Ninel Streltsova

Progress Publishers Moscow

Translated from the Russian Designed by Nikolai Anikushin

CONTENTS

H. Crpejibuoea

O

In Lieu of an Introduction.......

Man of the Future: Ideal and Reality . . .

The Age of Reason..........

Can Peace Endure?..........

Mankind in the Nuclear and the Post-Nuclear

Age................

A Paradigm of the Future.......

In the Lap of the Future........

Universal Solver of Problems.......

The Test by Sufficiency........

The Laws of Freedom.........

The Magic Power of Literature......

Flight at Dawn............

An Afterword to My Co-Authors.....

5 13 33

72 98 126 146 163 186 207 232 252

Ha

r, 1987 English translation © Progress Publishers 1987

0302030000---407 ^C 014(01)-87------

In Lieu of an Introduction

When we were children we counted how old we would be in the year 2000. What could we look forward to on that date at an age when time seems to flow as smoothly and endlessly as life? To a holiday, of course---an immense holiday for all people on Earth.

I We have grown up. We have grown up realists. We have come to know that life is not an everlasting holiday. We have learned that red-letter dates are no more than a tribute to convention, that it is childish to expect them to produce a miracle. Yet the expectation of something novel and festive does stir in us as we glance at the calendar. So, how many years is it to the year 2000?

Succumbing to the magic of round figures, I looked up how the world ushered in the year 1000.

Historians say life in Europe had been at a standstill. The crafts were in decline, the fields were abandoned and grown over with weeds, even wars had stopped. Terrified by biblical legends and the predictions of astrologers, people were waiting for doomsday.

A thousand years hence we are brimming over with practical ideas and hopes. We are gripped by the feeling that the turn of the century is approaching in a setting of big change, an overturn in outlook, habit and the very way

of thinking. Production is being restructured on fundamentally new lines. Scientific and technological progress is thrusting into all fields, changing life, making it easier and at once more complicated. Tragically, mountains of arms have been stockpiled that can wipe out all life on Earth. But more importantly, humanity is being offered a concrete plan for relieving the world of the dangers and burdens of the arms

race.

The Communist Party of the Soviet Union has advanced a comprehensive programme for the final elimination of mass destruction weapons before the end of the current century. It is a historic programme in scope and significance that would, if it were only carried out, usher in a new era of construction and peace, of certainty that the human race would live on with no fear of nuclear, chemical or any other

extermination.

``Such is the world we are living in on the threshold of the third millennium," Mikhail Gorbachev said at the 27th Congress of the CPSU. "It is a world full of hope, because people have never before been so amply equipped for the further development of civilisation. But it is also a world overburdened with dangers and contradictions, which prompts the thought that this is perhaps the most alarming period in history.''

The masses are playing a bigger part in shaping the future. The masses means everyone

of us united with everybody else by the great goal of building a society worthy of man.

It is senseless speaking of the future unless we have trust in man's ability to reshape the world on principles of reason and morality. Reasoning man who has grasped the laws of development and can act on them is the guarantee that history will move on to higher and higher ground.

This is a book about the future. But don't expect it to contain prophesies that indulge the imagination rather than the mind. We could attach Ludwig Feuerbach's following citation as an epigraph to each of its chapters: "I am worlds removed from those philosophers who gouge out their eyes so as to be able to think better." The word realism occurs far more often in this book than the word phantasy or fiction.

One thing is clear. So long as man could kill his like, but not all his like, he let the gods worry that the Sun should rise each day, the rivers should flow, and the human race should live on. Today, when man has gained powers comparable to those of Nature, when he is able to destroy all life on Earth, he has found that nothing but his own reason and conscience are responsible for the future of the world. Man and man alone must make sure that rivers flow and flowers bloom, and that there should be people to admire the sunrise. Man is now the Atlas bearing the Universe on his own shoulders. No one but other men can

aid him and share his responsibility for the future. But this dramatic situation breeds hope. As this sense of responsibility sinks in deeper and deeper it shapes a solidarity of one and all. People are brought together by the idea that life on Earth and the opportunities for its further advancement is the greatest value of all, and that the interests of society are supreme.

I asked cosmonaut Vitaly Sevastyanov, who has watched the Earth from the porthole of his space vehicle, whether extraterrestrials studying the Earth could see that the anthropoids, divided and hostile, comprised one human race.

Hardly, he said, for the borders that divide countries are not visible from outer space.

We on Earth, however, keenly feel the tragic consequences of the division of humanity into rival groups. In fact, the course of world events has brought us to a frontier where inactivity and delay are criminal because the survival of civilisation and life itself are at stake. We must rise above our own narrow interests and mind the collective responsibility of all nations in face of the common danger. The urge to survive and the urge to resolve many vital problems must prompt people to act in common. We cannot take ``no'' for an answer where civilisation hangs in the balance. Social progress must and will continue. So will civilisation. That is socialism's viewpoint. Peace and social progress are, indeed, the only sensible and scientifically grounded prospect for humanity.

We are going through hard, contradictory and changing times. The future depends on the decisions and solutions we shape today.

To be sure, each period in history has been decisive in its own way. The socialist revolution in Russia in October 1917 was a turning point. The present and future of mankind would have been inconceivable without the victory over German fascism. Now the time has come for every one to concern himself with the future of mankind.

There are those who object. The future? What business is it of mine? There are problems that could improve my life now, this very minute.

A myopic view. But it calls for an answer. Here-and-now ideas screen off and suppress thoughts of the future---and I don't only mean the remote days before the Great French Revolution when that notorious phrase, apres nous le dSluge, was coined.

Historians could cite examples when the mistakes of one generation were paid for dearly by those who came later. But in the past, people could hope to escape the deluge they caused. Today, time is commensurable with people's lives: man either reaps the whirlwind he himself has sown or enjoys the fruit of his good deeds.

As he starts erecting a building, the builder has a clear idea of what it will be like. History is like a building---an endless

construction site on which the edifice of the future is being raised by millions upon millions of people of different generations. How to coordinate their activity? Only an ideal can give them a goal and make their efforts purposeful. And even if we are not destined to see the upper stories of the edifice and the crowning image of the man of the future, we must always align our deeds with the blueprint in order to avoid distortions and to preclude the possibility of the construction caving in under the burden of our mistakes, miscalculations, and

carelessness.

Today, the future has in a way come closer to us. It has become the affair of the current generation. That is why, though the title of this book contains the word ``future'', it is about our time, about us, all of us. And comparing the ideal with what there is, we have tried to determine how the grandeur of the goals could be organically compounded with the really existing capabilities.

Among the many threads that stretch from us to the future, the most conspicuous perhaps are those linked with the scientific and technological revolution.

The main movers of scientific and technological progress are search and rapid introduction of scientific achievements in production and also improvement of the moral fabric of the individual. The policy of the country's accelerated social and economic development adopt-

ed by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, as noted at the 27th Party Congress in February 1986, "is not confined to changes in the economic field. It envisages an active social policy, a consistent emphasis on the principle of social justice.''

Whatever aspect of the future we may touch upon, it never fails to show us its ``human'' side. And naturally so. Man is the chief character in history and, as Marx predicted, is becoming an aim in himself as we come closer to communism. Man is the motive for progress, and he is also its goal.

The image of the man of the future is everpresent on the pages of this book. But we know too little of the inner man, let alone the man of the future, to try and breathe life into our model. We never forget the warning that one should never try and predict what is unpredictable. The ideal man is mentioned here only to compare the world of today in most general outline with the world to come, and to see what new elements there will be and what is doomed to extinction.

What we would like to see triumph in the future world are the eternal values such as justice, peace, and humanism. Eternal values and eternal verities: each new generation discovers them anew for its own benefit and will not acknowledge their everlasting worth until they have passed dozens of tests.

But to begin with, someone must identify

them and show them to the young people only just embarking on life. Who will impart to the rising generation what we value today and what we would like to see rooted in them, the people of tomorrow?

``Bringing up people," Lev Tolstoy says, "looks like a hard business, but only so long as we want to bring up our children or anyone else without bringing up ourselves. As soon as we realise that we can bring up others only through ourselves, the question of bringing up anyone is abolished and only one thing remains: how to live one's own life?''

There is a good Russian custom---to sit down a minute before starting on a journey and think back: perhaps you've left something behind in the rush, or perhaps you've packed something you don't need that will make the journey cumbersome? Perhaps this book will prompt us to assess the road ahead and our ability to

travel it.

A book is no more than words. But words can be deeds. Words jarte deeds if they help people rise out of the rut and see the goal more clearly, and if they summon all people to join hands and attain it.

I hope that my interviews with prominent Soviet men of science give a fairly complete idea of the problems that exist in the Soviet Union today and of how they are being tackled, and also of how we Soviet people see the future of the world and what we expect of that future.

Man of the Future: Ideal and Reality

Have you seen Michelangelo's ``Captives''?

They are also called ``Slaves'': "A Dying Slave," "An Aroused Slave," "A Rebellious Slave"... The sculptures are as fine as any created by the great Italian master. They are unfinished works: the figures have not been completely cut, remaining prisoners of the stone blocks from which they were shaped. The figures strive to be released from the weight of the stone, their yearning lending them an even more humanlike appearance. Was not human history also a history of struggle by man to liberate himself from the power of natural elements?

Every day we are busy altering our natural cradle, bringing it into line with the increasing possibilities and demands of mankind. Our life is indisputably becoming more comfortable in this home. Yet, it is also evident that its tenants are changing along with their environment. Whether we like it or not, we cannot change this fact: man is creating circumstances as much as circumstances are moulding man.

What will man be like in the future?

It is only natural that everyone shapes his vision of the ideal based on his own experience, inclinations and predilections. I, for instance, would like to see man of the future more frank

and straightforward in expressing his feelings. Both we and our children and grandchildren--- those very people of the future whom we today are trying to figure out---can have a multitude of wishes. They too have or will have their own opinion on the matter.

I asked Ivan Frolov: Does there exist a general, universal ideal of man which mankind strives for?

is not difficult to see that this vision of man of the future has culled the best from the centuries-long history of attempts to create an ideal image of man, therefore we are talking about the value of our ideal which is common to all.

Don't you think that man of the future is so important that he deserves to be talked about at length?

This is a question more for an artist, a writer, who have a free imagination. Being a science, Marxism rejects attempts to define in concrete terms what man of the future will be like. All types of Utopian constructions are foreign to it. What's more, to engage in such pursuits would mean to a priori confine the development of the individual to predetermined boundaries. Marxism is not a congealed doctrine. It does not offer, in Engels' words, ready dogmas, but starting points for further investigation and a method for this investigation. Therefore, we can talk only about a scientific definition of the general, time-tested fundamental traits of the man of the future.

These are above all a scientific world-view, an attitude to labour as the main sphere in which to realise one's abilities and gifts, and a creative attitude to one's activities. The communist ideal of an individual presumes a high degree of education and an overall cultural development. It includes a number of social, moral and psychological qualities such as discipline and self-discipline, honesty, modesty, col-

Ivan Frolov, a philosopher, Corresponding Member of the USSR Academy of Sciences

Man of the future will be rational and humane, inquisitive and active. He also should be able to enjoy beauty. He will be an integral, comprehensively developed personality which is perfect spiritually and physically. That is the way a Marxist would answer this question. It

lectivism, a feeling of civic duty, kindness, principled behaviour, boldness, readiness to fight and sacrifice oneself for a common cause, active participation in public affairs, responsibility, nobleness of feelings and physical perfection.

To be sure, the above-listed qualities are not the only ones that shape our ideal of a well-rounded, harmoniously developed individual. Some of them, even many of them, as I have said, cannot be foreseen at this time. The shaping of an individual is a multiform and complex process. Ever newer qualities and values emerge during the formation of communist civilisation. Some of those which today are merely outlined will probably be of considerable importance in our lives tomorrow. But the basic traits and qualities of our ideal are defined by Marxist-Leninist theory, on the basis of which we bring up the rising generation. Relying on them, we shape a vision of the future world in which our ideal will live and develop.

You said that the moulding of an individual is a multiform and complex process. It can be added that this process rarely goes from start to finish without hitches. For this reason we must be prepared to not only rejoice and be touched when seeing how better and better man is becoming. Many traps and delusions lie on the road to his perfection, as modern man has inside him not only the makings of the ideal personality of the future, but also habits and instincts acquired over thousands of years that

clash with these ideal traits. I have in mind, for instance, the extremely dangerous habit of a consumerist attitude to the world around us. The rapid development of industry which holds the promise of satisfying to an increasing degree any material demands of society also objectively causes these demands to grow constantly. There would be nothing bad about this were it not for the fact that this gives birth to envy and selfishness, that an orientation towards material values can become an end in itself and squeeze out all other aspirations. And it is here that lies one of the reasons for human misfortunes.

Sociologists have long discovered that personal satisfaction depends on the size of the gap between a person's expectations and what he has been able to get. Strange enough, in the future this gap, despite the steady perfection of production, might become wider, for the wealth and possibilities of society at every given moment are limited, while a person's claims---• whether real or artificially created---are boundless.

Indeed, the demands made by individuals are constantly growing. Yet, it is clear that these demands do not always match real possibilities. Therefore, there should be some type of internal mechanism enabling an individual to bring his requirements to a reasonable conformity with reality, with his own real abilities, thus avoiding disappointment.

2---111

What are the principles for determining this reasonableness? First of all, there is the agreement of an individual's requirements with society's objective possibilities. Second, the agreement of an individual's requirements with those of the collective. Third, the degree to which an individual's requirements correspond to his labour contribution and abilities, and the degree to which the satisfaction of these requirements contributes to the individual's all-round development. Fourth, the agreement of an individual's requirements with the position he occupies within the division of labour system and with the role he plays in society. Disregard of these principles may foster the appearance and proliferation of consumerist individualism, competition, rivalry, the loss of a sense of civic duty and undermine relations between people.

That is, cause society to enter a crisis in the very foundations of society as can be observed today in the West. I think that this is why precisely today, when a technological revolution seems capable of breathing new life into a society of consumption, quite a few studies have appeared in bourgeois philosophy and sociology whose authors attempt to unfold a future for man within the framework of capitalist society as it now exists. In my view, these works are an attempt to anticipate the question being formulated ever more clearly by the ''average Western man". Capitalism has over a long time

and adroitly got him used to consumerist attitude to life, and he is beginning to ask, what next?

In reply he is told of a ``new'' civilisation and of a ``new'' man because it is sensed that that is exactly the answer he is looking for. Yet upon closer look it is found that the same old philosophy of consumerism is being offered, only in new packaging.

This brings to mind the fairy tale about a magical gold fish that fulfilled the wishes of a capricious old lady. The woman's wishes got bigger and bigger---from a wash-tub to a tsar's palace---until the fish's patience wore out. The overly demanding woman ended up with what she started---a broken wash-tub. In life, scientific and technological progress can be likened to the fairy-tale fish: it is prepared to satisfy ever new demands but cannot guarantee that man will not one day end up with a broken wash-tub if he refuses to understand that the fruits of this progress must be used rationally.

Science and technology promise to make true even the most outlandish fairy tales. Biology, for instance, from what I know from your books, offers the grounds to hope that in the not too distant future the human life span will be considerably lengthened. And this at a time when not every man knows what he lives for and how to spend his life. This revolution in science and technology accelerates the pace of

all social processes. Philosophy, too, must keep pace. Today man increasingly counts on this science to provide an answer to the eternal question of the meaning of life. With account taken, of course, of the changes wrought by scientific and technological progress.

You have simultaneously raised several interconnected questions.

Human life is precious in itself. That is why I suggest beginning the discussion with the question of immortality. Although, oddly enough, something prevents me from accepting this viewpoint without reservation.

Your doubts do not strike me at all as odd. If we set a goal, then this goal must be wellthought-out and grounded. If our goal is to extend the human life span, then we must first scientifically substantiate why this is needed and answer the question whether man will always seek to live as long as possible and strive for

immortality.

This is probably true. Traces of this dream can be found in all past epochs.

Yet you have probably heard of people who are "tired of living" or who "have lost the meaning of or taste for life". Not just isolated individuals, but entire generations have experienced a feeling of being lost and useless. Good examples are fairly broad sections of the West European public between the two world wars, or of American society during the aggression against Vietnam. Getting ahead, I will say that the

human life span depends not only on biological health but also on the condition of the mind, of the soul, if you will.

It seems to me that I can illustrate your thought with a concrete example taken from the present. Not long ago I read an article in a West European newspaper about a mass suicide attempt by unemployed West German youths. One of the youths, a strong and healthy 19-year-old man, left behind a note that read: "Life is an empty waste of time."

The fact is that man lives two lives, as it were, or, more exactly, there are two systems for measuring his life---a biological and a social one.

The biological life span is a specific time which is genetically coded and which presupposes the succession of life of individuals as a condition of the historical span of life. This measure of life is closely connected with the optimal realisation of man's biologically inherent abilities. Roughly speaking, from the standpoint of Nature, man's purpose is to continue the human race, and therefore after he reaches a certain age, Nature loses interest in him, that is, in the given case the interests of the individual are secondary to the ``highest'' interests of the species. This biological life span is directly dependent on advances in medicine and biology.

Several promising methods already exist for prolonging the human life span. It would not

be too wild to believe, as Ilya Mechnikov^^1^^ predicted, that in the not too distant future man will live till the age of 100 or even 120.

In the social phase of his evolution, man will also pursue another goal---the prolongation of reason. In short, we continue to live and want to live longer after Nature has lost interest in us, because we still have a purpose in life, no matter whether or not we are aware of this. As Cicero remarked, the life of old men is justified as long as they can bear the burden of duty. This measure of life depends on the ability of society to create conditions under which man can realise his creative abilities and individuality and thereby find a different meaning in life other than that of continuing his

species.

Consequently, the meaning of human life lies in the full use of all of man's abilities.

Or, in the words of philosophers, of his inherent abilities.

And man, in the final analysis, is an end in

himself?

Let me answer quoting Lenin. He said quite clearly: "This notion (=man) is the impulse to realise itself, to give itself objectivity in the objective world through itself, and to realise (fulfil) itself.''

I think it is necessary to clarify one point. It is obvious that man can realise his abilities only in society. It is no accident that all Robinsons have always sought to return to people. Yet,

many examples can be found in history and literature of people who sought to flee society because it suppressed their individuality. Don't you think that in such situations man assumed a passive role in expectation of the time when society would allow him to realise himself?

I intentionally placed near the top of my list of the qualities a man of the future should have an individual's active nature. Not only must man work to reshape society. He must also work to perfect himself. The founders of scientific communism emphasised that it is the calling, purpose and task of every person to develop all his capabilities. Herein lies the meaning of life of the individual which he realises through society. This is also the meaning of life for all mankind as a whole.

Communist civilisation of which socialism is a stage marks an epoch in which man, as envisioned by Karl Marx, will realise comprehensively all his innate abilities and thus become an integral man.

So man has escaped from his biological predestination and has set himself a new goal which he hopes to achieve. At the same time, however, he has acquired a source of new, agonising disappointments unknown to animals. You have already guessed what I am referring to. Unlike in the animal world, where the goals of the individual and the species coincide, humans are not able---at least now and in the foreseeable future---to realise themselves fully,

for human life is too short and society too imperfect to allow this.

Yes, and it is not enough to look at this problem only from a standpoint of species and describe the position of Marxist philosophy only as an optimistic: although man dies, his immortality is assured by his posterity and humanity's cultural heritage---material and spiritual.

There is also another, individual, side to death and immortality, one that has tragic implications for the individual which no philosophy, not even the most optimistic one, can mollify. Therefore realism, or, to be more exact, scientific, realistic humanism---rather than optimism---should be affirmed as the moral-- philosophical basis of the Marxist approach to questions of death and immortality.

There is perhaps no more frightening feeling than impotence. It can drive a man to commit the most hardy of acts, such as, for instance, the artificial spurring of the social development of humanity in order to bridge the gap between the shortness of human life and the long-term goal of building a new society. History is full of such attempts, which ended in tragedy for the experimenters. Yet it seems as though in this field, too, science is prepared to perform miracles.

Until comparatively recently Herbert Wells' First Men in the Moon was seen as an allegory containing a warning for the future. Wells'

depiction of incubators in which the lunar dwellers are remoulded into creatures with elongated arms or legs specially suited for performing designated tasks is so close to being a reality today that even Wells himself would be amazed. American sociologist and journalist Alvin Toffler was totally serious when he suggested that jet pilots be produced with sharpened reactions. But if that were only the end.

"Biology Instead of Ideology" is the title the Italian newspaper La Repubblica gave to a survey of views by Western biologists and sociologists on the possibility of altering man's mentality through the use of drugs, gene engineering and microsurgery, which, they assert, could help produce an ideal man who in turn would immediately set out to create an ideal world around him. No class struggle or social revolutions would be required to make everyone happy or at least satisfied with themselves. I don't consider myself a dyed-in-the-wool conservative who is afraid of all progress, but the prospect of such advances alarms me. Therefore I would like to ask you as a philosopher and biologist how to understand and appraise such assertions?

The question is not easy. Advances in biology and particularly in gene engineering make it possible to actively and radically influence the human characteristics, giving rise to various neo-eugenic plans for altering human beings.

However, at this stage at least, attempts to ``improve'' man must be prevented if only by reckoning with the paradox that in order to create a human being more intelligent than us we must be more intelligent than the human being we seek to create, must possess a higher standard of morals, etc.

It is an entirely different matter if the goal is to create a human being with inferior mental powers, abilities or moral qualities. It has always been easier to remove an organ than heal it. It is no accident that many of the people supporting the neo-eugenic theories are racists and anti-communists, i.e., those who would like to see man devoid of reason and his own free

will.

Like Dr. Cameron, whose experiments in behaviour modification were put to use by the C. I. A. in a project known as MK-ULTRA?

Cameron, unfortunately, is not alone. Perhaps his story produced much more noise than others, which is why it attracted public attention. Yet his experiments are not the only example of the kind of consequences that can result from the manipulation of human minds when it is done to suppress the free expression of thought and social protest. Unfortunately, we often seek to put our mind at rest and erase from it painful memories. Otherwise everyone would recall the tragic fate of American actress Francis Farmer, whose personality was `` corrected'' from ideological and political considera-

tions. This tragedy alone, which received widespread publicity through the film Francis, should be enough to put an end to plans for intrusion into the biology of man.

So you are categorically against ``improving'' human nature?

Yes, for the real dangers considerably outweigh the questionable pluses that neo-eugenics could yield, even if the architects of such plans were truly interested in helping man and humanity.

From a humanistic standpoint these projects and experiments are unacceptable because they encroach on the sovereignty and uniqueness of the individual. Neo-eugenic theories are erroneous because they fail to take into account the social nature of man; they rely on purely genetic rather than social factors to modify him, on passively waiting for scientists to ``evolve'' the ideal man, instead of relying on the struggle to create a society in which the individual will reveal his better sides.

That is the way I see it. But this does not mean that active interference in the biology of man and in his heredity is generally not possible or undesirable. Such interference is useful above all for preventing and treating hereditary diseases and correcting inborn defects. Science is rapidly bringing us closer to the time when this will be possible. But even in this case I would be wary of venturing further towards altering the biological nature of the human

organism since in this field we shall still know much less than we don't know. Our ignorance of these matters, and not only malicious intent, could do irremediable harm.

But in principle you still do not deny that at some point in the future man would undertake to alter the human organism?

It can be assumed that the creation of human beings with a set of programmed genetic traits will become possible. Yet in order for this to be undertaken two conditions must be present. First, the achievement of society's homogeneity, which would exclude the possibility of manipulation for ideological purposes. Second, this will become possible only at the final stage in the study of the human organism when all its secrets are discovered. But this will not occur soon, so that neither we nor our children will be confronted by this question.

Today, and in the foreseeable future, there are no genetic or biological obstacles preventing the perfection of man or the progress of society. We shall achieve the ideal not in spite of but in full accordance with the laws of Nature and social development: labour created man, whose specific human qualities will develop owing to his participation in social labour.

/ would like to return to the question of the ideal man of the future. Over thousands of years people have put forward various models

as to what this man should be. Have we lived up to their expectations?

This question is difficult to answer only one way. I would say both ``yes'' and ``no''.

These models have always been created on the basis of an extrapolation of the qualities and trends that their architects considered important. So everything depends primarily on the ideas and convictions of the person creating this ideal. Even proponents of slavery, absolutism and ``wild'' capitalism had their own ideas of the future.

We do not idealise ourselves and are aware better than anyone else of our shortcomings, but even in spite of them Campanella, More, Saint-Simon, Fourier, Owen and thousands of other thinkers of the past of lesser renown would see in us many of the traits which they ascribed to man of the future.

Today it is not very difficult for us to judge which of the thinkers of the past were brilliant visionaries and which were false prophets. Today's futurologists will be judged by future generations. What makes you so positive that our communist ideal is being realised, that man of the future will be rational, humane, inquisitive, active, an integral and comprehensively developed person?

First, because the Marxist approach to this issue is radically different from all previous ones---we are not guessing, but foresee on the basis of everything known to science about

2ft

man. Second, because it can be readily seen how these qualities are being asserted in people living in socialist society---their enthusiasm, patriotism, internationalism, etc. The first step towards the communist ideal has already been

taken.

But much work still remains to be done, during which society will to a greater degree than today rely on the results of a complex cognition of man in the unity of social and biological qualities. Today, regrettably, man is looked upon by science as a "dismembered object", a being deprived of its integrity, uniqueness and

individuality.

We apparently have gone from the ideal to reality. There are many prophecies asserting that modern man is ``doomed''. A number of scientists believe that a genetic and moral degeneration of man is not far off. Some of them even predict when this will happen---the middle of the 21st century. What's your opinion on

this?

We are, naturally, far from such pessimistic predictions for the reason that not only from a socio-moral standpoint but genetically as well homo sapiens is a young species whose length of existence science cannot determine accurately enough. Unless. .. This ``unless'' is essential, and here everything depends on man himselt and the society in which he lives. I have in mind the possible destruction of man as a result of a thermonuclear holocaust or the extreme

aggravation of global problems such as environmental pollution or an energy crisis. We are in fact confronted with a test: is man rational or not? Yet man must also be humane, and not only rational. This, and only this, will save him: reason combined with humaneness, consequently, kind reason and wisdom, which is broader, more profound than mere knowledge.

We once again unintentionally have slid back to the ideal. But what does reality offer us?

It is apparently difficult to separate the ideal from reality since the ideal is built on the basis of reality. At the same time, the ideal determines the specific aims of reality's motion since, according to Marx, man is in absolute motion of the formation and perfection. The GPSU Programme proceeds from this assumption in setting the guidelines for our work up to the year 2000 and onwards in the moulding of a harmoniously developed and socially active individual combining spiritual richness, moral purity and physical perfection. This process is being organically linked to the acceleration of the socio-economic development of our country towards a new, communist society. In the language of dialectics, by accelerating socioeconomic development to accelerate the process by which a new man is formed; and by accelerating the formation of a new man to accelerate the process of the socio-economic development of society.

So the ideal of the man of the future will become increasingly connected with reality. In turn, the real movement of human history will lead to humanitarian goals which alone can inspire it, lending it supreme meaning.

The Age of Reason

``What do you think the man of the 21st century will be like?" I asked Vitaly Goldansky.

``To me the ideal is Pushkin," he said.

Last century Nikolai Gogol wrote: " Pushkin ... is what the Russian man will be perhaps in two hundred years." The coincidence of the forecast is amazing, and both named the 21st century.

But let us look around us---the ideal may exist not only in the ever-elusive future. Now and again history, trying, as it were, to strengthen our confidence that the ideal is attainable, endows it with the merits of some real personages. Vitaly Goldansky named a few of them: Lenin, Pasteur, Lincoln, Tolstoy, Einstein, and, of course, Pushkin, whom he likes not only as a poet but also as a man with his emotions and his inimitable character. But we shall return to this at the end. There was one reason which made me seek an interview with Academician Goldansky, the man who suggested an original model of the origin of life on Earth.

In California, not far from San Francisco and Disneyland, a "city of the future" is being built. Carlo Rambaldi, its designer and producer of special effects in "King Kong" and other films-catastrophes much talked of in the West, has named the city Millennium. Rambaldi's

Notes

Mechnikov, Ilya Ilyich (1845-1916)---Russian biologist, one of the founders of comparative pathology, evolutionary embryology, immunology, creator of the theory of the origin of multicellular organisms, author of works on ageing problems. Nobel Prize winner.---Ed.

I---in

idea is that the visitors be shown the past and the future of the Universe. He has promised to reproduce all the wonders of the world, from the Niagara Falls, Egyptian pyramids and the Roman Coliseum to the New York skyscrapers. Electronic dummies of outstanding persons will talk to the inquisitive public, each about his time.

In the centre of Millennium the final scene of the show---the main attraction---will be staged in the seventy-metre ball-shaped building. The visitors will witness the end of civilisation. Electronic video devices will show the Eiffel Tower bending down and falling to the ground, the forests of thousand-year-old sequoias on fire, and the population of the Earth with its hopes and ideals perishing.

The sight of an abyss has a mesmeric effect on man, and Rambaldi hopes his apocalyptic show will attract many spectators. Maybe it will. Because he seems to have guessed the sentiments predominant in America today: the image of death reigns in the country, says US journalist Mike Davidow. But do people, including Americans, look forward to seeing such pictures of the future?

Man's reason revolts against such an undertaking. He hates to hear the alarm bell, which warns against the real danger to civilisation, sounding like the handbells of a baffoon. Reason resists this "declared death chronicle", for to convince man that a catastrophe is inevi-

table means to do half of death's job. That led me to the idea that I should interview Academician Goldansky who knows about life perhaps more than others today, for he is trying to understand the origin of life on Earth and knows better how important it is to save it from the dangers, probably yet unseen by others.

You have suggested a model of the origin of life on Earth. What are you going to do next?

