November 20 is the birthday of Norman Thomas, the longtime leader (and presidential candidate of) the Socialist Party. Here's the text of an interview of Norman Thomas that appeared in the November 1966 issue of Playboy magazine. (Thomas died in 1968.)
from Playboy, November 1966:
Norman Thomas: a candid
conversation with the elder statesmen of American socialism, champion
of radical reform and outspoken opponent of the war in Vietnam.
for more than half a century,
Norman Thomas has devoted his considerable energies to protest – in
word and deed. Almost totally blind, his tall frame slightly stooped,
he is still the ubiquitous dissenter – writing, sharing a broad
range of protest groups, addressing civil rights rallies and peace
demonstrations. "The years have given a cavernous austerity to
his patrician face," A. H. Raskin wrote recently in The
New York Times, "but the wrinkles of laughter still
hold their own against the wrinkles etched by time. His pale blue
eyes glow… And ideas tumble from his thin lips with the easy
eloquence that used to make his campaign speeches entrancing to
conservatives as well as liberals."
Although he is now regarded as "the
respectable rebel," Thomas has frequently been a figure of
turbulent controversy in the past and even now is in the forefront of
protests against President Johnson's policies in Vietnam. He remains,
as The Washington Post
observed on his 75th birthday, "the conscience of the American
people… Among the most influential individuals in 20th century
politics."
The rebellious odyssey of Norman
Thomas began in Marion, Ohio, in 1884. Graduated from Princeton in
1905, he became a Presbyterian minister in East Harlem after studying
at Union Theological Seminary. From the start of his ministry,
however, he was militantly active in campaigns against social
injustices, and his growing commitment to pacifism and socialism led
him finally to resign in 1918. From that point on, Thomas was an
indefatigable agitator for social, economic and political change
throughout the country.
In the years that followed, he
engaged in many struggles of the right of workers to organize and was
one of the first to focus national attention on the oppression of the
sharecropper in the South, going on to help organize the Southern
Tenant Farmers' Union. A champion of civil liberties, he was also one
of the founders of the Civil Liberties Bureau, which became the
American Civil Liberties Union in 1920. Thomas has also been active
in civil rights battles, and in 1935 was a leader in action against
the Ku Klux Klan in Florida. Often arrested because of his insistence
on translating his radical beliefs into action, Thomas also has
survived periods of widespread unpopularity, particularly for his
opposition to America's entry into both World Wars.
Six times a candidate for the
Presidency on the Socialist Party ticket, he was an advocate in the
mid-1920s of old age pensions, public works programs, unemployment
insurance and the legalization of collective bargaining. Between his
most successful campaign – in 1932, when he won 900,000 votes
against Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover – and his last
race, in 1948, Thomas saw all of these programs enacted into law.
Among the organizations in which he
has taken – and continues to take – a major role are the League
for Industrial Democracy, The American Committee on Africa, the
Spanish Refugee Aid Committee, and the Committee for a Sane Nuclear
Policy. As Allard Lowenstein, an influential New York social
activist, puts it, "Any cause I have ever heard about that
involve oppression and injustice and in which no one else was
interested could call on Norman Thomas for help. He and Eleanor
Roosevelt Dunmore through the years than any other American figures
to inspire young people to devote their lives to social justice."
In the midst of an arduous schedule
of college speaking engagements late last summer, Thomas acceded to
our request for an exclusive interview. The six hour conversation
took place in Thomas' office on East 19th St. in New York. The
furnishings are spare but comfortable. His desk is free of clutter.
Bookcases line the walls, and in them are volumes on international
politics, civil rights and socialism. Tacked to a bulletin board our
leaflets and notices about forthcoming meetings on peace and civil
rights. Thomas is listed as one of the main speakers on more than
half of them.
The white-haired Socialist leader
talk easily and vigorously throughout the long afternoon. He had no
need to ask his secretary to refer to notes or to any of the books
around him. Although his voice as a quaver of age, his ideas are
crisp and lucid. Occasionally, as the urgency of a particular need
for action sees him, he would lean forward, his voice rising, and
slam the desk to make a point.
His passion against injustice is
infused with wry wit, often directed at himself. He is a man utterly
without pomposity. Although he appears to have a secure sense of his
place in American history, he also speaks with candor about what he
terms his "failures." Though his view of the future often
seems bleak, he himself is without despair. Vital, continuously
curious, he sees no possibility of his retiring, because so much
remains to be done.
During our long conversation,
Thomas had explored, without euphemism or evasion, the scope of his
past achievements and his view of present imperatives. In covering
the most current topics, such as the war in Vietnam, it is possible
that the fast-moving tide of world events may have overtaken both our
questions and Thomas' replies in the weeks since the interview went
to press. But what follows will remain resoundingly valid for many
years to come – the eloquent distillation of a singularly
uncompromising life.
PLAYBOY: in
recent months, you've been particularly active – in demonstrations,
speeches and articles – as a critic of the Administration's policy
in Vietnam. Are you advocating, as some of your critics seem to
believe, unilateral withdrawal?
THOMAS: No
I'm not. I do feel we had no business getting into Vietnam, but once
there we do have certain responsibilities. I would not, for example,
want to withdraw at the expense of allowing a subsequent massacre of
those who opposed the Viet Cong – just as I was appalled to see
that happen on the other side when so many alleged Communists were
massacred in Indonesia earlier this year. What I'm trying to work
toward is the principle that we can settle disputes like this by
negotiation rather than by military action. And I do not believe the
President has really tried to enter into serious negotiations.
we have not, for instance, agreed to consider the Viet Cong among the
chief negotiators. Nor have our two sensations of hostilities then
long enough. What I propose is that the President order a cease-fire
– meaning that our troops would not fire unless fired upon. It also
entail, of course, an end to our bombing. As further proof of our
good faith in wanting to negotiate, he should send no more troops to
Vietnam. We should immediately call for a reconvening of the Geneva
Conference, at which both the Viet Cong and Communist China should be
present. Under the circumstances I've outlined, I think they'd
attend. The resultant negotiations should allow for elections in
South Vietnam under United Nations supervision. Which ever way the
election turned out, we should get out of Vietnam militarily. We
ought, however, to provide economic and other constructive help. We
certainly owe them that.
PLAYBOY: you
would be willing, then, to accept Viet Cong control over South
Vietnam?
THOMAS: I
would prefer a coalition government. I don't like totalitarianism. I
don't like terrorism. But if the Viet Cong did win a free election in
the South, I would say the Vietnamese have the right to decide their
own fate. However, even under those conditions, I'm convinced that
Vietnam, if left to itself under its own Communist control, would not
voluntarily ally itself with either the Russian or the Chinese
empires. Instead, I think we would see it become a Yugoslavian kind
of state, and that would help a great deal towards the neutralization
of Southeast Asia.
PLAYBOY: In
terms of bringing about negotiations to end the war, how did you
assess the President's escalation of bombing last July to include the
oil depots at Hanoi and Haiphong?
THOMAS: It
was quite a blow and certainly does not help toward achieving
negotiations. Another bad sign – and this troubles me greatly –
is the complete silence of the State Department and the President
when Premier Ky, head of the present government of South Vietnam,
continues publicly to rule out negotiations with the North Vietnamese
and the National Liberation Front. This continued silence, this
failure to contradict Ky, makes Johnson's asserted willingness to
negotiate "anytime, anywhere" seem hypocritical.
PLAYBOY:
Despite the escalation, do you feel it may be possible, by protesting
the war as you have, to influence Administration policy in the
direction of a negotiated settlement?
THOMAS: I do
– and toward that end, I've been working as co-chairman, with Rev.
William Sloane Coffin of Yale, of the National Voters' Pledge
Campaign. It's an attempt to collect as many thousands of signed
pledges as we can from people who will support and vote for
candidates in 1966 who are for a settlement of the war that involves
American initiatives to encourage negotiations with all the concerned
parties, including the Viet Cong. The signers, moreover, pledge to
back candidates who support the use of international agencies to
settle disputes among nations, who support the avoidance of
unilateral military intervention in the affairs of other nations, and
work for the increasing use of our resources in constructive economic
and social programs at home and abroad.
I consider this
campaign important because it focuses on the key power the people
have: political power. What I tell the young is that we're a poor
sort of democratic society if we have pretty good success at
demonstrating but do not use our power at the polls. That kind of
power is appreciated by presidents as well as by town councilmen. Now
I'm not denouncing the right to demonstrate, nor am I denouncing
demonstrations. What I'm saying is that here we are, making so much
fuss about people from other countries having the vote and claiming
that our greatest objection to communism is the denial of the direct
vote. Well, we have the direct vote, but we haven't used as
impressively as we could.
PLAYBOY: How
do you reconcile this kind of political approach with public opinion
polls – polls that the President often cites – that indicate a
large majority of the American public is in favor of the
Administration's Vietnam policy?
THOMAS: If
you really look at those polls and at a growing number of
congressional campaigns, I think you will discover that the majority
of the American public is actually in a very confused state of mind.
