higher nervous activity of man by suggestion. This is the task of further research."  When and if further research grants the Marxist this ability, be assured he will use it in the name of scientifically sculpting the perfect society.
      Marxist psychologists, it would seem, are tied even more inextricably than Humanists to the behaviorist view of man, since Marxism describes man’s development as an inevitable march toward communism. This notion of a determined development of man seems to exclude free will, thereby supporting the behaviorist view that man’s decisions and actions are simply the result of his brain’s response to environmental stimuli.
      Further, Marxist philosophy and biology are consistent with behaviorism. Marxism accepts evolution as fact and perceives materialism to be the only proper means of understanding the world. These beliefs, in turn, affect the Marxist view of the mind/body relationship. The Marxist, like the Humanist, believes the mind is no more than the purely physical activity of the brain. Mind and brain are two words describing the same thing or entity.
      V. I. Lenin states, "The existence of the mind is shown to be dependent upon that of the body, in that the mind is declared to be secondary, a function of the brain, or a reflection of the outer world."  Elsewhere he says, "Matter is primary nature. Sensation, thought, consciousness, are the highest products of matter organized in a certain way. This is the doctrine of materialism, in general, and Marx and Engels, in particular." 
      Psychology is the study of the mind and its processes, and a philosophy that denies the mind as a supernatural phenomenon necessarily confines one to the behaviorist school of thought. Thus, when Lenin declares the mind to be strictly organized matter, he forces Marxism to accept the behaviorist position in order to be consistent with Marxist philosophy. Joseph Nahem digs the same hole for Marxism:

"Marxism is rooted in the philosophy of dialectical materialism. Its materialist viewpoint excludes religious, supernatural or idealist views. Thus, in psychology, it excludes the idea of a supernatural soul as explanatory of human behavior."

      Nahem uses the term soul, but it is clear from his statement that any notion of a supernatural mind is excluded as well.
      This materialist philosophy presented a serious problem for Marxist psychology prior to the development of the behaviorist theory. Ivan P. Pavlov sums up the problem when he declares, "I cannot understand how the present conceptions of psychology, which have no relation to space, can be fitted into a material structure such as the brain."  Pavlov spent much of his life reconciling this conflict; in fact, he paved the way for behavioral theorists.

      Nahem, a modern Marxist psychologist, sums up this reconciliation between materialism and psychology and acknowledges Marxism’s indebtedness to Pavlov:

"The fundamental propositions set forth by this materialist epistemology are: that matter is primary and that mind and consciousness are secondary and derivative; that mental processes and consciousness itself are products of specially organized matter in the form of the brain and nervous system. Thus, Marxist materialism holds that psychological theories which separate the mind from the brain, or which deny the primacy of the brain and nervous system are unscientific. The work of Pavlov and others in physiology is viewed as a confirmation of materialist epistemology since it confirms the reliance of mental processes on physiological processes."

      From this statement, it seems obvious that the Marxist must embrace behaviorism.
      Indeed, behaviorism seems to be all that the Marxist can embrace while remaining consistent with his worldview. This is especially likely since Marxism categorically rejects Freudian psychology. L. P. Bueva writes, "In essence, psychoanalytic conceptions present a pessimistic evaluation of man whose life is presumed to consist of an eternal struggle against a society that is inherently inimical and his instinctive nature consisting of wild and untamed human attractions and passions."  If the Marxist rejects Freudianism, rejects the supernatural mind, and believes mankind is destined to embrace communism (a clear-cut denial of free will), then he apparently has no choice other than accepting behaviorism.
      Before we examine Marxist psychology’s tendencies toward behaviorism further, we must understand precisely what this theory entails. This can be accomplished best by studying the thought of behaviorism’s most vocal modern supporter, B. F. Skinner.

Behaviorism Defined
Behaviorism perceives man as simply a stimulus receptor, a creature capable of responding only one predetermined way to any given set of circumstances in his environment. Skinner believes this is the only truly scientific means of approaching psychology: "A scientific analysis of behavior dispossesses autonomous man and turns the control he has been said to exert over to the environment. The individual . . . is henceforth to be controlled by the world around him, and in large part by other men." 

