curivnt problems
[2] ~ [3] __AUTHOR__ D. TOMASHEVSKY __TITLE__ Lenin's Ideas and Modern International Relations __TEXTFILE_BORN__ 2007-01-05T19:29:08-0800 __TRANSMARKUP__ "R. Cymbala"PROGRESS PUBLISHERS MOSCOW
[4]Translated from the Russian by Jim Riordan
J\. F. ToMaUieBCKHM
JIEHHHCKHE HflEH II COUPEMEIIHblE MEJKflYHAPOAHblE OTHOIIIEHHJI
Ha
H3blKe
REQUEST TO READERS
Progress Publishers would be glad to have your opinion of this book, its translation and design.
Please send your comments to 21, Zubovsky Boulevard, Moscow, USSR.
First printing 1974 © Progress Publishers 1974
Printed in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
Tl 1101---229 014(01)---74 G1~ '
[5] CONTENTS Leninism in a Changing World............ 7 The Place of International Relations in the Life of Society ... 26 The Balance of Power in World Politics......... 64 A Matter of Life or Death for Millions.......... 104 Relations Between the Two Systems as the Axis of International Relations..................... 149 Harmony and Discord in Relations Between Imperialist Countries . 200 The Developing Countries in the World Today....... 226 Friendship and Co-operation.............. 257 Afterword..................... 283 [6] ~ [7] __ALPHA_LVL1__ LENINISM IN A CHANGING WORLD __ALPHA_LVL2__ I __NOTE__ Lenin quote is above "I".To ignore the changes which have taken place . . . and to continue advocating the old solutions given by Marxism, would mean being true to the letter but not to the spirit of the teaching, would mean repeating the old conclusions by rote, without being able to use the Marxist method of research to analyse the new political situation.
V. I. Lenin
Although we are only just about to enter the last quarter of the 20th century, the events and revolutionary changes of the past decades make its commencement seem immeasurably remote. We view the earlier part of the century through a mist of time. The remoteness is due more to the scale of events and transformations that have revolutionised the face of nations, continents and the entire world than to mere passing years.
Our age is one of unparalleled historical change. Conditions of human life are changing faster than ever before and drawing in their wake people, their way of life and thought and their notions of life. Many new facts and phenomena no longer fit the old framework and resolutely demand a new formula and the revision of familiar concepts. Events today severely put to the test both the old settled views and the latest theoretical constructions. The ideologists and politicians of the exploiting classes who but recently regarded themselves as commanding the minds and fates of mankind are hopelessly behind the times; more, they seem to belong to another era. A multitude of concepts that only yesterday were accepted as irrefutable have today been overtaken by the pace of historical change.
8 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ LENIN'S IDEAS AND MODERN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONSThe Italian Marxist Antonio Labriola, writing in 189.') on the Communist Manifesto, noted with some regret: "In the fifty years which separate us from the publication of the Manifesto the specialisation and the complexity of the proletarian movement have become such that there is henceforth no mind capable of embracing it in its completeness, of understanding it in its details and grasping its real causes and exact = relations.^^*^^;
Labriola was not to know that at the time he was writing these lines, Vladimir Lenin in far-off Russia was taking his first steps in the revolutionary movement; Lenin was able not only to sum up the historical experience of his time, he was able to look far into the future. As a philosopher and a revolutionary he left an indelible trace upon the turbulent events of the 20th century and made an incomparable contribution to the formation of the world of today.
Against the background of continual change in our time the intransient importance of Lenin's heritage has become increasingly evident. At the Lenin Centenary meeting on April 21, 1970, Leonid Brezhnev said: "The scope of Lenin's thoughts and deeds was so vast, his understanding and expression of the pressing needs of his epoch were so profound that even today Lenin's ideas are a powerful weapon in the hands of the fighters for the happiness of = peoples.''^^**^^ Today, iust over 100 years since Lenin was born, the words of the Soviet poet Vladimir Mayakovsky are as relevant as ever:
There's no one
more alive
than Lenin in the world,
our strength,
our wisdom,
surest of our =
weapons.^^***^^
It is only natural that in our attempt to find answers to new complex issues which arise during the last third of _-_-_
^^*^^ A. Labriola, Essays on the Aiatcrialistic Conception of History, Chicago, 1908, p. 54.
^^**^^ L. I. Brezhnev, Following Lenin's Course, Moscow, 1972, p. 252.
^^***^^ V. Mayakovsky, Poems, Moscow, 1972, p. 175.
9 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ LENINISM IN A CHANCING WORLD our century, we turn time and again to the work of Lenin, and to Leninist thinking.In turning to Lenin's invaluable heritage we do not simply pay tribute to the memory of a great man. In the works of many outstanding individuals of the past we often come across ideas that are atuned to our time, and, with one or two reservations, we may use them as an aid in understanding present-day events. When we use the theoretical work of Lenin and creatively apply Lenin's ideas, however, we do so as a vital need, as an essential part of gaining a scientific understanding of the social realities of our day.
Naturally, this does not mean that Lenin's works contain an explanation of every specific event in the present very complex and constantly changing actuality, that they give a ready answer to all topical questions. Lenin himself often condemned such an approach to social theories. He refuted the idea that one could find in some textbook or other "all the forms of development of subsequent world history. It would be timely to say that those who think so are simply fools".^^*^^
Being a true follower of Marx and Engels and creatively developing Marxism in a new epoch, Lenin stressed above all the methodological importance of their teaching for understanding history. ``.. .Materialism in history,'' he wrote, ``has never claimed to explain everything, but merely to indicate the 'only scientific', to use Marx's expression (Capital), method of explaining history.''^^**^^
By the whole of his work Lenin amplified Marxism's revolutionary content and raised it to a higher level. In his ``Theses on Feuerbach'', Karl Marx formulated the true meaning of revolutionary philosophy as follows: ``The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it.''^^***^^ Acting in the spirit of Marx's words, Lenin tackled theoretical problems in inseparable connection with practical work, with the class struggle.
_-_-_^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 480.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 1, p. 146.
^^***^^ Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works (in three volumes), Vol. 1, Moscow, 1969, p. 15.
10Leninism is Marxism in the era of imperialism and proletarian revolutions, the era of the downfall of colonialism and the victory of national liberation movements, the era of the transition from capitalism to socialism and the building of communism; it is therefore a supreme example of combining both the theoretical and the practical functions of the revolutionary philosophy.
Without Lenin and Leninism, it is impossible to understand the contemporary world properly, the complex way the various trends and processes move and become intertwined, and the prospects for world development. Furthermore, Leninism, as the ideology of the revolutionary class, has played and continues to play an active part in the transformation of the world; it has had and continues to have a direct impact on the destiny of mankind.
The supreme importance of Leninist thought for analysing contemporary events and the great transforming power of Leninism are readily apparent when one examines international relations, a sphere which is particularly complex and affected by various objective and subjective factors, and in which the changes of past decades are extremely radical. To realise the nature and scale of these changes one has only to glance at the international arena at the turn of the century, when Lenin was beginning his activity, and compare it with the world today.
At that time the stage was dominated by a handful of states which differed in size of territory, level of development and state structure, but were identical as regards their social and economic relations. The strongest European powers and the United States of America set the tone in world politics. Most countries on other continents, although being drawn gradually into international relations as objects of expansion of the major powers, had a dependent status owing to their economic and social backwardness, and did not play an independent political role. The vast lands of Asia and Africa remained deprived colonies or semi-colonies subjected to the most shameless exploitation and oppression by the colonial powers. Millions of people were completely deprived of any chance to decide international issues. Even in the then advanced European countries, where the 11 working class was taking part in the political struggle, international relations and foreign policy remained a sphere in which access was open only to the chosen few and the final word always belonged to the ruling classes. ``What a pity that the masses cannot read books on the history of diplomacy, or the editorials in the capitalist newspapers,''^^*^^ Lenin exclaimed bitterly in early 1917.
Since then the sphere of international relations has changed beyond recognition along with the changing world. The legendary salvo from the cruiser Aurora in the evening of November 7, 1917, announcing the proletarian revolution in Russia, has resounded throughout the world. The effect of the triumph of the Great October Socialist Revolution in Russia on world politics was immediate; it revolutionised the whole course of international relations. A socialist state with a socialist foreign policy appeared as a fundamentally new factor in international relations.
For more than half a century now that new factor has been exerting an active and increasingly vigorous influence on international developments. Today socialism is represented by a number of states spread over several continents. The world socialist community continues to develop and grow stronger. The balance of power in the world has changed radically in favour of socialism, and the contest between the two systems lies at the centre of international politics. Popular interest in international politics has grown immeasurably; the influence of the peoples has increased in settling these issues. The rise of dozens of new sovereign states in Africa and Asia has led to a further change in the political atlas. The rapid development of productive forces is being accompanied by widening economic links between countries. The scientific and technological revolution is reducing the distance between continents and facilitating the exchange of material and other values. The appearance of new types of weapons of mass destruction has put the question of war and peace in a new light.
As a result, international relations have become more complex and their range has extended. Moreover, they have _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 24, p. 378.
12 come to dominate other social events; their influence on the course of history and on the lives of millions of people has grown immeasurably. The interconnection and interaction between international relations and the world revolutionary process, and between foreign and home policy have become closer and deeper than ever before; in many cases foreign policy is acquiring increasing significance.Even representatives of reactionary classes---politicians and ideologists in the bourgeois world---are no longer able to ignore the immense changes. Most books and articles written on political themes and that aspire to be taken seriously cannot today avoid some sort of judgement on the changes in the world. In an article published in Foreign Affairs, Nelson Rockefeller, one of the best known spokesmen of the American ruling class, refers constantly to ``the rapid and often bewildering change that characterises our age'', to ``a revolutionary period'', and to ``an age of revolutionary transformation''.^^*^^ The American international commentator Hans Morgenthau writes of the revolutionary period in his book The New Foreign Policy for the United States. The same idea is present in a book by David Lilienthal, first Chairman of the US Atomic Energy Commission: ``It is a world of change---swift, radical change, change at a tempo---unprecedented in history. It is a world of creativity ... of new ideas .. ., a world where outworn ideas are being discarded. A world in transformation.''^^**^^
Often, in their speeches, capitalist statesmen recognise the irreversible historical changes and express a scarcely concealed fear of them. ''. . .We know,'' President Lyndon Johnson said on October 7, 1966, ``that the world is changing. ... In every part of the world, new forces are at the gates: new countries, new aspirations, new men.''^^***^^ Variations on the same theme occurred in other speeches by President Johnson: in January 1967, for example, in his Address to Congress on the State of the Union, he said: ``A time of testing---yes. And a time of transition. The transition is _-_-_
^^*^^ Foreign Affairs, Vol. 46, 1968, No. 2, p. 231.
^^**^^ David E. Lilienthal, Change, Hope and the Bomb, Princeton, New Jersey, 1963, p. 10.
^^***^^ The Department of State Bulletin, October 24, 1966, p. 622.
13 sometimes slow; sometimes unpopular; almost always very painful; and often quite dangerous.''^^*^^ President Richard Nixon has made similar statements on the changes that have taken place in international politics.But it is one thing to note changes in the world and new phenomena in international relations, and it is quite another to .comprehend and to explain their causes, let alone to influence them. It is here that bourgeois politicians, despite their vain attempts to come to grips with a new situation, usually show their inability or disinclination to draw the correct conclusions from world events. Walter Lippmann made the astute admission, in 1968, that America and Britain are run by people who will not seriously accept the historical changes of the postwar world; he went on to say that their governments are controlled by people who are unable to appreciate the radical changes in the international situation, changes which have occurred since the end of the war; the world has therefore to suffer the tragic consequences that arise from the fact that these countries are run by people whose outlook was formed in another era and who have not been able to shed their old way of looking at things.
A growing awareness of the problems of contemporary international relations is evident in bourgeois writings; a vast quantity of research, books, articles and speeches on this subject is constantly being published in the West. These and the numerous conferences, seminars and symposiums show that it would be wrong to brand the aim of bourgeois studies in international relations simply as an apology for and propaganda of imperialist foreign policy. The ruling classes in the West are bound to have an interest in objectively understanding the complex paths of world development today, and many bourgeois writers are helping them by attempting to produce a careful study of international relations. However, their results are not commensurate with their efforts.
In the light of the revolutionary changes taking place in the world, the basic failure of bourgeois social science is _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., January 30, 1967, p. 163.
14 increasingly obvious. The philosophical and sociological conceptions propounded by bourgeois authors limit the significance of theoretical generalisations of new phenomena on the world scene; they hamper one in gaining a proper prospective on future international relations and in outlining practical ways of resolving the urgent problems of world politics.Works by bourgeois authors devoted to contemporary international relations and foreign policy show signs of hankering after the good old days, a fear of the growth and strengthening of revolutionary forces, confusion when faced by the complex and changing international situation, an inability correctly to understand it, let alone to influence it. In an analysis of American foreign policy, the Director of Intelligence and Research in the State Department, Thomas L. Hughes, has said: ``...We live in an age which constantly presents us with impossible alternatives---none of which appears to lead us where we want to go.''^^*^^ His article was typically called ``Policy-Making in a World Turned Upside Down''. In the book Power and Impotence. The Failure of America s Foreign Policy, by Edmund Stillman and William Pfaff, published in 1966, the question is posed: ''. . .Can America accept the world for what it is, for its dismaying and tragic reality?''^^**^^
Irrespective of their differences of opinion on contemporary international affairs and foreign policy, the vast majority of bourgeois academics of various schools disregard the profound social and economic processes and the class struggle, and ignore the law-governed nature of the growth of world socialism and other revolutionary forces and their impact on world politics; the formal nature of the schemes and theoretical constructions they elaborate merely reflects their idealist notions of international affairs.
This demonstrates more clearly than ever the importance of Lenin's ideas on international relations and their creative development for scientifically analysing new events in _-_-_
^^*^^ Foreign Affairs, Vol. 45, January 1967, No. 2, p. 208.
^^**^^ E. Stillman and W. Pfaff, Power and Impotence. The Failure of America's Foreign Policy, New York, 1966, p. 59.
15 international all airs, lor correctly evaluating the complex and changing international scene and for carrying out a vigorous and effective foreign policy. __ALPHA_LVL2__ IILenin's legacy in the sphere of international relations is both extensive and multifaceted. Besides the large number of works devoted to analysing foreign policy issues, these problems come up in one way or another in most of his writings. A study of the international situation and trends always occupied a prominent place in Lenin's theoretical and practical activity. It is an organic part of Leninism.
Lenin's preoccupation with international affairs stemmed primarily from the deeply international essence of the revolutionary movement of the working class and its socialist ideology. The founders of scientific socialism, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, constantly stressed the international character of the workers' fight against the bourgeoisie and the common nature of the revolutionary tasks of the workers of the various countries. These ideals permeate their Communist Manifesto, which culminates in the passionate appeal `` Workers of All Countries, Unite!''
Marx and Engels saw capitalism as a world system and carefully studied the development of relations between individual states, profoundly analysed foreign policy events from the point of view of the interests of the international movement, and called on the working class ``to master themselves the mysteries of international politics; to watch the diplomatic acts of their respective Governments; to counteract them, if necessary, by all means in their power''.^^*^^
The principles of proletarian internationalism formulated by Marx and Engels, their idea of the connection of the revolutionary struggle against capitalism with the development of the international situation, occupied an even greater _-_-_
^^*^^ Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works (in three volumes), Vol. 2, p. 18.
16 place in the theoretical and practical activity of Lenin, and were developed further. This was necessitated by the nature of the epoch in which Lenin lived and worked.As free-enterprise capitalism developed into monopoly capitalism, into imperialism, it was accompanied by an extension of international ties, the formation of a world market and the increasing foreign expansion of capitalist states, an exacerbation of the struggle for markets and spheres of capital investment among the monopolies, by a fierce rivalry of the largest imperialist powers and by wars for the redivision of the already divided world. By its very nature imperialism overflowed the bounds of national states and drew the whole world into its orbit, including even the most backward and previously isolated countries. The trend towards economic rapprochement of nations and internationalisation of economic affairs received a fresh powerful impulse, although it was manifested in extremely ugly forms. Imperialism increasingly became an international force and world phenomenon. Correspondingly, the struggle for social progress in each particular country was objectively directed against imperialism as a whole and acquired an international significance. National and international elements in the class struggle became ever more intertwined.
As pre-monopoly capitalism developed into imperialism and drew the entire world into its clutches, the mutual dependence of the destinies of peoples in different countries and continents naturally increased, and so did the importance of international problems and foreign policy in social life. Leninism, as a continuation and development of Marxism, could not but reflect these aspects of the new historical era.
The very rise of Leninism and Lenin's entire theoretical and practical activity was organically linked with the socioeconomic processes taking place throughout the world. Hence the need for an analysis and a more complete evaluation of the growing importance of the world situation and, in particular, the state and development of international relations.
It is from this standpoint that we must view the Leninist theory of socialist revolution and its paramount proposition 17 of the possibility of socialist revolution being victorious initially in a few countries, or even in a single country. This conclusion arose from a comprehensive analysis of international factors. The exacerbation of class and other contradictions, wars and the entire development of international relations encouraged the growth of the revolutionary movement and the emergence of a revolutionary situation in certain countries.
A direct connection between the prospects for socialist revolution in a particular country and the international situation became even more evident when the Leninist theory of socialist revolution was embodied in practice. The Russian Revolution of October 1917 amply demonstrated this connection: on the one hand, the victory of socialist revolution in Russia was to a certain extent influenced by the prevailing international situation; on the other hand, the revolution had the most profound effect on the world as a whole and on international relations in particular. The mutual connection, interdependence and intertwining of international relations and the class struggle within individual countries, in addition to the importance of the external factor in the revolutionary movement, all sharply increased as a result of the October Revolution which laid the start of a new historical epoch, one of transition from the old socio-- economic system of capitalism to the new system of communism.
Insofar as countries do not break away from the capitalist system simultaneously, the defeat of imperialism and the victory of the new socio-economic system on a worldwide scale presupposes a fairly lengthy simultaneous existence of socialist and capitalist states, and an acute struggle between them. The struggle between the two social systems is the crux of the Leninist theory of the world revolutionary process in the new era. The major contradiction of the present epoch, the contradiction between the two systems, embraces the whole area of international relations and foreign policy. This enhances the importance of this area in the overall revolutionary transformation of the world. It broadens the content of proletarian socialist internationalism which is becoming a major prerequisite of social progress and of __PRINTERS_P_17_COMMENT__ 2---239 18 uniting all revolutionary forces for a further assault on imperialism.
Hence it is a characteristic aspect of the theory and practice of Leninism in international relations that there should be an organic link between analysis of international issues and of general social problems of the epoch, problems of class struggle and the revolutionary movement. Today, this aspect has been further elaborated in the work of those who have continued Lenin's cause, in the documents issued by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and of the world communist movement.
Lenin's creative approach to social phenomena, his sober analysis of events and his uniting of theory and practice, are exceptionally important, especially in the complex and swiftly changing contemporary international relations. He emphasised on more than one occasion that ``truth is always specific''. Lenin criticised people who did not or would not see new phenomena and clung to outworn dogmas.^^*^^
Marx and Engels, too, were enemies of dogmatism. The creative basis of Marxism was time and again mentioned by Lenin: ``It is precisely because Marxism is not a lifeless dogma, not a completed, ready-made, immutable doctrine, but a living guide to action, that it was bound to reflect the astonishingly abrupt change in the conditions of social life.''^^**^^
A creative attitude to theory and to actuality was invariably present in everything Lenin did. He was not afraid to review outmoded views and ideas and to put forward new conclusions and ideas as soon as historical experience and new facts began to accumulate. That approach enabled him to orientate himself and act correctly in the most confused, unusual and unexpected situations.
After the October Revolution, which brought a radical turn-about in the historical situation, Lenin roundly criticised those Communists who allowed themselves to be distracted by ``flash'' slogans, and who "do not grasp the new socio-- economic and political situation, do not take into consideration the change in the conditions'', and he reminded them that " _-_-_
^^*^^ See V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 6, p. 458.
^^**^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 17, p. 42.
19 Marxism demands the consideration of objective conditions and their changes, that the question must be presented concretely as applicable to those conditions.^^*^^The creative method used by Lenin has special importance today in analysing international relations.
When we endeavour to analyse Lenin's contribution to the study and development of international relations, to explain the importance of Leninism in order to understand and to transform these relations, we must consider the whole many-sided theoretical and practical activity of Lenin. The general propositions of Marxist philosophy and, above all, of historical materialism developed by Lenin play a major part in a scientific analysis of contemporary international relations. So, too, does his work on imperialism, his theory of socialist revolution and his analysis of the social, economic and political processes in capitalist countries.
Moreover, a number of his works were directly devoted to the various specific phenomena of international affairs. Despite the fact that many ideas in these writings refer to other historical conditions, Lenin's analysis of the roots, the nature and consequences of various international events retain their immediate political importance as well as their scientific and methodological value.
Finally, of great importance too is that facet of Lenin's work which is concerned with the foreign policy of the Soviet state which he headed. It reflects the historical experience of the Soviet Union and is connected with the radical change, engendered by the October Revolution, in the development of international relations which required a new approach to foreign issues. It was this radical change that ultimately determined the contemporary international situation and international relations. In that period there appeared the most clear-cut and close connection between theory and practice which was a feature of the entire work of Lenin, who always considered that ``it is more pleasant and useful to go through the `experience of the revolution' than to write about it''.^^**^^ The British Communist William _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., Vol. 26, pp. 451--52.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 25, p. 492.
20 Paul recalls a conversation with Lenin in which Lenin said that the purpose of our theoretical views was to guide us in our revolutionary activity.Soviet foreign policy embodies the theoretical views of Lenin on international issues. Already in the early days of the Soviet state the function of Leninism as the most revolutionary theory of the time appeared as a transforming as well as an elucidatory function. Socialist foreign policy---the considered and purposive activity of the Communist Party and Soviet state internationally---became an ever greater force transforming international relations. In the sphere of theory and practice of Soviet foreign policy, the innovatory approach of Lenin and Leninists was readily apparent.
Matters were complicated by the qualitative change in the position of the working class, by its transformation into the ruling class. Its vanguard found it hard to change, as one of the first Soviet diplomats, Georgi Chicherin, once remarked, ``from its former thinking as an underground revolutionary party to the political realism of a government in power. . .''^^*^^
One of the difficulties was that the foreign policy of a socialist state surrounded by capitalist countries had not received any theoretical mention in the works of Marx and Engels inasmuch as they had not foreseen the possibility of the proletarian revolution triumphing in a single country. When they put forward the thesis that peace would be the international principle of the new society they based the idea on the principle that ``its [every nation's---Ed.) national ruler will be everywhere the same---Labour!''^^**^^ But in 1917 labour became the ruler only in Soviet Russia; most peoples at that time remained under the yoke of capital. A fundamentally new problem arose: in that connection it is worth recalling Lenin's words: "It did not occur even to Marx to write a word on this subject; and he died without leaving a single precise statement or definite instruction on it. That is _-_-_
^^*^^ G. V. Chicherin, Articles and Speeches on Foreign Policy, Moscow, 1061, p. 277 (in Russian).
^^**^^ Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works (in three volumes), Vol. 2, p. 194.
21 why we must overcome the difficulty entirely by ourselves.''^^*^^ Lenin, in fact, successfully coped with that problem and elaborated, in the most difficult historical circumstances of that time, the theory, strategy and tactics of foreign policy for the working people who had come to power in one single country.Lenin's foreign policy was based on a genuine scientific analysis of objective conditions, a profound knowledge of the laws of social development and an all-round consideration of the alignment and balance of world forces.
As the direct leader of Soviet home and foreign policy, Lenin not only called to ``seek new ways of solving our international problems,''^^**^^ he also provided excellent models for their solution in the unparalleled difficult circumstances of the first years of Soviet power---the fierce class struggle, the Civil War, foreign military intervention, diplomatic and economic blockade, and economic dislocation.
Lenin considered that the main national and international task of the victorious socialist revolution was to organise the economy and to take practical steps in the direction of socialism. ``The struggle in this field,'' he said, ``has now become global. Once we solve this problem, we shall have certainly and finally won on an international scale.''^^***^^ The main aim of Soviet foreign policy was to secure the most favourable international conditions for restoring the economy, increasing production and building socialism.
The fundamental principles of socialist foreign policy--- proletarian internationalism and peaceful coexistence between states with different social systems---were established and thoroughly worked out during Lenin's activity as the head of the Soviet state. Lenin's foreign policy concept took full account of the real situation in the world and inside the country, and helped to resolve the urgent tasks of building a socialist community.
To restore and develop the Soviet economy not only answered the pressing needs of devastated and impoverished _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 278.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 30, p. 302.
^^***^^ Ibid., Vol. 32, p. 437.
22 Russia, it also signalled the fulfilment of its internationalist duty in relation to the oppressed and exploited people throughout the world. To preserve and to fortify the first socialist state in the world, Lenin wrote, is ``most important to us and to the international socialist movement''.^^*^^ He underlined this idea at various stages of Soviet development.``For the dictatorship of the proletariat to acquire world significance, it had to be consolidated in practice in some one country.''^^**^^
Lenin attributed great significance in the fight against imperialism to the force of socialist example and to socialist peaceful policy. He noted that the propagandist and revolutionising effect of this example would be immense.
``Our socialist Republic of Soviets will stand secure, as a torch of international socialism and as an example to all the working people. Over there---conflict, war, bloodshed, the sacrifice of millions of people, capitalist exploitation; here---a genuine policy of peace and a socialist Republic of Soviets.''^^***^^
In 1919, Lenin described the first Soviet Constitution as ``a triumph we have achieved over the international imperialists.''^^****^^
The theoretical and practical significance of Lenin's work in foreign policy has been borne out by the experience of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries. Today the question of the importance of Lenin's conception of socialist foreign policy, of the entire Leninist foreign-policy heritage, of their relevance to contemporary conditions for the Soviet Union and other socialist countries is exceedingly topical.
The Leninist approach to international relations is a genuinely scientific approach that relies on the fundamental principles of historical materialism and revolutionary dialectics, on an analysis of these relations in development and _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 20, p. 452.
^^**^^
Ibid., Vol. 30, p. 505.
^^***^^
Ibid., Vol. 26, p. 472.
^^****^^
Ibid., Vol. 30, p. 157.
23 in unbreakable association with profound socio-economic processes and the class struggle. It is a class approach also in the sense that international relations and events are assessed from the standpoint of the interests of the proletariat and all working people, and that the practical activity of the Party in foreign policy is subordinate to the interests of the world revolutionary process. Finally, the Leninist approach is conspicuous for its high degree of specificity, for its flexibility and realism, for taking account of objective conditions and subjective factors, and the causes, ties and consequences of a particular event.The Leninist approach to international issues and foreign policy lies at the basis of the theoretical and practical activity of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the Soviet state and the world communist movement.
Problems of international relations and analysis of the tasks of the proletariat and all working people in foreign policy have always received considerable attention in the decisions taken at Party congresses, in the documents of the Communist International and at meetings of Communist and Workers' Parties.
The creative furtherance of Leninism as applied to international relations has acquired particularly great importance since the Second World War, during which time the world has seen new changes that have affected every aspect of the life of society. These changes have included above all the expansion and deepening of the world revolutionary process, the rise of new socialist states and the conversion of socialism into a world system, the upsurge in the national liberation movement and the downfall of the imperialist colonial system, and the aggravation of the general crisis of capitalism. Huge changes have taken place in the development of the productive forces due to the scientific and technological revolution.
These and many other changes have made it necessary to give deep thought to the major issues of world development, and scientifically to analyse the alignment of class forces in the world today. Without a precise Marxist analysis of the results and trends in world development, it would be impossible to determine the basic direction of the world communist 24 and workers' movement, to outline the most effective ways of attaining its great aims in the present situation, and to formulate the basic tasks of the international activity of Communist Parties, in particular, the main directions of the foreign policy of the socialist countries.
The Communist Party of the Soviet Union, creatively developing Marxism-Leninism in a principled fight against dogmatism, Right- and ``Left''-wing revisionism and against nationalism, is successfully carrying out its role as a continuer of the cause of Lenin and as the vanguard of the world communist movement.
The major steps taken in this direction have been the decisions of the 20th CPSU Congress, the documents of the International Meetings of Representatives of Communist and Workers' Parties in 1957, 1960 and 1969, the CPSU Programme, the documents of the 23rd and 24th CPSU congresses, the resolutions of plenary meetings of the CPSU Central Committee and the celebration of the Lenin centenary and of the 50th anniversary of the formation of the Soviet Union.
The importance of these documents of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the world communist movement lies mainly in their profound analysis of new phenomena of the present day, and changes in the alignment of class forces in the world; they have set and elaborated fresh propositions on radical and fundamental issues of international development. In posing these questions and analysing the factors that determine further historical prospects as well as the course of present events, they make a decisive contribution to working out the correct strategy and tactics of the world revolutionary movement.
Participants in the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties that took place in Moscow on June 5-17, 1969, once again underlined the importance of Lenin's work: "Communists regard it as their task firmly to uphold the revolutionary principles of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism in the struggle against all enemies, steadfastly to make them a living reality, constantly to develop Marxist-Leninist theory and enrich it on the basis of present experience of waging the class struggle and building 25 socialist society. Communists will always be true to the creative spirit of Leninism.''^^*^^
Creative Leninist thought, which is being developed in conformity with the new historical conditions, provides the only true key to a study and understanding of the nature of contemporary international relations and their place among other aspects of the life of society, to an analysis of the balance of power in the world and to an understanding of the major, burning issues of world politics.
_-_-_^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow 1969, Prague, 1969, p. 41.
[26] __ALPHA_LVL1__ THE PLACE OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONSDialectics calls for a many-sided investigation into a given social phenomenon in its development, and for the external and the seeming to be reduced to the fundamental motive forces, to the development of the productive forces and to the class struggle.
V. I. Lenin
International relations occupy an increasingly important place in today's complex and contradictory processes. This is an undisputed fact and it is attracting more and more attention from both specialists and non-specialists, from theoreticians and practitioners of all levels; it is exciting the interest of widest groups of people the world over. However, there are serious differences of opinion in determining the nature of international relations and their essence, in approaching their study and in defining their role in society. This stems not simply from a difference in methodology and class standpoint of scientific theories, but from the nature of the very object of investigation: this sphere of life is conspicuous for its extreme complexity.
Let us look at the question of the participants in international relations. Above all, one cannot but notice their great, and constantly growing number and diversity. They include many nations and countries, unions and associations of states, national and international political parties and organisations, business firms, corporations and enterprises, and, finally, individual persons---heads of state, diplomats and so on.
The range of international contacts is also extremely wide: political and military, economic (including trade), cultural, 27 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS IN THE LIFE OF SOCIETY scientific and others. These ties and relations become intertwined in a variety of combinations and permutations.
The forms of international relations are most diverse. They may be either bilateral or multilateral, they may be enforced in law or accepted standards or they may obviate the law and be functional through a special apparatus, like diplomatic channels, or simply bypass it. The United Nations Organisation and other international bodies are constantly expanding their activities.
The whole technology of international contacts---means of communication and transport, of information, and the mass media---is becoming increasingly diverse.
The same diversity is typical of the nature of international contacts. They may be relations of domination and subordination or of co-operation on the principles of equality, they may be friendly or unfriendly, peaceful and nonpeaceful, they may include various stages of co-operation, tension, conflict and struggle right up to war of varying scale and character.
Finally, international relations are conspicuous for their great changeability; they are constantly expanding and becoming more complicated. The picture of contemporary international relations appears at first glance as a motley mosaic where the colours and patterns are constantly changing. If one takes a superficial view of the present-day international situation, where so many diverse forces are at work, where various factors, interests and emotions come into play, it is easy to accept all that as a conglomeration of haphazard, chaotic events and arbitrary actions.
The above view is typical of bourgeois writers on international relations and foreign policy. The well-known American student of international affairs, Stanley Hoffmann, for example, does not agree with those who see foreign policy not as ``a fluid interplay of kaleidoscopic forces and individuals, a continuum of conflicts and crises, but as an activity designed to deter and avert occasional nuisances that might slow down the march. . .''.^^*^^ Thomas L. Hughes of the US State Department thinks that _-_-_
^^*^^ Foreign Affairs, Vol. 46, January 1968, No. 2, p. 365.
28 today the world of the traditional foreign policy has evaporated and that it has been turned ``upside down''. He writes: ``Thus in a sense the facts of foreign policy are not facts, or if they are, they are highly slippery and manipulable.'' He goes on to say that ``all foreign-policy facts are relative, but some are more relative than = others''.^^*^^Many bourgeois politicians and ideologists believe that criteria of scientific investigation cannot be applied to international events, that science and politics do not make good bed-fellows, that politics is more like an art.
Stanley Hoffmann writes that ``in the American case the empirical grounds are usually of the wishful-thinking variety, and the act of faith is a kind of whistling in the dark''.^^**^^ The authors of the book Diplomatic Investigation. Essays in the Theory of International Politics say that the theory of international politics is unsystematic and cannot be understood by the man in the street; further, they write that an international theory does not exist at all, but only certain judgements on the fate of humanity.^^***^^
Indeed, at best bourgeois writers manage merely to classify international affairs somehow and to bring them down to a particular system without penetrating into their essence and without recognising that they have laws of development. Such writings, which are sometimes more or less useful for limited practical purposes, stem, as a rule, from one or another a priori formal scheme that absolutises various aspects of contemporary international relations.
One may trace two opposite trends in the works of bourgeois writers in this field. At the heart of one of them lies the absolutisation of international relations, their divorce from other aspects of social life, and the counterposing of foreign to home policy which lends this area of life a certain haziness that obscures it from strict scientific cognition. At the basis of the other trend are a denial of the specific nature of international relations, the extension to them of categories _-_-_
^^*^^ Foreign Affairs, Vol. 45, January 1967, No. 2, pp. 203, 204.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 46, January 1968, No. 2, p. 365.
^^***^^ See H. Butterfield and M. Wight (eds), Diplomatic Investigation. Essays in the Theory of International Politics, London, 1966, p. 23.
29 of internal social relations, attempts to prove the possibility of resolving international issues by means taken from the arsenal of domestic policy, the advocacy of "a world state" or "a world government''. Both trends give a distorted picture of the real place of international relations among other social processes and do not lead to an exposure of the real nature of international relations, their essence and causal links.As distinct from the bourgeois theories, Leninism, having enriched and developed the views of Marx and Engels on social progress, provides the key for studying and understanding the essence of international relations, their real nature, place and role in the life of society. The key is to be found in applying the basic propositions of historical materialism, which holds that the processes of social development are material, natural and understandable.
The classics of Marxism-Leninism did not set themselves the task of providing an exhaustive definition of international relations; they uncovered the laws of social development as a whole and elaborated the basic principles of a scientific study of all facets of human life. They set an example of how to apply these laws and methods of scientific study to an analysis of their contemporary international affairs. Of special note is the approach of Lenin to international relations. He clearly saw the trend towards their increasing complexity associated with the development of pre-- monopoly capitalism into imperialism, with the sharpening international struggle, and the appearance of world conflicts of unprecedented proportions. But no matter how tempestuous the surface of world politics may have seemed, it never concealed from him the basic causes and class essence of phenomena and processes of international affairs.
Lenin, guided by the historical materialism of Marx and Engels, analysed the roots of the international relations of his time, revealed their interconnections with other social phenomena and showed their specific traits. His approach to international relations corresponds to the general methodological requirements of Marxism in studying any social phenomena. It is based on materialist dialectics.
30 __ALPHA_LVL2__ IIThe rise of international relations, just as the formation of social classes and states and nations, was directly connected with a certain level of development of the productive forces, with the growth of commodity production and of the need for economic exchange among people, the producers of material goods. Marx and Engels made the point that ``the relations of different nations among themselves depend upon the extent to which each has developed its productive forces, the division of labour and internal intercourse''.^^*^^ The level of development of the productive forces, the nature of relations of production and the mode of production determine ultimately the intensity and character of relations not only between classes, but also between countries. In that sense international relations, as Marx wrote, are ``secondary and tertiary phenomena, in general derived and transmitted, i.e., non-primary, conditions of = production''.^^**^^
The development of the productive forces affects international relations directly by engendering economic ties on the basis of an international division of labour and by predetermining their intensity, scale and even their technique; it also affects them indirectly through production relations and the socio-economic system.
Naturally, a substantial influence is exerted on international relations directly and through the mode of production, by geographical location, the existence of natural wealth and other factors.
Size and density of population also have some effect on international relations. But the demographic and geographical factors, despite their obviously objective nature, do not explain by themselves the essence of international relations, the shifts and leaps which occur in this area, and the deep-going differences in the part played by individual countries in the world.
_-_-_^^*^^ Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works (in three volumes), Vol. 1, p. 21.
^^**^^ Karl Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, London, 1971, p. 215.
31At the base of international relations as a whole and of the qualitative changes that take place in that sphere, as Marxism-Leninism shows, lie changes in the mode of production and in the alignment of class forces. Despite their specific features, international relations are subject to the general laws of social development. This is a historical phenomenon associated with particular historical conditions and with the particular epoch. Lenin considered it necessary in analysing international relations ``to seek for the roots of social phenomena in production relations'', ``to reduce them to the interests of definite classes. . .''.^^*^^
Marxist-Leninist theory of the class struggle enables us to reveal the laws in that seemingly confused labyrinth and chaos, which Lenin described in the following manner: ``The strivings of some of its [society's---Ed.] members conflict with the strivings of others . . . social life is full of contradictions . . . history reveals a struggle between nations and societies, as well as within nations and societies, and, besides, an alternation of periods of revolution and reaction, peace and war, stagnation and rapid progress or decline.''^^**^^ Changes in the mode of production, social revolutions, the replacement of one socio-economic system by another, changes in the alignment of the main class forces and the growth of the class struggle bring about revolutionary changes also in international relations. The entire course of history testifies to these Marxist-Leninist propositions.
A particular type of international relations corresponds to each historical epoch, determined by the predominance of one or another socio-economic structure, and by one or another array of the main class forces. Without dwelling on international relations in slave-owning and feudal epochs, let us turn to a period nearer at hand.
The direct dependence of the nature and content of international relations on the mode of production and the social system finds ample elucidation in the works of Lenin. He saw the complex skein of international events at the turn of the century---the increasing militarisation and economic _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 1, p. 505.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 21, p. 57.
32 and political expansion of the Great Powers, the territorial division of the world and the fight for its redivision, and the predatory wars of plunder---as a natural manifestation of the basic characteristic features of the capitalist mode of production at its imperialist stage. Thus, Lenin described war as ``a direct and inevitable outcome'' of the foundations of private property^^*^^ and colonial, expansionist policy of the Great Powers as ``an inevitable consequence of the very foundations of capitalism''.^^**^^In his analysis of imperialist international relations, Lenin stressed their direct dependence on the nature of the times and on the basic features of socio-economic development. He described the imperialist tendency in the 20th century capitalism as follows: ``There is not a single major question of home or foreign policy which could be settled in any way except from the point of view of this tendency.''^^***^^
The domination of monopoly capital, with all its features, determined the nature and basic content of international relations of the time. In his work Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Lenin wrote: ``Domination, and the violence that is associated with it, such are the relationships that are typical of the `latest phase of capitalist development'; this is what inevitably had to result, and has resulted, from the formation of all-powerful economic monopolies.''^^****^^
Lenin's ideas on the direct dependence of the substance and nature of international relations on the general character of the epoch, on the mode of production and on the basic features of socio-economic development, were forcefully borne out after the Great October Socialist Revolution, which opened up a new era in world history. International relations of this era differ in quality from those of the era when imperialism held undisputed sway. The October Revolution split the world into two diametrically opposed systems, broke the undivided domination of imperialism and led to the appearance of a fundamentally new power in international relations.
_-_-_^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 341.
^^**^^ Ibid., p. 358.
^^***^^ Ibid., Vol. 29, p. 169.
^^****^^ Ibid., Vol. 22, p. 207.
33While, prior to 1917, the international stage was held by exploiting states, primarily capitalist, after the October Revolution a socialist state became one of the principal participants in international relations. From that time on international relations were no longer determined completely by imperialist laws. Socialism and its inherent laws began to have an increasing impact on international relations, the whole content of which began to change. International relations when imperialism holds undivided sway, when the substance of these relations is determined largely by the interests and rivalry of similar exploiting classes and similar states thirsting to preserve and extend their positions both internally and externally, to conquer fresh markets and to consolidate their hegemony over other countries--- international relations of this kind are one thing. However, the international relations that developed after 1917, which have been directly affected by the main class contradiction of the epoch, are quite another thing. Their content has become determined primarily by the existence, interests and struggle of antagonistic classes and states with opposed social and economic systems. The simultaneous existence of two diametrically opposed modes of production---capitalist and socialist---and the battle between them in material production, i. e., economic competition between the two social and economic systems, constitute the objective basis of contemporary international relations.
Our day, as noted by the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties in 1969, is characterised by the exacerbation of ``the historic struggle between the forces of progress and reaction, between socialism and imperialism. This clash is worldwide and embraces all the basic spheres of social life: economy, politics, ideology and culture.''^^*^^
The contradiction between the two world systems affects international relations in their entirety; it is the sphere where the two systems clash in the most direct way. Today, relations between imperialist states themselves and _-_-_
^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow 1969, p. 11.
34 international relations in Asia, Africa and Latin America are formed in quite a different way than they used to be.The revolutionary changes in international relations under the impact of the developing new socio-economic structure are manifested also in another way. The emergence of socialism beyoi-jd the bounds of one country and the formation of a world socialist community, the triumph of socialist relations of production in a number of countries, have led to the establishment of altogether new international relations---relations between socialist states.
The basically new feature of these relations is determined by the radical difference between the socialist and capitalist modes of production, between the socialist and capitalist relations of production. The socialist mode of production and the abolition of antagonistic classes in socialist countries presuppose the removal of antagonisms and the military conflicts between nations engendered by them, and the establishment of friendship and equal co-operation between them on the principles of socialist internationalism.
When classified according to the socio-economic system and class-political character of their participants, contemporary international relations can be divided into the following types: relations between states of the two world social systems; relations between capitalist states; relations between socialist states; relations between imperialist states and developing countries; relations between socialist states and developing countries, and, finally, the fairly variegated relations between developing countries themselves. Relations between states with different social systems play the major part in the contemporary world. This circumstance directly stems from the main contradiction of our epoch and its fundamental essence---the transition from capitalism to socialism.
The nature of the contemporary epoch, which the CPSU Programme and documents of the international communist movement define as the epoch of struggle between opposing social systems, an epoch of socialist and national liberation revolutions, an epoch of the downfall of imperialism and liquidation of colonialism, an epoch of the transition of more and more nations to socialism, and the triumph of 35 socialism and communism on a worldwide scale, all go to define the substance of international relations today, including their complexity, contradictoriness and dynamism.
Meanwhile, the direct influence of the productive forces on international relations is also growing today, as is apparent both in the expansion of international economic exchange, whose development in the scientific and technological revolution is outpacing the growth of the economy as a whole, in the increasing trend towards the internationalisation of science and in the technological improvement of international communications. Contemporary international relations are also affected by the revolution in the art of warfare, particularly the appearance of totally new types of weapons and means of their delivery.
Socio-economic factors constitute the objective basis of international relations; they do not depend on the will of people, parties or classes. Thorough consideration of the whole complex of these objective factors, including the pattern of class forces and correlation of class interests, is most important element in the Leninist understanding of international relations and a prerequisite for influencing them.
__NUMERIC_LVL3__ IIIIn present-day international relations developing on the basis of coexistence, competition and struggle between the two opposing socio-economic systems---socialism and capitalism---a leading role belongs to international political relations. ``In a society based upon class divisions,'' Lenin once said, ``the struggle between the hostile classes is bound, at a certain stage of its development, to become a = political struggle.''^^*^^ This idea fully applies also to international relations. Just as in the workers' political struggle against the bourgeoisie, as distinct from the economic struggle, it is not a matter of partial improvement in their position within the framework of a particular system, but of the very character of the social system, so in international political relations _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 10, p. 79.
__PRINTERS_P_35_COMMENT__ 3* 36 it is a matter of the foremost interests of the socio-economic systems, classes and nations engaged in struggle.Lenin's ideas of politics as a concentrated expression of economics, and about the primacy of politics over economics, have received ample confirmation in international relations.^^*^^ Since the objective interests of classes and nations are in fact expressed primarily in the policy of states, international relations are above all inter-state relations and, as such, political relations. Today, both economic relations and the ideological struggle are largely carried through states in accordance with their class and political character and their class and political aims.
Anyone who mechanically applies to contemporary international relations historical materialism's proposition regarding the determining role of the economy will distort the real nature and correlation of international political and international economic relations. Of course, political, economic and ideological aspects sometimes become closely intertwined in international relations. However, it is precisely in the international political struggle that ruling classes defend their vital economic interests and try to consolidate their dominating position. In that sense the profound political significance of economic rivalry between the two systems in the class struggle on the international arena is patently obvious. The main interests of capitalism and socialism clash in this competition, and their fate is ultimately decided.
Economic competition between the two systems should not be put in the same rank as the economic form of class struggle within capitalist countries, nor should it be identified with economic relations and ties that arise between individual countries (including those with different systems) on the basis of the international division of labour. In this last instance, it is a matter not of a qualitative change in the status of a particular class or nation, but of the quantitative improvements or worsening, of specific interests, of particular advantages, etc. Economic relations between individual countries today, in that sense, do not differ _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 32, p. 83.
37 fundamentally from the international economic exchange of the previous epoch and are certainly not a basis for international political relations. One may cite Soviet-American relations as an example: political relations between the USSR and the USA which had grown up on the basis of the existence, competition and struggle between the opposed socio-economic systems are acquiring increasing importance, even though economic exchange between them remained insignificant until lately. Economic ties between individual countries are often directly conditioned by political ends.Similarly, the outcome of the struggle between classes, socio-economic systems and nations internationally cannot be finally resolved in the ideological sphere, although the irreconcilability of class interests is particularly acute in this sphere, and its importance is constantly growing.
International political relations may develop in various forms, including friendly co-operation. At the same time, it is precisely in the political sphere that the struggle may attain particular acuteness and develop into armed conflict. This issue was elaborated by Lenin, who gave a profound class content to the well-known formula of Clausewitz, viz., ``War is a continuation of policy by other means.''^^*^^
So, the class struggle in the world is above all apparent in international political relations, which form as a result of the interaction of the policies and political acts of states and other participants in international relations today.
What Lenin said about the close connection between home and foreign policy is of important methodological significance in grasping the class essence of politics, where, as he wrote, it is a matter of ``extremely complex relations--- national and international---between classes and = parties''.^^**^^ ``It is fundamentally wrong, un-Marxist and unscientific,'' Lenin wrote, ``to single out `foreign policy' from policy in general, let alone counterpose foreign policy to home policy.''^^***^^ Elsewhere Lenin is even more adamant: ``No idea _-_-_
^^*^^ Karl Clausewitz, Vom Kricge, Berlin und Leipzig, 1918, S. G40.
^^**^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. ()S.
^^***^^ Ibid., Vol. 23, p. 43.
38 could be more erroneous or harmful than to separate foreign from home policy.''^^*^^Indeed, the foreign policy and home policy of a particular class have a common nature, common roots, and the two become interconnected through thousands of threads. Both the foreign and home policy of a state stem from the objective situation and prime interests of the ruling classes. The major aims of one and the other boil down to support, strengthening and extension of their domination, although in exploiting societies these aims are far from all those openly admitted and proclaimed; they are as a rule masked by various kinds of ideological camouflage and references to the interests of society, the nation or the people.
Lenin wrote in this connection: ``People always have been the foolish victims of deception and self-deception in politics, and they always will be until they have learnt to seek out the interests of some class or other behind all moral, religious, political and social phrases, declarations and promises.''^^**^^
These ideas apply just as well to the period when capitalism ruled the world and to the contemporary epoch when socialism is a force to be reckoned with internationally.
In his analysis of the characteristic features of monopoly capitalism, Lenin underlined the common nature of its home and foreign policy: ``Both in foreign and home policy imperialism strives towards violations of democracy, towards reaction.''^^***^^ The foreign policy of imperialist states, very closely connected with their domestic policy, is determined by the very essence of the monopoly stage of capitalism and the overall world situation. In a number of works Lenin revealed the roots, content and characteristic features of imperialist foreign policy.
When imperialism held undivided sway, the economic expansion of monopolies, the striving of imperialist powers to redivide the already divided world, to rule the world, and the growth of militarism determined the especially _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 25, p. 85
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 19, p. 28.
^^***^^ Ibid., Vol. 23, p. 43.
39 aggressive nature of imperialist foreign policy, the very acute international conflicts and the inevitability of bloody wars on an unparalleled scale. In 1916 Lenin wrote: ``~`World domination' is, to put it briefly, the substance of imperialist policy, of which imperialist war is the continuation.''^^*^^Behind the development of international and interstate relations in past epochs lay the rivalry of the exploiting classes which were in power in various countries and which strove to consolidate and expand their domination, to gain more markets and higher profits. Lenin spoke in this connection about ``a most deep-seated and ineradicable conflict of economic interests''.^^**^^
However, international relations were also influenced by a certain community of interests of the exploiting classes of various countries in their struggle against the exploited and the oppressed.
The determining role of class interests and of the class antagonism between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat in the development of international relations was particularly evident after the 1917 October Revolution, when the hostile class attitude of the bourgeoisie to the world's first proletarian state permeated every aspect of capitalist foreign policy.
Today, when socialism has consolidated itself and the revolutionary movement has developed, the class community of fundamental interests among the exploiting classes in their fight against world socialism and other revolutionary forces is even more in evidence, despite the acute contradictions among the ruling classes of various countries.
The past decades have confirmed the immense importance of Lenin's ideas about the nature of imperialist foreign policy. At the same time, they have been full of epochal events which have radically changed the situation in the world and have sharply limited the role and opportunities of imperialism in international relations.
Lenin and Lenin's followers have never concealed the fact that class interests lie behind the policy of socialist _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., Vol. 23, p. 35.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 31, p. 466.
40 state. Shortly after the revolution Lenin said: ``Economic interests and the economic position of the classes which rule our state lie at the root of both our home and foreign policy. These propositions which constitute the basis of the Marxist world outlook and have been confirmed for us Russian revolutionaries by the great experience of both Russian revolutions, must not be forgotten even for a moment if we are to avoid losing ourselves in the thickets, the labyrinth of diplomatic tricks, a labyrinth which at times is artificially created and made more intricate by people, classes, parties and groups who like to fish in muddy waters, or who are compelled to do so.''^^*^^The fact that the basic class interests of the bourgeoisie, on the one hand, and the proletariat, on the other, differ diametrically, and that, correspondingly, the basic interests of states with different social systems also differ diametrically, by no means precludes the possibility of a partial, temporary coincidence of interests, as the history of international relations testifies. Of particular importance in this respect is Lenin's demand for a careful analysis of ``those varied interests of different classes that coincide in certain definite, limited common aims''.^^**^^
National interests and contradictions between nations also leave their imprint on the international situation and on foreign policy. Having the most diverse combinations, they very obviously affect the form and content of international relations as a whole and international conflicts in particular. Lenin always regarded nations, their objective interests and the national liberation movements as a factor of paramount importance in international affairs. The national factors occupy an important place in territorial disputes and other conflicts among various states. The connection between the national question and international relations has become still closer in the imperialist epoch when, as a result of the foreign expansion of the monopoly bourgeoisie, the national question has become a national-colonial issue.
_-_-_^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 27, pp. 365--60.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 12, p. 404.
41In conditions of class society and the battle of the two opposing systems, national interests objectively play a subordinate role to class interests. Whereas under socialism the interests of the ruling class---the proletariat---and the interests of the nation as a whole coincide, under capitalism it is normal for a great gap to exist between the interests of nations and those of the ruling class. ``When their class profits are at stake,'' Lenin wrote, ``the bourgeoisie will sell their country and strike a bargain with any foreigner against their own people.''^^*^^
Consideration of the national factor is especially necessary today due to the collapse of colonial empires and the rise of dozens of new national states. It is also important because of the strengthening of nationalist ideology in developing countries.
Today, both historical tendencies in the national question, described by Lenin as a world law of capitalism, have received complete confirmation and further development: ``The first is the awakening of national life and national movements, the struggle against all national oppression, and the creation of national states. The second is the development and growing frequency of international intercourse in every form, the break-down of national barriers, the creation of the international unity of capital, of economic life in general, of politics, science, etc.''^^**^^
The trend towards the internationalisation of economics, politics and science, and towards the integration of national states, is engendered by the needs of development of the productive forces and development of the class struggle, and it nourishes the uniting processes within each of the two social systems. Under imperialism, this tendency which, as Lenin described it, is typical of mature capitalism may combine (and this is evident in the experience of recent years) with increasing hegemonistic strivings by the monopoly bourgeoisie of the major powers, who have been endeavouring to dictate their will to all countries. Popular resistance to these attempts and the specific interests of the _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 28, p. 26.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 20, p. 27.
42 ruling classes in certain states, especially small states, and their fear of losing their positions and privileges which they possess within the confines of their own national states, are reflected in a certain enlivening of nationalism in advanced capitalist countries.However, the growth of nationalism in the world today is above all associated with the particular nature of the objective processes underway in developing countries; the life of society there is only just acquiring national forms, and their past experience of international intercourse has been confined largely to colonial oppression. In these circumstances the formation of national states and the securing of political independence signify social progress, although some aspects of nationalism hamper the development of the productive forces.
To a certain extent, the manifestations of nationalism in contemporary international relations are connected with changes in the overall balance of power in the world, which is conducive to a growth in the relative independence of the foreign policy of individual states. The distinction between the objective national interests and the national movements which express them, on the one hand, and nationalist ideology and the use of nationalist ideals in foreign policy, on the other, has considerable importance in the scientific analysis of international relations.
National distinctions, as Marxism-Leninism makes clear, remain longer than do class distinctions. As class antagonisms are removed, the difference in national interests will not engender such acute international conflicts as they do today. The Communist Manifesto says: ``In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another is put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.''^^*^^
The identical nature, however, of the socio-economic structure and the community of basic class interests do not _-_-_
^^*^^ Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works (in three volumes), Vol. 1, p. 125.
