Talk:The Naked Communist

Untitled

Adjectives removed to make room for factual account. Resurgence in popularity assertion lacks factual basis in the form of number of books sold in comparison to earlier time segments. Causal assertion between Glen Beck’s interest and alleged resurgence in popularity is not proved statistically or other scientific means. Therefore the clause was removed in its entirety. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.57.113.2 (talk) 16:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Mistakes?

This page says this is about some sort of communist plot, but its detailing things that have been the bread and butter of conservative US politics. Can anyone verify that these attributes have been correctly identified as an example of left-leaning policies? As it stands, I see nothing here that has been on the mainstream left in many years, if at all, while mainly a compilation of modern right-wing goals. Suggesting update to include such revised information.

As with "Naked Lunch", a title need not be directly related to a work, and so the title "The Naked Communist" cant be taken as a clear indication that it details far-left politics. 74.128.56.194 (talk) 09:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

FBI files vs Skousen Content

It should be noted that Cleon Skousen and his admirers have usually based their praise of the substantive content of Skousen's 1958 book upon his career in the FBI. it is important to be very clear about this: Cleon Skousen never worked in FBI Division 5 --where the FBI had its most knowledgeable employees with respect to internal security matters.

Division 5 (aka Security Division, National Defense Division, or Domestic Intelligence Division) was responsible for penetrating the CPUSA.

1. Normally, after a new Special Agent completed his basic training (about 13 weeks), he would be assigned to a field office to work on specific types of cases (often bankruptcy, selective service, government employee applicants, or criminal matters). Then, after perhaps 6 months, the new Agent would be transferred to another office. The larger offices (particularly Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York) had specific squads assigned to work on Communist Party-related cases.

2. When an Agent showed a particular aptitude with respect to internal security/CPUSA matters, his SAC (Special Agent in Charge) usually would recommend that he be transferred to FBI HQ to work in Division 5. However, Skousen was never even recommended for such an assignment.

3. The Bureau's Chief Inspector (who, in 1958, was their primary expert about CPUSA-related matters and in 1961 he became Assistant Director in Charge of the Domestic Intelligence Division) made this observation about Skousen:

“As you know, we frequently receive inquiries from the public regarding Skousen’s qualifications to speak with authority on the subject of communism. In view of his obvious efforts to capitalize on his former Bureau association, I feel that it would be well for us to take positive measures to clarify the Bureau’s position in regard to Skousen whenever we receive public inquiries concerning him. I feel, for example, that in addition to stating that his views are his own, that we should also add in correspondence concerning him that he was not regarded as any authority on communism while employed with the FBI. That is certainly a true statement and it might serve in some measure to prevent Skousen from using the FBI’s name for his own personal gain.” [FBI HQ file 67-69602, serial #338]

4. The #2 official in the FBI (Associate Director Clyde Tolson) asked his staff to prepare a summary memo about Skousen's FBI employment. Among the conclusions stated:

“A brief check of abstracts under Skousen’s name revealed that between 1941 and 1946 he handled a limited number of investigations or wrote reports or memoranda on internal security and espionage classifications, and from 1947 until he resigned there were no abstracts under his name for either the internal security or espionage classifications. Inasmuch as there was no mention in his personnel file of his having anything to do with communist matters, the fact that abstracts indicate he did some internal security and espionage work back in the early 1940s is undoubtedly insignificant, but rather every indication is that he was primarily associated with criminal work.” [HQ file 67-69602, serial #214; 10/12/61 memo from M.A. Jones to Mr. DeLoach].

5. In chapter 12 of his book, Skousen has a section entitled "The Communist Timetable of Conquest".

Skousen's discussion of this "Timetable" was quite popular in extreme right-wing circles during that time and many right-wing organizations such as the John Birch Society incorporated the alleged "Communist timetable" into their own publications and speeches by their members. Skousen identified the year 1973 as the point by when the Communist Party intended to successfully takeover the United States.

However, as J. Edgar Hoover stated in the Introduction to the March 1960 issue of the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin:

"The Communist plan is to conquer the United States; if not today, then tomorrow; if not tomorrow, then the next day, next month, next year---there is no timetable, no ‘Five Year Plan. This is evident in the machinations of the CPUSA as shown by the analysis of its 17th National Convention published in this Bulletin."

Skousen's book also includes a discussion of what he alleges were the highest priority "Communist goals" which he numbered at 45. Skousen never identified the specific source(s) he was using to compile his list of Communist goals. However, it should be noted that FBI investigative files do not substantiate most of what Skousen claims and, in particular, FBI files containing summaries of discussions by CPUSA National Executive Committee members at their closed, secret meetings do not support what Skousen claims to be "Communist goals".

In summary: Skousen's contentions regarding a "Communist timetable" and "45 Communist goals" are just his personal subjective unsubstantiated opinions. He never had access to the classified data from FBI investigations which might have been used to inform his personal opinions. Additional details concerning Skousen's FBI career and the many falsehoods circulated about it by his friends, family and admirers may be seen here: https://sites.google.com/site/ernie124102/skousen

Ernie1241 (talk) 15:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)ernie1241Ernie1241 (talk) 15:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Reception

Has the book received more notable negative criticism from writers who are more mainstream than Max Blumenthal? It just doesn't look good for the opposition to a book when the only one mentioned is as controversial and extreme as Mr. Blumenthal. It would improve the quality of the page if we can find a critical comment from a more mainstream journalist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biasbalancer1 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

This article is definitely completely one-sided and essentially a promotion piece for the book, unless we can get a more balanced perspective on reception.

It's also being aggressively used as propaganda by various fans of right-wing media with no reference to its historical context or the dramatic changes to society and the global situation in the intervening decades. Ciran42 (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC)