The Communists on the Couch
Report on the American Communist.
by Morris L. Ernst and David Loth.
Holt. 240 pp. $3.00.

The publication of this book by Morris Ernst and David Loth probably marks a new phase in the fight against Communism: the full-length—if somewhat belated—attempt by liberals themselves to understand the personality of American Communists. By examining the case histories of three hundred former Communist party rank-and-filers, the authors claim to have found out what makes a Communist tick.

Ernst and Loth believe that understanding Communists (1) “will remove fear,” (2) will put us “in a better position to prevent the rank and file . . . from joining in the first place,” and (3) will “certainly” make it possible for us “to get them out before they have become dangerous agents of a foreign power.” Such goals are admirable but unrealistic. Understanding anything or anyone does not necessarily remove fear: one can understand how a gun works, the psychological workings of a homicidal maniac or a Nazi, and still be afraid of them—in fact, the more you understand the more you fear. In this, too, fear is often the beginning of wisdom. (Panic is of course another matter.) Their kind of “understanding” of the ex-Communist’s motives for joining the party, far from offering any “certainty” that we can reconvert Communists to democracy before they become dangerous, leads these authors into a psychological swamp.

_____________

Luckily, Report on the American Communist includes the first-hand accounts of some former C. P. members. At most what these accounts offer is additional confirmation of by now familiar patterns in Communist thinking, but this has its usefulness.

The bulk of the rank and file seems to consist of fairly well-educated, native-born whites from urban middle-class families. Many were do-gooders dismayed at the conditions of a world which they seldom knew much about. Betty R—’s father was a $25,000-a-year businessman. While in college she was attracted by the campus radicals and joined the Young Communist League because of “a desire to better working conditions.” Paul J—, also from a well-to-do family, joined the party “out of intellectual excitement in order to make a better world.” The desire to do good is certainly a noble aim, but we are reminded here that when it is so completely selfless—so pure and naked—it can become a positive menace. Often a dangerous headiness takes possession of those who feel freed—by the sense of their own pure altruism—from any check on their self-ordained mission to prescribe what is good for others. A little self-interest is a healthy corrective for the saviors of mankind, as many of them found out once they had been ground fine in the mills of the Communist gods.

Another aspect of Communist commitment to abstraction is in the Utopian theme that runs through these case histories. Harry F—was attracted to Communism because it made him “feel part of a great, world-wide movement that eventually would win and save mankind from every evil.” Stephen Z—felt that “we were going to make a ‘decent world.’ ” Robert O—, who was a successful recruiting agent for the party, describes his dream as “the Utopian promise of a society on earth free from all the human weaknesses. . . .” So many former Communists either cite or imply this promise that there can be little doubt about the centrality of such an appeal. One does not need a particularly unhappy childhood or adult life in order to respond to it; it is the hope that springs eternal out of man’s fate. And this is not the place to discuss whether or not it is possible to realize a world free from every evil. What is important here is how much Communists are willing to sacrifice now—both personally and otherwise—for the future good life.

How much? Just about everything. For from the belief in utopianism comes the corollary belief that any means can be used to attain this glorious end. William Z—gave a quarter of his income to the party and “lived a sacrificial, hazardous life.” Paul J—took “personal risks of jail and persecution.” Theft and the hounding of anti- or former Communists is quite common in the party—even among the young. While in the Y.C.L., William E—“stole books and examination papers from anti-C.P. boys at school.” Sidney W—showed no compunction about using pacifist arguments to talk his mother into marching in Communist parades and demonstrations. Robert O—says that “the chances of living through the world war and revolutions necessary to bring about the world union of Soviet Socialist Republics and to raise the Red Flag in America, the last fortress of capitalism, would be very slight. We were ready to give our lives ‘for the movement’ and the ‘emancipation of mankind.’ ”

_____________

Ernst and Loth have figured out that the average member is about twenty years old when he joins, and remains a member for only two to three years. This youthfulness partially accounts for their ardor in fulfilling the demands made upon them. Only partially, however, for one of the most powerful attractions of the Communist party is precisely how much sacrifice it does demand. This, combined with an appearance of great vitality and a promise to provide a small community of kindred pure-minded souls, gives the party its aura. Lucille O—“was eager for any new allegiance that would give me some sort of anchor and security within the framework of my idealistic concepts.” Edward C—looks back on his party experiences and “must say it is too bad that other organizations cannot evoke the same degree of dedication and selflessness and sacrifices.” Caroline J—found Communists young and “exciting.” “Membership seemed to give much more meaning to my life.” Leonard W—sums up: “All of us submitted ourselves and our lives as if we were entering a holy order. . . . My home, my school, my college, my fraternity, my father, my mother didn’t count. They were either people to be used or enemies to be ultimately destroyed. . . .”

