These forces also guarantee that such a state ultimately will wither away. The Marxist believes that once every trace of bourgeois ideology and all the stains of capitalist tradition have been eradicated, i.e., once all classes are eliminated, a fully communist society will exist. In future communist society, every citizen will be capable of governing himself. Thus, communism will be ushered in by the dialectic and social evolution, through the vehicle of the dictatorship of the proletariat (guided by the Marxist/Leninist party). According to the Marxist, his economic and political vision will become reality through the coming world order and will one day redeem all mankind—an idea in keeping with the religious nature of Marxism/Leninism.
      Marxist/Leninists believe politics to be grounded in economics. As demonstrated in the chapter on Marxist economics, Marxism views the struggle to control the forces of production as the dynamic force behind man’s development. The economic system in a society determines the other features of that society, including its political structure. "In the social production which men carry on," says Karl Marx, "they enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will; these relations of production correspond to a definite stage of development of their material forces of production. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society—the real foundation on which rise legal and political superstructure and to which definite forms of social consciousness correspond." 
      It follows from this that certain economic systems give rise to certain political systems. Marxists embrace this conclusion. Leonid I. Brezhnev declares, "Today, we know not only from theory but also from long years of practice that genuine [political] democracy is impossible without [economic] socialism. . . ."  Thus, the Marxist believes genuine democracy exists in the socialist Soviet Union. "In the USSR," says A. Andreyevich, "there are no anti-government demonstrations and manifestations. There are not, nor can there be, for after all, the Soviet Government is always with the people." 
      According to Marxism, socialism lays the foundation for genuine democracy, although an impure form of democracy can exist in capitalist nations. But is genuine democracy the supreme aim of Marxist politics? Not at all. In fact, the Marxist views democracy as little more than a necessary evil. "Democracy is a state," explains Lenin, "which recognises the subordination of the minority to the majority, i.e., an organisation for the systematic use of force by one class against another, by one section of the population against another."  With this attitude toward democracy, the Marxist is naturally unwilling to view democracy as the ultimate goal of man’s development. However, this definition of democracy is consistent with Marxist thought when one takes into account Marxism’s emphasis on the class struggle.

Class Antagonism
Because the Marxist sees our present world as a battle between the owners of the means of production (the bourgeoisie) and the workers (the proletariat), and because he views economics as the foundation on which the rest of society is built, he logically perceives the state as simply another arena in which the "haves" and the "have-nots" struggle. Thus, forms of government that the Western world would describe as desirable, such as a democracy or a republic, are still perceived by the Marxist as bad, especially if they exist in a capitalist economic system. "But a republic, like every other form of government," writes Engels, "is determined by its content; so long as it is a form of bourgeois rule it is as hostile to us as any monarchy (except that the forms of this hostility are different)." 
      In other words, since the government is founded on the existing economic system, and since capitalism is always undesirable, the government overseeing it is undesirable as well. "The modern state, no matter what its form," says Engels, "is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit."  Obviously, for the Marxist, a state so clearly based on exploiting its citizens is unacceptable.
      However, as previously noted, the Marxist perceives not only a capitalist democracy, but also a socialist "genuine" democracy as unacceptable. What, then, causes the Marxist to describe the socialist democracy as genuine? Because, the Marxist claims, in socialist society, the mode of production does not exploit any of the citizens, and therefore encourages a less-exploitative political system. The authors of Socialism as a Social System put it this way: "The political system of socialism—as opposed to the political systems of the preceding societies—is based on socio-economic relations free from exploitation and antagonism."  Marxism believes a socialist government will tend to discourage class antagonism, since it will be founded on an economic system that is a step closer to abolishing classes. This less-exploitative nature of the government makes the democracy more "genuine." It makes socialism more appealing than capitalism, but still less appealing than communism.
      The reason the Marxist believes socialist democracy is a better form of government is clear. So why doesn’t Marxism embrace a socialist democratic state as the ultimate goal of man’s development? Even given the Marxist belief that democracy is a system through which the majority oppresses the minority, surely they must admit it to be a better political system than any of the alternatives?

