World in the Grip of an Idea; C. Carson

The idea behind the making of this analogy was supposedly to put the Cold War in perspective. Those who pushed the analogy were saying, in effect, «Look, don't get so excited about this conflict. Our forebears went through just such a conflict. There was a time when men were so In this series, Dr. Carson examines the connection between Ideology and the revolutions of our time and traces the Impact on several major countries and the spread of the Ideas and practices around the world. heated up about religious differ ences that they fought grisly wars with one another about them. And what do we, with the advantage of historical perspective, think of the merit of these differences? Do we think them worth fighting about? Hardly!" There are some interesting paral lels between the earlier religious wars and those of this century, more interesting even than those who have advanced the analogy have pointed out. The earlier conflicts were between Christians, people of the same basic faith. The ideological conflicts of this century are between socialists, mainly, people of the 271 272 THE FREEMAN May same faith. In both conflicts, consid erable attention has been paid to doctrinal differences, and differ ences in practice have occasioned acrimony. Moreover, socialists have been as inclined toward sectarian squabbles over dogma as Christians ever were.

There is yet another parallel. Both the earlier religious wars and the twentieth century conflicts were or are contests over political power; but since this parallel is crucial, the discussion of it should wait for a bit. Reasoning by analogy has its pit falls, however. Where complex phenomena are involved, as in these conflicts, it is important to attend both to similarities and to differ ences. It is even more important to distinguish between superficial similarities which may be acciden tal and critical differences which may be essential. Nor is any valid historical perspective to be gained by ignoring critical differences. Living with Differences It is true that Christians are gen erally at peace with one another in the world today. It is also true that sectarian differences which once were battle cries hardly excite a murmur. A certain amount of con vergence has even taken place amongst some Christians, but it is also the case that where some union takes place, those who oppose the union often form their own denominations. The important point to get at, however, is to understand why Christians are generally at peace with one another. It is not, as sec ularists may suppose, that differ ences in doctrine no longer matter, or that there has been a decline in religion and religious fervor. It may be the case that dogmas are not generally so sharply defined or keenly felt as they were, say, in the course of the Protestant Reforma tion. But that is surely only a matter of degree and is by no means univer sal. As to a decline in religion, there has been such a decline among intel lectuals in the last century, accom panied by an impact on the intellec tual climate. This does not of itself signify a decline in religious belief but rather an intellectual narrowing of its import.

In any case, religious enthusiasm has waxed and waned several times in the period since religious differ ences among Christians were the occasion of any widespread conflict. This suggests to me that the degree of religious belief is not the key to an explanation of martial conflict over religion. Conflicts Over Power Religious differences only become an occasion for warfare when reli gion is linked to political power. To put it another way, conflict arises over the attempt of those who hold political power to force their beliefs 1979 THE COLD WAR: COEXISTENCE, DETENTE, CONVERGENCE 273 on others who differ with them. Or, it can arise when there is a contest between those who have differing religious persuasions over who shall exercise the power in matters of re ligion. The Protestant Reformation, and the Catholic Counter-Reformation, spawned wars because state and church were intertwined and be cause only one religion could be, or was, established. The power contest contributed much to sharply defined dogmatic positions and thus to the proliferation of denominations. (The more sharply drawn doctrinal posi tions are the less the likelihood of general agreement. But doctrines must be sharply defined if adher ence to them is to be enforced by law.) The way to religious peace is to deny to any religion the power to force .its doctrines on others or to establish its religion over them.

This idea is found in the doctrine of the separation of church and state. The matter runs deeper than this, however. There is a critical and es sential difference between Chris tianity and modem socialism. At bottom, Christianity is not a power theory. As was earlier affirmed, socialism-whether revolutionary or evolutionary-is a power theory. But let us consider the case of Chris tianity first. It has already been pointed out that when Jesus went into the wilderness and was tempted that he rejected the vision of an earthly kingdom or empire. That is, he rejected the use of force to attain his ends. He did so again, in another way, just before his trial and crucifixion. When Judas betrayed Jesus and the crowd laid. hands on him, this event occurred: And behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear.

Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish by the sword. Matthew 26:51-52 It should be made clear, however, that these remarks were made in connection with the attainment of his ends. Jesus goes on to say that he could have legions of angels to de fend him, if he would but ask. ((But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be." (Mat thew 26:54) No Use of Force Christianity is not a power theory. Jesus rejected the use of force to achieve his purposes. The methods he employed were concern, love, healing, sacrifice, attraction, and per suasion. Those who would follow him, he bade to take up, not their swords, but the cross (i. e., the way of sacrifice). What Jesus seeks can not be attained by force. Men cannot be made to believe. They cannot be forced to have a change in which 274 THE FREEMAN May they comprehend the superior real ity of spirit. The sword is an instru ment of death, not of life, and he said that he came to bring life.

None of this is said to deny the obvious, namely, that many of those who have professed to be his follow ers have taken up the sword with the avowed purpose of defending or advancing Christianity. They have often enough intertwined religion with government. They have estab lished churches by law. They have used the force of government to at tempt to compel many things that were said to be in keeping with Christianity. But they have not done so with the authority of Jesus; they have done so because they were impa tient, because they were weak, be cause they were willful, because they substituted their wills for the will of Him they claimed to follow. They have even beset one another in violent and destructive wars. The carnage of the religious wars, and especially of the Thirty Years' War, was great. They took up the sword, and many perished by it. That prophecy was fulfilled, not for the first time and, sadly enough, not for the last, ·for it has lately come to pass once again in Ireland.

Christianity does not require the use of force. On the contrary, Chris tianity cannot be advanced by force. We have it on good authority that if GQd willed to use force He could call forth such force as none could resist Him. But He does it not, for it is foreign to His nature and to His purpose. He wills peace, harmony, love, and that men should be at one with Him. These ends cannot be at tained by force. To put it philosophi cally, in essence Christianity is not a power theory. When this guise has been forced upon it, it has been acci dental and attributable to the weakness of men. Socialism a Power Theory Socialism is a power theory. In essence, it is nothing but a power theory. Its affinity for the state is as near absolute as anything can be in this world. The further it goes to ward its goal the more absolute its reliance on the state. None of this is accidental. It follows inexorably from the professed goal and from the complex of hatreds which animate it. The moment socialists abandon the state as the instrument for the achievement of their purposes they cease to be socialists, and socialism is no more.

Socialist thinkers did not, we may believe, .consciously set out to con trive a scheme to bring about such a state of affairs. Many of them did not even embrace the state will ingly, and most have professed re luctance. For Marx, the state was to be a temporary expedient, some thing to be used temporarily until its purpose had been achieved and it 1979 THE COLD WAR: COEXISTENCE, DETENTE, CONVERGENCE 275 could wither away. Gradualists have labored mightily to hide the mailed fist of the state behind the velvet glove of democracy. What socialists contrived, whether they sought to do so or not, was a religion, or substitute for reli gion. It was a religion of man, and it was a manmade religion. The ap peal of the idea that has the world in its grip is fundamentally religious. It has within it elements derived from traditional religions, but in it they become earth-bound and tem porally oriented. The promise of the idea is that all things shall be made right here on earth and that man shall be finally liberated. The tacit promise is of an end of all restraint, and hence of an end to government and the use of force upon people. Man's inhumanity to man, a favorite phrase of those en livened by the idea, will cease.

That the application of this idea with the avowed purpose of fulfilling the promises leads to statism, to terror, to violence, or to the ubiqui tous use of the force of the state has been the burden of this work to show. But why should it do so? In deed, why must it do so? Because of the premises which underlie socialism. Society is rent and sun dered by a fundamental dishar mony. The disharmony results from man's pursuit of his own self interest, socialists claim. This, they say, turns man against man, defeats the common good, results in perva sive injustices, and is the occasion for the use of force. The received social institutions support and rein force the pursuit of self-interest. The disharmony is thereby institution alized. In theory, a religion of humanity could change all this. There are, here and there, devotees of such a faith. And socialists in general sub scribe to its tenets. But the idea that has the world in its grip is not the religion of humanity. Its religion is statism. The reasons for this may not be apparent, but they can be surmised. There are two main ones, I think.

The Trouble with Abstractions The first of these is the inade quacy of the religion of humanity as a religion. It is a pallid thing. It is the worship of an abstraction which can never be personified. That is, man in the abstract, or humanity in the abstract, can be an object of venera tion only so long as it does not entail actual men. Actual men have faults, something which most of us discover sooner or later, and are therefore not fit subjects for worship. A religion with wide appeal must have both personification and some sort of transcendence, or, at least, unques tioned purity. Abstraction is not transcendence, and actual men lack purity. The other need of socialism as a 276 THE FREEMAN May religion was a means or instrument for altering social institutions and transforming man. By their focu,s on man and this world, they denied a transcendent being, thereby requir ing that their instrument be imma nent. The dimensions of the problem made the choice of the state as the instrument inevitable. Only some thing with power over the whole could conceivably achieve the alter ations and transformations in volved.

State is the crucial term here. Socialists are not much given to making the distinction, and they are quite unlikely to proclaim them selves as state worshipers, but there is a crucial distinction between state and government. The worship of government is attended by the same difficulty as the worship of human ity. The difficulty is that actual gov ernments have flaws, or rather the men who man them do. The state is an abstraction; it is pure; it can even be an ideal. Power vested in the state cannot be mis placed, for it is the natural depos itory of all power over a given terri tory. Sovereignty, absolute sover eignty, is its prerogative, its rea son for being. The state, in social ist underlying conception, is the rightful instrument of Hthe peo ple," and so far as it acts for ttthe people," whatever power is exercised is legitimate. (Communists some times say proletariat rather than people, but for them the proletariat is ttthe people.") A constant struggle goes on to bring the government up to the level of the state, i. e., to make it a perfect instrument of ttthe people." What prevents it from being so is the per sistence of ttthe class enemy," as communists put it, or of conserva tives, reactionaries, business inter ests, or ttthe vested interests," in .gradualist countries. ttFascism,"

which is the socialist conceptual personification of all the evil forces, is ever lurking around the corner ready to seize and misuse the power of the state. The Disappearing State When the class enemy has finally been eradicated, when the last ttfas_ cist" has been rounded up, when the Hvested interests" are at last di vested of their power and influence, then government can be raised to the level of the state. ((The people" will be identical with government, and government and state will merge. When this state of affairs comes about the use of force would be a redundancy. There could be no occasion for the use of force, for the will of the governors could be no different from the will of ((the people." Communists have usually de clared that this state of affairs will shortly come about. Gradualists foresee a much more extended strug gle, with no culmination now in 1979 THE COLD WAR: COEXISTENCE, DETENTE, CONVERGENCE 277 sight. In any case, it is a struggle for power, for the monopolization of all power by ttthe people."

This is the mystic vision of socialism. So far as'it is a religion, it is a religion of state worship. And that turns out to be a worship of power. The whole world is caught in the vise-like grip of an idea which propels it into the struggle toward power. The idea promises beatitude; it leads to destruction, to tyranny, to murder, to rapine, to suicide. The idea requires the sublimation of the individual to the state. This re quirement is no less than the death of the ego or the end of the individ ual self. It is possible to commit suicide, of course, without going through the whole vast process of lengthy evolu tion, massive revolution, the cre ation of a vast state mechanism, and so on. The Jones cult showed the way in the horrifying mass suicide-murder at Jonestown, Guy ana. Self-immolation, the tacit goal of socialism, can be achieved direct ly by individuals, cults, and small groups. But that is a H COp out,"

so to speak, for it must be done on a worldwide scale. What has all this to do with co existence, with detente, and with convergence? It has everything to do with them. Can East and West co exist? Can peace be attained by a policy of detente? Will communism and gradualist socialism eventually converge? There is no way to answer these questions definitively, of course, for they entail events and developments that have not yet taken place, if they ever will. A Clearer Picture There is a way to understand, however, what is involved in peace ful coexistence, detente, and con vergence. It is through understand ing the idea that impels the de velopments. Trying to make heads or tails of them with historical data in the absence of the ideological framework is akin to trying to put the pieces of a puzzle together with out a picture of the completed puzzle before you. Explanations shift with changing leaders and changing policies, and no clear pattern emerges. The Chinese and Russians squabble over the meaning of co existence. Soviet leaders hint at the possibility of convergence. Is detente anything more than the one step backward of the old Stalinist for mula of two steps forward and one step back?