43 signify the immediate elimination of all national distinctions, national contradictions and national interests, although it is easier to resolve these issues under socialism, as history shows.Along with class and national interests, interests of a more general character associated with the objective requirements of the existence and development of society as a whole also influence international relations. Marx said that the bourgeois period of history was destined in particular to develop ``the universal intercourse founded upon the mutual dependence of mankind'',^^*^^ and Engels, in an address to the British workers, noted the coincidence of their interests with the interests ``of all the human race''.^^**^^
Lenin, in describing the balance of various kinds of interest, said that ``from the standpoint of the basic ideas of Marxism, the interests of social development are higher than the interests of the proletariat---the interests of the working-class movement as a whole are higher than the interests of a separate section of the workers or of separate phases of the movement. .. .''^^***^^
``The mutual dependence of mankind'', ``the interests of all the human race" and ``the interests of social development'' are increasingly relevant today due to the scientific and technological revolution and its social consequences, especially in connection with the threat to mankind because of the appearance of nuclear missiles. It is above all in the interests objectively of all progressive social forces (socialist states, the working class and all working people in other countries) to avert a thermonuclear world war; this is a necessary prerequisite to the further advance of socialism and communism, and social progress as a whole. The interests of socialist states on this issue are in complete accord with those of the bulk of mankind. But bourgeois states and the bourgeoisie as a class must also be interested, in a certain sense, in preventing such a war, insofar as it would threaten the very existence of capitalism and put paid to _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., p. 499.
^^**^^ Frederick Engels, On Britain, Moscow, 1962, p. 338.
^^***^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 4, p. 236.
44 the exploiting classes as well as to the working people. Nonetheless, the aggressive nature of imperialism and the interests of the influential military-industrial complex which has formed out of an alliance between the largest monopolies and the reactionary military elite, act in the opposite direction. The adverse consequences of the growing influence of this complex on American policy became so evident that the former American President Dwight Eisenhower was forced to recognise this fact back in 1961. The well-known American economist John K. Galbraith noted this with alarm in Harper's Magazine in June 1969 in an article expressively entitled ``How to Control the Military".Thus, the development of international politics is determined by the complex intertwining and interaction of interests of the most diverse kind. These embrace the interests of the imperialist and national bourgeoisie in various countries, the international and national interests of the working class and other working people, the interests of various nations and nationalities, and the objective interests of social development. It is, however, class interests that play the main and determining part in the contemporary epoch.
While the major content and type of international relations stem from the mode of production, from the basic characteristics of socio-economic structures, from the character of the epoch, the multifaceted manifestations of this content and the specific development of international relations are determined primarily, as Lenin often indicated, by the interests and struggle of classes and other social forces.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ IVThe attention Lenin paid to international issues and the importance of Lenin's heritage in that sphere are determined to a large degree by the place of international relations in the life of society, by their growing role in resolving internal problems. The growth in importance of international factors is a characteristic feature of human history as a whole, but it is particularly evident today. It is a natural 45 result of social development inevitably leading to an extension of contacts and communication among people and engendered by the objective requirements of the development of the productive forces.
The role played by external factors has been most influential during the imperialist stage of capitalism, when monopolies and the financial oligarchy were formed, when the economic partition of the world began, when the territorial division of land among a handful of Great Powers was completed, and when capital, in Lenin's words, ``has become international and = monopolist".^^*^^
The internal affairs of individual countries, which earlier were not directly dependent on international events, now became very much dependent on them. Internal social relations now formed an increasingly close and organic connection with international relations. The enhanced role played by international relations in the life of society stemmed also from the fact that, in the imperialist epoch, many millions of people on vast continents began to have an effect on them, although initially they had been passive objects of world politics. When imperialism became a world system and began to hunt after more markets, more spheres of capital investment and more territories which could become potential markets, it involved in international relations more and more countries and continents, peoples of areas of the globe which had been previously left outside contact with other peoples and territories. All this enhanced the role of international relations in social development, and made life in these territories directly dependent on processes taking place thousands of miles away, in the far-off metropolitan countries.
The economic and political zigzags in the metropolitan countries, the rise and fall of stock market prices, not to mention such violent actions as predatory wars and outright colonial plundering, directly resounded in the most remote regions of the world. But it was a two-way process: the interimperialist struggle, the uncontrollable expansion of capital in foreign markets, had the most direct influence on the _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 340.
46 situation in the imperialist states themselves, on the class struggle within these countries and on the resolution of domestic matters. The unrelenting inter-imperialist rivalry especially told on the destinies of peoples, both in metropolitan countries and in the colonies, when it boiled over into a war.The enhanced role of international relations in the life of society during the imperialist epoch was encouraged by yet another important circumstance, that is, the increasing internationalist nature of the anti-imperialist struggle. Internationalism is objectively inherent in the battle of the working class against the bourgeoisie, but, up to a certain time, it was reflected only in a limited way. As capitalism developed into imperialism and into a world system, it meant that the struggle against its national detachments acquired international significance. As a result of the increasing unevenness of economic and political development of individual countries under imperialism, the likelihood of the proletariat breaking weak links in imperialist domination increased; and the breaking even of a single link meant, in these conditions, a break in the single chain of imperialist omnipotence, a blow against the system as a whole. Such a break thereby acquired immense international importance and it had a great impact on the internal situation in other countries. Moreover, the very unevenness of development as one of the prerequisites for a victorious revolution in a particular country appears above all in international relations.
Therefore, the course of the revolutionary movement in capitalist countries has been in close connection with the international situation.
History has fully confirmed Lenin's theory of socialist revolution based on complete account of the increased role of the external factor, in particular, international relations. The very emergence of a revolutionary situation in Russia and the triumph of revolution and, finally, the relative ease of that triumph was made possible thanks to the favourable internal conditions coinciding with the favourable external conditions---a certain international situation, a certain stage in international relations.
The connection between international relations and the development of the revolutionary movement both within 47 individual countries and on a worldwide scale, and the growth in importance of the international factor in all social life became even more evident after the Great October Socialist Revolution. The growth after 1917 of the part played by international relations was decisively determined by the rise, existence and consolidation of the first socialist state in the world. The revolutionary movement in other countries hung on the fate of the socialist revolution in Russia, and the fate of the Russian revolution, in turn, greatly depended on external conditions and on the international situation.
The existence of the socialist state became a major external revolutionising factor; its impact on the domestic life of other countries was effected not only by the force of the example it set but also through international relations and foreign policy.
On the one hand, the development of the socialist state affected the external and internal policy of the imperialist bourgeoisie. Their desire to destroy the home of world revolution did more than dominate the foreign policy of imperialist states; it also had a great influence on their home affairs. On the other hand, the revolutionary solidarity of working people with the first socialist country, their support for the Soviet Union, began to occupy an important place in the revolutionary struggle against the bourgeoisie, and this was reflected in the programme documents and practical activity of Workers' and Communist Parties.
At the same time, external conditions acquired immense importance for the Soviet socialist state as well. Lenin saw a source of strength of the exploiting classes, even after they have been overthrown, to lie in the international factor, ``in the strength of international capital, the strength and durability of their international = connections''.^^*^^ The union of internal and external counter-revolution during the Civil War and foreign military intervention in Soviet Russia completely bore out that thesis.
The existence and development of the new social system in Soviet Russia largely depended on the external factor. Lenin said that "from the very beginning of the October _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 24.
48 Revolution, foreign policy and international relations have been the main questions facing us''.^^*^^ The preservation of Soviet power, the forms and rate of socialist transformation, the fate of revolutionary Russia, and consequently, in the final count, the destiny of the world revolutionary movement, very much depended on that.Recall, for example, the period immediately preceding the signing of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty. And subsequently, in the confrontations between the USSR and imperialist states, it was not only partial issues that were decided, but the essential questions of class struggle and social development of worldwide importance.
The contradictions that existed among the various imperialist nations and the support given to the Soviet Union by the working class and all progressive forces in bourgeois countries were regarded by Lenin as a crucial factor in the Soviet victory over the foreign interventionists, a victory which enabled the people to tackle the internal problems of building socialism.
International relations very much influenced the forms and rate of socialist construction in the USSR; while certain aspects of the international situation (the successes of the peaceful Soviet foreign policy, its support by progressive forces the world over, the people's fight for national and social liberation, and the inter-imperialist contradictions) favoured socialist construction, others (the hostile capitalist encirclement and the constant threats of attack and aggressive actions of the imperialists) hindered it.
The problems of the international situation as an important factor of the class struggle in capitalist countries occupied a large place in the activity of Communist Parties and the Communist International. Clara Zetkin, in a report to the extended Plenary Meeting of the Executive Committee of the Comintern in 1922, elaborated on Lenin's idea about the interconnection of home and foreign policy. She said that "the masses must grasp the fact that issues of foreign policy are at the same time issues of home policy, that these affairs _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 28, p. 151.
49 concern them in the most intimate way just as they to a large degree affect their very life.''^^*^^The idea of the growing importance of the international situation for the class struggle of the proletariat, of the link between the struggle against preparation for a new world war and the struggle against internal reaction, of the international anti-fascist front, dominated the whole work of the 7th Congress of the Communist International in 1935.
The Second World War provided new proof of the influence of the international factor on internal social processes. The fight against the fascist occupation forces in Europe and against Japanese imperialist aggression in Asia became a major problem in the lives of the people of the world.
The victory of the democratic forces headed by the Soviet Union had the most profound impact on the internal affairs of many countries and peoples. The experience of the people's democratic revolutions in Central and Southeastern Europe are eloquent testimony of that.
The part played by the external factor was also exceedingly great in the development of some Asian countries towards the end of the war and in the initial postwar period. The international situation and the balance of power in the world greatly preconditioned internal processes in Americanoccupied Japan and in such countries as China, Korea and Indochina.
The intertwining of inner and external political aims and methods is clearly evident in the policy of the exploiting classes. Let us take the example of the acceptance by the West European bourgeoisie of the Marshall Plan and, associated with it, the pro-American foreign policy of West European governments in the immediate postwar years, which was dictated largely by internal political ends: a fear of the growth of revolutionary forces and a desire to bolster up their weakened class domination. The growing role of the external factor and, particularly, of international relations, in social development has become even more evident in the years since the mid-1950s, when a considerable shift occurred _-_-_
^^*^^ Clara Zetkin, Ausgewiilte Reden und Schriften, Bd. II, Berlin, 1960, S. 562.
__PRINTERS_P_49_COMMENT__ 4---239 50 in the balance of power in the world, in favour of socialism and to the detriment of capitalism. The external factor and the international situation everywhere played an important part---in the development of the Egyptian revolution, in the outcome of the 1956 Suez crisis, in the defeat of the AngloFranco-Israeli aggression against Egypt and in the destiny of revolutionary Cuba.In the world today, the impact of international relations on social development and, in particular, on the world revolutionary movement is becoming more and more obvious, so confirming the dialectical interconnection between these processes as revealed by Lenin. The part played by international relations in social life is attaining a new qualitative level. For the first time in history the main contradiction of the epoch has become the main contradiction of international relations.
Each of the salient processes that are taking place in our times is worldwide and directly associated with international relations. By emerging as a world system, socialism has vastly extended and strengthened its influence and possibilities, and consequently, has increased the importance of the entire international sphere of social life. This may be seen in the unity of the struggle by the main contemporary revolutionary forces against the common enemy---imperialism, while the decisive role belongs to the world socialist system which heads the revolutionary process.
While shortly after the revolution Lenin spoke of foreign ties as a major source of power for the exploiters, today the potential power of the exploited peoples in the non-socialist world is also conditioned largely by external sources---above all, the existence and consolidation of the world socialist system. The rates of construction of advanced socialist and communist society within the framework of the world socialist system, and the prospects for the revolutionary movement in other countries more and more depend on the international situation and the struggle between the two world systems. Therefore, the fate of social progress is today largely decided within the sphere of international relations, in the battle between the forces of socialism led by the USSR and the forces of capitalism led by US imperialism.
51The abolition of the colonial system, which has brought a large number of new participants into international relations, has also enhanced the importance of this sphere. Alongside these and other factors that reflect the internationalisation of the class struggle, its world scale and international significance (both in the sense of its content and in the forces participating in it), the very latest processes in material production and development of the productive forces are playing an ever increasing role. Under the influence of the scientific and technological revolution, which is international in character, the tendency towards internationalisation of economic affairs, noted by Lenin, acquires new stimuli and takes on new forms. First, this revolution knows no national boundaries or state frontiers. Second, it directly helps to extend and intensify world trade and international ties, to facilitate mutual exchange of information and closer ties between various peoples. Third, the contemporary stage of development of the productive forces and scientific and technological progress engenders problems and tasks which can be most effectively resolved on an international scale (problems of space exploration, conservation of the environment, the use of the resources of the seas and oceans, the demographic explosion and the fight against hunger), require concerted efforts and co-operation by various countries irrespective of their social systems. This has already found partial expression in an intensification of international economic ties which are expanding at a faster pace than the growth of production.
Finally, and at the present historical stage this is most important, the scientific revolution, taking place at a time when the two systems are engaged in struggle and when there remains over a large part of the world the outmoded exploiting system which no longer corresponds to the present-day level and requirements of the productive forces, has given rise to a revolution in military techniques that is unparalleled in its scale and depth. Here again the qualitative change in the growth of importance of international relations is clearly evident.
The invention of new weapons of mass destruction--- nuclear-missile weapons---inevitably has political consequences of a global character. Internal processes in various __PRINTERS_P_51_COMMENT__ 4* 52 countries and, indeed, the very existence of countries, depends very much on whether progressive forces will manage to avert a world war involving nuclear-missile weapons. But the avoidance of war will directly depend on international relations: the issues of war and peace are resolved primarily in the struggle between the two systems on the international scene. Unlike the past, when millions of people became involved in world politics only in time of war and its direct consequences, today the very threat of a world nuclear catastrophe objectively involves the interests of millions of people in international relations following a course that would eliminate this danger.
Never in the past have the fate of millions of people and the course and outcome of the class struggle within any country hung so much on the correlation of world forces, on the state of international relations and on the resolution of basic international issues.
All this reflects the increasingly global nature of international relations. Any international conflict, irrespective of the location and number of states involved, in one way or another affects the interests of the peoples of many countries. Today, the idea of the indivisibility of the world, as it was advanced by Soviet diplomacy even before World War II, has received convincing confirmation. American aggression in Vietnam is eloquent testimony of this: it might appear that American aggression against a remote country of Southeast Asia is purely local; in fact, however, its escalation could involve the whole world and it has directly affected the interests of numerous countries no matter where they are located, their size or social system.
By their heroic struggle against aggression, the people of Vietnam are making no small contribution to the defence of world peace and to the liberation movements in other countries. At the same time, the course and outcome of the Vietnam people's fight for their freedom and independence is conditioned not only by internal factors, but also in large measure by external ones: by the international situation and the balance of world power in general, and by moral and material assistance from progressive forces. Leaders of Vietnam have frequently mentioned the huge importance of such 53 help and solidarity. The growing role of the international factor is apparent also in the extraordinarily profound impact of the Vietnamese war on life in America.
Naturally, the various social forces and political leaders of various camps, pointing to the growing role of international relations, draw different conclusions both in their theoretical constructions and in their practical international activity. In expressing the political strivings of contemporary imperialism, bourgeois authors put forward the notorious theory of convergence of the two systems, they invent utopian arguments for creating a world state or world government, and so on. The non-scientific and reactionary nature of such notions is self-evident.
The increasing importance of foreign policy issues among the imperialist bourgeoisie is apparent from such facts as the growing attention paid to them by heads of state and prime ministers and the relative increase in bourgeois states of the role of foreign ministers, the heated parliamentary debates on international issues, the prominence given to international political issues at ^election time and generally in the power struggle by political parties and groupings. History has never known such a large number of both direct contacts at summit level and international meetings in general.
Issues of international relations and foreign policy are coming to dominate the activity of Communist Parties both in socialist and in non-socialist countries and in the documents of the international communist movement. True to the creative Leninist approach in regard to historical reality, Marxists-Leninists make a careful analysis of the contemporary international situation. ``The Communist Parties determine the prospects and tasks of revolution on the basis of the concrete historical and social conditions obtaining in their respective countries and with due regard for the international situation,''^^*^^ declares the Statement of the Moscow Meeting of Representatives of Communist and Workers' Partries in 1960.
_-_-_^^*^^ The Struggle for Peace, Democracy find Socialism, Moscow, 1963, p. 67.
54The growing importance of the foreign political situation for the struggle of progressives everywhere in the world is manifest in the far-reaching international consequences of the activity of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. As Janos Kadar, First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party, has said: ``When the class struggle has developed on a worldwide scale, the battle of every single Communist Party acquires international importance. This refers all the more to the first Marxist-Leninist revolutionary workers' party in the world---to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, in the affairs and struggle of which, any, even purely 'internal' event acquires immense international significance from the point of view of the struggle of all Communist Parties.''^^*^^
Trie tangle of national and international aspects in the class struggle, especially the close connection between internal and external politics, typical of the world today, is widely reflected in the work and documents of the 1969 International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties. In the giant programme of common action of the anti-- imperialist forces, drawn up by the Meeting, the central place is given to such international political issues as stepping up the fight against American aggression in Vietnam, the campaign against the danger of a thermonuclear world war, for peace throughout the world, for peaceful coexistence of countries with different social systems, for a ban on nuclear weapons and on their proliferation.
The most important and urgent issues of foreign policy were frequently examined at plenary meetings of the Central Committee of the CPSU and at sessions of the USSR Supreme Soviet. The close association between internal development and world affairs was noted at the 24th Congress of the CPSU, which made a thorough analysis of the international situation and put forward a precise and clear-cut programme of action against imperialism and aggression, and for peace, democracy and socialism.
_-_-_^^*^^ Janos KaHar, Selected Article.': and Speeches, Moscow, 1970, pp. 126--27 (in Russian).
55All this testifies to the enhanced role of foreign policy which, despite the organic connection and very close intertwining with internal politics, has its own specific features.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ VForeign policy differs from home policy in that it is conducted in quite a different, complex, more varied and far less controllable social environment. The fight here is not directly between the exploiters and the exploited, the oppressors and the oppressed, rather it is primarily between the ruling classes of the various countries. Furthermore, in the sphere of foreign policy the ruling class has no monopoly of power or of means of coercion and in that sense finds itself, at least formally, on a par with its partners in international relations (although this, of course, does not exclude the various degrees and variations of actual dependence and subordination in the relations of imperialist powers with the weaker and economically backward countries).
The class nature of foreign political interests is not as acute and readily apparent as in domestic politics, in relations between opposing classes of the same society. At the same time, the direct active participants in international relations, those who conduct foreign policy, are principally the ruling classes. These ruling classes have real opportunities and material means---the state and its agencies---for attaining their ends internationally.
It is difficult for oppressed classes and opposition class forces to exert a direct influence on international political relations. The ruling exploiting classes, even though they are forced to take into account, in forming their foreign policy, the pressure of oppressed classes, always try to remove them from active participation in it and carefully preserve their own rights and privileges. Lenin frequently referred to this. "Popular ignorance of foreign policy is incomparably greater than of home policy,'' he wrote in 1917. "The ' secrecy' of diplomatic relations is sacredly observed in the freest of capitalist countries, in the most democratic republics.
``Popular deception has become a real art in foreign 56 affairs. . . .''^^*^^ Marx and Engels too referred to the duty of the working class to master the secrets of international politics.''^^**^^
True, in recent years questions of foreign policy have come to occupy an increasingly important place in the activity of political parties and other social organisations of both ruling and opposition classes, yet their actual opportunities in implementing foreign policy are restricted by comparison with the state which expresses the interests and the will of the ruling class as a whole.
However, in foreign policy the state, expressing the interests of the ruling class, has to take consideration in one way or another of the mood of other classes. Exploiting classes, as a rule, endeavour to conceal their own purely class interests (as happened, for example, during the First World War) by the pretence that what they are doing is in the interests of society and the whole nation. Yet, it is precisely in the sphere of foreign policy and international relations that the objective interests of various classes in society can partially coincide (as happened, for instance, in the bourgeois countries of the anti-Hitler coalition during the last war). The position of the working people sometimes leaves a very noticeable imprint on the elaboration and implementation of foreign policy by the ruling circles of bourgeois countries.
The support extended by the people to their government very much determines the effectiveness of the foreign policy of the state, expressing above all the interests of the ruling class. In that respect, socialist foreign policy, which corresponds to the interests of all social classes and has been worked out with their participation and enjoys popular support, has a fundamental advantage over the foreign policy of capitalist states.
Nonetheless, statesmen in bourgeois countries are more and more taking consideration of popular support for their foreign policy. The former Prime Minister of Great Britain, Anthony Eden, recognises in this one of the _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 25, p. 85.
^^**^^ Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works (in three volumes), Vol. 2, p. 18.
57 advantages of relatively Left-wing governments by comparison with overtly Right-wing governments.''^^*^^Issues concerning popular influence on foreign policy arc claiming increasing attention among bourgeois politicians and ideologists. The former President of Columbia University, Grayson Kirk, in a special lecture entitled ``Mass Aspirations and International Relations'' concludes that the wide popular demand directly to have a hand in foreign policy is ``one of the most striking phenomena of our time" and that the people's ``attitudes and aspirations can no longer be ignored with impunity by their leaders''.^^**^^
A similar conclusion was reached by the authors of the report ``Ideology and Foreign Affairs'', prepared in 1960 for the Committee on Foreign Relations of the US Senate; the report stated that foreign policy must take into consideration mass hopes and misgivings.
The French sociologist Raymond Aron writes of ``the common trait which ultimately decides the form that most conflicts in our time take: it is the people and not simply the governments which fight for their Gods, their ideologies or their existence''.^^***^^
As distinct from the former historical periods when the masses created foreign policy spontaneously and unconsciously (as, for example, during wars in the form of ``cannon fodder''), although they were in fact completely cut off from taking part in its formulation and implementation, today the active and purposive influence of the popular masses in resolving questions of foreign policy is rapidly growing.
This is a result of the entry of socialist states into international affairs, the growth in importance of foreign-policy issues in the class struggle within capitalist countries, and the awakening and involvement in world politics of millions of people in Asia, Africa and Latin America. The exploiting classes today, at a time of deep-going social changes in the _-_-_
^^*^^ See The Memoirs of Sir Anthony Eden, Full Circle, London, I960, p. 445.
^^**^^ See The Changing Environment of International Relations, Brookings Lectures, 1956, Washington, 1956, pp. 4, 5.
^^***^^ Le Figaro, January 1, 1968.
58 world, are no longer able completely to remove the masses from the resolution of international political issues.The mounting popular pressure on foreign policy is conditioned not simply by the people's decisive role in history overall, since they arc the principal productive force in society, but by the increase in importance today of the subjective factor; the conscious activity of people, classes, states and parties, including international activity, their organisation and their insistence on resolving certain historical tasks.
Progressive states, classes and other social forces and organisations, and conservative or reactionary states, classes and other social forces and organisations act as a subjective factor in international relations. Leninist principles of analysing foreign policy demand the strictest account of the class nature of the state that implements foreign policy. The crucial difference between the foreign policies of socialist and capitalist states stems from the crucial difference in the objective position and interests of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.
One must especially stress this point, for the forms which foreign policy takes have relative stability, and the proletariat utilises them perhaps to the greatest degree. This provides a certain basis for external and superficial analogies by bourgeois scholars writing about international relations. At the same time, it would be wrong to suppose that the very fact of the establishment of socialist relations of production in a country and the corresponding objective class interests automatically give a socialist nature to foreign policy. Suffice it to cite merely the example of the Chinese People's Republic, whose leaders for a number of years have adhered to a foreign policy that goes against the grain of the objective national and internationalist interests of the working classes of China and of the requirements of the country's development.
The classes, class interests and the class struggle which determine the home and foreign policy of individual states and the development of world politics as a whole are examined by Leninism as objective categories. Class and other social interests are formed and exist objectively, irrespective of whether they are subjectively realised or not. But an 59 awareness of these interests plays an important part in the battle for their implementation.
To elucidate, scientifically, the complex web of class struggle both at home and internationally, one must first get a clear picture of the objective interests of classes and their subjective reflection in the mind and activity of the masses, parties and political leaders. Lenin taught that in analysing foreign policy it is necessary carefully to weigh up the real interests of classes, the extent to which they are understood by various parties or leaders and can be realised in a given situation.
The propositions of historical materialism elaborated by Lenin concerning the role of objective conditions and the subjective factor in the development of society have exceptional importance for contemporary international relations. Nevertheless, the manifestation of the role of the subjective factor in foreign policy has its own characteristics as distinct from internal policy.
The foreign policy activity of a state, organisation or leader is objectively conditioned to a greater degree than internal policy, not only by the internal conditions of the country (the level and state of the economy, the correlation of social and political forces, the military potential, etc.), but by external conditions, the overall international situation, especially the struggle between socialism and capitalism, and the existence of diverse classes and nations and the interlacing of their interests, which are often contradictory and sometimes coincide.
The part played by individuals in international relations is also important. Of course, here too the organic connection and nature of foreign and home policy are important. An individual who plays an outstanding role in a country objectively plays a similar role in foreign policy too. Politics, however, as Lenin reflected, has its ``own objective logic, irrespective of what persons or parties plan in advance''.^^*^^ No matter what their subjective views, politicians are bound to consider objective reality; only in that case can they enjoy any success. In the mid-1920s, for example, Lloyd George _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 11, p. 379.
60 played an important part in British foreign policy; he saw the objective requirements for normalising relations with Soviet Russia, while men like Churchill and Lord Curzon stubbornly clung to a policy of armed struggle against socialism and refused to take account of objective reality, and were therefore politically bankrupt.The example of the French statesman Jean Louis Barthou is particularly instructive: in the 1930s he was obliged, without, of course, altering his political sympathies, to bow to the pressure of objective circumstances and co-operate with the Soviet Union. The important role played in international relations during the last war by Winston Churchill was not least of all influenced by his ability properly to evaluate the objective situation and the immense importance for Britain of working together with the Soviet Union.
At the same time, one can scarcely consider the death of Franklin Roosevelt in April 1945 as a cause of the serious worsening of Soviet-American relations after the war. The development of these relations was above all conditioned by objective factors, by the contradiction in the foreign-policy interests and aims of the Soviet Union and the United States of America, which caused the confrontation between their foreign policies. There can be no doubt, however, that President Truman and other American officials of the time had a lot to do with the shape of American foreign policy and the ensuing cold war.
A realistic appreciation of the international situation is an important condition for the effectiveness of certain foreign actions of such statesmen in the West as General de Gaulle or Chancellor Willy Brandt. Even important personalities, however, are quite unable to change the historical trends in international relations at will. Arbitrary, voluntaristic and subjective actions in politics, which ignore objective laws, are quite alien to Marxism-Leninism.
Being guided by the Marxist-Leninist theory of the role of the people, the party and individuals, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union condemned the personality cult, which, as Leonid Brezhnev has pointed out, led "to violations of Leninist norms of Party and state life, of socialist legality and democracy''. The CPSU, he said, ``emphatically rejected 61 subjectivism, which expounds unfounded improvisation in place of a scientific approach to phenomena of social life''.^^*^^ The decisions of the October 1964 Plenary Meeting of the CPSU Central Committee were of immense importance.
In any analysis of the principal trends in contemporary international relations one cannot but conclude that, simultaneously with the enhanced role of the people and of the subjective factor as a whole, the role of individuals in making and implementing foreign policy is limited primarily by the objective conditions of contemporary international relations, by the difficulty of one person evaluating the extremely complex international situation and, even more so, the possibility of a single person influencing it.
To be effective, foreign policy activity must, above all, correctly reflect the requirements of social development and correspond to objective circumstances. The international activity of progressive forces, therefore, since it expresses the mature requirements of social development, is, other things being equal, more effective than the activity of reactionary forces, which as a rule contradicts progressive historical trends. There lies the most important objective basis for the success of socialist foreign policy.
The growing role of socialist foreign policy in the world places a special responsibility to the Marxist-Leninist parties that are in power; it confronts them with special demands. In foreign policy the acuteness of class contradictions and the class struggle, in conditions of the existence and struggle of the two systems, does not essentially diminish, it only changes its forms. The parties that head socialist states have to be concerned with both allied and neutral states and with hostile class forces, with strong and experienced opponents and with a close and complex intertwining, in the policy of foreign states, of class, national, state and sometimes group interests, many of which cannot be controlled and cannot even always be observed, analysed or considered.
Rapid and striking changes are taking place today in foreign policy, despite its certain conservatism in forms. The tempestuous social processes and the scientific and _-_-_
^^*^^ L. I. Brezhnev, Following Lenin's Course, p. 283.
62 technological revolution are directly and indirectly reilected in it; account for these changes, an all-round analysis of the objective international situation and a certain adaptation to this situation, with, at the same time, maximum active influence on this situation, are acquiring increasing importance.The creative and scientific approach is a necessary prerequisite for an effective socialist foreign policy. Dogmatism and subjectivism can only have dangerous consequences that are hard to undo. ``No,'' Lenin urged, ``let us face the truth squarely. In politics that is always the best and the only correct attitude.''^^*^^
Marxism-Leninism, a knowledge of the laws of social development, an understanding of the class nature of international relations and foreign policy, all give the Communist and Workers' Parties which make the foreign policy of socialist states an immense advantage over bourgeois parties and governments. A theoretical comprehension of the phenomena of social life and its major trends enable MarxistLeninist parties to foresee the course of events, to work out a correct political course, and to obviate mistakes and subjective decisions. In recent years, the theoretical work of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union has been enriched by fresh conclusions and propositions on a host of important problems. Together with fraternal parties it has elaborated fundamental questions of the world socialist system and has studied new phenomena in contemporary capitalism.
The 24th Congress of the CPSU noted the importance of theoretical work as part of the overall internationalist and revolutionary commitment at a time when capitalism and socialism stand opposed to each other in the world. `` Repetition of old formulas where they have become outworn and an inability or reluctance to adopt a new approach to new problems,'' the Report of the CPSU Central Committee says, ``harm the cause and create additional possibilities for the spread of revisionist counterfeits of = Marxism-Leninism.''^^**^^ The Congress underlined the importance of the creative _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 20, p. 275.
^^**^^ 24th Congress of the CPSU, Moscow, 1971, pp. 123--24.
63 development and propaganda of Marxist-Leninist teaching, of the Party's views on the basic issues of the day.Loyalty to the creative spirit of Leninism and a genuinely scientific approach, which characterise the international activity of the CPSU and Soviet state, are an earnest of new successes for socialist foreign policy and the enhancement of its contribution to international relations in the interests of peace and progress.
[64] __ALPHA_LVL1__ THE BALANCE OF POWER IN WORLD POLITICS __ALPHA_LVL2__ I __NOTE__ Quote is above "I" in original.There are two forces on earth that can decide the destiny of mankind. One force is international capitalism.... The other force is the international proletariat that is fighting for the socialist revolution. . . .
V. I. Lenin
Lenin's ideas concerning the need for a most scrupulous analysis of objective conditions, particularly the alignment and balance of power are of immense theoretical and practical importance for understanding the nature and character of contemporary international relations and, above all, for finding ways of influencing them and for pursuing an effective foreign policy.
``The entire history of revolutions, however, teaches us,'' Lenin stressed, ``that when we have to do with a mass movement or with the class struggle, especially one like that at present developing not only throughout a single country, albeit a tremendous country, but also involving all international relations---in such a case we must base our tactics first and foremost on an appraisal of the objective situation. .. .''^^*^^
If by international relations we mean the totality of economic, political, legal, diplomatic and military contacts and interrelations among peoples, among states and state systems, among the main social, economic and political forces and organisations functioning in the world, we should recognise that the correlation of these forces constitutes the objective _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin. Collected Works, Vol. 27, pp. 172--73.
65 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ BALANCE OF POWER IN WORLD POLITICS circumstances in which both world politics as a whole and the foreign policy of individual states are developing.When we study the balance of power in the world in all its diversity and complexity we have to bear in mind the conditional and relative nature of objective and subjective factors applied to the given category. On the one hand, the balance of power as a whole may be viewed as an objective basis for international relations, as objective conditions in which states, classes, parties and individuals operate in the international arena. On the other hand, a state's foreign policy (which is by its very nature a subjective factor) operates in relation to other states as an element of the international situation that does not depend on them. Furthermore, the foreign policy of the state which takes into consideration the objectively prevailing balance of power has an effect on it to a certain extent, i. e., becomes an element of that balance of power.
The forces taking part in international relations differ quantitatively as well as qualitatively, as we have said above. The difference in the strength of individual states is an objective fact. Essentially, this is what lies behind such notions as great powers, medium and small nations. This gradation of the participants in international relations, despite their formal equality, is also reflected in international legal documents. According to the Charter of the League of Nations, for example, some states enjoyed a permanent place in its Council, others were semi-permanent, while the remainder were elected to the Council only for a definite time. The United Nations Charter accords five states the status of permanent members of the Security Council, so signifying the recognition of their special role and certain prerogatives which the other UN members do not enjoy.
The notion of power in its diverse variations is prominent in bourgeois theories of international relations, in foreign policy doctrines and in the political strategy and tactics of imperialist states. One may refer to such concepts as " equilibrium of forces'', "power vacuum'', "centres of power'', "positions of strength'', which have for decades typified and in many ways continue to characterise the foreign policy theory and practice of imperialist states.
__PRINTERS_P_65_COMMENT__ 5---239 66Marxist-Leninist literature too is liberally sprinkled with notions of power and power alignment. Lenin noted the objective substance of these notions and on many occasions stressed the prime importance of an analysis and strict account at each stage of history of the balance of power as the basis of a scientific elaboration and successful pursuit of any policy.
Lenin considered it a fatal error to ignore the objective balance of class forces.^^*^^ Science demands that ``account be taken of all the forces, groups, parties, classes and masses operating in a given country'',^^**^^ he stressed. ``It is only when,'' he said, ``at every sharp turn in history, we appraise the class relations as a whole, the relations of all classes, and do not select individual examples and individual cases, that we feel ourselves firmly supported by an analysis of probable facts.''^^***^^
Changes in the nature and the alignment of forces in the world, which in the final count reflect the deep-going processes in social production, largely determine both the principal trends in international affairs and the specific course of events. Shifts in the international balance of power are expressed in contradictions, conflicts and wars, and ultimately predetermine their outcome. The peace which puts an end to a war, as Lenin said, ``can be nothing but a consideration and a record of the actual changes brought about in the relation of forces in the course of and as a result of the war''.^^****^^
An analysis of the balance of power, therefore, is an essential element in a scientific study of contemporary international relations.
It is even more important for influencing international relations and for conducting an effective foreign policy. Account for the balance of power lies behind the working out of a scientifically substantiated foreign policy strategy and tactics, the selection of corresponding forms of struggle both _-_-_
^^*^^ See V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 26, pp. 447--48.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 31, p. 81.
^^***^^ Ibid., Vol. 27, p. 179.
^^****^^ Ibid., Vol. 22, p. 169.
67 internally and externally. ``We Marxists,'' Lenin said in this connection, ``have always been proud that we determined the expediency of any form of struggle by a precise calculation of the mass forces and class relationships.''^^*^^A growing influence on world politics is being exerted by changes in the alignment not only of forces that directly operate in international relations, but also forces operating within individual countries. Lenin often noted the difficulty of this task, stressing the importance of giving an all-round account of the relation of forces. Its complexity is evident in the experience of the world revolutionary movement. Antonio Gramsci, founder of the Italian Communist Party, made just that point when he compared social phenomena with categories in the exact sciences: ``In a parallelogram of forces, the component vectors are constructed so as to obtain a resultant, what is more, the particular resultant desired; but forces operating in political life conduct themselves not as conventional symbols in a predisposed scheme, they clash, become intertwined and tangled, and destroy one another, thus creating a complex whole which is a drama rather than an abstract scheme. In physics, as a result of the interaction of the component forces nothing disappears; in life every day everything is being lost and everything is being reestablished, and every day brings, if we continue this comparison, a new scheme... .''^^**^^
The task of taking all-round consideration of the correlation of forces can only be correctly resolved on the basis of Marxist-Leninist theory and the creative application of Leninist ideas. Moreover, Lenin taught us that we must identify in this motley, and at first glance jumbled mosaic, the basic forces that play a decisive role in world politics. Lenin's work and all of his practical activity in international politics are a splendid example of the scientific way to do this.
Before the victory and consolidation of socialism as a world system, imperialism was the main force in international _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., Vol. 27, p. 24.
^^**^^ Antonio Gramsci, L'Orrline Niiovo, 1019--1920, Giulio Einaudi editore, 1955, p. 259.
__PRINTERS_P_67_COMMENT__ 5* 68 politics. Lenin invariably followed the determining influence of imperialism on all aspects of international relations throughout the complex and confusing tangle of the diplomatic struggle. In his classic Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Lenin wrote: ``Finance capital is such a great, such a decisive, you might say, force in all economic and in all international relations, that it is capable of subjecting, and actually does subject, to itself even states enjoying the fullest political independence. . . ..''^^*^^ Even then, however, Lenin stressed that one ``must not lose sight of the forces which counteract imperialism''.^^**^^In October 1917, when the proletariat organised as a ruling class, as a socialist state, appeared in the world scene as an active participant, the situation changed radically. Imperialism stopped being a monopoly force in deciding international issues and in determining the course of historical events and the destinies of peoples; a new force had entered world politics. Despite its relative frailty, Lenin even then emphasised its tremendous historical role.
The correlation between capitalism and socialism---which are class-antagonistic socio-economic systems---between imperialist and socialist states, is today, too, decisive in the overall balance of the most diverse forces, whose interaction forms the complicated and multi-coloured fabric of contemporary international affairs. The prime importance of the balance of power between socialism and capitalism in the world is generally conditioned by the very nature of our time, and epoch of struggle between the two opposing social systems and the transition from capitalism to socialism.
The balance of power between the two systems and between states representing these systems, and the change in this balance objectively determine the alignment of all other forces in the world, the foreign policy of individual states and international political development as a whole.
At the present time, the course and outcome of international events in any corner of the world are determined ultimately not so much by local and internal forces as by _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 22, p. 259.
^^**^^ Ibid., p. 281.
69 the correlation of world forces, primarily the balance of power between capitalism and socialism. Conversely, events that might appear to be local or confined to a small scale frequently acquire international importance. This circumstance is directly connected with the consequences which one or another relatively local event may cause for the balance of power between the two world systems. __ALPHA_LVL2__ IIAn analysis and all-round account of the forces affecting international relations, their objective evaluation at any given moment, is an extremely complicated affair. This is not simply because of the vast number of forces (state, alliances of states, classes and parties within those states, etc.), but also because of the complexity, the diversity and the breadth of the very notion of strength. Even applied to an individual state, the question of what determines its strength, how to measure it, how to compare it with the strength of another state or with other forces operating in the world, is far from easy. In examining it, one notices the deep rift between the bourgeois and the Marxist-Leninist interpretation of the notion of strength in international relations; one notices the topical and methodological significance of Lenin's profoundly dialectical approach to assessing the strength, nature and alignment of international forces in the world today.
It might seem that the question of strength of states, of the balance of power between them, might be resolved by reference to such indices as size of territory, population and natural resources. Other things being equal, a larger state with a bigger population and richer and more diverse natural resources should be stronger than a smaller and less well-endowed state. However, none of these factors predetermine automatically a country's strength or its role in international relations. These are rather elements or, to be more precise, prerequisites, of strength. Let us compare, for example, India and Great Britain: on all the above-mentioned indices India is superior to Great Britain, but Britain's 70 actual weight in international relations until very recently far exceeded that of India.
The history of international relations knows several instances when states inferior to others in territory, population and natural resources have shown a superiority and gained victory when their strength has been put to the test. Furthermore, in many cases a large population and high rate of growth of population produce certain difficulties within a country and weaken its position internationally. Today, it is hardly necessary to provide proof of the limited importance of geographical and demographic factors.
The works of Lenin and other Marxists and the programme documents of the world communist movement show the extensive and far-reaching meaning of strength (and, correspondingly, the balance of power). The Marxist-Leninist approach to the question of a country's strength is based on the prime significance of the mode of production of material goods, the nature of relations of production, and the socioeconomic system. In his analysis of the sources of strength of the Soviet state, Lenin said: ``In the last analysis, the deepest source of strength for victories over the bourgeoisie and the sole guarantee of the durability and permanence of these victories can only be a new and higher mode of social production, the substitution of large-scale socialist production for capitalist and petty-bourgeois production.''^^*^^
A change in the mode of production inevitably produces shifts in the correlation of forces in the world.
The history of international relations confirms this thesis; one needs only refer to the international consequences of the socialist revolution in Russia, or the shift in the relation of international political forces associated with the social changes in Central and Southeast Europe.
The irrefutable propositions concerning the prime importance for the international balance of power of changes in the socio-economic system, however, needs further elaboration and concretisation, at any rate in regard to contemporary events. First, the decisive influence of the socio-economic basis on a country's strength in world politics is normally _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 29, p. 423.
71 manifested through other factors. Second, these propositions are not sufficient to assess the balance of power between states belonging to the same socio-economic formation---and such an assessment is not only important from the point of view of relations between these states, but it also serves as an essential element of the world balance of power as a whole.Other factors such as the economic structure and technological level of production, the volume of industrial and agricultural production and the size of national wealth are extremely important in describing a country's strength and potential in international relations and in the balance of power with other countries. In the present-day world of the scientific and technological revolution, such factors as the level of education and science, the quantity and quality of scientific achievements, the forms of organisation of research and their application are growing in importance. All that, together with natural resources and manpower, may to a certain degree be regarded as the material basis for a country's strength in comparison with others, and its importance in world politics.
In the light of this, one can understand how greatly the implementation of Lenin's plan for building socialism and the Party's unceasing efforts to raise labour productivity and the effectiveness of social production have contributed to strengthening the Soviet Union and its international status.
Nonetheless, the notion of strength and balance of power is not simply a matter of economics. In his Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Lenin spoke of general economic, financial and military strength,^^*^^ and made the distinction between ``purely'' economic changes in strength and non-economic changes (e.g., = military):^^**^^ the latter, although they are associated with economic factors, are by no means identical with them, inasmuch as they have their own characteristics and, at times, an independent meaning.
In the view of many bourgeois politicians and ideologists, a country's strength in foreign policy is brought down _-_-_
^^*^^ See V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 22, p. 295.
^^**^^ Ibid., p. 253.
72 to its direct material and physical power, and above all to military potential. In their theoretical constructions and practical actions, the understanding of strength is directly associated with coercion or, at any rate, with the ability to be coercive, with the capacity to exert direct coercive pressure on opponents.It might seem tempting at first view to reduce the question of international balance of power to one of the balance of armed forces of countries or groups of countries, the more so since the size of an army, the number and quality of armaments, etc., can be measured relatively easily, however roughly. To restrict the notion of a country's strength and its balance of power with other countries to purely military indices does have a certain logic, insofar as war is a direct test of a country's strength. Sharp turns in the balance of international power are usually associated with wars.
The experience of the First and Second World wars, their immense international political consequences, and the mounting role of militarism and the arms race, particularly after the Second World War, would seem to bear out the idea that the purely military factor plays the determining role in evaluating both the strength of a particular state and the balance of power between states. It is natural, then, that in the period immediately following the last war the cult of power, belief in the omnipotence of the latest weapons became particularly popular in the imperialist camp. Many foreign policy doctrines (and also various foreign policy acts) were based on a primitive calculation of the size of armies, the number of tanks, ships and aircraft, and the destructive power of the bombs. The American international commentator John H. Herz wrote that ``political developments constitute a superstructure over the system and the development of the means of destruction''.^^*^^
The experience of recent decades, however, including both world wars---which, in the one-sided approach of imperialist ideologists, serves as an apology for militarism, of the role of the military factor in the international balance, of _-_-_
^^*^^ John H. Herz, International Politics in the Atomic Age, New York, 1959, p. 233.
73 power---convincingly demonstrates the inadequacy of evaluating the balance of power solely on the basis of material, let alone purely military, factors, although the importance of the latter is really very great.Marxism-Leninism soberly evaluates the role of coercion in history (including international relations) and by no means absolutises this role, nor does it equalise the importance of strength and coercion.
The history of international relations, and particularly of Soviet foreign policy, bears out the immense role of moral and political factors (alongside economic and military), behind which lie advanced ideas, the political awareness, resoluteness and organisation of the masses.
The history of Marxism-Leninism strikingly illustrates Marx's words that ``Theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses''.^^*^^ Progressive ideas that correctly express the requirements of social development have often successfully countered crude material force.
The importance of the ideological, moral and political component of a country's domestic and external strength and of the international balance of power keeps pace with the growth in political awareness, organisation and activity of the people. On the eve of the October Revolution, Lenin wrote: ``Ideas become a power when they grip the people. And precisely at the present time the Bolsheviks, i. e., the representatives of revolutionary proletarian internationalism, have embodied in their policy the idea that is motivating countless working people all over the world.''^^**^^ These ideas were fully borne out by the developing events.
Analysing the young Soviet Republic's sources of strength Lenin wrote: "The force on which this new authority was based, and sought to base itself, was not the force of bayonets usurped by a handful of militarists, not the power of the 'police force', not the power of money, nor the power of any previously established institutions. It was nothing of the kind. The new organs of authority possessed neither arms, nor money, nor old institutions. Their power ... had nothing in _-_-_
^^*^^ Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Werke, Bd. 1, S. 385.
^^**^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 26, p. 130.
74 common with the old instruments of power. ... It was based on the mass of the people''.^^*^^Lenin frequently stressed the important part played by such factors as the moral influence of the proletariat, its organisation and discipline, and the class consciousness of all working people, in successfully resolving home and foreign policy tasks.
``A state is strong,'' he said, ``when the people are politically conscious. It is strong when the people know everything, can form an opinion of everything and do everything consciously.''^^**^^
The huge role played by moral and political factors as a source of strength of the Soviet state was clearly apparent in the course and outcome of the military conflict between the socialist republic and the coalition of the bourgeois states. Analysing the factors behind the Soviet people's successful defence of their country against the attacks by the imperialist states, although the latter had military and economic superiority, Lenin underlined the role of the moral and political factors; he had in mind not simply the internal sources of the moral strength of the Soviet people, but also the favourable international political situation.
``Would our proletariat have had the moral strength,'' Lenin asked, ``if it had not relied on the sympathy of the workers of the advanced countries, who supported us... ? With this support, our proletariat---numerically weak and tormented by poverty and privation---won out because it had the moral strength.''^^***^^
Inter-imperialist contradictions were also an indirect source of the strength of the Soviet state. From this standpoint the alliance of imperialist states for the purpose of military intervention against Soviet Russia did not signify a direct arithmetical compounding of forces. The bickering that went on within this alliance weakened both its potential power and its effective action.
Therefore, the notion of international balance of power _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 351.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 26, p. 256.
^^***^^ Ibid., Vol. 32, p. 276.
75 is very complicated. A country's weight in world politics is preconditioned by many different factors, the importance of which may change.Thorough account of the world balance of power, including the strength of the Soviet socialist state, very much governed the success of Lenin's foreign policy. Besides the young Soviet Republic's limited economic and military possibilities, this policy took into consideration its immense political impact on the world, the worldwide popular support which increased its strength, and the contradictions in the imperialist camp.
``Materially---economically and militarily---,'' Lenin wrote in 1921, ``we are extremely weak; but morally---by which, of course, I mean not abstract morals, but the alignment of the real forces of all classes in all countries---we are the strongest of all. This has been proved in practice; it has been proved not merely by words but by deeds; it has been proved once and, if history takes a certain turn, it will, perhaps, be proved many times again.''^^*^^
Naturally enough, the importance of moral and political factors, their effectiveness and impact on the balance of power increase manifold when they rely on a material basis. As a general rule, the firmer this basis, the more effective is foreign policy and the greater is a country's international prestige and potential. Nevertheless, one can hardly speak of a direct and automatic dependence. Growth in military and economic potential is not identical to growth in political influence. Increasing material strength may in some instances be accompanied by moral losses and far from always leads to a shift in the general balance of power. Conversely, purely material losses do not always signify a weakening in a country's strength in international relations. Such losses may be made up for by a certain moral and political gain. A comprehensive and unbiased account of the pros and cons in these circumstances is an essential precondition for effective foreign policy decisions.
The Leninist policy of the young Soviet state towards Eastern countries is an instructive example in this respect. _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., Vol. 33, p. 151.
76 The renunciation of the special rights and privileges which tsarist Russia enjoyed in these countries, of possessions belonging to it, of territorial claims, helped to consolidate Soviet foreign policy positions on a new basis, to consolidate relations with Eastern countries and to increase the overall anti-imperialist forces; this was therefore accompanied by an undeniable moral and political gain, which became a considerable and favourable element for Soviet Russia in the ensuing balance of power throughout the world.When the Soviet Republic declared its new principles in foreign policy and began to carry them out it attracted the sympathy of ordinary people everywhere in the world, and it influenced the position of the ruling classes and entire countries, enhancing its authority and power in world affairs. All this brought changes in the world balance of power. As socialism continued to grow, the importance of material factors such as economic might and military potential considerably grew as well. This illustrated the Soviet economic policy's international significance, referred to by Lenin. The Soviet Union's successes in economic development and in strengthening its defence capacity, which were achieved in a brief span of time, signified a growth in its might, and, correspondingly, a shift in 'the world balance of power.
The mounting importance of the military and economic factors in the balance of world power had an obvious impact on the course and outcome of the Second World War. At the same time, the war demonstrated the moral and political superiority of the Soviet Union over nazi Germany. As before, inter-imperialist contradictions played an exceedingly important part. The entire alignment of forces and the formation and efficacy of the anti-Hitler coalition of Great Britain, the USA, the USSR and other countries were eloquent testimony of that.
Some bourgeois ideologists, reluctant to recognise the superiority of socialism over capitalism in principle, and playing down the Soviet Union's sources of strength which stem from features of the socialist system are inclined to attribute to inter-imperialist contradictions a decisive role in the balance of power between the two systems throughout the whole of the period of Soviet existence. The American 77 diplomat George Kennan has defined ``the standard components for a rousing Soviet diplomatic success: one part of Soviet resourcefulness and singlemindedness of purpose; two parts amateurism, complacency, and disunity on the part of the West''.^^*^^ In like vein, Senator Fulbright has said that ``over the last half century the unity or disunity of the West has been the ultimate determinant of the fortunes of communism''.^^**^^ The untenability of such assertions is selfevident, particularly in the light of the Soviet Union's scientific and technological achievements and increased military and economic strength since the last war.
The contemporary scientific and technological revolution has given growing importance to military and technological factors in the international balance of power. In the opinion of many bourgeois writers, it is precisely these factors that are today the only basis of power and influence of the United States, the Soviet Union and other countries in world politics. Thus, in a book published in 1965, Thomas Wolfe, an American specialist on military and political questions, maintains that ``the power position and political standing of the Soviet Union in the world today rest to a large extent on Soviet military strength and the technology associated with it''.^^***^^ However, the exaggeration of the part played by military and technological factors in the balance of power testifies to the biased nature of bourgeois scholarship in the same way as do the exaggerated views of Kennan and Fulbright on the part played by Western disunity.
Despite the undeniable upsurge in recent years of military strength in most countries and an increase in the objective role of the military and technological factor in human destiny, one can hardly speak unreservedly about a relative increase in the importance of military and technological strength in the overall international balance of power.
Moreover, there are no grounds for belittling other factors. _-_-_
^^*^^ George F. Kennan, Russia and the West under Lenin and Stalin, Boston-Toronto, 1961, p. 223.
^^**^^ J. William Fulbright, Prospects lor llie West, Cambridge, Mass., 1963, p. 26.
^^***^^ Detente. Cold War Strategies in Transition, Ed. by E. L. Dulles and R. O. Crane, New York-Washington, London. 1965. p. 64.
78 The tremendous social changes, the growth in the activity and political consciousness of working people in all countries and, finally, the scientific and technological revolution, are considerably increasing the role played by economic, moralpolitical and ideological components in the strength of countries and in the overall world balance of power. Only the combination of material power with moral power can make a country invincible; there lies the basic cause of the superiority of socialist, progressive forces over reactionary, imperialist forces, the guarantee of their success in foreign policy. The interaction of both these factors is readily apparent in the example of the Soviet Union.Soviet economic, scientific and technological achievements, improved living standards, the enhanced political awareness and activity of the Soviet people, the consistently peaceful foreign policy are all prerequisites for the growth both in economic and military strength of world socialism and in its moral authority and the intensity of its foreign political impact. Both the one and the other are important elements in the consolidation of progressive forces and in the overall world balance of power.
In the light of this, the international significance of the Soviet Union's Ninth Five-Year Plan, for 1971--1975, is especially great; the main task of the plan, as formulated at the 24th Party Congress, is ``to ensure a considerable rise of the people's material and cultural level on the basis of a high rate of development of socialist production, enhancement of its efficiency, scientific and technical progress and acceleration of the growth of labour productivity''.^^*^^
The failure of the American aggression in Vietnam is eloquent testimony of the restricted possibilities for brute military force today and of the growing importance of moral and political factors. Half a million American troops armed with the most modern weapons have been unable to suppress the resistance of the South Vietnamese patriots. Besides the part played by the substantial material assistance to the Vietnamese people from the Soviet Union and other socialist countries, the failure of American aggression was due to _-_-_
^^*^^ 24th Congress of the CPSU, p. 145.
79 such moral-political factors as the unity and tenacity of the Vietnamese people in fighting for a just cause, the solidarity of progressives the world over with their fight, and the moral-political isolation of the United States. Lenin's words are as true today as ever: ``A nation in which the majority of the workers and peasants realise, feel and see that they are fighting ... for the rule of the working people, for the cause whose victory will ensure them and their children all the benefits of culture, of all that has been created by human labour---such a nation can never be vanquished.''^^*^^The uniqueness and complex interaction of the material and moral-political factors of strength can be seen in the example of American policy in South Vietnam. The aggressive policy of US imperialism has led to the worsening of the US international position. This was recognised, in particular, by Hans Morgenthau, director of the Centre for the Study of American Foreign and Military Policy at the University of Chicago.^^**^^
Today, only frank apologists of militarism can evaluate the world balance of power by confining themselves to such categories as the size of armies and the quantity, quality and destructive power of their armaments; they are inclined to deny or underplay the part played by the moral factor in the international balance of power.
