home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Chaos Computer Club 1997 February
/
cccd_beta_feb_97.iso
/
chaos
/
habi1
/
txt
/
hb1_66.txt
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1997-02-28
|
7KB
|
166 lines
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