Shalva Sanakoyev
D
__TITLE__
the
world
socialist
system
__TEXTFILE_BORN__ 2007-09-04T12:25:08-0700
__TRANSMARKUP__ "Y. Sverdlov"
__SUBTITLE__
Main
Translated from the Russian by Leo Lempert
Edited by Jim Riordan
Designed by Vsevolod Trushchev
UI. n. CAHAKOEB
MHPOBAH CHCTEMA COU.HAJIH3MA Ha
__COPYRIGHT__ First printing 1972The history of the world socialist system in effect begins with the 1917 Great October Revolution which ushered in a new era, the era of socialism and communism. The victory of the revolution signified the birth of a new socioeconomic system, the defeat of the old, capitalist system and the beginning of its general crisis.
The sphere of capitalist rule contracted geographically and capitalism lost some power to shape events in its part of the world. The social processes that developed after the October Revolution, under its direct impact and as a result of building socialism in the USSR, are increasingly determining the course of world events.
For about 30 years after the October Revolution only one country constituted the socialist system, yet signs of the future emergence of socialism beyond the bounds of one country were clearly apparent. The revolutionary events in Europe resulted in workers' gains and the formation of Soviet Republics in Hungary, Bavaria and 9 Slovakia. The October Revolution was also of tremendous significance for the colonies. "The disintegration of the capitalist world,'' Lenin said, "is steadily progressing, unity is steadily diminishing, while the onslaught of the forces of the oppressed colonies ... is increasing.''^^1^^
The relations between the Soviet states which arose on the territory of the former Russian empire, the experience (however brief) of fraternal relations between Soviet Russia and the revolutionary Hungarian and Bavarian republics, the co-operation between the Russian Federation (and subsequently the USSR) and Mongolia, where a popular revolution triumphed in 1921 were all of fundamental importance. The experience of the first five years after the October Revolution demonstrated that, notwithstanding the exceptionally hard conditions, the revolutionary movement which swept a number of countries had brought entirely new, fraternal relations based on principles of proletarian solidarity. The working class of Russia, under the guidance of the Bolshevik Party, undertook not only to consummate the revolution in its country, but also to render other peoples help in their liberation struggle.
Lenin readily acclaimed the young Hungarian Soviet Republic. "The Eighth Congress of the Russian Communist Party,'' the message he wrote declared, "sends ardent greetings to the Hungarian Soviet Republic. .. . The working class of Russia is making every effort to come to your aid.''^^2^^ "All honest members of the working class _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 32, pp. 436--37,
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 29, p. 197,
10 all over the world are on your side,"^^1^^ Lenin wrote to the Hungarian workers. Notwithstanding all the difficulties caused by the frenzied onslaught of world imperialism, close co-operation began to take shape between the Russian Federation and the Hungarian Republic. Although Soviet Russia was unable to render direct military and economic assistance to the Hungarian Republic, it did everything to support its government. In particular, the Government of the Russian Federation appealed to Russian prisoners-of-war who were in Hungary to join the Hungarian workers and peasants who were defending their revolution.The Hungarian Soviet Republic at once proposed a military defensive alliance to Soviet Russia, seeing its natural ally in the first socialist country. This alliance was not a product of overt or covert diplomatic action; it arose as a result of international proletarian solidarity. "We are happy and proud that Hungary is the second Soviet Republic,'' Bela Kun, leader of the Hungarian Communist Party, stated on March 23, 1919, at a meeting of Communist Party members. " Believe me, the rejoicing in Moscow today is even greater than in our country.^^2^^ We express gratitude and send greetings to the Russian Soviet _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., p. 391.
~^^2^^ Leaders of the Hungarian Soviet Republic received Lenin's first message of greetings over the radio on March 22, 1919. It read: "Sincere greetings to the proletarian government of the Hungarian Soviet Republic, and especially to Comrade Bela Kun. I conveyed your greetings to the Congress of the Russian Communist Party ( Bolsheviks). They were received with tremendous enthusiasm" (V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 29, p. 226).
11 Republic which has invariably rendered us help. . . .''^^1^^Though the Soviet Republic in Hungary lasted only 133 days, its experience and the arduous struggle of the Hungarian workers for Soviet power were of tremendous significance for the working class and revolutionary movement elsewhere in Europe, and also for Soviet Russia.
The Government of Soviet Russia helped the Soviet Republics in the Baltic area (Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia), which were able to hold out briefly towards the end of 1918, and it concluded a treaty with the Finnish Socialist Republic which existed from late January to April 1918.
The relations established between states which arose on the present Soviet territory, prior to the creation of the USSR, merit special attention. The peoples of the Soviet Republics subsequently decided to unite in one state, but the earlier ties between them enriched the theory and practice of relations among states of the socialist type. The formation of Soviet Republics---the Russian Federation, the Ukraine, Byelorussia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Bukhara, Khorezm and the Far Eastern Republic^^2^^---- facilitated their military, political and economic cooperation. It was then that ways and means of _-_-_
~^^1^^ B\'ela Kun, Hungarian Soviet Republic, Selected Articles and Speeches, Russ., ed. Politizdat, I960, p. 137.
~^^2^^ Soviet power was proclaimed in the Ukraine on December 25, 1917; Byelorussia on January 1, 1919; Azerbaijan on April 28, 1920; Bukhara on October 8, 1920; Armenia on November 29, 1920; Georgia on February 25, 1921. The Far-Eastern Republic was formed on April __NOTE__ Footnote cont. on page 13. 12 interstate relations between sovereign peoples, relations based on the principle of proletarian internationalism, began to take shape.
