357

p An examination of the policy of the Western powers vis-a-vis the socialist world invitqs the conclusion that the ruling circles of the imperialist states are trying to utilise the class and ideological contradictions between the two systems as a means of exacerbating international tension and maintaining and fanning the cold war.

p The Soviet Union, other socialist countries and the communist movement act from entirely different positions, being motivated by the Marxist-Leninist world outlook. They hold that the ideological struggle, being a component of the general struggle between the two opposing systems, must not stand in the way of the establishment and development of friendly interstate relations.

p In an epoch when the course and the outcome of world events are being determined by the competition and struggle of the two opposing socio-economic systems, both sides engage in extensive propaganda: socialism seeks to demonstrate the advantages of its system and its ideology, while capitalism tries to boost the “merits” of free enterprise. Capitalism’s ideologists, however, find it increasingly harder to 358 muster new arguments in defence of the old world. Capitalism has already displayed itself in such a bad light and become so huge a brake on contemporary social development that its defenders are in fact compelled largely to use the old “theoretical” baggage, selecting different arbitrarily invented terms designed to create an impression of novelty.

p The theories of "people’s capitalism”, "economic humanism”, "welfare state”, or "great society”, which bourgeois propaganda widely employs, cannot save the defenders of capitalism because they are unable to alter its substance. That is what counts, not the nomenclature. Such ideological artifices, spurned by life itself and by capitalist reality, show that capitalism is incapable of putting forward viable ideas and providing clear prospects.

p The socialist world, however, is in constant movement and development, revealing a fortiori its advantages and demonstrating the great vital force of Marxism-Leninism. It is an inexhaustible well-spring of constantly growing forces in the struggle against the obsolete capitalist world, the battle for the minds of men. Because socialism leads to progress of the economy, science and culture and facilitates the all-round development of people’s talents and constructive capabilities, it creates a truly prosperous society where, as pointed out in the Manifesto of the Communist Party "the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all".  [358•1 

p Even many votaries of the old world are forced 359 to admit the power of communist ideas. Alfred Meyer, American "expert on communism" writes that the ideology of the Communists "remains one of the strongest forces active in the world today".  [359•1  The American diplomat and foreign-policy theoretician George Kennan writes that "Russia confronts us not just with a foreign policy or a military policy, but with an integrated philosophy of action, internal and external. We can respond effectively in no other way.”  [359•2 

p Calls "to respond" to the triumphant march of the ideas of socialism, to oppose them with a "constructive ideology" have resounded in the bourgeois world for a long time. But all attempts to construct such an ideological system simply boil down to juggling with words. These exertions are futile not because the ideologists of capitalism lack imagination, but for an entirely different reason. Daniel Bell, an American sociologist, admits that "ideologies are exhausted" in the capitalist world in his book aptly titled The End of Ideology. On the Exhaustion of Political Ideas in the Fifties.  [359•3  This exhaustion is an inevitable process. It is impossible for a social system which has outlived its age to invent a life-asserting world outlook that opens up new horizons to the people.

p True, the old world possesses a wealth of experience in duping the people. It has an experienced propaganda machine, a wide network of newspapers and magazines, radio and TV and 360 a veritable army of propagandists highly skilled in righting progressive ideas and progressive social development. The machine for the propagation of private enterprise ideas has facilities for spreading lies and slander against progressive ideas, for manipulating public opinion in the way dictated by the exploiting classes. Bourgeois propaganda is faced with an impossible task—to compensate the losses of the capitalist system by a flood of words.

p Hence it is not surprising that anxiety for the destiny of capitalism, for the outcome of the peaceful competition between socialism and capitalism, is spreading in Western ruling circles. "The critical weakness of our society,” John Jessup, a bourgeois writer admits, "is that for the time being our people do not have great purposes which they are united in wanting to achieve."  [360•1  "We know that we have come to the end, that we need a new beginning,” Hermann Rauschning, a West German writer, stated in a sombre vein at the end of the 1950s. "But we are afraid of the new.”  [360•2  It is not difficult to understand the reason: the “new” is socialism.

p Never before have the proponents of capitalism felt such fear of socialism and communist ideas. This is shown by numerous statements of influential Western leaders; in one of his statements when he was Vice-President of the United States, Nixon told listeners that the overriding problem of the "free world" was the ability to survive in 361 the struggle going on throughout the world. He had to admit that the greatest danger confronting the United States was sooner in the non-military than the military sphere.