However, most ideologists and politicians of contemporary imperialism, while retaining a faith in military strength as the paramount basis for pursuing an effective foreign policy, cannot help taking account of the realities of our time. The former American Defence Secretary Robert McNamara has written that ``arms are a necessary but not a sufficient condition for security. After acquisition of the optimum-sized military force, security is a function not of additional military force but rather of the relationships that we establish with other nations in the world''.^^***^^
Chester Bowles, prominent American student of international relations, sees the root causes of the failure of American foreign policy in the excessive faith in military strength _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 29, p. 319.
^^**^^ See Current History, January 1968, p. 34.
^^***^^ The Department of State Bulletin, August 29, 1966, p. 303.
80 and in the playing down of the importance of dynamic ideas. Seymour Melman, an American economist who heads the Institute of War and Peace Studies of Columbia University, comes to the conclusion that in present-day international relations, the stake on military means and methods is unrealistic insofar as ``... one nation's military power can be bypassed by another nation's direct political and economic methods''.^^*^^Former President Lyndon Johnson, in taking stock of his term of office, made the revealing admission that the greatest lesson was that the United States had a limited ability to control world events. ``Because we have, in our nuclear arsenal, the power to destroy the world,'' he wrote, ``some have been misled to believe that we also have the power to shape the world to our wishes---to compel co-operation and respect. The truth is that neither our nuclear power nor our great wealth can force events into a mold of our making.''^^**^^
Even such an advocate of military strength as former West German Chancellor Kiesinger had to confess that ``naturally, one cannot measure a country's importance and political influence only by its military power''.^^***^^
Imperialist politicians and ideologists have by no means renounced their stake on brute military force but are increasingly obliged under pressure of events to come to terms with the mounting role of moral-political factors in international relations. This is apparent in the increasing attention paid by bourgeois writers to ideological issues, including the "theoretical justification" for, or rather concealment, of the reactionary nature of the capitalist system and imperialist policy, and attemps to brainwash the peoples of other countries and reduce the moral-political potential of their opponents.
It goes without saying that military strength and, in particular, the possession of nuclear weapons, remains an _-_-_
^^*^^ Seymour Melman, The Peace Race, New York, 1961, p. 6.
^^**^^ Reader s Digest, ``In Quest of Peace'', February 1969, Vol. 94, No. 562, p. 233.
^^***^^ Paris Match, May 11, 1968, p. 66.
81 extremely important element in the overall balance of power, and of power and influence in international relations. It testifies to one's status as a Great Power. Although it is essential, it is not the only aspect. The peculiar nature of the contemporary balance of power in the world enables the nonnuclear states in some degree to compensate for their relative military weakness by active use of economic, political, ideological and other means. The policy of many countries shows this clearly enough.The growing role of France internationally in the mid-- 1960s was due more to her sober and realistic policy on important international political issues than to her nuclear armoury. If we bear in mind that the direct possibilities which nuclear powers have to display their military superiority in full in resolving current political tasks are, practically speaking, very restricted, then the importance of economic, political and ideological factors in the overall balance of power is even more evident.
The internal situation in individual countries is acquiring an ever increasing importance in correctly evaluating the international balance of power today. This refers to such events as scientific and technological achievements, devaluation of the pound and the dollar crisis, which directly influence international relations, and such diverse events as the unrest among the Black people in the United States or the "cultural revolution" in China. The impact of such events (in each specific case) on the world balance of power differs greatly both in direction and in scale, but it is a factor to be reckoned with.
The mounting impact of internal processes on world balance of power is readily apparent in the United States. The French publicist Andre Fontaine has made this relevant point in Le Monde: ''. . .The Vietnamese tragedy, the racial crisis, the wave of violence in the towns, and inflation have developed within the United States a general movement of protest which has no precedent in history since the War of Independence. At the summit of their military and industrial power, the Americans for the first time seem to have lost faith in themselves. How then can their admirers abroad not come to question the justification for their admiration? How __PRINTERS_P_81_COMMENT__ 6---239 82 can a country which is incapable of preventing the murder, in an interval of three years, of a liberal president and the champion of racial integration and non-violence, be an example to others?''^^*^^
The complexity of the category of the balance of power and its components is apparent also in the peculiar tangle of objective and subjective factors. For example, the subjective factor---evaluation by participants in international relations of the relative strength of one another and of the general balance of power, may sometimes play the part of an element of the objective situation. Irrespective of whether such an evaluation is correct or not, it may engender certain actions and bring about consequences of an altogether objective nature, and a change in the objective balance of power. In this connection the role of information (and misinformation) is growing in world politics.
Marxism-Leninism and a knowledge of the laws of social development give the progressive classes, Communist Parties and socialist countries undoubted advantages over reactionary classes. The ruling classes in capitalist countries, being limited by the narrow class interests of the imperialist bourgeoisie, are not normally able correctly to evaluate the real balance of power, and especially the strength of opposing classes and countries.
It is relevant here to recall the frequent reference made by Lenin to the inability of the bourgeoisie as a class sensibly to analyse reality, to its virtually continuous underestimation of the strength of socialism, especially in the early Soviet years. Even when they had come to accept the existence of the Soviet state, they were for a long time incapable of appreciating its full force, its importance in international relations and the part it played in the overall balance of power. This was made quite obvious both by the failure of Hitler's plans to obtain a blitz victory over the Soviet Union, and in the British and American imperialist policies in the early part of the war which banked on inevitable Soviet defeat or, at any rate, the weakening of the Soviet Union as a result of the war, and in the defeat _-_-_
^^*^^ Le Monde, April 27, 1968.
83 of their postwar plans designed to bring the Soviet Union to a state of extreme weakness. Even today, many bourgeois ideologists and politicians often display an inability correctly to judge the strength of world socialism and the world balance of power.The distinction between objective power of a particular country and its subjective perception, and the importance of such a subjective factor as an evaluation of the opponent's strength, are particularly important today when one has to consider the balance of huge nuclear-missile potentials. In recent years this fact has attracted very great attention from bourgeois writers. Typical in this respect is the idea voiced by Henry Kissinger, US Secretary of State, who has said that bluff, if it is taken seriously, is much more effective than a serious threat interpreted as bluff, insofar as in politics a criterion of military power is its evaluation by the other side.
A Leninist analysis of the international situation as a basis for working out and implementing a well-substantiated foreign policy means admitting the complexity and diversity of the notion of power being applied to international relations, and a careful and comprehensive consideration of the balance of power both within individual nations and on a worldwide scale.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ IIIThe complexity and multitudinous aspects of the notion of the international balance of power and the diversity of the nature and importance of its components determine the mobility, dynamism and changeability of this category, despite its objective character. ``Strength,'' Lenin wrote, ``varies with the degree of economic and political development.''^^*^^
Shifts in the world balance of power are taking place all the time, and in the most varied, sometimes directly opposite, directions. The part played by some factors is growing, that of others is diminishing; they interact, and sometimes cancel _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 22, p. 253.
84 out one another. The strength and, correspondingly, the importance of some states, is on the increase, while the strength of others is diminishing; there arise and crumble alliances of countries as a result of which there takes place the addition or the subtraction (and by no means arithmetically) of corresponding forces. All these constant big and small changes evoke shifts in the overall international balance of power.An analysis of this process makes it possible to differentiate the inconsequential fluctuations from major changes which have far-reaching consequences. One may elucidate the more or less continuous trends and the general laws of this process, one may pinpoint the landmarks of change, the stages in its development associated with qualitative shifts in the correlation of forces on a worldwide scale.
We see that for over half a century the balance of power in international relations has been decided by the balance of power between the two systems. Throughout this time the basic direction of this main process has been clear enough: the correlation of forces between the two systems has steadily changed to the detriment of capitalism and to the advantage of socialism. The main stages in this process coincide with the stages of development of world socialism and the stages of the deepening of capitalism's general crisis. Here we see the direct link between international relations and the deepgoing processes in material production and class struggle.
The Great October Socialist Revolution had a decisive influence on the world balance of power, as on the whole history of mankind. The birth of the Soviet Republic signified more than a marked reduction in the territorial sphere of imperialism's undivided sway and in its material resources. The socialist state made a great service to the world by proclaiming and putting into practice completely new principles of international relations, and by exposing imperialist foreign policy as a policy of war, violence, plunder and oppression.
Early Soviet diplomatic activity, which included efforts to end the imperialist world war, Russia's withdrawal from the war, and a consistent fight for the equal rights of nations large and small, for peaceful coexistence between states 85 with different social systems, demonstrated to the whole world that a new revolutionary force had arrived on the scene. Soviet foreign policy at once became an important factor in international relations with which the bourgeois world had to contend. Commenting in March 1919, on the Paris peace conference, Walter Lippmann said that although Soviet Russia was conspicuous by its absence, the voices of Lenin and Liebknecht were audible in everything discussed.
The Soviet Republic objectively became the proponent of opposition to imperialism. The ``old'' contradictions, the ``old'' mutual relations and the ``old'' balance of power were now reflected through the main contradiction, the main balance of power.
The October Revolution laid the basis for a historical process of quantitative and qualitative changes in the world balance of power. Lenin called for a careful analysis and account of the alignment of forces as a basis for defining revolutionary strategy and tactics, for the foreign policy of the socialist state which existed in a capitalist encirclement; he foresaw the main trend in the changing balance of power between capitalism and socialism to the advantage of the latter. ``There are now two worlds: the old world of capitalism, that is in a state of confusion but which will never surrender voluntarily, and the rising new world, which is still very weak, but which will grow, for it is invincible.''^^*^^
The initial Soviet years confirmed that forecast. Under Lenin's leadership, the young socialist republic in a comparatively short time not only asserted its independence but with every passing year consolidated its international status. This led to a further change in the objective historical situation. ``We have seen,'' said Lenin, ``our `infinitely weak' Soviet state, before our very eyes, gaining strength and becoming a mighty world force, as a result of our own efforts.''^^**^^
The gradual improvement in the Soviet material and economic position played a decisive role in that process, for, as mentioned above, the advantage of moral and political _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 150.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 31, p. 125.
86 superiority was with socialism right from the outset. The policy of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union has been directed at strengthening the material and moral-political potential of the Soviet state and its defence capacity, at uniting the forces of peace, democracy and socialism.The intensive creative endeavour of the working class, the peasants and the intellectuals in restoring and developing the economy after the Civil War, the implementation of Lenin's policy of industrialisation of the country and collectivisation of agriculture ensured the triumph of socialism in the USSR, strengthened its military and economic positions in the historical confrontation with capitalism and bolstered its importance in the world balance of power. This is demonstrated by the following statistics: in 1937 Soviet industrial output constituted about one-third of American industrial output. The gap between the socialist state and the leading world capitalist country had reduced to l/20th of what it had been in 1920.^^*^^ The USSR had become the world's second industrial power.
The Second World War, which began as an armed conflict among capitalist states, subsequently became a massive confrontation between socialism, in the person of the Soviet Union, and capitalism, in the person of its most reactionary sections. The specific feature of the world alignment of forces lay in the fact that the United States of America, Britain and other capitalist states became wartime allies of the USSR. In defending their own interests, they objectively helped to strengthen the world positions of socialism. The decisive role in the outcome of the war, however, was played not so much by external circumstances (the deepening of inter-imperialist contradictions and the split of world capitalism into two inimical groupings, the formation and activity of the anti-Hitler coalition), as by a growth in the strength of the Soviet Union, above all in the economic and military spheres, and also the moral-political advantages of socialism and the realistic foreign policy founded on Leninist principles.
_-_-_^^*^^ See The Socialist Revolution and Modern Capitalism, Moscow. 19G8, p. 63 (in Russian).
87Despite setbacks and terrible losses in the early part of the war, the USSR turned out to be considerably stronger than its enemies and many of its allies had reckoned. Moreover, it played a decisive part in defeating Hitlerism. In the course of the confrontation with Hitler Germany, the forces of progress and of socialism grew immensely, while the positions of fascism, reaction, and consequently of imperialism as a whole were weakened. This process was by no means restricted to the purely material (military and economic) sphere. It was even more marked in the moral-political sphere.
The moral and political unity of the Soviet people in their fight against the fascist invaders, the all-round support given to national liberation movements in occupied countries, the foreign policy uniting the anti-Hitler forces, and the democratic programme of postwar settlement all played a considerable part in the further change in the overall balance of power in favour of the Soviet Union.
Soviet victory in the war was more than a result of the superiority of the forces of progress over the forces of reaction, specifically, the shock forces of international imperialist reaction. It was an indicator of a new qualitative shift in the balance of power between socialism and capitalism as a whole, in the general alignment of forces in the world, of a shift which, to a large degree, determined the development of international relations in the early postwar years. This shift is apparent primarily in the absolute and relative increase in the forces of world socialism. The increasing strength of the Soviet Union and of its moral-political prestige in the world, the embarkment of a number of countries in Central and Southeastern Europe on the road to socialism, their cohesion around the USSR, the victory of the Chinese revolution, the formation of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Korean People's Democratic Republic, the upsurge in the national liberation struggle in other countries of Asia, the increasing popularity of Leftwing ideas among the working people in the capitalist countries, and the growth of communist influence are all major indicators of a new stage in the development of world socialism, of a growth of the progressive and anti-imperialist forces.
88On the other hand, the war resulted in the military defeat of the three most aggressive imperialist powers, a considerable weakening of West European capitalist countries, the moral-political debacle of fascism and the isolation, to a certain extent, of the most reactionary circles within the capitalist countries. Despite the enhanced position of the United States as a result of the war, the status of imperialism as a whole fell sharply. Capitalism entered the second stage of its general crisis and imperialism was no longer a dominating force in international relations.
The changes in the world balance of power, the strengthening of socialism's world positions and of the Soviet Union during the Second World War, were reflected in the nature and results of the postwar peace settlement. The Soviet Union's active part and mounting prestige in international relations gained international legal recognition. The United Nations Charter gave the Soviet Union the status of a permanent member of its Security Council and a corresponding position in its other agencies. The Soviet Union withstood attempts by imperialist powers to subordinate European countries liberated from the yoke of nazi Germany. In consequence, the postwar peace settlement radically differed from the Versailles and Washington system created by the imperialists after the First World War. The peace agreements worked out with active Soviet involvement corresponded to the basic interests of all progressive and democratic forces everywhere and, in turn, created conditions for a further strengthening of these forces.
The imperialists, forced to reckon with the power of the Soviet Union and its growing international political influence, tried all they could to prevent socialism from consolidating its international positions and the new world balance of power. They resorted to all sorts of manoeuvres in order to weaken both the economic power and the moral authority of the Soviet Union, and once again to change the balance of power in their favour. The battle took place on all fronts.
The attempt to weaken the Soviet Union economically was evident in such acts by American imperialism as the sudden ceasing of Lend-Lease deliveries, the sabotage of reparations 89 from the Western occupation zones of Germany and the refusal to make loans. In these circumstances the rehabilitation of the war-devastated Soviet economy carried out by the heroic efforts of the Soviet people, and the economic assistance they gave to the People's Democracies had prime significance for consolidating the new international balance of power. The American journalist Harry Schwartz, writing in 1961, made the point that ``the image of that mythical bird the Phoenix leaps naturally to mind when one contemplates the astonishing history of the Soviet Union over the past two decades. Consumed in the funeral pyre the Phoenix was said to emerge from the ashes after the fire had died, reborn with new strength and new energy. So it has been with that 'Red Phoenix', the Soviet Union. ... The speed and magnitude of this vast nation's recovery from the terrible losses of World War II have confounded all earlier expectations in the West. . . .''^^*^^
When their hopes of Soviet economic weakness were dashed, the imperialist circles staked largely on the fight to change the world balance of power in their favour by the arms race. If the United States could retain and consolidate its atomic monopoly, it was thought, this would not only prevent further gains by socialism, it might even reverse the process. An unprecedented arms race was imposed on the Soviet Union. Military and technological elements became all important in the overall balance of power. In this field too, however, socialism demonstrated its superiority: the American atomic monopoly was very quickly broken and the Soviet Union overtook the United States in creating a hydrogen bomb and in rocketry; this directly influenced future changes of the world balance of power in favour of socialism.
It is difficult to exaggerate the importance of Soviet military and technological successes for the development of international relations. As the eminent British physicist and public figure P.M.S. Blackett noted, the end of American monopoly of the atomic bomb in 1949, just before the war _-_-_
^^*^^ Harry Schwartz, The Red Phoenix. Russia Since World War II, New York, 1961, p. XI.
90 in Korea and Indochina, helped to avert a world war.^^*^^The change in the international balance of power in favour of socialism in the immediate postwar years was not an automatic or direct process. From time to time there appeared opposite tendencies which weakened anti-- imperialist forces in the confrontation of the two rival systems. The increasing activity of reactionaries in Western Europe, in particular, the removal of Communists from participation in French and Italian governments, the sharp deterioration in relations between Yugoslavia and other socialist states, and some adverse phenomena in the development of the socialist states in the late 1940s hampered the further strengthening of socialism's moral and political positions in the world. The formation of the aggressive imperialist NATO bloc was an expression of the consolidation of anti-socialist forces. And the cold war launched by the imperialists made it difficult for socialism to reveal and use its moral and political advantages more widely.
The overall balance of power between the two systems during this period may be described as a somewhat relative equilibrium. The military conflict in Korea in 1950--1953 was a test and, in a certain sense, an indication of this relative equilibrium. It demonstrated the inability of imperialism to put down the forces of socialism and to drive it back even on a comparatively small territory. The end result was that the worldwide balance of power changed even more in socialism's favour.
In the mid-1950s the process of accumulation of gradual quantitative changes in the world balance of power entered a new phase: the vast strengthening of the Soviet Union, the growth of its military and economic power, the economic achievements of other socialist countries, their political and ideological unity, the upsurge in the workers' movement, and the growth of the national liberation movement became major factors of a further change in the position between the two systems in favour of socialism.
_-_-_^^*^^ P.M.S. Blackctt, Atomic Weapons and East-West Relations. Cambridge, 1956, p. 84.
91The historic resolutions of the 20th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd and 24th congresses of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and the international Meejtings of Communist and Workers' Parties in 1957, 1960 and 1969 became important factors in a new advance of the world communist movement. The restoration of Leninist standards of Party life, the removal from socialism of elements alien to it, improvements in the methods of government and economic management, and the creative development of Marxism-Leninism strengthened the moral and material forces of progress and substantially helped to bring about a new radical shift in the world balance of power in favour of socialism and to the detriment of capitalism.
The launching on October 4, 1957, of the first Soviet Sputnik and the subsequent flights by Soviet cosmonauts came as a vivid symbol of the successes of socialism in competition with capitalism. They were made possible by the country's rapid and constant economic growth. By 1958 Soviet national income had risen 2.3 times over the 1950 figure, and gross industrial production had increased = 2.5~times.^^*^^ As a result, the gap in the output of major industrial products between the Soviet Union and the United States greatly diminished, as the following table shows.
Soviet Industrial Output (percentages of US output) 1950 1958 Coal^^1^^ 44 111 Oil 14 3A Steel . ... 31 71 26 fin 22 32 ~^^1^^ In terras of anthracite. _-_-_^^*^^ See The Socialist Revolution and Modern Capitalism, pp. 69--70.
92 The great economic, scientific and technological
attainments of the Soviet Union brought about a new shift in the
Soviet-American military balance. The changes that took
place in the second half of the 1950s, were summed up at
the Moscow Meeting of Representatives of Communist and
Workers' Parties in 1960. The Meeting described the new
stage in the general crisis of capitalism in the late 1950s; it
stated: ``The time has come when the socialist states have, by
forming a world system, become an international force
exerting a powerful influence on world development.
The growing might of the Soviet Union was the major
factor in the radical changes that had taken place in the
entire array of world forces. West German Chancellor Willy Brandt, the leader of
the German Social-Democratic Party, has admitted: ``One
of the most important realities of the current political
situation is the fact that the Soviet Union has grown into a
modern world power---that is, a power whose influence and
interests are worldwide.''^^**^^ The successes of socialism in competition with capitalism,
and above all the steady Soviet economic growth were and
remain the basis of the complex process of change in the
world balance of power. The most sensible of Western
commentators have recognised this; thus, in one of the series of
reports on American foreign policy prepared in 1959 at the
request of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee it was
said that the rapid growth in Soviet production of steel,
electric power and machinery had been a major factor
behind the relative weakening of the international positions
of the United States. The authors of the report saw in this
the major threat to capitalism in the future. They believed
that if the Soviet Union could demonstrate that communism
was able to expand both heavy industry and consumer goods
output to a greater degree than "free economic systems'',
the challenge of communism would be overwhelming not
only in less developed countries but in Western Europe
too. ^^*^^ The Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, p. 52. ^^**^^ Foreign Affairs, Vol. 46, No. 3, April 1968, p. 480. The growth in the material and moral forces of world
socialism and its international impact helped the national
liberation movement to achieve its resounding successes in
the late 1950s and early 1960s. Under the assault of this
movement the colonial empires of the imperialist powers,
which had been built up over many decades, began to
crumble. The force of socialism deprived the imperialists of
any possibility of stopping this process by recourse to arms.
The failure of the Anglo-Franco-Israeli aggression against
Egypt in 1956 was the turning point in this process. The previously disfranchised Afro-Asian peoples now
became active participants in international relations. The
emergence of dozens of new sovereign states in Asia and
Africa was an essential element in the new world balance
of power. Although it was accompanied by the appearance
of new international issues and the complication of
international relations, the formation and activity of new states in
Asia and Africa reflected the further weakening of
capitalism's world status. The radical changes in the world balance of power left a
deep-going imprint on international relations. As a result of
the October Revolution, imperialism had for ever lost its
position as absolute ruler in international relations. At the end
of the 1950s, as a result of the further development of the
world revolutionary process and its influence on the world
balance of power, imperialism lost the role it had played in
international relations which it had managed to retain in
the interwar years and, in part, in the early postwar years.
The new correlation of forces in the world is forcing
Western politicians to make an agonising reappraisal of
their foreign policy concepts and to admit that the United
States has surrendered its hegemony in international affairs.
McGeorge Bundy, formerly Special Assistant to the
President for National Security Affairs, wrote in the January
1967 issue of Foreign Affairs that ``what happens in the
world is not determined by Americans alone''.^^*^^ Further, he
wrote: ``We have had to recognise more and more that we
live in the midst of troubles most of which we did not make,
_-_-_
^^*^^ Foreign Affairs, Vol. 45, No. 2, January 1967, p. 192.
Also worthy of attention in this respect is the view of Walter Lippmann, even though he, in common with most bourgeois observers, confines himself to the military aspect of the problem and shuts his eyes to the superiority of socialism in all sectors of social life: in his opinion, the balance of power is the major event of our time, and it exerts a great and ubiquitous impact on all international relations; he makes no bones about the fact that it would be senseless to assume that someone could restore the American superiority of the immediate postwar years founded on its nuclear monopoly.^^**^^
Socialism has come to occupy an increasingly important position in the balance of world forces. Today, it is the world socialist system and the forces fighting against imperialism, for a socialist reshaping of society, that determine the main direction of history. That is the conclusion formulated in the documents of the world communist movement and in the Programme and resolutions of CPSU congresses. ``Imperialism,'' as is emphasised in the final document adopted by the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties in 1969, ``can neither regain its lost historical initiative nor reverse world development. The main direction of mankind's development is determined by the world socialist system, the international working class, all revolutionary forces.''^^***^^
__ALPHA_LVL2__ IVThe change in the world balance of power in favour of socialism, at work now for several decades, is a natural and irreversible process. It does not, however, develop in a straight line, rather it has to contend, interact and clash _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., p. 193.
^^**^^ See Walter Lippmann, Western Unity and the Common Market, London, 1962.
^^***^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers Parties, Moscow 1969, p. 13.
95 with the various forces functioning in the world, particularly in the struggle between socialism and imperialism in all its diverse forms.Besides the general trend outlined above, it is possible that shifts due to changes in the political situation will influence the struggle. Imperialist forces endeavour to use the multiplicity and complexity of modern international relations to maintain their positions and prevent the forces of socialism and social progress from improving their positions. They try to undermine socialism both in individual countries and on a worldwide scale, to manipulate the contradictions, difficulties and mistakes that crop up as world socialism develops. Now and then they attain a certain amount of success, managing to gain a temporary shift in the balance of power in their favour---not on a global scale but locally, at one of the various sectors of international relations.
Indicative in that respect is the development of international events in the early 1960s, associated primarily with the changes within the socialist system. At that time the complicated nature of the notion of balance of power was very much in evidence. The events of those years showed the mounting importance of such an element in the correlation of forces between the two systems as the situation reigning inside the world socialist system. After socialism had become a world system and consolidated its international positions, the mutual relations between the socialist states came to have more and more importance in the world balance of power.
The internal unity and absence of antagonistic contradictions is an important advantage of socialism over capitalism. As Lenin put it ``private property divides people ... whereas labour unites them''.^^*^^ The friendship and solidarity of the socialist states play an exceedingly important part as a source of the strength of each socialist state. Moreover, because of the extensive and all-round co-operation between these countries, the importance of the socialist community in the world balance of power as a whole very much surpasses the simple arithmetical sum of the strength of the individual _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 329.
96 states. Conversely, any temporary weakening of the internal strength and unity of the world socialist system has an adverse effect on the international situation, weakens the socialist position and enhances the possibilities of imperialism. The General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU, Leonid Brezhnev, analysing the results of the political course of the Chinese leaders, said in June 1969: ``There has arisen a new situation which is having a grave negative influence on the whole world situation and the conditions of the struggle of the anti-imperialist forces.''^^*^^The imperialists attach great importance to using the current foreign policy orientation of the Chinese leaders in the political struggle against world socialism and the liberation movement, and they make virtually no effort to conceal this. A prominent American diplomat, Robert Murphy mentions this point with = satisfaction.^^**^^ In their book Power and Impotence. The Failure of America's Foreign Policy, the American writers E. Stillman and W. Pfaff also stress that ``the net effect of Chinese assertions within the communist movement has aided the United States, not harme.d it''.^^***^^ The anti-- Soviet and splitting position of the present Chinese leadership and the manifestations of individual nationalistic trends in some socialist countries are being used by bourgeois propaganda to assert that world communism is being eroded, or that it indicates a reversal in the balance of power.
Imperialism also strives to make use of the new stage in the national liberation movement, to take advantage of the fact that Asian and African countries which have obtained their national sovereignty are interested in gaining financial, technical and food assistance from capitalist countries. The social differentiation within the developing countries, the expansion of their economic ties with the major capitalist states and the downfall of progressive regimes in some developing countries are bound to have an effect on the overall international balance of power.
_-_-_^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, MoscowJ969, p. 157.
^^**^^ See Detente. Cold War Strategies in 'Transition, p. 4.
^^***^^ E. Stillman and W. Pfaff, Power and Impotence. "The Failure of America's Foreign Policy, pp. 206--07.
97The temporary difficulties within the world socialist system and the national liberation movement are being exploited by imperialist powers in order to activate an aggressive policy. Aggression is organically part of imperialism, but it rears its head differently in different circumstances. In a situation that is not conducive to imperialism the chances of launching imperialist aggression are limited. Imperialism normally retreats when faced by a superior force. For the sake of saving its skin, it has to reckon with reality. In other circumstances, the aggressive nature of imperialism has greater scope for action, as is evident from the history of international relations in recent years.
During the 1960s, these aggressive tendencies in the policy of the United States and some other imperialist states (the war in Vietnam, Israeli incursions into Arab territory, the escalation of American aggression into Cambodia and Laos) were due not to an absolute growth in its power, but to other factors, including some temporary difficulties being faced by progressive forces.
Many imperialist ideologists made haste to claim that the balance of power was changing in favour of capitalism. While, for example, Walter Lippmann was cautious in expressing this idea, maintaining that the world balance of forces in the early sixties was becoming rather more favourable to the Western community, other authors shouted from the roof tops about the ``super might'' of the United States. An illustration of such hasty and superficial conclusions is an article by the French journalist Ren\'e Dabernat entitled ``There Is Only One Super Power'', published in Le Monde on October 27, 1965. Elsewhere, the same paper wrote, ``We have now entered a world of a monopoly type, in which one sole super nation dominates the others to such an extent that it finds itself more or less in a position of hegemony.''^^*^^
Yet a deeper study of reality refutes these conclusions. It would, of course, be wrong to deny that certain difficulties exist within the socialist system. It would be just as wrong, however, to see these processes as an indication of organic _-_-_
^^*^^ Le Monde, November 7, 1965.
__PRINTERS_P_97_COMMENT__ 7---239 98 weakness of world socialism, or to talk of capitalism gaining the upper hand in the balance of power.The problems within the world socialist system differ in nature from the contradictions at work in the imperialist camp and can be overcome as world socialism develops and grows stronger. It is indicative that the political course of the ``Left''-wing splitters was condemned by Communist and Workers' Parties throughout the world, in particular, at the International Meeting of the Communist and Workers' Parties in 1969. The Meeting made it quite clear that the Soviet Union remains the leading force in the socialist system, and that its military, economic and political strength are the foundation of the world balance of forces that is favourable to socialism.
One must bear in mind that the decisive influence is being exerted by factors that conditioned the main trend in the changes in favour of socialism and to the detriment of capitalism. Since the middle of the 1960s, the Soviet Union and most socialist countries have implemented important economic measures and have once more attained economic growth which greatly exceed those of the capitalist countries. As a result, the share of the socialist countries in world industrial output increased around 27 per cent in 1955 to roughly 38 per cent in 1967, with the Soviet Union accounting for 20 per cent.^^*^^
Important events in the military and technological sphere in recent years have affected the Soviet-American competition. Despite the forced pace of nuclear-missile production by the United States at the start of the 1960s, the Soviet Union, as American sources admit, has considerably strengthened its defence capacity both in quantity and quality ( particularly in total megatonnage, intercontinental ballistic missiles, underwater launched missiles, strategic bombers, space satellites and anti-missile defence). As a result, despite the continuing growth of American military strength, most Western experts consider that a global dynamic equilibrium still exists between Soviet and American armed forces. Now, as _-_-_
^^*^^ See The Socialist Revolution and Modern Capitalism, p. 37 (in Russian).
99 shown, in particular, by the results of the Soviet-American talks in May 1972, official US circles also base themselves on recognition of the strategic equilibrium. This important element in the international situation continues to restrict any opportunity and the likelihood of direct aggression by imperialism against world socialism as a whole.The centrifugal tendencies within the imperialist camp are of advantage in international affairs to socialism and other progressive forces; these tendencies include a deepening of inter-imperialist contradictions, the erosion of the foundations of the aggressive military blocs, the weakening of the dependence of many capitalist countries on the United States, and the appearance of ``polycentrism'' within the imperialist system. Virtually in every serious international crisis and conflict, the socialist countries and the national liberation movement are today faced not by a united front of imperialist powers but primarily by American imperialism.
The consistent peaceful policy of the Soviet Union and other socialist states promotes these tendencies and encourages a change in the whole structure of the international relations that developed during the cold war period. The trend towards an easing of tension in Europe---the main area of direct confrontation between the major forces of the two world systems---has been a fact of paramount importance in recent years.
The course of international relations over the past few years shows the utter untenability of the claims by imperialist ideologists and politicians that a single super power, the United States, dominates the world. Under pressure of facts, most bourgeois authors have had to recant and admit that the imperialist powers do not have the upper hand militarily over the world socialist system.
Typically, there has been a growing activity recently in the purely political sphere by medium-sized and small states, sometimes even in the face of opposition by the US imperialists, and a relative limitation of American opportunities actively to affect the course of international events. There is, however, a certain danger in the mounting relative independence of these smaller nations in international affairs, inasmuch as conflicts between them may nolens volens act as
__PRINTERS_P_99_COMMENT__ 7* 100 Emacs-File-stamp: "/home/ysverdlov/leninist.biz/en/1974/LIMIR287/20070105/199.tx" __EMAIL__ webmaster@leninist.biz __OCR__ ABBYY 6 Professional (2006.03.0) __WHERE_PAGE_NUMBERS__ top __FOOTNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [*]+ __ENDNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [0-9]+ a detonator of a new world war; at the same time, fresh opportunities arise in the struggle against the most aggressive forces of contemporary imperialism. Back in 1916, Lenin wrote: ``The dialectics of history are such that small nations, powerless as an independent factor in the struggle against imperialism, play a part as one of the ferments, one of the bacilli, which help the real anti-imperialist force, the socialist proletariat, to make its appearance on the scene.''^^*^^ The international action of the Soviet Union, ``a real anti-- imperialist force'', and the other socialist states has led to the growing relative independence of smaller countries in the world alignment of forces and in world politics. And this enhanced role is attributable not to military factors (in some cases they are purely economic and in others---political and moral).In these circumstances, to reduce the whole host of modern international relations merely to a bipolar system and to a struggle between two powers, the United States and the Soviet Union, as certain bourgeois writers only recently were doing, is to distort and oversimplify the international situation.
The present international situation is extremely complex and features a multiplicity of forces which have their own axes to grind and conduct their own policy. Their action is certainly not always susceptible to control by the main forces in the world today.
The present international situation confirms the view of the American foreign policy expert Harlan Cleveland in that ''. . .international politics is not a zero-sum game in which an inch gained by one player must mean an inch lost by an- other''.^^**^^
For example, the interests of such new ``centres of power" as the European Economic Community far from always coincide with those of the United States; neither do the specific interests of individual states.
Earlier, when cold war ideologists could simply fit the world balance of power into a bipolar scheme, the _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 22, p. 357.
^^**^^ Harlan Cleveland, The Obligation of Power, American Diplomacy in the Search for Peace, New York, London, 1966, p. 99.
101 elaboration and evaluation of a country's foreign policy did not present a variegated compexity, and its policy was conspicuous for its straightforwardness. Nowadays, however, when the alignment of forces is much more complex, the foreign policy of individual countries is much more difficult to follow; it takes a more winding course, plays a relatively independent part in world affairs and is difficult to calculate. Seemingly, all this confirms the ideas of those who speak about an end of the bipolar era, about polycentrism and even the chaotic development of international relations. However, if we go deeper, if we analyse the root processes of world development, as the CPSU and other Marxist-Leninist parties do, and we see the class essence of international relations, then it is impossible not to recognise that the increasing polycentric tendencies do not remove the basic contradiction of the contemporary world, its division into two systems, nor does it diminish the role of the balance of power between them. Despite all the changes and zigzags of international development, the battle between socialism and capitalism and the correlation of forces between them constitute, as before, the most profound objective bases of the world alignment of forces.The sharp increase in the part which economic and scientific and technological rivalry between the two systems now plays in the class struggle between socialism and capitalism has been mentioned in the Report of the CPSU Central Committee to the 24th Party Congress.
The Soviet Union's greater position in the world today results not simply from its military and economic strength but also from its moral and political prestige. The advantages of socialism associated with the furtherance of socialist democracy, socialist humanism and socialist internationalism acquire ever greater importance in this process. The more successfully the noble ideas of communism are embodied in the daily life of the socialist countries, the more they attract other peoples and the wider are the possibilities for the Soviet Union and other socialist states to act in an effective and vigorous way in the international arena; and conversely. Leonid Brezhnev has said: ``The way things shape out in our country, the successes in communist construction 102 largely determine the scale and depth of the influence exerted by the Soviet Union's foreign policy on the international situation.''^^*^^ In turn, the success of socialist foreign policy guarantees the most favourable conditions for a further growth in the forces of world socialism and for greater attainments in building a new social system.
On the whole, the alignment and correlation of forces in the world today are extremely complex, mobile and, sometimes, contradictory. Nevertheless, neither the fluctuations nor the arrival of new forces on the scene can mask the basic tendency towards a change in the balance of power in favour of socialism and against capitalism. This trend undeviatingly makes its way through a mass of chance diversions and temporary vacillations, for it is conditioned by the action of invincible deep-going social forces and reflects the objective laws of history. Let capitalism flatter itself by giving itself the edge in measuring Soviet and American relative military strength. The real world balance of power, understood by Lenin as ``a correlation of real forces of all classes in all states'', has irreversibly shifted and continues to change in favour of socialism. That is the direction taken both by the objective laws of history discovered by Marx, Engels and Lenin and by subjective factors such as the classconscious and purposive activity of the advanced social forces in the world, and the foreign policy of the Soviet Union and other socialist states.
A resolution of the CPSU Central Committee Plenary Meeting of June 26, 1969, says: ``Soviet Union's foreign policy is playing and will continue to play a major part in the general struggle of the anti-imperialist forces and in strengthening the might and unity of the socialist community, and serve as an effective instrument for undermining imperialist aggressive schemes, maintaining peace and asserting the principles of peaceful coexistence between states with different social systems and support for the popular liberation struggle.''^^**^^
_-_-_^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow 1969, pp. 169--70.
^^**^^ Pravda, June 27, 1969.
103In summarising the period of international development in the latter part of the 1960s, the CPSU 24th Congress stated that the Soviet Union and the fraternal socialist countries ``have exerted a growing influence on a further change in the balance of forces in the world arena in favour of peace, democracy and socialism''.^^*^^
_-_-_^^*^^ 24th Congress of the CPSU, p. 211.
[104] __ALPHA_LVL1__ A MATTER OF LIFE OR DEATH FOR MILLIONS __ALPHA_LVL2__ II __NOTE__ Quote before LVL2 in original.The question of peace is a burning question, the painful question of the day.
V. I. Lenin
No problem of international relations has such a long history as the problem of war and peace. It is reckoned that in excess of 14,500 wars have taken place during the last five and a half thousand years. Preparation for wars and the elimination of their consequences have also dominated so-called peaceful periods, and this is expressed in the old Latin saying Si vis vacem, para helium (If you want peace, prepare for war). War has become such a common companion of human society that it has come to be regarded as an eternal law of social development.
The scale of wars has grown from epoch to epoch, and their influence of human life has become more and more marked. The first half of this century saw armed clashes on a gigantic scale; the two world wars drew into their orbit dozens of countries and had a very direct impact on the course of history. They carried off many millions of human lives. A fresh outbreak on such a scale could threaten the very existence of whole nations.
It is hardly surprising that the problems of war and peace, which have such vital importance, should always have attracted the attention of politicians, scholars and writers. Hundreds of books, thousands of articles and millions of pages have been 105 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ A MATTER OF LIFE OR DEATH FOR MILLIONS devoted both to describing wars and to attempts to explain the phenomenon of war, to analyse its roots and causes and to forecast the future. This literature varies both in form and in content. The theoretical views on war range from praise for its ``beneficial'' consequences---war, Hegel maintained, ``kept nations from rotting''---and from assertions regarding man's inherent aggressive and contentious nature to wholesale condemnation of all struggle, appeals to non-resistance to evil, and to a passionate preaching of pacifism and humanism.
The abundance and unsound nature of the numerous attemps to outline ways of resolving the problems of war and peace only underline the contribution of Marxism to this issue, and primarily the great importance of Lenin's creative thought. Problems of war took up a large part of his theoretical and practical activity, especially in the period of the First World War and the October Revolution. Although the historical situation has changed radically since then and the very presentation of the question of war and peace has altered with it, no serious rational analysis is possible without taking into account the great achievements of Leninist thinking.
Lenin's greatest service was that, through the specific example of wars during the imperialist epoch and in the new era ushered in by the October Revolution, he profoundly worked out general methodological issues of analysing wars and created a whole science concerning war, peace and revolution. Lenin's approach to the issue of wars, which are, as he said, ``a supremely varied, diverse, complex = thing'',^^*^^ was based on historical materialism.
Lenin developed the Marxist ideas of the social and historical nature of wars and, in so doing, he revealed the dialectical link between war and the economy and politics, and with the class struggle, particularly in the imperialist epoch. The starting point for a Marxist-Leninist analysis of war is a study of its organic connection with the socio-economic conditions of social development, with the domination of private property and the antagonisms developing on that basis. _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 35, p. 273.
106 The main demands of Leninism in examining wars are to look at them in specific terms of history, and to take complete and comprehensive consideration of the nature and peculiar features of the epoch. ``One cannot understand the present war without understanding the epoch,''^^*^^ Lenin stressed.Lenin described as a mockery of the truth any attempt to apply the appraisal of war in one epoch and of one type to wars of another epoch and another type.^^**^^ These demands of Leninism have special importance in imperialist conditions when, on the one hand, the scale of wars has grown immensely and, on the other, their meaning has considerably changed and become more complex.
The international conflicts, said Lenin, have, in form , remained the same kind of international conflicts as those of the previous epoch, but the social and class meaning has substantially altered. The objective historical situation has become quite different.^^***^^
This showed clear enough Lenin's irreconcilable attitude towards any form of dogmatism, any thoughtless transposition of judgements from one epoch to another without account for historical events, and especially towards speculative sophistry deliberately adopted for specific political purposes. In Lenin's view, the main determinant of the type or character of a war was its social and political content. Lenin gave profound class meaning to the well-known formula of Clausewitz, Prussian military theorist of the early 19th century, that war is a continuation of politics by other means: "War is the continuation, by violent means, of the politics pursued by the ruling classes of the belligerent powers long before the outbreak of war. . . . War does not alter the direction of the prewar policies, but only accelerates their development.''^^****^^
Lenin revealed the dialectical nature of the transition from peace to war and back again as the replacement of forms of struggle whose class content remains unchanged: `` _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 35, p. 228.
^^**^^ See Ibid., Vol. 21, pp. 308--09.
^^***^^ See Ibid., pp. 148--49.
^^****^^ Ibid., Vol. 22, p. 163.
107 Peaceful alliances prepare the ground for wars, and in their turn grow out of wars; the one conditions the other, producing alternating forms of peaceful and non-peaceful struggle on one and the same basis of imperialist connections and relations within world economics and world = politics.''^^*^^Lenin called for a deep-going and all-round study of the political development that preceded war. ``How can a war be accounted for without considering its bearing on the preceding policy of the given state, of the given system of states, the given classes?''^^**^^ he asked.
Lenin's analysis of the class nature of war was not confined to a study of the policy of the ruling class alone. He pointed out that ``the class contradictions dividing the nations continue to exist in wartime and manifest themselves in conditions of war''.^^***^^
This means that when we come to study war we must start with the class struggle and the clash between the policy of the ruling class and of the working class and other classes and social strata which are vitally interested in averting war. Whoever fails to understand the essence of Lenin's approach to the policy of the imperialist states and leaves out of consideration the fight by the working people against that policy, may end up by denying any reason and meaning for the workers' political struggle in capitalist countries against the unleashing of war, by adopting a fatalistic attitude which apportions the whole of world politics to the big bourgeoisie and gives the imperialists a free hand to decide the fate of the people. That is especially dangerous in the epoch of thermonuclear weapons.
A Leninist analysis of the dialectics of war and politics also presupposes a comprehensive consideration of changes in the socio-political situation caused by war. It makes it possible to determine the policy of the working class in relation to a particular war before it breaks out and as it is on the way, having in mind the possible consequences of war from the viewpoint of the proletariat's class interests.
_-_-_^^*^^ Ibid., p. 295.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 24, p. 402.
^^***^^ Ibid., Vol. 21, p. 40.
108The very scope of imperialist wars has lent the question of war a vital and special significance. As Lenin said, ``The question of imperialist wars, of the international policy of finance capital which now dominates the whole world, a policy that must inevitably engender new imperialist wars, that must inevitably cause an extreme intensification of national oppression, pillage, brigandry and the strangulation of weak, backward and small nationalities by a handful of 'advanced' powers---that question has been the keystone of all policy in all the countries of the globe since 1914. It is a question of life and death for m.illions upon millions of people.''^^*^^
Lenin called war and revolution the crucial historical issue during the First World War; this issue played an important part during the Second World War as well. Today the relationship between war and revolution and the revolutionary policy in regard to war have acquired exceptional importance. The 20th century has added a fresh burden to exploitation, poverty and lawlessness as the ``normal'' lot of the working people under capitalism. The vast scale of the world wars which have brought mankind untold calamity and deprived many millions of people of life and health are the most disgraceful offspring of decaying and moribund capitalism.
In such circumstances the campaign against world war unleashed by the imperialists has become a major task of the revolutionary workers' movement. The grand ideals of socialism for which the international working class is fighting include saving mankind from the horrors of war as well as from exploitation, oppression and impoverishment. ``An end to wars, peace among the nations, the cessation of pillaging and violence---such is our ideal,''^^**^^ Lenin said even before the revolution. This noble aim continues to inspire Communists all over the world. A historic mission of communism, declares the CPSU Programme, is to abolish war and establish everlasting peace on earth.^^***^^ The greatest advantage of Marxists-Leninists over _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 55.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 21, p. 293.
^^***^^ Programme of the CPSU, London, 1961, pp. 41, 48.
109 bourgeois and petty-bourgeois pacifists is that they do not simply condemn wars between nations, they indicate realistic ways and forms of struggle to avert and to end them. While the fundamental opposition of Marxists-Leninists to imperialist wars remains unchanged, the paths and forms of struggle against them, the specific tasks and slogans of the working class, change in relation to each particular war according to the changing historical situation and alignment of class forces both in individual countries and in the world as a whole. Historical experience provides an extraordinarily rich and instructive lesson in this respect.``Toothless'' pacifism based merely on benevolent aspirations was alien to Lenin. His critical attitude to that type of pacifism came from his clear appreciation of the inevitability of wars as long as capitalism ruled; no appeals to humaneness or mere entreaties could contain aggression. Lenin always posed these issues with typical clarity and intrepid thinking: ``It [Social-Democracy---Ed.] unreservedly condemns war as a bestial means of settling conflicts in human society. But Social-Democracy knows that so long as society is divided into classes, so long as there is exploitation of man by man, wars are inevitable.''^^*^^
It was from this standpoint that Lenin approached the attitude to war taken by the proletariat and other working classes. Again and again he underlined the importance ``of an historical analysis of each war'', which is necessary in order ``to determine whether or not that particular war can be considered progressive, whether it serves the interests of democracy and the proletariat and, in that sense, is legitimate, just, etc.''.^^**^^
The dialectical approach to understanding social processes is also evident in the way Lenin studied the attitude of the working class to the First World War of 1914--1918, in which two imperialist groupings confronted one another: the Quadruple Alliance headed by Germany and the Anglo-- FrancoRussian Entente. The war that broke out in 1914 was, on both sides, a _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 8, p. 565.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 23, p. 32.
110 continuation of imperialist politics and was conducted in the class interests of the bourgeoisie and to consolidate its domination and, as such, it had an utterly conspicuous counterrevolutionary bias. For that reason, even before the war Lenin maintained that the campaign against the war was a vital task of the workers' movement in every country. He did all he could to get the Second International to pass corresponding resolutions. Being a principled enemy of that war, which the working class was unable to stop, Lenin believed that ``it is the duty of socialists to support, extend and intensify every popular movement to end the war''.^^*^^It was Lenin and his consistent supporters who waged a principled struggle against the imperialist war, as distinct from the leaders of the Second International who, embroiled in opportunism and social chauvinism, went back on their own decisions. When, at the beginning of the war, pseudopatriotic, chauvinistic and militaristic passions ran high and embraced all the belligerent countries, Lenin was not afraid to go against the current.
In his unrelenting criticism of bourgeois pacifists and sophists, Lenin indicated the only real, well-substantiated way of campaigning against the war: a revolutionary popular movement and the victory of a socialist revolution. He taught the working class that since the war had already begun they should use the subsequent worsening of the deep-going capitalist contradictions in their own interests and in the interests of propaganda and preparation for a socialist revolution.
Lenin did not confine himself to a theoretical view of the connection between the struggle against the war and the struggle for socialism. He advanced the practical slogan of the revolutionary movement in conditions of the First World War: ``The conversion of the present imperialist war into a civil war is the only correct proletarian slogan ... now that war has become a fact.''^^**^^ The slogan of defeating ``one's own'' government in the war went hand in hand with the above-mentioned slogan. This directly corresponded to the interests of the proletarian revolutionary movement (as Lenin _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 22, p. 176.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 21, p. 34.
111 said, it was the least of all evils) in all belligerent countries. It was for that outcome of the war that the proletariat should strive, since they had been unable to avert the war. In his criticism of the ``Defence of the Fatherland'' slogan Lenin drew attention to the fact that the proletariat, in rejecting this slogan, was referring to the particular imperialist war and it did not preclude the slogan being applied to a national liberation war.At the end of 1916 Lenin summed up the strategy of the working class during the imperialist war: ``The proletariat's answer to war must be propaganda and the preparation and carrying out of revolutionary mass actions for the overthrow of bourgeois rule, the conquest of political power and the achievement of socialist society, which alone will save mankind from = __NOTE__ Close-double-quote missing from end in original. wars....''^^*^^
He believed that within the bounds of one and the same historical epoch, wars could sharply differ from one another in their type and content. He wrote: ``War is the continuation of the politics of this or that class; and in every class society, slave-owning, feudal, or capitalist, there have been wars which continued the politics of the oppressor classes and also wars which continued the politics of the oppressed classes.''^^**^^
In the present epoch, Lenin differentiated between wars which are imperialist, predatory, plundering and, therefore, reactionary and unjust on both sides, and wars of national liberation, which are directed against foreign domination, are just from the standpoint of the oppressed and have a progressive significance. ``There are wars and wars,'' he wrote. ``There are adventurist wars, fought to further dynastic interests, to satisfy the appetite of a band of freebooters, or to attain the objects of the knights of capitalist profit. And there is another kind of war---the only war that is legitimate in capitalist society---war against the people's oppressors and enslavers.''^^***^^
Lenin approached wars in a dialectical way and he granted _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., Vol. 23, p. 139.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 26, p. 162.
^^***^^ Ibid., Vol. 8, p. 565.
112 the possibility of a change in the character of war in the course of its development and of the combination in the content of one and the same war of socially different elements. Thus, on the American War of Independence Lenin wrote: ``What we have here is a national liberation war in which imperialist rivalry is an auxiliary element, one that has no serious importance.''^^*^^ On the other hand, he noted the national liberation elements in the struggle of Serbia during the First World War, although this did not alter the overall imperialist character of the war.In defining a war's character Lenin attributed decisive importance to its class, political content, and not to formal elements. Speaking about the wars of oppressed nations against their oppressors, Lenin said: ``As a general rule, war is legitimate on the part of the oppressed (irrespective of whether it is defensive or offensive in the military sense).''^^**^^ Just as justified he considered revolutionary wars which ``may prove necessary in the interests of socialism''.^^***^^
The connection and relation which Lenin revealed existing between war and revolution, between the campaign for peace and the battle for socialism, was completely borne out by the further development and the practice of the proletarian revolution in Russia.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ IIThe Great October Socialist Revolution, which signalled a revolutionary change in international relations as a whole, brought, too, a radical change in the way the issue of war and peace was presented. In that issue, as Lenin said, ``our October Revolution marked the beginning of a new era in world history''.^^****^^
The new elements in this issue lay both in the emergence of the problem of war between states belonging to different systems, which included features of civil war and _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 22, p. 310.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 35, p. 273.
^^***^^ Ibid., Vol. 23, p. 370.
^^****^^ Ibid., Vol. 33, p. 55.
113 international war and in a new relation between war and revolution, and in a change in the conditions and opportunities of struggle against war in general. A state that is a consistent supporter of peace appeared on the world stage, a state on which peace-loving forces in other countries could rely. The practical tasks and slogans of the international proletariat, and primarily the Russia's proletariat, became different in the struggle for socialism and peace. The slogan of defence of the fatherland gained a completely new meaning for the Russia's working class. As Lenin put it, ``We are and have been defencists since October 25, 1917, we champion the defence of the fatherland ever since that = day.''^^*^^The fight against war and for peace meant, in the new circumstances, not only the exposure of imperialist aggression and the battle to overthrow the bourgeoisie, but also the struggle to defend and to fortify the only socialist state in the world. Socialism has no need of an aggressive war to attain victory; war is alien to the very nature of socialism, which removes the exploiting classes---the bearers of militarism and aggression---from power and influence. Conversely, peace is an essential prerequisite of the swift economic and social progress which demonstrates the advantages of the new social system.
To secure peace was a vital need in order to strengthen the young Soviet Republic and the central task of its foreign policy. The peaceful policy of the socialist state became, in turn, an essential element of the revolutionary strategy and tactics of the working class in the battle for socialism. Although the rise of a socialist state could not completely remove the dangers of world war in the future, it considerably altered the conditions in which the people could fight for peace. The development of the socialist state and its peaceful policy signified a tremendous growth in the anti-imperialist forces and was a major hindrance to those who wanted to unleash another world war.
The issues of war and peace faced Lenin and the Soviet state not at all as a problem of theory, but as the most urgent and practical matters. An end to the war became the _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., Vol. 27, p. 64.
__PRINTERS_P_113_COMMENT__ 8---239 114 prime condition for strengthening Soviet power. It is extremely symbolic that the Decree on Peace signed by Lenin was the first document of the socialist state; its meaning was profound and comprehensive. In it the workers' and peasants' government called upon all the belligerent peoples and their governments to start immediate negotiations for a just, democratic peace. The Decree contained definitions of such notions as a just or democratic peace as well as annexation. These definitions retain their clarity right to the present day. It also laid out possible practical ways of implementing the proposals of the Soviet Government and noted the special role of the working class in ``saving mankind from the horrors of war and its consequences''; it expressed the determination ``to conclude peace successfully, and at the same time emancipate the labouring and exploited masses of our population from all forms of slavery and all forms of exploitation''.^^*^^The Leninist principles of socialist foreign policy, proclaimed by the Soviet state, the vigorous Soviet campaign to put an end to the world war and to conclude a just peace treaty had an immense revolutionising impact on the peoples. Lenin's peace programme envisaged: the banning of any forcible incorporation of territory seized in time of war; the re-establishment of the political independence of those peoples who, in wartime, had been deprived of their sovereignty; an end to the exploitation of colonies and dependencies, etc. The Soviet peace policy inspired the peoples of all belligerent countries to wage a revolutionary struggle against the imperialist policy of waging the war ``to a victorious conclusion''.
The anti-war, anti-imperialist forces of the time were too weak, however. Nonetheless, the resolute struggle against the imperialist war, initiated by the socialist state in October 1917, was of historic significance. Lenin set out the difficulties of this struggle: ``It is highly naive to think that peace can be easily attained, and that the bourgeoisie will hand it to us on a platter as soon as we mention it.''^^**^^
_-_-_^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, CnUcclad Works, Vol. 2fi, p. 252.
