But the main danger now threatens the freedom of thought and expression is not the direct intervention of the Ministry of Information or any other official body.
If publishers and newspaper executives contrive to certain topics are not addressed, not by fear of lawsuits, but by fear of public opinion. Intellectual cowardice in our country is the worst enemy ever to confront a writer or a journalist, and this fact does not appear to have received the attention it deserves.
Everyone in good faith, with experience in journalism, will agree to recognize that during this war official censorship has not been particularly fussy. We were not impose the kind of "coordination" totalitarian that we could reasonably expect. The press has some legitimate grievances, but overall the
government has shown a remarkable tolerance toward minority opinions. What is most disturbing about the censorship of literature in England is that it is in large part voluntary. Unpopular ideas can be silenced and inconvenient facts ignored, without the need for this in an official ban.
Anyone who has lived some time in a foreign country has seen how certain information that normally would have made the headlines, were ignored by the English press, not as a result of government intervention, but because there had a tacit agreement to consider it "should not
" publish such facts. Regarding the daily press, it is not surprising. The English press is very centralized and is owned almost entirely in a few very wealthy men who have every reason to be dishonest on certain important topics. But the same kind of veiled censorship also at work when it comes to books and periodicals, or plays, films or radio broadcasts. There is always an orthodoxy, a set of ideas that the do-gooders are supposed to share and never question it. Say this or that is not strictly forbidden, but it "is not
" just as in Victorian times it "was not done
" pronouncing the word
pants in the presence of a lady. Anyone who defies established orthodoxy is seen silenced with surprising effectiveness. An opinion that goes against the fashion of the moment will have the greatest difficulty being heard, either in the popular press or in magazines for intellectuals.
What is required now established orthodoxy is unreserved admiration for Russia. Everyone knows, and almost everyone got bent. It is virtually impossible to print any serious criticism of the Soviet regime, and no information that the Soviet government would prefer to conceal. And this conspiracy on the scale of any the country to please the Russian ally takes place in the general climate of genuine intellectual tolerance. Because if we do not have the right to criticize the Soviet government, we are at least less free to criticize our own. There will be hardly anyone to publish a text against Stalin, but we can blame Churchill safely, at least in a book or periodical. And throughout these five years of war, two or three where we fought for the survival of our country, countless books, pamphlets and articles in favor of a compromise peace have been published without official censorship intervened and without that causing so much hostility.
While the prestige of the USSR is not involved, the principle of freedom of expression remains broadly respected. There are other taboo subjects - I will mention some later - but the prevailing attitude towards the USSR is by far the most disturbing symptom. It is indeed spontaneous and unrelated to the action of any pressure group.
The servility with which most English intellectuals have swallowed and repeated Russian propaganda since 1941 would be amazing if properly had not previously given other examples, on various occasions. Of all the thorny issues, one after the other, the Russian version was accepted without examination and then be propagated with complete disregard for historical truth or intellectual honesty.
To give just one example, the BBC celebrated the 25th anniversary of the Red Army without mentioning the name of Trotsky. This amounted to about celebrating the battle of Trafalgar without mentioning Nelson, but did not think any English intellectual right to protest. During
infighting that took place in various occupied countries, the British press has taken almost every time the cause of the faction backed by the Russians and slandered the rival faction, not hesitating to conceal certain facts when necessary. This was especially obvious in the case of Colonel Mihajlovic, leader of the Chetniks in Yugoslavia. The Russians, which was protected in Yugoslavia Marshal Tito, accused Mihajlovic collaboration with the Germans. This accusation was immediately picked up by the British press: they refused to supporters of Mihajlovic's opportunity to respond, and the facts which were belied simply ignored.
In July 1943 the Germans offered a reward of one hundred thousand gold crowns for the capture of Tito, and the same sum to that of Mihajlovic. The British press made its headlines with the news that the head of Tito was so upset price, but there was only one newspaper to refer, very discreetly, than Mihajlovic was also, and the charges collaboration with the Germans continued as before.
When the English war, he appeared very similar episodes: the English left-wing newspapers did not hesitate to slander the Republican organizations in the camp that the Russians were determined to crush, and refused to publish any development, even in their mail readers. And today, not only critics of the USSR's most reasons are held to blame, but their existence is obscured in some cases. It was, for example, a biography of Stalin, Trotsky had written shortly before his death. Presumably, this was not a perfectly objective book, but at least its bestseller list was it insured.
The book, published by an American publisher, had already been printed - I believe the review copies had even been Sent - when the USSR entered the war. The book's release was soon canceled. And although the existence of such a work and its withdrawal from the market were certainly deserving of the information that they should devote a few lines, the case was not given any mention in the English press.