All these things begin to come into focus when we perceive that socialism is a power theory. Com munism is a theory of coming to power, extending, and holding it by way of revolution. Evolutionary socialism is a theory of coming to power and extending it gradually by means that only subtly alter the received framework. Coexistence, 278 THE FREEMAN May detente, and the possibility of con vergence are tactics in the struggle for power. Peaceful coexistence and detente are communist tactics for moderating the conflict and allow ing time and room for further com munist expansion to take place. Convergence is not an avowed policy of the communists, and it cannot be so long as and to the extent that they are wedded to the idea of the necessity of revolution. Convergence is the dream, however, of many Western intellectuals. Every accord between East and West arouses hope that convergence is coming. It may well be a communist tactic to keep that hope alive.

Socialism is not just a power theory; it is a power theory ani mated by a mystic religion. It has a world vision. That vision is of the whole world under a single power, of every organization and every indi vidual subordinated to that power. Only then, it is felt, can the vision of socialism become an actuality. So long as there is one independent power in the world, the peace, Le., socialism, is threatened. I under stand this to mean that coexistence can never be more than a temporary policy. In like manner, detente can never be more than a tempo rary policy. Thus far, history bears this out. Coexistence and detente are largely illusions of Western in tellectuals and the governments under their sway. The Prospect of Change Can communism not change? It depends upon what is meant. If it is a question of tactics, there is no doubt that communism can and does change. Communist tactics differ considerably from one country to another. Chinese and Cuban com munism belong to the same genus, but they are quite different national species. Moreover, the tactics change greatly from time to time and under different leaders in the same country. Many of Stalin's tac tics differed greatly from those of Lenin, and Khrushchev disavowed many of Stalin's tactics. Stalin fos tered militant anti-fascist tactics in the Comintern for most of the 1930s, then entered into a pact with the Nazis. Communists have sometimes formed political parties, or semblances of them, and had candi dates run for office in lands where they were not in power. At other times, they have refused to run for office on the grounds that such elec tions were a bourgeois trap. Tactics are but accidents, philosophically speaking, something to be changed according to the circumstances.

But could communism not change in essence? Those who believe in this possibility have not fronted what is involved. What is com munism in essence? Communism is power, to restate the position. It is power wedded to a mystic vision of world dominion. Or, mysticism or 1979 THE COLD WAR: COEXISTENCE, DETENTE, CONVERGENCE 279 not, it is power thrusting to the monopoly of all power in the world. Any essential change within com munism would necessarily entail yielding up the monopoly of power which has been substantially at tained wherever a communist sys tem prevails. If one party rule were relin quished so that two or more parties could compete, the monopoly of power would be gone. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press en tail public debate in which appeals by those who differ are directed to ward the populace. They would in evitably divide the populace and undercut the monopoly of power.

The same goes for freedom of reli gion and any significant amount of private property. A Monopoly of Power Communist systems have that toward which all socialism tends, namely, a monopoly of power. Why would communists give it up? Better still, what would happen if they did? Communism without power is only a fantasy. It is like an electrical appliance without electricity; it is inoperative. Communism without a monopoly of power is not com munism. It would be as if the revo lution had not occurred. Communism without a monopoly of power would be, at most, another variety· of evolutionary socialism. But evolv ing toward what? Evolving toward the monopoly of all power, some thing which communists had al ready attained in their own coun tries. There is another reason why communism cannot change, or perhaps it is only the logical exten sion of the reasons given above. All socialism is braced to communism!

The idea that has the world in its grip finds its culmination in com munism, in the monopoly of all power in the state. All socialist roads lead to Moscow, to Peking, to Havana, or to wherever a com munist regime is established. Socialist intellectuals are drawn to these centers as surely as the moth is drawn to the light. Much of the intellectual history of the twentieth century, or at least the history of intellectuals, could be written about these pilgrimages to the New Rome. It is not knowledge that draws them there, nor exactly the quest for it. It is a feeling, a feeling that they will find there the concrete reality to ward which they yearn. Whether they do so depends upon the degree to which they cooperate with their hosts by succumbing to the illusions presented for their edification. If communism should fall-that is, lose power everywhere-the whole structure of socialism must crumble with it. It would happen because there would no longer be a concrete reality to sustain socialism.

