The Naked Communist

by W. Cleon Skousen

  On February 3, 1961, Dr. Arnold Wolfers told the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations: "A few easily concealed or clandestinely manufactured weapons would, in a totally disarmed world, give one nation decisive military power over others.... A totally disarmed world is also one in which Communists' characteristics of secrecy and of a society organized along military lines would give them maximum advantage."

  But in all this talk about disarmament the thing to remember is that Khrushchev would not dare disarm. His armed forces of six million -- including two million secret police -- are not to fight the West but to maintain "domestic tranquility" behind the Iron Curtain. They are to suppress uprisings which have occurred in the satellites and in Russia. Furthermore, Khrushchev is continually haunted by the spectre of the Red Chinese who would like nothing better than to see the Russians disarm. So we repeat, Khrushchev would not dare disarm.

  Finally, in answer to those who claim that an arms race will lead to war, let us point out the rather obvious fact that an arms race is not an underlying cause of war, but a symptom of political conflict. To disarm in the face of political conflict invites war. The United States was well on the way to disarming and demobilizing when the Korean War jolted us into the realization that vicious forces of conquest were still stalking up and down the earth. Because that predatory force has not relented, we have had to stay armed.

  In view of all these facts, it should be clear to anyone that the cry for disarmament is not the message of peace and freedom. It is the message of the enemy.

  What About Peaceful Coexistence?

  The Communists have created another illusion with reference to peaceful coexistence. This is the idea that the West must be willing to coexist with Communism since the only alternative would be annihilation through atomic war.

  The real alternative to co-EXistence is co-REsistance. Experts in the field have been saying for years that Communism does not have to be tolerated. It has no moral, economic or political excuse for existing. Furthermore, it is extremely vulnerable to many types of peaceful pressures which free men have not yet used. We will discuss these in a later section. At this point it is important simply to emphasize that Communism can be beaten -- and it can be done without atomic war. Therefore the whole basis for arguing coexistence collapses. Coexistence is a contradiction of terms because it means trying to coexist with world conquest, which is impossible. One must resist or be conquered. It also means accepting the status quo of one-third of the human race in bondage as a permanent working arrangement. It means accepting Communism in spite of its deceit, subversion and broken covenants. It means tolerating Communism without resistance.

  The United States Congress was right when it proclaimed in its Captive Nations Resolution of July, 1959:

  "The enslavement of a substantial part of the world's population by Communist imperialism makes a mockery of the idea of peaceful coexistence."1

  And the President sounded a note of awakening resistance when he said:

  "It is appropriate and proper to manifest to the peoples of the captive nations the support of the Government and the people of the United States of America for their just aspirations for freedom and national independence."2

  What About the United Nations?

  All over the world people demand that some type of international arena be created where disputes between nations can be arbitrated or settled without resorting to war. Two attempts have been made to create such an arena -- the League of Nations and the United Nations. Both ran into difficulty and for the same reason. Both organizations started out as exclusive federations of "peace-loving" nations and then turned right around and tried to convert themselves into world parliaments where all nations could be represented including warlike or predatory nations. In both cases the predatory nations successfully seized power and almost completely nullified all the high-sounding phrases contained in their original statements of purpose.

  As far as the United Nations is concerned, this weakness was emphasized by John Foster Dulles when he addressed the American Bar Association. He said the failures of the U.N. are due primarily to the fact that its "effective functioning depends upon cooperation with a nation which is dominated by an international party seeking world domination."3

  Henry Cabot Lodge pointed out the same thing: "In 1945 and 1946 ... the United States assumed that Russia was a peace-loving nation, and the whole United Nations was based on the assumption that the alliance between the United States and the Soviet Union would continue, which of course, was a very false, tragically false, assumption."4

  There are numerous provisions in the U.N. Charter which permit predatory powers such as the USSR or her satellites to bring the orderly processes of the U.N. to a dead halt. In the U.N.'s 15 years of existence, the USSR has used this organization for subversion behind the scenes and legal sabotage in her open councils. This has not only frustrated the peace-preserving powers of the U.N. but has almost completely paralyzed individual action by the other members because they have committed themselves to rely on the U.N. to settle disputes.

  When one reflects upon the Soviet veto of the U.N. attempt to censure Russia following her invasion of Hungary and her veto of the U.N. attempt to have an investigation of the killing of four Americans on the RB-47 in 1960, it emphasizes the long list of atrocities which Soviet leaders have committed without punishment or censure even though every one of them violated Article 2 of the U.N. Charter. Consider these provisions:

  1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all members.

