United States. Dept. of State. Office of Public Co.

Department of State bulletin (Volume v. 46, Jan- Mar 1962) online

. (page 96 of 101)
Online LibraryUnited States. Dept. of State. Office of Public CoDepartment of State bulletin (Volume v. 46, Jan- Mar 1962) → online text (page 96 of 101)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


Lenin. In the comparison of the principles of our
Revolution with Marxist-Leninist doctrine are to
be found the principal issues which today divide
the free world and the Sino-Soviet bloc.

First, Marx and Lenin thought that the only
reality was material. This idea needs to be better
understood by us. It means they ascribed no value
to the spirit or the dignity of man, that they be-
lieved man does live by bread alone. It means that
no value is given to ethics, to charity. Listen to
the words of Lenin :

■RTien people talk to us about morality we say : For the
Communist, morality consists entirely of compact united
discipline and con.scious mass struggle against the ex-
ploiters. We do not believe in eternal morality, and we
expose all fables about morality.

This thesis is in basic and fundamental conflict
with our principle that human dignity is worth-
while and that the individual has certain inalien-
able rights. On this encompassing concept of the
absolute Importance of the material rest other



501



concepts of Marx and Lenin to wliich I will now
refer.

Second, Marx and Lenin differed from our
principles in that they did not trust the people to
govern themselves — to decide for themselves
which reforms would achieve the greatest good
for the greatest number. Hence, instead of
democracy they proposed dictatorship. They pro-
posed not even a dictatorship by the majority of
the people but a dictatorship of the "proletariat,"
defined in Marxist doctrine to mean the minority
who work for wages, particularly in the mines and
in the factories. The small farmer, the student,
the white-collar worker, the intellectual, the busi-
nessman, the professional man are, in Marxist-
Leninist theory, excluded from the term "pro-
letariat." When Communist doctrine condescends
to refer to these social groups at all, it refers to
them collectively as the "toiling masses" ; no pro-
vision whatever is made for their participation in
government.

Marxist-Leninist theory recognizes two kinds of
democracies. One is "bourgeois," defined as all
those whose economic systems permit employers
of labor to own means of production. The other
is "socialist," defined as all those patterned after
the Soviet Union. In neither definition does the
quality of freedom which individuals enjoy nor
the degree of their participation in government
decisions have any relevancy.

This is a fair summary of the theory. Now let
us look for a moment at the practice.

The "proletariat" — the factory worker and the
miner — are used, as theory says they should be,
in the first violent and bloody stages of revolution.
But once the party apparatus is firmly in power,
there is no instance in all history where the prole-
tariat has actually had any voice in government.

Also used to prepare the way for the overthrow
of constitutional and parliamentary institutions
and to participate in the violent stages of revolu-
tion are individuals from all social groups who,
rightly aspiring to the correcting of social injus-
tices, have been deluded into thinking that they
are doing good for their people when they turn
them over to the tender mercies of a Communist
dictatorship.

It is diilicult to believe that these people really
understand that they themselves are, in Commu-
nist doctrine, marked for extinction. Communism
devours its own children. But it first destroys
not only the opposition but all those who are con-



sidered to he potential opposition because they
might have an independent thought of their own.
In Communist theory refusal to submit to the
"discipline" of the party is to be guilty of "devia-
tionism," the most serious of all Communist
crimes. Gratitude for help given to Communists
in difficult times is, in Communist doctrine, not a
virtue. In Communist theory the only virtue, the
only end, is to gain power for the party and then
to hold it permanently and exclusively. The means
by which this is accomplished are imimportant.

It is the Communist Party which actually rules
or, more precisely, a very small group at the top
of the party hierarchy and sometimes, as in the
case of Stalin, only one man.

Membership in the party is, of course, by invita-
tion only. But although party members consti-
tute only a small fraction of the population, a
Communist government is always a party govern-
ment, a Communist army is always a party army, a
Communist state always a party state. Party
members occupy all important government posi-
tions. They are the only ones who have and exer-
cise overall power. They are the new lords and
nobles. They are the new ruling class.

