March 14, 1963
PAGE 4295
Address by the Honorable Edmund S. Muskie, of Maine, Before Buffalo Group
EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. THADDEUS J. DULSKI OF NEW YORK
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, March 14, 1963
Mr. DULSKI. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, March 10, our great city of Buffalo, N.Y., was highly honored by the presence of the distinguished Senator from Maine, the Honorable EDMUND S. MUSKIE.
Senator MUSKIE was invited to Buffalo to address a joint dinner meeting sponsored by the Professional & Businessmen's Association, Inc., the Advocates Club of Buffalo, and the Medical Arts Society, and chaired by Mr. Eugene V. Buczkowski.
In the afternoon I was privileged to join a large delegation to meet Senator MUSKIE at the Buffalo International Airport. Immediately thereafter a reception was held in his honor at a local hotel.
In the evening, Senator MUSKIE was the principal speaker at the dinner, and his speech was very well received. He was introduced by Mr. John Aszkler, the former mayor of Lackawanna, N.Y., and the keys to Buffalo and Lackawanna were presented to him by Mayors Chester Kowal and John C. Ogarek respectively.
I am pleased to insert Senator MUSKIE'S speech into the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. His speech follows:
ADDRESS OF THE HONORABLE EDMUND S. MUSKIE, OF MAINE, BEFORE BUFFALO GROUP
Never before in history has mankind had before it as great a promise for its fulfillment as we have today.
We are on the threshold of unbelievable development of our human and natural resources, and we can see on the horizon the control of disease, the eradication of poverty and misery, and a general uplifting of the standard of living throughout the world.
At the same time, however, mankind faces the gravest threat to its survival in history. We live in an age of crisis, and the threat of a nuclear holocaust is constantly with us.
This paradox derives primarily from the political situation which now exists in the world. Driven by the highest form of stimulation -- a threat to national survival -- the United States and the Soviet Union have, since World War II, made fantastic advances in science and technology and we are continually discovering -- as a byproduct to the race for survival -- ways and means to alleviate human misery.
This priority is, of course, due to necessity, not to choice. We all hope for the day when real peace will prevail, and national disputes are determined under the rule of law. Until that day arrives, however, we must maintain our defenses.
In assessing the worldwide struggle in which we are now engaged, many in the free world are, it seems to me, unduly pessimistic.
Lately, we have been hearing and reading about the Communist threat to Cuba almost to the exclusion of other areas of conflict and crisis. While I would not for a moment attempt to minimize the gravity of the situation in Cuba, I would like, for a few moments, to try to assess the conflict to date in a broader historical perspective.
Let us set the stage.
The world is divided roughly into three groups: The Western democracies, centered around the United States and the NATO nations; the Communist bloc, centered around the Soviet Union and Red China; and the large group of so-called uncommitted nations.
The tensions which now grip the world derive from two principal sources.
First is the conflict which has arisen as a result of the policy of world domination openly advocated by the Soviet Union and the Communist bloc. Standing out against the Communist drive for world domination is the free world, led by the United States. Our objective is a peaceful world of independent nations free to choose their own system of government.
The second major source of world tension is the explosion of nationalism and the accompanying drive for improved living standards in the new and undeveloped countries.
The two forces are, of course, interwoven. For example, a major part of the Communist blueprint for domination includes taking advantage of the instability of uncommitted and undeveloped nations.
These, then, are the broad outlines of the world today.
Let me now make it clear that what I have to say about the future of communism is speculation, not fact; possibility not certainty. I claim no special crystal hall in world affairs. But I do think that sufficient evidence is available to suggest that communism has reached the high tide of its expansion and is starting to recede.
What is that evidence?
First, I believe, that, as a theory, communism has proven to be wrong. Marxist theory holds that communism must succeed because capitalism is doomed to destroy itself. Marx believed that capitalism must fail because it could only widen the gap between the rich and the poor, and that the oppressed would inevitably rise and overthrow the wealthy few.
The economists of the 19th century formed the basis for Marx's theory. They held that the ultimate and the only goal of a capitalist society was the accumulation of wealth in a competitive economy. It follows logically that a society geared to maximum profit in a competitive economy is forced to reduce wages as far as possible in order to increase profits. Marx simply carried this one step further and said that eventually wages for the masses would get so low and profits for the few would get so high, that an explosion would inevitably occur.
But Marx was wrong because he never considered the possibility that capitalism might be able to adapt itself to changing conditions. Essentially this has been brought about because the Western democracies possessed the framework -- a free and openly elected government -- within which to make peaceful changes, and because farsighted businessmen, trade union leaders, and economists have seen that a more equitable distribution of wealth was to the advantage of all concerned.