^^**^^ Ibid., p. 345.
115Lenin turned out to be right. The bourgeoisie did not hand out peace on a platter, rather it did everything possible to stop revolutionary Russia from leaving the war. The Entente imperialists wanted to kill two birds with one stone: to bring down Soviet power in Russia through the medium of the German militarists, and at the same time to improve their own prospects in the war against Germany.
The Entente refusal to accept Soviet proposals on concluding a general peace treaty forced the Soviet Government to start negotiations with Germany for a separate peace. The ensuing Brest-Litovsk Peace Treaty, despite its onerous conditions to the Soviet Republic, met the interests of both the Soviet people and the international working class. During this period, Lenin had to withstand a tough onslaught from ``Left''-wing Communists who used ultrarevolutionary bombast to advocate a continuance of the war and to oppose the Brest-Litovsk Treaty. Lenin's views on the relation between war and revolution were further developed in his battle with the ``Left''-wing Communists.
Expressing his unshakeable faith in the inevitable triumph of world socialism, and defending the right of oppressed peoples to launch uprisings and to wage revolutionary wars, Lenin stated that revolutions ``are not made to order, they cannot be timed for any particular moment; they mature in a process of historical development and break out at a moment determined by a whole complex of internal and external causes''.^^*^^
Lenin subjected to withering criticism the view that the ``peace psychology'' meant ``doing nothing'', while the waving of a wooden sword meant being ``active''. ``Any peace,'' Lenin said, ''...will open channels for our influence a hundred times wider....''^^**^^ He rejected the possibility of exporting revolution to other countries and made no bones about the fact that ``communism cannot be imposed by force.''^^***^^ Resort to violence is a consequence of resistance by the exploiting classes. "In a country where the bourgeoisie will not offer _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol 27, p. 547.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 30, p. 453.
^^***^^ Ibid., Vol. 29, p. 175.
116 such furious resistance,'' he said, ``the tasks of the Soviet government will be easier; it will be able to operate without the violence, without the bloodshed that was forced upon us by the Kerenskys and the imperialists.''^^*^^After the hopes of the Entente countries to defeat Soviet Russia through the medium of Germany had been dashed, they began a direct armed intervention in Soviet Russia and, for three years, conducted a war against the Russian working people in collaboration with Russian counter-- revolutionaries. In these circumstances, the Soviet people's fight against the interventionists acquired the direct and sharply expressed social and class sense of struggle against the Russian and international bourgeoisie. The war in defence of the socialist fatherland became the most just and progressive war of any known to history. The war against the international bourgeoisie also differed in principle from previous wars in every other aspect. Lenin described it as ``a war which is a hundred times more difficult, protracted and complex than the most stubborn of ordinary wars between states''.^^**^^ Many previous notions and yardsticks could not be applied to this war.
Peace, too, acquired a new meaning. The end to hostilities and the securing of peace became a condition for the triumph of socialism. After the Soviet state had won the day against intervention and internal counter-revolution, it was interested in prolonging the peace. Peace opened up the most favourable prospects for building socialism in the Soviet Union, which meant strengthening the international status of socialism and encouraging the world revolutionary process.
Georgi Chicherin, People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs, underlined the desire of Soviet foreign policy for peace: ``Our policy,'' he said, ``is aimed at maintaining peace, creating stable peaceful relations and helping to consolidate universal peace. This is the basis of our international policy and it is connected both with the general foundations of our system and with a whole number of basic elements in the _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 29, pp. 270--71.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 31, p. 70.
117 political situation. The working people desire peace---not only the working people within our Union, but the working people throughout the world.''^^*^^The Soviet peace campaign had an international as well as national significance. It came to play an increasingly important role in the revolutionary movement and in the fight for social progress. The Manifesto of the Fifth Congress of the Communist International, which met in 1924, stated that ``everything that is now going on in human society---in the economic, political, scientific and cultural fields,---is put in the shade by the gigantic task of doing everything possible to prevent a new war and thereby to save humanity from death and extinction. Only the working people led by the revolutionary proletariat can achieve that.''^^**^^
Lenin's ideas on the proletarian attitude to various types of war were further developed in the activity of Communist Parties. Of special importance at the time was the defence of the Soviet Union as the socialist homeland of the workers of the world. The need to defend the first socialist state from the incursions of the imperialists was a major factor determining the position of the international working class in respect to the new world war being prepared by the imperialists.
On many occasions the international communist movement gave a high appraisal of the peaceful Soviet foreign policy. Thus, the theses of the Sixth World Congress of the Communist International entitled "The Struggle Against Imperialist War and the Tasks of the Communists" (1928) stated: "The international policy of the USSR is a peace policy , which conforms to the interests of the ruling class in Russia, viz., the proletariat, and to the interests of the international proletariat. This policy rallies all the allies of the proletarian dictatorship around its banner and provides the best basis for taking advantage of the antagonisms among the imperialist states....
_-_-_^^*^^ G. V. Chicherin, Articles and Speeches on International Politics, p. 372 (in Russian).
^^**^^ The Struggle for Peace. Documents of Three Internationals, p. 280 (in Russian).
118``This policy is the Leninist policy of the proletarian dictatorship. It is merely another---and under present conditions---a more advantageous form of fighting capitalism, a form which the USSR has consistently employed since the October Revolution.''^^*^^
The Seventh Congress of the Communist International in 1935 set the Communist Parties, the revolutionary workers, toiling peasants and oppressed peoples the tasks of fighting for peace and defending the USSR, creating a united popular front in the campaign for peace against the warmongers; to draw into its ranks everyone interested in maintaining peace; to combine the fight against imperialist war with the fight against fascism, against militarism and armaments, against chauvinism, and for national liberation and support for national liberation wars.^^**^^
The resolution adopted at the Congress stated: ``The peace policy of the USSR ... is not only directed towards the defence of the Land of the Soviets, towards ensuring the safety of socialist construction; it also protects the lives of the workers of all countries, the lives of the oppressed and exploited; it means the defence of the national independence of small nations, it serves the vital interests of humanity, it defends culture from the barbarities of war.''^^***^^
Despite the great upsurge in the anti-war and anti-fascist movement and despite all the efforts of the USSR, in the mid-1930s the forces of peace were insufficiently organised and powerful to stop the imperialists from engineering the Second World War.
The nature of this new world war was affected by the fundamental changes in the international situation associated, on the one hand, with the appearance and consolidation of the socialist state and, on the other, with the establishment of a fascist regime in a number of bourgeois states.
The war that broke out in 1939 between Hitler Germany, on the one hand, and Britain and France, on the other, was _-_-_
^^*^^ International Press Corrcsponilence, Vol. 8, No. 84, November 28, 1928, p. 1590.
^^**^^ See The Struggle for Peace . . .. pp. 4.59--97.
^^***^^ 'The Struggle for Peace . . ., pp. 494-9.).
119 in its initial stage a continuation of the battle of imperialist groupings for markets, territory for hegemony in various areas, and finally for world domination.A Comintern document stated that the governments of Britain, France and Germany were waging a war for world domination. The real meaning of the war, a war which was unjust, reactionary and imperialist, was that it continued the protracted imperialist strife within the capitalist camp.^^*^^ The just struggle by the Polish people in 1939 for their national independence could not alter the general nature of the ensuing war, just as the rightful struggle of Serbia in the First World War had not changed the nature of that war.
The policy of both warring groupings of imperialist powers which brought about the Second World War had a definite, more or less clearly expressed, anti-Soviet and anti-socialist direction. The instigator of the war, nazi Germany, which had become the spearhead of world reaction, openly set out to destroy the socialist state and gain world dominance; it was faced with the question merely of the order in which it would choose its opponents; Britain and France pursued their own ends in counting on directing nazi aggression against the Soviet Union and thereby destroying socialism, and at the same time taking advantage of the inevitable weakening of Germany. Nevertheless, the anti-Soviet bias of the policy of both groupings did not remove the deep distinctions and contradictions between the fascist bloc and the bourgeois democratic states, and did not lead to the formation of a united imperialist camp, although it made its impression upon the course of the war. The existence of the Soviet Union, which the imperialists regarded as their main political opponent and the potential direct enemy in war (though a possible temporary ally in the battle against their rivals), made a difference in principle between the First and Second World wars. Finally, and this is the main thing, the Soviet Union played a leading part in the campaign by the working people of the world against war and fascism. The popular resistance to fascist aggression which _-_-_
^^*^^ See Communist International, No. 8-9, 1939, pp. 3-4 (in Russian).
120 developed during the war was a continuation of the prewar policy of the working class and other progressive anti-- fascist forces. This aspect was particularly in evidence after the ``phoney war'' in Europe had ended, when, as nazi aggression unfolded, the whole point of the war for Britain and France lay now not so much in preserving their world positions or conquering new ones, as in defending the existence of their nations and states.This referred to an even greater degree to the peoples of other countries who were resisting the nazi invaders. The Second World War brought in its wake immeasurably greater atrocities and suffering than the First; the cost in human lives was far greater. One reason for this was the inhuman, racist theory and practice of German nazism which conducted, on occupied territory, a policy of mass extermination both of prisoners of war and of the peaceful civilian population, a policy that menaced the very existence of various European nations, in particular, the Slav nations.
German nazism, therefore, became the major obstacle in the way of the world revolutionary process, and its victory would have threatened not merely the national existence of several states, it would have meant undoubted social regression for them. The fight against nazi Germany both in the shape of the Resistance movement in occupied countries and in the form of regular military operations by Britain, the United States and other bourgeois countries, objectively acquired a progressive and liberatory character, despite the imperialist nature of the ruling classes in those countries.
With nazi Germany's attack on the Soviet Union in June 1941, the war took on a new content. From that time on, it acquired to a considerable degree the character of an immense direct armed confrontation between socialism, along with all the anti-fascist forces, and fascism.
The war against nazi Germany which was imposed upon the Soviet Union had the most just and progressive aims: to defend the freedom and sovereignty of the Soviet Union, to defend from the fascist thugs the interests of the revolution and socialism and to liberate the peoples of Europe. During the Great Patriotic War of 1941 to 1945, Lenin's appeals resounded with fresh force: ``The socialist homeland 121 is in danger!'', ``Everyone to battle with the enemy!'', `` Everyone to arms since the war is inevitable!'' The Leninist foreign policy of the Soviet state was aimed at creating and strengthening a coalition between all the anti-nazi forces. Britain, the United States and some other capitalist countries became the allies of the socialist state in the war against nazi Germany.
The Second World War occupied a place of outstanding importance in the history of mankind. For many peoples of Europe, Africa and Asia it determined for several years the whole meaning of life; social contradictions were reflected through it, and it left its imprint on social conflicts.
The liberatory nature of the war and the peculiar alignment of class and political forces within it required of Marxists-Leninists a creative development of Leninist ideas concerning the tasks of the working class in the situation of wartime. Since it had been impossible to avert war, it was in the interests of the proletariat, as Lenin had taught, to use it for the benefit of the world revolutionary movement and for accelerating social progress. While the overall methodological principles of Lenin's appraisal of war remained in force, certain practical tasks and slogans which had been valid during the 1914--1918 war, did not conform to the new historical situation. Neither the slogan of turning the war into a civil war, nor that of defeating one's own government, nor the slogan of fraternisation applied any longer to the working class in the countries of the antiHitler coalition.
Whereas during the First World War the interests of the working class demanded a struggle for the revolutionary withdrawal from the war, and for the defeat of one's own government, and while the interests of the working class radically differed from those of the ruling classes, now, in the midst of a just and liberatory war, the interests of the working people demanded their vigorous contribution to the anti-fascist struggle, the victorious culmination of the war, and in that sense, they basically coincided with the position of the ruling classes. The desire of the ruling circles in Britain, the United States and other countries of the anti-Hitler coalition to deal firmly with their imperialist rivals 122 objeclively conformed to the interests of world social progress, inasmuch as victory over nazi Germany helped to maintain and strengthen the socialist Soviet Union---the major power of the world revolutionary process---signified a weakening in the positions of world reaction and ensured the growth of democratic forces. The defeat of the fascist states was a necessary prerequisite for the further advance of world revolutionary process.
The Communist Parties, which have always stood in the frontline of the battle against fascism, dedicated their entire activity to the common cause of defeating fascism. A Resolution of the Presidium of the Executive Committee of the Communist International declared: ``Whereas in the countries of the Hitlerite bloc the basic task of the workers and of all honest people, consists in contributing all help to the defeat of that bloc, by sabotage of the Hitlerite war machine from within and by helping to overthrow the governments who are guilty of the war, in the countries of the antiHitlerite coalition, the sacred duty of the broadest masses of the people, and first and foremost, of the progressive workers, is to support in every way the war efforts of the governments of these countries aimed at the speediest destruction of the Hitlerite bloc, and to ensure friendly collaboration between the nations on the basis of their equal rights.''^^*^^
The selfless struggle of the Soviet Army, the mobilisation of all forces in the socialist state to defeat fascism, the Soviet foreign policy directed at creating and reinforcing the anti-Hitler coalition, and the expansion of SovietBritish-American co-operation for a concerted struggle against nazi Germany accorded with the national interests of the Soviet people and meant the fulfilment of their internationalist duty to the working class of the capitalist countries. By directly taking part in the war, by obtaining from their bourgeois governments greater military effort (on the issue, for example, of the opening of a second front^^**^^) and by _-_-_
^^*^^ Daily Worker, May 24, 1943.
^^**^^ ``Your people and mine demand the establishment of a front to draw off the pressure on the Russians,'' wrote Franklin Roosevelt to __NOTE__ Footnote cont. on page 123. 123 exposing anti-Soviet tendencies of the reactionary circles, workers in the capitalist countries thereby not only carried out their own national tasks but also fulfilled their internationalist obligation in regard to the socialist state, the Soviet Union.
The Soviet Union's participation in the war and its decisive role in the defeat of nazi Germany went a long way to deciding the social and political results of the Second World War. The vast increase in the progressive and revolutionary forces led by the Soviet Union, the socialist revolutions in many parts of Europe and Asia, the strengthening of the position of Communist Parties and other Left-wing forces in capitalist countries, the upsurge in the national liberation movement in the colonies and dependencies all bore out the correctness of the strategy and tactics of the Communist and Workers' Parties on the issues of war, peace and revolution during the years of severe tribulation.
Therefore, although the Soviet Union, the international working class and all peace-loving forces had been unable to avert the war, they exerted a decisive influence on its course and outcome and made it possible to utilise it in the interests of revolution and socialism. The fact that the advanced forces of the working class worked out a correct attitude to the two world wars and applied the right tactics to the specific historical conditions of each war, had an extremely great influence on their outcome and on the failure of the calculations of their imperialist instigators.
While one aim of the First World War was, as Lenin pointed out, ``distracting the attention of the working masses from the internal political crises . . . disuniting and nationalist stultification of the workers, and the extermination of their vanguard so as to weaken the revolutionary movement of the proletariat...'',^^*^^ one of its results was the break of the chain of world imperialism through the victory of the October Revolution in Russia. Whereas one of imperialism's _-_-_ __NOTE__ Footnote cont. from page 122. Winston Churchill in April 1942 (Sec Herbert Fcis, Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin. The War Tlicy Waged and the Peace They Sought , Princeton, 1957, p. 58).
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 27.
124 aims in the Second World War was to weaken the Soviet Union and the world revolutionary movement to the utmost, its results strengthened the Soviet Union, enlarged the ranks of socialist countries and stimulated an upsurge in the revolutionary and liberation movement all over the world. The world wars unleashed by the imperialists for the purpose of putting a brake on the revolutionary process, objectively played a part in speeding it up.That, however, does not exhaust the question of the interconnection between world wars and the world revolutionary process---between social phenomena that differ in origin and character. The history of the 20th century has shown that wars are neither universal nor the easiest way of furthering the world revolutionary process, and that the working class and all working people have no need of world wars to conquer the bourgeoisie.
Both in examining the revolutionary after-effects of the First World War and in analysing the results of the Second World War, it is important to bear in mind that the objective basis for the success of the socialist revolution and the national liberation movement was by no means war itself, but the development of class contradictions and class struggle. Neither must one forget that this success in the development of revolution was accompanied by terrible human loss and immeasurable suffering of the working people, by immense economic destruction in many countries. This course of the world revolutionary process was forced upon the international working class by imperialism, which instigated the Second World War.
The end of the war and the substantial changes in the historical situation that it brought in its wake produced fresh paths for the working class and necessitated a new review of the issues of war, peace and revolution. The fight of Communist and Workers' Parties for socialism organically merged with the campaign to preserve peace. The international working class, the world socialist system and all the peoples of the world are interested in consolidating the revolutionary gains, in defending them from the incursions of imperialist reaction and, consequently, in preventing another war.
125The dialectics of history has been such that the course of revolution, accelerated as a consequence of the world wars, has confronted the progressive forces with the important task of averting another world war.
True to the behests of Lenin and the creative spirit of Leninism, Communist and Workers' Parties centred their attention on the fight to preserve peace during the early postwar years, and thereby contributed to a theoretical elaboration of the issues of war and peace in the new historical circumstances.
The importance of the peace campaign grew in the postwar years not simply because of the recent memory of the horrors of war and the consequent popular interest in averting war, but also because of certain specific features of world development. Imperialism, attempting to use military means in order to halt the further growth in revolutionary forces and to turn back social progress, staked mainly on the atomic bomb owned by the United States---the new powerful weapon of mass annihilation which exceeded many times the destructive power of any weapon used in the Second World War.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ IIIThe Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the fraternal parties and the world communist movement, relying on Leninist teaching, have been able to make a correct assessment of the issue of war and peace in our time, when the historical situation, along with the importance of the issues of war and peace, has changed considerably.
The Leninist historical approach to the problem of war and peace presupposes consideration both of the class content of the epoch and of the development of the productive forces that are leading to improvements in the means of waging war. The level of armaments very much determines the scale and character of the military operations, the number of lives lost, the magnitude of destruction and, to a certain extent, the prospects and rate of postwar development. Consequently, a comprehensive assessment of war 126 necessitates more than an analysis of the policy of belligerent powers and classes within them, a continuation of which it is; it also necessitates consideration oi the material resources and armaments.
The military and technological revolution today signifies a qualitative change both in the mode of warfare and in the nature of its socio-political and economic consequences.
Any underestimation of the specific nature of the modern weapons of mass destruction or any denial of the part they play in contemporary international relations, just as an underestimation of the new alignment and correlation of class forces in the world would signify a retreat from the vital Marxist-Leninist demand for a specific analysis of the specific situation.
Tremendous changes in the very foundation of society--- the productive forces---have taken place since the war. Nuclear power engineering, missile techniques, cybernetics and new synthetic materials have replaced the steam and electricity that dominated the past century and are acquiring an ever greater importance. Mankind, furthermore, has begun the conquest of space. Scientific and technological progress, which has enabled man to penetrate the deepest secrets of nature holds out for him an ever fuller satisfaction of a great variety of requirements, yet under imperialism it has created monstrous new means of mass destruction.
The beginning of the atomic age was signalled by the foreboding blasts of American atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the death and suffering of hundreds of thousands of people. This first use by the United States of the new weapon had a definite political purpose. Suffice it to recall the words of the then US President Harry Truman: ``If it explodes, as 1 think it will... I'll certainly have a hammer on those boys.''^^*^^ By ``those boys'' he meant the Russians; or one may record the words of the former Secretary of State Byrnes who admitted that the bomb was needed not so much to defeat Japan, but rather that it _-_-_
^^*^^ William Applcman Williams, The Tragedy o[ American Diplomacy, New York, 1959, p. 169.
127 should be dropped to "make Russia more manageable in Europe''.^^*^^Therefore, already in the early postwar years, the threat of a new destructive war hung over the world, despite the growth of the peace-loving forces, headed by the Soviet Union, that stood opposed to imperialism. The appearance on the scene of the atomic and then the hydrogen bomb, which both had immense destructive power, and then of missile delivery systems, very much multiplied the dangerous consequences of another world war if it were to break out.
It is true that even before last wars there had often been pessimistic forecasts about their future consequences and apocalyptical doom for human civilisation. The essential difference, however, between previous forecasts and those made today lie in the fact that previously descriptions of the horrors of the future war were largely the product of emotion rather than reason; they were made by philosophers and publicists and writers of science fiction. Nowadays, the warning is being sounded by people in the natural and exact sciences who refer to concrete facts and figures and to experimental data that are already to hand. One may cite the conclusions of the Third Pugwash Conference: ``These documents indicate that if, in a future war, a substantial proportion of the nuclear weapons already manufactured were delivered against urban targets, most centres of civilisation in the belligerent countries would be totally destroyed and most of their populations killed.''^^**^^
One may argue that the opinions of the experts on the consequences of nuclear-missile world war do not always coincide, but their differences of opinion reflect not the fact of the vast destructive consequences of this kind of war on a global scale, merely their degree. Some maintain that as a result of the initial nuclear strikes in case of war between the Soviet Union and the United States, a few _-_-_
^^*^^ L. Morton, ``The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb'', Foreign Affairs, Vol. 35, No. 2, January 1957, p. 347.
^^**^^ Joseph Rotblat, Pugwash. A History of the Conferences on Science and World Affairs, Prague, 19C7, p. 91.
128 dozen millions of people on each side would die; others put the figure in excess of a hundred million. Some maintain that the present arsenals of thermonuclear weapons would enable the nuclear powers to wipe out only individual countries; others believe that entire continents would go the same way. Some see the main peril in the white-hot temperature of a nuclear explosion; others see the danger in the subsequent radiation and the genetic effect on the human progeny, and so on.All these finer points do not make much difference from the point of view of the interests of social development. Even the smallest assessments speak clearly enough about terrible consequences of the new weapons being used. In this respect a new world war would substantially differ from the other two world wars of this century: after all, no previous war, no matter how destructive it had been, had posed a threat to the physical existence of entire countries and peoples, had threatened with catastrophic biological consequences not only the generation taking part in the war, but also the generation not yet born. This is the gloomy prospect that is a product of contemporary imperialism and its policy of aggression.
There is a fairly widespread view that a world nuclearmissile war, due to its possible consequences both for the victor and the vanquished, cannot be a continuation of politics. It is hardly possible to agree with this viewpoint. Evidently, in examining this problem one has to distinguish two questions: the genesis of war as a continuation of politics by other means, and the effectiveness of war as a means of attaining political ends. The fact that a world nuclearmissile war today cannot ensure the attainment of imperialism's political aims by no means changes its class character. For the imperialists, a new world war, if it were to break out, would be a direct continuation of the imperialist struggle against socialism, against the peoples' revolutionary aspirations and against social progress. For the Soviet Union, if it were to be drawn into such a war, against its will, it would be a continuation of its just struggle for the freedom of peoples, for socialism and communism and for social progress. Therefore, the impact of the military-technological 129 revolution on the means oi waging war and on its consequences certainly does not disprove Lenin's idea of war as a continuation of politics.
The appearance and improvement during the scientific and technological revolution of qualitatively new types of weapons of mass destruction on the one hand, and the substantial changes in the alignment and balance of social forces, on the other, pose in a fundamentally new way the problem of war and peace and make for an immense growth in the importance of the campaign to preserve peace in the life of human society.
The question of the relationship between war and revolution is also posed differently in the new historical circumstances. Whereas earlier, world wars which the proletariat could not prevent were used by it in order to speed up revolution and social progress, today the position is changing. Naturally, a world nuclear-missile war, if the imperialists were to unleash it, would lead to the demise of imperialism as a system. ``Should the imperialist aggressors nevertheless venture to start a new world war,'' the Programme of the Soviet Communist Party states, ``the peoples will no longer tolerate a system which drags them into devastating wars. They will sweep imperialism away and bury it.''^^*^^
If we adhere to the laws of formal logic, it may seem that since the capitalist system would inevitably meet its end in a world war, the sooner such a war starts, the quicker will the end of capitalism be and the sooner will all peoples arrive at communism. Such an approach, however, which is typical of Maoism, has nothing to do with a Marxist specific and historical analysis of social phenomena on which Lenin tirelessly insisted.
The death of hundreds and millions of people, above all, working people, and the destruction of vast productive forces throughout the world would be too big a price for the world to pay for the destruction of capitalism, already doomed by history. A thermonuclear war would not accelerate progress; it _-_-_
^^*^^ The Road to Communism, Moscow, 1962, p. 506.
__PRINTERS_P_129_COMMENT__ 9---239 130 would, on the contrary, set back the movement of mankind towards communism. Communism means a very high level of development of the productive forces capable of ensuring maximum satisfaction of the constantly growing material and spiritual needs of the members of communist society. A thermonuclear world war would cause colossal and largely irreparable damage to the productive forces, the annihilation of hundreds of millions of people, and the destruction of the very conditions for the existence of life over vast expanses of the globe. Therefore, the international working class is vitally interested in averting a new world war.All this heightens the importance of the efforts for a lasting peace by the Soviet Union and all progressive forces. The prevention of a world thermonuclear catastrophe is becoming the most vital task of the day and the prime condition for the very existence of society.
Engels it was who, formulating the law of development of human history, discovered by Marx, stressed the ``simple fact . . . that mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing before it can pursue politics, science, art, religion, etc.''.^^*^^ If we paraphrase this idea, we can say today that in order to eat, drink, have somewhere to live and to clothe themselves, people first must guarantee that the human species continues to exist. That depends on how the burning issue of the time, the problem of war and peace, will be resolved. The resolution of every other question, economic, social, political and ideological, ultimately depends on that. Albert Einstein, the founder of modern physics, expressed this idea in his own way: ``Man must first ensure his survival; only then can he ask himself what type of existence = he prefers.''^^**^^
Back in 1917 Lenin described the issue of peace as "a burning question, the painful question of the day'', and today we may speak with even greater justification in precisely the same way. The CPSLJ Programme defines war and _-_-_
^^*^^ Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works (in three volumes), Vol. 3, p. 162.
^^**^^ Einstein on Peace, Ed. by O. Nathan and H. Norden, New York, 1968, p. 46S.
131 peace as the principal issue of today, as a life-and-death issue for hundreds of millions of = people.^^*^^One's attitude to this problem is an important criterion for judging historical personalities, governments and political parties, and social systems. While capitalism in its imperialist stage produced the thermonuclear menace, while imperialism is the principal source of danger of a new world war, the development of socialism and other revolutionary forces today opens up a real prospect of averting such a war. To socialism belongs the service of presenting the issue of war and peace concisely and of mobilising the peoples for campaigning against the threat of another world war. Socialism is the main force capable of resolving the historic task of rescuing mankind from a world thermonuclear catastrophe. The breaking of the American atomic monopoly was of over-riding importance for an effective struggle for peace in the particular circumstances of the arms race and the imperialist aggressive foreign policy. Only powerful weapons of struggle against aggression were capable of containing the belligerent imperialist politicians who could, banking on their impunity, have plunged mankind into the abyss of a new world war.
A historic responsibility lay on the shoulders of the Soviet people in this situation. The Soviet people, Soviet scientists, engineers and workers rose to the occasion and, in a short span of time, created not only an atomic bomb and thereby put an end to the American atomic monopoly, but even more powerful thermonuclear weapons. Then, the most up-to-date and effective means of delivering these weapons---missiles of various purposes, including intercontinental and orbital missiles---were created. The Soviet achievements were a decisive factor in restraining the imperialists from letting loose a new world war. It is indicative that even in the aggressive war against the Korean People's Democratic Republic, not to speak of the later international crises, the American imperialists did not venture to resort to atomic weapons.
The possibility of averting another world war is _-_-_
^^*^^ See Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, p. 40.
132 preconditioned primarily by the radical change of the balance of power in favour ot socialism. What with the scientific and technological revolution and the massive growth of antiwar and anti-imperialist forces which possess strong weapons for restraining aggressors, world wars are no longer inevitable, despite their main source---the existence of imperialism. In alliance with all anti-imperialist forces, the working class is capable of preventing a world war. Moreover, the resolution of precisely this problem is becoming the principal link in the concerted actions of the anti-imperialist forces. The fundamentally new elements in the objective meaning of the issue of war and peace today have required of the Communist Parties a creative development of Lenin's ideas, new theoretical generalisations and conclusions, the elaboration of a new foreign policy strategy for the socialist countries and a new general policy for the international workers' movement. Even in the mid-1940s and the early 1950s, the leaders of the socialist countries and Communist Parties gave prominence in their writings to the struggle for peace and for avoiding a world war. However, the idea of the inevitability of world wars under imperialism was not put to doubt, and usually they spoke of the possibilities and probability of averting a particular war, of postponing it and of provisionally maintaining peace.The conclusion reached at the 20th Congress of the CPSU concerning the possibility of averting wars in the present epoch had great theoretical and political significance. This was a contribution to the development of Leninism and Leninist thought on questions of war, peace and revolution. It is noteworthy that this conclusion was made together with other ideas on such closely related issues as the forms of transition of different countries to socialism (the strategy of the revolutionary movement) and peaceful coexistence between states of the two systems (as part of the foreign policy strategy of the socialist states).
These conclusions on vital international issues excited a wide response throughout the world; they received approval and development in the theoretical and practical activity of the fraternal Marxist-Leninist parties. This was readily apparent in the work of the Moscow Meetings of 133 Representatives of Communist and Workers' Parties in 1957 and 1960, and in the documents they adopted: the Declaration, Peace Manifesto, Statement and Appeal to the Peoples of the World.
The achievements of creative Marxist-Leninist thought on the issues of war, peace and revolution were embodied in the Party Programme adopted at the 22nd CPSU Congress in 1961 and in the decisions of the 23rd Congress.
``Our Party is convinced,'' the resolution of the Congress states, ``that the conclusion of the world communist movement on the possibility of bridling the aggressor and averting a new world war is correct.''^^*^^
The theoretical propositions of creative Marxism-Leninism evoked bitter opposition from ``Left''-wing opportunists who dogmatically referred to the revolutionary consequences of the two world wars and, on that basis, viewed the campaign against a new world war as a renunciation of the revolutionary perspective. Representatives, for example, of leftist groups who had broken with Marxism-Leninism maintain that world war is to the advantage of the working people, that ``war tempers the people and advances history''.^^**^^ Some of the Peking leaders have spoken of the possibility of sacrificing in war hundreds of millions of people for the sake of the world proletarian revolution. In a speech to a meeting of Party workers in Chengtu, Mao Tse-tung said that if the atomic bomb were to reduce the Chinese people to ashes it would not matter greatly since, after the war they could begin to build again; they would build better than they had done in the past. The 9th Congress of the Communist Party of China officially recorded the thesis of the inevitability and even desirability of war.
The Peking pseudo-revolutionaries spread the idea that world war is the best way to achieve world revolution and they find an echo in certain bourgeois concepts. In his book The Nature of Communism, published in 1962, the American historian Robert Daniels asserts: ``In retrospect we _-_-_
^^*^^ 23rd Congress of the CPSU, Moscow, 1966, p. 288.
^^**^^ Sec N. Kapchcnko, Peking: A Policy Alien to Socialism, Moscow, 1967. pp. l(>4, 165 (in Russian).
134 can see that communist success has depended heavily on the strategic utilisation of a certain kind of situation---world war and postwar chaos.''^^*^^ The same idea is voiced by M. Akagi, a prominent member of the Japanese LiberalDemocratic Party, who has maintained that ``it is precisely war that brings the danger of the genesis and growth of communism''.^^**^^While such assertions by bourgeois writers come as no surprise they sound monstrous coming from people who call themselves Marxists-Leninists. They are alien to the whole spirit of Leninism and do not conform to Lenin's statements concerning the relationship between war and revolution. Lenin considered it was necessary to use war (once it had broken out) to the benefit of the revolution, yet he certainly did not draw the conclusion from this that any war automatically gives birth to revolution.
The emergence of a revolutionary situation and the triumph of socialism are largely the consequences of the maturing of objective conditions within the bounds of the social and economic system as a whole, and of the development of internal contradictions and the subjective factor in certain countries. While earlier, the state of imperialism determined one's evaluation of the objective prerequisites for socialist revolution, today it is the development and attainments of world socialism that serve as an essential prerequisite. This factor was underlined in the Statement adopted by the Moscow Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties in 1960: ``The fact that both world wars, which were started by the imperialists, ended in socialist revolutions by no means implies that the way to social revolution goes necessarily through world war, especially now that there exists a powerful world system of socialism.''^^***^^ War is an offspring of imperialism, it is a product of the policy of the ruling classes---whether it is a civil or a world war. The proletariat, however, is interested in winning without a war _-_-_
^^*^^ Robert Daniels, The Nature of Communism, New York, 1962, p. 168.
^^**^^ M. Akagi, Peace---the Main Condition for Security, Chuo Koron, 196N, No. 4.
^^***^^ 'flic Struggle for I'cacc, Democracy and Socialism, p. 73.
135 which would bring it great losses and suffering. The proletariat is only obliged to wage war if the bourgeoisie leaves it no other alternative.Both before it takes power and after, the proletariat is interested in avoiding, stopping and abolishing wars, which are a product of the division of society into inimical classes, the domination of private property and of the exploiting system. ``All our politics and propaganda, however,'' Lenin said in 1920, ``are directed towards putting an end to war and in no way towards driving nations to war.''^^*^^
He saw the link between war and revolution primarily in the fact that the victory of revolution facilitates the fight against war, not in the fact that war of necessity produces revolution.
The Programme of the CPSU develops Lenin's ideas of the relation between war and revolution, the connection between the battle for peace and the fight for socialism as applied to the new historical conditions: "The victory of socialism throughout the world will do away completely with the social and national causes of all wars. To abolish war and establish everlasting peace on earth is a historic mission of = communism."^^**^^
The significance today of the struggle against the imperialist policy of aggression and war was again confirmed by the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties in 1969: ``The main link of united action of the antiimperialist forces remains the struggle against war for world peace, against the menace of a thermonuclear world war and mass extermination which continues to hang over mankind.''^^***^^
In setting this task, the CPSU and other Marxist-Leninist parties do not confine themselves to a statement of the need to avert a world war, but, through a comprehensive analysis of the situation they indicate the real possibility of solving this historical task. The final Document of the International _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 470.
^^**^^ Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, p. 41.
^^***^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow I!>(>< ), p. 31.
136 Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties in 1969 says: "A new world war can be averted by the combined effort of the socialist countries, the international working class, the national liberation movement, all peace-loving countries, public organisations and mass movements.''^^*^^Indisputably, the world socialist system, with its vanguard, the Soviet Union, which possesses an immense economic and defensive capacity, is the fundamental force of the present day which blunts the aggressive intentions of imperialism. Edward Gierek, First Secretary of the Polish United Workers' Party, said at the 24th Congress of the CPSU that the Soviet Union bears the major burden of the struggle against the forces of imperialism, and its great historic service lies in the fact that it has opened a real prospect for averting world wars.
One must take into consideration, in examining the conditions for avoiding world war today, the two interconnected aspects of the same process---the immense growth of progressive and peace-loving forces and the obvious narrowing of imperialism's possibilities for starting a war, and the dangerous consequences of military ventures for imperialism itself.
This objective factor was bound to have a corresponding effect on the ideological and political activity of contemporary imperialism, on its attitude to the problem of another world war. Bourgeois realists are more and more renouncing their reliance on a global nuclear-missile war against socialism as a means of attaining their political ends. In the new circumstances, the age-old wisdom expressed in the Latin saying Vae victis! (Woe to the vanquished!) is becoming an anachronism. A nuclear-missile war would mean woe also for the victors, as the French General Beaufre agrees: ``No matter what the outcome of the struggle, the conqueror and the vanquished---if these distinctions exist any more---must pay an exorbitant price in atomic destruction....''^^**^^
This is an idea that is increasingly gaining recognition in speeches by bourgeois statesmen. In one of his last speeches, _-_-_
^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist find Workers' Parties, Moscow /.%», p. 31.
^^**^^ G\'en\'eral Beaulrc, Dissuasion et strategic, Paris, 1904, p. 20.
137 President Kennedy had these prophetic words to say about ``the agonising reappraisal of values'' by modern imperialist leaders when faced with the radical changes in the balance of power between the two systems in favour of socialism: ``The family of man can survive differences of race and religion. ... It can accept differences in ideology, politics, economics. But it cannot survive, in the form in which we know it, a nuclear war.''^^*^^In his Report to the Congress ``US Foreign Policy for the 1970s'', President Nixon had to admit: ``Both the Soviet Union and the States have acquired the ability to inflict unacceptable damage on the other, no matter which strikes first. There can be no gain and certainly no victory for the power that provokes a thermonuclear exchange.''^^**^^
When he was the Canadian Foreign Minister, Lester Pearson wrote: ''. . .In today's nuclear world . .. national interests cannot any longer be separated from humanity itself. Indeed, by far the greatest national interest is, and must remain, the prevention of a war which would destroy = humanity.''^^***^^
Bellicose calls, however, continue to resound in the West. Some, like Herman Kahn, an ideologist of American imperialist policy, try to play down the extent of danger associated with the thermonuclear war and to get people used to it. Others, like Edward Teller, ``the father of the H-bomb'', advocate a ``limited'' nuclear war. Thomas E. Murray, former member of the American Atomic Energy Commission, has written: ``I have been urging for several years that the United States concentrate on the development of nuclear weapons in the lower order of destructiveness. We must equip ourselves with a wide range of weapons in this category, in order to strengthen our capabilities for waging in a civilised fashion [!] every manner of warfare into which we might be forced.''^^****^^ Similar ideas are voiced by the retired _-_-_
^^*^^ Foreign AH airs. Vol. 42, No. 3, April 1%4, p. 475.
^^**^^ US Foreign Policy [or the 1970s. A New Strategy for Pence. A Report to the Congress by Richard Nixon, February IS, 1970, The Department of Sidle Bulletin, March 9, 1970, p. 275.
^^***^^ Lester B. Pearson, Diplomacy in the Nuclear Age, Cambridge, Mass., 1959, p. 33.
^^****^^ Thomas E. Murray, Nuclear Policy for War and Peace, Cleveland and New York, HHiO, pp. fi()-fil.
138 American general N. F. Twining: ``It would therefore seem axiomatic that the first principle of our national security policy would be to seize and maintain the initiative in all dimensions of modern war; to include the economic, psychological, political, military, and the = technological.''^^*^^ Yet others openly advocate the idea of ``the logic of total war'' and call for the manufacture of even more powerful megaton bombs capable of destroying an entire continent. Another group---and these are probably in a majority---believe ``the balance of fear'' to be the height of political wisdom.In answer to the proponents of such views, the American scientist and public figure Charles Price avers that containment through mutual fear is no reliable basis for avoiding catastrophe. There are too many possibilities for the manifestation of emotions produced by fear, hatred or irrationality; of course, he goes on, no sane person would intend to begin such a suicidal destruction, but hopes for the continued sanity of all people for all time is too slender a thread on which the future existence of human civilisation should hang.
Another popular view in the West is that horrific destructive power of the latest weapons more or less automatically guarantees stability and peace. The above-mentioned French General Beaufre has written: ``Our age, before atomic weapons, has known two vast world conflicts . . . and we must be thankful to atomic weapons that up to now we have not yet seen a third even more devastating war.''^^**^^
This type of reasoning shows that bourgeois ideologists tend to ignore the role of social, class factors in international relations. No up-to-the-minute weapon is capable, by itself, of preventing war. Only the fact that the imperialist countries are not alone in possessing modern weapons, and that the Soviet Union is maintaining, at the price of tremendous efforts, such a level of military potential and combat preparedness of its armed forces as to restrain the hotheads among the militarists and aggressors, can paralyse _-_-_
^^*^^ Nathan F. Twining, Neither Liberty Nor Safety. A Hard Look at US Military Policy and Strategy, New York-Chicago-San Francisco, 1966. p. 276.
^^**^^ G\'en\'eral Bcaufrc, Dissinixiim el slraieg'ic. p. I 10.
139 aggressive intentions and help to preserve universal peace. One recalls the aggressive plans and actions of the US ruling circles during the time when America had an atomic monopoly. Conversely, the successful arresting of aggressive imperialist action as, for example, in the Middle East conflict of 1956--57, was possible precisely at a time when outstanding advances had been made in strengthening the Soviet Union.McGeorge Bundy, former Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, wrote in Foreign Affairs that ``even the most cold-blooded of American planners has always understood, at least since 1954, that a concept of the strategic first strike by the United States is wholly unacceptable because of the prospect of Soviet retaliation''.^^*^^
Therefore, the absence today of the fatal inevitability of another world war does not by any means imply the automatic inevitability of peace. The danger of world war does exist; moreover, at certain times it has been greater due to the growing activity of imperialism's aggressive policy, and especially that of American imperialism, which has created a gigantic war machine, is stepping up the arms race and is planning and developing so-called local wars.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ IVThe new world balance of power which has prevented the aggressive imperialist forces from starting another world war is helping the campaign of progressive forces to avoid it. Local wars, acute international crises and armed conflicts, however, have occurred more than once in various parts of the world since the end of the last war. Lenin's methodological principles of analysing wars enable us to determine the class and political content of local wars and to view them in connection with the nature and peculiarities of the epoch.
The imperialist bourgeoisie continues extensively to use its armed forces in international relations, being unable to _-_-_
^^*^^ ``To Cap the Volcano'', by McGeorge Bundy, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 48, No. 1, Octohcr 1969, p. 9.
140 implement its aims through a global world war and increasingly recognising the danger of such a war for the capitalist system as a whole. In the policy of contemporary imperialism, one can see quite clearly its aggressive nature, the urge to seize more territory and to commit aggression, and to suppress the world revolutionary movement by force ol arms. Examples abound: the frequent armed conflicts in the Middle East, the aggressive war against North Korea from 1950 to 1953, the wars in Algeria (1954--62) and Indochina (1946-- 54), the armed intervention of the United States in Guatemala (1954) and the Dominican Republic (1965), the Israeli aggression against Arab states in 1967, the dirty war waged by the United States in Vietnam, and the US aggressive operations in Cambodia and Laos.After the Second World War US imperialist circles acted on more than one occasion as a world policeman, trying to suppress the popular struggle for national and social emancipation. On the admission of R. J. Barnett, Co-director of the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, the `` interventionist thrust of postwar American foreign policy, from Greece in 1947 to the Dominican Republic and Vietnam in the 1960s, has been its most striking characteristic. On an average of once every 18 months the United States has sent military and paramilitary forces into other countries either to fight guerrilla movements or to overthrow governments considered to be communist or communist leaning.''^^*^^
Aggressive policy harbours the threat of a thermonuclear confrontation. But as a result of the present world balance of power and the possible consequences of a nuclearmissile war, it is becoming increasingly apparent that it would be senseless to unleash another world war. In such circumstances, American military circles, while not giving up preparation for such a war, are largely relying on local wars which exacerbate international tension and create a serious threat to world peace. These wars are a direct continuation of the imperialist policy and an expression of the aggressive _-_-_
^^*^^ No More Vietnams? 'The War and the Future of American Foreign I'olicy, Ed. by Richard M. Plcffcr, New York, 1968, p. 51.
141 and predatory nature ol imperialism which has not changed at all, even in the new situation.Imperialism bears the responsibility for these wars despite the differences in their character and scale. Indeed, the principal causes of local wars in the postwar period are either the unwillingness by the colonialists to satisfy the just national aspirations of oppressed peoples, therefore forcing them to take up arms, or attempts by reactionary imperialist forces to turn back the wheel of history and to impose a new yoke on liberated peoples, or the fanning of tribal, national, racial or religious conflicts inherited from colonial domination, or, finally, attempts to test the strength of imperialism and socialism and to reduce the positions of socialism in any particular area. Naturally enough, in individual cases all these factors can become variously intertwined.
The aggressive policy of the reactionary forces are compelling the peoples who are struggling for national and social liberation to take up arms, inasmuch as they have no other way of satisfying their vital interests and national aspirations. The anti-imperialist wars that are developing out of popular struggles for national and social liberation, as Lenin noted frequently, are progressive and just. The Soviet Union, the CPSU and the whole international communist movement support such wars.
Although imperialism, as before, is the principal source of the military danger, wars, as circumstances show, may arise even without its direct participation. Such wars, as, for example, the confrontations between India and Pakistan in 1965 and 1971, between China and India in 1962, and the conflicts between African states are attributable to various causes, including religious and tribal strife. Often they are used by the ruling circles of countries taking part in them for diverting popular attention from unsolved internal problems, for channelling domestic discontent to external wars.
From the standpoint of social and class content, local wars in recent years do not differ in principle from analogous wars of previous times. Lenin's demand for a specific historical approach to phenomena, however, retains its importance. The experience of recent years shows that in this sphere, too, certain changes have taken.place and are continuing to 142 take place under the impact of the overall shifts in the international balance of power.
First, local armed conflicts today are acquiring much greater international resonance. Due to the intensity of contemporary international relations and the growing part they play in the life of society, local wars invariably affect the interests of a wide group of states. Suffice it to recall the important part in international affairs played by the war in Korea (1950--1953) and the war of the French colonialists against the peoples of Indochina (1946--1954) which culminated in a wide-ranging international conference with the participation of the five Great Powers and the Geneva Agreements, of the active intervention of the United Nations in the threepower aggression against Egypt in 1956 and after the attack of the Israeli aggressors against Arab states in 1967.
The example of the American aggressive war in Vietnam, mentioned in foregoing chapters, is especially instructive. The Vietnam war has been connected virtually with every aspect of contemporary international relations.
With the prevailing international balance of forces, the outcome of any local conflict, irrespective of the direct object of the dispute or the primary degree and the form, may be a factor capable of disturbing this balance and thereby affecting the vital interests of world forces. The direct involvement of these forces in the person of Great Powers on the side of one or the other participant in a local conflict is fraught with a danger of escalating the war and its eventual conversion into a world war.
Many bourgeois authors indicate the danger of local wars becoming global confrontations. Professor W. Friedmann of Columbia University has written, in a book first published in 1951, of the dangerous situations and local conflicts in various parts of the world, and he comes to the conclusion that ``the addition of one or two more localised wars, in which both the Communists and the anti-Communists are vitally interested, may lead to a general war by steps rather than by a sudden and dramatic explosion''.^^*^^
_-_-_^^*^^ W. Friedmann, An Introduction to World Politics, London, 1956, p. 333.
143Second, as an analysis of local wars during the past decade shows, they ultimately do not ensure that their initiators obtain their political aims, rather they sometimes bring both sides a substantial material and political loss which surpasses any material advantages or political profit.
It is significant that no local war which has been launched by imperialist powers in recent years has been accompanied by a decisive military victory for them (if we exclude the military and political intervention by the United States in Guatemala and the Dominican Republic---and even that is debatable). They have terminated, in fact, either in ``a draw'', or in the re-establishment of the status quo ante as happened, for example, in the war in Korea, or in the political compromises which have reflected the victory of the anti-- imperialist forces (like the wars of the French colonialists in Indochina and Algeria). Even the six-day war in the Middle East in 1967 did not bring Israel any political gains that were commensurate with the scale of its military efforts. On the contrary: the contradictions which lay behind the ArabIsraeli conflict were not even resolved temporarily.
Similarly, the United States was not able to gain a military victory in Vietnam despite its immense efforts and overwhelming superiority in armaments, and was forced to seek a political way out of the impasse.
The numerous recognitions by American politicians and publicists are witness to this situation. The former US representative at the United Nations, Arthur Goldberg, said in 1967 that the Vietnam war could be likened to a black cloud hanging over many countries as well as over the United States and that the Vietnamese issue had become one of the most insoluble of problems. In criticising the mistakes of the American administration, Walter Lippmann describes the Vietnam war as a war that cannot be won. The editor of Foreign Affairs, Hamilton Fish Armstrong, is of the same opinion.
With the present world balance of power, superiority in armaments, and, particularly, the nuclear power of the United States and other countries, has practically lost its importance as an instrument of resolving local conflicts. Local anti-imperialist forces (the national liberation movement and 144 the young national states), relying on socialist support, can successfully fight against both the unstable puppet regimes and the American forces operating on land thousands of miles away from the United States. The moral and political factor has overriding importance in this respect. The peoples of Korea, Algeria and Vietnam have waged a just liberation war for their freedom and independence which has given them tremendous advantages over the aggressors, who have pursued predatory and imperialist aims.
The real facts which Lenin described as ``not only stubborn things, but undoubtedly proof-bearing = things'',^^*^^ are compelling contemporary imperialist politicians to renounce military action in a number of cases and more widely to resort to other means of attaining their ends. An indication of the trend towards a review of American military and political doctrines is the announcement by J. de S. Pool, Chairman of the Department of Political Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and former member of the Department of Defence Science Board, that ``in general, we have to find ways of coping with international problems that minimise the use of force. .. . The instruments we must use better are largely money, propaganda, political organisation, and intelligence.''^^**^^ Similar views have been voiced by President Nixon's Special Assistant Henry Kissinger, who believes that in relations with countries that have a weak internal structure, a radio transmitter may be a more effective form of pressure than a squadron of B-52 strategic bombers.
The bridge-building doctrine in relation to socialist states in Eastern Europe and the increasing use of neo-colonialist methods in relation to Asian and African countries testify to a certain modification of imperialism's foreign policy strategy as applied to the new situation.
Nonetheless, postwar experience provides every basis for the conclusion that imperialism has not altered and cannot alter its aggressive nature, that it is renouncing the use of arms only under the pressure of the objective international situation and is invariably resorting to arms when it sees the _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 23, p. 272.
^^**^^ No More Vietnams?, p. 214.
145 slightest gain from doing so. No matter how ultimately futile such a policy might seem for the most aggressive circles of imperialism, this does not diminish its danger in so far as it could bring many losses and great suffering to the peoples and could lead mankind to the brink of a nuclear catastrophe and, in certain circumstances, could even push it into the abyss. The interests of the US military and industrial complex are acting in that direction.It is therefore in the interests of all progressive forces to prevent the imperialists from starting local wars; the resolution of that task depends primarily on the strength of socialism and the other anti-imperialist forces, on their watchfulness, activity and unity.
The overall alignment of forces in the world and the balance of power between the two systems ultimately determine also the new understanding of the issue concerning the possibility of war between imperialist countries. Wars like those which dominated history at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries and led to the First and Second World wars, have not arisen since the end of the last world war. The thesis of the inevitability of war between capitalist countries that was advanced in the early 1950s has not been borne out in international relations. Theoretically, the possibility exists, of course, but with the continued existence and strengthening of world socialism and of all antiimperialist forces, the probability of war between imperialist countries has greatly diminished.
The ruling classes in the capitalist world have to reckon with the lessons of history and the realities of the present. No longer can the imperialists ignore the fact that war between them today, irrespective of its results, would objectively weaken the capitalist system as a whole and would confront the belligerents with the prospects of very sombre social and political consequences. In that respect, the experience of the Second World War which began with armed struggle between capitalist countries and culminated in considerable expansion of world socialism has not been lost on the present-day imperialist leaders. Winston Churchill, one of capitalism's greatest leaders in the first half of the 20th century, called that war ``an unnecessary war''.
146The new understanding of the issues of war and peace--- the possibility of averting new world wars, the relative diminishing of the effectiveness of local wars as a means of gaining one's political ends and the slight likelihood of inter-imperialist wars---by no means implies that the problems of war and peace have diminished in importance in the overall complex of modern international relations, including these relations in peacetime. Rather the opposite is the case.
First of all, the military-political and military-strategic factors are playing an increasingly important part in the foreign policy of individual states. Although, on the whole, military strategy continues to be subordinate to the political, the link between the two has today become closer and more complicated, and military strategy is exerting a mounting influence on foreign policy. The issue of allies is an illustration of this. It is not simply that, in deciding this question, strategic interests have to be taken into account along with political considerations; one must remember that allied relations today often presuppose a far-reaching military co-operation ( standardisation of armaments, and co-ordination of military command, not to mention the direct integration of armed forces or parts of them). This creates a fairly firm interdependence which has an altogether independent significance and affects the settlement of political and economic issues. In this connection, it is important to draw attention to the place which military factors occupy, and particularly the question of nuclear weapons, both in relations between the two systems and in inter-imperialist relation, e. g., the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. The foreign policy editor of the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet, Karl Emil Hagelund, says: ``Our hands are bound by military considerations. And these considerations, it would seem, arise without the slightest account for what is happening on the political front.''^^*^^
In the second place, one more manifestation of the growing importance of the problems of war and peace today is the influence on the economy and the social situation, and on foreign and home policy of the arms race, the large size of armed forces and the growth in military expenditure. In _-_-_
^^*^^ Dagbladel, January 18, 1908.
147 the United States, for example, military expenditure, which in 1965 had made up 8 per cent of the GNP, rose in 1968 to 9.2 per cent which, in per capita terms, was $396. The total of military expenditure by NATO countries in 1970 was in excess of $103,000 million and is continuing to grow. Changes in our understanding of the issues of war and peace today are also apparent in the prominence of the disarmament problem in the activity of international organisations and in the ideological struggle in the world arena. Socialism and the Soviet Union deserve credit for the way this question has been posed on a wide scale and in a principled manner, the way they have mobilised all peace-loving forces to settle this question. Remaining true to the Leninist policy, the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries which take up a Marxist-Leninist stand have launched a vigorous campaign for disarmament since the last world war. At the First Session of the Seventh USSR Supreme Soviet, the Soviet Government stressed: ``The Soviet Union proceeds from the fact that the disarmament struggle is not a tactical ploy, it is a principled policy and an inalienable part of Soviet foreign policy.''^^*^^The foreign policy initiative of socialist countries on disarmament has, in recent years, done a lot to bring about the first real steps towards disarmament and detente. One important achievement of the peace policy was the Moscow Treaty signed on August 5, 1963, by three nuclear powers, and which now contains the signatures of over 100 states.
In the complex international situation of recent years, and in the situation of continuing tension caused by American aggressive actions, the Soviet Union and other socialist countries have not wavered in their fight for disarmament and for agreements on separate, partial measures aimed at easing international tension and the arms race. After lengthy negotiations, a treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, which was designed to lessen the danger of a nuclear war, was signed in 1968. Soviet-American talks on the limitation of strategic arms began in 1970, and they led to the signing in May 1972 of a Treaty on the Limitation of _-_-_
^^*^^ Pravda, August 4, 1966.
