THE MEMORANDUM AND THE COMMUNIST PARTY LINE
The Communists thought so highly of Senator Fulbright’s memorandum
that they reprinted several columns of it in _The Worker_ for August
27, 1961. It is not often that a Senator of the United States receives
this type of “recognition”. Dr. Benson, Dr. Barnett and Herbert A.
Philbrick, for example, have never received such an “honor”, and it is
unlikely that they shall receive such an “honor” in the future.
The Religious Freedom Committee, Inc., which is well known for its
defense of pro-communist causes and persons, calls on people to rally
behind the Senator from Arkansas. As it views the struggle: “On the
one side are the liberal elements in church and state; on the other,
an alliance of fundamentalist religious groups, the military, and
reactionary elements in the Congress and in the financial and business
community.”[194] If the Religious Freedom Committee, Inc. thought that
the Senator’s memorandum was damaging to internal communism, it is my
judgment, based on their record, that they would not defend it.
We are not suggesting that the Senator wants this type of support, but
he is espousing a cause which Communists and pro-Communists consider
worthy of support. He ought to make a serious investigation of this
question: Why do pro-Communists and Communists support the memorandum?
There are those who are not pro-Communists who support the memorandum,
this we realize; but the Senator ought to find out why pro-Communists
support it.
Gus Hall, the General Secretary of the Communist Party in the United
States, makes it clear that one of the main objectives of the Communist
Party is to defeat what he calls the “ultra-Right”. Certainly anything
on the center, or to the right of center, would be “ultra-Right” to
Gus Hall. He includes Dr. Benson and many others. He indicates that
Communists have hopes of defeating the “ultra-Right”. “If the tactical
problem is solved correctly, it will be possible to slam shut the door
on the ultra-Right, defeat it, and force a shift in policy upon the
Administration itself in the direction of peace and democracy.”[195]
_The Communist Line_
Of course, we realize with J. Edgar Hoover that there may be times
when the Communist Party line coincides with some objective sought by
a non-Communist or anti-Communist group. “Because communism thrives
on turmoil, the party is continuously attempting to exploit all
grievances—real or imagined—for its own tactical purposes. It is,
therefore, almost inevitable that, on many issues, the party line
will coincide with the position of many non-Communists. The danger of
indiscriminately alleging that someone is a Communist merely because
his views on a particular issue happen to parallel the official party
position is obvious. The confusion which is thereby created helps the
Communists by diffusing the forces of their opponents.”[196]
A person, however, who finds some of his views parallel those of the
Party needs, of course, to examine his views to see whether or not they
are non-Communist views which the party has taken merely to gain favor
with the masses, or for some other reason, or whether or not they are
views which can only help communism instead of freedom. One should also
ask: How does the Communist try to use this for his own ends? Then one
can try to work for the legitimate goals in such a way that no comfort
is given to the Communists.
When one points out that a position parallels the party line, and when
one shows in what way or ways the position advances communism, one
does not need to go into the motives of the non-Communist who advances
this position. It is unnecessary, in order to deal with any concrete
issue, to know why the person takes a particular position. Regardless
of motives, one can be convinced that certain things do advance
communism. This can be pointed out without entering into the question
of motives. We, therefore, are not attacking Senator Fulbright’s
motives, but his judgment.
The Senator, we regret to say, has accused some people of misquoting
the memorandum in order to get headlines. “I regret the continued
misquote of this memorandum by extremist groups and conservatives
seeking headlines.”[197] We cannot sanction any misquotations, but
neither do we endorse this judging of motives.
There are many things, however, in the Communist line which can hardly
be said to fall into the category of legitimate objectives. The careful
reader will ask: Does this or that item fall into this category?
Even, however, when it does not, we need not deal with the motives
of non-Communists who follow this or that aspect of the line. We can
oppose their judgment in the matter. We emphasize that if they blunder
us into slavery it will be slavery just as certain as if they had taken
us into slavery with their eyes open.
There are several points in the memorandum which are included in the
current Communist line.
