#Not saying that historical revisionism does not exist in defeated countries but the one in winning ones is so mainstream and well-accepted | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

thirdswordblog · 5 years

Text

Article from Red Sun Magazine # 47: “THIRD-WORLDISM OR MAOISM?”

We repost this article from Red Sun Magazine #47:

THIRD-WORLDISM OR MAOISM?

What is “Third-Worldism”? The term has been used to describe mainly two phenomena:

1) The “Non-Aligned Movement” (NAM), which is the grouping of countries that originated in the Bandung Conference of 1955, promoted by Nasser, Nehru, Sukarno, Tito and others. In synthesis, it was an “anti-imperialism” under the leadership of the bourgeoisie with the motive of acquiring a more favorable position for some oppressed countries within the imperialist system, through agreements with the superpowers and imperialist powers, which is to say an “anti-imperialism” opposed to the proletarian revolution.

2) The “Third-Worldism” that is presented as a “development” or an “application” of Marxism-Leninism or Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, and has its origin in groups of intellectuals and organizations mainly in the imperialist countries in the 60’s-70’s. What was put forward by the theoreticians of “Third-Worldism” (Arghiri Emmanuel, Immanuel Wallerstein, Samir Amin and Gottfred Appel are the most well-known) in synthesis, was that the imperialist exploitation of the Third World had not only created a labor aristocracy and a social-chauvinist revisionism in the imperialist countries, but that the whole working class in these countries had turned into a labor aristocracy, which is to say a class that is no longer revolutionary but allied with the imperialist bourgeoisie. The conclusion of the followers of “Third-Worldism” is that it is not possible to make revolution in the imperialist countries and that, consequently, the communists and anti-imperialists in these countries should only dedicate themselves to supporting the struggles in the Third World instead of organizing the proletariat and building Communist Parties to overthrow their own bourgeoisie and build proletarian power through revolutionary war.

In the present article, in the light of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, we will focus on the second type of “Third-Worldism” even though, as we will show, it has fundamental points in common with the politics of the NAM and with other bourgeois or petty-bourgeois “anti-imperialist theories”. Look at, for example, the so-called “post-colonialism” or “post-colonial theory”, which is nothing but “post-modernism” applied to the subject of imperialism/ anti-imperialism, essentially putting forward that “Marxism is not valid” for the oppressed peoples of the Third World, because it is “Western” and “Eurocentric”. What all of these non-Marxist “anti-imperialisms” have in common is precisely that: negate, combat and/ or revise Marxism; negate the role of the proletariat as the leading class in the revolution in each country and on a world level, and in that way undermine the union between the national liberation movement and the international proletarian movement.

The Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Position

The position of the Marxist-Leninist-Maoists is clear: the contradiction oppressed nations – imperialism today is the main contradiction in the world, and the oppressed nations of the Third World are the base of the world revolution. As the PCP has defined in its International Line:

“Our Party upholds that in the present world there are three fundamental contradictions: 1) The contradiction between oppressed nations, on one hand, and imperialist superpowers and powers on the other hand; this included here is the thesis of three worlds being outlined, and we formulate it like this because the core of this contradiction is with the imperialist superpowers but there is also contradiction with the imperialist powers. This is the main contradiction and its solution is the development and victory of the revolutions of new democracy. 2) The contradiction proletariat-bourgeoisie, its solution being the socialist revolution and in perspective the proletarian cultural revolution. 3) The interimperialist contradiction: between the imperialist superpowers, between the superpowers and powers and between the imperialist powers themselves, which leads to war for world hegemony and imperialist wars of plunder, against which the proletariat must wage the people’s war and in perspective the world people’s war. We do not count the contradiction socialism-capitalism today, because it is only expressed on the ideological and political level since socialism that does not exist as a state; today there is no socialist system. There was, and to uphold that it exists today is essentially to state that the USSR is socialist, which is revisionism.” (Communist Party of Peru – International Line, 1988)

And as Chairman Gonzalo establishes in the Interview from 1988:

“…we insist that the contradiction between the oppressed nations on one side, and the imperialist superpowers and imperialist powers on the other, is principal and of great importance for the world revolution. It has to do, in our opinion, with the weight of the masses in history. It is obvious that the great majority of the masses who inhabit the earth live in the oppressed nations. It is also evident that their population is increasing four times as rapidly as the population of the imperialist countries. […]

We firmly believe in this, and it is not because of chauvinism or of being, as some say, inhabitants of oppressed countries or nations. It is not. This is the trend that can be seen in history, and this is the weight of the masses in history. And, moreover, facts continue to demonstrate that where imperialism is more and more being defeated and undermined is in the struggles that are being waged in the oppressed nations. Those are irrefutable facts. Therefore, we consider this principal contradiction to be of great importance, and it will define the sweeping away of imperialism and reaction from the face of the earth, provided that Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is put as command and guide of the world revolution, that Communist Parties are developed based on this ideology, and that they take up people's war, again, in accordance with the type of revolution and the specific conditions.” (Interview with Chairman Gonzalo) [our emphasis, SR]

Furthermore, the PCP emphasizes that there exists a revolutionary situation in uneven development in the world, including the imperialist countries:

“And Europe, where persistent anti-imperialist military actions are carried out, it is necessary to study the ideology and politics they are based on, what class they serve, their connection to the ideology of the proletariat and their role within the world proletarian revolution, as well as their position concerning contemporary revisionism; movements that express the existence of a revolutionary situation in uneven development on the old continent” [underlining is ours – SR]

That is to say that the struggle of the oppressed nations against imperialism is the base of the world revolution and will define the sweeping away of imperialism, with the condition that the proletariat leads it with its ideology, Marxism, today Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, mainly Maoism. The main contradiction determines how the other contradictions are expressed and develop, but it does not annul them. What’s more: “any one of the four fundamental contradictions can be principal according to the specific circumstances of the class struggle, temporarily or in a given country.” (International Line); for example, in an imperialist country the contradiction proletariat – bourgeoisie continues to be the main one. The contradiction oppressed nations – imperialism does not negate the fundamental contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, and does not negate the historical role of the proletariat, the only class capable of leading the revolution. It does not negate that the revolutionary situation in uneven development is expressed also in the imperialist countries. As we will see, this is precisely what the “Third-Worldists” want to negate: Marxism, the proletarian leadership, the existence of a revolutionary situation and the strategic offensive of the world proletarian revolution.

A Third-Worldist Book

In 2018 the book The Global Perspective: Reflections on Imperialism and Resistance by the Danish author Torkil Lauesen was published in English. From 1968 until the 1980s, Lauesen was a member of a group (M-KA – Communist Work Group – Manifesto) in Denmark originally headed by Gottfred Appel and guided by his Third-Worldist “theory”, which they considered a “development” or an “application” of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought. Applying this “theory” in practice, this group devoted itself to forming contacts with different national liberation movements in the Third World and gathering resources for these movements, including armed actions to confiscate such resources. The group was dissolved in 1989 when Lauesen and other members were arrested and imprisoned. Today, Lauesen together with Zak Cope and other intellectuals continue publishing books and texts promoting their “Third-Worldist” thesis adapted to the new “leftist theories” in fashion.

Lauesen’s book, like many of the “Third-Worldist” texts, makes a summary of the history of imperialism, of social-chauvinism and how this has formed the thought and politics of the worker’s movement in the imperialist countries. This summary by itself and the facts presented would be beneficial to study for the majority of “leftists” in these countries that have been formed for over a hundred years by this social-chauvinist revisionism that still constitutes the ideological foundation of all kinds of revisionist and anarchist organizations. Here, Lauesen refers to the correct positions of Marx, Engels and Lenin on the matter of the exploitation of the colonies and the implications of that for the class struggle in the imperialist countries:

“Ireland is the bulwark of the English landed aristocracy. The exploitation of that country is not only one of the main sources of their material wealth; it is their greatest moral strength. They, in fact, represent the domination over Ireland. Ireland is therefore the cardinal means by which the English aristocracy maintain their domination in England itself. If, on the other hand, the English army and police were to be withdrawn from Ireland tomorrow, you would at once have an agrarian revolution in Ireland. But the downfall of the English aristocracy in Ireland implies and has as a necessary consequence its downfall in England. And this would provide the preliminary condition for the proletarian revolution in England.” (Letter from Karl Marx to Sigfrid Meyer and August Vogt, 1870)