They exercise more power than any aristocracy
of the Middle Ages because they control all prop-
erty, tangible and intangible, real and personal,
agricultural and industrial. Since individuals
under their control have no property and no possi-
bility of producing wealth of their own, they have
no resources with which to oppose tyranny. This
monopoly of the "means of production" is an ef-
fective means of crushing all opposition — of de-
priving the people of what Jefferson referred to
as the "right of revolution." This is the central
reason why no country on which communism has
fastened itself has ever even temporarily regained
its freedom against the wishes of its rulers.

The Communist ruling class is more ruthless
than the old aristocracy because it is without ethics
and charity. Every Communist revolution has
been written in the blood of its people. Every
Communist regime has been built on the bones of
its people.

The point which I wish to stress here is that
the acceptance of Marxist-Leninist doctrine and
practice inevitably and automatically means the
loss of all the rights of the individual so slowly and
painfully acqtiired through the ages. It means a
return to semi feudal tenets: All industry and all
land belong to the Cro-mi; the people ai-e bound



502



Department of Stale Bulletin



to a particular industry or farm selected for them
by their rulers. It means a return to serfdom
under a new set of masters. It signifies the be-
trayal of the basic principles written into the con-
stitution of every republic.

Third, Marxist doctrine differs from our Eevo-
lution in that it sets up a new kind of tyranny over
the mind of man. Marx wrote, and Communists
still claim, that his doctrine was the only "scien-
tific" explanation of history, of events past and to
come. The doctrine claims there is no possibility
of error in it, that it is the alpha and the omega
of all truth, that it brings all reality, past, present,
and future, into one complete frame.

I suppose one should not be too surprised that
one man should claim to have a monopoly on truth,
that he should believe mankind has nothing more
to learn from experience and meditation, that the
human mind should be cast into a 19th-century
mold of dogmatism. But it seems incredible that
any intellectual of our day and time would accept
this as either noble or true.

[Milovan] Djilas is one of the most eminent
theorists in the Yugoslav Communist movement.
I do not agree with everything he has written. But
he knows communism in theory and in practice and
his descriptions of Communist tyranny over the
mind are accurate and graphic:

A citizen in the Communist system lives oppressed by
the constant pangs of his conscience, and the fear that
he has transgressed. He is always fearful that he will
have to demonstrate that he is not an enemy of
socialism. . . .

The school system and all social and intellectual activ-
ity work toward this type of behavior. From birth to
death a man is surrounded by the solicitude of the ruling
party, a solicitude for his consciousness and his conscience.
Journalists, ideologists, paid writers, special schools,
approved ruling ideas, and tremendous material means
are all enlisted and engaged in this "uplifting of social-
ism." In the final analysis, all newspapers are official.
So are the radio and other similar media. . . .

These oligarchs and soul-savers, these vigilant protec-
tors who see to it that human thought does not drift into
"criminal thought" or "anti-socialist lines" ; . . . these
holders of obsolete, unchangeable, and immutable ideas —
have retarded and frozen the intellectual impulses of their
people. They have thought up the most antihuman
words — "pluck from the human consciousness" — and
act according to these words, just as if they were dealing
with roots and weeds instead of man's thoughts. . . .

On the one hand the ideological discrimination in Com-
munist systems aims at prohibiting other ideas ; on the
other, at imposing exclusively its own ideas. These are
two most striking forms of unbelievable, total
tyranny. . . .



History will pardon Communists for much. . . . But
the stifling of every divergeut thought, the exclusive
monopoly over thinking for the purpn.se of defending their
personal interests, will nail the Communists to a cross
of shame in history.

Fourth, our Revolution held that a government
"of the people, by the people, for the people" was
desirable and necessary to guarantee the essential
rights of the individual and to protect him from
the tyrannies of classes and groups; to provide
free education for the people; to pass laws and
guarantee their administration with equal justice
for all ; to prevent man's exploitation by man ; and
to provide for the common good and for the na-
tional defense. Marxist-Leninist doctrine, on the
other hand, insists tlmt since government is the tool
of the bourgeoisie and that since the triumph of
communism will signify the abolition of classes,
government in a "classless" society will no longer
be necessary and will "wither away."

