
....No nostalgia! No regrets! We will shed no tears for the monstrous
edifice which combined the ferocious dictator****p of a party- state
with the incompetent management of a rigmarole of officious
bureaucrats. For too long we, as revolutionaries, opponents of
Stalinism from the start, have hoped for this collapse...
In the coming turmoil a movement of workers' and people's self-
organisation can begin to develop, trade unions and other groups can
multiply, political pluralism can develop.
Incontestably, all that will take time. A lot of time... the Stalinist
abomination... has destroyed the conquests of October, and the road is
now open to the restoration of capitalism.
The strict logic of the "degenerated workers' state" formula should
imply some sup****t for the coup as the only visible attempt to check
or halt the drive to capitalism. Yet - as far as I know - only one
tiny splinter of the Trotskyist movement drew that conclusion clearly.
The "Bolshevik Tendency" a splinter from the Spartacist League,
*****sed the coup as an attempt by "a section of the rapidly
disintegrating Stalinist bureaucracy... to strike against the
principal forces of capitalist restoration." (Quoted in Workers'
Vanguard 27/09/91).
The Spartacist League itself - a small group, but representing the
fraction of the "Trotskyist" spectrum most fervent about "defending
the workers' states" - remonstrated that the coup programme "comes
down to perestroika minus glasnost: the introduction of the market but
not so fast, and shut up." (Workers' Vanguard 30.8.91).
That *****sment - shared by most of the Trotskyist factions - would
imply opposition to the coup. But in fact the Spartacist League was
distressed at the defeat of the coup.
August 27 - The working people of the Soviet Union, and indeed the
workers of the world, have suffered an unparalleled disaster... Soviet
workers are facing a disaster of catastrophic pro****tions: every gain
for which they, their parents and grandparents sacrificed is on the
chopping block...
As the crowd of yuppies, students and assorted Russian nationalists,
including fascists and priests, gathered at the start of the coup
outside the Russian parliament, Yeltsin's "White House", a call on
Moscow workers to clean out this counter-revolutionary rabble was in
order. Yet the coup plotters did not mobilise the workers...
" (Workers' Vanguard, 30/08/91.)
All other would-be Trotskyist groups - with two bizarre exceptions, as
we shall see - opposed the coup. They then faced a dilemma: didn't
sup****t for the anti-coup movement mean sup****t for a counter-
revolution which was destroying the "workers' state" and replacing it
by capitalism? And why did the "workers' state" have no defenders but
a ragged crew of old Brezhnevite bureaucrats - or maybe not even them,
since most agreed that the coup-makers did not differ fundamentally on
economic policy from Gorbachev?
Some groups evaded this question by flatly asserting that the anti-
coup movement represented the start of a "political revolution" that
would lead not to capitalism but to socialist democracy. Thus the
"Lambertist" French weekly Informations Ouvrieres (21/08/91):
The chaos of the present situation in the USSR marks the bankruptcy of
all those, legatees of the Stalinist bureaucratic system, who have
acted in recent years to dismantle social property and to deliver the
country to the pillage and colonisation of the system of private
property of the means of production. It, is the collapse of all the
factions of the bureaucracy... Gorbachev... Yanayev and Pavlov...
Yeltsin and Shevardnadze...
Through the bankruptcy of those who want to re-establish capitalism,
the dramatic situation in the USSR expresses the bankruptcy of
capitalism itself... (Editorial).
All the layers and factions of the bureaucracy have linked their fate
to the restoration of capitalism. Between the economic programme of
Yeltsin, that of Gorbachev, and that of Yanayev and Pavlov, there is
not enough difference to slide a cigarette paper between them...
[And yet the coup...] The explanation of this apparent paradox lies in
the impossibility in present conditions in the USSR of restoring
anything like capitalism... because the capitalism of 1991 is to the
capitalism of the early l9th century what the old man in agony is to
the robust adolescent. The capitalism of 1830 was the carrier of
industrialisation, that of 1991 only generates de-industrialisation..
[and because on the r
esistance of the workers. (Article by D. Gluckstein).
And after the defeat of the coup (28/08/91)
The conditions [for developing capitalism] are in fact more difficult
today than before the
coup attempt. Through thine openings created by the collapse of the
bureaucratic apparatus, the m***** have begun to surge... A real
workers' revolution is just. beginning... The defence of social
property is merged with the workers' and peasants' fight for survival.
(D. Gluckstein).
Although Informations Ouvrieres welcomed the anti-coup movement so
enthusiastically, it did not specifically oppose the coup. Its issue
of 21 August, which went to press before the collapse of the coup,
expressed no sup****t for resistance to the coup as distinct from
resistance to "the bureaucracy" in general. Its nearest thing to a
positive slogan was: "Against the dismantling of whole industries,
against poverty and famine, for the defence of the workers' rights and
conquests and of social property: one and the same struggle unites the
workers of the world."
The other Trotskyist group which did not come out against the coup was
the British Socialist Action, which refused to make any comment at all
until their irregular magazine appeared in late October or early
November. By then, of course, there was no percentage from any
viewpoint in sup****ting Yanayev and his gang. Socialist Action did not
enthuse about the coup - "an attempt to put the clock back towards the
Brezhnevist past" - but that was basically the same *****sment as the
Bolshevik Tendency, and Socialist Action made it clear that "the
Brezhnevist past" was preferable for them, to a victory of the pro
capitalist democratic movement in the USSR: If the Russian Revolution
were to fall, that is if capitalism were to be restored.. it would
open a period of the most extreme international reaction... any
sectarianism would be unforgivable... to currents emerging from the
old CPSU who want to defend the socialised base of the USSR.
Socialist Action denounced the Filoche minority in the French LCR
(Rouge) [the most enthusiastic about the overthrow of the old USSR
regime] as having "passed out of the political framework of the
working class ", and Ernest Mandel as confused, but praised the
Morning Star ("perspective... entirely correct and justified").
The US Militant had the same view as Informations Ouvrieres, but
combined with opposition to the coup.
"Soviet workers win great victory by defeating coup," it headlined
(06/09/91). Working people in the Soviet Union won a giant victory
when their resistance toppled the August 19 coup.
Class conflicts that will sharpen as the crisis deepens will end up in
the working class organising a political revolution to sweep away the
parasitic social layer that now holds the reins of power in the
workers' state.
As they deepen their resistance they will reach out to struggles
around the world and be influenced by revolutionaries and communists -
from Malcolm X to the leaders of the Cuban revolution."
Other headlines included:
"Protest of coup is example of why workers defend nationalised
property relations." And "Why US imperialism lost the cold war. "
The American group Socialist Action offered a more moderate version of
the same perspective. It quoted Trotsky:
The political prognosis has an alternative character: either the
bureaucracy, becoming ever more the organ of the world bourgeoisie in
the workers' state, will overthrow the new forms of property and
plunge the country back into capitalism, or the working class will
crush the bureaucracy and open the way to socialism.
And it commented:
The political prognosis Trotsky poses is not for the far off future,
but is the stark choice facing the USSR and the Eastern European
countries today.
Socialist Action *****sed the coup attempt as follows:
The difference between the opposed bureaucratic layers was whether it
was possible to continue the process of capitalist restoration by
political/parliamentary means, or whether an iron-fisted dictator****p
was necessary to impose the anti-working class measures necessary to
achieve the same end.
And its defeat:
The mobilisation of the Soviet people in opposition to the coup was
the central reason for its failure... the bourgeois analysts who have
focussed on the alleged "ineptitude" of the plotters as a major cause
of their defeat have widely missed the mark. (Theses on the Soviet
Union, 29/09/91)
The "Morenist" faction - a sizeable force in Latin America, especially
- took a similar line. Its Argentine paper, Solidaridad Socialista,
declared on 23 August that the defeat of the coup was:
A workers' and popular victory which will have big repercussions
around the world favourable to all workers and the oppressed. It shows
once more that when the people mobilise they can impose their will.
