265

p The political map of the world has been changed out of all recognition. Over 1.5 thousand million men have escaped from colonial and semi-colonial dependence, and over 70 new national states have been established. After the First World War two-thirds of mankind languished in colonial bondage; today only scraps of once great colonial empires remain, while Belgium, Italy and Japan have lost all their colonies. Today, one per cent of the globe’s population remains in overt colonial dependence.

p The disintegration of the colonial system of imperialism has run not only in breadth but also in depth, in the sphere of socio-economic relations, a process that is increasingly anti-capitalist.

p The liberation struggle of the peoples against imperialism and colonialism is gaining in intensity, complexity and sharpness. The imperialists are undertaking feverish attempts to stem the advance of the national liberation movement, to block the way towards a strengthening of national statehood, and to prevent fundamental socio-economic change in the developing countries.

p The imperialists have taken high-handed action, sometimes with the use of armed force, to intervene in the internal affairs of the emergent countries. In the recent period, they have intensified their subversive action, especially against governments implementing deep-going social changes. The new life of the sovereign states is taking shape in fierce battles against a treacherous imperialist enemy, and the forces of domestic reaction which rely on imperialist support in their efforts to push the young states on to the capitalist way. However, the peoples have been displaying ever more determination in opting for the non-capitalist way as they look to the full victory of the national liberation revolution, elimination of their age-old backwardness and improvement of their living conditions.

266

p The tasks facing the emergent countries are complex and difficult. They need to consolidate their newly gained independence, to establish an independent national economy, to overcome their legacy of backwardness. For its part imperialism seeks to slow down the movement towards independence and social progress, and to retain the old colonies within the capitalist system of exploitation, even if in modified forms.

p All of this constitutes a great threat to the future of the (emergent countries, whose peoples are coming to Realise that neocolonialism is no less dangerous than colonialism.

p The substance of neocolonialism as a system of indirect imperialist control and exploitation was exposed by Lenin, who wrote: “Finance capital and its foreign policy, which is the struggle of the great powers for the economic and political division of the world, give rise to a number of transitional forms of state dependence. Not only are the two main groups of countries, those owning colonies, and the colonies themselves, but also the diverse forms of dependent countries which, politically, are formally independent, but in fact, are enmeshed in the net of financial and diplomatic dependence, are typical of this epoch.”  [266•1 

p In present-day conditions, indirect imperialist control of exploited nations has become the prevailing form of imperialist enslavement.

p The advocates of imperialism distort the true nature of processes going forward in the world. Speculating on the achievements of the national liberation movement and on the winning of political independence by a majority of the oppressed nations, the ideologists of imperialism deny the existence of neocolonialism, claiming it to be an invention “circulated by Moscow”.

p The reactionary ideologists try hard to cover up the connection between politics and economics, and present imperialism as being no more than a system of foreignpolicy relations. Whatever the version of this view, the very essence of colonialism and neocolonialism—the economic exploitation of the countries oppressed by imperialism—is obscured. By reducing the concept of colonialism to one aspect—overt political control—bourgeois ideologists cover 267 up and justify the plunderous actions of the imperialists who are prepared to go to any length to keep the emergent countries within the system of capitalist exploitation.

p Now and again they managed to do so. Relying on reactionary circles of the economically underdeveloped countries, and playing up the immaturity of, or contradictions within, the national liberation movement, the imperialists establish veiled forms of political control and continue economically to exploit a sizable part of Asia, Africa and Latin America.

p Different groups of countries with different foreign policies have taken shape in the so-called Third World. Among them are countries pursuing an independent policy (some of these have already taken important steps along the non-capitalist way), and countries nominally independent but still under considerable influence of the imperialist powers.

p Historically speaking, neocolonialism is colonialism in the period of the disintegration of the colonial system of imperialism, when the comprehensive system of relations of exploitation and oppression by the imperialist powers of economically underdeveloped countries has suffered a decisive defeat. In content, neocolonialism is colonialism seeking to adapt itself to the new situation of independent statehood, won by the overwhelming majority of once oppressed nations, colonialism which seeks to maintain (even if on a smaller scale) relations of domination and subordination, and especially of economic exploitation.

p Neocolonialism is a system of economic, political and ideological instruments and methods of struggle used by the imperialist powers and the capitalist monopolies to maintain and extend their domination in countries that have won state independence. Neocolonialism has not dropped from the sky, but has developed out of classic colonialism.