_Communism as Politics_
The Fulbright memorandum implies that the military is engaging in
politics if it follows the 1958 directive of the National Security
Council, and participates in the cold war by instructing the people
concerning the history, philosophy, strategy and tactics of communism,
including the internal menace. It assumes that this is partisan
politics. If this is not the assumption of the memorandum, why does
the Senator say that the purpose of the memorandum is to uphold the
principle of the military’s subordination to civilian control, and
that there “has been a strong tradition in this country that it is
not the function of the military to educate the public on political
issues.”[198] His memorandum is a challenge of the National Security
Council directive of 1958 which put the military into the cold war to
alert the people on the menace and nature of the enemy—communism.
If, on the other hand, the memorandum is not against the military
alerting the civilian population concerning communism—in both its
external and internal threat—then why doesn’t the memorandum protest
against just the abuses of the directive instead of seeking the
elimination of the directive?
Gus Hall, General Secretary of the Communist Party, agrees with
the position that for military officials to expose the workings
of communism in America and elsewhere is to engage in political
discussion. For Gus Hall maintains that the Communist Party is simply a
political party. “A very important lesson is to learned from this. No
matter what one’s attitude may be towards the Communist Party, it must
be recognized that the fight for its rights as a political party is a
matter of defending the Bill of Rights and all democratic rights, and
is the concern of all, especially of all left, democratic, and peace
forces, and not of the Communists alone. This is an old lesson, but
sometimes it has to be learned anew.”[199]
_Restraining the “Radicals”_
Senator Fulbright thinks that in “the long run, it is quite possible
that the principal problem of leadership will be, if it is not
already, to restrain the desire of the people to hit the Communists
with everything we’ve got, particularly if there are more Cubas and
Laos.”[200] This is because the people are infected with the “virus of
rightwing radicalism”, and also since “radicalism of the right can be
expected to have great mass appeal during such periods” of crisis.[201]
When one takes this to its logical conclusion it means that the Senator
must think that the main problem is to fight the so-called “rightwing
radicals”.
That the “ultra-right” is at least one of the main problems is also
the judgment of Gus Hall, General Secretary of the Communist Party.
“However, the situation requires that the main direction of the
attack should be at the war-mongering and fascist forces, who are
pressuring the Kennedy Administration further to the Right. At the
same time, every policy or action of Kennedy that plays into the hands
of the Right should be sharply opposed and criticized, building up
the pressures upon the Administration for a change of policy in the
direction of peaceful coexistence and defense of democracy.”[202]
_The Masses Susceptible to “Rightwingism”_
Senator Fulbright thinks that in the “long twilight struggle” ahead
that the people may become frustrated and that under such circumstances
“radical rightism” will appeal to them even more strongly than at the
present.[203]
Gus Hall, General Secretary of the Communist Party, has more or less
the same fear. “We need to be aware that when people in large numbers
become disillusioned or panicky there is always the danger that they
may be entrapped by the demagogy of the ultra-Right, especially when
their leaders become the instruments or allies of monopoly. For
example, the recent statement of the AFL-CIO executive council, drawn
up by professional anti-Communists, supports the most aggressive
warlike incitement in the so-called Berlin crisis, and even urges the
resumption of nuclear testing.”[204]
_Protracted Conflict_
The memorandum takes the position that the concept of protracted
conflict will lead to war, that it is an element of radical
rightwingism, and that we must seek some sort of accommodation with
communism instead of engaging in protracted conflict to defeat it.[205]
The Communists have made it one of their objectives to utilize their
influence, in any way that they can, toward getting the Kennedy
administration to seek an accommodation with communism, i.e., to
refuse to try to roll back the tide of Communist advance. Thus Gus
Hall write: “It is of course true that these maneuvers, pretenses, and
concessions are forced upon him by the strength of the world peace
forces, by the deterioration of imperialism, by the declining world
prestige and position of U. S. imperialism in particular, and by the
deep-rooted peace and democratic sentiment of the American people.
