SEMANTICS IN SPEECH CHANGES AND SEMANTIC SOPHISTICATION OF

STATE PERSONNEL

One cannot read the changes, deletions, and substitutions without concluding that the State Department censors are very conscious of semantics. I am in thorough accord that semantics are most important, and I am glad to know that the State Department places proper emphasis on semantics, although it is distressing to me to see the evidence of the stress on semantics reflected in censorship.

You do agree, do you not, that proper semantics are most important?

Mr. BALL. Well, I would agree that they are most important, Senator Thurmond.

As I said in my statement, we are trying now-as a matter of fact, have ever since last November when the new instructions were issuedto discourage the State Department reviewers from making unnecessary or merely stylistic changes. Such changes as they make, which are not reflections on any vital policy, are simply made as recommendations. Only about 10 percent of our changes are listed as required. So, what, in effect, results, sir, is some suggestions which can be taken or not as the case may be by the Department of Defense.

Senator THURMOND. Was the true purpose in supplying the written answers on specific changes to enlighten the committee members or to demonstrate the grammatic sophistication of State Department personnel?

Mr. BALL. You know, I find them very unsophisticated, Mr. Chairman. I must say that that has not been my observation since I have been in the State Department. I wish they were more sophisticated.

RESUMPTION OF DISCUSSION ON "EITHER/OR CONCEPT" EXPLANATION

Senator THURMOND. Now, to get back to the "either/or concept," it is obvious that only two alternatives are contemplated by it. Do you agree that the goal of the international Communist movement since its beginning with Marx and Engels over 100 years ago has been a world where communism prevails throughout?

Mr. BALL. Yes, I agree on that.

Senator THURMOND. Do you agree that the goal of the international Communist movement is still to dominate the world? Mr. BALL. I agree on that.

DISCUSSION ON MESSIANIC PROMISE OF COMMUNISM

Senator THURMOND. Do you agree that the goal of world domination constitutes the Messianic promise of communism which underlies the fanatical dedication of the adherents to the movement?

Mr. BALL. I think that states it with rather different terminology from what I would have used, but it is, I think

Senator THURMOND. Would you want to put a little more sophistication in it, or do you want to elaborate on it?

Mr. BALL. No.

I think the word "Messianic" in that connotation is not a very happy use of the phrase.

Senator THURMOND. What would you substitute?

Mr. BALL. I simply find it offensive as a matter of taste. I mean, I think to confuse the concept of a Messiah with the concept of Communist domination of the world is not very happy, that is all. I have no objection to the main sense of the statement.

EFFECT OF TAKING THE GOAL OF A COMMUNIST WORLD OUT OF

COMMUNISM

Senator THURMOND. Would you not agree that if you took away the goal of a Communist world from the ideology of Marx, Engels, and Lenin, that it would be like ripping the seam from a complex garment and the whole thing would be exposed for the fraud it is? Mr. BALL. That is a very vivid question, Senator Thurmond.

Senator THURMOND. I can repeat that if you would like me to. Would you not agree that if you took away the goal of a Communist world from the ideology of Marx, Engels, and Lenin, that it would be like ripping the seam from a complex garment and the whole thing would be exposed for the fraud it is?

Mr. BALL. Well, to expose something for the fraud it is means that you have got to have people who are prepared to listen to you and prepared to agree with you.

I would suppose that there is no difficulty in exposing the Marxian dialectic as being fraudulent. I do not see that removing the international drive from it makes very much difference. I think it is fraudulent whether it has an international character or whether it does not.

Senator THURMOND. But when you take the goal of the Communist world out of it, that takes the heart out of it, does it not?

Mr. BALL. Well, I would suppose that the conspiratorial element in communism has been in many ways the most dangerous aspect of it, and that if you could remove the conspiratorial element, which means if you could take from it its whole drive toward world domination, you would certainly have reduced it to a much less dangerous force.