"Capitalism also tried to eliminate the contradictions in its social structure. Bourgeois society is a class society. In the greatest 'civilized' States capital wanted to gloss over social contradictions. At the expense of the plundered colonial peoples capital corrupted its wage slaves, created a community of interest between the exploited and the exploiters as against the oppressed colonies—the yellow, black, and red colonial peoples—and chained the European and American working class to the imperialist 'fatherland'. " (First Congress of the Communist International, 1919)

In the Bernstein quotes, like the following, one can see the origin of the social-chauvinism that today continues to be one of the main characteristics of revisionism: "The colonies are there, and it is necessary to occupy them; I think that a certain guardianship of the civilized peoples over the non-civilized peoples is a necessity.” (Bernstein), and Lauesen explains: "The connections drawn by Bernstein between the interests of the German working class and colonialism were logical. Only colonialism made it possible for the situation of European workers to improve. Colonial profits allowed capital to mitigate the social contradictions within the European countries. It helped turn the dangerous classes into loyal citizens. The specter of revolution was contained." (Lauesen, Torkil. The Global Perspective: Reflections on Imperialism and Resistance . Kersplebedeb Publishing. Kindle Edition.)

So, concerning the origin and character of revisionism, of reformism and of all social-chauvinist opportunism everything is clear and Lenin’s position continues to be valid and correct:

“…the culture of the advanced countries has been, and still is, the result of their being able to live at the expense of a thousand million oppressed people. It is because the capitalists of these countries obtain a great deal more in this way than they could obtain as profits by plundering the workers in their own countries. [...] It is these thousands of millions in super-profits that form the economic basis of opportunism in the working-class movement." (Report On The International Situation And the Fundamental Tasks Of the Communist International, 1920)

Third-Worldism in Opposition to Marxism

Although they want to present themselves as fighters against social-chauvinism and good helpers of the anti-imperialist struggles, the “Third-Worldists” in their analysis of history and of the current situation abandon Marxism and reach the same conclusions as reaction and all of revisionism; that Marxism has “failed” due to its “dogmatism”, that the world revolution is in “retreat”, that “new methods” must be sought and above all, that it is not possible nor desirable to organize the proletariat to make revolution in the imperialist countries. Instead of mobilizing the class to combat and crush social-chauvinism, they advocate capitulating to it. They deny what was established by Lenin:

“Neither we nor anyone else can calculate precisely what portion of the proletariat is following and will follow the social-chauvinists and opportunists. This will be revealed only by the struggle, it will be definitely decided only by the socialist revolution. But we know for certain that the “defenders of the fatherland” in the imperialist war represent only a minority. And it is therefore our duty, if we wish to remain socialists to go down lower and deeper, to the real masses; this is the whole meaning and the whole purport of the struggle against opportunism. By exposing the fact that the opportunists and social-chauvinists are in reality betraying and selling the interests of the masses, that they are defending the temporary privileges of a minority of the workers, that they are the vehicles of bourgeois ideas and influences, that they are really allies and agents of the bourgeoisie, we teach the masses to appreciate their true political interests, to fight for socialism and for the revolution through all the long and painful vicissitudes of imperialist wars and imperialist armistices. The only Marxist line in the world labour movement is to explain to the masses the inevitability and necessity of breaking with opportunism, to educate them for revolution by waging a relentless struggle against opportunism, to utilise the experience of the war to expose, not conceal, the utter vileness of national-liberal labour politics.” (V.I. Lenin – Imperialism and the Split in Socialism, 1916)

According to Lauesen, Leninism “failed”: “Lenin wanted to mobilize the proletariat below the top tier of the best-paid, unionized workers. His strategy failed.” (Lauesen, torkil. The Global Perspective: Reflections on Imperialism and Resistance . Kersplebedeb Publishing. Kindle Edition) This is a recurring theme in the book: “State socialism did not provide the example of a better world we had hoped for; both democratic structures and economic progress were lacking.”(ibid.).