continued on page 7

Marx, Hegel, Feuerbach
by Dr. Fred C. Schwarz

The dialectical philosophy is the most difficult, the least understood, and possibly the most important aspect of Communism. It is this philosophy which directs the apparently unpredictable and constantly changing Communist course.
      Most people are very practical. They believe the evidence of their senses. They look for an enemy which is obvious and tangible. They say, "I am interested in the Communists, and concerned by their actions. Tell me who they are and show me where they are and I will know how to act." Or they may say, "I am interested in Communist economic theory, in their military power and in their subversive organization, but don’t talk to me about philosophy. That is too deep for me. Talking about their philosophy only confuses me." Such people are interested in the superficial manifestations of Communist organization, but they are not interested in the philosophic credo from which they draw their motivating forces, their basic strategy, and their confidence in the future. They are reminiscent of dairy farmers who are interested in milk, but not in cows, orchardists who are interested in fruit, but not in trees, or apiarists who are interested in honey but not in bees. The superficial manifestations of Communism are inseparably related to its underlying philosophic concept.
      As I have traveled throughout this country addressing civic clubs, patriotic groups, churches and schools, I have frequently asked three simple questions. The first is that all those present who have heard of Communism and who know that it exists should raise their hands. All hands are immediately raised. The second request is that all those present who are opposed to Communism and not ashamed to say so should raise their hands. Again all the hands shoot into the air. The vast majority of people readily affirm their opposition to Communism.
      The third question I preface by the following remarks: "Be careful how you answer this question, for if you answer it in the affirmative, I will test you out by asking one further question. It will not be a difficult question, but if you cannot answer it, you have no right to answer this question in the affirmative. The third question is: Will those who know what Communism is please raise their hands?" One or two hands creep hesitantly and tentatively into the air. I then say, "Communism has a system of philosophic thought, an interpretation of being, a book of fundamental rules known as its philosophy. To the founders of Communism, this was the most important feature of their entire program. It underlies, unifies, integrates, and directs the apparently contradictory phenomena of Communist conduct and unites them into a 

purposeful whole. It is the major subject in every Communist school in the world. From it they derive their definitions of such terms as peace, truth, righteousness, justice, and democracy. If you do not understand something about the philosophy of Communism, you understand little about Communism itself. What is the name of the philosophy of Communism?"
      This question elicits a considerable range of answers but seldom the right one. The answer is, of course, Dialectical Materialism. The Communists have made no secret of this. They have written it down, they have announced it to all the world, they teach it in every school that they control. Yet it is a somber fact that many anti-Communists have never even heard the name. Until recently, it was most unusual to find individuals in most groups who could so much as name their philosophy. Even today, the number of those who have any understanding of Dialectical Materialism is very small indeed.
      One Sunday afternoon, by a peculiar accumulation of circumstances, I found myself speaking from the Communist platform in the Domain in Sydney, Australia. The Sydney Domain, a lovely park adjacent to the Sydney harbor, is possibly the world’s greatest open forum. To this park each Sunday afternoon come all those with a message, real or imaginary, and there they harangue the passing throng. People gather in the thousands. The Communists always have a large, well organized meeting. As I spoke from the Communist platform, I mentioned Dialectical Materialism, whereupon the Communists leader challenged me. "What is Dialectical Materialism?" he asked. I replied, "Dialectical Materialism is the philosophy of Karl Marx that he formulated by taking the dialectic of Hegel, marrying it to the materialism of Feuerbach, abstracting from it the concept of progress in terms of the conflict of contradictory, interacting forces called the Thesis and the Antithesis culminating at a critical nodal point where one overthrows the other, giving rise to the Synthesis, applying it to the history of social development, and deriving therefrom an essentially revolutionary concept of social change." The questioner looked at me with wide-open eyes. I added, "Don’t blame me. It is your philosophy, not mine. You are the one who believes it."
      If we examine the philosophy of Dialectical Materialism in more detail, we see that there are two elements in it. There is the dialectical portion, and there is the materialist portion. Let us first consider briefly the materialism. The Communists are materialists. They affirm confidently, arrogantly, and repeatedly that there is nothing in the world except matter in motion. The precise form of their materialism was taken from the German philosopher Feuerbach, a renegade theologian who forsook Theism and embraced materialism. His basic slogan was: "Man is what he eats. We are matter in motion, nothing more."
      The argument between the materialist and the idealist is 

