By Editorial Staff
Published August 1, 1991
A Soviet View of American Academia
An article reprinted from the Moscow News
August 4, 1991
The following article “America Tries to Make Sense of Soviet Politics” is representative of the outlook of the Soviet people. Giving an accurate critique of the political views of a cross section of America, Konstantin Pleshakov emphasizes the failed attempt of the Soviet government to restructure the socialist system.
Americans love to hear of change, especially crumbling totalitarianism, a bogy even their grandfathers never saw. But if after six years of change the Soviet Union is ready to accept Christmas food relief, it’s a bizarre change. If you talk with academics at American universities about the Soviet Union you can see that they fall into several different categories:
Liberals of the 1960s
Their political views took shape on the crest of the leftwing movement in the U.S. They favor social experiment and leftwing views in general. They are sympathetic towards Marxism and distinguish it from Stalinism with a determination I can’t comprehend: a liberal of the 60s ferociously criticizes every step taken by the Bush administration.
They like many features of state socialism in the USSR such as the non-existent “collectivism,” “social security” and “egalitarianism.” They screw up their eyes maliciously on hearing of private businesses. Liberals of the 60s are well off, they aren’t like members of the US Communist Party, whom nobody likes. Among the academic community they are well known, people who live perhaps as comfortably as second secretaries of party central committees in the Soviet Republics.
They simply can’t understand why Soviets don’t want socialism any more. They say: “I hope your grandiose experiment will be carried through.” God forbid.
Liberals of the 60s are enthusiastic about all Soviet leaders ranging from the Center (Gorbachev), towards the left wing (Yeltsin, Popov, Sobchak). For them Gorbachev is outside all criticism. They support active aid for the Soviet Union, something on the scale of the Marshall Plan. They are not naive. Especially if they are Sovietologists, they well understand the games Soviet bureaucrats play – which is why they support the idea of a Marshall Plan and Western control over its implementation.
Liberals of the 60s are consistent friends: the political preferences that took root when they were still young are a firm link with an USSR undergoing change. Whatever takes place in the Soviet Union, the liberals of the 60s are with us till the end.
They have no affiliation with the leftists. They value human rights above social experiments in other lands. They like the Soviet Union for the current change rather than its socialist past (as do the liberals of the 60s). Traditional liberals don’t ignore those things liberals of the 60s like to forget (like bloodshed in Lithuania). They watch events in the Soviet Union with guarded optimism and regard its leaders with caution. They judge the situation with reference to traditional liberal ideas and most certainly see a considerable difference.
Traditional liberals are for aid to the USSR but they are stumped on seeing the gluttony of Soviet bureacracy, disarray in Soviet society, the uncertainty of the Republic’s position. Traditional liberals are sometimes amazed at Soviet endurance.
They appreciate our fear of a new mode of socialism – that’s part of their system of values. What’s happening today in the former “socialist camp” confirms their past predictions. For many years tolerant conservatives argued with liberals of the 60s about the USSR’s history and future. Today tolerant democrats in the USSR behave in almost the same way tolerant conservatives predicted. This gives them great moral satisfaction. They criticize most of the Soviet leaders and mainly for good reasons. They take a detached view of the Soviet Union.
Whereas liberals of the 60s would like to see the socialist experiment continue, conservatives are fascinated with the new anti-socialist experiment. They are in no hurry to help the Soviet Union, being very cautious and not wishing to send investment down the drain and provide aid in dubious circumstances – when reforms are contradictory.
They have insisted all along that the system should be destroyed. It has now finally collapsed. One Sovietologist caustically remarked: “They say Soviet perestroika has failed. It hasn’t: communism has collapsed.” Caustic conservatives should be happy, but they aren’t for some reason. Mostly because they no longer have an enemy to contend with. All along they were busy fighting communism in one way or another and still call for vigilance. They aren’t against helping the USSR on the whole, but do nothing to help.
What stumps tolerant conservatives is seen by caustic conservatives as an insurmountable obstacle. Whether historians or traders, they still want to make sure their enemy is dead. They are not intimidated by the prospect of a possible loss of geopolitical balance in Eurasia if the Soviet Union breaks apart, or if it becomes depleted, angry and abandoned by the world community. Caustic conservatives do not wish to consider these dangers. They want to see the noxious system razed to the ground.
The Soviet Union is in disarray. A country Americans thought they knew well – the winter of Stalinism, mummified leaders, fighters for human rights – has all at once been turned into a formidable crossword puzzle. Today’s Soviet Union does not fit any pattern. America is accustomed to the logic of categories of good and evil, black and white. In the USSR it is hard to find logic.
But the seventy-year-long winter has been followed by spring, hasn’t it? Yes, it’s spring, but a strange spring which history has never before known.
Forerunner - Home » The Forerunner Newspaper » Russia, Ukraine and former USSR
Your comments are welcome!
Visit The Forerunner's Discussion Forum!
Download the Free Study Guide!
