Talking with the
"Man in the Street":
HAS COMMUNISM DIED
AND WHAT ABOUT ANTICOMMUNISM
A Word to the
Reader.
by Plinio Correa do Oliveira
WE believe the present work is very timely for Americans.
Due to the many genuine and troubling internal
problems such as the drug and abortion issues, the national debt as well as the
budget deficit, the instability of the stock market, the capital gains tax
debates, flag burning and the like, sectors of our nation pay little attention
to international affairs.
In view of this, the American TFP considered the topic
of Plinio Correa de Oliveira's recent article published in the Correio Braziliense, a daily of the Brazilian capital, to be of great importance, and brings
it, therefore, to the attention of the American public.
In fact, the media informs us that Gorbachev is
maintaining himself in power by gradually clearing away the numerous obstacles
to glasnost and perestroika.
7he American reader merely gives this a cursory glance and accepts it without further
ado. Consequently, he forms the mental habit of no longer viewing international
communism as an important danger, because Gorbachev holds the red bear on a
short leash.
This subconsciously creates an atmosphere of ease in
our country, as well as in the whole world, and induces countless people into a
reckless confidence in the final results of Gorbachev's pacifism. And
Americans will instinctively do everything possible to maintain this belief.
The aforementioned elements tend to produce, in the
short or long term, the notion that the communist danger has virtually
disappeared from the face of the earth. In light of this, anticommunism loses
its reason for being.
As the number increases of those who confide in
Gorbachev as the guardian of the West‑his presence in Russia averting the
catastrophe of a nuclear war‑anticommunism is seen as a vigilant and
combative psychological attitude which events have made obsolete, useless, and
even disagreeable.
That this optimistic and superficial view is
unrealistic is what the author's analysis demonstrates. The arguments presented
are not based solely on the fickleness and deceptiveness of daily events, but
also, and more notably, on a panoramic view comprising the notion of glasnost and perestroika, their relationship to the ultimate goals of the
worldwide communist revolution, and the general historical lines which
communism has implacably followed throughout its sometimes more and sometimes
less authentic transformations from Lenin to our days.
By spreading these timely considerations, the American
TFP fulfills its obligation of bringing to the attention of public opinion the
necessity of maintaining a state of
sagacious and constant anticommunist vigilance. We deem this imperative, at
least until the facts in the Soviet Union become clear and their repercussions
in the West may be evaluated with serenity, prudence and assurance.
The
average man in the street is not necessarily uneducated. He is typically a
person who has completed high school and may even have a college degree. He,
therefore, has a certain culture; he reads the newspapers‑although not
all of the extensive weekly supplements, of interest only to specialists or
those so fond of the subject as to make it a pastime.
His
lifelong experience‑personal, familial, social, professional ‑and
those responsibilities which compel him to worry and to think impart a certain
intellectual ascendancy that affords him an indisputable influence in his
circles. In short, he is a ponderable factor in public opinion.
His
common sense naturally helps to counterbalance the influence‑otherwise
valuable in so many respects‑of intellectuals, technocrats, and
bureaucrats whose excesses cause them to tend toward a technical, bureaucratic
and bookish totalitarianism, and whose exclusivism frequently leads them to
plan and conceive solutions in an unrealistic, utopian, and confined atmosphere.
Within
such an atmosphere, vitality is stifled; the subtleties of reality escape and
vanish; unilateral and senseless ideologies assault and conquer public opinion.
The latter could, in turn, be thrown into such a turmoil of confusion,
contradictions and dramas that whole nations could agonize for decades or even
centuries.
Soviet Russia: A Well-Known Stage for Political Melodramas
This
is precisely the case of Russia today. Political melodramas revolving around
bookish interpretations of the works of Marx, Engels, Trotsky, and other
theoreticians from communism's first phase are commonplace. These are followed
by utopian politico‑ideological debates on Lenin's real or alleged
infidelities to the school of Marx. The same thing happens as regards Stalin's
infidelity to the teachings of Lenin. And then Khrushchev and Brezhnev (just to
mention the principal figures) are similarly questioned in the same vein.