148 Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems as well as an Interim Agreement on Certain Measures with respect to the Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms. Thus, in effect, for the first .time in history, agreement was reached on materially limiting these modern and most powerful types of weapons. Recognition and strict observance of the principle of equal security of the sides are an important precondition of success in this sphere. The Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological, Biological and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction, drafted on the initiative of socialist countries, was signed on April 10, 1972.On the initiative of the Soviet Union, the 27th UN General Assembly in 1972 passed a resolution on the renunciation of force in international relations and banning the use of nuclear weapons for all time. The Soviet Union has expressed its readiness to carry this UN decision a step further by coming to an agreement with any of the nuclear powers on mutual undertakings not to use force, including nuclear weapons, against each other.
``The struggle for an end to the arms race, both in nuclear and conventional weapons, and for disarmament---all the way to general and complete disarmament---will continue to be one of the most important lines in the foreign policy activity of the CPSU and the Soviet state,'' the Report of the CPSU Central Committee to the 24th Party Congress states.^^*^^
If we sum up the part being played by the military factor in modern international relations, we may note two interconnected trends. On the one hand, there is the vast growth in destructive power of weapons, the unparalleled arms race and the increase in importance of military and political factors in all sectors of international relations, the activisation of aggressive forces and the increasing threat of war. On the other hand, there is the increasingly marked danger, the irrationality and the ``unprofitability'' of the arms race and the use of the latest types of weapons, a reduction in the effectiveness of conventional armaments and, _-_-_
^^*^^ 24th Congress of the CPSU, p. 34.
149 correspondingly, the enhanced role of other methods of foreign policy and the mounting influence of the forces of peace.Socialist foreign policy is fighting for the implementation of the historic task, put forward by the CPSU and the world communist movement, of averting a world thermonuclear holocaust. It combines a firm rebuff to aggression with a constructive policy towards the settlement of immediate international problems, and consistent adherence to the Leninist principle of peaceful coexistence of countries with different social systems.
[150] __ALPHA_LVL1__ RELATIONS BETWEEN THE TWO SYSTEMS AS THE...Reciprocal relations between peoples and the world political system as a whole arc determined by the struggle waged by a small group of imperialist nations against the Soviet movement and Soviet states headed by Soviet Russia.
V. I. Lenin
The problem of relations between the capitalist and socialist socio-economic systems arose after the October Revolution. The birth of a social system based on socialist principles and diametrically opposed to capitalism brought about a certain dislocation of the axis of contradictions in world politics; the axis moved from the inter-imperialist sphere to that of relations between the two systems. The inter-relations of the capitalist countries with the socialist country now became the main problem or hub of world politics.
Despite the relative weakness of socialism, represented initially by the sole young Soviet Republic, and the presence of acute contradictions between the biggest imperialist powers, it was the contradiction between the two systems that was of principal importance for understanding the international situation after the socialist revolution.
``Two camps are now quite consciously facing each other all over the world,'' Lenin wrote in 1920.^^*^^ The struggle between these two camps began to determine the basic content of international relations.
_-_-_^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Veil. 30, p. 450.
151 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ RELATIONS BETWEEN THE TWO SYSTEMSA completely new situation arose in international relations. The international debut of a state with a social system diametrically opposed to capitalism was objectively bound to produce changes in the content and methods of imperialist politics. The categories of international relations customary to capitalism, including those of war and peace, forfeited their former significance in relation to the socialist system, took on a new content and changed their form.
Until that time, imperialism had known relations of domination and subordination, had known the policy that engendered inter-imperialist wars, wars against small and weak states and colonial wars. Until that time, imperialism had known only a peace ensured by force, between similar countries, or a predatory peace with small or colonial peoples. There now arose the new problem of relations with a socialist state.
The working class which had created its socialist state also found itself in a basically new situation. It was faced with the question of the character, content and forms of relationships with the countries around it, in which the opposing social system prevailed. The change in the situation following the revolution brought a change in the forms of class struggle: a specific international and political sector of this struggle made its appearance.
The problem of relations with the capitalist world determined the major content of the theory and practice of the foreign policy of the Soviet Republic at a time when it was surrounded by countries ruled by the hostile capitalist class. Lenin wrote: ``Since Soviet power has been established, since the bourgeoisie has been overthrown in one country, the second task is to wage the struggle on a world scale, on a different plane, the struggle of the proletarian state surrounded by capitalist states. This situation is an entirely novel and difficult one.''^^*^^
The question now arose of what sort of foreign policy should the proletariat pursue in the sole country where a socialist revolution had triumphed. What attitude to the new state were the imperialist powers to have? What would the _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin. Collected Works, Vol. 29, p. 58.
152 relations between the socialist state and the capitalist countries be like? The fate not only of the Russian Revolution, but also of the peoples in other countries and the whole course of international relations depended greatly on the answer to these questions.Soviet foreign policy gave a resolute rebuff to attempts by imperialist powers to quash the socialist revolution and at the same time used every possibility to establish peaceful relations with the capitalist states. This policy became an increasingly weighty factor in resolving international problems, a policy with which the bourgeois world was bound to reckon.
Relations between the Soviet Union and the capitalist world took different forms over the decades that followed. The multiplicity of forms and the differences in level and character of these relations were caused by changes in the historical situation and the nuances of the policy of individual bourgeois states. However, the fact that the world's only socialist state was economically and militarily much weaker than the advanced capitalist powers left a marked trace on the relations between the Soviet Union and the capitalist world and on all of world politics.
Since then, the picture has altered very greatly. The overall trend has been a weakening of capitalism and the growth of socialism, the national liberation movement and all forces of social progress, which over the last few decades has irreversibly made its mark on the international scene. The structure of international relations has changed accordingly. New directions and functions have appeared in Soviet foreign policy. The problems of developing and strengthening relations of friendship and co-operation with other socialist states and with the numerous young national states that have arisen on the ruins of the former colonial empires have acquired paramount importance. After the Second World War capitalism was faced with shaping its relations not simply with the Soviet Union, but with other socialist states, and this produced new problems. However, despite the profound and varied world changes, the problem of relations between countries with diametrically opposed systems retains its importance as the major issue of international relations today.
153This is attributable primarily to the class nature of relations between the socialist and capitalist worlds. Despite all the changes in the form and scale of these relations, their social substance has remained unchanged. Lenin made the point that ``the forms of the struggle may and do constantly change in accordance with varying, relatively specific and temporary causes, but the substance of the struggle, its class content, positively cannot change while classes = exist.''^^*^^
The contradiction between imperialism and socialism, the basic contradiction of the world today, is manifested in the sphere of relations between the two systems. The significance of such relations as the major problem of world politics is expressed in the fact that imperialism has had to adapt the whole sphere of inter-imperialist relations to the very existence and foreign policy of socialist states. Since October 1917, the problem of relations between imperialist states could not exist or be resolved without account for the relations between the capitalist and socialist systems. The prime role of the problem of relations between capitalist and socialist countries in the overall complex of international relations became especially clear at the time of the international and political events on the eve of the Second World War.
In the world today, the imperialist powers are forced to draw up their strategy towards the revolutionary process, whether it is the class struggle within capitalist society or the national liberation struggle, with account for the existence of socialist states and their active foreign policy.
The problem of relations with the capitalist countries is the oldest problem of Soviet foreign policy and retains its relevance for the world of socialism. Relations between the Soviet Union and the major imperialist powers directly affect issues that far exceed the framework of inter-state relations of the two systems. The prevention of a thermonuclear world war greatly depends today on relations between the Soviet Union and the major imperialist powers, in particular, the United States. The fate of socialism, the world _-_-_
^^*^^ V.I. Lenin. Cnlltrlcrf Works. Vol. -'_'. p. 253.
154 revolutionary process and all mankind is linked as never before with the course, prospects and forms of relations between the socialist and capitalist countries. __ALPHA_LVL2__ IIIt is to Lenin's great credit that he revealed the tremendous historic importance of the problem of the relations between the Soviet Union and the capitalist world, indicated the way it could be resolved and advocated the principle of peaceful coexistence as the basic strategy of socialist foreign policy towards the capitalist states. ``We are now in a transitional phase,'' Lenin said, ``and our revolution is surrounded by capitalist countries. As long as we are in this phase, we are forced to seek highly complex forms of relationships.''^^*^^
Lenin based his argument on a careful analysis of the specific historical situation and proved, first, the inevitability of the simultaneous existence of states with different social systems for an entire historical period; second, the desirability and expediency, from the point of view of socialist interests, of peaceful forms of this coexistence; third, the real possibility of peaceful coexistence between socialist and capitalist states, despite the opposing nature of their social and economic systems and the aggressive designs of imperialism.
Events have fully borne out Lenin's theory of socialist revolution and the consequent principles of foreign policy. Socialism was unable to triumph simultaneously in many countries and initially it won the day in one country alone. ``...The period of the coexistence side by side of socialist and capitalist states" has begun, Lenin wrote.^^**^^ Therefore, the coexistence of states with different social systems became an indisputable fact of history. Since the simultaneous existence of the socialist state and capitalist states became inevitable, the working class which had come to power in one _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. :«. p. IS!).
^^**^^ Ibid.. Vol. 30, p. 39.
155 country and needed to strengthen its power, to defend and consolidate its revolutionary gains, was objectively interested in peace and in peaceful coexistence with the surrounding capitalist countries that were its class enemies.The principle of peaceful coexistence logically followed from Lenin's conception of socialist foreign policy, for the most favourable external conditions for building socialism (to ensure which was the purpose of the foreign policy of the socialist state) were the conditions of peaceful existence and, consequently, of peaceful coexistence with capitalist countries.
The principle of peaceful coexistence as the main principle of the policy of the socialist state in respect to capitalist countries conformed to the interests of the Soviet working people and to the interests of the world revolutionary process and of the working people throughout the world. It was this point that Lenin substantiated in a profound and comprehensive way in the hard struggle against Trotsky and the ``Left''-wing Communists during the wrangling over the Brest-Litovsk Treaty. The ``Left''-wing proponents of revolutionary phrasemongering did not take account of the real situation nor did they understand the specific nature of the foreign policy tasks of the proletariat that had come to power in one country; they jeopardised the very existence of Soviet power and in principle renounced the possibility and expediency of any relations with capitalist countries other than ``revolutionary war''. This attitude essentially left no place for the foreign policy activity of the socialist state. Typical in that respect was the position of Trotsky, who was appointed Commissar for Foreign Affairs after the October Revolution.
He declared with his customary forthrightness: ``Will we have any diplomatic work? I shall make a few revolutionary appeals and then shut up shop.''^^*^^
Similar views were voiced at the Seventh Party Congress convened specially to debate the issue of a peace treaty with Germany. Bukharin, for example, maintained that ``there can never be peaceful coexistence between us---between the _-_-_
^^*^^ See S. Zarnitsky, A. Sergcycv, C/iic/ierin, Moscow, 1966, p. 61 (in Russian).
156 Soviet Republic and international capital''. And ``the only prospect as far as possibility and need are concerned is war against international capital''....^^*^^ Demagogically, Trotsky maintained that ``for the revolutionary class, deals with the imperialists are inadmissible''....^^**^^Despite the opposition from ``Left''-wing Communists and Trotsky, the ultra-revolutionary phrasemongering and foreign policy adventurism which could have put paid to the revolution, the Brest-Litovsk Peace Treaty with Germany was concluded at Lenin's initiative. Lenin defined this treaty as ``the most significant result of the foreign policy of the Council of People's Commissars'',^^***^^ and he upheld the fundamental principles of a socialist, genuinely revolutionary foreign policy that corresponded to the interests both of the Soviet people and of tbe working people of other countries.
The international debut of the socialist state signified a qualitatively new stage in the proletariat's class struggle against the bourgeoisie throughout the world and the appearance of new, previously unknown, forms of struggle. The issue concerning selection of appropriate forms of struggle in regard to foreign policy has all the more importance in that the victorious working class is confronted in this sphere with imperialism, a particularly strong, experienced and cunning enemy. Lenin stressed that imperialism must be fought, and one must know how to fight it; socialist revolution in other countries must be helped and one had to know how to help it.^^****^^
In the arguments with ``Left''-wing Communists who were calling for the ``pushing'' of revolution by war, Lenin showed that such views have nothing in common with Marxism: "Actually, however, the interests of the world revolution demand that Soviet power, having overthrown the bourgeoisie in our country, should help that revolution, but that it _-_-_
^^*^^ 7th Extraordinary Congress of the RCI'(B), March 1918. Stenographic Record, Moscow. 1962, pp. 29, 35 (in Russian).
^^**^^ Ibid., p. 71.
^^***^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 29. p. 63.
^^****^^ Ibid., Vol. 27, pp. 64--65.
157 should choose a form of help which is commensurate with its own strength.''^^*^^What in former conditions had not been acceptable to the proletariat (an agreement with one group of imperialist predators), became permissible and necessary in the new situation, in the interests of world socialist revolution. ``We sat at the table beside Hoffmann and not Liebknecht---and in doing so we assisted the German revolution,''^^**^^ Lenin said.
While armed struggle dominated Soviet relations with the capitalist world in the early years, and while Lenin's idea of peaceful coexistence did not then obtain any wide practical implementation, this did not mean that the Soviet Republic had repudiated this foreign policy line or, even less so, that it was theoretically groundless. The armed struggle which the Soviet people conducted for over three years had been imposed upon them by the imperialists, it was a necessary response to the armed intervention by foreign powers. In such circumstances, Lenin stood for the most resolute opposition to the aggressors, for the most serious attitude to the country's defence, and for constant improvement of the fighting capacity of the Red Army and the defence potential of the Soviet state.
While Lenin consistently pursued his peaceful coexistence policy, he never considered it automatically ensured or ``eternal''. In his understanding, peaceful coexistence was not idyllic, it implied a struggle in the political, ideological and economic spheres. ``We never imagined,'' he said, ``that with the fighting over and the advent of peace, the capitalist wolf would lie down with the socialist lamb.''^^***^^
Lenin frequently warned of the danger of the peace being disturbed, and even of the inevitability of new armed clashes between socialism and capitalism. However, he understood this inevitability to stem not from the oppositenature of the two systems as such, but from the aggressive anti-Soviet strivings of the imperialists which relatively _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 27,
^^**^^ Ibid., p. 102.
^^***^^ Ibid., Vol. 31, p. 452.
158 weak socialism was not then capable of taming. The Soviet peaceful coexistence policy, therefore, is not something that stems from a temporary political situation, nor from the relative weakness of socialism at a certain historical stage, nor can it be reduced to a tactical slogan, as many Western ideologists assert. The peaceful coexistence policy reflects a long-term strategic policy in relations with capitalist countries, drawn up by Lenin on the basis of an examination of objective factors and trends, and the basic interests of the Soviet state and the world revolutionary process.The new principles of international relations that were put forward by Lenin were embodied and further developed by the Soviet state in its foreign policy at the end of the Civil War. Describing the practical activity of the Party and the Soviet Government in foreign policy, Lenin said, at the 10th Congress of the Russian Communist Party (RCP(B]): ``...Our attention and all our endeavours were aimed at switching from our relations of war with the capitalist countries to relations of peace and trade.''^^*^^
A new phase in the development of relations between states with different systems began after the Civil War. Defeat of the internal counter-revolution and foreign intervention signified, as Lenin expressed it, ``not only a breathing-space but something much more significant''---a period in the development of international relations ``in which we have won the right to our fundamental international existence in the network of capitalist states.''^^**^^
The new situation utterly confirmed the correctness and vitality of Lenin's principles of relations with capitalist countries. The Soviet Government did not alter its foreign policy principles. Georgi Chicherin said in June 1920: ``Our slogan was and still remains the same: peaceful coexistence with other governments no matter who they are.''
Lenin wrote in December 1921, summarising the experience of the existence of the Soviet Republic in its capitalist encirclement: ``It seemed inconceivable from the political and military aspects. That it is possible both politically and _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Wnrks, Vol. 32, p. 180.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 31, p. 412.
159 militarily has now been proved; it is a fact. But what about trade? What about economic relations?''^^*^^His answer to that question was quite unambiguous: ``I know of no reason why a socialist commonwealth like ours cannot do business indefinitely with capitalist countries.''^^**^^
Development of economic ties with the capitalist world conformed with the interests of the young Soviet Republic.
Lenin's ideas determined the attitude taken by the Soviet delegation both during negotiations with individual capitalist states and at first important international conference with Soviet participation, which met in Genoa in 1922. Pravda wrote at the time that the invitation of Soviet Russia to that conference was ``a victory for our revolution. It is not the end of the struggle but a new success in the fight on a new front and with new methods.'' Although the hostile attitude of the bourgeois governments which did not renounce their attempts to bring down the socialist system hampered an extensive development of economic ties with the capitalist world, Lenin firmly believed in the real possibility of normal relations with capitalist countries and indicated the objective prerequisites of peaceful coexistence. He said: ``There is a force more powerful than the wishes, the will and the decisions of any of the governments or classes that are hostile to us. That force is world general economic relations, which compel them to make contact with us.''^^***^^
Lenin continued the same train of thought at the Eleventh Congress of the RCP(B): ``The fact of the matter is that the most urgent, pressing and practical interests that have been sharply revealed in all the capitalist countries during the past few years call for the development, regulation and expansion of trade with Russia. Since such interests exist, we may argue, we may quarrel, we may disagree on specific combinations---it is highly probable that we shall have to disagree---this fundamental economic necessity will, nevertheless, after all is said and done, make a way for itself.''^^****^^
_-_-_^^*^^ Ibid., Vol. 33, p. 151.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 42, p. 177.
^^***^^ Ibid., Vol. 33, p. 155.
^^****^^ Ibid., p. 265.
160Support by the working people both at home and abroad was an important factor of success for the peaceful Soviet policy, of the real possibility of peaceful coexistence. Lenin frequently underlined the importance of the struggle of the working class in capitalist countries for stopping imperialist intervention and for strengthening the international position of the Soviet Republic.
Lenin considered the contradictions within the imperialist camp---both between individual countries and between various ruling groupings within a particular country---as another important factor facilitating peaceful coexistence between the Soviet Union and the capitalist world. ``The more powerful enemy,'' he said, ``can be vanquished only by exerting the utmost effort, and by the most thorough, careful, attentive, skilful and obligatory use of any, even the smallest, rift between the enemies, any conflict of interests among the bourgeoisie of the various countries and among the various groups or types of bourgeoisie within the various countries, and also by taking advantage of any, even the smallest, opportunity of winning a mass ally, even though this ally is temporary, vacillating, unstable, unreliable and conditional. . . . And this applies equally to the period before and after the proletariat has won political power.''^^*^^
Lenin returned time and again to this idea, developing it in respect to specific circumstances.
His ideas had special significance for the foreign policy of the socialist country when it was surrounded by economically and militarily superior capitalist countries.
Lenin formulated the rule: ''. . .We must be able to take advantage of the antagonisms and contradictions existing among the imperialists.''^^**^^
On the issues of foreign policy and relations with bourgeois states, he stressed the vast practical importance of contradictions between those members of the bourgeois camp ``who are inclined to settle the problem by war'' and those ``who are inclined towards pacifism, even the worst kind of _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Cnlli'fli-il Works, Vol. 31, pp. 70--71.
^^**^^ Ibid., p. 439.
161 pacifism, which from the communist viewpoint will not stand the slightest criticism.''^^*^^Lenin noted the possibility and the need of isolating the most reactionary, aggressive and interventionist elements within influential political circles of the bourgeois countries.
In his review of the tasks facing the Soviet delegation at the Genoa Conference, he considered that a major, if not the most important, political one was to separate the pacifist wing in the bourgeois camp, to ``make it known that we consider possible and desirable not only a trade, but a political agreement with them.''^^**^^
Lenin consistently conducted a policy designed to normalise relations with bourgeois states. He advocated the widest economic ties with them. He granted the possibility, and demonstrated in practice his readiness, in the interests of peace and socialism, to make inevitable compromises in foreign policy, concessions, and even sacrifices. Speaking, for example, about the granting of concessions to foreign businessmen, he said: ``We pay a certain `tribute' to world capitalism; we `ransom' ourselves under certain arrangements, thereby immediately stabilising the Soviet power and improving our economic conditions.''^^***^^
In the whole of his activity Lenin gave examples of how to combine ``the strictest devotion to the ideas of communism with the ability to effect all the necessary practical compromises, tacks, conciliatory manoeuvres, zigzags, retreats and so on...''.^^****^^
According to Chicherin, Lenin showed ``an inimitable political realism'' and ``a peerless flexibility'' at the same time as ``he had the knack of knowing the limit beyond which it was necessary to show firmness.''^^*****^^ This limit lay in the distinction between secondary and prime interests, the task of preserving and consolidating the major gains of the _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., Vol. 33, p. 264.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 42, p. 403.
^^***^^ Ibid., Vol. 32, p. 347.
^^****^^ Ibid., Vol. 31, p. 95.
^^*****^^ See G. V. Chicherin, Articles and Speeches on Foreign Policy pp. 278, 282.
__PRINTERS_P_161_COMMENT__ 11---239 162 socialist revolution. To preserve peace, Lenin said: ``We are ready to make huge concessions and sacrifices, but not any kind and not for ever.''^^*^^Thus, during the negotiations with Germany over the signing of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty---one of the most critical moments in Soviet history---Lenin defined the limit of concessions, the decisive criterion of the position of the Soviet Republic, which was vitally interested in concluding a peace treaty with Germany, as follows: ``If the Germans said that they wanted to overthrow Bolshevik power, we would naturally have to fight....''^^**^^ He later gave a comprehensive assessment of the results of the negotiations with Germany and the conclusion of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty: ``At that time we sacrificed no fundamental interests; we conceded minor interests and preserved what was fundamental.''^^***^^
Advocating, as he did, a specific analysis of a specific situation, Lenin called for an approach that would not renounce in general a military agreement with one of the imperialist coalitions against another. However, he formulated just as tersely and unambiguously conditions for accepting agreements with the imperialists: he referred to cases when ``such an agreement could, without undermining the basis of Soviet power, strengthen its position and paralyse the attacks of any imperialist power...''.^^****^^
The principle of inviolability of the foundations of the socialist system also fully apply to economic relations between socialist and capitalist states. Lenin resolutely and unequivocally insisted that the Soviet state have a monopoly of foreign trade. The Soviet Government took the same attitude on the question of concessions. Chicherin said in 1919: ``We underline once again that our concessions should not be to the detriment of the fundamental principles of the Soviet system and the gradual implementation of communism in Russia.''^^*****^^
_-_-_^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 148.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 26, p. 522.
^^***^^ Ibid., Vol. 31, p. 440.
^^****^^ Ibid., Vol. 27, p. 361.
^^*****^^ G. V. Chicherin, op. cit., p. 134.
163Leonid Krasin, the first People's Commissar for Foreign Trade, said the same thing when he formulated the conditions of economic agreements with capitalist states: ``The sovereignty of the Russian state and the non-intervention of other powers in its internal affairs or with its internal laws is one of the lundamental conditions.''^^*^^
In relations with the capitalist world, whatever form they took, Soviet foreign policy invariably insisted and continues to insist upon the inviolability of the Soviet people's revolutionary gains. This principle dominates the entire activity of the Soviet state internationally and helps to bring success in the struggle against imperialist reaction.
As Lenin understood it, peaceful coexistence stems from the right of every nation freely, without outside interference, to arrange its affairs as it desires. The very notion of peaceful coexistence between countries with different social systems results from the retention of that difference, presupposes a renunciation of attempts at interference in the internal affairs of another country.
Leninist foreign policy has staunchly resisted all imperialist attemps to interfere in Soviet internal affairs and has consistently adhered to the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries. Many years ago, Soviet President Mikhail Kalinin said: ``Respect for the will and laws of other countries and the maintenance of peace are the basic principles of the international policy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics....''^^**^^
The strengthening of the socialist state and its economic progress facilitated the efforts of Soviet foreign policy for peaceful coexistence. In 1924, when diplomatic relations were established with leading capitalist countries, a period of recognition entered the history of international relations. The 14th CPSU Congress noted consolidation and extension of the breathing-space, which turned into a whole period ``of peaceful coexistence between the USSR and the _-_-_
^^*^^ L. Krasin, Foreign Trade, Moscow-Leningrad, 1928, p. 264 (in Russian).
^^**^^ Documents of Soviet Foreign Policy, Vol. VIII, Moscow, 19fi3, p. 64 (in Russian).
164 capitalist states...''.^^*^^ Chicherin, in a speech at the Third Congress of Soviets of the USSR in May 1925, described this period ``as a peaceful duel between the two economic systems'', and he remarked further on the increasingly successful development of this duel for the Soviet Union.^^**^^Practice, therefore, confirmed the possibility, correctness and fruitfulness of the Leninist policy of peaceful coexistence even at a time when the world balance of power still lay with imperialism, when the bourgeois countries could count on their military superiority. But the successful building of socialism in the Soviet Union was all the while undermining these considerations.
The fight against the aggressive inclinations of world imperialism and the campaign to preserve peace, which the Soviet Government consistently carried out, being guided by Lenin's idea of peaceful coexistence, had great importance. In the most direct fashion, it corresponded to the vital interests of the peoples of other countries as well as those of the Soviet Union.
Soviet Party and Government leaders frequently reaffirmed their loyalty to the Leninist peaceful coexistence principle. The Central Committee's political report to the 15th Party Congress stated: ``The basis of our relations with the capitalist states lies in the acceptance of coexistence between the two opposing systems. Practice has completely justified that.''^^***^^
The trend towards development of these relations from purely economic ones to political became a characteristic feature of contacts with capitalist countries. Their importance continued to rise in the overall complex of international and political relations and in the resolution of urgent issues of world politics; the constructive nature of the Leninist policy of peaceful coexistence became more obvious as the basic policy towards countries with the opposing social and economic system.
_-_-_^^*^^ CPSU in Resolutions and Decisions of Congresses, Conferences and CC Plenary Meetings, Vol. 3, Moscow, 1970, p. 244 (in Russian).
^^**^^ G. V. Chicherin, op. cit., p. 373.
^^***^^ 16th Congress of the RCP(B). December 1927. Stenographic Record, Vol. 1, Moscow, 1961, p. 54 (in Russian).
165The nature and forms of relations with the capitalist countries acquired special significance in the mid-1930s when, following Japanese aggression against China, a hotbed of war arose in the Far East, and when the threat to peace in Europe increased sharply with the establishment of the nazi dictatorship in Germany. For the sake of stronger peace, the Soviet Union expressed its readiness to take an active part in ensuring collective security, to organise a collective resistance to aggressors and to expand, on that basis, co-operation with the capitalist countries. In December 1933 the Party's Central Committee adopted a resolution which envisaged the possibility of the Soviet Union entering the League of Nations and concluding a regional agreement, with the participation of a wide group of European states, on mutual defence against aggression. The Soviet policy of peace and strengthening of commercial links with all countries was reaffirmed by the 17th and 18th Party Congresses.
The Soviet Union's signing, in the early 1930s, virtually with all neighbouring countries, of conventions on the definition of aggression, its entry into the League of Nations, participation in negotiations on an Eastern Pact, the SovietFrench and Soviet-Czechoslovak treaties of mutual assistance (1935), the Soviet readiness to conclude a military agreement with Britain and France, a readiness that was expressed in a number of documents---all these important acts testified to the Soviet Union's sincere desire to guarantee international security, to avert war and to organise a collective rebuff to an aggressor. The Munich policy of the Western governments, however, nullified the results of these efforts and the possibilities associated with them.
The subsequent Second World War showed the strength of the Soviet socialist state, its resolution and capacity to deal a crushing blow to aggression and to attempts to weaken socialism by means of war. Further, the war furnished new evidence of the possibility of co-operation between the socialist state and capitalist countries on the basis of common interests, irrespective of the different social systems.
The Leninist principle of peaceful coexistence acquired even more relevance after the war when socialism emerged 166 beyond the bounds of one country, when socialist revolution won the day in various countries of Europe and Asia and a world socialist system arose. These countries proclaimed peaceful coexistence as the basic principle of their policy in relation to capitalist countries.
The principles advocated by Lenin at the dawn of Soviet history concerning relations between socialist and capitalist countries had successfully stood the test of time.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ IIIThe answer of Lenin and of socialism to the fundamentally new problem of relations between states with opposing socio-economic systems that arose in 1917 reflected 'the factual conditions and demands of social development; the imperialist approach, however, to the problem of international relations contradicted these requirements and reflected the anti-historic and reactionary nature of imperialist policy. But the pressure of objective circumstances .obliged the capitalist world to reckon with reality in a number of instances.
An end to the undivided sway of imperialism, the world debut of socialism, the strengthening of its might and international status and the mounting activity and effectiveness of socialist foreign policy have caused a deep-going crisis in the aims and methods of imperialist foreign policy. This is most obvious in the sphere of struggle against the world revolutionary process and in relations with the Soviet Union and with world socialism.
Imperialism tried to arrest the growth of revolutionary forces and to demolish the socialist state; true to its aggressive nature, it resorted primarily to its tried and tested methods of resolving its foreign policy aims through armed intervention and war. Many bourgeois ideologists did not conceal their extreme antipathy towards revolutionary Russia, dictated above all by class motivations. President Wilson of the United States, for example, said in November 1918 that the Allied powers had no intention of continuing to pursue passive tactics towards Bolshevism, which they saw 167 as the sole enemy worth joining forces against. Russia, he noted, was open to Allied troops on several sides if they wished to invade it. A Bolshevised and terrorised Russia, he said, could not be accepted into the union of democratic and free nations.
In describing the policy of capitalist countries at that time and the place held in it by aggressive intentions towards Soviet Russia, Lenin said: ''. . .The main issue at stake is the victory of the British, French and American imperialists and their attempts to seize complete possession of the whole world, and, particularly, to destroy Soviet Russia.''^^*^^
The imperialist attempts to stop the advance of world socialism by armed means were repulsed. Their ultimate defeat was due not only to the exceptionally staunch resistance by the Soviet people, who put all they could into defending their revolutionary gains, but also to the class solidarity of the working people of the West with the working class of the Soviet republics and to the immense influence of revolutionary ideas. Lloyd George wrote to Philip Kerr, one of his advisers on foreign policy: ``Were it known that you had gone over to Paris to prepare a plan of war against the Bolsheviks it would do more to incense organised labour than anything I can think of....''^^**^^
The reliance of the imperialist politicians on internal counter-revolution, which the Soviet people, led by the Bolsheviks, had routed, also ended in failure.
The victory of the young Soviet state in single combat against the vastly superior military forces of the imperialist powers and internal counter-revolution, signified, essentially, the greatest and irreversible blow to the positions of world capitalism, although the capitalist ruling classes do not to this day admit the full depth of the defeat and the consequences it had.
The preservation and subsequent consolidation of Soviet Russia had decisive significance for the revolutionary movement throughout the world. At the same time, it evoked _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 28, p. 37.
^^**^^ David Lloyd George, The Truth about the I'cace Treaties, Vol. 1, London, 1938, p. 372.
168 certain changes in imperialism's political strategy in regard to the socialist state. ``...International imperialism,'' Lenin said, ``has proved unable to strangle Soviet Russia, although it is far stronger, and has been obliged for the time being to grant her recognition, or semi-recognition, and to conclude trade agreements with her.''^^*^^This fact had great significance. Having failed to put down the socialist system by military means, capitalism was obliged in essence to recognise the equal rights of the two property systems and had, as Lenin said, ``to recognise, even if only indirectly, the collapse, the bankruptcy of the first property system and the inevitability of its coming to an agreement with the second, on terms of equality.''^^**^^
The disaster that befell aggressive anti-Soviet intrigues led to an even more acute struggle between the two principal trends within the capitalist world in relation to the socialist system: either to push on with attempts to destroy it by war or to somehow come to peaceful terms with it. The struggle between these two trends split the capitalist camp; it polarised political forces within each capitalist country and even within their ruling establishments. The specific political policy of the capitalist world in relation to socialism was born in the confrontation of these trends.
The Soviet Union's Plenipotentiary Representative in France, Leonid Krasin, addressing the French Ministers Aristid Briand and Joseph Caillaux in 1925, said: ``One cannot deny that our social and political systems differ greatly, and even are antipathetic to one another. Naturally, the best thing from the point of view of any capitalist government would be to conquer and destroy us. You have conscientiously tried to do that in recent years, but you failed, and gradually many European governments have had to come to the inevitable conclusion of the need in one form or another of finding a modus vivendi for mutual proper regular relations.''^^***^^
That several bourgeois governments renounced their _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 32, p. 453.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 33, p. 357.
^^***^^ Documents of llic Soviet Foreign Policy, Vol. VIII, p. 257.
169 violent and armed forms of fighting socialism, as exemplified by the Soviet state, did not bring an end to the struggle between the two systems in the international arena. Although the imperialists were forced to give up armed intervention for a time and to enter into economic relations with the socialist state, they more than once tried to use the objective inevitability of these relations in their own counter-- revolutionary and anti-socialist aims.Although they failed to suppress the Soviet state by economic methods either in the early years or later, the acute and tense battle of the capitalist countries against the Soviet Union continued in various forms.
The economic rivalry of the two systems---to which Lenin attributed prime importance and which he described as ``a kind of war, a duel between two methods, two political and economic systems---the communist and the capitalist''^^*^^--- proceeded in difficult conditions for the Soviet Union. Despite its recognition by some governments, the Soviet Union was constantly confronted by the hostile attitudes of the major capitalist powers that played a leading part in the world of that time. As before, the United States stubbornly refused to recognise the Soviet Union, while recognition from other imperialist countries, including Britain, by no means meant an end to their anti-Soviet policy, to their attempts at organising a united anti-Soviet front of capitalist countries, and of the policy fraught with the threat of new wars against the Soviet Union.
Nonetheless, the unity of imperialist policy in the fight against socialism often floundered on the rocks of the growing contradictions both between individual capitalist countries and within each one of them. The eve of the Second World War is especially instructive in that respect. The most reactionary circles in the Western countries decided to compromise with nazi Germany on an anti-Soviet basis, sacrificing both their own national interests and their allies in Central Europe. The behaviour in 1939 of the British Government in relation to the Soviet Union was described, for instance, by Lloyd George as ``provocative and _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 456.
170 unbelievably stupid''. The policy of anti-Soviet collusion with nazism, however, the setting of Hitler Germany against the socialist state, which has gone down in history as the Munich deal, shortly turned against its initiators.After the defeat of the fascist countries, with the Soviet Union making the decisive contribution to victory, aggressive, anti-socialist traits once again dominated the policy of Western countries, headed by the United States. They used every means possible in the struggle against world socialism and the states which had people's democratic governments. In his notorious Fulton speech in 1946 Winston Churchill put forward a common programme of the aggressive American and British alliance against the Soviet Union and the People's Democracies. Insofar as the Soviet Union and the People's Democracies were, as mentioned in the Declaration of the Information Meeting of Representatives of Several Communist Parties in September 1947, had become an obstacle in the way of imperialist designs to establish world domination and to bring down democratic movements, a crusade against the Soviet Union and the new democracies was launched, backed up with threats of a new war from the most vengeful American and British imperialist politicians.
Deprived of any chance in the early postwar years of directly resorting to arms against the Soviet Union (it possessed very strong armed forces which had been steeled in the war against nazi Germany, while popular feeling in the West, where the people regarded the Soviet Union as the main bastion of peace and democracy, would not have allowed such a war), the imperialists, however, by no means renounced their intention of using military means of deciding the outcome of the competition between the two systems. They now began a planned, far-reaching campaign of militarystrategic, economic and ideological nature designed to undermine the positions of world socialism.
With the help of an unrestrained arms drive and atomic blackmail, which for a time brought the world to the brink of armed conflict, the imperialist politicians reckoned on preventing the rehabilitation and development of the Soviet economy, preventing the strengthening of the world 171 socialist system, hampering the growth of the workers' movement, and suppressing the national liberation struggle in the colonies and dependencies. American imperialism built up a system of aggressive military blocs spearheaded against the Soviet Union and the other socialist states.
The American Administration started to form special military forces from counter-revolutionary elements who had emigrated from the People's Democracies, and earmarked hundreds of millions of dollars for training ``liberation forces''. American Congressman Clement Zablocki admits that the official purpose of these forces was to overthrow the communist regimes in Eastern Europe and to resurrect the prewar order. Despite the unprecedented scale of the military and aggressive measures, they did not bring the imperialist politicians the desired results.
The imperialists endeavoured to strangle socialism economically, counting on the huge losses that the economies of the Soviet Union and the countries of Central and Southeastern Europe which had embarked on the road to socialism had borne during the war. That was the idea behind the Battle Act adopted by American Congress and intended to isolate the socialist countries from economic ties with the West. Under US pressure, other capitalist states took the same line. Economic blockade, however, failed as a means of defeating socialism. In spite of the break in economic contacts with the West, the socialist countries restored their economies. The capitalist countries proved unable to prevent socialist construction.
On the ideological front too, capitalism met one defeat after another: socialist ideas spread to all countries and continents. Imperialism was powerless to stop the victorious advance of the progressive ideas of our epoch. The ideology of anti-communism which lay behind the theory and practice of imperialist politicians fell into a deep crisis which is growing worse as communist ideals become embodied in practice and as communism gains new successes.
The sharp postwar worsening of relations between countries with opposing social systems, engendered by aggressive imperialist activity, came to be known as the cold war. But the matter was not confined to general international 172 tension. Now and again armed conflicts flared up in various parts of the world, and imperialism resorted to acts of direct aggression in which, despite their local character, it was really a matter of a clash between the interests of the two world systems.
The imperialists did not succeed in weakening the Soviet Union and the world position of socialism or in stopping the revolutionary process, despite the massive use of every type of method---military, political, economic and ideological. The overriding foreign policy aim of imperialism since 1917 had been to defeat the Soviet state, to destroy socialism, to suppress the world revolutionary movement and to reestablish the domination of capital; this policy proved a failure.
The course of international events testified to the growing gap between the basic political aims of imperialism in relation to the socialist countries and the sharply reduced possibilities of their attainment; it testified to the exacerbation of the crisis of imperialist policy. One of the signs of this crisis is the discrediting of the political and strategic doctrines advanced by imperialism; they have become anachronisms one after the other. One recalls the Truman Doctrine, Acheson's ``positions of strength'' policy, John Foster Dulles' ``brinkmanship'', and the notorious ideas of ``liberation'' and ``rolling back communism''.
Although neither the cold nor hot wars of the 1950s brought their proponents the desired results, the imperialists are stubbornly trying to retain in their arsenal every means of struggle against world socialism. In an attempt to destroy the forces of socialism and revolution, to maintain and strengthen their undermined and shaky positions, the imperialists are resorting to the most diverse methods of aggressive politics. The book Detente. Cold War Strategies in Transition, published in 1965 in America, says quite frankly: ``The cold war has not concluded, but has entered a new and still more complex phase in which the spectrum of psychological, political, economic, and class warfare will be radically expanded. Such classic techniques as subversion, espionage, propaganda, sabotage, terrorism, deceit, and incited disorder will remain and be refined; but the new 173 techniques of nuclear blackmail arc also to be employed whenever feasible.''^^*^^
The forces of imperialism and aggression operating in the world today are still powerful. Stubbornly seeking a way out of their foreign policy crisis, they sometimes attain partial success in increasing tension in relations between countries of the two systems.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ IVThe far-reaching changes in the world in the late 1950s and early 1960s brought about serious changes in the objective content, conditions and prospects of relations between the socialist and capitalist countries. In the new circumstances, these relations are extremely complex.
On the one hand, the persistent aggressive nature of imperialism, its unwillingness to renounce force in resolving the historic dispute with socialism, the increasing militarism and unrestrained arms race, the increasing activity of the anti-socialist and counter-revolutionary forces, are all bound to intensify and expand the struggle between the two systems in every social sphere, and to worsen relations now and again. On the other hand, despite the opposite nature of the social and economic systems, there are many problems in international relations which both socialist and capitalist countries are objectively interested in resolving. For example, the avoidance of a nuclear-missile world war, which would bring untold suffering throughout the globe, the protection of environment, development of power and other natural resources, development of transport and communications, prevention and eradication of the most dangerous and widespread diseases, and the exploration and development of outer space.
The problem of mutual relations has become more complicated than ever; even so, the new elements in this area fully confirm the veracity of the Leninist foreign policy of socialism, the Leninist concept of relations between countries with different social systems, including the principle of _-_-_
^^*^^ Detente. Cold War Strategies in Transition, p. 62.
174 the possibility and expediency of their peaceful coexistence.The essence of peaceful coexistence as a specific form of class struggle in the world has not changed today, although its importance has markedly risen. New circumstances have combined with the previous factors to make peaceful coexistence an objective necessity for further human development.
In earlier times, the alternative to peaceful coexistence was conflicts and wars, in which the whole burden fell primarily on those who took a direct part in them. Although the First and Second World wars brought immense human suffering and destruction, they were, in the final analysis, accompanied by accelerated social progress. If it cannot be averted, another world war could threaten the very existence of entire countries and nations.
The CPSU, in the resolutions of its 20th (1956) to 24th (1971) congresses, and the world communist movement, in the documents of the International Meetings of 1957, 1960, and 1969, have analysed the new circumstances and creatively developed the Leninist principle of peaceful coexistence. ``In a world divided into two systems, the only correct and reasonable principle of international relations is the principle of peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems advanced by Lenin. . . ,'' says the Statement of the 1960 Moscow Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties.^^*^^ The Programme of the CPSU declares: ``Peaceful coexistence of the socialist and capitalist countries is an objective necessity for the development of human society. War cannot and must not serve as a means of settling international disputes."^^**^^
The 23rd Congress of the CPSU approved the foreign policy of the Party's Central Committee and the Soviet Government and confirmed the need consistently to uphold the principle of peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems, firmly to repel the aggressive forces of imperialism and deliver mankind from a new world war.^^***^^
_-_-_^^*^^ The Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, p. 58.
^^**^^ Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, p. 41.
^^***^^ See Congress of the CPSU, Moscow, 1966, p. 288.
175The International Meeting of Communist and Workers Parties that met in Moscow in 1969 also put great store by the peaceful coexistence policy: ``Directed as it is against the warmongers, reactionaries and monopoly arms manufacturers, this policy meets the general interests of the revolutionary struggle against every form of oppression and exploitation, and promotes friendship between all peoples and the development of fruitful economic, scientific, technological and other spheres of co-operation between countries with different social systems in the interests of social progress.''^^*^^
The international activity of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries reflects the creative development of Marxist-Leninist theory. Peaceful coexistence is part and parcel of socialist foreign policy and reflects its strategic policy in relations with capitalist powers.
``Our principled line with respect to the capitalist countries, including the USA,'' the Report of the CPSU Central Committee to the 24th Party Congress says, ``is consistently and fully to practise the principles of peaceful coexistence, to develop mutually advantageous ties, and to co-operate, with states prepared to do so, in strengthening peace, making our relations with them as stable as possible.''^^**^^
Lenin frequently said that recognition only of the armed form of struggle against imperialism and underestimation of other forms of struggle, the inability to replace one form of struggle by another depending on objective circumstances, can only lead to a serious setback to the socialist cause. This point is especially relevant today when the world socialist system---the most revolutionary, leading anti-imperialist force of the present day---is a decisive factor in social development and when it enjoys vast opportunities to influence the whole international situation in the interests of the social and national emancipation of all peoples.
Today, when the need for peaceful coexistence has become more vital than ever, the objective possibilities of attaining it have expanded. The steadily increasing economic, _-_-_
^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow 1969, pp. 31--32.
^^**^^ 24th Congress of the CPSU, p. 35.
176 political and military strength uf the Soviet Union, the economic attainments of other socialist countries and their greater friendship and unity are vital factors operating in that direction. The growth everywhere in political awareness and the active influence of common people on the settlement of foreign policy issues, the wide scope of the peace movement uniting millions of people, are also having a vital impact on the character and forms of mutual relations between different countries. ``Mass action against imperialism is a condition for implementing the policy of = peaceful coexistence,''^^*^^ says the Document of the 1969 Moscow Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties.World socialism and the working people in capitalist countries now have a chance to curb the aggressors and force peaceful coexistence upon imperialist countries. This is due to the deliberate and purposive socialist foreign policy as much as to the objective unfolding of the world revolutionary process in the last half century. The American Communist leader Gus Hall has said: ``The policy of peaceful coexistence is the result of a changing objective reality, of accumulated experiences of class struggle, of realism and of good common sense.''^^**^^
The Leninist way of looking at the question of the relationship between peaceful coexistence and the tasks of the world revolutionary movement by which the CPSU invariably guides itself, demolishes the speculative schemes of the Maoists and other vulgar interpreters of MarxismLeninism which are divorced from reality. In proclaiming a threat of a weakening of the struggle against imperialism because of peaceful coexistence, they actually ignore the principal front of battle with imperialism where the internationalist character of proletarian dictatorship today is most effective. Behind the ``Left''-wing-opportunist criticism of peaceful coexistence lies an underestimation of the role and possibilities of socialism in the world, lack of confidence _-_-_
^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow 7.96.9, p. 31.
^^**^^ Gus Hall, The Only Choice. Peaceful Coexistence. New York, 1903, p. 25.
177 in the strength and potential in the world revolutionary process today and inability to take account of and use the objective situation and trends of world development in the interests of the working class and of the whole revolutionary movement.The Communist Party of the Soviet Union has shown that in the situation when the balance of power has changed, the revolutionary process as a whole and in individual countries can develop even more successfully in conditions of peaceful coexistence. This is a view shared by fraternal Marxist-Leninist parties both in socialist and in capitalist countries. It has been developed comprehensively at the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties in Moscow in 1969 and at the 24th CPSU Congress. Addressing the 24th CPSU Congress, Georges Marchais, then Deputy General Secretary of the French Communist Party, fully supported the policy of the CPSU on relations between countries with different social systems, and noted its importance.
True to the creative spirit of Leninism, Communists reject both ``Left''-wing-revisionist and Right-wing-revisionist distortions of the idea of peaceful coexistence. They look upon it as a principle of relations between countries but completely inapplicable to the class struggle within individual countries, to relations between the exploiters and the exploited, between the oppressors and the oppressed, between the colonialists and the victims of colonial oppression, to the struggle between bourgeois and socialist ideologies. Peaceful coexistence in the Leninist understanding, as mentioned in the Theses of the Central Committee of the CPSU issued on the occasion of the Lenin Centenary, ``has nothing in common with class peace and leaves no doubt about the sacred right of the oppressed peoples to employ every means in their fight for liberation, up to and including armed struggle.''^^*^^
Relations of peaceful coexistence, therefore, certainly do not presuppose an end to class struggle either within individual countries or internationally. They do not eliminate the contradictions between socialism and capitalism, nor do _-_-_
^^*^^ On the Centenary of the Birth oj V. 1. Lenin, Moscow, 1969, p. 42. 12 239
178 they lead to what is called ``convergence'' between the two systems. On the contrary, peaceful coexistence, as stated at the international forum of Communists in 1969, ``helps to promote the class struggle against imperialism on a national and world-wide scale.''^^*^^ The extreme tension generated in social confrontations in the principal capitalist countries in recent years are obvious confirmation of this thesis.Furthermore, relations of peaceful coexistence between countries must certainly not be seen as idyllic. They invariably involve struggle, conflicts and disputes between socialist and capitalist countries. These conflicts and disputes can and must be decided by other than military means, by means of negotiation. ``Peaceful coexistence,'' the Programme of the CPSU says, ``implies renunciation of war as a means of settling international disputes, and their solution by negotiation; equality, mutual understanding and trust between countries; consideration for each other's interests; noninterference in internal affairs; recognition of the right of every people to solve all the problems of their country by themselves; strict respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries; promotion of economic and cultural co-operation on the basis of complete equality and mutual benefit.''^^**^^
The renunciation of war as a means of settling disputed issues between countries cannot simply be based on good will from one side. It necessitates a realistic understanding of reality by both sides, equal rights and the need to consider the interests of both sides. Only this approach can effectively guarantee that any agreement between socialist and capitalist countries can be reached. This fully conforms to the interests of all countries, big and small.
The principle of non-interference in a country's internal affairs, the recognition that every people has the right independently to settle all issues pertaining to its country, a principle which Lenin consistently championed, has important theoretical and practical significance today. This _-_-_
^^*^^ International Meeting, of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow 1969, p. 31.
^^**^^ Programme of the Communist Parly of the Soviet Union, p. 42.
179 requirement goes a long way in defining the bounds of peaceful coexistence. The right of every people to decide themselves all issues concerning their own country presupposes the right to revolution, to replace a moribund social system by a more progressive system, to establish popular power, to carry through revolutionary changes. Accordingly, the Soviet Union considers it its internationalist duty vigorously to repulse any attempt at interference by imperialist powers in the internal affairs of socialist countries, any encroachments on the revolutionary gains of the peoples, and it consistently opposes the export of counter-revolution, does all it can to support the liberation struggle of the peoples. International relations in the last half century contain irrefutable proof of that.Respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries is a vital element in peaceful coexistence. Being indissolubly connected with the principles of equal rights and non-interference in internal affairs, it is objectively aimed at removing any encroachments upon sovereignty and encroachments against the territory of other countries, which have given rise to, and even now cause, military confrontations that could lead to extremely dangerous consequences.
Economic and cultural co-operation on the basis of complete equality and mutual benefit is a constituent part of the peaceful coexistence policy. Economic and cultural contacts are important and useful not only by themselves but also because they help to improve mutual understanding and trust between countries and peoples. At the 23rd Congress of the CPSU, it was said that the Soviet Union is a supporter of the idea that relations with capitalist countries are ``to be not only peaceful, but also to include the broadest mutually advantageous contacts in the economic, scientific and cultural fields.''^^*^^
The 24th CPSU Congress reaffirmed this policy, instructing the Central Committee ``consistently to continue carrying forward into practice the principle of peaceful coexistence, to extend mutually advantageous relations with the capitalist countries.''^^**^^
_-_-_^^*^^ 23rd Congress of the CPSU, p. 51.
^^**^^ 24th Congress of the CPSU, p. 217.
180The principles of international contacts advocated by socialism, and especially the principle of peaceful coexistence, which have now spread wider afield, are acquiring increasing importance. As an example one may cite the UN General Assembly resolution of December 14, 1957, on peaceful coexistence, which was adopted with only one dissenting vote (Taiwan); the Declaration of the Cairo Conference of Non-Aligned Heads of State or Government in 1964, which expressed ``the deep conviction that in the present circumstances mankind must regard peaceful coexistence as the only way to strengthen world peace''^^*^^; the Declaration of the 20th UN General Assembly on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty; and the Declaration on the Strengthening of International Security adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 16, 1970.
The magnetic power of the principles of peaceful coexistence is very great. The West German Chancellor Willy Brandt recognises that coexistence has found a response and support among many people in the world, especially among non-aligned countries.^^**^^
The shift in the world balance of power towards socialism creates objective conditions for considerable changes in the attitude of the capitalist West to the socialist countries. Before, the acceptance or non-acceptance by capitalist countries of the policy of peaceful coexistence wholly depended on the struggle and tangle of particular tactical interests of various bourgeois groupings. Before the most influential politicians who proclaimed doctrines of "rolling back" socialism and "massive retaliation" and " brinkmanship" firmly rejected peaceful coexistence. But the situation has changed since the early 1960s.
Capitalist leaders are today forced to reckon with the fact that it is no longer feasible to rely on a thermonuclear world war as a means of attaining their political ends. This _-_-_
^^*^^ International Affairs, Moscow, No. 11, 1964, p. 106.
^^**^^ See Willy Hnindl, Kiicxislcnz ---'/Wang zum Wiignis, Stuttgart,
181 circumstance, although by itself not a sufficient basis for developing peaceful coexistence, is, at any rate, a new element in international relations and increases the possibility of settling any bone of contention through negotiation. Here lies a source for expanding the political basis of peaceful coexistence.The economic foundation of peaceful coexistence---the general worldwide economic relations whose objective significance was underlined by Lenin---has expanded in recent years. The increase in the economic motivation of capitalist countries in commercial links with socialist countries has resulted from the growth in socialist countries' economic strength and, correspondingly, in the possibilities for international trade, as well as the growing problem of markets within the capitalist world and the deepening inter-- imperialist contradictions. The economic attainments in the socialist world of recent years vividly show the bankruptcy of Western calculations connected with the policy of economic blockade and trade discrimination.
The scientific and technological revolution, the development of productive forces, the trend towards increasing international division of labour, the creation of new means of communication, the ``reduction'' in distance and the facilitation of every form of contact between countries objectively demand the expansion of world economic contacts which affect both systems alike.
The world balance of power today, a common-sense account of the possible consequences of a world clash involving nuclear missiles, and the trend of economic and scientific and technological development are all bound to lead one to the conclusion that not only the working people, but the whole of humanity is objectively interested in peaceful coexistence between capitalist and socialist countries.
This objective demand of the time is undoubtedly leading to a growing struggle in bourgeois countries between various tendencies on the question of relations with socialist countries.
The growth in political and economic prerequisites that would secure an effective policy of peaceful coexistence, of course, does not in the least presuppose that all this would 182 happen automatically. Imperialist reactionaries are opposed to peaceful coexistence. Hence the task put forward by Communists of forcing imperialism to adopt the policy of peaceful coexistence.
The unwillingness of reactionary, imperialist circles in the United States and elsewhere to renounce the cold war and the arms race, attempts to put down by force popular revolutionary movements, to destroy socialism, the waging of ``limited'' or ``local'' wars and the organisation of armed provocation, and the stepping up of subversion designed to split the socialist community are all serious obstacles in the way of the peaceful coexistence policy.
Confronted by resolute popular resistance and convinced of the futility of direct aggression, the reactionary forces are seeking roundabout ways, more veiled methods of contending with the world revolutionary movement. Besides continuing the arms race, they are increasingly using ``peaceful'' means of fighting world socialism. They now rely more on fanning nationalism, setting one socialist country against another and splitting the anti-- imperialist forces. The enemies of international co-operation are also more intensively attempting to pervert its meaning. Today they less frequently operate openly: direct advocacy of force and wars as effective means of settling international issues cannot be successful in the present circumstances. Therefore, in their fight against peaceful coexistence, some imperialist ideologists today prefer to operate from within, under the guise of its supporters. Their approach to peaceful coexistence is nothing short of an attempt to emasculate its meaning and to harness it to imperialist policy. The range of such concepts is extremely wide: some approach peaceful coexistence as a simple absence of hot war and identify it with the cold war; others demand an end to the popular struggle for national and social emancipation, a coming to terms of socialist and bourgeois ideologies.