Socialists would discover that they 280 THE FREEMAN May were leaning into thin air. The mea sures of gradualists would be pro posals to be treated on their own merits, for they would have no vi sion behind them. Remove the reli gious mystic vision from socialism, and its proposals become transpar ent crackpot schemes. Communism has often enough been an embarrassment to Western socialists, of course. Communists even commit the unpardonable sin sometimes, i. e., persecute intellec tuals. But it is the embarrassment which children feel about the be havior of their parents. Remove the parents, and the family disinte grates. Remove the communist par ents of socialism and the family of socialism will disintegrate. So cialism was only a fantasy until World War I. It took on flesh and blood with the Bolshevik Revolu tion. With the Nazi Revolution it took place in yet another guise. With the defeat of the Nazis and their Fascist allies, revolutionary socialism survived only in its com munist manifestation, and it is in that manifestation of it that we may know it best today.

Braces work both ways, however. To say that evolutionary socialism is braced to communism is but another way of describing the dependence of communism on the noncommunist world. The dependence of evolu tionary socialism on communism is largely spiritual. It is the religious ingredient in communism-the vi sion of a forward marching trium phant world socialism riding the wave of History-that is necessary to sustain evolutionary socialism and propel it onward. By contrast, the dependence of communism upon the noncommunist world is political and economic. Diplomatic Recognition Politically, the noncommunist world provides the stamp of legiti macy to the communist powers. By treating them as regular govern ments-by according diplomatic recognition, by making treaties and agreements, by carrying on various sorts of intercourse-noncommunist powers say, in effect, to the captive peoples in communist countries, ttYours is a legitimate government.

It rightfully imposes its will upon you, for it is entitled to all the pre rogatives of a government." More, by recognizing the legitimacy of the re gimes, it tends to countenance whatever communist governments do to their people as being their business since such matters involve internal affairs. Communism is a vast counter productive system economically. Its primary aim of exercising power and extending that power over the peo ples of the world makes it a counter productive system. It is not that the rulers of communist countries lack the desire to have economic produc1979 THE COLD WAR: COEXISTENCE, DETENTE, CONVERGENCE 281 tion and efficiency; it is rather that the repression entailed in the com munist effort makes it impossible to achieve. The freedom to innovate is largely taken away, and the rewards for producing are arbitrary and in sufficient to spur production. Hence, the relics of freedom in the non communist world provide invalu able aid to communism.

Communists depend largely on the noncommunist world for inven tions, for technological innovations, and for the fruits of scientific prog ress. Grain shipments from the West have helped much in staving off famine in communist countries in recent years. Communist rulers lust after Western machinery. Take away the West, and the retrogres sive character of communist economies would be even more transparent. These braces should be conceived as temporary, however. When a building is completed the temporary braces are removed. Communist de pendence on the West is always con ceived as an expedient matter by communists. In like manner, the de pendence of Western intellectuals upon communism is necessary only so long as socialism has not been achieved at home. In short, the mutual dependence is temporary when viewed from either angle. The greatest threat to peace at the present time, such peace as there may be, is aggressive, belligerent, and expansive communism. Grad ualist socialist countries do not pose any great threat at this time.

They are most likely to disturb the peace by resisting the spread of communism. But the prospect of that has lessened in recent years. The United States does not appear to have the will to resist communist expansion now. Indeed, resistance was always hemmed in by such sub tle niceties that it was far from ef fective. So far as other highly de veloped industrial nations are con cerned, their will to resist commu nism has never been strong. Domestic Problems This is not to say that evolution ary socialists are just naturally peace loving people without desire for power. It is rather that each gradualist socialist country has a domestic power problem. Com munists usually solve their domestic power problem shortly after coming to power. They concentrate all power, subdue all organizations, and imprison or kill such opponents of the regime as can be discovered or imagined. It takes only a few years to do this ordinarily. Then, the communist thrust for power shifts outward upon the world. Grad ualists, by contrast, are unwill ing or unable to grasp all power over the domestic population. (They would cease to be gradualists if they did.) Thus, their power struggle con282 THE FREEMAN May tinues domestically; they do not have to look outward in their quest for additional power. Gaining and consolidating power over their own people remains a problem large enough to occupy much of their at tention.

