organization the exclusive privilege of doing business or by establishing de facto monopolies through regulatory agencies whose alleged purpose is the enforcement of competition but whose real effect is the limitation of competition.
      Economic interventionism and socialism are the real sources of monopolies.  This is illustrated, for example, in the success of the American robber barons of the nineteenth century.  Without government aid such as subsidies, the robber barons would never have succeeded.
      Liberals blame capitalism for every evil in contemporary society, including its greed, materialism, selfishness, the prevalence of fraudulent behavior, the debasement of society’s tastes, the pollution of the environment, the alienation and despair within society, and vast disparities of wealth.  Even racism and sexism are treated as effects of capitalism.
      Many of the objections to a market system result from a simple but fallacious two-step operation.  First, some undesirable feature is noted in a society that is allegedly capitalistic; then it is simply asserted that capitalism is the cause of this problem.  Logic texts call this the Fallacy of False Cause.  Mere coincidence does not prove causal connection.  Moreover, this belief ignores the fact that these same features exist in interventionist and socialist societies.

The Issue of Greed
      Liberal critics of capitalism often attack it for encouraging greed.  The truth, however, is that the mechanism of the market actually neutralizes greed as it forces people to find ways of serving the needs of those with whom they wish to exchange.  As long as our rights are protected (a basic precondition of market exchanges), the greed of others cannot harm us.  As long as greedy people are prohibited from introducing force, fraud, and theft into the exchange process and as long as these persons cannot secure special privileges from the state under interventionist or socialist arrangements, their greed must be channeled into the discovery of products or services for which people are willing to trade.  Every person in a market economy has to be other-directed.  The market is one area of life where concern

for the other person is required. The market, therefore, does not pander to greed.  Rather, it is a mechanism that allows natural human desires to be satisfied in nonviolent ways.

Does Capitalism Exploit People?
      Capitalism is also attacked on the ground that it leads to situations in which some people (the “exploiters”) win at the expense of other people (the “losers”).  A fancier way to put this is to say that market exchanges are examples of what is called a zero-sum game, namely, an exchange where only one participant can win.  If one person (or group) wins, then the other must lose.  Baseball and basketball are two examples of zero-sum games.  If A wins, then B must lose.
      The error here consists in thinking that market exchanges are a zero-sum game.  On the contrary, market exchanges illustrate what is called a positive-sum game, that is, one in which both players may win.  We must reject the myth that economic exchanges necessarily benefit only one party at the expense of the other.  In voluntary economic exchanges, both parties may leave the exchange in better economic shape than would otherwise have been the case.  To repeat the message of the peaceful means of exchange, “If you do something good for me, then I will do something good for you.”  If both parties did not believe they gained through the trade, if each did not see the exchange as beneficial, they would not continue to take part in it.
      Most religious critics of capitalism focus their attacks on what they take to be its moral shortcomings.  In truth, the moral objections to capitalism turn out to be a sorry collection of claims that reflect, more than anything else, serious confusions about the real nature of a market system.  When capitalism is put to the moral test, it beats its competition easily.  Among all of our economic options, Arthur Shenfield writes, 

only capitalism operates on the basis of respect for free, independent, responsible persons.   All other systems in varying degrees treat men as less than this. Socialist systems above all treat men as pawns to be moved about by the authorities, or as children

to be given what the rulers decide is good for them, or as serfs or slaves.  The rulers begin by boasting about their compassion, which in any case is fraudulent, but after a time they drop this pretense which they find unnecessary for the maintenance of power.  In all  things they act on the presumption that they know best.  Therefore they and their systems are morally stunted.  Only the free system, the much assailed capitalism, is morally mature.