“But the fact remains that the Kennedy administration has not closed
the door to accommodation to these world realities, as the ultra-Right
wishes it to do, and this involves a certain recognition of the new
necessities of the present-day world at home and abroad. This is an
important difference, which the forces for peace and democracy must
recognize and exploit in order to bring about the required change in
national policy.”[206]
That the Communists want the administration to take the position that
communism is a world trend which cannot be resisted is made clear from
another statement. “Continuing rebuffs and defeats for the cold war
and interventionist policy (most recently in Cuba and Laos) confront
the dominant monopoly power with a choice, essentially between two
alternatives. One is to end the cold war and to seek some form of
accommodation to the socialist and national revolutionary world, which
would mean a turn to a policy of peaceful coexistence and peaceful
competition. Such a shift of policy would meet the most urgent national
needs of the country in the present period of world history.
“The other course is to seek to contain and reverse world trends by all
means, including so-called limited war and the ultimate nuclear war.
It is necessary to recognize that the present cold-war policies of the
Administration lead in this direction. However, we must also recognize
that the most aggressive and extreme expression of this suicidal policy
comes from the ultra-Right.”[207]
Thus they are out to influence those whom they consider to be the
liberal forces in the Kennedy administration. “It would be wishful
thinking to assume that all liberal or forward-looking forces in the
Kennedy camp, who must in their way participate in turning the tide,
are equally aware of the double role played by Kennedy. These elements
can become an effective positive force once they realize it is
necessary to fight Kennedy’s cold war and anti-democratic policies in
order to defend democracy and to close the door to the extreme Right
and defeat the threat from that direction.”[208]
_Cuba_
The Senator, as we have seen, was extremely disturbed by the Cuban
invasion, and he opposes any direct efforts on our part to overthrow
Castro. Gus Hall is also disturbed about the matter, although at
least some of his reasons are different. Hall did think that it was
immoral for he said that the decision to invade Cuba was “criminal
and reprehensible”. “It is also of significance that Kennedy decided
not to back up the emigre invasion of Cuba with direct and open U. S.
military support, as criminal and reprehensible as was his decision
to go through with the military adventure, and as serious as still is
the danger of U. S. imperialist intervention. It is also noteworthy
that Kennedy must still seek to maintain democratic and anti-colonial
pretenses in his dealings with the national liberation movements,
although his objective remains to contain and reverse them. This
creates certain embarrassments for him in world affairs, in view of
anti-democratic measures at home.”[209]
_Self-Destruction of Democracy_
In the discussion and rejection of the concept of protracted conflict,
the memorandum indicates that to engage in protracted conflict, to
meet with strength the Communists at every turn, will undermine
democracy. Thus it said: “Perhaps the most fundamental criticism
that can be made of the book is that it fails to analyze the impact
of a policy of protracted conflict on our democratic institutions.
Barnett’s program of action, for example, would require large sums of
public funds used with little public accountability, a wide network of
secrecy and security in government operations, a cold war orientation
in our schools and universities—in short, a stunting of pluralism, a
curtailment of individual liberties, and a weakening of politically
responsible government. The editors of ‘American Strategy’ seem to
see no alternative to confronting the Soviets with strong opposition
at every turn. Indeed, they appear more concerned with virility than
freedom, as if strength and courage were goals in themselves. This,
together with the somewhat static nature of their view of history and
the militant nature of their recommendations, justifies further inquiry
about the men and the organizations who advocate a strategy based on
those premises.”[210]
Gus Hall is also convinced that the ultra-Right is trying to build
“a garrison state that will seek to drive the country to war and
self-destruction.”[211]
“_French General_”
Senator Fulbright says: “Perhaps it is far-fetched to call forth the
revolt of the French generals as an example of the ultimate danger.
Nevertheless, military officers, French or American, have some common
characteristics arising from their profession and there are numerous
military ‘fingers on the trigger’ throughout the world. While this
danger may appear very remote, contrary to American tradition, and even
American military tradition, so also is the ‘long twilight struggle’,
and so also is the very existence of an American military program for
educating the public.”[212]
Gus Hall, in his discussion of the directive of the National Security
Council is more emphatic than Senator Fulbright. “The entire line
of policy, coupled with CIA and similar training in subversive and
putschist activities, cannot help but create our own ‘French Generals,’
who feel at home in fascist circles, and are ready to lend themselves
to their objectives.”[213]
_National Security Council Directive 1958_
Gus Hall attacks the 1958 directive of the National Security
Council.[214]
The Senator’s memorandum was aimed directly at the directive.[215]
_General Walker_
Senator Fulbright considers General Walker’s case as but an
illustration of the deeper problem of the military’s involvement in the
“rightwing” activities. Thus he wrote: “With respect to the problem
illustrated by the case of General Walker....”[216]
This is also the way that Gus Hall feels about it. “The case of General
Walker was only a symptom of a much deeper affliction.”[217]
_Spread of “Rightwingism” in the Military_
Senator Fulbright thinks that the military has a good deal of
“rightwingism” in it. “Whether these instances are representative of
programs implementing the National Security Council directive is not
known, but the pattern they form, makes it strongly suspect that they
are. There are many indications that the philosophy of the programs
is representative of a substantial element of military thought, and
has great appeal to the military mind. A strong case can be made,
logically, that this type of activity is the inevitable consequence
of such a directive. There is little in the education, training or
experience of most military officers to equip them with the balance
of judgment necessary to put their own ultimate solutions—those with
which their education, training and experiences are concerned—into
proper perspective in the President’s total ‘strategy for the nuclear
age.’”[218]
Gus Hall says: “Another pronounced characteristic of this growing
fascist movement is its spreading influence among the higher military
personnel.”[219] The Draft Program of the Communist Party in the
U.S.S.R. in 1961 also said that the military was involved in the
“fascist” anti-Communist drive.[220]
The Communists have at least two objectives in their attack on the
military. _First_, the military contains some experts in the field of
the cold war, and it is organized so that it can effectively reach all
parts of America. Neutralizing the military in the cold war means that
the Communists have far fewer foes to fight in the cold war. _Second_,
the attack on the military can be used to try to undermine the morale
of the military.
_Two Films_
The memorandum classifies “Communism on the Map” and “Operation
Abolition” as part of the extremely radical rightwing material being
used in seminars.[221]
“Communism on the Map” is also noted in an unfavorable way by Gus
Hall.[222]
Gus Hall also notices in an unfavorable context “Operation
Abolition.”[223] These two films are “obnoxious films.”[224]
Gus Hall evidently is against “Operation Abolition” because it is an
indictment of the Communists and an exposure of how they work and how
they manipulate others.
In a speech in Arkadelphia on October 11 Senator Fulbright’s opposition
to the film is based on the following, according to the _Arkansas
Gazette_.
“One widely distributed film, Fulbright said, tries to show that
the student body of the University of California is ‘ready to
desert the American system’. He referred to ‘Operation Abolition’,
which purports to show that student protests at a House Un-American
Activities Committee hearing last year at San Francisco were Communist
inspired.”[225]
The film tries to show no such desertion by the student body. It
does show that _some_ students from the University were duped. It is
doubtful that many of them really knew that the Communists were using
them. Or does the Senator think that the students knew what they were
doing?
_Fascists_
The Senator views as “fascist” those whom he labels as radical
rightwingers.[226]
Gus Hall also characterizes the “ultra-right” as fascist.[227] And
by the “ultra-right” he is including at least some of the groups
classified by Senator Fulbright as radical rightwingers. For example,
Dr. Benson, Harding College and the National Education Program.
_Frustration and Rightwingism_
Senator Fulbright thinks that frustration in restraint is one of the
reasons that the American people need to be curbed, and that this need
will grow if there are any more Cubas and Laoses.[228]
Gus Hall explains the reaction of what he calls the extreme right
on the grounds that the extreme right wants to turn back the tide
of history (i.e. they want to win the victory over Communism), but
that they are frustrated at seeing the advances of communism. “In the
opinion of the Communist Party, there can be no question but that the
threat from the extreme Right is serious. It arises from a situation
which is new for the United States. This, the most powerful capitalist
country, cannot have its way in a world in which the forces of
socialism, national liberation, and peace are playing a decisive role.
Continuing rebuffs and defeats for the cold war and interventionist
policy (most recently in Cuba and Laos) confront the dominant monopoly
power with a choice, essentially between two alternatives. One is
to end the cold war and to seek some form of accommodation to the
socialist and national revolutionary world, which would mean a turn to
a policy of peaceful coexistence and peaceful competition. Such a shift
of policy would meet the most urgent national needs of the country in
the present period of world history.
“The other course is to seek to contain and reverse world trends by all
means, including so-called limited war and the ultimate nuclear war.
It is necessary to recognize that the present cold-war policies of the
Administration lead in this direction. However, we must also recognize
that the most aggressive and extreme expression of this suicidal policy
comes from the ultra-Right.”[229]
We agree with the Senator that Americans will find it very frustrating
if there are any more Cubas and Laoses. And, _if_ the tide of communism
continues to advance, they will undoubtedly come to the place where
they will demand that we hit the Communists with everything we have
_if_ such is necessary to stop communism.
We do not agree with Gus Hall that the advance of Communism is
inevitable.
In the author’s judgment Senator Fulbright and Gus Hall are right in
saying that there are Americans who are frustrated because of continued
losses to communism. There are people, of course, whose frustrations
are not due to communism itself. However, there are many Americans who
are not extremists but who are frustrated in various degrees because we
have not stopped, not to speak of the fact that we are not winning the
cold war, the advances of communism.
Roscoe Drummond has well pointed out that there is a mounting sense of
frustration because we are always on the defensive in the cold war. He
suggests that the way to overcome this, and to keep extremists from
having any appeal to the masses, is for the President either to take
the diplomatic initiative in the cold war or to show the people that
it is not possible to do so. We have been on the diplomatic defensive
since World War II ended, he affirmed, and unless the President is
able to find the will and the way to take the initiative that the
President “will be leaving the field open to the extremists”.[230]
_If We Wage Protracted War it Will Bring Nuclear War_
A study of the quotation, in the above section, from Gus Hall indicates
that he is saying that we must accommodate ourselves to communism
and its advances, or we shall have limited wars and then a nuclear
war. This is curiously like the line in the _Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists_ that if we meet Communist aggression with a determined
effort to win the cold war we shall likely end up in war.[231]
The Communist journal, _World Marxist Review_, has said that those
who seek for victory over communism are eager for war. Dr. Robert
Strausz-Hupe is quoted as follows: “Our lot is conflict. History
brings us ‘not peace but a sword’.... The ultimate strategy for
freedom, therefore, must be the devolution of Communist totalitarian
governments.... The United States cannot renounce the first use of
atomic weapons.” The _World Marxist Review_ says that: “This incendiary
strategy is elaborated in detail from Herman Kahns _On Thermonuclear
War_.”[232]
Then the _World Marxist Review_ comments: “These are not only the
personal views of Mr. Strausz-Hupe or Mr. Kahn. They are the credo of
the American military, many of whom make no secret of their eagerness
to unleash the dogs of war. Moreover, as the foregoing shows, neither
the ideas nor the ‘total’ war preparations of the U. S. government can
be traced to the so-called ‘Berlin crisis’.”[233]
Of course, the memorandum and the _World Marxist Review_ differ in that
the _World Marxist Review_ says that the military is eager to start
war. The memorandum simply takes the position that the position of
protracted conflict will likely lead to world war.
The effect of each—the memorandum and the _World Marxist Review_—in
this matter is the same. Both of them try to discourage us from waging
protracted conflict and winning the victory over communism.
It is a major Communist objective to convince the non-Communist world
that if they wage cold war that they will end up in a nuclear war. To
strive for victory in the cold war must involve finally nuclear war.