On the one hand, they say they support present policy and the harder
line Johnson has been following; but on the other hand, in recent
campaigns in New York and California, among other places, Vietnam was
the most important issue, and a number of candidates were vying with
one another to show how implacably they opposed the Administration's
policy. This took place in both the 17th and the 19th Congressional
Districts in New York; and in California, although not all the peace
candidates won their primary contests, several took more than 45% of
the vote. In Oregon, the governor of the state, Mark Hatfield, a
Republican, has been campaigning for the Senate on a platform that
opposes, in large part, the Administration's approach to Vietnam.
Obviously, these politicians sense a considerable degree of unrest,
of confusion, among sizable sections of the electorate.
And even if I'm
being overly optimistic about the immediate effects of the kind of
political pressure I'm advocating, it certainly can serve a valuable
educative function. What it comes down to is that if you have strong
beliefs, you often have to do things even if you're not too sure
they'll bring speedy results. This is one such occasion, and I hope
more of the young will join us in the National Voters' Pledge
Campaign, and will also organize other kinds of political activity to
this end.
PLAYBOY: Do
you really feel that the President can be persuaded by a minority,
however vocal, to change our policy in Vietnam?
THOMAS:
There's an old Puritan saying: "While the light holds out to
burn, the vilest sinner still may turn." You can never give up.
I cannot rule out all hope when I remember, for example, that De
Gaulle got into office on a pledge to hold Algeria for France, and
yet it was De Gaulle who gave Algeria its independence. And Johnson
himself, for another example, was hardly a model civil rights
champion as a legislator, but changed significantly in this regard
once he was in office. And I do think, furthermore, that he can be
reached politically. If enough of us who oppose the present
Vietnam policy can make our opposition clear of the polls, it may be
possible to move him in that direction.
PLAYBOY:
Those of the young and you are encouraging to engage in this kind of
political protest often adopt a non-exclusionary policy in terms of
with whom they'll work toward these ends. They have openly stated
their willingness to collaborate, for instance, with the Communists
in seeking a peaceful solution to the war in Vietnam. You had some
bitter experiences with Communists in the Thirties. How do you feel
about this tendency of the New Left? Doesn't it leave them prey to
manipulations?
THOMAS: I'm
not sure, because I think we're confronted with quite different
Communists today. I don't know if my Communist friends will like me
for saying this, but communism – at least the orthodox Russian and
the American Communist Party variety – isn't what it used to be.
And that heartens me. I think it has evolved. Gus Hall, now the
leader of the American Communist Party, has proclaimed, for example,
that you could have a multilateral political system in the United
States, and that you can have civil liberties as well. I remember
very well when Communists used to seem to be eager to get practice in
denying the civil liberties of their opponents– including
me. But I always believed in civil liberties for them, even when they
would not have allowed me mine if they had been in power. And I've
always believed you don't fight communism by emulating it, by passing
the Smith Act and the McCarran Act and that sort of thing: and that
you don't lick Communists by the methods we're following in Vietnam
and Santo Domingo. To get back to your question, I would say I don't
know whether it will be dangerous for the New Left to adopt a
non-exclusionary policy. I expect they're going to have to find out
for themselves.
PLAYBOY: In
terms of protest, several commentators have observed that today's
dissident younger generation is the most militant of any since the
Thirties. How do today's young rebels differ from those of your own
youth?
THOMAS: As
for my own youth, those of us in dissent then were rather naïve,
rather innocent. We sought specific reforms would be more easily
achieved than they turned out to have been. And we thought that once
achieved, they'd accomplish more than they did. Women's suffrage, for
example, was going to save the world. I, however, made myself quite
unpopular at the time by arguing for women's suffrage on the ground
that they had as much right to be wrong as we men did. But really,
there was an almost messianic faith in causes when I was young. We
believed in progress with a capital P. But we didn't do so
much about them. I mean, in the summer we didn't work in the slums
so much as we helped out at summer camps for the poor. That sort of
thing.
Then came the
1930s, and the nature of dissent was, of course, quite different.
There was less innocence, more bitterness, more action – but still
less action by youth than one would have expected in view of the
magnitude of the Depression. The Forties were the war years, and in
the Fifties there was a terrible apathy in the colleges. But now, in
the Sixties, we've had a real awakening and the widespread desire to
participate, which I find very admirable. It's been particularly
evident in the civil rights movement and also in the peace movement,
although the latter was a good deal slower in getting started and
never did acquire as much momentum as the civil rights thrust.
But you asked how
today's youngsters are different from the dissenters of the past.
Well, I'm one of those who think that the present New Left is a good
deal more nihilistic than the old. If you were a leftist in the
Thirties, you might not be a member of the Socialist or the Communist
Party, but ideologically you would have been likely to be a Socialist
or a Communist, to all intents and purposes. For the most part, the
young now are not. They're not as firm, as sectarian in their
ideologies. They're searching for something more than has been
offered them by the older left.
PLAYBOY: You
mentioned nihilism among today's young. Why does it exist?
THOMAS: It
exists because today's young are very aware of how difficult it is to
accomplish basic change, to achieve 100% success. They're aware of
how complex the problems are, how entrenched the opposition. It's
quite easy to be against a lot of things and to be ashamed of a
society that permits all kinds of injustices; but as of today, it's
much less easy to be certain you have the specific cures for all the
ailments you attack. Our work in the Thirties went on under the
shadow of at least a highly public idea that answers could be
found within set frameworks. The Communists felt they had found the
answers, and the Socialists were saying, "No, your way isn't the
answer, but we know the right directions." All those
clear-cut prophecies from one side or the other, however, it turned
out to be imperfect. Russia, for instance, hasn't turned out as badly
as some of us had feared. But Russia is also hardly the classless
society that others had predicted. And democratic socialism hasn't
exactly established a utopian society either.
And overall, there
is the terrible feeling of man's capacity for irrationality. We're
all afraid of nuclear war, but none of us is very successful at
finding a way to prevent it. Even among people who ordinarily don't
stop to think, the possibility of nuclear confrontation is a very
pressing fact.
PLAYBOY: A
confrontation with Russia?
THOMAS: If
not with Russia, then with China. The way we were going now, it's
just a question of time. I don't think China will intervene directly
in Vietnam – at least not in the near future – because it doesn't
feel itself ready to do so. But there is the possibility that if we
continue to escalate the war, we will force them to intervene
before they consider themselves prepared. In any case, if we do
continue in this direction, while a confrontation with China may not
take place in my lifetime, it will almost certainly during the
lifetime of my grandchildren. I was shocked at a recent CBS
television survey of a group of 16-year-olds and a prosperous suburb
of St. Louis. The majority of them expected there would be a nuclear
war in their lifetime. You see, they have accepted the unthinkable.
Nobody is so sure anymore that we can even survive.
PLAYBOY: If
there should be a nuclear war, what chance would there be of survival
in your opinion? Do you agree with J. Robert Oppenheimer's contention
that "only the greatest faith could convince us that what was
left was human"?
THOMAS: I
literally shudder at the prospect. There would be survivors – I
can't tell you how many – but they would be in extreme physical
misery. Moreover, they would be under an inconceivable sense of
oppression that they belonged to a race that could practice such
madness. That is why I keep saying you have to work as best you can
to avert such a war, and for that I place considerable hope in the
young.
PLAYBOY:
What influence do you feel you have over the young in terms of moving
them away from nihilism and toward more constructive action?
THOMAS:
That's hard to determine. I say to audience after audience that I can
always get more applause than votes. I do get very immediate response
from the student audience, but I don't get an equivalent response
with regard to the kinds of activities I'd like them to
pursue. In general, so far, I found today's young much more militant
in criticism than proposing practical alternatives – let alone in
carrying them out. A lot of their protest is just "blah, blah,
blah." It's good "blah," but that's all it is.
You just don't say, "To hell with the bourgeoisie!" and
expect anything to change. But they're beginning to learn how to plan
constructive programs.
PLAYBOY:
What sort of programs do you think should take priority on their
list?
THOMAS: A
more specific civil rights program, for one. For example, not nearly
enough analysis has been done concerning the steadily dwindling
opportunities for everyone, white and Negro, on the nation's farms,
and the resultant dumping of these sharecroppers and farm laborers on
the big cities, where there is also no work for them. We need
practical plans that would help make farming a more viable
occupation, and that would also do more for the emigrants to the
cities than put them on welfare. Another area in which we need much
more specific analyses and programs is how to bring about real
integration in schools and neighborhoods. More than government action
is required to this and, because it involves changing people's
attitudes. I don't really have any ready answers as to how to do
this, but this is the kind of activity I would like more of the young
to explore.
PLAYBOY: Do
you think such activities as stalling cars and spreading garbage in
busy thoroughfares – both of which have been done by militant civil
rights groups in New York City – help change public attitudes and
promote the cause of integration?