      The alternative to free exchange is coercion and violence.  Capitalism is a mechanism that allows natural human desires to be satisfied in a nonviolent way.  Little can be done to prevent people from wanting to be rich, Shenfield says.  That’s the way things often are in a fallen world.  But what capitalism does is channel that desire into peaceful means that benefit many besides those who wish to improve their own situation in life.  “The alternative to serving other men’s wants,” Shenfield concludes, “is seizing power of them, as it always has been.  Hence it is not surprising that wherever the enemies of capitalism have prevailed, the result has been not only the debasement of consumption standards for the masses but also their reduction to serfdom by the new privileged class of Socialist rulers.”
      Once people realize that few things in life are free, that most things carry a price tag, and that therefore we have to work for most of the things we want, we are in a position to learn a vital truth about life.  Capitalism helps teach this truth.  But under socialism, Arthur Shefield warns, “Everything still has a cost, but everyone is tempted, even urged to behave as if there is no cost or as if the cost will be borne by somebody else.  This is one of the most corrosive effects of collectivism upon the moral character of people.”
      And so, we see, capitalism is not merely the more effective economic system; it is also morally superior.  When capitalism, the system of free economic exchange, is described fairly, it comes closer to matching the demands of the biblical ethic than does either socialism or interventionism.
      These are the real reasons why Ron Sider and his friends in the Religious Left should have abandoned the statist economic policies they promoted in the past. These are also the reasons why they should now end their advocacy of economic interventionism, which only encourages the consolidation of wealth and power in the hands of the few.  Christians who are sincere about wanting to help the poor should support the market system described in this chapter.

      This article is an excerpt  from a chapter of Dr. Nash’s book, Why the Left Is Not Right.  Please note that this book has been added to “The Schwarz Report Bookshelf” on the back page.

The Treason of the Intellectuals
by John Lenczowski

      Throughout that [cold] war, we were confronted with the phenomenon of the “Treason of the Intellectuals,” where large segments of our intelligentsia collaborated intellectually and politically with our enemies.  The treason took several forms, whose effects were to aid the political and ideological dimensions of the Soviet and international communist cold war against us.
      Ultimately, it was not just a war between us here and them over there.  It was a war between two visions of society, two philosophies of life.  It was a moral conflict between truth and falsehood at two different levels.
      The question is: Where did these debilitating and dangerous policies come from?  What is it that generates the treason of the intellectuals?
      The answer, I submit, is our educational system, and in particular, our elite universities, which are the most subversive institutions in American society today–more than the media, more than the movies, more than all the other influences.
      Because the rot starts in the head, and only then it spreads throughout the body.
      Parents can work hard to educate their children to be patriots and morally upright citizens.  But four years of college of the kind I experienced–where I was surrounded by a culture of drugs, sexual libertinism, political radicalism and little homework–can destroy the efforts of the best parents in America.  Add to that a few years of graduate school and the counter-cultural influence can prove to be irremediable.
      In one fell swoop, through these various premises, the intellectuals deny the existence of God; they deny that God made human life a series of moral choices; and they assert that they, through the supremacy of their human reason, and not God, are the creative intelligence of this world.
      But I would guess that 95 percent of the social scientists in America’s elite universities–or could it be 99 percent?–would not sign the Declaration of Independence if they were honest about it.  They simply do not believe in the first paragraph.  They do not believe that rights come from any Creator.  And thus, they cannot believe in the fundamental tenet of American democracy: majority rule with minority rights.  Because unless rights come from a higher authority, one with the capability to endow rights unconditionally, the majority can always attach conditions to rights or deny them to whichever minority group it chooses to victimize.

Excerpts from Policy Counsel (Fall 1996) pp. 35-42

The Heart, Mind and Soul of Communism
Part 1 in a continuing series
by Dr. Fred C. Schwarz