It is important to distinguish between censorship that English intellectuals voluntarily impose on themselves and that they are sometimes imposed by pressure groups. We know that some subjects can not be addressed because of the economic interests at stake - the most famous case being that of the obvious drug racketeering. Moreover, the Catholic Church in the press exerts a considerable influence and succeeded in some measure to silence the critics. A scandal involving a Catholic priest is almost never comes to advertising, but if it is an Anglican priest who is involved (eg the Rector of Stiffkey)
[ Lord Frederick, rector of Stiffkey, killed inexplicably his brother with a pistol in the head. He was declared insane ] , the news headlines. It is very rarely see on stage or film anything that take them to Catholicism. Any actor will tell you that a play or a movie that attacks the Catholic Church or the mockery will be boycotted by the press and will most likely fail.
But this stuff is not serious, or at least understandable. Any organization can ensure the best it can to its interests, and there's nothing to say against the propaganda, as it gives itself to such. We can no more expect the Daily Worker
to publish information detrimental to the prestige of the USSR can not be expected
the Catholic Herald that he take the pope. But in any case no conscious individual can not misunderstand what are
Daily Worker and the Catholic Herald
.
What is more worrying is that when it comes to the USSR and its policies, we can not expect liberal journalists and writers - who are not yet subject to any direct pressure to get them to shut up - they express an intelligent criticism. Or even that they simply do demonstrate a basic honesty. Stalin is sacrosanct and there is no way to seriously discuss some aspects its policy. This rule has been almost universally observed since 1941, it entered into force ten years ago, and was followed by much more widely than is sometimes thought. Throughout these years, it was difficult to be heard when the Soviet regime were subjected to criticism from the left. There were a considerable number of writings hostile to Russia, but almost all drawn from the conservative point of view, was manifestly unfair, outdated and inspired by the most sordid motives.
It was opposite an equally large mass, and almost as dishonest, pro-Russian propaganda, and anyone trying to tackle critical issues of how adult found himself the victim of a boycott of fact. Certainly, you could still publish a book anti-Russian, but it was with the assurance of seeing your positions ignored or disguised by virtually all intellectual magazines. We warned you, both publicly and privately, that it "was not done
. What you said was perhaps true, but it was "inappropriate
" and that "the game
was" of particular interest reactionary.
To defend such an attitude, we relied general international situation and the urgent need for Anglo-Russian alliance, but it was clear that this was a pseudo-rational justification. For English intellectuals, or for many, the USSR had become the subject of an allegiance to a nationalistic, and the slightest questioning of the wisdom of
Stalin reached the depths of themselves as a blasphemy. What happened in Russia was judged on criteria other than what was happening elsewhere. People who had fought all their lives against the death penalty can not applaud the killing end purges of 1936-1938, and those who made it a duty to speak of famine in India it also did not mention that of Ukraine. All that existed before the war, and the intellectual climate is certainly no better now.
But let us now turn to the book I wrote. The reaction it will cause in most English intellectuals will be very simple: "
It should not have been published . Literary critics versed in the art of bashing the attack obviously do not have a political viewpoint, but literary: they say that a book is boring, stupid, for which he is unfortunate to have wasted the paper. It is quite possible, but it is clearly not the merits of the case. It does not say a book that "
should not have been published " for that reason alone it is bad. After all, tons of garbage are produced every day and nobody cares.
English intellectuals, or most of them are hostile to this book on the pretext that it defames their leader and night they think the cause of progress. Otherwise, they would find nothing to say, even if its literary faults were ten times more obvious than they are. As shown, for example, success has been the Left Book Club
for four or five years, they are quite prepared to welcome books for both offensive and grossly botched literary, provided these books tell them what they want to hear.
The problem this raises is very simple: any opinion, as unpopular and even as senseless as it is, she is entitled to be heard? If you ask the question and it is hardly an intellectual English that no one feels obliged to reply: "Yes
. But if you ask more specific and ask, "What
an attack against Stalin? She is also entitled to be heard? , the answer will most often: "No
. Because in this case the current orthodoxy is being challenged, and the principle of freedom of expression is no longer valid.
course, demanding freedom of expression does not claim absolute freedom. It will always, or at least there will always, as long as there organized societies, a some form of censorship. But freedom, as Rosa Luxemburg said, is "
freedom for those who think differently . Voltaire expressed the same principle with his famous formula: "
I hate what you say and I will defend to the death your right to say it. "If freedom of thought, which is without doubt one of the hallmarks of Western civilization, has any meaning, it implies that everyone has the right to say and print what he thinks is the truth , provided only that it does not harm the rest of the community in any way obvious. Also good capitalist democracy that Western variants of socialism were until recently regarded this principle as beyond discussion. Our government, as I said before, still affected to some extent to meet. Ordinary people - partly no doubt because they do not give enough importance to show himself intolerant ideas about them - argue that more or less "
everyone is free to have his ideas " . It is only, or at least that's mainly in the literary and scientific intelligentsia, that is to say, among the very people who should be the guardians of liberty, that we begin to despise this principle, both in theory and practice.
