Evening star., 1946-11-02
Letters to The Star
Suggests u. N. Discuss Question
Of Communism VS.. Capitalism

Suggests u. N. Discuss Question
Of Communism VS.. Capitalism
To the Editor of The Star:
If, as Senator Austin tells the U. NJ,
our problems are question, not of who,
but of what, is right, so that no relevant
and important topic should be avoided
in debate, then why isn't the vital issue
of communism versus capitalism being
debated?
If this really is zone world and we
cannot live apart any longer, then we
cannot hope to compromise on such
basic issues. Today, the world as whole
cannot live half slave and half free,
President Truman to the contrary not
withstanding Imagine the Congress Of
the United States of America avoiding
an issue over laws destroying private
property in part of our fair land! When
such an evasion of an issue of basic
principles was attempted in the early
history of this country 1t led unerringly
to what was then "the greatest war of
all time!"
.
an alteration with Bevin, that COM
promise Is not the answer, was well
taken, and Mr.. Austin's remark has
the same implication, to wit, that basic
issues cannot be settled by majority
rule. We can have only mutual sus-
constitutional problems in principle
have not been squarely faced and
settled so that enforcement OF peace
does not imply enforcement OF tyranny.
Witness our Patrick Henry and Rus
sia's Victor Kravchenko, who say: Give
us liberty, or give us death-even atomic
death!
The y. NJ therefore, should be viewed,
not as world congress of legislative sig
niflcance, but as world constitutional
convention, framing principles If it is a
question of what, not who, Is right, then
1t is necessary to consider that both
capitalism and communism, as prac-
ticed, are materially wrong and must
be corrected, now. For two wrongs, by
compromise and evasion, do not make
a right. On the contrary, they make
a fight!
In support Of this position, beg to
quote Prof. Rene Albrecht-Carrie of
Columbia University, writing in recent
issue of the American Scientist. "You
may" he says in addressing himself to
the advocates Of world police power.
accuse me of having no constructive
suggestions to offer when we are faced
with an urgent problem of sheer sur
vival. To that charge I must plead
guilty, but I should venture to raise the
question: Is mere survival sufficient or
even desirable? Or perhaps let me put
1t this way: I am no more in favor OF
survival under any conditions than I
was in favor some years ago OF peace
at any price. Being human, cannot
help acting on the assumption that
man is the measure Of all things. This
raises the whole problem of values.
hold that there are values more inn
portant than either peace or preserva-
ton, much as value peaceful existence.
Nor will 1t satisfy me to say that If we
can only manage to survive, then In
the course of time other problems will
be adjusted. I can readily conceive Of
the Soviet system being better adapted
to survival In our industrial society
than our own type of institutions. But,
for that matter. could also conceive
of the Nazis creating unified Europe
which, in the course of two or three
centuries, might have rediscovered its
values. and emerged as better thing
than 1t is or was. The stress Is on might
have. Long before Pearl Harbor was
a war-monger. because felt that there
were fundamental values at stake in
the conflict, values higher than the
survival of any one nation, but for the
preservation of which the survival Of
certain nations was indispensable.
"I should issue further caution. The
various suggestions, such as those for
the establishment of a world govern
ment, strike me as essentially negative.
BY negative, 7 mean that they are in
the nature of what you describe as
necessary for survival, but, as I just
said, I am not content with survival
alone I am, however, very much con-
cerned with the nature of the world
state, If We should have one. 3"
ALDEN A. POTTER.