      In 1917, in a café in Geneva, Switzerland, an intensely ambitious and fanatical man sat writing furiously. He had written there for many years, in exile from his native land of Russia, living in the expectation of the great day of revolution when he would be called to the center of the world’s stage. He was the acknowledged leader of a small Marxist sect, the Bolshevik section of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party. To the majority of Marxists he was an extremist, unduly schismatic, tinged with anarchistic ideas, sincere but dangerous. He had, scattered throughout Russia and the prisons of the world, 40,000 followers, devoted to their leader, equally fanatical, and unreservedly dedicated to the ideas of revolution and world conquest. His name was Vladimir Ilich Lenin.
      Suddenly, in February of 1917, the news burst upon the world of a great Russian upheaval. The Czar was dethroned, a parliament was established to guide the steps of a new-born republic, and the Social Revolutionary leader, Kerensky, was called to the helm. Lenin and his scattered followers hastened to the new center of revolution, Petrograd, since renamed Leningrad. Stalin returned from Siberian exile, Trotsky came from a Canadian concentration camp, and Lenin traveled by armored train across embattled Germany to his native land, leaving Geneva, the city of his exile. On arrival Lenin announced to the other nonbolshevik revolutionaries that he alone, supported by his bolshevik fragment, would conquer and rule the vast territories of Russia. They looked at him in amazement and said, “Farewell Lenin the Marxist; welcome Lenin the Anarchist.” Zealously, scientifically, and ruthlessly he set to work to make his prediction come true. In April he renamed the Bolshevik section of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party the Communist Party of Russia. In October the Communists organized a second revolution, overwhelmed the new infant republic, and Lenin became dictator of all Russia.
      There then came to pass the modern miracle of the world. An expansive program of conquest was initiated which has been successful beyond the wildest dreams of avarice. History records no movement growing, conquering, consolidating, and expanding as Communism has unceasingly done since that time. The statistics are startling, even terrifying. In 1917 they had 40,000 followers; in 1966 they controlled more than one billion. The number of actual

communists is over 43 million. To consummate their dream of world conquest they merely need to multiply the present population under their control by less than 3. Anyone who is not startled and profoundly alarmed by these figures is evidently free from the responsibilities of rational comprehension, satisfied to live a mere animal existence with no thought of the morrow.
      How has this tremendous success been accomplished? What tremendous dynamic of power is concealed within the categories of Communism that has driven it forward as an irresistible whirlwind? How has it managed to captivate the mind and imagination of young and old, mobilize the intelligence, loyalty and capacity to sacrifice of those so captivated, discipline them and transform them into the mold of a Communist Cadre and then send them forth--limitless in enthusiasm, confident of victory, careless of personal death--to lay waste and conquer the earth?

What Is Communism?
      Communism is a religion of promise. It has advanced across the world on the wings of a promise. The promise is two-fold in nature. One aspect of the Communist promise is very well known, but the other is almost unknown. One aspect appeals to the poor, the ignorant, and the underprivileged; the other aspect appeals to the wealthy, the intellectually superior, and the idealistic reformers.
      To the poor of the earth--and they are legion--the servants of Communism go with this message: “Follow me, and I will build a new world for you and your children, a world from which hunger and cold have been forever banished; a world in which war and pestilence are mere historic memories; a world without exploitation of man by man; a world without racial animosity and discrimination; a world of peace and plenty; a world of culture and intellect; a world of brotherhood, liberty, and justice.” Can you imagine the appeal of this promise to those millions living in the narrow no-man’s land between malnutrition and starvation, never having had the comfortable sensation of retiring to bed after a full and satisfying meal in the knowledge that at least food and raiment for the days ahead are assured? Can you imagine the appeal of this promise to the millions who watch their children die in birth or during their first year, the victims of filth, starvation, and preventable disease carried by flies and mosquitoes? The force of this appeal is multiplied when the messenger is obviously sincere and is willing to leave his own home and the land of his birth, to forsake his family and loved ones to carry this message to these unfortunate poor. Identifying himself with their woes, he lives like them, eats their food, and daily risks his life to bring the message he bears to more and more who stand in dire need. Surely it does

