COMMUNISM AND FREEDOM

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23648, 4 November 1938, Page 4

COMMUNISM AND FREEDOM

ro ruK editor Sir, —It has been said of Bolshevists that they are really pathological cases. Whether that is harsh or not, it is obvious that certain grave difficulties arise in discussions with Bolshevists or their apologists. It is, for instance, seemingly impossible to credit them with ordinary fairness. Whatever evidence is produced against the Reds, no matter how convincing the evidence, no matter the integrity of the persons supplying it, the Bolshevists deny or distort it. Black is no longer black with these people, and white no longer white. They have no apparent appreciation of what is fundamental to reasonable discussion. Take the case of “Puma Swaraj,” who now accuses me of evading the issue by charging him with hatred toward the Catholic Church. The truth is that I am not evading the issue. The correspondent concerned went beyond the issue by making a bitter attack on the Catholic Church, which I naturally defended. There is also Miss H. Gow, of Balclutha, who accuses me of some mysterious political motive. I am not concerned with political endeavours, which are mainly too inconsequential to be bothered about. What I am concerned with is infinitely greater than any man-devised affairs, transient as they are. The issue is the defence of belief in. and service for, God. This defence must conflict sharply with the current world campaign against God, a campaign of which atheistic Bolshevism is part. That is why it should be insisted, for the edification of all Christians, that Bolshevism is more than a political plan. It means hatred for God. and it seeks the destruction of religion. A lady of my acquaintance has been striving to find some meaning in Miss Gow's letters, and the main point to emerge has been Miss Gow’s complacency regarding the torture, the violation, and the murder of members of her own sex by the Bolshevists. Suggest that morality in Russia is not as admirable as the propagandists would have us believe, and Miss Gow becomes highly indignant. Cite reputable people who have testified to the vileness of the Reds who behave in the manner of brutes, and Miss Gow cries out about “atrocity stories,” implying that they are inventions. If she means to deride Helen Nicholson, who wrote “ Death in the Morning,” she has undertaken the somewhat difficult task of reflecting upon a lady of position and attainment, who has seen fit to support her statements with her excellent reputation. It is, indeed, a commentary on the effects of an admiration for Bolshevism that Miss Gow is evidently incapable of feeling sympathy with those of her own sex and those children who have fallen victims to the Red terror. I have no doubt that Miss Gow is sincere in her advocacy of Bolshevism, but it is a misguided sincerity, and it excludes what should be a natural feeling of compassion. Let us return to “Puma Swaraj, who now names two of a select little group he describes as “a few courageous Catholics." We are to assume that the requirements for being a “ courageous Catholic” is to act as a propagandist for atheistic Bolshevism. As one of these unusual 'and abnormal folk, he mentions Jose Bergamin. Unfortunately for the alleged Catholicity of Bergamin, he has been described in a recent Catholic publication as the “so-called Catholic editor.’ Bergamin has also been engaged in lecturing on behalf of the Communists in the United States. The Christianity claimed for him Is, of course, merely another device to deceive Christians. “Puma Swaraj,” also insists that he is not interested m “ atrocity tales.” Like Miss Gow, he does not relish the information I have supplied, and which I shall certainly augment should the occasion arise. It was “ Puma Swaraj ” who accused the Catholic Church of dark deeds, but he resents dark deeds attributed to the Bolshevists he admires. It is merely another instance of failure to appreciate fairness. I have noticed a particularly interesting thing about " Puma Swaraj’s ” newest letter. Replying to another correspondent, he uses a sentence that is intended as a weapon against the Christian belief in heaven. When I saw it, I remembered that precisely the same notion ocurred during a controversy I had with some freethinkers in Auckland nearly a year ago. I found that a similar sentence was then used against me by Mr Henry Hayward, who is the Rationalist Association president *n Auckland, and “Puma Swaraj s feeble doggerel about pie in the sky was used by another freethinker. It seems more than a coincidence. Are we to believe that freethinkers draw from a common and inept stock for their accusations against Christianity. Freethinkers, by the way, are not able to think freely. Any Atheist who admits a suggestion of reason in the case for the existence of God is not a thorough Atheist. To be a thorough Atheist, he must restrict his intellectual scope to what does not conflict with Atheism. There seems to be an impression that I seek to decry Communism in its entirety, when I am really concerned* with its anti-God nature. If Communism bestows material advantages upon those who need them, if Communism supplies more and more tomato iuice to the proletariat, who will quarrel with it? But Communism is against God. Morality in Russia has come into question, and here I am almost reluctant, because I am goodnatured. to point out the devastating weakness of the parlour Bolshevisms who have supplied figures about the incidence of social diseases in tne Soviet. That there has been a reduction does not prove a better morality; it indicates, rather, an extension of clinical practice and of medical knowledge. The parlour Bolshevists are solely preoccupied with the sexual aspect of morality, but morality means more than that. Teaching children to hate is immoral, for example; injustice is an offence against morality, just as injustice is to be found in the abuses of capitalism. I would recommend my opponents to study morality in its fullness. They may see Atheistic materialism in a clearer light.—l am, etc., Avila. Wellington, November 2. ro THE EDITOR Sir,—Your effervescent correspondent Miss H. Gow is still assiduous in the task of bringing the virtues of Communism before the public. The most striking thing in the letters, of this gentle champion of Communism is the callous indifference shown for the uncountable atrocities perpetuated by the Communist barbarians in their determination to impose this pagan scheme upon civilisation. The glib manner in which this lady glides over these diabolical crimes in order to impress us with visions of an Arcadian future fills us with feelings of indignation. Obsessed with a cause that exacts warfare against civilisation, the most ferocious the world has known, she can lightly pass over the sacrifices of untold millions of lives, the ten millions of human lives confined to a life worst than slavery in concentration camps, and 20 years of starvation and misery under Communist dictatorship. We can only deduce from her writings that atrocities committed in the name of Communism are not crimes. It is but a procedure necessary to extinguish elements that are opposed to a dictatorship. What does it matter that in such a glorious cause human life is now no more valuable than that of an insect? It is nothing that Communism has never been a success. “ It is our will and we will succeed at any cost.” In the complex meanderings of her last effusion. Miss Gow ignores her recent failure to substantiate the claim that Socialism was based on a just cause, first, by the theory of value robbery of the worker, and, secondly, by the fact that labour is the sole source of wealth. She has the temerity to state publicly that there is no valid argument against Communism. It is evident that this misinformed advocate is ignorant of the flood of devastating criticism that has been levelled at the cause which she is ever misrepresenting. From every point of view, economic, moral and spiritual, the Communist citadel has fallen Its evil effects on the individual, society and the race have been so strongly proved that no serious attempt is made to controvert it. It is not surprising that in these circumstances Communist propagandists ar e compelled to fall

back on evasion and misrepresentation when met with criticism. If Miss Gdw will produce some evidence of the truth of her statements on the virtues of Communism, such proof will be a welcome change from the distortions of the past.—l am, etc., November 3. P. F. S.