p The ideology of neocolonialism is in essence also a continuation and adaptation of the ideology of colonialism to new conditions in the epoch of disintegration of the colonial system. The neocolonialists’ armed interventions are just as savage as the treacherous campaigns of the conquistadores, although the methods of indirect control and oppression have become more veiled and refined.

p The ideologists of imperialism have been spawning new doctrines in their efforts not only to set up a propaganda 268 smokescreen to cover up the new imperialist policy in the emergent countries, but also to lay the ideological foundation (“recommendations” and even recipes) of this policy, and to make them an instrument of practical activity.

p The imperialists’ indirect political control of the young sovereign states is practised in many ways, including their involvement in aggressive blocs, the use of some regional organisations to promote the interests of imperialism, the conclusion of unequal bilateral treaties, modification of the constitutional structure of the young national states, like the establishment of artificial federations, installation of puppet governments, and so on.

p The old overt economic exploitation is also being increasingly supplanted by more veiled forms of economic enslavement (the policy of “association”, mixed companies, “guidance” in economic development, credits, loans, nonequivalent exchange, and so on).

p The social policy of neocolonialism is characterised by a pooling of imperialist efforts against the interests of the peoples and social progress, together with the efforts of local reactionaries. The colonialists have always used the support of national anti-popular forces. Assistance to the imperialists by reactionary circles is the only way for the latter to maintain their privileges at home. Neocolonialism cannot exist otherwise than by supporting local reaction. This predetermines various other essential features of neocolonialism. The pro-imperialist national minority, constituting the social mainstay of the modern colonialists, act in betrayal of their people’s interests. At the same time, in order to foster men willing to do their will and to advance their puppets to positions of power, the imperialists make wide use of an extensive network of agents and intelligence agencies. When this also fails to work, they doff their masks and appear before the world as the plunderers and oppressors that they are.

p The ultimate aim of the imperialist monopolies has not changed, for they still seek to obtain superprofits through ruthless exploitation of the peoples of Asia and Africa. That is why they should like to turn their political independence into a scrap of paper, and to keep the emergent nations within the capitalist economy, preventing them from making any fundamental socio-economic changes and taking the non-capitalist way of development.

269

p I

p In order to lull the vigilance of the peoples, the ideologists of imperialism have circulated two neocolonialist ideas.

p First, considering the obvious fact that many countries once within the colonial system of imperialism have won independence without resorting to armed struggle, they insist that the imperialist powers had allegedly granted their colonies freedom of their own accord. They want the peoples to forget that just after the war the continents of Asia and Africa were swept by a tide of liberation revolutions, under the pressure of which the colonial powers were now and again forced hastily to grant political freedom to their colonies in order to retain their economic domination. Of course, the ideologists of neocolonialism say nothing about the vast assistance and support of the Soviet Union and the whole socialist system, whose very existence help to revolutionise millions upon millions of people in the emergent continents, frustrating the plans of the imperialists to return to the epoch of colonial seizures.

p Second, the advocates of neocolonialism seek to create the impression that colonialism is dead. Separating economics from politics, they present colonialism only as a system of foreign-policy oppression (expansion), claiming that once this has been eliminated colonialism is gone. They ignore the essence of colonialism—economic exploitation—and try to lay the foundation for a new policy of enslavement of the countries once within the colonial system.

p The ideology of neocolonialism is above all an ideology of anti-communism, trampling on democracy, and undermining the unity of the anti-imperialist forces within the national framework and on an international scale. It is directed against the socialist prospects of the development of the emergent countries, and seeks to justify and substantiate new forms of political control, advertising various forms of economic “interdependence” and private enterprise in the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America, from which the monopolies stand to gain, so as to prevent the developing countries from taking the non-capitalist way with the economic support of the socialist countries. The attempts to find a common “positive” ideological platform with the members of the national bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia, with special emphasis on pseudo-democratic social demagogy, religious ideology and diverse reactionary and 270 nationalistic theories constitute one of its characteristic features.

p The national liberation movement is bound to put an end to neocolonialism and to complete the final break-up of the colonial system of imperialism, for which all the objective prerequisites have matured in the world.

