[introduction.]

p The imperialists refuse to reconcile themselves to the loss of their colonies. They are searching for ways of saving colonialism. These searches have given rise to numerous theories of “neo-colonialism”, i.e., a new colonialism which is alleged to be free from all the defects of the past and which reconciles the interests of the oppressed and those of the oppressors. Actually, this new colonialism is nothing but an effort to attain the usual imperialist aims by indirect control of the countries that have achieved liberation, and in this way to make the independence they have won purely formal or to deprive them of it.

In the practice of colonialism, the method of indirect control is not new. The new feature is the attempt to make it the chief instrument of present-day colonialism, since the old methods of direct coercion of the peoples are so discredited that not even the imperialists as a whole dare defend them.

New Forms of Colonial Policy

p In the first place, the colonialists are making every effort to extend the social basis of their rule and to find new military, political, economic and ideological means of consolidating it. As already mentioned, the feudal and comprador circles have always been the traditional social support of the imperialists. Since these classes depend on antiquated economic relations, their positions have now become 423 much weaker. Besides, they have (with minor exceptions) irremediably compromised themselves in the eyes of the mass of the people, While continuing, wherever possible, to support the feudal lords and the compradors, the imperialists have been looking for other allies mainly among the representatives of the Right wing of the national bourgeoisie most alien to the interests of the people, and also among certain groups of the intelligentsia and reactionary clergy, Relying on the most reactionary circles of the local exploiting classes, they endeavour to set up military despotic regimes wherever possible and to put power in the hands of puppets obedient to the imperialists.

p In order to reach a deal with these circles, the imperialists try to intimidate them with the non-existent "communist menace”, bring military and political pressure to bear and offer them certain financial and economic inducements.

p The old, “classical” colonial policy started out from the striving to hinder the colonies, in so far as it depended on the imperialists, from developing any, except extractive, industry. In words the inspirers of “neo-colonialism” support industrialisation, but by this they mean only the development of the light and mining industries and means of transport and communication, something that cannot essentially endanger the economic positions of the foreign monopolies. At the same time the strivings of the Asian, African and Latin American countries for real industrialisation continue to meet with resistance. There were many cases, for example, when the Western countries refused to supply the young states with industrial equipment, machinery and machine tools. In the last resort the imperialists establish their own enterprises in these countries, but demand freedom to export their profits and various guarantees against nationalisation. The imperialist monopolies generally greatly resent and resist the development of a state-owned sector in the economy of the former colonial and dependent countries.

p Aggressive blocs, like SEATO and CENTO, organised on a “mixed” basis, i.e., with the participation of the formally independent states and their previous imperialist oppressors, have become the main military and political form of the new colonialism. Formed under the banner of “anti-communism”, these blocs actually aim at opening the gates of the former colonial countries to the military forces of imperialism, establishing political and strategic control over these countries and utilising them for the struggle against the national-liberation movement of neighbouring peoples.

p In the economic sphere, new forms of enslavement of the liberated countries, such as their inclusion in the "common market" system, are coming more and more into the forefront, Through the channels of the "common market”, the imperialists would like to flood these countries with their surplus goods, whereas it is clear that the nascent industry of the young states of Asia and Africa cannot compete with the industry of the West. At the same time the monopolies want to 424 continue pumping out raw materials and foodstuffs as cheaply as possible from the underdeveloped countries. If the young states were to submit to these plans it would mean reconciling themselves to the role of agrarian-raw material appendages of the imperialist countries. And in the course of time this would inevitably entail the loss to political independence.

p Is there a possibility of averting this danger? Experience shows that there is. Many of the young independent countries are introducing a system of strict state control over foreign trade and currency operations, taking the first steps towards establishing a monopoly of foreign trade. They are also making plans for setting up their own regional trade and economic associations, independent of the capitalist monopolies and counterposed to them.

p Of late the ideological bases of colonial policy have also undergone a certain revision. Under present conditions the imperialists have more and more often to refrain from open propaganda of racism and outdated theories of the white man’s “superiority”. Falling in with the social moods, even the most inveterate imperialists are now not averse to discoursing on the single human family and the right of all peoples to independent existence. Actually, however, the new signboards (for example, that of the “interdependence” of the metropolitan countries and the former colonies) serve as a cover for the old aims of colonial enslavement.

p Such “novelties” also include various theories of "collective colonialism”, of late repeatedly advocated by American imperialists, in the Congo, for example, where the united front of the old and new colonialists even used the emblem of the United Nations as a screen. This manoeuvre aims at replacing the rule of individual Western powers in the colonies by their joint exploitation of the colonial countries, invariably with the leading participation of American capital. Of course, the oppressed peoples have no reason to expect any more relief from this than a person could feel on finding out that he was being robbed by a gang rather than a single robber.

p In our days the champion of the new colonialism and its principal support on a world scale is American imperialism. Since the Second World War, the United States has noticeably enlarged its dollar empire. In addition to the actual seizure of part of China (Taiwan) and the occupation of a number of Japanese islands in the Pacific, the American monopolies have settled down in South Viet-Nam and South Korea and have acquired important economic and strategic positions in North Africa and the Middle East.

p Nevertheless, until recently American imperialism managed to pose as a champion of “anti-colonialism” and of “liberation” of the oppressed peoples. It won this reputation in the cheapest possible manner, by demagogically criticising some of the most outrageous actions of the European colonial powers and by offering economic “aid” to the underdeveloped countries. Some short-sighted people 425 did riot al once realise that the “anti-colonialism” of the American monopolies was a mere pretence and that they refused to act together with the European colonialists only when they wanted them to be defeated in the hope of taking their place. As for American economic “aid”, its purpose is to chain the countries accepting it to the war chariot of American imperialism. Suffice it to say, that, even from the data of a special committee of the American Congress itself, of the total allocations of the U.S.A. for foreign states, an average of seven per cent are for actual economic “aid”, and five per cent are for technical “aid”. The remaining 88 per cent are used directly or indirectly for military purposes. Small wonder that many Asian and African countries, despite their need for capital, have repeatedly declined offers of aid from the U.S.A.

p The peoples of the world can see ever more clearly that in our time the United States has become the main bulwark of modern colonialism, without which it would have collapsed much sooner.

Thus, as the Programme of the C.P.S.U. points out, imperialism remains the chief enemy and the chief obstacle to the solution of the national problems facing the young sovereign states and all dependent countries. A paramount condition for the solution of national tasks, the Programme stresses, is a consistent struggle against imperialism.

Anti-Communism Is an Instrument for Demoralising and Splitting
the National-Liberation Movement

p The Communist Parties have been in the forefront of the nationalliberation movement for many years. Despite the terrorism used by the colonial authorities and persecution by local bourgeois and feudal reactionary forces, Communists are making a great contribution to the struggle of the peoples for freedom and independence. They display inflexible courage and make big sacrifices in defending national interests and upholding the demands of the workers and peasants. Communists are well known to the people as staunch fighters against imperialism, social injustice and all forms of oppression.

p In the countries where Communists form part of the united front of national liberation, they actively and selflessly struggle for the common cause, strive for a radical solution of the national problems and for the satisfaction of the urgent needs and requirements of the mass of the working people. They co-operate sincerely with the other patriotic forces, are loyal to their partners in the anti-imperialist struggle and faithful to their engagements. Without the participation of Communists, success in the cause of national liberation and revival is now unthinkable in any country.

p Anti-communism is the more dangerous to the national-liberation movement since, if not repulsed in good time, it can demoralise and split the ranks of the fighters against imperialism. The Programme of the C.P.S.U. contains the timely warning: anti-communism is 426 becoming the chief weapon of reaction in the struggle against the democratic forces of the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. It is the meeting ground of imperialist ideology with the ideology of the pro-imperialist elements and reactionary groups of the bourgeoisie in the countries freed from the colonial yoke.

p Anti-communism is kindled primarily by the colonialists who were driven out of the colonies and refuse to reconcile themselves to their loss. The agents of imperialism are always on the look-out for weak spots in the countries that have liberated themselves. They intimidate short-sighted politicians with the "communist menace" in order to distract their attention from the struggle against the real danger—imperialism. They sow suspicion in the ranks of the national front and strife among the countries and among different sections of the population in each country, not shrinking from using the basest methods of provoking national and racial discord. The imperialists try in this way to disrupt the internal unity so much needed by the young states; they try to break the international solidarity of these states and, if possible, to provoke conflicts among them in the hope that they will then again fall an easy prey to the imperialist plunderers. Examples of such perfidious tactics could be repeatedly observed in the Middle East, in Indo-China, and in a particular marked form in Africa.

p In propagating anti-communism, the colonialists rely mainly on their old agents among the former bourgeois and feudal leadership. But they also cleverly speculate on the errors of some of the nationalist elements who have come to power in a number of the young states. Being at times unable correctly to understand and appraise the causes of the difficulties which arise from time to time in these states, the nationalist elements put the blame on the Communists, thus objectively helping the intrigues of the imperialist powers.

p The limitations of the ideology of nationalism show themselves in this particularly vividly. To be sure, bourgeois nationalists take for granted that all the patriotic forces of the nation should be united in the struggle for independence against the colonialists. But the narrow-minded bourgeois nationalist is not prepared to take into account that unity of the patriotic forces does not suddenly appear in a ready-made form and that it cannot be regarded as something present once and for all and unchanging. After the expulsion of the colonialists, when the problem of liberation has essentially been solved, society inevitably begins to search for answers to the social questions raised by life itself. For example, the question of land reform arises, and it turns out that the peasants and landlords have different views on the subject. The differing views of the workers and employers who shortly before were fighting together against the imperialists also come to light. This is quite natural because nationalism does not abolish class differences and the contradictions in class interests.

p State wisdom consists precisely in the ability to find the right ways of solving the most important social problems that arise in every 427 country after national independence has been achieved. Some bourgeois nationalists, however, do not want to take this into consideration. They insist that in the name of national unity the workers should sacrifice their demands for shorter hours and higher wages, that the peasants should relinquish their demand for a fair re– allotment of the land, etc. And when this does not happen, when the social relations begin to become strained, such nationalist elements begin to look for scapegoats. They accuse the Communists of weakening national unity. They begin to imagine all sorts of "communist plots”, although in actual fact it is objective processes of social development that come into operation, not because they are willed or desired by any particular party, but because of the existence of classes with different interests.

p The attacks on Communists are a source of satisfaction only to the enemies of the national independence of peoples, for the Communists are the most active and militant force in the struggle against imperialism.

p The Moscow Meeting of Representatives of Communist and Workers’ Parties (1960) solemnly declared: "The aims of the Communists accord with the supreme interests of the nation. The reactionaries’ effort to break up the national front under the slogan of ‘anti-communism’ and isolate the Communists, the foremost contingent of the liberation movement, weakens the national movement. It is contrary to the national interests of the peoples and threatens the loss of national gains.”^^1^^"

All practical experience of social developments during recent years confirms the correctness of this proposition. It is characteristic that the murky tide of anti-communism and persecution of the Marxist-Leninist parties and their press rises first of all in the countries where the ruling circles are ready to make a deal with the imperialist forces. This is, of course, no accident. Those who are really devoted to the ideals of national independence and freedom, who are not planning a compromise with the imperialists behind the back of the people and who, after the solution of the all-national problems, seriously intend to work for the solution of the problems of social emancipation of the mass of working people, have no reason to hate and fear Communists,