THOMAS: That
sort of thing, by not being directed specifically at those doing the
discriminating, can have a harmful effect in terms of reaching and
convincing the large numbers of people you want to improve
conditions. I am not saying that I'm opposed to all demonstrations;
I've taken part in many and have blessed many others. Human nature
being what it is, demonstrations have been and will continue to be a
necessary part of the struggle for civil rights. I haven't gone along
with some of the more radical demonstrations, but that's in part a
matter of temperament. In my old age, I think whether one resorts to
moderate or radical demonstrations and programs is not altogether an
either/or proposition. I don't know of any historic change that came
about without a combination of very radical pressures and much less
radical conduct. It comes down to this: You have to make up your own
mind as to the kind of person you are. I think that I, being I, have
done more in my way, however unsatisfied I am with how much I've
accomplished, than I would have accomplished if I had been in the
more extreme camp. However, I do have a lot of respect for the
people who do take radical positions. I think we need both kinds.
PLAYBOY: You
speak of the necessity of "very radical pressures" to bring
about social reform. Would the current emphasis on black power fit
into your definition of necessary "radical pressures"?
THOMAS: I
regret this emphasis on Black Power in terms of a capital B and
capital P. I don't deny that Negroes need power; but the present
focus, however it may be intended by some of those using the term,
appears to be on separatist power. And that is wrong. Now, I'm
not making wholesale condemnations, nor do I think that advocates of
this kind of Black Power speak for many people as yet. But their
rhetoric can have bad results. Certainly you can explain Black Power
in reassuring terms; I've been in the Church and in the Socialist
Party, and I know you can explain anything away. But there are
psychological effects from the use of the term that cannot be
explained away.
PLAYBOY:
What are the possible bad results and psychological effects that
disturb you?
THOMAS: For
one thing, it could lead to more rioting – probably, though not
inevitably. For another, it could diminish the efforts of many
Negroes toward integration in schools and housing. You already hear
talk about making Harlem a "beautiful black community" and
about working for "beautiful black schools." And you hear
of some Negro leaders who say – though I'm not so sure they mean
it, entirely, but are rather speaking for effect at meetings – that
they have abandoned any belief in integration. They say, "I have
no white friends." This is what disturbs me about the possible
effects of Black Power – how far it will go to reject all white
comradeship. You see, when the civil rights movement began, I found
it rather unique as a historical development. All revolutions in the
past have been a call for the replacement of one power by another.
The civil rights movement started with a call for a sharing of
power, for an equality of rights. But now some of the advocates of
Black Power are talking of setting up another power, a separate
power.
PLAYBOY: Do
you feel this development may mean that Martin Luther King and his
advocacy of shared power may become obsolete?
THOMAS: I'm
still a great admirer of King, and I still have hope he can retain
his position of leadership. Large numbers of people still respond to
him. But he's got a tremendous task ahead. In some ways, he's trying
to out-Gandhi Gandhi. He's trying to lead a minority as a nonviolent
pressure group. Gandhi was working with the majority and he was also
working against a foreign government that was already showing signs
of becoming tired. And even Gandhi's work, with those advantages, did
not prevent terrible outbreaks of slaughter when India was
partitioned. However, I do not think King is obsolete. He still has
his charisma. And he is moving toward politicalizing nonviolence.
That's essential if he is to win substantial victories. If King can
create enough black political power – without capital letters,
without the connotation of separatism – so that he can show Negroes
that power can be shared with whites, then I think the civil rights
movement can continue in the direction in which it started.
PLAYBOY: But
will it be possible for nonviolence to remain an integral part of the
movement?
THOMAS: I
hope it can continue at least as a tactic. I do not myself put
absolute emphasis on nonviolence, as some do. But I certainly favor
it as a strategy in the civil rights movement, because the
alternative is not going to bring basic, lasting change for the
better.
PLAYBOY:
When you say you did not put an absolute emphasis on nonviolence,
does that mean you can conceive of situations in which violence would
be permissible?
THOMAS:
There might be such times. It would depend on the degree of violence.
A specific example I can give you is that I was for the sending of
troops into Mississippi during the worst of the civil rights troubles
there. I cannot conceive of police power without the possibility of
violence, so in asking for troops, I knew that their going might
involve some violence. That's an illustration of why I cannot always
feel that nonviolence is the outstanding test of whether a given
action should be taken or not. I do feel that the principle often
does work – as in much of the activity of Martin Luther King –
but I cannot take it as an absolute.
PLAYBOY: A
few minutes ago you begin to suggest a few of the specific programs
for social reform in which you wanted to encourage young people to
participate. Are there any more you'd like to mention, other than in
the civil rights area?
THOMAS: Yes,
I also feel they should work toward more specific goals in making the
War on Poverty a real war, preventing it from becoming enmeshed in
machine politics, conducting hard studies on the weaknesses of
programs now underway and ideas for new programs concerning job
training and the providing of enough jobs after training. But
above all, the young ought to consider more specific ways of changing
our foreign policy, and that means becoming increasingly involved in
political action such as the kind I suggested in order to bring
pressure to bear on the makers of our present foreign policy. I'm not
diminishing the vast importance of civil rights and of the War on
Poverty when I say that the outstanding problem we face is that of
finding an alternative to war before it's too late. We no longer have
much time. I used to feel, "Well, I did pretty badly defeated in
this particular Socialist campaign, but time is, on the whole, on our
side." Well, time is no longer on our side. By our blundering,
by our irrationality, by our inheritance – and I mean genetic as
well as political inheritance – we are being swept along paths that
are far more likely to lead to war than not to. And by war, I mean a
very big war. I probably won't live to see that war, but the
chances are against peace. It's easier to say that than it is to
persuade people what to do about it right now.
PLAYBOY: How
high would you say the odds are against peace?
THOMAS: I
don't like to put it in terms of odds. I would say that if I lived on
another planet and if I were a very superior type of being with
extraordinary facilities for knowing just what's happening on earth,
I would certainly bet that we've come close to extinguishing the
human race by war. On the other hand, I wouldn't give too great odds,
because I also know that the human race – with all its
irrationalities and follies – has always blundered through. So far.
You see, the difference is this: if I were looking from another
star, I would bet the way I'd bet on a horse race. But I'm on this
planet and all I've got to bet is my life. And by no means do I think
the odds against peace are so hopeless that I consider it useless to
keep on trying to the best of my ebbing ability to do – or to
encourage the doing of – those things that may make war less
likely.
PLAYBOY: Do
you think it's conceivable, as some predict, that world war may turn
out to be the only alternative to the communization of mankind?
THOMAS: I
will grant that historically – given the nature of man and his
institutions – certain wars were probably better than the only
alternative to them. But a world war now is not going to be
better than the only alternative, whatever that may be. Look, I might
say as an individual, "Better dead than Red," but you'd
have to be pretty arrogant to advocate that the whole world
should say, "Better dead than Red."
PLAYBOY: You
said that we are being swept toward the real possibility of war by in
our inheritance, "genetic as well as political." What do
you mean by our "genetic" inheritance?
THOMAS: What
I mean is a recognition of about man that has made me very sober in
my later years: the recognition that the long, long evolutionary
process has been pretty much a matter of "tooth and claw" –
although that's an inadequate and unfair total description. But
there's no doubt that we've always lived under conditions of life
living on life, someone else's life. There is no doubt that
so-called civilization has always seemed to demand an upper-class
that could build pyramids, let's say, only by exploitation of the
lower class. Furthermore, there is no doubt that, beginning as little
children, the destructive instinct in us is very strong. I look at
kids laughing as they destroy houses they built of blocks. I once
thought that sort of thing funny, but now I wonder what that capacity
for delight in destruction shows about us. You know, we both love and
hate war. Until recent years, I didn't realize that; but realizing it
now, I feel a nuclear catastrophe is more possible than I used to
want to think it was. But again I must stress that all these factors
– all these irrational drives in man – do not make war
inevitable. War is still politics and we come to war by making
political mistakes.
PLAYBOY: Do
you think peaceful coexistence with the Communist world is possible?
THOMAS:
Certainly. I've never taken the position that communism is the same
as diabolism or that our main function in foreign policy should be to
defeat communism. I think we can coexist with Communist countries,
but there are certain features of communism I think we ought to
continue to protest, and to hope will be ended by evolution – for
example, at this late date in Russian communism, the sending of
writers to Siberia for four years because they were critical of
certain aspects of Russian Communist society. I protest this. But
that doesn't mean that we have to go to war with them.
On the contrary I
think we can – and must – seek to broaden the détente
that we were undoubtedly developing with Russia before the Vietnam
War escalated. One of President Kennedy's men told me that some very
hard-faced Russians came to him and said, "Don't bother too much
about this neutrality business and all this disarmament. You just go
along with us, be partners with us, and you'll be surprised what good
partners we are." Well, even if that story were true, I wouldn't
go that far. As I said to the man who told it to me, "What would
happen to the other nations? They'd be merely observers, and that's
not a feasible way to have world peace." But I would still work
for more of a détente,
and for such things as a central European zone free of nuclear
weapons. In the long run, in any case, if there were not a nuclear
confrontation, I'm inclined to the belief that economic developments
in America and Russia will sweep both societies toward very similar
types of economic control. The Russians will become more pluralistic
in their economic structure than they are now, and we will become
more concentrated, more planned.
PLAYBOY: Do
you think this kind of economic evolution – with its softening of
revolutionary belligerence – might also take place in China?
