The
Communist Threat
By
Dariusz Rohnka
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.
Another
Fine Specimen