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.
The idea that has the world in its grip is not as it is billed or the way it is made to appear by those who favor it. It is not fundamentally an economic idea or theory, though that is the guise that it often assumed from the outset. It is not basically a political theory, although it often appears to be, and there is considerable temptation for those who oppose it to treat it in that way. Instead, it is in essence a power theory or idea, a mode for attaining and exercising power. All its claims and promises are, in the final analysis, but justifications for holding and exercising power. That is not to say that the attainment or exercise of power is the motive of those who subscribe to or advance the idea. It may or may not be, but that is irrelevant. Rather, the attainment and exercise of power are the unavoidable consequences of the triumph of the idea. Power unlimited is the destination of the victorious idea.
The power motif is implicit in the formulation of the idea that is being used here. There are three parts of the formula:
1. To achieve human felicity on this earth by concerting all efforts toward its realization.
2. To root out, discredit, and discard all aspects of culture which cannot otherwise be altered to divest them of any role in inducing or supporting the individual’s pursuit of his own self-interest.
3. Government is the instrument to be used to concert all efforts behind the realization of human felicity and the necessary destruction or alteration of culture.
It is, of course, the use of government which makes it a power theory. But that only becomes clear by further examination of the idea.
The idea that has the world in its grip is not an economic idea. Some of the best economic minds of our era have gone to great lengths to expose the fallacies of Karl Marx. On a lesser scale, some thorough economists have examined in detail, and found wanting, the work of John Maynard Keynes. They did so for good reason, no doubt, because the economic thought of these men was having great impact in the world of affairs.
Despite the fact that Marx engaged in a goodly amount of economic analysis, or economic-like analysis, he was not grappling with the problem of economics. The problem of economics is scarcity, and Marx denied the validity of the problem, at least in the context within which he wrote. He and Engels wrote these words, in The Communist Manifesto: "In these crises there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity—the epidemic of over-production. . . . And why? Because there is too much civilization, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce."¹
No more did Keynes perceive the problem as being one of scarcity, at least not scarcity of consumer goods. So far as there was a problem it was a problem of insufficient money with which to fuel demand. Hence, his involved and intricate analysis in support of inflation.
The Use of Political Power to Distribute Wealth
John Kenneth Galbraith, an American Keynesian, of sorts, denied the validity of the problem of scarcity in advanced countries. He put his position bluntly: "Given a sufficiency of demand, the responding production of goods in the modern economy is almost completely reliable. We have seen in the early chapters of this essay why men once had reason to regard the economic system as a meager and perilous thing. And we have seen how these ideas have persisted after the problem of production was conquered."2
The point is this. The formulators and advocates of the idea that has the world in its grip changed what had once been conceived as an economic problem into a power problem. The problem of production had been solved, they alleged; what remained was a problem of distribution. To solve this problem required the use of political power.
It might be supposed, then, that the idea with which we are dealing is a political theory. It is not. Marx had no political theory at all, certainly not one worthy of the name. He had a power theory to explain what government had been in the past. It had been a means for particular classes to wield power over the masses. When the revolution had broken the power of the classes and there remained only the one class—which is to say no class—the state would wither.
Talk of rule by an elite or dictatorship of the proletariat does not constitute a political theory. In any case, this was to be only a transitional phase before the state withered away; no theory had to be constructed for how the power would be wielded. Lenin and Stalin (and Mao) enthroned the state, apparently perpetually, but their political theory can be reduced to a sentence. Power in the hands of an elite is exercised for the working classes; it requires no restraint so long as it is wielded for the masses. But this, too, is a power theory, not a political theory.
Faith in Gradualism
Gradualists, evolutionary socialists, social democrats, twentieth century liberals, or whatever they should be called, often appear to have a political theory. On closer examination, however, it turns out that what they have are the residues of earlier political theories and a political faith. By the nature of their methods, gradualists must give at least lip service to the residue of political beliefs in their countries. If they live in a land that has a monarch, they must profess their loyalty to him. If there is a separation of powers, they may give lip service to this arrangement. But they will be observed always to be working to remove these as obstacles to the exercise of power. Monarchs are reduced to ceremonial nonentities. The separation of powers is evaded by the creation of instruments which bypass the principle, or those powers which obstruct are made of little or no effect.