Senator THURMOND. Mr. Secretary, is it not true that without the goal of a Communist world, the pretense of a scientific approach by Marx, Engels, and Lenin all collapse?

Mr. BALL. As I say, I have never felt that it could sustain itself with or without that goal.

I do not subscribe to the scientific pretense of the Marxist dialectic. Senator THURMOND. How did you answer that question? I will ask you, then, is it true, instead of is it not true?

Is it true that without the goal of a Communist world the pretense of a scientific approach by Marx, Engels, and Lenin all collapse? Mr. BALL. Well, the answer I gave was that I think it collapses anyway to anyone who is prepared to examine it with an open mind. To remove the element of the international conspiracy removes, as I say, a major element of danger. But I think that, as you phrase it, I do not have any particular quarrel with it, but I think that it does not go far enough.

Senator THURMOND. Well, you just agreed that the goal of the international Communist movement is to dominate the world, did you not?

Mr. BALL. That is the international conspiratorial aspect of it; I agree on that.

Senator THURMOND. Would you not agree that the goal of a Communist world or even the prediction of a Communist world is the cornerstone of Marxist ideology?

Mr. BALL. Yes. I think that is probably right. I think that certainly he put his greatest emphasis on the international character of the Communist movement.

Senator THURMOND. Without the goal of a Communist world, there could be no communism and no Marxism, could there?

Mr. BALL. Well, I do not think that is quite true. We have Marxist countries that have had Marxist societies or we have had Communist societies that have not depended on an international goal.

Senator THURMOND. Would you tell us which ones they are? Mr. BALL. Well, I would suppose right now that in a sense Yugoslavia is in that position. Yugoslavia is a nationalist Communist state. It is not a part of the bloc as such.

Senator THURMOND. I will come to Yugoslavia a little later during our examination.

Do you not then agree that so long as communism exists on the earth, those who subscribe to this ideology will maintain their goal of world domination?

Mr. BALL. Well, I would say that so long as the international Communist movement exists in anything like its present form, that one of its central goals is world domination, and I would agree in those

terms.

WHETHER U.S. FOREIGN POLICY IS BASED ON POSSIBLE CHANGES IN

COMMUNIST MOVEMENT

Senator THURMOND. Mr. Secretary, what I am trying to find out is on what basis official U.S. foreign policy is in conflict with the statement of the challenge facing the world in terms of an "either/or concept".

Is our policy based on the hope or belief that the present top directors of the Communist movement or their successors may abandon the Marx-Lenin ideology?

Mr. BALL. I would say that so far as the Communist movement, the international Communist movement is concerned, that so long as it continues, one can expect the international Communist conspiratorial apparatus to be a part of that movement.

Now, to say and to speak in terms of present leaders, I would suppose that the present generation of people who have grown up in the bloc as militant members of an international Communist movement are unlikely to change in any great number. I think, however, that one can foresee down the road some great changes taking place in the world.

I think it is perfectly possible that over a long period of time one may-I am not saying that this will happen-one may foresee changes taking place in various of the countries of the Communist bloc.

They are losing their international militancy, becoming more nationalistic in character, becoming capable of living in a society of free nations without creating any menace for them.

Whether this will occur or not, I do not know. I think that it is a possibility which one cannot foreclose.

Senator THURMOND. Well, then, is our policy based on the hope or belief that the present top world directors of the Communist movement or their successors may abandon the Marx-Lenin ideology?

Mr. BALL. I do not think that this is a necessary hypothesis to policy because I think that we are in such a realm of uncertainty here.

I would say that we proceed on the assumption that they are going to maintain their present policies. To say that one can hope that, over a period of years—and I think it is a matter of generations we are talking about, not of living people that great changes can take place within the structure of the bloc countries, is perfectly possible. It is something which is profoundly to be hoped for.

Senator THURMOND. On one occasion when the "either/or concept" was deleted, the State Department censor noted a reason in the margin.

The censor stated in the margin of the speech, when he made the deletion, this expression: "Eliminate either/or concept to allow possibility of evolution of the Soviet system".