p However, having put the more refined and veiled methods of plunder and oppression in the service of its expansionist purposes, neocolonialism has not abandoned extensive armed intervention in the internal affairs of young states in Asia, Africa and Latin America, direct intervention, as in the case of Vietnam, the Dominican Republic, the Congo, the ARE and a number of other states. The export of counterrevolution has not ceased to be a component part and an instrument of modern imperialism.

p The neofascist theory of resistance to “communist conspiracy” is used to justify this policy. Anyone fighting for national independence and against the dictates of the imperialist monopolies, against the involvement of the young states into imperialist military blocs and alliances, is labelled a “communist” and “conspirator”. Thus, the ideologists of neocolonialism claimed that the US intervention in the Dominican Republic was a blow at a “communist scheme”.

p Bourgeois propaganda seeks to camouflage plunderous wars into “liberatory” action, and barbarous bombings and massive annihilation of civilians as a policy designed to ensure “peace and freedom”.

p The policy and ideology of the export of counter- revolution is a manifestation of the substance of imperialism which, in Lenin’s words, constitutes a “’negation’ of democracy in general, of all democracy” in the political sphere.  [270•1  The imperialists have trampled on democracy while claiming to be its champions. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds. The advocates of US imperialism present the USA as a “model” for the young national states, and do not blush to appeal to the authority of Lincoln and Jefferson. Indeed, the experience of the US struggle for independence is highly instructive, but when compared with the present-day US policy it shows up the US imperialists as having trampled on all the progressive traditions of their country.

271

p What then are the “arguments” that the ideologists of imperialism use to justify their interventions? The first is the unscientific, neofascist idea that history is a series of conspiracies, so that any progressive popular movement springs from the scheming of evil-minded plotters. Accordingly, the US aggression in Vietnam is designated as “ assistance” to the people of South Vietnam in the fight against “subversive activity”, so-called internal aggression.

p In order to camouflage the anti-popular substance of their piratical actions, the imperialists claim that all their interventions are battles against communism. In 1965, a “new” doctrine was officially issued in the USA which proclaimed as legitimate any armed intervention provided it flew the anti-communist flag. This was followed by a resolution of the US House of Representatives which vested US imperialism with the “right” to invade any Latin American country under the pretext of fighting communism. This attempt to legalise intervention by references to fighting communism is hypocritical and hostile to democracy.

p The Communists have never been on the sidelines of the general democratic anti-imperialist struggle. If the US aggressors have faced, in their anti-popular wars, democratic fronts in which Communists ranked together with other patriotic forces or act as their vanguard, this merely means that the Communists are the most dedicated and steadfast fighters for the freedom and independence of nations.

p The neocolonialist doctrine of US imperialism scraps the democratic principles of national sovereignty. By cynically arrogating to themselves the “right” to mount armed aggression, the US colonialists have violated not only the spirit of democratic principles, but also the letter of international law. They have trampled on the UN Charter, although they have signed the document, undertaking to “refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations” (Article 2, point 4).

p The international gendarme doctrine has not only been proclaimed in theory, but also in practice, involving the massive training of so-called counter-insurgency forces. This is being done by the CIA, the State Department, the US Army and the Air Force. In many countries, the USA has special military missions training local armies to “ 272 suppress” communism, that is, to wage war against their own peoples.

p The main “accomplishments” of this policy are wellknown: by mounting the intervention in Vietnam, US ruling circles have covered themselves with lasting ignominy.

p The address “Independence, Freedom and Peace for Vietnam” issued by the International Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties, on June 10, 1969, stresses that “in fighting to defend their homeland the Vietnamese people exercise the sacred and inviolable right of all peoples to self-defence. . . .

p “By undertaking armed intervention in Vietnam the imperialist forces of the USA made an attempt to destroy one of the outposts of socialism in Asia, bar the road of the peoples of Indochina to peace, freedom and progress, strike a blow at the revolutionary national liberation movement in Asia, Africa and Latin America, and test the solidarity of the socialist countries and all anti-imperialist forces.

p “These plans of US imperialism are doomed to failure.”  [272•1 

p Neocolonialism has attacked not only communism but also the socio-economic reforms undertaken by the peoples at the general democratic stage of their liberation revolutions as soon as they win political independence. The neocolonialists regard their fight against communist ideas and fundamental socio-economic change as a single whole. They realise that if these changes are to succeed, there must be a broad solid national front, with the people united against imperialism. A split-up of anti-imperialist unity of the peoples and a separation of the young states from the Soviet Union and other socialist states are two aspects of the same neocolonialist tactics, because friendship with the socialist countries and reliance on their selfless assistance are decisive for preserving the true independence of the young states.