In studying the relations between the Soviet Republics, the specific conditions in which these Republics arose and established contact must be borne in mind, inasmuch as they all featured proletarian dictatorship in the form of Soviet power under the leadership of a single MarxistLeninist Party on the territory of the former Russian empire.
Soviet Russia rendered them direct military assistance in their struggle for national and social liberation. After the proclamation of Soviet power and the formation of sovereign Soviet national states, the Russian Federation continued to safeguard the revolutionary gains of their peoples against the many external and internal enemies.
The legal basis for relations between socialist Republics was laid by the military and economic treaties of alliance concluded by the Government of Soviet Russia with other Soviet Republics.^^1^^ Underlying these alliances were the community of interests, recognition of the independence and sovereignty of each Republic, and awareness of the need to "pool their forces both for defence _-_-_ __NOTE__ Footnote cont. from page 12. 6, 1920, and in Khorezm Soviet power was established on April 26, 1920.
~^^1^^ Such treaties were concluded by the Russian Federation with the Khorezm Republic on September 13, 1920; the Azerbaijanian Republic on September 30, 1920; the Ukrainian Republic on December 28, 1920; the Byelorussian Republic on January 16, 1921; the Bukhara Republic on March 4, 1921, and with the Georgian Republic on March 21, 1921.
13 against external enemies and for their economic development.''^^1^^ The treaties reaffirmed the right of all peoples to self-determination, renunciation of the colonial policy of former Russian governments, and complete recognition by the Russian Federation of the sovereignty and independence of other Soviet Republics. They stressed that the need for close military and economic union met the interests of the working people and that their life could be improved only by their joint struggle and by uniting their forces.These treaties are historic documents of proletarian internationalism. They, and the special agreements supplementing them, enable us to judge how great was the assistance rendered by the people of the Russian Federation to the other peoples who embarked on the socialist road. Under the treaty of alliance between the Russian Federation and the Khorezm People's Soviet Republic, the RSFSR undertook to render Khorezm (formerly Khiva) technical assistance by supplying machinery, tools, complete plant and technical personnel (Article 21); to assist in developing national culture and education (Article 18) and it gave Khorezm a subsidy of 500 million rubles.^^2^^ The other treaties and agreements contained similar provisions.
Without the military and economic assistance of the Russian Federation, popular government could not have survived in any of the other socialist Republics. ".. .We, who are faced by a _-_-_
~^^1^^ Dokumenty vneshnei politiki SSSR (Documents of the Foreign Policy of the USSR), Vol. Ill, Gospolitizdat, 1959, p. 433; Vol. IV, I960, p. 130.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. Ill, p. 178.
14 huge front of imperialist powers, we, who are fighting imperialism,'' Lenin wrote in February1920, "represent an alliance that requires close military unity, and any attempt to violate this unity we regard as absolutely impermissible, as a betrayal of the struggle against international imperialism.''^^1^^
The treaties undoubtedly must be classed as international legal treaties and not as intrastate documents, since they provided for the creation of a united military organisation and military command and also of some economic agencies. In the statement concerning the Red Army, made by the Union Republics of the Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Byelorussia at the 9th All-Russia Congress of Soviets on December 26,
1921, they declared: "The Union Republics cannot and will not allow their territory again to become a bridgehead for foreign imperialism. We are prepared to give full support to all the undertakings of the federal authority in defending the common frontiers, we are placing at its disposal all the necessary resources and insistently urge the workers and peasants of the entire Soviet Federation, both directly and through Soviet bodies, to exert every effort so that our united Red Army invariably measure up to its historical tasks.''^^2^^
Close contacts existed between the People's Commissariats for Foreign Affairs of the various Republics, joint diplomatic missions were set up abroad, while in some cases Soviet Republics empowered Russian delegations to represent their _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 30, p. 325.
~^^2^^ Dokumenty vneshnei politiki SSSR, Vol. IV, p. 595.
15 interests at international conferences (for example, in February 1922, eight Soviet Republics empowered the delegation of the Russian Federation to represent them at the Genoa Conference) or combined delegations were formed (for example, the Russian-Ukrainian-Georgian delegation to the Lausanne Conference held between November 20, 1922, and July 24, 1923).It is of interest to trace the history of SovietMongolian friendship, the close military, political and economic relations between the USSR and the Soviet areas which arose in the course of the Chinese Revolution in the mid-1920s, the experience of fraternal solidarity with the Republic of Spain which changed during the war from a bourgeois-democratic republic into a people's republic.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 2. The Second World WarA special place in the history of world socialism is held by the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union against nazi Germany and the period immediately following it. The war against the USSR, thoroughly prepared by hitlerite fascism, the vanguard of international imperialism, was the supreme trial for the new, socialist system; it decided the fate of this initial bulwark of socialism and progress in the world, the destinies of all mankind.
Imperialism set special tasks before its strike force, fascism, in the Second World War: to stem the march of history by armed force, to crush the Soviet Union---the bulwark of the
16 world revolutionary process---to institute the imperialist "new order" and to put an end to the social progress of mankind once and for all.In the titanic battle against the imperialistbred forces of fascist aggression victory was won by the most advanced social system, by the ideology of communism, the most progressive ideology in the world, by the policy of the Leninist Communist Party which, in a relatively brief period, had turned the Soviet Union into a mighty industrial and agricultural state, united the Soviet people, inspired them to fight and led their struggle to a victorious conclusion. The socialist economic system, the moral and political unity of Soviet society which rested on the unbreakable alliance of the working class and the peasantry, gave the Soviet people the resources and energy for routing the fascist invaders. Socialism rendered an inestimable service to mankind by saving the world from a terrible fate, by foiling the biggest attempt of reactionary forces to turn back the course of social development, by saving culture, civilisation and progress from destruction.