This was dramatically illustrated in January 1914, when Henry Ford first announced the $5 day. Prior to that, American wages rarely exceeded $2.80 for a 9-hour day. Ford -- a most practical man -- revolutionized economic theory by voluntarily raising employees’ wages to $5 for an 8-hour day. This was, of course, directly contrary to accepted economic theory of the 19th century. It destroyed the foundation of Marxism.
Ford saw that by raising his wages above the mere subsistence level, he was making his workers customers also. This simple but revolutionary thought has made the American workingman the world's greatest consumer, and has raised American living standards to a degree unprecedented in history.
Thus, we see, that by its willingness to adapt, voluntarily, to changing economic circumstances, while retaining the basic concepts of private property and the profit motive, American capitalism has clearly demonstrated the fallacy of communism as a theory.
To be sure, labor and capital are in conflict in this country. To be sure, there has been violence. But it is largely a controlled conflict with a common objective, and few, if any, would dream of major class warfare here. In fact, it is here, in the heart of capitalism, that the classless society has been most nearly achieved. And we have, at the same time, retained intact our political freedoms, for we know that economic freedom and political freedom are bound together in such fashion that the loss of one generally leads to the loss of the other.
Not only has communism failed in theory; it has failed in practice.
Marx foresaw communism as the final stage in the development of nations, coming after the violent destruction of capitalism. In fact, as we have seen, communism developed originally in those countries which had never experienced a capitalistic society.
They have used communism primarily as a method to achieve rapid industrialization. That is, in fact, communism's major appeal today to the undeveloped countries.
And though the Communist dictatorship has succeeded in transforming the Soviet Union into an industrialized society, it has done so at such a high cost in all other fields that it must be considered as a failure.
Consider Soviet agriculture. Abolition of private property, removal of the profit incentive, and forced collectivization have resulted in catastrophe after catastrophe in agriculture.
Millions of farmers have been murdered in the process of enforcing collectivization. In the United States, farm workers comprise 10 percent of our national labor force, and they have produced food in such abundance that disposal of our surplus has become one of our major domestic problems.
By contrast, farm workers comprise almost half of the Russian labor force, and theirs is a constant struggle to meet the national needs. We are all familiar with the results of the imposition of Communist theories upon Chinese agriculture, where each year has brought that country closer to the horrible prospect of widespread famine. And the problem persists in other Communist countries as well, such as East Germany and Yugoslavia. Nowhere in the Communist world is the agriculture problem one of surplus.
And, of course, the most important field where the failure of communism is evidenced is in the field of political liberty and individual freedoms. The application of Marxist theories has required, in every Communist state, a completely closed society, fearful of new ideas and open interchange with other nations, afraid to permit its people to know what is going on. Each Communist country has been supervised by that 20th century testimonial to man's inhumanity -- the secret police and the systematic use of terror.
All that Soviet Russia has demonstrated is that a large modern nation, rich in resources, can rapidly develop its industrial potential by giving to that development absolute priority over all competing claims. This can be done only by repressing political and economic freedom for the individual, and that is what the Soviets have done.
These first two pieces of evidence of the decline of communism --its theory and in fact -- lead to a third: that communism has spent itself as an inspirational ideology which gripped men's hearts and minds completely. We are all familiar with the portrait of a dedicated Communist -- subjugating his entire life to what he considered to be an ideal. That portrait is less common today than it was 30 or even 10 years ago.
In 1917, communism was a theory. In the 1930's it was an experiment. Today, it is a fact. And it is much more difficult to inspire with facts -- unpleasant facts at that -- than it is to do so with theories and experiments.
Inside the Communist bloc there have been increasing signs of tension and dissatisfaction with the monolithic state. The Polish and Yugoslav Communist Governments are under constant pressure from their people for more freedom. Khrushev's destalinization program is not just a rejection of the rule of his predecessor, it is an indictment of the system itself.
In the underdeveloped countries, originally attracted by Communist promises of rapid economic development, we see increasing disillusionment and the rejection of Communist domination. This has happened, for example, in the African countries of Guinea and Algeria.
The really remarkable thing about the Communist effort in the uncommitted portion of the world has been its failure. On the surface communism offers quick and simple solutions which have great appeal for the illiterate and poverty stricken. Democracy, on the other hand, is an exacting form of government because it requires an active, educated people. The concepts of individual liberty are not easy to impart to people who have never had them. Nevertheless, slow as it is, we are making some progress, while communism's failure is more evident.