p A group of leading US ideologists of neocolonialism declare: “Our psychological offensive should clearly point up the unyielding conflict between communism and true nationalism.”  [272•2 

p Francis Low, one-time editor of The Times of India, 273 says that it is necessary to convince the nation that “ communism, not colonialism, is the enemy.... The real struggle is not Asian nationalism versus the West; it is Asian nationalism versus communism.”  [273•1  These assertions easily reveal an urge to make extensive use of nationalism. The wellknown US historian and sociologist, Hans Kohn, said that this was an age of nationalism.

p Theoretically, these “scientific” researches are based on an effort completely to separate present-day liberation movements from the world revolutionary process, and to kill the class content of these movements. The fact is, however, that these are deeply popular and not elitist revolutions whose tasks include not only the political but also the economic and social emancipation of the peoples. With the broad sweep of these movements and the existence of the world socialist system these tasks of the liberation revolutions have become quite feasible.

p The nation is not an abstract category and cannot exist without classes, so that the working class is an integral part of it. That is why it is futile to try to present nationalism as an extra-class category. As for the working class and its parties, their ideology on the national question is based not on ideas of the national exclusiveness, not the propaganda of national oppression, not national hostility and national enslavement, but emancipation, equality and prosperity of nations, and national and international unity on the basis of socialism. That is why contrasting communist ideas and national interests amount to a crude attempt to shuffle the historical facts.

p Because the backbone of the nation consists of the working class and the toiling peasants, whose objective interests are expressed by the Communists, it is quite wrong to claim that the socialist ideals of the working class clash with the general democratic ideals. On the contrary, the working class is a consistent fighter for democracy, it raises democratic demands to a qualitatively new level, and involves all the democratic sections of the people in the movement.

p The advocates of neocolonialism have been most conspicuous in their attempts at ideological adaptation on problems of political independence of nations, on the young 274 nations. Some 15 or 20 years ago, blatant racism was a dominant concept of imperialism, but now this has been supplanted by psychoracism. While paying lip service to the equality of races, the apologists of imperialism insist that some races, in virtue of their mental make-up are in need of paternalism and patronage. Apart from the main purpose of this idea—to present the imperialist powers as benefactors of the old colonial peoples—the psychoracists should like to rewrite the whole history of colonial domination. Thus, P. Griffiths declares: “Self-government is the only proper end of the colonial system.”  [274•1 

p Not very long ago, bourgeois writers said the sovereignty of nations—of nations in Asia and Africa, to be sure—was immoral. Today, they are saying the same thing but in somewhat more refined and veiled terms. They say that sovereignty is an obsolete intellectual construction. They have deliberately separated the problem of nations from the concrete historical context, the actual community of men, and tried to present the problem as lying in the sphere of “collective and individual consciousness”, an obscure formula which becomes quite concrete when it comes to making actual recommendations and conclusions.

p The American Professor William Elliot says that the obsolete idea of the national sovereignty poses the greatest threat to the preservation of resources vital to “the most civilised peoples.... Outmoded international law is based upon the concept of ’sovereignty’, a quasi-fiction when that concept is applied to states which have by no stretch of the imagination real capabilities for the development and conservation of their own resources.... The NATO countries, at the very least, should develop a new conception of the legitimacy of ownership and control of the basic vital resources of the world such as oil reserves”.  [274•2 

p The international oil cartel, which like a giant octopus has its tentacles stifling the economy of many independent young states, has been pumping out millions of dollars in profits out of these countries. The Middle East countries have over 29 thousand million tons or almost 70 per cent of 275 the world crude oil deposits. The extraction of oil in this area has grown as follows: in 1937, 15.7 million tons; in 1946, 34.3 million tons; and in 1966, 468.3 million tons. According to the most conservative estimates, considering that one ton of oil costs the monopolies less than one dollar, their net profit comes to at least $5-6 per ton. Thus, in 1937 the oil monopolies earned slightly more than $100 million in net profits, and in 1966—close to $3 thousand million. These are figures which help to understand all this talk about sovereignty being an outmoded notion.