Vitaly Goldansky, physicist, Member of the USSR Academy of Sciences

Well, I'm going to go on with the research to verify and elaborate on the main ideas of

the theory. As you know, the problem of the origin of life is not of purely scientific importance.

This problem has always interested man, if only because the knowledge of the origin of life on our planet may help us understand the bounds within which life can continue to exist and the conditions required for that, and realise the dangers confronting it. So I think I must explain wherever I can that a global threat spells the end of civilisation and even of life on Earth. Unless mankind turns off the "war path", it will destroy itself by the nuclear weapons it has produced, and, I am afraid, this may happen in a not too distant future.

Indubitably, the scientists who draw public attention to the global threat of not only nuclear war itself but also of its destructive effects known as "nuclear winter", are doing an extremely important job.

The threat we came to realise during our work on the origin of life is far greater---it is the destruction of the entire biosphere, of all life on Earth, though we cannot estimate so far the quantitative factor of this danger.

Then will you give us the gist of your studies, so we could understand the conclusions you have made?

Our approach to the physical description of the problem of the origin of life on Earth is based on the following simple propositions.

We know that at the basis of life is the abili-

ty for self-reproduction: the living beings reproduce their kind. At the molecular level this is known as auto-replication, as, for instance, when the well-known double DNA spiral is untwisted. At that moment a replica of the other strand emerges on both of them, and so two double spirals appear instead of one. But auto-replication does not make all the difference between animate and inanimate nature at a molecular level. Biopolymers, these molecules of life, have yet another most characteristic and wonderful property---cheiral, or chiral purity. I shall explain what it means.

In 1848 Louis Pasteur discovered the mirror isomerism of organic molecules. It appeared that they could exist in two structural forms that are at the same time similar and different from each other, like the palms of the right and left hands. The right palm is the mirror-image of the left one, but they are incompatible in any other position. Such mirrorimage antipodes exist in the world of molecules. This ability of molecules to exist in two mirror-image antipodal forms is known in science as ch(e)irality (the derivative from the Greek cheir which means hand). The same Greek word is the root of chirurgia, the old name of surgery, and other words. Among the organic substances having chiral properties are the amino acids and sugars, these small elements making up life. It turned out that practically absolute chiral purity is typical of organic, or ani-

mate nature: proteins contain only ``left'' amino acids, while nucleic acids contain only ``right'' sugars. This is the second major difference between the animate and the inanimate.

It is known that chirally pure compounds left to themselves will sooner or later become a mixture with equal amounts of right and left isomers. Chemists call them racemic, and the tendency towards racemisation is characteristic of inanimate nature. Chiral purity is indispensable for the origin and maintenance of life, for only in a chirally pure medium can the auto-replication of life molecules occur.

So how was the mirror-image symmetry of the pre-biological medium upset?

Thorough analysis has prompted us the conclusion that this could be done only through some abrupt change in the properties of this system during the gradual change in the properties of the medium. This occurs in critical conditions, when a medium can no longer exist in the former state and instantly changes into a new and stable state. Thus water, when cooled, turns into ice.

Now it is possible to imagine the following process of the origin of life.

The first phase is the formation and accumulation of various organic compounds, including amino acids, sugars and so on. The mechanism of their emergence on the Earth has been found out in general terms and modelled in many experiments. Our observations of chem-

ical reactions at very low temperatures, close to absolute zero, have revealed that fairly complex organic molecules, even polymers, could be formed in the limitless expanses of the Universe, in the dark clouds of interstellar dust. Anyway, at that phase racemic, chirally ``impure'' isomeric mixtures---mirror-image antipodes--- were formed at first.

In the next phase the mirror-image symmetry in the "primary broth" on the Earth and in the huge masses of interstellar dust was upset, arid a chirally pure organic medium was formed: only left amino acids and right sugars remained then. This phase is extremely important, for it is the starting point for the subsequent evolution of the pre-organic state.

In the third phase the primitive biopolymeric systems capable of auto-replication were formed in the chirally pure medium. There appeared a new very important property---self-- maintenance of chiral purity for subsequent evolution. Now the impact of life itself suppressed the tendency of the non-organic medium to turn everything into a racemic mixture.

Thus life, the biosphere, came into being. Its further evolution is known---from primitive organisms to man, the pinnacle of biological evolution. Wherever life appears, it originates according to the same laws; the origin of life is preceded by the upsetting of the mirror-- image symmetry in non-organic nature.

And another condition for its existence and

further evolution, apart from the ability for auto-replication, is, as you have said, also the maintenance of a chirally pure biosphere. The development of science and new technologies makes it possible to create new substances, unknown to nature, and to include them in the biospheric cycle. Isn't there a danger of a racemic ``pollution'' of living matter?

In the 1960s, Western Europe was shocked by a tragedy. Thalidomide, a sedative, became widely used then. But it was soon discovered that it was responsible for congenital deformities in children born to mothers who took the drug. The cause of that remained unknown until it was noticed that the drug was produced in the racemic form, that is, it contained equal numbers of left and right isomers.

The danger of ``non-natural'' compounds lies in the fact that evolution did not provide organisms with means of protecting themselves from them. It did not need to, for the biosphere is chirally pure. But if we, warned against this danger, are capable of keeping the pharmaceutical and food industries under control, maintaining the chiral purity of their products, the means of mass destruction still present a particular danger. A steep increase of the mortality rate for a lengthy period and the death of animals and plants on a mass scale as a result of a nuclear war and its corollary, the "nuclear winter", may bring about such a sharp racemic pollution of the general background on the

Earth that it will lead to catastrophic consequences, even if a conflict is ``limited'' at first.

In other words, there is a danger that Nature will enter a new phase, make a new qualitative leap, this time backwards, and, using your simile, ice will turn back to water?

The biosphere is a relatively integral system in a state of natural dynamic balance. It maintains its chiral purity, the necessary condition for preserving life, due to the processes occurring within it and protecting it from natural racemising effects. But if the racemising effect exceeds some limits, quantitatively yet unknown to us, the biosphere may be destroyed. The analysis we have made has shown us that there may be two phases of such destruction.

First, all animate world, including human beings, will disappear as a result of the unfavourable global effect on all organisms, which would sharply reduce their life span. Even if part of mankind survives in these conditions, the racemic environment will kill it in the end, because food should be chirally pure, otherwise the thalidomide effect will be repeated.

Some people may argue that from the point of view of the evolutionary restoration the situation is reversible in a sense, because chiral purity of the entire biosphere cannot be destroyed completely. When the harmful effect stops, the animal world will revive sooner or later, and theoretically there are chances that

higher organisms will ultimately reappear. But, of course, this is poor consolation.

Second, the effects on the biosphere can be such that the racemisation of the environment will be complete. Not only fauna but also flora will be killed, and the vegetable kingdom today is the main source of the formation of chirally pure substances out of initial, inorganic matter. This would spell a complete and final disappearance of the biosphere. The planet's development would be reversed and brought back to the level that existed billions of years ago.

For life on Earth to originate again, matter would have to go through all the phases of pre-biological evolution, including the upsetting of the mirror-image symmetry of the organic medium.

The "safety margin" of the biosphere is far from unlimited. Mankind should not impose on Nature its own rules of the game, if it wants to go on living, for in this case life is at stake.

Can the "safety margin" be calculated?

I think it is possible to make very rough estimates in principle. But the experience accumulated by mankind to date is quite enough to say definitely that a nuclear war will cause the destruction of at least human civilisation. I hope that detailed calculations in future--- and we talk about future, aren't we?---will be unnecessary, for there will be no threat of a war waged with the use of mass destruction weapons---the main threat of a racemic pol-

lution of the biosphere. Perhaps historians of science will tackle this issue in future.

And I hope that this argument based on science should at last convince everyone that nuclear weapons are suicidal.

I cannot imagine now that anyone who, equipped with all the relevant data provided by modern science, and aware of all possible consequences of such an act, would in his right mind unleash a nuclear war. But there is still a danger of an accident, of a not premeditated outbreak of such a war. I do not even mean political miscalculation, but our increasing trust in technology. We shift the responsibility for decision-making onto computers.

On the one hand, computers do ``think'' and act fast, and these qualities are being constantly perfected, which should minimise the chances of an accident. But this has not been the case. On the contrary, the risk of a mistake is increasing, because the complexity of the tasks we set to computers increases faster than the capacity of the computers themselves. Reference here is to tasks like "image identification" and a very fast response adequate to the image being identified. But will the computer's conclusion about the character of the image being identified correspond to what it really is?

It is often asked if the computer will ever be able to play chess better than man. I think it will. Because the game of chess, for all its

complexity, has a comparatively limited number of possible reasonable moves in each position, and the computer, with its fantastic and fast memory, can better, faster and more accurately pick out the best solution among all the possible ones. But just imagine a game of chess in which every move is followed by an arbitrary change of the rules of the game, and this is precisely what military-political strategy is. No computer can cope with such a ``game'', and the possibility of mistakes will grow a great deal faster than the possibility of correct decisions, and ultimately it will all result in catastrophe.

Such ``games'' should better not be played at all, either by computers or people.

This is what all scientists say, at least all honest-minded scientists, who are aware of their responsibility before mankind. We are given the great power of knowledge, which should be used for the benefit of mankind, of every man.

But despite all the achievements science has placed at the service of man, there are people who are apt to accuse science, today perhaps even more than before, of almost all misfortunes. Their accusations can be summed up as follows: science and scientists call to life temptations for which man is not yet morally prepared, and therefore man cannot use the achievements of science reasonably. Scientists are also accused of narrow professionalism

which prevents them from seeing their activity in a true light. It is asserted also that in their recommendations scientists are sometimes guided by their ambition or even by self-seeking, careerist motives.

This is possible, of course. There are narrowminded technocrats, go-getters and careerists among scientists, just like, perhaps, not all environmentalists or those who call for protecting historical monuments are unselfish and alien to careerism.

The alleged contradiction between science and man's cultural and intellectual life, the contradiction between the rational and the spiritual, is far-fetched, in my view. And if some people believe that it exists, this contradiction is associated not with science and arts---these highest manifestations of man's intellectual life, but with perversions in both spheres, perversions which still exist, but should ultimately disappear, and I should like that the coming century would be the age of harmony between the rational and the spiritual in man.

It may seem paradoxical to you, but I, who represents an exact science, think it would be too bad if the 21st century proves to be the age of the reign of science and technology.

Man has the brain and the heart, but reason is, in the final analysis, the supreme judge of the inner ``self'' of each of us and of mankind as a whole. It is reason that makes man different from the other living beings. It is reason

that is at the basis of science, technology and arts---of everything that we call the pinnacles of creative endeavour.

The 21st century is coming, and I hope it will be the age of the utmost unity of thought and feeling, of a complete release of man's creative potential.

Can Peace Endure!

The historical symbols should not necessarily be as magnificent as the pyramids of Egypt.

An unconspicuous bas-relief in Strastnoi Boulevard in Moscow depicts a man turning the wheel of history. This wheel bears the fingerprints of haughty patricians, iron-fisted feudais, knowledge-spreading enlighteners, and the self-confident bourgeoisie. Today other hands are on the wheel. "Our hopes rest with those who earn their bread" is the inscription on this allegoric relief.

As I gaze at it, I try to comprehend why it instills so much confidence that our hopes will come true and a better future is possible. The face of this true history-maker bears no traces of the greed or fear which make people mortal enemies. Tommaso Gampanella probably visualised the citizen of his Sun City as such a man. Friedrich Schiller wrote that a man like this was capable and worthy of replacing the state of necessity by the state of freedom. He embodies passionate love for freedom and independence, which, Belinsky wrote, is possible only in a society based on truth and valour. He is the ideal citizen of H. G. Wells, he is a member of a future society whose international principle, as Marx foretold, will be peace, because every nation will be governed by the same ruler---labour.

The ideals of peace and justice must unite people. But today we see that egoism erodes human solidarity and breeds hostility, conflicts, and wars. Are then my hopes and those of the artist who chiselled the relief Utopian? For on the other side of the planet, in Los Alamos, exact replicas of "The Little Boy" and "The Fat Man", which destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, are displayed for worship, and the shadow of the wings of " Enola Gay", which dropped atomic death, darkens the horizon of the future. Perhaps they are the symbol of our times, or rather of the end of times?

If we were to compile a political vocabulary of today, the word ``peace'' would compete with the word ``survival'' in all languages for they have practically become synonymous. But is a lasting peace based on fear possible? This is the question I asked Vadim Zagladin, with whom we also talked about war and peace.

/ want to begin by asking the question which is of concern to everyone---the question of peace.

About two decades ago you wrote: "If there is no fatal inevitability of war there is no fatal inevitability of peace either." In today's world political situation, those words still apply. What about twenty years from now?

One can easily guess what answer would make both of us happy. But I feel that in the coming decades the threat of a world war will

Vadim Zagladin, Professor, D. Sc. (Phil.), Deputy Chairman, Parliamentary Group, USSR Supreme Soviet

remain; it may and must decrease, but will hardly cease to exist.

I do not wish to sound like an oracle who can predict the future in every detail; I would be happy to find out that a general and stable peace became a reality earlier than I can now foresee. But for now, I believe, it would only be realistic to predict that the fruits of peace will be reaped by generations beyond the time you have mentioned.

Your answer can be thought either optimistic: the danger of a world catastrophe will di-

4---11)

minish!; or diplomatic: tomorrow will, at best, be no different from today, for the uncertainty will remain, which leads to disappointment and pessimism.

In important issues such as predicting the future of mankind, I would never go to extremes. Undue pessimism is as dangerous here as unjustified optimism, because they both are capable of depriving man of his will. Realism and persistence are indispensable in working for a better future: realism in setting the goals and evaluating one's potential; persistence in working for those goals. My optimism is realistic because it stems from the scientific analysis of existing trends and forces which suggest that in a world where socialism has become a formidable force, objective prerequisites have been created in the main for equal cooperation and peace among peoples and countries.

When will this possibility become a reality? We no longer live in times when the exact dates of eternal peace or the end of the world can be set. This time is over for the simple reason that science has discovered the laws of social development. These laws state that a world based on the principles of human morality is no Utopia. But science calls for recognition in the "formula of the future" of the factor of uncertainty, the factor of human will and consciousness. According to Karl Marx, "history is nothing but the activity of man pursuing his aims". This human ability and readi-

ness to make relations among people consistent with the simple standards of justice and morality now becomes a factor of primary importance.

We have a will for peace. Our ideal is a world without wars and without weapons. This goal is recorded in the Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, our action programme for the future. Unfortunately, other factors play their role, too. The forces of injustice, war, imperialism, which, as the 27th Congress of the CPSU pointed out, generates aggressiveness by its very nature, are still influential. Is a lasting peace a realistic goal in this context?

Your doubts are quite justified. Lenin wrote that only a proletarian, socialist revolution could lead humanity out of the blind alley brought about by imperialism and imperialist wars. That would be a final solution of the problem.

A socialist revolution eliminates the rule of private ownership of the means of production, and with it the material prerequisite for all kinds of exploitation and oppression, including military coercion.

Another very important factor which makes the foreign policy of socialism a truly peaceful policy is the fact that the weal of the people and creation of increasingly favourable conditions for the comprehensive development of personality become the economic objective of

society. This calls for ensuring the country's security and preventing a war. These conditions enable the state, society, and the people to concentrate their means and forces on creative goals---on building a communist society. . .

. . . Please excuse my interruption but what is obvious for us is not necessarily so for those who are accustomed to other standards and criteria. On numerous occasions I have found that people in the West are not always aware of this dependence of foreign policy on domestic socio-economic factors. Their reasoning is simplistic: both sides, they argue, have missiles.

And this inevitably leads to fallacious conclusions such as the "equal responsibility" theory, which implies identical intentions.

We need missiles, or military-strategic parity with the West, only for preventing adventurist actions on the part of imperialism, for creating conditions favouring the improvement of socialism in countries where it has been victorious, and for social progress in the rest of the world. What Communists think of military force and of coercion in general was summarised by Lenin, who wrote that for us coercion is effective against those who want to restore their rule, i.e., the exploiters. But at this stage the significance of force ends. This principle guided our policy and actions when we were relatively weak and guides them now that we have achieved military parity with the West. Mikhail

Gorbachev emphasised this in his speech at the 27th Party Congress: "We, for our part, are ready to do everything we can in order radically to improve the international situation. To achieve this, socialism need not renounce any of its principles or ideals. It has always stood and continues to stand for the peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems.''

I want to emphasise once again that in this country and in other socialist countries there are no classes which might enrich themselves by turning human blood into dollars and pounds sterling. There are no social forces which would profit from capital exported to other countries and want to protect their privileges there, including by force of arms. There are no social or other groups which would derive their wealth from the manufacture of weaponry. In a nutshell, under socialism there is no objective prerequisite for the arms race or for preparing and waging wars of conquest, aggressive wars or wars to suppress the peoples' striving for freedom.

The situation is quite different under imperialism whose aggressive policy is guided by a whole complex of impelling motives: the predatory appetites of the arms manufacturers and the influential military-bureaucratic groups, the selfish interests of the monopolies in sources of raw materials and sales markets, and the fear of the ongoing changes in the world.

But in that case peace is doomed to remain

an unfulfilled dream until humanity finally overcomes the capitalist stage of its history.

I would not directly link the destiny of peace with the existence of imperialism. A world without wars is possible even when humanity is socially divided.

Total destruction would serve no purpose. Survival and security are not in the interest of the working people alone. I do not think that a nuclear war is planned today in the West. The Morgans and Rockefellers also fear a nuclear holocaust. Today's level of nuclear-missile potential would make world war suicidal for them. The Western policy-makers are well aware of this and so many of them are made realists by necessity. Their reasoning runs something like this: we would like world socialism to be exploded but since we would be exploded ourselves in the act, there is no other way but to agree on guarantees of mutual security (although we must try and delay this process). Now everyone, at least every civilised person, understands that a nuclear war would destroy all humanity.

But while recognising this, the West, notably the United States, continues to build up armaments for a war which, as the US President was forced to admit, cannot be won and so should never be waged. Is this but another hypocritical statement?

Of course, a criminal hope may be cherished that military superiority and a state of impunity

can somehow be achieved. But today the arms race is, above all, an attempt to win a war without fighting, an attempt to blackmail the world with the help of arms, to dictate their will to mankind, to "wear down" socialist countries economically and bring them to their knees, to impose an ``order'' in the developing world to imperialists' liking. Unrealistic as they are, these goals do exist.

. . .And as long as nuclear arsenals are maintained and the nuclear arms race continues, the danger of a world catastrophe remains.

Yes, the arms race has its own grim logic and prospects. The first and foremost condition for humanity to survive is therefore nuclear disarmament, realisation of the Soviet plan to eliminate nuclear weapons before the year 2000. Implementation of this plan would abolish the very instruments of a nuclear disaster which could result from a technical error, a political miscalculation or misinterpretation of the intentions of the other side, or from an illusion of invulnerability which the US leaders may have.

This leads me to the paradoxical thought that by working for the elimination of nuclear arms, aren't we increasing the risk of a world war, for the self-preservation instinct will not work and a morally ``unimpeded'' commanderin-chief might find it easier to order a first strike?

Today's so-called conventional arms are be-

coming nearly as destructive as nuclear weapons. But this is not the point. Your apprehension would be justified if only nuclear weapons were to be banned and destroyed. As the Soviet Union proposes, nuclear disarmament should go hand in hand with the reduction and annihilation of all kinds of weapons of mass destruction and conventional weapons. Incidentally, the Budapest meeting of the leaders of the Warsaw Treaty countries in 1986 addressed the NATO states and all European countries with a proposal that armed forces and conventional arms be drastically reduced. Simultaneously, efforts should be made to further improve an effective system of military and political confidence-building measures. But an agreement on nuclear disarmament should be the starting point of this process.

That will leave the Moloch of war toothless. But I feel that reduction of the level of military confrontation is an indispensable but not sufficient condition for moving from confrontation to peaceful coexistence, to an essentially different state of international relations.

Indeed, the policy of peaceful coexistence is different from confrontation not in the level of military confrontation, more specifically, not in the state of affairs in the military field alone. The difference is in principle. The policy of peaceful coexistence has been summarised by General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee Mikhail Gorbachev as an art of taking

each other's interests into account. The Soviet Union has proposed a practicable way to achieve a state of relations which would be guided by the supreme universal principle of peaceful coexistence. I have in mind the foundations of an all-embracing system of international security formulated by the 27th CPSU Congress. Their affirmation would eliminate the basic reasons for tensions and conflicts, i.e. create conditions for a lasting, just, and stable peace.

It is significant that the approach to security issues that was adopted by the 27th CPSU Congress differs from our earlier approaches, although the fundamental position remains unchanged. We used to call for prevention of a nuclear war, and that was an absolutely essential requirement. Now we go even further. We believe that it is necessary and possible to achieve an international order under which not only the threat of war would be removed but effective guarantees against its re-emergence would be provided. This is an imperative of our time.

Earlier in our talk you called for realism. But would it be realistic to expect imperialism voluntarily to give up its policy of strength and to accept an international order which would exclude inequality, subordination, exploitation, or, in plain words, robbery of other peoples?

I have given this much thought, and my answer is: Seventy years ago, in 1917, when the

new-born Soviet Republic called on the hostile imperialist states that surrounded it to restructure international relations on the basis of mutual respect and benefit, many believed this unrealistic. It seemed that capitalism would never permit such a thing. In less than three decades, however, the international community---the United Nations---proclaimed, during its foundation in 1945, the principles of the Lenininspired Decree on Peace as the fundamental principles of international relations.

We could never count on the good will of the imperialist elite, of course. Everything depends on the correlation of forces. A radical change in favour of the forces of socialism and peace will, I am sure, compel the ruling class in the West to accept the inevitability of peaceful coexistence.

Don't you think, however, that humanity is entrapped in a vicious circle of rules that accompany the "policy of strength" imposed on it by imperialism? We call for an end to the "policy of strength", but make this contingent on a change in the correlation of forces. The West is sure to use this as a pretext to build up its potential. . .

No, I do not share this view. When I speak about correlation of forces, I do not have in mind the competition between military-- industrial potentials of the two blocs, as the strategists and ideologists of imperialism would have people believe.

I do not know to what extent they are sincere when they assert that all conflicts in the world result from the US---USSR confrontation. They might really see events through those faulty optics. If so, this is a dangerous selfdeception in which a wrong premise leads to a fallacious conclusion amounting to wishful thinking, wishful because accepting this view of conflicts involving imperialism the latter hopes to win by mobilising its military and economic potential. In reality, imperialism does not enter into confrontation with a country or a group of countries but with the objective laws of economic and social development. You can judge for yourself what prospects this war against history holds, yet humanity has to pay an increasingly exorbitant price for this war, pay in millions of lives, waste of material resources and colossal funds spent on the arms race, and a host of acute unresolved problems. And all these sacrifices are made for the purpose of keeping imperialism alive and so that the ruling elite may continue to rob and oppress. Obviously, such future runs counter to the interests of most people in the world.

When they call for shifting the balance of forces in favour of social progress, national liberation, and peace, Communists do not seek to impose their will on anyone. Our goal is that of protecting the freedom of peoples from imperialists encroaching on this freedom, which is in harmony with the interests of humanity.

I repeat that by correlation of forces we mean the entire set of economic, political, and moral factors directing the course of events rather than military potentials alone, although these, too, must be taken into account. A decisive superiority over the forces of reaction and war, a turn for the better, will be achieved by accelerating the socio-economic development of socialism and by uniting and activating all social movements coming out against imperialism, for social progress, national liberation, and peace.

/ feel this is no simple matter. You, for instance, include the whole of the anti-war movement into anti-imperialist forces. But people of different, often opposite, ideological views are involved in this movement, from Communists, whose goal is the abolition of private ownership of the means of production, to those who do not question the survival of capitalism at all. Could such an alliance be viable or effective?

Despite ideological differences between various trends in the anti-war movement this collaboration may become even closer than today because it is the very nature of contradictions within today's capitalist society that objectively underlies such alliance.

The founders of scientific communism revealed the chief contradiction of all exploiter systems. "Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journey-

man," Karl Marx and Frederick Engels wrote in Manifesto of the Communist Party, "in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary re-constitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes. . . Bourgeois society . . . has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones." The highest stage of capitalism, imperialism, has not removed but rather added to this main contradiction.

Lenin provided an insight into the events in capitalist society by concluding that at the imperialist stage of the evolution of capitalism a broader contradiction---between the monopolies, the financial oligarchy on the one hand and most of the nation on the other---exists simultaneously with the basic contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The emergence and growth of the contradiction between the monopolies and the entire nation have made a serious shift in the correlation of class forces inevitable in the capitalist world. Social strata classified as petty bourgeois because of their position or origin have begun to realise that big capital is the main threat to their existence.

Today imperialism is more than just a hin-

l

drance to social development, for which it has always been criticised by Communists; it has become a threat to the very existence of humanity. The scale on which diverse social strata are involved in the anti-war movement and other forms of social protest in the West reflects a growing awareness of this danger. But what, essentially, is the fight to curb the forces of aggression and militarism if not a fight against imperialism itself, whether the fighters have this goal in mind or not? Allying diverse strata of the population for the humanitarian goal of saving civilisation, the struggle for peace serves at the same time as a school of political and ideological education. The process in which peace champions politically mature is slow. Like any other process in which social consciousness develops, it does not choose short-cuts, is full of contradictions, and suffers defeats as well as enjoys successes, but it inevitably brings people to the realisation that the struggle for peace, for survival, must not be limited to anti-war protest, that it must be broader in its social content if it is to be successful.

Some researchers are inclined to call the international alliance of peace champions a " coalition of reason". To my mind, this term is apt as it emphasises the awareness of the goals and sources of the movement. Such a ``coalition'' would also be extremely useful because it could serve as a model of peaceful coexistence of

peoples and demonstrate in practice that people of different views can work together for a common goal. These views may be so divergent that I cannot help wondering if you as a Communist do not find it embarrassing to cooperate with, say, a Christian Democrat, whose ideological views are very unlike ours.

What should unite people today is much more important than what divides them.

We have undoubtedly our own, Soviet view of allies in the anti-war struggle. But there are also other views: our allies in the struggle for peace are also looking closely at the Soviet people, Communists of all countries and participants in the national liberation movements, to see if this alliance is practicable. And it is not always that our mutual assessments coincide.

I'll try to view this problem as a hypothetical ``Westerner'' would. Such a person might wish that this world were more just. He might disapprove of his government supporting all dictators in the world and paying mercenaries even if they are alleged "freedom fighters". He is tormented by the "Vietnam syndrome", the thought that his son or he himself may have to put on a uniform and go overseas to kill and be killed for some dubious cause. I am speaking of the average man whose wellbeing is not directly dependent on the "protection of the vital interests" of the monopolistic elite. But he is likely to choose a lesser evil. For him

62;

an unjust, very conditional peace is better than a revolution which, he thinks, will bring violence, bloodshed, and war.

Our Westerner may wonder how any alliance can be possible with Communists, whose declared goal is the abolition of capitalism? What kind of peace may there be when revolutionaries continuously destabilise the world situation, helping one another, instigating a world revolution?

Let us set the record straight. First, about the revolution. Unfortunately, some of our friends, as well as those who reject our ideology outright, believe that revolution inevitably breeds armed violence. We owe the wide circulation of this opinion to the bourgeoisie. I do not mean the propaganda alone which has been portraying us, for seven decades already, as knifein-the-teeth, bomb-brandishing villains. This delusion was fed above all by the terror which counterrevolution started whenever it tried to restore the old order. You will recall that the October Revolution in Russia was one of the least bloody revolutions in history, but then counter-revolutionary forces unleashed a sanguinary war against the Soviet state. Soviet power was established in Hungary in 1919 without a single shot fired, but the bourgeoisie and landowners drowned the Hungarian" Soviet Republic in blood.

All revolutionaries would prefer to accomplish their tasks and build a new society which

their peoples want without using the force of arms. Since the time of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels Communists have viewed the struggle for a peaceful revolutionary path as an important task. The devastating power of modern weapons is yet another reason why Communists believe that the advance towards socialism must be peaceful as far as possible.

The same is true of the national liberation movements which are not interested in aggravating the plight of their peoples by war. These efforts cannot, however, be fruitful unless they are understood in a realistic spirit by the other side, by those forces in the West which so far hope that the status quo will be maintained in the world.

/ will again take on the role of a skeptic who might reason that since revolutions and national liberation movements are aimed at upsetting the status quo in the world those who accuse them of undermining international stability, creating seats of tension, and causing conflicts and wars, must be right.

But the status quo and stability are not synonymous. Historically, they are opposite concepts.

History is no backwater. Even in the quietest periods, when nothing dramatic seems to happen in the life of mankind, history continues laying the groundwork for a new, higher stage of society's development. Revolution is a social form in which this immutable law of

5-111

eternal development manifests itself. Had civilisation followed another logic of development, people would still have been warming themselves near campfires in primitive communes and the entire human history could have been written on a single page; there would have been no chapters on the American, English or French bourgeois revolutions which upset the stability of the world at that time. But it is beyond human capability to prevent the progressive development of society, and one does not have to be a Marxist to understand this regularity. This idea has been expressed by many acknowledged authorities. Edward Dembowski, a Polish philosopher, wrote 150 years ago: "Nobody can order humanity 'to go here, not beyond'. As soon as we reach what we can define now as the highest stage in the social form we shall see a new field where a newly-comprehended idea of freedom is realised.''

Yes, Soviet people and all Communists are convinced of the inevitability of the triumph of socialism world-wide. This conviction stems from understanding the laws governing social development and from a knowledge of the real course of history. The 27th GPSU Congress emphasised: "World developments confirm the fundamental Marxist-Leninist conclusion that the history of society is not a sum of fortuitous elements, that it is not a disorderly 'Brownian motion', but a law-governed onward process. Not only are its contradictions a verdict on the

old world, on everything that impedes the advance; they are also a source and motive force for social progress. This is progress which takes place in conditions of a struggle that is inevitable so long as exploitation and exploiting classes exist.''

Yes, we have been supporting all forces in the world that fight for social progress and will never abandon our internationalist duty of maintaining solidarity with those who uphold their right to independence and social emancipation. But this support has nothing in common with the "export of revolution". Soviet Communists reject the very idea that revolution can be exported. We need only recall Lenin's rebuff to those who called for ``exporting'' the revolution of the Russian proletariat. He wrote that this "is completely at variance with Marxism, for Marxism has always been opposed to ' pushing' revolutions, which develop with the growing acuteness of the class antagonisms that engender revolutions". On the eve of the Great October Socialist Revolution he emphasised: "It would be impossible to put an end to the rule of capitalism if the whole course of economic development in the capitalist countries did not lead up to it... No power could destroy capitalism if it were not sapped and undermined by history." Today, too, we are firmly convinced that pushing a revolution, especially by military means, from outside is futile and inadmissible.

I must take up the question of revolution and world stability again to ask you to finally clarify it.

Any, let alone military, aid to revolutionary forces abroad causes a. response from imperialism, which tries to actively counter it, and so the probability of an armed conflict, a war with unpredictable consequences, increases.

This reasoning is correct to a certain extent. Indeed, it would be madness to take actions which might provoke a nuclear disaster. It is simply impermissible. Therefore, the socialist countries very carefully and responsibly find in each particular case a reasonable balance between performing their internationalist duty and pursuing a well-thought-out foreign policy. But can aid to freedom-fighters, any backing of revolutionary change and social progress, be regarded in principle as provoking such disaster?

The peoples' striving for freedom is, of course, resisted by those who suppress and restrain this freedom, i.e., colonialists, exploiters, and militarists, who often resort to armed force to prevent a victory of liberation forces. This is the way so-called ``local'' wars begin. These are just wars on the part of the peoples who defend their rights and unjust on the part of those who violate these rights. Can these wars grow into larger conflict? Yes, they can, in principle. How can this danger be avoided? By banning the liberation struggle? This would be immoral

with regard to those who are exploited and oppressed as before; it would be treachery. What is more, the liberation struggle cannot be banned, for as long as he lives man strives for freedom.

There can be only one, moral, just conclusion which is in keeping with the interests of all peoples: the threat that ``local'' conflicts may grow into a world war, and their very outbreak can and must be prevented by an active struggle against the imperialist export of counterrevolution, and for realisation of the right of peoples to self-determination, the right that has been recorded in fundamental international legal documents. The foreign policy of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries stems from this conviction.

Striving for peace and support of revolutionary movements do not and cannot contradict each other for the simple reason that helping the forces of progress is in itself a contribution to the consolidation of peace, in the first place because all truly revolutionary democratic forces come out for peace and detente. None of them supports aggressive wars or confrontation of states. This is why, by supporting these forces, the world socialist community promotes detente and contributes to the security of peoples. As to the mechanism through which socialism influences world development, it is much subtler, more complex, and more effective than the advocates of the "power politics" imagine.

The first and foremost factor whereby the socialist community influences world affairs is certainly its own development, the consolidation of its socio-political and economic positions which ensure a steady change of class forces in the world arena in favour of historical progress. The economic successes scored by the socialist countries enhance their role in the world market and lead to very substantial changes in its functioning. One of these changes is the increasingly active participation of the socialist countries in the expansion of international economic cooperation, which serves as a material foundation for peaceful coexistence. This cooperation is especially important for former colonies in that it contributes to the consolidation of their independence, strengthening their national economies, and to the affirmation of the principles of a new, more equitable economic order in relations among states. The foreign policy of the socialist community, which is aimed at consolidating peace and ensuring stable peaceful coexistence, binds the hands of world reactionary forces on the international scene and in internal class struggles.

Socialism influences world development in other ways, too, and provides an example of decisive importance. I quoted Lenin when we discussed violence. "Coercion is effective against those who want to restore their rule. But at this stage the significance of force ends. .." Now it would be appropriate to end the quota-

tion: ". . .and after that only influence and example are effective. We must show the significance of communism in practice, by example.''

/ think these words are the best way to conclude our talk for they contain the gist of our country's programme for the future.

We are capable of making the world better, more just and secure. This is the historic mission of socialism, whose citizens we are.

We must be aware of our great responsibility and live up to this mission.

We can put it this way: it is a great honour to be responsible for the destiny of mankind. Avoiding fatalism in the face of the future is of utmost importance. An active stand is a must. I believe that this awareness of his role, an acute sense of history, will become an essential trait of the man of tomorrow. And he will be able to bring a greater measure of common sense into history.

Mankind in the Nuclear and the Post-Nuclear Age

ed to flee" after rejecting all the benefits and hazards of modern civilisation. Also, several Italian families went in search of an uninhabited island, carrying just a radio receiver so they could follow the news how the rest of the world would gradually die. But members of the Eldon League, all Englishmen, went nowhere. They simply keep the past inside themselves and refuse to accept all innovations, ranging from the automobile to new clothes fashions. Their shrine is a museum in York, where Stephenson's first locomotive is on display to evoke in modern conservatively-minded citizens tender tears and a yearning for the "golden age" of capitalism.

I asked Georgi Shakhnazarov to comment on this longing for the past.

My question might seem strange to an investi* gator of the future; but then the slogan "back to the future!" is also a currently proposed scenario for tomorrow, right? Yet, even if it is, as I think, shared by very few people, its extreme and grotesque form would express broader sentiments, which I would call perplexity before the future. What do you think?

To begin with, I must say this phenomenon is not new. At all times, there was periodic revival of interest for the past, ranging from unexpectedly high demand for antique household items to idealised glorification of bygones in literature. Yet, quite likely, the current vogue for ``retro'' is really unprecedented.

Twilight in Lejre, Denmark. Smoke was soaring straight up into the sky. A simple meal of a primeval man was being cooked on a stone hearth. A woman emerged from a hut, looked at the setting sun from under her palm, and waved at Hans Ole Hansen at the other end of the field. He waved back and pushed harder at his plough, an exact copy of what his remote ancestors used to plough the Danish plain with. ..

Ten years back, Hansen and several of his friends fled to Lejre, which is two hours ride from Copenhagen. They fled to avoid the future. They built themselves huts, tilled soil, and made clay pottery. Curious people came around to marvel at them. Some took pictures and shrugged their shoulders in amazement, while others interestedly and even enviously asked them about their life without TV and inflation, and then left for their modern homes, back into the 20th century. The Lejre community fell apart in one and a half years.

But even today and, probably, even more often than before, reports come now from America, now from Britain, and now again from the very same Denmark that yet another group, usually comprising young people, had "attempt-

noticed that interest for the past is particularly and even painfully sensed at the turning points of history. Suffice it to remind you of the revival of medieval ideals in the French literature of the early 19th century. In fact, Alberoni writes about such reaction to changes, and the passage you quoted has, as you probably know, the following continuation: "For us dies our world. Our society senses the approach of the end of the world, for its end really is near." We must give credit to Alberoni for being objective and not mixing up, as bourgeois authors often do, the destinies of capitalism with mankind's future. In fact, the fear that capitalism could perish is what makes its ideologues want to breathe a new life into moribund ideas and principles, on whose dominance the privileges and even the very existence of exploiter classes depend. The vogue for outlived social theories is reviving; the "golden age" of capitalism is being glorified; and attempts are even being made to compel people to return to those times. By surrounding themselves with objects personifying the stability of the past, such people subconsciously seek in them consolation and support in a constantly changing world. But that is already psychiatry, and I suspect physicians must have a special term for such attitudes to reality.

Your words reminded me of the definition "man is an animal capable of self-dec-eit".

But the ability to deceive oneself and others

Georgi Shakhnazarov, D. Sc. (Law), President, Soviet Political Science Association, and VicePresident, International Political Science Association

But even such things as vogue are, in the end, objectively caused, and the reason for the current attraction to ``retro'' is obviously fear of the unknown future. The Italian writer Francesco Alberoni says: "Fear of the end of the world has revived like in 1000 A.D. But scientists say everything is different now from what it was then, when people awaited the advent of the four knights of Apocalypse and Doomsday. Yet, fear of the end of the world has as many faces as there were civilisations on Earth." And Toffler even introduced the special concept of "the future shock" to designate this perplexity before the future.

Now, there is fear and fear. You must have

causes pretty serious consequences. Nowadays, the basically erroneous premise that one can not only inhibit mankind's progress, but " compel the world to start from scratch" could lead to calamities. In the past, such an exaggerated illusion of power over history had also cost a lot for mankind. And, today, it is the Damocles' sword of nuclear war hovering over humanity. Its threat could not but have an impact on individual and social mentality, and it is the cause of fear that is now spreading not only among the privileged strata of exploiter society, who feel how their world is dying. The fear of nuclear death is affecting even broader strata to engender, among other things, the " philosophy of flight''.

But the nuclear threat is a real and global danger, and one cannot flee from it, since there is actually nowhere to run, even no desolate island for that matter. In this respect, the story of an Englishman who tried to find shelter in a remotest corner of the Earth in the South Atlantic, far away from the centres of civilisation, is very instructive, for he nearly died in the 1982 Falklands War between Britain and Argentina, when it was even contemplated to use nuclear weapons.

Indeed, flight from civilisation has so far failed to solve any personal or universally human issue. Moreover, to accept the " philosophy of flight" today would mean being an accomplice, even if involuntary, with those

whose actions draw a world holocaust even nearer. It is not at all accidental that, in the West, the man in the street is being told every day that his life and welfare are allegedly threatened by the USSR. He hears declarations by his political leaders about the possibility of a ``limited'' or even protracted nuclear war, and he is constantly told that in such a war millions of victims would be inevitable. I can say with certainty that this militaristic propaganda is consciously calculated to deter not only the potential enemy, but one's own people. In imperialist countries, the military-industrial complex finds it advantageous to lead the popular masses into a state of apathy to thereby have full scope for building up the arms race.

And I must say that those who spread the idea that a nuclear holocaust is inevitable achieve some results. For instance, dealers in atomic shelters, radiation-proof suits, canned foods for lengthy storage, etc. have recently started making profits again, even if not very high, on the Western "mentality of survival". However, it is clear to all more or less soberminded people that this would be no way out of a situation following an atomic bombing, when one could survive in such shelters for only a few weeks at best. But what would follow after? The unprecedentedly large-scale anti-war movement is becoming an ever-growing response to the propaganda of war and inevitable death.

Yes, mankind's ability to avert the nuclear danger would largely depend on the growth of mass political activity. The growth of the anti-war movement is a most vivid sign of the fact that, today, the peoples increasingly tend to make history consciously, without shrinking into their own national boundaries and sensing their affinity and responsibility to the destiny of all mankind.

Without their contribution, peace would remain a dream, for even if a turn to the better occurs in current East-West relations this could merely stabilise the situation, i.e. could prevent the nuclear threat from growing. A truly radical turn to disarmament could result only from a large-scale anti-war movement. I am convinced that only the American people themselves could compel their government to accept the plan of delivering the Earth from nuclear weapons till the end of the century, as outlined in Mikhail Gorbachev's Statement of January 15, 1986.

Significantly, it is the popular masses, primarily their progressive sections, that realise the imperatives of our time quicker than many professional politicians do. The current situation differs from all that mankind had known in the past: what could be regarded as correct in the pre-nuclear age would not necessarily be right today after the development of "total weapons". In a world that faces the threat of annihilation, some ideas that used to be a more

or less reliable instrument of orientation start to behave as pointers in demagnetised compasses: what is purposeful becomes useless; an acquision turns into a loss; and murder into suicide. And there is only one way to get rid of this irrationality, namely to revise customary concepts from the angle of new political thinking in the nuclear era. "We have to learn to think in a new way," read this demand back in 1955, in the famous Russell-Einstein Manifesto.

Could you please briefly formulate the new principal aspects that, in your view, the nuclear age has introduced into international relations?

I would call the new correlation of the national and the international the key issue of our time.

The world has grown ``smaller''. Three or four centuries ago, the events in Europe had little effect on the situation in Asia, and even less on that in Africa and America. I do not speak of the inverse relationship. Every continent, every corner of the globe lived its own life, occasionally communicating with the outer world. The first industrial revolution and the establishment of capitalism put an end to this isolation. One after another, all countries became involved in economic and cultural exchange and took a definite place in the system of international division of labour. Drastic changes in communication and transport especially sped up this process. No state can now exist by itself

while ignoring developments beyond its own borders. Such drastically closer economic and political relationships resulted in universal interdependence. For the first time in history, mankind began to "get together" to acquire a common destiny. This increased interdependence shows most strikingly in the issue of security in the nuclear age.

Today, when the most effective and virtually sole deterrent of nuclear war is the fear of a retaliatory strike, the concept of ``individual'' national security is losing its significance. The potential participants in a nuclear conflict are compelled to reckon with each other's security. This formal interdependence requires the need to realise and recognise the fact that the only possibility to survive in the nuclear age is through collective security.

Indeed, already the First World War had clearly shown the need for establishing a system of collective security, and the Second World War, even without using nuclear weapons had taken such a high toll of men and materiel that, already then, people came to think that, in future, a war could not be a means for attaining political ends, though Clausewitz' well-known tenet says that war is a continuation of policy by other means. When nuclear weapons have been developed and begun to be stockpiled, his formula should have read: "death is a continuation of life by other means"; but that is nonsense.

During the Second World War, countries like the United States could join hostilities without fearing for their own security, because of their advantageous geographic position. Even in the European continent, some nations had saved themselves by staying neutral. Today, this would be virtually impossible. Hence, in our nuclear age, maximally realistic security could only be achieved through collective security, taken not just in its narrow sense---on a regional or continental scale---but in its absolute sense---on a global scale.

/ think this demand is perfectly clear and well-grounded. However, to accept this interdependence and the new rules of international behaviour that stem therefrom would, for Western politicians, signify the need to change their logic of decision-making. And this, in turn, would signify the need to revise the values underlying the foreign policy doctrines of ruling classes in imperialist states.

Quite likely, one could find indications that a reassessment of values has already started. I mean the position of those sober-minded American politicians who, in recent years, have been reproaching the men in Washington that, after the Second World War, US Presidents had repeatedly made unsuccessful attempts to impose their will on the rest of the world instead of bringing American policy in line with the realities of our changing world. But we know from history that revolutions in Weltanschau-

ai

ung are complex and highly lengthy processes. And still, we must hurry, for otherwise tomorrow might prove quite similar to the finale from Stanley Kramer's film On the Beach, when we see a dead city like the one that would be after a neutron explosion, and flying over it a Salvation Army poster with the inscription: "There is still time, brother." But I say we have no time. What about you?

I would say this shortage of time is yet another feature of the present stage.

One could achieve definite results in preventing a nuclear catastrophe without waiting for Western politicians to revise their views. And you are right that there are hopeful signs in that direction. They are hardly perceptible., but nevertheless they do exist. I mean the shifts in the minds of some West European political leaders. And it seems to me the men in Washington, in Congress at least, are beginning to ponder that a nuclear war would never bypass the United States.

Scientists unambiguously forewarn politicians that it would be impossible to create a perfectly reliable anti-missile defence system against a retaliatory strike. But even if one makes a hypothesis that no nuclear warhead would hit US territory, Americans could still not avoid the baneful effects of a nuclear war.

New research results show that large-scale dust, especially smoke and soot fallout, caused by nuclear explosions could have long and ad-

verse effects on the atmosphere, climate and biosphere. In their report, scientists from Palomar Corporation, a US research organisation, concluded that these potential consequences of a nuclear war, formerly unaccounted for and often called "nuclear winter", could also have a major impact on US national security. I refer to them because they conducted their study at the Pentagon's request, and US strategists would hardly ignore it, albeit they still refuse to take the expert assessments of scientists into full consideration.

However, the same Palomar Corporation report, after listing the dangers involved in the use of nuclear weapons, recommends the need to improve the accuracy of warheads and to (relatively!) reduce their power to keep nuclear war within bounds that do not threaten the survival of civilisation, at least on the American side of the "nuclear barricade". Yet, nuclear war has its own logic, and only nuclear disarmament could fully free mankind of the threat of annihilation.

In other words, once again we revert to the question how quickly the anti-war movement would help Western strategists realise the senseless stake on nuclear arms?

I hear a skeptic note in your question, apparently because we now think of different things. When I speak of the anti-war movement I mean not only the participants in pacifist marches and vigils at NATO military bases.

6*

Their stubborn struggle is worthy of admiration, and not only because it could bring concrete results, but also because it gives examples of the greatest altruism, and their actions are an indicator of public awareness and the steadfast spread of the ideals of peace.

However, when I speak of the anti-war movement, I mean a much broader scope of participants, including professional organisations of working people that take part increasingly often in the struggle for the basic human right, the right to live. These are various national and international political movements, e.g. the social-democratic movement which, despite its dual class nature, has taken a realistic stand in favour of peace, the principal issue of our time. The non-aligned movement should also be regarded an influential peace force, for no person on Earth probably feels the burden of the arms; race so much as people in developing countries do. For them, peace is an essential prerequisite of economic and social progress. But the most influential movement of our time, which has declared peace its ideal, is the communist movement. With the emergence of real socialism, the international scene now has a force that rights for peace at the level of state policy.

From the very first day of its existence, the Land of the Soviets, first virtually alone, and then together with other socialist states and newly-free countries, in cooperation with pro-

gressive public figures and realistically-minded bourgeois politicians, has pursued a consistent struggle for establishing the principles and norms that today seem a matter of course, but which actually signify a gigantic step to a more just and stable world order. Suffice it to say that aggressive wars, for ages regarded as a natural means of resolving international disputes, have been outlawed by the world community of nations. And if you sum up the activity of peace forces, you will see that, over a relatively short time, a lot, perhaps more than ever before, has been done to turn universal peace from a Utopian dream into a realistic goal.

In your works about the future world order, you convincingly showed that the problem of war and peace would ultimately be resolved only when a world federation of socialist states comes into existence. You turned people's attention to the fact that capitalism has sufficient resources to prolong its existence and that we must therefore make our own forecast with account for this factor so as not to fall into an illusion. How then, in your view, could problems of peace and disarmament figure, say, in fifty years or so?

Before I reply, I must make one reservation. Indeed, there could be many scenarios of future events, for the factor of spontaneity plays a major role in international relations. Hence, I shall dwell only on two extreme forecasts. With

high degree of certainty, one can say that in half a century the principle of peaceful coexistence will be established once and for all as the only possible foundation of relations between states with different social systems. The threat of a thermonuclear war would be eliminated; however, one could still not exclude the possibility of regional conflicts and civil wars that flare up because the exploiter classes resist the will of the working people to restructure society, the armed struggle for national liberation from the imperialist yoke.

With a less favourable turn of events, the danger of a thermonuclear war would persist, albeit probably in a less acute form. The quality of weapons would continue to improve with a limited scope of the arms race and a ban on developing new types of armaments.

/ would call both scenarios optimistic, for they exclude the worst possible outcome. But what are they based on?

Not on wishful thinking, and not on my personal inclinations, if you mean that, but rather on an analysis of the objective tendencies in world development and on changes in the balance of forces.

Yes, capitalism still has sufficient resources to play an active part on the world scene for quite a long time. But the balance of forces cannot be correctly understood and assessed solely by assessing and comparing available resources. The natural course of mankind's

development could be revealed only against a broad historic background, and this large-scale view shows that we live in an era of revolutionary transformation of capitalist society into communist society, something that presumes a change in the correlation of forces unfavourable to capitalism. And this is the very process we have observed since the October Revolution of 1917 in Russia. Internationalisation of public life, a most important tendency of our time, also works for socialism, which unites mankind in resolving the vital issues of all people on Earth.

One simply cannot ignore such large-scale processes in our interdependent world, and imperialists have to respond to them whether they like it or not. I think I would be right to reduce their reaction to the current world developments to two basic aspects. First, they actively contrapose them with various means, including military -force. There is probably no need to explain this in detail, for there is more than enough evidence since October 1917 to our day. Another reaction reminds me of the behaviour of some parasites in nature, who penetrate a healthy body to subordinate its function to their own survival. I mean attempts to subjugate to the selfish interests of capitalism, say, the objective and essentially progressive process of internationalization of economic life. The grandest of such projects was and still is the idea of a Pax Americana.

Its aim is obviously to pool the resources of as many countries as possible to make them help retain the privileges of the ruling elite in the United States. Such plans, if successful, could lead to an empire or even despotism with all the ensuing consequences. However, in our nuclear age all attempts to establish such an imperialist Leviathan are fraught with great dangers. Can one possibly assume that the peoples would meekly surrender their resources, so necessary for their own development? Already Jean Jacques Rousseau justly forewarned that this could be achieved only through violently dangerous means, and this caution remains in force, since imperialism, in virtue of its own nature, cannot ensure the main prerequisite for mankind's peaceful unification, namely the predominance of universal welfare over private interest.

And yet, some Western public figures, politicians and scientists believe, possibly quite sincerely, that they have found a way for painless integration of the world on a capitalist foundation through the activities of transnational corporations. What do you think?

Indeed, transnational corporations help create an integrated world economic organism. But on what foundation? If on the basis of inequality and exploitation, their objective remains essentially the same as in any integration within the framework of the capitalist system; consequently, strong resistance by the peoples being

enslaved would be inevitable. Again, if the activities of these corporations are to serve public interests, they would turn into socialist associations, and there is no alternative to that: the only two options are either socialist integration or attempts highly dangerous to world peace to establish an imperialist diktat over mankind's destiny, not to mention the moral aspects involved.

Woodrow Wilson, the twenty-eighth President of the United States, left the following wisdom to his successors: it would be humiliating and very dangerous to chart one's foreign policy basing on mercenary interests. But, alas, he himself was not guided by this truth, for in fact he was one of the organisers of the `` crusade'' by imperialist powers against Soviet Russia, the world's first country of victorious socialism. The interests of profit continue to underlie the foreign policies of the United States, the leading Western power. Vice-Admiral Inman, Deputy C.I.A. Director in the Reagan Administration, outlined the guidelines of American policy as being the struggle for raw materials, natural resources, and markets. One need not be a prophet to say that this struggle would engender tension in the future, albeit here the emergence of nuclear weapons has again resulted in a certain shift of accents. Apparently realising that attempts to turn back the wheel of history through direct military confrontation with the socialist countries are fraught with suicide,

Western strategists make no secret of their intentions to intensify this struggle against developing nations at the level of regional conflicts. Relations between economically developed Western countries and developing nations would undoubtedly for some time remain a source of world tension, conflict situations, and even armed conflicts. This is natural and inevitable between the predator and his victim, for, despite all the changes for the better, international economic relations are still chiefly characterised by inequality, and this inequality will not disappear overnight. As a result, the solution of one of the key issues, namely underdevelopment, is being delayed, and combustible material for international conflicts accumulated, even though it should be clear that pursuit of immediate advantages threatens to turn into serious trouble for the capitalist countries themselves.

The "oil shock" of the early seventies should have clearly forewarned that this could happen. And though, as economists say, a repetition of this or something similar is hardly possible, who knows what other forms the protest of developing countries against unfair international trade relations could take?

Fifteen years ago, the ideologues of neocolonialism took advantage of the joint action of petroleum-exporting countries (who declared an embargo on oil exports to Western countries) to intimidate their own peoples and justify the

right of imperialists to interfere, including with armed force, in the internal affairs of other nations in order to prevent any change in other parts of the world. They told their own people that this right is dictated by a concern for the interests of the American people or even the entire ``civilised'' world.

Chauvinism is normally used as a cover for "imperialistic internationalisation". However, the said oil crisis (as abundantly evidenced by unbiassed economists) would not have been so severe for the man in the street in the West, if not for the manoeuvres of Western oil monopolies, which used it to their own ends.

For that very reason, I would think, progress in this area may not prove so fast as in the question of war and peace, where the threat is so patently clear. What arguments except moral considerations could convince the man in the street of the need to accept new principles in Western relations with the developing world? Hundreds of millions of starving and ruthlessly exploited people, poverty and hopelessnessall these are potential sources of upheavals that in the nuclear age could lead to the most tragic consequences.

Pure arithmetics should convince us of the fact that neither could armed force help the imperialists frustrate the people's aspiration for independence and progress. The trend of events towards changing the balance of forces tells here, too: if, in the past, any intervention by

the United States or some other imperialist predator generally ended in their victory, in the thirty years after the Second World War more than fifty eight per cent of all wars which were started by the West did not bring it success. Nor should one ignore the moral factor: just recall the condemnation by the world and American public of the US intervention against Vietnam.

But let us revert to international economic relations. What changes might be expected here in the beginning of the next millennium?

The third millennium should see a gradual reduction of the gap between economically more developed and underdeveloped nations to a ratio of 4:1 or 3:1. I think the principles of equivalent exchange would be legally recognised internationally.

Is it that you foresee the establishment of a new international economic order?

Yes, if one were to speak of a new economic world order as this idea is formulated in many international documents, e.g. the Charter of the Economic Rights and Duties of States. Such an interpretation of the new world order pursues the aim to ultimately establish in international legal practice the principles of sovereignty, cooperation, equality, interdependence, and solidarity. Sovereignty is perceived not only as the need to ensure full control of states over their natural resources and economic activities, and as the possibility to freely choose their eco-

nomic systems, but also as the duty of exploiter countries to compensate for the economic damage they had inflicted upon the exploited nations. Interdependence implies the establishment of more rational and fair economic relations. Solidarity implies additional advantages for developing nations in international trade, namely a new type of scientific cooperation and transfer of technology, and greater financial and other assistance. I meant the implementation of these principles when I spoke of probable international legislation of the idea of a new economic order.

However, despite all the importance of these requirements, their materialisation would lead merely to redistribution of forces in the world and not exclude the possibility of new forms of neocolonialism. Hence, the project of such a new international economic order may be regarded not as a final goal, but merely as an intermediate objective that would signify certain advances to justice and equality and as part of a greater and long-range process.

When we speak of a new order in world economic ties and/or in international political or other relations, the inevitable question is what that order would be new to. To the order existing in the current stage of world development? But, in this case, when did that stage begin? Since the collapse of the colonial system? Or since the victory over fascism? In our view, the reference point for the initial establishment

of new principles in international relations was October 1917. From the very outset, the Soviet State appealed to all other nations for peace and equal rights, and ever since then its struggle for that formed the essence of its foreign policy. Today, we no longer think of a new world order without these principles and norms, which are the sacred right of peoples to self-- determination, equal right of all states in resolving international issues, political independence, equivalent exchange, peaceful coexistence, and resolution of disputes through negotiations. I cited only the basic principles and could continue this list. However, I think this is quite enough to infer that to build a new world order is historically connected with reconstructing the world on socialist principles.

So in 2017, some people would probably still look for "Moscow's hand" in all world changes?

The role of the USSR and other socialist countries, and also of all progressive forces, is not at all designed to enforce a development they favour, but to help develop an objectively inevitable process thereby providing mankind with a chance to win time and reduce the sacrifices that nations would be made to pay for their future progress.

Our talk reminded me of Anatole France's words that universal peace would triumph not because people will be better, but because the need for peace would be dictated by a new

order of things: new advances in science and new economic requirements. I accept this prevision of the triumph of the laws of social development, albeit with one reservation, namely that both peace and a new world order would triumph also because people will be better. I think neither is possible without the other: the objectively continuing internationalisation of life helps people realise their community, and they give us an example of internationalist thinking by participating (sometimes at the cost of their lives) in the actualisation of the principles of a new world order. But what I want to ask is what the ordinary man, the man for whom all the sacrifices in the struggle for peace are ultimately intended, can expect from history?

When you come to think of it, the imperatives of our time, known as global problems, are identical to basic human rights, for material resources are nothing more than the prerequisites of freedom because only sufficient means of subsistence would allow man not to be a slave of Nature and other people and to be sure in his future and be able to satisfy his requirements. By closing the existing gap in economic development, man would win universal equality, and by establishing lasting peace his continued survival.

These problems are perfectly soluble. In fact, they are being solved now, and the process of human emancipation is already under way.

/ remember that in one of your studies of the

future you alluded to eight lines from Shakespeare's Henry IV as your reference point. And how would you assess the following lines from Shakespeare, this time from Hamlet:

The time is out of joint;---O cursed spite That ever I was born to set it right!

As yet another evidence of the Bard's genius. All right, I shall put my question otherwise. One of your articles describes Robert Oppenheimer, US physicist and creator of the A-bomb, a person who perpetually suffered from the discrepancy between his deeds and his awareness of their amorality. So far, I have come across such examples of ``split'' personalities in the works of ecologists and culturologists who seek to harmonise man's relations with the outer world. And this is the first time that I have seen it in the writings of a politologist. Does this mean that in your province, too, the recreation of integral human personality is the prerequisite and ultimate result of human progress? I would think you had already answered in the affirmative in your own works by having included among global problems, i.e. those on whose solution the future hinges, the problem of the purity of man's inner medium, thoughts and aspirations, the question of what morally motivates his doings. Am I right? Yes, of course.

In that case, my last question is: how do you see the man of the future?

As a comprehensively developed individual who commensurates his thoughts and deeds with the trend of history. Indeed, this is fully applicable to our contemporaries, too, including ourselves. The French philosopher Emmanuel d'Astier de la Vigerie said that one cannot wage a struggle for fraternity without fraternity itself, and this is a truly profound idea.