The United States has been a par tial exception to this rule. The pres idential system of government, with the president in charge of the con duct of foreign affairs and in com mand of the armed forces offers power incentives for foreign in volvements. That is, presidential power tends to increase as foreign affairs become more important. This does provide the basis for an out ward thrust to American power. However, intellectuals and the media, both domestic and foreign, appear finally to have convinced our presidents that they are not to ex tend their powers by way of resis tance to communism. There is a way, however, to get their accolades; it is to reach accord with communist countries. Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Carter appear to have learned this lesson well. Congress has coop erated by circumscribing the presi dential instruments for resisting communism: the military, the Fed eral Bureau of Investigation and the CIA.

It is conceivable that there could be convergence between East and West. Evolutionary and revolu tionary socialism have ~ommon goals-the concerting of all human effort, the removing of all centers of opposition to it, and the use of collec tivist means. They both sanction, in practice, the vesting of the state with increasing power. It is plausi ble to suppose that as the West be comes more and more statist, if in deed it does, it would merge with the East. Convergence a Dream Convergence is, however, a dream, and a hope only of Western intellectuals and the politicians under their sway. There is no hard evidence that communists would converge with gradualists. A deeper look suggests how unlikely this is. Total power can be joined to partial power only by either totalizing all power or reducing the total power. Thus far, all the historical evidence that can be brought to bear on the question leads to the conclusion that convergence with communism is submission to communism. That is what happened in Poland, in Hun gary, in Czechoslovakia, in Bul garia, in East Germany, in Viet nam, in Cambodia, and so on. Any survival of contending parties as communists move to take power is only temporary.

In any case, it is not possible at present to converge with com munism, per se. Communism is now divided. There are communist pow ers independent of one another. If 1979 THE COLD WAR: COEXISTENCE, DETENTE, CONVERGENCE 283 convergence with communism were possible it would only be possible to converge with one or another of the communist nations or empires. Indeed, the Cold War appears to have taken a turn. As this is being written, a submerged conflict has been taking place over Cambodia, a conflict between the Soviet Union which supports the Vietnamese in vaders, and Red China which has been supporting another Cambodian government. The more pertinent question now seems to be not whether East and West can coexist or will converge but whether inde pendent communist powers can co exist with one another or not, and whether they can converge or not. We cannot know what will actu ally happen in this newer contest, of course. What we do know is that the idea that has the world in its grip is a mystic vision of the eventual con centration of all power into one world power. Communism is the most virulent embodiment of the idea. The existence of more than one revolutionary socialist power is more intolerable to communism than the existence of a West that has not been assimilated. The ex pansion of communism has taken on a new dimension and a new urgency.

It is impelled by the quest for com munist allies in the struggle over which will be the power center of communism. Terror and violence, the established communist tactic, will probably be stepped up, as one center of communism attempts to overawe and intimidate the other. The religious wars of the six teenth and seventeenth centuries suggest an even more fearful pros pect. The religious wars that erupted between Protestant and Catholic lands had been preceded by a more desultory religious war, a centuries-long conflict between Christian Europe and Islam. Al though the parallel is not exact, this conflict can be likened to that be tween evolutionary and revolu tionary socialism. The contest between communist powers has the potentiality of a fullfledged religious war, such as the Thirty Years' War in Europe. No war can equal the fury of that be tween peoples of the same faith di vided against one another. If history repeats itself, the world may be in for a horrendous and cataclysmic conflict. Be that as it may, it is to the conquest of the individual that has already occurred or is taking place that we must turn. The world con flicts of socialism are but a reflex on a grand scale of the determination embedded in the idea to crush all independence. @ Next: 30. The Individual: The Victim of the Idea.