continued on page 7

Communist Brainwashing
by Dr. Fred C. Schwarz

The word "brainwashing" is a very recent addition to the English language. A new word was necessary because it signified an experience that was previously unknown. Since its introduction it has passed into common speech and is used routinely by large numbers of people, many of whom have only the vaguest idea of its meaning. In many cases it is used to describe processes that have existed for centuries, and its specific meaning has, to a large degree, been lost. But the phenomenon of brainwashing is one of the more frightening developments of the twentieth century. It is an accurate and destructive science. It is an assault upon the human mind itself. The Communists have proved they can distort the human mind as the torturers of history distorted the body.
      An American girl went to China as a Fulbright scholar. She was not a Communist, but neither was she an active anti-Communist. After studying for a year or so in Communist China, she was arrested and underwent various mysterious treatments. At the end of this treatment, she confessed that she had gone to China as an imperialist spy, and professed profound repentance for her treachery. She was then allowed to go free.
      As she crossed into Hong Kong, she was met by newspaper reporters, and a remarkable story unfolded. She told the reporters she had been a vicious spy on behalf of the American imperialists. Her attitude was a composite of guilt and self-loathing, mingled with hatred of her own country and a passionate love for the Chinese Communists. She was almost lyrical in her gratitude and devotion to her captors. She described how wonderful they were. She had deserved to die, but they had spared her life. In their hands she had been born again. To them she owed an eternal debt of gratitude for the new life she now lived.
      The reporters questioned her about her treatment in prison. Had not her feet been in chains? Oh, yes, her feet had been in chains, but what loving, kind, wonderful people the Communists were. Was it not true that her hands had been handcuffed behind her back? Yes, her hands had been handcuffed behind her back, but they had treated her with absolute kindness and wonderful love.
      What were the experiences which had brought about this remarkable situation where she believed she had done things she had not done, felt guilt for crimes she had not committed, and loved with a passionate intensity those who had tortured and tormented her? We see in this young woman an end product of the phenomenon known as brainwashing.

      A young man joined the armed forces of his country and crossed the sea to fight in Korea. Early in the Korean War, he was taken prisoner by the Communists. He very soon confessed that he had engaged in germ warfare. While in the hands of the Communists, he fell ill and was transferred back to America at operation "Little Switch"—the interchange of sick prisoners. Upon his return, he needed to be institutionalized. In the institution he sat squat-legged in his cell in the grip of a profound, irreducible melancholy, with a tendency towards self-destruction. He was in love with his mistress, Death. This young soldier is a second example of the results of brainwashing.
      The word is sometimes used to describe the experience on a mass scale, of American prisoners in the hands of the Chinese Communists. America has fought in a number of wars in which prisoners have been taken. Such prisoners always proved a thorn in the side of their captors. They were very difficult to control, they were courageous, they were subject to the discipline of their officers in the prison, they were gripped with a comradely devotion to their fellow prisoners, and they made numerous attempts at escape. When American prisoners of war fell into the hands of the Communists, however, a disturbing transformation occurred. They were reduced to a selfish, uncoordinated rabble without discipline or unity. Informing on one another was the order of the day. A handful of Communist Chinese kept large groups of American prisoners under control without brutal bashings, without barbed wire entanglements, and with little apparent difficulty. Of many thousands of prisoners, not one made any attempt to escape during the entire period of the imprisonment. Only a small segment were able to withstand completely the attempts of the Communists to indoctrinate them. Another small group became openly pro-Communist. The remainder were demoralized. Forty per cent of them died. The Turkish prisoners, on the other hand, maintained an excellent record. Their discipline was held completely from top to bottom. Not one Turkish prisoner died, and not one collaborated.
      So concerned were American authorities that they instituted an inquiry to seek the causes of this revolution in the conduct of American prisoners. A team of trained medical officers examined the prisoners, collected details of the treatment they had received, and probed for the causes of the debacle. This evidence was published in the book, In Every War but One. Their findings were alarming indeed. In an effort to prevent similar occurrences in the future, the army sought to establish a code of conduct for any soldier so unfortunate as to fall into the hands of the Communists in the future. The Communist assault on the human mind is historically unique and alarming in its effectiveness.
      To understand the rationale of this attack we need to

