 |
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|||
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
||||
|
||||
| 54. COMMDNISM AND TE2 ?DBIIC Other front organizations stress some domestic injustice. They may emphasize some particular situation, such as the famous Sacco-Vanzetti and Scottsboro cases, or some continuing problem, such as the defense of labor or constitutional liberties. It must be remembered that the very essence of a front organization is the finding of an issue upon which Communists and non- Communists can unite* While it is no defanse of such groups to note that their programs are often sound and acceptable, yet this does explain why many liberals join them. They accede to the general purpose of the front, and may never realize that the key personnel are Communist. A close study of the •' groups listed in Appendix III shows how many can deceive the unwary. Thus, it would be natural for any decent person to join an organization designed to combat antisemitism or to aid the Negro, and the Communists exploit this impulse. It is only through expert knowledge of officers, associations, sponsorship, and day-by-day programs that front groups can be detected. Once a liberal joins one front organization, he is fair prey for the rest. Some are professional "joiners" of reform groups. Others find that publicity and academic promotion may follow from membership in national organizations. 3£any are not immune to the flattery of seeing their names on letterheads. The result is that mere repetition of organizations to which an individual belonged is not of necessity proof of affection towards Communism. This was a source of serious Dies Committee errors. Of course, some investigators attempt to correct such errors by noting anti-Communist organizations to which these same individuals may belong. Such would be the situation for Frank Graham, David Dubinsky, and«A. Philip Randolph. But many Dies Committee investigators were not so discriminating. Sooner or later a stage is reached where either the judgment or the principles of the joiner is bound to be questioned. In the opinion of many liberals, that stage has long since passed. The disgraceful actions of the American Communists during the period 1939-1941 should have been enough to warn any intelligent person of their true loyalty. Furthermore, enough is known today of the reality behind the facade erected by the Soviet Union to awaken an intelligent liberal. Because of this, two liberal publications, The New Leader, and Common Sense, have recently castigated the amorality or the double standard of morality of many liberals. The New Leader speaks of the "totalitarianism of the liberals", whereby every action by the Soviet Union is condoned, while similar actions by our own government are condemned» Thus, the Soviet does not hesitate to use Hazis in Germany (witness the Free Germany Committee) or Iron Guardists in Rumania when it suits them. Yet ifi the United States used a Darlan or a Petainy we are roundly denounced. The classic example of "red faces" occurred when Communists instigated liberals to attack American tolerance of King Victor of Italy and Premier Badoglio, and then the Soviet changed its line and recognized the regime. At once American agitation died down. Even worse is the liberal blindness in regard to the utter tuthlessness of the Soviet, both at home and abroad. Some are so devot- ed to a planned economy that any means to the end is swallowed. The articles by Norman Angell in the New Leader for iferch 17, 1945, and by Kenneth Crawford in Common Sense for May, 1945, are classics. Crawford is magnificent in excoriating the Nation and the New Republic, prime examples of amoral liber- alism. Sven the Communists themselves despise the liberals which they use, as was noted by Earl Browder, in P.M., March 29, 1944. One high Communist •fficial told this writer that he considered liberals to be "unprincipled and |