John Slessor, Marshal of the Royal Air Force, and author of the book What Price Coexistence?, argues in favour of peaceful coexistence, but interprets it in his own way: ``The most we can hope for in the foreseeable future is a tolerable form of peaceful coexistence, a genuine coexistence, and not 183 the communist kind, which implies the bloodless victory of communism....''^^*^^ The American sociologist Erich Fromm considers that ``the basis is the mutual recognition of the status quo, the mutual agreement not to change the existing political balance of power between the two blocs.''^^**^^
What they mean by ``status quo'' is that the West may agree to peaceful coexistence only if the socialist system gives a guarantee that revolutions will not take place in the capitalist world. Yet in the second half of the 20th century, when social and national liberation movements have matured in the world and are rapidly developing, it is really absurd to think in this way. Revolution is engendered by objective historical processes which create a revolutionary situation in a country, and this does not depend on the will or wish of other countries, on any form of agreement between countries. The undisputed right of all peoples freely to choose their own social, economic and political system cannot be challenged. The Soviet Union and all progressive forces respect and champion this right.
The imperialist theory of ``selective coexistence'' which envisages relations of peaceful coexistence with some socialist countries and the freedom to wage aggressive wars against other countries does not correspond to the interests of peace and international security. Similarly, the insidious American doctrine of ``building bridges'' to socialist countries is very far from genuine peaceful coexistence. It is designed to interfere in the internal affairs of socialist countries, to exacerbate the ``psychological war'', to encourage anti-socialist and nationalistic tendencies, to split the socialist countries and to undermine the peaceful positions of socialism. It is quite apparent that none of this has anything in common with the principles of peaceful coexistence.
Sometimes those who inspire and organise subversive activity against the socialist system refer to the Marxist-Leninist proposition of the inevitability of ideological struggle under _-_-_
^^*^^ John Slessor, What Price Coexistence? A Policy for the Western Alliance, New York, 1961, p, 9.
^^**^^ Erich Fromm, May Man Prevail? An Inquiry into the Facts and Fictions of Foreign Policy, New York, 1964, p. 215.
184 peaceful coexistence. Communists certainly do believe that peaceful coexistence between socialist and capitalist countries does not mean, and cannot mean, the extinguishing of the class struggle between them, a reconciliation between bourgeois and socialist ideologies. But this is a struggle of ideas. Any attempts by defenders of a moribund system to bring into the ideological struggle lies, misinformation and calumny against socialism, theoretical exercises by professional anti-Communists and all manner of turncoats, only bear witness to the profound ideological crisis of the contemporary imperialist bourgeoisie, the spiritual poverty of its ideologists and the historically inevitable doom of anticommunism.The policy of peaceful coexistence is the only sensible way to develop relations between states with different social systems. Resistance by aggressive forces to this policy, however, which takes the most different forms, is still great. All the more important, therefore, is the attitude taken by realists in the capitalist world.
Typical in that respect was the position of the French President in the years of 1958 to 1969, General de Gaulle, who said in 1960 that the presence of opposed regimes should not hamper peaceful coexistence, ``otherwise nothing could ultimately save the human = race''.^^*^^ The term `` coexistence'' is recognised also by certain British statesmen. Back in 1960, Prime Minister Harold Macmillan said: ``We must all learn to live together.... Whether we like it or not . .. we must find a way of living together---find some way of living side by = side.''^^**^^ In an interview with the Soviet newspaper Izvestia in May 1969, Paul-Henri Spaak, in his capacity as Belgian Prime Minister, said he was in favour of accepting the Soviet idea of peaceful coexistence.
Similar views have frequently been aired in the United States of America. George Kennan, for example, the man who was the author of the doctrine of "the containment of communism'', has said: ''. . .The West has no choice but to accept the quest for peaceful coexistence as the basis _-_-_
^^*^^ Le Monde, April 21. I9(iO.
^^**^^ The Times, April 28, 1960.
185 for policy toward the countries of the communist world.''^^*^^ The late President Kennedy said in a speech at American University in Washington, B.C., on June 10, 1963: ''. . .We are willing and able to engage in peaceful competition with any people on earth.''^^**^^ His successors have also many times declared their desire for peace.Of course, one must bear in mind that bourgeois officials interpret ``peaceful coexistence'' and ``peaceful competition'' in their own way, and sometimes try to use this slogan for disguising the foreign policy plans of imperialist circles. Nevertheless, the idea of peaceful coexistence, which has become a paramount demand of peoples, is taking on an increasingly marked reflection in the policy of some capitalist countries. This by no means implies either voluntary reconciliation with the new social system by bourgeois politicians, and even less so their coming over to the camp of supporters of socialism. It reflects the demands by working people and a realistic attitude among the more far-sighted leaders in the capitalist world.
Guided in its relations with the capitalist countries by the principle of peaceful coexistence and relying on its own growing strength, the Soviet Union, together with other peace-loving forces, is strengthening this tendency, consistently advocates firmer peace and less international tension, seeks to end the arms race and stamp out any hotbeds of cold war, tries to normalise and improve relations with all capitalist countries. These efforts are meeting success.
``The Communist Party of the Soviet Union has always held, and now holds,'' says Leonid Brezhnev, General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, ``that the class struggle between the two systems---the capitalist and the socialist--- in the economic and political, and also, of course, the ideological domains, will continue. That is as it should be, because the world outlook and the class aims of socialism and capitalism are opposite and irreconcilable. But we shall strive to shift this historically inevitable struggle onto a path free from _-_-_
^^*^^ George F. Kennan, On Dealing with the Communist World, New York, 1964, p. 21.
^^**^^ The Department of State Bulletin, July 1, 1963, p 5.
186 the perils of war, of dangerous conflicts and of an uncontrolled arms race. This will be a tremendous gain for world peace, for the interests of all peoples, of all = states.''^^*^^Today, increasingly broad implementation of the principle of peaceful coexistence between socialist and capitalist countries has become wholly feasible.
The Soviet Union's steadily growing economic potential and political influence in the world, its active foreign policy and the realistic line taken by a number of capitalist countries have resulted in increasingly broad application of the principles of peaceful coexistence in the bilateral relations between the Soviet Union and these countries.
Soviet-French relations have been developing fruitfully ever since the beneficent turning point towards practical implementation of the principles of peaceful coexistence took place several years ago. President Charles de Gaulle's visit to the Soviet Union in June 1966 and Premier Alexei Kosygin's visit to France were landmarks in Soviet-French relations.
Opponents of normal Soviet-French relations often claimed that all this was connected solely with General de Gaulle's personality, with his foreign policy course. However, the years since his departure have demonstrated how groundless those assertions were. The relations between the two countries are based on solid historical traditions and a broad range of common interests.
It is clear from their nature and scale that the diversified Soviet-French relations and co-operation of recent years accord with the interests of the peoples of the two countries, and also that the ruling circles of France are objectively interested in them to a considerable extent. France's withdrawal from the NATO military organisation and her realistic stand on a number of major international issues open up additional possibilities for closer Soviet-French relations, in the political sphere above all. The high level of these relations is convincingly illustrated by the regular meetings of statesmen of the two countries, in particular, the visit by _-_-_
^^*^^ L. I. Brezhnev, The Fiftieth Anniversary of the Soviet Socialist Republics, Moscow, 1972, p. 60.
187 President Georges Pompidou to the Soviet Union in October 1970.The broadening and deepening of Soviet-French cooperation and the friendship and mutual respect that exist between the peoples of the two countries were reaffirmed during the visit to France by Leonid Brezhnev, General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU, and his talks with President Pompidou. As the Soviet-French declaration of October 30, 1971, said, the participants in the talks had ``resolved to give still greater depth and stability to co-operation between the USSR and France, and particularly to their political co-operation, which serves peaceful aims exclusively.''^^*^^ Towards this end they drew up and signed ``The Principles of Co-operation between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and France''.
In order to make their economic and industrial co-- operation more stable the two countries concluded a ten-year agreement on further economic, technical and industrial cooperation.
Another step towards implementing the principle of peaceful coexistence between countries with different social systems, relaxing tensions and consolidating peace in Europe was made during the meeting between Leonid Brezhnev and President Pompidou at Zaslavl, in Byelorussia, in January 1973.
The principles of Soviet-French co-operation---unswerving observance of the inviolability of the present frontiers, noninterference in the domestic affairs of other countries, equality, independence, renunciation of the threat of force or use of force---could serve as a constructive basis for European international relations as a whole.
Speaking about improvements in recent years in relations between European countries belonging to the two social systems, note should also be taken of the new features introduced into the foreign policy of the Federal Republic of Germany by the advent of the coalition of the SocialDemocrats and Free Democrats to power. The formation of the Brandt-Scheel government reflects important changes in _-_-_
^^*^^ Pravda, October 31, 1971.
188 the mood of broad sections of the population of Federal Germany; it reflects a desire to lead the country's foreign policy out of the impasse into which it had been brought by the refusal of the preceding governments to recognise the results of the Second World War.Describing the Soviet stand on this question, Leonid Brezhnev said in a speech at the 15th Congress of the Soviet Trade Unions in 1972: ``As for the Soviet Union, we take a sincere and earnest approach to the question of an improvement of relations with the Federal Republic of Germany, although, for understandable reasons, this is not a simple matter for our country. The calamities of the last war and the suffering which the Hitlerite aggression inflicted on our people are still alive in the memory of Soviet people. However, we believe that the ordeals of the past should not remain for ever an insuperable obstacle to developing our relations with West Germany. We also take into account the fact that the majority of the West German population stands for an improvement of relations with the Soviet Union and other socialist countries.''^^*^^
The striving of the Soviet Union and other European socialist countries to embody the principles of peaceful coexistence in relations with the Federal Republic of Germany was expressed in the signing of the Moscow-Bonn (August 12, 1970) and Warsaw-Bonn (December 7, 1970) treaties. The paramount international significance of these treaties is determined above all by the fact that they clearly establish the inviolability, now and in future, of the borders of all European states, including Poland's western frontiers on the Oder and the Neisse, and the border between the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic.
These treaties signified an important step towards a European detente; they created new prerequisites for further advances in that direction.
At the same time they open up new prospects for an improvement of bilateral relations between the Federal _-_-_
^^*^^ L. I. Brezhnev, Decisions of the 24th Congress of the CPSU---A Militant Programme of Action for the Soviet "Trade Unions, Moscow, 1972, p. 20 (in Russian).
189 Republic of Germany and the European socialist countries. ``The entry into force of the treaties concluded by the Soviet Union and Poland with the Federal Republic of Germany will create a new political atmosphere in Europe in many respects,'' Leonid Brezhnev declared at the Eighth Congress of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany in 1971. ``This, it is to be assumed, will substantially improve the prerequisites for normalising West Germany's relations with the European socialist countries, for developing fruitful co-operation between the countries of the East and West of Europe in general and for settling important problems of European security.''^^*^^The acute political struggle in Federal Germany over ratification of the above-mentioned treaties showed that the opponents of peaceful co-operation with the Soviet Union have not yet laid down arms and that the possibilities of fundamentally improving Soviet-West German relations can be translated into reality only through active, purposeful efforts by both sides.
The Crimean meeting between Leonid Brezhnev and Chancellor Willy Brandt in September 1971 illustrated how extensive the possibilities are for improving Soviet-West German relations and the situation throughout Europe.
The fact that the treaties were ratified despite the intrigues of the reactionary, militaristic and revenge-seeking forces, and the results of the November 1972 Bundestag elections, in which the voters unequivocally endorsed the Brandt government's realistic foreign policy are highly noteworthy. They reflect the stable trends towards a detente in Europe and confirm the fruitfulness of the Soviet Union's policy of improving and broadening relations with the Federal Republic of Germany in various spheres.
Soviet-Finnish relations rest on a firm foundation of goodneighbourliness and co-operation. Thanks to efforts by both sides, they have undergone further development lately. New positive steps have been taken by the Soviet Union in the sphere of relations with the Scandinavian countries, including _-_-_
^^*^^ Pravila, June 17, 1971.
190 an agreement on regular political consultations at various levels.A champion of peace and an advocate of settling disputed issues through negotiation, the Soviet Union attaches much importance to improving relations with the United States, a country which, by virtue of its high economic, scientific and technological level and its powerful military potential, including up-to-date nuclear-missile weapons, plays the leading role in the capitalist world. The prevention of a thermonuclear world war depends largely on the state of Soviet-American relations and the course they take.
The Soviet Union's tasks in relations with the United States were clearly formulated in the Resolution of the 24th Party Congress: ``The Congress instructs the CC CPSU consistently to continue carrying forward into practice the principle of peaceful coexistence, to extend mutually advantageous relations with the capitalist countries. The Soviet Union is prepared to develop relations also with the United States of America, holding that this conforms with the interests both of the Soviet and the American peoples and those of world peace. At the same time, the Soviet Union will always firmly oppose the aggressive actions of the United States and the policy of force.''^^*^^
In promoting businesslike co-operation and mutually advantageous relations with capitalist countries on the basis of the principle of peaceful coexistence the Soviet Union does not make any exception with regard to the United States. It considers an improvement in relations with the United States---not, of course, contrary to the interests of its friends and allies, nor at the expense of the interests of any other countries or nations---to be both possible and desirable. At the basis of this realistic course lies the indisputable fact that notwithstanding the opposite social systems of the Soviet Union and the United States and their fundamentally different positions on many world issues, there exist objective factors which make the two countries desirous of stabilising the international situation and preventing a nuclear-missile world war.
_-_-_^^*^^ 24th Congress of the CPSU, pp. 217--18.
191For a long time influential circles in the United States deliberately ignored the possibilities of normalising American-Soviet relations, although the Soviet Union had made initiatives in that direction more than once. For instance, early in 1956 the Soviet Government proposed a treaty of friendship and co-operation with the United States. In the years that followed, the Soviet Union repeatedly proposed ways and means of improving Soviet-American relations.
The attempts by US ruling circles to pursue a policy ``from positions of strength'' towards the Soviet Union proved unsuccessful. This policy was patently at variance with the real correlation of the forces of the two powers, including their military-strategic potentials. President Nixon's foreign policy report to Congress in February 1972 noted, among the major changes in the world, ``the end of an indisputable US superiority in strategic strength, and its replacement by a strategic balance...''.^^*^^ As the alignment of world forces changed in favour of socialism, continuation of the cold war in American-Soviet relations became more and more obviously detrimental to the interests of the United States itself.
Nor could America's top circles fail to take account of the trends towards a detente that were making themselves felt more and more in the policy of some of the West European allies of the United States.
The peaceful outcome of the Caribbean crisis in 1962 reflected a more realistic US approach to assessment of the world situation and testified to the possibility of resolving acute international problems by negotiation. The same applies to such steps as the establishment of a direct telephone link between Washington and Moscow, the 1963 Moscow treaty banning nuclear weapon tests in the atmosphere, in outer space and under water, the agreement not to launch into space any objects carrying nuclear weapons, the mutual undertakings to limit the production of fissile materials, and, finally, the Soviet-American talks on the limitation of strategic arms and the signing of several agreements on measures to reduce the danger of the outbreak of a nuclear war between the Soviet Union and the United States.
_-_-_^^*^^ The Department of State Bulletin, March 13, 1972, p. 314.
192The Soviet Union takes a businesslike and realistic approach to a further improvement of Soviet-American relations and consolidation of the prospects for world peace. We consider it useful, said Leonid Brezhnev in his speech at the 15th Congress of the Soviet Trade Unions, ``to expand such spheres in the relations between the Soviet Union and the United States that would make it possible without departing from the principles of our policy, to organise mutually advantageous co-operation in the interests of the peoples of both countries and the interests of world peace.
``We have said it before and we confirm it now: an improvement in relations between the Soviet Union and the United States is possible. Moreover, it is desirable, but, it goes without saying, not at the expense of any other countries or people, not to the detriment of their legitimate rights and interests. Such is our unchanging position.''^^*^^
The talks which Leonid Brezhnev, General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU, Nikolai Podgorny, President of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet, and Premier Alexei Kosygin conducted with President Richard Nixon of the United States in Moscow in May 1972 were a major step in the development of Soviet-American relations.
The keynote of the ``Basic Principles of Mutual Relations Between the Soviet Union and the United States'' that was signed as a result of the conversations was the agreement of the two sides ``to proceed from the common determination that in the nuclear age there is no alternative to conducting their mutual relations on the basis of peaceful coexistence''.
In the course of the negotiations the two sides expressed their willingness to co-operate in various spheres. This was confirmed in a whole series of agreements that were signed during the Moscow meeting, and also during subsequent Soviet-American contacts.
During the talks the two sides gave primary attention to the problem of reducing the danger of nuclear war. They believe that curbing the competition in strategic arms will _-_-_
^^*^^ L. I. Brezhnev, Decisions <>j the 24lh Congrrss <>l llir CPSU ---A Militant I'rugramme of Action for the Soviet 'trade Unions, p. 29.
193 make a significant and tangible contribution to this cause. The Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems and the Interim Agreement on Certain Measures with Respect to the Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, signed in Moscow, are, in effect, materially limiting these modern and most powerful types of weapons for the first time in history, as Leonid Brezhnev has noted. Recognition and strict observance of the principle of equal security of the two sides is an important prerequisite of success in this sphere. Neither the Treaty nor the Agreement give any one-sided military advantages to the Soviet Union or the United States. They are designed to prevent another round of the strategic arms race, reduce the danger of a nuclear conflict and promote the reaching of further agreement on limiting and then destroying weapons of mass destruction. They correspond to the vital interests of the Soviet and American peoples as well as to the vital interests of all other peoples.The Moscow Agreement on the Prevention of Incidents on or over the Sea is also designed to improve Soviet-- American relations and strengthen universal peace. During the talks the Soviet Union and the United States stated that they would continue their efforts to reach an international agreement on chemical weapons and would continue negotiations to limit armaments, with the ultimate purpose of general and complete disarmament under strict international control.
Of favourable importance for the prospects of a European detente is the intention expressed by the two sides to contribute towards the peaceful future of Europe on the basis of respect for the territorial integrity of all European states, inviolability of their frontiers, non-interference in internal affairs, sovereign equality, independence and renunciation of the use or threat of force.
The Soviet-American summit meeting in May 1972 also led to the signing of agreements on co-operation in science and technology, in the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes, in medical science and public health, and in environmental protection.
Substantial progress was also outlined in the sphere of economic relations. The system of artificial barriers to the development of Soviet-American trade, barriers detrimental __PRINTERS_P_193_COMMENT__ 13---239 194 to the United States itself, has long been criticised in the United States. Speaking about American-Soviet economic contacts, David Rockefeller, President of the Chase Manhattan Bank, said that it would be sensible and useful both for the Soviet Union and the United States to increase the present insignificant volume of trade. The United States, he noted, had clung to prejudices and had objected to giving permission to trade with the Soviet Union for a longer time than required by its own economic interests. Commerce, he said, was one of the best means of promoting mutual understanding-
The significance and possibilities of Soviet-American economic co-operation are determined by the scale of the economic and scientific-technical potential of the two countries. The summit meeting was followed by intensive talks on economic questions. As an official White House report summing up President Nixon's first term of office declared, the agreements that were signed as a result of the talks provide for the biggest long-term commercial deals ever concluded between any two countries. Implementation of the plans for large-scale and long-term Soviet-American co-operation in the economic sphere would promote a sounder political climate in the relations between the two countries and would facilitate further progress towards lasting peace, the main aim of Soviet foreign policy.
The fruitful results of the Soviet-American summit meeting reflect the real state of affairs in the world. They are in accord with the interests of international security, with the interests of the peoples of all countries.
Speaking at the end of 1972, in a report delivered at a joint meeting of the CPSU Central Committee, the USSR Supreme Soviet and the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Leonid Brezhnev emphasised: ``If the two countries---the USSR and the USA---will really follow the course charted jointly during the Moscow negotiations, then, we think, new substantial steps developing Soviet-American relations for the benefit of the peoples of the two countries and for universal peace may become possible during further contacts. However---and this should be emphatically 195 stressed---much will depend on the course of events in the immediate future, and, in particular, on the turn in the question of ending the war in Vietnam.''^^*^^
The victory of the people of Vietnam and of all peaceloving forces in putting a stop to the US aggression against Vietnam, which even a bourgeois author like George F. Kennan described as ``the most disastrous of all America's undertakings over the whole 200 years of its history'',^^**^^ will undoubtedly contribute to an improvement of the international situation.
The Soviet people are giving the heroic people of Vietnam the assistance they need and are now helping them to eliminate the consequences of the war. They are supporting the peoples of Laos and Cambodia and the fighters against imperialist aggression in the Arab East. Liquidation of the existing hotbeds of aggression and of the war danger, and the exercise by all peoples of their inalienable rights, above all, their right to independent development, which the Soviet Union consistently strives for, correspond to the fundamental interests of all peoples, to the interests of peace and security the world over.
Regular political consultations and summit meetings have now become a characteristic feature of the peaceful coexistence of countries with different social systems.
Personal contacts between Soviet leaders and President Urho Kekkonen of Finland have become a tradition. They promote better friendship, mutual understanding and confidence between the two countries with the aims of further developing Soviet-Finnish relations and strengthening peace and international security. The f ruitfulness of summit talks is graphically illustrated by the exchange of visits between Leonid Brezhnev and President Pompidou of France, by the talks between Soviet leaders and President Nixon in Moscow in May 1972 and in the United States in June 1973, which led to a marked improvement in Soviet-American _-_-_
^^*^^ Leonid Brezhnev, The Fiftieth Anniversary of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Moscow, 1972, p. 58.
^^**^^ Foreign Affairs, October 1972, p. 219.
__PRINTERS_P_195_COMMENT__ 13* 196 relations, and Leonid Brezhnev's meetings with Federal German Chancellor Willy Brandt.The April 1973 Plenary Meeting of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in its resolution noted that the continuation of summit meetings would contribute to full implementation of the Soviet Peace Programme and give the favourable changes in the international situation an irreversible nature.
The Soviet Union and its Warsaw Treaty allies attribute great importance to the strengthening of peace in Europe, whose peoples suffered the most in the two world wars. Recognition of the inviolability of the existing frontiers in Europe, including the frontiers of the sovereign German Democratic Republic, Poland and Czechoslovakia, is one of the main prerequisites for guaranteeing European security. In their European policy, the socialist countries pursue the following aims: to strengthen and consolidate the gains of the peoples achieved as a result of the Second World War and the radical social changes in Europe that followed it; to isolate the forces of imperialist aggression and to prevent the West German revenge-seekers from getting their hands on nuclear weapons; to strengthen the security of their Western borders; to create every condition for wide and fruitful cooperation of European countries with different social systems.
Alongside the Moscow-Bonn and Warsaw-Bonn treaties mentioned above, the series of agreements on West Berlin as well as the treaty of December 21, 1972, on the basis of relations between the German Democratic Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany, and the final lifting of the diplomatic siege of the German Democratic Republic have been major steps in Europe's advance along the road to peace and security.
The Soviet Union and its Warsaw Treaty allies, in pursuing their policy of peaceful coexistence, initiated the convening of a European conference to discuss question of security and co-operation within Europe. The calling of such a conference as a result of the concerted efforts of all interested states would be a valuable contribution to attaining a detente, to increasing security and furthering peaceful cooperation in Europe.
197This initiative was supported by many European countries; Canada and the United States also expressed their agreement with it.
The proposals of the socialist countries concerning a European conference were set forth in detail in the Declaration on Peace, Security and Co-operation in Europe, adopted on January 26, 1972, at a meeting of the Political Consultative Committee of the Warsaw Treaty countries held in Prague.
As the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the USSR Council of Ministers noted, this Declaration ``sums up the experience of prolonged efforts by the Warsaw Treaty member-countries to establish the principles of peaceful coexistence and takes into account the constructive realistic features that have arisen in the policies of several West European countries in the past few years.''^^*^^
The Declaration proceeds from the community of the longterm interests of the European countries in the sphere of peace and co-operation.
The countries that participated in the meeting of the Political Consultative Committee put forward the following general principles of European security and relations between the countries of Europe for their general recognition and practical implementation in the political affairs of the continent: inviolability of frontiers; renunciation of force or the threat of force; peaceful coexistence of countries belonging to the two social systems; good-neighbourly relations based on the principles of independence, national sovereignty, equality, non-interference in internal affairs and mutual advantage; wide-scale diversified mutually beneficial contacts among European countries in the economic, scientific, technological and cultural fields, in the sphere of tourism and also in the sphere of environmental protection; maximum efforts towards a solution of the disarmament problem; support of the United Nations.
The adoption of these principles would contribute to the drafting of a system of mutual obligations whose observance would guarantee collective security in Europe.
As the Declaration notes, an agreement on reduction of _-_-_
^^*^^ Pravda, Junary 2<), 1972.
198 armed forces and armaments (both foreign and national) in Europe would help to strengthen European security; however, the solution of this problem should not harm the interests of the countries participating in the agreement.Public opinion plays an important part in the efforts to turn Europe into a continent of lasting peace and large-scale co-operation. This was illustrated by the Assembly of Representatives of Public Opinion for European Security and Co-operation, which took place in Brussels in June 1972. The solemn declaration adopted by the Assembly says: ``We pronounce ourselves resolutely and vigorously for security and co-operation. We will not allow the hopes which have freshly emerged to be deceived. We are certain that in this way we will be answering the desire of all European peoples in their aspiration for a free and independent development for progress.''^^*^^
The changes on the European continent did not take place of themselves. They are the result of long and persistent efforts by the Soviet Union and its friends and allies.
The European security and co-operation conference which the socialist countries have been urging for many years should open a new chapter in the history of Europe. Multilateral preparatory consultations for the conference, with the participation of 32 European countries and aslo the United States and Canada, began in Helsinki, in November 1972.
The purpose of the multilateral consultations is to determine the time, place, participants and agenda of the conference, in other words, procedural and organisational questions in the main. Agreement on these will make it possible to get down to a practical examination of the key problems of collective security in Europe.
It is obvious that the political, economic, internationallegal, military and other aspects of European security must be examined in inseparable connection with the realities of today. It is also obvious that special attention must be given to the key questions of a system of collective security.
The security of the peoples of Europe must be based on the universally known principles of peaceful coexistence. In _-_-_
^^*^^ Pravda, June .>, l!)72.
199 other words, the countries must, in their relations, observe the principles of inviolability of frontiers, non-interference in one another's internal affairs, independence, equality, and renunciation of the threat or use of force.``The peoples attach great hopes to the convocation of the European conference,'' Leonid Brezhnev said in his report, ``The Fiftieth Anniversary of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics''. ``They expect it to deal with the basic problems of strengthening European peace, to put an end to the suspicion and fear bred by the cold war, and give the Europeans confidence in the morrow.''^^*^^
While putting the political aspects of European security in the forefront, the socialist countries by no means underestimate the importance of other problems that have a direct bearing on all-European co-operation, on an improvement of contacts among the European countries. This includes the question of establishing business relations between the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance and the Common Market.
It should be noted that businesslike co-operation in various spheres of international relations---economic, scientific and cultural contacts, exchanges of information, friendly contacts---are being established between the Soviet Union and many European countries, among them France and the Federal Republic of Germany. All this contributes to better mutual understanding.
Preparatory consultations for talks on a reduction of armed forces and armaments in Europe took place in Vienna, the Austrian capital.
Developments in recent years have increasingly shown that the Leninist principle of peaceful coexistence, irrespective of a country's social system, has become a real force in international affairs.
_-_-_^^*^^ Leonid Brezhnev, The Fiftieth Anniversary of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, p. 54.
200 Emacs-File-stamp: "/home/ysverdlov/leninist.biz/en/1974/LIMIR287/20070105/287.tx" __EMAIL__ webmaster@leninist.biz __OCR__ ABBYY 6 Professional (2006.03.0) __WHERE_PAGE_NUMBERS__ top __FOOTNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [*]+ __ENDNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [0-9]+ __ALPHA_LVL1__ HARMONY AND DISCORD IN RELATIONS BETWEEN.. .Two trends exist; one, which makes an alliance of all the imperialists inevitable; the other, which places the imperialists in opposition to each other---two trends, neither of which has any firm foundation.
V. I. Lenin
Relations between the imperialist countries have a longer history than any other relations in the contemporary international scene. Only a little over half a century ago they held undivided sway in international affairs and set the tone for world politics. Even though that period has faded into-the past, the problems of inter-imperialist relations are still as topical as they ever have been. We are talking here about relations between countries which have a high level of productive forces, which account for a very important part of world industrial output, and which have a powerful military potential and huge political experience.
The problems of inter-imperialist relations attracted the close attention of Lenin both in his elaboration of the theory of imperialism and in his formulation of the foreign policy of the world's first socialist country. Lenin's analysis of these relations, which is continued and furthered by his loyal Communist students, retains its fundamental importance and relevance today.
Lenin based himself on the general propositions of historical materialism and exposed the economic and social roots of relations between imperialist countries. On more than one occasion, he stressed that ``private ownership disunites''. That is what decides the main content of imperialist foreign policy. ``We have before us all the world's greatest capitalist 201 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ RELATIONS BETWEEN IMPERIALIST COUNTRIES powers---Britain, France, America, and Germany---who for decades have doggedly pursued a policy of incessant economic rivalry aimed at achieving world supremacy, subjugating the small nations, and making threefold and tenfold profits on banking capital, which has caught the whole world in the net of its influence,'' Lenin wrote.^^*^^
In his work Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Lenin traces the emergence in foreign policy of the major traits of imperialism which produce increasing unevenness of economic and political development and an intensifying struggle for the division and redivision of the world.
The competition for markets and spheres of capital investment, for colonies, economic territory, on the one hand, implies unremitting violence and merciless plunder by the socalled great powers of the weak countries and peoples, especially the underdeveloped nations of Asia, Africa and Latin America. On the other hand, this rivalry is accompanied by growing contradictions and struggle among the imperialist predators themselves, which dominated world politics at the turn of the century. Lenin showed that international politics ``which is the struggle of the great powers for the economic and political division of the world"^^**^^ in conditions of finance capital domination, inevitably brings about clashes and conflicts among them, spilling over into wars of various magnitude, right up to world wars.
Lenin studied from this standpoint the specific history of international relations before the First World War. His chronological notes in Notebooks on Imperialism are extremely eloquent both from the point of view of their choice of international events and from the viewpoint of terminology determining the meaning of particular events. Lenin's notes impress one by his laconic revelation of the real meaning of imperialist agreements, whose officially published texts often had nothing in common with their actual meaning. The publication after 1917 of tsarist Russia's secret treaties confirmed how deeply Lenin had managed to get to the heart of the matter.
_-_-_^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 24, p. 402.
^^**^^ lliid., Vol. 22, p. 2(J3.
202The law that Lenin formulated on the uneven economic and political development of capitalist countries had immense methodological importance for understanding interimperialist relations and the way they worked. Similarly, Lenin's criticism of the theory of ``ultra-imperialism'', and the slogan of the ``United States of Europe'', were highly instructive from the point of view of studying the trends and prospects of inter-imperialist relations.
Lenin's analysis of inter-imperialist contradictions and relations received fresh confirmation during the First World War, and became, after the October Revolution, a cornerstone of Soviet foreign policy.
The emergence of a common class enemy for all imperialist powers, the Soviet state, could neither eliminate the `` ineradicable strife of economic interests'' among imperialists in individual countries, nor do away with the irreconcilable conflicts between them which produced the First World War. Lenin often indicated the importance of these conflicts, in particular, when he came to describe past events three years after the revolution. He said: ``During the Brest-Litovsk period there were two immensely powerful groups of imperialist predators---the Austro-German and the Anglo-- FrancoAmerican. They were locked in a furious struggle which was to decide the fate of the world for the immediate future.''^^*^^
Relations between each of the imperialist groupings were also marked by constant bickering which only grew worse after the war. Lenin described relations within the victorious Entente in such terms: ''. . .The leaders of four nations, but even they cannot reach an agreement. Britain and America do not want France to have the coal profits. They are wild beasts who have plundered the whole world and are now quarrelling over the prey.''^^**^^
At the same time, the appearance of socialism on the scene and the strengthening of its positions were bound to tell on inter-imperialist relations. On the one hand, the appearance of a state which represented an antagonistic socio-economic _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 439.
^^**^^ Ihid., Vol. 2<), p. 2(iS.
203 system brought about a certain class solidarity of the imperialist circles, and a stronger trend towards unity; yet, on the other hand, it inevitably deepened the inter-imperialist contradictions. A new area of such contradictions, on the question of the attitude to be taken towards the socialist system, now appeared. The tangle and the fight of both trends found its reflection in several attempts to build a united anti-Soviet and anti-socialist front and, subsequently, the invariable failure of such attempts, and in the rivalry among individual capitalist countries in the sphere of economic collaboration with the Soviet Republic.Lenin always attributed great importance in his theoretical and practical work to that factor. One recalls that it was the inter-imperialist contradictions which engendered the First World War and in a certain sense facilitated the triumph of the October Revolution and the building of socialism in our country. We have already mentioned that Lenin described the inter-imperialist contradictions as a major condition for the success of socialist foreign policy and even for the very existence of the Soviet state; he considered it feasible and necessary to use them widely in the interests of revolution and socialism. In connection with the signing of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty, for example, he wrote: ``In concluding a separate peace we free ourselves as much as is possible at the present moment from both hostile imperialist groups, we take advantage of their mutual enmity and warfare which hamper concerted action on their part against us, and for a certain period have our hands free to advance and to consolidate the socialist revolution.''^^*^^
Lenin saw the growing discord among the imperialist powers in the spring of 1918 as a guarantee of peace for the Soviet Republic.^^**^^ Later, he showed on more than one occasion that the conflicts between Britain and France in relation to Soviet Russia were one of the reasons for the Soviet victory in the confrontation with the Entente imperialists.
In his study of international relations immediately after _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., Vol. 26, p. 44S-49.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 27, p. 237.
204 the revolution, Lenin said: ``The experience of world politics has shown that the alliance against Soviet Russia is irretrievably doomed to failure, because it is an imperialist alliance, an alliance of plunderers who are not united, and are bound by no genuine or permanent = interests.''^^*^^The battle between the two trends---the one which made a union of all imperialists inevitable, the other counterposing one group of imperialists to the other---continued to mark relations between the principal imperialist powers. On the one hand, attempts were made to secure the unity and stability of the imperialist system of international relations through the Versailles-Washington treaties, the League of Nations, the Locarno Treaty, the Briand-Kellogg Pact, the various plans for creating a ``Pan-Europe'', the Four-Power Pact---Britain, France, Germany and Italy---and, finally, the Munich deal by imperialist states on an anti-Soviet platform; on the other hand, there were the inconsistency of these attemps, the failure of the Versailles-Washington system, fierce economic rivalry, the periodic exacerbation of political conflicts between individual imperialist countries and groups of countries.
The extreme conflicts of inter-imperialist contradictions found expression in the war that began in 1939 between Germany, Italy and Japan, on the one hand, and Britain and France, supported by the United States and other countries, on the other. Shortly after, nazi Germany attacked the Soviet Union. On the whole, the alignment of power in the war reflected the domination of the latter trend of the two mentioned by Lenin; the one which counterposes some imperialists to others. This did not mean, however, that the operation of the former had been terminated; it was manifested above all in the so-called ``phoney war'', when Britain and France still had hopes of directing Axis aggression against the Soviet Union and they themselves prepared for an anti-Soviet campaign, and also in the secret negotiations between Anglo-American emissaries with representatives of nazi Germany, and in the striving for a separate peace intended to save German imperialism from utter defeat.
_-_-_^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collcctcil Works, Vol. 31, p. 325.
205Relations between imperialist countries continued to show the tangle of both tendencies after the war, when the vast changes that had occurred in the world, and especially the new balance of power between capitalism and socialism, were bound deeply to effect this particular sphere of international relations. While the class essence of relations between imperialist countries, like the nature of imperialism itself, had not changed, and could not change, far-reaching changes took place in inter-imperialist relations associated with the emergence, existence and strengthening of the world socialist system and with other social shifts of the present day, and also with the latest trends in the development of productive forces. And while the basic substance of inter-- imperialist relations discovered by Lenin has not changed, their forms and specific manifestations have taken on new features. The importance of inter-imperialist contradictions in the overall complex of world politics has also changed, and their role in comparison with other types of international relations has noticeably diminished.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ IIImmediately after the war, the ``unifying'' trend clearly dominated relations among the imperialist states.
That resulted, first, from the overall weakened position of imperialism in the world and the growth of opposition forces, especially the Soviet Union and the People's Democracies, and the working-class movement led by Communists. When the countries in Central and Southeastern Europe embarked on the road to socialism, the capitalist system lost territory of over one million square kilometres and a population of over 90 million. If one takes into consideration China with its vast territory, population and material resources, and several other countries of Asia, then the scale of the loss to world capitalism, the narrowing of its sphere of domination, becomes all too apparent. It is therefore understandable that the attitude to the Soviet Union, the other socialist countries of Eastern Europe, the Korean People's Democratic Republic, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and 206 the Chinese People's Republic should take an increasingly important place in inter-imperialist relations.
Such factors as the growth of communist influence in Western Europe, the implementation there of certain progressive measures, especially the nationalisation of some industries and factories, attest to the general weakening of capitalist positions. Frightened by such facts, the bourgeoisie in Europe feverishly seek to save themselves in an alliance of their forces under the leadership of the most powerful capitalist country, the United States, and in the activisation of imperialist policy designed to halt the forces of social progress. In that sense, postwar imperialist policy has illustrated the characteristic feature noted by Lenin back in 1920: ``The more victorious we are the more the capitalist exploiters learn to unite....''^^*^^
Another factor producing the dominating tendency after the war towards unity of imperialist forces was the relative strengthening, as a result of the war, of American capitalism both at the expense of its major rivals---Germany, Japan and Italy, which had been put out of action through military defeat---and at the expense of its allies, Britain, France and other West European states, whose economies had been greatly weakened.
The American share in the industrial output of the capitalist world grew from 36.6 per cent in 1938 to 55.8 per cent in 1948, while the British share diminished from 15.6 to 11.9 per cent, that of France from 6.2 to 4.5 per cent, of West Germany from 12 to 4.2 per cent, of Italy from 3.2 to 2.2 per cent, and of Japan from 4.8 to 1.3 per cent.^^**^^
A similar trend was apparent in international trade, where American share of capitalist exports had grown from 15 per cent in 1938 to 33 per cent in 1947. The outlook for the other capitalist states was not so rosy: 10.3 per cent for Germany in 1937 fell to 0.5 per cent for West Germany in 1947, 11.8 to 10.0 per cent for Britain, 4.3 to 4.1 per cent for _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 30, p. 450.
^^**^^ See The World Economy and International Relations, 1968, No. 9, Supplement, p. 14 (in Russian).
207 France, 2.7 to 1.4 per cent for Italy, and 5.4 to 0.4 per cent for Japan.^^*^^The figures on gold and foreign currency reserves are just as noteworthy: while the US reserves doubled between 1937 and 1948, the British reserves fell by 60 per cent, the French by 80 per cent, and the Japanese by 83.3 per cent.^^**^^
America's overwhelming economic and military superiority over other capitalist countries enabled it to act as the leader of the capitalist world, called upon to head the fight to maintain and bolster the positions of capitalism in face of the growth of world socialism and all progressive forces.
The Information Meeting of Representatives of Several Communist and Workers' Parties that met in September 1947 noted the formation of the imperialist and anti-democratic camp whose main aim was to establish the world domination of American imperialism and the defeat of democracy.
A major manifestation of the ``unifying'' tendencies in inter-imperialist relations was the Marshall Plan, especially devised to unite the efforts of the American and European bourgeoisie to save capitalism in Western Europe, to hamper the development of revolutionary processes within it and to halt the strengthening of socialist positions in Eastern Europe. The Marshall Plan, whose outward aspect was economic rehabilitation of the war-damaged European countries, paved the way for the far-reaching penetration of American capital into West European countries and facilitated American interference in their domestic affairs. Thus, under American pressure, Communists were kept out of French and Italian governments in 1947. The blatantly biassed social meaning and political orientation of the Marshall Plan resulted in the refusal of the People's Democracies of Eastern Europe to take part in it.
The next military and political stage in the attempts to consolidate and unify the forces of world capitalism was the creation in 1949 of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation _-_-_
^^*^^ See The Capitalist Economy Since the Second World War, Moscow, 1959, p. 494; The Capitalist World, A Handbook, Moscow, 1965, p. 235 (in Russian).
^^**^^ See The Capitalist World, p. 218.
208 (NATO)---an aggressive anti-Soviet bloc which united the major capitalist countries headed by the United States and included those who during the Second World War had been on opposing sides.NATO is a military and political alliance of imperialist countries such as had previously been unknown in history. It has well-defined organisational forms, a far-reaching integration in the military sphere, combined armed forces and commands, wide co-operation in military production, and an apparatus designed to co-ordinate the foreign policy of its members. From all these points of view, the creation of NATO in peacetime went far beyond other coalitions of capitalist powers that had been formed in the past during wartime.
The creation and activity of NATO reflects the anti-- Soviet, anti-socialist and counter-revolutionary aspirations of the contemporary imperialist bourgeoisie. The article in its Charter envisaging intervention in the internal affairs of its members to put down a revolutionary movement demonstrates the well-defined social and class orientation of NATO.
Several other blocs and a system of bilateral relations between the United States and other capitalist countries were also set up. The basic plan behind the creation and activity of all these aggressive blocs was exposed in the Statement of the 1960 Moscow Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties: ``The imperialists form military-political alliances under US leadership to fight in common against the socialist camp and to strangle the national liberation, working-class and socialist movements.''^^*^^
From the standpoint of inter-imperialist relations, however, the matter does not end with ``external'' function. One of the major US aims was also to subordinate the economy and policy of the capitalist countries---members of the blocs--- to the global interests of American imperialism, thereby smoothing over the inter-imperialist contradictions. In that respect noticeable changes took place during the immediate postwar years. One obvious result of the measures to unite imperialist states was not so much a strengthening of _-_-_
^^*^^ The Struggle {or Peace, Democracy and Socialism, p. 42.
209 imperialism as a whole as the strengthening of American military and political hegemony within the capitalist world to the detriment of other capitalist countries.Modern writings by leading American ideologists contain a certain nostalgia for what they call ``the good old days''.
Both the practical policy of the United States and other capitalist countries, as well as the activity of ideologists of the monopoly bourgeoisie and US propaganda agencies were employed to promote the unity of the imperialist camp. The creation and spreading of such myths as ``world communist conspiracy'', ``Red imperialism" and ``threat of Soviet aggression'', the playing up of the ``general values of Christian civilisation'', ``the free world'', ``Western democracy'', and the formulation of the ``containment'' and ``rolling back" of communism doctrines were all mobilised in order to substantiate the hegemony of American imperialism and to disguise the aggressive, counter-revolutionary essence of imperialist unity.
The concept of the ``interdependence'' of capitalist countries because of the atomic age and, in particular, the development of nuclear-missile weapons, occupied an important place in the ideological campaign for unity of the "free world" under US leadership in the latter part of the 1950s. This concept is loaded with an utterly overt propagandist aim and serves primarily the hegemonistic aspirations of the United States; at the same time it rests on the objectively prevailing community of basic class interests among the monopoly bourgeoisie of different countries and on the real processes taking place in the economy and policy of contemporary capitalism.
The general alignment of forces in the world, the fear of a further strengthening of the world socialist system and other anti-imperialist forces produce stronger class solidarity among the monopoly bourgeoisie of different countries and encourage a trend towards an "alliance of all imperialists'', towards their international collaboration, at any rate, in relation to the socialist countries. This trend finds its expression in the common positions taken by the monopoly bourgeoisie of different countries on major international __PRINTERS_P_209_COMMENT__ 14---239 210 issues, during acute crisis situations, and also in their attempts to work out a common strategy in relation to the socialist countries and to co-ordinate foreign policy measures.
``Under conditions where the struggle between the two world systems is becoming sharper,'' the 1969 International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties noted, ``the capitalist powers seek, despite the growing contradictions dividing them, to unite their efforts to uphold and strengthen the system of exploitation and oppression and regain the positions they have lost. US imperialism strives to retain its influence over other capitalist countries and pursue a common policy with them in the main spheres of the class struggle.''^^*^^
American imperialists are the inspirers and organisers of the cold war, the formation of aggressive blocs and policies aggravating international tension. At the same time reactionary circles in the USA are anxious for their country to remain the leader of the Western world in conditions of a world detente and enjoy control of the measures taken by some Western countries in improving relations with the socialist states. This is an important aspect of the ``bridge building" concept advanced by the former US President Johnson. In April 1966 the then Under Secretary of State John Ball stressed, for instance, that the bridges between East and West should be built on a firm foundation of a strong Western union.
Ideas about using NATO as a mechanism for co-- ordinating ``peace initiatives" in relation to the Soviet Union and the socialist countries of Eastern Europe are widespread in the United States. The Atlantic Alliance, as President Johnson said in October 1966, ``must become a forum for increasingly close consultations. These should cover the full range of joint concerns---from East-West relations to crisis management.''^^**^^
Richard Nixon, who in 1969 succeeded Johnson as US President, has completely taken over these ideas. His journeys to Western Europe have been largely dictated by his concern for smoothing over the contradictions within the _-_-_
^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow 1969, p. 12.
^^**^^ The Department of State Bulletin, October 24, 1966, p. 623.
211 imperialist camp. Speaking in February 1969 in the North Atlantic Council and underlining the desire of the American Administration for wide consultation and co-operation with its allies as a basis for impending negotiations with the USSR, Nixon said: ``...1 pledge to you today that in any negotiations affecting the interests of the NATO nations, there will be full and genuine consultation before and during these negotiations.''^^*^^An extra stimulus to the trend towards imperialist unity since the last war has been the rapid upsurge in the national liberation movement in colonial and dependent countries, which former colonial powers have been unable to cope with by themselves. Hence the increasingly frequent attempts by the imperialists to guarantee their positions and interests in African and Asian countries through concerted colonialist acts. As an example one may refer to the aid given by the United States and other powers to the French colonialists in suppressing the national liberation movements in Indochina and in Algeria from the mid-1940s to the early 1960s, to the Anglo-French collaboration in the 1956 war against Egypt, to the joint actions by the imperialists in the Congo, to NATO solidarity with the Portuguese colonialists, the encouragement by the imperialists of provocative actions taken by Portugal against Guinea, and their encouragement of the South African and Rhodesian racialists. With the hypocrisy and demagogy typical of bourgeois politicians, the British Foreign Secretary, Sir Alec Douglas-Home, described the purpose of joint Western actions as follows: ``If we are to meet the communist challenge, if we are to negotiate with the Communists in order to arrange a modus vivendi and if, above all, we are to fertilise the underdeveloped world with well-directed wealth, then it is Europe and America and the Commonwealth that should co-ordinate their policies together. We should not be separated.''^^**^^
Thus, the unity of the imperialist camp is based on a community of basic class interests and the general political strategy of the monopoly bourgeoisie in regard to the world _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., March 24, 1969, pp. 251--52.
^^**^^ U.S. New and World Report, February 4, 1963, p. 65.
212 revolutionary process. At the same time, purely economic factors play a certain part in strengthening this trend; first the insufficient resources of individual capitalist countries to restore and develop their economies, the large scale of American loans and mutual financial dependence, and subsequently the objective requirements of developing productive forces, and the growing internationalisation of economic life as the scientific and technological revolution get under way. One of the specific features of inter-imperialist relations is perhaps the fact that the influence of purely economic factors is telling more directly and markedly than in any other sphere. This is especially apparent in relations between the capitalist countries of Western Europe where, even in the early 1950s, the European Coal and Steel Community began to function, and from the end of the 1950s economic integration of the six Western European countries (France, Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands and Luxemburg) began to play a growing part in the overall inter-imperialist relations, with the signing in 1957 of the Treaty of Rome setting up the European Economic Community (Common Market).The creation and activity of the Common Market became an essentially new element not only in international economic but also in international political relations. It would be wrong to see it as an ordinary customs union or chance interim phenomenon. Its aims are much more ambitious.
Political relations between capitalist states have also been influenced to a certain extent by the creation of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA---Britain, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, Austria and Portugal), the multilateral negotiations between capitalist countries on a general tariff reduction (the Kennedy Round) and the activity of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Together with various kinds of subjective factors and political designs of the members of the Common Market and other economic groups, their emergence and activity reflect important objective processes in contemporary productive forces and, primarily, the trend towards economic internationalisation noted by Lenin. This trend is becoming today, 213 with the rapid scientific and technological progress, more and more noticeable, a fact that has been rightly mentioned by writers of various shades of opinion. The French writer F. Thoraval, has said in the magazine Economic et politique: ``The development of exchange among the Six cannot be separated from a tendency towards the internationalisation of economic phenomena which is general throughout the world. It is especially manifest among the imperialist countries on a scale which exceeds the borders of the Six and which has been reflected in the Kennedy Round.''^^*^^
At the same time, one should stress that the strengthening among imperialist states, since the last war, of the trend towards co-ordinated efforts and co-operation, towards unification in various forms on the basis of the objective community of basic class interests, has by no means meant either the beginning of a new stage in the development of capitalism or the overcoming of its anarchy and rivalry, or the eradication of inter-imperialist contradictions and the dawning of an era of harmonious co-operation among all capitalist countries, as some ideologists in the Western world and reformist Social-Democratic leaders are inclined to interpret the above-mentioned facts.
The course of events in the capitalist world, including inter-imperialist relations, refutes these theories and confirms the vitality of Lenin's basic ideas concerning uneven development, the battle between imperialist powers and between capitalist monopolies for spheres of influence.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ IIIImperialist contradictions continued to develop sometimes obviously, sometimes not so obviously, throughout the postwar period; their area of operation has broadened and the struggle between imperialist countries has become more acute. While during the early postwar years these contradictions tended to be somewhat submerged, the new stage in the general crisis of capitalism which began in the late 1950s has shown their deepening and exacerbation.
_-_-_^^*^^ Economic et politique, No. 156, July 1967, p. 64.
214The changes in the balance of power both between individual countries within the capitalist system and in the world arena as a whole, especially between the two systems, define the specific nature of inter-imperialist contradictions today. The first point is illustrated by the following table on the share of imperialist countries in the capitalist economy in the last 25 years (the figures are percentages):^^*^^
USA ........... 55.8 48.9 40.9 40.3 Common Market countries ....... Federal Germany ... .... 13.0 4.2 18.9 9.0 20.4 9.7 19.0 8.6 France .............. 4.5 4.8 4.7 5.2 Italy ........ 2.2 2.9 3.7 3.3 Britain 11.9 9.7 7.1 6.0 Japan ........ 1.3 3.5 9.4 9.3The share of individual countries in the overall exports of the capitalist world (in percentages) has also sharply changed in the same period:^^**^^
1947 1957 1970 1971 USA ............... 33.0 20.8 15.5 14.2 Federal Germany .... 0 5 9 1 12.5 12 7 France .............. 4.1 5.4 6.5 6.6 Britain ......... 10 0 9 3 7 1 7 3 Italy 1 4 2 6 4 8 4 9 Japan ......... 0 4 2 9 7 0 7 8 _-_-_^^*^^ See 'The World Economy and International Relations, 1968, No. 9, Supplement, p. 14; 1970, No. 8, Supplement, p. 13 (in Russian).
^^**^^ See The Capitalist World, p. 235; The World Economy.. ., 1970, No. 8, Supplement, p. 10; 1972, No. 8, Supplement, p. 13; 1972, No. 8, Supplement, p. 14 (in Russian).
215The change in the balance of power within the capitalist world is reflected also in the data on gold reserves of the central banks, chancellories and government currency agencies (end of the year, in million dollars):"^^*^^
1948 1957 1970 1971 USA ........... 24,399 22,857 11,072 11,081 Common Market countries . Federal Germany .... Franca 28^^1^^ 548 2,541 581 13,656 3,980 3,532 15,131 4,426 3,825 Italy 96 452 2 887 3 131 Britain ..... 1 611 1 555 1,349 842 Japan 3 23 532 738 1948 1957 1970 1971 '1951.Without going into the details or studying the interim fluctuations, the general trend is clear: the US share is diminishing in the world capitalist system while that of other advanced capitalist countries, except Britain, is on the increase. This trend is an objective basis for the growing conflicts and competitive struggle among the major capitalist countries.
The dialectics of the relations among the capitalist countries has been such that the United States, in helping to rehabilitate and fortify the positions of capitalism in Western Europe and, partially, in Japan, has encouraged the resurrection and growth of its imperialist rivals. New centres, especially the European Economic Community, have taken their place alongside American imperialism, the principal centre of the capitalist economy and politics and the stronghold of world reaction.
Relying on their growing economic strength, the West European states (together and individually), as well as _-_-_
^^*^^ See The Capitalist Economy Since the Second World War, p. 631; The Capitalist World, p. 218; The World Economy..., 1970, No. 8, Supplement, p. 70; 1971, No. 8, Supplement, p. 72.
216 Japan, are conducting an intensive battle against their American allies and competitors and also among themselves both on their national markets and on markets of other countries. Inter-imperialist contradictions of that type primarily affect the activity of economic groups like the EEC, EFTA; they result in international monetary crises, and so on. The very fierce competitive battle between monopolies of various countries inevitably appears in the political relations between imperialist countries.The strengthened economic status of Western Europe and Japan enables them to act both against the widespread expansion of American capital and against certain aspects of military-political dependence on the United States, which was forced upon them in the immediate postwar years under the pretext of common defence against the ``threat of communist aggression''. Imperialist unity which was so assiduously cultivated after the war is being seriously undermined nowadays when individual capitalist countries are acquiring the possibility of pursuing a more independent foreign policy.
The early 1960s were especially conspicuous for growing inter-imperialist strife. In a comment on President de Gaulle's refusal to admit Britain to the Common Market, the London Times said in February 1963: ``His Europe turns its back on America, and for the time being excludes Britain. This is clean contrary to everything for which the West had been painfully working for nearly 20 years.''^^*^^
This situation gave birth to acute concern also in the United States; as was apparent in the press and various bourgeois writings. The well-known American historian Hans Morgenthau published the book The Crisis of Western Alliance in 1965 in which he admitted that attempts to reestablish the former situation was bringing American policy in Europe into a blind alley. Walter Lippmann described America's falling prestige as the absolute ruler in the world of capitalism in the following words: ``Our relations with Europe have changed so radically in the past few months _-_-_
^^*^^ The Times, February 1, 1963. p. 13.
