242

p The establishment of the Soviet state signalled the inception of a basically new socio-economic system to which the laws of capitalist international relations no longer applied. The laws of capitalist politics ceased to be universal, as they had been before October 1917, and became limited. The geographical, economic and political spheres of imperialist domination were substantially reduced, and international relations were no longer completely determined by the 243 regularities of imperialism; socialism and its laws came to exert an increasing influence on world affairs.

p The consequences of the October Revolution, furthermore, were not confined to the escape from the imperialist system of a vast country straddling two continents. Simultaneously, imperialist policy found itself gradually being restricted both within the capitalist world and in relations between capitalist powers and their colonies and dependencies. In a comparatively brief period, the young socialist republic not only established its right to existence, but year by year enhanced its international status, thereby causing a further change in the objective world situation.

p The origination of a social system founded on socialist principles and diametrically opposed, by its very nature, to capitalism meant a radical shift in the pivot of international contradictions: from the inter-imperialist sphere it moved to that of relations between the two systems. Since the October Revolution, the socialist-capitalist confrontation has been the major contradiction in the world. Correspondingly, imperialist policy became obsessed with its relations with socialism, in the light of the completely new situation which posed quite different problems.

p For the capitalists, the familiar categories of war and peace acquired a somewhat new meaning and form in relation to the socialist system. Until then, imperialism had known wars between imperialists, wars against small and weak states, and colonial wars. But war against a socialist state proved to be something quite new in class essence and meaning. Until then, imperialism had known only a precarious peace between states with similar social systems imposed by force or a piratical peace imposed on small states or colonies. Now, there arose the problem of maintaining peaceful relations with a socialist state. This was a new and unknown type of peaceful relationship requiring a complete review of traditional policy.

p Socialism influenced imperialist policy not merely by posing the major problem of contemporary world policy— relations between the two social systems. It also forced the capitalists to adapt their inter-imperialist relations to take cognisance of the existence and influence of socialist foreign policy. The issue of war and peace between the imperialist powers could no longer be resolved without consideration of 244 the existence of a socialist state. There emerged a new sphere of inter-imperialist conflict over the issue of what attitude to take towards socialism. The unity of imperialist policy, in its campaign against socialism, has frequently broken down as a result of these mounting conflicts. And the idea of a capitalist crusade against socialism has more than once come to grief.

p Soon after the October Revolution, a dual attitude towards the socialist system was discernible: either it had to be destroyed by force, or some form of modus vivendi had to be worked out. The struggle of these two tendencies split the capitalist countries and polarised the political forces within each country and even within their ruling circles. The policy of each separate capitalist power in relation to socialism formed out of the clash of these tendencies.

p Socialism further influenced world capitalist policy by forcing the imperialist powers to take account of the existence of the socialist state and its foreign policy, when they framed their common strategy in relation to the world revolutionary process, whether it be the class struggle within capitalist society or the national liberation struggle.

p The new integral principles and practices of socialist foreign policy were bound to make their mark on international relations, and this significance became immense as the Soviet Union’s influence on world affairs grew. The establishment of the socialist community meant a further shrinking of the sphere of imperialist policy, as socialist foreign policy began to exert an increasing influence on the direction of world development and the form and content of world affairs in general. Whatever sphere or issue it affected, the impact of socialist foreign policy on world events and international relations became progressively more profound and all-embracing, as socialism gained ground and the general crisis of capitalism worsened.

p Objective processes of change in the international balance of class forces lie behind the shifts transforming world affairs. The arrangement and balance of class forces, both material and moral, have determined not only the international situation at any given historical moment, but the trends in world affairs and the ways and prospects for resolving the major international issues, and in this the balance of strength between the two systems—socialism and 245 capitalism—has a decisive part to play. The struggle between them, the shifting balance of strength between the two systems, constitutes the key issue of international relations.

p Undeniably, economic development and its associated military power are of paramount importance in determining the balance of power between the two systems. Nonetheless, the problem cannot be reduced to a straight comparison of material factors, to say nothing of a collation of military potentials in the narrow meaning of the term. MarxismLeninism takes full consideration of the part played by moral and political factors.

p The Soviet Union has immense economic and military power, but this by no means lessens the weight of moral and political factors in the aggregate balance of world forces. Such factors as Marxist-Leninist ideas, socialist humanism, fresh triumphs of socialist democracy, and the ideas of peace and friendship between peoples that permeate Soviet foreign policy have all been exerting an increasing influence on the minds and hearts of millions of people all over the world and enabling all progressives to consolidate their position.

