The view from Moscow
Sir: Let's look at it from the Soviet-Leninist (or just plain Leninist) point of view. Britain, the whole British way and system, Is singularly disgusting, repulsive, for two explicit reasons. First, even the very existence of Britain, as it has been for the past three cen- turies, proclaims a resounding and lasting victory over absolutism, is a Permanent and conspicuous re- minder to the world at large that an enormous and far-reaching and determined absolutism can he suc- cessfully fought against, can be de- feated and tamed and subjugated. Secondly,- modern free-country Britain's long and vigorous survival brilliantly demonstrates that anti- absolutism is not merely viable but notably sturdy, capable of out- lasting innumerable shocks of many sorts. Since absolutism is the very heart and core of Leninism, and anti-absolutism the very mind and soul of the British way, the two are manifestly and for ever irreconcil- able. Therefore, for Leninism to expand in this direction, the British way needs to be bamboozled and/ or coerced into its opposite, into absolutism, for in no other element than that can Leninism breathe. Since Lenin's practice and success were created and developed solely and only for taking over an abso- lutist regime, they do not and can- not work in any other (except only in the case of a snap vote with mili- tary backing, in a post-war situa- tion, as in Eastern Europe 1945-48).
Precisely because of the sicken- ing fact that freedom actually works in Britain, the Leninist theses and projects have never yet made much headway here. Therefore, the indirect method of gaining some power while keeping mum as to theory has had to be used (as in many trade union activities), though even this is not truly satis- factory, for Leninism's dominant genes are those of secret conspir- acy, and in a free society this makes for continual bursts of scandal and frequent exposure as undemocratic. However, Britain has her Achilles heel, of course: Ireland. It took the Leninists some fifty years to get around to this sufficiently obvious fact, but they made it in the end—when Moscow 'switched the line' world-wide, after their heart-stopping rebuff of Cuba 1962. That was the occasion when Moscow actually had to withdraw, to let go of something: from the Leninist standpoint, this was so utterly unthinkable that it could only mean they had com- mitted some cardinal error in tac- tics (not in strategy, that never alters). And it is precisely since 1962 that we have seen the now only-too-familiar new develop- ments taking place. In the times when I used to be connected with them, the overall line of the British Leninists (that is, of Leninism in general, for no line can ever be locally invented) was contained in the essential credo: Show the Face of the Party! For a member to deny being a member meant expulsion: this I was told, with passionate emphasis, by Harry Pollitt himself. But ever since the early 'sixties it has been self-evident that the cur- rent line is DON'T Show the Face of the Party! That is—except in countries where they are already large and well dug-in (as in France and Italy)—the 'official' Leninist parties have been apparently more or less lying doggo, while prolifera- tions of Leninism under a wide variety of fancy names have been pullulating all around. Incident- ally, it is of the greatest importance to bear in mind that these various names, and even the alleged—or sometimes actual—divergences in doctrinal detail, are basically noth- ing but a form of protective colouring. There is in fact one crucial thing that `Sovietists', 'Com- munists', 'Marxists', 'Marxist-Com- munists', 'Internationalists', 'Socia- list Revolutionaries', 'Maoists', 'Connollyites', 'Liberation Fronts', 'Urban Guerrillas', 'Nationalist Partisans', and all the rest of the assortment (particularly when the name includes 'Action' or 'Front' or 'Solidarity' or !Campaign', all of them dyed-in-the-wool tried-and- true witch-words from way, way back): and that common factor, that unifying thread, is Leninism itself. Some of these will repudiate Stalin, some will vilify Mao, sonic will exalt later-Marx against early- Marx, some will spit at the Soviet Union, some will vomit at the men- tion of People's China : but none of them will ever jettison Lenin. The formal title of the 'Maoists', for instance, is Leninist-Stalinist- Maoists.At the meetings of any and all of them you will see Lenin pos- tered large upon the walls. The alleged distinctions between and among all these are explicitly inten- ded to add to the confusion : but Leninists themselves are not con- fused. And to submit to being con- fused by these spider-webs is to help the Leninists on their way.
Another example: it is nowadays customary—and suicidally silly— to call 'We Shall Overcome' (as also 'We Shall Not Be Moved') by the pretty name of 'the Civil Rights anthem'. Like calling a scorpion a bee! From more than twenty years ago, I only too vividly remember in Show - the - Face - of - the Party May Day marches and the like, being commanded by arm- banded Party stewards to sing these compositions. How then are they now 'recent' and 'liberal'? And another: the 'We-Shall-Bury-You' clenched-fist salute has been the Leninist-Communist Party com- pulsory gesture and signal from the very beginning. I remember it even from my childhood, in the 'twenties. How then can our infor- mation-boys call it 'new' and 'black-protest' and 'civil-rights"? Those sons, that gesture, have been Leninist since they were first invented. Why do we now allow the Leninists to put it across us by pretending they are not in the pic- ture? They are entitled to put their case openly, but not to sneak about in masks: and it is up to us to be both aware and wary.