This, we are convinced, is not the case. Continual losses in the cold
war are much more apt to bring us to nuclear war, since Communist
victories in the cold war emboldens them, weakens us and brings more
“neutrals” on to their bandwagon. When the Communists think that they
have the United States sufficiently isolated and undermined it is
quite likely that the Communists will confront us with the demand to
surrender or to be involved in nuclear war.
If we endeavor to win the cold war, and it is my conviction that we
can do so, as our victories in the cold war increase the Communists
will realize that regardless of what a nuclear war will do to us it
will destroy Communism. A nuclear war would immediately destroy the
Communist chain of command. A dictatorship cannot go on with its chain
of command shattered. Revolts will take place in the satellites. The
masses of China would revolt if a nuclear war shattered the Red’s chain
of control in China.
It is the judgment of the author, based not only on the above, but
also on the fact that the Russian Communists have backed down when the
United States government has met them firmly, that the Communists do
not want a nuclear war. In the author’s judgment, short of an all-out
attack we could not force them into a nuclear war, unless they were
ready for one and wanted one. They hope to achieve their objectives
without a nuclear war. But they will resort to such a war if they
are convinced it is absolutely necessary and that war would enable
them to win over us. In which case nothing we could do would stop the
Communists from starting a war unless we surrendered. Furthermore, if
we surrendered this would not guarantee that no nuclear war would take
place. Who knows but what after world victory Communists would fall out
among themselves and one group use the bomb on another group.
In the author’s judgment there is no way to guarantee that there will
not be a nuclear war. But for us to let our policy be determined by an
overwhelming fear of nuclear war will lead us to defeat.
When we think of the millions which the Communists kill _after_ they
take over a country, there is no certainty that more will not be killed
if we surrendered than if we waged nuclear war, if such were forced on
us.
Although there are Americans who do not want us to publicly proclaim
that our goal is to win the victory over the aggressive forces of
communism, the Communists have made clear that they expect to win.
Khrushchev said that Marxism-Leninism when assimilated by the people
leads them to “take power into their hands and build their state.
“This is a mighty force which nothing can resist. And let Mssrs.
Imperialists, Monopolists and various Colonialists—for it is the same
thing——know that no prayers, no incantations can reverse the march of
history to make it move backward. Victory will be ours, comrades!”[234]
The Communists, we see, are not letting the idea that the waging of
protracted conflict, and the aim of victory, will lead to war restrain
them from fighting to win.
_Anti-Anti-Communism_
It is well for us to realize that Communists have been ordered to
intensify their efforts to discredit, to discourage and to destroy
anti-communism. As Edward Hunter pointed out, they know where they are
hurting, and if anti-communism were not hurting them they would not
make anti-anti-communism a prime objective.
The Moscow Manifesto issued by 81 Communist Parties in
November-December, 1960, and which is accepted as providing guidance
for the Communist Party in America,[235] calls for an intensification
of the attack on anti-communists.
“Anti-communism, which is indicative of a deep ideological crisis
in, and extreme decline of bourgeois ideology, resorts to monstrous
distortions of Marxist doctrine and crude slander against the
Socialist social system, presents Communist policies and objectives
in a false light and carries on a witch hunt against the democratic
peaceful forces and organizations.”
“To effectively defend the interests of the working people, maintain
peace and realize the Socialist ideals of the working class, it is
indispensable to wage a resolute struggle against anti-communism—that
poisoned weapon which the bourgeoisie uses to fence off the masses from
socialism.”[236]
The 1961 Congress of the Communist Party in the U.S.S.R. called for
warfare against anti-communism. “The chief ideological and political
weapon of imperialism is anti-communism, which consists mainly
in slandering the Socialist system and distorting the policy and
objectives of the Communist Parties and Marxist-Leninist theory.
“Under cover of anti-communism, imperialist reaction persecutes and
hounds all that is progressive and revolutionary; it seeks to split
the ranks of the working people and to paralyze the proletarians’ will
to fight. Rallied to this black banner today are all the enemies of
social progress: the finance oligarchy and the military, the Fascists
and reactionary clericals, the colonialists and landlords and all
the ideological and political vehicles of imperialist reaction.