p The world balance of power is by no means stable or given once and for all. It undergoes constant change and is a complex dialectical process, expressive of the interaction of numerous objective and subjective, permanent and transitional, at times contradictory and antagonistic, factors. Certainly, vacillations will occur, but, on the evidence of the last half century, the major direction and historical course of development is change in favour of socialism to the detriment of capitalism.

p This change does not come about by itself, but is a natural consequence of the policy pursued by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, which is designed to boost the material, moral and political power of the Soviet Union, to enhance its defensive capacity, and to increase its influence. This state of affairs was made possible by the Soviet people’s historic exploit.

p The tremendous labour effort involved in putting the Soviet economy on its feet after the Civil War, the creation of the material and technological basis of socialism and then the triumph of the new social system, paved the way for a further change in the balance of strength and the 246 ultimate defeat of the fascist aggressors in the last war, in which the forward detachment of imperialist reaction, nazism, attempted to destroy the socialist state.

p Capitalism was further rocked by socialist revolutions elsewhere in Europe and Asia. The formation and strengthening of the socialist community and the upsurge of the working-class and national liberation movement exacerbated the general crisis of capitalism and weakened its hold on world affairs.

p The vast increase in Soviet strength and successful economic progress in the other socialist countries were the major factors that tilted the balance of power in socialism’s favour. The fundamental changes taking place in the world at large show beyond all doubt that the major line of history is being determined by the world socialist community and the forces opposing imperialism and working for the reconstruction of society on socialist lines.

p These cardinal world changes have left their mark on all the processes in present-day capitalism. Imperialism, which the October Revolution had deprived of its monopoly of world affairs, has now ceased to be the dominant world force it once was. Socialism has been exerting an ever greater influence on the development of international relations.

p What chiefly distinguishes the world of the mid-1960s from that of 1917 is the vast growth of socialism—morally and materially. In the U.S.S.R. socialism has triumphed once and for all, and the country has now moved on to the next phase, the construction of communism. Not only has socialism triumphed in other European and Asian countries, it has also made inroads on the American continent. Imperialism has been unable to stem the tide of the national liberation movement which is backed by the socialist countries. The world revolutionary process has become an irrepressible force.

p Grayson Kirk, President of Columbia University, declared: “The fact remains that the Soviet Union has survived through great internal and external trials—for nearly half a century. Today ... its internal effectiveness, stability and popularity are greater than at any time in its history."  [246•1  In his book, Winning Without War, the American sociologist, 247 Prof. Amitai Etzioni, says that “...the Soviet Union is a highly developed industrial state with an economic growth rivalling, if not excelling, that of the United States; it is fully equipped with nuclear weapons and is a global power comparable to the United States".  [247•1 

p The revolutionary realignment of world forces is leading to a radical change in the nature and structure of international relations. In the new circumstances, the crisis of imperialist foreign policy has become unprecedented; it was precipitated chiefly by the erosion of the world imperialist system and the appearance of an antithetic social system— socialism. The crisis occurred, moreover, as a result of the abolition of the integrated inter-imperialist network of international relations. Since the main goal of imperialist foreign policy is the urge to world domination, the birth of a socialist state became an insurmountable obstacle to the attainment of this goal. A completely new situation arose when socialism and its new type of foreign policy came onto the scene, because relations between the two systems immediately became the main pivot and the key issue in world affairs.

p The failure of imperialist politics and strategy has never been more apparent than it is today. There has been, first, a crisis of aim in imperialist politics and strategy that broke out in 1917, when it had the intention to stifle socialism and world revolution at birth. Imperialism has been unable to do this. Given the current world balance of strength between the two systems, the socialist countries and the working people in capitalist states can compel imperialism to keep the peace and, in many cases, to pursue a policy of peaceful coexistence with the socialist world. This is not simply a natural consequence of the unfolding of world revolution over the past 50 years, but is also the result of a deliberate and purposeful foreign-policy action by socialism to ensure the best—strategically and tactically—peaceful conditions for mankind’s further and more rapid advance along the road of social progress.