A Paradigm of the Future

controlled by them? Philosophers debate whether what is known today as ``will'' will be applicable at all in the automated world. Meanwhile ``thinking'' machines play an increasingly greater role in man's life. In the US "Star Wars" programme, for instance, at least one space-defence component of this system should function automatically, that is, the machines are trusted to assess the situation and, which is most important, to make a decision, independently, on delivering a strike---the first strike in the world war to be the last. For centuries mechanisms and machines have been improved, making man's life more convenient and easy. They do most of manual work now. They relieve man's intellect of the monotonous processing of information. Now they do the most difficult thing---decision-making---instead of

There seems to be nothing to surprise man in the world today. Now that nuclear energy is harnessed and cosmonauts spend months in outer space, is there anything in science and technology that can impress us?

Computers? They have become common in household use as refrigerators or TV sets. I remember that the first TV sets, by contrast, made a splash. However, when we ask what achievement of scientific and technological thought will have a decisive impact on the future, sociologists and economists, engineers and philosophers---all point to the computer. Moreover, they maintain that the wide spread of information systems is going to change entirely our way of life. Spokesmen of various trends in social thought are unusually unanimous in believing computers will help realise most daring projects.

At the ``electronic'' wedding in Tsukuba, the Japanese city where the World Exposition was held in 1985, the computer solemnised the nuptials between the bride and the groom, Reiko Suzuki and Katsuo Tomatsuri, and even handed them marriage certificates. Is it a herald of the automated society by which some sciencefiction writers are trying to scare us and in which machines can make life so much easier for us that even man's birth and death will be

man.

Machines are being improved all the time, adapting to the needs of their creators. And they influence their creators, changing man's living conditions, habits and even views. Suffice it to recall that the invention of the plough, of the spinning loom and the printing machine marked radical changes in the life of civilisation. What can one expect from the progress of science and technology and, above all, from the computerisation of life in future?

It is not mere curiosity that impels us to look into the future. As we read reports from research laboratories, listen to eyewitness stories

about technical wonders, at some moment we guess that behind their rapturous dreams, or gloomy forecasts, is a true inner feeling---- perplexity. Everybody knows, or guesses, that the unrestrained advance of science and technology has led us to the time of breakthroughs in this field, but one should have a really broad outlook and subtle intuition to forecast their consequences. Nevertheless it would be unwise at least not to try and use this most outstanding scientific achievement---the ability to foresee. What does it mean for a man and mankind to enter in the age of computers? I asked Nikita Moiseyev.

I think there is no one to give you an exhaustive answer to that. The essence of the information revolution set off by the wide use of computers has not been entirely grasped, yet. Yet the use of computers has already placed certain demands on man: he has to acquire new professional knowledge. A person dealing with computers must learn to formulate his ideas in a precise form, which naturally leaves a certain imprint on that person's character.

Needless to say, computers do make man's mental and manual work easier and more efficient. And small-size processors open the way to the long-awaited robotisation of production, to an advance from manipulator robots to robots with autonomous computers which themselves can alternate programmes. Personal computers have relieved the mind of routine processing and retrieval of information, multiplying man's creative potential many times over.

Parallel with the "personal computer" the term ``telematics''---a combination of computers, TV and various means of transferring information---is gaining currency. The chief mission of telematics is large-scale dissemination of information, provision of wider access to knowledge and its democratisation, so to speak, for all people of the Earth. Telematics is a powerful means of closing the gap in knowledge and technology and is indispensable for formulating common views of people in most diverse

Nikita Moiseyev, an expert in general mechanics and applied mathematics, Member of the USSR Academy of Sciences

countries on some or other issue, which is vitally important in the epoch of global problems. But, I repeat, this is only the beginning.

This is an optimistic view. But one should not ignore the dangers involved in computerisation. There have been quite a few instances of computers being used to the detriment of man.

In the United States, for instance, the secret services can at any time have a complete file on any American, including information on the most intimate side of his life, by referring to information banks. After that everything is done as usual, by using "traditional techniques".

Another example is so-called technological unemployment caused by the introduction of labour-saving technology based on the extensive use of computers. The consequence in capitalist countries is tens of millions of ``redundant'' people.

Now about the world system of transferring information. It can be used not only for disseminating knowledge, but also for spreading lies; for uniting people, as well as for dividing them. Suffice it to know in general terms the information broadcast, for instance, by the American ``Worldnet'' TV system to see what ideas and heroes it imposes on its audiences.

Finally, the military use of computers. 1 know you do not share the social views of Norbert Wiener. But this does not mean he is

wrong when he says in his book God and Golem, Inc.,

``// you are playing a game according to certain rules and set the playing-machine to play for victory, you will get victory if you get anything at all, and the machine will not pay the slightest attention to any consideration except victory according to the rules. If you are playing a war game with a certain conventional interpretation of victory, victory will be the goal at any cost, even that of the extermination of your own side. .."

Forgive me the long quotation and the still longer question, though I most certainly have failed to mention all the problems that have cropped up, or which may arise as a result of a wide use of computers. As an expert you, of course, could tell us a good deal more about it. So I'd like to ask you this question: what do you think of the possible risks involved for humankind in the wide use of computers?

This question could be answered quite briefly: as any technical novelty, the computer brings with it new potentialities, and new perils. It may be a destabilising factor: all depends in whose hands it is. But the questions you have raised are too important to be answered that briefly. Let us examine various facets of this problem. However I should warn you that this conversation may lead us far away from technical problems as such.

It is a great danger, indeed, that information

technology enables some unscrupulous persons to meddle in other people's private life and keep them under surveillance. In the United States, which you have mentioned., even Congress has failed to prevent this. Yielding to public pressure, Congress was compelled to turn down the project of establishing a single bank of data on every US citizen. Then for that purpose the role of such a bank was assumed by all sorts of reactionary private foundations and organisations. So in this case it is not just a threat of something---it is an accomplished fact. Of course, technology is not to blame for all this, therefore an antidote is to be sought elsewhere. However, the antidote is known. It is the democratisation of social institutions.

As for the uses of telematics to the detriment of man, it is for politicians and experts on international law to have their say. All the more so, since a definite moral and legal basis already exists in this sphere, and so the problem is not that new. Even Plato protested: "How can we easily agree that children (mind he, too, was concerned about the future) should listen and perceive in their soul all kinds of myths invented by anybody, which for the most part are at variance with the views we believe they should hold when they grow up?" The great Utopians of the past considered it an inalienable right of each nation to refute hostile propaganda. It should not be allowed that the abuse of telematics could compromise it and its capability

for uniting people, for pooling the efforts of all in order to solve the vital problems facing civilisation.

Plato's words reminded me that sometimes we, and more often our children, fall victim to "alien myths" through our own thoughtlessness. Once in the TV programme "Evident but Incredible" I saw a teacher of a mathematical secondary school showing how his pupils could perfectly handle computers. The computers were of US make. Perhaps they were good computers. But in the programmes they showed a small electronic man was guided through a labyrinth in which he was exposed to many dangers. He dropped into bottomless pits, mines were exploding under his feet, and he was even shot at from a gun. And so it went on. But from our own experience we know how hard it is to get rid of views and notions acquired in childhood.

Well, I am almost sure I am exaggerating the harm such games may cause. But one thing is worrying me: doesn't unification of technology lead to a unification of thinking, of the way people perceive the world around them?

I think it does. By using computers people will find it easier, perhaps, to talk the same language, maybe even in the true sense of the word: a computer language may be the first active language spoken worldwide. It will help spread humane values, I hope.

When I uttered the word ``unification'' it

evoked no protest in you. Does it mean you have reconciled yourself to the prospect of "averaging out" the way of life and thinking as an inevitable evil of the "information era"?

Unification is not averaging out. If some values become universal, if, for instance, all people the world over equally value peace and hate violence, then I would welcome such unification, and I don't see in what way it can contradict such concepts as individuality or personal freedom. Free will depends on the cultural, intellectual and ethical integrity of the individual. The richer man's inner nature and the wider his world outlook are, the more effectively he resists stereotypes in behaviour dictated by "mass culture". Of course, telematics can be used for opposite purposes, because all depends, as I have said, on who controls these technical means and for what purposes they are used.

The advance of microelectronics and information technology seems to be a shot in the arm for the apologists of the capitalist future of mankind. They sincerely hope, or try to make others believe they do, that technical innovations can extend the life of the capitalist economic system. At the same time, the spreading technological unemployment, which has reached all Western countries, has led many people, mostly economists, to the conclusion that the current technological revolution does not fit into the social make-up of the bourgeois

state. Afore far-sighted economists in the West have long been warning about the danger of technological unemployment. Some foresee the emergence of new Luddites, others fear even worse social upheavals.

Scientific and technological progress accelerates all social processes. Frederick Engels wrote in "The Condition of the Working Class in England" that the invention of cotton processing machines and the steam engine started off the "industrial revolution, a revolution which altered the whole civil society". It is safe to say that bourgeois liberties, the concept of Western democracy, free enterprise, and the whole system known as "consumer society" came into existence due to the industrial revolution, which ushered in the era of the world capitalist market. One of the consequences of the current scientific and technological revolution will be the exacerbation of the crisis of this economic model. And together with it many habitual assessments and ideals will sink into oblivion.

/ quite agree with you. However, many philosophers and economists in the West believe--- sincerely, I think---that only the capitalist market is capable of responding, precisely and without bias, to the changes in people's requirements and meet these requirements most fully.

Well, I'll have to go back to the late 19th century, when the capitalist market was the closest to its ideal. But, and this should be made

clear from the start, there has never been a "free play" of market forces. It has always been limited, one way or another, by all kinds of regulation and privileges for definite social groups.

The market mechanism functioned like this. It identified current demand for goods. The producer, aware of the situation on the market, could, in principle, produce the goods in demand. The study of the market situation was the first thing to be done by a businessman. However, it turned out that the market was not immune to damage or ruin either of the producer of goods or of their consumer. Crises that erupted periodically rocked the society to its foundation. The market mechanism again came into play to balance the demand-and-- supply situation. This mechanism resembles a relay regulator familiar to those who deal with cybernetics. It has long been used in various technical systems subjected to fluctuations. And if you ask an expert in management theory what he thinks of a dynamic system controlled by such a regulator, he is sure to reply that such a system is unstable, it cannot be stabilised and that it is impossible to ensure its continuous progressive development.

It is obvious that an additional regulator is needed to soften the amplitude of oscillation and stabilise the system. Thus the idea of a planned control of spontaneous forces suggested itself.

However, the expert in management theory will tell you also that a plan like this is of little value, for it cannot have its own ``intrinsic'' goal. This goal can be set only from outside. It means that the goal of economic development should be set by a state or a social institution which is above the economic mechanism. This has led us to the idea of controlled, or guided, to be more precise, development of society, that is, to the socialist form of organising society suiting best to the state of the productive forces at a particular phase in their historical development. This idea was advanced and substantiated by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels.

But it is limited freedom, even if it is market freedom, imperfect and fraught with disasters (but still it is freedom!), which is the argument used by the present-day advocates of the bourgeois system to discourage the inexperienced. The ideas of Austrian economist Friedrich von Hayek, who thought relations among peoples and countries should be based exclusively on severe rivalry, in which the strongest and more viable should win and the weaker perish, are gaining currency again. Here is what Gino Martinoli, an Italian economist, has to say on that score: "Unemployment contains the vital forces of our society.. . Of course, someone will have to perish in this struggle. But just imagine how dull the world would be if all people in it would be kind, generous and philanthropic!"

And the magic of his words does strike home, I must admit. I saw this on many occasions as I talked to people who fought a losing battle on the capitalist market and still believed in the wonder-working market. Most susceptible to this illusion are young people not yet disillusioned by disappointments. Some even refer to science, most often to Darwin: competition, they maintain, is modern natural selection, without which the social organism is doomed to degradation.

Those who say this simply try to transfer the laws of nature to the evolution of society.

The population, as is known from the theory of evolution by natural selection, indeed often sacrifices a part of its individuals if the latter, bluntly speaking, are no longer needed for maintaining its stability and become a burden on it. This tendency towards stability, or homeostasis, runs all through the evolution processes. It emerges together with life and is consolidated by the mechanism of heredity. It is equally fair for individuals, groups of people or a population as a whole. In the framework of this mechanism, individual stability may come in conflict with the homeostasis of the population. In this case the individual is doomed.

So far, it is all consonant with Martinoli: the unemployed is not needed by society and therefore should perish.

Did it ever occur to you that we people of the 20th century actually do not differ, in bio-

logical terms, from the Cro-Magnon man, our remotest ancestor? And the human population as a whole has nonetheless traversed an enormous path in its evolution during these 30 or 40 thousand years that separate us.

At a certain stage of evolution, when prehistoric people began to form a society, there emerged other evolutionary mechanisms: the genetic mechanism of perfecting hereditary qualities was replaced by the mechanism of social development. I believe this change was due to the same need to preserve and develop the population, the process which now was ensured not only by the first signalling system, the instincts produced by the genetic mechanism. Conscious activity of man was increasingly gaining significance. Awareness of dangers, a possibility to use what was known about the world, the knowledge of what we call the borderline of homeostasis, have become the main conditions of the progress of mankind as a biological species.

Of course, this process is a great deal more complex and has numerous dialectical relationships. I have given you the gist, for what matters to us now is the result of the process: from a certain moment the development of homo sapiens went through the evolution of society, while the contradiction between the aspirations of an individual and the interests of communities and humanity as a whole was regulated by social institutions---from morals to the market

and parliament. Spontaneous action and order, unbridled individualism and the need for purposeful collective actions---this contradiction is observed throughout the history of mankind, and it is easy to see that it is resolved in favour of the stability of broader human communities, to the prejudice of the interests of an individual. So all this talk about a lost freedom is deception meant for people ignorant of the laws of evolution. However, these laws operate, whether they are cognised or not, and they compel man to bring his intentions into line with the interests of the society in which he lives. It is another matter to what extent some or other organisational structure of society is capable of reconciling the homeostasis of an individual with the interests of the stability of society. Capitalism is incapable of resolving this contradiction between the individual and the social, as is seen, for instance, from the fact that there are tens of millions of unemployed.

Initially Darwinism was perceived as an insult to man. A certain social group responds in much the same way to the unveiling of another mystery---the workings of the evolutionary mechanism of homo sapiens at the stage of his social development. It seems that there is no need to explain who does not want this question to be made clear to all, and why. These people, so to speak, care for their own, personal and class, homeostasis. Because the cognition of the laws governing development

opens up prospects for the continued progress of mankind and shows also that attempts to discontinue it at some stage lead to degradation. When society is squeezed into a rigid and outdated structure of the relations of production, the productive forces cease to grow, and a period of weakness, decay and collapse sets in. This was how ancient Rome fell. The homeostasis of mankind as a species insistently demands uninterrupted social progress.

As far as I understand, this is a case of the inevitable succession of socio-economic systems proved by the Marxist doctrine, isn't it?

It is a remarkable achievement of human thought that the inevitability of a collapse of any outdated form of relations of production has been proved. This conclusion was stated by the classics of Marxism-Leninism way back in the mid-19th century, when capitalism as a social formation was just gaining strength and it seemed to personify unheard-of development of productive forces.

Transition to the socialist stage of development opens before homo sapiens broad vistas. Socialism provides him with an opportunity consciously to create mechanisms of management needed for attaining the goals he himself has set, goals which, it should be repeated, must not contradict the objective laws of development. Social mechanisms are needed to harmonise in the best way individual needs and strivings with the social goals, to channel sponta-

1,12

8---111

neous human energy in one common direction.

However, this should be done not to reduce all to servile obedience, as it is alleged by our ideological adversaries. That would be a catastrophe. Evolution cannot go on unless there is a diversity of individualities, and we visualise the future of humanity as a community of freely thinking people full of initiative.

It seems that we have digressed a little from the subject. Though the future of mankind is a fascinating problem, I would rather we go back to the world of electronics and informatics and see what role they may play in making this future.

We have digressed but into subjects without which it would be impossible properly to assess the significance of informatics in future and its place among other instruments of cognition.

The 20th century has seen the priority development of physics, and later on biology. I think the 21st century will be the age of humanitarian sciences, sciences about man and mankind. Karl Marx said that time would come when natural and humanitarian sciences would merge into one science of man. This fusion will take place pretty soon, and informatics will bridge the two branches of human knowledge.

Man is part of the biosphere, and whatever he may do to adapt it to his own needs, he must adapt his own life to the laws governing its existence. The goal should be not to conquer nature but to ensure harmonious development

of nature and society. Otherwise mankind would not be able to survive. The great naturalist Vladimir Vernadsky^^1^^ warned about this at the beginning of this century. We have realised that there is a line we must never cross. Science must be able to spot this line and fix the limits of admissible influence on the biosphere. Experts in various sciences should pool their efforts to this end. All this can be done by applying the methods of informatics, which uses a universal language of mathematical models and methods of processing vast amounts of information. Informatics is capable of combining the strict sequence of logical reasoning with man's intuition and his abilities.

It seems to be obvious that the future of mankind will be manageable. However, high rates in the development of production, science and social activity have set off a flow of information which man as a biological species cannot handle any longer. This avalanche paralyses man. He just cannot follow the numerous intricate relationships in it as he sets out to evaluate the situation correctly and take a proper decision. The computer has multiplied man's analytical potential many times over, enabling him to foresee the results of his actions, to compare variants and select those which best suit the set goal. And then, like a sculptor, he can chip off the rock of information all that is redundant and to obtain the most rational and economical variant of the future. One can-

114-

not overestimate the significance of this fact, especially for the near future, for man will have to calculate his actions most carefully in order not to upset the fragile environmental balance. Regretfully, too many people do not yet realise that mankind has reached a dangerous point and a single careless move may destroy his habitat.

So you share the pessimistic forecasts of the Club of Rome?^^2^^

If nothing changes, a catastrophe is inevitable. By crossing the line separating pre-society from society, having acquired strength comparable with geological power and being capable of changing the face of the Earth, man has retained a consumer attitude to it. His ungovernable, chaotic influence on the environment can upset the balance in nature, the consequences of which are unpredictable. Possibly the balance in the biosphere will be restored, but in a different form, and it is difficult to say whether there will be place for man in a new environment. If we keep polluting the environment as we do it today, and if the use of resources will grow as rapidly, then₃ I reiterate, a catastrophe is inevitable. In this case it may turn out that mankind has reached the utmost limit in its development. In 20 or 30 years the standard of living will go down notably, and in yet another 20 or 30 years, that is, by the end of the time span set for the forecast, the population will be decreasing due to the rapid growth of the

mortality rate. This forecast has been submitted by American scientist Jay Forrester to the Club of Rome and one cannot dismiss it. But, as I see it, there is a flaw in his method. He does not take into consideration scientific, technological and social progress.

I can well understand the distrust some people feel towards science and technology. They think that it is the use of scientific and technological achievements that has led mankind into an impasse. It may seem paradoxical, but I think that precisely the progress of science and technology should help man to overcome difficulties. Not progress as such, of course, but a proper use of its results. And, needless to say, new technology should fit perfectly into the interrelationship between man and nature. Ecology presents a problem demanding urgent action.

Scientific and technological progress has given rise to yet another threat, that of mankind's destruction in a nuclear conflict.

Yes, coexistence has become the only alternative. However, what does it mean to coexist in the conditions of the scientific and technological revolution? I shall try and explain what I mean by coexistence.

It is, above all, such a state of the world, such an organisation of the world, its regions and individual countries, which ensures the continued existence of the human race, the development of its civilisation, and a display of its potential.

The Earth is populated by people with different colours of skin, different culture, ideals, and aspirations. They form states with different social and political systems. The goals and interests of these states differ, too. Then isn't the idea of coexistence a Utopia, after all? I thought this over many times.

There is no simple answer to that. But I am sure that it is not a Utopia. It is safe to say that science already has found the answer---it is known as a situation of "travellers in one

boat''.

Imagine that a few people have decided to cross the ocean in one boat. Each of them pursues his own goals and his own means of attaining them, but they also have a common goal: to reach the destination. Then the set of factors indicating the goals of each can be divided into at least two components. Let us call one of them egoistic (for instance, the desire to remain fit during the voyage) and the other, public interest (it is common for all). The extent to which the goal is attained depends on the part of resources each of the travellers is prepared to spend.

Individual resources are limited and each traveller must divide them somehow between his own requirements and the common needs. This is not an easy problem. If one of them gives away all his energy for the common cause, he may not survive till the end of the voyage. So it is in his interest to spare himself. But

all of them cannot do nothing and rest all the time, for in this case they will never reach the shore. One cannot demand an equal contribution of energy from everybody, for all are in different physical condition.

Collective agreement in this case is that each contributes of his own free will part of his resources for the communal needs, according to everyone's abilities. This situation can be related in mathematical terms and its quantitative analysis can be made. This was done, and when the mathematical problem was solved, it turned out that in a situation of "travellers in one boat" there always exists a stable and effective compromise. That is they all can reach the shore safe and sound. When Prof. Yu. Geymeyer of Moscow University told me about this theorem, which he had proved together with another Soviet scientist, I. Vital, I was convinced that a mathematical theory of the coexistence of nations began to be formulated, and a start was made for a quantitative assessment of compromises which would ensure the survival of people on our planet.

/ am glad to hear that the intuition of the heart has been backed up by the logic of mind. But the question is so complex and important, that some skepticism would be forgivable, I believe. Besides, the lessons of the past hold us back from all-out optimism. Even if we keep on striking a bell and, like John Donne,¹ tell every ``traveller'' that the bell tolls for him

U9

because he is part of the whole of mankind, there still may be a man who would prefer personal benefit to preserving the homeostasis of the human race. And what if there are more people like him?

It is hard to be an optimist in any event. And it is still harder to offer guarantees. But I belong to those who believe in human reason, and I am sure that we are striking the right bell: a clearly understood danger threatening to upset the stability of life is the argument which will convince people to pool their efforts and act properly to avert the threat, including the threat of mankind's destruction in a nuclear conflict.

Not only wars, but other ill-considered actions may have severe consequences. Naturally, to know a critical situation does not yet mean to be able to avoid it. The world is full of contradictions among people, countries, classes. People must learn to resolve these contradictions by means other than war.

What is needed now is a broad programme of developing among politicians, scientists, and all people a new approach to the world and to themselves in this world, of elaborating a new strategy of conduct based on the principle of cooperation among various elements of mankind----states, nations, individuals---wherever in the world they may exist. Incidentally, this subjective realisation of the need to unite human activity rests on the objective laws of life. The

evolution of life shows that ability to adapt to one another, as well as compromises, cooperation and joint actions are of extreme importance for all living beings. Cooperative activity in nature is just as common as, say, struggle within species, due to which, according to Darwin, the evolution of a species occurs. Cooperative activity has a special role to play in the development of man and society, and this role is increasing with the growth of power resources available to mankind.

Settlement of contradictions through mutually beneficial cooperation and coordination of interests will be at the basis of social development in the coming epoch. The problem is to learn to operate this mechanism, that is, to set up institutions for elaborating cooperative decisions, I call them institutions of concord. The setting up of institutions of concord, of a harmonious development of nature and society, is becoming vitally necessary for mankind as a whole.

However, this gives rise to another condition. Such international activities should be organised in some way. This would be another, practical step. The next condition, without which all previous efforts will be of little value or futile, is that an atmosphere of mutual trust must be created.

/ should make the third condition first.

Quite right: the last but not least. We in the Soviet Union and other socialist countries ven-

tured to break the vicious circle of suspicion and distrust which had existed between nations and countries for ages. We have no enemy among other nations and propaganda of hatred and war is prohibited by law in the Soviet Union. But we can go only our half of the way. The responsibilities here rest equally with all those who take part in international intercourse, and trust should be worldwide. Regretfully, this is not the case at present.

I am not a historian and it is not for me to forecast how the social progress of mankind will proceed, when and in what ways the humanistic ideals of communism will be carried into effect, and how long capitalism will exist. However, it is perfectly clear to me as a specialist in natural sciences that, for all ideological divisions, people should learn to live together in this world, and together find ways to reasonable compromises acceptable to all. This idea was clearly expressed in speeches by Mikhail Gorbachev and in the policy-making documents of the Communist Party and the Soviet government.

/ think we may expect from a scientist not only an assertion of a general theoretical principle, but also recommendations on how to implement it. How do you think the " institutions of concord" should function?

As I have said, their purpose would be to produce joint decisions on the more urgent problems that are vital to mankind as a whole.

As many people as possible should join this search for solutions. These people should be above national egoism and ideological bias in the face of common danger. I believe that in the remote future the progress of information technology and of human consciousness will enable every man on Earth to take part in a discussion of problems facing mankind as a whole. For the time being one can read about such trans-continental dialogues not only in science fiction. The prototypes of such global information system are, for instance, the SovietAmerican TV bridge programmes.

I should like to stress the role scientists can and must play in founding institutions of general human concord. Take the arms race problem, for example. We all know that for the US Big Business it is profitable to invest in arms manufacture, and anti-Soviet propaganda which accompanies each new round of the arms race is, in a sense, inevitable, for the military-industrial complex needs a bugaboo of an outside threat, so that it could justify in the eyes of the nation the need for the immense spending on the development of new weapons. On the other hand, we know that most Americans, including sober-minded politicians and businessmen, do not want war just like ourselves and fear a world nuclear conflict. Here our interests coincide, and here is the starting point for a possible compromise which would guarantee mutual security at the lowest pos-

sible level of armament. The parametres of such a compromise are calculable mathematically.

The first institution of concord could be a group of scientists under the UN aegis, who would occupy themselves with such calculations. An important point to note here is that the governments would not have to declassify any defence secrets for this purpose. Rather wellknown initial data would suffice for that. Maybe something would have to be specified now and again, giving the governments another chance to display goodwill and sincerity. I would suggest that we could start with this kind of research. It would consolidate the existing forms of political cooperation and stimulate an expansion of activity and its intensification. This is not to mention the practical value of the "disarmament formula''.

However, there is one ``but'' in all this. It is necessary that scientists working on a compromise solution and the governments behind them should be sincere and unbiased, that there would be no egoism, distrust and suspicion. The burden of the past mankind carries in itself is still too heavy. As you have said, there is still a good deal left in people from our remote ancestors---the Cro-Magnon Man or the Neanderthal Man. They could think, but they were aggressive.

I would put it this way: reason is what made us what we are today. I do not see why man-

kind should now or in future give up reliance on reason. I repeat, I believe in reason and therefore I am confident that in future man will prove on many occasions that he is reasonable.

Notes

~^^1^^ Vernadsky, Vladimir Ivanovich (1868-1965)---a Soviet scientist, the founder of geochemistry, biochemistry, and radiogeology; the author of books on the philosophy of natural sciences and history of science.---Ed.

* The Club of Rome---an international public organisation, set up for discussion and encouragement of the studies of global problems, for assisting in shaping world public opinion, and for dialogue with heads of state or government. It includes about 100 scientists, public figures and businessmen from more than 30 countries, mostly developing and capitalist ones.---Ed.

' John Donne---an English poet (1572-1631). The reference here is to his well-known quotation: "No man is an Hand, intire of it selfe; every man is a peece of the Continent, a part of the maine; if a Clod bee washed away by the Sea, Europe is the lesse, as well as if a Promontorie were, as well as if a Manner of thy friends or of thine ouine were; any mans death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee".

In the Lap of the Future

flown. Work and intellect have distinguished and elevated man above all other creatures. The human intellect and will have opened to man boundless vistas for development. However, only work can pave the road to the human ideal. And, naturally, economists must know better than others the best way to achieve that ideal and the ideal itself.

jTo learn more about the subject, I interviewed Leonid Abalkin.

All things are understood relatively, and to understand the future one must first discover a reliable criterion for comparing it with the present. Labour productivity? National income? But what does it mean, say, to plan to almost double national income by the year 2000? Surely, this is an impressive target, but you will probably agree that it tells little to the layman about the exact picture of the future. Does it mean that industrial production would merely double? Or that each of us would have a chance to wear out six, not three pairs of shoes a year?

The economy of the next millennium would naturally differ from what we have now in scope of production, too. But that would not constitute the main difference. Take your question about shoes, for example. People would, of course, not wear out half a dozen pairs a year, for this would be in excess of what they would normally require. In fact, what this implies is not only better satisfaction of cur-

There is nothing so mundane as labour. In work, man encounters the coarse material of nature. From day to day, millions of people till the soil, smelt steel, and build houses, and never is their job easy. But their aim is lofty and noble, since every day they invent, forge and polish what Marx called the material lap of history. Yet for humans, work is not so much a means of subsistence as a way of realising relationships with others and shaping an attitude towards the surrounding world. Marx and Engels said that the production of material means of life, and therefore every given stage of economic progress of a given people or era, form the foundation from which state institutions, legal views, and art develop.

Nothing is loftier than work, and poets devote their verses to it:

Our one satisfaction is labour...

The corn that is sown will be gathered;

A life-giving river of wealth

By humming machines manufactured

Will swell; printed thought will enrapture

And stir countless minds to their depth.

An accomplished goal generates new ideas and new hopes that can lift man where no bird---no matter how strong its wings---has

needed to build civic centres, libraries, stadiums, museums, tourist facilities or, in other words, to rationally organise our leisure. We fail to do this sufficiently now as we failed to do in the past, and not only because the social sphere was somehow underestimated. The main thing that prevented us from doing that was a somewhat low level of labour productivity. So, behind such economic targets as a doubled national income or 2.3---2.5-fold growth in labour productivity, which perhaps fail to impress the layman, is the material foundation for transforming the quality of our social structure. So what sort of economy would we want to have at the beginning of the next millennium? To begin with, one with a revamped organisational structure able to operate in a well-oiled and rational set-up, in which every item would be produced and used frugally as the fruit of every man's labour and, secondly, an economy capable of satisfying not only current but evernew human demands, an economy distinguished by a new structure of consumption of material and intellectual wealth.

To understand the changes that will take place in the coming years, and the processes that would bring about an improvement in Soviet society, one must realise that underlying all these changes and processes will be a new quality of growth. This is no simple task, and it will require profound transformations and allout efforts of each and everyone.

