he realized that Marxism mirrorednmany of the emotions that aheady definednhis personahty and art. Hating hisnteachers’ authoritativeness, he naturallyndespised the capitalist’s hold over hisnworkers. Having witnessed the growthnof Nazism in his homeland, Brecht wasnconvinced that an evil society corruptedngood people. Marxism universalizednwhat Brecht felt.nBut like so many others, Brecht failednto distinguish Marx the social criticnfrom Marx the savior of society. Marxndid provide important insights in hisnexplanation of alienation. It is not surprisingnthat the artist who also is challengingnsociety will feel comfortablenwith that element of Marxism. It doesnnot follow, however, that Marx’s solutionnto social problems is equally valid,nespecially since that solution limits itselfnto only one dimension of humannexistence. It is ironic—and sad—whennthe artist who begins with the aim ofnproviding a fictive vision of the wholensettles for a political philosophy of thenpart.nFortunately, the tension and dialecticnin Brecht’s art never fully surrenderednto Marxist formulas but remained vibrantnand alive. He frequently collaboratednwith others in a genuine give-andtakenrelationship, and he rewrote hisnown songs and scenes and entire playsnover and over, constantly fiddling withnthem for reasons far from ideology. Thenconsequence was that even whennBrecht tried to make his “Mother Courage”na mean-spirited woman, imbuednwith capitalism, war, and greed, thenaudience (to his chagrin) identified andnsympathized with the old woman. Theyndid so because in that character Brechtnthe artist betrayed Brecht the Marxist bynrevealing a small part of the mystery ofnour existence. ccnJohn Moeller teaches political sciencenat Luther College, Decorah, Iowa.nTrenchcoatnTreacherynby Michael Wardern26/CHRONICLES OF CULTUREnViktor Suvorov: Inside Soviet MilitarynIntelligence; Macmillan; New York;n$15.95.nThis is a dry, almost mechanical descriptionnof a poorly understood butnintriguing and vitally important subject:nthe GRU. After the KGB, the GRUn(Chief Intelligence Directorate of thenGeneral Staff) is arguably the secondnlargest and most powerful intelligencenagency in the world. The author, whosentrue name and identity are masked, is andefector uniquely qualified to reveal thenpurpose, structure, and methods of thenGRU. Unlike John Barron’s readablenbooks on the KGB, this work unfortunatelynreads like a biology textbook.nWith an estimated 100,000 uniformedntroops, 5,000 senior officers,nundercover agents who recruit non-nSoviet spies, the GRU seeks out informationnon the military capabilities of itsnenemies. Although smaller than thenKGB, the GRU has a larger budget.nWhy? Because all of the many Sovietnministries charged with the developmentnand deployment of military weaponsnprovide the GRU with money fornbuying or stealing the latest technology.nBeginning with information about thenatom bomb, the track record so far isnimpressive. With the Soviets fallingnbehind in advanced technologies, thenGRU will need to step up its industrialnespionage.nMany of the most recent sensationalnspy cases—the father-son network ofnthe Walkers, for instance—are probablynGRU rather than KGB operations.nSuvorov fully describes the techniquesnof recruitment, initial payment, andnsubsequent extortion. He also explainsnthat communist sympathizers in targetncountries are never used as intelligencenagents. The GRU finds success in firstnenticing a selected informant throughnthe offer of personal gain and thenn— after he has broken the lawn—controlling him through threats ofnexposure.nIn addition to its agents collectingn”strategic” intelligence necessary fornachieving military objectives, the GRUnhas trained about 30,000 elite cutthroatsnfor the task of assassinating militarynand political leaders behind enemynlines. These spetsnaz units, which operatenin six-man teams with elaboratensupport mechanisms, are also trained tondestroy the enemy’s key power andntransportation centers. These undoubtedlynare the “frogmen” which appearnunannounced in Sweden with increasingnfrequency.nOne secret the GRU and its bitternrival, the KGB, appear unable to discover,nSuvorov says, is how to feed thenSoviet Union. He does not see howneither of the agencies will find thisninformation. Even if one of them did,nthe other must destroy it as a doctrinalndeviation. ccnMichael Warder is director of publicnaffairs for The Rockford Institute.nnnLooking for Lovenin All the WrongnPlacesnIrving Singer: The Nature of Love;nVolume 1: Plato to Luther (SecondnEdition); Volume 2: Courtly andnRomantic; University of Chicago;nChicago.nLove is everywhere the theme of popularnculture, but only rarely a subject fornserious contemporary philosophy. IrvingnSinger, professor of philosophy atnMIT, attempts to remedy this imbalancenwith these two volumes, the firstntwo parts of a trilogy. Laudable innbreadth and clarity, his work nonethelessnreveals only too well why mostnmodern philosophers are embarrassednby love.nWhen once defined within Plato’snsearch for the Good or the Christian’snpilgrimage to God, love was a thing ofnintellectual and moral substance. It dictatednnormative patterns of loyalty andnorder and so distinguished itself fromngroundless emotionalism. But as a creaturenof the 20tli century. Singer repudiatesnPlato’s Good as “a dubious abstraction”nand proclaims himself “notnpartisan to any variety of religiousnfaith.” Not for him is the love subordinatednto a philosophic quest or profferednas an incomplete representation ofnGod’s love for man. Hardly a rarenpersonal decision. Singer’s rejection ofnPlatonic and Christian love seems thennatural outcome of cultural trends hentraces in these two books. Even in thenMiddle Ages, the older traditions sufferednfrom unresolved internal tensionsnseparating sanctified marriage from celibatenmonasticism. The Reformationnchallenge to the scholastic understandingnof caritas rendered love yet morenproblematic. But religious disputes overnlove were simply left behind when annew, this-worldly understanding of sexualnlove gained ascendance through thenProvencal troubadours, the Renaissancenhumanists, and the Romantics. Romanticnpoets occasionally quoted Platonor Christ, but it was their own autonomousnimaginations—not God or thenGood—which gave the new vision ofnlove its shape and content.nSinger casts his lot with the Romantics.nDisdainful of the “realists” whonregard love as a mere mask for selfishnappetites. Singer champions a love ennoblednby the “amorous imagination.”nSuch love is a creative act, a spontaneousn”bestowal” endowing the belovedn