p Second, there is a crisis in the methods—economic, ideological, political and military-strategic—used by imperialist leaders to achieve their ends. Economically, it proved 248 impossible to repress socialism, either at birth, after the October Revolution, or after the last war, which had inflicted untold damage on the economy of the Soviet Union and the new socialist states of South-East Europe. In the succeeding years, economic blockade as a means of combating socialism also proved a failure. In the economic competition with socialism, capitalism has been gradually giving ground.

p Capitalism is also on the retreat in the war of ideas. Throughout the world, the ideas of socialism are gaining popularity among ever wider sections of the population. One of the major results of the victorious advance of progressive ideas is the crisis of anti-communism. Born long before the October Revolution, this reactionary ideology became the cornerstone of imperialist foreign policy after the Revolution.

p In the more than 50 years since the October Revolution, the ideology and policy of anti-communism have suffered repeated defeats, but it was at the turn of the 1960s that this became quite clear to realistically minded men in the capitalist world. The eminent American Senator, J. William Fulbright, wrote: “It is neither possible nor desirable under the conditions of our time to impose by direct action the ideas and values of Western democracy on the Communist world or even on the turbulent emerging societies of Asia, Africa and Latin America."  [248•1  Many bourgeois politicians and scholars in the United States are coming to realise that a foreign policy of anti-communism can only bring disaster upon their own country. S. Lens, for example, says that American “strategy is out of tune with reality.... If America’s catastrophe is not yet fully apparent, it is merely because the world revolution ... is only in its incipiency".  [248•2 

p In world affairs, imperialism no longer holds key positions for control of all areas and events. International relations have come a long way from the era of imperialist omnipotence. The imperialist powers, recognising their inability to respond to the socialist challenge in social and economic 249 affairs, tried to find a purely military way of resolving the conflict between the two systems.

p Imperialist politicians hope that nuclear blackmail will upset communist construction in the U.S.S.R., block the progress of world socialism, enfeeble world revolution and suppress the national liberation movement. The irresponsible masterminds of imperialist strategy are potentially capable of unleashing a thermonuclear war even though it would inevitably not only bring untold disaster to their own countries but also put paid to the whole future of capitalism as a system. These military and political factors lend a particular explosiveness and danger to present-day international relations.

p But military strategy has not helped imperialism either. Although it is still extremely dangerous, it cannot attain its major goal: destruction of socialism and suppression of the national liberation movement.

p The dialectics of history are such that objective world social development now seems to block any disastrous course. Within the short space of time that deadly weapons in the hands of the imperialists became a real threat to humanity, socialism redressed the balance of power between the two social systems. World socialism, having advanced to the forefront in economic, political and cultural development, received at that momentous hour of history the most up-to-date modern weapons from the Soviet people, which they put at the service of peace. The socialist nuclear-missile armoury is in this day and age an effective deterrent to those who would otherwise unleash world war, and it is sufficient guarantee of their defeat if the most reckless imperialists start a war.

p The growing crisis of imperialist foreign policy is also replete with mounting inter-imperialist contradictions that have shaken the economic and political alliances sponsored by the U.S.A. since the war. Today, the capitalist world stands at the threshold of a new phase of inter-imperialist contradictions that promises even fiercer competition and struggle both between the blocs and within them. Imperialist political disintegration has been seriously affecting every attempt at capitalist economic integration. The global network of imperialist military blocs set up at the turn of the 1950s, particularly NATO, its nucleus, has shown signs of 250 deep-going fissures. France’s withdrawal from NATO’s military organisation caused the organisation a serious internal shock which calls for its complete overhaul. The U.S. columnist Walter Lippmann wrote: “Our relations with Europe have changed so radically . . . that the European policies which were worked out in the postwar period are out of date. The policies have become so irrelevant in the actual situation that our influence on developments has become negligible."  [250•1 

p The crisis of imperialist foreign policy is also evident in the various spheres of international relations, particularly in the attitude towards the world revolutionary process, the socialist countries first and foremost.

p Indeed, imperialist ideologists and politicians have desperately tried to learn from the sad lessons of the past half century and have by no means been innocent bystanders of contemporary world events. They have tried hard to extricate their foreign policy from its state of crisis. Former U.S. President, Lyndon B. Johnson, as much as admitted this when he said that the world was changing and that U.S. policy should reflect present-day realities and not those of yesterday. But in practice, U.S. policy is as far as ever from these realistic considerations, as the U.S. aggression in Vietnam even more amply demonstrates.

