COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	.require "let.pub[let,jmc]" source
C00008 ENDMK
C⊗;
.require "let.pub[let,jmc]" source;
∂CSL Editorial Dept.↓National Review↓150 East 35th St.↓New York, N.Y. 10016∞
Sirs:

	There has been much press comment on President Reagan's
characterizations of the Soviet Union as "an evil empire" and
as "the focus of evil in the world".  However, this comment
has centered around the effects of the statements and not on
whether they are true.

	In my opinion, the first statement is true.  The Soviet
Union is clearly an empire in the classical sense of having
extended its rule far beyond its natural borders.  Its relation
to its satellites is that of an emperor to his vassals rather
than as the leader of an alliance.

	However, characterizing the Soviet Union as "the focus
of evil" contains an important mistake.  It wasn't the Soviet
Union that made the Pol Pot communist regime in Cambodia kill
a third of the population.  They would undoubtedly have preferred
a considerably milder policy as well as a more subservient policy.
Communism as an ideology is an evil that would exist if the
Soviet Union were to disappear, and it might even be stronger
if there weren't the bad example of the Soviet Union to
discourage potential adherents.  If communism disappeared
it would be quickly re-invented.  Victor Hugo said that there
is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come.  Alas,
this is true even if it is a bad idea.

	Communism is a pseudo-scientific reaction to the problems
of a capitalist world.  While an oppressive dictatorship is not
part of the original doctrine, in every case that has occurred
so far, communist leaders have resorted to terror to get power,
have continued the terror in keeping power, have made efforts
to conquer their neighbors, have held on to power till they die
of old age and have established a substantially hereditary
aristocracy.  In its young and energetic stage, communism in power
tends to genocide, but when the leaders get older, they become
less impulsively violent though remaining oppressive and aggressive.

	There are now enough examples of communist power to confirm
this as a general rule.  It also seems likely, though there hasn't
been time enough to confirm it, that the natural evolution of
communism is towards hereditary monarchy as in North Korea.  Each
time the leaders die, there is a danger of civil war over the
succession, and the traditional argument for hereditary monarchy
is that it reduces succession crises.  In the past oligarchies
tend to become monarchies or break up, but it has often taken
a few hundred years.

	It is important for Americans to distinguish between the Soviet
Empire as an evil and the separate evil of spontaneous communism,
especially in the Third World.  This is because the adherents and
sycophants of communism can usually say correctly that their goal is not
to be satellites of the Soviet Union.  Often they can correctly point to
some good motives.  However, the horrible fact is that so far, lust for
power has invariably dominated any good motives, and those communists
whose lust for power is purest win out over those in whom it is mixed with
other motives.  Understanding this can help convince third world
intellectuals to draw back from supporting local communism even when it is
unconnected with the Soviet Union and doesn't use the name of communism.

	It has become increasingly clear that there is no
substitute for freedom of speech and press and electoral
democracy.

	Of course, third world communism is a danger to the United States
mainly because of its alliances with the Soviet Union.

.sgn