Anti-communism is a reflection of the extreme decadence of bourgeois
ideology.”[237] The _World Marxist Review_ for October 1961 carried an
article on “Anti-Communism—a Crime Against the People.”
We have neither stated nor implied that every criticism against every
anti-Communist is an implementation of this directive from the Kremlin.
In the anti-Communist movements in the United States you can find
extremists, some uninformed people, crackpots and a few totalitarians.
However, the anti-Communist movements have no monopoly on such persons.
Thus there may be ample grounds to criticize some individuals, some
organizations, and some positions which are taken. There are criticisms
which are justified and which need to be made.
However, criticism of the crackpots, the mistaken and the
totalitarians is not the only kind of criticism going on today.
Different groups, even widely different groups, are lumped together by
some critics. They are all classified as “extremely radical rightwing”
people and positions. They are all classified as the “ultra-right”.
We are not suggesting that all the extremists who lump together
different anti-Communist groups as “the ultra-right” and “extremely
radical rightwingers”, are responding to the Moscow directive. We are
confident that some are misinformed and misguided; that some see an
opportunity to make political hay; that some have a vested interest
in discrediting those who have compiled and publicized _their_ public
record; that there are others who hate capitalism and oppose those who
defend it; these or other reasons explain the attack of some. Since,
however, the Communists have been working for decades to infiltrate
various phases of American life we can be certain that there are some
hidden Communists who are vigorously engaged in anti-anti-communism.
Who are they? I don’t know who the hidden Communists, or hidden
sympathizers and fellow travelers, are. I doubt that even the FBI could
possibly know about _all_ of them.
It is fortunate, however, that one does not need to know _why_ people
do something in order to evaluate the _actions_ of these people. Thus
although it is certainly not without significance that, so soon after
the Moscow directive, there should be several storms of criticism
of and attacks on various anti-Communists, it would be inaccurate
and unfair to say that they are all implementations of the Moscow
directive. The fact that the Communists are now trying to destroy the
vigorous anti-Communist organizations and individuals, does suggest
to us that we should all endeavor to be fair and precise in our
criticisms, and that we should exercise great care lest we promote the
cause of anti-anti-communism.
FOOTNOTES:
[194] “Religious Freedom News,” October 1961, p. 2.
[195] Gus Hall, General Secretary of the Communist Party, U.S.A.,
_Worker_, July 16, 1961. The entire article is reprinted in the
Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, _The New Drive Against the
Anti-Communist Program_. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1961.
This quotation is from page 47. We shall quote from the article as
reprinted in this Senate publication. Edward Hunter’s testimony is
contained in the above Senate publication. _The Worker_ boasts that it
was among the first to attack the “ultra-right,” Jan. 14, 1962, p. 5.
[196] J. Edgar Hoover, _The Communist Party Line_, Washington, D. C.:
Government Printing Office, 1961, p. 6.
[197] _Arkansas Democrat_, December 4, 1961.
[198] _Congressional Record_, August 2, 1961, p. 13436, col. 2,b.
[199] Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, _The New Drive Against the
Anti-Communist Program_, July 11, 1961, p. 50. Most of this publication
was reprinted in the _Congressional Record_, August 28, 1961, pp.
16094-16116. An entire article by Gus Hall is in this Senate report...
[200] _Congressional Record_, August 2, 1961, p. 13437, col. 2,t.
[201] _Ibid._, p. 13437, col. 2,b.
[202] _The New Drive Against the Anti-Communist Program_, p. 49.
[203] _Congressional Record_, August 2, 1961, p. 13437, col. 2,t.
[204] _The New Drive Against the Anti-Communist Program_, p. 48.
[205] _Congressional Record_, August 2, 1961, pp. 13439-13440.
[206] _The New Drive Against the Anti-Communist Program_, p. 48.
[207] _Ibid._, p. 46.