And,
finally, the drama now engulfs the whole Soviet empire. On the one hand are the
radical communists, the hard‑liners of state capitalism. On the other are
the supporters of self-management who avidly seek to dismantle state
capitalism (and the private capitalism of the West as well). Both sides argue
as to whether it is the case to replace both capitalisms with self-managing
socialism. This new system is touted as being innovative and invigorating, and
its proponents envision a fabric of cellular human groups as the ideal social
organization for today. Each cellular group would manage itself with a utopian
and imperturbable internal harmony, with everything held in common: goods,
work, the fruits of one's labor, and even as some state or imply with much
likelihood‑" spouses" and children.
Gorbachev Slowly
Steers Toward Self‑Management
How
can this internal and intergroup harmony be explained? Utopian intellectual
"purists" do not linger long with such problems. These groups‑forming
immense magmas that are peaceful, primitive and pastorally simple‑are
their utopian goal, the aim of their wishful thinking. Ardently desiring this
ideal, they begin to dream about how to attain it.
Some,
possibly influenced by the goal set forth in the Preamble of the Soviet
Constitution, would have Gorbachev painstakingly steer frail ships like
perestroika and glasnost through the murky waters of the new Russia toward self‑management.
And so the drama would go on. It is not surprising, then, that he may have to
eventually face a dangerous reaction to self-management waged by
"conservatives," those advocating the present Soviet state
capitalism.
Separatist Movements:
A Brouhaha of Unknowns
While
this is taking place in Russia, the rest of the Soviet empire is coming apart
at the seams. Separatist movements rock such distant "united
republics" as Estonia and Armenia, and extend from Ukraine to Kazakhstan
and even as far as Siberia. At the same time, impetuous centrifugal tendencies
toss about “sovereign” communist republics such as Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria,
and, above all, Poland.
What will become
of all this?
Nobody
knows. Nor could one know, because this scenario is an immense brouhaha of
unknowns that convulsively churn, clash or collaborate under the penumbra of
ever more somber news.
The Optimist's Utopian
Dreams Tend Toward Total Convergence
However,
there is someone who thinks he knows "the answer. " He lives in the
West. It is not one man, but a legion of men to be found in that Western current
of opinion comprised of optimists. Foremost among them are prominent figures in
various specialized fields who live almost exclusively in the stuffy precincts
of libraries, laboratories, macro‑bureaucracies, or even in the offices
of big corporations.
Were
it not for the overwhelming support of the majority of the media, the mere
influence of these intellectuals and technocrats, detached as they are from
reality, would have no bearing on the course of events. Given this support,
however, these individuals are able to transmit their wishful thinking to the
not-so negligible portion of men in the street who habitually have some trust
in the media.
This
legion of optimists take their utopian dreams as "prophetic"
intuition and interpret reality today as if self‑management will usher in
an era of perfect concord and eternal peace for a world finally liberated from
the great structures. To this end, many utopians aspire to the fusion of all
nations, all philosophical and religious schools of thought, and all
ideologies, no matter how mutually conflicting they might be. This would be the
fruit of the " fall of ideological barriers," ushering in an era of
universal consensus free from polemics and dissension. Thus, total disarmament
would no longer appear reckless and instead become alluring. This would be the
ecumenical era of dialogue wherein everything is resolved harmoniously. By
becoming self‑managing, communism would wane as a danger to the West, and
the West would no longer be a danger to the communist world. All humanity
would sing, at long last, the hymn of total convergence.
With the Death of
Communism and Anticommunism, a World Freed from the Nuclear Threat Would Emerge
In
turn, the death of communism would bring about‑Oh! delight of all optimists!‑the
death of anticommunism. With the sickness gone, the doctors who specialize in
treating it become useless.
These
are the sentiments of many men in the street (the optimists) who obsessively
dream of global plenty in a world rid of the foreboding specter of a nuclear
holocaust.
Freed
from his nightmares, the bourgeois Westerner would then be able to indulge in
the delights of the dawn of an absolute, frivolous, and fickle relativism
which would be his heaven on earth.
