Letter 068, pg . 2
with all the worst qualities of a pseudo-academic style. Of one thing I am certain: the person who wrote it is not on our side. Trust the nose of a good bloodhound on this subject—I can always smell the quality of a person’s convictions. The author might believe (might, but I doubt it) that he is a defender of capitalism, but his thinking is muddled and his real inclinations show through.
1. The idea that Nazism is worse than Communism. That’s pure Communist Party Line nowadays. Any sincere defender of capitalism must oppose both these “isms” as equal evils. And of the two, Communism is much the greater menace in this country. Anyone who doesn’t realize this is tainted with a great big dose of New Deal germs, whether he knows it or not.
2. The author’s definitions of the ideologies of Communism and Fascism are so grossly unfair that out of a whole mess of semi-incomprehensible sentences only one thing stands out clearly: a defense of Communism. I quote: “Communistic aims have been: to equalize opportunity, to make men free under representative government, to assure abundance for all, and to eliminate private profits.” Oh yeah? This is as beautiful—and dishonest—a sales-talk for Communism as I’ve ever read. The rest of that sequence is practically double-talk, so its only purpose seems to have been the above glowing definition—introduced “objectively”. Is that ineptitude? Or intention?
3. The author’s argument against Communism is reduced to that old, old one about “the-ideals-are-noble-but-the-practice-is-evil.” Well, THAT’S precisely the Party Line of all pinks and New Dealers. They all hate Stalin, but love Communism. This kind of propaganda is no service to our system of free private enterprise. It’s the surest and quickest way to undermine it. Communism must be fought not on the grounds of its practice, but precisely on the grounds of its theoretical ideals.
4. The author talks about evaluating ideologies—and hasn’t the faintest idea of what constitutes an ideology. He doesn’t know how to think down to fundamentals. Such a sentence as: “Religious freedom has to come first—historically, as in our Bill of Rights—for without the assumption that men strive towards the good, such political concepts as ‘the betterment of society’ and ‘the general welfare’ would be entirely meaningless”—such a sentence is pure drivel. It sounds big and means just exactly nothing. What is “good”? Are “good” and religion synonymous? Can’t one strive for “good” outside of religion? Where’s the meaning—and so