Talmudism and Communist Communications.
Expert InsightsPublished 1962
An expanded version of a chapter entitled "A Note on Methodology," appearing in The Sino-Soviet conflict, 1956-1961, published by Princeton University Press. The Communist use of a figurative language for communicating with other Communists is discussed, together with the job of analyzing this Aesopian language. The paper outlines the limitations of the analyst and the advantages of the craft, and indicates where and how clues can be found in the open Communist media. Some examples of the way these clues can be used to unravel many of the political mysteries of the Communist world are given. The author stresses that effort should be made either to test significant hypotheses about Communist communications or to develop fruitful methods of research.
Document Details
- Copyright: RAND Corporation
- Availability: Web Only
- Year: 1962
- Pages: 37
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.7249/pubs
- Document Number: P-2631
Citation
RAND Style Manual
Chicago Manual of Style
This publication is part of the RAND paper series. The paper series was a product of RAND from 1948 to 2003 that captured speeches, memorials, and derivative research, usually prepared on authors' own time and meant to be the scholarly or scientific contribution of individual authors to their professional fields. Papers were less formal than reports and did not require rigorous peer review.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.