THOMAS: Yes,
but it would take a longer period of time and would require that
China no longer be isolated. I believe that the single greatest
mistake America has made since the Second World War – and America
has also done some decent things– has been our China policy, which
is incomprehensibly foolish and dangerous. I don't know what would
have happened if we had played the game properly, but I'm strongly of
the opinion that if we had, we would see a picture in China today not
too unlike the current picture we have of Russia. I mean a somewhat
evolutionary development of revolution, a sloughing off of the more
extreme and immediate belligerence and hate, increasing trust in
other methods of survival than violence and sabotage.
PLAYBOY:
With the damage already done in our relations with China, what would
you do now to rectify it?
THOMAS:
Well, if I were President – which my fellow citizens have taken the
greatest pains to prevent – I would announce my willingness, indeed
my anxiousness, to get China into the family of nations. I would
propose seating China in the United Nations if she would accept the
minimum that the UN Charter requires – and that's a pretty low
minimum. I would also make an effort to leave the future fate of
Formosa to a plebiscite to be held when peaceful relations were
established between Red China and the rest of the community of
nations. By that I mean I would propose that a plebiscite be held in
Formosa under international supervision, so that the people of
Formosa could decide if they wanted to remain independent, if they
wanted to be reunited with mainland China, or if they wanted some
sort of conditional reunification with the mainland.
PLAYBOY:
What makes you think Red China, in view of its present intransigence,
would accept any of these proposals rather than continue to foment
trouble outside the United Nations and eventually try to take Formosa
by force?
THOMAS:
We've messed things up so much I wouldn't expect China to accept
these overtures out of hand. But at least we would have made the
proposal, and thereby we would stand out differently in the eyes of
the world than we do now. And we would stand out differently in the
eyes of the younger generation of Chinese leaders to come. You have
to make a beginning, and this would be the beginning to make.
PLAYBOY: If
you were President now, what would your approach be to the
underdeveloped nations?
THOMAS: One
thing, for sure, is that I stopped giving them second-rate military
hardware. In fact, although I suppose one could conjure up an
occasion when certain kinds of military aid might be necessary, I
would say right now that I wouldn't give military aid at all. Nor
would I give much cash, except for specific categories of development
aid that would make it easier for them to become self-sufficient –
development of agriculture, for example. I would, however, work for
better trade relations. It's very important that they have freer
trade – trade that will give them advantageous conditions. I also
want more Peace Corps varieties of aid. But all of these, I must
emphasize, I would like to see handled as much as possible by the
United Nations. The unilateral relationship between a rich uncle and
a poor nephew is not necessarily the best kind of relationship.
Therefore, I would prefer to see aid generally administered by the
UN, with that aid funded on the principle of the developed nations'
various abilities to pay. That, of course, would involve heavy
contributions by us, but the actual handling of the aid would be
collective. And there ought also to be aid that would encourage
world-wide birth control.
Now, I list these
goals more easily than I can accomplish them. And I also recognize
that you can't focus on aid without attending to certain other things
simultaneously. There's no one royal road to peace. There are certain
necessary prerequisites. We've got to get universal disarmament.
We're no safer with the guns we've got than kindergarten children
would be. We've got to get a stronger UN. We got to disabuse people
of the idea that God or anybody else made America a world policeman
by virtue of our own righteousness, which may be a disguise for
self-interest, right or wrong. We've got to stop interfering in other
people's civil wars – in Santo Domingo and Vietnam and God knows
where else. That doesn't mean I think there's a sacred right for
everybody to have a civil war, but when outside control is essential,
it has to be exercised through a much more developed United Nations,
rather than by one self-appointed policeman like the United States.
PLAYBOY:
Several authorities, including economist Robert Heilbroner, believe
that in order to survive, the underdeveloped countries will have to
function in socialist or some other variety of collectivist
framework. They add, however, that these brands of socialism are
likely to be authoritarian, harsh, violent and oppressive. Do you
agree?
THOMAS:
Whether I like it or not, I'm afraid there's a great deal of truth in
that. But I don't think one has to encourage that sort of thing. You
can accept the situation as more or less inevitable and still do your
best to cooperate with the kind of country building that will include
the idea of individual rights. Our present world – through the
processes of production and the increasing organization of society –
doesn't leave too much to the individual, although he may have
relative abundance in the developed countries. Therefore, it's
terribly important in times like ours – and it's terribly important
in countries with a socialist framework – to emphasize the fact
that the state should be the servant, not the master, and that the
individual's well-being involves his rights and civil liberties as
well as the satisfaction of his material needs. There is no reason
why socialism and democracy need be mutually contradictory. There can
be socialistic economic planning that is democratically controlled.
Therefore, to be
realistic – while I would have to do business, even rather friendly
business, with emerging nations under one kind or another of
authoritarian rule in which I didn't believe, I would also be aware
that it was my job to do everything I could, by precept and example,
to encourage the development of democracy and those nations. And that
democracy by no means need be the same thing as our own. It could
take different forms so long as individuals' rights were respected.
PLAYBOY: How
totalitarian would a nation be before he would decide not to do
business with it?
THOMAS: I
can't give you an absolutist answer. I don't know. We are in the kind
of world in which we don't have clear-cut choices about what
governments to support or not to support. We would have to feel our
way and allow ourselves considerable flexibility in our foreign
policy. That does not mean, however, that when it's a matter of a new
government trying to form itself we should, as we have done too often
in the past, give our support to forces of the right that we know to
be authoritarian, as against a revolutionary independence movement,
on the grounds that we fear the latter would mean a Communist
takeover. Certainly we run the risk in supporting new revolutionary
governments; they may turn totalitarian but when we side with the
forces of the old order from the beginning we actually help communism
by exacerbating legitimate discontent and by pushing rebels who are
not presently Communists into underground alliances with extremist
groups that will continue to try to gain power and may eventually
succeed in a form that will indeed be authoritarian.
PLAYBOY: If
Heilbroner's thesis increasingly proves to be correct, what kind of
world do you think will have for the rest of the century if most of
the underdeveloped nations, socialist though they may be
economically, are also authoritarian, no matter what we may do to
inculcate the principles of democracy?
THOMAS: I
wish I knew. I fear it would be a world I wouldn't like very much.
Admittedly, I take a very dim view. Consider Africa, for example. I
don't think it's possible for the multitude of states now in Africa
to exist healthily, and I'm afraid that instead of the African
federation that I had hoped for as the great goal of these African
states, there will be amalgamation by conquest by one or another
acquisitive African nation, and this troubles me very much. It seems
as if the threat of Nkrumah in this regard is now removed, but
knowing human nature, it's very possible that someone like him may
arise. I still believe men have a capacity to respond to lessons from
the past and that perhaps this capacity can be developed in Africa,
and developed more quickly than we think. Perhaps the jump they want
to make in terms of material well-being may also bring about a jump
in the other satisfactions of the individual; I mean his opportunity
to be an individual. But I don't think the recent history of
Africa is too encouraging in this respect.
PLAYBOY: In
the developed countries, particularly in America, do you feel that
the growth of our material well-being has increased or diminished
those other satisfactions of the individual you mentioned? Some
sociologists are convinced that there's been a change for the worse
in the quality of American life during the past 50 years, that we've
become a cold, self-seeking, materialistic society.
THOMAS: I
think it's too easy to generalize about that kind of assertion. You
can get facts that will support almost any generalization, including
a generalization that would compliment the American people for their
generosity, for the way they respond to certain national challenges.
I'm tremendously impressed, for example, with a number of things
public and private agencies are ready to do for the blind. Now that's
a small illustration, but I think it's part of the good side, the
humane, compassionate side of America. Even now, there is a sort of
wishing among most Americans that we didn't have to do what we think
we have to do in Vietnam. These quick comparisons between the quality
of American life now and 50 years ago are easier to postulate than to
prove.
PLAYBOY:
According to such social critics as Paul Goodman, the majority of
Americans, instead of striving to retain their individuality, are
being dehumanized, becoming personnel rather than people. And these
commentators predict that as cybernation increases and society
becomes more and more linked to machines, this depersonalization will
continue to grow. Is there any conflict between your kind of
socialism and the call of Goodman to decentralize, to make more
individual decision-making possible before it's too late?
THOMAS: Yes
and no. Yes, it's not going to be easy to have the kind of socialism
that will allow for real individual decision making. But on the other
hand, I would respectfully differ from some of these writers who are
so alarmed. I don't by any means think that our present technology
and our present ways of making a living are so disastrous to the
individual. To start with, they're something you can't escape. And I
don't know how helpful it is to make large, gloomy assumptions about
where they're taking us. I've never believed that there was an Eden
from which the individual was driven by General Motors. I'm more
inclined to the doctrine that human life was always, as Thomas
Hobbes put it, short, brutal and nasty. It was sort of a sorrow to me
when I came to that belief.
PLAYBOY: To
what extent do you feel that human life is still short, brutal and
nasty?
THOMAS:
Well, I don't think it's gotten worse. But certainly, as of right
now, two thirds of the world's population live on the edge of
starvation. For them, Hobbes' description still holds true. And even
others who are not close to starving still act with brutality. Why?
Part of the answer, I expect, is just that as there is a sizable
amount of innate irrationality in man, so there is also innate
brutality. I'm reminded again of recent events in Indonesia. There
was no real formal fighting to speak of, but the reaction to the
attempted Communist coup against the government led to the killing of
upward of 300,000 alleged Communists in cold blood. What kind of
humanity is that?
But again, I don't
feel hopeless about man. We have wiped out many of the cruelties of
the past. Consider all the crimes to which capital punishment applied
in England at the turn of the century. We no longer kill people for
stealing, and we've come a long way in parts of the world toward
abolishing capital punishment on any ground. And now, with
increasingly efficient technology, we can produce enough so that we
have the resources to prevent starvation around the world. In that
basic materialistic sense, man – if we apply those resources to the
underdeveloped nations – need no longer live under the Hobbesian
description of life. As for the innate brutality of man, that's
something we will have to keep on trying to transcend. I can't give
you any specific prescriptions in that regard. That's another area to
which the young will have to apply themselves.
But to get back to
your question about men being in danger of becoming dehumanized and
less free, I don't think one ought to romanticize the past. I can
remember when William McKinley was President, and I'm not sure the
individual was so free then either. For one thing, every man was
pretty much bound by his own biases, his racial and religious biases.
He's less bound by those now. I'll admit that there are dangers for
the future, but on the other hand, I don't think you can go back. You
can't go back to the more prosperous of the New England villages
surrounded by farms and containing a hundred-odd artisan industries.
There were such villages, and the people in them lived relatively
happy lives, but their kind of life didn't by any means describe the
so-called civilized world at that time. And suppose it had, it's
impossible to return. We're too far advanced in the way we produce by
concentration and by specialization. We've just got to go on. You
have to have centralized controls if you want enough water to
drink, if you want air fit to breathe, if you want to encourage the
control of population that individuals must practice. I find some of
those writers who lament present trends to be much more interesting
as dreamers than as thinkers who can give us practical answers.
PLAYBOY: But
under socialism, are there ways by which decentralization and more
individual decision making could be made possible?
THOMAS:
There are if you could wake people up to wanting them. But one of the
discouragements of my life is how difficult it's been to do that. I'm
a great believer in cooperation, and I've been interested in types of
cooperation that haven't been very successful in America. I give
credit, for instance, to many labor leaders; but when you come right
down to it, it's surprising how few union members take the time to
vote in union elections. You can utter ringing indictments about what
the individual is being deprived of, and you can make inspirational
statements about what the individual needs. But how many individuals
can you get involved in doing something about it? Sometimes I
think our progress has been miniscule, but other times I think it's
been surprisingly good in view of the limited number of people who
care. The average person does want democracy as against
tyranny. He doesn't want to be shoved around too much. But he doesn't
want participatory democracy in the sense that he has to
become involved in some of the difficult problems. That's how the
Communists used to get as far as they did years ago. At meetings,
they'd wait until everyone else had been worn out or had left and
then they were able to control the vote. We have to recognize how
relatively few people want to get involved.
PLAYBOY: Why
don't they, in your opinion?
THOMAS:
Laziness, for one thing. There seems to be an innate predisposition
in many people to take the easy way out, to avoid spending time in
hard work and long discussionsm to be impatient with piecemeal
progress.
PLAYBOY:
How do you get more people involved?
THOMAS: Part
of the fault lies with many of us who are on fire with an idea but
who need training and self discipline communicating that fire to
others. Too many radicals are better at communicating among
themselves – although they fight awfully hard – than they are at
communicating with the unconverted. There are people I love and
respect who have almost a genius for boring or antagonizing
audiences. Also there must be ways to shake up magazines and
newspapers and television and radio in the direction of getting
people interested in issues unrelated to their own self-interest, and
in becoming active in solving them. How one does that I cannot tell
you, and once again, I say this is something the young must work on.
The basic thing is that a really active democracy involves
responsibility as well as privilege, but how were going to convince
many more people of that I don't know.
PLAYBOY:
Even if more people did become involved, wouldn't their efforts –
under your kind of planning of the economy and of society – lead to
bigger and bigger government, less and less of a voice for the
individual? In your view, how big should government be?
THOMAS: I
still believe we have to have a very strong government – a
government that does more, not less, than our government is doing
now. And that goes double for the federal government, partly because
of the way our states have been carved out without reference to
economic realities. On principle, however – and I know this will
sound terribly inconsistent – I also believe that government ought
to do as little as possible. But the question now is to define what
only government can do, and what only the federal
government can do. I'd much rather that changes came naturally and
locally than having to be imposed by government. It would have been
much better if the expansion of civil rights had been a natural
development in localities, growing out of the warmth of people's
hearts or their hatred of bias. But it didn't. We had to get
action by the Federal government. There simply wasn't that much
warmth in people's hearts or that much hatred of bias.
Recently I had
occasion to discuss these matters with Robert Welch, head of the John
Birch Society, who told me that our great enemy is centralized
government. He went on to say that he and his father and his brothers
had built a two-mile road in North Carolina, and wasn't that much
nicer than having to depend on the government to do it? But imagine
that kind of road building as a substitute for federal highways. I
also asked Mr. Welch what he thought about the draft when he worried
about centralized government. It seems to me there is no greater
denial of civil liberties than when a state is so powerful that it
can take a man, and regardless of his personal convictions, moral or
otherwise, order him to go out and kill. Oh, said Mr. Welch, the
Birch Society was all for the draft. Now, that's fantastic.
That's another example of why I'm more and more inclined to the
conviction that any philosopher has to take into account the
sometimes breathtaking irrationality of man.
PLAYBOY: Are
there any current functions of the federal government you think could
be handled on a state or local level?
THOMAS: To
give you an intelligent answer, I'd have to spend a lot of time
researching. As of the moment, I can't give you any illustrations in
view of both my concept of what needs to be done and of the
alternatives to having the federal government do it. The federal
government simply had to step into the over-all problem of education,
for example, because of the inequitable distribution of wealth in
this country. You can't expect some regions to furnish proper
education all on their own. They don't have the resources.
PLAYBOY: How
concerned are you about the attenuation of civil liberties under
bigger and bigger government as technology makes possible evermore
sophisticated surveillance and eavesdropping devices, and as
computers make complete dossiers feasible on virtually the entire
population?
THOMAS: I
don't see why you talk only of the all seeing, all hearing government
without adding the all seeing, all hearing corporation. I get very
sore at the young people I see in colleges and elsewhere – and
older people, to – who talk as if the only thing we have with
concentrated power is the United States government. You've got a
General Motors that earns a bigger income than any nation except the
United States, Russia, England and France, as I remember the
statistics. They have an awesome degree of control over their
employees – and over the economy. So if you're going to talk about
the relation of the individual to the collectivity, you got to talk
about a lot more than government, and you've got to recognize that
you're not going to smash down undue controls by great corporations
unless you have a pretty strong central government.
PLAYBOY:
Whether the concentrated power resides in government or in big
business, or in both, do you feel there is reason for increased
concern about civil liberties in the decades ahead?
THOMAS:
There has to be, and it will come – but belatedly, just as the
concern for civil rights finally came. Now, I don't want you to think
I believe we've cured all the evils that cursed us so long in the
field of civil rights, but we have developed a conscience that
I wouldn't have expected to develop. And it still seems to be moving
ahead. Now, as for civil liberties – freedom from what the state
can do to you – we've made progress there, too. And although I feel
that we will have to become even more concerned with civil
liberties, I'm not ready to predict that technology and concentration
of power will inevitably cripple civil liberties. Here again, it's a
question of whether we can get enough people involved with the
problem. Furthermore, when you talk about the possible dangers of
growing technology and the kind of rationalization of government that
comes with it, you also have to take into account the benefits that
come with these developments.
PLAYBOY: Do
you expect that the benefits of technology will outweigh the dangers?
THOMAS: I
think the benefits can offset the dangers. Take the potential of
television to make possible a wider dissemination of intelligence and
understanding. Yes, I know, it doesn't do nearly as much as it could,
but if you remember, it was television that defeated McCarthy by
focusing on the way he conducted those hearings in which he was
investigating the Army. Granted, it's easier to talk about what
television can do than is to see what it's done, but
I'm talking here about potential benefits. And certainly a major
benefit from technology is increased abundance – of food, clothes,
housing, all kinds of things. You see, I'm still materialist enough
to compare where we are now economically – and where technology can
take us – with the kind of poverty and the limitations it
imposed that characterized the lives of a lot of Americans in the
past. I looked, for instance, that what two groups – the Jews and
the Japanese-Americans – have accomplished in America. I don't
think they were happier when they first came here as immigrants,
living under the conditions of immigrants, then they are now the
welfare state, even though our welfare state still leaves a lot to be
desired. I think that in this case time will be somewhat on our side.
As we solve more of our economic problems, and if we are able to
control the concentration of political power, I think we may be able
to solve these problems of insufficient individual decision making,
dangers to civil liberties and the like.
