First written in 1988, but still more true and valid than ever before. For scholars, writers, students, researchers, talk-show hosts, and others.
Beginning in 1986 under the General Secretary of the Communist Party, Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet Union instituted dramatic and wide-ranging reforms. Soviet society was opened up to “criticism” and debate through a policy known as “Glasnost” and in the Soviet economy, a process was started known as “perestroika” to revitalize and restructure the Soviet economy. As part of the economic reforms, a more moderate stance was taken in domestic and foreign policy. A charismatic leader, Gorbachev was widely hailed as representing a “new breed” of leader and became widely popular in Europe and the United States. Today (March 1999), there is no doubt that fundamental changes appear to have taken place. But did the Soviet Union depart from basic tenets of Marxist-Leninist ideology? Or are the reforms a mere subterfuge to deceive and mislead the west and actually represent a subtle “tactical shift” in an overall Marxist-Leninist strategy designed for eventual worldwide domination? Answers to these questions are extremely vital.
Ever since the Bolshevik revolution in 1917, people have disagreed over what communism really is and what it is that the communists really want. Some have hoped that changes would modify or topple the Soviet System. They have looked at various periods of softening of Soviet policy as indications that such modifications were advances towards freedom or western styled democracies. Others have consistently maintained a deep suspicion and mistrust towards the Soviet System, and have cited Soviet conduct as proof of Soviet desire for worldwide domination.
A quick look at the Soviet Union’s track record is convincing evidence that an accurate perception of the policies first instituted by Gorbachev is needed. According to the French magazine, “Le Figaro”, communism has directly caused the deaths of 150 million people.1 Estimates are that an additional 2 billion people are in some kind of political slavery.2 Just since the fall of Vietnam in 1975, over eleven countries came under Marxist governments.3 Insurrections, wars, and Marxist inspired terrorist activities in the Philippines, Guatemala, El Salvador, Peru, Lebanon, Chad, Columbia and many other countries around the world.4 In light of this dismal track record, accurate perceptions of Glasnost and Perestroika are vital. Any misperceptions could lead to severe and lasting consequences not only for the United States but the entire free world.
Trying to understand the (former?) Soviet Union and their sometimes contradictory and conflicting policies and actions without understanding their ideology is fruitless and confusing. Winston Churchill, once said, that trying to figure out their actions without understanding the ideology that motivates them and underlies their actions, was like trying to unroll “a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.”5 According to the Causa institute, it would be naive to think that the “ideological and moral parameters of Marxism-Leninism are the same as our own.”6 Charles Marshall observed that “in the language of game theory, communists and noncommunists are like opponents playing different games by different rules on the same board.”7 To understand Soviet conduct a correct understanding of Marxist-Leninist thought is necessary.
Any meaningful analysis of Glasnost-Perestroika must take into account the basic ideology that guides Soviet policy. By looking at the ideology I will show in this article that the policies of Glasnost-Perestroika are rooted in and derive sustenance from Marxist-Leninist ideology. Furthermore, that the policies of Glasnost-Perestroika are consistent with the nature of Marxist-Leninist “tactical shifts” in an overall strategy designed to achieve worldwide domination. The past can be a key to the future and past tactical shifts can be compared to the current policy to demonstrate that the purpose of the current shifts are to strengthen the Soviet Union economically, militarily, diplomatically and socially in order to further their aim of world-domination, to broaden appeal of the Soviet Union, and to placate the West in order to extract all sorts of aid, trade and political concessions, and to negotiate arms reduction agreements–all to the (former) Soviet Union’s advantage.
What is the ideology that guides the (former?) Soviet Union in formulating their domestic and foreign policies? According to Marx, there is a revolution occurring which is progressive in nature and results from the conflict of two opposing, interacting forces. These two forces, called the Thesis and Antithesis, culminate at a critical nodal point where the existing system is overthrown and a new system is established called the Synthesis. This process, called Dialectical Materialism,7a Marx applied to the historical development and explained the whole course of history in those terms. Historical Materialism contends that this revolutionary concept of social change has gone through several steps. It first began with a primitive classless communal society where all property was held in common which was overthrown by a slave society, in turn overthrown by a feudal society, which was then overturned by a capitalist society, which will then be eventually overthrown by a socialist society which will enable a classless communist society to once again be established. Marxism, is, therefore, a doctrine of class warfare which is universal in nature. This class warfare would culminate in a revolution which is “historically inevitable” according to the “science” and “laws” of Marxism. In the final stage from the capitalist to the socialist society, it would be the actions of the working class or “proletariat” who would perform the actions to overthrow capitalist society.8
Lenin modified Marxist theory to include the Communist Party as the spearhead or “vanguard” of the proletariat which would perform the task of consummating the universal class war into world communist victory. As the vanguard, the Communist Party was to be composed only of professional revolutionaries, comprised of both covert and overt members, who would wage the war against the capitalist society. The basic doctrine of Marxism-Leninism therefore, is that a state of war exists and that the Communist Party was created to win this war.