However,
men are frequently ashamed of dreaming and, therefore, do not make their
dreams clear even to themselves. To know them, it is necessary to sound out
their opinions on current events. These opinions are frequently found in the
daily conversations of the optimistic man in the street. By analyzing such
commentaries, the course of their utopias can be determined.
Since
this article is written to dialogue with the optimistic men in the street, I
will now consider several aspects of their dreams, allowing me to expose their
various aspirations.
For
brevity's sake, I will elaborate on the matter through successive statements.
First the optimists' proposition is presented and then the TFP’s unmasking
rebuttal.
Trust Cannot Be Based Only on Personal
Impressions
1. Optimists: To the lucid and
intuitive observer, Gorbachev's and Raisa's personalities suggest that they are
"good people," friends of their people, wishing to afford them as
much abundance as possible, eliminating police despotism and suppressing the
specter of nuclear war.
TFP:
This is the typical way the optimist thinks. A mere personal impression or
some strong sympathy he feels toward another buys his confidence and allows
for delightful dreams '
All it
takes is a mere photograph in a newspaper or magazine or a fleeting assessment
of a person flashing across the television screen to spark the rashest acts of
confidence by the optimists‑be they individuals, groups, or multitudes.
Evaluating
and analyzing the person's background, writings, or deeds, all of this matters
little. It is enough to see his picture or hear his voice in order to judge
him.
It Is Rash to Trust
Someone's Good Intentions Without Knowing His Background
2. Optimists:
Because of their popularity, Gorbachev and Raisa are omnipotent and can do as
they please. They want what we want. That is, they desire unlimited prosperity
for all peoples of the world. There is no cause for worry.
TFP: Once again, the
optimists' same weak point can be seen. Knowing nothing of a person's
background, they nonetheless find it easy to attribute the most generous and
disinterested of intentions to those they "feel good about."
In
this way, entire multitudes in the '30s, inside and outside Germany, raved over
a mere wall painter they had seen and heard and immediately "felt good
about."
Whether
Nazi, fascist, communist, or whatever, demagogues and demagoguery have an easy
victory when the number of optimists is great.
Long Oppression May Accustom a People to Their
Slavery
3. Optimists: It is quite natural that
Gorbachev be firmly * entrenched in power since it is absurd to think people do
not avidly yearn to be rich after 70 years of misery.
TFP:
Such could actually be the attitude of a people subjected to prolonged misery.
However, it is also plausible that a people treated thus could instead feel
crushed, discouraged and accustomed to the dismal life of slavery.
Why
should one suppose that Soviet Russia's immense population has a unanimous
attitude toward their misery? For example, it could well be that the oppressed
peoples along the Baltic Sea are enraged, while those along the Black and
Caspian Seas lazily yawn their conformity. Consistent with his propensity to
optimism and without further evidence, the man in the street affirms that they
are all enraged. From this he draws conclusions which are themselves
optimistic. Among these: communism is no more. Does this frivolous manner of
thinking deserve further refutation? We think not.2
Only Time Will Tell If the Russian Masses Are
Really Enraged
4. Optimists: The police state
suppressed the hungry and 9 enraged people Is possibility to revolt. Gorbachev
freed the beast and no one can stop it now. Misery's aggressiveness is invincible
and has justly made Gorbachev known as the paladin of abundance and champion of
liberty. A man who holds the irresistible tide of public opinion in his hands
cannot be overthrown.
TFP:
"Enraged people"? Misery and oppression do not always cause outrage;
rather, they can sometimes weaken a people. Only impending events will tell if
the Russian masses are really enraged or lamentably weakened. The revolt in
China aptly illustrates how a dispirited majority actually submitted to the
oppression (at least thus far) that was re-instituted with the victory of the
hard‑line "conservative" communists.
"He
cannot be overthrown. " Since this prediction is based on the emptiness of
an unproven premise, it is as worthless as the premise itself.