p What is more, many bourgeois ideologists (among them M. Adler, Hans Morgenthau, W. Friedmann, Norman Angell) have attacked sovereignty in the purely political plane. They have distorted the idea of “sovereignty”, identifying it with anarchy and force and declaring it to be the root source of wars. This is nonsense, because wars have been fought on the globe long before the emergence of nations, and wars have always been caused by the plunderous interests of the exploiting classes. To identify sovereignty and force is to regard force as a self-contained factor in international relations, and this is disproved by the whole course of historical development.

p The ideologists of neocolonialism propose the substitution of a “supra-national” community, regional alliances and ultimately a world government to replace national sovereignty. They say that the vast development of international economic ties, spurred on by the current scientific and technical revolution, not only makes possible but in fact inevitable the establishment of a cosmopolitan “world federation”. Of course, they say nothing at all about the exploiting character of the international ties of monopoly capital or of the obvious fact that up to now the fruits of the scientific and technical revolution have been chiefly reaped by the major monopoly giants, while the economic gap between the emergent states and the leading imperialist powers has been steadily growing.

p When attacking the sovereignty principle, the apologists of imperialism concentrate on the right of nations freely to choose their form of government, and to decide on the ways for their economic, political and social development, a choice that has become fully meaningful only in our own epoch, the epoch of transition from capitalism to socialism.

p It has now become quite clear that the winning of 276 political independence does not automatically ensure the solution of the burning problems in the progressive development of the emergent countries. What is more, independence may become a figment, unless the revolution also brings with it deep-going changes in the social and economic life of the developing countries, and unless they abandon the role the imperialists want to impose on them.

p The ideology of imperialism has always tried to justify the economic exploitation of the colonial peoples. Today, as in other spheres of imperialist ideology and politics, there is also evidence that more refined and veiled forms are being used to defend the interests of the monopolies.

p The main meaning of the theories propounded by the bourgeois ideologists on the general problems of the economic development facing the emergent countries is to keep these countries within the system of the world capitalist economy as agrarian and raw material appendages. Some of these theories are openly aimed against industrialisation by the young nations and suggest that the colonial and agrarian nature of the economy of countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America should be preserved for all time. Such, for instance, is the theory of “comparative costs” (which takes the consideration of labour productivity and the costs of production outside the socio-economic context) and the theory of the “vicious circle of poverty” (where the main stake is on getting the underdeveloped countries to seek foreign capital investments). However, theories of “development” whose advocates claim to favour “progress” in the emergent countries have been circulated most widely.

p The practical recommendations suggested by these theories boil down to proposals to develop agriculture and the light industry, while giving free access to foreign manufactured goods and private capital. These theories are essentially directed against the very possibility of non-capitalist development.

p Another prominent theory is that of foreign economic “aid”, which the ideologists of imperialism quite openly regard as an instrument of foreign policy.

p This theory is advocated by various writers, and the only difference between them appears to be about whether, to put it briefly, political compensation for this “aid” should be required right away or whether one should wait until this “aid” yields its fruits. Some revealing admissions have 277 been made on this score in The Conservative Papers, a collection of papers by diehard US ideologists. In his paper, the sociologist Edward Banfield says that “the doctrine of indirect influence asserts that national security will be promoted by using aid to transform fundamentally the cultures and institutions of the recipient countries”, while “the doctrine of direct influence” is designed to obtain political “advantages” right away, like the promise on the part of the recipients to abstain from establishing relations with the Soviet Union and duly to condition public opinion at home.  [277•1 

p Leo Tansky writes: “Our aid program has become a major instrument of our foreign policy directed toward furthering our national interests.”  [277•2  He spells out these interests. Eight countries—South Korea, South Vietnam, Taiwan, the Philippines, Israel, Pakistan, Turkey and Brazil—were given $19.5 thousand million in US aid by the end of 1965, or almost as much as the other 80 odd states taken together. The main purpose of this aid, says Tansky, is to sustain military efforts, and this “may even have inflationary effects if the country’s economy cannot absorb such assistance. Moreover, the diversion of resources and manpower to military and defense supporting activities hampers over-all economic development.”  [277•3 