What gradualists have, in the final analysis, is a political faith. Their faith is in an ideologized democracy, which is best called social democracy, though Americans are not much used to the phrase. To be more specific, their faith is in democracy which entails much more than simply the process by which those who are to govern are chosen. It involves also what the ends of the government shall be. Only that government is democratic, according to their faith, which is moving toward distributive or substantive equality. While they ostensibly favor popular or democratic government, only that government which is socialistic in tendency is truly democratic. Otherwise, it has come to power on too narrow a base or has succeeded in misleading "the people" (by corruptly acquiring campaign funds from wealthy patrons, for example). Therefore, it does not legitimately hold power.
This is a power theory, not a political theory. The means by which those who govern are to be selected has been so entangled with the ends for which government is to act that they have become indistinguishable. The will of "the people" has been determined in advance of any election; it is none other than what has been ideologically pre-determined is for the good of the people, i.e., further redistribution of the wealth, greater direction by government of the life of the people, and more restraints on all independent elements working in any other direction. If an election should turn out differently, it must be because the will of "the people" has somehow been thwarted. Such a theory is a program for the acquisition and exercise of power.
It is doubtful that there can be effective political competition with the idea that has the world in its grip. (The full import of this must await discussion at another point.) If it were a political idea among other political ideas this would not be the case. But it is not. It is a power idea wedded to a seductive and most attractive vision. Political competition gets turned into a contest for power to realize the vision by different varieties of means. It becomes a contest over who could use the power most effectively to realize the vision.
In lands where gradualism holds sway, all political parties tend to be drawn into the contest to administer the programs by which a country is drawn into the maws of socialism. Who can best exercise the power by which the people are controlled is the issue. In communist lands, there is only one political party; hence, the issue becomes a contest between individuals as to who shall exercise the power.
The Promises of Socialism
Power, however, within the framework of the idea, is only a means. It is not the quest for power that makes it so difficult, if not impossible, to compete politically with those advancing the idea. All politics is a contest over who shall exercise power. It is the promises that make competition so difficult. How does one compete with the idea that all things shall be made right, that justice, peace, prosperity, and felicity shall follow upon their policies? And—and this is the clincher—those who have wronged us from time immemorial shall have their property and wealth taken from them and divided among us.
Gradualists attempt to will out of sight the power by which this is to be accomplished. They do so by trying to hide from us, and perhaps from themselves, the use of force by mesmerizing us into believing that when it is done democratically significant force is not involved. The communists are much blunter. They revel in power but identify it with the people. Theirs is a kind of mesmerism, too, for the personal character of the exercise of power is hidden behind a variety of facades, the most important being that of ideology.
But even the explicit promises do not convey the sweep of the vision that stems from the idea that has the world in its grip. The sweep may not be readily apparent from the opening phrase characterizing the idea, namely: To achieve human felicity on this earth by concerting all efforts toward its realization. Yet it is there, however implicit, and it entails a vision the like of which has rarely, if ever before, been conceived by mortal man. True, the vision of world conquest is not new to our era; it has even been very nearly accomplished within the limited framework of earlier times. But this vision is in significant ways different from and much more than the vision of an Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar.
The Temptation of Jesus
It may be best approached by conceiving it as the vision which Jesus rejected when he underwent the temptations prior to his ministry. According to Matthew, following his baptism Jesus went into the wilderness. He fasted for forty days. Then, he underwent a series of temptations. The culminating temptation is the one that concerns us here:
Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.3
The conventional interpretation would be that Jesus was tempted to become an earthly ruler, an emperor over all the earth. But it was surely more than that. Given the circumstances, it does not seem likely that to be an earthly ruler would have been much of a temptation. And we are to believe that Jesus was tempted, was drawn toward the idea. His mood could hardly have been such that being an emperor as such things are understood would have appealed to him. He had spent forty days in fasting, in contemplation and preparation for fulfilling his mission. How he was to proceed was surely a live question. The temptation was to use power to accomplish his mission, not the mission of kings and emperors, but his mission.
