COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00003 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	soviet[w85,jmc]		Changing the Soviet Union
C00010 00003		The Soviet Union is oppressive to its population and
C00020 ENDMK
C⊗;
soviet[w85,jmc]		Changing the Soviet Union

Notes:
The U.S. should regard the dissidents as
allies not servants; they need their own radio.

what may happen and what we can do

What does the Soviet Gov't want in trade and technology that
might be part of a deal?  What do they want that we can't give them?

what we want from them
	fairness?
	non-intervention
	openness
	specific human rights issues, e.g. buying people

forms of intervention
	better propaganda, pound on privilege
	information services, how their system works
	move technology in direction that reduces ease of restriction
		microcomputers
		microcopier
		printer operating from audio-cassette
	the real pravda
	direct broadcast satellites
	pressure via discrimination in what visitors we accept
and in what credentials we recognize?

	The peace movement in the West is a big asset to the Soviet
Union and they apparently regard it as such.  Evidence?  Therefore,
the peace movement could, if it wished and organized itself to
do so, do a lot to protect the unofficial peace movement in
the Soviet Union and its satellites.  Some way needs to be found
to put continuous pressure on the peace movement to do so.  A petition
movement aimed at the peace movement might be appropriate.

	The Soviet Union is an oligarchy, and to some extent,
the history of past oligarchies is relevant to the likely future
of the Soviet Union.  Oligarchies sometimes last for many generations,
but past oligarchies have eventually broken down from conflicts.
These conflicts have resulted in one of
	replacement by monarchy, of which hereditary monarchy has been
the most stable.
	civil war and territorial subdivision
	weakness resulting in foreign conquest

	Each time there is a succession in the Soviet Union there is
a possibility of drastic change.  It is not possible to predict in
advance whether there will be important change or in what direction.

	There is a certain probability that there will develop
some kind of institutionalized rivalry between two (or more) groups that
cannot conquer each other.  Such a situation would provide opportunities
for third forces to survive, e.g. liberalism.

	The best chance for liberalism in the next twenty years is
to try to make alliances between intellectuals and the working class.
There is apparently great mutual contempt between these two groups,
but persistent efforts to form such an alliance may pay off.  Poland
is the model to be followed.  This means that intellectuals must
propagandize the grievances of the workers against the system.

	What are these grievances?  One needs to understand both
the hardships they face which constitute potential grievances and
the actual grievances that workers formulate.

Question: What does it mean when a truck driver has a portrait
of Stalin hanging from his rear view mirror?  If he were an old
man, it might mean that he was a former concentration camp guard
or some other beneficiary of the Stalin regime.  However, this is
quite unlikely; they're mostly dead or retired.  A young man won't
even know much about what Stalin actually did.  In present terms
such a portrait is a protest - but against what.  Dissidents might
(I don't know if they do) imagine that it is against them, but this
is unlikely.  They don't get enough publicity to be very salient.
Is it a protest against corruption, saying that Stalin would have
had the evil-doers shot.  Briabrin etc. said it was a demand for
``law-and-order'', but didn't explain exactly what kinds of disorder
were being complained about, except to say that it was often
impossible to get action taken against the depredations of drunks.
In any case a movement for changing the Soviet Union must understand
this protest and see if there is an opportunity to divert it into
useful channels.

	Marx or Lenin or Engels or somebody said that anti-semitism is the
socialism of fools.  This may again be true in Russia, and it's
awkward.  In so far as protest against corruption is channeled by
the Party into anti-semitism, it's hard to work with.

The situation of the peasants, i.e. kolkhozniks is a total mystery.
Apparently no-one is at all interested in what they think.  Surely,
they aren't just the same as in the nineteenth century.  Their
grievances need to be discovered and publicized.

A publicity campaign against privilege, especially against privilege
protected by the ascendant groups in the political hierarchies
can be effective.  The key is incessant repetition.
	The Soviet Union is oppressive to its population and
dangerous to the rest of the world.  Therefore, many of its
people and many in the rest of the world would like it to
change.  We would like it to be more democratic, offer its
people civil liberties and an efficient government with
less privileges for its upper class.  We would like it to
be less aggressive and less unprincipled in international
affairs.  We would also like it to give less help to other
communists, although their menace to the peoples of their
own countries would exist even without Soviet help.

(note on the evil of communism and how the Soviet Union both
harms it by providing a bad example and helps it by providing
arms, money, propaganda and organizational help).

