Babbitt applied to the Wilsonian worldnview of seventy years ago, that today’snconservatives uphold in education andnforeign policy. Because of this imperialistnimpulse they can no longer takenthe side of liberty or scholarship in thencritical confrontation now taking placenover academic freedom. The Italiannsocial thinker Marcello Veneziani, in annewly published work, Processo alVnoccidente: la societd globale e i suoinnemici, presents the view that Marxismnhas not gone down to defeat, but beennincorporated into the “neocapitalist reconstruction”nof the West. The exclusivenidentification of Western civilizationnwith “democratic capitalism”nshows the power of Marxist materialism,nsecularism, and egalitarianism innshaping what claims to be the triumphantnanticommunist side. The democraticncapitalist West, as seen by Veneziani,nrepresents Marxism without itsnmessianic, derivatively religious, aspect.nIt may be argued, however, thatnMarxist pseudo-religiosity also plays anrole in the democratic capitalists’ crusadenagainst heretics, inside and outsidenof universities. How else to explainntheir savage war against the critics ofndemocratic equality?nIt is now a conservative principle tontreat as closed those philosophicalnquestions that are incompatible withnegalitarian doctrine. Unlike the left,nmoreover, movement conservatives repackagenleftist causes and present themnas conservative ones. They purge theirnown ranks to enforce conformity tonleftist dogma, be it the denial of geneticninfluence on intelligence or the beliefnin universally exportable human rights.nNo wonder such people take theirnmarching orders from the graduates ofnEastern European Socialism huddlednin Midtown Manhattan! The WesternnEuropean and American traditions ofnfreedom have become alien to the newnconservatives. Like their leftist counterparts,nfrom whom they are less andnless distinguishable, these ideologuesnrepresent Hegel’s World Spirit in retreat,nthe culture of personalism andnordered liberty yielding to Orientalndespotism. With the waning of thenCold War, such robots may be morenharmful to a free society than Marxistnhistorians or the performers of textualnlegerdemain. Heaven help us if they donmanage to go anywhere. They willnlikely beat up on honest scholars andnhonest conservatives even more thannhave other leftist bigots.n— Paul GottfriednTHE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUtion’sn73 rd anniversary set the stage fornan angry dissident’s attempt to assassinatenMikhail Gorbachev at an outdoornrally. It would have been the first shotnof the coming Russian revolution,nwhich may be peaceful, but more likelynnot.nTime is running out for peacefulnchange. Gorbachev’s new Treaty of thenUnion is supposed to create a federationngovernment with the republics. Tonthe republics’ leaders, it represents thenreturn of Soviet imperialism. The republicsndon’t want power sharing; theynwant an end to Moscow-run socialism.nAnd they won’t accept compromise,ndespite Mr. Gorbachev’s promise ofn”massive bloodshed” if they don’t.nThe official “economy” is in uncontrollablenfree fall. A team of Sovietnbureaucrats recently surveyed statenstores to see how many goods out ofnone thousand were available. The result:nfour. A famine seems inevitable,nespecially if Mr. Gorbachev cracksndown further on the undergroundneconomy. A growing number of dissidentsnsay they cannot contain theirnrage against a system that has drivennthe country into the ground.nWhen the present reforms began, Inwas working in the Soviet Academy ofnSciences, later serving as an adviser tonthe Gorbachev reform team. I was partnof a small cadre of economists who sawnfirsthand that Gorbachev knew nothingnabout economics. The only marketnhe understood, or would tolerate, was ancorner flea market for consumer goods.nHis main goal was to work againstnreforms that would create a real economy.nIn the end, he has succeeded onlynin scrambling the structures of authoritynwithin the command economy andnhas failed to introduce a market wherenit really counts: the capital goods sector.nAll this sounds foreign to Westernnears. We are constanfly inundated withnthe media’s praise for perestroika, glasnost,nand Mr. Gorbachev — andnAmerican taxpayers are expected tonbail him out. In fact, Mr. Gorbachev’snballyhooed perestroika was a transparentnattempt to “improve” and “per­nnnfect” the workings of socialism, whichnis like trying to make the U.S. Gongressnsmart. Glasnost was fine, but itnonly allowed pent-up anger to be released.nEven when Mr. Gorbachev was rewardednthe Nobel Prize, he was assumingndictatorial powers greater thannall his predecessors. The media tells usnthis is necessary to implement economicnreform.nYet apologies from the West arennothing new. After the October Revolution,nWestern academics, governmentnofficials, and their counterpartsnin the media sang hymns for decades tonthe Soviet experiment in socialism.nSeventy-three years later, their voicesnhave softened, but the “experts” havennot stopped equating whatever the SovietnUnion does with progress. Sovietologistsnstill have faith in the willingnessnof the Soviet leadership to leadntheir country from barbarism to civilization.nAttending Washington think-tanknmeetings on the Soviet economynbrings back memories of meetings ofnthe Gentral Gommittee. We are supposednto sing more hymns to Sovietnleaders, predict future prosperity, andnattack the impatience of the radicals.nThe experts spend most of theirntime arguing about statistics. Theynnever acknowledge that all statisticsnabout the Soviet economy are useless.nAggregate statistics from capitalistncountries are questionable enough. Butnunder socialism, nobody knows thenvalue of anything, which makes calculationnimpossible. Add to that the incentivenof. those doing the reporhng tonlie, and you’ve got a real mess.nThe truth is that the Soviet Unionnhas no economy — no enterprise, nonentrepreneurship, no free-floatingnprices, no reliable currency — so therenis no hope in trying to reform it. Itnmust be scrapped entirely.nMr. Gorbachev — George Bush’snhero — told the Central Committeenthat his newest plan is oriented towardn”the betterment of socialism . . . andnis completely in line with the socialistnchoice and socialist ideals.” He wantsnto “create a real and healthy basis forngenuine collectivism” by allowing “differentnforms of socialist property.”nThere are no plans to abolish orneven cut bureaucracies, price reformnwill be extremely limited, and thenMARCH 1991/7n