PLAYBOY: As
you say, the welfare state is still imperfect, and considerable
poverty continues to exist in this country. A growing number of
economists believe that the key to solving that problem is a
guaranteed annual income for everyone. Do you agree?
THOMAS:
First of all, I do not accept the notion that, because of
cybernation, there will soon be so many unemployed that there will be
nothing to do but provide a guaranteed income from the rich poppa,
the United States government, for everyone, whether he works or not.
I think the thing to do as of now is to create jobs wherever you
honorably can. A real attack on the slums would create an immense
number of jobs. So with much greater emphasis on human service jobs
and on jobs that would come with a greater expansion and deepening of
education. However, there will also be people who will nonetheless
need help because they cannot work or because they cannot earn enough
doing what they do. And here is where what has been called the
negative income tax makes sense. By that I mean supplanting our
troublesome welfare system with government grants to raise individual
incomes up to a minimum standard. Of course, I probably think any
minimum set would be too low, but that would be a beginning toward a
time when everyone might automatically have a guaranteed annual wage
– whether they could prove they needed it or not. But I remain in
some ways a creature of the Protestant ethic and therefore do not
think that the great majority of mankind would be blessed by getting
rid of the necessity of taking part in the necessary work of the
world on some terms in order to live. So my emphasis at present is on
creating worthwhile jobs.
PLAYBOY:
Many people feel that, whether we have a guaranteed annual income for
the poor or not, President Johnson is so progressive in his domestic
program that there is no longer any real need for an organized
opposition on the left. Do you agree?
THOMAS: On
the contrary, I don't think that the opposition on the left is strong
enough. You must know that what Johnson has done has been
consistent with a society that protects the fundamental economic
structure. Nobody has done anything about the private ownership of
natural resources. Nobody has done anything about Texas oil reserves
and the taxation on them that favors the oil owners to the prejudice
of the rest of society. And by natural resources I don't mean only
oil. I mean everything below the ground: all the sources of fuel of
energy. We must have those under democratic government ownership,
because there is only a limited supply of them. We can't have private
ownership using them up indiscriminately. And furthermore, nobody has
done much about the rather monstrous doctrine of inherited wealth.
Yes it's taxed, but much of it can be passed on.
PLAYBOY:
What's so monstrous about the doctrine of inherited wealth? Don't
people have the right to transfer their gains, if they haven't been
ill-gotten, to their heirs? As it is, the taxes now on inherited
wealth appear to many to be confiscatory.
THOMAS: But
what is it that is passed on nowadays? Usually it's shares of stocks
and maybe bonds. They represent a continuing and indefinite claim on
another man's labor. The dead man isn't working any longer. You can
say that Andrew Carnegie, for one example, made possible the
expansion of an important industry, steel, and so his gains were not
ill-gotten. But since his death, his heirs have not participated in
the building and expansion of the industry. Let me put it another
way. Suppose years ago a man broke the record for the hundred yard
dash. After his death, his son comes to the track authorities and
says, "Well, I've inherited my father's record." He'd
hardly be entitled to it, would he? What I'm saying is that wealth is
a social product, and after a man dies, his wealth should be
redistributed in the society, taking due account of the needs of
dependent widows and children.
So, as I say, these
fundamental issues have not been tackled under the Johnson consensus.
And I'm not so sure that consensus will be able to last indefinitely.
You'll notice the consensus that we're so rich we can provide enough
bread and circuses to keep everybody quiet – without changing the
fundamental economic structure– isn't going quite so well now.
Organized labor and Johnson aren't quite the chums they used to be.
PLAYBOY: In
addition to the criticisms you've voiced, how do you assess President
Johnson's vision of the Great Society?
THOMAS: His
vision isn't exactly 20-20. He makes me feel, in the way he speaks
about it, like I'm back in the Church for sure. Such noble ethics,
not too eloquently expressed, and so curiously out of line with the
limited program that he advances. I think he's sincere, just as I
think the clergyman I used to listen to were sincere. But they
weren't extraordinarily helpful, and he hasn't been so far, either.
Although his overall concept of the Great Society is rather vague and
not adequately implemented by anything he has proposed, he has
been specific about a few things. He has been more specific on civil
rights than any of his predecessors. And whatever criticisms I've had
to make of it, he is tried some specific approaches in his War on
Poverty. So, except for Johnson's foreign policy, I'm inclined to say
there's more joy in heaven over one sinner who has repented than over
99 of the just who needed no repentance.
PLAYBOY:
What would be your definition of a Great Society?
THOMAS: I
wouldn't define it. I'd try to describe it. I'd describe a society in
which it was possible for men to be themselves after having had the
educational opportunity to bring out the best in themselves. It would
be a society in which men could live up to their own standards
of the good life – and of behavior– and yet live together in
principles of brotherhood and cooperation. And on an international
basis, there would be an end to the anarchy of military nationalism.
There must be a better religion than the religion of nationalism. The
clash of nations has always been a much more significant – and
destructive – factor in modern history than the clash of classes.
And it is not communism but nationalism, I am inclined to think, that
is really the prevailing religion in Russia and China. From this
comes the absolute necessity, I must stress again, of a much more
developed United Nations. There is also the absolute necessity of
conservation of natural resources for the common good; and the
absolute necessity – if you want a really great society–
of the operative concept that production should be for the use of all
and that the sharing of that production must be a far more equitable
basis than exists now; and, of course, the absolute necessity of
ending the doctrine and practice of race superiority. In the field of
education, I would do many of the things Johnson is doing, but I hope
better. And I believe that fundamentally, many other problems would
have to be attacked with a zeal he is not shown: the problem of
facilitating birth control and teaching people how to use it; and the
problem of ownership of natural resources. That's where I begin my
extension of public ownership, by the way. How to work these things
out? I keep going on but I look to the young to find ways of
implementing these answers and to find answers for the questions that
remain.
PLAYBOY:
When you speak of ownership of natural resources, you are, of course,
advocating one element of both socialism and communism. Do you still
feel that when you speak of socialism today, there are sizable
numbers of people who equate it with communism?
THOMAS: Yes,
but I'm not too bothered about it. The doctrine still prevails among
many that the way you get authoritarian social control is to permit
any social control, even over the great corporations. From
that grew such ludicrous fallacies as the one in the Birch Society is
dedicated to: that the growth of the welfare state is a growth toward
communism. Actually, a democratically controlled welfare state is
probably the only alternative to communism.
PLAYBOY:
Why?
THOMAS: In
the long run, with more and more people and with problems that are
more and more complicated, the welfare state is the best way – if
it is under democratic control – by which poverty can be ended and
people can have the chance to realize their capacities. You could
have a kind of welfare state in which only a few people at the top
would be making the decisions; but that wouldn't be American-style
democracy. That would be like a quasi-benevolent dictatorship. Also I
do not conceive of a democratically controlled welfare state only in
the sense of it doing something for people. I mean the kind of
welfare state in which people would decide for themselves what ought
to be done, in which people would continue to participate in the
democratic process, but to a much greater degree than they do now in
this country – which is, after all, in part a welfare state.
Laissez-faire capitalism can't work in the context of the complexity
of today's problems. What I want to see are more fundamental changes
in ownership of such things as natural resources and more people
actively involved in policymaking or the welfare state. The other
route is towards some kind of authoritarianism. That's what I mean
when I say my kind of socialism is a movement away from communism,
and that allows for both economic planning and democracy.
PLAYBOY: But
in view of the diversified and changing nature of communism today, it
is still possible to make clear distinctions between socialism and
communism?
THOMAS: It's
less easy than it used to be. In America right now, for example the
real hot-fire communists aren't in the Communist Party. They're in
the Chinese-style Progressive Labor Party. And they talk
contemptuously about traditional communism, the way the old-style
Communists used to talk about socialism. So, to start with, it's
harder now to define what communism is.
PLAYBOY: In
terms of Norman Thomas socialism, however, how would you distinguish
between socialism and communism, traditional and Chinese-oriented?
THOMAS:
Basically, in terms of civil liberties, individual rights. Democratic
socialists are very much concerned with that. Communists are not. I
abominate the whole idea of totalitarianism, the whole idea, that's
the business of the state to try to impose standards, even in art. I
may be a square myself, but it isn't the business of the state to
object to abstract painting – or to any other kind of expression,
however far out or unpopular. That's a very dangerous business. Just
because you need a strong state to see that the hungry don't stay
hungry, that the air isn't terribly polluted, it's all the more
important to remember that the state has no business doing the kinds
of things the Communists have done to their own peoples and have
tried to do to others.
PLAYBOY:
Despite your differences with Communist doctrine, you've written that
you accept Marx' stress on "the evils of the profit motive."
What's so evil about the profit motive?
THOMAS: It
twists peoples values. You know like: "My son, whatever you do,
make money – honestly, if possible." The profit motive also
tends to magnify the less valuable forms of work, because they happen
to be the most profitable for many people. An example is the tendency
of bright young men to rush into certain careers – advertising,
Wall Street and the like – because they feel that's where the most
money is. By my criteria, there are more socially valuable ways of
making a living: teaching, warring on the slums, warring on poverty,
among them. And the profit motive has led to a shameful waste of our
natural resources. The history of the clearing of forests in America
has been pretty outrageous.