Bush, Menem, Yeltsin and Gorbachev all want the restoration of
capitalism, to liquidate the great socialist conquests of the Russian
workers, and to convert the USSR into a kind of big Argentina, with an
economy ruled by the IMF. Therefore they all also want to preserve the
KGB and the oppressive Soviet army.
But the Soviet working class has been strengthened by this great
victory. The miners, for example, who have founded their independent
union and have already organised three big strikes against Gorbachev,
this time went on strike against the putschists.
It is a great revolution on the march, in which the mobilised people
learn day by day. We call on the Soviet workers to destroy the KGB and
the oppressive Soviet state and to govern themselves with their own
organisations - like the miners union, strike committees - and to
sup****t the workers of Europe and all the world to end exploitation
and capitalist imperialist oppression. This is the only way to save
the USSR from imperialist colonisation.
The German fortnightly Sozialistische Zeitung, in contrast, was as
firmly realistic as Rouge, or more so; but most of the "workers'
statists" took a rather evasive middle way. Opposing the coup, they
side-stepped hard questions by side-stepping any clear definition of
current events (was it a capitalist counter-revolution?) and instead
focusing on future possibilities (the current situation indeterminate
in itself, might turn into capitalist counter-revolution or working-
class socialist revolution).
Under the headline, "The people win", Manuel Kellner wrote:
The political position of the putschists had nothing in the least to
do with a 'defence of socialism'. These men of the control centres of
an im****tant part of the old bureaucratic power wanted nothing other
than the market economy, but with the maintenance of the USSR as a
world power and by means of the dictatorial liquidation of all the
democratic rights and freedoms granted and gained since the beginning
of the glasnost era...
The inner disintegration of the members - numbering tens of millions -
of the old ruling apparatus of power and administration made it
possible for the resistance of a few hundred thousand people, at whose
head Boris Yeltsin placed himself, to finish off the spectre in short
time.
Nothing is as before. The fate of the CPSU is sealed... its discredit
complete. From an emancipatory point of view no tears are to be shed
for this political machine for organising careers and politically
expropriating the great majority of the population...
The accelerated disintegration of the USSR and its end as a world
power are irreversible...
Once again the world situation has changed in favour of capital and
the rich western states... When the Tsarist flags waved outside the
Russian White House it had to be clear, if it was not before, that
here too reactionary mass sentiments are spreading... (29/08/91)
Do bad perspectives threaten? In spite of all that, through the latest
events the democratic free. space and the possibilities for free
political self-activity for the people of the Soviet Union have become
lastingly greater, and that is essential in view of all the
difficulties that they will be facing. (Article by E. Laurent)
As to the basic questions about the nature of the old Stalinist
system, however, Sozialistische Zeitung offered only cryptic comment:
Economic historians may in more peaceful times, nostalgically sipping
a glass of Gorbachev vodka, have out the argument about what it once
was: the economy of a deformed workers state, that of a non-capitalist
society sui generis, or a state-capitalist society. And the question
of the character of the rulers of this country - caste, class, "new
bourgeoisie " - is secondary today. In the light of concrete events it
seems to me proven that the Soviet economy after the military putsch
is moving into a breathtakingly fast process of transformation, at the
end of which lies a private capitalist society of the type of the
Third World countries... (Article by W. Wolf).
Most Trotskyist publications took a rather evasive middle way: on the
one hand Yeltsin's triumph created dangers, on the other hand there
are new possibilities for progress.
Thus Socialist Outlook:
The defeat of the attempted Stalinist coup is a tremendous victory for
the workers throughout the Soviet Union. If the coup had been
successful, the democratic gains won during the years of glasnost
would have been savagely eiiminated.
