PHILOSOPHICAL SURVIVAL
Taken from the book *Can You Survive?* $10.00 + $1.50 p/h from:
Gaddis Publications, PO Box 411476, Los Angeles, CA  90041

During those years in which I was speaking frequently to large meetings of 
conservatives, there was one point I often put across in a rather dramatic 
way. 

First, I would ask everyone in the audience under thirty years old to hold up 
their hands. Then I would ask everyone over thirty to hold up their hands. 
Next I would call attention to the comparatively few younger people to be 
found attending the average patriotic meeting. In this war of opposing 
political philosophies, we patriots are all too often failing to salvage even 
our own children.         

This battle between patriots and one-world liberals is, most of all, a 
recruiting contest. It doesn't take much study to realize that we are losing 
this contest as well as the reason why. 

1. We spend too much time in quarreling among ourselves over differences that 
   are really not that important. This continual bickering within our ranks 
   cannot help but lower our morale. Subconsciously, at least, it makes us 
   doubt our validity of our own cause.

2. Conservatives tend to be very pessimistic. Of course we have good reason 
   for pessimism but we should not allow ourselves to become real "Calamity 
   Janes." 

   Youth tends to be more optimistic. To attract them to our ranks, we must 
   offer hopeful, constructive programs that offer some chance for victory. 
   We only drive them away with our never ending pronouncements as to how bad 
   things are. 

3. Nothing succeeds like success. People like to be on the winning side,   
   especially those who are young and uncommitted. Every conservative 
   publication that dwells on "how fast we are losing" simply drives away 
   potential recruits--right into the liberals' waiting arms. 
   
4. In our patriotic philosophy, we often allow ourselves to become overly 
   complicated. We dwell too much on minor points. Not many people, young or 
   old, find it extemely interesting that Bernard Baruch's third cousin was a 
   friend of Alger Hiss' grandmother. 
   
Every American patriot should review, from time to time, the fundamental 
principles of his own philosophy--those basic facts that are obviously true 
and which no one can deny. We must emphasize those things that still give us 
cause to be proud. We must never lose sight of the fact that survival is not 
an end in itself. Survival is but the first step toward our ultimate 
objective--Victory! 

During four years in prison, it was not the will to survive that kept me 
going. It was the will to win. 

Our philosophy must be positive, hard hitting and determined. It must be 
simple and to the point. As one basis for such a philosophy, I offer the 
following abstracts from a booklet which I first published in 1961, *What's  
Wrong With Communism?* 

So you're against communism! 
May I ask why? What makes you think our system is any better? 

Of course, you know there is a difference between "their system" and "our 
system," but what is it? Suppose you were talking to a student from India or 
Brazil. What could you say to convince him that "our system" is better than  
communism? 

The communists have been winning the cold war for only one reason. They 
believe in communism. They know the communist sales talk Verbatim and they
are selling others all the time. 

The Russians are "communists". We are "non-communists". Is it enough to be 
simply non-communist? They know what they are fighting for. Do we know what 
we are fighting for? What is the alternative to communism? 

Before we can save the world from communism we must be able to convince other 
nations that there is a difference--an important difference--between the 
communist system and our system. First, we must convince ourselves. 

Communism is not a form of government as is a democracy, a monarchy or a 
republic. Communism is a social system in which all property is owned in 
common by members of that society. 

The word communism comes from the French word for common. What it actually 
means is "common-ism". The owning of property in common. 

We must understand modern communism to understand what a fake it really is. 
To begin with, the communists claim that theirs is a wonderful new system 
that will crowd all other systems aside by a kind of "survival of the 
fittest". Communism is not new. It is probably the oldest social system found 
in recorded history. Communism started with primitive tribes co-operating to 
hunt large animals and then sharing the animals they killed in common. When 
they began developing an agricultural society it was easier to store all the 
grain they raised in one common bin than in a number of small ones. Many 
early civilizations were communistic and some early religious groups were 
communistic. 

We can assume that these early communistic societies had many of the same 
problems that have troubled their more recent imitators. 

According to communistic theory each member of the ccommunity does his fair 
share of the work and in return receives his fair share of the results. This 
theory is utopian. It is an ideal situation which has never been achieved in  
actual practice. 

Communism fails to consider the differences between individuals. Some people 
are naturally hard working and ambitious while others are lazy. Some people 
are thrifty while others are wasteful. 