His mission was to draw all men unto him, a holy, divine, and good mission. Would it not be appropriate to use power—the great force residing in government of an empire—to accomplish his purpose? Why not use the glory of all the kingdoms of the world to draw all men into loving fellowship with one another and union with God? There was a catch, of course. First, he would have to fall down and worship Satan, which is to say, he would have to worship and serve power and force, even as it must be served by those who would use it. Jesus answered him, "Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." Those who will may learn somewhat of God from that.
The Temptation Revived
The vision which Jesus rejected has been revived in our time. Like the vision which Jesus rejected it is not simply a vision of a world empire or even of world conquest. We misunderstand it when we read it into the framework of ancient empires, or modern ones either. Momentous changes have occurred in the world since the times of such empires, and since the time when Jesus was tempted. The most obvious of these are the great changes in transportation and communication.
Not only is the whole world now known, but its furthest reaches are available within a few hours by jet airplane, and within moments by radio, telephone, and by television signals transmitted by satellites. A vast array of inventions have made available a technology such as has never before been available to man. There have been developments in thought, too, which have changed the complexion of things. Of particular importance are those in psychology, sociology, and economics. Men once conceived of ruling empires; today it is possible to conceive of total control over the peoples of the world.
What can be, and has been, conceived is a vision of all the instruments of the world brought under a single power, or concert of powers, of all the possibilities known for organizing men to be centrally controlled. That is the end toward which all who embrace the idea that has the world in its grip are driven. Communists press toward that goal bluntly, crudely, and, from the outset, oppressively. Gradualists move toward it circumspectly, with great outward show of benevolence, and pragmatically. The instruments are there, and the struggle to grasp and control them, and through them all men, is well advanced.
An Idea Activated
Communism was once only an idea. In its Marxian formulation, it was only one idea amongst a goodly number of other socialist notions. But a momentous event occurred in the fall of 1917. The communist idea was joined to power in Russia. The power which Jesus rejected was seized and embraced by Lenin and his fellow Bolsheviks. At that juncture, communism ceased to be an idea only, or even mainly, and became a reality. Those who persist in thinking of communism as an idea will find difficulty in grasping this point. Those who think in this way are inclined to ponder such questions as these. Is Soviet Communism true Marxism? In what ways did Lenin, or Stalin, or Khrushchev alter Marxism? When will the Soviet system pass from socialism to communism?
They are idle questions, of course. They have the same practical import as the question of how many angels can dance on the point of a pin. Lenin put the matter bluntly: "Soviet power plus electricity is communism." It might be better to put it this way, since people get hung up on his reference to electricity in the equation: At this stage in history, Soviet power is communism. Communism is whatever those in power in the Kremlin, or Peking, or Havana, or wherever, determine that it is. Those who do not live in those lands are free, of course, to discuss such questions as those above; those who do live in them have no such happy options. Communism is what the powers that be say it is. But such discussions do not alter the reality which is proclaimed as communism.
My meaning might be clearer if put this way. Prior to November of 1917 communism was only a fantasy. When the Bolsheviks seized power, the fantasy became a reality. A change, big with future portent, occurred. The fantasy produced a new reality, the reality of communism in power. Communism in power became, for all practical purposes, communism. If Soviet power is communism, the reverse is also the case, and it may be phrased this way: Communism is power. Not yet the only power in the world, but the intention becomes clear when we understand that the aim is for communism to become all power, and the only power. The idea is the driving force toward total power, but it is not something distinct from the power, not in Marxian terms; it has become power.