Once they had obtained power, this vanguard would establish a transitional political rule known as the “dictatorship of the proletariat”. In the Soviet Union, this dictatorship of the proletariat is the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Once socialism had been achieved then supposedly the dictatorship would vanish, communism would be established, and the state would “wither” away. Lenin called it a dictatorship of the proletariat because it would use “force whenever necessary to suppress the resistance of the exploiting classes and the activity of the elements hostile to socialism.”9 Marxist-Leninists hold that constructing socialism is impossible without the dictatorship of the proletariat. How the dictatorship would function and operate would be determined by what is needed to be done to build socialism. Its ultimate goal would be to strengthen the socialist state to the point where Communism could then be established.
A Strong economic base is essential. To strengthen the state would require “vigorous development of the economy in order to provide the electrical power, materials, resources, the science, and technology necessary for the victory of the communist system.”10 The Dictatorship of the Proletariat would work out “the general perspective of development of the society, establish a correct political line, and organize the working people to institute the line.”11 Marxist-Leninist theory would be realized in practice by the establishment of “proletarian dictatorships” throughout the globe as the necessary prerequisite to the transition from capitalism to socialism, and the “withering away” of the state.12 In the Communist view “whatever the form in which the transition from capitalism to socialism is effected, that transition can come about only through revolution.”13
A principle known as “Democratic Centralism”14 would operate within the Communist Party as a self-correcting and feedback system in order to ultimately strengthen the Soviet social and economic system. This principle first had its origin in Imperial Russia under Tsar Nicolas 1’s reign (1825-1855). It was put in force in Tsarist Russia to provide constructive criticism for much needed social and economic reforms. It served as “an effective tool for correcting failures of bureaucratic institutions and twarting corrupt practices among officials.”15
Known as “Glasnost” under Tsar Nicolas 1, Lenin reintroduced the concept into the Communist state as a “leadership initiated and leadership regulated criticism designed, to reverse undesirable socio-economic trends.”16 Lenin, in fact stated:
everything that takes place at a socialist enterprise should be made public [In Russian: Predavit Glasnost]. The shortcomings in the economic activity of each and every commune should be disclosed to the public. We need public criticism which will expose the evils of our economy, strike a responsive chord with the public and help us cure social problems17
One function of “democratic centralism” or “Glasnost” then, is to strengthen the Soviet Economy so that “revolution” can be carried on and eventual worldwide domination assured. Another function of Glasnost (called “democratic centralism” by Lenin) was to stimulate public participation in political life, that is to say, to strengthen the regime’s legitimacy.”18 Lenin further said, “the state is strong when the masses know everything, render their opinions on every issue, and consciously respond to every policy.”19 In other words, the Soviet people are more apt to believe and support the Government in its goals and designs if public participation were allowed. However, under Lenin, there were limits to how far criticism and debate could go. There was no free flow of information as we know it. Whatever was said had to promote the best interests of socialism and there were strict parameters within which divergent opinions could be voiced. Under Lenin, the Bolsheviks established pre-publication censorship and officially banned criticism of the new regime. Military tribunals were also established under organs of State Security. To Lenin, such repressive measures were not inconsistent with the policy of democratic-centralism which allowed for a relatively free debate on controversial policy issues.
The principle of democratic-centralism (Glasnost) was continued under Stalin. Stalin said in 1928:
In order to move forward and improve relations between the people and the leaders we should keep the valve of self-criticism open. We should give the Soviet people an opportunity to criticize their leaders for their mistakes so that the leaders do not put on airs and the masses do not distance themselves from their leaders20
Article 3 of the Soviet Constitution introduced by Stalin in 1936 states that:
the Soviet State is organized and functions on the principles of democratic-centralism. . . democratic centralism combines leadership with local initiative and creative activity. . .21
Although free speech, free press, freedom of assembly, etc. are provided under Article 50 of the Soviet Constitution, these “freedoms” are “guaranteed” only if “in accordance with the interests of the people and in order to strengthen and develop the socialist system.”22 However, as stated under Articles 3 and 6, what is in the interests of the people and what develops and strengthens the socialist system is decided by the Communist Party and its leadership, the Politburo.23
The principle of democratic-centralism has been an integral part of Marxist-Leninist ideology and has been carried on by all of Lenin’s successors in one form or another. When Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev introduced his policies of Glasnost they certainly were not anything new or fundamentally different. Gorbachev stated that the purpose of the reforms are to make sure that a transition from “an overly centralized command system of management” occurs to one based on a “combination of centralism and self-management” and further that “the party will tolerate no changes from the adopted principles of the economic reform.”24 In other words the reforms were meant to assess the problems of the Soviet social and economic systems in order to deal with the necessary changes. However, the “freedom of discussion” allowed under Glasnost remains clearly controlled by the Party.
