A Russian Journal

I’ve just finished reading John Steinbeck‘s novel A Russian Journal, an account of travels around Russia with photographer Robert Capa shortly after the second world war. It provides a fascinating view of Russia, its people and their views towards the US shortly before the Cold War began in earnest. Slightly disturbing are the parallels in US immigration policy towards the Russians then, and those towards un-favoured countries in today’s world.

And as we sat with cigars and liqueur, the talk turned to relations with the United Stats. Korneichuk had been part of a cultural delegation to the United States. On their arrival in New York he and his delgation had been fingerprinted and made to register as agents of a foreign power. The fingerprinting had outraged them, and they had returned home without carrying out the visit. For, as Korneichuk said, ‘With us, fingerprinting is only for criminals. We did not fingerprint you. You have not been photographed or forced to register”

We tried to explain then that according to our rule the people of a communist or a socialist state are all employees of the government, and that all employees of foreign governments are required to register.

And he answered, “England has a socialist government, and you don’t make every Englishman register, nor do you fingerprint them”

Another theme that stuck in my head was the comparison of Russian and American/British views on the operation of government

It seems to us that one of the deepest divisions between the Russians and the Americans or British, is in their feeling toward their governments. The Russians are taught, and trained, and encouraged to believe that their government is good, that every part of it is good, and that their job is to carry it forward, to back it up in all ways. On the other hand, the deep emotional feeling among Americans and British is that all government is somehow dangerous, that there should be as little government as possible, that any increase in the power of government is bad, and that existing government must be watched constantly, watched and criticized to keep it sharp and on its toes. And later, on the farms, when we sat at table with farming men, and they asked us how our government operated, we would try to explain that such was our fear of power invested in one man, or in one group of men, that our government was made up of a series of checks and balances, designed to keep power from falling into any one person’s hands. We tried to explain that the people who made our government, and those who continue it, are so in fear of power that they would willingly cut off a good leader rather than premit a precedent of leadershp. I do not think we were thoroughly understood in this, since the training of the people of the Soviet Union is that the leader is good and the leadership is good. There is no successful argument here, it is just the failure of two systems to communicate one with the other.

While we may have avoided the trap of letting too much power fall into the hands of any one person, as so often befell Russia, the capitalist economic model is neatly sidestepping the traditional checks and balances of government. Large (multi-national) corporations are now so powerful that they can exert terrific influence over large groups of people (even entire political parties), to influence government policy, regulation and laws in their own favour. Ironically, it is groups such as the Open Source software community, whose views would typically be described as socialist (or even communist), which are attempting to push back against the power
of large corporations