camps—^whether they bear familiarnGerman names or are lost in the Siberiannwilderness? Semprun/Sorel rejects then”disgusting” ostentation of BertoltnBrecht’s memorial at Buchenwald, withnits facilities for “oratorios, works fornmassed choirs . . . public readings andnpolitical appeals.” He recalls the splendidnmausoleum of Lenin and Stalin (as itnwas at one time) in Moscow, where thentwo mummies were “lit up like fish in annaquarium,” bathed in subdued music,nand guarded by elite troops. No, henthinks, the proper memorial to modernntotalitarianism would be quite different.nIt would be located in Kolyma, in thenGreat North:nGalleries might be dug through thencharnel houses—^the constructionnsites—of socialism. People would filenpast the thousands of naked, incorruptiblencorpses of prisoners frozen innthe ice of eternal death. There wouldnbe no guards; those dead would notnneed guards. There would be nonmusic, either, no solemn funeralnmarches playing in the background.nThere would be nothing but silence.nThat is the reaUty of the camps, broughtnhome, finally, to Semprun through thenpower of Solzhenitsyn’s and Shalamov’snart, reinforced by other statements,nsuch as Khrushchev’s secret report ofn1956 on Stalin’s crimes. All this made itnpossible for Semprun/Sorel to liberatenhimself “fi-om that madness, from thatnsleep of reason” induced by Marxistnideology. Now, he beUeves, genuinenMarxism can exist only in non-Marxistncountries, where practice does not negatentheory. Communism and radicalism,nhe now sees, are “improbable” becausen”revolutionary politics is essentially annegation of reality, a creative, disorderednoverthrow of the legitimate order, thennatural order of history.” One mightnadd, however, that this very improbabilitynis a source of totalitarianism’s externalnstrength: normal people cannot believenthat it is as it is.nSemprun/Sorel also thinks that the decisivenintellectual battle over the naturenChronicles of Culturenof communism must be fought outnamong the left-wing intellectaals in thenWest. The much-less-numerous rightwingnintelligentsia has, to be sure, understoodnthe essence of communismnJSrom the beginning, but “they are, on thenother hand, incapable of elaborating anconcrete strategy aimed at the destructionnof. . . Communism in its despoticnform.” Semprun/Sorel is probably correctnin that assessment of the conservativenWestern intellectuals, though that isna sad commentary upon us. It is ironicnthat Solzhenitsyn, whose viewpoint generallyncoincides with that of the right,nhas so disrupted the ranks of the left;nSemprun himself is a case in point. Thenright accepts and esteems Solzhenitsynnbut does not act upon his insights; thenleft rejects and calumniates him, but it isnthrough them that he exercises hisngreatest influence.nJXonstantin Simis’s USSR- The CorruptnSociety does not move on the same levelnas What a Beautiful Sunday! Beforenemigrating to the United States in 1977nwith his wife, who defended severalnwell-known Soviet dissidents in thencourts, Simis was a Moscow lawyer dealingnmostly with ordinary cases. He hasnsystematically gathered material to supportnhis thesis that the contemporarynSoviet system simply carmot functionnwithout bribery. One recalls Lord Acton’sndicmm, “all power tends to corrupt, andnabsolute power tends to corrupt absolutely,”nwhen Simis writes: “at the rootnof the general corruption of the SovietnUnion Ues the totalitarian rule of thenCommunist party… checked neither bynlaw nor by a free press.” Simis does, to bensure, use the word “corruption” in itsnmaterialistic sense.nSoviet ideology condemns commercialnenterpHise, or what we might looselynterm “free enterprise,” applying severensanctions against it. One elderly man innArmenia was sentenced to 10 years innthe camps after he was convicted ofntrading illegally in flowers in order to in­nnndulge his mania for collecting fine paintingsnand art objects. In the totalitariannsystem of the U.S.S.R. there is no placenfor individual enterprise of any sort,nwhether commercial or political. Simisnsystematically reviews the major areasnof Soviet life in which corruption figures:nthe perquisites of the political elite,nwhich lives on a scale beyond the wildestndreams of the ordinary citizen; corruptionnin the judicial system, undernwhich verdicts may be blatantly purchasednat almost any level; the world ofnunderground “free enterprise,” wherencertain families and individuals becomenfabulously rich by satisfying popular demandnfor ordinary consumer goods atnthe risk of long prison sentences or evenndeath; and corruption in everyday life,nan area in which Simis provides a numbernof examples from dfrect experience.nSimis concludes that the ordinarynSoviet is not a moral monster: “he simplynhas two separate systems of moraUty,”none applied to his feUov^ citizens, andnone applied to the government, whichnoflBcially controls the entire economy.nThere exists, then, a “parallel market”nwhich operates in the shadow of the officialneconomy, something resembling anfree market, although badly distorted bynthe ofiicial market. What we would callnbribes are simply payments for goodsnand services in the parallel market, paymentsngenerally much higher than thenofficial prices for similar goods and services.nThe existence of this “parallelnmarket” helps to explain how it is possiblenfor a Soviet family with a total incomenof perhaps 1200 per month to survivenwhen food prices and the costs ofnmany necessities of life in the SovietnUnion are roughly the same as in thenUnited States. Individuals and lamiliesnsimply operate within the system ofnthievery from work places, moonlighting,nand “bribery,” all elements of then”parallel market,” which actually enablesnthe ofiicial economy itself to work.nSimis provides examples of honest andnidealistic Communist Party membersnwho set out to manage an enterprisenstrictly within the ofiicial system: theyn