as old as the history of human thought. Into the two categories, realists and idealists, the philosophers of the world have been divided. The realists or materialists contend that matter is the ultimate reality, and that thought is a secondary manifestation of matter. On the other hand, the idealists contend that matter is known only through thought. Take away thought and matter would be non-existent. The basic reality, therefore, is thought.
      The following simple question is quite an effective instrument for distinguishing realists from idealists. The question is: Do the wild waves beating on the shore make a noise when no one is there to hear them? Those who believe that the wild waves do make a noise whether anyone is there or not are realists; those who believe that the wild waves make no noise unless someone is there to hear them are idealists. The realists believe that the noise is in the movement of the water itself; the idealists believe that it is a concept in some mind following the sensory mechanisms of perception. To the idealists, the noise is actually a manifestation of the mind. It is interesting to note that when this question is put to audiences, the realists or materialists usually outnumber the idealists by three to one.
      It is to be noted that the word "idealism" bears no moral connotation. Because this word is associated in many minds with moral issues, it is difficult for those minds to divest the term of its moral attributes. In this sense the terms "idealist" and "materialist" refer merely to concepts of ultimate reality.
      The Communists have no doubt as to where they stand. They are materialists. As far as Karl Marx was concerned, the idealist philosophers were simply the instruments of clerical reaction, servants of the clergy in their basic purpose of oppressing the working class in the interests of the Capitalist reactionaries. That disciple of Marx, Mao Tse-tung, expresses it thus: "There is nothing in the world except matter in motion."
      Most of the materialistic philosophers of Marx’s day were mechanists. They believed that materialism allowed no room for individual, volitional action. Their view was that all nature was automatic, that all actions were compulsory because of the forces that operated on the individual. Each man’s destiny was beyond his control. Materialist philosophy thus resulted in nihilism in action and conduct. 

This philosophy is very well expressed by James Thomson in his poem, "The City of Dreadful Night," where he portrays a man as the helpless plaything of the forces of nature.
      If one is born a certain day on earth,
      All times and forces tended to that birth,
      Not all the world could change or hinder it.
      In marrying materialism to the Hegelian dialectic, Marx performed a remarkable operation. He brought into materialism an element of devotion, sacrifice, initiative, and purpose. He enunciated a deterministic, materialistic philosophy and, at the same time, brought into being intense, passionate dedication to make the inevitable come to pass. This is a truly remarkable Marxist achievement. If a group of people are utterly convinced that the sun is going to rise at 5:30 a.m. it should be a very difficult task to persuade these same people to awaken an hour early and work like slaves to make the sun do what they know it is going to do. Marx’s achievement was somewhat similar to this. He took materialistic philosophy which taught that the force of history had decreed that certain things must inevitably happen, and married this philosophy to an intense personal, sacrificial dedication to make these things come to pass. He did this by introducing a mystical element from the Hegelian dialectical.
      The German philosopher Hegel was the great philosopher of the early nineteenth century. His were the works and ideas that were discussed by the young intellectuals in the universities of that day. Hegel was an idealist, believing in the primacy of thought rather than of matter. Within the framework of his idealistic philosophy, he developed the dialectic. Hegel’s philosophic thought is very difficult to understand. Hegel himself is reported to have said, "Only one man has understood me, and even he has not!" Marx contended that he was the one man who understood Hegel, and claimed that Hegel did not understand himself. Marx took the dialectical portion of Hegelian philosophy, married it to the materialism of Feuerbach, and produced dialectical materialism. Closely associated with him in his work was Frederick Engels, who became his lifelong collaborator, co-worker, supporter, and interpreter. Together Marx and Engels built the philosophic basis of Communist practice.

Honoring Whittaker Chambers
by Ralph Z. Hallow

The Bush White House, seeking to keep alive the flame of freedom, yesterday marked the 40th anniversary of the death of anti-communist hero Whittaker Chambers, who exposed treason and espionage at the highest levels of the U.S. government.
      Mr. Chambers, who described communism as "evil, absolute evil" and exposed Soviet spy Alger Hiss, died long before the demise of communism in Eastern Europe. But yesterday’s ceremony came 13 years after President Reagan, who helped bring about that demise, had honored him posthumously with the Medal of Freedom.
      Tears came to many in the private White House audience of 160 invited guests as they heard tributes by conservative journalists William F. Buckley Jr., Ralph de Toledano and Robert Novak, and by Chambers biographer Sam Tanenhaus.
      "This shows that George W. Bush, the president, understands it’s important to honor somebody who did something extremely difficult, who told the truth about something that was very hard to tell the truth about," said Eugene Meyer, executive director of the Federalist Society and an invited guest, in an interview after the ceremony.
      More than four decades ago, Mr. Chambers was vilified by liberals and leftists for having accused Mr. Hiss, a former State Department official, of being a communist spy and traitor.
      Mr. Chambers, then a Time magazine editor, had to reveal that he too had been a communist. Richard M. Nixon, then a freshman House member, took up Mr. Chambers’ case against Mr. Hiss and also earned the undying enmity of liberals and leftists.
      Although once-secret Soviet documents subsequently proved Mr. Chambers right about Mr. Hiss having spied for Moscow, the left still ignores Mr. Chamber’s contribution to uncovering communists in the U.S. government and maintains Mr. Hiss’ innocence, the speakers said.
      Mr. Novak yesterday said liberals rejected Mr. Chambers’ testimony before Congress at the time because they thought it was aimed at undermining President Roosevelt and the New Deal.
      In an interview at the event yesterday, Tony Dolan, a Former Reagan White House chief speechwriter, was asked if such a tribute to Mr. Chambers’ memory would have taken place with Al Gore as president.
      Mr. Dolan, now and aide to Secretary of State Colin 