Leonid Abalkin, Soviet economist, Corresponding Member, USSR Academy of Sciences, Director, Institute of Economics, USSR Academy of Sciences

rent demand, but a transition to a new pattern of consumption involving basically new commodities. Our industry will manufacture goods of which now we only have an inkling.

Growth of the national income is an important factor for understanding the future. It is an indicator of social wealth, and its doubling by the end of the century would signify that we, apart from obtaining the means for solving the important task of housing construction---to provide every family with a separate flat---- would have more than double the resources

9---111

The question naturally arises as to whether a fundamental restructuring of the economy is really necessary, and whether the national wellbeing could be improved simply by continuing to implement the same old policies? This question is all the more natural because, in comparing present-day living standards with those of, say, thirty years ago, we proudly note that progress has been made in all areas. What do you think?

Indeed, we may speak of impressive Soviet economic achievements in very diverse fields. The fact that industrial output in the USSR is several times above what it was in the 1930s or 1950s no longer surprises anybody in this country, for we have become used to such growth rates. At the same time, we have developed a certain stereotype of economic thinking, namely, "the more the better". So what the present economic reorganisation is intended to do is to initiate a new understanding of the very dynamics of economic processes.

Today, more cannot be identified with better. Returning to our example, let us imagine that we start making more shoes, but their quality drops. This would be of benefit to no one, for it would only result in more unsold merchandise. To take another example, today we have generally attained and even slightly surpassed the consumption levels for sugar recommended by health experts. But the latter warn us that a further increase in sugar con-

sumption would be detrimental to our health, urging instead that we eat more fruit so as to change the very quality of sugar consumption. It is clear that to satisfy this new requirement, changes would have to be made in the production pattern. And this concerns not just consumer goods. For instance, the development of machine-building should not involve production of more lathes. In the future, the number of lathes should ostensibly remain the same, and their pool might even be cut. At the same time, however, their renovation should be carried out at a faster pace to replace current machinery with new models.

Today, we interpret Lenin's well-known words about the "law of increasing requirements" in a new way, and perhaps only now do we realise their underlying meaning: mind you, Lenin did not say "growth of requirements", but "increase of requirements", a term implying growth, complication, and improvement. Beyond this law, there can be no development of social production, for it takes place by resolving the dialectical contradiction between the level of production and the constantly changing level and quality of requirements. So, one may say that the demand for changes is the result of our past achievements: having satisfied certain requirements, we initiate others, and by seeking to satisfy them we create the future economy.

/ agree that our requirements and expecta-

9»

tions relative to living and working conditions have changed. And still, it is not quite clear why there is a need for fundamental transformations, which, as you said, require no small effort? Would it not be sufficient to simply step up R&.D to change the nature of products and to increase, as much as necessary, their output? Would not that be simpler and cheaper?

Possibly simpler, but hardly cheaper. But, most importantly, we would fail to ensure social and economic progress. In this case, the future would be essentially a copy of the present, with the same nature of production and consumption and the same individuals involved.

In fact, this was the USSR's development pattern till the mid-eighties. However, every economic strategy has its limits. As the stated goals are achieved, the strategy employed exhausts its possibilities and society is faced by the need to move towards fundamentally new goals reflecting the new economic conditions. Again, in relation to the next stage, an accomplished goal would be a starting point for reflection and a reference mark for new processes. We had reached a point where much of what we aimed to achieve had already been achieved both in volume of production and accumulation of resources. Society entered a new stage of development and, consequently, the need arose for a new economic strategy.

The basic feature of the new economic strategy that will determine the shape of Soviet

society at the end of the century and, as I see it, would remain effective in the foreseeable future, is that it is oriented at achieving high final results through reliance on intensive growth factors. You mentioned that everything is understood relatively. So, if until recently greater fuel and raw materials resources were obtained by greater output, in the future it will be achieved mainly by a more rational use of these resources. If in the past expansion of production naturally required an inflow of labour resources, from now on the entire national income must grow without increasing the work force. On the whole, the final goals of this fundamental reform have been clearly formulated in the Programme of the CPSU, which states that USSR aims to switch over to an economy involving the maximum amount of organisation and efficiency, with broad-based productive forces and production relations and a well-oiled economic mechanism.

So changes in the Soviet economy should be sweeping and involve new technologies and new forms of economic management; and these changes will naturally affect man, the main productive force. It seems a little awkward but my next question is: what element should we choose as the starting point?

I understand your concern. I know from personal experience that we have become used to constantly seeking some link in the chain of causes that is connected with deep-rooted

processes, with changes in technology, with the material base of production, assuming that these changes almost automatically entail changes in economic and social relations, and on that basis corresponding transformations in intellectual life, in the attitude of people to labour. However, experience shows that this approach often fails to justify itself. Seldom can we decide to do something first, and only then something else.

No technological progress would be possible without changing the economic management system, and the latter cannot be altered without changing the way people think about and relate to work. In turn this cannot be done without changing the wage and material incentive mechanisms. Through experience we found that when dealing with a complex system, the main thing is to ensure a comprehensive approach to all questions. Any other way would be misleading, and our view that production relations generally depend on productive forces, and the superstructure on the basis, should essentially recognise that this process is socially determined and objectively conditioned. In no way does this view assume an automatic sequence in solving problems. Today, I am prepared to defend the conclusion that what matters most is to realise that the processes go hand in hand, that all problems must be solved at once. This conclusion is not a simple one, for it is fraught with numerous com-

plexities. However, it is the only correct one from a scientific and political point of view.

Now, having understood this methodological principle, we can apparently get down to specific questions. How do you envisage future technology, for instance?

It will be basically novel, including very extensive use of microelectronics, flexible technological systems readily adaptable to manufacturing new products, and computers. And in the distant future, this increasingly automatic technology would be supplemented by machineless production methods based on physical, chemical and biological processes to convert substances. In short, fewer plants and factories would be built, but thanks to highly efficient technology they would work more intensively to give a larger number of high-quality products.

I asked you about future technology not out of mere curiosity. For millions of Soviet youth, your reply has great practical significance, since in making their career choices they want to know what branches of the economy will be most promising.

I would like to divide my reply into two halves. Development of future technology would primarily depend on scientific and technological progress, and the branches where the most up-to-date achievements in science and engineering are implemented would develop

most rapidly. These branches would include the machine-tool manufacturing, instrumentmaking, electrotechnical and electronic industries, and machine-building in general, and young people must be trained accordingly. But this question also has another aspect, about which we must be quite candid with the younger generation.

Speaking of the future, one cannot only paint land flowing in milk and honey. There is still a very long way to go, and demand for many of the traditional industries such as the sewing industry will not lessen until the end of the century. We all want to wear fashionable dresses, shirts, and suits. But they are manufactured by workers who still perform rather monotonous, dull work. However, this trade will not disappear in five or even ten years. Naturally, with time, the sewing industry workers will work on increasingly improved machines equipped with electronic devices, which, however, would be unable to replace them fully. The same concerns car makers: one cannot hope that in five years we would replace all assembly-line workers with robots. This is unrealistic, and the assembly line would continue to exist for quite a long time yet. In realising this, we must constantly train our young people accordingly: these jobs are well-paid and socially prestigious, but require continuous and intense effort. They need not only vocational training and good knowledge of the secondary school

curriculum, but awareness of the main thing in life, namely, a willingness to work and contribute to solving the common tasks of society. Let us return to what you said about technology becoming increasingly automated. You also said that Soviet economic strategy is aimed at expanding and altering production potential without increasing the work force. Do you mean that further improvements in industry would make it difficult to find work for everyone entering the labour market in the future?

You hesitate to say ``unemployment''. So I shall do that for you. No, unemployment does not threaten us under socialism. If need be, we shall support employment even with special measures, since by pursuing the goal of accelerated economic development we also keep in sight the principal objective, in regard to which all other tasks are but means for implementing it. I mean a level of production and consumption of material wealth that would allow the working man to fully reveal his abilities and talents. Evidently, he could then actualise his need in revealing his creative talents primarily in work. To deprive him of that would mean to deny him his chief vital requirement. That is why I say that, if necessary, we will support employment even with special measures. However, I think they will not be needed.

It is true that, in production, technological progress is accompanied by reduction of per-

sonnel. But things are different in the service sector, where an increasing number of Soviet workers will find jobs in the coming years. Changes in the structure of social requirements compel us to channel considerable labour resources into education, medical service, and other public and cultural sectors. Incidentally, this will be yet another essential feature of the future, in contrast with the past. Briefly, I would formulate it as the need to overcome a certain technocratic bias, which still exists in the USSR, in identifying the priorities of economic development. Investments in education and medical care, and in trade and public services, serve future interests, for they contribute to the most valuable or, better said, invaluable human factor of progress.

We have now approached the central topic of our talk, namely, man. In this connection, I believe it appropriate to recite the words of Karl Marx, who said that the hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill, society with the industrial capitalist. In discoursing about forthcoming or, rather, current changes in the means of labour, we should naturally ponder about the social consequences they may generate.

The words of Marx that you just cited characterise the general trends in social development and show the correlation between changes in productive forces, on the one hand, and the social transformations that take place on this

basis, on the other. But these words cannot be taken literally or oversimplified, in a way that would make Marx seem to advocate a theory now called technological determinism. Machinery and technology themselves, removed from specific social conditions, structures and nature of ownership, cannot transform society. Marx's formula is a graphic, general formula that includes the entire lot of provisions which show the presence of this correlation.

We cannot simply hope that, following the emergence of new machines, a new man would instantly come into being. We already mentioned that all processes are interconnected, have direct links and feedbacks, putting the burden on us to make use of all the possibilities offered by technology. We must place them at the service of man and not allow dangerous social consequences to happen. This also refers to environment pollution and the narrow specialisation of workers, or loss by people of their perspectives in work. The strength of our society and the uniqueness of our socio-political system is that it allows a maximum production efficiency to be combined with the greatest level of humaneness in social progress, scientific, and technological progress included.

Let me cite one more example. Technology, no matter how perfect, will not live up to our expectations if it is not controlled by those who have a perfect command of their trade and not enlivened by the energy of the people who are

sincerely and profoundly interested in achieving a high end result. In short, for social production forces to rise to a new level, qualitative shifts are needed not only in technology, but in the attitude of workers towards work. He must develop a new attitude to work, for technology must be operated by people possessing new knowledge and new thinking.

You have anticipated my question as to your view of the worker of future socialist society. You claim that he will be an excellent professional capable of creative thinking, and a vigorous and involved person.

Quite right. However, these requirements equally concern our contemporaries.

It is of crucial importance to make every member of Soviet society realise the imperative need for all these reforms, and to help him understand that the nation's future depends on what is done now. By increasing the activeness of broad segments of society and instilling in them a civic attitude to all affairs, coupled with hard and selfless work, we could further accelerate social and economic progress and lead Soviet society to new frontiers in its march towards communism as charted by the Party.

Economic policy is realistic only when it is implemented in the masses' practical activities. And to further develop this social activity, much must be changed in social relations and economic management. It is essential to closely

combine the interests of society, the work collective, and the individual worker.

In socialist society, when we have the opportunity to consciously and purposefully direct social development, production relations appear to be the ``Archimedes' lever" capable of `` overturning'' the world.

In no way underestimating the role of the intellectual and ideological factors in social development I must nevertheless say that improvement of production relations will be a prerequisite for a drastic change in productive forces instilling in workers a new economic mentality, a feeling of a thrifty and responsible master. And here I do not contradict what I already said about the interrelatedness of the processes taking place in society.

I underscore the role of production relations precisely because in the past we often thought everything was quiet in this area, that there was no need for changes, that with establishment of public ownership of the means of production we would once and for all have a situation where productive forces fully correspond to production relations. As a result, this element, namely, the need to perfect production relations, was left out of the general reconstruction pattern, and all the other elements, including the technological potential and the intellectual and ideological factors, failed to contribute what they were capable of and what we expected of them. Hence, now that we have re-

vealed a lag in this element, we must place special emphasis on strengthening it. Continuous streamlining of production relations, keeping them securely in line with dynamically developing productive forces, and timely identification and solution of non-antagonistic contradictions between them---are the essential prerequisites of our socio-economic progress.

However, production relations are quite a broad category, and one can certainly distinguish in them some key element through a comprehensive approach, too. Am I right?

This is a matter of the correspondence of production relations to the nation-wide character of socialist ownership. The forming of specifically socialist qualities in a worker, namely (as was already mentioned), a master's attitude to one's work, honesty, thriftiness, and responsibility for final economic results and for one's concern to multiply social wealth, would decisively depend on a timely and adequate solution of this issue. If all these qualities are missing, we cannot possibly combine the interests of individual workers, the work collective, and the whole of society. And the result of this maladjustment of individual elements and specific mechanisms in these relations could not be made up for either by legislation or by education.

To clarify even further the concept of the forms of social ownership, i.e., those in which it is actualised economically, its key element

would be economic accounting. No wonder the resolutions of the 27th CPSU Congress and many other subsequent decisions also lay stress on this, namely, on the need to introduce full and consistent economic accounting as understood by Lenin, and economic accountability for the production association, enterprise, team, and every individual worker, too. It is through economic accounting that we could perfect the entire system of production relations, and there is need to develop mechanisms capable of fixing a relationship between the measure of work and the measure of remuneration, so that multiplication of social wealth would directly affect its producers, while the damage inflicted on society should be inevitably borne by those responsible for economic losses.

The future will reveal the specific norms and laws in which these principles would be implemented. However, I think it is quite clear that improvement of production relations would take place precisely in this way, and their remodelling would be aimed at placing every worker and work collective in the position of masters of their respective enterprises. The working man cannot become a true master of his country without being a real master of his own factory or collective farm.

Before we end our interview, I would like to backtrack a little. You said an important task would be to reveal and resolve in time existing non-antagonistic contradictions between

productive forces and production relations. Does it follow that the things you listed do not exhaust all the problems we would have to tackle in the future?

They do not even exhaust existing problems, some of which we mentioned, let alone others. I am convinced that the future, too, has quite many problems in store, since the perfection of production relations, like the development of productive forces, is not a one-time measure, but a living process that will continue to challenge us with newer and newer problems of various degrees of complexity and significance. And yet, there are no ``objective'' obstacles that could prevent us from achieving our ideal of a socialist, let alone communist worker. If we all display maximum initiative, and if all reasonable initiatives enjoy support, the boldest of dreams will come true.

You mentioned "objective obstacles". Does it follow that there are also subjective factors that should be taken into consideration?

Yes, there are psychological barriers which may prevent people from accepting the need for a decisive reorganisation of life. For instance, problems relating to man-machine relationships would need special attention. We must make increased demand of the social aspects of new technology, so it would to the fullest possible measure satisfy human demands for interesting, creative work. And people themselves should also learn to interact with this new technology.

When I visited one enterprise in Leningrad, the workers told me how one of their foremen, a real master of his craft, refused to operate a programme-controlled lathe, and not because it was too sophisticated, but simply because he could not imagine that a computer could regulate some process better than he could. That is where you have a psychological barrier and, naturally, the struggle against inertia in thinking, against existing stereotypes, cannot be reduced solely to man-machine relationships.

I would also like to return, as you suggest, to the beginning of our discussion and remind you that we have entered on a new stage of development, a stage when there is need to readjust from quantitative to qualitative reference points, from merely increasing the volume of production to better use of available resources. Yet, quite often, we are prevented from doing this because of stereotypes of the past, and also because we gauge ourselves according to traditional levels of economic and social development. In other words, the issue of instilling in every worker a new up-to-date economic mentality is a most urgent one today.

Universal Solver of Problems

are organs of the human mind which are created by the human hand, the objectified power of knowledge.''

So the question of how to humanise technology should actually be asked of man: what qualities should designers of future machines possess if mankind's coexistence with machinery is to turn into cooperation for the benefit of all mankind? I put this question to Vladimir Zinchenko, a specialist in ergonomics, the science concerned with a border area where human interests intersect the possibilities of technology, and ways are sought to harmonise the two.

Irrespective of our attitudes to machines and technology, mankind largely owes both its present-day level of material and intellectual development to them. What, in your view, are the prospects for man's cooperation with machinery?

I think they are boundless, even though, like in any other area, there are naturally several preconditions, without which they cannot materialise.

These preconditions naturally concern man, am I right? Actually the strategic tasks for developing future technology are quite clear, arid they will hardly change further. In fact, they are designed to raise labour productivity and lower energy and materials consumption. So are automation, computerisation and robotisation known to be principal trends in the develop-

An ancient Chinese parable has it that during his wanderings Buddha once saw a peasant climbing down a well with a bucket in hand instead of using a windlass or sweep. When Buddha asked the peasant why he did not make some mechanical device to facilitate his work, he replied that using a machine would turn his own heart into a machine. I find the simplicity of this popular wisdom deceptive, though it is true that the fear of becoming a slave to machinery has probably pursued man intermittently ever since the first mechanism was invented. What makes machinery so frightening to man, its master and creator? And the answer is that machines possess no consciousness, no heart, no soul; in other words, no inner safety lock which controls evil qualities in man. Another question would be whether man should generally measure machinery by the usual yardsticks and demand that it discriminate good from evil, an unquestionably human ability.

Karl Marx once wrote: "Nature does not construct machines, locomotives, railways, electric telegraphs, self-acting mules, etc. They are products of human industry; natural material transformed into organs of man's will over Nature, or of man's activity in Nature. They

10*

Economic and Social Development of the USSR for 1986-1990 and for the Period Ending in 2000 endorsed by the 27th CPSU Congress. This implies that the nation's intellectual potential is itself a capital as significant as energy and material wealth. Now, let us also account for this aspect of technological development or, more precisely, that of science, technology and social culture as a whole. But you are certainly right that my preconditions concern man, though the first one would mean our aim could be achieved only if we ``humanitarianise'' technology and production processes, i.e. optimise the tools, conditions and processes of labour so as to make the latter more attractive and gratifying.

All this holds huge reserves for raising labour productivity and improving the product quality, and ergonomics tries to uncover those reserves. I could cite concrete figures that characterise the effect of optimised functioning of the manmachine system. Ergonomic software for designing and operating machines, equipment and other industrial products makes it possible to raise their efficiency by 20 per cent, reduce the time needed for professional training by 20-30 per cent, and decrease the number of accidents in industry and transport by ,2 or 3 times. I do not even mention the. extent to which a worker would be gratified.; by his work, something that also has a very high social value.

Vladimir Zinchenko, Soviet psychologist, Corresponding Member, USSR Academy of Pedagogical Sciences

ment of technology and engineering. What do you think?

Before I reply, let me call in question some of your assertions. To begin with, I would speak more cautiously about the tasks and trends of technological development, which is, indeed, not a purpose in itself but a means for furthering human progress. It is therefore risky to identify the two, especially since modern society does not simply process energy and raw materials, but increasingly generates and exploits knowledge. And this is already not merely technological development itself. Incidentally, this is stated in the Guidelines for the

The efficiency you speak of is indeed impressive. But what surprises me is that though ergonomics in its present form has emerged relatively recently, the demand to develop labour implements to match human potentials must have existed always. And yet, it seems that people have discovered this seemingly obvious requirement only now.

That "man is the measure of all things" was said long ago by the Greek philosopher Protagoras (5th cent. B.C.). But how is the world commensurate with man and vice versa? At every stage of human history, this relationship was never given anew but preset. Man changes, and so do his requirements. And that is what designers of technology failed and still fail to consider in all cases, for they have been and are chiefly focussed on resolving only technical problems. This approach must be changed. Creators of new technologies should stop regarding themselves as the "measure of all people". There is an acute need to `` humanitarianise'' the system of higher technical education, which trains designers of socio-- technological and man-machine systems. Now, even though the words ``socio'' and ``man'' stand here first, this fact itself is often ignored. The emphasis continues to be on flexibility, on man's ability to adapt himself to different working conditions; as a result, purely technical systems arise. However, the time has come when the psychological and social costs of this ap-

proach have become so high as to slow down and obstruct socio-economic progress.

Does it follow that mankind's destiny in the world of technology is principally linked with the forming of a new consciousness?

With the forming of a new consciousness in general, not only in designers of new machines, but in specialists concerned with the humanities as well, in all human beings for that matter.

Do you suggest the need to attain a state where every person becomes a comprehensively developed individual?

Yes, but this basically correct formula requires a more exact definition. Naturally, man must be competent in his subject, and must have creative abilities. However, he must also perceive the world as a whole, for only that will make him cultured, and higher education is designed to play a major part in doing this.

The problem of ``humanitarianising'' technical education, the same as the need for greater mathematisation and technologisation of humanitarian education, is directly linked with the current integration of the social, natural, and applied sciences. And though this process is becoming increasingly intense, it has so far had little effect on education.

Could you illustrate more specifically the actual significance of this issue and ways for solving it? For instance, what is the significance

of the requirement to ``humanitarianise'' technical education?

The most perspicacious scientists foresaw pretty long ago the negative consequences for education, i.e., for the forming of the individual, of the increasing differentiation of sciences, a trend that higher education has blindly followed. The situation was also aggravated by the fact that sciences were not only differentiated, something actually quite natural and necessary, but began to be divided into basic and sectoral categories, even though it is intuitively clear that education should be basic, it should provide the fundamentals of knowledge, not just techniques for solving immediate technical problems. Only knowledge of the basics of science and its history, and an understanding of science as a single entity, could turn man into an "universal solver of problems", and humanitarian methods for cognising the world are an inseparable part of science itself. For example, the origins of the theory of relativity and the principles of indeterminateness and complementariness are to be sought in the philosophical and psychological studies of consciousness. Helmholtz's seminar on psychophysics, in which Planck and Hertz, then both students, took part, gave rise to a prototype of Planck's constant. Prior to joining the Department of Natural Sciences and Mathematics at St. Petersburg University, the celebrated Russian physiologist Ukhtomsky defended his can-

didate thesis on Kant's theory of knowledge. Today, too, the applied sciences assimilate humanitarian knowledge, and one must respect the humanities and their history and language for the process to go on successfully.

Nowadays, all sciences must be humanitarian because humanitarian research methods teach us not only to perceive and establish unique facts, with which the applied sciences are concerned more and more often, but also to construct the images of such phenomena, to operate with and manipulate them, to penetrate into their structure, and to search for and find their meaning. Humanitarian research methods also teach us visual thinking, which produces semantically-loaded new images to make all meanings visible, as it were.

As a matter of fact, this painful process of translating objective exterior reality into the inner language of descriptive-conceptual models of reality has long been familiar to naturalists. To cite an example, Einstein once said that he himself thought by means of visual images and even muscular sensations. So it is high time to stop regarding this type of thinking as something natural only for artists or writers, something that Einstein possessed by mere luck or misunderstanding; in fact, one must regard it as an essential instrument of practical cognition and action. This type of thinking could be developed on the basis of any material, but through the use of humani-

tarian methods. Otherwise, we might come across such paradoxes as a technical institute teaching students to build machines while they do not even know the meaning of action; or teaching them to develop computer memories when they have no idea about human memory; or, again, teaching them to build " thinking machines" when they know nothing about human intellect or, more generally, human thinking. We teachers try within some five or six years to shape our students' consciousness and encourage them as individuals; however, there is no such course that can explain what are consciousness and personality as such.

Would you please formulate the general and specific requirements for future machine designers?

To master basic knowledge about man and human activity; to go beyond the bounds of narrow technical understanding of the process of work; and to enter the sphere of psychology, consciousness and personality, the sphere of motives, relationships, interests, emotions, and attitudes; in short, to enter the sphere of joint and cooperatively distributed human activity, i.e. the area of aggregate labour.

This integral approach to organising human activity is, in effect, a major means for forming human consciousness and personality, which, in turn, determine the efficiency and quality of labour. Personality and consciousness continue to increase in social significance, and

may socially be regarded not only in their commonly accepted meaning but as human factors that either help or prevent society to attain its goals.

That the human factor now plays a priority role in production compels us to revise some of our established concepts and tasks. From an ergonomic viewpoint, work may be regarded the more effective the greater all human abilities and potentials are involved; and it is precisely this type of activity that gratifies people most. Subjectively, this would be demonstrated in the attractiveness and rich content of work, and developers of new technologies and production processes must give people the opportunity to reveal and express themselves in work as fully as possible. With this approach, working conditions could not be reduced merely to the operator's work place, production environment, and so on, but must also involve interesting work, complex tasks, degrees of variety, and application of efforts to various functional systems and structures of activity. Emotional factors play a major role and must also be taken into account and mobilised, for the human potential is indeed limitless when man is wholly absorbed with his production task.

And so man is evidently becoming a decisive factor of progress in both the material and intellectual spheres. However, we are speaking of the future, when, as I understand, robot technology will be increasingly used.

Do you mean robot technology that would totally exclude man from production and thus resolve all the problems involved in the manmachine relationship? But that is a naive delusion and, actually, introduction of versatile production systems will release a considerable number of personnel. However, even given the most sophisticated robot technology, people would nonetheless take part in monitoring all automatic equipment, making decisions, and controlling various systems; their responsibility will immeasurably rise, for any malfunction of robotry would entail enormous losses. The role of the human factor will continually rise, and new working conditions will make increasingly new and higher demands of man, who must correspondingly prepare for them. In this connection, let me draw your attention to one particularly vital issue.

When man operates as part of a man-- machine system, his work becomes cooperatively distributed not only with other people but also with technological devices. But in this case, does not man cease to be the decision-maker? Now, whether we like it or not, and no matter how convinced we are that decision-making in all systems remains with man, all automatic devices and the data they provide will increasingly be part of human activity, decision-making included.

There have been periods in the history of technology when man was merely an appendage

to machinery. Today, however, the same dangerous situation may arise. Already now, there are quite a few instances when, despite the convenience and seeming attractiveness of a technological system, man does not feel gratified by operating it, and he instinctively starts to avoid it because he ceases to be the subject of activity.

/ recall the first steam engine and the apprentice whose duty it was to pull at the appropriate time the levers that regulated the supply of steam to the cylinders, so he was inside the system. But one fine day, as the story goes, it occurred to him to bind the levers with a rope, and the machine began to junction automatically. So the apprentice "switched out" of the technical system; but did that make him less happy?

Well, for some time he did no doubt feel relieved of the need to perform such monotonous, uninteresting, and tiresome work. But you know what happened to him later? The same thing as to the unemployed in Western countries where the working people have managed to gain some guarantees in case of redundancy, and where they can, at least temporarily, make both ends meet by living on their unemployment doles. As it is, they suffer not only from uncertainty of the future, but also, and no less severely, from the awareness of their own uselessness and alienation from labour activity; and they experience this so acutely that, quite often,

their sufferings culminate in various diseases, including mental disorder and even suicide.

You might say Soviet people are not threatened with unemployment. But loss of a job is not the only thing that alienates man from the real world of labour activity. This may also result from a situation in which the worker and the object of his work are separated by a machine pushing the former to the point where he becomes a mere appendage. The sphere of labour activity is valuable to man not only as a source of subsistence. When he has no job, all the ``windows'' and ``doors'' to the system of activity, to the objective world are closed to him. Objective actions are an indispensable prerequisite for forming and sustaining man as a personality. Thanks to his genetic association with objective actions, man retains a correlation with objective reality, with its special and temporal aspects, and it is dangerous both for the individual and society to violate this correlation.

Widespread computerisation is already sending alarm signals in this sense. We now have a category of adults and children who are totally absorbed in computers, which have fully replaced for them normal human communication with other people and things. Now, let us leave aside the question of how developed the personalities of such people are from a medical or purely everyday life point of view. One can readily imagine the possible tragedies that could

arise if decisions were taken by some person for whom all other people and the entire world, for that matter, are merely symbols on the display.

The area of decision-making will ostensibly be the principal field where competition between man and computer will take place, is that not so? I recall a rather terrifying heading of an article about recent advances in developing artificial intelligence. It read "Thinking Machines Prepare Revolution". And what do you think such a revolution could bring?

In the first place, I am against the word ``competition''. Would you start competing, say, with a screwdriver and, what's more, recognise its superiority merely because it drives in screws better than a bare human hand? We all admire advances in computer technology and they will soon be even more impressive. But what does this have to do with intelligence? The computer should not be called artificial intellect but just an instrument of intellectual action, or an objectified instrument of the intellect that can substantially facilitate, accelerate, and enhance the accuracy of decisionmaking, and nothing more.

Indeed, there is much more sense in a `` revolution'' prepared by computer technology. The social meaning of all technological revolutions, including the current Stage of scientific and technological progress, is that they change the habitual forms of all human activity. At the

same time, new forms of activity affect the individual and the whole of society to shape human mentality and consciousness.

Speaking of the possible results of the increasingly wider use of computers, I shall not dwell on the positive aspects of this, for they are well known. I shall simply underline its negative sides, which concern the system of human relationships, the hierarchy of priorities and values. I have already mentioned the real danger posed by the dehumanisation of man, if you permit me to use such a combination of words, and of all society for that matter. Another alarming tendency is that, already now, we hear people saying that computers will not only help us teach children but bring them up, meaning that machines could win social authority. But, in that case, what will happen to the parents' authority? Indeed, what father could compare with a computer in his ability to reply to his children's questions?

So what can man oppose a machine with? Even if it cannot think, it still has unquestionable merits that may make it possible to say the final word even in purely human affairs. Only our consciousness and ability for intellectual activity, comprehension and, in the first place, conscious actions. At previous stages of industrial development, the foremost human qualities were skill and knowledge. At the current stage of technological progress and labour activity, locomotive skills and sensomotor coor-

dinations are beginning to recede to the background, the former being replaced by automatic devices and the latter by data banks; and the intellect, this highly complex form of human activity, is beginning to play the leading role.

The shaping of consciousness is starting to assume quite practical, i.e. socio-economic and technological, significance, the same as skills formerly had. Now, if we do not prepare for this, then consciousness, paradoxical as it may seem, could inhibit scientific and technological and, hence, socio-economic, progress. From this angle, we must realise the actual significance of the current reforms in Soviet secondary school and higher education aimed at attaining a proper correlation between practical skills and work habits, on the one hand, and theoretical generalisations, on the other.

