“WORLD

The Soviet battle
against alcoholism

Spring has come to this city unexpectedly early this
year, and Muscovites have responded by taking to the
Streets. Afternoon finds them promenading en masse in
Kalinin Prospect, or thronging the Arbat pedestrian
Mall. Often the purpose seems merely to get out of doors
after a long, grey winter. Many just linger over coffee

and hot buns, or eat shashlik purchased from one of the
Tew street vendors, and soak up the unaccustomed
Sunshine.

By all accounts it has been a relatively mild winter.

And this is not only an allusion to weather: economic

Teforms percolating through the economy have begun to
€ase perennial problems of supply and distribution.
Fresh fruits and vegetables have been available all
winter in unprecedented quantities, thanks in part to the
“yarmaki”’ (farmers fairs) and other innovations which
have been introduced to cut out middlemen and get
Produce directly to the consumers.

When one sees a substantial line-up in Moscow these
days, nine times out of ten it is for booze. Draconian
Measures put into effect two years ago — the famous
‘anti-alcohol drive’ — dramatically slashed production
Bevapor and wines and severely restricted distribution of
them.

The people who stand in line for Vodka
tend to be surly, displaying little
patience usually associated with

. shopping in Moscow.

Distilling of spirits in the USSR has been cut by over
- 25 per cent, while more than 130,000 liquor stores have
been closed or converted to other uses. Business hours
of the remaining outlets have been sharply curtailed.

One result has been these long lines for vodka. Also,
the people who stand in them tend to be surly, displaying
little of the patience and even good cheer with which
Muscovites customarily face the inconveniences of
shopping in this city.

There is a joke about those line-ups — in the Soviet
Union there is a joke for everything — which runs some-
thing like this: A bus pulls up to a stop, the driver turns
and announces: ‘‘Liquor store. Next stop, end of the
queue’’.

Despite many predictions that the anti-alcohol drive
Would peter out, and much grumbling in the ranks, the
Soviet leadership has shown no sign of backing down on
this point after two years. ‘

Alcoholism is an age-old curse in Russia. Like many
Problems in the contemporary USSR, it has its roots in
the rural village life from which most modern Soviets are
Only one or two generations removed. Long, cold win-

Moscow

Fred Weir

ters, isolation and boredom created the conditions for it.
Today the habit persists, along with a general ethos that
equates hard-drinking with manliness.

In today’s life, however, the problem has acquired
new urgency. It is simply not possible to build the sophis-
ticated economy and participatory political culture
which Soviet leaders envisage, unless the scourge of
drunkenness can be eliminated. Although exact figures
are not available, it is clear that over the past decades the
USSR has suffered one of the highest rates of male
alcoholism in the world. One of the most jarring indica-
tions of this is the fact that life expectancy for Soviet men
actually began to decline during the 1970’s.

Sociologists tell an alarming story of drink-related job
absenteeism, accidents and public disorder. Many other
social problems frequently turn up with alcoholism as an
aggravating factor: crime, the soaring divorce rate, fam-
ily violence, etc. Medical costs may be incalculable.

It is in this context that the Soviet leadership decided
to make war on alcoholism two years ago. In addition to
drastically curtailing liquor supplies, they authorized a
crackdown on public drunkenness, and launched a major
educational campaign — aimed particularly at the young
— designed to change attitudes and create a social cli-
mate that discourages heavy drinking.

They are also trying to find alternatives to offer people
in the form of new recreational facilities, more dis-
cotheques, cafes, and so on. Some reasonably good
brands of non-alcoholic drinks have begun to appear on
the market. These are intended for the many traditional
celebrations, which everybody loves, but which often
turn into extended drinking bouts. Bearing such names
as ‘‘surprise cocktail’’, they have the look, taste and pop
of champagne but, of course, with no surprises.

Results are so far hard to gauge, but some things are

. apparent. Public drunkenness — once commonplace —

has virtually disappeared. The Soviet mortality rate is
falling for the first time in a long while, and enthusiasts
attribute this happy trend to the anti-alcohol drive, al-
though the reasons are probably more complex. One
statistic, however, does speak clearly: job related in-
juries resulting in death fell by 33 per cent in 1986 as
against 1984. This dramatic improvement is almost cer-
tainly due, in large measure, to the tough new strictures
against liquor and drunkenness in the workplace.

NbAHCTBO BEET f PACNARY CEMbE

Soviet poster against alcohol abuse. It reads ‘Drunken-
ness leads to broken homes.’