What Gorbachev is doing is removing some of the more despotic features of Glasnost as practiced by Stalin.25 These despotic features included:
severe punishment for the mere expression of dissenting opinion, rigid limitations upon allowed literary expressions, state control over all other forms of artistic endeavor, punishment for criticism of any state official or any official action, etc.26
Gorbachev’s Glasnost policy is nothing more than the modern version of the old self-criticism tool to strengthen the economic and social systems, first used in Tsarist Russia, later used by Lenin and each successive Soviet leader. Consequences of a much-strengthened economy and social structure in the Soviet Union should be obvious to anyone.
Two other fundamental principles of Marxist-Leninist ideology need to be mentioned to further understand Gorbachev’s Glasnost and Perestroika policies. These are the “Dialectical nature of advance” and “communist morality“. Concerning “Communist morality”, we have seen that the basic doctrine of Marxism-Leninism is that a state of war exists and that the Communist Party was created to win this war In order to win this war, Lenin taught that the Communists should be ready to resort to “any trick, ruse or illegal method.”27
A Afanasayev,a Communist theoretician, taught that “from the point of view of communist morality, that which promotes the movement of society toward communism is moral.”28 In other words, the end justifies the means. Any means or methods therefore to advance the revolutionary cause, whether it involved lies, deception, murder, etc. would be justified by the end result-Communism. A fundamental part of Marxist-Leninist ideology is therefore trickery and deceit. A well documented study by Raymond S. Sleeper shows that the Soviets have used lies, deceit and downright chicanery in arms control, treaties, deployment of nuclear weapons, the “peace movement” use of words, in religion, the economy, etc.29 Sleeper estimates that the Soviets also spend the equivalent of three to four billion dollars a year on strategic and tactical disinformation in the United States.30
A major portion of this disinformation campaign against the West is spent by the Soviets concerning the “latest” policy changes by Gorbachev and the Eastern European Satellites. Thus Sleeper tell us the latest propaganda goes somewhat like this:
Do not concern yourself with the past, the Soviet Union is changing, we are told. Their ideology is dead. Nobody believes anymore. The system is merely driven by bureaucratic momentum. As soon as the leadership dies off, a new moderate element will take power. It is important for the United States to play to these moderates and not be too tough. Give their new policies and desires for peace a chance to take root and grow. Their economy is a disaster, and the government is rotten with despotism. The younger moderates know this, and their first priority is to implement changes. The West should see that internal pressures make reform inescapable, and it should encourage its implementation by providing a fertile climate for changed relaxation of tension and an increase in trade-in which the dominating influences can grow.
This sounds eminently logical, precisely what we would like to believe is the case. Only one problem: It is totally wrong. It is a very effective Soviet deception, one that dates back many years-well over half a century.31
Recently, we are hearing that if we don’t support the Soviets by Feeding their people, Continue their “
most favored nation trading status” and other forms of aid and trade that the result will be a return of the so called “hard liners”, a return to “Stalinism”. This is just the sort of disinformation the Soviets would like us to believe. What makes this scenario all the more diabolical is that when the Soviets do return to a “hard line”, blame will be placed on us because we didn’t help the Soviets enough.