Just like the “ex-Maoist” Avakian and other revisionists, Lauesen puts forward that the socialist revolutions “failed” because the communists were “dogmatic” and “nationalists”: “The national interests of socialist states often weighed more heavily than international solidarity in the fight against imperialism. This contributed to the decline of the anti-imperialist movement at the end of the 1970s.”(ibid.) For Lauesen, what “contributed to the decline” wasn’t revisionism, but the “dogmatism” of the communists who struggled against this revisionism. For Lauesen, the problem with the struggles in Vietnam, Palestine and other places was not the command baton of Soviet social-imperialism and the influence of modern revisionism, but that the communists guided by Chairman Mao had “divided” the revolutionary forces: “[the Chinese criticism] caused a major split in the international socialist movement that had negative consequences for socialists everywhere. In hindsight, I believe that the Soviet policy of “peaceful coexistence” was correct. […] In M-KA, we saw the Soviet Union as a tactical ally. In our practical collaboration with liberation movements in Africa and the Middle East we saw that the Soviet Union was playing a positive role on the ground.”(Ibid.)

Just as he denies the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union (in 1956), converting it into a social-imperialist superpower, Lauesen today considers China not as an imperialist superpower but that it “will open up new windows of opportunity for radical social change” and that “the Chinese government increasingly represents the interests of the Global South in international debates.” (ibid.). Lauesen and the “Third-Worldists” have replaced Marxism with pragmatism, and shamelessly deny the struggle between the proletarian position, Marxism, and the bourgeois position among the proletarian ranks, revisionism. Consequently he puts forward that “actually existing socialism—and, with it, the anti-imperialist movement of the 1970s and 80s—vanished with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.” (ibid.) These are the same revisionist positions that we find in other “ex-Marxists” like the Zapatistas in Mexico (which Lauesen extols as an example of the “new methods” that have to replace “authoritarian” and “dogmatic” Marxism) and the followers of Öcalan, as well as in all kinds of revisionist and social-chauvinist organizations in the imperialist countries.

Negating the Proletariat as Leading Class

In order to sustain their revisions of Marxism, the Third-Worldists have had to abandon the Marxist definition of what a class is. According to Lauesen, “The term “class” is used to group together people with the same economic status.” (ibid.) – which is to say more or less the same vulgar definition that the bourgeoisie wants to impose. For Marxists, classes are defined by their relationship to the means of production, and by their class consciousness. Applying this scientific definition, we see that although the differences in living conditions, salary, etc, between different groups of proletarians indeed can affect how the class struggle develops, it doesn’t change the fundamental fact that all proletarians are exploited by the owners of the means of production, and that the contradiction between proletariat and bourgeoisie is an antagonistic contradiction, that cannot be resolved without the proletarian revolution and the destruction of the bourgeoisie as a class, be it in an oppressed country or an imperialist country. This is an objective, scientific and Marxist truth.

Here we can see the foundation of Third-Worldist revisionism: negating the proletarian revolution, replacing it with a supposed “revolution of the poor against the rich”, with yet another version of non-proletarian “anti-capitalism” which we have already seen in movements like “Occupy”, “ATTAC” and others, which is to say, movements under bourgeois leadership that in the end only serve to mobilize the masses around supposed reforms within the system, for a “more humane capitalism”. Lauesen refers to such movements in positive terms, but the proletarian revolution, as defined in the Communist Manifesto, would supposedly no longer be valid today: “When The Communist Manifesto was written in 1848, the call for “workers of the world” to unite did not appear utopian. It does today, if we consider both historical and contemporary realities. Is there really one working class united by exploitation?” (ibid.). Applying his bourgeois definition of classes, he reaches the conclusion that all “Third-Worldists” have in common: “the workers of the Global North have an objective interest in preserving the system.” (ibid.)

In other words, for the “Third-Worldists” the problem of making revolution in an imperialist country is not a problem of subjective factors, of class consciousness, of the need to combat social-chauvinist revisionism and of building Communist Parties. For them the problem is not in that some sectors (and even large sectors) of the working class are under the influence of the ideology and politics of the imperialist bourgeoisie and its revisionist lackeys, but that these workers “objectively” have no interest in destroying the system of exploitation and oppression. It isn’t strange that the “Third-Worldist” theoreticians have to turn to the “theories” of the exploiter classes to “support” such nonsense, because they cannot do it with Marxism. In reality, the objective conditions for revolution in the imperialist countries exist and express themselves more and more in the current struggles.

