COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	%itoldy[f89,jmc]		I told you so, soviet
C00012 ENDMK
C⊗;
%itoldy[f89,jmc]		I told you so, soviet
I told you so. Rather, who told whom so?
	It seems quite likely that Soviet style communism is collapsing
irrevocably.  Some caution is still warranted about the reduction in
their military expenditures, but apparently evidence that they are
really doing that too is coming in.  Let's suppose it's real - all
along the line, including military.

	Who can say, ``I told you so'' in the liberal vs.
conservative competition in U.S. and other Western country
politics?  Since liberals and conservatives disagree about other
issues, and moreover represent rival claims on political power,
the mere disappearance of the ``threat from communism'' isn't
going to make the rivalry disappear or produce more than a
temporary decrease in its intensity.

	Here are some items.

	1. Democracy: Poles, Hungarians, East Germans, Soviets and
Chinese are demanding ``democracy''.  What do they mean by
``democracy''?  It's clear they mean political democracy in the
Western sense, i.e. free speech, free press, freedom to organize
politically, and free elections with anyone allowed to run
candidates.  Those who said such democracy is a sham, and some
kind of economic democracy is real are not saying it any more.
Those who thought that democracy included states where one party
had a constitutional ``leading role'' are giving it up.

	I'll bet that the Western concept of democracy will
win out in China, Cuba, Vietnam, Nicaragua and in Black Africa.
Any takers on formulating a precise wager?

	American liberals have varied in their attitude
towards democracy.  Right after World War II, only a minority
accepted ``people's democracy'' as democracy, and the Jackson
democrats remained staunch.  The ``peace movement'' mostly
altered their notion of democracy in connection with their
support of North Vietnam.

	2. Capitalism vs. socialism:
	That socialism as practiced in the communist ruled
countries doesn't work well is now generally accepted.  There is
certainly still a difference of opinion, both here and there, as
to how far they will have to go towards private ownership of the
``means of production, distribution and exchange'' in order to
get a decent standard of living.

	My own opinion is that communist economic failure is more
due to corruption rather than to wrong bureaucratic decisions.
However, such large scale of corruption is probably inevitable in
fully nationalized economies, or anyway much more likely.
Corruption in private corporations occurs but is limited by the
fact that too much of it causes bankruptcy of the corporation.
The Uzbekistan scandal that involved exaggerating cotton production by
a million tons could hardly occur in a capitalist economy.  Any
company buying a million tons of nonexistent cotton would go
broke regardless of how many of its officials had been bribed to
accept it.

	Socialists could hope that a free press could limit
corruption in a sociaist economy.  However, attacks on party
privileges by Moscow News and other Soviet journals haven't had
much effect so far.

	My guess is that the Soviet Union and the other communist
ruled countries will end up within the range of socialization
that Western Europe and the U.S. have found acceptable.
The reason is that Western Europe has experimented with greater
nationalization, e.g. the French nationalization of banking, and
has found reason to draw back.

	I'm less sure of this but am enough of a gambler to put
money on a suitably formulated wager.

	3. Defense:

	The Soviet Union doesn't need to be a superpower, because
it can be confident that democracies won't attack it.  There is a
substantial probability that it will reach (has reached) that
opinion.  Moreover, when large reductions in their armed forces
have occurred we will do the same.  I'm willing to put money on
that conditional proposition.

	As of this evening (Nov 19), I'm afraid I won't get
any takers.  Defense Secretary Richard Cheney, who was one
of the main skeptics about Gorbachev's survival and about
the reality of Soviet military reductions said today,

	     WASHINGTON (AP) - Defense Secretary Dick Cheney
     says he is ordering the military services to plan
     spending cuts next year because the rapid pace of
     Soviet bloc reform reduces the threat of war to a
     45-year low.  ''It's clear that the likelihood of
     all-out conflict between the U.S. and the Soviet Union,
     between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, is probably lower now
     than it's been at just about any time since the end of
     World War II,'' Cheney said Sunday on the ABC-TV
     program, ''This Week With David Brinkley.''  Cheney
     said the Soviets appear to be cutting military
     spending, and that further U.S. defense reductions are
     acceptable - a shift in his position.  ''You can't
     watch the events unfold in Eastern Europe, the
     development of governments headed by non-communists,
     the possibilities of free elections, of opposition
     parties, and not believe that that will have some
     long-term impact upon the security situation in
     Europe,'' Cheney said.  ''Given the changes that we see
     today in Eastern Europe, I think it's possible to
     contemplate the possibility over the next few years
     that we may, indeed, be able to reduce the level of our
     deployments in Western Europe,'' Cheney said.

	Liberals and conservatives may continue to argue about
whether we could have done with a lower defense budget over
the Reagan Administration.  The liberals can claim that the
Gorbachev military reductions would have happened anyway at
about the same time.  The conservatives can claim that matching
the SS-20s was what made the intermediate range missile treaty
possible.  In the nature of things, the argument will die out
without reaching a conclusion.