Part of the Soviet strategy of deception lies in their use of strategic policy changes. In the seventy-three years since the Bolshevik revolution the Soviets have implemented several shifts or changes in their foreign and economic policies. Lenin and his followers have justified sudden shifts in policy by the concept of the “dialectical nature of advance” The Communist slogan is: “nature acts dialectically.(32)” Dr. Fred Schwarz, President of the Christian Anti-Communism Crusade has portrayed it as follows:
Wishing to advance in a room full of people, I do not walk through the aisle and straight toward my goal. Nor do I move slowly through the crowd shaking hands with friends and acquaintences, discussing points of interest, gradually nearing the objective. The dialectical pathway is different. It consists of a resolute forward advance followed by an abrubt turn and retreat. Having retreated a distance there is another turn and advance. Through a series of forward backward steps the goal is approached. To advance thus is to advance dialectically. The Communist goal is fixed and changeless, but their direction of advance reverses itself from time to time. They approach their goal by going directly away from it a considerable portion of the time. Lenin wrote the textbook, One Step Forward, Two Steps Back. Chinese Communist schoolchildren are taught to do the dialectical march taking three steps forward and two steps back. If we judge where the Communists are going by the direction in which they are moving we will obviously be deceived.33
Soviet leaders from Lenin to Gorbachev have been masters of dialectical theory. While the Main Goal and strategy of the Communists remain the same (overall world domination) their tactics adopted to achieve their goal changes and varies from time to time. In promoting this dialectical nature of advance doctrine, Lenin had to contend with two major factions or splits of the communist Party. He claimed that they failed to understand dialectical theory. He termed these two splits the Left-wing or dogmatists and the right-wing or reformists. He opposed the left-wing for being too dogmatic and insisting on absolute control over the revolution and for not being willing to compromise or use tactical methods vis a vis the dialectical nature of advance. Hence he found it neccessary to chide his followers who were unhappy because the revolutionary struggle had to wait for a better moment by declaring that true revolutionists must learn how to combine their skill in attack “with the skill in retreating in revolutionary order.”34 He also condemned the right-wing for being evolutionary (acheiving Communism gradually through democratic means) rather than revolutionary (acheiving power through violent means) and their unwillingness to use illegal methods to gain power. Hence he says concerning the reformists:
To a reformist, reforms are everything while revolutionary work is just something to talk about, a diversion. Therefore, with reformist tactics under the existing bourgeois system, reforms inevitably serve as an insturment for strengthening that regime, an instrument that disintegrates the revolution…the revolutionary [on the other hand] will accept a reform in order to use it as a means wherewith to link legal work with illegal work, in order to use it as a screen behing which his illegal activities for the revolutionary preparation of the masses for the overthrow of the bourgeoisis may be intensified35
Thus, Lenin and his successors have justified sudden shifts in policy to their comrades by the “dialectical nature of advance.”
Boris Ponomarev wrote a major article for Kommunist (the house organ of the Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party) in 1971 which stated that the communists were still seeking a world-wide revolution (they were then in a major policy shift called “detente”) and that to remain faithful to “scientific communism” the revolutionists must master “all forms and methods of the class struggle, including the ability to perform fast tactical switches.”36 Gorbachev, in his book Perestroika said in reference to the shift his new policy was now taking that “Lenin never believed that the road to socialism,would be straight, he knew how to change slogans when life required it.”37 That the Dialectical nature of advance is in fact a guiding principle of their ideology can be demonstrated from Soviet history. At least ten distinct left-right shifts in Soviet domestic and foreign policy have been identified.38 Consider the following table:
|2.||1921-1928||Right||New Economic Policy (NEP)|
|8 a.||1964-1972||Right||Moribund Krushchevism|
|9.||1973-1982||Left||Support for Marxist-Leninist Vanguard Parties|
Table 1: Ten Periods of Soviet Third World Policy
Dates Orientation Shift Characterization
- 1917-1921 Left War Communism
- 1921-1928 Right New Economic Policy (NEP)
- 1928-1935 Left “Third Period”
- 1935-1939 Right Popular Front
- 1939-1941 Left Nazi-Soviet Pact
- 1941-1947 Right Wartime Alliance
7 1947-1952 Left Zhdanovschina
- 1954-1964 Right Krushchev’s “Opening”
8 a. 1964-1972 Right Moribund Krushchevism
- 1973-1982 Left Support for Marxist-Leninist Vanguard Parties
- 1982-1986 Right Andropov’s policy
- 1986-Present Right Glasnost-Perestroika
When the orientation turns left, this is a period of expansion or attempted expansion, when the orientation turns right its a time to consolidate gains, a time of retrenchment to protect gains made and strengthen for the future. Thus in the first left period from the Bolshivik revolution of 1917 to 1921, the Communists came to power in Russia and efforts were made to come to power in Germany, Poland, Hungary and Bavaria.39 The next “left” period from 1928 to 1935, “led to abortive uprisings in China, Indochina and Brazil“40 and “the international Communist movement sought to take advantage of a worldwide depression to stir up revolutionary activity.“41 The third “left” period known as the Nazi-Soviet pact saw attempts at impeding the war efforts of the allied powers and Soviet forces invaded Poland, Finland, the Baltic States and Romania. The fourth “left” period, right after World War II saw the Chinese Communists come to power, the Eastern European countries go communist, the North Koreans invade the South and attempts made to come to power in Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Burma and India. Some disagreement is present among scholars in the dating of the fourth left period by splitting the right “wartime alliance” into two separate periods: the first, a defensive cycle from 1941-1943, where the propaganda emphasis was on “save the USSR”; the second was an offensive cycle, whose purpose was to extract major military and political concessions from the West and in this cycle the USSR gained control of Eastern and Central Europe and dominance in Manchuria and North Korea.42 The last left period (the fifth) saw a tremendous expansion into South Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Guinea-Bissau, Sau Tome and Principe, Angola, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, Nicaragua and Cape Verde. In this last expansionist period, Brezhnev, took advantage of the anti-war and anti-Vietnam sentiment in this country as well as a somewhat wary congress because of a new President due to the “Watergate Scandal, and started two new aggressive policies:
the creation and deployment of intermediate nuclear missiles and a series of expansionist moves to establish Marxist governments into various parts of Africa and the near east.43
Right wing shifts were characterized by the Soviets putting off hopes “for the immediate seizure of power” and instead concentrated on strengthening the Soviet state and adopted a “longer term strategy of building influence through the cultivation of alliances with noncommunists.44 Thus, before World War II, Stalin knew that the Soviet Union was weaker than the West and Stalin stated that “it was the party’s task to buy time by laying off the capitalists and to take all measures to maintain peaceful relations,”45 and that “Our relations with the capitalist countries are based on the assumption that the coexistence of the two opposing systems is possible. Practice has fully confirmed this.”46 Gorbachev himself stated in referring to the New Economic Policy (NEP) that “the measures of the New Economic were directed to building socialisms material foundations.”47
A strengthened economy for the Soviet Union would result in a strengthened military. Soviet expert, Dale Herspring, in referring to the strengthening of the Soviet Union currently occurlng under the right wing shift of “Perestroika said that if it is successful in building up the economy that more resources would be available for the military and that “the military threat facing the west could increase significantly” and that Gorbachev is out to do his best “to improve Soviet performance in this key area-the military48
During the Popular Front period, many thought we would live side by side with the Soviet Union.49 Martin and Rees, two Soviet experts, commented concerning the wartime alliance that:
the Nazi invasion converted the Soviets into a Jeffersonian Democracy, during the Wartime alliance the Soviets abused and exploited every extension of good faith and trust by Americans who were anxious to aid the allied cause…whole industrial processes, entire turnkey refineries, strategic raw materials, scientific instruments, radio manufacturing plants…and thousands of designs, drawings, paints and proprietary secrets sluiced out to the USSR by air and sea.50
Former ambassador and special advisor to President Reagan, Paul H. Nitze, has written concerning the various tactical shifts the communists have undergone that:
The Communists have a flexible view with respect to strategy. They think that strategy should, from time to time, be altered to reflect changes in the ‘correlation of forces’. In the correlation of forces they include not only military forces, but economic, political and psychological factors as well. When the correlation of forces is favorable to their ends, their doctrine calls on them to exploit the favorable correlation by moving forward. When the correlation is negative, the doctrine calls upon them to hold or to retreat while they attempt to reverse the adverse trends. With respect to tactics, the Communists believe there should be great flexibility. The guiding thoughts should be deception and surprise51
Nitze further argued that one of the purposes of Gorbachev’s current policies is to broaden appeal of the Soviet Union.52 He stated that dissatisfaction of the Soviet Union was widespread and that the Soviet Union had expanded with certain disadvantages.53 He stated that while Soviet influence has increased and its military power increased that Soviet attractiveness was diminished.54 He cites all these factors as having a bearing on Soviet policy evaluation.
In formulating their domestic and foreign policies and strategies it is Marxist -Leninist ideology as perceived by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union which is the prism through which the policy makers view the world. They have to believe in the dogma because it is the foundation holding the regime in power. Any concession or compromise on this dogma would be suicidal for the regime and the effects on Soviet domination throughout the world would be shattering and incalculable. Soviet leaders believe (or at least pretend to believe) in Marxist-Leninist ideology because it is the linchpin of the system. It gives the Soviet Union legitimacy without which it couldn’t justify its crimes. Thus, Gorbachev in outlining his “new” policy in his book, Perestroika, bases every argument he uses in Lenin. Any illusion that gorbachev is departing from Marxism-Leninism is dispelled when the reader discovers reference after reference to Lenin. Gorbachev cites or refers to Lenin at least thirty-six times in the first chapter and seven times in half a page.55
Another interesting feature of the last three “right-wing” shifts in tactics, is that when each of these shifts has occurred, history books are rewritten, denouncements are made about past soviet leaders who were supposedly in error on doctrine, attempts are made by party ideologues to “correct” the mistakes and great efforts are resorted to in researching the writings of Lenin to prove that the new leader is the “true heir” of Lenin. When Khrushchev came to power he announced his new “liberalization policy” by a so called “secret speech” which denounced Stalin and his “crimes”. Shortly thereafter the history books were rewritten, and Stalin was berated for committing ideological sins and (on the Communist spectrum) castigated for having gone too far to the “left”. After a period of reform, however, Krushchev was replaced and likewise berated for having gone too far “right”, for being too much of a revisionist and Stalin once again brought back into prominence. Currently, under Gorbachev’s regime similar “admissions” of Stalinist crimes have occurred. Within one-month following Krushchev’s speech, the concept to change in the Soviet Union was front-page news. Harrison Salisbury writing for the New York Times on March 25, 1956 stated the following:
It is no longer possible to discuss what is happening in Moscow since the death of Stalin in terms of “tactical change” or “strategic maneuver”…perhaps a word like revolution is still too strong to use. Perhaps not. In the Soviet Union itself they are beginning to talk of the changes in terms comparing them to the spring break-up of ice on a Siberian river56
If one stands too close to the trees he cannot see the whole forest. Likewise, unless we step far enough back to see the whole forest we will fail to understand the current changes. If we do see the whole forest, it becomes apparent that the different left-right shifts in policy are a well thought out plan of dialectical advance. The idea is to pursue the left-wing tactics as far as they will take you, then back up, retreat, build up and pursue the right-wing tactics to their fullest and thus over a period of time fulfill the dream of worldwide communism.
