Is Communism Folding Up?

Hardly anyone except J. Edgar Hoover and the John Birch Society takes Communism seriously any longer. To be called an “anti-Communist” is almost excuse enough for a libel suit. All enlightened persons know that nationalism has proved itself to be the dominant political reality of our time, and that “communism,” “fascism,” “socialism,” “Castroism,” “Nkru- mahism,” “Baath- ism” and maybe even “democracy” are only up-to-date masks for my nationalism or yours. De Gaulle states more bluntly what Mao, Brezhnev, Tito, Nasser and LBJ do. International diplomacy and politics continue to be just that —diplomacy and politics “among nations.” George Kennan has been right all along in insisting that you deal with “Russia” just as diplomats have always dealt with dynamic, expansive nations, by checking threatened aggressions, proposing treaties and compromises, constructing alliances, seeking balances of power. It’s silly and paranoid to get into a sweat over a mythical “communism.” We’re happy to come to terms with good communisms like Tito’s and Gomulka’s and for that matter the Kremlin’s, but we’ll still keep a sharp eye on bad communism like Mao’s and maybe Castro’s; and we’re hoping Ho’s communism will end up with the Goods.

The case for ignoring Communism can be put persuasively; has, in fact, been put persuasively enough to become the premise of the official policy of the U. S. Government. It has been a good many years since Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, USIA brochures or movies, speeches of U. S. representatives or approved indoctrination courses within U. S. agencies dabbled in anti-Communism. Nor is this a merely rhetorical limitation. It has been a good many years, also, since official policy was deliberately anti-Communist: officially, the U. S. aim is encouragement of “positive” and “liberalizing” developments within Communist nations, mutual disarmament, trade and cultural exchange, and above all accommodation, coexistence and “convergence” with the Soviet Union. This rhetoric and policy make sense only if the currently prevailing opinion is correct that Communism need not be taken seriously.

JB

About the Author

James Burnham

Featured Tags

Hardly anyone except J. Edgar Hoover and the John Birch Society takes Communism seriously any longer. To be called an “anti-Communist” is almost excuse enough for a libel suit. All enlightened persons know that nationalism has proved itself to be the dominant political reality of our time, and that “communism,” “fascism,” “socialism,” “Castroism,” “Nkru- mahism,” “Baath- ism” and maybe even “democracy” are only up-to-date masks for my nationalism or yours. De Gaulle states more bluntly what Mao, Brezhnev, Tito, Nasser and LBJ do. International diplomacy and politics continue to be just that —diplomacy and politics “among nations.” George Kennan has been right all along in insisting that you deal with “Russia” just as diplomats have always dealt with dynamic, expansive nations, by checking threatened aggressions, proposing treaties and compromises, constructing alliances, seeking balances of power. It’s silly and paranoid to get into a sweat over a mythical “communism.” We’re happy to come to terms with good communisms like Tito’s and Gomulka’s and for that matter the Kremlin’s, but we’ll still keep a sharp eye on bad communism like Mao’s and maybe Castro’s; and we’re hoping Ho’s communism will end up with the Goods.

The case for ignoring Communism can be put persuasively; has, in fact, been put persuasively enough to become the premise of the official policy of the U. S. Government. It has been a good many years since Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, USIA brochures or movies, speeches of U. S. representatives or approved indoctrination courses within U. S. agencies dabbled in anti-Communism. Nor is this a merely rhetorical limitation. It has been a good many years, also, since official policy was deliberately anti-Communist: officially, the U. S. aim is encouragement of “positive” and “liberalizing” developments within Communist nations, mutual disarmament, trade and cultural exchange, and above all accommodation, coexistence and “convergence” with the Soviet Union. This rhetoric and policy make sense only if the currently prevailing opinion is correct that Communism need not be taken seriously.