Senator JACKSON. Exactly. What I am trying to say is that the party people can afford to bring in the engineers, the plant managers, the technologists, the people who get things done, but they surely must be leery, from their point of view, of bringing in too many of the theoreticians, the far-out planners, the individuals who are apt to move against the MarxistLeninist concepts of the future. Is this a valid point? I want to know, are these intellectuals getting into the party structure or are those in the party like Kosygin-who was a plant manager out of Leningradwho have been there a long time. Dr. WOLFE. Well, the party, as you well know, has twelve or fourteen million now, but maybe only 300,000 to 400,000, who are really the professionals who run the party. So I would suppose that most of the theoreticians in the Soviet Union today have a party card. Because if you are part of the Soviet elite you just do not go anywhere without it. There are some individual exceptions. But, by and large, party membership for the elite is almost like a union card. If you are not a Communist, it is difficult to have a position of trust within the Soviet system. But as concerns dedication to the professional interests of the party, I think a lot of party cardholders might just as soon change things as not. The party keeps them out of its internal affairs by putting party power-the important jobs in the Secretariat and the Politburo, and so on-into the hands of good, tried, true and trusted party professionals. You mentioned Kosygin being drawn in. He was in the textile industry and had some engineering training. Quite a high proportion of the Soviet leadership has had technical training. I am speaking now of the top party leadership. But this lies well in their past, and most of them have been dedicated to the management of party affairs for many years. Senator JACKSON. How many theorists, how many intellectuals have been in the Central Committee structure, and how many have ever been in the Politburo? Dr. WOLFE. Well, there have been analyses made of Central Committee composition by role in society over a period of time and there tends to be a fairly constant percentage of military, of certain nationality representatives, of scientists and so on, so that this is almost like a corporate society with a sort of fixed representation of the various elements. This shows up in the Central Committee membership to some extent, much less so, however, when you get to the Politburo, because there just isn't a large enough membership in this body to reflect all of these different elements. Senator JACKSON. I can't think of an outstanding scientist serving in the Politburo. Dr. WOLFE. No, there has been no one, for example, of Kapitsa's caliber. Of course, it is also true there haven't been any outstanding military people except Zhukov. Senator JACKSON. But he became suspect after a time and was removed. Dr. WOLFE. Yes, he didn't last very long in this role. Senator JACKSON. But do you see any shifting here towards possible control within the Central Committee on the part of the intellectuals at the present time? Dr. WOLFE. Not within the Central Committee. I think whatever influence they can exert for change is going to be from the outside of the center of power. Senator JACKSON. I would think that the Soviet leadership would be watching this very closely. Surely they know the ones that they feel are reliable and those that are not reliable. Dr. WOLFE. Except in a system like that one can't always be sure of the criteria for reliability. Reliability on one ground may not be reliability on another. If, for example, the situation involves a contest for power, then a person who appears very reliable in terms of his Communist antecedents may turn out to be a formidable rival to the rest of his peers. Senator JACKSON. I was directing my question to those who are far outside the central councils, to the danger that they are going to attack the system, raising fundamental questions of the validity of Marxist-Leninist principles, and promoting cultural and political freedom. Dr. WOLFE. Yes, I think the generational problem is very much involved in the answer to this. So far as the present ruling generation goes, I don't see any likelihood that they are going to open their ranks to any kind of far-out dissenting types. However, I think there is a big unanswered question about what kind of behavior can be expected of those who are in their forties and fifties, who are going to be the takeover generation, who have had a different kind of background and experience. Most of them, at least at the younger end of the age spectrum, are not products of the Stalinist system so far as their career rise goes. They have lived in a somewhat different world. Are they going to be more critical of the established way of doing things, and more prone to reform? Or will we find that through its recruitment process, which has been controlled by the professional party managers, the leadership has managed to reproduce itself in kind, so that the same types with the same outlook are simply going to come along and act much the way their predecessors did? ECONOMIC REFORM AND CIVIL LIBERTIES Senator JACKSON. What