- Today, I do not seek to convince anyone about the existence
of Communist provocation. I do not seek to convince anyone that the year
1989 was, in Poland, in Hungary and in Bulgaria, pure fiction; that the
velvet revolution in Prague was humbug, that the political transformation
in the German Democratic Republic was a media stunt on the part of the
Stasi and the licensed domestic opposition. I do not intend to prove that
the revolutionary events in Romania and the murder of the Ceausescus was
an exercise in operational skill on the part of the KGB. I do not intend
to open the eyes of blind diehards, or to wake people who are in a deep
sleep. If someone wants to believe the farce of the Moscow coup or the
heroism of Yeltsin, disseminating his truths from the top of a Soviet tank,
they may feel free to do so.
-
- Until recently, the world stood on a precipice; now it
is falling off. Communism is raising its head. Ever more boldly and shamelessly
it dispenses with its mask of ideological transformation. Its time, or
so it would seem, has come.
-
- Across the entire world the Communists openly define
their political aims, their ideological roots and their enemy. They openly
admit to allying themselves with the sinister system of Lenin, Stalin,
and Mao. More audaciously and more zealously they attack the deadly enemy
- anti-Communism.
-
- "The struggle against the anti-Communist smear campaign
must expose its rotten class character and reactionary purpose" [1]
- it is possible to hear such words today at the heart of the old, allegedly
civilized, Europe.
-
- This is not some isolated voice. In Europe herself there
are now dozens of organizations operating under the banner of Communism.
The same is true of the rest of the world. The aftermath of Communist propaganda
bears fruit in the most, one would have thought, unyielding regions of
the world. Even in South Korea, subject to unremitting Communist aggression
for fifty years, it is possible to encounter "scientific" studies,
perceiving anti-Communism as the only obstacle on the road to peaceful
unification with Communist North Korea. [2]
-
- It might be possible to conclude that the existence of
a number of Communist parties does not constitute a particular threat to
freedom in individual countries. These are mostly politically ephemeral
and devoid of wider social and political support. Yet one should remember
that official Communist organizations are just the tip of the iceberg.
Established Bolshevik practice insists upon the use of all accessible resources,
methods and skills. It does not matter whether these are, at any given
moment or place, anti-Fascist people's fronts, congresses for peace, national
independence movements or anti-war marches - the aim is unchanged. Even
during periods of utmost stability, in the Soviet Union itself, as in neighboring
countries, the building of alternative structures: political, social, even
denominational, was never overlooked. They took care not only of the Communist
parties but also of the opposition. The first so-called non-Communist Prime
Minister in Eastern Europe in the year 1989, Tadeusz Mazowiecki, was not
only a long-standing opposition activist, but also a member of the Communist
parliament as far back as the Fifties and Sixties, when internal opposition
within the Communist bloc was unheard of.
-
- The creation of the so-called non-antagonistic, i.e.
fully loyal, opposition, did not exhaust the ambition of the Communists.
They also took care to develop organizations or movements unambiguously
hostile to them. The historically best known is the so-called TRUST operation,
of which one of the most essential threads was the infiltration, and even
the creation, of anti-Bolshevik organizations in the Soviet Union and in
the West. The Solidarity movement in Poland prompts a similar conclusion.
-
- In the West, activities which could be classed generally
as infiltration were and remain a counterpart to the opposition movements
in the Soviet bloc. In these matters the Communists again demonstrate far-reaching
flexibility. Infiltration is carried out not only via secret organizations,
but also via agents of influence or people who are usually labeled with
the ugly term "useful idiots." Such techniques do not only protect
Bolshevik ideals but also drive the activities of potential enemies.
-
- At any rate the evidence of the effectiveness of this
tactic which has been in use for decades is perceptible to the naked eye.
It is no accident that the previous American president, Bill Clinton, was
regarded by some of his fellow-citizens as crypto-Communist. Among leading
European politicians the percentage of those involved in Communist, pro-Communist,
leftist or even terrorist activity is shocking. Socialist (to say the least)
rites are reflected in political correctness. Membership in the Communist
Party or of a terrorist organization is no obstacle to the highest positions
and most prestigious honors. A clear sign of the times. It is hard to imagine
President Eisenhower calling Nikita Khrushchev "a man with whom he
could do business." And how, by comparison, could one explain the
declaration of President of the United States George Bush, regarding the
Soviet Chekist, now holding the office of President of the Russian Federation,
Vladimir Putin, that he is a man worthy of esteem?
-
- Times change, methods remain, and sometimes only forms
undergo minor amendments. In translation into practical language this means,
in the case of the Communists, less worry about the workers and more commitment
to universal affairs. Feminism, ecology and permissiveness are the proper
concerns of modern Bolsheviks. Sometimes, however, it is convenient for
them to employ old and tried slogans, of which the most effective, established
and proven is that of peace. Peace, for which countless hosts of Bolsheviks
fought throughout an entire century, is again becoming the motive power
of the Communist movement today. Across the world, hundreds of thousands
of people take to city streets in an impressive display of unity, venting
their anti-American, anti-imperialist frustration. Justifications vary,
and paradoxes easily arise. In addition to the dedicated leftists, bearing
colorful flags and slogans, it is possible also to encounter skinheads,
for whom anti-war excesses constitute an excellent opportunity for expressing
racial hatred. The Communists know well how to exploit such feelings.
