| Summary: | 碩士 === 淡江大學 === 俄羅斯研究所 === 88 === Abstract:
During the period of social-economical transition, how to assess Russia’s reform process has made a lot of confusion among most of observers. The wave of labor strike in summer 1989 marked an important crisis of legitimacy of the CPSU regime which was leading by its general secretary, Mikhail Gorbachev. Since then, Russian labor movement and trade unions has become an important stage of this long-frozen civil society caused by the Stalinist system. Not only because of their extensive membership but also the successor of the former official trade union VTsSPS, the FNPR(Federation of Independent Trade Unions), has the biggest capacity to mobilize its membership among all social organizations in the Russia Federation. Meanwhile, the famous miners’ trade union- NPGR can be seen as a critical sign of social conflict in Russia’s course of economic reform. All above has indicated that the importance of labor conflicts for Russian Studies has been there.
This study is consisted of six chapters. In chapter 1, there is a brief introduction about research motive, approach, and some useful theories. Chapter 2 includes three main aspects, I compared labor policy and workers’ reaction from Gorbachev period to Yeltsin period. I try to analysis their common factor. In fact, we can find that their labor policies did not increase workers’ power genuinely even they both introduced a serial of new labor act and right. In addition, I also considered the specific in the protest development of different economic branches, so I took structural interest into account to the development of Russian labor movement. From the chapter 4, I tried to analyze the organizational experiences of several trade unions, which included the VTsSPS and main labor unions in contemporary Russia, if we would accept them as an active subject. Then in the chapter 5, I also analyze the politics of these organizations when they try to get access into existing political system, and their interaction among trade union leadership and various political parties. We can find that almost all trade unions didn’t take real effects from this kind of system. On the other hand, the unstable circumstance brought Russian trade unions more difficult problems on their politics.
The number of strikes in Russia has increased sharply from 1994, it showed that the relations among labor, employer and the government are still tense. And the low unrest after the privatization policy started, is just impermanent but was struck by other inner factors. Further more, it also revealed that the Corporatism institution didn’t work. Under the limits of these conditions, we can see strikes were concerned in some ‘strategical branches’, and protests in other branches are individual and small. From labor’s side, the movement and unions had lapsed into inner conflicts especially in 92-94 and lack of democratic channels. That both effectually depressed workers’ power and caused disintegration. All the factors indicate a final point: Under the structure of Authoritarian Corporatism, social organization would fail to take critical status to challenge the ‘new order’ if they couldn’t overcome its inner conflicts.
|
|---|