Powell, paused and said with a chuckle: "Would Henry Ford have endorsed a Chevrolet?"
      In 1984, Mr. Dolan broached with Mr. Reagan the idea of honoring Mr. Chambers. The president subsequently gave the highest civilian medal to Mr. Chambers’ son John in a White House ceremony attended by the Chambers family.
      Two weeks later, Interior Secretary Donald P. Hodel named the Chambers farm in Westminister, MD.–including the famous pumpkin patch where he had hidden microfilm–a national monument.
      Mr. Chambers, who prided himself on being a "counterrevolutionary" and a "man of the right," once told Mr. Buckley, his editor at National Review magazine, "I shall vote the straight Republican ticket as long as I live."
      "But," Mr. Buckley yesterday recalled Mr. Chambers as saying, "if the Republican Party cannot get some grip on the actual world we live in and actually promote a program that means something to the masses of people, it will become like one of those dark little shops that never sells anything."
      Tim Geoglein, deputy director of the White House Office of Public Liaison, oversaw yesterday’s event and said the idea was his.
      Mr. Novak said that his "philosophical outlook and, without exaggeration, my life," was changed when, as a second lieutenant in the U.S. Army in 1953, he first read Mr. Chambers’ book, "Witness."
      The book challenged Mr. Novak’s agnosticism at the time "by defining the spiritual dimension of the struggle. He described communism as posing the most revolutionary question in history: God or man?...Whether the West’s faith in God could be stronger than communism’s faith in man."
      The Washington Times, July 10, 2001, p. A4

The Crusade is preparing to go onto the college campuses in conjunction with the organization Students for America to distribute tens of thousands of books to students. We plan to give away Mind Siege: The Battle for Truth in the New Millenium, and many others, free of charge, to students who promise to read them. Full and half-page ads will be taken out in the campus newspaper promoting the book and telling where it may be obtained. You can become actively involved by: helping us purchase books for distribution; sending us the names of Christian students who might be willng to help; and praying for a specific campus and how you might help us reach its students and faculty.

Chambers vs. Hiss
by Helle Bering

It is astonishing that even after the 10th anniversary of the fall of the Soviet Union, even after communism has been thoroughly discredited and the many evils committed in its name disclosed, the name of Whittaker Chambers remains controversial. This year marks the centennial of the birth of the man who exposed Alger Hiss. On Monday, the White House held a private memorial to the 40th anniversary of Chambers’ death, a tribute to an extraordinary man–as William F. Buckley, put it, "a singular figure in the 20th century."
      Predictably, the event managed to attract some criticism from the press over the notion that President Bush should find it appropriate for the White House to host such a tribute. According to the organizers, one reporter demanded to know "Why this meeting? The Cold War is over." And The Washington Post’s Reliable Source reported yesterday that New York Times reporter Elaine Sciolino had been denied access to the private event, in which, according to The Post, "the anti-communist icon’s fans and fellow Cold Warriors commemorated him as a man and a hero." Sounds pretty sinister, right? All those hoary Cold Warriors huddled together in secrecy. Ms. Sciolino certainly thought so, but wrote her story anyway. "Thank God, I have covered enough totalitarian regimes in my life. I have had to report on a lot of secret meetings," she hyperventilated to The Post. As though every government that ever held a closed meeting was totalitarian. Truth be told, the White House might as well have opened the event to the liberal press. They might actually have learned something.
      At a time when espionage is again in the news, courtesy of confessed FBI spy Robert Hanssen, the tribute to Chambers was particularly thought-provoking. The motives of the mysterious, but immensely destructive, Hanssen remain unclear, though greed that netted him $1.43 million from the Soviets for selling out his country along with a pathological penchant for secrecy were surely part of it. The ideological component that made Hiss and Chambers actors in the superpower struggle of the century seems to have been missing in more modern cases such as Hanssen’s 15-year-spying sprees–and in the case of CIA spy Aldrich Ames.
      While personal greed may always be there as a motivation, for Soviet moles like Hiss who penetrated the U.S. government from top to bottom in the 1930s and 1940s

