fmagine the computers used at Moscow University. Can any system of locks, passwords and audit trails really stop a student underground from using the computer as a bulletin board? Of course not' The computer is always at the beck and call of every user. It will follow a program to unlock a lock as surely as it will follow a program to re-lock an unlocked lock. These problems for ehe State will persist and grow exponentially as the size and cost of computers decrease It is with good reason that the USSR only builds copies of the computers which we used 10 years ago. The IBM 370, the DEC VAX, the other physically large, costly machines are the only defense against tota} dissolution of the Soviet State. Can you imagine what would happen if, as in America, students could checkout a desktop computer? "Please, comrade librarian, I need to work some differential equations and distribute 100 copies of Orwell's 1984." When the USSR acqu~res an American computer, they try to get the powerful, "small" systems, especially the DEC VAX, which can be used to guide, control and coordinate military equipment. lIowever, the Soviet military is merely the highest priority; it is not the only priority. A wide-open trade in computers would be disaster for the Soviet system. They cannot afford to let every Ivan have a home computer. The Soviet leadership is between a rock and a hard place. They must have computers to remain competitive with the West. Yet, the spread of computers will make it harder for them to control their own populace. Dictatorships fear the spread of ideas and doctrines which do not originate with the State. Alexander Solzhenitsynwas hounded, not because he is a capitalist, but because he is an Orthodox Christian. A student of Objectivism might point out that both Communism and Christianity are altru~stic and collectivistic. That is immaterial to the Kremlin. They demand obedience, not discussion. The Soviet Union, like any other dictatorship, cannot tolerate the spread of ideas. Personal computers are a powerful tool for exchanging information. The United States could weaken the Soviet ruling class by aggressively exporting computers to the USSR. True, the Kremlin would resist. On the other hand, they also import wheat and sell platinum to the USA. Personal computers could become a bargaining chip in East-West trade agreements. Currently, the American government (imitating its friends in the Kremlin) is attempting to prevent the export of computers to the USSR. The most highly pnzed machine is the VAX made by Digital Equipment Corporation. The DEC VAX is a true general purpose machine which can be used in finance, industry and military applications. The ^- `. 1 66 ~ r~\ . _. American rulers argue that letting the USSR have these computers would make our enemy stronger. It is true that tbere would be an apparent short- term gain for the Russians in getting enough DEC VAXs to run their anti-aircraft missiles, establish viable battlef~eld tactics and make and break codes and ciphers. On the other hand, remember that the military is not the only lobbyist group in the Politburo. A Marxist state is centralized democracy, not a mil~tary junta. Even if it were trne that the first 50 VAXs would go to the military, the next 50 would go to Gosbank, the Soviet Federal Reserve. Once installed in Gosbank (or Uralmetal or wherever), these machines could be properly abused by more or less pnvate c~t~zens. Bank managers and industrial supervisors could deal more effectively in the black market. Editors and typesetters who now produce propaganda could produce satires on the side. Urban planners could play video games. People in all walks of life could write essays or manage their meager budgets. While the Kremlin may desire VAXs today, it will be only a matter of time before the computers they import will get ~ smaller and cheaper. A strong negotiator could force them to accept 5,000 IBM- PCs for every 50 mainframes. (Actually, the best thing would be to let our capitalists deal with the Kremlin l~ke any other customer.) Now the mass import of computers itself wil] not end Communism. The Soviets succeed over the West because they live by a wel!-defined philosphy. America has been losing the Cold War because we have no idea who we are or what we are. Reagan never uses the word "capitalism" in public. Any reference to "free enterprise" is usually followed with a reference to the need for`'some" goverument regulation. In point of fact, the differences between the people in the Capitol and the people in the Kremlin are differences in degree, not kind. The trade embargo against the export of computers is an example of this. Like all such measures, this regulation not ouly faiis to solve the perceived problem, it actually makes matters worse. The American computer industry has been plagued by imports of '&pirate clones" from Hong Kong. (The Apple computer company has cried the loudest.) Given that the USSR wants computers and given that they cannot buy them from American companies, they will 1ust buy them from someone else. Reagan saw the error in the Carter Wheat Embargo Perhaps he w~ll see the error in the computer embargo. Computers, CB radios and video tape players are exactly what the Soviet ruling class fears. They can match the USA missile for missile. They have no defense against ideas in the minds of their own people. The greatest weakness that the Kremlin has is that given the importation of items like these, they will not be bought first by Siberian farmers, but by aMuent Party members. In our own country, the Statists are likewise dismayed at the Frankenstein's monster which they must face. Without computers, there~is no way the bureaucracy can function in modern terms. At the same time, they cannot be more effective than the