understand the Communist concept of the mind itself. The Communists are complete materialists. They believe that matter in motion is the sum total of all being, that there is nothing in the universe but matter in motion. Man is a material machine. Within his body a stomach secretes gastric juice, a liver secretes bile, a brain secretes emotion and thought.
      A materialist scientist built a mechanical dog which he kept in a room in his home. When he opened the door and allowed the light to shine on the eyes of the dog, it moved forward and growled. When he shut the door, it moved back into position. If he stroked the dog along the back, it wagged its tail. If he tickled it underneath, it lay down. Said the scientist, "The only difference between this dog and my pet dog that runs, jumps, barks, and comes with me when I take a walk is one of degree. There is no difference in kind."
      The Communists go further. The only difference between the mechanical dog, the living dog, and the human being is one of degree. There is no difference in kind. The human body is simply a material machine. It is as automatic as an automobile. Man is a complex of conditioned behavior. The machinery is very complex, particularly the brain which is so complex that it gives the impression of freedom, choice, and volition. But thought is merely a reflection of certain electronic impulses within the brain. The Communists, therefore, believe that if they can understand brain structure, the building up of brain patterns and brain circuits, they will be able to understand the formation of human thought and will be able to control and direct human thought.
      The functional unit within the brain is the conditioned reflex. The Communists have studied the formation, control and elimination of conditioned reflexes. A reflex is an unlearned muscular response to a natural or unconditioned stimulus. At birth a baby has certain remarkable skills. For example, it can cry, and crying is a complex mechanical process requiring the coordination of a number of groups of muscles. Again, a baby can suck. These muscular skills are the external manifestations of certain inborn brain patterns. They are unconditioned reflex actions.
      At birth, the process of development and learning begins. Learning is the accumulation of new brain patterns leading to muscular co-ordination of a more complex nature. The baby is taken and laid in a bassinet over which is suspended a little colored ball. The little hands strike at the ball. At first the movements are uncoordinated and multi-directional, but gradually skill is acquired until at length the little hand can hit the ball at will. The skill is revealed in co-ordinated muscular activity, but the controlling mechanism is the pattern that has been developed within the brain. The skill is a conditioned reflex.

      As experience continues, the baby learns to sit up, to walk, to talk, to write, to ride a bicycle, to play the piano, to use a typewriter, to drive an automobile. All these skills are conditioned reflexes. Experience shows itself in intricate patterns of muscular activity, but the real pattern is established within the brain.
      The Communists believe that the mind is simply a complex of conditioned reflexes, and that if they can understand the techniques by which these conditioned reflexes are built up and how they can be broken down, they have acquired mastery over the mind itself.
      The great scientist who studied the conditioned reflex thoroughly and systematically was the Russian, Pavlov. He began his scientific experiments under the rule of the Czar. Lenin early realized the vast significance of Pavlov’s studies for the Communist program of changing the entire mental outlook of the Russian people. Pavlov was therefore given favored treatment by the Communist regime.
      The experimental animal that he used was the dog. The basic reflex that he studied was the salivary reflex. When a dog is hungry and is shown some meat, his mouth waters. The sight or the smell of the meat is the normal stimulus for the flow of saliva. In preparation for this experiment, Pavlov operated on these dogs and introduced a tube into the salivary duct to divert the saliva from the intestinal tract into a bottle so that its flow could be measured. When the dogs were hungry, he showed them meat and the saliva flowed. The next step was to associate the ringing of a bell with the viewing of the meat and the flowing of the saliva. At first he rang a bell at the same time as he showed them the meat. Then he rang the bell a few seconds before he showed them the meat. In this way, the ringing of the bell was associated with the normal stimulus in such a way that the ringing of the bell itself was sufficient to start the salivary flow. Gradually the time interval was extended until, finally, the dogs were so conditioned that whenever the bell rang, the saliva flowed. The flowing of the saliva in this situation was a conditioned reflex. The ringing bell was the artificial stimulus that produced the reflex response.
      Pavlov experimented with a large range of stimuli to reflex action. He took colored lights that moved in a circular pattern, lights that moved in an elliptical pattern, and, after due training and conditioning, was able to obtain specific responses for each of the lights that he showed. He subjected the dogs to contradictory stimuli and studied their behavior to see which reflexes were more powerful. He had a whole kennel of dogs, each of which was conditioned to react to a given stimulus in a fixed manner.

To be continued in the July Schwarz Report.

Moldova Votes Communist
by Irina Sandul

The former Soviet republic of Moldova, battered by a decade of failed market reforms and growing poverty, has turned toward Russia in an attempt to halt a sharp decline in living standards.
      On Feb. 25, Moldova became the latest member of the former Soviet block to bring the once-reviled Communist Party back to power.
      Voters have also returned Communists or their successor parties to power in Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria and Albania by appealing to voters’ longing for the stability of an earlier era.
      The Communists won more than 50 percent of the popular vote in Moldova, giving them 71 of 101 seats in parliament.
      A centrist alliance led by Prime Minister Dumitru Braghis came in second, with 13.5 percent of the vote. The pro-Romanian Christian Democratic Party was third with about 8 percent.
      Communist leader Vladimir Voronin, 60, led his party to victory by promising to establish close ties with Russia.
      He emerged as the most likely candidate to be elected the nation’s president in a special parliamentary election Wednesday.
      Moldovans "hope the Communists will be a united force and a bridge to Russia and stabilization," she said.
      Igor Botan, director of the Center for the Development of Participatory Democracy, echoed the despair of ordinary Moldovans.
      "The school [system] is destroyed. People don’t have work. Moldova represents a splinter of the Soviet empire, but a very specific splinter, an agrarian one." Mr. Botan said by telephone from the Moldovan capital of Chisinau.
      Moldova, a nation slightly larger than Maryland, lies between Romania and Ukraine.
      With an average monthly wa
      e of less than $50, it is one of the poorest countries in Europe.
      It depends on agriculture, in which output tends to fluctuate dramatically from year to year. In 1999, for example, food production fell 60 percent from the previous year. Another leading crop, tobacco, fell 40 percent.
      At the time, 90 percent of the population lived on less than $2 per day and people now appear to be getting poorer with each passing year.
      A class of wealthy Moldovans accounts for 47 percent of the nation’s consumption, while the poorest account for just 6 percent of spending, said Charles King, an assistant professor in the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University.

