“May God Help You” – Folha de S. Paulo, May 13, 1973

 

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

 

It is increasingly common for the most important news stories to receive the fewest comments. Thus, a recent and very important speech by Brezhnev at a session of the Russian Communist Party’s Central Committee went unanalyzed in the daily press—at least as far as I know. The event was reported in some detail but without the corresponding journalistic emphasis, and it does not seem to have caught the public’s attention.

Let us therefore address it in today’s note.

* * *

As is known, Nixon is replacing the Cold War regime with one of open collaboration between the communist and free worlds. Incidentally, this collaboration is almost entirely unilateral. While the United States and other free nations are showering Russia with supplies on credit, Russia has almost nothing to offer in return. The solution to the problem will lie in nuclear blackmail. When it comes time to pay, Russia will threaten—perhaps a little veiledly—to go to war if its creditors are not “understanding.” The latter, figuring that war is always more expensive than any commercial loss, will grant reductions and deadlines that amount to practically waiving payment…

Bourgeois cowardice is easily paralyzed by panic.

* * *

This is just one aspect of the situation that Brezhnev had to confront before the leaders of the Russian CP. This is where the complication begins. Western capitalism is saving the communist economy from ruin because, without its help, the “red tsars” would not remain in power. Were it not for the aid of the great nations of the West and the super-corporations of private capitalism, the Russian communist regime would already be brought to its knees by the heroic nonconformity of the Church of Silence, the growing protest movement, the separatist movements within the so-called Soviet Union, the autonomist impulses of the satellite nations, and the imminent economic cataclysm.

However advantageous this fact may be for communists, it is likely to leave those who take Marx’s doctrine seriously in the deepest perplexity.

According to Marx, the transformation of work methods characteristic of the industrial era shifted global decision-making power into the hands of the working class. Poorly paid, hungry, and unjustly treated, the working class would rise up forcefully against the capitalists, who held only illusory power. The capitalists would defend themselves selfishly until their last breath. Thus, class struggle would erupt on a global scale, and the working class would ultimately impose its dictatorship. Then the golden age for the liberated people would begin.

However, the situation is entirely different. Workers live incomparably worse under the dictatorship of the proletariat than under the regime of private property. The masses in the West show little revolutionary spirit. And it is the capitalists who are saving the communists from defeat!

Given this situation, how can they preserve the Marxist conception that assigns a decisive role to working methods in balancing a society’s forces and that views history as an immense succession of class struggles? Do Russian leaders, who agree to deal with the West on terms so opposed to the Marxist conception, still take communist ideology seriously?

To this doctrinal question of undeniable gravity, another of an essentially practical nature is added. If the Kremlin has not compensated the West and will not do so in monetary terms, will it perhaps repay its generosity by renouncing the worldwide expansion of communism and even allowing a certain degree of religious freedom and anticommunist propaganda on Russian territory? Have the red leaders sold out to the West’s capitalists?

While this hypothesis might justify Nixon and his minions, it leads communists to view Brezhnev as a new Judas.

It is mainly on this delicate point that Brezhnev had to explain himself to his “co-religionists” in irreligion.

* * *

He began by stating that improved relations between the superpowers would not lead to a reduction in Soviet vigilance against a possible American attack. This euphemism implies that Russia will not, under any circumstances, reduce its military posture.

The red leader added that there will also be no relaxation in the effort to combat “ideologies foreign to communism.” Another euphemism for saying that religious persecution and political repression behind the Iron Curtain will continue at their current peak. The facts confirmed Brezhnev’s words. Yesterday saw the brutal crushing of religious protests in Lithuania. Then, the Soviets threatened to destroy the satellite used by the West to broadcast anticommunist propaganda to the East and to equip the Iron Curtain with automatic machine guns to prevent those who do not conform to the communist regime from escaping.

Brezhnev added that he would use détente to expand communist propaganda in the West and win over—in his words—”the minds and hearts of millions of people around the world.” This is an easy task, since there are no longer any ideological barriers in the West and most bishops no longer oppose communism.

He ended his speech by noting that the rapprochement with the United States had created conditions for better understanding between Russia and its satellites. This point is also very meaningful. “Where there is no bread, everyone fights, and no one is right,” says an old adage. In their misery, the satellites did not get along with the metropolis. The influx of American gold, wheat, and technology brings peace to the Soviet family.

* * *

What to make of all this?

I propose an alternative to the reader. Either Brezhnev lied to reassure the Central Committee’s communists, or he told the truth.

If he told the truth, it would be impossible to deny that Nixon’s policy plays into the hands of international communism by saving it from ruin. Moreover, the Yankee boss supports those responsible for the terrible repression in Russia and guarantees them free ideological expansion in the Western world.

Let us admit that Brezhnev lied. There is no proof of this, and if we assume he lied, why not assume he did so by giving Nixon assurances of payment and peace? If we admit that the character is a liar, the hypothesis of lying must weigh on everything he says, not only on the speech he made to the CC of the CPSU.

Now, if we admit the hypothesis of lying, we must ask whether Nixon led his country and the entire West into a dangerous and reckless adventure.

* * *

So, who did Brezhnev lie to?

Reader, if you are anti-progressive, ask your progressive friends these questions and see whether they can find any answers.

If you are progressive, ask yourself. If you cannot find an answer, abandon progressivism. May God help you in this.