p The imperialists have made anti-communism their principal ideological and political weapon, consisting largely of slandering the socialist system and falsifying the policy and aims of the Communist Parties, the doctrine of MarxismLeninism.

p Anti-communism constitutes the content and form not only of imperialism’s ideological struggle against the Marxist-Leninist world outlook. It is increasingly inspiring the foreign policy of the United States and its partners. Characterising our age as the "century of ideologies”, the century when the influence of ideologies is the "primary factor”, the authors of the report "US Foreign Policy. Ideology and Foreign Affairs”, prepared for the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, directly declare that to be successful in our age political actions must be linked with ideas.  [361•1  Imperialism associates its political actions with the ideology of anti-communism.

p Another concept, “de-ideologisation”, has become widespread in the camp of the monopoly bourgeoisie. Its exponents, among whom, for example, is the well-known Z. Brzezinski, are out to prove that the contemporary world is at a stage of degeneration of ideologies. According to the logic of Brzezinski, Samuel Huntington and others, industrial development leads to a situation where ideology as such loses its value and significance. Brzezinski and Huntington claim that in 362 the United States there is no dominating ideology and, in general, no ideologies: ”. . .the two major American political parties never refer to their programmes as ideological declarations. The President never speaks of the ideology of his Administration.”  [362•1 

p The system of proof as such is original: ideology is not mentioned, ergo it does not exist. Actually, however, this conceals a different aim: to picture the US ruling elite as standing above ideology, above the interests of different classes, in other words, as expressing the interests of all classes. The anti-ideology school denies the existence of ideology in the United States and other countries, yet meanwhile tries to smuggle in bourgeois ideology, ideas of class conciliation and class harmony. The untenability of such concepts is evident in the daily realities in the USA where serious class conflicts occur in the form of political demonstrations, racial conflicts and strikes.

p The concept of degeneration of ideology is basically directed against communism; its purpose is to belittle the significance of scientific communism and to discredit the ideas of Marxism-Leninism.

In his book The Ideas of American Foreign Policy Michael Donelen, a British historian, writes that after the Second World War struggle against "Soviet influence" became the key-note of US foreign policy. Moreover, as he points out, American foreign policy rarely made "a distinction between resistance to the Soviet Union . . . and resistance to communism".  [362•2  The policy of the 363 United States is described in the same vein by The New York Times which writes that the US policy after the Second World War was based on anti-communism.  [363•1 

p .

p Even prior to the war, anti-Sovietism, a component of anti-communism, played a leading part in the foreign-policy practices and propaganda of the imperialist powers. As far back as 1920 Lenin had served warning that the imperialists "are using every means of agitation and propaganda to increase hatred for the Soviet Republic, and will never miss an opportunity for military intervention, as they put it, i.e., to strangle Soviet power".  [363•2  The nazis came to power in Germany under the black banner of anti- communism and anti-Sovietism and launched their crusade against the nations of the world under the self-same slogan of fighting the "Bolshevist danger”. It is on the basis of rabid anti- communism that fascism and all kinds of ultra-Right movements have sprung up always and everywhere. The ideologists and politicians of presentday anti-communism are widely utilising the methods of fascism.

p But the anti-communists are trying to draw a lesson from the failures of the hitlerites; they take into consideration the fact that when nazi Germany attacked the Soviet Union the capitalist world was divided into two opposite groups, and they seek to launch their ideological subversion against world socialism on a broader basis acceptable to all the reactionary forces in all countries of the "free world”.

364

p Elevating, like the rulers of nazi Germany, the new crusade against communism to official policy, and exporting counter-revolution, the "defenders of the free world" against communist ideas make no bones about their real aims.

p The most outspoken of them demand "total victory over communism”. Barry Goldwater, for example, wrote in his book ’The Conscience of a Conservative that a "tolerable peace . . . must follow victory over communism".  [364•1 

p A like-minded American historian, Prof. Eric F. Goldman, formulates the aims which, in his opinion, should be pursued by Washington in its foreign policy: "The destruction or undermining of Bolshevism is so important that no matter what it costs, you must do it. There is a higher morality. The moral meaning of America is to prevent the spread and power of communism. Therefore the moral question of using these weapons (meaning the A and H bomb—Sh.S.) is subordinate to the larger morality.”  [364•2 

p Others use as cover for such a "tolerable peace" an "international system”, which naturally must fully meet the interests of US imperialism. According to Robert Bowie, former US Assistant Secretary of State, who then became director of the Centre for International Affairs at Harvard University, "the West must undertake to build up an international system compatible with its principles and values".  [364•3 