The coup finally crumbled because of divisions within the army and KGB
leader****p. These divisions were in part a product of the defiance by
politicians like Yeltsin, but above all because of the mass
mobilisations to defend democracy
Perhaps the workers' mobilisations were not large enough to be
absolutely decisive; but they showed what would have been necessary to
make the coup stick - mass slaughter, new rebellions, probably civil
war. All that was too much to stomach for more far-sighted leaders of
the army high command.
The defeat of the plotters creates a massive potential for deepening
democracy and advancing working class interests. But there are
formidable obstacles to realising that potential. (14/09/91)
And the Fourth Internationalist Tendency (USA):
The defeat of the coup was a genuine victory for the Soviet peoples.
The active intervention of the m***** in this situation creates
im****tant op****tunities for the forces of democracy and socialism..
Those who favour an all-out restoration of capitalism will obviously
be strengthened and emboldened. To the extent that "economic reforms"
are advanced at the expense of the m*****, however, elements among the
working class can be expected to utilise any and all democratic
freedoms to struggle for defence of their economic interests and the
rights won in 1917. Mass action against the anti-democratic coup may
pave the way for mass actions in the direction of 8cauine socialism.
(08/09/91)
And Workers' Press:
1) The coup was the last stroke of Stalinism, dying and in agony. We
must definitely finish off the remnants of the totalitarian regime.
Demand the KGB be disbanded!
....4) The coup was put down, in the end by the actions of the ordinary
people - massive demonstrations and strikes. We must not allow forces
that are against the people to profit from the fruits of the people's
victory.
Today, the leading 'democrats' proclaim themselves sole 'victors over
dictator****p'. They think the nation has accepted in advance their
policies, including wide-spread privatisation, anti-trade union laws,
etc. But this policy leads to massive unemployment, hyperinflation,
and in the end, to a new dictator****p... (07/09/91)
The implications?
Trotsky's definition of this state was that potentially it can be used
by the workers: this because the nationalised property is a great
gain. He speaks of the bureaucracy protecting the state structure with
its own methods - but now we can't speak of this any more
It is attacking the structure relentlessly Now we are in a
transitional period The workers' state is not liquidated: a bourgeois
state has not yet taken its place. (Workers' Press, 14.9.91)
Workers' Power put more stress on the dangers, while still allowing
its instincts to outweigh its theory and bring it out against the
coup.
Yeltsin's seizure of power, depicted as a second "revolution" in the
western media, is nothing more than a pro-capitalist counter coup.
This opens up an enormous op****tunity for capitalism.
No one should mourn Stalinism's inglorious death. It was a system
doomed in the historic short term. Not even a successful and bloody
coup could have saved it in the long run.
But no one should he jumping for joy at the rise to power of a
Thatcherite, Russian chauvinist...
We must defend what is left of the social gains ushered in by the
October Revolution 1917.At the same time it means being the most
resolute fighters for the real democratic rights of the m*****, even
where the m***** have illusions in the form of the parliamentary
"democracy " used to con us in the west into endorsing the rule of the
profiteers. (September 1991)
The British Militant and the French weekly Lutte Ouvriere clearly
registered facts which shattered the idea that the old USSR was a
"workers' state".
Yet they combined their *****sment of the lack of any live working-
class element in the Stalinist "workers' state" with a refusal to
reconsider the "workers' state" formula.
Thus Militant:
Leon Trotsky warned half a century ago of the tendencies towards
capitalist restoration among these parasites who had usurped the
political rule of the working people. What restrained them was fear of
the workers' commitment to the principles of the planned economy.
But that was a mere generation on from the October socialist
revolution. Today, 50 more years of ac***ulated resentment of the
privileged bureaucrats and the dead stop to which they have brought
the Soviet economy have for now undermined that commitment among the
majority of the working class.
19-21 August marked a decisive turn towards capitalism:
The collapse of the 60-hour coup represents a decisive turn for the
Soviet Union. It will have a decisive effect in Eastern Europe,
hastening the move to the market.
