Chapter X: 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.