October 9, 2007
WP: According to common perception, a revolution was initiated in Poland in 1989 with historical significance and global consequences. There is copious evidence that this allegedly anti-communist revolt, which swept through Eastern Europe , was indeed planned by Soviet secret services and served the long-term strategy of perestroika. In Poland ‘s case the deception was facilitated by a secret agreement between the communist party, leaders of the Solidarity movement and the Catholic hierarchy – and we still see the consequences of this arrangement. What is your opinion of the Eastern European revolutions? Is it reasonable to claim that the Eastern part of the continent was truly freed then?
Olavo de Carvalho: No, Eastern Europe was not truly freed. But a fake liberation can easily be turned into a genuine one if the secret manipulators are exposed and their power is transferred to the hands of true patriots in due time . The time is now.
WP: Another small incident took place in August 1991 in Moscow. Bearing in mind the subsequent reign of Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin, are we dealing with the continuation of Soviet communism or with a process of genuine democratisation? How did the changes in Soviet Union in the last 17 years influence international political scene?
Olavo de Carvalho: Would you believe that the Nazi regime was truly defeated if at the end of World War II all the chieftains of the Gestapo remained in their places, undisturbed by criminal investigations and as powerful as they were before? The soviet state, the KGB and the Russian Mafia are one and the same entity. The changes in the former USSR were mostly a smokescreen designed to dupe the Western public opinion and to dismantle any international anti-communist resistance. Needless to say that the operation has been extremely successful.
WP: In the face of the revolutionary changes happening in South America, should we speak of a rebirth of Marxism or is it merely a continuation of old trends, ever present on that continent in the twentieth century? Is the old idea of convergence between the socialist and capitalist systems taking a new shape in the South American continent or is it a completely new phenomenon?
Olavo de Carvalho: Socialism as an economic system is a myth. Ludwig von Mises demonstrated, more than eighty years ago, that under a socialist veil there remains always a market economy in disguise. Socialism exists only as a “movement”, as a permanent thrust for subversion and destruction. As such, it cannot survive without the help it receives from big capitalists, or rather from the ones I call metacapitalists – the macro-investors that were made so stunningly rich by the capitalist game that they somehow transcend it and do not accept the risks of a free market anymore. They then try to consolidate their power as an oligarchy of political controllers. To this end they use socialist subversion as their tool, and at the same time the socialist leadership tries to use them as its tool. The so-called “convergence” between socialism and capitalism is just a new ornamental denomination for an old reality. Please read “The Best Enemy Money Can Buy” by Anthony Sutton. Socialism is opposed to genuine free-market economy (as well as to Christian civilizational values that sustain it), but not to monopolistic and globalist capitalism. The main supporters of the socialist subversion in Latin America are the American billionaire foundations (Ford, Rockefeller, Soros) and the radical chic elite of the American Democratic Party.
WP: What in your view are the consequences of the emerging economic and military might of the communist China?
Olavo de Carvalho: It was perhaps some communist strategic genius who persuaded Western investors that liberalizing the Chinese economy would make the political regime to liberalize sooner or later. Every smart communist knows that communism as an economic system does not exist and will never exist, that it is only an ideological device intended to keep alive the leftist revolutionary movement and communist governments. The Chinese generals are smart communists.
They know that even though socialist economy is incapable of surviving, socialism as a movement and as accumulation of political power can not only survive but prosper indefinitely through the simple trick of being a parasite to capitalism. The current Chinese economic system is a sort of organized summary of this knowledge, which by the way is not knew. Nazi-fascist economy was already based upon it, as it strived to keep a working market economy under state surveillance, sucking the resources thus created to feed the unlimited growth of the one party and of the state it created. A very similar scheme is being implemented in Brazil today: the generous opening of the economy to foreign investors, simulating the abandonment of the old socialist plans, contributes at the same time to consolidate a highly centralized political system, in which a group of leftist parties is increasingly eliminating all possibility of opposition.
WP: Later this year, some of us will commiserate the ninetieth anniversary of the Bolshevik revolution. Do you believe that communism is dead and buried (which seems to be the generally accepted view)? Or do you believe that the Bolshevik’s heritage is still playing a strong part in political practice today?