From the very beginning of the Great Patriotic War the Soviet Union drew on the international solidarity of the working people which helped to extend in Europe the liberation struggle against the common enemy and led to the rise of the anti-Hitler coalition. During the war the broad Resistance movement in nazi-occupied countries merged with the struggle for social emancipation, for the abolition of the decayed bourgeoislandowner regimes which had led the European states to national disaster. Fraternal solidarity __PRINTERS_P_17_COMMENT__ 2-500 17 was also displayed by people of different nationalities participating in the Resistance movement in each country. The Soviet Union rendered it every support. Further, Soviet assistance in organising Polish, Czechoslovak, Yugoslav and Rumanian armed units on its territory was extremely valuable.
The liberation movement and the growth of elements of working people's class struggle within it were prepared by development before the war and the influence exerted by the great successes of socialist construction in the USSR on the world revolutionary process.
During the Second World War and especially at its concluding stage, the Western imperialist powers did everything possible to prevent the European peoples from freely choosing the system they wanted, and to prevent progressive forces from utilising the emergent revolutionary situations. To this end, as Winston Churchill testifies in his memoirs, they wished that the front of the Western armies "should be as far east as possible"^^1^^ because, as Churchill "saw quite plainly'', "Communism would be the peril civilisation (i.e., capitalism---Sh. S.) would have to face after the defeat of Nazism and Fascism''.^^2^^
There is hardly any need for comment on this eloquent admission by one of the most farsighted leaders capitalism was able to produce in the period of its decline. This statement was made in May 1945 when it was clear that no force in the world could restrain social progress. _-_-_
~^^1^^ Winston S. Churchill, The Second World War, Vol. VI, London, 1954, p. 400.
~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 266.
18 ``Thus,'' Churchill recalled in his memoirs, "this climax of apparently measureless success was to me a most unhappy time. 1 moved amid cheering crowds, or sat at a table adorned with congratulations and blessings from every part of the Grand Alliance, with an aching heart and a mind oppressed by forebodings.''^^1^^The ruling circles of Britain and the United States tried to steer events to keep the liberation movement within the bounds of struggle against German fascism, and to prevent it from affecting the mainstays of capitalism in countries liberated from the nazi invaders. As early as 1941, Churchill, in a message to his then Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden, demanded that the Foreign Office should "view with a benevolent eye natural movements among the populations of different countries towards monarchies'',^^2^^ in other words, should back the elements in the Resistance movement who could be relied upon as implicit supporters of the old order.
But the schemes of the reactionary forces came to grief, as the situation had become unfavourable to world capitalism. The fact that the Soviet Union had borne the brunt of the struggle against nazi Germany could not but affect the nature of the movement of the occupied peoples for their liberation. This facilitated not only the creation of an unprecedented coalition of states and peoples against the strike force of world imperialism, but it also gave an unusual sweep to the struggle in nazi-occupied countries for national and social emancipation.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Ibid., p. 400.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. Ill, London, 1950, p. GG3
__PRINTERS_P_19_COMMENT__ 2* 19The Soviet war of liberation merged with the liberation struggle of the Poles, Czechoslovaks, Yugoslavs and others in fascist-occupied countries, because, by contrast with the Western powers, the Soviet Union had set itself aims in the war which had fully coincided with the interests of the oppressed European peoples. With the direct military support of the armies of the first socialist state in the world, the European nations launched a liberation struggle against the nazi invaders and their agents. By rendering military aid to the embattled nations, the Soviet people discharged their supreme internationalist duty.
The war fought by the Soviet Union, with which the struggle of the other peoples against the common enemy merged, was of a class as well as a national liberation nature. In the course of it a revolutionary situation arose in a number of countries and the internal and external prerequisites matured for determined action by the working class against the nazi invaders and against the exploiting regimes. This explains how, during the war, victories by the Soviet Armed Forces, popular uprisings led by the working class and its vanguard, Communist and Workers' Parties, were consummated in the establishment of the people's democracy in a number of countries.
Revolutionary actions in countries overrun by the nazis were carried on in exceptionally difficult conditions. They were marked by struggle between the truly patriotic progressive forces headed by the working class, and reactionary elements which, even if they did take part sometimes in the Resistance movement, did so only to 20 achieve the objectives set by the imperialists, namely, to save the capitalist system. In a number of cases, even after the ousting of the nazis from a country (or part of its territory), counterrevolutionaries sought to use armed force against the working people who demanded consistent democratic reconstruction. This was the case, for example, in Rumania where on February 24, 1945, a demonstration of 500,000 people in Bucharest and demonstrations in many other cities were attacked by reactionaries ready to plunge the country into civil war. In Bulgaria, after her withdrawal from the Axis bloc, antinational elements launched propaganda in the army against participating in the war on the side of the anti-Hitler coalition. Early in 1945, reactionaries in Hungary tried to utilise the grave food situation for their own ends.
Both during this period and earlier, the epochal victories of the Soviet Army which inspired the peoples to fight and the help of the Soviet Union served as important factors which predetermined the ultimate victory of the progressive forces. The treaties of alliance between the USSR, and Czechoslovakia and Poland, concluded during the war, played a big part in the growth of the liberation movement.