	We will discuss the possibilities for change both from
what might just happen and how it might be influenced.  The
groups that might influence it include dissidents within the
Soviet Union, Russians abroad, and people of the democratic
countries.  The discussion is based on a certain consensus
view of the nature of the Soviet Union common to the most
of the dissident movement and most conservatives and neo-conservatives
in the outside world.  In a future version of this paper I
may detail what I imagine this consensus to be and where there
remain differences of opinion, but I haven't time for it now.

	Here are some possibilities for favorable change.

	1. From above in the Soviet Union. Khrushchev made
substantial changes for the better.  His autobiography indicates
he thought he could have done more deStalinization and wished
he had.  The autobiography also indicates great limitations
on what he would have done.  The Soviet Union wouldn't have
become an electoral democracy even if Khrushchev had entirely
gotten his way, although subsequent wave of repression might
have been avoided.

	A future leader may also have potential for the better,
although he might also be much worse.  Because of the conformity
of expression required at all levels below the top, the behavior
of a new leader is not readily predictable.  Before he becomes
leader he will have said what will advance his chances.  The
Soviet political system must be boring even to its leaders.
Suppose we imagine that the probability of a leader wanting
to make substantial favorable changes is 0.1.  We can then
expect one such an attempt every 50 to 75 years.  Sorry but
we have to take a long view with regard to improving the
Soviet Union.

	In a later draft I hope to elaborate what kinds of
changes a leader might be motivated to make and what might
be feasible.  Incidentally, Khrushchev's autobiography suggests that a
Soviet leader might be open to significant direct influence
by the leaders of other major countries.  A grim thought:
there is some evidence that Stalin was substantially influenced
by the example and slogans of Hitler.

	2. The dissident movement might simply expand till it
became a candidate for power.  It seems to me that this could
only happen if something else happened to paralyze the activity
of the KGB and Party repressive apparatus.  This would have
to be some kind of loss of self-confidence and demoralization.
There is almost no analysis of the ideology within the party
and the KGB and how it might change.  Discussion of their
motives takes only the most primitive form of ascribing to them
the goal of retaining their power.  However, the evidence from
Poland and East Germany is that the security apparatus is indeed
strongly motivated by hostility to the West and to dissent
within the society.  The motivational structure of this
apparatus requires study and not merely denunciation, although
denunciation itself is worthwhile.

	3. Nationalism among Ukrainians, Asians and Balts.  I don't know
about this, but it seems doubtful.

	4. An alliance between intellectuals and the working class
as in Poland.  There is apparently great mutual hostility between
the intellectuals and the working class in the Soviet Union.
Nevertheless overcoming this hostility and creating the alliance
seems to me to be the single most productive area of activity
for the intellectuals.

	Item: what is the significance of a picture of Stalin
in the cab of a truck or taxi.  It isn't an endorsement of the
Gulag; the driver doesn't know much about that.  In many cases
it may represent a protest against corruption.  The idea is
that Stalin would have shot the corrupt.  The historical fact
that Stalin has a substantial responsibility for the corruption
won't be known to the truck driver.

	Western broadcasts and dissident statements need to
hammer away at the corruption and privilege.  The connection
of these evils with the Party monopoly on power needs continuous
emphasis.  The connection of privilege and favoritism with
the lack of a price system needs emphasis.

	The lack of middlemen needs emphasis.  It is silly that
a Georgian has to fly to Moscow and sell his roses himself.  An
independent trucker could transport the roses and deliver them
to an independent retailer.

	The harm to the working classes caused by the application
of communist ideology needs articulation.  It also needs more
research.

	The intellectuals think the workers are a bunch of brutal,
uncultured drunks.  The workers think the intellectuals are snobs
who in share the privileges of the elite.  Both are partly right,
but the fact that there are plenty of drunken workers and
privileged intellectuals in Poland didn't prevent their
Solidarity alliance.

	5. A democratic movement in the Soviet Union would have
much better chances if it were a third force, i.e. if a permanent
conflict developed between two other forces giving the democrats
room for making deals.  It isn't clear to me what conflicts
might develop, but I'll bet they will eventually.


Actions from the outside.

	The outside forces that would like to change the Soviet
Union include both Russians abroad and foreign countries.  These
forces are natural allies, but Americans should realize that
the dissident movement, inside and outside the Soviet Union, are
our allies, not our servants.  In particular, we cannot turn
them off as part of a deal with the Soviet Government.