Now, it is fairly elementary to anyone familiar with writings of Marx, Engels, and Lenin that the goal of the Communist world, even the inevitability of a Communist world, is the heart of Communist ideology, and inseparable from the whole cloth of that ideology.

It is obvious from the changes and deletions that our official foreign policy has for some time contemplated an evolution of the Soviet system.

Does the evolution of the Soviet system referred to in the censor's note and contemplated by foreign policy envision a possible abandonment of the aggressive goal of world domination and thereby a repudiation of the whole cloth of Communist ideology?

Mr. BALL. Let me make a distinction which I think is an important one, Senator.

Foreign policy deals with nations and with relations between nations; what I was suggesting a moment ago was not that the Communist movement may change its character but that the individual nation states might evolve.

I think that they have changed to some extent over the last 30 years. Whether in a good or bad direction, I think that changes are still possible. I think they are not only possible, but I think that some changes are inevitable. I would merely suggest to you that I think one cannot rule out, looking down the long course of history, that changes may take place in the individual nation states which make up the Communist bloc which will transform them from being dangerous, because they are exponents of a militant, aggressive, international communism, to the adoption of postures which will make them easier to live with in the world.

So that if you ask me if I think that international communism, as such, is going to change, I would tell you no. If you ask me if I think that there may be changes possible in the states which are the present power centers of international communism, I would think that this is perfectly possible.

Senator THURMOND. Does our foreign policy envision a possible abandonment of the aggressive goal of world domination and thereby a repudiation of the whole cloth of Communist ideology?

Mr. BALL. Well, I think that we are looking forward, over a period of time, to where there may be changes taking place; changes in the character of the nation states that are the power centers of international communism. This is the most I think anybody can say.

I do not see how one can go beyond that or how one can reject that either at this point, Senator Thurmond.

Senator THURMOND. Predictions of an evolution of the present Soviet system are, of course, about as old as communism itself.

In point of time the writings of Marx and Engles contained the first prediction of an evolution of the present Soviet system, and this was even before the present Soviet system came into existence.

The present Soviet system in the terminology of Marx is a dictatorship of the proletariat. Marx predicted, although he did not promise, that the dictatorship of the proletariat would evolve into an anarchist type utopia which Marx called pure communism.

I presume that surely the censor who wrote in the margin that allowance must be made for evolution of the Soviet system was not alluding to the type of evolution predicted by Marx, was he?

Mr. BALL. There is evolution going on all the time in the Soviet system.

I thought it was very significant recently that the Soviet Government had recognized the market mechanism as a way of dealing with the fact that its consumer goods are insufficient now for the amount of money in circulation.

Now, this is a change over the situation which existed before. These changes go on constantly in the Soviet state.

All the reviewer was talking about here was that there may well be massive changes in the future. I do not think anybody is wise enough to predict this with precision.

Senator THURMOND. You do not know whether the censor who wrote that statement in the margin was alluding to the type of evolution predicted by Marx?

Mr. BALL. Oh, no. He was obviously alluding to the type of evolution which I am suggesting; namely, that benign change may take place in the character of the nation states which comprise the bloc.

EVOLUTION OF SOVIET SYSTEM

Senator THURMOND. Mr. Secretary, what concrete evidence exists to substantiate the possibility that the Soviet system may evolve?

Mr. BALL. You are in the realm of great intangibles here. Let me say that it is perfectly clear that the Soviet system is evolving. The direction in which it is evolving is a matter for some interpretation, and there might be a considerable difference of judgment.

The fact is that it is a more open society than it was under Stalin, for example.

The fact is that there is much more recognition of some of the economic realities than there was under Stalin.

The very fact that you have the phenomenon of a head of state coming to the United States, or of attending meetings outside of the Soviet Union, is an evidence of change.

I think the world has been struck by the fact that the Soviet Government under Mr. Khrushchev is not the same as the Soviet Government under Stalin. Now, whether this change is good or bad is