It will have a decisive impact on world relations, confirming US
imperialism's current dominant world position. (30.8.91)
Militant had no illusion that a revolution for socialist democracy was
underway: it proposed as an immediate perspective, not the "political
revolution" but only the building of "a genuine workers' party".
Nevertheless it welcomed the defeat of the coup.
Lutte Ouvriere's leaflet on 19 August declared:
The putschists... to go by their first statements, have intervened to
save the USSR which is weakened and threatened with dismantlement by
centrifugal forces... The installation of a military-police regime in
the USSR would weigh heavily on the soviet workers, who could be once
again muzzled for years...
But the soviet workers could seize the op****tunity to intervene in the
current test of force, by opposing the coup on their own account, on
condition that they do not put themselves at the tail of people like
Yeltsin, who is as much an enemy of the working cl***** as the
military and KGB men.
This outcome is, unfortunately, not the most likely one, because since
the beginning of perestroika we have not seen the workers taking
advantage of the measures of political liberalisation to create their
own political organisations, and it is never easy to improvise...
We can only hope that the soviet working class surprise us...
On 23 August Lutte Ouvriere noted:
....There is the common affirmation, made (albeit with nuances) by the
majority if not all the currents expressing themselves at the top of
the bureaucracy, of the necessity of a return to the capitalist
market. But none of them, whether they call themselves 'democrats' or
not, really dare think or say that this capitalist restoration can be
done peacefully, without the aid of a strong or even dictatorial
government.
Then on 30 August it hedged its bets further:
The reiterated affirmation of the necessity of going fast along the
road of reforms and the re-establishment of the market is witness to
the complexity of the problems. Now [i.e. after the coup's collapse]
the enormity of the economic and social problems is going to appear
more cruelly...
This social phenomenon which is the USSR, both the outcome of the
first workers' revolution and deformed by the Stalinist degeneration,
remains a problem without precedent and its future may well give rise
to a situation as unprecedented as its past has been...
As things stand, the victors are the bourgeois politicians like
Yeltsin, who call themselves democrats just long enough to get
themselves power, but who base themselves on the same kind of men as
the putschists in the army and police... Clearly, we are far from a
revolutionary situation favourable to the workers in the USSR today...
For those Trotskyist groups which had already rejected the "workers'
state" formula, and concluded that the USSR was a variant of state
capitalism, or a formation parallel to capitalism, there was no
difficulty in principle about recognising the Yeltsinite anti-coup
movement as bourgeois and yet welcoming it, as (for now) bourgeois-
democratic. The Solidarity group in the USA (which includes some
"workers' statists", but in its majority reckoned the USSR to be
neither a workers' state nor capitalist) declared:
The destruction of the power of the Communist Party is all to the
good. Now what will replace it? What we are saying is that we see not
one, but two processes underway in the USSR, both dramatically
accelerated by the attempted Stalinist coup and its failure. One is
the process of democracy, initiated 'from above' by Gorbachev and now
open to the m***** to expand from below. The other is the attempt to
'marketise' the economy from above and from outside. This would
inevitably create a capitalism with enormous inequalities, prosperity
alongside incredible misery and huge indebtedness to western banks. In
other words, it would be the kind of capitalism that exists in Brazil,
not western Europe.
We see these two processes as being on a collision course - not
immediately, but perhaps in the not too distant future.
Socialist Worker had long rejected the "workers' state" formula. Yet
its response was curiously confused - partly, it seems, because of its
habitual indifference to questions of political democracy, and partly
because of its habitual glorification of militancy of any sort.
Socialist Worker proved unable to sup****t the anti-coup movement
without painting it up in the manner of Informations Ouvrieres: the
movement was, Socialist Worker suggested, quasi-socialist, or at least
likely to become socialist if it became more intense.
The fight against the coup is part of the fight for a new society,
quite different to either Stalinist state capitalism or the market
reforms of Gorbachev and Yeltsin.
That is why every genuine socialist must hope workers and soldiers
heed the call to take action against the coup, but then carry through
action in a decisive manner that goes much further than Yeltsin and
Gorbachev - or their fans in Western governments - would ever desire.
And, alone with the "Bolshevik Tendency" (but attaching an opposite
value), Socialist Worker described the coup as a serious attempt to
restore the old order in the USSR.
The coup leaders, it declared (23 August), are the living embodiment
of the Stalinist regime that screwed workers' living standards for the
last 60 years while the rulers lived in luxury.
Whatever they say, the coup leaders want a return to those days.
Socialist Organiser issued a leaflet on 19 August against the coup:
Any claim that the new regime defends 'communism' or 'socialism' is a
sham. In reality it is almost certain to continue Gorbachev's course
of converting to capitalist market economics and reintegrating the
USSR into world trade; on1y it will seek stronger, more brutal control
over the working class and the oppressed nationalities during the
process.
Even if the new regime should restore more centralised control over
the Soviet economy, that would never 'justify' suppressing and
cru****ng of the working class. Exploitation of the working class by a
privileged bureaucracy through a centralised command economy is in no
way an improvement on capitalism, or a step towards a democratically-
run cooperative commonwealth.
Socialists in the West should sup****t the small minorities in the USSR
who fight for socialist democracy - such as the Socialist Party led by
Boris Kagarlitsky - but also fight for freedom for the whole working
class and the whole Soviet people, including those many who now have
illusions about capitalist market economics, to think, to debate, to
organise, and to work out their own future.
The Soviet working class, the new trade unions, and the oppressed
nationalities, will resist the new regime. Western socialists should
sup****t the resistance...
In a broadsheet dated 20 August Socialist Organiser commented:
If the neo-Stalinist, quasi fascist backlash now triggers a deep
popular revolution, it may not end quite as Yeltsin and the Russian
neo-bourgeoisie want.
Socialists in Britain must give their unqualified sup****t to the
resistance to the neo-Stalinist dictator****p. Long live the Russian
Revolution!
And after the defeat of the coup Socialist Organiser added:
There has not yet been that deep popular revolution. Far from it. Much
of the state apparatus remains intact, the army high in prestige. The
economy of the USSR spirals downwards daily into hyperinflation and
probable famine.
Yeltsin win now have to take responsibility. He will not work
miracles.
The army has, by its shotgun divorce from the CP, been rendered a more
credible contender for the Third World army role of providing a
military scaffolding when the bourgeoisie is weak and the society in
chronic crisis.
Last week's failed coup and the radical backlash it licensed tumbled
the system Stalin built into history's dustbin. It may also have
decided what kind of authoritarianism - one controlled by the
vacillating Gorbachevite apparatus-men or one controlled by the
radicals - will be imposed in the period ahead.
The headline of our broadsheet last week remains true: 'Only
revolution - that is, the destruction of the state apparatus,
including the army - can secure liberty'. (29 August).
We defined what was happening:
What we are witnessing in the USSR is a bourgeois revolution The
leaders of the anti-Stalinist revolution and their ideas; the ideas in
the heads of the mass of the people (including the working class); the
West European and US social models they look to - all define it as a
bourgeois revolution...
It faces tremendous difficulties. But they are material, practical,
technical difficulties - the lack of markets and of an entrepreneurial
bourgeoisie, the tremendous weight of the bureaucracy even after it is
certifiably brain dead, etc. - not difficulties arising from the
resistance of the working class, or by the coherent resistance of any
other class. (29 August).
And we drew conclusions:
Socialists in the USSR should be the most vigorous advocates of
revolutionary measures against the old order, competing with the
Yeltsinites for the leader****p of the democratic revolution, while
countering their pro-capitalist ideas and trying to organise the
working class as an independent force. Their model should be the
Bolsheviks, who before 1917 competed with the "Cadet" bourgeoisie for
the leader****p of the m***** in the fight against Tsarism. (3 October)
Socialist Organiser 517-8, 19 and 26 March 1992
|