Just what is Calvinism?
Does this teaching make man a deterministic robot and God the author of sin? What about free will? If the church accepts Calvinism, won’t evangelism be stifled, perhaps even extinguished? How can we balance God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility? What are the differences between historic Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism? Why did men like Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon, Whitefield, Edwards and a host of renowned Protestant evangelists embrace the teaching of predestination and election and deny free will theology?
This is the first video documentary that answers these and other related questions. Hosted by Eric Holmberg, this fascinating three-part, four-hour presentation is detailed enough so as to not gloss over the controversy. At the same time, it is broken up into ten “Sunday-school-sized” sections to make the rich content manageable and accessible for the average viewer.
Running Time: 257 minutes
$19.95 — ORDER NOW!(We accept all major credit cards and PayPal.)
Foundations in Biblical Eschatology
By Jay Rogers, Larry Waugh, Rodney Stortz, Joseph Meiring. High quality paperback, 167 pages.
All Christians believe that their great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, will one day return. Although we cannot know the exact time of His return, what exactly did Jesus mean when he spoke of the signs of His coming (Mat. 24)? How are we to interpret the prophecies in Isaiah regarding the time when “the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea” (Isa. 11:19)? Should we expect a time of great tribulation and apostasy or revival and reformation before the Lord returns? Is the devil bound now, and are the saints reigning with Christ? Did you know that there are four hermeneutical approaches to the book of Daniel and Revelation?
These and many more questions are dealt with by four authors as they present the four views on the millennium. Each view is then critiqued by the other three authors.
$12.95 — ORDER NOW!(We accept all major credit cards and PayPal.)
That Swiss Hermit Strikes Again!
Dr. Schaeffer, who was one of the most influential Christian thinkers in the twentieth century, shows that secular humanism has displaced the Judeo-Christian consensus that once defined our nation’s moral boundaries. Law, education, and medicine have all been reshaped for the worse as a consequence. America’s dominant worldview changed, Schaeffer charges, when Christians weren’t looking.
Schaeffer lists two reasons for evangelical indifference: a false concept of spirituality and fear. He calls on believers to stand against the tyranny and moral chaos that come when humanism reigns-and warns that believers may, at some point, be forced to make the hard choice between obeying God or Caesar. A Christian Manifesto is a thought-provoking and bracing Christian analysis of American culture and the obligation Christians have to engage the culture with the claims of Christ.
$19.95 — ORDER NOW!(We accept all major credit cards and PayPal.)
High Quality Paperback — 200 pages
A Reasonable Response to Christian Postmodernism
Includes a response to the book Christian Jihad by Colonel V. Doner
The title of this book is a misnomer. In reality, I am not trying to get anyone to shut up, but rather to provoke a discussion. This book is a warning about the philosophy of “Christian postmodernism” and the threat that it poses not only to Christian orthodoxy, but to the peace and prosperity our culture as well. The purpose is to equip the reader with some basic principles that can be used to refute their arguments.
Part 1 is a response to some of the recent writings by Frank Schaeffer, the son of the late Francis Schaeffer. This was originally written as a defense against Frank’s attacks on pro-life street activism – a movement that his father helped bring into being through his books, A Christian Manifesto, How Should We Then Live? and Whatever Happened to the Human Race? These works have impacted literally hundreds of thousands of Christian activists.
Part 2 is a response to Colonel Doner and his book, Christian Jihad: Neo-Fundamentalists and the Polarization of America. Doner was one of the key architects of the Christian Right that emerged in the 1980s, who now represents the disillusionment and defection many Christian activists experienced in the 1990s and 2000s. There is still great hope for America to be reformed according to biblical principles. As a new generation is emerging, it is important to recognize the mistakes that Christian activists have made in the past even while holding to a vision for the future.
$14.95 — ORDER NOW!(We accept all major credit cards and PayPal.)
“When the lives of the unborn are snuffed out, they often feel pain, pain that is long and agonizing.” – President Ronald Reagan to National Religious Broadcasters Convention, January 1981
Ronald Reagan became convinced of this as a result of watching The Silent Scream – a movie he considered so powerful and convicting that he screened it at the White House.
The modern technology of real-time ultrasound now reveals the actual responses of a 12-week old fetus to being aborted. As the unborn child attempts to escape the abortionist’s suction curette, her motions can be seen to become desperately agitated and her heart rate doubles. Her mouth opens – as if to scream – but no sound can come out. Her scream doesn’t have to remain silent, however … not if you will become her voice. This newly re-mastered version features eight language tracks and two bonus videos.
“… a high technology “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” arousing public opinion just as Harriet Beecher Stowe’s 1852 antislavery novel ignited the abolitionist movement.” – Sen. Gordon Humphrey, Time Magazine
Languages: English, Spanish, French, South Korean, Chinese, Russian, Portuguese, Japanese
Running Time: 28 minutes
$17.95 — ORDER NOW!(We accept all major credit cards and PayPal.)