p The concept of economic aid is supplemented by active proposals to set up mixed companies whose purpose is not to develop the productive forces of the young states but to serve as a cover for their exploitation by foreign capital. This propaganda by the ideologists of modern colonialism has a twofold task: on the one hand, it is designed to establish ever closer business ties with reactionary circles of the local bourgeoisie; and on the other, the establishment of mixed companies is regarded by the bourgeois ideologists as the best way to safeguard the profits of the capitalist monopolies in the developing countries. The World Today (an organ of the Royal Institute of International Affairs) has published recommendations designed to ensure the interests of foreign companies in Africa. It says: “It is now the case that local Africans are invited to join European- 278 controlled committees and to become directors of companies. ... Overseas companies will gain much more benefit if they have African directors.”  [278•1 

p There is no doubt that this new form, adapted to the changing conditions, shows the monopolists’ efforts to continue plundering the young national states, and consent to set up partnerships with local capital in order to safeguard their vast profits. In the economically underdeveloped countries, the rate of profit of US corporations is 100-150 per cent higher than it is in the USA. Of the $38.9 thousand million in profits received by US corporations abroad since the war, the underdeveloped countries account for $22.7 thousand million, or over 55 per cent. Needless to say, the funnel of this money out of the economy of the young national states does great harm and slows down their economic development.

p It has been estimated that in 16 postwar years, direct private foreign investments in Latin America came to $13 thousand million, and earnings on all the investments to $17 thousand million. From 1960 to 1967, $1.5 thousand million was invested and $7.7 thousand million repatriated.

p This is not only an effort to establish closer bonds between these countries’ economy and imperialism and to retain them as a source of superprofit, but also to establish closer business ties with the most reactionary sections of society in the newly liberated states and to provide a national front for their capital investments. The appeal issued by Friedrich Lorken, leader of a group of economic studies by the Common Market, that there should be systematic recruitment of the local elite for participation in management of new enterprises and also the enlistment of local capital, is designed not only to guarantee foreign capital against nationalisation, but also to foster ideological allies in these countries.

p Until recently, Nigeria was considered to be a showwindow for Western aid and private enterprise in Africa, where “models of co-operation” between the United States and the African countries were tried out. One of those who advocated such “co-operation” was Robert Fleming, who worked in Nigeria under the Rockefeller Brothers’ Fund programme. A collection published by the Duke University 279 says: “He is a missionary for the idea of private enterprise. For over two years he has been conducting feasibility studies of business. Thus far his efforts have been almost entirely devoted to identifying those business enterprises that would appear profitable in Nigeria and that could be set up by combining local financing with help from abroad. He stands for integrated ownership and direction, with the directing power in the hands of the Nigerians.”  [279•1 

p These theoretical studies by the ideologists of imperialism, which are, besides, financed by the monopolies, are designed to back up their own operations. US investments abroad are nearing $100 thousand million, a roughly 9-fold increase over the prewar period. Almost one-half of this amount is made up of private investments. Private and government US credits under so-called aid programme total more than $100 thousand million with the bulk of this amount naturally falling as a heavy burden on the US tax payers.

p An important task before the developing countries is to overcome economic backwardness, eliminate the legacy of colonialism, and bridge or reduce the great gap in the levels of productive forces and incomes per head of the population between the industrialised countries and the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. Bourgeois ideologists seek to use this legitimate urge to impose on the peoples the capitalist way of development. This end is served by the latest theory of “modernisation”, which is clearly connected with Walt Rostow’s “stages of economic growth” theory, for it is just as deliberately abstract, considering the technicoeconomic development problems outside the social context and ignoring the fundamental social problem, namely, the problem of the relations of production and the nature of ownership.

p Of great interest in this connection is the report given by the US sociologist Reinhard Bendix at the Sixth World Congress of Sociology at Evian. For all practical purposes, he identified the process of modernisation with the development of capitalism, and said that technical and economic backwardness could be overcome through imitation of the capitalist West. He also cast doubt on the effectiveness of the economic functions of the state, which, given 280 the right conditions, can and does become the material basis for a cohesion of the anti-imperialist forces. At the worst, Bendix recommends that the state should be offered a partnership in private-capitalist enterprise.