The current denouncement of Stalin and his “crimes” are merely propaganda for the western press. Proof that they are a hoax comes from high-ranking Soviet defectors. Jan Sejna, a high ranking Czech. Official who defected in 1968 is quoted as saying:
Krushchev’s denunciation of Stalin was a ploy to convince the West that the Soviet Union was changing. The economy of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe were still in a war economy and his plan was to end the Cold War and replace it with “peaceful co-existence” in order to make western technology and economic assistance available. The only way to convince the West quickly was to blame the east on the shoulders of the only person responsible-Stalin57
Solzhenitsyn had the following to say concerning this false liberalization:
And then the word Stalinism was thought up. It’s a term, which became very popular. Even in the West they often say now: ‘if only the Soviet Union doesn’t return to Stalinism’ This was contrived by Krushchev and his group in order to shift onto Stalin all of the characterizations and all of the principal defects of Communism. It was a very effective move58
When changes in leadership occur, the West is confused over which direction the “New” Soviet leader will take us.Soviet defector Vladimir Bukovsky was quoted as saying concerning these leadership changes:
The death of each Soviet leader is perceived in the West as a change in the attitude or policies of the Regime. The media, public, experts become terribly excited. They discuss in great detail the new leaders personality, his wife, habits, tastes, etc. But this demonstrates profound ignorance. After 69 years the West still has not perceived that the Soviet system is not an autocracy but a totalitarian machine. Which is why the Soviet system is so dangerous. The Communist leader is just a figurehead(59)
The fact that the Soviet Premier is just a figure-head who carries out the wishes of the Politburo is evidenced by the fact that Brezhnev, Andropov, and others were nearly dead at the end of their careers and yet for months their letters, printed statements, etc. continued to appear as if they were still in command.60
Krushchev came to power in 1953, yet his “secret speech” denouncing Stalin didn’t occur until 1956. Why did it take three years for Krushchev to “realize” Stalin’s errors? The real reason for the shift in policy was to deceive the West. In the same year he denounced Stalin, he brutally repressed the freedom fighters in Hungary. Krushchev’s denouncement of Stalin was nothing more than a hoax.
Gorbachev and his policy makers, the Politburo, are no doubt planning the next expansionist policy. The World is now being “set up” for this impending right shift. As soon as the Politburo decides the time is right, the Soviet Union will once again embark on an expansionist policy. Scores of articles and “analyses” have been written claiming that the reason for Glasnost-Perestroika is to stimulate the economy and that unless the reforms succeed Gorbachev will be in trouble because of “conservative” resistance to his reforms. Such disinformation is nothing more that a trick and a ruse to convince people that Gorbachev is sincere and that the West should help more in aid and trade to prevent a return to “Stalinism”. Here’s a sample article from the L A Times:
For the reforms, Gorbachev is looking to the past and borrowing elements of a market economy in consumer goods with state control of the ‘commanding heights’ of industry. But there is a genuine fear that before the reforms have a chance to work the next few years will produce economic disarray. This is seen by some as likely to encourage the conservative resistance to the reforms and would see to its termination, thereby extinguishing any hope for a long-term transformation of Soviet Society(61)
Recent news reports of”Neo-Stalinists” surfacing in the Soviet Union further verify this conclusion.
At least one other area–where the West is being “set-up” to a return to Stalinism is in the so-called “Nationalism problem”. Again, scores of articles have been written concerning the rising nationalist groups. A top Communist party official has been quoted (no doubt disinformation) as saying that “nationalism is the most dangerous phenomenon5~hat can occur in our situation. It’s what we are most Afraid of.”62 The news article where this was reported then went on to say that the Nationalistic problems might reach the point where they can’t be controlled and then the Soviet Union would have no alternative but to step in and suppress counter-revolutionary forces.63
Another facet of Gorbachev’s policies is to placate the West into believing that the “cold war” is over and to negotiate arms reduction agreements while at the same time extracting aid and trade from the West as part of a process to weaken the West. Soviet ideologue Possony has written concerning this strategy the following:
This is a most fundamental rule of communist strategy in that the use of violence must be preceded, accompanied, and followed by techniques aiming at demoralization and at preventing the enemy from using violence. Violent means must be camouflaged to the greatest extent possible. The enemy has to be convinced that his own use of violent means would be inadvisable; or, failing this, he must be prevented from employing weapons successfully. Communist strategy can be expressed in a dialectical sequence.