Although Lauesen admits that there are problems with the “Third-Worldist” theory that he and his organization applied in the 70s-80s, and he admits that the imperialist system today is in crisis and that the “the objective conditions for social change are good.”, in his final conclusions he joins the other revisionists and social-chauvinists, claiming that Marxism and proletarian revolution have “failed”, that one should not destroy the old reactionary states and build the new ones — because “the tools of state power are effective tools of oppression; they are not effective tools of change.” (ibid.). Instead of proletarian revolution, Lauesen proposes following the example of the Zapatistas, of “not to take power, but to exercise it.” (Subcomandante Marcos). He cites so many examples of organizations, governments and reformist movements and “post-Marxists” who supposedly represent the “new path” that must be followed, but he does not mention even with one word the People’s War in Peru, which, since its initiation in 1980 develops as beacon and guide for millions of revolutionary workers and peasants in the world, and he only mentions the people’s war in India in passing.

Conclusions

The current situation is that imperialism finds itself in its general and final crisis, we are entering a new great wave of world proletarian revolution and a revolutionary situation in uneven development is expressed in the whole world. The world proletarian revolution is in its strategic offensive. While the imperialists unfold their redivision of the world and prepare for a third imperialist world war for world hegemony and to redivide the spoils (the oppressed nations), the revolutionary forces advance against all odds, as is shown in the people’s wars and armed struggles under the banner of Maoism in Peru, in India, in the Philippines and other places, in the national liberation struggles in the Third World and in the violent and heroic struggles of the proletariat, even in the imperialist countries. The oppressed countries are the base of the world revolution, and when the people’s wars of the world will converge in a world people’s war against the imperialist world war, the forces of the oppressed nations will encircle the superpowers and imperialist powers, united with the revolutionary forces who struggle within the belly of the beast in the imperialist countries.

In the imperialist countries the contradiction proletariat-bourgeoisie continues to be the main contradiction, expressing itself in violent struggles in the proletarian neighborhoods, in strikes and protests against the old order. The advance of the revolutions in the Third World are inevitably sharpening the objective conditions in the imperialist countries, creating more and more the conditions for the revolution inside the belly of the beast. Imperialism, reaction and revisionism today strive to reinforce the rear of imperialism*, using social-chauvinist revisionism, fascism and liberalism to mobilize the masses in service of the imperialist war and the bourgeois dictatorship, but at the same time we can already see that there exists new organizations in these countries who are for assuming Maoism and the construction or reconstitution of the Communist Parties as militarized Marxist-Leninist-Maoist parties, applying the universal ideology to specific conditions to prepare, initiate and develop people’s war.

The essence of “Third-Worldism” is to negate these Marxist truths and replace them with old and rotten bourgeois “theories”. Some do it in a more open way, like Lauesen; others try to present their “Third-Worldism” as a “development” or an “application” of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, but in every case it is nothing but a pretext for not doing revolutionary work in the imperialist countries; to postpone the revolution and limit themselves to legal work of creating public opinion or “supporting” the struggles in the Third World. The Communists, on the other hand, uphold the principle that the best way to support revolutions in other countries is to make revolution in one’s own country.

“This is the way we understand the great importance of the principal contradiction that we uphold. There are some who don't agree, and think that what's really going on is that we don't believe in revolution in the imperialist countries. We believe that these revolutions are a historical necessity and that the development of the principal contradiction provides them with more favorable conditions, and that even a world war will provide more favorable conditions for them to make revolution. And revolution will be made because it is a necessity. In the end, the two great forces, the two great revolutions, the democratic revolution and the socialist revolution must converge so that revolution may triumph in the world. Otherwise, it would not be possible to eliminate imperialism and reaction from the whole planet. That's what we think.