The Frenzy of Helping
Gorbachev Suggests He Maw Fall Without the Support of the West
5. Optimists: Ali Gorbachev's plans
are viable and will prevail. All his promises are sincere and will be
fulfilled. All his assurances of disarmament deserve our absolute trust. It
would be absurd to believe otherwise. This leads the West (governments, politicians,
capitalists, intellectuals, and the media) to painstakingly support Gorbachev
(and rightly so). In this way, they provide immense support to his prestige and
power in Russia.
TFP:
The West's easy‑going optimism really does help Gorbachev stay in power.
Alarmingly large public and private loans; blindly confident disarmament
agreements without serious verification clauses; all sorts of international
business deals enhancing Gorbachev's prestige; international trips that are no
less prestigious and propagandistic; all these are furnished by a West
"drugged" with optimism and help Gorbachev effectively resist
internal opposition.
This
frenzy of surrendering and retreating before Soviet power and favoring
Gorbachev in every possible way does not augur well. The Western frenzy seems
motivated largely by the fear that Gorbachev may fall if not given these
torrential handouts and gigantic perks.
"A
beggar is suspicious when the alms are too great." Are not such abundant
alms to Gorbachev sufficient grounds for suspicion? Yes, a suspicion that
behind the abundant aid to Gorbachev is the panic of his defeat in Russia's
hinterlands, together with the frivolous optimism of his benefactors. A minor
outburst denouncing his weakness could then be enough to make it no longer
economically and politically expedient to support him. With this, both handouts
and perks would avariciously disappear. And then woe to Gorbachev!
After 70 Years, It Is
More Likely Than Not That Communist Slavery Will Continue
6. Optimists:
The present state of misery in Russia is essentially unstable in the eyes of
the bourgeoisie and of the masses of the West. These consider tragedy
improbable or, should it occur, only fleeting. Thus, Gorbachev will naturally
maintain the reins of power. Should his hard‑line enemies obtain some
victory, it will be short‑lived. This victory will backfire, resulting
in a catastrophe for the culprits and a happy ending for the victims. Stalinist
"conservatism" is destined to catastrophe, and perestroika and
glasnost to triumph. These are the inevitable results of historical destiny.
Admitting the contrary would render unbearable the life of the philanthropic
Western optimist. Therefore, Stalinist forms of oppression will have to
disappear once and for all.
TFP:
It is astonishing that someone would uphold as indisputable the optimists'
premise that the state of misery and oppression in Russia is ephemeral.
Czarism fell in 1917. Since then, the so‑called Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics, which includes the vast Russian state, has languished in blackest
misery. It is a misery bound to doleful slavery and which was rightly called
"this shame of our time" in a document of the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith, presided over by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Instruction on Certain Aspects of the
"Theology of Liberation, " of August 6, 1984).
Slavery
is undoubtedly the other face of the Soviet empire's misery. If we consider the
politically motivated death sentences, the hellish Lubyanka, the unending prison
terms in Siberia, the awesomely dreadful psychiatric hospitals, the incessant
and ubiquitous police oppression, how can this nightmare of horrors from which
Russia has been unable to extricate itself for over seven decades be qualified
as ephemeral? This is nothing more than a blatant denial of the most evident
historical facts.
Why
waste time on this argument? Let it suffice to disdainfully look upon it and
continue on. "Non
ragioniam di lor, ma guarda e passa" (The Divine Comedy, Inferno, Canto
III, v. 51). Thus did Virgil counsel Dante. As Dante followed that
counsel, let us do likewise.
Unleashing Liberty
Does Not Necessarily Produce Order
7. Optimists: It is not, however, that
difficult to normalize the situation in Russia. Just liberalize everything.
Then, order and abundance, irrigated by liberty, will sprout everywhere.
TFP:
Liberty is a great good, as the Holy Catholic Church has always taught.
Regarding this matter, Leo XIII may be especially cited for his encyclical Libertas Praestantissimum. However‑and
the Church also teaches this‑liberty is only good in the measure that it
is limited by the principles of Christian morality and the natural order.