Power is central to communist thought and action. "The scientific concept of dictatorship," Lenin said, "means neither more nor less than unlimited power resting directly on force, not limited by anything, nor restrained by any laws or any absolute rules."4 "When the idea enters the mind of the masses," Marx said, "it becomes a power."5
From the outset, it was the aim of Soviet Communist leaders to extend this power over the world. Lenin declared that "the existence of the Soviet republic side by side with imperialist states for a long time is unthinkable. One or the other must triumph in the end. And before that end supervenes, a series of frightful collisions between the Soviet republic and the bourgeois states will be inevitable." Stalin said, "The victory of socialism in one country is not an end in itself, it must be looked upon as a support, as a means for hastening the proletarian victory in every other land. For the victory of the revolution in one country . . . is likewise the beginning and the continuation of the world revolution."’ In an even more famous statement, Khrushchev blustered, "Our firm conviction is that sooner or later capitalism will give way to socialism. No one can halt man’s forward movement, just as no one man can prevent day from following night. . . . Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you."8
Although the entry of Red China has brought about some differences in the communist camp, the Central Committee affirmed its commitment to the overall aim in these words:
The Chinese Communists firmly believe that the Marxist-Leninists, the proletariat, and the revolutionary people everywhere will unite more closely, overcome all difficulties and obstacles, and win still greater victories in the struggle against imperialism and for world peace and in the fight for the revolutionary cause of the people of the world and the cause of international communism.9
The spread of communism around the world is one of the most remarkable, if not the most remarkable, developments of the twentieth century. Communism has now spread into every country in the world. I do not mean simply that communist ideas have been spread in every country in the world. That is obviously the case. There is surely not a major library in the world that does not have some books or compendiums of the teachings of Marx, Lenin, Mao, or others. It would hardly be possible to teach a course on twentieth century history without summaries of and probably quotations from various communists and the same goes with greater or lesser validity for philosophy, economics, political science, and sociology. Nor is it simply the case that educated people must be in some degree acquainted with communism. It is also the case that amongst those who are illiterate, or barely literate, there must be few who have not picked up and embraced some of the communist doctrines.
A Universal Movement
Ideas know no boundaries, and there is enough within Marxism that is universal to assure us that almost everyone holds or has encountered at least some of the notions that have place in the ideology. In any case, twentieth century transportation and communication make it almost inevitable that all sorts of things are spread around the world, quite often with great rapidity.
Something much beyond the spread of ideas has taken place. Communist power has spread around the world and into every country in the world. That is what is remarkable. The Bolshevik seizure of power in Russia was the prelude to the extending of the tentacles of that power into every land in the world. The meaning and import of this is not readily grasped. Our modern notions of diplomacy, of national sovereignty, of international relations, and of political theory provide no categories with which to conceive it. Even the conception that communist power extends itself by a conspiracy to take over the government is much too confined and narrow a concept. For when I say that communist power has already spread into every land, I mean to convey the understanding that it is already there and operating, not that it may some day overturn the government. The presence of communist power in every land has al- ready reduced’ national sovereignty and is contesting over the monopoly of that power.
Secret Police as the Arm of Soviet Power
The manner of the spread of communist power may be best explained by the description of the power mechanism of the Soviet Union. It is true that today there is a communist power independent of the Soviet Union—Red China—but the Soviet Union has much the longer history and has served as the model for all communist exercise of power. (Indeed, the ideological struggle between the two has been highlighted by differences over Stalinist tactics, championed by the Chinese, and downgraded by the Russians.)
Soviet power is exercised by and concentrated in the secret police. The secret police have been called by many names over the years CHEKA, GPU, NKVD, MGB, and KGB—, but their role has remained constant since the beginning. Today, the KGB is supplemented by the GRU, which is the military branch of the secret police. John Barron has described the role of the KGB this way:
. . . In everything it does, within the Soviet Union and without, the KGB thinks of itself as being the "Sword and Shield of the Party," and this is probably its best single definition. For the KGB serves not so much the Soviet state as the Communist Party and, more particularly, the small coterie of men who control the Party. It is the sword by which Party rulers enforce their will, the shield that protects them from opposition. The characteristics of the KGB which distinguish it from other clandestine organizations, past and present, all derive from the inordinate dependency of the Party oligarchy on the force and protection it provides. Because preservation of their power depends so on the KGB, the Soviet leaders have vested it with resources, responsibilities, and authority never before concentrated in a single organization.’°
The secret police serve not only as the arm of Soviet power within Russia but also around the world. They are present in all countries of the world, always undercover, on embassy staffs, in legations, or engaging in any number of other operations. The gathering of intelligence from foreign countries is one of their major activities, of course. But beyond that, they use whatever means are available and necessary to enforce the will of the Kremlin on all who fall under the sway of communism. They are the invisible mechanism of communist power.
The Role of the Party
The visible mechanism of communist power in any land is the communist party. Its presence in any country is the sign that the revolution has begun. Its task is to proclaim the revolution, to arouse discontent, to draw into its fold adherents who can be trained and disciplined, and, when the time comes, to provide the personnel for taking over the power of government. Although much party activity is undercover, and party membership is usually kept secret, the party is itself a cover. It is a cover for the foreign character of the communist intrusion. It provides what appearance there can be that communism is a native movement. Yet these communist parties have generally been captive parties, instruments of foreign powers who controlled them.