One of phenomena peculiar to our times is the repudiation of the Liberals. Beyond and outside the well-known Marxist assertion that the "bourgeois
freedom is an illusion, there is a widespread tendency to claim that democracy can be defended only by totalitarian means. If you love democracy, and argues it does, we must be prepared to crush its enemies by any means. But who are his enemies ? We see regularly that are not only those who attack it openly and consciously, but also those who are "objectively
" in danger by disseminating erroneous theories.
In other words, defending democracy involves destroying all freedom of thought. This argument by example used to justify the Russian purges. So fanatical was he, no Russophile really believed that all the victims were actually guilty of everything they were accused, but in defending heretical ideas, they had "objectively
" undermined the regime, and it was perfectly legitimate not only to put them to death, but also by discrediting false accusations. The same argument was used during the English war, to justify the lies consciously cut by the left press on the Trotskyists and other minority groups in the Republican camp. And he has served as a pretext to yelp
cons of habeas corpus when
Mosley was released in 1943.
These people do not understand that those who advocate totalitarian methods are exposed to one day see them used against them if imprisoning Fascists without trial is becoming a common practice, there is no reason for this treatment then they still stand. Shortly after the
Daily Worker had been allowed to resume, I was a conference of workers in a college in South London. The audience included people from the working class and middle class to the poorest - people with a certain intellectual formation, such as those that might be encountered in the meetings of the Left Book Club
. My talk had been about freedom of the press and, when it was over, much to my surprise, several auditors rose to ask me if I do not think it was a grave mistake to have allowed the reappearance of the Daily Worker
. When I asked what they had, they replied that it was a newspaper whose loyalty could not be trusted, and therefore should not be tolerated in wartime. I ended up making and defending the
Daily Worker newspaper, which has more than once used to slander me.
But how these people had they acquired the totalitarian mindset? They were certainly communists themselves had instilled their own! Tolerance and honesty are deeply rooted in England, but they are not indestructible so far, and survival among other application that spends a conscious effort. Preaching totalitarian doctrines, we weaken the instinct by which free peoples know what is dangerous and what is not.
Mosley's case is clearly shown. In 1940, he was perfectly justified to intern Mosley, whether or not committed any crime in the strictly legal point of view. We were fighting
for our survival and we could not afford to allow freedom of movement a man quite willing to play
Quisling . In 1943, keep them locked up without trial was a miscarriage of justice. The general blindness on this issue was a worrying symptom, even if it is true that the agitation against Mosley's release was partly factitious and partly the expression under the pretext of a different kind of discontent. But the current spread of fascist thinking she should not be attributed in some measure to "fascism" in the last ten years and the ruthlessness that characterized? It is important to understand that this russomanie is a symptom of the general weakening of the Western liberal tradition. If the information ministry had intervened to effectively ban the publication of this book, most English intellectuals would not see anything there to worry about. The unconditional allegiance to the USSR is the current orthodoxy, since the supposed interests of the USSR are concerned, these intellectuals are willing to tolerate not only censorship but the deliberate falsification of history.
Here is an example. On the death of John Reed
, the author
of Ten Days That Shook the World [Ten Days That Shook the World] - witness first hand the beginnings of the Russian Revolution - the copyright of his book became the property of the British Communist Party, which, I suppose He had bequeathed. A few years later, after destroying all copies of the first edition in which they could lay hands, the British Communists published a falsified version of which was missing any mention of Trotsky, and besides that introducing written by Lenin.
If he still existed in England radical intellectuals, the forgery was exposed and denounced in every literary magazines in the country. As things stand, there was virtually no protest or not. To many English intellectuals, such behavior was not very normal. And this acceptance of outright dishonesty has a deeper meaning that the veneration of Russia who happens to be currently in vogue. It is quite possible that this mode does not last long then. From everything I know, it is possible that, when this book is published, my opinion of the Soviet regime has become the accepted view. But what good does it serve? The replacement of one orthodoxy by another is not necessarily an improvement. The real enemy is the mind reduced to a gramophone, and this remains true whether you agree or disagree with the disc that passes a certain point.
I know by heart the various arguments against freedom of thought and expression - those by which it can not exist, and those by which it must
not exist. I'll just say that I do not find them convincing, and it's quite opposite design that inspired our civilization for a period of four centuries. Over the past dozen years, I am convinced that the political regime in Russia is something essentially sad, and I demand the right to say even though we are allies of the USSR into a war that I want victory.