Observing these principles; finding the perfect measure of human behavior in
the concrete application of each of these principles; endowing the proper
authority with the necessary power to fulfill its mission without excess;
delineating the limitations of authority, and, to this end, establish a complex
and judicious system of intermediary groups between the state and the
individual; and, finally, balancing the relations between these intermediary
groups and individual liberties; this herculean task would be impossible to
undertake without the inestimable and precious help of God's grace.
To abstract
from all this and imagine we need only unleash liberty for everything to
spontaneously fall into place is to imagine a primitive utopia.
Gorbachev's Prestige
Is Also Shaken by the Separatist Movements
8. Optimists: The separatist movements
do not really threaten Gorbachev. The Soviet empire is so immense that it can
stand to lose the greater part of its non‑Russian territories and still remain vast. As for the communist republics that are
not part of the USSR, several of them
could also leave the Soviet bloc and the latter's size would still be
considerable.
TFP: The optimists are looking at the
problem from the wrong angle. To observe more and more sections of this Moloch
uncontrollably failing like decaying flesh from a leper can only create an
extremely disturbing and profoundly embarrassing impression in those accustomed
to seeing the Soviet empire in its present vast dimensions. The devastating
effect of this process also shakes Gorbachev's prestige to the degree that
these pieces of "flesh" fall from the area he rules.
It Is Rash to Trust Yesterday's Enemy Without
Guarantees
9. Optimists: Communism is dead.
Whence arises an even greater joy: anticommunism, the repugnant prophet of
misfortune, the disagreeable preacher of austerity, reflection, coherence, and
seriousness, will vanish from the earth.
TFP:
Truly, as a classical proverb states, whom God wishes to condemn, He first
makes mad: "Quos Deus perdere vult, prius dementat."
The
delirious Western optimists precipitately savor the Russian leader's victory
even before the fact. Nothing guarantees that Gorbachev is not just paying us
lip service and that he is not making plans he knows could only be realized in
a utopia. In the West, the die‑hard optimist trusts yesterday's enemy,
who presumably is still his enemy today and will be so tomorrow.
On the
contrary, he wishes at the same time to distance himself from the
anticommunists, the dedicated and unflinching paladins of Western and Christian
civilization. If Western magnates maintain this mentality, one thing is
certain: Regardless of who triumphs, communists or anticommunists, these
optimists will fall. They are always the real losers of history. And new elites
raised by Divine Providence will deservedly replace them to direct, with
uprightness, the affairs of this world.
1.
"The highest goal of the Soviet state is the building of a classless communist
society in which social communist self‑administration
will be developed" (Constitution [Fundamental Law] of the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics, in Aryeh L. Unger, Constitutional Development in the USSR (New York: Pica Press,
19821, p. 233).
In his
book Perestroika: New Thinking for Our
Country and the World (New York: Harper & Row, 1987), Gorbachev calls
attention to the present Soviet system's shortcomings:
"Little
room was left for Lenin's idea of the working people's self-management. Public
property was gradually fenced off from its true owner, the working man....
This was the major cause of what happened: at the new stage the old system of
economic management began to turn from a factor of development into a brake
that retarded socialism's advance."
"An
educated and talented people committed to socialism could not make fu 11 use of
the potentialities inherent in socialism, of their right to take a real part in
the administration of state affairs.
"It
goes without saying that in these conditions Lenin's valuable ideas on
management and self‑management, profit‑and‑loss accounting,
and the linking of public and personal interests, faded to be applied and
develop properly"
(pp. 47‑48).
As
Gorbachev amply explains in his book, perestroika
is merely a continuation of Lenin's ideas. Therefore, the plan for
economic reform presented during the June 1987 Plenary Meeting of the Communist
Party's Central Committee "provides for the creation of new organizational
structures of management, for the all‑round development of the democratic
foundations of management, and for the broad introduction of the self‑management
principles" (p. 84).
Perestroika is no retreat from
communism, as some may think, but rather a step toward the realization of the
final goal of the Marxist‑Leninist utopia. Gorbachev misses no
opportunity to state loudly and clearly in his book that people of the West
should not be deluded in this regard (see pp. 36 ff.).