Similarly with regard to Ireland. As if never doing their homework —and thus betraying a shudder- ingly abysmal ignorance of the facts of history (for instance, turn- ing the Reformation into 'a reform of the Anglican church in Eliza- beth i's time')—were not horrible enough, all the journalists and commentators here, without excep- tion: seem to be in league together to draw the thickest possible ob- scuring veils over the Leninists' significant involvement in recent developments in Ireland (which previously they had for almost a half-century repeatedly and con- tinuously written off as having no significance for them whatever). When did they change their line on this? In 1962-64. And what hap- pened in those years? The Leninists began rapid and agile infiltration of Sinn Fein /pa, and ardent woo- ing of the till-then 'fascist' republi- can movement in general. For in- stance, the Connolly Association (Leninist), after treating the Wolfe Tone League for many years as virtual Nazis, even to the point of violence and bloodshed between them at Speakers' Corner in Hyde Park, all of a sudden one fine day declared themselves their bosom friends ... But obviously Leninists have to have a 'social' cause also. What did they find, on looking around in 1965-67? The Civil Rights movement in Northern Ire- land. So what happened? Leninist infiltration happened. And then 1968 and the formation of the 'People's Democracy' party (a name which means literally 'Soviet satellite', for it was first invented to describe Leninist-absorbed Po- land, Czechoslovakia, etc). And then, the 'Civil Rights' marches, deliberately route-marched through those areas most likely to feel pro- voked. Their purpose was of course the direct opposite of the ostensible aim. Not extended rights, but in- creased repressions, were expected —so that the cry of 'fascism' could be raised, and the many advantages of necessarily-secret organisation be enjoyed. The inaugural confer- ence of the All-Ireland Communist party (Leninist) about a year later (previously there had been separate sections on the two sides of the border) made it all very clear. A prominent Civil Rights organiser was in the chair, and specifically proclaimed that the marches and the whole 'activised' Civil Rights movement were the planned and successful achievement of the com- munists. They themselves admit it and announce it: yet this very im- portant fact was never even men- tioned in any British journal, though plain to read in the Dublin papers. Just why this silence?
Also, it was and is Leninism that caused and is maintaining the now- notorious (but never accurately ex- plained) splitting of Sinn Fein /IRA Into two bitterly-opposed factions.
The Leninists, having infiltrated sufficiently to dominate the plat- form at the early-1970 Sinn Fein conference, proposed to alter the constitution in order to engage in Lenin's 'boring-from-within' against parliamentary democracy, by tak- ing part in elections: a large body of the delegates at once walked out, refusing to vote on any such unconstitutional resolution. It is only because the Leninists were then left in situ in the conference- hall that they named themselves the 'Official' body : it is the others, who far outweigh them numeric- ally, who are the traditional-style pure nationalists—and these have repeatedly declared their adamant refusal to let the movement be Leninised. But no one here reports this important fact—why? Instead, our journalists in general turn everything inside-out by idiotically calling the Leninists 'traditionalist' and the others 'violent', not to speak of never mentioning the Leninising cause of the split at all —again, why?
Both factions of this split are
violent—even, as we have seen, to the point of ruthlessly 'liquidating' (Leninist-invented word) one an- other. Any journalist who seriously imagines that because Leninists are sometimes prepared to talk politics, and to conduct election campaigns (in order, as they don't deny, to destroy the electoral system), they therefore are 'non-violent', wants his head examining, but quick !
Moscow's interest in all this is plain enough. Hatred and loathing of the British way and system, as a general principle. Undermine a main stronghold of capitalism and parliamentary democracy, as a general principle. A foothold in a relatively backward country with a nationalism problem, as in so many places around the globe. Harbour- age for those fleets (Ireland has some of the finest anchorages in the world, unused). Therefore, a questing after diplomatic relations with Dublin. Therefore, Soviet hearts bleeding over the woes of Granuaile, only Mother Russia understands, only Leninists will actually do anything (such as get up marches sure to provoke fight- ing, but after having taken care to prepare a 'defenceless people' gambit) . . . It has not entirely worked out as planned, because of the unpredicted intransigence of the pure nationalists (the fact that some people have consciences, and listen to them, invariably astonishes Leninists). But the split is only a rather large detail. The main point, and a frightening one, is the con- centrated interest of Leninism in general in this situation and these events. One wonders has NATO thought this through?
Stella FitzThomas Hagan c/o National Book League, 7 Albe- marle Street, London wl
Previous page