217 that the European policies which were worked out in the postwar period are out of date. The policies have become so irrelevant in the actual situation that our influence on developments has become negligible.''^^*^^It was at that time that the United States attitude to Western Europe, and particularly the Common Market, began to change. While Washington had previously looked on it largely as a means of strengthening capitalist unity and its own influence in Europe, now the mounting economic power and independence of the Six began to sow the seeds of anxiety. At the beginning of 1963 the then French Prime Minister Georges Pompidou described Washington's position as follows: as the Common Market gathered momentum, the time came when the US Administration began to fear that the European Economic Community would become too well organised, too effective and would become a barrier difficult to overcome.
American imperialism is attempting to make up for the weakening, somewhat, of its purely economic positions by widely utilising the still prevailing military and political levers based on absolute military superiority of the United States over other imperialist states.
Alongside these attempts, American capitalism has a major trump up its sleeve in the fight against West European capital. This is its superiority in rate and scale of scientific and technological progress. The well-known ideologist of American foreign policy Zbigniew Brzezinski has painted a rather conceited and inflated picture of the prospects that lie ahead of the United States and Western Europe in this field. He says that while Western Europe remains in the industrial age, the United States is swiftly becoming a technotronic society which is far outstripping its West European allies economically and this is engendering what he calls a ``psychological and cultural" gap between Western Europe and the United States.
The prospects of the growing "technological gap" between the United States and Western Europe, as well as the broad expansion of American capital, is causing concern in _-_-_
^^*^^ Newsweek, August 1, 1966, p. 9.
218 Western Europe. Indicative of this was the far-reaching response to the publication of The American Challenge by the French politician Servan-Schreiber in late 1967. Of late the Western press has been greatly concerned about the problem of the ``brain drain" from Western Europe to the United States. An increasing number of scientists and highly qualified technicians have emigrated to America in search of better material rewards.So the economic rivalry, the competitive struggle, ``the ineradicable strife in economic interests'', to which Lenin drew attention, are inevitably reflected in the mounting political discord within the capitalist system, and especially within the aggressive military-political blocs created by the United States immediately after the war.
The main causes, however, of the present sharpening of political conflicts lie in the sphere of the world correlation of forces, in the sphere of struggle between the two systems. Postwar events have convincingly shown, in the final count, the futility of military aggressive forms of struggle against socialism and the revolutionary processes. Neither the arms race nor the association of imperialist states in aggressive NATO, nor the cold war as a whole, could halt the growth of progressive forces or stop the change in the world balance of power in favour of socialism, which has been increasingly evident since the late 1950s. That is one side of the medal. On the other side is the peace-loving foreign policy actively pursued by the Soviet Union and other socialist countries, which has deprived the aggressive ideologists and imperialist politicians of any grounds or credibility for their myth of ``Red imperialism" or a Soviet ``threat'' to Western Europe.
The evident trend in Western Europe to closer ties with socialist states is causing a stir in American ruling circles, frightened of a further weakening of their leading position within the capitalist world. In this connection, a call made by Senator Frank Church to the American Administration is indicative; in studying these trends, Senator Church urged the United States to ``lead its allies in their reach eastward across the Elbe. .. . But whether or not we choose to lead them, they will press on, believing, as more Europeans do 219 every day, that in Europe, at least, the cold war is over.''^^*^^ At the same time, the aggressive actions of the United States in various parts of the world, and especially the war in Vietnam, fraught with the danger of a, further escalation and transition to world war, with the almost automatic involvement in it of all NATO members, and political and economic interests encouraged America's Atlantic partners to seek a more independent policy. America's NATO allies and partners in other blocs are obviously apprehensive in relation to attempts to involve them in aggressive actions in various parts of the world, actions that are alien to the interests of the working people and also of the ruling classes in these countries. It is significant that in the mid-- 1960s the United States was unable, although using all the means of pressure at its disposal, to involve its major allies directly in the war in Vietnam, as it had in the Korean war in 1950.
The US attempts to settle disputed issues in non-European areas by military means have, therefore, not brought in their wake unity of the world imperialist forces. American imperialism's major allies have limited themselves at best to symbolic support and have not demurred from using American preoccupation with military intervention in Asia for strengthening their own positions in other regions at the expense of the United States.
Such is the common ground for the worsening of interimperialist contradictions over recent years. Under the assault of these contradictions, the system of economic and political blocs organised by Washington in the early postwar years has shown deep cracks. The most important of these in significance and implications is the growing conflict within NATO. The French exit from NATO's military organisation, the mounting strife between the United States and other NATO members, the growing trend in Western Europe to end military and political dependence on the United States, and the improvement of Federal Germany's relations with the socialist states have all set serious problems to the NATO leaders.
_-_-_^^*^^ Foreign Affairs, Vol. 45, No. 1, October 1966, pp. 54--55.
220One of the favourite themes for political and scholarly discussion on both sides of the Atlantic has been the ``crisis of confidence'', ``confusion'' and even ``revolution inside NATO''.
The NATO crisis is ultimately a result of the development and worsening of economic and political contradictions among its members at a time when the forces of peace and socialism are gaining ground, and the peaceful policy of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries designed to end the cold war is gaining in popularity.
The contradictions and differences of opinion among individual imperialist countries are more and more affecting the sphere of economic relations with the world socialist system. The bourgeoisie is afraid to relinquish economic and political gains associated with expanded relations with socialist states. These contradictions had existed previously. In the field of trade, many countries of Western Europe and Japan frequently had flouted the discriminatory restrictions imposed by the United States, and in the volume of trade with socialist states had far outstripped the United States. These contradictions are becoming still more acute as international tension in Europe lessens. Even in America voices are frequently being heard in favour of closer economic ties with socialist states. The New York Times, in April 1966, advocated more trade between West and East: ``At a minimum, American businessmen should be given the same facilities to do business with the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe that their competitors in Western Europe and Japan enjoy.''^^*^^ In the seventies the USA entered the path of extending its economic ties with the USSR.
In the overall context of present-day inter-imperialist contradictions, recent French foreign policy, associated with the name of General de Gaulle, is extremely symptomatic, especially in such acts as France's leaving NATO's military organisation, the rapprochement with the Soviet Union and some other socialist countries, the stand it has taken, as distinct from most imperialist countries, on the Arab-Israeli _-_-_
^^*^^ The New York Times, April 8, 1966, p. 30.
221 conflict, and the overt criticism of American policy. All this can hardly be explained, as some American and even French authors are inclined to do, by the personal views and qualities of de Gaulle, or his ``breaking of faith".All these acts have reflected the objectively prevailing contradictions between France and the United States and, in a certain sense, between Western Europe and the United States in the existing international balance of power. France, in the person of de Gaulle, recognised these contradictions before most other capitalist countries and saw the changes that had taken place in the overall world situation, and embodied them in its foreign policy. The anti-American accent in French policy had in some sense a general West European significance. This is what the influential British Sunday newspaper The Observer had to say in this respect: ``...The fact is that the roots of the French attitude lie deeper than personality of General de Gaulle. They are to be found both in French history and in the more recently changed world situation. It would be a great mistake... to believe that either the French attitude or the new pattern of power in Europe and the world would be essentially changed by the disappearance of General de Gaulle, though the style and methods of his successors might be different.''^^*^^ It is certainly true that de Gaulle's retirement and his death in November 1970 did not cause a change in French foreign policy.
Relations with the young national states of Asia and Africa that arose after the war on the ruins of former colonial empires remain an important sphere of inter-- imperialist contradictions, although they differ in a certain way from the contradictions of the immediate postwar period.
In connection with the noticeable postwar trend towards collective colonialism and concerted efforts of the major imperialist powers in the fight against national liberation movements, each power pursued its own aims and sometimes came into open conflict with the others. This is especially typical of the policy of the United States, which _-_-_
^^*^^ The Observer, May 8, 1966, p. 10.
222 endeavoured to use its ``aid'' to the old metropolitan countries in order to weaken their position in Asia and Africa and strengthen its own position. One recalls American policy during the Anglo-French-Israeli aggression against Egypt in 1956, the special position of France in relation to the Arab-Israeli conflict of 1967, the differences in the positions of the imperialist states on the events in Nigeria, and so on. It is noteworthy that while previously the United States often represented itself as being anti-colonialist, in an effort to outdo Britain and France, today the ruling circles of France and other powers try to dissociate themselves from the colonialist policy of the United States.The capitalist world is going through a phase of development of contradictions among imperialist states leading to mounting rivalry and struggle both within the bounds of existing blocs and between them. Meanwhile, the contradictions between the United States, on the one hand, and the capitalist countries of Western Europe, on the other, are the most important contradictions within the capitalist world as far as political consequences are concerned. Although relations within Western Europe contain a whole complex of economic and political contradictions, the West European countries have certain common interests (the objective requirements of the productive forces during the scientific and technological revolution, a certain community of interests in the fight against American competition and a general interest in escaping involvement in an exhausting and destructive war for the sake of the interests of their transatlantic partner). They are associated with the United States by artificially fanned military and political interests which cannot serve as a sufficiently firm basis for far-reaching cooperation in all, especially non-military, spheres of international relations.
The growing importance of Japanese-American contradictions (and the prospect of Japanese-West European contradictions), is connected with Japan's rapid economic development and its emergence to second place, after the United States, in the capitalist world in volume of industrial output and other indices. Japanese imperialism is more and more vigorously taking part in the fight for markets and 223 profits. American-Japanese rivalry is complicated by the peculiar political unequal position of Japan in relations with the United States and, at the same time, a certain interest among Japanese ruling circles for retaining the close military and political alliance with the United States. Nonetheless, this does not remove any prospect of an aggravation of Japanese-American contradictions.
Other inter-imperialist contradictions of a local character include the conflict between Greece and Turkey over Cyprus--- a conflict which has not so far been resolved by the fact that both countries are NATO members or by their general dependence on the United States, and the Anglo-Spanish conflict over Gibraltar.
Thus, despite all the changes of the past decades, despite the quite far-reaching and, to a certain extent, irreversible processes of economic integration, despite the community of basic class interests and the complicated system of interdependence of the imperialist states, the inter-imperialist contradictions have proved to be ineradicable, and one even notices a tendency for them to grow worse. ``The basic contradiction of the contemporary world, that between socialism and imperialism,'' the CPSU Programme states, ``does not eliminate the deep contradictions rending the capitalist world.''^^*^^
While imperialist unity in its various manifestations complicates the actions of progressive revolutionary forces, makes the conditions for their activity more difficult and has an adverse effect on the overall balance of power between the two systems, the inter-imperialist contradictions are sapping the strength of imperialism and facilitating the struggle of progressive forces and the development of the world revolutionary process.
This circumstance is increasingly being recognised by ideologists and politicians in imperialist countries. The insistent appeals for ``an Atlantic community" and ``Western unity'', the innumerable recipes for creating a ``mature partnership" between the United States and Western Europe have once again become of late a necessary attribute and _-_-_
^^*^^ Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, p. 24.
224 even leitmotif of speeches by political leaders of imperialism today and a theme which is being increasingly taken up by bourgeois ideologists. All these appeals, however, are unable to remove inter-imperialist contradictions---the inevitable offspring of the capitalist system. It is an objective category independent of the will and desires of the monopoly bourgeoisie and its leaders.The Central Committee's Report to the 24th Congress of the CPSU had this to say: ``The contradictions between the imperialist states have not been eliminated either by the processes of integration or the imperialists' class concern for pooling their efforts in fighting against the socialist world. By the early 1970s, the main centres of imperialist rivalry have become clearly visible: these are the USA--- Western Europe (above all, the six Common Market countries)---Japan. The economic and political competitive struggle between them has been growing ever more acute.''^^*^^
Inter-imperialist contradictions are an objective reserve, an indirect ally of socialism and of all contemporary revolutionary forces, to which Lenin frequently drew attention. It is the task of these forces to use to a maximum this existing reserve in their own interests. It is true that with the strengthening of the internal economic, political and military forces of socialism, the significance of inter-imperialist contradictions as a reserve for socialist foreign policy diminishes, but they continue today to maintain their importance in the battle against imperialism. Their comprehensive utilisation remains one of the urgent tasks of socialist foreign policy.
The CPSU and fraternal parties are guided by the Leninist requirement to study in specific terms the character and depth of the real relations within the imperialist camp, to be able to separate the main, long-term contradictions from the secondary, temporary contradictions. Lenin's idea fully retains its relevance today: ``We must take political advantage of the differences among our opponents, but only of major differences that are due to profound economic _-_-_
^^*^^ 24th Congress of the CPSU, p. 20.
225 causes. If we try to exploit minor and fortuitous differences, we shall be behaving like petty politicians and cheap diplomats. There is nothing of value to be gained bv that.''^^*^^The interests of peace and socialism are served by making a careful analysis of the situation and by taking account and sensibly using the objectively existing contradictions among imperialist powers. At the same time, one must not forget the ``unifying'' trends within the imperialist camp, the changed limits today not only of alliance and co-- operation, but also of the contradictions and struggle among imperialist states, and the mounting importance of economic and ideological factors in inter-imperialist relations.
_-_-_^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 442.
__PRINTERS_P_225_COMMENT__ 15---239 [226] __ALPHA_LVL1__ THE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD TODAY __ALPHA_LVL2__ IThe period of the awakening of the East in the contemporary revolution is being succeeded by a period in which all the Eastern peoples will participate in deriding the destiny of the whole world.
V. I. Lenin
Perhaps the most marked feature of contemporary international relations, a feature which distinguishes them from the recent past, is the crumbling of colonial empires and the vigorous, increasingly purposive role of Asian, African and Latin American countries. These processes vividly testify to the clarity of vision of Lenin who was able to reveal the fundamental laws both of international relations in his time and their development for many decades ahead.
Today, when these processes are developing in breadth and depth and are changing the picture of international relations, Lenin's views on the national-colonial question in the imperialist epoch and the experience of Lenin's policy with regard to peoples and states of the East are highly relevant.
Only a few decades ago the bourgeois politicians and ideologists were convinced that the division of the world into a handful of wealthy, strong and civilised nations and a multitude of poor, weak and backward peoples was a normal and irreversible state of affairs; they believed that the civilised nations were destined to rule the backward peoples, doomed forever by their very nature to retain a dependent, subordinate and oppressed status, sometimes, direct slavery. As Rudyard Kipling, the writer who sang 227 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ DEVELOPING COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD TODAY the praises of the colonising mission of British imperialism, put it, ``East is East and West is West".
The periodical outbursts of discontent, some on a large scale, like the Indian national uprising of 1857--1859, or the Boxer uprising of 1899--1901 in China, were cruelly put down by the colonialists, and it seemed that nobody could disturb the existing state of affairs. The image of the East did not differ essentially from the picture painted by the Russian poet Mikhail Lermontov in the middle of the 19th century. In the mystical East, he wrote, ``a human tribe sleeps on deeply for eight centuries and more".
This sleep lasted so long that to bourgeois politicians it seemed unlikely that the East would ever wake and that progress here would be reduced to slow and steady removal of the most crude and inhuman forms of colonial oppression (like the slave trade), the gradual accustoming of ``coloured peoples" to the various blessings of civilisation as a result of the philanthropy of colonialists.
Marx and Engels severely criticised the system of oppression of some nations by others and indicated the interconnection between the destinies of the revolutionary movement and those of the national liberation struggle of oppressed nations. Engels formulated the inscription on the standard taken by the internatjonal working-class movement: ``No nation can be free while it oppresses others.''^^*^^
Lenin took these views a step further in relation to the national-colonial question which, in the imperialist epoch, acquired a new historical sense.
The awakening and mounting struggle of the peoples of the East has had immense universal importance. Lenin spoke of the hundreds of millions of people living in the East, ``whose historical passivity and historical torpor have hitherto conditioned the stagnation and decay of many advanced European countries....''^^**^^ He justly evaluated the huge revolutionary potential of the colonial, dependent and deprived nations which "until now have been objects of international imperialist policy, and have only existed as _-_-_
^^*^^ Marx/Engels, Werke, Bd. 18, S. 527.
^^**^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. *33, p. 233.
__PRINTERS_P_227_COMMENT__ 15* 228 material to fertilise capitalist culture and civilisation''.^^*^^Lenin's analysis of the social direction of the national liberation struggle had great significance for comprehending the part played by colonial and dependent nations in international relations and the prospects for its evolution: ''. . .The movement of the majority of the population of the globe, initially directed towards national liberation, will turn against capitalism and imperialism....''^^**^^
He often underlined the direct link between the national liberation movement and the workers' struggle in the advanced countries: ''. . .The socialist revolution will not be solely, or chiefly, a struggle of the revolutionary proletarians in each country against their bourgeoisie---no, it will be a struggle of all the imperialist-oppressed colonies and countries, of all dependent countries, against international imperialism.''^^***^^
Lenin also put great store by the role of oppressed peoples in the world revolutionary process, and he formulated the tasks of the working class in advanced countries tor the revolution ahead. ``We shall exert every effort,'' he wrote in 1916, ``to foster association and merger with the Mongolians, Persians, Indians, Egyptians. We believe it is our duty and in our interest to do this, for otherwise socialism in Europe will not be secure.''^^****^^
Lenin foresaw the inevitable awakening of oppressed peoples to active political life and the growing role they would play in world development as they became participants in international relations.
Lenin's views were completely borne out and developed further after the October Revolution, which gave a strong impetus to the national liberation movement in Eastern countries.
The new historical situation and the objective role of oppressed peoples as natural allies of the working class in the struggle against imperialism was eloquently expressed in the _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 30, p. 159.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 32, p. 482.
^^***^^ Ibid., Vol. 30, p. 159.
^^****^^ Ibid., Vol. 23, p. 67.
229 slogan ``Workers of all countries and all oppressed peoples, unite!''. In reply to the doubts of some of his comrades, because this slogan differed from that of the Communist Manifesto, Lenin said: ``Of course, the modification is wrong from the standpoint of the Communist Manifesto, but then the Communist Manifesto was written under entirely different conditions. From the point of view of present-day politics, however, the change is correct.''^^*^^The new and powerful upsurge of the national liberation struggle in Asia and elsewhere was linked with the outcome of the Second World War. Its liberatory nature, the leading part played by the Soviet Union in defeating fascism and solving issues of the postwar settlement, and the overall change in the world balance of power in favour of socialism, all combined to create a favourable external atmosphere for the national liberation movement to attain success. In North Korea, North Vietnam and China the popular struggle for national and social liberation grew into socialist revolutions.
Imperialism, weakened by war, could not, despite all its efforts, halt this course of events. Indonesia gained its freedom from the Dutch colonialists immediately after the war, Syria, Lebanon, India, Pakistan, Burma and Ceylon also soon gained their independence. The victory of the revolution in Egypt and the country's ultimate liberation from British dependence had great international and political significance. The watershed of the 1950s and 1960s signified the crumbling of the many bastions of colonialism in Africa and the formation of a large number of new sovereign states. Morocco and Tunisia gained their independence in 1956, Ghana in 1957, and Guinea in 1958. Today there are over 40 independent states in Africa.
The rapid upsurge in the national liberation struggle and the downfall of colonial empires, the end put to the omnipotence of the colonialists in Asia and Africa have had a great effect on the whole historical situation. "The breakdown of the system of colonial slavery under the impact of the national liberation movements ,'' the Statement of the 1960 Moscow Meeting said, "is a development ranking second in historic _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., Vol. 31, p. 453.
230 importance only to the formation of the world socialist system."^^*^^This fact has had far-reaching consequences for international relations. Dozens of new national states with their own specific problems and interests and their own historical tasks, very different from the problems, interests and tasks of the economically advanced capitalist countries and the countries that have taken the socialist road, have appeared on the political atlas in place of the vast colonial empires.
Despite the great differences in geography and the great variety of social and economic conditions and political regimes in various countries of Asia and Africa (and, to a lesser extent, in Latin America), they all share a certain community of tasks and objective status in the contemporary historical situation.
This community of interests is valid today even though as time passes the part played by liberated countries in the world undergoes certain changes, especially under the impact of the complicated internal economic and socio-- political processes. It is in place here to recall Lenin's remark about how important it is ``to establish the concrete economic facts and to proceed from concrete realities, not from abstract postulates, in all colonial and national problems''.^^**^^
The fact is that the newly independent nations are confronted by more intricate problems after they have gained political independence---the first and relatively easier task of the national liberation revolutions, which was resolved by a common onslaught and in the settlement of which the favourable international situation and favourable world balance of power played a very important part. The Main Document of the 1969 International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties said: "In most of the independent Asian and African states, along with the task of consolidating and safeguarding political independence and sovereignty, the central problems of social progress are to overcome economic backwardness, set up an independent national economy, _-_-_
^^*^^ The Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, p. 61.
^^**^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 240.
231 including their own industry, and raise the people's standard of living.''^^*^^The young national states are objectively faced with the need to overcome their dreadful social and economic backwardness caused by the very long domination of the colonialists. But this is a complex task which demands time, great effort and vast resources. Suffice it to mention the gap between the gross national product per head of population in Asian, African and Latin American countries (238 dollars) and the developed capitalist countries (about 3,150 = dollars).^^**^^
The tremendous gap between the standard of living in economically advanced countries and developing countries is recognised today by politicians and bourgeois journalists in imperialist countries, to say nothing of progressive writers. James Reston, the w.ell-known American commentator, has written in The New York Times that in African, Asian, and Latin American countries there are some 2,000,000,000 people living in poverty, and this at a time when poverty creates greater discontent than ever because men everywhere know that poverty is no longer a fact of nature but is correctable.^^***^^
Despite the economic progress achieved by developing countries after their political independence, the gap between them and the industrial countries of Europe and America is in fact widening as the scientific and technological revolution makes headway in the latter. Moreover, most Asian, African and Latin American countries have an extremely rapid population increase with which the production of food and other material goods cannot keep up. Recent development in these countries shows a growing differentiation of class forces, a tremendous tangle of various social sectors, very acute internal and external contradictions. The highly varied nature of the liberated countries has an adverse effect on the nature and complexity of the contemporary epoch as a whole.
_-_-_^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow 1969, p. 28.
^^**^^ See U.S. News and World Report, October 16, 1972.
^^***^^ The New York Times, February 1, 1961.
232The swift growth of political activity in Asia, Africa and Latin America is in sharp conflict with instances of economic stagnation and sometimes the degradation of the national economy, and correspondingly the standards of living, which produce mass discontent and this, in turn, causes political regimes to become unstable.
All this turns the developing countries into a gigantic reservoir of inflammable material, and even more increases their huge revolutionary potential, which Lenin had indicated. While in the past, bourgeois politicians and ideologists had tried to ignore the real situation in Asian, African and Latin American countries or to explain the periodical exacerbation of the class struggle there as " Communist plots'', or "Moscow intrigues'', now the situation has changed.
President Kennedy and former Defence Secretary McNamara made revealing admissions on Latin America---the main preserve of US monopoly capital; Kennedy regarded Latin America, which was confronted by the dilemma of resolving its internal problems, as the most critical area in the world. McNamara was even more forthright. This area of the world harboured a real threat which was associated, he said, not with an armed communist attack or even with communist subversive activity. The real danger in Latin America, in his opinion, lay in the doom, disillusionment and despair of the peoples because of the comparatively slow rate of economic and social progress.
The new stage in the development of independent Asian and African states is associated with the growing struggle between the national bourgeoisie and forces opposed to it over the ways of resolving vital issues. To paraphrase what Lenin said about a revolution in Russia and the West, it has been much easier to start a revolution in most developing countries than to continue it.
Differentiation within individual countries is being accompanied by various forms of differentiation of newly independent countries as a whole. Some countries under the leadership of national-democratic forces rely on the support and experience of the world socialist system and have made 233 definite steps along the path of non-capitalist development. These countries, as mentioned at the 24th Congress of the CPSU, have become a foremost detachment of the present-day national liberation movement. On the other hand, the national bourgeoisie which, in its struggle for power and for class privileges, relies on the developed capitalist countries, is strengthening its positions in other countries.
A number of specific features may be identified in the development of the Third World: these include primarily nonalignment (at least, in the political sense) with one of the two world systems and -with existing military and political blocs, the social and economic heterogeneity of countries, the incomplete process of formation of nations and classes, internal social and political instability, and the vacillation in foreign relations. Everything is in perpetual motion and the direction can change at any time.
Despite this, the developing countries which are united by the fundamental interests of all peoples suffering from oppression by imperialism,^^*^^ may be seen as a certain homogeneous group in the system of modern international relations. It is this community of principal social and economic tasks and basic interests, the community of the destinies of these countries, and the specific part they play in the world balance of power and in international relations, which give some grounds for the above conclusion, despite the divergence of specific conditions and their various fluctuations. Indeed, the economically underdeveloped countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America are confronted by the common objective task of securing economic and social progress. World imperialism remains their common enemy and world socialism is their natural ally.
Asian and African countries have not only achieved political independence comparatively easily in conditions of the confrontation and struggle between the two world systems, when the forces of socialism are able effectively to contain the aggressive actions of imperialism, they have also, despite the continuing economic dependence on former _-_-_
^^*^^ See V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 491.
234 colonial powers, an opportunity of pursuing an independent foreign policy.In contrast to a few countries with pro-imperialist regimes which are members of military-political blocs under the aegis of the United States, the majority of newly liberated countries have chosen the path of neutralism and non-alignment. Since the aggressive designs of imperialism have prevented a stable international situation and the internal consolidation of newly free states, their neutralism has objectively had an anti-imperialist bias and has helped the cause of world peace. It was not by chance that the first noticeable manifestation of the neutralist policy of these states was the war in Korea and the campaign to end this war. The neutralist states also made a positive contribution to ending other international crises. The maintenance and strengthening of world peace is a necessary prerequisite for successfully resolving the tasks facing the newly liberated states.
The emergence of a large group of countries pursuing a neutralist policy has had a beneficial effect on United Nations activity and has resulted in that organisation relinquishing to a large extent the role which imperialist powers tried to impose on it as a ``voting machine" ratifying resolutions in their favour.
Alongside the neutralist policy, another important element in international relations associated with the emergence of new sovereign states has been the movement of Afro-Asian solidarity since the mid-1950s.
The objective grounds for a common foreign policy of the developing countries and for neutralism and non-- alignment, although less homogeneous, with a large number of variations and shades of meaning, remain to the present day. Thus, despite the great shifts in Asia and Africa since the last world war, despite the changes taking place today and the possible fluctuations in the future, the basic Leninist propositions concerning the objective role of the peoples of the East in the world revolutionary process and in the settlement of world issues are as relevant today as ever. The problems associated with the development of countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America occupy increasing attention in 235 modern international relations. The tangled complex of contradictions associated with the newly independent countries is developing alongside and against the background of the basic contradiction of the epoch---that between the two world systems.
The various forms of theoretical constructions concerning ``rich'' and ``poor'' nations, ``the world village and the world city'', and ``the backward South and the developed North'', are ideological reflections of these objectively existing contradictions of contemporary international affairs. In propagating these concepts, the more reactionary bourgeois ideologists, who strive -to avoid the issue of the historical responsibility of imperialism and colonialism for the existing state of affairs, are on the same side as the ultra-Left, extremist elements, Maoists and their supporters, who are unable to work out and implement a constructive programme for solving economic tasks, and are inclined to look for a way out for the difficulties by embarking on foreign political adventures.
Certainly, the problems facing developing countries do exist, their importance and complexity are irrefutable, but it is also quite evident that the settlement of the problems is invariably associated with the whole course of world development. The question of how to resolve these problems is a subject of fierce struggle between imperialism and revolutionary forces of the present day.
The special role played by developing countries in world politics exists in the sphere of their relations both with the socialist and with the imperialist countries. Mutual relations between the newly liberated countries are also acquiring mounting international importance.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ IIThe problem of relations between world socialism and the peoples of the former colonies and dependencies was first treated theoretically in the works of Lenin and received practical embodiment in the foreign policy of the young Soviet Republic.
236After the revolution of October 1917 the close interconnection between the development of socialist revolution and the national liberation struggle of the oppressed peoples of the East became particularly apparent and acquired important practical significance. Both these forces objectively acted as natural allies; their unity was dictated by common interests in the struggle against the common enemy--- imperialism.
Lenin often drew attention to the outstanding role of the Soviet state in the battle of the oppressed peoples against imperialism. He stressed that the ``revolutionary movement of the peoples of the East can now develop effectively, can reach a successful issue, only in direct association with the revolutionary struggle of our Soviet Republic against international = imperialism.''^^*^^
Basing his opinion on the community of the fundamental interests of the oppressed peoples of the East and the first socialist state in the world, Lenin formulated the tasks of its foreign policy: ``Our Soviet Republic must now muster all the awakening peoples of the East and, together with them, wage a struggle against international imperialism.''^^**^^
The very first document of the Soviet state---the Decree on Peace---was objectively directed against the system of colonial domination. It defined annexation as ``every incorporation of a small or weak nation into a large or powerful state without the precisely, clearly and voluntarily expressed consent and wish of that nation''; the Decree made the point that this definition referred not only to Europe but to `` distant, overseas countries''.^^***^^
The Soviet Government resolutely broke with the predatory policy of tsarism and international imperialism, it ex-- posed their predatory aims and called for a fight against them. The Appeal of the Soviet Government to all working Moslems of Russia and the East said: "It is not from Russia and its revolutionary Government that enslavement awaits you but from the European imperialist vultures, from those _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 30, p. 151.
^^**^^ Ibid., p. 161.
^^***^^ Ibid., Vol. 26, p. 2/50.
237 who turned your native land into a `colony' which they are plundering.''^^*^^In the Soviet state, the peoples of the East for the first time in history saw a selfless friend and ally; for the first time in history the dependent countries received an opportunity to establish really equal relations with a big and powerful state.
The principles of equal rights of nations, respect for their interests, non-intervention in internal affairs and selfless aid were expressed in the political policy of the Communist Party and Soviet Government both in the attitude to the oppressed peoples of the former tsarist empire and in relation to other peoples'of Asia, especially those on the southern borders of the Soviet Republic---Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, Mongolia and China. In his instructions to S. I. Aralov, the Russian Federation's Plenipotentiary in Turkey, Lenin said that ``the main thing is to respect the people. Explain our position of selfless friendship, non-interference in the internal affairs of the country as opposed to the acquisitive and plundering policy of the imperialists. That is your job.''^^**^^
Soviet Russia's unprecedented principles of relations between big and small countries were embodied in treaties and agreements signed with Turkey, Iran and Afghanistan in 1921, and with China in 1924.
Georgi Chicherin described Soviet relations with countries of the East as ``a friendly policy based on unity of interest, with completely mutual non-interference in internal affairs in all respects''. This policy, he said, ``was dictated by our leader Vladimir Lenin and is being pursued according to the lines he laid down.''^^***^^
The Soviet policy in relation to countries of the East was permeated with the spirit of revolutionary dialectics and a sober account of the specific social and political situation. Lenin often underlined the importance of distinguishing the _-_-_
^^*^^ Documents of Soviet Foreign Policy, Vol. 1, Moscow, 1957, p. 35 (in Russian).
^^**^^ See S. Aralov, Reminiscences of the Soviet Diplomat. 1922--1923, Moscow, 1960, p. 36 (in Russian).
^^***^^ See S. Vygodsky, The Sources of Soviet Diplomacy, Moscow, 1965, p. 318 (in Russian).
238 nationalism of the oppressed nation from that of the oppressor nation; he evaluated the national movement of oppressed countries from the point of view of its role in the overall struggle against imperialism, not in isolation but on a world scale.^^*^^The establishment by the Soviet socialist state of friendly relations both with the Republic of Turkey and the monarchies of Iran and Afghanistan were a practical embodiment of Lenin's revolutionary dialectics. Complete conformity of word and deed is a characteristic feature of the Leninist foreign policy. Slogans and declarations are invariably and consistently backed up by practical actions. In its relations with the countries of the East, the Soviet state not only declared complete equality of rights, but showed in practice its renunciation of all legal rights and privileges, ,of all property acquired as a result of the coercive and predatory imperialist policy of the tsarist government and the Russian bourgeoisie.
Besides, despite its restricted resources and possibilities, the Soviet state gave direct material support, including arms deliveries and military specialists, for the national liberation struggle. Such support held a special place in the history of relations between the Soviet Republic and Turkey and China.
Finally, the Soviet state consistently supported the interests of the oppressed nations of the East at international conferences and diplomatic negotiations. As an example, one may refer to the programme of Soviet diplomacy in the issue of the Black Sea Straits, the first point of which was, as Lenin put it, ``the satisfaction of Turkey's national aspirations''.^^**^^
Harish Kapur, Associate Professor of International Relations at the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva, has called Soviet policy towards the colonial world ``revolutionary'' and ``straightforward''. ``Such a policy,'' he said, ``was obviously free from all the confines and trappings of classical diplomacy....''^^***^^
_-_-_^^*^^ See V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 22, p. 341.
^^**^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 385.
^^***^^ Harish Kapur. Soviet Russia and Asia, 1917--1927. A Study of Soviet Policy towards Turkey, Iran and Afghanistan, Geneva, 196C, p. 243.
239Soviet support for the national liberation aspirations of peoples of the East and the whole foreign policy of the Soviet state had an immense positive significance for these peoples. It brought them direct and noticeable material advantages and considerably facilitated the struggle in defence of their rights, for their emancipation from imperialism and for independence.
The part played by socialism in the awakening of the East as an independent force in world politics was not confined to direct military-political support for national liberation movements, economic aid to the then small number of independent Eastern states, and diplomatic support for their interests internationally. The main thing was the very existence and strengthening of the socialist power, which signified a relative weakening of the positions of the imperialists and colonialists, a worsening of their international position. The influence of Soviet policy in relation to the peoples of the East far exceeded the framework of the directly interested states. It had a practical significance, as Lenin foresaw, ``for the whole of Asia and for all the colonies of the world, for thousands and millions of people''.^^*^^ The friendly attitude to oppressed peoples and to colonies and dependencies, and the solidarity with their freedom struggle radically differed from the imperialist foreign policy and helped to spread the ideas of the October Revolution to all continents. The great Indian leader Nehru noted: ``Almost contemporaneously with your October Revolution under the leadership of the great Lenin we in India started a new phase of our struggle for many years.... Even though we pursued a different path in our struggle under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi we admired Lenin and were influenced by his example.''^^**^^
Shortly before his death, Ho Chi Minh, leader of the Vietnamese people, gave an interview to the French newspaper L'Humanite underlining the contemporary importance of Lenin's ideas for the national liberation movement. He said _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 30, p. 138.
^^**^^ Jawaharlal Nehru, India's Foreign Policy, Selected Speeches, September 1946-April 1961, Delhi, p. 573.
240 that in the eyes of the peoples of the East, Lenin was more than a leader. He was a man of immense magnetic force. His contempt for luxury, the purity of his personal life, his simplicity and his noble heart attracted the people's sincerest feelings and nothing could interfere with this attraction.The fundamentals of Soviet relations with countries of the East, laid down by Lenin immediately after the October Revolution, to a certain degree anticipated the far-- reaching changes in international relations which took place as a result of the emergence on the international scene of the many new states of Asia, Africa and Latin America, and laid the foundation for the present-day anti-imperialist alliance between world socialism and the national liberation forces.
Lenin's -policy in relation to countries of the East which has been consistently pursued since the revolution is a model of a principled, profoundly revolutionary and far-sighted policy. At times the assistance given to newly developed countries involved material difficulties for the young Soviet state, but the policy of friendship and co-operation with the peoples of the East has brought it immense moral and political reward and has considerably strengthened its international position in the struggle against imperialism.
This reward accumulated by the socialist state under Lenin's direct leadership has continued to play an important part in international relations, despite every attempt by the imperialists to distort the essence of Soviet foreign policy, to place the Soviet Union on the same plane as the imperialist powers and to undermine its prestige in the countries of the East.
The creative development of the Leninist principles of relations with the Eastern countries worked out at the 20th to 24th congresses of the CPSU and the consistent policy of all-round assistance to the national liberation forces fighting against imperialism have had immense international importance in the new historical situation conspicuous for the emergence of dozens of sovereign Afro-Asian countries.
Lenin considered that ``the colonial and other nations which are oppressed, or whose rights are restricted, must 241 be completely liberated and granted the right to secede'',^^*^^ and that this was a necessary prerequisite for bringing together the working people of all nations in revolutionary struggle. Nowadays, this aim is being implemented in the friendly relations between the Soviet Union and other socialist countries, on the one hand, and newly liberated states, on the other. Recent years have seen new successes of Soviet foreign policy in this sphere.
Improved good-neighbourly relations with Afghanistan, Iran and Turkey, the establishment and development of friendly relations with India, Burma, Ceylon and, later, with Egypt and other Arab states and some African countries have conformed to the vital national interests of both sides and have had a considerable impact on international relations as a whole, helping to change the world balance of power in socialism's favour.
The part played by the Soviet Union as a power able to help the newly liberated national countries to defend their independence against imperialist aggressive actions, received fresh and convincing confirmation during the acute international crisis that arose in the Middle East in the summer of 1967. The Soviet Union resolutely upheld the just struggle of Arab nations against the criminal aggression launched by the Israeli military clique backed by US imperialist circles. The Soviet Government took the necessary measures both inside the United Nations and outside it to help the Arab nations to repulse the aggressor, protect their legitimate rights, to stamp out the source of war and to re-establish peace in the Middle East. New steps in that direction were the Soviet-Egyption and Soviet-Iraqi treaties of friendship and co-operation.
The Treaty of Friendship and Go-operation concluded between the Soviet Union and India in Delhi on August 9, 1971, opens up prospects of further strengthening friendly and good-neighbourly relations.
The existence of the world socialist system acquires increasing significance for the economic development of newly liberated states. The industrialisation and social progress of _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 29, p. 127. 16--239
242 Asian, African and Latin American countries are helped by the end put to the Western monopoly on trade with the economically underdeveloped states (including arms deliveries), the opportunity to receive, from socialist states, credits, industrial plant and scientific and technological co-operation without the invidious conditions imposed by the capitalist states. The dozens of important economic projects built with Soviet assistance in developing countries, in particular, the Bhilai Iron and Steel Works in India and the Aswan High Dam in Egypt have become symbols of the growing co-operation between the Soviet Union and these countries. The Soviet-Egyptian declaration on the completion and commissioning of the Aswan hydropower complex stated that ``Aswan has become a genuine model of healthy and equal relations between states, a vivid proof that young developing countries can attain great success in strengthening their political and economic independence in alliance with the forces of socialism.''^^*^^The Soviet achievements in every sphere of life and the Soviet experience and example help to spread progressive ideas and Marxist-Leninist ideology, especially in countries setting out on a non-capitalist path of development. The world today brings fresh confirmation of the vitality of Lenin's ideas concerning the opportunity for non-capitalist development of the peoples of the East. Back in 1920, Lenin said: ``If the victorious revolutionary proletariat conducts systematic propaganda among them, and the Soviet governments come to their aid with all the means at their disposal--- in that event it will be mistaken to assume that the backward peoples must inevitably go through the capitalist stage of development.''^^**^^
Reliance on the socialist states is a prerequisite for successful development of the national liberation revolution, the strengthening of political awareness and purposiveness, and the enhanced role of oppressed peoples in deciding not only their own destiny, but, in prospect, world affairs as a whole.
In their turn, the young countries often act as allies of the _-_-_
^^*^^ Pravda, January 1(5, 1971.
^^**^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 244.
243 forces of socialism in international relations, and as vigorous opponents of world imperialist reaction. On more than one occasion, the imperialists have had to yield in the face of the united forces of socialism and national liberation. While earlier the colonial and dependent countries constituted an important reserve for imperialism, a reserve widely used in the struggle against anti-imperialist forces, today the peoples of these countries have become, as Lenin foresaw, a major reserve and ally of the international proletariat and world socialism in the fight against imperialism. ``The national states,'' the Programme of the CPSU says, ``become ever more active as an independent force on the world scene; objectively, this force is in the main a progressive, revolutionary and anti-imperialist force.''^^*^^The objective interests and requirements of the people campaigning for complete national liberation and social progress lie on the side of socialism and its foreign policy, despite the diversions and vacillations in the policy of individual newly liberated countries.
The Leninist policy of supporting liberation revolutionary movements and all-round solidarity and co-operation with independent countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America accords with the interests of the Soviet people just as much as with the interests of the many millions of people in developing countries.
The 24th Congress of the CPSU reaffirmed the unswerving loyalty to the Leninist principle of solidarity with peoples fighting for national and social emancipation and it underlined the special importance of extending co-operation with countries of a socialist orientation.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ IIIThe problem of relations with developing countries occupies a very important place in the political strategy and practice of imperialism. Although today relations between imperialist countries, on the one hand, and Asian and _-_-_
^^*^^ Programme of the Communist Parly of the Soviet Union, p. 35.
__PRINTERS_P_243_COMMENT__ 16* 244 African countries, on the other, radically differ from those which prevailed in the past between imperialist powers and their colonies, protectorates and other dependent territories, Lenin's propositions on the essence of imperialist policy still hold good. Lenin said that ``the essential nature of international relations under capitalism" is ``the open robbery of the weaker...''.^^*^^ The system of colonial oppression attained worldwide dimensions during the domination of imperialism.The system of colonial domination was due to the economic nature of the monopoly stage in capitalist development and was intensified, as Lenin noted, by the processes in politics and ideology:
``The non-economic superstructure which grows up on the basis of finance capital, its politics and its ideology, stimulates the striving for colonial conquest.''^^**^^
The period of domination by the imperialists in Asia, Africa and Latin America brought countless vicious crimes against the peoples of those countries. The shameful exploitation, conservation of social backwardness, the distorted, one-sided economic development, the pitiless repression of any resistance and yearning for freedom, the degradation and even extinction of whole nationalities, have been the major manifestations and consequences of the domination of capitalist monopolies who would stop at nothing in their scramble for maximum profits and who operated in the interests of the monopolies of imperialist governments.
As a result, the whole of Africa and a considerable part of Asia were divided among a few imperialist powers. Vast colonial empires arose, whose territories and populations many times exceeded those of the metropolitan powers. Asian and African countries which formally possessed the external trappings of state sovereignty, were, in fact, completely dependent on the imperialists. Furthermore, as Lenin showed, in the epoch of imperialism direct territorial expansion began to play a relatively less important role by comparison with more indirect forms of economic and political domination. Lenin noted that ``finance capital and its foreign policy, _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 17, p. 189.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 22, p. 262.
245 which is the struggle of the great powers for the economic and political division of the world, give rise to a number of transitional forms of state dependence''.^^*^^Naturally, the extension of colonial oppression in every form aggravated strife and struggle among the imperialist predators and led to a burgeoning national liberation movement.
A new stimulus and genuine support to the national liberation movement in the battle against imperialism came with the appearance, existence and policy of the first socialist state in the world. This was bound to have an effect on relations between the colonialists and the colonies, between the imperialist powers and their dependencies. From now on, the imperialists were obliged to reckon with this fact and the possibilities of mutual support between the socialist state and the oppressed peoples, and therefore to make certain concessions to the national liberation movement.
The successful struggle of the Soviet people against imperialism had a great impact on relations between the oppressed peoples and the imperialist states. Lenin frequently referred to the revolutionising importance of this fact. ``I think,'' he noted in 1919, ``that what the Red Army has accomplished, its struggle, and the history of its victory, will be of colossal, epochal significance for all the peoples of the East. It will show them that, weak as they may be, and invincible as may seem the power of the European oppressors, who in the struggle employ all the marvels of technology and of the military art---nevertheless, a revolutionary war waged by oppressed peoples, if it really succeeds in arousing the millions of working and exploited people, harbours such potentialities, such miracles, that the emancipation of the peoples of the East is now quite practicable.''^^**^^
The subsequent course of events increasingly bore out this forecast. The most telling changes in this sphere took place after the Second World War which heralded both the relative and absolute weakening of imperialist forces overall, and the weakening of individual colonial powers (Britain, _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., Vol. 22, p. 263.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 30, pp. 153--54.
246 Belgium, France, Italy, Japan and the Netherlands). As a consequence of the upsurge in the national liberation movement and the general shift in the world balance of power, the system of colonial slavery crumbled and, on the ruins of colonial empires, dozens of new sovereign countries arose.Although many new national states continue to remain within the system of the world capitalist economy, they are no longer simple objects of imperialist policy. Imperialism today has lost to a substantial degree numerous key positions which had enabled it to control the course of international events. It no longer can dispose of such reserves as former colonial Asia and Africa, and to a large degree is losing its hold on Latin America. Of course, the imperialists still retain important levers of influence in these areas, especially in the economic sphere, but they are no longer capable of retaining the developing countries completely in the mainstream of their foreign policy.
After the war, direct military actions by the colonialists against Asian and African peoples often met with defeat and, ultimately, proved ineffective. One of the most salient events in this respect was the inglorious defeat of the threepower aggression against Egypt in 1956.
The imperialists, however, continue to commit political and military crimes against the peoples of these countries. Symptomatic in this context is the fact that the main role in the struggle against the national liberation movement is that played by the United States. Speaking of America as the strongest and richest capitalist country, Lenin stressed that ``America stands in inevitable contradiction with the colonies''.^^*^^
The modern-day colonialists are responsible for organising counter-revolutionary coups in several countries of Asia and Africa, supporting reactionary military-dictatorial regimes in Latin America and much else. This aspect of imperialist policy was most apparent in American aggression against the Vietnamese people and other peoples of Indochina. American imperialism, relying on its few puppets, _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 81, p. 449.
247 endeavoured to crush the aspiration of peoples for freedom, independence and unity by cruel and bloody means, to retain in South Vietnam and in Cambodia and Laos a base for its influence in Southeast Asia. But events are showing the ultimate ineffectiveness of these ``traditional'' methods of old-time colonialism.While the United States stubbornly used military means to crush the national liberation movement in Vietnam (even though it was forced to enter into peace negotiations with the genuine representatives of the Vietnamese people and, in the final analysis, to sign the Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam), in other areas imperialist US circles and those in some other capitalist countries are trying to retain the newly liberated states within the capitalist orbit and to subordinate their policies to the capitalist interests by more flexible and ``liberal'' political, economic and ideological means: the proffering of all kinds of ``aid'' and ``protection''. The imperialists have begun to transfer from the very crude and coercive methods of oppression and of support for reactionary feudal and monarchist forces to more veiled (and in the new circumstances, more effective), primarily economic, methods of securing their positions and interests.
Imperialism sets itself the task of shaping the social and economic development of the young states through active involvement in their economies, widespread participation in the training and education of a body of national intellectuals and technical and administrative personnel, and a stepping up of pro-capitalist propaganda. It has begun to view the bourgeois circles rather than the feudal-compradore elements as its social support in the young countries, calculating that the narrow class interests of the local bourgeoisie will prevail over the nationwide interests and that the bourgeoisie will become a reliable ally of the West. While initially imperialist politicians tried at any cost to include the newly liberated countries in the system of military and political blocs and while they condemned, in the style of John Foster Dulles, neutralism as an "amoral and short-sighted policy'', they have been obliged with time to make certain amendments to their policy.
248The present-day policy of the imperialist powers in relation to the developing countries is determined not so much by their drive for profits as by their concern about the fate of the capitalist system as a whole and, above all, about their position in the confrontation with socialism. Concern for the future of the capitalist system was the motivation of the Asian Doctrine and the Guam Doctrine designed to `` substantiate'' the imperialist policy of the United States in Asia.
The anti-socialist bias of US policy in relation to the developing countries, irrespective of the evolution of its forms in the direction of aid, is readily recognised both in official documents and in various studies. In the book Strategy for the 60's, compiled on the basis of reports prepared in 1959 for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the authors underline the need for the United States to prevent by any means new countries from taking on a socialist orientation, otherwise ``the world will be much more dangerous place for the United States''.^^*^^ The United States wants to follow this course in the 70s as well.
The International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties in 1969 gave a thorough analysis of the contemporary imperialist policy in relation to the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America: ``In its struggle against the national liberation movement, imperialism stubbornly defends the remnants of the colonial system, on the one hand, and, on the other, uses methods of neo-colonialism in an effort to prevent the economic and social advance of developing states, of countries which have won national sovereignty. To this end it supports reactionary circles, retards the abolition of the most backward social structures and tries to obstruct progress along the road to socialism or along the road of progressive non-capitalist development, which can open the way to socialism. The imperialists impose on these countries economic agreements and military-political pacts which infringe on their sovereignty; they exploit them through the export of capital, unequal terms of trade; the manipulation of prices, exchange rates, loans and various forms of so-- _-_-_
^^*^^ Strategy for the 60's, Ed. by Jay H. Cerf and Walter Pozen, New York, 1961, p. 1.
249 called aid; and pressure by international financial organisations.''^^*^^In the new historical situation, when the existence and the policy of the world socialist system have deprived the imperialist powers of a monopoly of relations with the economically backward regions of the world, imperialism is sometimes forced to help in some measure the economic development of Asian, African and Latin American countries. The attention, interests and activity of the imperialists in this sphere are above all associated with the battle between the two systems; they want to avoid a further weakening in capitalist world positions and to prevent the development of newly liberated countries along a non-capitalist path leading eventually to socialism.
A feature of the new tactics of colonialists in Asia and Africa is that it has often begun to take on ``a collective'' character. Despite their inner contradictions, the imperialist powers strive to act together so as to carry through their common imperialist tasks in relation to the newly liberated countries, in so far as the colonialists are today insufficiently strong to implement these tasks singly.
For the developing countries the question of relations with the capitalist countries is complex and contradictory. The policy of the ruling circles in several Asian, African and Latin American countries is leading to a closer alignment with the imperialist powers. This is due, on the one hand, to social differentiation within individual newly liberated countries and between them, and a certain strengthening in the positions of the national bourgeoisie in several countries, as mentioned above. On the other hand, the tendency of some developing countries to come closer to the countries of advanced capitalism follows also from objective economic considerations. The developing countries very much need to resolve their urgent problems concerning capital investment, industrial plant and markets for their products (which, as a rule, are agricultural monocultures), and sometimes the need for food for their rapidly growing population. All this _-_-_
^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow, 7.9C.9, pp. 12--13.
250 causes a strong; dependence on foreign economic ties and at the same time makes it possible for the capitalist countries to keep and even intensify their economic positions in some newly free countries.However, neither the present neo-colonialist policy of the imperialist powers, nor the corresponding tendencies in the developing countries can eliminate the deep contradictions between imperialism and the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America, nor are they able to guarantee their harmonious collaboration and political unity. The Wall Street Journal wrote in May 1967 that ``Lesser nations are hard to rally around the US position. There is the Afro-Asian bloc, to start with, whose members quarrel among themselves yet are still willing to join in any fist-shaking against a big ' imperialist'~''.^^*^^
This fact has a deep meaning: it bears witness to the acuteness of contradictions between the developing countries and imperialism. These contradictions grow sharper as the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America become more and more convinced that they cannot successfully resolve the complex tasks of economic and social progress by capitalist methods. ``Imperialism is being subjected to ever greater pressure by the forces which have grown out of the national liberation struggle,'' the 24th Congress of the CPSU stated. ``The main thing is that the struggle for national liberation in many countries has in practice begun to develop into a struggle against exploitative relations, both feudal and capitalist.''^^**^^
__ALPHA_LVL2__ IVProblems linked with relations between the developing countries themselves become increasingly important in contemporary international affairs. This is due not simply to the purely quantitative factor, the numerical preponderance of the developing countries among the participants in _-_-_
^^*^^ The Wall Street Journal, May 29, 1967, p. 9.
^^**^^ 24 Congress of the CPSU, p. 215.
251 international affairs, but also to the fact that these relations are intertwined with a multiplicity of contradictions, and that this sphere of modern international relations is fraught with various conflicts. The conflicts that are a legacy from the colonial past, those that have arisen after liberation, and the contradictions between the developing states, in combination with the internal instability, result in sources of tension and the general absence of stability in that sphere of international relations.One can see a battle and tangle of two major trends in the relations between the developing countries. One trend is towards a mutual coming together, co-ordination of foreign policy, solidarity based on a community of historical destiny and historical tasks, on a joint struggle against the common enemy---imperialism and colonialism; the other trend, the counterposing of one country to another, is engendered by border disputes, tribal and racial strife, rivalry in the struggle to receive economic aid from industrial countries and to obtain markets for their own products, and also a divergence in social and political development. The policy of imperialism, which fans reactionary nationalism, causes friction among the developing countries and tends to split them, is an important factor in the strengthening of the second trend.
The first trend is more in evidence at a time when the anti-colonial and anti-imperialist struggle in Asian and African countries for political independence is on the rise; the latter---in the subsequent period of transition to the resolving of social and economic problems. Both these trends stem from objective reality.
The logic of the national liberation struggle, aimed initially at attaining political independence, produced solidarity of the oppressed peoples in the face of the common enemy--- colonialism in its classical forms. Unity of all anti-- imperialist forces both within individual countries and on an international scale made it relatively easy and quick to decide the tasks of the first stage of the national liberation revolution.
Solidarity among Asian and African peoples largely helped them to achieve success in their battle against the 252 colonialists, to establish the newly liberated states as a new world force. The movement for Afro-Asian solidarity acquired immense scale and importance in the mid-1950s, when it was quite definitely expressed in relations between countries. The Bandung Conference of Afro-Asian states in 1955 and the decisions taken facilitated its organisational shaping.
Delegates from 29 Asian and African states, headed mostly by Prime Ministers or Foreign Ministers, took part in the Bandung Conference. Its resolutions on problems of dependent peoples, on human rights and self-determination, on economic co-operation, on cultural co-operation, and the declaration on the promotion of world peace and co-- operation testified to the growth of national awareness in Asian and African countries, and helped these countries to overcome their isolation.