-
- In Great Britain, at the head of the Stop the War Coalition,
organizing the largest anti-war demonstrations in the country's history
(hundreds of thousands strong), stands Andrew Murray, the British Communist
Party activist and, in the 1980s, the correspondent of the Novosti Press
Agency. [3] As an undoubtedly experienced Bolshevik activist, Murray knows
perfectly well what such mass support can mean in practice; he also knows
what the stakes are. His written words leave little doubt:
-
-
- The international crisis is proving historic in other
respects, too. It is provoking the collapse of not one but two world orders
at the same time. Firstly, it is putting the institutions which have embodied
the post-World War Two world under unprecedented strain, both those, like
the United Nations, in which humanity has invested considerable hopes,
and those like NATO and the European Union which have expressed more specifically
the interests of imperialism alone. And the crisis also marks the end of
the 1991 'new world order,' the illusion of a peaceful and stable domination
of the world by a consortium of big powers, under the benevolent hegemony
of the United States.
-
-
- Such diagnosis permits the formulation of much bolder
hopes: deepening economic problems for all the major capitalist powers
and conflict between capitalist countries. Murray does not hide his satisfaction:
a crisis within capitalism, quarrels between the great powers - has it
ever been possible to want more? Never has an anti-war movement had so
much political potential as this. Comparison with the ideas of a "people's
front," which Murray draws, seems to be appropriate.
-
- The situation in Great Britain is not very different
from the worldwide norm. Elsewhere matters may be worse, and certainly
no better. Let us spread the map of the world and take a cursory look.
States openly or secretly adhering to Communist ideology predominate in
many regions of the world. In Asia, in Europe, over large areas of Africa.
On the American continent matters look no better. Seemingly alone until
now, Cuba gains new, powerful allies. Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Lula
da Silva in Brazil are not only close allies of Fidel Castro, but also
avowed Communists - nor does either hide his far-reaching aims. Both states,
incidentally, possess great strategic significance - Venezuela is prominent
with regard to oil production, and Brazil, in terms of populated areas
and population numbers, is the fifth largest state in the world.
-
- And yet it is not Communism which keeps the world's magnates
awake at night. Not Communism, but rather world terrorism and recession
worry the American President. Perhaps this is skillfully applied "salami
tactics": the elimination, one after another, of increasingly serious
political threats; perhaps this is only a symptom of classic blindness
toward Communism. Unfortunately there is much to support the latter supposition.
And yet not even bin Laden, not even Saddam, or other figures with similar
ambitions constitute a real threat to American or world freedom, as one
or more serious terrorist incidents will not destroy American potential.
The real enemy, the truly dangerous adversary, has at his disposal a different
arsenal of resources, not merely the military. Is anyone in the White House
aware of this?
-
- What do they know about the actual missile resources
of the "former" Soviet Union? What do they think of the coordinated
test missile firings carried out last autumn by the Russian Army? How do
they estimate the missile potential of this "ally," whose military
budget is allegedly one fortieth of that of the Pentagon, and who is nevertheless
still able continually to update his missile technology? Does information
of this nature stimulate them to reflection? And what reaction can we expect
in the face of the alliance, formed some years ago, between France, Germany
and Russia? Against whom, in other words, was this alliance assembled?
Is the American government well-disposed towards it? Does it perceive it
to constitute a threat?
-
- Recently, I heard an American colleague give his opinion
that it is proper to put everything on Bush: that, indeed, he knows nothing
about Soviet long-range strategy, but that he is, otherwise, the only American
politician with the courage to take difficult decisions, and that he is
also blessed with political instinct. And I would like to agree with such
an opinion. Unfortunately, I have no facts which could justify such optimism.
Passion in the pursuit of Islamic terrorism is too little on which to base
such conclusions. Even if Bush does not realize it, there are much more
serious challenges in front of him.
-
- Notes:
-
- 1. "Anti-Communism Today and the Struggle against
It," from the International Bulletin of the Workers' Communist Party
of Denmark (APK), No. 3, March 2001.
-
- 2. Hyuk-Bum Kwon, "Anti-Communism of Korea -
Semantic System and Its Political and Social Function," Political
Science and Diplomacy, Taejon University.
-
- 3. Andrew Murray, Political report - March 2003 Executive
Committee meeting, www.communist-party.org.uk.
-
- Dariusz Rohnka lives in Poland and is the author of The
Fatal Fiction: The New Face of Bolshevism -- An Old Pattern.
-
- http://www.jrnyquist.com/rohnka_2003_0515.htm
|
