whose possible effects remain ominousnin his absence. When simple power becomesnthe sole object of aspiration, thencorruption which threatens to disintegratenthe structure underlying thatnpower cannot be measured by anynstandard to which the rulers mightnappeal, certainly not by that inhumannideological standard to which they nownpay only lip service. The exterminatorsnof society’s corruption themselvesnbecome corrupt in precisely the samenvulgar sense as the society beneath them.nThis process, according to Solovyov andnKlepikova, was already apparent innGeorgia and Azerbaijan by the laten1970’s. Such a tendency, if sustained,nmight set the stage for the disintegration,nbe it gradual or abrupt, of totalitarianism.nAn absence of integral, binding purposenat the center might engender a shift ofnpower to a myriad of individuals whonpossess force and the will to use it purelynfor their own ends.nThe emergence of such a state ofnafi&irs in the Soviet Union should comenas no surprise. It is part and parcel of thenhuman reality created from the beginning,nat lower levels than the politicalnstratosphere, by an ideological statenstriving to create a totalitarian socialnorder. In The Gulag Archipelago, Solzhenitsynndescribes how the apparatusnof terror created by the CommunistnParty to achieve its lofty ideological aimsncame to depend, at the level of thencamps, on the blatnye, the “toughs,”nmost of them thugs with no other passionnthan to lord it over their fellow inmates.nThe metaphysical corruption of communismnwas (to use a classic Marxistnphrase) “inevitably reduced to” thenmundane corruption of a simple, brutalnlust for domination.nWas Andropov’s rise to^xjWer, withnits the obvious subordination, at least fornthe moment, of the party to the KGB, thensignal of a new phase in Soviet history?nPerhaps even the penultimate stage?nWhat might follow? A prolonged continuationnof the stagnant status quo? Ancollapse into anarchy? An attempt tonminister to decay within by pursuing ancourse of expansion without, baSednupon an appeal to the supposedly dependablennationalism of the Russiannpeople, in spite of all their misery andndeprivation? The death of Andropov andnhis replacement by Chernenko havendone nothing to clarify the answers tonthese questions, partly because the truencharacter of the Russian people is stillnunknowable. It is hidden beneath a cloaknof fear and isolation, woven by thenmethods, not so much of a Russianntradition of autocracy, as of totalitarianism—Chiddenneven from thenRussians themselves. After so manynBenightednThcoilciri- C S<.>ren.st-n wa.s Spi’iialnCounsel to I’rcsiilcnljohn !•’. Kcniu;d-.n(‘.:uiiel()t. ofiourse, is gone-, yet it liiif-er.-inon llic M-cru- in a manner not unliken(•iiKlerdla’s ca.stlc at Disney Vtorld on ani'(>g}> morn. Its Kin}> Arthur is dcpartcil.nnot lo return from a misty isle in thenI’otomac. Sir Sorenscn. having retireilntirom the jousting turf. Iws now rtturneil.nthougli. armor nislcd and cn-aking—hutnwith A Diffen’nl Kind of Presiiieucy: AnI’mjutsul fur Hrvuhiii^ Ihv I’niiliciilnIH’Mllock (hcssif.-Harper & Kow: NewnYork). The land is in dire sirails. henintones, while wearing :i mournrulncounienanee. Alas, there are lire-breathingnnukes, eeonomic prohlenvs as vexingnas tlie plague, threats from neighl’>r)ringnkingdoiiLs He siratehes out a |X’niaelen(a favorite among the Druidie set) andnprophesies tliat there ari’ but live years ton^< otablesnnndecades of fearing to speak what theynthink, how can each know what thenothers are thinking, or even what henhimself thinks? Is the Soviet regime anynmore a natural manifestation of thenRussian national character than thenKhmer Rouge was a natural manifestationnof the Kampuchean national character?nHowever, one cannot overlooknthe possibility, suggested by LeszeknKolakowski, among others, that, dangerousnthough such a course of eventsnmight prove, “the collapse of the Sovietnempire, &r from being the ruin of Russia,nis the necessary condition of her culturalnrebirth.” Dnthe Day of Doom.nHearken! He has a plan. Noting thenwords of those like Sir Hugh Sidev andnliidy Fkjra U’wis, he not-so-liumbly asksnthat the Round ‘I’able Jx* eonvoked in thenOval Ofliee in IW-i—but an assemblynwith a dilferenee. ‘Hie sieges will be lilleilnby Ixitli lliu.se who liavL- sworn loyalty tontheir Jiege lord and foes, veritablen|x>litical .Mordreds. Instead ofc|uestingasnindiviiluals. tor four years the gi ivernmentnehampions will roam in a paek. theirngiiundets welded t( > one another.nSee them dqiart for the (irail of (ilory.nplumes Ihing in the bree/e! Imagine thendash and the vlbraney of tlte multitudinousnnewly engaged eommissions-personsnfrom all corners of the great land! I’ieturenihe nies whui one fair kniglil’s jamheaungets stuck ill his soUeret. he trips, and thenwhole gang takesa .spill—hut a.spill with aneliffcreiicc. Sir Sorensen would say. onendigjiifietlhyi-onliileneeaiiileonsi-nsus. ‘n^•^19nJuly 1984n