The treaty between the USSR and Czechoslovakia was signed in Moscow on December 12, 1943. It had been preceded by other documents: the London Soviet-Czechoslovak agreement on joint action in the war against nazi Germany of July 18, 1941, under which the Soviet Government agreed to the formation of Czechoslovak military units on the territory of the USSR, and also the agreement to grant a loan to the 21 Government of the Czechoslovak Republic for the maintenance of the Czechoslovak Brigade in the USSR. These agreements and treaty were signed on behalf of Czechoslovakia by the governmentin-exile headed by J. Sramek, with Benes as President.
The conclusion of agreements and a treaty with the Czechoslovak government-in-exile emanated from the Soviet desire to render the Czechoslovak people every possible aid in the struggle against the nazi invaders and to unite all Czechoslovak forces both within the country and abroad to combat nazism.
As for the reactionary Czechoslovak bourgeoisie headed by Benes, in the prevailing conditions it could not ignore the popular wishes; the masses, under the leadership of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, called for stronger friendship with the Soviet Union in which they saw their sincere friend and deliverer.
The victories of the Soviet Army were largely responsible for liberating the territory of many European countries, Czechoslovakia included. The London group of the Czechoslovak bourgeoisie had to take this into consideration. Benes' admission that the "road to the homeland passes through Moscow" is significant. It is for this reason that the government-in-exile was compelled to conclude a Treaty of Friendship, Mutual Assistance and Postwar Co-operation with the Soviet Union, striving to utilise it in the class interests of the Czechoslovak bourgeoisie. It hoped that the USSR would be weakened by the war and as a result it could annul the alliance with it. This explains the attempt 22 of the \vSr\'amek government, made during the Soviet-Czechoslovak talks (related by Z. Fierlinger who was the Czechoslovak ambassador in Moscow at the time), to insert an amendment to Article 6 of the treaty to the effect that the Czechoslovak Government would submit the treaty for additional ratification to parliament at the earliest opportunity after the end of the war. This reservation was to leave Benes and his government a loophole for renouncing the treaty after the war and again linking the destiny of Czechoslovakia with the Western imperialist states. This attempt, however, failed and the Czechoslovak Government had to sign the treaty as it was.
Under the Soviet-Czechoslovak treaty of alliance both parties, bound by common aims and having a common state frontier, undertook to render each other military and other assistance in the war against Germany and all the states bound to her in acts of aggression in Europe.^^1^^ The treaty provided for mutual assistance in the postwar period as well. The parties undertook that "if one of them should become involved after the war in hostilities against Germany which would resume her Drang nach Osten policy or against any other state that would unite in such a war with Germany directly or in any other form, the other High Contracting Party would immediately render the Contracting Party thus involved in hostilities every military _-_-_
~^^1^^ Vneshnaya politika Sovictskogo Soyuza v period Otcchestvennoi voiny. Dokumenty i matcrialy (Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union during the Patriotic War. Documents and Materials), Vol. I, Gospolitizdat, 1946, p. 430.
23 and other support and assistance within its power".^^1^^Considering the interests of their security, both parties agreed to maintain after the war close and friendly co-operation based on the principles of mutual respect for independence and sovereignty, non-interference in internal affairs, to develop economic relations on the widest possible scale, and to render each other every possible economic assistance.
The Treaty of Friendship, Mutual Assistance and Postwar Co-operation between the two countries was a major landmark in the development of traditional Soviet-Czechoslovak friendship, and served as a means for uniting the allied peoples in the war against the common enemy. The treaty was of tremendous significance for advancing the liberation movement in Czechoslovakia, and for stimulating the activities of guerrilla detachments operating in the country under the leadership of the Communist Party. It infused fresh energy into all the Resistance forces of Czechoslovakia and opened up broad prospects for fruitful co-operation in the postwar period.
The Czechoslovak bourgeoisie, both prior and after signing the treaty, conducted a doubledealing policy as regards both the Soviet Union and the people of their own country. The government-in-exile and President Benes obediently followed the political line of the Western powers and hatched anti-Soviet plans. They took all measures to hamper the operations of the _-_-_
~^^1^^ Vncslmaya polilika Sovietskogo Soyuza. . ., p. 431.
24 Czechoslovak people against the German invaders. At the height of the war, Benes, addressing the Czechoslovak people from London, urged them: "Be cautious, preserve calm, do not succumb to provocations, we all are anxious to avoid unnecessary losses.''^^1^^The Communist Party of Czechoslovakia was the true organiser of the struggle of the Czechs and Slovaks for national liberation. It consistently called for the utmost spread of this struggle, for close military and political co-operation with the Soviet Union; the fighting men of the First Czechoslovak Brigade developed a spirit of friendship with the Soviet people. Relying on the assistance of the Soviet Union, the Communist Party led the guerrilla struggle, set up a united national front of Czechs and Slovaks, organised uprisings and worked to bring victory nearer. This upset the plans of the reactionary bourgeoisie to restore the old regime in the country after its liberation.
The Soviet victories, the defeat of the nazi invaders and the liberation of Czechoslovakia by the Soviet Armed Forces struck a devastating blow to the plans of Benes and other `` Londoners'' to come back to Czechoslovakia with the American and British forces and again turn her into a state dependent on the imperialist powers. The British journalist, Kingsley Martin, pointed out in his reminiscences that Benes "had always expected to return with the American and British armies, and could not disguise his _-_-_
~^^1^^ E. Bene\vs, Tri roky dnihe svclove valky (Three Years of the Second World War), London, 1943, p. 23.
