Lee Harvey Oswald in His Own Words: On Communism and Capitalism Undelivered Speech?

    I have often wondered why it is that the communist, capitalist, and even the fascist and anarchist elements in America, always profess patriotism toward the land and the people, if not the government; although their movements must surely lead to the bitter destruction of all and everything.
    I am quite sure these people must hate not only the government but the culture, heritage and very people itself, and yet they stand up and piously pronounce themselves patriots, displaying their war medals that they gained in conflicts between themselves.
    I wonder what would happen if somebody was to stand up and say he was utterly opposed not only to the governments, but to the people, to the entire land, and complete foundations of his society.
    I have heard and read of the resurgent Americanism in the U.S., not the ultra-right type, but rather the polite, seemingly pointless Americanism expressed by such as the "American fore group" and the freedom foundation.
    And yet even in these veiled, formless, patriotic gestures, there is the obvious "axe being ground" by the invested interests of the sponsors of their expensive undertaking.
    To where can I turn? To factional mutants of both systems, to odd ball Hegelian idealists out of touch with reality, religious groups, to revisionist, or too absurd anarchism. No!
    To a person knowing both systems and their factional accessories, there can be no mediation between the systems as they exist today and that person.
    He must be opposed to their basic foundations and representatives.
    And yet it is immature to take the sort of attitude which says "a curse on both your houses!"
    There are two great representatives of power in the world, simply expressed, the left and right, and their factions and concerns.
    Any practical attempt at one alternative must have as its nucleus the traditional ideological best of both systems, and yet be utterly opposed to both systems.
    For no system can be entirely new, that is where most revolutions industrial or political, go astray. And yet the new system must be opposed unequivocally to the old; that also is where revolutions go astray.
    At the turn of the century in America, in the emerging industrial revolution, private enterprise triumphed because it offered a new, efficient, and promising future while still observing the idealistically democratic Ideals of its overthrown predecessor, i.e. rural small enterprise.
    And at about the same time in tsarist Russia the aristocracy was overthrown by the peasants and workers and the road laid open for the gaining of power by the bolsheviks because they too, offered a bright new future without violating historical tradition of Russian working class life.
    In history there are many such examples of the nucleus of the new order rooted in the idealistical tradition of the old.
    The Industrial revolution honored the present atomic age and yet it has developed as an intricate part of its system its own shortcomings, automation for instant.
    Automation may be compared to the runaway robot who displays so many faculties that it is obvious it is runaway. Rather it is the much more subtle aspects of Industrialization and mechanization which brings the greatest hardships upon the people, a general decay of classes into shapeless societies without real cultural foundations, regimentation, not so much of people since industrialization actively provides for more free movement of classes around each other, but rather of ideals, although those regimented ideals have more freedom of expression throughout all the classes.
    The biggest and key fault development of our era is of course the fight for markets between the imperialist powers themselves, which lead to the wars, crises, and oppressive friction which you have all come to regard as part of your lives.
    And it is this prominent factor of the capitalist system which will undoubtedly eventually lead to the common destruction of all the imperialistic powers, already many lesser imperialist countries have become dependent upon other factors than domination of colonies through force; they have been divested of their former colonies by the great imperialist countries or in some cases even given up their colonies themselves as unprofitable and many cases the oppressed peoples rose up and physically threw the colonists out, and this process is continuing even today as we all can see. But what is important to remember?
    Is that the old system of capitalism, even within itself is revising and what is most evident, forming imperialist economic coalitions, such as the common market?
    In the communist experiment, several factions and unavoidable developments have emerge which Marx and Engels could not possibly have foreseen. There emerges with increasing clarity, two monumental mistakes which Marx and Engels made, not to mention the very keystone of Marx's economic theory, "the doctrine of surplus value," which has always been unshakey and controversial.
    The first mistake is fairly well known even at this state in the communist development, the "withering away of the state," as it was called Marx envisualized that the aboliation of classes would lead to the gradual reduction of state apparatus. However, this is not the case and is better observed than contemplated. The state rather becomes more extensive in that while the powers of central ministries or delegated they are not reduced in the dividing of an organ of state power into smaller units at lower levels so although the some ministers have actually disappeared to Moscow they have become more entrenched than ever at lower levels, thus in dividing power, you multiply units and in everyday life you become more and more dependent on those organs of state power. Wherever you turn, you meet them and they touch the lives of the people more and more, and a new bureaucracy, rather than a withering away of the state. In Russia in the last two years there has been a shift of power from the capital of Moscow to the so-called "Republics," but state apparatus, simply grows into a greater maze throughout these republics, thus in Minsk the capital of Belorussia, the ministry of Interia became responsible in 1960 for determining the eligibility of applicants for hard to get exit visas too leave the USSR, formally the official prerogative of Moscow alone, but now that this state ministry to Moscow has "withered away," it becomes all the more difficult to get an exit visa since now one has to go to the area, city and republican state capital committees of bureaucrats and on top of all that a last final O.K. has to come from incredibly the Moscow ministry of foreign affairs!! The withering away of the state as Marx envisualized was an unforeseeable mistake pointed out by many criticizers of Marx.
