Freedom of Vulgarity Is a Veneer; Behind It, Rot : Russia: Democratization will be in jeopardy if the masses find that their cultural degradation has bred social distinctions.

A major task of Soviet ideological policy was the promotion of Russian nationalism and cultural traditions in order to isolate Russians from degenerate Western lifestyles. For instance, foreign movies were viewed mostly as bearers of hostile ideology and morals. They made up a very tiny part of the films permitted by the authorities for public viewing. Even those select few were shorn of sex and violence. Soviet censorship did not hesitate to cut undesirable episodes even from the films of such respected foreign directors as Federico Fellini and Stanley Kramer.

Today, the vast majority of movies advertised on Moscow’s billboards are foreign. They are represented by scenes of the cruelest violence and the most explicit sex. Russian movies have almost totally disappeared from theaters. Russia now looks much more cosmopolitan than other countries that, despite Hollywood’s global influence, continue to revere their domestic cinema.

Russian nationalists are, of course, outraged at this turn of events. Recently, a foreign film titled (in Russian) “Through the Sewage” played in a leading Moscow theater. Yuri Vlasov, a former democrat writing in Pravda, used the title to express his view that imported movies are ruining the country’s morals by dragging his compatriots through filth.

The bookstands in Moscow present a no less striking contrast to the recent past. It is almost impossible to find Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky or a serious book on history or philosophy. Such reading was regarded as a characteristic feature of Russians, in stark contrast to Americans’ preference for pulp books.

Russian TV also surpasses American networks in catering to the mass audience and lowering the intellectual level in the country. The leading daily program even features astrological advice.

Russian newspapers also have done such about-faces. In their disregard of moral taboos, they far surpass the mainstream Western press. The very popular Moscow Young Communist (it kept its title from the past) publishes in each issue the following succinct offers with telephone numbers: “beautiful girls,” “extra massage 24 hours,” “sexual services.” What a contrast with the puritanical Soviet press of the past where even the hint of sex was impossible! Independent Gazette, another popular Moscow newspaper, seriously reported on an auction that offered males at the full disposition of successful female buyers for a full four hours.

The most arresting of moral developments in Russia is the change of attitude toward equality. Of course, social equality as hailed by official Soviet ideology never materialized, and the gap between the life of the nomenclature and the rest of the population was huge. But the ideology did instill a pervasive belief among the masses that egalitarianism is the ultimate achievement of society--even as the party kept the apparatchiks’ privileges a high state secret.

The new political and economic elites are not concerned about the visibility of their well-being and privileges. They are not at all worried that the standard of living for most people has fallen immensely and that their conspicuous consumption now looks extremely arrogant and rude toward the masses. They are sure that with the collapse of communist ideology and its slogans about social equality and justice it is possible and even necessary to praise the opposite ideas. They regard social differentiation as stimulating efficiency and as a desirable goal of the nation.

It is remarkable that Boris Yeltsin and most other officials think they can ignore the deeply rooted egalitarian tendencies in the Russian masses. They have not said one word against the social impertinence of the new bourgeoisie that, in its frenzy of blind emulation, ignores the rules of social behavior for people in Western societies. At least such elites are concerned about the mitigation of social inequality, insofar as it does not endanger motivation to work. Jumping from a socialist society to a new one whose label is still unknown, the Russian political and economic establishment has managed to surpass in social cynicism even the most ardent U.S. conservatives.

Optimistic observers of Russian society suggest that all these changes are the result of the country releasing itself from the bonds of bureaucratic socialist society and blazing its own trail toward efficient liberal capitalism. A new, energetic, risk-taking businessman who does not spend time on abstract issues and watches movies only for entertainment is the real future for Russia and the model for its citizens. The optimists believe that Russian capitalism will become civilized and Russian capitalists will be generous benefactors of a Russian renaissance in morals, culture and science.

Pessimists, however, think that many Russians will not so easily reconcile themselves to what they regard as the moral and cultural degradation of their country, nor with the dominance of a corrupted and criminalized elite. Nationalists and Communists will attempt to exploit the growing anger of the masses against “democrats” and “businessmen” that is at present compounded by severe economic hardship.

Their purpose is to stem the evolution of Russia and install a new totalitarianism based on nationalism, Russian orthodoxy and isolation from the West, with the goal of restoring the Russian empire and its status as a superpower.

We can only hope that Russia’s leaders will prove the optimists right by creating a wise social policy.