By Gabe Brunal
When viewing the various works in the Radical Literature Collection, the works in the collection all seem to fall under a certain political axis, one that revolves around socialism, communism, worker solidarity, and various other liberatory movements. Most might not notice the handful of publications that place themselves in opposition to the ideas that make up the rest of the collection. These works are not just "out of place" rhetorically, but in strict defiance of the liberatory messaging found in the rest of the collection, with polarized language that falls in line with the paranoia of American cultural moments like McCarthyism and the Red Scare. Just as a narrative is constructed by the various politically left pieces, these anti-communist pieces counstruct a counter-narrative that seeks to "defend democracy," root out subversion, and defend against a "Red Agressor in the East."
Is there anything that can be learned from the inclusion of works seemingly antithetical to the subject of radicalism? Isn't the collection supposed to just be "radical literature?" Don't these counter-narrative works hurt the rhetorical standing of the rest of the pieces? If the intention was to curate specifically a collection of socialist and communist works, then perhaps the inclusion of these counter-narratives could come into question, but is that the explicit purpose of the collection? Yes, the collection is so named "Radical Literature," but treatment of the collection as being only a "red" monolith simply does not do it justice. These works don't just sit idly by; they serve as a snapshot of a fully-developed political moment. Including the counter narratives shows the full picture of the radical socialist movement — the types of opposition faced by those left movements, the weight of reaction that had to be cut through with rhetoric, and the targets of the fiery language that was published.
This first piece, Vigilance; The Price of Liberty, is a short pamphlet with a striking cover, curiously missing any sort of listed author or exact organizational source. Inside the pamphlet there are professionally made graphics, illustrations, diagrams, and maps. A lot of the text contained inside seeks to be informative about the purpose and structure of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), but such an alliance cannot be formed without an enemy to defend against, and in this case it is the Soviet Union. Alongside defense spending graphs and maps of member nations, there are descriptions of Soviet military strength, maps of "Soviet territorial expansion," and comparisons to Hitler and Mussolini. There is even an interesting juxtaposition between the maps and (uncited) numerical data with harrowing illustrations of sullen figures trapped behind barbed wire and a defenseless man surrounded by hungry wolves.
Clearly, a point is made by our (unnamed) author(s) to associate the Soviet Union with the fresh memories of the Second World War, and to prepare an armed and organized defense in anticipation of conflict. A contemporary reading reveals a summation of the public consciousness in regards to the Cold War: polarized superpowers, the gathering of alliances, the standoff against ideological enemies, and a mounting collective anxiety over the potential loss of "freedoms." Parallels can be drawn between the way that a piece like Vigilance paints an antagonistic image out of the Soviet Union, and how a radical communist piece paints an image of an enemy out of the capitalist institutions that dominate society. The main difference between these pieces is the amount of concrete evidence used for their arguments.
The next piece, A Catechism of Communism for Catholic High School Students, is a more simplistic piece, whose basic red cover could more stealthily hide amongst a collection of communist essays and polemics. The word "catechism" (a text summarizing basic principles) could convince a reader that the pamphlet is simply a summation of communist belief and doctrine from a Catholic point of view. Perhaps they might assume it is a piece aimed at a younger audience that conveys the themes of Catholic-communist solidarity?
Upon first inspection, Catechism seems no different from the pieces surrounding it, but closer inspection breaks the façade. The author’s name is nowhere to be found, with the piece attributed to "A Passionist Father" (note that it isn't "Passionate," "Passionist" in this case referring to the Congregation of the Passion of Jesus Christ, a Catholic religious order). Aside from the publisher, the only names present are listed as "Imprimi potest," "Nihil Obstat," and "Imprimatur," these are institutional roles that denote the piece's approval and official sanction by the Catholic Church.
The rest of the simple, non-illustrated text is presented as a series of basic questions with explanations from our "Passionist Father" to explain communism to a younger-leaning audience. The façade quickly reveals itself as the "Passionist Father" pushes anti-communist propaganda and tries to warn, and eventually scare, his audience into fearing communists. The questions, since they do not come from anywhere or from anyone in particular, serve as a framing device to guide the reader from simple curiosity to McCarthyist scaremongering, molding a narrative from nothing. While this method of question-answering may seem rough and unpolished compared to starting from a premise, establishing a conventional argument, and backing up that argument with evidence, it can be surprisingly effective, especially for a younger, more impressionable audience who genuinely want answers to these types of basic questions. By starting from the most basic question like "What is Communism?" an author now has free reign to craft a first impression as they see fit, to lead the reader to the exact desired rhetorical points of interest, and to avoid any questions or interpretations that may reveal the narrative's possibly shaky foundation.
From the outset, the answer to the introductory question of "What is Communism?" is answered with references to communism being inherently "atheistic" and something the "Soviets of Red Russia want to force upon the citizens of every country in the world" (A Passionist Father, 3). The fourth question ("How do the Communists hope to succeed in this world-wide revolution?") makes reference to the Great Depression as a means of tricking desperate people into following their ideas and finishes with the sentence, "Catholic boys and girls, be on your guard!" (A Passionist Father, 5), antagonizing language that pits the audience against communism.
Just a few questions in, one can notice the lack of citation or evidence for any claim made, even for the most ridiculous claims like the following on the question of the abolition of private property:
Everything that is grown or produced, or manufactured by working people, the Communists say should be stored in big warehouses where people can get only what they need and no more. If they do take more than the State thinks they need, they will probably be shot. (A Passionist Father, 5)
This passage shows many of the hallmarks of the types of explanations and arguments being made: outlandish claims, a lack of evidence, and abject fearmongering.
The pattern continues question by question, each answer crafting a wilder, scarier, and more barbaric view of communists and communism. The "Passionist Father" does eventually find an end to the questions by calling for the immediate destruction of communist books and pamphlets, reporting communists to the authorities, and a written out prayer to be recited often "as a final and most powerful means of overcoming the menace of Communism which is disturbing the world today" (A Passionist Father, 23).
Knowing all of this about these choice documents in the collection, what warrants their inclusion and examination alongside "radical" pieces when "radicalism" is supposed to subvert and counter the status quo in which it exists, to provide an alternative and an answer to the grievances of the downtrodden? These documents do not accomplish those goals, they exist to reinforce and to reify the status quo on behalf of entrenched institutions such as NATO and the Catholic Church. Thus, a new lens can take shape: instead of rigid binary classifications between "radical" and "anti-radical" ideas, one should allow the ideas to operate in concert, because one necessitates the existence of the other. Radicalism cannot exist without a status quo to rebel against, and a society cannot perpetuate a status quo without a reaction to subversion. For example, elements such as the fiery and passionate nature that have become intrinsic to the way that radical narratives are communicated only exist due to the stifling, silencing, and antagonizing nature of anti-radical counter-narratives. Applying this to the collection, radical pieces cannot be fully examined and understood without a basis for the ideas that it fights against and an examination of the anti-radical pieces that exist in response. Examining both radicalism and anti-radicalism on the same level provides a more accurate snapshot of the politics of the day, and by extension, a more accurate analysis of the direction that political conditions have moved since then.
Citations
A Passionist Father. A Catechism of Communism for Catholic High School Students. The Paulist Press, 1936.
Vigilance; The Price of Liberty. Good Reading Rack Service Division Koster-Dana Corp., 1961.
