[1] Emacs-Time-stamp: "2007-11-14 21:14:49" __EMAIL__ webmaster@leninist.biz __OCR__ ABBYY 6 Professional (2006.03.0) __WHERE_PAGE_NUMBERS__ top __FOOTNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [*]+ __ENDNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [0-9]+ [BEGIN] 099-1.jpg

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 RELATIONS

The 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.

10

Leninism 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__ II

Lenin'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 RELATIONS
IN THE LIFE OF SOCIETY __ALPHA_LVL2__ I __NOTE__ Again, quote is above "I"

Dialectics 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__ II

The 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.

31

At 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.

33

While, 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.

34 099-2.jpg 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__ III

In 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.

41

In 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__ IV

The 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.

51

The 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.

54

The 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).

55

All 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__ V

Foreign 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 Nati