Few would dispute the triumph of the Com-
munists in the Soviet Union more than 40 years
ago. All of the "classes" that existed under the
czars were ruthlessly liquidated and a "new or-
der" was established, based on Marxist-Leninist
doctrine, in which the Commimists themselves were
the sole masters. But the Soviet Government
shows neither any sign of "withering away" or
any intention of reducing the privileges and
powers of its bureaucrats. Now more than ever the
principal purpose of the party is to perpetuate
itself in power.

Do Communist leaders today still believe in this
Utopian myth of the disappearance of the state?
This would seem doubtful even allowing for nuin's
capacity for self-deception. But they could never
admit their disbelief, not only because Marxist-
Leninist doctrine is for them a secular religion but
because to do so would remove the only doctrinal
justification they have for their rise to power by
blood and terror. So the myth remains as a hope
for their people of a better life hereafter.

Fifth, American doctrine is that it is both
feasible and inevitable that the social and economic
injustices which existed within the society of the
18th and 19th centuries will be corrected by the
people themselves operating through democratic
institutions. We have nearly 200 years of history
with which to judge this claim.

In the days of Marx a few families owned all of
the great industries. Today literally millions of
stockholders own our industry. Profits are di-



March 26, 1962



503



vided so widely that our type of capitalism today
has been accurately described as a "people's
capitalism."

Workers for wages have organized themselves
into powerful unions and confederations which
have achieved what Marx could only have con-
sidered an unbelievable miracle. The voice of
labor is one of the most powerful in our land. Old
problems of child labor, inhuman hours of work,
unfair wages, unhealthful and unsafe working
environment, and chronic, widespread unemploy-
ment have all been corrected.

Our farmer, like the worker, enjoys the highest
standard of living in history based on land and
other reforms which took place many decades ago.

Monopolies have not been tolerated since passage
of the Sherman and Clayton antitrust acts, many
years ago.

Our taxation is based on ability to pay so that it
is no longer possible to acquire very large fortunes
or to pass them on to succeeding generations. We
have achieved, in sum, a social justice that goes
hand in hand with ownership by the people of our
industries and farms. And we have achieved this
without sacrificing freedom.

In Marxian theory of 1850 none of this could
happen. Marx wrote that "class struggle" be-
tween the proletariat and the bourgeoisie was in-
evitable. More than a hundred years of history
not only in our land but in many othere proves that
this was a bad guess. But the Communists are
stuck with a doctrine they cannot abandon, and
so they must continue to talk as if we still lived in
the mid-19th century of "imperialism," "exploita-
tion," "monopolies," and "social injustice."

Persistence of Principles of American Revolution

Our principles and our faith are the product of
the experience of hundreds of millions of people
who through the ages have survived on many fron-
tiers and by trial and error progressed to ever
higher horizons of freedom and justice.

Our principles are the product of a long and
rich cultural heritage based on the philosophy of
the Greeks, the law of the Romans, the long
struggle for freedom of the peoples of the West,
on the revolutionary concepts of the Enlight-
enment.

We will not abandon our principles. We will
not surrender our freedom. We will instead re-
new our faith in our countiy, in its leadership, and
in the inevitable triumph of freedom.



ADDRESS OF FEBRUARY 28

Press release 12C dated February 28

Communism is not content with havuig already
imposed a dictatorship on hundreds of millions of
people. It seeks to impose its rule on the entire
free world. This was made clear by Marx as early
as 1848:

The Communists disdain to conceal their views and alms.
They openly declare that their ends can be attained
only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social
conditions.

Stalin said the same thing in 1924:

The revolution which has been victorious in one coun-
try [Russia] must regard Itself not as a self-sufficient
task, but as an aid, a means for hastening the victory of
the proletariat in all countries.

In 1957 Khrushchev used different words :

We have retained a great revolutionary spirit, and we
assure the comrades . . . that we shall always be true to
the principles of Marxism-Leninism, to the principles of
proletarian internationalism. . . . We give assurances
that we shall firmly hold in our hands the Leninist ban-
ner, shall confidently march towards the victory of com-
munism, and shall persistently struggle for peace through-
out the world.