p Feeling that a world thermonuclear war would be suicidal, but reluctant to relinquish the main planks of its policy, the imperialist bourgeoisie has tried to implement its global aims through local wars, which it believes to be less dangerous for itself. This is a policy that finds favour, for example, with the former Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Strategic Air Command, General Thomas Power, who considers it necessary above all to secure the indisputable military supremacy of U.S. imperialism and, with the help of restored “positions of strength”, to pursue a “tough policy" on a global scale, without shunning local wars if they seem to pay off in terms of aims.  [250•2 

p This irresponsible and anti-historical policy is also embodied in the theory and practice of escalation of the Vietnam war and in the urge of the West German militarist circles to 251 implement a rcvanchist programme of revising the results of the last war and swallowing up the German Democratic Republic, to gain access to nuclear weapons, to hamper a detente and build up the threat of war in Europe. However impracticable and utterly hopeless such a course may be, this does not lessen its objective dangers, because in some circumstances it could very well cause a nuclear catastrophe.

p Indisputably, the most important area of imperialist foreign policy is its attitude to the Soviet Union, which also focuses the imperialist attitude to the world revolutionary process, because the U.S.S.R. is the backbone of the socialist community, and the socialist community is in the forefront of the battle for world revolution.

p Two fundamental trends contend with each other in the imperialist attitude towards the U.S.S.R. and the other socialist states: acceptance of peaceful coexistence in one form or another, and preparation for an aggressive war. Unable to make up their mind decisively between these two trends, the imperialists have been switching from the one to the other, depending on the circumstances.

p The present alignment of forces, including the military potential of the two systems, deprives imperialism of the capacity to implement its major class aim—that of destroying socialism and suppressing the revolutionary movement by means of a world thermonuclear war. This fact actually encourages the trend forcing the capitalist powers towards peaceful coexistence between states with different social systems. The U.S. diplomat and writer, George F. Kennan, favours this policy when he says that “the West has no choice but to accept the quest for peaceful coexistence as the basis for policy toward the countries of the Communist world".  [251•1 

p There is no doubt that peaceful coexistence, rejection of military means in resolving socialist-capitalist world conflicts, and peaceful economic competition are the most sensible answer. Every time a capitalist power, big or small, departs from the bankrupt aggressive policy and pursues an independent and realistic foreign policy of co-operation with the socialist nations, it invariably achieves tangible economic 252 and political results which are beneficial to it and to other nations, and enhances its own authority and role in world affairs.

p France, Italy, Austria, Japan and Finland especially have gradually extended their economic and political contacts with the socialist countries in recent years, thereby demonstrating that some bourgeois politicians are becoming more realistic in their thinking and more or less correctly evaluating the balance of power in the world, though by no means suddenly enamoured of benevolent pacifism or philanthropy, or even reconciliation with the new social order. Being obliged by history itself to make a public confession of the need for peaceful coexistence, some imperialist ideologists and politicians are nonetheless motivated by a perverse understanding of relations with the socialist nations. They wish to entrench the status quo so as to prevent any further shifts in the balance of strength in favour of the revolutionary process.

p The whole point of the various status quo formulas advocated by imperialist politicians is that the West can come to terms with the idea of peaceful coexistence on one important condition: the socialist community must give a “ guarantee" that there will be no revolution in any area within the present boundaries of the capitalist world. This is, of course, utterly unrealistic. In the latter half of the 20th century, when social and national liberation revolutions have matured and are rapidly making headway all over the world, it is patently ridiculous even to talk of a status quo, to say nothing of “guarantees” from the Soviet Union or other socialist countries.

p It is the inalienable right of all nations freely to restructure their own social and political life in accordance with their own wishes and the most progressive ideas of the age— socialism and communism. The Soviet Union respects and protects this right, convinced that the principle of peaceful coexistence is not applicable to relations between oppressed and oppressors, between colonialists and the victims of colonial tyranny. Peaceful coexistence implies complete noninterference in the internal affairs of every nation, which must develop in accordance with the objective course of history.

p Some imperialist spokesmen continue to seek a way out 253 of their foreign-policy crisis basically by pursuing the old discredited policies of the past 50 years. The policies of the most rabid imperialists are designed to turn the clock back 50 years and have a “replay” of the historic battle that commenced in 1917 and brought about the swing to socialism. They still cling to the Dulles-inspired ideas of “rolling back communism" and “regaining lost ground”, endeavouring to destroy world socialism, if not in a direct frontal attack, then by any other means, like driving a wedge into the ranks of the socialist countries.