25 disappointment that his route home lay through Moscow".^^1^^In March 1945, Benes and members of the Czechoslovak government-in-exile arrived in Moscow. There all the main political parties held negotiations on the setting-up of the first government of liberated Czechoslovakia and the government's policy. Benes and other leaders of the Czechoslovak bourgeoisie, fearing to lose their positions, had to consent to the establishment of a democratic government with the participation of Communists. This, however, did not mean that the bourgeoisie had shelved its plans for good.
Immediately after the war, Czechoslovak reactionary forces, with the active support of US and British imperialists, made every effort to annul the gains of the Czechoslovak people, disorganise the National Front Government, and foil the implementation of the Kosice Government Programme, adopted in April 1945 by all the political parties which entered the new, democratic government.
The Ko\vsice Programme outlined a number of important political and economic measures. The foreign-policy section of the Programme contained a statement on the organisation of the Czechoslovak Republic on the basis of close cooperation with the Soviet Union and other Slav peoples. "The Czechoslovak-Soviet Treaty of Mutual Assistance, Friendship and Postwar Cooperation'', it was stated in the Kosice Programme, "defines for all time the position of the Czechoslovak state on questions of foreign _-_-_
~^^1^^ The New Statesman and Nation, September 11, 1948, p. 208.
26 policy. The liberation of Czechoslovakia will be completed, the freedom and security of Czechoslovakia, her peaceful development and happy future will be achieved with the help of the Soviet Union.''^^1^^The Treaty of Friendship, Mutual Assistance and Postwar Co-operation between the Soviet Union and the Polish Republic, concluded on April 21, 1945, marked a radical turn in the relations between the two countries from mutual estrangement, hostility and open conflict towards alliance and friendship.
In the past Poland had been looked upon by the imperialists, particularly the German, as a corridor for campaign on Russia. After the First World War a state was set up on Polish territory, which represented a bridgehead for attack on Soviet Russia and served as a weapon of international imperialism spearheaded against the socialist country. Lenin wrote in 1920 that "the Versailles Peace has turned Poland into a buffer state which is regarded by the Entente as a weapon against the Bolsheviks".^^2^^ Even during the Second World War, when the Soviet Government rendered the Polish people every possible help, the reactionary Polish government-in-exile in London continued its hostile policy towards the USSR.
The Soviet Union signed an agreement with the Polish government-in-exile in London on July 30, 1941, restoring diplomatic relations between _-_-_
~^^1^^ Za svobodu ccskcho a slovenskeho naroda (For Freedom of the Czech and Slovak Peoples), Prague, 1956, p. 3(iS
^^2^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 304.
27 the two countries, and both governments undertook to render each other every support in the war against nazi Germany. The Soviet Government further agreed to set up within the USSR a Polish army which operationally would be subordinated to the Supreme Command of the Soviet Armed Forces.^^1^^In December 1941, after talks in Moscow between the governments of the Soviet Union and Poland (headed by Sikorski), a Declaration of Friendship and Mutual Assistance was signed, in which both governments reaffirmed their readiness to continue the war until complete victory. They undertook to proffer each other full military aid during the war. Moreover, troops of the Polish Republic stationed in the Soviet Union would fight the German invaders jointly with Soviet forces.^^2^^ In peace-time, relations would be based on good-neighbourly cooperation, friendship and reciprocal honest discharge of the assumed obligations. Notwithstanding the serious difficulties the USSR experienced in 1941 and 1942, the Soviet Government gave the Government of the Polish Republic 300 million rubles for the maintenance of its army on the territory of the USSR.^^3^^
Thus, the Soviet Union did everything it could to pool the efforts of the Soviet and the Polish peoples in the joint struggle against the common enemy, to build up a Polish army which could fight, together with the Soviet Army, for the liberation of its country.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Vnesknaya politika Sovictskogo Soyuza v period Otcchcstvennoi voiny, Vol. I, p. 138.
~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 192.
~^^3^^ Ibid., p. 210.
28But the reactionaries who dominated the government-in-exile were less interested in organising the struggle against Germany than in intrigues, anti-Soviet slander and actions hostile to the Soviet Union, the true ally of Poland. This government was a tool in the hands of reactionary US and British circles. On the instructions of the government-in-exile, the Polish Army headed by General Anders had refused to participate in hostilities against Germany and, by August 1942, had been evacuated from the Soviet Union. The government-in-exile launched extensive anti-Soviet activities, to such an extent that in 1943 it, in compact with the German fascists, launched a slanderous campaign against the Soviet Union about the Polish officers killed in the Smolensk area by the nazis, ascribing this heinous crime to the Soviet Army.
The Soviet Government exposed the slanderous fabrications of the Polish reactionary bourgeoisie egged on by the US and British ruling circles. In its Note of April 25, 1943, the Soviet Government pointed out that the hostile campaign against the USSR had been undertaken by the Polish Government so as "to bring pressure to bear on the Soviet Government by utilising the nazi forgery in order to wrest from it territorial concessions in Soviet Ukraine, Soviet Byelorussia and Soviet Lithuania".^^1^^ Consequently, the Soviet Government broke off all relations with the Polish government-in-exile, which, far from expressing the interests of the Polish people, acted contrary to them, playing into the hands of fascist Germany.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Ibid., p. 347.