365

p Others, however, are aware that calls for a "tolerable peace" and the building up of an " international system" suitable to the West may be regarded only as a sign of complete loss of the sense of reality. They also want to make short shrift of "world communism" but stress that this is not so simple a matter. John Boynton, a British writer who specialises in the postwar history of world communism, in his book Aims and Means arrives at the rueful conclusion that world communism is the most difficult problem of our age.  [365•1 

p US ruling circles not only proclaim anti-Soviet and anti-communist slogans but also take practical steps to carry out their aggressive plans towards the socialist community and the international communist and working-class movement. In Europe these generally known steps are based chiefly on "special relations" with West German imperialism and revanchism and are inseparably linked with the US strategic foreign policy, with the ideology and practices of anti-communism. The United States extensively employs anti- communist slogans for suppressing national liberation movements in the Third World. Under the flag of struggle against the "peril of world communism" the US ruling element is trying to stop the liberation of peoples from colonial slavery and to build up its own American neo-colonialist empire on the ruins of old colonial empires. This is demonstrated by the resolution adopted by the US Congress House of Representatives in September 1965 sanctioning armed intervention into any Latin American country.

p One of the specific features of US imperialism’s 366 contemporary strategy is the stepped-up struggle against the national liberation movement. The ideologists of imperialism are fabricating all kinds of doctrines and concepts designed to justify the “right” to suppress by armed force the movements for national liberation. The US ruling circles consider it their "sacred duty" to fight the national liberation movement in any part of the world. In other words, the doctrine of armed suppression of the national liberation struggle is regarded as global, its geographical sphere of action is boundless.

p The “arguments” used for the theoretical and practical justification of this doctrine are quite remarkable. Official government spokesmen and many US propagandists have been exerting efforts to outlaw wars of national liberation, to claim that they run counter to international law and undermine the mainstays of peace and security. Moreover, national liberation wars are qualified as a form of aggression; from this they conclude that all measures for halting them, including armed force, are fully legitimate and justified. Suppression of national liberation movements is proclaimed one of the primary aims of US policy, inasmuch as they, in the words of Hubert Humphrey when he was Vice-President, become "the major challenge to our security".  [366•1 

p It is hardly necessary to prove the absurdity of attempts to demonstrate the “right” and “duty” of the United States to wage armed struggle against national liberation movements. Since Washington plays the part of the world policeman, American imperialism is the main object of 367 attack by the contemporary national liberation movement. That is understood even in the United States. Typical in this respect, for example, is the admission of the authoritative The New York 7 inies, which pointed out that the United States was the main target in these wars of liberation.  [367•1 

p Thus, under pressure of the class struggle, imperialism is manoeuvring, resorting to partial concessions and widely employing social demagogy. "Losing its colonies, imperialism is resorting to more cunning and sophisticated methods of exploiting other peoples. It spares no effort and resources in the battle for the minds of men; the growing influence of socialism compels the imperialists constantly to adapt their ideological weapons and their propaganda to the changing situation.”  [367•2 

p The ideologists and politicians of US imperialism are trying to exploit anti-communism for reinforcing the "Holy Alliance" of the Western powers under the aegis of the United States. The logic is simple: under the guise of combating "world communism" they seek to achieve “unity” of the Western powers that would ensure domination of the United States over them. To this end Washington is dragging out the bogy of the " communist menace”. Thomas Mann, when he was Under Secretary of State, declared in a speech at a meeting of the Inter-American Press Association on October 12, 1965, that the "greatest danger" presented by "expansionist communism" would come when the free world was confused, uncertain, divided and weak.

