COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00003 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	%soviet[e89,jmc]		Should we aid the Soviet Union economically?
C00007 00003	\smallskip\centerline{Copyright \copyright\ 1989\ by John McCarthy}
C00008 ENDMK
C⊗;
%soviet[e89,jmc]		Should we aid the Soviet Union economically?
\input memo.tex[let,jmc]
\title{	SHOULD WE AID THE SOVIET UNION ECONOMICALLY?}

	The answer advocated here is yes, provided we can
negotiate terms that will increase our security.  I shall begin
with what I suppose to be the relevant facts and then consider
our options.

\section{Facts about the Soviet Union}

	1. Communism has proved to be a bad idea.
It fulfilled only one of its promises.  This was to liquidate
certain classes claimed to be harmful.  To the extent that
class hatred existed in the Soviet Union and the West, and to
the extent that vicarious class hatred existed among intellectuals
in both the Soviet Union and the West, this accounted for most
of its popularity.

However, it hasn't made the working class prosperous or free, and it
has created a new ruling class, at least as oppressive as any that
previously existed.

It has also been an imperialist menace to its neighbors and to the
rest of the world.  It was worst under Stalin, but remained bad
through the Brezhnev, Andropov and Chernenko reigns.

	2. Matters have gotten better recently.  {\it Glasnost}
has made a big, genuine difference in Soviet politics and
intellectual life, arms reductions have been negotiated, and some
unilateral steps have been taken by the Soviet Union to reduce
their offensive posture and to convert some of their military
production facilities to civilian use.  They have tolerated
substantial reductions of communist power in Eastern Europe.

	3. On the other hand, {\it perestroika} has not yet
succeeded.  Indeed the Soviet economic situation and standard
of living have gotten worse.  There is no quick fix possible
for reasons we will discuss later in this essay.

	4. The West had hardly anything to do with the recent
changes in the Soviet Union.  It only provided an example of
doing better and provided a sufficient obstacle to Soviet
expansion of power, so that the glory of expanding power could
not maintain motivation for the policies.  Many of Gorbachev's
generation of Party leaders became profoundly dissatisfied with
the way things were going in the Brezhnev era.  No explicit
doctrine about what changes should be made developed among them,
but the dissatisfaction was so great that Gorbachev has been able
to make great changes.  A different young leader might have made
different changes.

	5. A lot that has happened is due to Gorbachev personally.
The Soviet system gives the General Secretary lots of power, but
Gorbachev has been extremely adroit in using it to make reforms
that go far beyond what the Central Committee imagined or sincerely
support.  A key factor is that the conservative opposition has
never been able to develop a coherent doctrine of what they want
that can be publically stated.  The strongest individual motivation
might be retention of privilege, but they aren't ideologically
a nobility that can bring itself to assert privilege by divine
right or right of conquest.
\smallskip\centerline{Copyright \copyright\ 1989\ by John McCarthy}
\smallskip\noindent{This draft of SOVIET[E89,JMC]\ TEXed on \jmcdate\ at \theTime}
%File originated on 18-Sep-89
\vfill\eject\end