“national cohesion and national welfare.” As it later waffled onnStalinist terror, TNR even justified fascist violence as annecessary means to end internal strife and disunity.nWhat we have seen in this half-century is not only a crisis ofnauthority but a crisis of authority in relation to mind and “thenright exercise of its mental powers,” as Lionel Trilling put it.nThe power of the university is such that academic “Freudo-nMarxist” left has contributed to the alteration of perceptionsnand ideas of opinion-makers — there has almost been a Marxistnfellow traveler takeover of our powerful media institutions. Thenprint and airwaves are replete with double standard judgmentsnon sociopolitical issues of the day.nIn recent years former U.S. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatricknhas talked a good deal about the concept of “moral equivalence.”nThis concept seeks to prove that both superpowers arenequally guilty, immoral, and ominous, both scorpions in anbottle. Unfortunately, “moral equivalence” is a rhetoricalndevice to demonstrate the moral superiority of the SovietnUnion over the United States: What the U.S. does is unforgivable;nwhat the USSR does is understandable.nGeorge Orwell noted this double standard among Britishn”pacifists” at the end of World War II:nPacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying thatnone side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closelynat the writings of the younger intellectual pacifists, onenfinds that they do not by any means express impartialndisapproval but are directed almost entirely againstnBritain and the United States.nContemporary examples of the double standard are numberless:n* When Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega buys several dozenneyeglasses on a visit to New York, the media treats it as a venialnoddity. But when it is learned that the Marcos family storednvast quantities of shoes, furs, jewels, perfumes, and othernbaubles, it is regarded as a mortal sin. We can assume that thenMarcoses looted the Filipino treasury. Has anybody checked tonsee who pays for Ortega’s and his wife’s purchases?n* The U.S. is always, so goes the cliche, propping upnunpopular dictators. The Soviets never prop up unpopularndictators whether in Afghanistan, Angola, Mozambique, ornNicaragua. It is certain that General Jaruzelski could not winnan honest election in Poland. He is most assuredly beingnpropped up by the Soviet Union, yet to accuse the USSR ofnsuch a transgression is to interfere in the internal affairs of thenPolish people.n* Oliver Tambo, apostle of violent revolution, ally andnstipendiary of the Soviet Union, is a left culture hero, but JonasnSavimbi is a Western stooge. Why Castro, “si,” Pinochet,n”no”?n* Nobody ever emerges from Chile, South Africa, or SouthnKorea with hope for the existing government and its “reform”nprogram. People are always coming back from the USSR ornPoland touting their reform programs. Soviet leaders are alwaysnbecoming more enlightened. Afrikaner leaders are alwaysnbecoming more benighted.n* Fidel Castro has the respect of men like Senators Doddnand Weicker even if there are no elections in Cuba. ButnNapoleon Duarte is suspected of rigging El Salvador’s electionneven though the impartial observers declared it was a fairnelection. There were predictions of a small vote because thenSalvadorans would be intimidated into not voting. But therenwas an unexpectedly large turnout; naturally, the people werenintimidated by the military and forced to vote. There hasn’tnbeen an honest election in any Communist country from thenday of takeover, but only in El Salvador or South Korea is therenan election problem.n* If the United States brings evidence of the use of chemicalnor biological warfare against the people of Laos, Kampuchea,nor Afghanistan, it is disbelieved. However, when the SovietnUnion accused the U.S. of introducing AIDS as part ofnbiological warfare, Dan Rather, on 30 March 1987, played thisnsmear as news but offered no evidence. Soviet disinformationnwas all the evidence he needed.nSURVEYnnnEditor: Leopold LabedznVol. 29 no. 4 (127)nThe first of four special issuesnSEVENTY YEARS AFTER THEnREVOLUTION:nHAS THE SOVIET SYSTEMnSATISFIED THE SOCIAL ANDnECONOMIC RIGHTS OF THEnSOVIET PEOPLE?nGuest Editor of the issue: G. R. UrbannAnnual subscription: UK £17 US $39 Elsewhere £20nSingle copies: UK £5 US $10nSURVEY Editorial Office:nIlford House, 133 Oxford Street,nLondon WIR ITD, Englandn(Tel. 01-734 0592)nSURVEY Subscription Office:n44 Great Windmill Street, London WIV 7PA, Englandn(Tel. 01-434 3063)nJANUARY 1988/ 17n