The Thesis reads:
the establishment of world communism is dependent upon the use of force. Therefore, communist forces must be strengthened systematically, to the maximum point.
The Anti-thesis reads:
the destruction of the old society will be most conclusive if the Bourgeoisie forces put up only weak resistance. Their material power and their will to use power must be reduced to the maximum.
will be reached by tearing away elements of strength from bourgeoisie control and adding them to Communist power64
In following this strategy to weaken the West, Gorbachev has entered into several arms reduction agreements while at the same time modernizing his weaponry. Another dimension to weakening the West was announced by Gorbachev in the spring of 1986 at the 27th Party Congress of the Soviet Union. Here he stated that a “new” element now makes up the progressive forces. This new element consists of the “new social movements”-the ecology movement, the peace movement, women’s and gay liberation, etc.65
The purpose of these “forces” would be to stir up the peace and the “new social movements” to demand that the United States and the West enter into arms reduction and other peace agreements and treaties. Of course, Soviet deception in arms control, deployment, treaties, etc. is so notorious that clearly part of Gorbachev’s strategy is to gain military superiority by such negotiations in order to better embark on an expansionist campaign.
What can one say about Glasnost-Perestroika if he looks objectively at the evidence? The evidence is unmistakable that Marxist-Leninist ideology governs the Soviet Union in all of their domestic and foreign policy decisions. Gorbachev has based all his reforms on Lenin. Lenin’s idea was to include the Communist party as the vanguard of the proletariat to achieve the world-wide violent revolution. On November 2, 1987, Gorbachev made the following statement:
In October 1917, we parted with the Old World, rejecting it once and for all. We are moving toward a new world, the world of Communism. We shall never turn off that road66
It is clearly Gorbachev’s intent to establish a worldwide Communist state. He is using the ideologies of Marxism-Leninism to justify an unprecedented military buildup and an “export of revolution” throughout the world. His policies of Glasnost-Perestroika have been designed to help him achieve this. We must not let him succeed.
The historical evidence is clear as to just what Glasnost is: a self-criticism tool to strengthen and legitimize the State.
The evidence is also abundant that the Soviet Union has followed the dialectical nature of advance in all of their policy shifts to date. The Communist strategy is: when weak negotiate, when strong attack. Perestroika, just as the NEP under Lenin, is meant to broaden the Soviet Union’s appeal, strengthen them economically and militarily while at the same time sapping the West through aid and trade.
Evidence is also abundant that the so called historical revisions and denunciations of past Soviet leaders that the Soviet Union undergoes from time to time are merely hoaxes.
Furthermore, the Soviet leaders are mere figureheads in a totalitarian machine and not the “charismatic new breeds” that the disinformation press would have us believe.
Finally consider the following statements from two Communist leaders and two anti-Communist spokesmen:
War to the hilt between communism and capitalism is inevitable. But today we are too weak to strike. Our day will come in 30 to 40 years. But first we must lull the capitalist nations to sleep with the greatest overtures of peace and disarmament known throughout history. And then when their guard is dropped, we will smash them with our clenched fist67
To speak of communism as ended. . . is absurd. This concept of a profoundly democratic society. . . is immortal. Perestroika does not represent abandonment of Communism but purification68
Are Gorbachev’s Glasnost and Perestroika for real? While smiling at Americans, Gorbachev calls for Communists to rededicate themselves to the Leninist cause of world conquest and communism . . . to fully comprehend Gorbachev’s words one must understand that when communists use the term ‘socialism’ they are referring to the present system which the Americans call communism. When communists use the word ‘democracy’ they understand it to mean ‘communism’ Frederich Engels wrote ‘communism today is democracy’ Contemporary communists still use the Engels definition69
More and more people are being lulled into greater complacency…Gorbachev’s motives are to disarm the West and denuclearize NATO…[Gorbachev wants a] massive infusion of financial assistance and to obtain a ‘most favored nation’ status among world economic leaders. If Gorbachev succeeds with this ploy, then it will strengthen and perpetuate a system that is evil70
How then should the United States respond to Glasnost-Perestroika? As lovers of liberty and human rights we welcome any real change towards these freedoms. However, we should exercise extreme caution in dealing with the Soviets who have a proven track record of butchery and abominations. While hoping for the best, we must prepare for the worst. Certainly we should not weaken our position by entering into arms reduction agreements. Nor strengthen the Soviet regime by granting aid and trade. To do so would be to assist in our own destruction.
