The advice of Marcuse was not heeded.  The debate was orderly.  There was no heckling nor unseemly interjections.  All discussion focused on the issues and there was no personal vilification.

            Greg Calvert was formerly national secretary of Students for a Democratic Society.  He has also been Professor of History at a University in Iowa.  He now lives in Austin where Texas University is his parish.  He could be classed as one of the Professional Students typical of Universities in Latin America but for the fact that he is not a student.  Neither is he a member of the faculty.  He is deeply involved in student agitation and politics and writes copiously about conditions and radical activities at the University.  He writes a column for the Guardian entitled, the Libertarian Viewpoint.  His viewpoint reflects more genuine concern for humane values than that of any other Guardian writer.  His sources of financial support are obscure.

            The debate format was as follows:

1. Each was allotted 30 minutes to present his primary message and 10 minutes for rebuttal.
2. Each could direct one question to his opponent.
3. Questions from the floor were answered by both speakers.

Calvert spoke first and in his opening remarks he classified himself as an Anarchist and confessed that he had been greatly influenced by Herbert Marcuse.  He surprised me when he repudiated, not only the present Soviet regime, but also the original Bolshevik conquest of Russia which he classified correctly as a Coup d’etat.  He stated that the book of Marcuse which had exercised most influence upon him was “Eros and Civilization” with its message of sexual liberation.

He said he had once been a theology student and as such found the terms “Christian and Anti-Communist” mutually contradictory since Christianity began with small groups of followers of Christ living in communes.

            This illustrates the difficulty in debate.  Identical words are used but the meaning intended are not identical.  Calvert used the word, communism, to mean the qualities suggested by the word itself; I use it to indicate the qualities, doctrines, organization, methods and objectives of those who call themselves communists.  Communism and communists are real entities in the present world.  There are more than 50 million communists and they rule more than one billion subjects.

The Resurrection of the Body

            Calvert asked me the question, “Do you believe in the resurrection of the body?”  I gave a one-word answer, “Yes.”  I knew that Calvert had meant something entirely different from that which is usually understood by the expression but did not choose to go into the subject in my reply.  However, a young man in the audience had listened carefully to the speech of Calvert and, during question time, asked me to comment on what I thought Calvert had meant by the words, “resurrection of the body,” and what I had meant by my reply.

            Calvert intended the phrase, resurrection of the body, to indicate the restoration of the body to its role as an “instrument of pleasure,” particularly sexual pleasure.  The doctrine is that the body had been buried by the Puritan Ethic and all its potentials of pleasure had been killed.  It was now being resurrected by Marcuse and his followers so that all its appetites could be indulged and enjoyed.  By the “resurrection of the body” he meant sexual license and drug indulgence.

            The arrogance of the New Left approaches the infinite.  I did point out that the joys of the body have been enjoyed for centuries—good food, good health, laughter, and love.  The absence of these things has been regarded as tragic.  However, just as overeating leads to indigestion and diminishes the pleasure of food, so overindulgence in sex leads to boredom and loss of sexual pleasure.  The libertine has always been with us.  The Bible and experience teach, “She that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth.”  St. Paul gives great honor to the body when he describes it as the Temple of the Holy Ghost and warns that destruction will result if this temple is defiled.

            I said that my interpretation of the “resurrection of the body” was expressed by St. Paul, “If we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him.”

Human Nature: Good or Evil?

            The central issue of the debate was the quality of human nature.  Calvert “hoped” that human nature would be good and loving and unselfish once environmental influences that distorted it were removed.  This was to come about by the permissive education of children and unrepressed sexual indulgence.  He seemed able to drag sex into a discussion of any subject.  When asked about racism, he interpreted it as a sexual aberration.

            All history screams against his “hope.”  The record clearly reveals that “Man’s inhumanity to man makes countless thousands mourn.”  That selfishness, aggression, and greed characterize human relations independently of race, creed, color or economic system.  These qualities are inherent and not “programmed” by an economic system or racial doctrine.  Permissiveness promotes the insane cruelties and homicides of certain hippies rather than a climate of love and mutual support.

            One bearded young man who had obviously read Marcuse and who was remarkably articulate said, “I respect you much more than I do my professors or the preachers and rabbis whom I hear.  You state openly that there is a root of evil in both you and me.  They tell me I can trust my own impulses.  I cannot trust my own impulses because I have been programmed by the system to respond in a preordained manner in the interest of the maintenance of the system.”