      Moreover, Moldova’s communists from the Soviet era were viewed as relatively benign; they were just executives who implemented directions from Moscow, said Mr. Botan.
      "Neither the former collective farm managers nor the newly sprung-up intellectuals have the administrative or political skills to run the country," he said. "That’s why the Communists won."
      Mr. Voronin, the Communist Party leader has promised to call a referendum on an economic union with Russia and has proposed making Russian an official language alongside Moldovan.
      About one-third of the 4.5 million people in Moldova use Russian as their mother tongue, and most people are bilingual.
      In a public opinion poll conducted by Moldovan non-government organizations in August, one-third of those surveyed cited hunger as their biggest fear.
      "If the Moldovan economy grows 10 percent each year by 2010, it would be where the Soviet Union was when it collapsed," Mr. King said.
      Mr. Botan said that one-third of the adult population is retired, living on pensions of $8 a month. With utility bills averaging $30 monthly, retirees grow increasingly indebted with each passing month.
      "For the latest 10 years, the so-called democrats failed in social politics," said Mr. Botan.
      Since Moldova declared independence in 1991 the Democratic Party led by President Petry Lucinschi adopted a new constitution and reformed the public administration system.
      "But the legislative basis is just a decoration," said Mr. Botan. "The mentality and corruption [remained]."
      In the recent election, the Democratic Party of Mr. Lucinschi failed to win any seats in Parliament.
      Conspicuously absent in Moldova, as well as its neighbors Ukraine and Belarus, is a growing middle class, said Janusz Bugajski, director of East European studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
      "It’s not enough to give money," Mr. Bugajski said. "Ukraine’s example is very classic. A lot of money has been pumped in by the International Monetary Fund and other sources into the Ukraine’s economy. But unfortunately the evidence shows that much of it has either been squandered or has been taken out of the country."
      According to Mr. Bugujski, former Soviet republics that fully abandoned communism, such as the Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, have developed thriving economies, unlike Modova, Ukraine or Belarus.
      "There is very little Russia can do to influence the governments of the Baltic states," Mr. Bugajski said. "Unfortunately, they still try in various ways to influence [Moldova, Ukraine and Belarus] not to move towards the 

West but remain close to the East."'
      "Russian troops are in Moldova. It has debt to Russia. Gasprom controls Moldova Gas," Mr. King said of the largest Russian energy company.
      Russia still keeps its army in Trans-Dniester, a sliver of land between the Dneister River and Moldova’s eastern border with Ukraine.
      Trans-Dniester was attached to Bessarabia, a part of Moldova, by the Soviets in 1940. Russians and Ukrainians, with little or no loyalty to Moldova, outnumber ethnic Moldovans there 3-2.
      It fought a brief war for independence in the early 1990s and today maintains its own de-facto government independent of Chisinau.
      But the region is home of 17 percent of Moldova’s people and hosts much of the nation’s industry, making it vital to Moldova’s economic future.
      In 1998, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) pushed Moldova and Trans-Dniester to sign an agreement for a common customs system
      Since then, Mr. King said, Trans-Dniester has been able to import all kinds of goods from abroad legally without paying any taxes to Moldova.
      "[Trans-Dniester] is a mafia state," he said. "In 1998 Trans-Dniester imported 11 times as many cigarettes per person as the rest of Moldova," which were then illegally sold.
      Mr. King said the reason why Communists won in Moldova is not because the people want a return to the communist system, but because the alternatives have failed.
      "Since 1990 the Communist Party of Moldova has been growing in strength," said Mr. King. "It has learned how to take advantage not only of the [pro-Russian] vote, but across ethnic lines and age groups."
      In Moldova the Communists promised to double the nation’s budget. They pledged to boost revenues by cracking down on smuggled gasoline and oil.
      They also promised to double monthly salaries and pensions.
      Another goal of Moldova’s Communists is to join the existing economic union between Russia and Belarus.
      The existing Russia-Belarus union is a loose and so far largely ceremonial alliance between the two neighbors. But it calls for a gradual tightening of ties and eventually establishing a common currency.
      "The European Union sets very concrete conditions,"