not require any great faculty of imagination to understand the tremendous appeal such a program must have in those dark lands of ignorance, illiteracy, hunger, and disease--the lands of the East. That aspect of the Communist promise is widely known and easily understood.
      There is a second portion of the promise that is used, not to captivate the poor, but to seduce the rich; not to enlighten the ignorant, but to enlist the educated; not to bribe the cynical, but to ensnare the idealistic. Not only is there to be a new society created, but there is also to emerge a new and finer mankind. Human nature itself is to be transformed into something infinitely finer and more beautiful. Mankind is to be redeemed from vice, depravity, and sin in all its forms. The Methodist hymn well expresses this vision in the following words:
      These things shall be; a mightier race
      Than ere the world has seen shall rise
      With light of knowledge in their eyes.
      Evangelical Christians, above all others, should be able to understand the appeal of such a promise. They are dedicated to the redemption of man through the Gospel of the Grace of God revealed in Jesus Christ. How they rejoice when a wayward sinner finds his way in repentance and faith to the foot of the Cross of Calvary and rises a new man in Christ Jesus. What a rejoicing there was in Christian circles a few years back when in the Billy Graham campaign a prominent radio announcer and a minor gangster found Christ. The very temperature of the evangelical Christian climate was raised--hearts rejoiced, purses and pocketbooks opened, and many Christians received a new vision and made a new dedication of their lives to Christ.
      Communism is not a program to cure one or two, but to cure all of the sins of the whole world. Its plan is not to reform one drunkard but to eliminate all drunkenness, all crime, all vice, and everything that spoils and mars what man should be. Surely the appeal of such a vison can be well understood. Often during the question time at the conclusion of an address, the following request is made: “Please explain the appeal Communism has to those who have nothing to gain and everything to lose by its success. I can understand its appeal to the poor and ignorant, but please explain to me how it appeals to millionaires, college professors, and ministers of religion. That I cannot understand.”                 Surely this problem presents no difficulty when we see the promise of the creation of a new and redeemed mankind.

What nobler vision could any man have? To this mighty task every capacity of body and mind should be dedicated-- the task of creating a New Heaven and New Earth wherein the redeemed may dwell. Failure to comprehend this central truth is responsible for some of the most common misconceptions with regard to Communism. How often we used to hear it said, “Communism is all very well in theory, but it won’t work because of the weakness of human nature.” No Communist ever proposed to establish the Communist society with present sinful nature. Before the social order of Communism can come to pass, the new and redeemed mankind must emerge from the ashes of the destroyed Capitalistic Civilization.
________________________________
Dear Dr. Noebel,

      I am a Christian missionary working among the Chinese-speaking peoples.  With my family, I have lived in both communist China and the communist Russian far-east.
      I just received your October 1998 issue of  “The Schwarz Report.”  How fascinating.  How true!  Americans are so ignorant of the continued march of communism and the United Nation’s part in the expansion of one-world socialism as planned by Marx, Lenin, and the gang.
      On our missionary support we are unable to subscribe to all of the periodicals such as yours that we find so helpful.  I use these materials as part of our children’s home school curriculum in government and history.  Thank you for the issue that you sent.
      If we can be of any help to your research from our experience living and working in communist lands, please let us know.
      God bless you,
      Robert E. Patenaude
      Lipa City,  Republic of Phillipines

      Because of generous support from the Crusade family, we are able to provide complimentary subscriptions such as this one to the Patenaude family.

      For more information on the United States relationship with the Chinese government, check out this month’s Resource Notes.