  2. All Members ... shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

  3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means....

  4. All Members shall refrain ... from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state....

  5. All members shall ... refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

  In Hungary, China, Southeast Asia, Cuba, Africa, Central and South America, Korea -- one might say in every sector of the world -- the USSR has violated these principles continually.

  As a result of this vast contradiction between promise and performance, the whole U.N. complex is gradually reaching an impasse or stalemate. What then can be done with Red aggression, with its worldwide program of insurrection, riots, civil war and conquest? And what should be done with the U.N.?

  Because the United States is the most wealthy and powerful nation in the world, she is expected to provide an answer. And because practically every other imaginable suggestion has been presented, it is time to come up with the simple, direct answer which we should have adopted long ago: "Turn back to the original intent of the Charter. Restrict U.N. membership to peace-loving nations!"

  This is precisely what Article 4 provides, and it has been the violation of this article which has produced most of the trouble. Because we have waited so long to eliminate the warlike nations, this change will involve some difficulties. But this would be nothing compared to the difficulties which lie ahead if free men pursue their present course. Due to the veto technicalities and numerous violations of American constitutional law in the existing Charter, it would be necessary to reconstruct the entire framework of the U.N. Nevertheless it could be done.

  No doubt some would object to the elimination of Russia and her satellites from the U.N. on the ground that it would prevent the U.N. from serving as a world parliament.

  The answer to that objection is the proven fact that the U.N. can never serve peace-loving peoples as long as the U.N. tries to accommodate its forum to the harassment and bedevilment of nations who make no pretense at fulfilling their obligations either under the Charter or under international law.

  What if the founding fathers of the United States had tried to include King George in the Constitutional Convention? The results would have been
as frustrating and aggravating as they have turned out to be with a predatory nation and her satellites sitting in the U.N. Assembly of peace-loving nations. The founding fathers would no doubt look at our present U.N. operation and say: "It is illogical. It is illegal. It is impossible." Fifteen years of U.N. history painfully prove it.

  But would not such action drive Russia and her satellites into a second association of Red nations and create a contest of power blocs?

  This already exists. The only difference would be that the Red bloc would not be in the U.N. to sabotage the united desires of the peace-loving nations as it does today.

  Would not such action provoke war?

  Not as long as the West remains strong. It would not weaken the West's military position at all. If anything, such action would strengthen it. It would also create the necessary federation of strength to start putting economic and political pressures on Communism and thereby allow her enslaved peoples to strike from within and eventually destroy this spectre of human tyranny. This new arrangement would give us the ideal vehicle to begin implementing all the fine promises we made in the "Captive Nations' Proclamation" on July, 1959. Is there no other way? Apparently not! All other approaches turn out to be diversionary. They merely postpone the day of honest decision. If free men united to bring about this needed change, the new federation of peace-loving nations could perform a political miracle -- one which would give new assurance for both peace and prosperity.

  We have a task to perform and time is running out.

  Is the Communist Movement a Legitimate Political Party?

  This question grows out of another illusion which the Communists created in our minds. They induced us to accept the idea that Communism is a legitimate expression of political action. The truth is that Communism is a criminal conspiracy. It is a mistake to treat it as a political party.

  Political groups solve their problems by entering into negotiations, attending conferences, and working out their differences with bona fide compromises which all parties are expected to perform. This has never worked with the Communists because they use deceit, disregard of laws, violation of treaties, intimidation, subversion and open insurrection as basic tools of conquest. This makes it a criminal conspiracy.

  Once we realize that Communism is a criminal operation, many new avenues of action open before us. For example, a criminal problem is not handled by negotiation and compromise but by following four steps:

  1. Immobilize the criminal.

  2. Render him harmless.

  3. Gain his confidence.

  4. Rehabilitate him.

  It may be recalled that these are the four steps which were used in dealing with both Germany and Japan when their leaders pursued the criminal course of action which precipitated World War II. The Western allies followed these steps and Germany and Japan were not only immobilized and rendered harmless but they were successfully rehabilitated. After the war West Germany and Japan became two of America's closest supporters.

  Does this mean a preventive war should be waged against the criminal Communists? Not at all! It means that while there is still time and before a major shooting war is necessary, free men should utilize available peaceful pressures to immobilize the Soviet empire and work for the day when her own people can overthrow the tyrannical rule of Red leaders from within. What peaceful pressures are available?

