suffer cuts.nGoldman pays tribute to the manynspontaneous and automatic decisionsnthat are made in a market economy andnMWch produce its flexibility and responsivenessnto consumer demands. However,nit is not clear that Goldman wouldnreject central plarming if it would dropnCentral planning is handicapped evennfiirther in an era of technological revolution.nInnovation is by nature impossiblento “plan” because it rests on the unknownnPlarming is best at quantity productionnof proven items, not quality productionnof new items. Thus the Soviet emphasisnon buying or stealing new designs whichn”(ioklniun’s book… coiikl di-.scrihc ;iii>’ ajunlry in the world ll is not at all obviousntliat ihi- crisis then- is iin’ worse than the crisis IKTI-. … ‘Iht- b< Mik iiia’ ht: most inicrcstingn;ts a mirror rcflcclin}; our own (.•fonomic problems.”n—The Allmiticnthe Stalinist Model. He finds it too easynto say that Soviet planning “worked” innthe first decades after the revolution. Henis impressed by a Soviet national savingsnrate of 30 percent. Yet Japan has reachednthis high level of capital formation andnseveral European nations have comenclose since the end of World War n withoutnresorting to the gulag and the murdernof millions of their own citizens. And thencapital raised has been better invested.nThe concentration on heavy industryndid provide the U.S.S.R. with the wherewithalnto survive World War II. Thisnraises the question of v^iiether observersnlike Goldman are looking at matters fromnthe right perspective. The Soviets havenan economy geared to military applicationsnrather dian to consumer desiresnbecause they want it that ‘way, not becausenthey do not know how to producenconsumer goods. The Soviets are sometimesncompared to the old mercantilistnstates in that they subordinate the economynto the goal of national power politics.nSoviet leaders may see it that way themselves.nHowever, even in this context,nthe Soviets are not reaching their potential.nTheir mercantilism suffers an extremenform of the problem suffered bynFrench mercantilism: too much directngovernment control crowded out individualninitiative. British mercantilismnwas wiser, letting entrepreneurial talentnbuild a prosperous economy with morengovernment support than control. Thennin time of crisis, the government couldntap these superior resources created byncapitalism.n16inChronicles of Culturencan be copied. Of course, the Sovietsncannot be completely written off Sovietnadvancement in areas including particlenbeams and explosive energy generation,nconcqjts American scientists considerednimpossible, shows that progress can benmade under totalitarian rule if enough resourcesnare committed to a project, evennif those resources are used inefl&cientiynor their diversion leads to stagnationnelsewhere.nThe Commodities ExchangenSue Davidson Lowe: Stieglitz: AnMemoir/Biography; Farrar, Straus &nGiroux; New York.nby Linda ThomenIn two recent issues. The Atlantic excerptednportions of Robert A Caro’s biographynof Lyndon Johnson, The Path tonPower. The second installment focusednon Johnson’s love af^ with a womannnamed Alice Glass, conducted while henwas a young married Congressman andnshe was the live-in mistress of one of hisnmentors, the publisher of the AustinnAmerican-Statesman Even though thenchapter describing the afiair comprisesnonly 14 pages out of a total of 768, doubtlessnmore than a few copies of the booknwere sold to a lascivious public eager fornMs Thome is a former staff writer atnthe University of Chicago.nnn1 he books by Olson and Goldmanndo not just describe possible causes ofnthe decline of both capitalistic and communisticneconomies. They also highli^tnanother aspect of the confrontation betweennthe two social systems. The Westnhas a superior economy but lacks anyncoherent direction. Atomistic interestngroups preclude the summoning of anynwill to concerted action, even the will tongrow and possibly the will to survive.nThe East has an inferior economy, butnthe single-minded piupose only totalitariansncan muster. They have a will tonpower. The question is whether imoiganizednsuperior resources can prevailnagainst organized forces resting on anninferior material base. History is repletenwith examples of comparatively advancedncivilizations being overthrown by “barbarians,”nthough the West did rally inntwo World Wars to defeat aggression.nThe question remains open with qjtimismna scarce commodity. Dnstill more details of Johnson’s love life.nThe editors of Vogue, byway of introducingnan excerpt from Norman Mailer’snAncient Evenings, say. “It is lush, sensuous,nsexual beyond gender.” (No matternthat “sexual beyond gender” is an apparentncontradiction. Much of MadisonnAvenue ad-talk is.) While Vogue devotesnroughly a p^e and a half to Mr. Mailer’snbook. Playboy, which bills it as his “wildnnew Egyptian novel,” gives it substantiallynmore exposure in two separate issues,ncomplete with provocative illustrations.nOne would never know, from the treatmentnit is currently being accorded innfeshion magazines, that the critics hadngenerally paimed the book, and onenwould never know bom Atlantic’s coveragenthat Johnson’s amour was of littienconsequence. About the only truth innmodem advertising is this: Sex sells thenproduct—^whether it’s designer jeans,ncologne, beer, or a glossy m^azine ex-n