A fourth reason for its decline is the growing split within the Communist bloc itself.
For many years, the Communists and we in the West harbored an illusion of Communist countries as a single, monolithic group whose interests were identical. That illusion has now been shattered. The Communist bloc has emerged as a group of nations bound by force to a common ideology, but with divergent national interests. The most dramatic example, of course, is the growing split between Russia and China.
This split traces back many years. In the 1920's and 1930's, when the Chinese Communists were fighting for their very survival against the then superior forces of Chiang Kai-shek, Stalin repeatedly based his decisions upon what was good for Russia, not upon what was good for the Chinese Communists. Thus, when Stalin's principal foreign policy aim in the Far East was to create a strong China to act as a buffer between Russia and her traditional enemy, Japan, Stalin did not hesitate to sacrifice the Chinese Communists. Mao-Tse-tung was one of the first to learn this painful lesson. Whatever their personal beliefs about communism, Lenin, Stalin, and Khrushchev have been united in subjugating purely Communist interest to Russian interests when the two conflicted. Perhaps the best example of this was the Hitler-Stalin pact of 1939.
We must, however, retain our sense of perspective about this split. As serious as their differences are, Red China and the Soviet Union have much more in common. Aside from their mutual distrust, their principal difference at this time is one of methods, not goals. Both believe in the eventual destruction of the capitalist countries, but the Chinese Communists believe unswervingly in achieving this goal by forcible means, even if it involves total nuclear war. In fact, one of the most disturbing signs arising out of the arguments between the two is the apparent ignorance of the Chinese Communist leaders concerning the possible effects of total war. The Soviets believe no less in the ultimate goal of world domination, but they think the way to do it is by subversion and victory in the economic sphere. To the Chinese, the Russians advocate a soft line.
But let us not delude ourselves that they differ as to their goals. A complete split may come, but there is insufficient evidence to support such a proposition at this time.
My final reason for believing that communism is on the decline is the determination of the Western democracies to resist Communist aggression.
The Cuban crisis of last fall comes quickly to mind. It is more dramatic than previous confrontations because weapons continue to get bigger and more dangerous, but it is in reality one of a series of encounters in which resolve and determination have forced a Communist withdrawal.
Shortly after World War II, Stalin attempted to press the advantage he had gained by virtue of America's rapid demobilization and the continued presence of the Red army throughout Eastern Europe. He attempted to penetrate Iran, Turkey, and Greece. In each case the attempt was met with resolve, particularly in Greece where the fighting was brief but bloody. In each case, the Soviets failed, thanks to the Truman Point Four Plan. Soviet efforts to subvert the European countries were thwarted by the Marshall Plan and the formation of NATO.
In 1948, Stalin attempted to blockade Berlin, and again Western resolve turned a possible Soviet victory into a stunning defeat for communism.
The attempted Communist thrust into South Korea was contained because President Truman had the courage and foresight to commit American forces to the effort.
And even today, we are continuing the costly, difficult, yet necessary task of repulsing Communist aggression throughout Asia.
In addition to these defensive measures designed to contain Communist expansion, we are continuing our positive program of assistance to the undeveloped countries.
Our mutual security program, which helps us by helping others, directs foreign aid into productive channels.
In the past 8 years we have given $17 billion in surplus foods to the hungry and needy throughout the world, in a gesture of generosity unmatched in history.
The Peace Corps is another example of affirmative and imaginative action which demonstrates the kind of idealistic commitment which is possible in a free society.
These then are some of the reasons why I think that we may be seeing the beginning of the decline of communism. It is really an inefficient and inhumane system for operating a government.
But we must remain ever vigilant. It is a tragic fact of history that mankind has experienced only 220 years of peace in almost 3,500 years of recorded civilization. And the Second World War demonstrated anew that war will come to those who seek to avoid it at any cost. Only by maintaining our strength and our sense of justice will we persevere.
We must rely upon our own strengths and our own deeds in insuring liberty for our children. The Cuban crisis of 1962 provided us with a dramatic illustration of our strength properly utilized to achieve a desirable goal.
Foreseeing the possible decline of communism is no reason for a reduction of effort on our part. Real progress is never made by sitting back and hoping that your opponent will stumble. Indeed, one major reason for the decline of communism is our own strength and fortitude. A major relaxation of these by the United States would inevitably result in success by the Communists in their quest for world domination.
Destiny has placed into American hands the burden of carrying for all humanity the torch of liberty in these perilous times. I am confident that those hands are sufficient to meet the task.