p This was stated even more explicitly by David A. Shepard, Director and Executive Vice President of Standard Oil Company (New Jersey), in a speech delivered at Columbia University Graduate School of Business. He stressed that the urge for higher living standards and material welfare in the underdeveloped countries provided excellent ground for development of private enterprise, and attacked the factors which he saw as constituting the main obstacles to the development of capitalism in these countries, namely, “statism”, “anti-foreignism” (meaning anti-imperialism). These, he added, gave “the foreign businessman some of his worst headaches”.  [280•1 

p Consequently, the ideologists of neocolonialism propose that the young states should take the way of a modernisation which has nothing in common with genuine national independence. Professor Lincoln P. Bloomfield declared: “The next vital American interest is in winning the battle of modernisation in the developing societies. Here is one place where ’winning over communism’ has clear and specific meaning.. . . Our investment today in these countries is in many ways a great gamble, with very real costs of which the financial is only one.”  [280•2 

p The imperialists’ reliance on alignment with local reactionaries results in attempts to lay a common ideological foundation for this class alliance. Having taken the line of adapting themselves to the changing conditions, bourgeois ideologists are forced to review some of their old ideas. Today they make much less frequent use than in the past of slogans about “the white man’s great civilising mission”. The old neglect of oriental religious systems has been abandoned. The task the theorists of imperialism are now working hard to solve is to find and build “bridges” linking or combining the ideological concepts of East and West.

p Of course, there is no unanimity among bourgeois ideologists over the concrete ways of tackling this task. Their 281 statements on the practical aspects of relations with the national bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia in these countries (that is, the very circles imperialism would like to rally on a common pro-imperialist ideological platform) reveal various elements of flirtation and high-handedness, a restrained politeness and instruction with undue familiarity. However, this patchwork reveals several characteristic tendencies.

p The ideologists of imperialism pin great hopes on the use of the religious outlook and some versions of “national socialism”. The devil is in fact prepared to quote the Scriptures for his own purpose in the hope that faith in God will help to rally Europe, Asia and Africa against materialism.

p In the struggle to democratise social life in the developing countries there is a differentiation of the social forces, a natural process which the imperialists want to direct and use in their own interests, putting their political stake on definite circles of the national bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia in the developing countries and their ideologies.

p The attitude of the ideologists of neocolonialism to nationalism in the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America is a reflection of the political line pursued by the imperialist powers in these countries. It includes the sharply negative evaluation of the “dynamism” of nationalism, which is usually taken to mean anti-imperialist, democratic attitudes among the oppressed peoples, and condescending and patronising talk about nationalism being an infantile disorder and its “imitative” character. Hence the calls to overcome this “infantile disorder” and accept the fashionable Western ideas of “interdependence” which are fully mature.

p The attempts to introduce ideas of “interdependence” rest on the view of nationalism as the spiritual product of a small elite. The bourgeois ideologists devote much attention to the problem of developing relations with this elite, of fostering and shaping it, and exerting an influence on it to enlist it on the side of imperialism. “The only effective role for white liberals in the transition between European and African rule is to ally themselves with the forces of nationalism with which they are in sympathy”  [281•1  (meaning the 282 members of the national bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia who look to the imperialist circles and are shaped under their influence).

p Even before they were forced by massive pressure to grant independence to Asian and African countries, the imperialist powers started to display much concern to foster and “domesticate” the national elite in these countries. For a long time, tribal chiefs, feudal lords, compradors, junior civil servants in the colonial administration had been the social and political mainstay of the colonialists in the old colonies. Following independence, there has been some regrouping of the forces looking to foreign capital and the “old” masters, with the imperialists pinning especially great hopes on the so-called bureaucratic bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia, the new elite in the Asian and African countries.

p Considering the slight class differentiation, above all, the weakness of the national bourgeoisie, the ideologists of imperialism make haste to provide historical evidence of common goals with the emergent national intelligentsia and to prove that bureaucratic capital is the basis for the growth of commercial and industrial capital.

p One way the formation of bureaucratic capital is encouraged is the unusually high salaries paid to government officials, members of parliament, senior civil servants, and technical specialists in the young states (on the one hand, these high salaries have come down from the colonial administration period, and on the other, new ones are being introduced because of the shortage of well-educated men in these countries). In the Cameroon, for instance, where annual income per head of population averages 25,000 francs, a member of parliament is paid a monthly salary of 185,000 francs. In Nigeria, £5,000-6,000 a year is the usual salary among senior civil servants, whereas workers’ wages and rank-and-file salaries come to no more than £80-90 a year. The corruption inherited from the colonial period helps to widen the material and social gap which now exists between the ruling elite and broad sections of the population.

p It is the ruling elite that is the target of the theory that the educated men in African and Asian society have a common ideological, cultural and spiritual make-up with men in the West. Most of the members of the senior generation in this elite did in fact graduate from universities 283 in London, Paris, Brussels and other European capitals. They, are the target of the theory of “synthesis”, “ interaction” and “cross-fertilisation” of cultures, and also of the ideological unity of West and East on the basis of fideism. Bourgeois theorists insist that any African or Asian intellectual has more in common with Western man than with the farmers and workers of his own country. Simultaneously, a powerful propaganda apparatus is trying to condition African and Asian intellectuals to the idea of a “dolce vita”. Finally, it is suggested that modern African and Asian elite owe their promotion to the West (knowledge, first appointments to office, etc.).

p Professor of international politics at Georgetown University in the USA, who specialises in relations with the Third World countries, had relations with this elite in mind when he wrote: “The right course for the West is not to retreat or ’get out’, but to find acceptable solutions in order to stay; not to reduce co-operation but to enlarge it; not to embark on policies of political divorce but to create greater unity.”  [283•1 

p The deepening social and political differentiation in the developing countries may undoubtedly induce a section of the local bourgeoisie and intelligentsia to intensify their ties with the imperialists. Reactionary, anti-democratic nationalism has never been in accord with genuine national interests and truly patriotic feelings. However, these are not the main processes in the life of these countries.

p A section of the local intelligentsia, especially that part of it which comes from the landed aristocracy, and from the bourgeoisified and corrupt officialdom, is in fact a reserve on which imperialism can draw for loyal agents. However, in the last few years considerable shifts have taken place in the sections of the Asian and African intelligentsia, with deep-going democratisation running both by origin and by ideological and political views. Revolutionary and liberatory tendencies among broad sections of the population in the young states are being intensified by enlistment in active anti-imperialist struggle, the influence of socialist ideas, the changing mental attitudes under the impact of the vast successes in building absolutely new society in the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries.

284

p The present-day national liberation movement is an organic part of the world revolutionary process; it is a series of anti-imperialist revolutions which are popular and democratic. They are being carried on not for the purpose of consolidating capitalism, but of fighting imperialism and taking the non-capitalist way of development.

p In a speech at the Kremlin Palace of Congresses on April 22, 1970, President Osvaldo Dorticos Torrado of the Republic of Cuba emphasised: “The practical implementation of Lenin’s ideas on proletarian internationalism acquires especial importance in the expression of solidarity with the peoples carrying on their struggle in Asia, Africa and Latin America.”  [284•1 

p The ideology of neocolonialism, which is no more than a refined form of justification of plunder and violence in the new conditions, may delay but not entirely prevent the complete liberation of the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. The collapse of the colonial system of imperialism is a fact. Its disintegration is becoming an important element of the world-wide revolutionary process. Despite the temporary retreats, zigzags and difficulties, the liberation movement of the peoples is gathering momentum.

p Mankind is witness to an unprecedented activity of masses of people, of a consolidation of the national forces and the ever growing role of the working class (even while it remains numerically small), of the discreditation of capitalism as an alternative way of development and the ever broader popularity of the ideas of restructuring society on socialist lines, of the growing unity of the young independent states of Asia, Africa and Latin America with the Soviet Union and the other socialist states and the revolutionary forces of our day.

p Speakers at the International Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties in June 1969 said that in the recent period the imperialists, conspiring with domestic reactionary forces, had launched a broad counter-offensive in many young states of Asia and Africa. As a result of plots and reactionary military putsches progressive and anti-imperialist governments were overthrown in some countries and a fierce reign of terror was started against the Communists and other progressive leaders. The sharpness of the situation 285 shows the urgent need to intensify the struggle against neocolonialism and its ideology.

p Despite the difficulties, the peoples will triumph over imperialism and its henchmen. History itself has foreordained the inevitable defeat of the ideological champions of imperialism and neocolonialism. The strength of the national liberation movement, as a part of the general worldwide anti-imperialist revolutionary process, has been growing. The future of the peoples of the young sovereign national states lies along the way of democratic renewal, social progress and socialist transformations.

Consolidation of their alliance with the socialist community and the international working-class movement is of primary importance for the prospects of the anti- imperialist struggle of the developing nations.