(Testimony of Kerry Wendell Thornley)
Mr. Thornley.
I think he was extremely intelligent, with what information he had at hand he could always do very well and in an argument he was quick. He was quick to answer, and it was not a matter of just grabbing at something. It was a matter of coming back with a fairly precise answer to your question or to your objection to his argument.
Mr. Jenner.
I take it then it was your impression--I will change my question because I don't want to ask a leading question here.
What was your impression as to whether his learning, in the sense we are talking about now, was superficial or was he able to master that which he read, and engage in personal self-critique of that which he read, discover its weaknesses, and apprehend its major thrust?
Mr. Thornley.
Well, I would say as I have said before, he certainly understood what he read. How much he had read, I don't know, but I do know that when he got on a subject in which he was interested, he showed a grasp of it. This is true with the book "1984," for example. It is true with Marxism.
Mr. Jenner.
Now that interests me also. You mentioned that before; that is, his espousal of or interest in Marxism as such. What was his ability, if he had any, and I am talking now idealistically only, to compare Marxism, communism, democracy?
Mr. Thornley.
I understand. I think--
Mr. Jenner.
And did he understand the distinctions?
Mr. Thornley.
Well, I think he understood the distinctions as well as most reasonably educated people do. I think he certainly had a Marxist bias in how--where he drew the lines.
For example, he could look upon the Soviet system today as a democracy by, of course, giving a completely different definition to the word "democracy" than I, for example. He would give--
Mr. Jenner.
Can you remember some discussions or incidents that explain that? Would he use objectivism?
Mr. Thornley.
Well, I remember one in particular that always reminded me of his general outlook.
One day we got into an argument and I thought I was really going to pin him to the wall, I thought I was going to win this argument.
Mr. Jenner.
On what subject?
Mr. Thornley.
On Marxism. On the theory of history.
Mr. Jenner.
Reconstruct the argument for me.
Mr. Thornley.
Well, all right. Let me add this.
When I was in my freshman year in college, in my English class. I believe it was, perhaps it was a history class we had been required to read, it was a history workshop, we had been required to read the Communist manifesto which presents an outline of the theory of the Marx-Engels outlook on past and future history. The dialectical outlook. Oswald was also familiar with this outlook. As to what it constituted-we both agreed. Oswald had argued previously that communism was a rational approach to life, a scientific approach to life, Marxism.
Mr. Jenner.
This was in argumentation with you?
Mr. Thornley.
Yes.
Mr. Jenner.
All right.
Mr. Thornley.
With me. I challenged him to show me any shred of evidence to support the idea that history took place in the manner described by Engels and Marx (this was not just an arbitrary system looted as many suspect, from Hegel) and he, after some attempt to give me a satisfactory answer, which he was unable to do, became aware of that and he admitted that there was no justification, logically, for the Communist theory of history or the Marxist theory of history, but that Marxism was still, in his opinion, the best system for other reasons that there was
Mr. Jenner.
Best as against what?
Mr. Thornley.
As against, well primarily as against religions. He did--that first comment of his always sticks in my mind, about communism being the best religion. He did think of communism as, not as a religion in the strict sense but as an overwhelming cultural outlook that, once applied to a country, would make it much better off than, say the Roman Catholic Church cultural outlook
|