368

p The ideologists of imperialism are trying to prove that only the United States is capable of saving the capitalist system from doom. Andre Francois-Poncet, a French reactionary writer and one of the most zealous proponents of "Atlantic solidarity”, wrote in an article entitled "Two Blocs”, published in Le Figaro on September 19, 1967, that "there was only one protection against the successes of Marxism-Leninism—the United States; there was only one shield—the one held by America”.

p What is this "Western unity" in the understanding of the ideologists of the monopoly bourgeoisie?

p Above all it is an “alliance” of the Western powers in the interests of securing US world supremacy, which leaves no room either for sovereignty or national independence. All Western states must sacrifice their independence in foreign and home policy in order to resist the " communist menace”.

p The ruling circles of many Western countries, including some of the great powers, gripped by serious anxiety for the future of their system, have taken steps that are incompatible with their national prestige and state sovereignty. They include first of all the setting up of American military bases and nuclear-missile sites on the territories of other states and the ever greater subordination of the policy of the West European countries to the interests of US monopoly capital. All of this has been done in order to preserve capitalism.

p Under the guise of struggle against "old- fashioned nationalism" Washington has organised a drive against the sovereignty of its allies, and it must be admitted that at one time it registered 369 certain success. Essential restriction of the sovereignty of West European countries and their independence in foreign affairs, and their involvement in military blocs—all these are stages in carrying out the plans for a Pax Americana which were justified by perorations about the " communist menace”.

p Life, however, has demonstrated that these achievements were transitory. Under popular pressure and because of factors of world development, the ruling circles of many West European countries have been compelled to voice, to varying extent, disagreement with the dictation of transatlantic imperialism and to take independent steps. It is indicative that relations with the Soviet Union and other socialist countries have become a kind of barometer registering the degree of independence of West European countries from the United States, a measure of their sovereignty. One might even say that in their resistance to American dictation they invisibly (and at times visibly) rely on the strength of the Soviet Union and other socialist states. If West European countries have not completely ceded their economic and political independence, it is in large measure due to the world socialist community.

p The history of international relations after the Second World War convincingly reveals the shakiness of the ideological foundations of imperialist alliances. Today virtually everyone in the West admits the falsity of assertions about the "Soviet menace" which the imperialists had used to justify the creation of NATO and other aggressive blocs. British military writer Liddell Hart has drawn the conclusion that after 17 years of frenzied arms race through NATO, it turns out 370 that a Russian threat to the West never did exist; the Russians never did have a plan for attacking Western Europe and, therefore, the foundation on which all West European policy was built after 1948 was dubious.

p It is noteworthy that in their attack on " oldfashioned nationalism" among US allies, the US ruling circles at the same time bank on reanimating national prejudices in socialist countries. The doctrine of "building East-West bridges”, proclaimed by Lyndon Johnson when he was President of the United States, was designed to encourage such prejudices.

p Though vested in highly publicised statements about the desirability of consolidating "mutual understanding" and “confidence” in relations between East and West, the "bridgebuilding doctrine" was in fact aimed at undermining the socialist system and weakening the socialist community. Moreover, the main stake was on nationalism. G. Kirk, when he was President of Columbia University, voiced the plans and hopes of imperialism’s ideologists with sufficient clarity and frankness: "The leaders of the West, if they are clever and unimpeded by obsessions, gradually may be able to strengthen the spirit of nationalism that coexists uneasily with Communist internationalism in every Eastern European state. If this can be done in such a way and at such a pace as to avoid giving Moscow the feeling that a mortal blow is being prepared, good and positive results for the West might be forthcoming. At least, the effort is worthwhile.”  [370•1 

p The spread of bourgeois ideology was 371 designated to weaken socialism from within, to undermine its strength and stability. There can hardly be any doubt that the ruling circles of the imperialist powers regard bourgeois ideology as a direct instrument for achieving their foreign- policy aims. Bourgeois ideology serves the needs of the capitalist class in international relations as much as in home policy. Of course, the forms and methods of employing ideology in international relations differ due to the very nature of international relations and the specific features of the confrontation of the two systems. But the aims are the same: to preserve capitalism and resist revolutionary changes which are altering the aspect of the contemporary world.

p Thus, the deep-going ideological crisis of world imperialism is also increasingly affecting the foreign policy of its principal state. The policy of piracy and military ventures pursued by US imperialism is ultimately doomed to failure. It arouses general popular hatred and an even greater desire to consolidate the cohesion of the antiimperialist, anti-colonial forces. In the United States itself there is growing movement against the aggressive actions of the brasshats, a movement in which different sections of the population take part. Even some men known for their adherence to the idea of "American leadership of the free world" are now frequently condemning Washington’s policy because they consider it futile.