29At the same time, the Soviet Government continued to render every assistance to the Polish people and their democratic forces in the struggle for liberating Polish lands and creating a strong, independent and democratic Poland. Aware that Polish-Soviet friendship was the best guarantee of rebuilding an independent and sovereign Polish state, the Polish democratic forces, headed by the Polish Workers' Party (PWP) which was organisationally formalised in January 1942, made every effort to strengthen Polish-Soviet friendship and rouse their people to fight the common enemy. In wartime the PWP became the leading and organising force of Polish patriots in the struggle against nazi Germany.
The Union of Polish Patriots set up a Polish division named after Thaddeus Kosciuszko, which subsequently became the core of the Polish Army in the USSR. Notwithstanding the obstinate resistance of the reactionary forces the national liberation movement in Poland headed by the Communists gained in size and strength. The Polish National Council, Krajowa Rada Narodowa, formed on the initiative of the Polish Workers' Party on January 1, 1944. played a big part in rallying together the democratic forces of the Polish people. It included, in addition to the PWP, the leading force of the bloc of the revived democratic parties, also the Polish Socialist Party, Stronnictwo Ludowe and Stronnictwo Demokratyczne. From the very first days of its existence Krajowa Rada Narodowa became a genuine righting force for liberation and the establishment of a democratic Poland. Under the leadership of the working class, the Polish people took into their own hands the cause of their 30 liberation, the restoration of national independence and state sovereignty.
In June-July 1944, as a result of a Soviet offensive at Vitebsk, Bobruisk and Mogilev, Soviet troops reached the Vistula and liberated a considerable part of Poland. The arrival of the Soviet Army and the Soviet-based Polish Army on Polish soil stimulated the liberation movement and the activities of guerrilla detachments operating behind the nazi lines. This further consolidated Poland's democratic forces, notwithstanding the hostile, reckless actions of the government-in-exile.
On July 21, 1944, the Krajowa Rada Narodowa, fulfilling the will of the entire Polish people, set up the Polish Committee for National Liberation which assumed the functions of a Provisional Government and proclaimed friendship and co-operation with the Soviet Union the cornerstone of foreign policy. The Committee for National Liberation outlined in the governmental programme important economic and political measures designed to revive the Polish state. By decision of the Krajowa Rada Narodowa, in December 1944 the Polish Committee for National Liberation was reconstituted into the Provisional Government of Poland. It was recognised by the Soviet Union in January 1945 and diplomatic relations were established between the USSR and Poland.
The new Poland scornfully rejected the reactionary emigre clique and began to build a people's democracy. The Polish people became convinced that they could gain security and preserve the independence of their state only on the basis of friendship with the powerful Soviet Union.
31The Soviet Armed Forces, having defeated nazi Germany, liberated other peoples in Europe from fascist tyranny and made it possible for them to arrange their life as they thought fit. A highly favourable situation arose in Poland, Rumania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Albania and in the territory that is now the German Democratic Republic. Their peoples put an end to imperialist oppression by fascist states and ousted the decayed bourgeoislandowner regimes whose leaders had collaborated with the nazis. Having won freedom and national independence, these countries began to establish people's democracies.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 3. Postwar Peace Settlement.The decisive role played by the Soviet Union in the Second World War and the presence of a socialist country among the victors created for the liberated European peoples the requisites for a just solution of postwar problems. The Soviet Union consistently pursued a policy of peace and defence of the national interests of all the peoples, and so became a big stumbling block to the imperialist plans of the US and British ruling circles.
The United States and other Western powers, as related by John Campbell, secretary of the American delegation to the Paris Peace Conference, sought to wedge "a foot in the door of 32 Eastern Europe".^^1^^ They wanted to dictate to the peoples of Central and Southeast Europe their terms of a postwar peace settlement, to create a postwar system after the Versailles pattern, which would be spearheaded against the USSR and the revolutionary and democratic movement in the liberated countries.
But the situation after 1945 radically differed from the one after the imperialist First World War. Since the Soviet Union had played a decisive part in the Allied victory and emerged powerful from the war, the United States, Britain and France were unable to turn the countries of Central and Southeast Europe against the first socialist state in the world as they did in the 1920s and 1930s. The peoples of Central and Southeast Europe were now able to solve national problems which for decades and even centuries had aggravated the international and internal positions of the countries in this area.
For the first time in their history, the Polish people finally settled the question of frontiers and were able to reunite with their age-old lands in the West. In the struggle for the restoration of their rights the Polish people enjoyed the full support of the Soviet Government from the very outset. When the Krajowa Rada Narodowa, expressing the aspirations of the whole Polish people, early in 1944, proclaimed in its programme the aim of restoring a strong, independent, democratic Poland, the Soviet Government fully supported it. Thanks to the Soviet Union, Poland regained lands wrested from her by the German _-_-_
~^^1^^ John C. Campbell, The United States in World Affairs, 1945--1947, New York, 1947, p. 66.