Elizabeth Bentley, who was for several years a communist espionage agent in the United States, says that Earl Browder, then head of the American Communist Party, was fearful before and but a figurehead for the Soviet powers.¹¹
The size of a communist party is not usually a crucial factor. No party anywhere has ever come close to including a majority of the electorate. Nor would such a large, unwieldy, and undisciplined party be considered desirable. Not politics but power is the object of communism. Leverage is the principle on which communists gain and occupy power. If a majority were to vote for a communist candidate or for a party slate, leverage would be gained by a small minority, usually within the party.
In any case, conditions are supposed to provide the setting for communists to come to power, not numbers. To Marx, the conditions were supposed to be provided when capitalism had reached a certain stage. For Lenin, and his successors, the conditions were right at any time when a government became sufficiently irresolute, weak, or divided and confused in its counsels. Any number of things can produce such conditions: military defeat, military conquest, civil war, political elections, terrorized officials, and so on. It is at this juncture that the resolute and disciplined party plays the decisive role at the forefront of revolution.
In the countries of eastern Europe the conditions for a communist take-over were right by way of military defeat and the presence of the Red Army after World War II. Soviet leaders had carefully nurtured the communist parties of these nations during the war, had even provided a place of exile for them in the Soviet Union. Although there were variations from land to land, Hugh Seton-Watson says that in general the take-over went through three stages:
In the first phase government was by a genuine coalition of parties of left and left centre. The coalitions in all cases included communist and socialist parties. . . .
In the second phase government was by bogus coalition. Several parties still nominally shared power and possessed independent organisations: but their leaders were in fact chosen not by them but by the communist leaders, and the policies of the coalitions were determined by the communists. . . .
In the third phase the bogus coalitions were transformed into what the communists like to call a "monolithic block." The communist leaders not only laid down the lines of policy, but centrally controlled the organisation and discipline of the non-communist groups that were still left in the governments. Socialist parties were forced to "fuse" with communist parties. No more political opposition was tolerated in parliament, press or public meeting.¹²
How this power was seized is particularly instructive:
Already in the first phase . . . the communists seized certain key positions. The most important of these was the Ministry of Interior, which controlled the police. . . . The Ministry of Justice, controlling the formal judicial machinery, was considered less important, but was held by communists in certain cases. Control of broadcasting was seized at an early date. Great efforts were made to control and to create youth and women’s organisations. In industry, communists were placed in key positions in the management of nationalised factories and in trade unions.¹³
These were, as Seton-Watson says, the "Levers of Power."
Indoctrinating and Training the Communist Cadres
Sometimes within the secret police, sometimes within the parties, but always the strength and power of communist organizations are what are called the "cadres." The term "cadre" is taken from military usage, where it refers to those who are assigned the task of indoctrinating, training, and disciplining military forces. They are the dedicated communists, those who have been most thoroughly molded, trained to absolute obedience to the powers over them.
"The ideal type of the Communist," Frank Meyer said, "is a man in whom all individual, emotional, and unconscious elements have been reduced to a minimum and subjected to the control of an iron will, informed by a supple intellect. That intellect is totally at the service of a single and compelling idea, made incarnate in the Communist Party: the concept of History as an inexorable god whose ways are revealed ‘scientifically’ through the doctrine and method of Marxism‑ Leninism."¹4 The "cadres" consist of all those who have been most thoroughly molded into this pattern. It is the cadre, not the formal party, Meyer pointed out, that is competent to the task that Stalin assigned the party, namely, "the only organization capable of centralizing the leadership of the struggle of the proletariat, thus transforming each and every non-Party organization of the working class into an auxiliary body and transmission belt linking the Party with the class."¹5
These, then, are the main instruments for applying power. Applying power on what? In answering this question we come to the heart of communism as power. So far as communism is a power theory, it is a theory of the exercise of power by a tiny minority over the whole of peoples. How is it done? It is done by occupying pivotal positions in organizations. It is important to understand that any organization will do for the purpose, any organization that has people under its control in any way: police, armies, churches, corporations, businesses, clubs, political parties, governmental units or whatever. Those who think of "communist front" organizations as only facades mistake the principle. They may be facades and covers so far as the ultimate purpose is concerned. But they are as important to communism as they would be if they revealed their purpose completely, for they are instruments of the revolution in progress.