About
this topic, see the Message of the TFPs "What Does Self‑Managing
Socialism Mean for Communism: A Barrier? Or a Bridgehead?" by Plinio
Correa de Oliveira (The Washington Post, 12/9/81;
The New York Times, 12/13/81; The Los Angeles Times, 12/13/81; Dallas Morning News, 12/13/81).
Moreover,
press reports clearly show how deluded the optimists really are regarding
Russia's supposed march toward the restoration of the right of private
property.
Deputy
Prime Minister Leonid Abalkin told Izvestia
that "economic difficulties are causing deepening social tension and
a lack of interest in the reforms" (Jornal
da Tarde, Sao Paulo, 10/2/89). As a remedy, he foresees the privatization
of the bankrupt state‑owned companies, putting them under the control of
worker cooperatives (see Jornal da Tarde,
9/25189). This is a far cry from the restoration of the right of private
property.
Thus,
when Prime Minister Nikolai Rizhkov introduced a bill in the Soviet Parliament
proposing a new commercial law, he made it very clear that
there are plans
only to "denationalize the economy by creating new types of socialist
property" (Jornal da Tarde, Sao Paulo,
103/89). The bill calls for a system of cooperatives and industries controlled
by groups of citizens but excludes the possibility of sole proprietorships (see
Jornal da Tarde, 10/3/89).
In a
statement equally opposed to the idea ofthe right of private property, Prime
Minister Rizlikov commented: "Presently, there are few private properties
belonging to only one person. Most of them belong to corporations. How can we
return to the past?" (O
Globo, Rio de Janeiro, 10/3189).
As for
rural property, Rizhkov noted that land leased by the state to family units can
be inherited, but never sold. The land remains collective property (see Jornal do Tarde, 10/4/89). It is clear
that this leasing of rural land is not to be confused with private property.
Similarly,
all other bills proposed by the government are based on the absence of private
property (ibid.).
The
old communist concepts have not mellowed with time: "We [Russians] have a
suspicion of the very word 'rich,' Soviet author A. Vasinsky wrote recently in Izvestia. "It's a kind of allergy,
cultivated since our student days" (Newsweek,
[international edition] 10/9/89, p. 18).
Symptomatically,
unhappy deputies stopped Deputy Prime Minister Abalkin short as he was praising
the private cooperatives in the Soviet Parliament; instead, they requested
that the cooperatives be severely restricted or simply closed. Even Gorbachev,
who had authorized them, complained of their high prices and warned: "We
have to take into account the mood of the people" (Newsweek, international edition] 10/9/89, p. 18).
2.
Bernard Leromte's article "Gorbachev in Danger" in L'Express (7/7/89), demonstrates that
three dangers hover over the Soviet leader's head. One of these is "the
conservatism ... of a population which has been stunned, annihilated and
terrorized by means of a prolonged fight between an old system of values and
the criminal utopia of the 'new man.' Seventy years of communism have made
these people apathetic and irresponsible. Behind an intellectual elite ...
there are 286 million Soviets who do not believe in the reforms. How will
Gorbachev make this society, which is becoming the most conservative society in
the world, evolve?" (p. 30).
It is
well to bear in mind that this "conservatism" is the fruit ofaccornmodation
and apathy in face of an antinatural and despotic regime.
In
this same issue of L'Express (p. 38),
Vladimir Berelovitcb underscores the same idea by describing "the
inhabitants of Russia's hinterlands" as "submissive, terrorized, and
irresponsible humans who have been molded by
It is
well to bear in mind that this "conservatism" is the fruit of
accommodation and apathy in face of an anti-natural and despotic regime.
In
this same issue of L'Express (p. 38), Vladimir
Berelovitch underscores the same idea by describing "the inhabitants of
Russia's hinterlands" as "submissive, terrorized, and irresponsible
humans who have been molded by despotism for decades. Do we expect this
population to have initiative and to approve the reforms? ... General apathy
characterizes this population. "