  We have already mentioned the importance of taking away the illegal membership which the USSR and her satellites hold in the U.N. Another highly potent weapon is available which would cut off Communist and espionage machinery. This is the peaceful weapon of severing diplomatic relations. It is the action Thomas Jefferson recommended for nations which treat us "atrociously." He said:

  "I am anxious that we should give the world still another lesson by showing to them other modes of punishing injuries than by war.... I love, therefore ... (the) proposition of cutting off all communications with the nation which has conducted itself so atrociously."5

  Recently Senator Barry Goldwater and other students of the problem have advocated this very type of action against the Soviet empire. There are plenty of reasons to justify it. Russia is guilty of:

  Continuous violations of treaties and covenants.

  Repeated violations of international law.

  Vicious subversion and interference in the domestic affairs of other nations.

  Open warfare against peace-loving peoples.

  Provocative acts with the leveling of insults and false charges against the United States.

  Illegal killing of American servicemen.

  Illegal shooting down of American planes.

  Illegal imprisonment of American citizens.

  The lack of political courage to sever diplomatic relations with Russia is often covered up with the plea that we might lose some important advantages by isolating Russia in this manner.

  What advantages? Senator Goldwater has pointed out that there are none. Since the United States recognized the USSR in 1933, not one single advantage has accrued to the United States which could not have been achieved equally well -- and often far more easily -- without recognition. Recognition turned out to be a tool of conquest for the Communists.

  In addition to isolating Communism internationally, it also needs to be outlawed domestically. This is so important that Lenin said the Communists must do everything possible to avoid it. Whittaker Chambers summarized this point when he said: "Lenin had tirelessly taught that when a whole Communist Party is outlawed, it is almost wholly paralyzed because it can no longer send into the surrounding community the filaments whereby it spreads its toxins and from which it draws its strength of life."6

  But would not a statute outlawing the Communist party threaten legitimate political parties? Not if the statute were aimed at any organization "advocating the overthrow of the government by force and violence." Criminal law strikes at illegal acts or any conspiracy to commit illegal acts. A conspiracy to overthrow the government by force and violence is therefore criminal in nature. Any organization which promotes such illegal activities should be outlawed. As a number of authorities have already pointed out, it is foolish to treat the Communists as a legitimate political party as it would be to give bank robbers business licenses.

  Is the Soviet Empire Vulnerable to Economic Pressure?

  Probably the greatest single weakness of the Sino-Soviet bloc is her shaky economy. Here is a soft spot where peaceful pressures could be devastating. No amount of Soviet propaganda can cover up the obvious collapse of the Chinese communes and the sluggish inefficiency of the Soviet collectivized farms. Every single Soviet satellite is languishing in a depression. Even Pravda has openly criticized the lack of bare essentials and the shoddy quality of Russian-made goods.

  These factors of austerity and deprivation add to the hatred and misery of the people which constantly feed the flames of potential revolt. Terrorist tactics have been used by the Red leaders to suppress uprisings. In spite of the virtual "state of siege" which exists throughout the Soviet empire, there are many outbreaks of violent protest.

  All of this explains why the Soviet leaders are constantly pleading for "free trade," "long-term loans," "increased availability of material goods from the West." Economically, Communism is collapsing but the West has not had the good sense to exploit it. Instead, the United States, Great Britain and 37 other Western powers are shipping vast quantities of goods to the Sino-Soviet bloc.

  Some business leaders have had the temerity to suggest that trade with the Reds helps the cause of peace. They suggest that "you never fight the people you trade with." Apparently they cannot even remember as far back as the late Thirties when this exact type of thinking resulted in the sale of scrap iron and oil to the Japanese just before World War II. After the attack on Pearl Harbor it became tragically clear that while trade with friends may promote peace, trade with a threatening enemy is an act of self-destruction. Have we forgotten that fatal lesson so soon?

  Could Peaceful
Pressures Cause the Communist

  Empire to Explode Internally?

  The Communist leaders have always been extremely sensitive to their own internal weaknesses. They frequently resort to capital punishment to suppress the bitter criticism of their own enslaved people. They use propaganda to boast of pretended success in the very areas where they suffer the greatest failures. A close scrutiny of recent history will demonstrate that time and again free men could have tied the Communist conspiracy in knots if only they had been watching for opportunities to exploit fuming internal pressures which were ready to explode.

  Many of these pressures are building today. Each one of them represents a golden opportunity for direct action by the free West. But free men must first make up their minds whether they really want freedom for the Iron Curtain captives. Is it worth giving up a little trade? Is it worth the temporary political heat of a showdown in the U.N.? Is it worth the momentary clamor which Red agents would foment if we withdrew diplomatic recognition?