The juxtaposition of the phrases "victory of
communism" and "struggle for peace" illustrates
how Communists disguise their aims behind a cur-
tain of words designed to deceive and divide peo-
ple who live in freedom. This tactic is the subject
of my remarks today.

"Nationalism" and "Internationalism"

Let us begin with two words, "nationalism" and
"internationalism," which are often used by Com-
munist orators and theorists.

Marx wrote that the "struggle of the proletariat
with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle."
He wrote, however, that nationalism was on its
way out and that its place would be taken by "pro-
letarian internationalism."

Wliat is this proletarian internationalism that
is to take tlie place of country? Yyshinskj- gave
a clear answer in 1948 :

At present the only determining criterion of revolution-
ary proletarian internationalism is : are you for or against
the USSR, the motherland of the world proletariat? An
internationalist is not one who verbally recognizes inter-
national solidarity or sympathizes with it. A real inter-
nationalist is one who brings his sympathy and recognition
up to the ixiint of practical and maximal liolp to the USSR
in support and defense of the USSR by every means and
in every possible form.



504



Department of State Bulletin



Stalin had said substantially the same thing
■earlier :

An internationalist is he who, unreservedly, without
hesitation, without conditions, is ready to defend the
USSR because the USSK is the base of the world revolu-
tionary movemeut.

The test of whether a person is an "internation-
alist," a "revolutionary," or a "Communist" is the
same. It was defhied over Radio Moscow in 1951 :

The strategy and tactics of a Communist Party of any
one country can be correct only If that party does not
confine itself to the interests of its own country and pro-
letariat but on the contrary, taking account of the
circumstances prevailing in that country, gives precedence
to the Interests of the international proletariat. . . .
At present a Marxist-Leninist revolutionary is he who
is completely and unconditionally prepared to defend the
USSR.

The Russians are apparently having some diffi-
culty in explaining to some Communist associates
that they should give absolute and total obedience
to the U.S.S.R. But the leaders of Communist
parties in many countries continue to make peri-
odic pilgrimages to Moscow for instructions and
training.

"Peace" and "Revolution"

It is not accidental that Communists speak of
world revolution and peace as parts of a single
concept. In 1928 the Comintern explained that
in Communist theory there is no contradiction be-
tween the two things:

The international policy of the USSR is a peace policy
which conforms to the interests of the ruling class in
Soviet Russia, viz., the proletariat. This policy rallies
all the allies of the proletarian dictatorship around its
banner and provides the best basis for taking advantage
of the antagonisms among the imperialist States. The aim
of this policy is to guard the international revolution. . . .

The proletariat in the Soviet Union harbors no illusions
as to the possibility of a durable peace with the im-
perialists. . . . There is a glaring contradiction be-
tween the imperialists' policy of piling up armaments and
their hypocritical talk about peace. There is no such
contradiction, however, between the Soviet government's
preparations for defense and for revolutionary war and
a consistent peace policy. Revolutionary war of the
proletarian dictatorship is but a continuation of revolu-
tionary peace policy "by other means."

Could anything be clearer? A "revolutionary
peace policy" and a "revolutionary war of the pro-
letarian dictatorship" are but different means to
achieve the same end.

In 1958 Khrushchev explained why a policy of



"peace" serves the revolutionary purposes of the
Soviet Union :

It is not an army, but peace that is required to propagate
communist ideas, disseminate them, and establish them
in the minds of men.

The real purpose of "peace" campaigns was
accurately described by Lenin himself :

Every "peace program" is a deception of the people and
a piece of hypocrisy unless its principal object is to ex-
plain to the masses the need for a revolution, and to
support, aid and develop the revolutionary struggle of
the masses that is starting everywhere (ferment among
the masses, protests, . . . strikes, demonstrations . . . ).

It is not strange tliat the so-called "peace" move-
ments we have seen are international rather than
national in character. They are not indigenous.
They are launched from Moscow in many coun-
tries simultaneously. They are real and authentic
Soviet tactics described by Lenin in these words:

The strictest loyalty to the ideas of Communism must
be combined with the ability to make all the necessary
practical compromises, to "tack," to make agreements,
zigzags, retreats and so on, in order to accelerate [world
revolution].