            I answered, “I am not clear as to whom you believe is doing the programming.  Do you think there is a group of sinister men who meet in secret and decide what patterns of response should be programmed for individuals and groups?  Do you believe the programming is the result of the impersonal forces that operate in our technological society?”

            I can say this: If someone or something has programmed the students so that they react in a manner designed to preserve the American economic system and heritage, the project is obviously a colossal failure.

Anarchism and Communism

            I tried to point out to Calvert that, judged by his own writings, Marcuse is an old-fashioned communist authoritarian who is using the anarchists as tools to destroy present society and that they will be discarded once this job is done, and that the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” will then be set up.

            I quoted Marcuse where he discusses the organization of post-revolutionary society in his latest book, “An Essay on Liberation”:

            “The anarchic element is an essential factor in the struggle against domination.  It will be freed and ‘Aufgehoben’ in the goals of the struggle.  Released for the construction of the initial revolutionary institutions, the anti-repressive sensibility, allergic to domination, would militate against the prolongation of the ‘First Phase,’ that is, the authoritarian bureaucratic development of the productive forces.”

            The word “Aufgehoben” is a German dialectical term which means fulfilled and negated.  In substance, Marcuse states that the day of the anarchist ends the day the revolution succeeds.  Anarchism will then be negated.  It is a justification of the historic communist practice of disposing of the anarchists once they have fulfilled their revolutionary purpose.

            Anarchism is the servant of communism; their rejection of all authority leads to the imposition of total authority; anarchism is a stepping-stone to totalitarianism.

            I asked Calvert, “What is the authority which will appoint the bureaucrats in the ‘authoritarian bureaucratic development of society’ which Marcuse predicts?”

            Calvert either could not or would not answer this question.  He ignored the context which shows Marcuse is describing his ideal post-revolutionary society and said that Marcuse’s authority was Marx.

            I left Austin impressed with the idealism and intelligence of many leftist students and concerned about their intolerance, arrogance, and frustration.  They can be won with reason, understanding and love to a program of creative Christianity.  This is our challenge.

WILL SOLZHENITSYN DIE OF STARVATION?

            Russia’s most prestigious writer, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, has just been expelled from the Writers’ Union of the U.S.S.R.  He is the author of many books including “Cancer Ward” and “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” which is an exposure of the brutal condition in Stalin’s concentration camps.  The reason given for his expulsion is that a number of his letters, statements, and manuscripts found their way abroad by illegal routes in the past two years, and that he did not stand up against the use of his name and his works by bourgeois propaganda for a campaign of slander against Russia.

            His case bears many similarities to that of Boris Pasternak a decade ago.  Pasternak lived for about 12 months after his expulsion.  How long will Solzhenitsyn live?

            Pasternak wrote the book “Dr. Zhivago” and sent it abroad where it was published.  He was praised in the West and given the Nobel prize, but he was persecuted within Russia.  “Dr. Zhivago” was not published in Russian, and Pasternak was expelled from the Union of Writers of the U.S.S.R.  Khrushchev taunted him and suggested that he go and live in the Western World.  Twelve months later, Pasternak died.  The official cause of death was given as cancer of the lung.

            At the time I raised the question whether expulsion from the Union of Soviet Writers is equivalent to a death sentence in the circumstances that prevail within the Soviet Union and asked, “Where did Pasternak get his food?”  Since the Communist Party has monopoly control of employment, banking, the judicial process, newspapers and marketing, it could dry up every channel through which food could reach him.  Since his expulsion from the Union of Soviet Writers classified his as a pariah, his friends would be afraid to help him.  I did not state categorically that Pasternak did starve but pointed out that the system in Russia gave the Communist Party the power to starve him.  It has the power to starve Solzhenitsyn.

            The American Communist newspaper, The Daily World, has published a Tass Report on the expulsion of Solzhenitsyn from the Writer’s Union:

            “Moscow, Nov. 25 (Tass)—The secretariat of the Writers’ Union of the Russian Federation announced today that Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s assertion that he, allegedly, was not invited to a meeting of the secretariat where a decision on his expulsion from the Union of Writers of the USSR was taken, is nothing but a lie.

            “‘Solzhenitsyn was given an official invitation to be present at a meeting of the secretariat of the Russian Federation.’  Besides, he was sent a ‘summoning’ telegram from Moscow.  Solzhenitsym intentionally evaded this meeting.  He himself did not use the opportunity which was given to him.

            “‘The secretariat of the board of the Union of Writers of the Russian Federation has acted in strict accordance with the Union’s rules.

