The Naked Communist

NakedCommunistSuggested by Brad Nelson • This study is designed to bring the far-flung facts about Communism into a single volume. It contains a distillation of more than 100 books and treatises—many of them written by Communist authors. It attempts to present the Communist in his true native elements, stripped of propaganda and pretense.
Buy at Amazon.com
Suggest a book • (2327 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Bookshelf. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to The Naked Communist

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    This book is by the author of The 5000 Year Leap.

    First published in 1958, President Reagan said of W. Cleon Skousen and “The Naked Communist”: “No one is better qualified to discuss the threat to this nation from communism. You will be alarmed, you will be informed and you’ll be glad you heard him.” I’m only 30% into it but just the first section alone (a general overview of Communism) is worth the price of admission.

    And for me it’s stunning how many parallels there are with Libertarianism. For example, both Libertarians and Communists have a hankering for anarchy (statelessness). Skousen writes:

    It is significant that Communist theory treats the proletariat as though it were a unique branch of the human race. The proletariat is assumed to be a special breed which would almost automatically blossom into pleasant, efficient social-economic living if it could just be liberated from oppressive government. The government is presumed to be nothing more than the tool of an oppressive class of capitalists and consequently, if the capitalist class were destroyed, the need for any kind of government would be obliterated. The Communist leaders have always felt confident that when the proletariat takes over it will not want to oppress anyone and therefore the need for government will be nonexistent . . .

    Fallacy 4 — Marx and Engels believed that the State (any form of sovereign government) is an unnecessary appendage to society which the dominant class creates to forcibly preserve its interests and suppress the uprising of the exploited class. Marx and Engels did not believe any government in any age represented the interests of all of the people or even the welfare of a majority of the people.

    This seems to flow out of some kind of belief (as Skousen notes) that certain people believe they are a unique branch of the human race and the regular rules do not apply to them.

    Like Communists, Libertarians are amoral. There is no moral grounding to their viewpoint, which is certainly why they try to make more of things such as free speech and other subsidiary (and essential) issues than they can hold.

    Another very large area of agreement is in what Skousen calls Communism’s “negative approach to problem solving”:

    In concluding this discussion of the basic fallacies in Communism we should perhaps make a summary comment on the most significant fallacy of them all. This is the Communist doctrine that problems can be solved by eliminating the institution from which the problems emanate. Even Marx and Engels may have been unaware that this was what they were doing, but the student will note how completely this approach dominates every problem they undertook to solve.

    Take, for example, the problems of government. Marx and Engels would solve these problems by working for the day when they could eliminate government. Problems of morals would be solved by doing away with morals. Problems growing out of religion would be solved by doing away with religion. Problems of marriage, home and family would be eliminated by doing away with marriage, home and family.

    The problems arising out of property rights would be resolved by not allowing anyone to have any property rights. The problem of equalizing wages would be solved by abolishing wages. Problems connected with money, markets and prices would be solved by doing away with money, markets and prices. Problems of competition in production and distribution would be solved by forcibly prohibiting competition.

    We see this in the way the current Cultural Marxists work as well. Instead of dealing with the issue of male and female, they decide to dispense with those categories altogether. And instead of Libertarians dealing with the issue of which drugs to make legal, which to make illegal — and why — they simply dispense with the problem by negation, by making all drugs legal.

    We see that also in the bizarre Free Speech Manifesto by Bendan O’Neil. Instead of dealing with the fine points of the issue of speech (surely it is problematic to yell “fire” in a crowded movie theatre if there is no fire), the Libertarian bent is to negate all fine distinctions and just declare an absolutist position regarding free speech. A libertarian opinion expressed at this site was that the only restriction on the “arms” one could own (including nuclear devices, anthrax, sarin gas, or anything) was whether or not you could pay for it. Instead of dealing with the fine points of the issue (and every issue under the sun has fine points), the libertarians, much like the Communists, condense things down into a simple and ruinous caricature.

    It is therefore for good reason that Mr. Kung calls Libertarians “the Bolsheviks of the Right.”

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      Another very large area of agreement is in what Skousen calls Communism’s “negative approach to problem solving”:

      I have often pointed this out. It is so easy to dispense with crime when nothing is against the law.

      This is the equivalent of an upset child closing its eyes and, by doing so, believe that the the thing which upset it has gone away.

      It is the utopian’s urge to conquer reality by dispensing with it.

      At an intellectual level, it is profoundly dishonest. But it is common among intellectuals to become enamored of words and clever theoretical arguments. They formulate axioms favorable to their desired positions and carry logic and reason to absurd ends.

      At a more profound level than the hoi polloi, their insane motto really is, “don’t confuse me with the facts, I know what I believe.”

      One must never forget this urge is very likely driven by deeply emotional feelings. These people are not, at all, moved by history, human nature, facts or experience. Caution and humility are not part of their mental makeup. Too many are simply driven by their egos and inner monster.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        It is the utopian’s urge to conquer reality by dispensing with it.

        I do think that is a commonality.

        At an intellectual level, it is profoundly dishonest. But it is common among intellectuals to become enamored of words and clever theoretical arguments. They formulate axioms favorable to their desired positions and carry logic and reason to absurd ends.

        I was well aware the Karl Marx was the worst sort of armchair intellectualoid even before reading this book. It is usually in the front of my mind when pontificating from my own armchair not to make that mistake, if possible. But it’s impossible not to make that mistake to some degree.