p It is all the more important to strengthen the unity and vigilance of anti-imperialist forces and be able to discern what is behind the anti- communist camoutlage because Washington tries to utilise every loophole for carrying out its 372 perfidious plans, for undermining the unity of the socialist and all peace-loving states. Emphasis should be laid on the great harm inflicted on the anti-imperialist struggle by the divisive activities of the Chinese leaders who are hampering the concerted measures of the socialist states and all peace-loving forces against the aggressive policy of the Western powers. The position of the Chinese leaders objectively facilitates the imperialist plans of the United States in various parts of the world and its efforts to export counter-revolution. The policy of splitting the forces of peace and socialism, applied by Mao Tse-tung and his group, is one of the main reasons for the escalated activities of the aggressive US military in recent years. "There is no denying that the differences in the Communist world movement have adversely affected the struggle for peace, democracy and socialism, the relations between some socialist countries, and the national liberation movement; these differences are hampering also the struggle of the working class in some of the capitalist countries and making this struggle less effective as a result.”  [372•1 

p At the same time the stand of the Chinese leaders runs counter to the interests of the ideological struggle against imperialism. It leaves a gap for the ideology and policy of imperialism and exposes to the enemy important sectors of the ideological front.

p The attitude of the Chinese leaders has pettybourgeois origins. In 1920, Lenin, pointing out that Bolshevism had grown and gained in strength in the struggle against enemies of the working 373 class, named opportunism as the principal enemy. He wrote: "Bolshevism took shape, developed and became steeled in the long years of struggle against petty-bourgeois revolutionism, which smacks of anarchism, or borrows something from the latter and, in all essential matters, does not measure up to the conditions and requirements of a consistently proletarian class struggle."  [373•1  Lenin served warning that such pseudo- revolutionism can easily turn into capitulation or even prove to be a bacillus of bourgeois ideology. He emphasised: "The instability of such revolutionism, its barrenness, and its tendency to turn rapidly into submission, apathy, phantasms, and even a frenzied infatuation with one bourgeois fad or another—all this is common knowledge. However, a theoretical or abstract recognition of these truths does not at all rid revolutionary parties of old errors, which always crop up at unexpected occasions, in somewhat new forms, in a hitherto unfamiliar garb or surroundings, in an unusual— a more or less unusual—situation.”  [373•2 

p Anyone who is not blind to realities will hardly venture to deny the importance of peaceful coexistence as the best possible way of avoiding a nuclear disaster. In our day and age it is not easy for the enemies of international co-operation to come out openly against peaceful coexistence. That is why the imperialist ideologists and propagandists are resorting to all kinds of artifices and carefully concealing their true views.

p Some are trying to portray peaceful coexistence 374 as a "tactical manoeuvre" of the socialist states. Henry Kissinger asserts, "The slogan peaceful coexistence has never had more than a tactical significance in communist terminology".  [374•1  Die Welt seeks to frighten readers by stating that not all people in the non-communist world understand that when the Soviet Union speaks of coexistence it means the class struggle and world revolution.  [374•2  Others try to replace peaceful coexistence by a diametrically opposed concept, "coexistence as cold war”. Seton-Watson, a British international relations expert and an inveterate anti- communist, writes quite bluntly: "There is not necessarily any harm in using their phrases, ’peaceful coexistence’, provided that it is understood that peaceful coexistence and cold war are exactly the same thing.”  [374•3  Others recognise peaceful coexistence as a basis for relations between states of the two different social systems but with certain reservations.

p Raymond Aron, a reactionary French sociologist, in an article "Coexistence: The End of Ideology”, published in 1958 writes: "Should the Soviets ever recognise that their regime is only one of a number of possible ways of organising industrial societies, the majority of democrats— while continuing to regard certain practices of the Soviet regime as deplorable, inefficient or inhuman—would no longer feel obliged to maintain an attitude of active hostility to the Soviet Union.”  [374•4 

375

p Arthur Schlesinger, who was a special assistant to President Kennedy, considered ideological reconciliation a necessary prerequisite for genuine coexistence because the very concept of coexistence loses any real meaning without it. "If the democratic nations pursue with regard to the Soviet Union the same policy under the motto ’no peaceful coexistence in the sphere of ideology’ which the Soviet Union is trying to pursue with regard to all other nations, there would be not only ’no peaceful coexistence in the sphere of ideology’ but practically no coexistence of any kind in general. The world would be divided into two isolated parts. ... So long as democratic ideas (meaning the ideas of bourgeois society— Sli.S.) cannot circulate as freely in the communist world as the communist ideas do in the democratic world, the cold war will be continued in one or another way.”  [375•1 

p Lastly, there is one more group of people who pose as supporters of peaceful coexistence and are trying, so to say, to extend its bounds. They include in it class reconciliation between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat and want to establish a status quo in social development. Hence the calls to extend peaceful coexistence to the ideological struggle.