Olavo de Carvalho: Communism as a movement is more alive than ever. As Anatolyi Golytsin well noted, there was a moment in history when the international interests of the USSR came into conflict with the impulse to further growth of the international revolutionary movement. This conflict reached a point of rupture when it was necessary to decide, to sacrifice the structure in favor of growth. It is not a coincidence that right after the collapse of the USSR the communist movement grew so fast to the point of creating a worldwide anti-American siege – a Leninist dream that up to then had not been possible to put into practice. To me it seems clear that the work of the KGB through “active measures” abroad was much intensified precisely since the beginning of the 1990’s, exploring the widespread illusion according to which the end of the USSR meant the end of communist subversion. Lenin had prepared an expansion plan for the communist movement which, in certain moments, seemed unachievable. He imagined that, starting from Moscow , communist expansion should first reach Eastern Europe, then turn back to Asia, move in the direction of Africa and, from there, reach Latin America , thus completing the siege around the US and its allies in Western Europe. There remains no doubt today that this course has been run, that the siege is set. And its last chapter achieved success precisely in the decade that followed the “end of the USSR”. It is no coincidence that, in the leftist overtaking of Latin America, drug-trafficking organizations have played such a fundamental role. They are the financial and paramilitary base of the Sao Paulo Forum, the strategic center of Latin American Communism, which gathers around common plans and interests over a hundred legal leftist parties alongside criminal organizations such as the FARC and the Chilean MIR. If in light of these facts we reread today the book by Joseph Douglass Red Cocaine – The Drugging of American and the West (London , 1990), we realize the notable acumen of Soviet strategists who, already in the 50’s, were planning the use of drug-trafficking as a local source of support for revolutionary movements in Latin America. It is rather understandable that these plans could only have been more fully fulfilled after the “end” of the USSR , as before they were hindered by diplomatic commitments. At the same time, the dissolution of the USSR made possible deep changes in the structure of the world revolutionary movement, which provided it with an extraordinary and renewed mobility. The ancient monolithic hierarchic organization was replaced by a horizontal articulation in “networks”, which in less than 24 hours can be mobilized via the Internet for mass action anywhere in the world. The old concern with doctrinal unity gave way to an apparent pluralistic confusion which, disregarding merely theoretical divergences, preserves the strategic unity among thousands of ideologically diverse organizations. In brief, the dissolution of the Soviet imperial structure enabled an expansion of the communist movement, because it was designed precisely for this purpose. Within the alchemic alternation of dissolution and coagulation that dialectically guides communist strategy, the expansive dissolution will be followed, sooner or later, by a new hierarchical coagulation, but this time in a worldwide scale.
WP: Józef Mackiewicz, a great Polish writer and anti-communist thinker, wrote in 1962 “Great is the capacity of human nature to adapt to circumstances. Yet political realism ought not to deprive people of their imagination because it will cease to be realistic. A comparison of customs and manners prevailing in the world in 1912 with those of today, can give us a measure, although only in approximate terms, of what we could “reasonably” expect to have to accept in year 2012!” What is your point of view in this matter? What do the next five years have in store for us?
Olavo de Carvalho: If we apply Mackiewicz’s observation to the analysis o f American foreign policy, we will see that it has an outstanding prophetical accuracy. The school of the so-called “realism”, inaugurated by Hans J. Morgenthau (Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, Fifth Edition, Revised, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978), persuaded American strategists that the power game in the world was a drama whose characters were essentially Nations States. From this perception resulted the so-called “policy of containment” which, directed exclusively by the timid idea of containing Soviet military expansion to a reasonable area, gave up the fight against Communism as an international movement. At the same time, Communist parties quickly absorbed the strategic conception of Antonio Gramsci which, favoring an informal expansion under the guise of pluralism, turned the growth of Communism invisible to the eyes of the ruling American elite. The latter even came to support this expansion as it considered the “democratic left” in the Third World as an alternative to Communism, without knowing that, from the Gramscian viewpoint, the “democratic left” was exactly the preferred instrument for camouflaged expansion.