The communists say we are selfish and materialistic because we want to keep 
private property for ourselves. They claim to be unselfish because they are 
willing to donate all they have to the "state". What they fail to realize is  
that the "state" is nothing but a bunch of other people. The laziest and most 
wasteful of the lot. 

To make sure that each member does his share of the work requires some type 
of government. Some primitive societies were democraticies where the "chief" 
was elected by the members. Others were monarchies where authority passed 
from father to son. In some cases the strongest and most aggressive man of 
the tribe set up his own dictatorship by force or threats. 

By studying communism in its simplest form, it is easy see that communism has 
nothing at all to do with government.

Let us repeat--communism is a social system wherin a property is owned 
jointly and in common by all the members of that society. 

As members of these primitive societies began to travel they saw the obvious 
advantages of trading with each other. Community ownership of all property 
made this awkward. The more civilized the society became the greater was the 
handicap of a communistic system.  Communism obviously acted as a restraint 
to trade and a barrier to progress.

The communistic system of early times was gradually replaced by a system of
private ownership. With this change the hard working were no longer held back
by the lazy. Civilization was given a tremendous impetus by the ambition for 
private property and the pride of personal achievernent. With the rise of the 
Roman Empire communism vanished from Europe, Northern Africa and the Middle 
East. 

The simple fact is that communism was rendered obsolete by the invention of 
money. 

The modern system by which property is privately owned and money serves as a 
medium of exchange between the owners of such property has become known as 
the capitalistic system. For one hundred years the socialists, communists and 
anarchists have propagandized against the capitalist system. In spite of what 
they may say there is nothing wrong with capitalism. Modern civilization was 
built on the firm foundation of the capitalistic system. 

The truth is that in a fair contest of the "survival of the fittest" 
capitalism out-performed and replaced the outmoded system of communism. 

The "genius" who resurrected this ghost of primitive society was Karl Marx, a 
German writer and social philosopher born in 1818. Although well educated, 
Marx was unable to hold a steady job or earn a livelihood during most of his 
adult life. He was a professional trouble maker and at different times was 
banished from both Germany and France for his revolutionary activities. He 
moved to England in 1850. 

Most of his later years were spent in writing his major work "Das Kapital" in 
which he examines the "theory of values" by which the value of a commodity is 
the amount of labor "socially necessary" to produce it. Through long obscure 
and tortuous logic he attempted to prove that under the capitalistic system 
the worker is exploited of surplus value above his wages. 

It is doubtful the Karl Marx would be even remembered today if it had not 
been for the help of Fredrich Engels. In addition to furnishing most of the 
financial support for the impoverished Marx, Engels was co-author of most of 
his works. 

Engels also wrote a considerable amount of "Marxist" literature himself. His 
first major work was "Conditions of the Working Class in England" (1845) but 
he is known primarily as co-author, with Marx, of the Communist manifesto 
(1848). 

Friedrich Engels was the son of a wealthy German industrialist who owned 
cotton mills in both Germany and England. He spent most of his adult life in 
England as manager of one of his family's factories. 

Engels was, himself, a "capitalist" in the crudest sense of the word. Workers 
in his factory, many of them children, labored 12 to 14 hours a day under 
dangerous and unhealthy conditions. There is no evidence that the co-saviour 
of the working class paid his employees any more than any other cloth 
manufacturer of his time. 

During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the theory of utopian 
communism experienced a certain revival of interest. Several books were 
written suggesting the equality and justice that could be achieved in a 
classless society where everyone shared the wealth of the world in common.  
Both in Europe and in the United States several settlements were set up in 
the style of communism. None of them lasted very long.

The communistic system is simply not practical in a highly civilized society. 
Those people who call themselves communists will of course deny this fact. 
They will point to the progress which the Soviet Union has made under 
"communism." That is why we say communism is a fake. The social system which
now exists in the Soviet Union is not communism--it is socialism.

We should not allow ourselves to forget that the full name of the Soviet 
Union is the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Communism is nothing more 
than the Russian brand of socialism. 

We might next examine the difference between communism, capitalism and 
socialism. Under communism everything of value is owned jointly by all the 
people. Under capitalism things of value are owned by people individually. 
Under socialism the people own nothing and the government owns it all. 

Whereas communism is idealistic and impractical, socialsm is a workable 
system provided that the personal ambitions and individual differences of the 
citizens are restrained. In semi-socialistic societies, such as now found in 
England, these restraints may consist only of a regimentation and the threat 
of economic or legal reprisals. In more completely socialistic societies such 
as the Soviet Union individual freedom can be restrained only by force or the 
threat of force. 

The basic proposition of modern communist-socialist doctrine is the belief 
that an all-powerful central government can direct the lives of the people in 
every respect better than the people can do themselves. 

When patriotic Americans have tried to warn us against "creeping socialism" 
their warnings have gone largely uheeded. Only when we recognize the 
essential identity between modern socialism and modern communism can we fully 
realize the threat to our freedom which is inherent in the continued rapid 
growth of an all-powerful central government. 

Communists, like chameleons, are able to change their color to blend with the 
environment. As the American people begin to realize the true dangers of 
socialism the communists merely move on to new names and new tactics. No 
matter the name by which this collective ideology is known: commun-ism, 
social-ism, liberal-ism, progressive-ism, or welfare-ism, it still adds up to 
the same thing. It is the antithesis of individualism. It is the enemy of 
freedom. 

The forces of collectivism are determined to destroy the American way of life 
by destroying its very foundation--the American system of free enterprise. 
They are well organized and well financed. They are masters of deception and 
propaganda. 

Every year the communist-socialist clique spends millions of dollars on 
skillful propaganda right here in the United States. They do not try to sell 
us on communism. That would be too obvious. All they need to do is make us 
tolerant of communism. If each year they can edge our government just a 
little closer to socialism the difference between "their system" and "our 
system" will seem less important--less worth fighting over. 

According to Marxist theory socialism is a stepping stone between capitalism 
and utopian communism. Both Marx and Engels stressed their belief that to 
achieve this utopia all private property would first have to be delivered 
into the hands of a powerful central govemment. They taught that this would 
have to be achieved by force. According to them, people are selfish and 
greedy only because they have become accustomed to the private ownership of  
property and "capital."  Marx and Engels admitted that socialistic government 
would have to be forced upon the people for many years, perhaps even for 
generations. 

Eventually, according to Marx, people will lose their selfish instinct and 
will fit like uniform cogs in a well-oiled machine. Force will no longer be 
needed to insure the whole-hearted cooperation of all society.

Then the govemment will, in the words of Marx, "wither away." To believe that  
any government executive who has been handed absolute power would voluntarily 
resign is contrary to all human experience. To believe that any government 
which had been handed the total wealth of the entire world would simply 
"wither away is beyond all reason. 

Amazing as it sounds these are the basic teachings of Marxism. This is the 
incredible fairy tale which millions of people have been propagandized into 
accepting with blind faith. 

Although the word capitalism is used to describe the American system of free 
enterprise it does not tell the whole story. Ours is not a story of dollars 
and cents. Ours is a story of men and women and the wonderful things they can 
achieve by self reliance and personal ambition. 

We're the only country in the world that produces more food than we can eat. 
Our steel capacity is greater than Russia, China, Germany and Japan combined. 
More Americans own their own homes and their own land than in any other 
country of the world. We ought to brag about it. 

At the World Olympic games Russians who won jumped with glee and pounded each 
other on the back. When Americans won they accepted victory with 
indifference. We have carried modesty to such a ridiculous extreme that it 
has developed into a national inferiority complex. Through their strategy of 
downgrading individual effort the collectivists have made us doubt our own 
worth. 

It is through our failure to recognize this fact that the American public is 
allowing itself to be brain-washed into the belief that security is more 
important than freedom. 

The alternative to communism is individualism. 

There is a difference--a big difference--between communism and individualism. 
Individualism is almost synonymous with freedom. What other kind of freedom 
is worthwhile except the freedom to be ourselves, to be individuals. 

There is only one way to fight communism. We must take up the battle for 
individualism. 

We must re-read and re-tell the stories of the rugged individualists who made 
our country great and kept it free. We must never forget the tale of Paul 
Bunyon or the story of Sitting Bull. This is the land of John Brown and 
Admiral Hyman Rickover--of Sam Houston and Thomas Edison--of Davy Crockett
and Robert E. Lee. This is where the word "individualist" was invented. 

To rebuild our national dignity we must unfurl the banner of individualism 
and fly it high. We must make people proud to be self-reliant. We must make 
them ashamed to accept unnecessary charity. We must make it a disgrace to 
loaf on the public payroll. We must re-learn the satisfaction that comes from 
a job well done. 

     Most important of all, we must stand up for what we believe in. 
     Without the courage to test our freedom, how can we ever be certain 
     that we actually have it? -= END