__PRINTERS_P_33_COMMENT__ 3---500 33 invaders and a just eastern frontier was drawn. The Soviet Government stated that only in this way could confidence and friendship be established between the Polish, Ukrainian, Byelorussian and Russian peoples. The Soviet Government proposed the so-called Curzon Line, based on the ethnographic principle, as the eastern frontier of Poland.^^1^^ In the same statement the Soviet Government exposed the reactionary nature of the policy pursued by the London government-in-exile, which completely betrayed the interests of the people and by its actions in effect played into nazi hands.The question of Poland's frontiers was discussed at the Yalta (Crimea) Conference of the heads of the three great powers in February 1945. The Western representatives attempted to change the course of events in Poland and, under the guise of defending Polish interests, they tried to impose their own decision of the frontier issue and the establishment of a Polish Government chiefly from among reactionary Polish emigres in London. Churchill, for example, demanded that the conference participants should not leave "without taking practical measures on the Polish question''. What he meant was the setting up of a Polish Government right there at the conference.^^2^^ The Soviet delegation, naturally, could _-_-_
~^^1^^ The Curzon Line, proposed in 1920 by British Foreign Secretary Curzon as Poland's eastern frontier, passed approximately along the line Grodno---Jalowka---Nemirow--- Brest-Litovsk---Dorogosk---Ustillug, cast ol Grubcszaw, through Krylow, west of Rawa Russka, cast of Peremyszl and down to the Carpathians.
~^^2^^ The Tehran, Yalta and Potsdam Conferences, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1969, pp. 92--93.
34 not agree with these proposals which, in fact, constituted a flagrant interference in the internal affairs of the Polish people. It declared that a Polish Government must not be set up without the Poles.Referring to the substance of the Polish question the head of the Soviet delegation stated that "for the Russians the question of Poland was not only one of honour but of security as well. It was a question of honour because in the past the Russians had greatly sinned against Poland. The Soviet Government was trying to atone for those sins. It was a question of security because the most important strategic problems of the Soviet state were connected with Poland. . . . Throughout history, Poland had always been a corridor for an enemy attacking Russia. . . . Why had enemies crossed Poland so easily until then? Chiefly because Poland had been weak. The Polish corridor could not be closed mechanically only by Russian forces on the outside. It could be reliably locked only from the inside, by Poland's own forces. For that Poland must be strong. That was why the Soviet Union had a stake in creating a powerful, free and independent Poland. The question of Poland was a question of life and death for the Soviet state".^^1^^
As regards the Soviet-Polish frontier the Soviet delegation declared its acceptance of the Curzon Line with deviations from it in some areas in favour of Poland. At the same time the Soviet delegation demanded the return to Poland of her age-old Western lands, proposing that the frontier be established along the Western _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., pp. 93--94.
35 Neisse. Not venturing openly to attack this Soviet proposal, Churchill confined himself to empty statements and pretended that he had the interests of Poland at heart. He said that Poland should take only as much territory as she could administer. "It would hardly be the proper thing to have the Polish goose so stuffed with German viands that it died of indigestion,'' he rudely joked.^^1^^In reality the head of the British Government was concerned with entirely different interests. Even during the war the British and US ruling circles wanted Poland to remain a political pawn in the hands of the imperialists and a convenient bridgehead for anti-Soviet ventures. Such aspirations, which aroused the indignation of both Polish democratic opinion and the Soviet people, were worthily rebuffed by the Soviet Government. "It should be borne in mind,'' Stalin wrote to President Roosevelt on December 27, 1944, "that the Soviet Union, more than any other Power, has a stake in strengthening a pro-Ally and democratic Poland, not only because it is bearing the brunt of the struggle for Poland's liberation, but also because Poland borders on the Soviet Union and because the Polish problem is inseparable from that of the security of the Soviet Union.''^^2^^
Faced with the unyielding stand of the Soviet delegation, the representatives of the United States and Britain were compelled officially to _-_-_
~^^1^^ The Tehran, Yalta and Potsdam Conferences, p. 104.
^^2^^ Correspondence between the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR and the Presidents of the USA and the Prime Ministers of Great Britain during the Great Patriotic War of 1941--1945, Moscow, 1957, p. 181.
36 recognise Poland's rights to the ancient Polish lands in the West and in the North. The Yalta Conference "recognised that Poland must receive substantial accessions of territory in the north and west.''^^1^^Subsequently, the Western frontiers of Poland were discussed at the Potsdam (Berlin) Conference (July-August 1945). The Heads of Government of the USSR, the United States and Great Britain agreed that Poland should receive the former German territories east of the line passing from the Baltic Sea somewhat westward of Swinemunde and from there along the Oder River up to the confluence with the Western Neisse and along the Western Neisse up to the Czechoslovak frontier, including the part of East Prussia not placed under the administration of the USSR, in accordance with the decision of the Potsdam Conference, and including the territory of the former free city of Danzig. In addition, the Potsdam Conference decided to move Germans from Poland to Germany, which logically followed from the decision to establish a new Polish frontier in the West.
The question of the Soviet-Polish frontier was finally settled by the signing of a treaty between the USSR and the Polish Republic in Moscow on August 16, 1945. In conformity with the decision of the Yalta Conference, this treaty established the frontier between the USSR and Poland along the Curzon Line, with deviations from it, in favour of Poland, of 5-8 km in some areas.
The reunification of Polish lands wrought deep _-_-_
~^^1^^ The Tehran, Yalta and Potsdam Conferences, p. 138.
37 changes in the ethnographical, geographical and economic pattern of Poland, extended her territory and strengthened her economy. The Polish Republic (it is the eighth in Europe in territory) became one of the economically developed European states.The position of another Slav state, Czechoslovakia, was substantially strengthened after the war. With the help of the Soviet Union the Czech and Slovak peoples removed all consequences of the disgraceful Munich pact and related acts. Czechoslovakia was re-established within the frontiers which existed on September 1. 1938, with some changes in her favour. By decision of the Potsdam Conference, the German population which had served as fertile soil for imperialist agents, was transplanted from Czechoslovakia to Germany. Altogether, more than three million Germans left Czechoslovakia.^^1^^
The question of reuniting the Trans-Carpathian Ukraine---part of the pre-Munich Czechoslovakia---with the Soviet Ukraine was justly settled, so that for the first time in their history the entire Ukrainian people were united in one state. The settlement of the question of the Soviet-- Czechoslovak frontier offered a striking example of unbreakable friendship between the Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Republic.