On the other hand I
don't think it possible or even desirable to eliminate all
considerations of financial gain, of material comfort. I think the
profit motive does energize society to a considerable extent: but I
would like to see more people view it in a proper perspective, so
that it isn't the end-all of their endeavors. And when the profit
motive becomes contrary to the social good – as in the razing of
our forests – I would like to see it under proper controls. We have
been able to regulate it to some extent by graduated taxes and by the
pressure of organized labor for larger shares of its fruits. But no
nation has yet found a perfect formula – within the democratic
process – for retaining enough of the profit motive to keep the
economy energized without also having the values of many of the
people in the community distorted by it.
PLAYBOY:
Along with Marx, many Socialists used to believe that the working
class would be the primary agent of social change. In view of the
relative conservatism of organized labor today, and the concern of
most of the rank-and-file with their own security, is there still any
justification for this kind of faith in the working class?
THOMAS: I'd
like to say there is, and I keep hoping there is, but my hope grows
fainter. The working class in America is middle-class in practically
every respect. As soon as labor gets well organized, it gets fairly
comfortable. The one respect in which the working class is still
lives in concerns the right to strike. Therefore, you have a very
interesting clash of two principles right now. One is the right of
every man to stop working if the conditions under which is working
are objectionable to him. The maintenance of that right requires
organization, a union. The other is the right of a society,
constituted as our society now is, to keep in continuous service a
certain rather limited number of operations lest the society be
strangled. And I look for lots of trouble to come in the clash of
those conflicting rights.
PLAYBOY: Do
you think labor should have the unlimited right to strike, even if
that means crippling an industry, a city or, if James Hoffa moves to
pull all the Teamsters out on a nationwide basis, a country?
THOMAS: I
think labor's right to strike ought to be limited, but the
limitations should be as few as possible. The criterion should not be
whether the work is being done for the state or the city as against
private industry. The criterion should be the immediacy of harm done
by a particular strike – a strike that would shut down electric
power, for example; a strike by firemen. There are certain services,
not too many, in which a strike would cause such harm that it ought
not to be permitted. I wouldn't include the recent air strike, but I
suppose your example of a nationwide Teamster strike might fall into
that category.
I'm not smart
enough to figure out how you're going to resolve this problem.
Passing a law won't accomplish it by itself. The goal is to make
workers in these few key industries accept the fact that part of the
job condition is the loss of the expectation of striking as a
bargaining weapon. In return, however, they must be given guarantees
that their wages and fringe benefits will not fall below the levels
in comparable industries in which the right to strike is not thus
limited. These must be very firm guarantees. In any case, this
conflict about labor's right to strike is not the kind of class
conflict that Marx envisioned. As I said, it's only on this issue
that labor remains really militant. And this dilution of labor's
down-the-line militancy has been one of the greatest disappointments
in my life.
PLAYBOY: If
Marx was wrong, and the working class is not going to be the vanguard
of action for social change, who is?
THOMAS:
That's the problem. Marx was wrong in this respect and in the others
I mentioned, and as a result, what once seemed to be a foreordained
process that would fundamentally change society turns out not to be
inevitable at all. What makes me pessimistic now, in answer to your
question, is that we have not found a substitute for the working
class as an agent of change.
PLAYBOY: In
discussing this problem in his book The Accidental Century,
Michael Harrington, one of the younger leaders of the Socialist
Party, adds that we also can't expect the poor to act as that agent,
because historically they've never been able to sufficiently organize
themselves. Nor, he points out, are there enough Negroes to expect
the civil rights movement to turn into a movement for basic social
and economic change. Do you agree?
THOMAS:
There are not only enough Negroes but there is also, as I see it, no
particular evidence that they want to go in that direction. But this
I may be wrong about. As for the poor, the trouble is that a large
part of the radical struggle has been to abolish poverty. And the
more poverty is abolished, you remove the source of potential
activists for the kind of changes that will affect who directs our
lives, who has power. You've put your finger on something that
troubles me greatly. I'm driven back to the old religious doctrine
about righteous remnants and the elect. I find myself thinking that
if 10 righteous men were able to save Sodom and Gomorrah, we can
certainly find more than ten today. I exaggerate, but you catch the
point of view.
PLAYBOY: But
is much social change still needed?
THOMAS: I
don't feel as much change is needed as I did in 1932, nor must it
happen as fast as I used to think necessary – except in
foreign-policy. In 1932, I honestly believed not only that capitalism
was immoral – and I still think that to be pretty much the case –
but I also believe it couldn't avert depressions of the terrible
magnitude of that time.
PLAYBOY: Why
you still believe capitalism to be immoral?
THOMAS: Our
society prospers on the basis that hasn't too much to do with real
equality or justice; we can simply produce so much that were able to
keep them also protest fairly silent with bread and considerable
portions of cake. Capitalism also makes it possible for people to
yield so easily to the temptation of going after personal gain
regardless of the consequences. For instance, it wasn't any essential
viciousness in the drug industry that led to the kind of conditions
that the late Senator Kefauver exposed – high administered prices
and insufficient controls on the efficacy and potential danger of new
drugs. Rather, it was that exuberant, excessive emphasis on profits
that is endemic to capitalism. Or look at the province that had been
made in slum real estate. We are now paying the price for the
pernicious explication of land by congestion.
PLAYBOY: But
in this country, even though it is become partly a welfare state,
capitalism remains deeply embedded in the economic structure. Aren't
you, as a Socialist, stuck with that fact of life?
THOMAS: Yes,
capitalism will be a basic element in the economic structure here for
a long time to come. But don't forget that capitalism has been
substantially altered in recent years. It has had to submit to a
degree of taxation and other controls, both from government and
labor, that I would never have thought possible in my gloomier
moments 20 years ago. Therefore, I think that this modified form of
capitalism, if it accepts larger doses of the welfare state, can
probably avoid the terrible kind of depression we had in the Thirties
and can also avoid social revolution in our country, at least for
quite a while to come.
PLAYBOY: As
an elder statesman of the American left, how do you assess the
cumulative impact on this country of your own work for change during
the past 60 years?
THOMAS: I
wish I knew. I'm reluctant to speculate out loud. I came to the
conclusion that the only thing I could do was to plod ahead, just to
do what seemed to me to be best and to wish I were omniscient about
what the best thing might be. And wish I were powerful at
accomplishing it. In any case I do think I've done enough to warrant
my continuing to work. There's been accomplishment, for instance, in
the field of civil liberties. I don't mean that this has been a
Herculean one-man performance on my part, but I've been associated
with groups and with points of view that have really accomplished
something for civil liberties in America. Admittedly, it's been an
uneven development, but I think civil liberties now have reached a
fairly high point, as compared with the past. I've been involved with
civil rights, too, and in the courts we have reached a stage of
recognition that I wouldn't have prophesies 10, 20, 30 years ago.
That's the sort of progress that keeps me encouraged.
PLAYBOY: You
mentioned civil liberties first. Why have you devoted so much of your
time and energy to this cause over the years?
THOMAS:
Because civil liberties are at the core of democracy. The actual
forms of democracy may change; a parliament, for instance, is not
essential to democracy. But the right of the individual to criticize
the state and not be penalized for it is essential to any real
democratic society area and it is this concept we have to try
to spread throughout the world by our example.
PLAYBOY:
What about the Socialist Party? How much has it accomplished
under your leadership?
THOMAS:
That's another one of those questions that PhD candidates will be
writing about for a long time. You can't go into laboratory and try
it all over again, you know. You have to guess what cause produced
what effect. Having said that, I think, yes, the Socialist Party has
very definitely been an influence. All major influence I can tell
you, and I doubt that anyone else can, either. But it had a very
direct and growing influence in this country under Eugene Debs in the
earlier part of the century and again during the initial years of the
Depression. I think it ceased to have an equivalent influence when
Franklin Roosevelt incorporated so many of its immediate demands in
his program. Now, you can argue that he would've done those things
even if there had been no Socialists. But I don't think it's
unreasonable to think we had quite an influence, for example, on the
men who provided him with ideas, men whose work led to the present
welfare state, such as it is, and to the unlikelihood that we will
ever again have anywhere near as severe a depression as we had in the
Thirties.
PLAYBOY:
What have been your major disappointments is the leading advocate
socialism in this country for so many years?
THOMAS:
Failure, of course. Defeat. I wasn't running for President for my
health. Oh, I never expected to be elected, but I was trying as best
I could to build a strong democratic socialist party, which would
have been a very useful thing to have around. Now, I don't say the
Socialist Party is dead. It isn't, but it's not living in the state
of health and growth I'd like to see it in. That, of course, is my
main failure. Another major failure – and it's the failure of all
of us – has been the inability to establish a peaceful world after
two World Wars. I count that a personal as well as a societal
failure. Two World Wars, mind you, in which at least the better side
won – which isn't always saying too much – and look where we are
now. But these failures have left me in despair, by any means. I work
now with considerable difficulty because I have a lot of handicaps.