The question poses itself: what is the key point? It is Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, because it is a question of having a just and correct ideological and political line, and you can't have a just and correct political line unless you have a just and correct ideology. For that reason, we think that the key to everything is ideology: Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, principally Maoism. Secondly, the development of Communist Parties. Why? Because the masses thirst for revolution, the masses are ready and clamor for revolution. So the problem does not lie with them. The proletariat clamors for revolution, the oppressed nations, the peoples of the world clamor for revolution. So we need to develop Communist Parties. The rest, I repeat, will be done by the masses, they are the makers of history and they will sweep imperialism and world reaction away with people's war.” (Interview With Presidente Gonzalo, 1988)

________________________________________________________________________

* "And the most important thing in all this is that Social-Democracy [revisionism] is the main channel of imperialist pacifism within the working class -- consequently, it is capitalism's main support among the working class in preparing for new wars and intervention. / But for the preparation of new wars pacifism alone is not enough, even if it is supported by so serious a force as Social-Democracy. For this, certain means of suppressing the masses in the imperialist centres are also needed. It is impossible to wage war for imperialism unless the rear of imperialism is strengthened. It is impossible to strengthen the rear of imperialism without suppressing the workers. And that is what fascism is for.” (J.V. Stalin – Results of the July Plenum of the C.C, C.P.S.U.(B) of the U.S.S.R.)

0 notes

samuelcarveraccidentman · 6 years

Text

In a better, fairer, world Oleg Gordievsky would be as famous as Kim Philby

Jeremy Corbyn isn't just wrong. He's wrong for all the wrong reasons

Not all countries are equal. Not all perspectives are equally valid

Buying the books you hoped you’d be given for Christmas is one of January’s consolations. And so my initial response to reading Ben Macintyre’s The Spy and the Traitor was to think that in a better, fairer, world Oleg Gordievsky would be as famous as Kim Philby. That he is not may be thought a reflection of the British enthusiasm for failure and a concurrent suspicion that boasting about triumph is not quite the done thing.

Nevertheless, the recruitment and cultivation of Gordievsky, who rose to be the KGB’s rezident, or head of station, in London was one of MI6’s greatest achievements and one that, as Macintyre makes clear, played a significant part in changing the course of the Cold War.

That conflict is now sometimes, I think, seen as something quaint or even esoteric. Something which, for all its cloak and dagger drama, already belongs to a long distant, vanished, world. A struggle, moreover, in which there were precious few good guys, only degrees of bad fellows. This is less an act of historical revisionism than one of memory loss. One of the great virtues of Macintyre’s story (though it is not the primary focus of the book) is the manner in which it reveals that Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were right. The Soviet Union, a giant gulag in effect, really was an evil empire. Its defeat was neither predestined nor trivial.

Gordievsky was born into the KGB. His father and his elder brother were each KGB officers. It never seemed likely the younger Gordievsky would not follow in their footsteps. To be KGB was to be part of the Soviet elite. But doubts set in early. As a young trainee Gordievsky was in Berlin when the wall was built, imprisoning East Germans in a country millions wanted nothing more than to leave. The crushing of the Prague Spring in 1968 marked a further turning point on Gordievsky’s road to what Macintyre calls his “whole-souled” and “righteous” betrayal.

The story of Gordievsky’s recruitment and handling — Macintyre has interviewed all of the MI6 officers who worked with and protected their plum asset — is an epic one, told superbly. But it is more than just a real-life spy caper; it is strikingly contemporary too. Gordievsky now lives in a suburban house, somewhere in the home counties. He is under 24 hour protection; a death sentence issued by the Russians years ago remains active. And as the cases of Alexander Litvinenko and Sergei Skripal remind us, such fatwas should not be taken lightly.

The intelligence provided by Gordievsky helped London and Washington understand the paranoia rampant in late-Soviet Moscow. The Soviets feared the West was preparing a first-strike nuclear attack; that in turn required the USSR to prepare for its own first-strike assault. For a time, the world teetered closer to disaster than at any point since the Cuban missile crisis. At a time of mutual suspicion and incomprehension, Gordievsky’s intelligence opened a crucial window of understanding.

