Category Archives: Marxist-Leninists

Fanatical psychopathic Leninist power-lust

It is not that the communist régime refused to reform, writes Dalrymple,

it is that it was incapable of reform for the same reason that a woman can’t be a little bit pregnant. If a régime makes the kind of claim for itself that the communist régime made, even if the leaders had themselves long since ceased to believe it, namely that it is the ineluctable dénouement of history if not that of the universe, it cannot retreat. This is because its crimes, claimed to be a step in the march of history, would thereafter be seen for what they were: the choices of fanatical psychopaths avid for total power.

An eschatological philosophy in a post-religious world

Marxism, writes Dalrymple,

served more than one psychological purpose.

It gave those who adhered to it

the comforting feeling that they understood the inner or hidden workings of the world; that they were far superior in this understanding to those who did not adhere to it; and that they were participating in something far bigger than themselves. It gave them an illusion of transcendence.

Dalrymple points out that although many Marxists claimed that communist Russia’s downfall did not affect their faith in the truth of their secular religion,

Marxism as an intellectual system was deeply discredited by the now-undeniable failure of the Soviet Union to deliver on any of its utopian promises.

On the contrary, Marxism

provided the pretext for the murder, as well as causing the miserable living conditions, of many millions of people; and it was as implausible to deny the connection of these with Marxism as it is now to deny the connection of terrorism with Islam.

The socialist wasteland

Marxism, Dalrymple explains, answers several needs.

  • It has its arcana, which persuade believers that they have penetrated to secrets veiled from others, who are possessed of false consciousness.
  • It appeals to the strongest of all political passions, hatred, and justifies it.
  • It provides a highly intellectualised rationalisation of a discreditable but almost universal and ineradicable emotion: envy.
  • It forever puts the blame elsewhere, making self-examination unnecessary and self-knowledge impossible.
  • It explains everything.
  • It persuades believers that they have a special destiny in the world. For disgruntled intellectuals, nothing could be more gratifying.

Yet the socialist reality is

  • lies
  • enforced ignorance
  • characters formed in an atmosphere of suspicion
  • compromise with evil
  • toadying
  • self-abasement

Dalrymple once met a Marxist who told him that the level of dialectical debate in Moscow was so much higher, and so much wider in scope, than in Western Europe or North America. Dalrymple’s reply was:

If only you could fix your mind on something important, like selling cosmetics or life insurance.

He notes that communist ideas, or prejudices,

live on in those countries where Really Existing Socialism, as the dialecticians used so elegantly to put it, has never been experienced.

In Britain,

the Marxist hatred of profit subsists happily with a Jane Austen-like coyness about where one’s money actually comes from. In Jane Austen, Trade is ungentlemanly; in Marx, it is wicked; in British literary circles, it is both. Given the nature of the output of British literary circles, this wouldn’t matter very much, except for the fact that the attitude has filtered down into the rest of the intelligentsia, and is nearly universal in the public service.

Unlettered whizzkids earning a fortune in the City

particularly excite ire (and envy); I have had many arguments in the doctors’ common room about the necessary and constructive part banking and trade play in any modern economy, irrespective of the existence of dishonest bankers and traders.

But the attitude persists,

the disdainful — and essentially snobbish — attitude that unites them with Castro and Guevara, Ho Chi Minh and Ulbricht, Lenin and Kim Il-sung. Any activity that is neither directly productive nor concerned with the welfare of ‘the people’ is parasitic.

The consequence of the philosophy

may be seen on the shelves of any communist supermarket or in any East European field piled with rotting potatoes.

A semi-literate Marxism is

the unchallengeable orthodoxy in British teacher-training colleges and colleges of further education. Here the politics of grievance are assiduously fostered, with ‘analyses’ of the exploitative nature of capitalist society, which causes the oppression of almost everyone except men in top hats. It is difficult to believe that something of this ideology is not communicated to children, and in my daily work I am often ‘accused’ by young patients of having a good job, as if personal activity had nothing to do with it and my privilege and their deprivation explained all.

Socialism continues to exert a strong influence in poor countries. Liberation theology, for example, is

Pravda with the word God thrown in.

There is a stifling orthodoxy among intellectuals about the origins of poverty. Poverty for them

is the dialectical opposite of wealth: we are poor because you are rich, and you are rich because we are poor. It is a destructive idea. Poverty is the result of exploitation and nothing else: the world is Marx’s Victorian England writ large. The global economy is a cake, and if Europe (the bourgeoisie) has a large slice, Africa (the proletariat) must have a small one. The immiseration of the workers in Marx is paralleled by the immiseration of continents, and has the same causes.

That poverty is the natural state of Man, and that

it is the ascent to wealth that needs explanation (Adam Smith asked the right question), never occurs to the embittered intellectuals.

Really Existing Socialism

Suicide: a petty-bourgeois deviation

Screen Shot 2016-06-08 at 23.13.27Recalling his student days, Dalrymple writes that he

shared a house with a Marxist-Leninist.

This youth, Dalrymple remembers, believed that suicide represented

the failure to accept the total sufficiency in life of Marxism-Leninism.

The weak and vacillating West

Screen Shot 2015-11-15 at 13.19.52

Evil: the threat

And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out….slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers. (Qur’an, 2:191)

Dalrymple writes that Islam, which was

the basis of great civilisations in the past,

has emerged

as the next potential totalitarianism.

Weak: the West's response

Weak: the West’s response

Islam in the modern world may be

intellectually nugatory,

but a large proportion of humanity is Muslim and

an aggressive and violent minority has emerged within that population with apparently very widespread, if largely passive, approval.

The leadership of western countries has, of course, shown itself to be

very weak and vacillating in the face of this, or any other, challenge.

Showdown with the kuffār

Just as Marx says that

a showdown between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is inevitable, leading to the triumph of the former and the subsequent establishment of a classless society,

so the Islamists think that

a showdown between believers and infidels is inevitable, leading to the victory of Islam, which will eliminate all religious conflict.

A brittle edifice

Dalrymple notes, however, that behind all the Islamic bluster about

the certain possession of the unique, universal and divinely ordained truth for man

is an anxiety among Mohammedans

that the whole edifice of Islam, while strong, is brittle, which explains why free enquiry is so limited in Islamic countries. There is a subliminal awareness — and perhaps not always subliminal — that free philosophical and historical debate could quickly and fatally undermine the hold of Islam on various societies.

Muslim men bent on evil

Screen Shot 2015-11-15 at 09.09.26Those who become terrorist murderers cannot, of course, be satisfied with what Western society offers them, for they are, Dalrymple points out,

in the grip of a utopian ideology.

So were many successful people in the West once attracted to communism,

another ideology that would have destroyed their own freedom.

Message to the world’s remaining Marxists

Screen Shot 2015-05-24 at 19.31.35Dalrymple has this to say to those who continue to profess communism:

It takes considerable stupidity, lack of moral imagination, or an egotism more profound than that of the most voracious Wall Street banker to proclaim yourself a communist after all the human disaster that the doctrine wrought in the past century.

This is what a hardline Marxist looks like

Steven Rose, professor of biology at the Open University. For this man, writes Dalrymple, Marxism 'is like Chesterton’s Christianity: it hasn’t been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried'

Quite unmoved by the millions killed in the doctrine’s name: Steven Rose, professor of biology at the Open University. For Rose, writes Dalrymple, Marxism ‘is like Chesterton’s Christianity: it hasn’t been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried’