there are three — of a woman plasterer, a steelworker, and ancombine-operator — and the short reports from the provincesnare a bit more critical: yes, the coal miners of Pavlodarnfulfilled their work quotas, and the kolkhozniks ofnZaporozhye exported watermelons to Poland, but the lockernrooms in an elementary school were painted badly and annurse was rude to an elderly patient.nHowever, while there is no significant difference betweennthe December 1987 and the present issues oi Pravda, annunbiased observer has to admit that some change is noticeable.nThere are now more reports denouncing apparatchiksnand blaming them for the country’s ills than there werenbefore. But the West should not get too excited. Asnhas happened so many times in the past, once again thenblame is placed squarely on individuals (Stalin, Brezhnev,nChernenko, or some middle-level provincial partynhacks). In all these reports, there is not even a hint thatnmaybe there is something wrong with the fundamentals —nMarx’s teachings or Lenin’s methods^and there is nonattempt to look honestly at the communist system. On thencontrary, Pravda’s current leitmotif is a nostalgia for “TruenLeninism.”nThis is why Gorbachev’s perestroika is so different innprinciple from what went on in Hungary in 1956, or innCzechoslovakia in 1968. Those were honest attempts eithernto alter the system substantially, as in Prague, or toss it outnentirely, as in Budapest.nNot so in Moscow.nAs Robert Novak has observed, what is now happening innMoscow is not a process of genuine democratization (whichnaccording to even the latest Amnesty International report isnnot taking place), but a desperate attempt at modernization—na backward 19th-century police state trying to transformnitself into an efficient 21st-century police state.nAfter Brezhnev’s death, the Soviet economy found itselfnin a precarious condition. To survive as a modern state andnnot slide down to the level of, say, Ghana, the Soviet Unionnhad to do something quickly. If we use as a metaphor fornBrezhnev’s Soviet Union people in rags polishing tanks,nthen it simply became apparent to the younger Politburongeneration that to polish the tanks efficientiy one needsnmodern polishing equipment (thus the renewed passes tonthe West), and that people in rags should, from time to time,nbe given at least a new pair of galoshes, or they will turn innan extremely inadequate performance. (Thus the slightnrelaxation in the stranglehold over the economy and thencensorship of literature.)nPravda is a peculiar paper. In order to get importantninformation, one has to read between the lines. A brief piecenin the December 1987 issue was revealing. Unobtrusivelyntucked away in the corner of the page, it informed the readernof a Politburo meeting on Soviet foreign policy held shortlynafter Gorbachev’s return from the Washington summit.nSqueezed between praises for his achievements in the USnand salutes to his performance at the Warsaw Pact Conferencenwhich followed, was a half-sentence about the Politburondecision to modernize the entire Soviet railroadnsystem. Why was such a purely domestic policy projectnincluded in so important a foreign policy meeting, and whynwas a project of this magnitude given such scanty treatmentnin Pravda? Could it be that the Politburo, immediately afternsigning one missile treaty, and with another in the worksn(with all the verification provisions), had adopted its rarelymentionednproject of constantly moving missiles around onnrailroad tracks to make them undetectable? Understandably,ncomrade-members would not be eager to overpublicize that.nThey didn’t mind, though, overpublicizing the successfulnpencil production in Syktyvkar, or the conference innMoscow in which participants gave speeches with tities like:n”Measures to Accelerate Augmentation of the Country’snFood Resources on the Basis of Developing Agro-IndustrialnIntegration and Cooperation and Converting Enterprises tonFull Economic Accountability and Self-Financiation.”nSince the parallels between Afghanistan and Vietnam arenbrought up so often by the American press, it is interestingnto see how Pravda treats the Afghanistan issue. Well, it treatsnit, plain and simple, as a nonissue. There is an occasionalnupbeat report about the Red Army’s brotherly help to thenAfghan peasants fighting feudal-capitalist bandits, or a dullneditorial on the blossoming cooperation between the twoncommunist countries.nOnce in a while, one can spot something significant. ThenDecember 1987 Pravda informed its readers about thenCentral Committee’s plan to “develop direct links betweennthe regions and districts of Afghanistan with the regions andndistricts of the Soviet Union,” including common water andnenergy supplies and interchange of party cadres. Thisncasually reported plan amounted to nothing less than annattempt to absorb Afghanistan physically into the SovietnUnion.nThis was, of course, several months ago. An article in thencurrent issue, entitied “An Uneasy Road to Peace,” is aboutnthe throng of refugees coming back from Pakistan, then”Peace Hotels” built for them by the Communist government,nand the beloved leader Najibullah greeting hisnreturning brethren. The tone of this article remarkablynresembles that of a Pravda piece written after the Chernobylndisaster. In a feat of creative journalism, its author describednthe people of Chernobyl returning to their homes; he wrotenof the beautiful sunsets, of the young lovers walking hand innhand along the river bank, and of the nightingales.nWell, if Afghanistan is a nonissue, there is always anthoughtful essay in the paper about something important. InnDecember 1987, such an essay discussed Soviet youth. Thenauthor admitted (in the true spirit oi glasnost) that Sovietnyouth are no longer a monolithic group: of course, there arenmany who are dedicated Komsomol members committed tonthe party and the state, but there are also those who arenmuch less committed, who admire unapproved writers,norganize unauthorized shows and concerts, thus puttingntheir “egotistical impulses” above their duty to the state;nand, finally, there are some who don’t give a damn about thenSoviet state and its goals, embracing instead such despicablenphilosophies as Nazism and mysticism.nThe author — a distinguished pedagogue — concedednthe problems and put forward an ingenious idea. WhatnnnNOVEMBER 19881 19n