    The second mistake Engels and Marx made is much more obscure but fundamentally just as important.
    In the late 1800's, Engels wrote Vanti Duhring, which rightly criticized Eugen Duhrings, a German idealist who was supposedly not consistent enough in his materialism for the dialectical materialist Marx. In his critical analysis of Duhring, Engels said with much heavy sarcasm that Duhring only changed a word in his putting forward of his social revolutionary ideas; that a changed word "was the word community from the word state whereas Duhring wanted Social Democracy at a local or community level, Marx and Engels advocated a centralized state which would later "wither away!"
    But in this Engels was mistaken again.
    As history has shown time again, the state remains and grows, whereas true democracy can be practiced only at the local level, while the centralized state, administrative, political, or superficial remains there can be no real democracy; a loose confederation of communities at a national level without any centralized state whatsoever.
    In equal division, with safeguards against coalition of communities there can be democracy, not in the centralized state delegating authority but in numerous equal communities practicing and developing democracy at the local level.
    There have already been a few organizations who have disclosed that they shall become effective only after conflict between the two world systems leaves the country without defense or foundation of government, organizations such as the minute men for instance, however they are preparing to simply defend the present system and reinstate its influence after the mutual defeat of both systems militarily, which is more or less taken for granted.
    Their armed groups will represent the remaining hard core of fanatical American capitalist supporters.
    There will undoubtedly be similar representation of this kind by communist groups in communist countries.
    There will also be many decided religious segments putting forward their own alternatives and through larger memberships than the minute man, etc.
    There will also be anarchist, pacifist, and quite possibly fascist splinter groups, however, all these, unlike the minute men and communist partisan groups, will be unarmed.
    The mass of survivors however will not belong to any of these groups; they will not be fanatical enough to join extremist, and will be too disillusioned to support either the communist or capitalist parties in their respective countries, after the atomic catostraph.
    They shall seek an alternative to those systems which have brought them misery.
    But their thinking and education will be steeped in the traditions of those systems. They would never accept a "new order" any more than they would accept the extremist, etc. Complete beyond their understanding, logically they would deem it necessary to oppose the old systems but support at the same time their cherished traditions.
    I intend to put forward just such an alternative.
    In making such a declaration I must say that in order to make this alternative effective supporters must prepare now in the event the situation presents itself for the practical application of this alternative.
    In this way the militarist minute men and their narrow support of capitalism have been most far-sighted, however, they present only a suicide force, whereas what is needed is a constructive and practical groups of persons desiring peace but steadfastly opposed to the revival of forces who have led millions of people to death and destruction in a dozen wars and have now at this moment led the world into unsurpassed danger.
    We have lived into a dark generation of tension and fear.
    But how many of you have tried to find out the truth behind the cold-war cliches!!
    I have lived under both systems; I have sought the answers and although it would be very easy to dupe myself into believing one system is better than the other, I know they are not.
    I despise the representatives of both systems whether they be socialist or Christian democracies, whether they be labor or conservative, they are all products of the two systems.
    When I first went to Russian in the winter of 1959, my funds were very limited, so after a certain time, after the Russian had assured themselves that I was really the naive American who believed in communism, they arranged for me to receive a certain amount of money every month. OK, it came technically through the Red-Cross as financial help to a Roos political immigrant, but it was arranged by the M.V.D. I told myself it was simply because I was broke and everybody knew it. I accepted the money because I was hungry and there was several inches of snow on the ground in Moscow at the time, but what it really was was payment for my denunciation of the U.S. in Moscow in November 1956 and a clear promise that for as long as I lived in the USSR, life would be very good. I didn't realize all this, of course for almost two years.
    As soon as I became completely disgusted with the Soviet Union and started negotiations with the American Embassy in Moscow for my return to the U.S., my "Red Cross" allotment was cut off.
    This was not difficult to understand since all correspondence in and out of the Embassy is censored as is common knowledge in the Embassy itself.
    I have never mentioned the fact of these monthly payments to anyone.
    I do so in order to state that I shall never sell myself intentionally, or unintentionally to anyone again.
    As for the fee of $_____________ I was suppose to receive for this __________ I refuse it. I made pretense to accept it because otherwise I would have been considered a crackpot and not allowed to appear to express my views. After all who would refuse money?!?