The Organizational Structure
The spread of communism proceeds, then, by the creation, penetration, and infiltration of organizations. Otto Kuusinen, one of Stalin’s men, described a part of the process this way in 1926, "We must create a whole solar system of organizations and smaller committees around the Communist Party so to speak, smaller organizations working actually under the influence of our party. . . "¹6 Willi Muenzenberg, considered somewhat of a theoretical genius on communist movement by way of organization, declared: "We must penetrate every conceivable milieu, get hold of artists and professors, make use of cinemas and theatres, and spread abroad the doctrine that Russia is prepared to sacrifice everything to keep the world at peace. We must join these clubs ourselves."¹7
The eventual aim can be deduced: it is either to destroy or to control all organizations within a society. It is only when there is no longer an independent organization, or an independent person, that the triumph of communism is complete.
An analogy may help in grasping the mode of the spread of communism. From where I sit, I can see across the road to a field covered with Kudzu. Not so many years ago most of the area covered by Kudzu was a cultivated field. I do not know how the Kudzu got started there. How it got started in this part of the country is not a mystery, however. It was deliberately set out. If memory serves, it was recommended by agricultural experts as a means of stopping soil erosion. (The government may even have provided the seedlings without charge, or for a nominal price.) It does stop soil erosion in those areas to which it spreads, but it does much more than that.
Kudzu is a vine, for the information of those unacquainted with this ubiquitous plant. It is a perennial on which large leaves grow in season. Indeed, Kudzu is a pretty enough plant, such a vine as an innocent person might set out to provide shade over an arbor. But it has a monstrous trait. It spreads. And spreads. And spreads. It can only be stopped from spreading by uprooting it, although it will not directly cross a well traveled road. And it chokes out all plant life over which it spreads. The cover of leaves is so thick during the season that plants depending on the sun to carry out photosynthesis, which is to say all non-parasitic plants, must succumb. Even large trees in its path must eventually be overcome by it. No independent plant life can co-exist with it.
Being across from it on a well traveled road is no protection, however. Kudzu produces seeds which can be blown across the road by the wind. That must have happened already to my neighbor, for some sturdy vines have taken root there. If it is not nipped in the bud, so to speak, it will spread over that land, and from thence to wherever it can, covering and crushing out all plant life as it goes. Kudzu is a power plant, as it were, and moves relentlessly to become the only power.
Communism is analogous to Kudzu in its spread over the world. But communism is not a plant; it is an idea. It is idea joined to power. It is spread not by the wind but by terror. That aspect of it needs now to be examined.
Next: 25. The Cold War: Terrorizing Many Lands.
¹Eugen Weber, The Western Tradition (Boston: D. C. Heath, 1959), p. 609.
‘John K. Galbraith, The Affluent Society (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1958), pp. 319-20. ‘Matthew 3:8-10 (KJV).
*John Barron, KGB: The Secret Work of Soviet Secret Agents (New York: Bantam, 1974), p. 2.
‘Frank S. Meyer, The Moulding of Communists in Omnibus Volume 3 (New Rochelle, N.Y.: Conservative Book Club, copyright Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1961), p. 25.
"Quoted in M. Stanton Evans, The Politics of Surrender (New York: Devin-Adair, 1966), p. 26.
‘Ibid. p. 27.
"John W. Lewis, ed., Major Doctrines of Communist China (New York: Norton, 1964), p. 279.
°Barron, op. cit., pp. 9-10.
¹¹See, for example, Elizabeth Bentley, Out of Bondage in Omnibus Volume 6 (New Rochelle, N.Y.: Conservative Book Club, copyright Devin-Adair, 1951), pp. 125-26.
"Hugh Seton-Watson, From Lenin to Malenkov (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1953), pp. 248-49.
"Meyer, op. cit., p. 15.
°Quoted in ibid., p. 14.
°Quoted in Eugene Lyons, The Red Decade (New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington House, 1970), p. 47.