Soviets are gradually getting used to the idea that
vodka will be far more expensive and much less acces-
sible than was the case in the past. Nevertheless, con-
troversy continues.

Moderate drinkers complain that it is they, and not the
problem drinkers, who are penalized by the restriction of
supplies. Alcoholics will stand in the line-ups to get their
bottles, but those who would just like a glass of wine with
their dinner, or want to throw the occasional party, have
to face an appalling grind.

Moderate drinkers complain that it is
they and not the problem drinkers who
are penalized by the restrictions .

Some say that the disappearance of booze has merely
led desperate people to resort to different things, such as
drugs, solvents or after-shave. Others respond that there
has been no appreciable increase in such problems, but
that Glasnost and a new social awareness have simply
brought them into the open for the first time.

The majority of people appear to agree that something
had to be done. Some dispute the methods, which are
indeed tough. The most passionate supporters of the
anti-alcohol drive seem to be Soviet women, who display
an amazing degree of unanimity on the subject.

Perhaps the most hopeful piece of news is that surveys
of Soviet youth show them to be increasingly indifferent
to the bottle and aware that in the modern world one
needs to make a clear and decisive choice between drink
and career.

New technology — without unemployment

By G. VAN HOUTEN

When it comes to the new tech-
Nologies, the only thing that the steel
Industries in Canada and the GDR have
common is the aim of substantially
MCcreasing productivity.

But who benefits from the introduction

of new technology is entirely different in
» “Ne two countries.

In Canada, new technology is con-
trolled by the monopolies. They use
'echnology to increase profits, get rid of
Workers and put pressure ‘on those who
are left to make concessions.

Since 1981, for example, Stelco has
*!minated 5,500 jobs and plans to elim-
wate about 1,000 more. On the other

and, vastly improved productivity has
©wed Stelco to maintain production
arcs and provided the company, and
€rs in this industry, with high profits.
In the GDR, on the other hand, grow-
8 productivity never leads to
employment.
. . US reporter had the opportunity to
“Sit the Brandenburg Steel Works which

employs 9,300 workers including many
women.

In particular, this reporter toured the
plant’s computer-run continuous casting
smelting and rolling mill. It produces
steel rods, wire and other small steel
products in an almost uninterrupted pro-
cess starting with scrap steel and ending
with finished products. Sac

The mill began its modernization in
1979 and completed the process in 1986.
As a result, production increased from
260,000 tons a year in 1981 to 700,000
tons in 1986. In both years, the number of
workers stayed at a steady 360. That is a
productivity increase of two and a half
times in six years.

I spoke with two young workers dur-
ing my tour of the smelting and rolling
mill. I asked them if the workers feared
unemployment due to the introduction of
the new technology. including robots.
Joerg Liedemann, who is also the secre-
tary of the SED party branch in this mill,
replied: “We have no problem. 2
are not thrown out of work. These tech-

nologies are introduced in such a way
that no one loses his job.”’

Bernd Puchert, who is also chairman
of the metallurgical union’s organization
in the mill, agreed wholeheartedly.
Workers who worked in the pre-1981
years were either retrained at the enter-
prise’s expense or given another job
elsewhere in the plant with no reduction
in their pay if the job they accept is nor-
mally lower paid than the one they left.
As arule, GDR workers are trained to do
two jobs so that if one is eliminated by
modernization and rationalization he can
usually fall back on his other skill.

Both young workers emphatically-
supported the efforts of the SED-led
government to increase productivity
through the introduction of new tech-
nology.

They gave three reasons.

Firstly, it is the policy of the govern-

ment and state-owned enterprises that
increases in productivity must be reflect-
ed in more real pay and social benefits.
For example, in addition to their 26-week

pregnancy leave at full pay at the
government’s expense, the young
mother is allowed to take another full
year at 90 per cent of her pay to take care
of her child. A third child entitles the
woman to take a year and a half.

Secondly, computerization and the
use of robots has considerably reduced
the amount of hard manual labor that has
to be done. The emphasis is increasingly
on mental labor thus requiring higher
qualifications. To achieve this, the work-
ers are given an education and training
which is entirely at the company’s ex-
pense.

Thirdly, the new technology is used to
vastly improve working conditions.

There is nothing wrong with the new
technologies. It largely depends on who
is using it for what purpose. In the GDR,
workers do not hesitate to welcome it
because they know it will make their life
easier by improving working conditions
and raising living standards.

Gerry Van Houten is Tribune correspond-
ent in the German Democratic Republic.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE, MARCH 25, 1987 e 5