        But reading this book reminds me again just what kind of a dirtbag Marx was. And it’s an ironic tragedy of history that a couple of lapsed Jews (Marx, Trotsky) brought down such misery on their race. There are those who would say that it was God’s judgment.

        One thing I certainly would say is that Marxism/Communism was/is an atheist project from the get-go (and I reserve judgment on Libertarianism as this point, but I suspect it is much the same). Atheism is the starting point from which all of Marx’s reasoning stems. Good god, man, you really get a glimpse for who Richard Dawkin’s ideological ancestor is. The one-track materialism is really that thick in both…making both extremely thick-headed…and potentially dangerous.

        And how truly absurdly tragic (I had never heard this story before) that Joseph Stalin turned onto atheism and Marx via his brothers in a seminary where he was studying to become a priest:

        As he learned his way around, Stalin discovered that the seminary was honeycombed with secret societies. Many of them were fostering the atheistic writings of Feuerbach and Bauer and the revolutionary writings of Marx and Engels. Before long Stalin convinced himself that he had a preference for revolution rather than religion and he therefore became vigorously active in the clandestine organizations which existed among the students of the seminary. He continued these activities for nearly three years, but he was finally exposed in May, 1899, and was expelled from the seminary for “lack of religious vocation.”

        According to further information at Wiki, Stalin became an atheist in his first year there. It wasn’t a Jesuit-based seminary, as far as I know. But clearly there are some things going on in such places that have little to do with the core teachings of the religion. The Catholics are now stuck with their own sort of Marxist revolutionary for the moment.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          And it’s an ironic tragedy of history that a couple of lapsed Jews (Marx, Trotsky) brought down such misery on their race. There are those who would say that it was God’s judgment.

          This is a large subject on which much has been and could be written. Marx himself wrote a book titled, “On the Jewish Question”.

          It wasn’t a Jesuit-based seminary, as far as I know.

          As I recall, it was a Russian Orthodox seminary. His mother had a strong desire for him to become a priest.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      What you demonstrate here is why libertarianism, like modern liberalism, is an absolutist ideology in that it has no room for nuance or trade-offs. This is very logically consistent, but also impractical.

      We had a book of Communist documents when I was a child, written (and no doubt bought) on the basis that one should know one’s enemy. Thus, I read the Communist Manifesto early on. (One touch I liked was their defense of holding women in common. They argued that the middle-class already did that for the most part — remember, it was written in Paris. I was young, but not too young to find this amusing.) They believed that the “dictatorship of the proletariat” would eventually lead to the state withering away. Needless to say, in reality they never got beyond the dictatorship.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        …like modern liberalism, is an absolutist ideology in that it has no room for nuance or trade-offs.

        Yes, it is absolutist. And I think Mr. Kung described the intellectualoid factor quite well. And it seems to me there is also the revolutionary appeal of Libertarianism. I don’t know what else to call it. It’s just the sheer fun of being a radical. Despite their supposed fealty to the Constitution, they are basically using the threads that bind this nation as a zip-line. It’s a means to a thrill to pull it apart. And gaining cheap thrills is not what the structure of our government is about.

        One touch I liked was their defense of holding women in common.

        Skousen touches on this monstrous aspect as well. And those who haven’t been idly sitting by drooling over every asinine pronouncement from our Marxist-in-Chief have learned that the Weather Underground that Bill Ayers belonged to required that there be no male-female bonding, or at least it was heavily frowned upon. And people who are waking up and figuring out that Obama is a fraud (but a genuine Marxist) should know that Ayers is his ideological compatriot.

        Yes, this evil cause has learned to drop the radical pose while keeping the radical ends. Obama can look so good in a suit that it can cause some journalists (such as David Brooks) to salivate at his precise pant creases. But the ugly is still there underneath. And when you understand who they are, then their lies are very easy to spot. It is relatively easy to parse their language. It’s like knowing a magician’s trick.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          And it seems to me there is also the revolutionary appeal of Libertarianism

          I believe there is a strain in Libertarianism which springs from Bakunin’s anarchism which was clearly a relative of Marxism. A quote from Wikipedia regarding this should give one an idea of how closely related they were,

          While both social anarchists and Marxists share the same final goal, the creation of a free, egalitarian society without social classes and government, they strongly disagree on how to achieve this goal. Anarchists believe that the classless, stateless society should be established by the direct action of the masses, culminating in social revolution, and refuse any intermediate stage such as the dictatorship of the proletariat, on the basis that such a dictatorship will become a self-perpetuating fundament. For Bakunin, the fundamental contradiction is that for the Marxists, “anarchism or freedom is the aim, while the state and dictatorship is the means, and so, in order to free the masses, they have first to be enslaved.”

          Both Marxism and anarchism are radical pie-in-the-sky absolutist ideologies. Both are equally theoretically based, and are built on assumptions about mankind which are based on nothing more than pious hope. But one must give Bakunin credit for understanding revolutionaries in general. He wrote;

          If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Tsar himself

          • Timothy Lane says:

            Hugh Thomas in The Spanish Civil War suggests that the Spanish Anarchists were inspired by Bakunin. He also mentions an incident shortly after the Republic was established involving a Civil Guards struggle with an anarchist who fought them with the aid of his daughter — named Libertaria.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *