83

p The 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.”  [83•* 

p 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 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.

p 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.

p 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.

p 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.

p 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.

p 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.

p 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.”  [85•* 

p 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.”  [85•** 

p 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 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.

p 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.  [86•*  The USSR had become the world’s second industrial power.

p 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.

87

p Despite 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.

p 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.

88

p On 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.

p 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.

p 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.

p 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. . . .”  [89•* 

p 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.

p 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 90 in Korea and Indochina, helped to avert a world war.  [90•* 

p 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.

p 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.

p 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.

91

p The 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.  [91•*  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. 92

p 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.92•* 

p 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.

p 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.”  [92•** 

p 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.

93

p 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.

p 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.

p 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”.  [93•*  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, 94 and among governments moved by problems and purposes of their own.”  [94•* 

p 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.  [94•** 

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.”  [94•*** 

* * *

 

none smallest smaller normal TEXT SIZE larger largest

Notes

[83•*]   V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 22, p. 253.

[85•*]   V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 150.

[85•**]   Ibid., Vol. 31, p. 125.

[86•*]   See The Socialist Revolution and Modern Capitalism, Moscow. 19G8, p. 63 (in Russian).

[89•*]   Harry Schwartz, The Red Phoenix. Russia Since World War II, New York, 1961, p. XI.

[90•*]   P.M.S. Blackctt, Atomic Weapons and East-West Relations. Cambridge, 1956, p. 84.

[91•*]   See The Socialist Revolution and Modern Capitalism, pp. 69–70.

[92•*]   The Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, p. 52.

[92•**]   Foreign Affairs, Vol. 46, No. 3, April 1968, p. 480.

[93•*]   Foreign Affairs, Vol. 45, No. 2, January 1967, p. 192.

[94•*]   Ibid., p. 193.

[94•**]   See Walter Lippmann, Western Unity and the Common Market, London, 1962.

[94•***]   International Meeting of Communist and Workers Parties, Moscow 1969, p. 13.