p Peaceful coexistence between states with different social systems, according to Benito Nardone, a reactionary Latin American politician, is a time bomb because the principle of the class struggle remains valid. The status quo in the social sphere (renunciation of the class struggle by the 376 proletariat, discontinuation of the struggle for national liberation)—this is the main condition on which the West would prefer to accept the principles of peaceful coexistence.

p The absurdity of such an approach to problems of social development is obvious. Even William O. Douglas, a Justice of the US Supreme Court, was forced to admit (in his book Democracy’s Manifesto, published in 1962), that the United States was now the force hindering progress and mature social and political changes in colonial and less developed countries: "While the push on all continents is and has been for change, the weight of American influence has been on the side of the status quo. That was and is an untenable position. Not all the bombs in the world, not all the wealth of America can maintain that status quo. The internal ferment in the villages of these feudal societies is producing more powerful forces than all of our bombs and all of our wealth.”  [376•1 

p It would be ridiculous, of course, to deny the incontrovertible truth that ideas, a world outlook, exert great influence on foreign policies. Moreover, foreign policy is always an expression of the interests and aspirations of the class which is at the helm. But something else is no less clear: the clash of interests in foreign policy and the ideological struggle are certainly not one and the same thing. They must not be confused. Consequently, the principles on which relations between states are based must not be carried over into the social, ideological sphere.

377

p True, frequently aggression and war, an expression of the expansionist aspirations of the ruling upper crust, have been justified by ideological considerations: “crusades”, "civilising mission”, anti-communism, and so on and so forth. Frequently an aggressor has attained the real aims of such a policy—the enslavement of a country and its people, the seizure of an area, the gaining of economic advantages. But no one has ever succeeded in stifling human thought with the help of a bow and arrow or even the most sophisticated weapons. History demonstrates that it is quite futile and even dangerous to attempt to control social progress or prevent it by force. This is particularly so today.

p To regulate relations between countries with different social systems, as shown by the experience of international relations, is both possible and necessary in the interest of preserving the peace and security of nations. But it is quite useless to try to regulate the struggle of ideas in the modern world.

p Defenders of concepts which equate foreignpolicy and ideological relations are in no way concerned with reducing the strain between states of the socialist and the capitalist systems. They are gripped by fear of future social upheavals in the capitalist world. It is this fear that gives rise to the desire to “tame” the principles of peaceful coexistence with the object of stopping, for instance, the disintegration of the colonial system and the contraction of the sphere of world capitalism.

p Application of the peaceful coexistence principles in such forms would legalise the crimes of the Portuguese colonialists in Angola, offer a 378 guarantee to the reactionary regimes in Spain and Portugal, preserve the domination of the US and British monopolies in Asia, Africa and Latin America.

p Most importantly, however, such peace is simply unrealistic. No agreement or understanding is capable of blocking social progress. It is unwise, to say the least, to uphold the ideas of Metternich and the Holy Alliance in the second half of the 20th century. Whoever, when speaking of peaceful coexistence, puts forward as a conditio sine qua non the halting of social progress, wittingly or unwittingly also opposes peaceful coexistence.

p Talk of extending the principles of peaceful coexistence to the ideological struggle is sheer hypocrisy designed to conceal the true substance of the position held by enemies of peaceful coexistence. Indeed, is it possible to take seriously talk of "ideological peace" when imperialist reaction is mobilising all mass media to discredit communism and its lofty ideas, to whitewash capitalism? Is it possible to imagine that the defenders of an obsolete system, maintained solely by coercion and deception, would ever agree to renounce the ideological struggle against socialism and consent to the dismantling of the huge propaganda machine created by the bourgeoisie for the continual ideological conditioning of the population and boosting of the blessing of the "free world"? Or perhaps they expect the socialist countries to make one-sided concessions? This will never come to pass.

p A statement by a group of US Congressmen on the principles and policy of the Republican Party is symptomatic. The keynote of this document runs 379 as follows: the world cannot remain partly communistic and partly free. The Republicans hold that the United States which proclaimed “ freedom” must concentrate efforts on instituting the reign of this “freedom” throughout the world. In foreign policy the cardinal national goal must be victory over communism. Without this, they believe, there could never be real peace on earth.

