always lagging six months behind.” But far more sensiblenpeople also developed a faith, if not in Gorbachev himself,nthen in his reformist intentions.nAt a time when the Soviet economy is dead in the water,nwhen a majority of its republics are seeking their freedomnfrom the Kremlin, former Prime Minister Thatcher told anWashington audience on March 8:nWe should not underestirnate the future reformingnzeal of a man who allowed Eastern Europe to graspnits freedom; who has begun the withdrawal ofnSoviet troops, accepted arms reduction for the firstntime; and cut support for communist insurgenciesnacross the world. We have to go on doing businessnwith him. In the same way, he has to do businessnwith the democratic reformers if he is to succeed.nSecond, we have to stress to the Soviets just hownessential private property is to freedom. Historynteaches that human rights will not long survivenwithout property rights; nor will prosperity benachieved without them.nTo say that nothing has changed in the Soviet Unionnwould be false. But to say that the fundamentals of Sovietnpower have changed would be equally false. There can benno question that the Soviet Union is today an amazinglyndifferent country — and for the better—than it was in 1985.nFew predicted German unification. Few predicted as muchnfreedom of emigration or speech or press as was the casenuntil recently when Gorbachev ordered a crackdown. Fewnpredicted that the Soviet leadership would seek somengenuine legitimacy for its monolithic rule as Gorbachev didnthrough the recently concluded national referendum. Yetnwe now see that Gorbachev’s “reforming zeal” is ebbing fastnas the KGB, the military, the party bureaucracy reassertnthemselves to prevent what would to those pillars of powernbe the ultimate blow — the dissolution of the Soviet systemnof rule. Without that dissolution, either Gorbachev’s “reformingnzeal” will come to an untimely end or, equallynlikely, Gorbachev himself will.nAnnelise Anderson, a sharp-eyed economist and a Hooverncolleague with whom I am normally in agreement,nrecently published in the Christian Science Monitor annop-ed piece that the paper titled: “Perestroika: An Obituary.”nHer theme was that the passing of perestroika representedn”an opportunity to reflect on a life.” But that’s justnthe point. While glasnost did have some life (because, as wenare seeing, it is reversible), perestroika had none. HadnGorbachev provided an equivalent break with the pastneconomically as he seemed to be doing politically, thenSoviet Union might by now have been on the road tonlong-term recovery. To break with the Soviet economic pastnmeans giving up Marxism-Leninism. That faith, Gorbachevnhas said over and over again, he will not surrender. So longnas Gorbachev acts as a Gommunist, as a Marxist-Leninist,nperestroika is a buzzword. Therefore, an obituary fornperestroika is an obituary for a phantom.nWhat Mrs. Thatcher, Mrs. Anderson, the New YorknTimes, and Ted Turner do not face is that there is nonway Gorbachev’s “reforming zeal” can turn a system with anrecord of seven decades of failure — socially, intellectually.nenvironmentally, economically, politically — into an achievingnsociety. All the tricks, the speeches, the “going down tonthe people” stunts, the summits, the easing of politicalnburdens, glasnost, perestroika, the dog and pony shows —nhave served to demonstrate the unworkability of the Sovietnsystem even under the Gorbachevian best of circumstances.nAs chess champion Gary Kasparov put it recently: “There isnno good move in a lost match.”nWhy such pessimism? (Or—realism?) Simply this:nwhere no rule of law exists, private property rights cannotnexist. A rule of law cannot exist when the state and the party,nthrough the KGB, can invoke the most severe penaltiesnagainst those citizens who, according to the KGB and thennon-independent judiciary, violate the “laws” against revealingnstate secrets. Since the KGB defines the statensecrets, the definitions can include restrictions on personalnfreedoms such as the freedom to publish or the freedom tonbuy, sell, and own property. A rule of law and a KGB arenirreconcilable. The rule of law and the rule of Gorbachevnare incompatible; he has not come to power in a democraticnelection, referendum or no. The Gorbachev propagandistsnhave talked about establishing a rule of law, but it is all smokenand mirrors. Under a Marxist-Leninist system there simplyncannot be a rule of law, a constitutional system. Therefore,nno inalienable rights are possible.nGan anybody sue the Soviet government for its promulgationnof the Soviet currency “reform” that made illegalnnotes of 50 rubles or higher? Can anybody get an injunctionnto restrain the Soviet dictatorship from robbing ordinaryncitizens of their savings? Where is the privatization ofnagriculture? Where, are the promised innovations in industry?nAs Hilaire Belloc once wrote: “The control of thenproduction of wealth is the control of human life itself.”nSome months ago the Soviet literary weekly LiteraturnayanGazeta reported that its legal expert, Arkadii Vaksberg,nhad stated that “our state has not been lawful in the truensense of the word for a single day in the whole history of itsnexistence.” It cannot be a lawful state where a small group ofnmen, in the name of “central planning,” decide on thenallocation of scarce resources, especially investment; dictatenprices regardless of cost accounting; exercise a kind ofnecological despotism; ignore the sanctity of contracts; andnreject privatization — where there is no accountability tonelected legislative or provincial bodies empowered to alternthe direction of a failed economy. What passes or has passednfor perestroika is the old system with a snazzy maquillage,nbut food and now even bread lines tell the true story:nsocialism/communism (or central planning) and libertyncannot coexist.nThe only true perestroika must be anti-Marxist, anti-nLeninist, anti-Stalinist, and anti-Gorbachevist. Gorbachevnsays over and over again that he is a Marxist-Leninist, butnvictims of “faith-tendencies” pay no attention. Gorbachev isnwell-described in something Leo Tolstoy wrote at the turn ofnthe century:nI am sitting on a man’s back, choking him andndemanding that he carry me, and without gettingnoff him, I assure myself and others that I am verynsorry for him and wish to alleviate his condition bynall possible means except by getting off his back.n<^nnnJUNE 1991/25n