The Conference decisions and the Bandung spirit became a symbol of solidarity of Asian and African countries and of their qualitatively new and independent role in world politics. Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru said: ``The Bandung Conference has been a historic event. If it only met, the meeting itself would have been a great achievement, as it would have represented the emergence of a new Asia and Africa, of new nations who are on the march towards the fulfilment of their independence and of their sense of their role in the world. Bandung proclaimed the political emergence in world affairs of over half the world's population.''^^*^^
The Bandung Conference was memorable in another sense. It not only symbolised the appearance of a new force in world politics, it showed the nature of that force, its basic direction. The Conference decisions unambiguously condemned colonialism and aggressive imperialist policy, proclaimed the loyalty of its participants to the principles of peaceful coexistence. These decisions, like certain subsequent actions by the developing countries, their common position on major international issues, give every ground for positively evaluating their general role in modern international _-_-_
^^*^^ Jawaharlal Nehru, India's Foreign Policy, Selected Speeches, September lf)46-April 1961. Delhi, 1961, p. 270.
253 relations, and for viewing them as an anti-imperialist, revolutionary and progressive force.Bandung was no chance event in international affairs. Both before the Conference and after, a series of international and political measures of a regional character were taken, though on a smaller scale. These included the Colombo Group Conference in 1954 (Burma, Ceylon, India, Indonesia and Pakistan), the joint actions by Asian and African countries in the United Nations, the creation and the activity of the Organisation of African Unity in 1963, and so on. However, facts of another order, such as the abortive second conference of Asian and African states of the Bandung type, scheduled for Algeria in 1965, must also be taken into consideration.
There is no doubt that in the new conditions most countries of Asia and Africa have remained true to a neutralist foreign policy, and as before, refuse to join military and political blocs, and have taken an active part in a wider but less clearly defined group of non-aligned states. Asia and Africa were broadly represented at the Belgrade and Cairo conferences of non-aligned countries, which condemned the aggressive policy of imperialism and pledged allegiance to the principles of peaceful coexistence between states with different social systems. The movement for Afro-Asian solidarity and solidarity of the peoples of the three continents (Asia, Africa and Latin America) is developing in the same direction.
On the other hand, of late some circles in developing countries have been showing an inclination to ignore the difference between imperialist countries---which have grown rich over the decades at the expense of ruthless exploitation of the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America and are responsible for all the crimes of the colonialists and for the past sufferings and present social and economic backwardness of the developing countries on the one hand, and the socialist countries, on the other, which are giving all-round help to the national liberation struggle of these peoples and which have built an advanced economy by their own efforts. On certain issues the position of some participants in UN conferences on trade and development in Geneva in 1964 and in
254 Delhi in 1968 has reflected undiscriminating demands in relation to all ``rich'' states.At the same time, another trend has appeared in recent years in relations between developing countries---a trend towards differentiation, disunity, the sharpening of divergencies and contradictions among them. One may cite the exacerbation of territorial disputes inherited from colonial times, and tribal, racial and religious conflicts between individual newly liberated states. There is the example of the Indo-Pakistani conflict which led in 1965 to military action; the contradictions between individual Arab states; border conflicts in Africa and the rivalry between individual groups of African countries.
To a large extent these differences and conflicts are a consequence of the "divide and rule" policy which the imperialist powers try sometimes to pursue even today. The frontiers of the young sovereign countries in Asia and especially in Africa are, as a rule, the frontiers which were formed during the building of colonial empires and more often reflected the correlation of forces that existed between colonial powers rather than local conditions, tribal and language differences, and often quite deliberately infringed upon natural contacts and divergencies, which had existed on these territories before the coming of the colonialists. Even today the imperialists try to play on the friction between developing countries, to fan strife, and to encourage separatist movements, thereby complicating the complete emancipation of the young states from foreign dependence.
Economic reasons are also behind the noticeable weakening in the former solidarity that existed between the developing countries. While earlier they used to be primarily allies in the struggle against their common enemy---colonialism, today some countries sometimes act as rivals in the struggle to get foreign capital for developing their economies and for more advantageous conditions of capital investment.
Differences over the paths of social and political development and, correspondingly, over foreign policy are a major source of contradictions among the developing countries and of potential conflicts between them. Countries that have started out or are starting out along a non-capitalist path of 255 development and enjoy wide-scale support from the countries of the world socialist system comprise one group of countries. It is against the progressive tendencies and regimes in these countries that the struggle of the imperialists is spearheaded in an endeavour to set the other group against them, the group that is most backward in the social and political respect, countries with a reactionary and often puppet regime, utterly dependent on the imperialist powers and which pursue a pro-imperialist policy. One of the reasons for direct encouragement by the imperialists of Israeli aggression against Arab states is the desire to bring down the progressive governments of Egypt and Syria.
Finally, another source of conflict in relations between developing countries is to be found in the complexity of social and political tasks confronting these countries, the unstable political situation, the attempts of certain circles to seek a settlement of domestic difficulties through foreign adventures designed to provide popular discontent with a safety valve.
Irrespective, however, of the reasons and character of contradictions and conflicts within the area of newly liberated states there is always the possibility of their growing into armed struggle and affecting the interests of world peace. With the prevailing balance of power and a situation where two systems confront one another with nuclear missiles, local conflicts and wars, inasmuch as the imperialists invariably try to use them in their own interests, carry the threat of escalation and, ultimately, of a world war, with all the possible disastrous consequences.
In this light, the position of the present Peking leaders in advocating "a revolutionary war of the world village against the world city" seems particularly irresponsible.
Many bourgeois politicians, in their writings on the acute problems facing Asia, Africa and Latin America, try to whitewash imperialism of the accusation that it produces danger spots of war.
In fact, imperialism was and remains the main source of a threat to world peace in the area of newly liberated states as well. This is amply borne out by US policy in recent years, particularly the aggressive actions in Vietnam, 256 Cambodia and Laos, the support for the Israeli militarists, the encouragement given to the reactionary Yahya Khan regime in Pakistan, and aggressive adventures in other parts of the world.
Naturally enough, foreign policy conflicts between developing countries complicate international relations and are a source of international tension. The avoidance and elimination of sources of war danger in the newly liberated zone, and the prevention of imperialist intervention accord with the interests of all peoples in the world, and of all countries, including the great powers, and objectively require their concerted efforts. In these circumstances, the Leninist policy of peaceful coexistence, of peaceful resolution of controversial issues between states, and of relaxing international tensions, a policy consistently pursued by the Soviet Union, has great relevance in respect to relations between the developing countries.
The background, proceedings and decisions of the Tashkent Conference of 1966 were profoundly symbolic. It was in Moscow, not in London or Washington, that India and Pakistan sought u just mediator. It was a socialist state that guaranteed, if not a resolution of the conflict then, at any rate, an end to the senseless blood-letting of the two neighbouring peoples.
The stand taken by the Soviet Union over events in East Pakistan in the spring of 1971, a stand aimed at a just political settlement and the consolidation of peace on the subcontinent, had great importance.
Soviet policy is winning mounting recognition from the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America, who see in the Soviet Union a consistent, selfless and impartial fighter for peace and friendship among peoples.
[257] __ALPHA_LVL1__ FRIENDSHIP AND CO-OPERATION __ALPHA_LVL2__ I __NOTE__ Quote is above LVL1 in original.We want a voluntary union of nations---a union which precludes any coercion of one nation by another---a union founded on complete confidence, on a clear recognition of brotherly unity, on absolutely voluntary consent. Such a union cannot be effected at one stroke; we have to work towards it with the greatest patience and circumspection, so as not to spoil matters and not to arouse distrust, and so that the distrust inherited from centuries of landowner and capitalist oppression, centuries of private property and the enmity caused by its divisions and redivisions may have a chance to wear off.
V. I. Lenin
Relations between socialist states occupy an exceedingly important place in modern international affairs.
First of all, they are a fundamentally new type of international relations---between countries in which exploitation of man by man no longer exists because all exploiting classes ---the natural bearers of expansion, aggression and national oppression---have been removed. They are a prototype of future w.orld relations which, as socialism gains ground, will spread wider and wider until they embrace the whole world; the relations will thereby be freed from elements of chance and the specific features engendered by the situation in which they initially developed.
While capitalist development, as Lenin said, ``substitutes class antagonisms for national antagonisms'',^^*^^ the establishment of socialism in several countries signifies an end to class antagonisms and the emergence of new relations between them based on a strong community of basic interests. Moreover, national and state differences between peoples and countries, as Lenin pointed out, ``will continue to exist for a very long time to come, even after the dictatorship of the _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 73.
__PRINTERS_P_257_COMMENT__ 17---239 258 proletariat has been established on a world-wide scale''.^^*^^Second, while previously, alongside relations between countries belonging to the two opposing systems, an important role was played in world politics (and is still played) by relations between the imperialist countries, today, when the world socialist system is becoming a decisive factor of historical development, relations between the socialist states are occupying an ever greater place in world politics. The strengthening of socialist positions within individual countries and the effectiveness of socialism's struggle against imperialist aggression, and its influence on international relations as a whole largely depend on the state and nature of these relations.
Today, when Lenin's forecast about the development of ``the dictatorship of the proletariat from a national dictatorship (i. e., existing in a single country and incapable of determining world politics) into an international one (i. e., a dictatorship of the proletariat involving at least several advanced countries, and capable of exercising a decisive influence upon world politics as a whole)''^^**^^ is coming true, socialist influence on world affairs and its role in the struggle against imperialism greatly depend on the solidarity of socialist countries and on their comprehensive---and that includes foreign policy---co-operation. Here more than anywhere else there is a tangle of internal and external factors, economic, social and foreign policy problems of the socialist system and world development as a whole.
Third, relations between the socialist countries is the youngest sphere of modern international relations. While relations between imperialist countries have a comparatively long history, with roots in other centuries, while relations between capitalist and less developed countries also in one way or another bear the imprint of the past, while the problem of relations between states of opposing systems dates from only 1917, relations between socialist countries arose only after the Second World War. Understandably, this question could not have been examined in detail in the works _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 92.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 31, p. 148.
259 of Lenin or had a direct reflection in Soviet foreign policy during his lifetime, with the exception, perhaps, of the extremely short-lived experience of relations with the Hungarian Soviet Republic.Nonetheless, Lenin's heritage contains invaluable material for studying, understanding and influencing these relations. The fact is that the relations between the socialist countries are a direct consequence of the victories of the working class internationally, the embodiment of the international essence of the proletarian class struggle, the development and application in new historical conditions of the principles of proletarian internationalism. Lenin paid great attention both in his theoretical studies and in his practical activity to elaborating those principles proclaimed by Marx and Engels in the middle of the last century.
In relations between the socialist countries as countries whose class interests coincide, relations between nationalities play an important part. Lenin's writings on the national question and the Leninist practice of its resolution in the Soviet Union, therefore, have overriding importance for their study and understanding.
Notwithstanding the clearly expressed ideas by the founders of scientific communism on the internationalist meaning of the workers' class struggle, on proletarian internationalism and the need and importance for the proletarians of all countries to unite, the practical embodiment of these ideas has had a difficult path.
The foundations of internationalist unity of the workers laid down by Marx and Engels during the time of the First International were further strengthened in the activity of the revolutionary proletarian parties. During the critical period of the First World War, however, the Second International collapsed as a result of betrayal of the principles of proletarian internationalism by its opportunist leaders and by their transfer to social-nationalism and social-chauvinism. The cause of international proletarian solidarity was dealt a severe blow. The situation was made even worse by the fact that the imperialist bourgeoisie, rightly fearing the international solidarity of all working men, launched a wide campaign of nationalist and chauvinistic propaganda. Since 260 this bourgeoisie was, as Lenin remarked, ``more international than the small proprietors'',^^*^^ it was able to play on national feelings, prejudices and traditions so as to hamper the spreading of ideas of internationalist solidarity of the working classes, and utilised the whole force of its power so as to prevent international co-operation among workers' parties and organisations.
During the complex historical circumstances of the First World War and the rampant nationalism and chauvinism associated with it, Lenin consistently stood for the internationalist solidarity of the proletariat. In his theoretical and practical activity, he elaborated in an all-round way issues concerning the correlation of internationalist and national tasks of the working class, the ways and forms of proletarian international solidarity and of all working people in the new historical conditions. Lenin consistently attacked nationalism which the bourgeoisie was propagating widely to befuddle the working-class consciousness. He set an example of a specific dialectical approach to this phenomenon.
Being an internationalist and a consistent fighter for a close alliance of all working people, irrespective of their nationality or country, Lenin was also a realist. Better than many of his fellow-thinkers he realised the force of national feelings, the tenacity of national differences and the whole complexity of the nationalities question. He considered it subordinate in relation to issues of the class struggle, yet at the same time warned against nihilism in the nationalities question, appealed to the Communists in different countries carefully to consider the nationality aspect in their revolutionary activity.
Lenin's views on the right of nations to self-- determination are permeated with the spirit of revolutionary dialectics. While fighting for the internationalist unity of workers and against nationalistic separatism, he warned against underestimating the slogan of the right of nations to selfdetermination, especially in regard to small nations, seeing this as a necessary prerequisite for a successful struggle for firm internationalist unity, purposive and voluntary.
_-_-_^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 29, p. 148.
261Correspondingly, the internationalist education of the workers aimed at the voluntary unification of all nations could not be the same in all countries.
``In the internationalist education of the workers of the oppressor countries,'' Lenin underlined, ``emphasis must necessarily be laid on their advocating freedom for the oppressed countries to secede and their fighting for it. Without this there can be no internationalism.''^^*^^
Socialists of small nations must, Lenin said, emphasise in their agitation ``the second word of our general formula: 'voluntary integration of nations''.^^**^^
Lenin's ideas on the correlation of class and national interests and the correlation of the internationalist and national tasks of the working class were further developed and practically applied after the October Revolution and the formation of the world's first socialist state. His theory of socialist revolution based on the possibility of the victory of socialism initially in a single country, and its implementation added several new aspects to the specific understanding of the principles of proletarian internationalism, to an understanding of the correlation of the internationalist and national tasks of the proletariat both in the only then existing country where it had come to power and in the countries remaining under capitalist rule.
Under Lenin's leadership, the Russian working class provided an excellent example of genuine internationalism, demonstrated in practice its readiness to make great sacrifice and to endure all difficulties for the sake of world socialist revolution. Lenin based himself on the fact that ``the interests of socialism, of world socialism are higher than national interests, higher than the interests of the state''.^^***^^
While the victory of the proletarian revolution and the establishment of Soviet power throughout the former Russian Empire created a firm basis for internationalist unity of the working people of all the numerous nationalities of Russia, Lenin realised that this unity could be achieved only _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., Vol. 22, p. 346.
^^**^^ Ibid., p. 347.
^^***^^ Ibid., Vol. 27, p. 378.
262 on a voluntary basis. ``Nations must be won over to the idea of an alliance with the Great Russians not by force, but by a really voluntary and really free agreement....''^^*^^The resolution of this task required lengthy and painstaking work in overcoming strife among nationalities that was a legacy of the age-old exploiting systems of the past, it required the consistent implementation of the principles of equality of nations and the rights of nations to self-- determination up to and including secession and formation of independent states. Lenin was particularly intolerant in regard to manifestations of nationalism or chauvinism on the part of members of large nations. He wrote: ``...We Great-Russian Communists must repress with the utmost severity the slightest manifestation in our midst of GreatRussian nationalism, for such manifestations, which are a betrayal of communism in general, cause the gravest harm.''^^**^^
The Leninist principles of relations between nations were consistently embodied both in the domestic and the foreign policy of the Soviet state. A few examples: recognition of the independence of Poland, Finland and other countries that had been part of the Russian Empire; proclamation of the principles of the federal structure of the statehood of the peoples in the Soviet country; consistent implementation of formal and factual equality of all nationalities.
``The freer Russia is, and the more resolutely our republic recognises the right of non-Great-Russian nations to secede,'' Lenin wrote, ``the more strongly will other nations be attracted towards an alliance with us, the less friction will there be, ... and the closer and more enduring---in the long run---will the fraternal alliance be between the Russian proletarian and peasant republic and the republics of all other nations.''^^***^^
An extremely instructive example of Lenin's dialectical treatment of internationalism is his attitude to the question _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 24, p. 338.
^^**^^ Ibid.. Vol. 30, p. 296.
^^***^^ Ibid., Vol. 24, p. 338.
263 of relations between the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic and the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. As internationalists, he said, ``it is our duty, first, to combat very vigorously the survivals (sometimes unconscious) of Great-Russian imperialism and chauvinism among 'Russian' Communists; and .secondly, it is our duty, precisely on the national question, which is a relatively minor one ... to make concessions. There are other questions---the fundamental interests of the proletarian dictatorship; the interests of the unity and discipline of the Red Army which is fighting Denikin; the leading role of the proletariat in relation to the peasantry---that are more important; the question whether the Ukraine will be a separate state is far less important. We must not be in the least surprised, or frightened, even by the prospect of the Ukrainian workers and peasants trying out different systems, and in the course of, say, several years, testing by practice union with the RSFSR, or seceding from the latter and forming an independent Ukrainian SSR, or various forms of their close alliance, and so on, and so forth.''^^*^^Lenin repeatedly stressed the international importance of the October Revolution, he foresaw the inevitability of a repetition on an international scale of some of its basic features, he saw Bolshevism as a model of tactics for all, yet at the same time he noted the specificity of the ways the October Revolution developed and resolutely opposed a blind copying of Bolshevik tactics by Communists of other countries. Hence his advice to the leaders of the Hungarian Soviet Republic; in a telegram to Bela Kun he wrote: ``It would be a mistake merely to imitate our Russian tactics in all details in the specific conditions of the Hungarian revolution.''^^**^^ He developed the same idea in an address to the Communists of Azerbaijan, Georgia, Armenia, Daghestan and the Mountaineer Republic in 1921: "Do not copy our tactics, but analyse the reasons for their peculiar features, the conditions that gave rise to them, and their results; go _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., Vol. 30, pp. 270--71.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 29, p. 227.
264 beyond the letter, and apply the spirit, the essence and the lessons of the 1917--21 experience.''^^*^^Lenin recommended to foreign Communists---ardent and consistent internationalists---carefully to consider the national characteristics of their countries, and warned against underestimating the role of national aspects in the development of the revolutionary process. ``The demarcation between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is proceeding in different countries in their own specific ways,'' he said. ``Here we must act with utmost caution. We must be particularly cautious with regard to the various nations, for there is nothing worse than lack of confidence on the part of a nation.''^^**^^
Lenin's ideas on the specificity of the revolutionary process in various countries refer not only to the period of struggle for power, but also to the resolution of tasks of building socialism after the proletariat has taken political power. In 1918, Lenin said that socialist society ``can come into being only by passing through a series of varied, imperfect concrete attempts to create this or that socialist state''.^^***^^
Lenin believed that despite the common aim of the workers of all countries---socialism---and the common fundamental laws of class struggle and socialist revolution, each country would follow its own road to socialism; each road would not be a repetition of historical experience but its development, supplementation and enrichment. The following words of Lenin's have become quite well known: ``All nations will arrive at socialism---this is inevitable, but all will do so in not exactly the same way, each will contribute something of its own to some form of democracy, to some variety of the dictatorship of the proletariat, to the varying rate of socialist transformations in the different aspects of social life.''^^****^^
In a report on the Party Programme at the 8th Party Congress, in 1919, he again returned to this idea: ``...No decree has yet been issued stating that all countries must _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 32, p. 318.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 29, p. 174.
^^***^^ Ibid., Vol. 27, p. 341.
^^****^^ Ibid., Vol. 23, pp. 69--70.
265 live according to the Bolshevik revolutionary calendar; and even if it were issued, it would not be observed.''^^*^^The founder and leader of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was always very respectful towards the experience of other parties, of other countries and towards their desire to resolve the tasks of socialist revolution in their own way; he strongly opposed any attempt to impose readymade recipes on them. At the 8th Party Congress Lenin said: ``They must be given the opportunity of fulfilling a modest wish---to create a better Soviet power than ours. We cannot help reckoning with the fact that things there are proceeding in rather a peculiar way...'' And further: ''. . .While foreseeing every stage of development in other countries, we must decree nothing from Moscow.''^^**^^
Lenin's understanding of the principles of proletarian internationalism in the new historical epoch beginning with the October Revolution found an expression in the activity of the Third Communist International. Communists of the whole world considered it their internationalist duty to maintain utter solidarity with the only country with a victorious proletariat---the Soviet Union, which paved the way to the victory of socialism in all countries. The attitude to the Soviet Union as the base of world revolution and its comprehensive support have always been a major criterion of the loyalty of foreign Communist Parties to the principle of proletarian internationalism.
The distinctive intertwining of internationalist and national tasks in the activity of Communist and Workers' Parties was especially apparent during the Second World War, when the struggle of European countries against the fatal menace of nazism demanded the unity of all forces of the nations to resist the fascist invaders. Class contradictions did not, of course, disappear, but the battle of working people for social emancipation was closely intertwined with the struggle for national liberation from the fascist invaders and became the prime historical task.
The watershed, both internationally and within each _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., Vol. 29, pp. 174--75.
^^**^^ Ibid., p. 17.1.
266 individual country, at that time, lay not only between the exploiters and the exploited, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, but primarily between the fascist invaders and their collaborators, on the one hand, and the anti-nazi forces, on the other. This encouraged national patriotic feelings, especially in the occupied countries.At the same time, the settlement in each nazi-occupied territory of the national task---liberation from the invaders--- largely depended on the outcome of the world struggle, on external forces, above all, on the Soviet Union, its victory over nazi Germany, the part it played in the anti-Hitler coalition, and its foreign policy. This encouraged an awareness among broad sections of European peoples ( especially in Eastern Europe) of the community of interests of their countries with the interests of the socialist Soviet Union and the growth of its international prestige.
All these circumstances affected the character and forms of the revolutionary processes which developed in Central and Southeastern Europe during the closing stages of the war, and also the forms of relations between the Soviet Union and the People's Democracies in the early postwar years.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ IISocialism emerged from the framework of a single country and turned into a world socialist system. This occurred with the beginning of socialist construction in Bulgaria, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Rumania, Hungary and Albania, and subsequently the formation of the German Democratic Republic. Alongside the Mongolian People's Republic, which had existed from 1924, new socialist states arose in Asia---the Chinese People's Republic, the Korean People's Democratic Republic and the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. A victorious revolution was carried out in Cuba.
The question of relations between the Soviet Union and the new People's Democracies (and among the latter themselves) became a direct practical question which also had 267 great importance both for the domestic development of these countries and international relations as a whole.
The same type of socio-economic and political system, the community of basic interests and tasks, the leading role of Communist and Workers' Parties, the single dominating ideology---Marxism-Leninism---and the single goal---the triumph of communism, the generally recognised and wellearned prestige of the CPSU and Soviet Union all created an objective basis conducive to implementing the lofty principles of proletarian internationalism in relations between the socialist countries, and to the establishment and development of international relations of a fundamentally new type. At the same time, this involves a complicated historical process which is accompanied by many difficulties.
On the one hand, there are the insufficiency of historical experience, its specific nature, and the complexity of correctly combining internationalist and national interests, of combining international class solidarity and national, patriotic feelings sharpened by the previous history of the People's Democracies. Many of them were economically backward, with relatively weak industry and a domination of pettybourgeois elements, feudal survivals and dependence on foreign capital. Their political affairs were characterised by a lengthy absence of state independence and, in several countries, by dictatorial and monarchical forms of government, domination by bourgeois-landowner and petty-- bourgeois parties, and the widespread propagation of nationalistic ideology.
On the other hand, the establishment and development of relations between these countries were considerably affected by the overall international situation, including such features as the cold war, the striving of the imperialist bourgeoisie led by US ruling circles to hinder at any price the consolidation of socialism in Central and Southeastern Europe, and to re-establish the capitalist order and pro-- imperialist political regimes there.
Several circumstances, connected above all with the internal situation in the People's Democracies, required very careful observation of the voluntary principle in the process 268 of the internationalist cohesion of working people and a strict fulfilment of Leninist instructions that we must ``strive persistently for the unity of nations and ruthlessly suppress everything that tends to divide them, and in doing so we must be very cautious and patient, and make concessions to the survivals of national distrust. We must be adamant and uncompromising towards everything that affects the fundamental interests of labour in its fight for emancipation from the yoke of capital.''^^*^^
During the immediate postwar years, when imperialism launched the cold war, it was these ``fundamental interests'' of socialism that necessitated the unity of the socialist countries in the shortest possible time and the securing to the Soviet Union of the vanguard role as the main force confronting world imperialism.
The Soviet Union, its existence, its strength and its foreign policy did much to help the formation and strengthening of the world socialist system and guarantee its defence against encroachments by imperialist aggressors. Janos Kadar, First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party, said at the 1969 International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties: ``There is no socialist country . .. whose stable prospects of socialist development and security are not protected by the existence, internationalist policy and might of the Soviet Union.''^^**^^
In spite of the exceptionally complex situation, as a result of the efforts of the Soviet Union and the People's Democracies themselves, the basic tasks of normalising relations within the world socialist system and of uniting the countries that took the socialist road after the Second World War have been resolved. A firm alliance of socialist states was formed.
The socialist states, by rallying around the Soviet Union, gained the opportunity to rely on its military and economic assistance, and to rely on its moral, political and diplomatic support. This has contributed to the failure of aggressive _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 30, p. 293.
^^**^^ International Meeting of Commimbl and Workers' Parlies, Moscow HUM, p. 332.
269 assaults of world imperialism and, at the same time, it has created conditions conducive to the internal consolidation of popular democratic governments, successful solution of urgent social and economic tasks and the advance to a new stage in building socialism.The existence, experience and assistance of the Soviet Union greatly helped the People's Democracies to carry through socialist changes and to improve their domestic and international situation. The words addressed by Lenin to the Communists of the Caucasus in 1921 may be applied to the Communist and Workers' Parties of these states: ``You... have no need to force a breach. You must take advantage of the favourable international situation and learn to build the new with greater caution and more method.''^^*^^
The new relations that arose between socialist countries found their expression in bilateral treaties of friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance and, subsequently, in multilateral agreements and organisations. As the mutual relations of the socialist countries developed, questions of economic co-operation became increasingly important and, in particular, were manifest in the creation of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA) by the European socialist states in 1949. The Mongolian People's Republic joined later. CMEA greatly helped to expand the economic ties between the socialist countries, especially in foreign trade and scientific and technological co-operation. The need to extend economic co-operation within the socialist community naturally stems from the nature of contemporary socialist production and scientific and technological progress, which demand a concentration of the efforts and resources of the socialist countries so as to resolve the paramount economic tasks.
However in an atmosphere of international tension stepped up by the imperialist powers headed by the United States, which had been pursuing a course directed towards the remilitarisation of West Germany and encouragement of that country's revanchist tendencies, the military and political _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 32, pp. 317--18.
270 co-operation of the socialist countries became increasingly important. It was further developed within the framework of the Warsaw Treaty of Friendship, Co-operation and Mutual Assistance signed by eight socialist countries in Europe in 19.55 and also in their many joint international actions.The principles of proletarian, socialist internationalism have been furthered in the political, economic and cultural co-operation of the socialist countries. The CPSU Programme defines the characteristic features of relations between socialist countries as complete equality, mutual respect for independence and sovereignty, fraternal assistance and cooperation.
Difficulties, too, have existed alongside the considerable attainments in relations between socialist states. These difficulties were attributable above all to objective causes, like those mentioned above (the peculiar nature of historical development and divergencies in the social and economic structure of each country, the vestiges of age-old national strife, the novelty and complexity of the tasks of building socialism, and the specific international situation), and also by certain causes of a subjective nature. Lenin's idea on the need to take into consideration the national features of each country has sometimes not been observed with sufficient consistency; at times, it has been forgotten that Soviet experience reflected both the basic, necessary and general laws of socialist revolution, and the peculiarly national features engendered by the specific nature of the Soviet Union's development. Meanwhile, one of the features of the October Revolution and Soviet socialist construction has been the ability to take account of the uniqueness and specific nature of each actual situation.
Errors in this field, an insufficiently creative attitude to historical experience, attempts slavishly and irrespective of specific conditions to copy established models, sometimes artificial speeding up of the solution of social, economic and political problems have had objectively the opposite effect. All this has been played on by hostile, anti-socialist forces to discredit the experience of the CPSU and the Soviet state, to undermine Soviet moral and political prestige in the eyes 271 of the working people, and to weaken the international positions of socialism.
Between 1953 and 1955, further important steps were taken to develop relations between the Parties and states of the world socialist system. A Plenary Meeting of the CPSU Central Committee adopted a resolution in July 1955 which said: ``In all our relations with the People's Democracies and with the fraternal Communist and Workers' Parties, Soviet and Party agencies and all our officials abroad must strictly be guided by Leninist principles of socialist internationalism, of complete equality, of respect for national sovereignty and of consideration for the specific national features of all socialist countries.''^^*^^
The 20th Congress of the CPSU emphasised the need for a consistent implementation of the Leninist principles of friendship and equality of the peoples in mutual relations between socialist countries. These points were specifically embodied in the Declaration of the Soviet Government "On the Fundamentals of the Development and Further Consolidation of Friendship and Co-operation Between the Soviet Union and Other Socialist States'', published on October 31, 1956.
The overcoming of the negative consequences of the personality cult helped further to consolidate the socialist community. The series of bilateral negotiations and agreements in 1956 and 1957 culminated in the Moscow Meeting of Representatives of Communist and Workers' Parties from 12 socialist countries in November 1957, which unanimously adopted a Declaration. The Declaration stressed: ``Stronger fraternal relations and friendship between the socialist countries call for a Marxist-Leninist internationalist policy on the part of the Communist and Workers' Parties, for educating all the working people in the spirit of combining internationalism with patriotism and for a determined effort to overcome the survivals of bourgeois nationalism and chauvinism.''^^**^^ The Declaration marked an important stage in the _-_-_
^^*^^ Under the Banner of Proletarian Internationalism. Collection of Articles, Moscow, 1957, pp. 74--75 (in Russian).
^^**^^ The Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, p. 13.
272 development of international relations of a new type, founded on creative application of the Leninist principles of proletarian, socialist internationalism. __ALPHA_LVL2__ IIIThe expansion and improvement of relations within the socialist community at the end of the 1950s facilitated the new and big successes of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries in economic and political development, the effective resistance to imperialist aggressive schemes, the strengthening and consolidation of peace-loving forces, and the lessening of international tension.
Economic co-operation between socialist countries, particularly within CMEA, further developed. In June 1962 and in July 1963 conferences of CMEA heads of state discussed the tasks of further co-operation and approved the " Fundamental Principles of International Socialist Division of Labour''. Co-ordination of economic plans became the basis of CMEA work. A number of important problems concerning guaranteed supplies to CMEA members of oil, coking coal, iron ore, non-ferrous metals and plant were resolved within the CMEA framework. Such projects as the Friendship oil pipeline and the integrated Peace power grid, and the Brotherhood gas pipeline play an important part. CMEA activity has greatly stimulated the economies of its members. Between 1951 and 1969, the aggregate national income of CMEA members increased virtually 4.5 times: the volume of industrial output was 6.3 times greater in 1969 than in 1950. The share of CMEA countries in world industrial production grew from 18 per cent in 1950 to 33 per cent in 1970 (it is worth recalling that in 1937, on the territory of the countries that are today members of CMEA, some 15 per cent of world industrial production was recorded).
As the role of the world socialist community grows, so do the importance of mutual relations between its members and the responsibility of each socialist country for pursuing a correct foreign and home policy, for preserving and developing friendship and unity of all socialist states, thus guaranteeing their unity in the face of world imperialism. ``Complete 273 victory over capitalism cannot be won,'' Lenin once noted, ``unless the proletariat and, following it, the mass of working people in all countries and nations throughout the world voluntarily strive for alliance and = unity.''^^*^^
Lenin's study of the reasons for divergent opinions in the international workers' movement is essential for comprehending the complex processes in the socialist community today. Lenin said: ``One of the most profound causes that periodically give rise to differences over tactics is the very growth of the labour movement.''
And further on: ``The enlistment of larger and larger numbers of new 'recruits', the attraction of new sections of the working people must inevitably be accompanied by waverings in the sphere of theory and tactics, by repetitions of old mistakes, by a temporary reversion to antiquated views and antiquated methods, and so forth.''^^**^^
Subjectivism, nationalism and Right- and ``Left''-wing opportunism in the policies of leading statesmen are incompatible with Marxism-Leninism. They cause considerable harm both to the interests of that particular country and the overall positions of socialism.
The change in the position of the Chinese Communist leaders to that of Great-Power chauvinism and hegemonism, the splitting anti-Soviet policy of the Maoists within the socialist community and the international communist movement, have had very adverse effects. This shift in policy was accompanied by an ideological campaign behind which lay a revision of the fundamental principles of MarxismLeninism, including the principles of proletarian internationalism.
The Chinese leaders, as pointed in the Report of the CPSU Central Committee to the 24 CPSU Congress, "have put forward an ideological-political platform of their own which is incompatible with Leninism on the key questions of international life and the world communist movement, and have demanded that we should abandon the line of the 20th Congress and the Programme of the CPSU. They _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 151.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. Hi, p. 347-4.S.
274 unfolded an intensive and hostile propaganda campaign against our Party and country, made territorial claims on the Soviet Union, and in the spring and summer of 1969 brought things to the point of armed incidents along the border.''^^*^^At the same time as the Maoists endangered SovietChinese relations through their splitting policy, the Albanian Government broke off normal relations with the Soviet Union and other European socialist countries, and stopped co-operating with them within the Warsaw Treaty and CMEA.
The line of socialist construction in isolation, detached from the world community of socialist countries, is theoretically untenable, harmful economically, and reactionary and dangerous politically. Events have fully borne out these propositions formulated in the CPSU Programme.^^**^^ The penetration of petty-bourgeois nationalist ideology into individual Communist Parties can be extremely damaging to the interests of world socialism and can worsen international and inter-state relations.
The possibility of nationalist tendencies arising and being manifest in individual socialist countries is due both to reasons connected with their internal development and to the foreign policy situation. Although it may sound paradoxical, it is also due to the overall world balance of power being favourable to world socialism. The vast military strength of the Soviet Union stops the aggressive imperialist circles from counting on any success through armed aggression against any socialist countries. Socialist states, therefore, are shielded by Soviet might against a direct threat from imperialism and have a greater opportunity to act independently in world affairs.
Imperialist politicians are aware of these circumstances and are stepping up their attempts to weaken co-operation between the socialist countries, to blunt their vigilance through more flexible methods of the ``bridge-building'' _-_-_
^^*^^ 24th Congress of the CPSU, p. 15.
^^**^^ See The Programme of the Communist Parly of the Soviet Union, p. 18.
275 type. These shifts in imperialist strategy and tactics are designed to fan nationalistic emotions and to increase disagreements within the socialist community. Imperialism, playing on the sincere interest of socialist states to promote relations with Western powers on the principles of peaceful coexistence, today makes an important stake on ``peaceful penetration'', ``the evolution of communist regimes'', and ``erosion of the socialist community''.Typically, most bourgeois writers, motivated by the need for a more flexible and subtle policy, are well aware of the solidity of socialist positions. The authors of the book Eastern Europe in Transition, published in 1966, describe the manifestations of nationalism in the European socialist states as a temporary phenomenon and note their difference from the bourgeois understanding of nationalism. They have this to say: ``Nationalism, in the traditional Western sense of the word, is different from nationalism in a country dominated by a Communist Party. This difference expresses itself in form, content and goals. In any event, there was in Eastern Europe no particular desire to return to the `good old days'.''^^*^^
In the countries that are building socialism, however, anti-socialist elements that have remained there to some degree can in certain conditions grow active, and, counting on outside support from imperialism, take their opposition as far as direct counter-revolutionary actions. This was apparent, in particular, in the political events of 1968 in Czechoslovakia.
The strength and effectiveness of the internationalist solidarity of socialist countries frustrated the attempt by the remnants of the former exploiting classes in alliance with Right-wing opportunists and with support from world imperialism to destroy the fundamentals of the socialist system in Czechoslovakia, to isolate it from fraternal countries and thereby to deal a heavy blow at the socialist positions in Europe.
The new political hopes of US reactionary circles in the battle against socialism have received particularly clear-cut _-_-_
^^*^^ Eastern Europe in Transition, Baltimore, 1966, pp. 25--26.
__PRINTERS_P_275_COMMENT__ 18* 276 expression in relation to the Chinese People's Republic. The minute the Chinese leadership took an anti-Soviet stance the US attitude to it changed noticeably. In these circumstances the importance of the principled Leninist position by the CPSU on Soviet-Chinese relations is increasingly obvious as a position of consistent defence of the principles of MarxismLeninism, all-round strengthening of the unity of the world communist movement and defence of the interests of the Soviet Union.The CPSU Central Committee and the Soviet Government are waging a principled battle against the splitting activity of the present Chinese leaders and conduct a policy of reestablishing and furthering friendly relations with China based on the view that the vital, long-term interests of the Soviet and Chinese peoples coincide. Leonid Brezhnev said in his report at the Lenin centenary celebrations: ``It is precisely by jointly following the road charted by Lenin, by waging a joint struggle against the sinister forces of imperialist reaction, for the triumph of the sacred cause of socialism and communism that the correct prospect is opened for the future development of relations between China and the Soviet Union, and between China and other socialist countries.''^^*^^
The CPSU has roundly condemned the slanderous attacks by Chinese propaganda on the policies of our Party and state, and at the same time the CPSU advocates a normalisation of Soviet-Chinese relations and the restoration of good-neighbourliness and friendship between the Soviet and Chinese peoples. The 24th Congress of the CPSU said: ``Improvement of relations between the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China would meet the vital, longterm interests of both countries, the interests of world socialism, the interests of intensifying the struggle against imperialism.''^^**^^
Although there have been some difficulties and complications, the dominant trend in mutual relations between socialist states is to strengthen friendship and co-operation. _-_-_
^^*^^ L. I. Brezhnev, Following Lenin's Course, p. 293.
^^**^^ 24th Congress of the CPSU, p. 213.
277 This rests on a solid objective base, above all, the profound community of vital interests and aims, the trend, mentioned by Lenin, towards the internationalisation of economies which is growing from strength to strength. Lenin pointed out that ``internationalism, the amalgamation of all nations in the higher unity ... is growing . . . with every mile of railway line that is built, with every international trust, and every workers' association that is formed (an association that is international in its economic activities as well as in its ideas and aims).''^^*^^The objective demands of further development in world socialism, especially with the scientific and technological revolution in progress, insistently require closer political, economic, scientific and technological co-operation on the scale of the entire socialist system. The possibilities today of guaranteeing an effective development of productive forces along the lines of autarchy are sharply limited, especially for small states.
The facts on the scale and benefit of economic co-- operation among the fraternal socialist states speak for themselves. From 1966 to 1970, more than 300 industrial and agricultural projects were built or modernised in the socialist countries with Soviet technical assistance, and many types of industrial products were supplied by the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union satisfies in excess of 70 per cent of the needs of the CMEA countries, Cuba, and, to a large extent, North Vietnam and North Korea in the imports of many important raw materials and fuels.
In turn, CMEA members delivered to the Soviet Union equipment for 54 chemical plants and 38 per cent of the tonnage of merchant ships that the Soviet Union has acquired in the last five years. They take part through capital investment in the development of the Soviet raw material and fuel industries, in expanding production of metals, mineral fertiliser and cellulose, and supply many consumer goods.
The International Economic Co-operation Bank is successfully operating and the CMEA General Investment Bank recently began to function.
_-_-_^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 20, p. 34.
278Problems of further economic co-operation between socialist countries were studied at the 23rd extraordinary (April 1969) and at subsequent meetings of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance. In evaluating the present stage of socialist and communist construction in their countries, the meeting participants unanimously emphasised the need to improve existing forms and methods of economic co-- operation and to seek new and more effective forms. Economic co-operation must become even more effective and help better to resolve the tasks confronting each member and the community as a whole. This will help to strengthen the world socialist system, to gain victory in the economic competition with capitalism and to attain new successes in the struggle against imperialism. Socialist economic integration of CMEA countries, which is being implemented under the leadership of Marxist-Leninist parties, is based on the principles of socialist internationalism, complete equality, respect for sovereignty and national interests, mutual benefit and comradely mutual assistance.
The 1969 Moscow Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties stressed the immense international importance of the economic coming together of socialist countries: ``One of the most important tasks before the Communist and Workers' Parties of the socialist countries is to develop allembracing co-operation between their countries and ensure fresh successes in the decisive areas of the economic competition between the two systems, in the advance of science and technology. As the struggle between the two world systems grows sharper, this competition demands that, on the basis of the socialist countries' fundamental interests and aims and of the Marxist-Leninist principles underlying their policy, the socialist system should place greater reliance on the international socialist division of labour and voluntary co-operation between them, which rules out any infringement of national interests, and ensures the advance of each country and consolidates the might of the world socialist system as a whole.''^^*^^
_-_-_^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow 1969, p. 23.
279The 24th CPSU Congress outlined broad prospects for economic and scientific co-operation between the socialist countries. In particular, Soviet Prime Minister Alexei Kosygin noted in his report that deliveries of many types of goods by Soviet industry to the CMEA countries will increase substantially. For example, oil deliveries will go up from 138 million tons in 1966--1970 to 243 million tons in the Ninth Five-Year Plan, natural gas---correspondingly from 8,000 million cubic metres to 33,000 million cubic metres, electricity---from 14,000 million kwh to 42,000 million kwh, iron ore (in tons of metal)---from 72 million tons to 94 million tons. Under the current five-year plan, the Soviet Union will import from the CMEA countries 1,300 million rubles' worth of plant for its chemical industry, nearly 3,000 million rubles' worth of its railway and water-borne transport facilities and manufactured consumer goods to the value of over 8,500 million = rubles.^^*^^
The Directives of the Congress set the following task for the five-year economic development plan for 1971--1975: ``Economic, scientific and technical ties between the Soviet Union and other socialist countries, aimed at further strengthening co-operation and consistently promoting the economic integration of the CMEA countries, shall be improved and extended in every way. Comprehensive forms of co-operation with other socialist countries encompassing the spheres of material production, science and technology, mutual trade and trade on the markets of third countries, shall be developed in a planned way.''^^**^^
The firm resolution of the socialist countries to implement the long-term fundamental aims of their all-round fraternal co-operation was expressed in the Comprehensive Programme for further co-operation and socialist integration that was unanimously adopted at the 25th CMEA Session.
Military and political factors and the interests of peace and security also demand a stronger unity of socialist states. The words of Lenin are particularly relevant here. In _-_-_
^^*^^ See 24th Congress of the CPSU, pp. 198--99.
^^**^^ 24th Congress of the CPSU, p. 315.
280 substantiating the need to preserve and strengthen the Union of Socialist Republics Lenin wrote: ``Of this there can be no doubt. This measure is necessary for us and it is necessary for the world communist proletariat in its struggle against the world bourgeoisie and its defence against bourgeois intrigues.''^^*^^ True to Lenin's behests, Communists today see the defence of socialism as their supreme internationalist duty.The unity of the socialist countries by no means hampers overall international co-operation and development of peaceful coexistence between countries with different social systems. Close co-operation between the socialist countries combined with concerted action by all progressive forces in the efforts for peace and against imperialism is an important condition for successfully resolving the historic task of averting a nuclear world war.
Unity on the main issues, dictated by the vital interests of peace and socialism, does not exclude particular differences and attention to national feelings and the specific conditions in individual countries. This unity cannot be imposed from above, it cannot be ``decreed'', one has to, as Lenin said, ``work towards it''. Lenin underlines the importance of ``effectively organised democratic relations between nations" in his appeal to ``unite and merge the nations not by the force of the ruble, not by the force of the truncheon, not by violence, but by voluntary agreement and solidarity of the working people against the exploiters''.^^**^^
At the present stage of development, it is immensely relevant to secure a correct balance of the common interests and the specifically national interests; of the interests of the world socialist system as a whole and the interests of each of its members. The importance of these issues is all the greater because as the positions of socialism in the world expand and strengthen, the variety of the specific forms of development in individual countries will inevitably grow.
Successful settlement of the problems of mutual relations between socialist states is only possible on the basis of a _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 35, p. 609.
^^**^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 23, p. 27.
281 creative Marxist-Leninist approach. This demands the concerted efforts of the Communist and Workers' parties.Important milestones along the road to further consolidation of the socialist community are the treaties of friendship, co-operation and mutual assistance signed between the Soviet Union and other socialist countries. These treaties express the community of vital interests of the socialist countries.
Bilateral and multilateral summit meetings, long a regular feature of the relations among the fraternal socialist countries, have fully proved their worth. Direct friendly contacts between leaders of the fraternal parties make for closer cooperation among the socialist countries and help to strengthen the unity of the Communist and Workers' Parties in upholding the ideals of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism.
The 1969 International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties underlined the importance of strictly observing the principles of proletarian internationalism, of mutual assistance and support, equality, sovereignty and non-- intervention in internal affairs. It noted: ``Socialism is not afflicted with the contradictions inherent in capitalism. When divergences between socialist countries do arise owing to differences in the level of economic development, in social structure or international position or because of national distinctions, they can and must be successfully settled on the basis of proletarian internationalism, through comradely discussion and voluntary fraternal co-operation.''^^*^^
Efforts to promote unity between the socialist countries and the world communist movement occupy an exceptionally important place in the activity of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The 23rd and 24th congresses and the participation in their work by representative delegations from Communist and Workers' Parties of the socialist countries have testified to the widespread support from the fraternal countries for the policy of the CPSU and the Soviet Government. The solidarity with the Soviet Union by _-_-_
^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow 1969, p. 23.
282 representatives of North Vietnam, that waged an armed struggle against the American aggressors, has had a particular significance. The 24th CPSU Congress reaffirmed the consistent and invariable course of Soviet foreign policy in strengthening the unity and cohesion of the socialist countries, their friendship and brotherhood, inspired by the great ideas of Lenin, and instructed the CPSU Central Committee to do all in its power to expand co-operation with other socialist countries in international politics, economic relations, including the development of economic integration, and to consolidate scientific and cultural contacts.Events of recent years, in particular, the victory of the Vietnamese people over the US aggression, have forcefully shown the mounting importance of united actions by socialist countries in the struggle against the aggressive designs of the imperialists.
The struggle and victory of the people of Vietnam, to whom the Soviet Union gave all-round assistance in repelling the imperialist aggression, convincingly illustrate the vital significance of proletarian internationalism.
It was largely thanks to the solidarity of the fraternal socialist countries that the diplomatic blockade of the German Democratic Republic was lifted. Another striking example of co-operation in foreign policy is the drafting by socialist countries of a common platform on security and co-operation in Europe and their successful joint efforts in carrying out the platform.
Continued and closer solidarity is a key factor in consolidating and developing the international successes scored by fraternal socialist countries and in promoting their advance to socialism and communism.
The unswerving implementation of the principles of socialist internationalism and loyalty to Marxism-Leninism are guarantees of successful development, improvement and expansion of international relations of the socialist type.
[283] __ALPHA_LVL1__ AFTERWORDA study of the basic problems of modern international relations in the light of Lenin's ideas enables one to reveal the essence and specific nature of this sphere of social life, to show how complicated it is, to see its dynamism and growing importance. These trends which are clearly apparent in the course of international events of the past and the present will develop further in future.
The final quarter of the 20th century is a time when the productive forces will grow rapidly on the basis of the scientific and technological revolution, a time when the pace of social development and the far-reaching changes in the world will increase under the impact of revolutionary forces, a time when the battle between socialism and capitalism will be stepped up in the economic, political and ideological spheres.
All this inevitably enhances the role of international relations, leads to an even closer intertwining of internal and external factors in the life of peoples, and will engender a multiplicity of forms of class struggle internationally and the possibility of unexpected permutations and sharp turns of the foreign policy of individual countries. Without taking account of the growing role and the new laws of international relations today it is impossible to make a serious scholarly study either of the trends of world development or 284 of the situation and prospects of individual countries. This objective fact lies behind the growing importance of international problems in the activity of classes, parties and governments. In the decades to come, the objective prerequisites will grow for a more active influence by progressive social forces on the world situation and on the resolution of fundamental international problems in the interests of social progress.
The accomplishment of these tasks demands an increasingly profound understanding of the nature, laws and mechanism of international affairs, which are becoming more and more complicated, a careful study of new phenomena, a scientific forecast of trends and prospects in this sphere, and a search for more effective ways for socialist countries and Communist Parties to pursue their foreign policy. All this is possible only on the firm foundation of revolutionary thought which, as Lenin showed, sets questions ``not only in the sense of explaining the past but also in the sense of a bold forecast of the future and of bold practical action for its = achievement.''^^*^^
Lenin was never divorced from life, from actuality, from real-life conditions and, at the same time, was able to see the coming fate of humanity. Like no one before him, as Maxim Gorky wrote, ``he was able to foresee what must be. He could do that, I believe, because half of his great soul lived in the future; his iron yet flexible logic showed him the remote future in completely concrete and real forms.''^^**^^
The Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the world communist movement, being guided by the Marxist-Leninist teaching, by the most advanced revolutionary science of the present time, are doing all they can to further develop that science. The Lenin centenary celebrations were a worldwide review of the attainments and victories of MarxismLeninism and the forces of peace, democracy, national independence and socialism.
The 24th Congress of the CPSU in March and April of _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 72.
^^**^^ Maxim Gorky, Works, Vol. 24, Moscow 1953, p. 377 (in Russian).
285 1971 marked a new triumph for Lenin's ideas. The Report of the CPSU Central Committee and the Congress decisions analysed profoundly and comprehensively the results of international development and provided well-substantiated directives for the future. These documents elaborated the major issues of the development of the world socialist system---the decisive anti-imperialist force and the bulwark of peace and social progress---provided an assessment of contemporary imperialism, revealed the part played by the international working class as the militant vanguard of all revolutionary forces, showed how the national liberation struggle in many countries was growing into a struggle against exploiting relations, emphasised the importance of unity of the world communist movement and formulated the urgent tasks in this sphere.Soviet foreign policy held an important place at the Congress. The successes in building communism, the growing economic and military might, and the Leninist foreign policy have for over a quarter of a century been safeguarding the peaceful labour of the Soviet people. The Congress confirmed the basic aims and principles of Soviet foreign policy. In implementing the foreign policy elaborated by the Party, a policy that is principled and realistic in the Leninist style, the Congress put forward a wide-ranging constructive programme of work for peace and international co-- operation, for the freedom and independence of all peoples. The six points of this programme envisaging the settlement of major international problems met with enthusiastic support from the fraternal socialist countries and the popular masses throughout the world.
The 24th CPSU Congress, in the work of which 102 foreign delegations took part, forcefully demonstrated the growing unity of present-day revolutionary forces and the high international prestige of the Soviet Union and its Communist Party. A resolution of the plenary meeting of the Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party Central Committee noted, for example, that the Congress "reflected the fundamental role of the Soviet Union in the worldwide struggle which is deciding the fate of all mankind, the struggle for peace and security of the nations".
286The 24th Congress of the CPSU made an immense contribution to the development of Marxist-Leninist theory; it was a new testimony to the inexhaustible depth and everlasting importance of Lenin's ideological and political legacy. The Congress underlined the importance of the Party's vigorous theoretical activity for the growth of the international prestige of Marxism-Leninism, and pointed out the importance of the creative development of Marxist-Leninist thought and the further elaboration of vital problems of the day.
``As an eternally living and developing teaching,'' the Report of the CPSU Central Committee to the 24th CPSU Congress emphasised: ``Leninism has been, remains and will be the crux of the Party's ideological life, and the foundation of all its revolutionary, transformative activity. While drawing on Lenin's ideological legacy, the Party holds that its cardinal task is to find solutions to pressing problems of communist construction on the basis of Lenin's ideas and Lenin's methodology.''^^*^^
A profound study and creative development of Lenin's work in the theory and practice of international relations are an inexhaustible source of inspiration and constitute the scientific basis of the foreign policy pursued by the CPSU and the Soviet Government.
The unchanging viability and mighty transforming power of Leninist ideas and Leninist principles of foreign policy and Lenin's approach to the solution of international problems are strikingly borne out in the present age.
The chronicle of international relations in the modern age contains many events that have made an indelible mark on the course of world development. However the early seventies of this century must be accorded a special place in view of the concentration of important developments in this period and the opportunities and perspectives which took shape. Events of recent years clearly reflect the changes that have taken place in the alignment of forces in the world, the dynamic nature of the international situation and the increasingly important role of the active peace policy of the _-_-_
^^*^^ 24th Congress of the CPSU, p. 122.
287 socialist countries. The intensive and singleminded activity of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Soviet Government aimed towards the implementation of the Peace Programme put forward at the 24th Congress of the CPSU is becoming an increasingly effective factor in the turn now visible in world politics away from the cold war in the direction of detente.The termination of the war in Vietnam, the unreserved recognition of the German Democratic Republic in accordance with the rules of international law, the regulation of relations between Czechoslovakia and the Federal Republic of Germany, the consolidation of Cuba's international position and the successful beginnings of the European Conference on Securtiy and Co-operation are but some of the recent achievements which point to a continuation of the process of detente. Greatly contributed to the improvement of the overall international atmosphere meetings and negotiations between leaders of the socialist countries and representatives of the capitalist states, in particular the visits paid by Leonid Brezhnev, General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU, to the United States, West Germany and France in 1973 which reaped political and practical results of tremendous significance.
An important step towards reducing and finally removing the threat of nuclear war and towards the creation of a system of effective guarantees of international security was taken with the signing of the Soviet-American Agreement on the prevention of nuclear war that is subject to no timelimit. A practical switch from atomic confrontation to a policy aimed at ruling out the possibility of nuclear war and the settlement of all outstanding questions through negotiation will have an historic significance for the whole of mankind.
Increasingly widespread recognition for the principles of peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems, a reduction in the threat of an outright confrontation between the two world systems, the emergence of a whole series of treaties, agreements, arrangements providing a basis for peaceful and constructive relations between socialist and capitalist states, the extension of mutually advantageous [288] economic ties between them, all provide grounds for viewing the current deteete not as a passing phenomenon but as the beginning of a fundamental restructuring of international relations.
To implement this restructuring which is in the interests of the whole of mankind is unthinkable without struggle, without active efforts of the peace-loving forces, without overcoming the resistance of those in favour of aggressive policies.
Creative Marxism-Leninism and the immortal ideas of Lenin provide a powerful weapon in the struggle to consolidate a truly firm peace on earth.
__ALPHA_LVL0__ The End. [END] [289]