Week of 1/13

The foreword to The Black Book of Communism details the arguments that will be presented throughout the remaining chapters. The authors focus in on the similarities between Communism and Nazism. They explain that while the two are seemingly different ideologies, at the core, they both present a form of evil; they are both equally detrimental to society. The first point presented on page xvii explains how both political ideologies act on the basis of crimes. Communist regimes however, rather than committing criminal acts, they acted as criminal enterprises, behaving with no regard for human life. The book’s second point on page xviii is that Communism, at it’s core is made up of atrocious principles, despite the common assumption that Communism had a relatively neutral initial phase, only then to suddenly take a wrong turn. Lenin from the start, expected and wanted civil war to crush all class disparities, and the same “pharaonic” methods have been contrasted with the use of the Nazi gas chamber. The third and final point made on page xix articulates that Communism’s path to a permeant civil war rested on “scientific” Marxist belief in class struggle. A similar metaphor is made with Nazi violence being founded on a “scientific” social Darwinism. 

The overarching question of this book— what of the moral equivalence of Communism and Nazism?— has briefly been articulated in this foreword through varying degrees of totalitarian evil. I have never been presented with such a question. This comparison is grounded in historical logic. I find this explanation stands on legitimate grounds. Contrary to the points in the Harvard Address, the West’s powerful democracy should stand as a model for the struggling Communist and Nazi regimes. The West has not fallen into the evil patterns of totalitarianism, only operating with the utmost regard for human life. 

Week of 1/20

Witness p. 509

“Always uppermost in Hiss’s mid is the necessity of learning how much of the whole story I have told the Committee. Therefore, he maneuvers to find out, choosing the boldest tactic as the best (‘I would request that I hear Mr. Chambers’ story of his alleged knowledge of me.’) At the same time, he seems to give his demand force by implying that the Committee in questioning him is providing me with information about Hiss’s life, which I can then produce as testimony. Cautiously, he prepares to identify me (‘I have been cudgeling my brains, particularly on the train coming down…’), though he is still uncertain whether he must take the step.”

This passage from Chambers’ Witness highlights the concept of trust during the Hiss Case; such a large part of the case was based off the notion that you must trust other members of the Communist Party. It basically came down the idea that no matter what you do, you are incriminating either yourself or another member of the Party. This therefore exposes the deeply embedded, yet slightly hidden, totalitarian beliefs radiating throughout politics at the time. A totalitarian government maintains extremely high control over public and private life while restricting opposition to the state. The way in which Chambers describes the meticulous thought put into every testimony throughout the trial highlights the fear of speaking out in opposition. Given this deep thought, as seen in the quote above, exhibits the carefully planned rhetoric. Understanding what was being said about Hiss prior to him giving a testimony was a key move to ensure levels of trust remain high and the secretive Party remains intact.