Typical communist jargon

Earl Bousquet, the St Lucian Marxist journalist, who writes for the Grenadian Marxist newspaper Carib Update, describes the Grenada revolution, 1979 to 1983, as “earth shattering”.

Well it certainly was Caribbean-shattering, but not in such a nice way as Bousquet would have us believe. He talks with the typical communist jargon of “participatory democracy”, in other words the few elite leaders tell us what to do and think while the people, “the masses” as Bishop loved to call them (how patronising can you get?), follow suit, or, as they fully knew, “it’s up the hill for them” as Bishop said in his Line of March speech to the Central Committee of
the NJM.

He didn’t call it the Central Committee of the Communist Party, which it in fact was, because he knew “the masses” would not like the word “communist”.

So where was Bousquet in all of this? Did he admire from afar or was he here as one of the many communist visitors from other lands? Did he go further and, like Bobby Clarke of Barbados or Victor Husbands of Trinidad, come here to participate in the hideous torturing of Grenadians designated as “counters”? (This torturing carried out with electrical torture machines imported by Bishop from Eastern European communist countries). I suspect not, by the way Bousquet writes it seems that he was unaware of the darker side of the revolution.

But he could not fail to be unaware of the fact that thousands of Grenadians could and were sent to jail without trial, that all independent news services were closed down and that the only connection we had with the free world was through the Venezuelan embassy, in those days not in communist hands, as it is today, a little window on the free world otherwise completely dominated by the Soviet Union with its embassy in Morne Rouge, together with the Cuban embassy and the Libyan embassy under Muhammar Ghadaffi, and a few others.

Earl calls genuine democracy with the ballot box “electoral diktat”.

Where did he get that word “diktat” from? Sounds Russian to me. No Bousquet, “the immense historical relevance” of the revolution is a figment of your religious imagination. For is not Marxist-Leninism a religion?

Gregory Thomas

Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.