So the principal demand the future will make of man is that he further develop his intellect?

The valuable and truly human quality that should certainly be developed is the individual's ability to generate new images, new descriptions of problematic situations, new methods of action and decision-making, and new forms of control over activity and criteria for assessing efficiency. This is what distinguishes man, or the human factor of progress, namely, the freedom to choose and set one's goals, something that inevitably entails freedom to choose the means and ways for achieving a certain result. Developing the intellect and freedom of

LI---HI

thought would be a step from the existing situation towards its restructuring, towards devising a new situation, and towards understanding human activity in the sense which we find in Hegel and Marx. Rigid fixation of aims, means and results would transform activity, including intellectual activity, into a limited or artificial intellect incapable of posing new problems and setting new tasks.

Perhaps machinery will ultimately become a universal solver of problems, but it will hardly be able to pose them.

How would then a free system, which the human intellect precisely is, be transformed into a determined and ultimately rigid system making it possible to obtain a preset result?

A system becomes determined when it can actively overcome all its degrees of freedom except one. I shall not list all the methods of such self-restriction but simply name the only one and most familiar to all, viz. the system of standards, norms, or rules developed by mankind and assimilated by the individual as guides to action, ethical norms and social attitudes included. The main prerequisite for overcoming excess degrees of freedom will be the conscious purpose itself, which, like law, determines the method and character of human actions.

The Test by Sufficiency

Admonitions is a commodity mankind has never been short of.

Foreign conquerors and local despotic rulers taught people slavish obedience. Traders and clergymen taught hypocrisy. Rebels taught recalcitrance. Metaphysicians meanwhile explored the human soul in an attempt to get at its true essence.

``Man is wicked and vicious," declared some.

``Man is kind and noble by nature," asserted others. Human nature seemed to warrant both conclusions because of its changeability, because man could adapt easily to the circumstances of his* life, and, on the other hand, was apt to revolt against them. Man was so contradictory, that a thinker cried out in despair: "Is it at all possible to plane a smooth board out of this gnarled tree-trunk?''

Thomas< More thought up Utopia, where people possessed all imaginable virtues: they were industrious, tolerant, just, they plied handicrafts, they went in for science and arts, they lived in peace and respected the laws, which were as simple and harmonious as their creators.

Tommaso Campanella thought up the City of the Sun, and one cannot but admire his faith in man's ability to live by the Jaws of reason and beauty, all the more so since he saw the image

11*

of this ideal world through the barred window of his prison cell. Can we, therefore, rebuke him for concentrating on the goal---a happy man--- rather than on ways and means of achieving it?

The authors of Utopias made only passing mention of material sufficiency, regarding it as a necessary and obvious condition of man's freedom and happiness. (We, people of the 20th century, see that growing prosperity does not automatically bring us nearer the ideals of communist society. The growth and spread of material wellbeing are as likely to lead man into a spiritual impasse, as to provide conditions for the flourishing of society and individual. The former is vividly demonstrated by capitalist society, which has staked its future exclusively on the perfection of the consumption conveyor belt. Can we hope that the injurious consequences of the scientific and technological progress will not affect our society in future, too? May not the means---material sufficiency, even abundance---overshadow the end?

Below is an interview given by Vladimir Shubkin, one of the people seeking answers to these questions.

As an economist and sociologist you should be able to evaluate the prospects of man's development both on the personal plane and in the broader social context. What do you think people will be like in, say, 50 years?

I would not venture to make forecasts of this

Vladmir Shubkin, sociologist, D. Sc. (Phil.), Cand. Sc. (Econ.)

kind. Just now mankind is going through a complex period of its development, and the answer to your question largely depends on how much we shall succeed in solving the fundamental problems' of mankind's being we are confronted with now. I think that at this stage it would be more useful to discuss certain aspects of modern life, which have an important bearing on the shape of the things to come.

For example, the younger generation, is that it? For it is the young people of today who will be our connecting link with the future and who will pass on to their descendants things that we hold precious. Do you think the young people will be able to justify the hopes we place in them?

I shall begin by stating emphatically that I

do not share the old men's fault-finding attitude, formulated in the time-worn phrase, "Young people nowadays are not as they used to be in the past". The younger generation of today deserve to be praised for what they have achieved. They have to overcome difficulties and will yet have to face trials that may, in some respects, be even more gruelling than those which fell to the lot of my generation.

But shouldn't the opposite be the case? The scientific and technological revolution has done a great deal to make work and life easier. And tomorrow. ..

Our generation did not have the luxury of alternatives: there was the war, which had to be fought, and the post-war rehabilitation, which had to be tackled... Life itself, history, made decisions for us. Young people, who enter life today in conditions of prosperity of which we did not even dare to dream, are less determined by the laws of necessity, are more free in choosing variants, they have to make independent decisions and this, you must agree, is far from always easy. The problems they face are of a different order and, as often as not they are more subtle, complicated and acute than those people were confronted with before.

As for the scientific and technological revolution. .. I prefer not to use this term. The word ``revolution'' has an intrinsic positive colouring. But the development of science and technology does not in itself assure progress in

human relations and does not lead to the perfection of the human personality. I won't be divulging any secrets if I say that achievements of science and technology may cause mankind great misfortunes.

The greatest expectations associated with scientific and technological progress are in the sphere of labour. To be sure, new technologies offer vast possibilities for economy in living and materialised labour. But it is more important, in my opinion, to emphasise the negative, I should even say alarming, tendencies connected with scientific and technological progress, which have recently been coming to the fore. And the most alarming of them is the spread of consumerist approach to the world around us.

Many people imagine that in future man will do nothing but consume social wealth, receiving ever more boons and spending ever less effort on their production. Yes, achievements of scientific and technological thought will substantially change the character of labour and raise its productivity. But there is no reason to imagine that machines will free man of the need to work altogether, to work to the maximum of his ability, too.

There is also another problem that arises in this connection: as is known, introduction of new technologies releases manpower.

But surely we don't need to worry on this account. Does not the Constitution and the

planned nature of our economy guarantee full employment?

Your words reflect the widespread misconception to the effect that socialisation of the means of production guarantees, of itself, full employment, whereas, in fact, it only provides conditions for solving this problem. But a great deal of daily, painstaking work is required to ensure that the advantages of the socialist mode of production should be realised to the full and the tendency for increased redundancy of manpower observed in some regions of the Soviet Union should not be exacerbated. It may be argued that this is not unemployment, since there is still a shortage of manpower in other parts of the country. Moreover, in regions where there is a deficit of jobs in some spheres of production, there is a shortage of manpower in others. However, even in this form the problem gives cause for worry. It necessitates a more thorough analysis of the mechanisms at work in our society, and makes us find out the extent to which they correspond to the changing correlation between demand for and supply of manpower. It must be admitted that very little has been done, so far, in this respect.

What do young men and women know about new professions? How popular are these professions? Why are some of them prestigious and others not? To what extent the choice of profession is determined by family tradition, progress in school studies, place of residence and

other factors? What personal plans do young people have? No clear answers have so far been provided to these questions, although their investigation would have not only a cognitive but also a great practical value. Moreover, I'd go so far as to say that here economic expediency is interwoven with moral issues. Need I say how painful it is for a young man to change his profession, to change jobs until he finds one in line with his calling, until he finds his niche in life? And many never find it at all...

As a measure for solving this problem I'd recommend to improve the work of the organisation concerned with the utilisation of the country's labour resources, which should evaluate and distribute them, formulate proposals for enhancing the prestige of promising professions that are necessary to society and carry on professional orientation work among the young.

This problem is not new. Nearly 80 years ago, Alexander Bogdanov, a scholar and a prominent figure in the Russian revolutionary movement, published an Utopian novel Red Star, in which he designed a model of a socialist society. He dedicated almost a whole chapter to description of the system which hourly (!) provided information about surplus or shortage of manpower in one or another industry or industrial enterprise, so that every worker "could consciously take account both of the degree of sur-

plus and his inclination to a change of occupation".

But such a system does not yet exist, and there are several reasons for this. Perhaps because the economic effect is not always immediately obvious here. But it is immense. Let us try to assess, for example, the invisible losses, and, consequently, the invisible reserves involved in the choice of the first profession.

There are the losses sustained by school training pupils in trades and professions which they will never take up.

There are the losses involved in training young men and women for new professions--- the cost of the material facilities, lathes, raw materials, salaries for the teachers and grants for the students.

These are the losses incurred by fluctuation of manpower. A large share of people who quit their jobs do this because they did not originally give proper consideration to the choice of profession.

All these are losses sustained by the State in providing free secondary schooling, free professional training, free advanced training, plus a useless expenditure of time and effort by the young people that brings no benefit to society. And the moral losses involved are no less important.

As distinct from capitalist countries, we have plentiful opportunities for solving the problems of employment and training young people for a

working career. But things should not be left to take their own course. We must foresee in advance and take measures to overcome difficulties as they arise, and with minimal losses. Today---and in future too---a rational use of labour resources acquires particular importance. Generally, industry, the desire to work have to be cultivated in the younger generation if we want to ensure an optimistic future, for emancipated labour, as Gorky wrote, is that support which Archimedes demanded in order to move the earth.

I was myself born and raised in Siberia. I remember children helping our parents about the house and the kitchen-garden as a matter of course. But when tens of millions of people moved from the countryside into towns, where one does not have to get up at 5 o'clock in the morning and milk the cow in order to drink a glass of milk, when the level of material wellbeing has risen enough to make labour unnecessary for biological survival, the link between work and its results was severed for children and young people and they have lost--- or, rather, they no longer acquire from their early years---a taste for work. This has negative psychological and social consequences, of which I would specially mention prolonged infantilism.

Of course, I do not champion the return to the "rural idyll". Even given a sharp improvement in the conditions of life and work in the countryside we can only hope for a slowing

down of the flux of the population into big cities, but not for its complete cessation. And if the megapolis is destined to become the environment where the majority of future citizens will live, it is necessary to devise an urban structure that would help to make work an integral part of the daily life of the rising generation. Unfortunately, modern urban schools have no adequate facilities for it, and lessons in practical skills often have a formal, I would even say, demoralising character. That is why the school reform provides for the training of schoolchildren at specially appointed industrial enterprises. This is yet another problem of the present day that has a direct bearing on the shape of the things to come.

You say that development of super-large cities is inevitable, at least in the foreseeable future. Is that so?

Yes, although we, who live in these cities, are clearly aware of their many shortcomings, they attract young people with the opportunities they offer for a choice of profession, for study, work and broad social intercourse. Gregariousness is a bio-social feeling which is inherent in every young person; it is one of his needs and a necessary condition for the formation of his personality. Here, again, we come up against a problem: to all intents and purposes, our cities lack an infrastructure that would promote an active and meaningful communication among people and channel it towards whole-

some purposes. We expect schools, stadiums, clubs, discotheques, if the latter are the vogue, to assume the role of centre of such an infrastructure.

Isn't it a disturbing fact that we have to speak at such length about conditions which have to be provided if we want a young person to become a worthwhile personality? What about the role of that young person himself? We demand much of school, family and society, who should shape a young human being into Man. Are we not thereby rearing the selfsame consumer, who will expect and even demand that others make a personality of him and who absolves himself in advance of all responsibility for the final result, so to speak, of social reproduction?

This is a very subtle philosophical question. As far back as a hundred years ago, Dostoyevsky ridiculed this approach, writing that if a person is nothing more than a product of his environment then he is not, in fact, responsible for his actions, for these actions are prompted by the environment.

Classics of scientific communism also pointed out that the formative process is reciprocal: on the one hand, man is formed by circumstances of life, on the other, he forms his own environment. But we tend to overlook the latter part of the formula.

Your question bears upon the very concept of man, which, in my opinion, needs to be clari-

Red and, in some aspects, revised today, for there is an acute need for a clear understanding of man's place and role in society, in history and in the world. Without such an understanding we cannot hope to move ahead. We are used to speaking of man as a human being of reason. This tradition goes back to the 18th century and even earlier times and derives from naive hopes, from faith in science, reason, enlightenment, from the conviction that all things created by men are to their benefit. But modern society has approached a stage in its history when people have developed means for destroying the human race scores of times over, for destroying human civilisation as such.

Obviously, the former optimistic view of man fails to correspond to new realities, to the situation of the 20th century.

Therefore the concept of man as a rationally thinking and rationally acting individual must be reconsidered and clarified in the light of the aforesaid. For this we have to examine man comprehensively, in his different aspects and dimensions, as it were.

So, man is a biological creature. As such, he must take food and reproduce his kind. A definite system of material objects and values has been evolved to correspond to this notion. Then comes the next aspect---the "rational man" (I should like to note, in parenthesis, that the term ``rational'' does not appear adequate to me and, to my mind, needs to be clarified).

The "rational man" is an intermediate product of society and stands halfway between the " biological man" and the "spiritual man". In sociology this rational type of person is described by the term "outwardly-oriented personality". Essentially, such a person exists outside himself. For years it has been hammered into his head that man is the product of the environment and he has finally come to believe it. This has given him a number of advantages, first and foremost, a constant ``alibi''---he has relieved himself of all responsibility for his actions.

The "rational man" does not overstep social or legal standards only because he is afraid of sanctions from outside. Even when observance of these standards becomes almost a reflex, it is only a temporal, conditioned reflex and not a moral self-consciousness. All attempts to cultivate models of correct behaviour in an outwardly-oriented person's mind---with the help of the cinema, press and television---usually fail to reach his inner ego and are easily neutralised or negated by his reason, a servant of his needs and interests. He seems to be aware of himself as being in constant bitter opposition to society or various social institutions. And he responds to the demands of society by evolving his own counter-culture. It is bad to steal, society tells him, for that you may land in prison. That's right, he answers, but only if you catch me stealing.

Such a person apparently has no conscience and no internal barriers. He sees only one purpose in life---obtaining the maximum of pleasure. All his thoughts and actions are motivated by satisfaction of his own selfish interests. He has a condescending attitude to spiritual, moral values, regarding them as whim. However, he is quite capable of imitating "moral behaviour" if the standards of communal life demand it.

He is aware that his desires are limited by the desires of others. And his relationships with others are based on cold calculation, on the desire to give as little as possible and to take as much as possible, or at least to guarantee himself an equivalent barter. He is constantly considering variants: which is the most advantageous and profitable?

The "rational man" has a highly developed sense of self-preservation. He is cosmopolitan, he is alien to sentiments, he has no attachment to his mother country, but he has a developed feeling of group solidarity with people who are his moral kin.

As we see, the "rational man" is a hedonist.

He is usually an executor, not a creator.

He is not religious, but superstitious, that is he is often under the sway of the ``secular'' forms of religious consciousness.

The "rational man" is in many respects an imperfect being and he does not correspond to our notion of the ideal human personality.

We must study him, we must know him, so as to reject this type of man with all means at our disposal.

His antipode is the "spiritual man", one endowed with a conscience. In other words, a person with an innate ability to distinguish good from evil, to evaluate his thoughts and actions, to formulate moral rules for himself and demand from himself their observance. The "spiritual man" overcomes in himself a highly dangerous temptation to see the meaning of his existence solely in the satisfaction of his constantly growing requirements. Thereby he achieves a new level of freedom, which enables him to devote himself to the sublime values of culture, to the search for the truth, for the meaning of human existence.

The "spiritual man" does not reject rational knowledge, but he is aware of its limitations. He recognises the great role of social and economic problems, but to him their solution is not an end but a means of development.

The "spiritual man" is an "inwardly-oriented person". It means that he is capable of withstanding the pressure of the environment, the rules of behaviour forced on him from outside. And he does it not out of fear of punishment, but because they are at variance with his convictions, with the moral standards he adheres to. It is such people who become heroes of human history, it is thanks to them that the baton of civilisation has not been lost and the

12-111

way to moral progress has not been barred to mankind.

Of course, such categorisation of human beings is largely conventional and some may reject it altogether. But it is my belief that it must be constantly borne in mind if we want to follow the right course in the rearing of the younger generation.

The natural question arises in this connection: how can we rear a moral personality, or, according to our classification, the "spiritual man", who is capable, in his subsequent life, to distinguish good from evil, how can we instill in a person an inner ability for self-- perfection?

Perfection of a human personality is a far from easy task. Even if we abstract ourselves from biological, genetic and other specifics and confine ourselves to the social sphere, there is a multitude of factors here which influence the development of a personality, and all of them are important.

In other words, we are back with the determining role of the environment.

Yes. Only now we, first, have clearly determined the aim of our educational efforts, and, second, we know that the educator has an ally and helper in this noble task---the individual himself.

Of all the various factors that play a determining role in shaping personality, the first place undoubtedly belongs to the closest sphere

of his environment---the family, which is the cradle of morality. It moulds a person continuously, consciously or unconsciously. It plays the decisive role in childhood until the appearance of friends, who form a new sphere of social environment, which competes with the first and, during adolescence and youth, often pushes the family, the parents into the background.

The next formative sphere is the school, one of the chief organisations of which a child or a young man is a member. The more formal it is, the greater the gap between the educator and his subject, the greater the child's alienation from school, the lesser its role in moulding personality.

Finally, there is society as a whole, real contacts with other people at work, in the street, in shops, during holidays.

You have made no reference to the mass media, although they, particularly television, loom large in a modern person's life both as a source of information and as an instrument of education. Or do you include the mass media in the concept of "society as a whole"?

My ``forgetfulness'' has not been accidental, of course.

We all highly appreciate the development of the mass media. At the same time, there is a growing skepticism in regard to them, and even an opposition to their influence. In the United States, for instance, affairs have reached such

12*

a pitch that a whole town had declared itself a "television-free zone". Anyone who violates the ban is ostracised. I don't know how long they will hold out, 'but the fact is highly significant.

You may say that it all depends on the artistic standard and moral content of the telecasts, and you will be right. But, in my opinion, only partly. Unfortunately, the specific nature of consumption of televised information promotes, more than anything else, the development of an "outwardly-oriented personality". As compared to books, television is a step backward. A book always presupposes communion between the author and the reader, and stimulates the work of the reader's own mind and imagination, induces him to share ideas and emotions. Consumption of the picture on the TV screen does not necessarily require any mental effort.

I am not a champion of extreme measures. It would be naive and even stupid to demand the prohibition of television. Like the other mass media, television may do a great deal of good, if competently used. A person must be inwardly prepared for the consumption of the lightened televised information: its capacity to do harm to the personality is in inverse proportion to the viewer's cultural level.

I have a similar opinion of computers, on which some fanatics of science place special hopes. Today many specialists in the West, where

the process of computerisation has made bigger strides than it has in this country, are sounding the alarm: children who have been taught to operate computers and have become used to having them constantly at hand, prove to be helpless if parted from their pocket oracles in the simplest situations of everyday life. The price we pay for our infatuation with technical gadgets is too high---impairment of man's mental faculties. I wouldn't like to earn the reputation of a retrograde and an opponent of technological development. I do not deny the role of technology in the process of cognition, but electronic helpers should be used in moderate doses and in very definite situations and for very definite purposes, but not as a substitute for human intellect.

A great deal is being said today about the omnipotence of science in the 20th century. This is right, perhaps. But I am nonetheless convinced that it is not scientists armed with electronic computers, but writers, who still wield the same weapon as a thousand years ago---the pen, who possess the priority right in studying and ``designing'' man.

We live among people---not only real people but also literary characters. Dead and living characters, both real and fictional, take an active part in our life. This is what happens in dreams, but it also happens in real life. Literature creates a new world, where its own bells toll. This world is populated with char-

acters who often exercise no lesser influence on us than our real-life neighbours. From both categories a person selects a group of those who are closest to him, who are his dearest advisers and teachers. And he derives a great moral satisfaction when he acts in a way that would please them. On the contrary, if he finds himself in conflict with this group, he suffers--- if he is a moral person---from inner discord and those inner torments which are known as "pangs of conscience''.

Like metal, man reveals his inner essence at breaking point. It is only in life-and-death situations that the real values and reserves of a personality come to light. But after all people do not and cannot live at breaking point all the time for the inner resources of even the strongest man are limited. And here literature comes to their help. It concentrates human life, it examines extreme situations, which a person may face in real life too late and in such a condition that he has neither the strength nor the time to understand all their implications. In compressing the characters' life into a sum of star hours, literature constructs new space and time, new dimensions. The heroes of this parallel world create those organic moral values which provide the foundation for the reader's own behaviour in an extreme situation. Here literature helps not only in shaping moral standards and principles. It helps a person to realise his mission on Earth, to become

aware of his inseverable ties not only with his family or clan, but also with the superlative cultural values. And a person is elevated to the stature of the spiritual man.

It is my impression, however, that people without conscience avoid reading Dostoyevsky or Bykov^^1^^. Probably guided by the instinct of self-preservation, reluctant to disturb their rational world. But the task that faces us is not only to cultivate a new man "from scratch", but also to reform the dwellers of the rational world into moral people. What arguments, apart from words, do we have at our disposal to convince an immoral man that conscience is more necessary to man than material boons?

It may appear paradoxical, but still I would like to cite an example from the sphere of "ecological morals", if I may use the expression.

At one time scientists and economists produced a plan of building the Lower-Ob hydroelectric power station in Siberia. The design envisaged the creation of a vast reservoir that would flood a huge territory---almost as great as all of Europe.

A group of writers, particularly Sergei Zalygin,^^2^^ opposed the plan. They were guided by moral feelings---love of nature, love of their land, which cherishes the memory of the nation's past. Eventually, under the pressure of the public opinion and the press, the plan of the building of the power station and the res-

ervoir was rejected. It is now possible to make an accurate reckoning of the economic effect of this victory of moral principles over rational considerations. Exploration of the rich oil and gas deposits in Siberia, which were discovered after the rejection of the plan, would have been immensely complicated, since they are situated in the zone of the proposed flooding. This is yet another warning about the Care that needs to be exercised by people in heeding the promptings of rational considerations, yet another testimony of the limitedness of our knowledge.

The same applies to the plan of backturning a number of northern rivers with the seemingly noble aim of bringing water to dry lands in the south. In my view, the decision of the government to abandon the plan was a great victory of public opinion, won in a prolonged and bitter struggle. The implementation of the plan would have caused immense economic harm to the Russian North, great tracts of fertile land would have been flooded. No less severe would have been our moral losses. A part of our cultural heritage---towns, villages, fields--- would have been flooded and lost to us, and they are an integral part of what we call our homeland. We are fortunate to have near us the memory of the past---houses, streets, cemeteries, and at our disposal---the cultural heritage, this compressed experience of our nation's thousand-year-old history, the moral pil-

lars of our national awareness. The thicker this cultural layer is, the stronger the pillars. The more grateful our memory is, the more promise that our young people will not waver when confronted with fresh moral trials. And, of course, it is by deeds, rather than by words, that the moral, the spiritual man is moulded.

Notes

~^^1^^ Bykov, Vasil Vladimirovich (b. 1924)---a Soviet Byelorussian writer, veteran of the Great Patriotic War. His central theme is the moral aspect of a person's behaviour in war.---Ed.

* Zalygin, Sergei Pavlovich (b. 1913)---a Soviet writer, native of Siberia (where, by the way, flows the river Ob) and its patriot.---Ed.

The Laws of Freedom

neous. I think it gives us a few discussion points. All I want to know is how you, a jurist, conceive an ideal citizen.

The student of the secrets of the human mind is like a physicist studying elementary particles---the objects of their interest are equally infinite and exist in motion only, so that their properties reveal themselves exclusively in the trace they leave as they interact with the surrounding world.

What is the science that records these traces of the activity of the human mind? Is it psychology, or perhaps, sociology? Yes, certainly. And what about jurisprudence? That, too. Among all the sciences dealing with man and society, law is probably only second to medicine as concerns the amount of accumulated experience.

I went through a few volumes on the history and philosophy of law, and arrived at a conclusion a jurist would probably take for granted. For a dilettante, however, it came as a surprise: law is a science that must always have a clear conception of the ideal citizen. If we took all the ``permitting'' and all the `` prohibiting'' laws and built a model of an individual's behaviour to fit them, we would, I believe, produce the ideal that we seek.

Vladimir Kudryavtsev thought this was too simplistic. What about morals, he asked me.

Please don't confirm or deny my opinion, I said. Though it may be inaccurate or erro-

Vladimir Kudryavtsev, a jurist, Member of the USSR Academy of Sciences

For a jurist the ideal citizen is above all honest, decent, fair and, of course, cultured. By this I mean what Lenin said about being cultured, that is, knowing and respecting the law, trusting one's government and being versed in running things, intolerant of any breaches of the law, of rudeness, conceit, and red tape.

Should those be the qualities of the citizen of the future as well?

I think so. That, at least, is what we jurists

act upon in the context of cultivating the new man.

For our ideal man to acquire the requisite features, therefore, we must decide what the laws of the future society will be, which he must know, respect and observe.

You are setting me a difficult task---to portray something that is no more than a faint tendency and doesn't as yet exist. Besides, I would have to anticipate all the changes that might occur in production and in the intellectual sphere. That, after all, is where the law has its roots. Relations; between people take shape in the thick of society, and they are the source of law.

I don't think it matters for our talk about the future what concrete forms the current tendencies will assume one day and what the laws that don't yet exist will be like. It'll be enough if you define the aims and show how they are to be attained.

The aims of our development are clearly denned in a number of political documents---the Programme of the CPSU, the USSR Constitution, and the resolutions of the 27th Congress of the CPSU. I don't think I need recapitulate them here. Let me single out the elements that have a direct bearing on the subject at hand.

The further advancement of our society and its rise to a new standard of quality are tied up with improvements in the State and in the law, in the entire political system, and with

a tightening of the rule of law, the legal basis of the State and public life. The Communist Party and the Soviet Government are constantly engaged in extending Soviet democracy, the relationship between the individual and the State. "The Party," says the Programme of the CPSU, "will continue to work to ensure that the socio-economic, political and personal rights and freedoms of citizens are extended and enriched and that ever more favourable conditions and guarantees are created for exercising them.''

It is highly significant that the citizen himself, his interests, rights and duties, are at the centre of the documents of the 27th Congress of the CPSU, the Programme of the CPSU, and the USSR Constitution. The concept of acceleration envisages development in the name, and with the help, of man. The main task is to effectively enlist the human factor in securing the advancement of society and of the individual. All our efforts and all our quests should be focussed on that. And this concerns the jurists, too.

We jurists hold that the politico-legal structures are not something given once and for all, that they are the dynamic result of people's social activity and at once an effective instrument whereby man not only changes the legal relationships in society but also improves himself as the focus of all these social relationships.

In a socialist society, the State and law are

meant to express the crucial interests and to meet the needs of all members of society, ensure a harmonious balance of public and personal interests. In a socialist society, the State and the individual are accountable to each other. That, indeed, is one of the main conditions for ensuring social justice and maintaining the moral principles of the socialist way of life.

Those are our fundamental principles. Now, I should like to go on to a few concrete issues.

You have just said that in a socialist society law is an effective instrument for changing society and the individual. But need I remind you that laws have never yet performed a revolution.

Nor does anyone expect them to. But laws can hasten the course of events or, on the contrary, if they are out of gear with the main trend of development, they can hold society down. One of the reasons for the stagnancy in the Soviet economy of the seventies and the early eighties was that the laws governing relations in the economy had fallen behind the times, and were not abreast of the needs of production in this age of scientific and technological progress.

The deep-down processes in the material basis of society and the politico-legal part of its superstructure have both a direct and a reverse connection. Rule of law is not merely a politico-legal concept, but also social and ethical. Laws exercise a direct influence on millions

of people, on their interests, expectations, and feelings.

Strict observance of the laws and other legal provisions, and their fidelity to the economic and social needs of the country, to progressive moral principles, help shape a sense of social justice and civic responsibility, a spirit of creative activity and communist allegiance to principle, honesty and decency.

Any deformation of a working person's moral principles through disrespect for the law, on the other hand, may blunt his sense of personal responsibility for the common cause. This inevitably affects people's work effort and civic attitude, and their behaviour in general. Yet in the absence of socially active individuals nothing anyone may do will bring us closer to our great social goal.

Take the large-scale social and economic tasks set by the Party. Can they be achieved unless the bulk of the people pitches in? Social and economic progress does not come about automatically. Every working person must be able to do his or her best. And to achieve that we must have an effective economic and, I stress, legal mechanism.

Bringing legal standards abreast of the moral principles is evidently an unintermittent process, for neither ethics nor the economy can ever stand still.

Certainly, legal practices must never lag behind the times. The law must be sensitive to all

new tendencies that arise in society, and must find the adequate and lasting expression for them in its acts and regulations.

The ideal thing, probably, would be to anticipate developments?

That is not simple. There must be a sense of proportion. To run too far ahead may cause us to depart from reality, leading to voluntarist mistakes. But legal theory and practice must, of course, grasp the new developments in social relations and amend the legislation before the operative laws come into collision with them.

Could we say that law is an indirect reflection of the state of the relations of production? That is probably why law devotes so much attention to the economy.

We must bear in mind that in modern society economic relations are, indeed, mediated and governed by legal standards. The nature of the economic relations also determines the substance of the prevailing legal system. Private property gave rise to exploiter laws, and socialised ownership of the instruments and means of production is the basis of the socialist legal system. The law has a class substance and is historically transient.

The nature of the economic relations influences the educational role of the law. The new traits of people are shaped in the process of their activity, by the system of work and leisure, and by the life style, and, naturally, first of all by the relations that obtain in the sphere

of labour. It is therefore important for the economic, organisational, and hence also the legal, mechanisms which govern people's activity, to be properly adjusted. Adjusting them is exactly what we are doing now. We are working out and implementing laws that will encourage the economy to make the best possible use of the achievements of the scientific and technological revolution, the laws governing distribution which must be brought more fully into line with the socialist principle, "to each according to his work", until it is replaced by the communist principle of distribution according to need.

Now, it seems to me, we have come to one of the key issues, an issue that once caused conflicts between the individual and society and may, perhaps, arise still more acutely in future. I mean the wish and ability of people to satisfy their needs. I would like to know your opinion as a jurist, a representative of a science that aims at harmonising people's interests.

You are absolutely right to stress the importance of the subject. It doesn't take a prophet to see in advance that for us in socialist society growing consumer demands may create problems.

The important thing to note here is that society's ability to meet the needs of its members increases, and that these needs, too, keep changing. As the living standard rises and the principles of the new, communist ethics take root,

13---111

things like acquisitiveness and avarice will vanish, while intellectual needs gain precedence. To be sure, it takes a long time to rethink or reassess one's principles. The consciousness changes slowly. The process is a painful one, for it concerns hidden recesses in people's psychology. What is more, wholly justified and reasonable material needs of people are not as yet being fully met. I think that in twenty and even fifty years consumerism will still complicate our life. But step by step, as socialism makes headway, the scales will gradually tip in favour of spiritual values. And as long as the problem is not solved once and for all, the law will require all people to abide by the principle "to each according to his work", which is the only possible and just rule in the socialist environment.

Departure from the principle of social justice, as I have already said, has a negative effect on the general morale and the psychological climate, lessening interest in the results of one's work and distorting the system of guidelines and values. This is insufferable in a socialist society, and doubly so at the current turning point when we must concentrate all our efforts and when every member of our society must have a firm and clear appreciation of what we are doing, and why.

There is this other point: our strategic line is centred on an all-out extension of democracy. Yet you speak of tightening control, mean-

ing that the State will play a bigger role. Isn't there a contradiction here?

Control is an element of democracy. Democracy without control is anarchy. Besides, we should bear in mind that control is not necessarily exercised by the State; it can be public control. . .

But there is State control. I want to ask you about the State.

Evidently, you want to know about the future of the State. It will also change in due course, turning gradually into public communist self-administration. Certainly, requisite external conditions are needed for this. As Lenin wrote, "When the more important functions of the state are reduced to ... accounting and control by the workers themselves, it will cease to be a 'political state' and public functions will lose their political character and become mere administrative functions." That was how the founder of the Soviet State conceived the evolution of statehood as society moves towards communism.

Today, our jurists and social scientists face the crucial task of determining and forecasting specific changes in Soviet statehood under the effects of economic development, the scientific and technological revolution, the evolutoin of the public consciousness, and other factors operating in society.

A scholar could hardly have a more promising topic to look into than socialist democracy.

13*

That is a most satisfying and useful thing to do. Mobilising the nation's creative potential is no more conceivable than accelerated advance in the absence of further improvements in our political system. "Democracy," says the Central Committee's Political Report to the 27th Congress of the CPSU, "is the wholesome and pure air without which a socialist public organism cannot live a full-blooded life. Hence, when we say that socialism's great potential is not being used to the full in our country, we also mean that the acceleration of society's development is inconceivable and impossible without a further development of all the aspects and manifestations of socialist democracy."

Is there any way to describe the long-term historical process of socialist democracy's development in just a few words, showing the essence of the matter?

This was done by Karl Marx when he examined and summed up the experience of the Paris Commune. He wrote that it was a " reabsorption of the State power by society, as its own living forces instead of as forces controlling and subduing it, by the popular masses themselves, forming their own force instead of the organized force of their suppression---the political form of their social emancipation". This liberative mission, as Marx conceived it, could be carried into effect in the new society through

expanding self-administration including unflagging control by the working people over the activity of those who are charged with the functions of government.

What would you say about the present politico-legal system of our Soviet society. That would help us sum up its accomplishments and picture what lies ahead.

The politico-legal system of any society, I would say, either stands or fails the test of history. Our system has shown that it is dependable and effective, that it is dynamic and capable of renewal and improvement. The 27th Congress of the CPSU imparted fresh impulses to the Soviet political system and gave added strength to the legal foundation of administrative and public affairs. The main thing is the involvement of the mass of the people in handling the affairs of our society and State.

Democracy cannot stand still. It must develop continuously. That is an axiom. But what about democracy in our society; are we fully satisfied with how it is working?

What doesn't satisfy us is that not all democratic institutions are being used to the full, and that they fail to exercise the requisite influence on our society. The local Soviets of People's Deputies, for example, which are elective bodies, aren't using their powers fully enough. Publicity (glasnost) isn't open enough. Besides, people don't always exercise their democratic constitutional rights, such as the rights to

submit recommendations and to criticise faults.

May we expect that the science of law will soon devise new forms for our participation in self-administration ?

No, not devise. It will find them in practice. Just as it found participation of work collectives in running enterprises as such a form as an institution of democracy. This was not decreed by any administrator but evolved by itself in response to the winds of change. All we had to do was to understand, support, and elaborate on the idea. Now the work collective is one of the most promising forms of socialist working people's self-administration.

Yes, indeed. This role of the work collective was pointed out in the Central Committee's Political Report to the 27th Congress of the CPSU.

Work collectives have assumed a fairly important place by now in the political system of socialist society. But we must not think that self-management in production is in any way counterposed to other forms of the working people's democratic participation in handling state and public affairs.

The evolution of any new form of self-- administration must neither oust nor eclipse the already existing and effective instruments of socialist democracy. What I mean, above all, are the Soviets of People's Deputies---district, city, and so on. They are still the prime instruments

of people's socialist self-administration at grassroots level.

You may want to know what is to be done to step up their activity in future?

First of all, to further improve the electoral system: search for more efficient ways of combining the territorial and factory principles in forming elective bodies of power, and a more adequate representation in the Soviets of all segments of the people. Then to extend the scope of the tasks tackled by the Soviets, see to it that the work of their deputies yields better results, and to heighten the deputies' responsibility. The local Soviets must get more rights and be more independent. The legal mechanism of their influence on the work of enterprises located in their territory must be extended.

The institutions of direct democracy, too, must be made more efficient. This applies to referendums, public discussions of upcoming legislation and other documents, general meetings in villages, and citizens' assemblies in towns. These institutions give every citizen a chance to participate in handling the affairs of the State.

Improvements must also occur in the state apparatus. At present it is much too cumbersome, hard to run, and hence less effective. The upper echelons must be relieved of petty, current affairs, meaning that local bodies of power and government must play a bigger role and be more active. Enterprises and amalgamations

must be given more freedom of action, with economic principles gaining precedence in management. The management must be relieved of functions that are foreign to it. Some of them must be turned over to the citizenry, to citizens' residential assemblies or bodies elected by them, and to other self-administration bodies of the working people.

What you mean is that as we come closer to a stateless communist society, some of the public functions analogous to those now performed by the State, will, as Marx predicted, be carried into effect without the participation of the State's professional apparatus?

Yes, such is the tendency of socialist democracy. Professionalism is also essential, but must combine with the participation of the masses in government. I might add that successful selfadministration is of great economic, ideological psychological, and educational significance in moulding the man of the future. Improvement of the existing channels for people's participation in the affairs of society and the State, and the appearance of new ones, meets people's need for involvement in shaping their own life. It imparts a sense of responsibility and commitment, and heightens the prestige and authority of the bodies of government in their eyes. Through self-government citizens take an active part in organising production, and in so doing acquire managerial skills and improve themselves as publicly active individuals, and the

creative power of socialist society. The need for, and capability of, participating in administrative affairs is an essential feature of the citizen of socialist society, of the builder of communism.

The Communist Party and the State have set the sights on democratising administration, on taking the maximum account of the opinions and recommendations of the working people when making decisions. The scope of issues subject to discussion in work collectives, the standing commissions of the Soviets of People's Deputies, the trade unions, youth organisations and other public bodies, before any decision may be taken on them, is expanding. Greater democracy calls for greater publicity and openness (glasnost): the people must be more exhaustively informed of all administrative decisions and their results.

Improvement of socialist democracy calls for a further strengthening of the legal system governing the affairs of society and the State. That means, among other things, that legislation must keep abreast of the times, that the responsibility of law enforcement agencies must be heightened, the rights and freedoms of the individual must be extended, and the people must be imbued with a knowledge of legal and moral standards.

Speaking of democracy, we use quality and quantity factors: we say more democracy, and improved democracy. Whereas my own view is

more emotional and personal rather than objective. The measure of democracy is inside me. It depends on how fully I accept or reject the conditions of my own social standing. But mustn't there also be objective criteria?

Certainly. This criterion is the independent and determining participation of the mass of the people in running the affairs of society and the State.

It follows, therefore, that the responsibility for the degree of democracy lies with each one of us. It is the State's duty to guarantee conditions for the functioning of self-- administration institutions, and it is the duty of the citizen to breathe life into them and set them in motion.

Here is how Lenin put it: "Every representative of the masses, every citizen, must be put in such conditions that he can participate in the discussion of state laws, in the choice of his representatives and in the implementation of state laws.''

Instead of "can participate" I am tempted to put "must participate". Here is why I don't do it: you said at the beginning of the interview that you would like to see the man of the future a cultured person who knows, respects and observes the law. I would add that he should respect and observe the law sincerely, as an inner need.

A hundred-odd years ago, Mikael Nalbandian, the Armenian writer and philosopher, stres-

sed as he ruminated on ways of improving human nature that decency must be an inner state of the free man, and must on no account be imposed from outside. Otherwise "a tiger in a cage may also be said to be decent, because it cannot kill anyone". In the context of what we are talking about, the philosopher's simile is probably a bit too harsh. But the idea is clear: democracy is incomplete and bereft of its core unless people are convinced in the justice of the standards of democratic behaviour established by the law and morality.

Quite right. For socialist self-administration to function effectively for the good of all citizens, it is essential that the mass of the people should take an active part in it with a deep sense of commitment. I might add, paraphrasing a well-known maxim, that democracy does not become a great transformative power until it seizes hold of the masses. The history of our Soviet society is a graphic example thereof.

As I see it, the development of democracy has one ultimate aim, that of providing conditions that would encourage ever-greater exercise of every individual's creative and essential powers.

I don't ask you to predict the forms of democracy that will evolve in Soviet society in, say, half a century. But you could evidently say what forms of self-administration out of those that already exist will comprise the politico-

legal system of Soviet society in the predictable future. You could then also probably give us an idea of the other, as yet unknown, elements of the system as a whole.

Some conjectures could, indeed, be made. To begin with, the Communist Party will continue to be an element of the future system of socialist self-administration. It has been, and will continue, playing the leading role in our society. Then take the bodies of representative democracy closely linked with the masses and called upon to combine and harmonise personal and public interests. The system of self-- administration will doubtless also include the mass organisations and the work collectives, the elective bodies of people's control, and so on. The institutions of direct democracy, where the public discusses crucial issues, will make further headway. The necessary condition for the people to exercise the function of government is full publicity, openness, and provision of information for them. It is most likely that new forms, too, will appear.

But we must remember that socialism, whatever its stage, cannot provide for complete, that is, communist, self-administration which builds on the withering away of the State. In the foreseeable future, the State will survive as a means of building the future stateless society. But inside the surviving statehood we see the ripening of the principles of self-administration that belong to the communist phase. We see

them ripen and begin to function, thus gradually replacing it.

To hear us speak, capitalism is about to vanish from the stage of history within the next ten years or so. Wouldn't it be more realistic to say that in future it will try to sell itself still more insistently, and also the ideas of bourgeois democracy.

Looking at things realistically, there is no dilemma: bourgeois democracy exists and is used by the ruling class only as long as its power in capitalist society is strong enough. We know from past experience that when the chips are down and the bourgeoisie sees no other escape, it is liable to opt for fascism.

In sum, our way, the way travelled by the socialist countries, is it the only correct and possible way to develop democracy?

Diverse forms of the development of society do and must exist, of course. And in the case of various countries these forms of organising society must unquestionably differ owing to differing historical traditions, specific features of material production, and their own racial and national relationships. But one can say with the same degree of certainty that the ways of democracy will be similar in essence. Didn't Marx say that "the same economic basis---the same from the standpoint of its main conditions---due to innumerable different empirical circumstances, natural environment, racial relations, external historical influence, etc." is showing

``infinite variations and gradations in appearance''.

History made us the first to embark on this road and the first to pinpoint the common laws governing the advance to man's final and complete emancipation. That, I think, is what Lenin had in mind when he wrote a few years after the October Revolution that the Russian model reveals to all countries something---and something highly significant---out of their near and inevitable future.

Today we can record a fact that has by now been confirmed by the building of socialism in other countries: the emergence and development of socialist democracy gives scope, and enhances such universal values as equality, justice, and humanism; it provides the individual with instruments for his or her active participation in improving the world.

The Magic Power of Literature

In World of Adventure, literary miscellany published in the USSR in the early 1950s, I once read a short story by an American sciencefiction author whose name I don't remember now but whose story immediately came to mind when I started work on this book about the future.

.. .At long last man is able to fly to Mars. The first astronaut lands on the planet which, alas, astronomers had already established by that time to be lifeless. So imagine his surprise, followed by bewilderment and then terror, when he finds himself surrounded by a crowd of outlandish creatures---Arachnoids, birds with reptilian heads, unbelievably beautiful beings and hideous monsters, flying, creeping, and hopping creatures of every description. The most extraordinary thing is that the astronaut understands their language. The octopus is particularly pathetic-looking, and spiteful. "Suppose you try these suckers for size. I wish I could lay my hands on the idiot who invented me. .." It turns out that all these unfortunate creatures are the fruit of the fantasy of science-fiction writers, each with his own version of Martian dwellers. Multiplied by the imagination of millions of readers, these chimera materialised on Mars and now implore the messenger

from Earth to make writers realise how much suffering they have caused their characters.

The current debates in the Soviet media on the subject of the literary hero are in themselves a proof that literature is recognised as an active creative force. I, personally, see little point in discussing this subject, for there have always been only two positive heroes in literature--- the writer and the reader. The writer who, by the energy of his talent, fights evil and sows good, and the reader, who responds to the emotional outburst of another person and is capable of translating a dream into reality.

Numerous generations have been brought up on books. There .are very few who do not feel indebted to books for the way they introduce the world to us and, like a wise teacher, help us to learn about the world and find our place in it.

The book has been our manual on morality, teaching us that he who hates others degrades himself, and he who humiliates others stains his own conscience, and that he who enslaves another person cannot himself remain free. Books give us a great deal. They are our treasury of carefully selected and preserved human knowledge. They are the guardians of mankind's memory, which is virtually synonymous with the conscience of man. This is why the role and place of literature in the future

is the first question I wish to discuss with Pyotr Nikolayev.

We have always looked upon scientific and technological progress as the material foundation for our hopes to achieve a better future for humankind. Scientific and Technological Revolution---these words are pronounced today in a tone of gre^t reverence, as a magic formula capable of opening the door to fantastic riches. But shall we find books among those riches?

My impression is that debates on this subject have become particularly acute of late. I wouldn't even call it a debate, but a monologue, for the skeptical realist keeps silent in a superior manner, while the fanatical book-lover pleads his cause so strongly that you begin to have doubts if the future will indeed have any use for such a social phenomenon as imaginative literature.

Our forecasts in any cultural sphere are meaningful only when they are based on actual historical experience. Scientists in all countries, who are currently engaged in scientific forecasts, are guided by this particular principle and rely on their analysis of the historical logic of knowledge. The question whether literature will have a place in the future or will be replaced by other forms of communication and influence on the human spirit developed by science and technology, must be considered within the context of the general premise on

14---111

gy, and in particular microbiology and molecular biology. They also predict that the priority position will gradually go to those branches of biology that deal directly with human beings. The need for an all-round study of man, for a science of man, is an imperative of our times. Academician Frolov, who is also, I'm told, a contributor to this book, insists on establishing an Institute of Man, and this idea of his enjoys wide support throughout the country. There is a growing awareness of the need to study human nature in all the variety of its manifestations, all the elements that jointly constitute the material, physical and inner life of this unique creature---the human being. Science scholars assure us that biology will not reign for long. In another ten to fifteen years, the humanities will play first fiddle.

According to these forecasts, which are based, I repeat, on a close study of historical experience, literature as the most effective form of assimilating life, reflecting it and transforming it spiritually will not only retain its importance in the period to be dominated by the mass media, but will become more firmly established in its high mission.

As may be expected, things will not stop there. The rapid development of technology responsible for producing and consuming information will affect the creative process as well. What sort of novel would Aitmatov^^1^^ have produced had he written his Buranny Siding (And

Pyotr Nikolayev, literary scholar, Corresponding Member of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Secretary of the USSR Union of Writers

the need for man's historical experience to be taken into account. What does this experience teach us?

Science historians have observed certain ``spring-boards'' in human history, when one science begins to provide an impetus for the development of other sciences. At one time this role was played by the natural sciences, at other times by philosophy. From the end of the 19th century, physics has served as a kind of launching ground. For several decades its method and general trend have been determining the evolution and progress of other sciences. However, science scholars tell us that this period is also on the decline and we are entering the next period which will be dominated by biolo-

u*

the Day Lasted Longer Than a Hundred Years) not with an ordinary pen but on the computer display. Would it have been better or not so good? I would not hazard a prophecy. In any case it would have been different.

Indeed, each historical epoch has produced its own literary forms, but no changes as yet signify danger for the fate of the word. It is of little importance what material form the word will assume. Born in a person's consciousness it expresses thought within that specific structure which we call language.

But there exists a different kind of danger. As the mass media spread and improve in quality, they will increasingly absorb people's attention, to say nothing of their time, by virtue of their accessibility, thus pushing literature into the background. So the fate of the book still hangs in the balance.

In principle, the mass media, per se, do not constitute a danger to literature. If, however, they come to fulfil only an information function, then they indeed might, if they become all-powerful, destroy the main function of literature, which consists in its ability to mould our consciousness. The function of moulding our concsiousness can be performed by the mass media just as well as by literature. The important point is the way in which they mould our consciousness, and to what extent literature will be able to influence the mass media. In other words, which of them will be the leader.

I saw the first computer editors in action. They demand that only pure information be conveyed. Any sentence beginning with "As is well known. . ." is immediately crossed out: if something is well known, why bother to mention it. For fiction this approach is inapplicable. These computers have been designed specifically to edit scientific texts.

But who can guarantee that one day these computers won't have a go at our universal values and cross them out as commonplace? What guiding lights will be left to us then?

I believe that literature and computers are not intrinsically antagonistic.

Rem Khokhlov (Rector of Moscow University who died in 1977 during a mountain-- climbing expedition) announced shortly before his death that he was going to introduce a course in literature in the sciences departments. I was all for it and we agreed that it was to be a general course in the theory of culture and the artistic assimilation of the world. This idea has not yet materialised.

A basic course in computer technology is now given to students majoring in the humanities. Naturally, we have nothing against this. Computer-aided quantitative analysis is useful in the study of certain cultural phenomena. Yet the danger does exist, and we must be aware of it.

Computers penetrate all spheres of our life and have become a social and moral factor. Computers are even used to commit certain

crimes. They are no longer purely mathematical machines whose action does not depend on social and moral considerations. Everything connected with computers must be put under the strict control of the human reason, conscience, and ethics. The need for computer ethics has arisen and it can only be developed with the assistance of humanitarians.

This sounds like computer anthropomorphism.

Man and computer---these two notions put together give much food for thought.

Some Japanese call themselves a computer nation. And this is very true. But not in a narrow sense, meaning just computers proper. One is struck by their discipline and sense of propriety. But their outward computerisation, if I can put it this way, has been determined by their intellectual disposition; the Japanese are predominantly a thinking nation. They constantly reflect on what has been achieved and what lies ahead, they analyse each day, each week and each year. Adherents of some doctrines proclaim it their aim to accomplish an ethical revolution whereby each personality will combine spiritual and intellectual qualities with strictest attention to detail, and the mathematisation of all spheres of life at home and at work. We may disagree with them on some points, but on the whole this computerised behaviour combined with unremitting self-- discipline, including in the ethical sphere, are worthy

of our closest attention and study. One of the leaders of this ethical movement, Daisaku Ikeda, author of The Human Revolution, is well known in the Soviet Union. He visited Moscow several times. He met Mikhail Sholokhov on several occasions and later published a very interesting account of his interviews with the writer.

Is this perhaps another evidence of the uniformity of thinking that we observe today? Could this eventually lead to a decline of national cultures and a replacing of them by a common, average-level culture for the masses? The outer signs of life will certainly become more universal but the integration will not affect national distinctiveness.

If a stick has been bent, in order to straighten it you must unbend it in the opposite direction. The same applies to national distinctiveness. The more it is pressured by the integration processes the more insistently it will assert itself. This may bring about a dangerous partiality to everything national and lead to national arrogance, national exclusiveness, national selfishness. This is a very real danger which must not be discounted. Mankind has had enough of these excesses in the past.

People have had their fill of starvation and poverty. We expect a constant improvement in people's standards of living in the future. However, there is a widespread opinion that material wealth may stifle man's spiritual needs.

There are various views on this problem and plenty of hasty solutions, often prompted by circumstances. But the same historical experience I keep referring to tells us that it is not prosperity but poverty that generates evil.

True, some of the great thinkers of the past, e.g. Dobrolyubov,^^2^^ described poor peasants as beautiful and virtuous. Dobrolyubov recalls that in 1858 peasants in Central Russia and the Baltic area decided to abstain from vodka. Peasants saw to it themselves that no one drank vodka. The guilty were forced to lie down on a bench, beaten with ropes and then led around the village and put to shame. Russia refused to drink vodka! The press was in raptures about what they thought was the result of their effective anti-alcohol campaign. But who among the peasants read the gazette Moskovskiye Vedomosti? They made this decision of their own free will, for they themselves realised that drinking must be stopped. However, this happy state of affairs did not last long. The treasury became empty and the tsar issued an order that the peasants be forced to drink vodka again. Abstainers were punished with imprisonment. Who can say that slavery inspired the peasants only to admirable actions. On the contrary, poverty, lack of human rights and slavery beget evil, malevolence, cruelty and other vices. Privations, social injustice, and lack of social culture create material ugliness which in turn creates spiritual ugliness, depravity and crime.

In the same way, prosperity as such cannot produce good if it is acquired at the expense of others. Even if a prosperous person is intrinsically good he is still a carrier of evil by virtue of his social orientation. It is certainly not fair when one can and another cannot satisfy identical material requirements. I hope that in the future we shall achieve a harmonious balance between our requirements and opportunities for the satisfaction of the former. The state, society at large can do a lot to ensure this balance. Society must not tempt citizens with benefits which are not yet accessible to all due to a low level of material production or the faulty social mechanism of distribution. New material requirements must arise only when each individual and the whole society are ready for them. Their emergence must be a guided process.

Does that mean levelling them down? Perhaps that is taking things too far, but there is a grain of truth in my idea all the same. As to the relationship of the material and spiritual in man, I am convinced that provided the growth of material wealth does not violate social justice, it will, in its turn, promote cultural welfare. Let me stress the principle of social justice. It is not material benefits as such that kill spirituality and goodness in man but envy, greed and bitterness caused by unfair distribution of those benefits among people, when material prosperity becomes an end in

itself and a means of self-assertion for the individual, with all other motivations receding into the background.

Man is good_t man is evil---such is the image of man's literary double. As a literary critic you have analysed numerous fictional characters. What features of the literary heroes of the past and present are worthy of the man of the future? Or do you think the future will have its own criteria for judging human virtues, quite different from ours?

Any idea of the future or of the past bears the stamp of the times when it appeared. Our present conjectures about the future and the positive in man, about the moral and social systems we are currently discussing and dream about, reveal, above all, our own essence. Yet, some forecasts can certainly be made.

We are now entering the period of the integration of all forms of knowledge, when the natural sciences and the humanities merge into one single Science of Man as already discussed by Marx and Engels. In all probability, thought as a factor determining human behaviour will become a distinctive feature of this new period. Hence, a positive literary hero must be a thinking person.

True, as far back as the beginning of this century, too much emphasis on intellect was believed to lead to a one-sided development of the personality and eventually to cause much trouble. Gorky, for one, was greatly concerned

with this problem. He said that without a harmonious unity of reason and the emotions the individual cannot be other than callous. The ideal personality combines intellect and the emotions, the rational and the spiritual.

A human being must be primarily a thinking being. His abilities to think are not just abilities to evaluate or characterise but also to penetrate the cause. Human thought is always causal; it is always trying to establish causeand-effect relationships and motivations governing behaviour. As soon as it identifies a source or motivations of an individual's behaviour or that of society, it can successfully examine the course of life itself and thus be able to influence this course. In my opinion, this analytical quality of human thought must take pride of place in man's inner life in the future, or at least be an essential part of it.

Just as in the past, in the future, too, ethical or rational aspects of life will be highlighted in different historical periods. At certain periods of time unreasonableness was forgiven, while utopianism and infantilism were poeticised. Don Quixote, perhaps the finest hero in all world literature, would appear quite unreasonable measured by our pragmatic standards. He might have appeared equally unreasonable to his contemporaries. But the artist discerned a great nobility of heart in him. One can expect such images and such works to appear in the future too. I would like to stress again that

thought will remain the most essential element of man's inner world and will determine his behaviour.

Morality will proceed towards thought. Morality is not spontaneous. It is admirable and attractive but it must be based on correct assessment of the current situation. Moreover, man's creative activity obeys the laws of beauty, according to Marx, where beauty is a unity of inner vital forces and the outer perfection of form. A human being retains his humanity as long as he observes this unity. It is precisely this aesthetic aspect that distinguishes a human being from other beings inhabiting our planet. Each individual maintains an autonomous relationship with the world and the beautiful around him, a relationship which is quite independent from his utilitarian requirements. Man is bound to master the skill of living in accordance with the laws of beauty in all spheres of his existence.

How are these three principles---the intellectual, the ethical and the aesthetic---to be combined? This is a complex historical task. One does not automatically follow from another. Artists have long been aware of the need for harmony in man. At the turn of the century, Chekhov aptly put it as follows: "Everything about a human being should be beautiful: his face, his clothes, his soul and his thoughts.''

What will happen to our ideal of the perfect individual in the future? It will be adapted to

conform to the new material conditions and economic and social situation. Yet I am convinced that the principles we are asserting today will remain essentially the same. The history of art has shown that the functions of the human spirit have undergone no essential changes: people still strive eagerly after justice, freedom and goodness. These functions of the human spirit are akin to those of Nature and call to mind the harmony that exists in Nature. This probably explains people's eternal desire to be one with Nature. This quality is expected to remain among the dominant features of the individual of the future. The unity of Nature and the human spirit is advocated by Valentin Rasputin, a major Soviet writer, in his Farewell to Matyora. Rasputin is probably somewhat exaggerating this aspiration in human nature, but one thing is indisputable---the expediency, harmony and other qualities found in Nature also manifest themselves in human beings and reach the highest level in human relationships, while mannerism, standardisation and falseness are increasingly being rejected by our consciousness. Pragmatism is much discussed today. My impression is that it is on the decline.

Some 25 years ago, Vladimir Tendryakov, one of our finest and most conscientious authors, published his The Trial, the story of a forester, Semyon Teterin, who takes two people hunting. One is Dudyrev, chief of a major con-

struction project, the other is his friend Mityagin, the local medic. One of the two shoots a bear and the other hits an accordion player who happens to pass nearby. Since both are under suspicion, Teterin extracts the bullet from the bear's skull and establishes that it was fired from Mityagin's gun. So, it is the construction chief who killed the accordion player. Teterin has established the truth but it falls on deaf ears. Various people say: Who wants your truth? Who cares about your medic? Dudyrev is an important man, who is supervising a project of great national importance. Teterin realises that truth has two faces. He gives in and throws the bullet into the bog. Tendryakov passes his judgement not only on Teterin but on all those who have trampled the real and only truth for the sake of what they saw as the "higher truth''.

Twenty-five years ago one could be defeated by pragmatic logic. Now the times have changed. No pragmatic considerations can make us reject truth for opportunistic reasons. Today literature and art are particularly concerned with promoting ethical values for their own sake, to prevent pragmatism from engulfing the eternal life of the spirit. When you view present-day events from this angle you feel inspired with confidence in the future.

Can we then expect the individual of the future to be a bearer of those qualities that we call eternal human values?

What is the communist morality that we dream of inculcating in society and that we hope, nay, feel confident, will be fully established in the future? It is the pinnacle of all the best human qualities developed by humankind throughout the whole of history. What part of this morality will be contributed by Easterners, Westerners, Southerners or Northerners is as yet hard to see, but it will certainly be founded on a common human basis. We are currently engaged in polishing its various components and in this process literature has a no small role to play.

/ see the writer as judge, defence lawyer and spiritual leader rolled into one. In other words, the writer is a guardian of the people's conscience. Chinghiz Aitmatov described the writer and his work as a bridge across the ages, from one generation to the next. What is your view of the writer's role and duty?

My view will be subjective, for, as a critic, I regard literature from the critic's viewpoint.

^!I often reflect on why people have been practising art for countless centuries. Why do they treasure the memory of great artists more than that of any other great people? We remember Copernicus and Aristotle, but Homer stands out more in our memory. Looking back on the tragic history of humankind with its endless wars we would sooner recall Cervantes, Rabelais and Tolstoy than the various generals credited with famous conquests.

Human history is the history of wars, the history of nations destroying one another. Wars have raged on practically non-stop, and for some reason art has always been attracted by the battlefields, the most dramatic episodes in human history. It has thriven on the ruins of wars. Great art has been created in the whirlpool of white-hot passions. Shakespeare's tragedies run with blood. When you look at art from this angle, it may even repel you; why should art be so preoccupied with violence?

It would do better to try and stop it!