p Since the early 1960s, a fresh approach towards the socialist community has emerged among the imperialists. They have tried to diversify and make more flexible their whole arsenal of weapons; they have begun to differentiate their strategy and tactics in relation to the various socialist nations: escalation in Vietnam goes hand-in-hand with “bridge-building” in Eastern Europe.

p This latter policy is designed “peacefully” to draw the European socialist states into the capitalist “free world”, and is to a great extent a matter of necessity for the West, many of their politicians being convinced of the ineffectiveness of the policy of threat and blockade in relation to Eastern Europe.

p The socialist countries’ growing might and their enhanced status in world affairs have compelled many realistically minded capitalist politicians to recognise the need for peaceful coexistence between states with different social systems. To a certain extent, this is manifested in the “ bridge-building" policy.

p Furthermore, this policy is a new version of imperialist strategy in relation to the European socialist countries, with the intention of dividing them and detaching them from the Soviet Union. The Western powers base their hopes particularly on a resurgence of nationalism in some socialist countries and the consequent weakening of socialist unity. Columbia University President Grayson Kirk says: “We should be prepared to take advantage of all opportunities arising from the growing trends toward nationalism to encourage individual Eastern European states in the Communist orbit toward greater independence of action vis- avis Moscow."  [253•1 

254

p The socialist countries are firmly opposed to the imperialist aim of “bridge-building” to split the socialist community. A Hungarian leader, Gyula Kallai, has summed up the socialist view, when he said: “We naturally also want to promote contacts with capitalist states, but this cannot alter one iota our determination to continue our close collaboration and concerted action with the Soviet Union and other socialist states, because they are the linn foundation of our independent foreign policy. . .. We will never bargain over our socialist system and our gains."  [254•1  The same idea was expressed by Todor Zhivkov, the Bulgarian head of government, who said that the socialist states were in favour of establishing economic contacts with the capitalist countries “on the principle of mutual benefit and equality, but without any form of political diktat".  [254•2 

p Ideological influence on the socialist states is becoming one of the most prominent weapons in the imperialist armoury. Ever on the look-out for difficulties and deficiencies in any socialist country, the imperialists see it as their mission to “soften up" socialism, politically and ideologically. They seek to undermine the solidarity and co-operation of the socialist states, sow the seeds of mistrust among them and fan nationalist fervour.

p In its estimate of the growing ideological struggle between imperialism and socialism, a Plenary Meeting of the Central Committee of the C.P.S.U. in April 1968 warned that because of imperialism’s difficulties and the failure of its policy, the imperialists were embarking on political adventures and making desperate efforts to get results from their subversive political and ideological campaign against the socialist countries and the whole democratic movement.

p In this situation, it was especially important for all Communist and Workers’ Parties and all revolutionary forces to stand firm on the ideas of Marxism-Leninism, the principles of socialist internationalism, and to be flexible and realistic, though implacable towards imperialist aggressors.

p Imperialist policy is just as contradictory and doublefaced towards young sovereign states. On the one hand, imperialism continues to perpetrate political and military 255 crimes against the peoples of these countries in an attempt to put down the national liberation movement. This is particularly evident in the U.S. aggression against the people of Vietnam. On the other hand, imperialist politicians strive to keep the newly liberated countries within the capitalist orbit, subordinating many Asian and African states to their own designs by using more flexible and “liberal” political, economic and ideological devices, by rendering them all types of “aid” and “patronage”. This contradictory nature of imperialist policy is another sign of the worsening crisis of imperialist foreign policy.

p Basically, imperialism is pursuing a policy of “historical revenge" with the purpose of altering the world balance in its favour. But this is a historically objective fact that cannot be altered, even though imperialism may gain some success here and there. In the broad historical plane, the alignment of world forces in socialism’s favour is irreversible.

The active foreign policy of the socialist states, and their constructive proposals on all major international issues are factors that exert a growing influence on people from all walks of life in the various countries, so much so that capitalist leaders are no longer able to reject out of hand, as they once did, the serious and enterprising proposals of the socialist countries for safeguarding peace and international security. Even the most reactionary imperialist politicians must recognise that today the socialist states arc taking an active part in international affairs.