goes through my mind at the moment is that you can have reform to make the economic system work more efficiently without reforming the existing repressive society. This is a valid distinction, it seems to me. They are two different things, and I just wonder how much they are parallel. As they reform the bureaucracy, and as they bring in new methods to better manage their economy, does it follow that this is going to lead to political reforms within the society, and a more outgoing vision of the world? This gets back to our earlier comment about the convergence theory. I have real reservations as to whether we can rely very much on industrial reform leading to political reform and to greater political freedom. Dr. CAMPBELL. I think it is bound to have some sort of effect. It is interesting in Sakharov's statement that he says "we must have wider discussions of these things within the leadership. We don't even bring the middle level people into discussion of these issues." As the first step he is not even envisaging something that is democratic in a larger sense. At the same time he sees that ultimately democratization might go in that direction. I think anybody who makes a prediction about this is being very, very bold on how closely economic reform in a technical sense and democratization are tied together. YOUTH IN THE SOVIET UNION Senator JACKSON. I have had the impression that the Soviet leaders have had a considerable degree of confidence in being able to deal with their youth which, in other parts of the world, are posing all kinds of new questions. They have spoken with an apparent degree of confidence in this area. Would both of you like to comment on that? Dr. CAMPBELL. I am sure they are aware of this problem, as evidenced by the kinds of things Dr. Wolfe mentioned. Another interesting indication is found in the treatment of the younger generation in professional things. In the Institute of Economics or in the Central Statistical Administration or any such organization there is a special effort being made to provide an outlet for the professional interests of the younger generation. They organize seminars of youth or have special publication outlets for youth. There is an effort to sort of turn them loose on thinking about what their organization ought to be doing in terms of its professional mission. And very often you see within the organization itself some divergence between what the younger cadres think about the function of the organization and what the organization ought to be doing. So they are very much aware of the problem of the younger intelligentsia. But I think if I were in the position of the leaders I wouldn't be quite certain of my ability to control it. Senator JACKSON. There is evidence, however, that they are being rather tough on this question. The fact is that many of the youngsters who attempt to express their views are sent off to Siberia, and a lot of the dissident scientists are left without employment and forced to live off their friends. I gather that the Brezhnev regime has been moving more and more towards the harsher kinds of discipline. So far they have not found it necessary to engage in capital punishment, but they don't hesitate to lock them up or otherwise make life miserable for them. Do you see any relief from this treatment. Is there any shift of late? Dr. CAMPBELL. No, I see none. But I don't know that that is a permanent solution. Their way of dealing with it is a combination of "Let's encourage the constructive aspect" and "we draw a line here, we don't want initiative or suggestions outside these limits." Dr. WOLFE. I think there has been movement in the last two or three years in a retrogressive direction. Senator JACKSON. A return to a sort of modified Stalinism? Dr. WOLFE. Yes, Stalinism without some of the harsher trimmings. But some of it can get pretty rough, for example, putting people in a mental institution because they are political deviationists. Again, this is one of the areas where the whole history and culture of the country. is an on-going factor. It has not ever been customary, for Soviet, for the Russian, youth to be active questioners of authority. One of the things that often discourages Westerners who meet young Russian students at Moscow University is how apathetic they are about politics. They may not approve of what their government is doing on some issues, but they aren't about to organize and go out in the street and have a demonstration, because this is just not the style. But every once in a while in Russia's history this apathy toward authority, not only by youth but by other segments of the society, has been transformed into revolution. Thus, one may recall the Pugachev and other peasant revolts, and the 1905 and 1917 revolutions. Senator JACKSON. But the Czar never had the detailed, minute control that the present regime has over the people. Dr. WOLFE. Well, they had pretty extensive control. But it has certainly been improved on by modern means of communication, in just keeping track of people. Senator JACKSON. It is far more efficient. Dr. WOLFE. Far more efficient control of the population. But attitudes toward authority and raising questions about it, these are