. . .Anna Karenina throws herself under a train---why should an artist want to write about that? Raskolnikov kills an old woman, and again an artist hastens to tell us about it. Why should artists be so attracted by bloodshed? It would seem that, having endured so much suffering and self-destruction, humanity, for sheer self-preservation, would shrink from the memory of massacres. And, indeed, some people do close their eyes and ears to human suffering, but they, in fact, turn out to be spiritually deficient. I'll give an example:

In Dostoyevsky's novel Poor Folk, Makar Devushkin reads Pushkin's The Postmaster and Gogol's The Greatcoat. He doesn't like the latter; though he is a poor man himself, he doesn't like to hear about another unfortunate. And why does he like Vyrin? Because Vyrin is the image of human dignity. Pushkin defends human dignity in his story. He brings out

the positive and the wholesome in man's inner world, while Gogol, on the contrary, portrays a person completely lacking in noble human qualities. Akaky Akakiyevich enjoys copying papers but otherwise is good for nothing. His drab inner life hangs by the thread of a mere greatcoat. When he is robbed of his greatcoat, when it is taken away from him, his life ends too. Makar Devushkin is more sympathetic with the wholesome and is just as anxious to preserve his dignity. He is a philosopher: "Why should good people live in need and neglect, and others have all the happiness coming their way? .. .1 work as hard as I can." Devushkin has a sense of social pride, and he is in touch with people. Yet his future is much the same as that of Akaky Akakiyevich. Dreading such a future, Devushkin resists being shown a picture of it. This is why he does not like Gogol. But humanity as a whole is not like that. Humanity as a whole does not turn away with fright from pictures of human tragedy, whether on a national, a world-wide or a personal scale. Humanity does not recoil from the truth about itself. It does not turn away from art that rushes to the battlefield, for it does so to prevent the humiliation and destruction of humanity.

Art bridges the ages not by virtue of carrying information about each historical period or each historical stage describing human follies; cruelty, murder and semi-savage conditions. Art by

15---111

its very nature is a bridge that spans the whole of human history, because throughout the ages, its sole aim has been to relieve humankind from the need to throw itself under trains, to suffer, to fight wind-mills, to pass through all the circles of hell. Being essentially wholesome, mankind, unlike Makar Devushkin heading for disaster, has always fearlessly looked at its own worst traits mirrored in art because they sounded warnjings which, acted as a purifier and transformed life for the better.

However, after so many centuries, even millennia, of artists' efforts, people still suffer and perish, kill and torment one another. So, is literature really capable of.. .?

Literature is only part of people's cultural and intellectual life. There are numerous other factors., and life is often powerless under their combined pressure. We know what socially antagonistic forces, what multitude of various factors bring about wars. Can literature alone, no matter how educational and all-- embracing, prevent wars? But it is quite within its power to influence people's minds and shape their consciousness so as to enable them to do away with war.

In 1941, Hitler drenched our country with blood. The Germany of those days was a highly industrialised country where technology had developed into something of a cult. But the society proved to be deficient in human qualities. The social system of the Nazis was not human.

We fought people who had ceased to be human. We held out and won.

We were educated on books by writers such as Arkady Gaidar^^3^^ and Jack London; literature had nurtured our minds. We admired honesty, and nobility of heart no matter who possessed them---an Indian, an American, or one of Gorky's tramps. We loved all human beings, we loved our homeland, and this is why we were able to stop the bloodshed in 1945. We were educated by literature and I don't know of a more effective system of education.

But the Germans also had a great literature with powerful humanistic traditions of long standing.

Literature is a mighty force but it is also controllable. It is manipulated by a system of political institutions.

Art, and fiction included, is two-sided as it were. On the one hand, it exists independently, as "a thing in itself", but on the other, it has to be interpreted. Everyone can interpret art but this is done particularly effectively by the powers that be, the political powers. From the rich ancient German culture the Nazis selected those elements which they could use in their ideological propaganda, in particular the nationalistic elements. They even adapted Lev Tolstoy, that great humanist, for their inhuman purposes. Nazi Germany's Minister of Propaganda told the German soldiers that the great Russian writer, Tolstoy, had impressed on the

Russians the non-resistance of evil by violence. "You can go ahead and kill them," was his message, "the Russians will not resist you." Significantly, at the same time Tolstoy's advocacy of non-resistance was employed by the great Gandhi as a slogan of active resistance to the British colonisers. Literary ideas can be variously used. Literature will always be interpreted to serve the needs of society. And the tendency displayed by such an interpretation is strongly indicative of the social system's standards of humanism.

However, literature ought not to wait passively, in my opinion, for someone to come and interpret the ideas contained in it. It is the writer's duty, as I see it, to define his aim precisely and actively promote his ideals.

In his article "Literary Miscellany of Last Year", Dobrolyubov appealed to writers to stop squandering their gifts on trifles and trivialities, and to look for discoveries.

Literature, and art in general, are commonly blamed for lagging behind life. This is true up to a point but not entirely, not on a global scale. So artists naturally retort to this accusation: how can something that constitutes part of life itself be lagging behind it?

However, the reproach is justified when, in juxtaposing art and reality, by reality is meant the more productive trends and progressive ideas. In this sense literature and art are indeed indebted to society. Therefore, the 27th

Congress of the CPSU in charting guidelines for our further progress rightfully put great demands on our artistic culture and its makers. But, having made these demands, the Party also assigned a more important role to art at the current historical stage. Declaring the economic reform based on scientific and technological progress as the main factor in the country's onward movement, the Congress emphasised the role of the social, cultural and intellectual sphere. To promote society's level of maturity and build communism means steadfastly to enhance the maturity of the individual's consciousness and enrich his intellectual world---this idea was expressed at the Congress. The attainment of this aim is guaranteed by the existing social and moral prerequisites, the Congress stressed.

The Party's policy aimed at economic reform of a truly revolutionary nature, at the cardinal restructuring of all forms of economic management, is impressive in scope and, moreover, in its realism. But the strategy of acceleration presupposes an active social policy, a maximum observance of the principle of social justice, and a renovation of the forms and methods of work of political and ideological institutions. These were declared by the Congress as the essential conditions for achieving success in the country's economic reconstruction. Hence the emphasis on the role of culture, without which no social progress is possible.

In spite of all the remarkable breakthroughs of modern science and engineering, it is only social and spiritual emancipation that makes a human being really free. This has been demonstrated by all the liberation revolutions of our century that were initiated by the Great October Socialist Revolution. It is precisely this experience in humanism that has been fertilising the artistic culture of socialism.

Speaking at the Eighth Congress of Soviet Writers in the summer of 1986, I quoted the highly relevant words of Dobrolyubov: the writer must not only reflect life as it is; his mission is to transform life. What can literature do to transform life? As we improve life we must create conditions for art in which literature as a source of new social ideas becomes our guiding light and our teacher.

It is not enough to assert that art be lifelike. We shall not demean life by suggesting that it should resemble art more. Art is part of life, perhaps its highest manifestation.

dom, and aristocratic and bourgeois liberalism; advocated the ideas of peasanst revolution and prophesied the emergence of a new hero in life and literature---an active citizen and fighter for the freedom of the people.---Ed.

Gaidar, Arkady Petrovich (1904-1941)---Soviet writer, founder of Soviet children's literature. Widely known in the USSR for his books conveying the romanticism of the Revolution and the building of a new life. His books deal with complex problems of ethical and civic education. Killed in the war.---Ed.

Notes

~^^1^^ Aitmatov, Chinghiz (b. 1928)---People's Writer of the Kirghiz SSR, Hero of Socialist Labour. Writes in both Kirghiz and Russian, raising acute social and moral questions. Combines modern literary devices with Kirghiz folklore traditions.---Ed.

^^1^^ Dobrolyubov, Nikolai Alexandrovich (1836-1861) ---Russian literary critic and journalist. A revolutionary democrat. Opposed the monarchy, serf-

Flight at Dawn

gold was that magic word which drove the Spaniards across the Atlantic Ocean to America; gold was the first thing that the white man demanded as soon as he stepped on a newly discovered shore," wrote Frederick Engels about the true motive force of the expeditions of Diaz and Columbus. Can it be that at some future date another great mind will expose as mercilessly the true motivations of man's interest in outer space?

Wealth? We no longer need to be ashamed of this word. Socialism has husked it of all humiliating, shameful and criminal implications. Once shared fairly between all who take part in its creation, wealth has been transformed into people's wellbeing. And can there be a nobler aim than serving the weal of the people?

Seafaring expeditions of the past were fitted out as commercial undertakings, even if Columbus chose to ignore the fact. But it was more than just unheard-of wares and tales about exotic countries that they brought from distant voyages. The discovery of new sea routes and continents gave a powerful impetus to the international division of labour; they brought into being the world market, and, via the complicated mechanism of socio-economic interactions, led to a rapid development of the revolutionary element within old society.

As distinct from explorers of the past, we are aware of the changes that mankind's emergence

We no longer run out into the streets to join jubilant crowds at the news of another manned spaceship launched into orbit, even though a man setting out on a space journey is still a hero, and a space expedition is still a feat of valour and a miracle. But such is human nature ---having recovered from amazement, man demands that even a miracle should be of practical use, and this is as it should be.

Nobody any longer likens spaceships to caravels of the era of great geographical discoveries. Space explorations has lost some of its romantic aureole once the cosmonauts applied themselves to earthly tasks^-geology, ecology, communications and even agriculture. The triumphal simile is no longer used by those who invented it---journalists and' writers; they are apparently afraid of appearing banal---the analogy between the two epochs of spatial expansion of mankind is much too obvious. But this fear is uncalled for. Banal thinking is superficial; it is unable to see .below the surface the fundamental inner similarity of causes which impel mankind to reach beyond the confines of the inhabited world.

Columbus was convinced that he was looking for the gates to paradise, nothing less. But. . . "it was gold that the Portuguese sought on the African coast, in India and all of the Far East;

into outer space is likely to work on Earth. Moreover, we want the knowledge obtained in outer space to serve mankind's material and intellectual progress. The great geographical discoveries of the past increased the world known to men sixfold. And outer space is limitless...

The connection between geographical and intellectual horizons of man is complex, but it does exist. The French author Andre Wurmser wrote on the day of Gagarin's flight: "On all waves the news is broadcast: 'Man has overcome the force of the Earth's gravitation! Despite my dislike of the allegory, I see in the fact an expression of a much broader emancipation. . . The Soviet people would not have conquered the forces of the Earth's gravitation had they not previously overcome other gravitational forces, had they not acquired faith in reason, in the boundless potentialities of people who are worthy of the name of Man, had not the Soviet nation itself represented thinking mankind, the pride of man, that humanism which was created by socialism.''

More than a quarter of a century has passed since man's first flight into space at the dawn of the cosmic era. It is a long enough stretch of time to enable us to draw certain conclusions and to gain a clearer view of the prospects. Philosophers are already engaged in this work. Economists are constructing hypotheses about how space industry is going to fit into

the terrestrial rotation of commodities and services. But I wanted to meet one of those people who are not merely contemplating mankind's space fate, but who are themselves shaping this fate. I wanted to talk to a cosmonaut and ask him: is mankind ready for a cosmic fate? Are we not in too much of a hurry to meet it?

Vitaly Sevastyanov willingly agreed to answer my questions and appointed a place for our meeting. Frankly speaking, I was surprised by it. I had been prepared to travel to Zvezdny, to the Mission Control Centre or to the Baikonur launch site. Instead, we met in a quiet old mansion in the centre of Moscow, which houses the All-Russia Society for the Protection of Historical and Cultural Monuments. Vitaly Sevastyanov has long been on its Presidium. And it so happened that we began our talk not with prospects for a flight to Mars, but with the history of Slavs. I was greatly impressed by Sevastyanov's knowledge of history and enthusiasm for the work of preserving the cultural heritage of our people. So, quite naturally, I asked:

/ always thought that a cosmonaut, for the very reason of his profession, is a man oriented towards the future. Where have you acquired this attraction to the past?

I think the expressions "the tree of life" or "the tree of knowledge" have not been coined fortuitously. However high may the crown of

2S4

body begins to forget the terrestrial conditions of life, even in the physiological aspect: salts are washed out, the heart's size is decreased, muscles are atrophied, the cardio-vascular activity is disrupted. But this is only half the trouble.

At the same time, your consciousness becomes split into two, as it were. On the one hand, you stop thinking of yourself as a dweller of some specific point on the planet. What do we associate our place in the world with? With concrete^ things, with the habitual objects that constitute our environment on Earth---the house, the street, the wood, the field. A person is inseparable from the world of habitual and precious things around him. Without these things he feels deprived. The feeling of nostalgia was known to people before they broke out into space. It was known to those who had to be away from their native places for a long time. In outer space, where all the habitual terrestrial reference points disappear, this feeling of nostalgia is a hundred times more acute. It attacks you unexpectedly, and you begin to long for grass on which you can walk barefoot.

Once I went on a trip to Mozambique. In Maputu they showed me a birch-tree. It had been brought from the Moscow country and planted by a Soviet man who was working there. Planted in foreign soil, the birch-tree took root and is growing nicely. But, amazingly, it flowers twice a year: according to the local

Vitaly Sevastyanov, Soviet cosmonaut, Cand. Sc. (Tech.), twice hero of the Soviet Union

knowledge rise, its roots still remain in the cultural soil of the past. If you cut off them, the crown will be deprived of the juices that nourish it, of the meaning of cognition and life itself. In forging ahead after new knowledge, man must not lose contact with his history. I became sharply aware of it out in space.

It cannot be so very different, it would seem, travelling, say, in a car or in a spaceship. Both are vehicles for transporting you from one place to another. Yet there is a difference, one of principle. And it is not a matter of speed either.

Out in space you begin to forget things. Your

calendar and when it is spring in Russia. It remembers. And it yearns for home.

This is something I never expected to hear from you. Our talk is taking a different turn from what I prepared myself for. I intended to ask you about space stations somewhere beyond Pluto's orbit, about terrestrials' settlements on other planets. And now I find myself impelled to ask you a very different question: don't you believe in the cosmic future of mankind?

Let us not dramatise matters. Of course, people will fly into outer space; they will explore it and use its resources for their own good. There will also be long space expeditions to visit other planets. But man will always come back to Earth. When I returned to Earth after my first space flight, I wrote an article which I called "A Cosmonaut's Terrestrial Ties". Of course, it is my subjective point of view; it may be conservative, but that's what I think.

But if mankind's future is bound to Earth, ought we to strive after outer space at all?

I think there can be no two opinions on this question. Mankind's breakthrough into the Universe was necessary and inevitable. It is a stage of the natural development of the human race. And it started at the right time. People did not understand it at once. At the beginning of the space era there was a period when many, I even think the majority, including men

directly involved, thought that now that we had flown into outer space, the goal had been reached and things would start subsiding and might even cease altogether. That was the time when the breakthrough into outer space was regarded as an end in itself, much like the scaling of a tall peak. Once the peak has been conquered, you may go down. But things did not work out this way. The stage of conquest was followed by the stage of exploration and study.

.. Which can go on indefinitely and the results of which cannot therefore be prognosticated. But it seems obvious to me that the space era will effect great transformations in the life of people and in the very nature of man. There have been quite a few important landmarks in the history of man's cognition of the world. But I find only one that is comparable to the breakthrough into outer space. It is the revolution in the world-view wrought by Copernicus. This is the second time mankind has overcome the fetters of geocentrism. Not mentally this time, but practically. Having overcome the Earth's gravitation, man emerged into outer space and saw that our stellar home was only an ordinary planet, one of many.

It is not the first time man has expanded the horizons of his world. He crossed oceans, discovered continents, made round-the-world voyages. But all this was confined to the limited surface of the globe. Now man ventured into

outer space. Cosmos is infinite, and just as infinite are the possibilities for exploring, studying it and for discovering new fundamental laws, the knowledge of which may be used for the good of the human race.

The experience of the first twenty-five years of manned space flights has shown that outer space offers good prospects for production activities. Space communications have become a fact. Through a system of artificial satellites people can transmit information from one point to practically any other point on the globe. Another sphere, which is also already yielding useful practical results, is navigation. On the basis of information received from a space station a navigator can establish the whereabouts of his ship within seconds---and with the accuracy of dozen metres. Obviously, this has great importance for safer seafaring. Space stations also help in geological survey, land utilisation and control over the environmental conditions. In these spheres of economic activity, space stations are simply irreplaceable. Next comes development of new, space technologies and organisation, on their basis, of industrial production of materials with properties unattainable on Earth. On the basis of permanently functioning module-type stations, new branches of economy will appear around the Earth. This work alone will keep us busy for the next thirty to fifty years.

Outer space is already yielding practical be-

nefits to mankind. The future promises that these benefits will grow considerably. We can expect a huge leap in technology. I would not risk to make definite forecasts, for reality often far outstrips flights of imagination, and things of which we hardly dare to dream today may become an accomplished fact tomorrow. Think back to how we were taught to write with steel nibs at school, and today schools are being equipped with electronic computers. Who could foresee this fifty years ago? Only recently a TV set with a water lense seemed to us a veritable miracle. And today we watch a colour transmission of a football match from the other side of the globe and think nothing of it. No, one should not make prognoses in technology today---it's a hopeless business. I shall merely say that I feel a stupendous leap in technology is imminent. In about a hundred years the achievements of the scientific and technological revolution will enable mankind to effect a colossal change in our way of life and way of thinking, in the release of man's creative potential.

A hundred years? Not earlier?

A hundred years is an approximate landmark, which is not supported by any real evidence, except for my own subjective opinion. But I don't think it can be any less. A century is the minimal time required.

But scientific and technological progress is advancing at an accelerated rate. Cannot it hap-

16---111

pen after all that the "golden age" of mankind will come earlier than you expect?

I realise that my prognosis sounds pessimistic, but I do not expect that a new upsurge of civilisation can occur earlier. Time is necessary to accumulate a sufficient scientific and technological potential for moving ahead to a qualitatively new cultural level. Also, do not forget about another indispensable prerequisite for such a leap---man's moral advancement, and this has been a much slower process than scientific and technological progress.

A realistic assessment of the coming decades tells me that painstaking and hard work lies ahead to accumulate all that is necessary for the future leap in the potential.

In other words, ours is the role of navvies, digging a foundation pit for the future. Provided, of course, that we want to ensure the best possible variant of the future. Are you not discouraged by such a role, such a prospect? Wouldn't you prefer to be born a hundred years later?

No, I feel I have found my place in the present time.

When you spoke about practical benefits which we are already deriving or expect to derive from outer space, I suddenly was assailed by a premonition. Our everyday experience should have reminded us that we have had to pay dearly for everything we have taken. Warnings of this are the Sakhara Desert in

place of a once flowering land, and the A-bomb which preceded atomic power stations. Consciously or not, man, by his actions, has been continuously releasing forces that are hostile to him and which he finds very difficult to control. Will not outer space make us pay too? And what price is it likely to demand?

Of course, we must constantly bear this danger in mind and so be extremely careful and thorough in planning every new step. So far our knowledge in this sphere is very limited because we do not know much about space and do not understand all the implications. But, I repeat, we, the people engaged in the practical activities of making a new environment habitable for man, are fully aware of this danger and examine the most hypothetical consequences. For instance, an international congress has been held to discuss the problem of protecting the human race from possible mutations resulting from the effect of cosmic radiation on the human genetic apparatus during space flights. Is this danger real? Well, it is possible, and we certainly must weigh up all the possible consequences before making another step into the unknown. Space teaches us responsibility. Out there, in orbit, you become much more acutely aware of the responsibility that rests on us, people, for the very existence of life on our planet.

But couldn't it turn out that space-induced mutations are not at all an evil? Arthur

16*

C. Clarke, in his 2001: A Space Odyssey suggested that space could endow man with some superhuman, non-human qualities and even transform him into another, cosmic, type of being, and that the present-day state of mankind is but a chrysalis in which the "cosmic man" is developing.

I much prefer science-fiction books by Ivan Yefremov.^^1^^ His heroes remain human beings whatever the circumstances, and I like them much better.

Another question, while we are on the subject of threats and dangers. There is a much more real danger than the hypothetical impairment of the genetic fund. You mentioned it when speaking about moral progress. Any undertaking by people must have a moral justification, and this applies to their activities in space as well. At the beginning of our talk you said that man broke through into space at the right time. Are you sure he hasn't been too hasty? Is he morally prepared enough for this?

I understand and share your anxiety. The danger of arms being taken into outer space to threaten life on Earth is, indeed, real. So is the danger that enmity and hatred will be transported to cosmos---these manifestations of moral defectiveness of those who are prepared to use mankind and its future as hostages of their criminal---I can find no other word---claims to world domination. That is a special theme for

discussion. But first I shall tell you why I believe that mankind made its way into outer space at the right time.

I do not regard it as coincidental that mankind practically simultaneously, at the same, historically speaking, moment, turned into a geological force capable of changing the face of the Earth, became aware of the need for a protective attitude to Nature, and emerged into outer space. From up there in orbit it is possible to see the whole planet at once, as well as every detail on its surface and to obtain a comprehensive picture of the consequences of man's transformative activities. Were it not for this unique observation post, we might have gone on destroying our natural home indefinitely, unaware of what we were doing. Mankind's emergence into outer space accelerated the formation and spread of planetary thinking among the Earth's dwellers. The development of cosmic methods of control over the environment has enabled us to solve the dual task of a rational use of the natural resources and preservation of the biosphere.

To be sure, at the same time we have approached the line beyond which may occur militarisation of outer space. It is an extremely dangerous prospect. Furthermore, the pretence of concern for mankind's wellbeing with which these plans are camouflaged is outrageous. It's cynical and monstrous. The claim that cosmic weapons are developed for defence purposes

and are intended to save mankind from the threat of nuclear destruction is a palpable lie. In actual fact, the United States is preparing to launch into space around the Earth strike weapons, based on lasers and nuclear energy and aimed at objects on the Earth's surface. Once such weapons are deployed in space, they will be suspended over people like the sword of Damocles, and it will not be possible to sweep them away like a cobweb. Before it is too late, agreement must be reached that space should be used exclusively for peaceful purposes.

How do you assess the chances that mankind will succeed in preventing an arms race in space?

I assess them hopefully. I hope that weapons will never pollute outer space. I place my hopes on mankind's reason and my hopes are not groundless.

Man's breakthrough into space was being prepared not only technically but also morally. Immediately after broadcasting information about Yuri Gagarin's flight, the Soviet Union issued an appeal to mankind: "We regard victories in space explorations as an achievement not only of our own people but of all mankind. We gladly place them at the service of all nations, in the name of progress, happiness and wellbeing of all people on Earth. We place our achievements and discoveries not at the service of war but at the service of peace and security

of nations." Today we can say: humanism of socialist society has stood the test of outer space and time. We have no intention of using our achievements in space exploration for mercenary motives and to the detriment of the rest of mankind. We continue to insist that space should be used in the interests of all people. And if we can do it, then others can do it as well.

The problem is urgent; it needs to be tackled and solved in the interests of man. I shall go so far as to express a paradoxical idea: it is precisely awareness of the military threat, a real and terrible danger, that may promote mankind's moral progress. And space may very well play an essential role in making people realise the scope of the danger which threatens them.

Yes, but I recall the words of an historian of science who compared such a view with the naive belief of those who are unable to keep their home in order but hope to solve all their problems in the flat they are going to move in.

Of course, the fact of ``moving'' into space will not of itself solve all problems confronting people, but it may help substantially. When you look at our Earth, so little and fragile, from outer space, you understand with special clarity how defenceless and vulnerable it is. And many of our earthly problems appear in a very different light up there---for you cannot see frontiers from orbit. You develop what is termed planetary thinking and also the sense of your

own personal responsibility. Formerly mankind did not have such an attitude and such a feeling. The most keen-minded of men did arrive at such a view speculatively, but there was no widespread understanding of mankind's common destinies. Now this truth is grasped more easily and quickly. Thanks, among other things, also to space flights and a cosmic view of the Earth.

In such a case it would be a good idea to send as many people as possible into space. For educational purposes.

In the first place young people, for whom the problem has a special bearing.

When I compared the breakthrough into outer space with the revolution in the minds wrought by Copernicus, who ``reduced'' our planet to the status of an ordinary cosmic body, I meant not only the radical change his discovery made in the scientific world-view, but also the moral aspect of the matter---the sense of responsibility that was placed on man's shoulders. Man was made responsible for the future of the Earth and life on it. When you observe the Earth from orbit, you realise that continents are mere islands in the ocean, while the ocean itself is not at all boundless, as you imagine standing on its shore. I would say that a flight into space shapes the mentality of a citizen and an internationalist.

For a Soviet person, the combination of love for his mother country and all mankind is na-

tural and habitual. It is impressed on our minds at school and even earlier that these two sentiments are indivisible. But not only we fly out into space.

I would not divide spacemen into ``us'' and ``them''. I am acquainted with most of American astronauts and I must say this: in some things we unquestionably differ, but we are very much alike in the essential human qualities. For instance, in our concept of mankind's common destiny and in the understanding of the responsibility resting on our shoulders. Even when official America was most rabidly hostile to the Soviet Union, our colleagues, the astronauts, did not succumb to the mood of chauvinism and anti-Sovietism. On the contrary, on several occasions they publicly criticised the mud-slinging campaign against the Soviet Union.

I am convinced that space gives us an example of how human beings ought to live and think. I hope that the human race will succeed in pooling its efforts for the exploration and use of outer space and that orbital stations or interplanetary spaceships manned by international crews will provide the most convincing proof of men's ability to live together despite the differences in ideologies and to work together fruitfully for the common weal. It has been almost a century since the Earth was; compared to a spaceship and mankind to its crew. The time has come when we should do

more than repeat this very correct analogy, when we should draw due conclusions.

Mankind's future is bound up with outer space. There may be arguments about the degree of influence exercised by space exploration on life on Earth, but the fact itself, I believe, is disputed by no one today. And in this sense, you have outdistanced, so to speak, the rest of mankind. As in a time machine you visited the future twice and had an opportunity to try it on, as it were. Tell me, please, what traits man of the next millennium should possess to measure up to the demands of the time. What do you think he should be like?

You can form an idea of this easily, for I fully intend to live and see the beginning of the next millennium.

If we are to proceed from our experience in training space pilots, man of the 21st century should, first of all, be a well-educated, competent specialist. Technology is becoming extremely sophisticated, and one must be at home in it, if we want to make effective use of its potentialities and not to allow it to dominate us. Not all prove capable of it. Many people fail to qualify for space flights because of their inability to cope with the increasingly sophisticated technologies. However, this is not the most difficult barrier to overcome. A cosmonaut can only be made out of wholesome human material---and that, I am sure, fully applies to man of the future.

What do I mean by this?

Take my colleagues. Of course, we are all different. One of them may be more sensitive than I to music, another may be a better athlete, and my special hobby is history. But, I have noticed, there are no artful dodgers among us, no crafty self-seeking people. A person of this brand has no chance of becoming a cosmonaut. A cosmonaut must, first and foremost, be a kind man. Generally speaking, I think that kindness is a trait granted to man by Nature. All the rest---cunning, envy, hatred---has been superimposed on relations among people by the millennia-long reign of perverted values, by the craving for power and wealth. Man is intrinsically kind, and space travel reinforces this human attribute.

Notes

Yefremov, Ivan Antonovich (1907-1972)---Soviet writer, a palaeontologist by profession. The author of science-fiction, adventure and socio-- philosophical novels.---Ed.

An Afterword to My Co-Authors

unable to foresee, especially in the technical field, for the progress of technology defies the imagination. But whatever the reaction of the man of the future, I am sure he will not smile condescendingly at our dreams and hopes, but will treat them with the same gratitude and respect that we always show to the memory of the great thinkers and revolutionaries of bygone days, whose heirs we consider ourselves to be. And like Sergei Narovchatov, a fine Soviet poet, I am sure that

. . .for the road that we have broken To other, happy eras we Shall be forgiven much, if not all, Our generation, you and me.

We sinned a lot, a lot we blundered, But to our main goal we were true. And in this quest, no doubt about it, Our land is new, and we are new.

The most difficult thing is to word the first sentence and then to put the final point at the end of a book. My job was a little easier, because a book about the future cannot have an end. Thoughts of the future continue in the plans and dreams which our hard work and time will turn into reality. In that sense all of us are co-authors of the book about the destiny of the world to which everyone of us contributes his or her life. And that book, we hope, will be endless.

I want to thank all those who granted me an interview. I thank them not only for the time they carved out to reply to my questions. I thank them, too, for their good advice, for their profound, sincere and workman-like interest in the future. And if I have in some degree succeeded in passing that interest on to you, dear reader, I will consider my duty done.

Certainly, we touched on just a fraction of the problems that the future has posed. But we did not set ourselves the aim of embracing the unembraceable.

I wonder what the people of the coming 21st century will think of our predictions and ideals. They may think them naive in some ways. And in other ways they may think them too maximalistic. There were some things we were simply

REQUEST TO READERS

Progress Publishers would be glad to have your opinion of this book, its translation and design and any suggestions you may have for future publications.

Please send all your comments to 17, Zubovsky Boulevard, Moscow, USSR.

Printed in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

N/nef Streltsova

Ninel Streltsova, Novosti Press Agency observer and author of a number of books, interviewed eleven prominent Soviet scholars in different fields of knowledge to see what they think of the man of the future and of society at the junction of the two millennia.

Those interviewed were: physicist V. I. Goldansky, jurist V. N. Kudryavtsev, mathematician N. N. Moiseyev, all Members of the USSR Academy of Sciences; economist L. I. Abalkin, literary critic P. A. Nikolayev, philosopher L. T. Frolov, all Corresponding Members of the USSR Academy of Sciences; psychologist V. P. Zinchenko, Corresponding Member of the USSR Academy of Pedagogical Sciences; Professor V. V. Zagladin and Professor G. Kh. Shakhnazarov, prominent political figures; Professor V. N. Shubkin, sociologist, and cosmonaut V. I. Sevastyanov.

Imported by

IMPORTED PUBLICATIONS, *

320 West Ohio Street Chicago, Illinois 60610 Phone 312-787-9017

Progress Publishers