            “The report says that ‘Solzhenitsyn arrogantly disregarded the just criticism of the literary public.  He did not stand up against the use of his name and his works by bourgeois propaganda for a campaign of slander against our country.’

            “The secretariat recalls that a number of letters, statements, manuscripts and other materials of Solzhenitsyn found their way abroad by illegal routes in the past two years.

            “The report points out that nobody is going to hold Solzhenitsyn and prevent him from going away even if he desires to go ‘where anti-Soviet works and letters are received with such delight.’”

            The similarity of the taunt of the secretariat about living outside Russia bears striking similarity to Khrushchev’s taunt of Pasternak.  An exit visa from the Soviet Union is a commodity which an individual in the situation of Pasternak or Solzhenitsyn finds it impossible to obtain.

            How long will Solzhenitsyn live!

COMMUNISM AND THE INDIAN OCCUPATION OF ALCATRAZ

            Those familiar with the doctrines and methods of communism would suspect that the occupation of Alcatraz Island, the home of the former federal prison in San Francisco Bay, by American Indians was inspired and directed by the communists.  It has the earmarks of a scientific operation in Marxism-Leninism.  Such an operation follows the formula:  Find out what people want, promise it to them, and go to work to get it for them so that you can come to power over them.

            Suspicion is not proof, but there is evidence that the communists are involved in the situation.  An editorial in the communist Daily World, November 22, 1969, by Ralph Izard states:

            “On Nov. 9 Alcatraz was reclaimed by 14 of its original owners.  Ten young Indian men and four young Indian women came ashore with food, sleeping bags and the intention of staying.  They were led by Ricahrd Oakes, a 25 year old Mohawk who head the Native American Union at San Francisco state college.

            “Against the billions, the realtors’ millions and a white government’s claim to ownership, the landing party offered ‘$24 in glass beads and red cloth, a precedent set by the white man’s purchase of a similar island 300 years ago.’  That island, of course, was Manhattan.

            “Earlier, some 75 other Indians circles Alcatraz in a visiting barque and four or five dove into the 57 degree water to swim ashore.  They were driven off by custodians.  On Fisherman’s Wharf another Indian sector of the demonstrators reclaimed the island ‘by right of discovery.’  In a proclamation to be presented to Washington authorities, they pointed out that it would be ‘fitting and symbolic that ships from all over the world entering the Golden Gate would first see Indian land and thus be reminded of the true history of this nation.’

            “They seek to transform Alcatraz into a replacement for The City’s Indian Center that fire destroyed in October.  The new center would provide institutes for Indian studies, for Indian medical care, an ecology research center and an Indian museum.  A sector of the museum would present ‘some of the things the white man has given to the Indians in return for the land and life he took.’

            “Disease, alcohol, poverty and cultural decimation—as symbolized by old tin cans, barbed wire, rubber tires, plastic containers, etc.”  Page 6.

            The article then interjects this remarkable statement:

            “News stories of the Indian and Communist party council recently held ‘somewhere in the West’ must have been more heartening to our Indian brothers than anything since the Battle of the Little Big Horn.”  Page 6.

            It would appear that the communists are bursting to brag of their involvement in the situation but are restrained by discretion.

            Another indication of communist involvement is that the attorney for the Indians is Aubrey Grossman.  The U.S. Government document of the 86^th Congress called “Communist Legal Subversion” states on page 43: “Aubrey Grossman was identified as a Communist in sworn testimony before this Committee on six different occasions.  The Communist Party itself has publicized Mr. Grossman’s role as one of its leaders and functionaries.”

            “Operation Alcatraz” must be regarded as another victory for the communist plan to harass and embarrass the people of the United States and their government.

OBSCENITY AND PORNOGRAPHY PRESENTED IN CHURCHES

            Christ said, “You are the salt of the earth, but if the salt hath lost its savour, wherewith shall it be salted?  It is henceforth good for nothing but to be cast out and to be trodden under foot of man.”  St. Matt. 5:13.

            Some churches today are presenting obscene plays in the church buildings.  This is reported in the Christian Century of November 26, 1969:

            “To illustrate just how far the trend toward more sex and nudity in church theaters has come, let me mention one off-off-Broadway production staged this past season.  Christ Church Presbyterian on Manhattan’s west side is the home of the Rising Sun Theater, a small company with big plans.  Being young and ambitions, its members are naturally much interested in what’s happening now in theater.  It opened its 1968-69 season with an intermedia presentation, La Ronde 1968, based on the play Reigen by Arthur Schnitzer.  La Ronde is a series of brief ‘love’ episodes between people of opposite genders—prostitute and soldier, wife and husband, whore and whoremonger, etc.

            “Profanity is a distinct part of this production, but what occurs on stage is more surprising than what is said.  In one scene a clothed young man lies on top of an attractive girl and promptly begins to simulate sexual intercourse.  In another, a young woman is discovered in bed with her stage husband, and from the looks of things she was—though only minimally exposed—probably missing at least the top half of her bedtime attire.

            “The production also included a highly suggestive, or even erotic (depending on who you are), psychedelic dance seen through a maze of colorful lighting.  The miniskirted girls ground away while their male counterparts reciprocated.  Earlier, images of young people ‘making out’ were flashed on a screen in back of the state area.  A good time was apparently had by all.

            “Ideologically there is not much distance between this production and some of the more publicized off- and off-off-Broadway presentations currently building a reputation.  Of these Che! De Sade Ullustrated, Geese and Oh! Calcutta! are perhaps the most motorious.  The elimination of a few garments and the addition of a few lines about all it would have taken to bring La Ronde 1968 into the same league, and it would not surprise me if that short distance is spanned in the upcoming season.

            “It seems inevitable that at least one church in the New York’s off-off-Broadway scene will doubtless follow.  The trouble with such a development, if it does occur, is that the outcry raised may be so loud and may last so long that the theater in general will suffer.”  Page 1520.

RADICAL CONFUSION

            As the revolutionary left increases activity, its internal confusion also increases.  This was illustrated at a conference held in New York City, November 29, 1969, called “Agencies of Social Change: Towards a Revolutionary Strategy for Advanced Industrial Countries.”  The conference was sponsored by the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation of America and the Socialist Scholar’s Conference, and 1500 attended.

            According to a report in the Guardian of December 20, 1969, the only thing on which the conferees agreed, is that society must be overthrown.  As the French Marxist Andre Gorz said, “Social systems never die of old age or natural death, only when people decide to kill them.”

COMMUNIST CHINA REPORTS PRESIDENT NIXON’S SPEECH ON VIETNAM

            To a sour stomach, no food tastes sweet.  Those who saw and heard the President deliver his speech, will find the following report somewhat strange.

            “On November 3, U.S. imperialist chieftain Nixon delivered a bellicose speech on U.S. imperialist aggressive policy in Viet Nam.  It completely exposed the hypocritical words about seeking ‘peace’ in Viet Nam he spread during last year’s presidential election campaign and since he took power.  It also unmasked his ferocious warmonger features.

            “Nixon clearly indicated that U.S. imperialism was going to drag out and intensify its war of aggression in Viet Nam and perpetuate the occupation of south Viet Nam.  He shouted himself hoarse about the importance of aggression in Viet Nam to U.S. imperialist counter-revolutionary global strategy.  He minced no words in saying that U.S. imperialism had ‘great stakes’ in Viet Nam.

            “He also made it clear that U.S. imperialism would obstinately foster the counter-revolutionary rule of the puppet regime in south Viet Nam, using it as a U.S. imperialist tool for carrying on its policy of aggression in Viet Nam.  The question concerning the puppet regime was not negotiable he said.

            “The speech fully demonstrated that Nixon was up to his neck in difficulties at home and abroad and in an impasse.  Of late, the struggle against U.S. aggression in Viet Nam by the world’s people, has been gaining greater momentum.  U.S. political and economic crises are growing more and more serious.  The contradictions, strife and bickering within the ruling clique are worsening as never before.  Having become a target of public attack, the Nixon government has found itself in a more and more difficult position.  Under the circumstances, Nixon bared his fangs, openly intimidating and threatening the people of Viet Nam and the American people.

            “He asserted that if the south Vietnamese people’s armed forces did not allow the U.S. aggressor troops to occupy south Viet Nam and slaughter the south Vietnamese people, but persisted in their struggle and ‘jeopardized’ the U.S. aggressor troops, he would take so-called ‘strong and effective measures to deal with them.’

            “Our great leader Chairman Mao has pointed out: ‘When we say, imperialism is ferocious, we mean that its nature will never change, that the imperialists will never lay down their butcher knives, that they will never become Buddhas, till their doom.’  What Nixon, a teacher by negative example, has done concerning the Viet Nam question once against proves this great truth that Chairman Mao pointed out 20 years ago.”  Peking Review, November 21, 1969, Pages 25 and 26.