said Mr. Botan, "which Moldova won’t be able to fulfill for the next 30 to 40 years. The Russia-Belarus unit doesn’t set any conditions. All that is demanded is a political will."
      By joining the Russia-Belarus union, Moldova would have access to Russia and Belarus, which now impose high-excise duties on agricultural imports.
      Unable to be traded freely with its neighbors, food grown in Moldova’s rich black soil often rots before reaching export markets.
      Most Moldovans consider the dissolution of the Soviet Union to have been a mistake, said Mr. King.
      A vote for pro-Russian Communists in Moldova was not a vote against democracy, he said.
      "Nothing indicates the Communist Party is anti-democratic. Elections were legal. It’s a far cry from even a country like Ukraine," he said.
      Dorin Tudoran, director of information resources at the International Foundation for Election Systems (IFES) in Washington, said the Moldovan Communist Party is not against a market economy.
      Its leader, Mr. Voronin, "didn’t quote Lenin and Marx. He quoted Jefferson and Rockefeller," Mr. Tudoran said.
      Mrs. Shevtsova said the Moldovan Communists are more cautious than the authoritarian-style communists who continue to vie for power in Russia.
      Communists in the former Soviet republics, unlike their cousins in the former Warsaw Pact nations of Eastern Europe, hesitate to change their name because they fear alienating longtime supporters.
      The economic collapse that followed the end of [the] Soviet Union and the lack of investments were greater than anyone expected, according to Charles Maynes, the president of Eurasia Foundation in Washington.
      Sections of the population that were better off during the Soviet era have been hurt by this change and are finding their political voice, he said.
      "The Communist Party can’t go back to the past...The question is: What happens when they get back to power? In that case, it would be what happened in Poland and in Hungary. They adapted to the new reality, Poland joined NATO," Mr. Maynes said.
      "There is a new order in Europe right now, and countries that don’t participate simply have no other choice than to be poor. The question is: Are the people in Moldova willing to live with that," he said.
      The Washington Times, April 1, 2001, p. A 10

when he described the "scientific psychologist" as someone who "has discarded philosophical theories of the soul and set about making a direct study of the material substratum of psychical phenomena—the nervous processes—and has produced, let us say, an analysis and explanation of some one or more psychological processes." 
      A. R. Luria seems to embrace behaviorism as well, although he stops short of suggesting that behaviorism is the only explanation for mental processes: "We begin with the view that in the organisation of behaviour there are some general laws operative, dependent upon the inclusion of some special vital forces. The organisation of adult human behaviour is the product of a fairly complicated and long development." 
      Bueva bases his psychology on the assumption that "Man’s needs represent a motivating force for his activities. They include basic needs relating to his livelihood as well as diverse specific social, socio-political, moral and cultural forms of his labour."  These needs, for Bueva, are the forces that react to stimuli and shape behavior—a notion that has very behavioristic tendencies.
      "It is not only the determining role of external and internal conditions, but rather the creative role of consciousness and man’s activities that manifest themselves in people’s needs. This refers both to the material and spiritual needs which determine individual’s behaviour and stimulate his activity." When Bueva speaks of man’s behavior as determined, he is moving dangerously close to the behaviorist denial of free will.
      Marxist psychologists also seem to accept Skinner’s premise that once we understand behavior, we may take the necessary steps to control it for the better. Thus, Bueva claims, "In providing an integrated view of the world dialectical-materialistic philosophy assists man in mastering the forces within his own nature and contributes to a realization of the humanistic function of not only perceiving the world but also transforming it in accordance with man’s interests and objectives."  Nahem agrees: "Marxism links knowledge and freedom by calling for the utilization of natural, social and psychological laws discovered by science to achieve mastery over nature, society and ourselves. Knowledge thus is power—power to be free by utilizing knowledge."  Nahem, of course, uses the term freedom in an effort to shroud his theory in positive rhetoric, but notice what kind of freedom he is describing—the freedom to control other people and oneself. Skinner envisions this same type of freedom.
      Marxist psychology, then, appears to accept behaviorism. Indeed, many Marxists make it sound as if behaviorism is the only scientific approach to psychology. Harry K Wells declares, "Only by viewing mental activity as a function of higher nervous activity, can psychology be transformed into an objective science on a par with other sciences."