"Self-Determination"

Now let us consider for a moment the phrase
"self-determination."

The United Nations Charter speaks of peaceful
and "friendly relations among nations based on
respect for the prmciple of equal rights and self-
determination of peoples" and of "universal re-
spect for, and observance of, human rights and
fimdamental freedoms for all."

This same concept of the "self-determination of
peoples" is contained in the Charter of the Organ-
ization of American States, which says :

The solidarity of the American States and the high
aims which are sought through it require the political
organization of those States on the basis of the effective
exercise of representative democracy.

By definition, then, the phrase "self-determina-
tion" is incomplete without the words "of peoples."
And how do the people determine their destinies?
They can do so only on the basis of the effective
exercise of representative democracy and respect
for human rights and fundamental freedoms.

There has never been a dictator who did not
claim to represent the will of the majority of
the people even as he uses fear and terror to sup-
press opposition. But free men are not fooled by
this tactic, and they will continue to believe that



March 26, 7962



505



the principle of self-determination does not pro-
tect dictators and Communist intervention but is
rather an obligation on the part of dictators to
give every people an opportunity to exercise their
fundamental right to cast their ballots in demo-
cratic elections.

Indeed, to Communists the term "self-determi-
nation" is completely foreign to the idea that the
people have a right to determine their own destiny.
As Lenin explained :

The right of nations to self-determination means only
the right to independence in a political sense, the right to
free, political secession from the oppressing nation.

And this concept of political secession is closely
related to the Communist aim of dividing the free
world. As Bukharin said to the party congress in
Russia :

If we propound the solution of the right of self-deter-
mination for the colonies — we lose nothing by it. On the
contrary, we gain, for the national gain as a whole will
damage foreign imperialism. . . . The most outright na-
tionalist movement, for example that of the Hindus, Is
only water for our mill, since it contributes to the destruc-
tion of English imperialism.

Lenin had previously said the same thing :

As long as we have not conquered the whole world . . .
we must adhere to the rule that we . . . take advantage
of the antagonisms and contradictions existing among the
imperialists.

Another interesting aspect of the Communist
definition of self-determination is that it applies
only to the democracies. We need only to look at
history to understand tliat it has never been
applied to Communist countries.

In 1920 Russia crushed Azerbaijan, Khiva,
Bokhara, and Armenia. In 1921 the independent
state of Georgia fell, and in 1923 the Ukraine. In
the confusion preceding and during the Second
World War there were added to the Soviet empire
parts of Finland, the eastern provinces of Poland,
the Rumanian provinces of Bessarabia and Buko-
vina, and the independent states of Estonia, Lat-
via, and Lithuania, the Konigsberg area, slices of
Czechoslovakia, South Sakhalin, the Kurile Is-
lands, and Tannu Tuva. Following the last war
Poland, Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria, Albania,
Czechoslovakia, and China were swallowed up, to
say nothing of East Germany, North Viet-Nam,
and North Korea. The threats to West Berlin
and Laos are the latest moves.

Wliere is the right of the peoples in all these
lands to independence and self-determination?



The reality is they have no right to make even
such elementary determinations as where they will
live and work and whether they will go from one
place to another. Millions of East Germans es-
caped to freedom before tlie wall was built divid-
ing Berlin. But hundreds of millions behind the
Iron Curtain are forbidden the right even to
cross the Iron Curtain because they would be able
to compare their living standards with those of
other peoples and learn of freedom.

"Intervention" and "Aggression"

And now let us turn to the word "intervention,"
which in Communist jargon is often referred to
as "interference" and "aggression."

Lenin explains the Conamunist definition :

Obviously ... it is not the offensive or the defensive
character of the war, but the interests of the class strug-
gle of the proletariat, or, rather, the interests of the inter-
national movements of the proletariat that represent the
only possible point of view from which the question of the
attitude of Social-Democracy towards a given phenomenon
in international relations can be considered. . . .

The character of a war (whether reactionary or revolu-



Online LibraryUnited States. Dept. of State. Office of Public CoDepartment of State bulletin (Volume v. 46, Jan- Mar 1962) → online text (page 96 of 101)