EDITORrnThomas FlemingrnMANAGING EDITORrnTheodore PappasrnSENIOR EDITOR, BOOKSrnChikon Williamson, ]r.rnASSISTANT EDITORrnChristine HaynesrnART DIRECTORrnAnna Mycek-WodeckirnCONTRIBUTING EDITORSrnHarold O./. Brown, Katherine Dalton,rnSamuel Francis, George Garrett,rnE. Christian Kopff, Clyde WilsonrnCORRESPONDING EDITORSrnBill Kauffman, Jacob Neusner.rnJohn Shelton Reed, Momcilo SelicrnEDITORIAL SECRETARYrnLeann DobbsrnPUBLISHERrnAllan C. CarlsonrnPUBLICATION DIRECTORrnGuy C. ReffettrnCOMPOSITION MANAGERrnAnita FedorarnCIRCULATION MANAGERrnRochelle FrankrnA publication of The Rockford Institute,rnEditorial and Advertising Offices:rn934 North Main Street, Rockford, IL 61103.rnEditonal Phone: (815)964-5054.rnAdvertising Phone: (815) 964-5811.rnSubscription Department: P.O. Box 800,rnMount Morris, IL 61054. Call 1-800-877-5459.rnFor information on advertising in Chronicles,rnplease call Rochelle Frank at (815) 964-5811.rnU.S.A. Newsstand Distribution by Eastern New^rnDistributors, Inc., 1130 Cleveland Road,rnSandusky, OH 44870.rnCopyright © 1994 by The Rockford Instihite.rnAll rights reserved.rnChronicles (ISSN 0887-5731) is publishedrnmonthly for $28 per year by The RockfordrnInstitute, 934 North Main Street, Rockford,rnIL 61103-7061. Second-class postage paidrnat Rockford, IL and additional mailing offices.rnPOSTMASTER: Send address changes tornChronicles, P.O. Box 800, Mount Morris,rnIL 61054.rnThe views expressed in Chronicles are thernauthors’ alone and do not necessarily reflectrnthe views of The Rockford Institute or of itsrndirectors. Unsolicited iTianuscripts cannot bernreturned unless accompanied by a self-addressedrnstamped envelope.rnChroniclesrnVol.18, No. 10 October 1994rnPrinted in the United Shitcs of AmericarnPOLEMICS & EXCHANGESrnOn RussiarnI agree with Professor W. Bruce Lincolnrn(“The Burden of Russian History,”rnMarch 1994) that Russia’s economic andrnpolitical system is prone to break societyrninto two parts: “them,” those responsiblernfor making decisions and managing therncountry, and “us,” the simple peoplerndeadly indifferent to everything thatrndoesn’t touch them immediatelv—i.e.,rnhigh politics. I also agree that the currentrnsystem can be traced to its roots inrnserfdom and the “feeding system.” Butrnthis is just the tip of the iceberg. Thisrn”feeding system” has a much deeperrnstructure than many historians realize.rnFirst, we can think of this systemi as arnhierarchical structure with a czar on therntop and the people on the bottom, withrnmany “governing in the czar’s name.”rnBut the trick of keeping hierarchical systemsrnworking is not simplv in increasingrnthe number of levels. Those at the toprnmust force the people at the bottom torngovern themselves. Of course, I do notrnmean in the Western sense of selfgovernmentrnand democracy. The keyrnwords in our case are krugovaya porukarn—a kind of common responsibilityrnwhen people are linked together by thernobligation to produce a certain amountrnof something (money, labor, units ofrngoods, recruits, etc.). If one or a fewrnfail, everybody will be punished.rnSo let’s assume you belong to a grouprnm which all people are tied together byrnthese links, such as a Soviet military divisionrn(which is a fairly good model of arntotalitarian system). In this case, yournknow that if for any reason (moral, political,rneconomic, religious, or healthrelated)rnyou refuse to do what you arerntold, everyone will immediately suffer.rnMoreover, everybody knows that yournknow this, and you know that everybodyrnknows that you know . . . and so on. Therngame is to follow the general line. Yournwouldn’t sav, “I don’t want to do this orrnthat because it is against my prmciples.”rnFirst, you wouldn’t want to say this becausernyou probably don’t want to bernbeaten up by the group. Second, whateverrnyour principles are, one of themrnmay be something like “not to causernother people trouble and suffering,” andrnyou know that your refusal will causern”innocent” people to suffer. That is howrnit works.rnAlso important is the role of informalrnleaders. These people are the mediatorsrnbetween “us” and “them.” Theyrnare not legitimate bosses approved andrnsent from the top of the system. Theyrnare of the same flesh and bones as “us.”rnThey speak our language. They don’trnuse official nonsense like “accordingrnto the latest decisions of the Party, wernmust. . . .” They understand our needsrnand the tricks we use to fool our bosses.rnIt is these mediators who actually makernthe whole system work. Some of themrnmay become formal leaders in time (ifrnthey succeed), meaning “they” can berndivided into “us-like” and “alien-like.” Irnremember from my own experience inrnthe Soviet Army that all of the officersrnwere divided by “us” into two groups.rnThe first group included those who wererncloser to the soldiers, spoke their language,rnand had a sort of informal powerrnto force everybody to conform (althoughrnthey could use formal power as well).rnOfficers of this kind had the same way ofrnthinking as the soldiers—somewhatrnprimitive but fairly natural. Officers whornfell into the second group relied more onrnthe approved regulations and were morernlikely to use communist and Soviet demagogyrnlike “in these days of perestroikarnyou must take more care of your belongingsrnand whatever vou store in your bedsiderntable. . ..”rnSoldiers preferred and were more likelyrnto obey officers of the first group thanrnof the second, but both types of officersrn(nonideologists and ideologists alike)rnwere truly servants of the totalitarian system,rnneither could stomach the slightestrnidea of democracy (the former were evenrnstronger enemies of democracy than thernlatter), and both were very serious andrnproud about what they were doing.rnIn my case, it was building a railway onrnthe steppes of northern Kazakhstanrn(of course without pay) like the serfs didrnin the 19th century. How little hasrnchanged since those times.rnThe moral is that both “we” andrn”they” were necessary elements of the totalitarianrnsystem. Totalitarian ideologyrnwas spread over all Soviet people, and werncan speak about “bearers of totalitarianrnideology” the same way we speak aboutrn”bearers of native language.” So, “we”rnwere truly absorbed in and participatedrn4/CHRONICLESrnrnrn