views. A party is a part of a class, itsnmost advanced part. Several parties,nand consequently, freedom for parties,ncan exist only in a society in whichnthere are ant^onistic classes whoseninterests are mutually hostile and irreconcilable.n. . . But in the U.S.S.R.nthere are no longer such classes Innthe U.S.S.R. there are only two classes,nworkers and peasants, whose interestsn—6r from being mutually hostile—^are,nof the contrary, friendly. Hence, therenis no ground in the U.S.S.R. for the existencenof several parties, and, consequently,nfor freedom for these parties.nIn the U.S.S.R. only one party cannexist, the Communist Party, ^vhichncourageously defends the interests ofnthe workers and peasants to the verynend. And that it defends the interestsnof these classes not at all badly, of thatnthere can hardly be any doubt. (Loudnapplause.)n1 here speaks the perpetual Bolshevik.nBy ignoring such material (and boastingnof his ignorance, to boot), Salisbury is innthe position of a tennis player who tiesnhis racket finnly to one foot before stridingnonto the court; he should not be surprisednif he has trouble returning thenball. And in feet Salisbury repeatedly admitsnthat in analyzing Soviet afiEairs hen”missed the point entirely,” “did notnread” premonitory signs “correctly,”n”never discovered” the reason for thenarrival of a Chinese delegation in Augustn1952, and “failed to draw what seems tonIn the Mailnme now the obvious conclusion” thatnjust before his death Stalin was movingnto destroy Beria. He even records thatnuntU as late as mid-January 1953 he “feltnpretty certain” that Stalin was not planningna “new purge” despite the appearancenof the customary Bolshevik warningnsigns (“tough declarations aboutnparty discipline and tougher ones onn’vigilance”‘) and despite the apparentiynalmost tangible sense of menace (SvedananAlliluyeva would later recall that “duringnthe winter of 1952-1953 the darknessnthickened beyond all endurance”). Salisburynplows on. His ignorance of BoMievikntheory makes him an easy mark for whatnSoviet emigres—who presumably knownat least as much as Salisbury does aboutnthe U.S.S.R.—call the “primitive” notionnthat Soviet behavior can be explainednsolely in terms of Russian history. AsnSalisbury puts it (the emphasis is his):nI read a lot of Russian history—TRMSSJ«Wnhistory, not Soviet history—in thosenlong evenings in the Metropol. Thisntold me how closely Stalin fitted thenhistorical pattern of the eternal Russianndrive for warm water (Constantinople,nthe Persian Gulf), in the passion forndominating the Balkans (shared withnNicholas I and Alexander HI), in a wishnfor Far Eastern dominance (sharednwith Nicholas II), in a consciousnessnof British (now Indian) rivalry innCentral Asia, in a love-hate relationshipnwith Germany (shared with anNo Woman is an Island by Michael Ivens; Villiers Publications Ltd.; London, England.nBeginnings, endings, desire, satiety, parents, children, birth, death: rendered in numbers.nFreedom and Morality: A Nonsubjective Moral Code by Michael Anselme; PliilosophicalnLibrai-y; New York. A French businessman-tumed-philosopher maintains that doing one’s dutynshould be put above claiming one’s rights. There is still hope for France.nThe Freedom of Religious Expression in Ae Public Higf} Schools by John W. iKIiitehead;nCrossway Books; Westchester, 11. Arguments about why God, not silence, belongs in thenclassroom.nThe Writing on 0ie Wall: An Anthology of Contemporary Czech Literature edited bynAntonin Lielun and Peter Kussi; Karz-Cohl; New York. Writing that exhibits a sense of thenknife edge of reality.nChronicles of Culturennnhierarchy of Czarist rulers and foreignnministers).nSalisbury is at best only half right; an”drive for warm water” may be an elementnin Russian history, but it is Marxism-nLeninism that drives the Soviet Unionntoward the “warm water” of the Caribbeann(including Cienfuegos, the warmwaternport long coveted by such Czarsnas Nikita, Leotiid I, and Yuri the Terrible).nThe whole pseudosophisticated hypothesisn(wiiich is usually advanced to shownthat the proponent is familiar with ansmattering of Russian history and thusnsuperior to those who merely listen tonwhat the Bolshevik leaders actually say)nhas been succinctly harpooned bynVladimir Bukovsky:nIt gets worse and worse. Treaties arennot observed. Soviet expansion growsnstronger; more and more countriesnfall victim to it. But even this is noncause for alarm since the main thing,nthe experts tell us, is to leave thenSoviets an ‘avenue of retreat’ and giventhem a chance to ‘save face.’ Evennwhile the war is proceeding at ftillnspeed and the Afghan people are stUInfightii^ back. Western politicians raceneach other to Moscow in order to saventheir own faces. It’s not so much thatnan entfre nation has disappeared fromnthe map that concerns them, as thenpossibility that detente might be imdermined.nInvade Afghanistan? Why, it’snonly the ‘Russian tradition,’ the eternalndrive ‘to warm water.’ And besides,nthey’re probably frozen, poor boys,nand simply want to warm up a bit. Nobodynwould have gotten so upset, thenspecialists grumble, if only our Russiannfriends had sent Cubans instead.n(Vladirrur Bukovsky, Pis’ma RusskogonPuteshesWennika [Letters ofaRussiannTraveller], NewYoifc 1981, p. 24849.)nAs a memoir of a competent journalist’sndaily experiences in often unusualnsurroundings, Salisbury’s book possessesnsome merit; as an attempt to analyzenSoviet behavior, it is as hopelessly simplisticnas the editorial page of the NewnYork Times itself Dn