We've heard a lot about "peer-reviewed" journals here recently, the
basic premise being that, since neocatastrophists don't generally
publish articles in standard "peer-reviewed" journals, there can't be
much to their theories.

<P>
I've noted Martin anderson's comments regarding "peer-reviewed" academic
journals, and the problems they present taking up space on university
library shelves.

<P>
Consider, however, the ultimate form which this bastardized genre of
literature has taken in our century.

<P>
Consider the love which Russians have always had for books;  they've
always been willing to spend money on books, but money was never enough
through the hard years of communism.  A strict paper recycling program
was always enforced, and a person got coupons for turning in old books,
newspapers, magazines etc.;  you needed money AND coupons to buy books.

<P>
But Russians treasure books, and try to collect them;  they're certainly
not going to turn in old books to buy new ones.  What to do?

<P>
Communism itself furnished the answer.  For all of the same reasons
which Anderson notes in explaining the rationale behind professors
publishing in academic journals, megatons of good communist literature
have been produced in gigantic profusion the teeming hordes of little
chinovniki and andatrij etc. etc. trying to rise in the communist
world.  And the price was right;  the good old law of supply and demand
saw to it that ordinary people could always purchase wheelbarrows full
of this garbage for a few kopecks, wheel it directly to the station to
be redeemed for coupons.

<P>
And there was one other benefit of this system in a society in which
toilet paper was often rationed and difficult to come up with, but I
won't go into that.