What Is Political Correctness?
By William S. Lind

      “Political Correctness” is in fact cultural Marxism–Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms.  The effort to translate Marxism from economics into culture did not begin with the student rebellion of the 1960s.  It goes back at least to the 1920s and the writings of the Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci.  In 1923, in Germany, a group of Marxists founded an institute devoted to making the transition, the Institute of Social Research (later known as the Frankfurt School).  One of its founders, George Lukacs, stated its purpose as answering the question, “Who shall save us from Western Civilizations?”   The Frankfurt School gained profound influence in American universities after many of its leading lights fled to the United States in the 1930s to escape National Socialism in Germany.
      The Frankfurt School blended Marx with Freud, and later influences (some Fascist as well as Marxist) added linguistics to create “Critical Theory” and “deconstruction.”  These in turn greatly influenced education theory, and through institutions of higher education gave birth to what we now call “Political Correctness.”  The lineage is clear, and it is traceable right back to Karl Marx.
      The parallels between cultural Marxism and classical, economic Marxism are also clear.  Cultural Marxism, or Political Correctness, shares with classical Marxism the vision of a “classless society,” i.e., a society not merely of equal opportunity, but equal condition.  Since that vision contradicts human nature–because people are different, they end up unequal, regardless of the starting point–society will not accord with it unless forced.  So, under both variants of Marxism, it is forced.  This is the first major parallel between classical and cultural Marxism: both are totalitarian ideologies.  The totalitarian nature of Political Correctness is fully visible on campuses where “PC” has taken over the college: freedom of speech, of the press, and even of thought are all eliminated.
      The second major parallel is that both classical, economic Marxism and cultural Marxism have single-factor explanations of history.  Classical Marxism argues that all of history was determined by ownership of the means of production.  Cultural Marxism says that history is wholly explained by which groups–-defined by sex, race and sexual normality or abnormality–-have power over which other groups.
      The third parallel is that both varieties of Marxism declare certain groups virtuous and others evil a priori, that is, without regard for the actual behavior of individuals.

Classical Marxism defines workers and peasants as virtuous and the bourgeoisie (the middle class) and other owners of capital as evil.  Political Correctness defines blacks, Hispanics, Feminist women, homosexuals and some additional minority groups as virtuous and white men as evil.  (Political Correctness does not recognize the existence of non-Feminist women, and defines blacks who reject Political Correctness as whites.)
      The fourth parallel is in means: expropriation.  Economic Marxists, where they obtained power, expropriated the property of the bourgeoisie and handed it to the state, as the “representative” of the workers and the peasant.  Cultural Marxists, when they gain power (including through our own government), lay penalties on white men and others who disagree with them and give privileges to the groups they favor.  Affirmative action is an example.
      Finally, both varieties of Marxists employ a method of analysis designed to show the correctness of their ideology in every situation.  For classical Marxists, the analysis is economic.  For cultural Marxists, the analysis is linguistics: deconstruction.  Deconstruction “proves” that and “text,” past or present, illustrates the oppression of blacks, women, homosexuals, etc. by reading that meaning into the words of the text (regardless of their actual meaning).  Both methods are, of course, phony analyses that twist the evidence to fit preordained conclusions, but they lend a “scientific” air to the ideology.
      These parallels are neither remarkable nor coincidental.  They exist because Political Correctness is directly derived from classical Marxism, and is in fact merely a variant of Marxism.  Through most of the history of Marxism, cultural Marxists were “read out” of the movement by classical, economic Marxists.  Today, with economic Marxism dead, cultural Marxism has filled its shoes.  The medium has changed, but the message is the same: a society of radical egalitarianism enforced by the power of the state.
      Political Correctness now looms over American society like a colossus.  It has taken over both parties–the last Republican convention was choreographed according to its dictates, while cultural conservatives were shown the door–and is enforced by many laws and government regulations.  It almost totally controls the most powerful element in our culture, the entertainment industry.  It dominates both public and higher education; many a college campus is a small, ivy-covered North Korea.  It has even captured the higher clergy in many Christian churches.  Anyone in the Establishment who departs from its dictates swiftly ceases to be a member of the Establishment.

Free Congress Foundation  800-638-0660

q    “The past year has seen a national campaign to turn a man generally and deservedly forgotten into an African American hero.  According to his advocates, the singer Paul Robeson, who would have turned 100 this year, deserves to join the ranks of Martin Luther King Jr. and W.E.B. DeBois as the subject of a U.S. postage stamp...
      “The pro-Robeson campaign represents the latest attempt to sell the American people a falsified, anti-anti-Communist, upside-down version of their history...
      “Robeson received the Stalin Prize the year the dictator died, and signed a eulogy expressing a grief in which Robeson found himself completely bereft of his vaunted eloquence. ‘Slava – slava – Stalin, Glory to Stalin,’ he babbled.  ‘Forever will his name be honored and beloved in all lands.’
      “The suggestion that Robeson betrayed his country would provoke howls of rage today.  American intellectuals observe a double standard: Fascist enemies of democracy...were criminals; but Communists were democracy’s best friends...
      “The man has no more business on a U.S. postage stamp than Benedict Arnold or John Wilkes Booth.”
      Stephen Schwartz, writing in “He Ain’t Worth a Lick,” in the July issue of the American Spectator