p The authors of this document, mortally frightened by the growing influence of communism, apparently have lost completely the ability to assess events realistically. Only this can explain their ignorance of the laws governing contemporary historical development and refusal to recognise the need for peaceful coexistence, even on a most modest scale, between states of opposing socio-economic systems.

p Class blindness is one reason why the imperialists cannot and will not understand the essence of the great process of society’s regeneration and advance,’ which is an objective and natural development. By ignoring the fundamental revolutionary changes in the world after the Second World War, imperialist ideologists earnestly discuss the question of blocking the road to the further development of world socialism and mankind’s progress.

p One could somehow understand the sceptics who predicted the collapse of the Soviet experiment in the initial years after the October Revolution. They were stunned by the unusual turn in events and were unable to understand the substance of the social upheavals. But the contemporary bourgeoisie has had more than enough examples demonstrating the epochal victories of the new social system.

380

p The victory of people’s revolution in a number of European and Asian countries, the formation of the world socialist system, the swift growth of the international working-class movement, the collapse of imperialism’s colonial system—it is impossible to ignore the importance of these events which have radically altered the face of the world and tremendously accelerated mankind’s advance along the road of social progress.

p The most aggressive imperialist circles refuse to recognise peaceful coexistence as a form of relations with socialist countries, because they are increasingly learning that capitalism is no longer capable of withstanding prolonged contact with socialism and that the ideological struggle is increasingly eroding the mainstays of the old system, bringing it nearer its final doom. "It should be expected that our position will increasingly deteriorate as the Soviets increase their economic potential and achieve a ‘detente’ and coexistence,"  [380•1  Riidiger Altmann, a West German journalist, writes.

p This above all explains the sharp fluctuations in the policy of the Western powers, the attempts to “adapt” the principle of peaceful coexistence, which has gained great popularity, to the aims, demands and class interests of capitalism, to turn it against the revolutionary processes in contemporary society.

p The ideological enemies of socialism have for a long time been trying to impute the vices of capitalism to Soviet "subversive activities”, to the "hand of Moscow”. Everything happening in the 381 capitalist world—the revolutionary and workingclass movement, strikes, the national liberation struggle in the colonies, the powerful peace movement and even economic crises—are often attributed by the apologists of imperialism to outside subversive interference.

p But if the Western ruling circles seriously believed in the myth that the Soviet Union wants to introduce the socialist system by force of arms into other countries, they would not, for example, look for pretexts to foil a solution of the disarmament problem. In reality the myth of the "communist menace" has been invented to justify aggressive actions against the socialist countries, the preparation of aggression against the Soviet Union and other socialist states. This is one aspect of the matter. The other is that the bourgeois theses about "Moscow’s subversive activities" are a means of exacerbating international tension, a factor helping to step up the arms race and the cold war, a method for maintaining a situation in the world which would make it impossible to solve urgent international problems, including that of disarmament.

p The Western press has carried many official articles and statements which admit the importance of solving the disarmament problem. At present, almost every Western leader verbally recognises this necessity. But influential forces are at work; they link the destinies of contemporary capitalism with the arms race, the existence of powerful military forces and a wide-ranging system of aggressive blocs, that is, with all the attributes of the cold war, with hotbeds of aggression and military ventures of every kind.

p These circles apparently think that 382 contemporary capitalism cannot exist without powerful military support. In other words, certain Western circles do not consider the further existence of capitalism possible without huge armed forces. They think it is impossible without appropriate military strength to preserve the remnants of colonialism and the dependent position of small and medium capitalist countries on the principal imperialist powers, the United States above all, and also to maintain the capitalist system in these countries.

p The imperialists are greatly concerned about the political processes which are in some degree promoting a detente. For a long time they have been regarding the cold war and its consequences as an essential requisite for maintaining the vitality of the old world.

p Thus, it is not the Soviet Union and other socialist countries that resort to force for the spread of socialism. There is no need. The capitalist states, however, do utilise military methods for “self-preservation” from complete break-up under the blows of the popular movement for peace and social progress. They extensively employ military force for the export of counter-revolution and the suppression of national liberation movements in different parts of the world. Washington is covering up US aggression in Southeast Asia and Latin America by demagogic slogans of "struggle against world communism and the communist danger”. The impression is created that American imperialism is waging war in different countries in order to spread imperialist ideology and the ideas of the "free world”.