[208] _Ibid._, p. 48.
[209] _Ibid._, pp. 47-48.
[210] _Congressional Record_, August 2, 1961, p. 13440, col. 1,b-2,t.
“There have been dire predictions since the end of World War II that an
attempt to defend ourselves would turn America into a garrison state.
But, our defense budget has varied from 40 percent to 5 percent to 15
percent and down again to 9 percent of our gross national product,
and our experience offers little confirmation for such fears.” Albert
Wohlstetter, an official in the Rand Corporation. _Congressional
Record_, June 16, 1960, p. 11911, col. 3,m. “From the radical left, and
sometimes from the radical pacifists, we hear other voices of doom. We
have great armed forces, they say, therefore our freedom is doomed by a
garrison state. Or we have big businesses, therefore democracy is being
strangled by greedy monopolies. We have ‘internal contradictions,’ as
the ideologists love to say—labor versus capital, farms versus cities,
importers versus exporters—and therefore democracy will soon tear
itself to pieces.” (Press Release No. 3910, January 14, 1962. Address
by Ambassador Adlai E. Stevenson, U.S. Representative to the U.N.,
before Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith on the occasion of his
receipt of the America’s Democratic Legacy Award, Hotel Plaza, New
York, N.Y.)
[211] _The New Drive Against the Anti-Communist Program_, p. 47.
[212] _Congressional Record_, August 2, 1961, p. 13437, col. 2,b.
[213] _The New Drive Against the Anti-Communist Program_, p. 46.
[214] _Ibid._, p. 46.
[215] _Congressional Record_, August 2, 1961, p. 13436, col. 3,b., pp.
13436-13437, col. 3,b-1,t., p. 13437 col. 3,t.
[216] _Ibid._, p. 13438, col. 1,t.
[217] _The New Drive Against the Anti-Communist Program_, p. 46.
[218] _Congressional Record_, August 2, 1961, p. 13437, col. 1,b.
[219] _The New Drive Against the Anti-Communist Program_, p. 46.
[220] _The Worker_, August 20, 1961, p. S7, col. 2,b. _Program of the
Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Draft)_, New York: Crosscurrents
Press, Inc., 1961, p. 50.
[221] _Congressional Record_, August 2, 1961, p. 13439, col. 1,t. p.
13438, col. 1,m. col. 2,m.
[222] _The New Drive Against the Anti-Communist Program_, p. 46.
[223] _Ibid._, p. 46.
[224] _Ibid._, p. 46.
[225] _Arkansas Gazette_, October 12, 1961, p. 1B.
[226] _Congressional Record_, August 21, 1961, pp. 15357-15358.
[227] _The New Drive Against the Anti-Communist Program_, p. 46. See
also _The Worker_, November 12, 1961, p. 1. Mike Newberry, _The Fascist
Revival_, New York: New Century Publishers, 1961. This is a Communist
publication.
[228] _Congressional Record_, August 2, 1961, p. 13437, col. 2,t.
[229] _The New Drive Against the Anti-Communist Program_, pp. 45-46.
[230] “Extremism Comes From a Sense of Frustration,” _Arkansas
Democrat_, November 28, 1961.
[231] _Congressional Record_, August 2, 1961, pp. 13439-13440.
[232] _World Marxist Review_, December, 1961, p. 25, col. 1,t.
[233] _Ibid._, p. 25, col. 1,b.
[234] Speech at the Fifth World Congress of Trade Unions, December 9,
1961. This is No. 227 press release from EMBASSY OF THE U.S.S.R., Dec.
11, 1961, p. 2.
[235] James E. Jackson, “The General Crisis of Capitalism Deepens,”
_World Marxist Review_, January 1961, p. 38.
[236] Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, _Communist and Workers’
Parties’ Manifesto Adopted November-December, 1960. Interpretation and
Analysis._ Washington: Government Printing Office, 1961, p. 72. The
entire Manifesto is reprinted in this government document, along with
some statements by Communists in America.
[237] _Program of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Draft)_, p.
50.