Get more from CapX

Join us on Facebook

Subscribe to Free Exchange, the CapX podcast

His greatest triumph came when Mikhail Gorbachev visited the UK shortly before he became General Secretary of the Communist Party. Gorbachev had been identified as the coming man and there was the sense of a possibility; a whiff that this was, as Mrs Thatcher observed, a “man with whom we could do business”. The visit was a success, partly because the two politicians were, literally, on the same page. Gordievsky was, in his twin roles as head of political activity at the Russian embassy in London and as MI6’s KGB asset, briefing both sides. In hindsight, that visit was a moment in which an end to the Cold War became possible.

But if the struggle ended peacefully, it also ended with victors and losers. The Western allies were not the only parties in the former camp; so were the peoples of occupied eastern Europe and, in many respects and despite all their subsequent tribulations, the Russian people too.

And yet, here we are again. Russian campaigns of disinformation and interference are but the latest manifestation of the “active measures” once pursued by the KGB. It is tempting — and a temptation to which too many people are too prone to succumb — to view these as over-hyped absurdities. What is sillier, the interference or taking it too seriously? Looking reality in the face, as George Orwell recommended, is never as easy or attractive or popular as you might wish it to be.

Hence, too, the manner in which the Cold War has been reinterpreted as a battle between forces of competing iniquity. If they were bad, at least they were honestly bad, whereas we in the West prefer to ignore our own crimes. Better this perverse form of Soviet honesty than this Western hypocrisy. This is a view inculcated and encouraged, it must be said, by the novels of John Le Carré, in which the aims of policy are typically ignored in favour of a concentration on the means.

Now the means matter, but so do the ends. And that, whatever the Russians and their sympathisers here may think, makes a necessary and important difference. The CIA might indeed have entire warehouses full of skeletons but the distinction between open societies which compromise their values in the protection of those values and closed societies whose crimes are a confirmation of their ethos is a distinction upon which it remains vital to insist. Not all countries are equal; not all perspectives are equally valid.

Saying so seems to be unfashionable these days. Last summer, a mini-storm erupted when the left-wing writer and activist Ash Sarkar boasted “I’m literally a communist” during an appearance on ITV”s This Morning. (She also, less divisively, called Piers Morgan an “idiot”). Suddenly Twitter had all the Takes: Communism, or at least some imagined version of it, was hip. The Guardian, alert as ever to its readership, offered a forum for duelling visions of a left-wing utopia. The gist, I think, was “Communism: not always as good in practice as in theory but you can’t have everything”.

Elsewhere on CapX

John Ashmore: Cooking up a solution to our bad food habits

Alan Lockey: Brexit will be Jeremy Corbyn’s Waterloo

Dalibor Rohac: Has Hungary finally had enough of Viktor Orbán?

Sunder Katwala: Britain needs to stop fighting yesterday’s immigration battles

Oliver Wiseman: A no deal Brexit is exactly the wrong kind of gamble

Or, as Owen Jones put it, while you can’t forget, or even forgive, the “unspeakable, monstrous crimes” committed by “regimes that took the name ‘communist’” it is important to remember that “the charge sheet against communism does not aid the champions of capitalism quite as much as they would like”. But of course it doesn’t have to. That is, the crimes of communism exist independently of any shortcomings or cruelty or exploitation elsewhere.

One feature of the modern British left — or at least that portion of the left which now controls the Labour party — is that no stone of Whataboutery can be left unturned. Jeremy Corbyn’s policy preferences matter much less than his instincts and his instincts are drearily predictable. The West, including the UK, may never be given the benefit of the doubt, its antagonists always must be.

Which made Corbyn’s reaction to the Skripal poisoning instructive. In the first place, everyone should calm down. State-sponsored assassinations on British territory are no great deal. In the second place, the prudent thing would be to send the evidence to Russia and ask them what they made of it. As I say, this was revealing and all too typical. It was the purest illustration of the Corbynite worldview anyone could hope — or fear — to see.

And that matters. Or, at any rate, it should matter. Politicians should be judged by why they think the way they think as well as on the merits of the actual thoughts themselves. Considered in those terms, Corbyn is found wanting. It is not merely that he is so often wrong but that he is wrong for all the wrong reasons. One of the many merits of Ben Macintyre’s account of Oleg Gordievsky’s heroic career of treachery is to remind us why that matters too.

0 notes