(supported and directed by the Communist Party USA), there was at least an epic dimension as well. That is equally true for Chambers, who himself was drafted by the Soviets to set up a communist cell in Washington in the early 1930s. By 1938, he realized what king of evil he had been drawn into and ceased his activities. But there was atonement to come. In 1948, Chambers denounced both himself and State Department official Hiss, a member of his cell, to the House UnAmerican Activities Committee.
      Chambers, a top-flight writer for Time magazine, was well aware of the price he would be paying himself when he denounced Hiss. As his biographer Sam Tanenhaus noted on Monday, he knew the congressional hearing room would be the best place to fight communism. Here words amounted to deeds. At the climactic moment of the hearings, Chambers said, "Mr. Hiss represents the concealed evil against which we still fight. So help me God I cannot do otherwise." Robert Novak called Chambers "a tragic and heroic figure, his life destroyed and distorted by the fight between communism and freedom." The story of his personal struggle became Chambers’ book "Witness," published in 1952.
      Left-wing anti-communist Sidney Hook once remarked that he could understand Chambers’ fight against communism, "But why bring God into it?" At the most profound level, that was what the struggle was all about, God or man as the measure of all things. Although Soviet communism has disappeared, that choice still colors our cultural and political choices, and it still underlies perceptions of Hiss and Chambers.
      One would think that the guilt of Hiss would be thoroughly established by now, half a century after his conviction and half a decade after the publication of the transcripts of the Venona documents–secret Soviet cable traffic of the 1940s intercepted and finally decrypted by the United States. These Soviet documents yet again confirmed Hiss’ actions and those of innumerable other moles. But there are still doubters, still people who see Chambers as the betrayer, not Hiss. As recently as 1997, Bill Clinton’s nominee for FBI director, Anthony Lake, managed to question Hiss’ guilt on national television. It contributed greatly to sending his nomination down in flames.
      In political terms, humanity made some awful choices in the 20th century. That’s why events like Monday’s commemoration are important. We need to keep the memory alive of those who fought against "absolute evil"–as Chambers called the ideology that once blinded him.
      The Washington, Times, July 11, 2001, p. A17

formula to abolish all classes. Engels writes, "We want the abolition of classes. What is the means of achieving it? The only means is political domination of the proletariat."  Marx calls for this political domination as well: "Between capitalist
and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."  This dictatorship of the proletariat, according to Lenin, is necessary for the good of all society: "The essence of Marx’s theory of the state has been mastered only by those who realise that the dictatorship of a single class is necessary not only for every class society in general, not only for the proletariat which has overthrown the bourgeoisie, but also for the entire historical period which separates capitalism from ‘classless society,’ from communism." 
      Marxist/Leninists believe the proletariat must seize political power to instigate socialism and set the stage for the abolition of classes (and eventually the state). The puzzle is that Marxists continually speak of a "dictatorship" of the proletariat. Doesn’t a "genuine democracy" arise in socialist states? How can Marxism reconcile this call for a dictatorship with their claim that socialist society encourages true democracy?
      Marxists reconcile this apparent contradiction simply by pointing to their definition of democracy. As noted earlier, Marxism perceives democracy as simply the oppression of the minority by the majority. Thus, democracy is similar to a dictatorship in that the majority dictates government policy and laws to the minority. In capitalist society, this means the bourgeoisie uses the state to oppress the proletariat. In socialist society, it means precisely the opposite—the proletariat will operate as the authoritarian majority. "In no civilised capitalist country does ‘democracy in general’ exist," explains Lenin. " All that exists is bourgeois democracy, and it is not a question of ‘dictatorship in general,’ but of the dictatorship of the oppressed class, i.e., the proletariat, over its oppressors and exploiters, i.e., the bourgeoisie, in order to overcome the resistance offered by the exploiters in their fight to maintain their domination." 
      The Fundamentals of Marxist-Leninist Philosophy puts it this way: "The socialist state is, above all, an instrument for uniting the masses and educating them in the spirit of communism, an instrument for building the new society. This state is dictatorial in a new way, because it is directed against the bourgeoisie, and democratic in a new way because it secures democracy for the working people."  Put more simply still, "The dictatorship of the proletariat means the replacement of democracy for the exploiters by socialist democracy for the working people. . . ."