deeperseated and may change only slowly over the course of time. I think it is illusory to expect to see Soviet youth breaking out of their cultural and historical pattern and staging campus demonstrations like those taking place in other societies which have a quite different cultural background and tradition of political protest. Senator JACKSON. Litvinov's grandson in Siberia provides a certain deterrent to campus demonstrations and leaflet passing and so on. You don't need too much in the way of example, I suppose, to make the point. Ι Dr. WOLFE. I think it does serve as a deterrent. In fact I must say I admire the few who do continue to speak out despite all these pressures. It must take a very rare kind of person to stand up under the disapproval of society in general. Senator JACKSON. Knowing full well what the consequences might be. Dr. WOLFE. Yes. Senator JACKSON. Dr. Campbell, did you want to comment? Senator JACKSON. I think Mr. Perle has a number of questions. Perhaps Mr. Garcia has some questions as well. Mr. PERLE. I have been following the discussion about Soviet youth with some interest. I was especially amused by your remarks that they have now engaged in a program to glorify the military by taking 40 million Soviet youth to visit historic battlefields. The only battlefield American youth is much interested in seems to be the Senate Office Building this last couple of weeks, or perhaps university campuses. One of the themes of our youth today is that we ought to move away from a consumer-oriented materialistic society and search for deeper spiritual values. There isn't quite the same problem in the Soviet Union since they haven't reached the material plateau that we have. But I wondered whether there was any expression in the Soviet Union by young people of the view that they ought not to follow in what American youth consider our mistake-that they should not promote material values? Dr. WOLFE. Well, this becomes very difficult in a society which is in a sense dedicated to the material values. Soviet youth has been taught to look upon material plenty as the Utopian goal of the society. I think in a practical sense, too, when housing is hard to get, as it is, when people must stand in line to buy necessities of life the way they have to in the Soviet system-then these material problems, irritations, just making do and surviving, are bound to take up a great deal of time and leave little leisure for ruminating on spiritual values. Now, I have the feeling that the segment of Soviet youth which does feel that it is a mistake to emphasize the material values over spiritual ones, that the direction they take is again a fairly traditional one in terms of their own society. In effect, it is withdrawal, what is sometimes called "inner migration”—to just keep out of the scrutiny of the authorities as much as possible. They don't move in the direction, at least so far as I can see, of posing an open challenge to their society. They may share some of the same sentiments that move American students to demonstrate on the campus or elsewhere, but they don't express themselves in the same fashion. This tension is handled in the case of the Soviet student's personality mainly by withdrawal of his enthusiasm. In effect, apathy replaces whatever emotional investment he may have had in the system. In the long run the Soviet authorities may find this apathy exacts a very high cost. If the best segments of Soviet youth should come, for one reason or another, not to lend themselves to the pursuit of material improvement in Soviet life then there would be a major problem, just as we have a major problem in our society if large segments of our youth turn their backs on a lot of the values on which our particular kind of society has been built. To sum up here, I can't think of very many instances, with the exception of a few articulate dissenters, where Soviet youth has openly laid down a challenge to the system as it is. FUTURE OF THE SOVIET ARMS BUDGET Mr. PERLE. Dr. Campbell, you talked about one important difference between American and Soviet efforts to support strategic weapons programs. You pointed out that our military expenditures come largely out of slack while the Soviets, for sometime now, have been making clear choices between military and non-military expenditures. In spite of the sacrifices the Soviets were evidently forced to make, they have maintained a high level of defense expenditures in recent years. I wonder whether there is any evidence that they now perceive the arms burden as a question of preventing a further increase or actually reducing their spending level? Now Dr. Wolfe spoke about the willingness of the Soviet Union to continue defense expenditures roughly at the rate of the last five years. Do you think that is the level they are actively discussing, or do you contemplate sharp reductions. Dr. CAMPBELL. Well, I think that as they look forward they sense that growth is going to be harder than ever to sustain. Many of the antidotes to economic deceleration, such as more investment, imply some reallocation from, or at least a halt in, the growth of arms expenditures. That is the way the numbers are going to be. As to what their |