The lesson here, briefly, would seem to be that the difficult task ahead of us is the reevaluation and reinvigorating of American traditions. A sense of community has to be established so that both young and old will feel that they have a stake in continuing the-world-they-never-made. In fact, before they go about changing it, a necessary preliminary stage is that they must see at least that there are numerous advantages present in such a world.

Now for the explanations, the whys and wherefore of the Communist psychology. Here, in what in the authors’ minds is obviously the meat course, we get pretty poor pickings. It is characteristic of our tolerant and liberal age that we can be disturbed by intolerant and strongly dedicated men. This is probably why so many people have become intoxicated with a kind of watered-down psychoanalysis: its pat formulas explain away difficult problems, neatly and without involving too much personal discomfort for thought or emotion, by “proving” that they are caused by neuroses. Ernst and Loth must be numbered among the latest victims of the epidemic. Many of their questions were framed to bring out the nature of the respondent’s childhood, and his psychological relationships with parents and friends. These answers, especially, seem to be published in full—and a boring lot they are. Authoritative fathers, passive mothers, lovely successful sisters, and poor little me—all combine to give a grisly picture of American childhood. Out of this welter of self-pity Ernst and Loth construct their generalizations about the submerged forces in the personality of the American Communist.

The “real” motivation which leads Americans to join the party is “the psychological quirk . . . [which] stems from one or more of these factors: There is a sense of personal inadequacy, whether that in turn was induced by resentment to an overpowering personality in youth, by specific handicap of a physical or spiritual nature, by some strong frustration, or by an inability to reach independent decisions.”

Ernst and Loth do not feel that they are psychologists, and they believe that “the subject calls for a great deal more study by people who are experts.” They even state that “this is not an attempt at amateur psychoanalysis” (it is certainly not professional). But qualifications and disclaimers like these do little to disguise the authors’ smug belief that they have found the Key—“the rebel’s desire for a papa,” “one to whom love was denied,” “escape from self,” “rebellious children,” “to reject a natural father or mother.” Vaguely aware that these “real” motives might be ascribed to almost any “joiner”—and any human being—the authors struggle to establish distinctions, but remain bogged down in the confusions with which they approached their task. The explicit testimony of the autobiographies to the effect that people join the party out of conviction is rejected again and again in favor of “the powerful factor.”

Many anti-Communists will be startled to learn that “to consider [Communism] in terms of ideology or philosophy rather than people . . . leads to abstractions and misconceptions rather than facts,” and is even in some way un-American. In effect, their immoderate enthusiasm at the discovery that there is an emotional basis for ideas has led the authors to throw out ideas almost entirely: until now, we have been fooled by ideas into merely shadow-boxing with Communism; now that this book gives us the “facts,” we’ll be able to get somewhere. ·

This dislike of ideas causes these authors particular difficulty when they come to consider why Communists leave the party. Here again they are forced to impugn the testimony of their own witnesses, and we are left to feel that leaving the party is just as irrational as joining it.

_____________

But the greatest embarrassment the authors suffer is in trying to decide what to do with their discovery that “American Communists are motivated largely by psychological factors.” The only new proposal in their “New Program to Defeat the Communist Party in the U.S.A.” is the suggestion that “these same factors must be used decisively in combating [Communists].” Obviously the best way to implement this would be to psychoanalyze all Communists, or to make sure that children have happy childhoods, good papas and mamas, are not denied love, and are not allowed to escape from themselves. Ernst and Loth avoid this conclusion by passing the buck to the “experts,” who in turn are to draw up a report that “should be an important guide to parents and teachers in the rearing of a generation that might escape entirely the emotional taint of Communism.” One can only say that a generation composed of such new supermen might indeed be able to solve all our problems.

It should be remarked finally that in tending to ignore the “hard core” and concentrating on the rank and file, Ernst and Loth create an erroneous impression about the strength of the party. For it is the long-dedicated fanatics who do the most work and who are the greatest threat. The peripheral rank-and-filers are either used as window dressing or are being seasoned for more important assignments. It is a dangerous misconception to regard the American Communist as an ineffectual rank-and-filer.

It would be perverse to deny that clues as to the emotions involved in adherence to the Communist party can help us—if they are well-grounded, and not merely the superficial clichés of parlor psychoanalysis. After all, the record of vulgarized social-work thinking in the field of political remedies, as well as elsewhere, hardly justifies any confident reliance on such thinking in our efforts to face the crucial dangers of our time. The significant answers will remain the traditional answers of democracy, which are not—nor are likely to be—“scientific.” There is no magic “key” to be revealed by questionnaires, and we may as well reconcile ourselves to the fact that, no matter what study may reveal, we shall have to continue effectively struggling against Communism with such old-fashioned ideas as education—and reeducation—through the word, printed and oral, and through firm and intelligent opposition.

_____________