q    “Now we know why the Democrats were so vicious in their attacks on Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN) and Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN).  Theirs were the committees that were closing in on the China connection, the scandal that can bring down the Clinton presidency, the scandal that has made Congressmen start to utter the T word (treason).  A series of front-page news stories in the New York Times (May 15, 16, 17) essentially vindicated Thompson’s charge that the Chinese Communist Government tried to influence the 1996 U.S. election with campaign contributions.
      “Bill Clinton’s friend and ubiquitous Democratic fundraiser Johnny Chung told Federal investigators that he funneled nearly $100,000 from the Communist Chinese military to the Democratic campaign in the summer of 1996.  The money was handed to Chung by the daughter of the top commander of China’s People’s Liberation Army, General Liu Huaqing, who was also one of the top five members of the Chinese Communist Party’s ruling Politburo.
      “Chung’s liaisons with the Clinton Administration were so cozy that he was able to arrange for the daughter, who goes by the name of Lt. Col. Liu Chaoying, to get a speedy visa and come to America to be photographed with Clinton on July 22, 1996.  She is what is called a “priceling,” one of the privileged offspring of China’s ruling elite.  In addition to her title of Lieutenant Colonel in the People’s Liberation Army, she is a senior manager and vice president for China Aerospace International Holdings, which is the Hong Kong arm of China Aerospace Corporation, a state-owned jewel in China’s military-industrial complex, with interests in satellite technology, rocket launches, and missiles.

      Johnny Chung told Federal investigators that Col. Liu actually gave him $300,000, which she said originated with China’s military’s intelligence arm, and told him to use the money for Democratic campaign contributions.  He apparently kept $200,000 for his “businesses.”  Soon after the picture-taking fundraiser, Col. Liu had Chung open a California branch of Marswell Investing, another of her Hong Kong enterprises, whose chief “business” was parking Chinese money in the United States.  She also invested $300,000 in Chung’s facsimile business.  Chung was quite a hustler; he visited Clinton’s White House 49 times.
      After fundraising investigations began last year, the Democratic National Committee returned $366,000 to Chung which were suspected of being illegal foreign contributions.  Chung has pleaded guilty to campaign-related bank and tax fraud.
      The Phyllis Schlafly Report, Vol 31, No. 11,   June 1998

q    “A special House committee investigating U.S. technology transfers to China concluded yesterday that Clinton  administration export policies damaged U.S. national security by allowing military know how to leak to Beijing’s forces.
      “ ‘Based on unclassified information, I can tell you today that we have found that national security harm did occur,’ said Rep. Christopher Cox, the committee chairman.  ‘We have investigated these questions more thoroughly than any other part of the United States government.’
      “The California Republican did not elaborate on the damage, citing secrecy rules.  But he said the transfers involved both ‘dual-use’ technology --for military and civilian application--and technology directly supporting weapons research and development.
      “ ‘Rather quickly, our investigation led to even more serious problems of [Chinese] technology acquisition efforts targeted at the United States,’ Mr. Cox said.  ‘The seriousness of these findings and their enormous significance to our national security led us to a unanimous report.’”
      The Washington Times, December 31, 1998, p. 1

q    “The Office of National Drug Control Policy has estimated that 810,000 hard-core drug addicts are involved in the use of heroin as their principal drug of choice, and that the high-quality South American product has spawned a new breed of users – those more amenable to snorting rather than injecting the drug.
      “Records show increasing numbers of young people are becoming involved – particularly in Philadelphia, St. Louis and New Orleans, where about 12 percent of those arrested were between 15 and 20.”
      Jerry Seper, The Washington Times, October 12, 1998, p. A 8