218
PARTISAN REVIEW
be increasing. The system is of course extremely inefficient eco–
nomically; it is in a permanent state of crisis , and it lacks self–
regulating mechanisms . It improves itself only under the impact
of catastrophes. The tensions of national character will certainly
be increasing, and perhaps it is even the most powerful factor con–
tributing to the disintegration of the Soviet system. I am not happy
about it; I am not saying that this is a good thing , quite the con–
trary . But it is a fact that national tensions, hatreds and feelings
are the most powerful element in the erosion of Sovietism. So I
am far from believing that the system is invulnerable or that it will
last forever . I think its decomposition has started and will go on .
EK:
Does the West understand this?
LK:
I don't think so. I think it is rather normal, and not exceptional
in the mind of Western politicians, to think in short terms . Of
course, nobody wants war, neither do the Soviets . Everyone knows
that a global war would be an unspeakable horror and disaster for
everybody. Nevertheless, because in the present situation the
greatest single source of danger of a global war is Soviet imperial–
ism, it is in the interest of Western civilization and in the interest
of European countries to think in terms of a long-term strategy :
how can the West contribute to a gradual and nonexplosive dis–
integration of totalitarian institutions in the Soviet Union, and
thus diminish the danger of global war? This kind of strategic
thinking is lacking in the West .
EK:
Is the deterrent policy short-sighted too?
LK:
Not at all . The West has no other option but to build deterrent
devices . I have no military expertise whatsoever, but in political
terms it is quite obvious that there is no other choice.
EK:
Not so obvious, perhaps.
LK:
Well, of course, there are many people who believe that they
can contribute to world peace by disarming the West unilaterally.
The idiocy of this reasoning is almost inconceivable . But I would
say there is an unpleasant and deliberate ambiguity in the pacifist
movements in the West. To the danger posed by Soviet imperial–
ism there are, among pacifists, three attitudes; they can be summed
up in the following way: this is an awful system, an imperialist
system that is ready to provoke war if needed, but because war
would be terribly destructive, it is better for us to accept that we'll
be Soviet slaves ; we should accept it rather than fight. Now, this is
a consistent attitude, but it should be clearly formulated.
If
they
actually say it, all right, then I have no argument against that.