In the past, we have tried to deal with Communism in different ways. We have pointed out atrocities. We have spoken about the perversions of certain Communist leaders. We have tried to “contain” Communism. However, it is now time to stop Communism.
- Causa Institute, “Causa Lecture Manual”, New York, Causa Institute, 1985. P. 8.
- Ibid. p. 8.
- Ibid. p. 22.
- Ibid. p. 22.
- Winston Churchill, in a speech given 1 October 1939 as found at http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/RusnEnig.html
- Causa Institute, Op Cite, p. 15
- Ibid. p. 15.
- Schwartz, Fred. “You Can Trust The Communists: To Be Communists”, Long Beach, Ca. Chantico Publishing Co., 1969. p. 30.
- “Great Soviet Encyclopedia” 27 vols. Moscow: Sovetakaia Entsiklopedia Publishing House, 1970. vol 3. p. 156.
- Bouscaren, Anthony. Is the Cold War Over?. Falls Church, Va.: the Capitol Hill Press, 1953. p. 8,9. Ibid. p.9. 13.
- Ibid. p. 9.
- Great Soviet Encyclopedia. op cit, vol. 17. p. 201.
- Gross, Problems of Communism. 1988. p. 69.Ibid. p. 70.
- Ibid. P. 70.
19.Ibid. p. 70.
- Ibid. p. 70.
- Ibid. p. 71
- Ibid.Schifter, Richard. Address of Richard Schifter before the American Bar Association in San Francisco August 10, ]987.
24.Gorbachev, Mikhail. “Document: The Revolution and Perestroika.” Foreign Affairs. Winter (87-88), p. 420.
- Schifter, Op cit
- Great Soviet Encyclopedia. Op Cit
- Ibid. under Communist morality.
- Sleeper, Raymond S. Mesmerized by the Bear: The Soviet Strategy of deception. New York: Dodd, Mead and Co. 1987. p.73.
- Ibid. p. 214
- Schwarz, Op cit. p. 152.
33.Ibid. p. 153.
- Lenin, Vladimir I. U.S. Congress. House Committee on Un-American Activities. The Communist Conspiracy: Strategy and Tactics of World Communism. 86th. cong., 2cd. sess., 1960. p. 181.
- Bouscaren. Op Cit 8.
- Gorbachev, Mikhail. Perestroika: New Thinking for our Country and the World. New York: Harper and Row, 1987. p. 8.
- Bouscaren, Op Cit 5; Fukuyama, Francis. “Patterns of Soviet Third World Policy.” Problems of communism. September-October 1987, 113.
39.Bouscaren, Op Cit 112.
- Ibid p. 112.
- Bouscaren, Op Cit 112.
43.Fukuyama 3; Bouscaren 71.
- Timmerman, Heinz. The Decline of the World Communist Movement. Boulder: Westview Press, 1987. pxvii.
- Sleeper, Op Cit. 183.
- Ibid. p. 183
- Gorbachev, Foreiqn Affairs, Op Cit. 410.
- Herspring, Dale R. “On Perestroika: Gorbachev, Yazov and the Military.” Problems of Communism. July-August 1987: 99-107.
- Sleeper, Op Cit. p. 140.
- Ibid. 140.
- Ibid. p. 140.
- Ibid. 184.
53.Ibid. p. 184.
- Ibid. p. 185.
- Gorbachev, Perestroika. Op cit p. 1-26.
- Sleeper., Op cit p. 217.
- Sleeper, Op cit. 216.
- Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr. World Communism. Springfield, Virginia: Global Affairs Publishing company, 1987. p. 57.
- Sleeper, Op cit 327.
- Los Anqeles Times. Oct-Nov 1987.
64.Possony, Stefan T. A Century of Conflict: communist techniques of World Revolution. Chicago: Regnery. 1953. p. 87.
65.Timmerman. Op Cit 45.
66.Gorbachev, Foreign Affairs. Op Citp. 54.
- Manuilski, Dimitri., in a speech to the Lenin School for Political Warfare in Moscow in the 1930’s.
- Aptheker, Herbert. (Communist Theoretician for the Communist Party of the United States of America, CPUSA), San Jose Mercury News, January 7, ]990.
- Stormer, John A. None Dare Call it Treason…25 Years Later, Liberty Bell Press, 1990, 406 pages, indexed, hardbound.
- Funderburk, David. (Former Ambassador to Poland) in a speech delivered to the Americanism foundation in Salt Lake City, Wednesday December 6, 1989, Deseret News, Thursday December 7, 1989 A2,A3.