But I keep working, because I like it. I'm not bestowing any
allocated on myself. Work is my pleasure. I don't want to retire to
Florida. To be sure, I might not be doing as much as I try to do now
if I weren't so afraid for the peace of the world.
PLAYBOY: Are
there any major stands you've taken in the past that now regret?
THOMAS:
Well, I wouldn't have started my life in the Church, as a minister,
feeling the way I do now. But since I believed very sincerely at the
time, I'm not sorry I began that way, and I did learn from it.
PLAYBOY: How
do you feel now about religion?
THOMAS: It's
hard for me to say, even to myself. I'm not primarily a philosopher,
but I find it difficult not to think there is some place where reason
and design in the extraordinary development of the universe. My
trouble with faith in Christianity is that, as I understand
Christianity – at least the kind with which I was quite happy when
I was young – it's based on a belief in him all-powerful and
all-loving God. That doesn't quite add up for me anymore. It just
hasn't been borne out by what I've seen of the world.
PLAYBOY: Do
you still believe in God?
THOMAS:
There was a time when I used to say I was sort of a wistful agnostic,
but I'd go a little further than that now. I can't get rid of the
idea that there is a pattern in the universe, but I no longer believe
this pattern, this force, is either all-powerful or all-loving. Nor
am I sure I would call it God.
PLAYBOY: How
do you feel about the concept, increasingly influential among some
Christian theologians, of "situational ethics" – the idea
that there are no absolute guidelines for conduct, that any authentic
decision must come spontaneously from one's inner sense of what a
particular situation demands?
THOMAS: I
think, to begin with, that situational ethics is part of the need
among certain churchmen to demythologize Christianity, to make it
more relevant to the world as it is now. As a philosophy, it seems to
me it can serve either as a means of rationalization and self
liberation – if you're not honest with yourself in each instance –
or it can be a liberating force. In terms of sex, I would say that by
my criteria, a deep affection should be present whether you call what
you do situational ethics or whatever. As for the overall concept, I
have no right to be too critical of it, because my own positions are
not absolutist. We live in a wonderful, strange, beautiful, horrible
kind of world. We can make it more beautiful and less horrible by the
way we conduct ourselves in relation to each other. After all, our
greatest sufferings are caused by ourselves. We must develop that
side of ourselves which realizes this and which can move toward
greater human fraternity. Now, as regards specific decisions in the
world as it is, it is very difficult to always apply the highest
standard of ethics. The best you can do is to seek the light and
admire those who are bolder than you in trying out – in good faith
– such concepts as situational ethics. But that doesn't mean you
have to go along with them all the time.
PLAYBOY: In
addition to starting in the Church, are there any other beliefs or
positions you've taken that you now regret?
THOMAS: The
one major stand in the past that bothers me a great deal is how sorry
I ought to be that I opposed our getting into the Second World War. I
was no isolationist, but I was terribly down on war. I had very
little confidence in the Allies. I'd been through the experience of
the Spanish Civil War and I was pretty cynical about the possibility
of anything good coming out of the slaughter that was to come. And I
was pretty sure civil liberties would be crushed – partly on the
precedent of what happened during the First World War and partly on
my general knowledge of human nature. Well, civil liberties
weren't crushed, and Hitler was stopped. When I look back now at
how hard I worked to keep us out, I'm still not sure if I was right
or wrong. But I'm sorry I'm not sure if I was right or wrong.
PLAYBOY: Are
there any other stands you' ve taken that you now disavow?
THOMAS: No.
But I'd say maybe I was mistaken about this or that, or maybe I
could've done this or that better. For example, I was very active in
the early days of the Fellowship of Reconciliation, a
nondenominational pacifist group. Later, and believe me, with
considerable sorrow, I had to admit I was no longer as near an
absolute pacifist as I had been. And therefore, I was no longer is
active in the F.O.R. I'm sorry it happened, but I'm not disavowing
either my earlier position or the one I came to take.
PLAYBOY: At
this point in time, what political advice would you give to the
dissident young, both within the Socialist Party and outside of it?
Do you continue to advocate what in essence has been your lifelong
approach: gradually influencing the majority? Or do you feel there is
no longer enough time for gradualism?
THOMAS:
Well, time works both ways. True, we don't have much time in terms of
avoiding a nuclear confrontation, but the question is whether a
radical approach might not lose us what time we have left. Let me
explain it in this way. I would be much more emphatic about pressing
for a much more radical program if I thought that being radical would
win us the time for peace that we must have. But to have some
influence on those who are in a position to avert war, you've got
to get into the mainstream of American life. Otherwise we're lost.
Therefore, your tactics have to take that necessity into account.
Now, in order to
get into the mainstream, I don't think you have to believe what
everybody in the mainstream believes. But you have to propose
programs that will reach large numbers of people. For instance
– and this almost literally keeps me awake nights – how do you
best stop the war in Vietnam? I believe that you have a much better
chance of accomplishing the end result – withdrawal – by
advocating proper negotiations than by simply saying, "Let's get
out." In that way you can get the ears of large numbers of
people.
PLAYBOY:
There are those in the New Left who would consider that to be a
"liberal's" approach and might therefore judge you as being
insufficiently militant – a failing you've been accused of before
from time to time. Twenty years ago, critic Dwight Macdonald wrote:
"My objection to Norman Thomas can be put briefly: He is a
liberal, not a socialist. A socialist, as I use the term anyway, is
one who is taken the first simple step at least of breaking
with present-day bourgeois society… Thomas' role has always been
that of left opposition within the present society." How
would you define the difference between yourself and a
Roosevelt-Stephenson-Kennedy kind of liberal?
THOMAS: To
begin with, I'd say I did just as well at breaking away from
bourgeois society as Dwight Macdonald ever did. Even at the time he
wrote those words, I didn't see him doing anything very extraordinary
in the direction he advocates. I never said I was going to break with
the society in the sense of my becoming either a religious or a
political St. Francis. I wanted to show that it is possible to
develop within society the forces that would bring about the
changes I wanted. And I have no apologies and no regrets concerning
the course of action. In other words, I think you have to pretty well
accept certain things in life and then try to change what needs to be
changed. That's the kind of emphasis I've always made. As for me
personally, I have never denied – on the contrary, I've always
affirmed – that I was extraordinarily fortunate in the lottery of
life. I drew good tickets. To start with, reasonably good health. And
even though I rejected a good many of their beliefs, I wasn't even
mad at my parents. Not that I know of. Of course, the psychiatrists
could probably show me that I was. I was very happy in my marriage.
I've lived in New York and therefore rarely face the dangers that
many civil rights workers and others have faced elsewhere. I'd known
that and acknowledged it. But at this point I'm not much interested
in Macdonald's judgment of the kind of radical I've been. I've done
what I considered I could best accomplish, given the kind of person I
am.
PLAYBOY: In
recent years, have you been at all uneasy about having become a
"respectable" socialist? Has all the gentle attention
you've been getting lately in the mass media made you wonder if you
haven't stopped getting through in terms of ideology, that you may
have a common example of how, as one commentator put it, "America
absorbs dissent without really listening to it"?
THOMAS: Yes,
that worries me. I'm not dangerous now; and the Socialist Party isn't
dangerous now, I'm sorry to say. I remember a verse in the Bible that
says: "Woe unto you when all men speak well of you." But
on the whole, I'm happy to say, all men haven't spoken well of
me, even lately. I now live with a daughter in Huntington, Long
Island, and a Republican councilman in that township recently
introduced a resolution of condemnation against me because I had
attended and spoken at one of those peace marches on Washington. I
cherish that condemnation. However, uneasy as I am at being spoken to
well of by too many men, I don't feel I'm obliged to go out and smash
somebody's window to prove that I'm not respectable.
PLAYBOY:
Several times during this interview, you spoken of yourself as having
failed, and yet you don't act as if you really feel your past
and present work is been futile. Is "failure" the word you
actually mean?
THOMAS: Let
me put it this way: I've never been alienated, to use the currently
fashionable term applied by some writers to many of the young. True,
I haven't done all I wanted to do in life, but I have tried,
and I've had satisfaction in the trying. I've always felt, and still
do, that the best alternative to alienation, or whatever you want to
call it, is to get busy and keep busy, on the thesis that since we've
been able to do so much to control natural forces, we ought to be
able to do even better with social institutions. I think the joy of
life is the acceptance of challenge, and in that respect I've known
joy. Nor have I lost faith in socialism. It needs new applications,
but socialism – with its emphasis on planning and with its deep
desire to make that planning democratic – still points the way to
the future.
PLAYBOY:
During our conversation, you've dwelled on man's capacity for
irrationality. Do you no longer think, as you once did, that man is
perfectible?
THOMAS: If
you take the literal meaning of the word – capable of becoming or
being made, perfect – I do not believe that man is
perfectible, to be honest with you. The best I can say is that we are
not damned by our gods or by our genes to stay the way we are or the
way we have been. We can keep on trying and perhaps the closest we
can come to perfectibility is a continual desire to do better rather
than worse. After all, didn't Tolstoy say that God is the name of our
desire?