p While struggle against imperialist ideology is an indispensable condition of peaceful coexistence, 383 the consistent and steady pursuance of the policy of peace, peaceful coexistence and international co-operation, in turn, reinforces the ideological positions of socialism. This policy stems from the very nature of the socialist countries, and therefore possesses a great ideological potential. It is winning over ever new millions in all countries to communist ideas. This policy efficaciously contributes to the anti-imperialist struggle and strengthens the anti-imperialist front.

p Even sworn enemies of communism are forced to admit that, as William Schlamm does, for example, in the malicious anti-communist treatise The Boundaries of the Miracle.  [383•1 

p In applying the peaceful coexistence principle, socialist countries strive for the utmost strengthening of their positions in competition with capitalism. Peaceful coexistence creates more favourable conditions and possibilities for the workers’ struggle in capitalist countries for their rights and social emancipation, the struggle of the peoples of colonies and dependencies to win and strengthen national independence.

p “While exposing the aggressive policy of imperialism,” the 23rd CPSU Congress stressed, "we are consistently and unswervingly pursuing a policy of peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems. This means that while regarding the coexistence of states with different social systems as a form of the class struggle between socialism and capitalism, the Soviet Union consistently advocates normal, peaceful relations with capitalist countries and a settlement of 384 controversial interstate issues by negotiation, not by war.”  [384•1 

p At the same time, the Soviet Union never tires of repeating that peaceful coexistence is possible only in the sphere of interstate relations. The Soviet people stand for peace between states, but they sympathise, and will always sympathise, with the struggle for social justice and national liberation. Their striving for peace, their struggle for the triumph of the peaceful coexistence policy must under no circumstances be taken as a denial of the right of peoples to freedom and independence.

p The socialist position is abundantly clear. The Communists have always fought and will continue to fight bourgeois ideology, exposing its true essence as the world outlook of exploiting classes, colonialists and warmongers. The sympathies of the Communists are fully with the peoples fighting for their rights and social emancipation. At the same time, they will continue to demonstrate with mounting clarity the advantages of socialism over the old, obsolete system and advocate the great ideas of scientific communism. This is clearly and precisely stated in the Programme of the CPSU adopted by the 22nd Party Congress:

p “The peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems does not imply discontinuance of the ideological struggle. The Communist Party will go on exposing the anti-popular, reactionary nature of capitalism and all attempts to paint bright pictures of the capitalist system.

p “The Party will steadfastly propagate the great 385 advantages of socialism and communism over the declining capitalist system."  [385•1 

p The ideology of anti-communism is increasingly becoming a factor determining the main content and trends of the foreign policy of the imperialist powers, the United States, first and foremost. In its struggle against socialism, imperialism had extensively utilised such fraudulent anti-Soviet slogans as "Soviet imperialism”, "the Bolshevist danger”, the "hand of the Kremlin”, and so on. But today, the propagators of these theses are out ol step even in bourgeois countries. These and similar theses of reactionary propaganda, which for a long time underlay official Western policy, have been fully discredited by life itself.

p By creating tension and a war danger in the world, the imperialists are trying to bring pressure to bear on the forces of socialism, the national liberation movement, democracy and peace. But the aggressive actions, far from reinforcing the positions of the United States, on the contrary, are increasing its international isolation.

p The law-governed development of contemporary capitalism exacerbates inter-imperialist contradictions, weakens the positions of the United States in Western Europe, worsens the deep crisis gripping NATO, and causes the failure of US strategy designed to establish its world supremacy.

p The existence of the world socialist system, of the international communist and working-class movement, and their energetic, militant 386 international struggle arc an important factor which is constantly deepening capitalism’s general crisis and accelerating the rate of social development.

p The impact exerted by the world socialist system on socio-economic and political processes in the world is exceedingly great. All revolutionary changes in all countries are directly linked with the influence of the world socialist system. Achievements in building the new life, the policy of peace and international co-operation and the rendering of moral and material assistance and support to all the peoples fighting for national and social liberation, for strengthening their independence and sovereignty are creating favourable conditions for the maturation and victory of progressive movements, for the advance of world socialism.

The cardinal result of the development of world socialism for more than half a century is that the new socio-economic formation, which not so long ago was regarded as a "temporary experiment" by its enemies, has struck firm root in the world. The socialist community, standing in the forefront of the struggle against imperialism, for peace and mankind’s social progress, is making a decisive contribution to the development of the world revolutionary process.