Postwar changes radically improved the position of Czechoslovakia in Europe; now she was to border in the north on the German Democratic Republic; in the east and south, on the Polish _-_-_
~^^1^^ Doklad Kontrolnogo Sovieta Sovletu Ministrov inostrannykh del (Report of the Control Council to the Council of Foreign Ministers), Berlin, 1947, p. 39.
38 People's Republic, the Soviet Union and the Hungarian People's Republic and, only on a relatively small section, on the Federal Republic of Germany.Thanks to the stand of the Soviet Government the issue of Transylvania was also finally settled on a just basis. In the interwar period and after the outbreak of the Second World War this issue had been used by the imperialist powers as bait for luring the ruling circles of Rumania and Hungary to their side. The Transylvanian question was regarded by external and internal reactionary forces as a convenient pretext for fanning chauvinism in both countries and advocating fascism. After the war the Second Vienna Award of August 30, 1940, was annulled.^^1^^ Under that Award Northern Transylvania (an area of 43,492 sq km with a population of 2.4 million) had been incorporated in Hungary under the pressure of nazi Germany and fascist Italy, Now the Hungarian frontiers which had existed prior to January 1, 1938, were to be restored.
Other frontier questions, too, were settled in the interests of peace and of the respective peoples. National minorities in several European People's Democracies were constitutionally guaranteed all rights on a par with the other citizens.
Frontier changes in Central and Southeast Europe helped to turn them into frontiers of friendship between socialist countries.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Under the First Vienna Award, November 2, 1939, a part of Czechoslovakia's territory with a total area of 11,927 sq km and a population of one million had been joined to Hungary. This decision was also annulled.
39The defeat of nazi Germany, in which the soviet Union played the decisive part, created an entirely new situation and new possibilities for the peoples of the defeated states. All the foreignpolicy actions undertaken by the Soviet Union or with its participation from the first days of the liberation of the European countries, including' the former allies of nazi Germany, were aimed at ultimately ridding their peoples of all traces of fascism and helping them to embark on a democratic road of development. This was evident in the signing of armistice agreements with Rumania (September 12, 1944), Bulgaria (October 28, 1944), and Hungary (January 20, 1945).
In the drawing up of these documents the Soviet Government was not guided---and because of the nature of socialism could not be guided--- by a feeling of revenge. It aimed to ensure future peace in Europe and this was inseverably linked with creating conditions for democratic development in the countries which participated in the war against the peace-loving peoples. The Soviet Union vigorously rejected attempts by the imperialist powers to intervene in the economics and politics of these countries, to violate their sovereignty and infringe upon their national dignity.
The armistice agreements reflected the interests both of the victorious states and of the peoples of the defeated countries. They provided for the disbandment of all pro-nazi political, military, para-military and similar organisations within Rumania, Bulgaria, Hungary and elsewhere. This provision was important in uprooting the remnants of fascism in the defeated countries and 40 in strengthening the democratic forces. In addition, the armistice agreements enabled the peoples of the former allies of nazi Germany actively to campaign during the closing stages of the war for the defeat of the fascist aggressor, for their own liberation; this was crucial in restoring their national independence and state sovereignty.
The armistice agreement with Rumania, for example, noted that Rumania, having terminated hostilities against the USSR in all war theatres on August 24, 1944, withdrew from the war against the Allies, severed relations with Germany and her satellites, rejoined the war on the side of the Allies against Germany and Hungary with the object of restoring her own independence and sovereignty, for which she would put up not less than 12 reinforced infantry divisions.
In the final stages of the war, the Bulgarian Army and Hungarian units fought against the nazis, while their governments declared war on Hitler Germany.
These circumstances greatly eased the armistice terms, specifically those related to compensation of losses inflicted on the Soviet Union and other Allies. Since Rumania and Hungary not only withdrew from the war but also declared war on Germany, the Soviet Union agreed to accept partial compensation of the losses inflicted by these countries upon it during the war. Rumania had to pay $300 million over six years in goods (oil products, grain, timber, sea-going and river vessels and diverse equipment). Hungary had to pay a similar sum over six years in goods ( industrial plant, river vessels, grain, cattle). Of this sum, the USSR was entitled to $200 million and Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia to $100 million. 41 These amounts represented an insignificant part of the losses inflicted on the USSR by the Rumanian and Hungarian fascists during their temporary occupation of Soviet territory.
Soon after the signing of the armistice agreements Hungary and Rumania received considerable privileges in the payment of reparations. The term of payment was extended to eight years, and in 1948 the outstanding sum of reparations was cut by half.
Reparations paid by Rumania, Hungary and other former allies of nazi Germany were nowhere near as onerous as they were after the First World War when the victors---the United States, Britain and France---utilised reparations to fetter the defeated states economically and to restore the aggressive might of German imperialism. The desire to strangle the defeated countries economically was alien to the Soviet reparations policy, which was based on realistic economic possibilities of Germany's former allies. The payment of reparations, connected with the operation of the key industries, facilitated the early restoration of a number of industrial enterprises with the direct assistance of the USSR which supplied the necessary raw and other materials.
The armistice agreements, thanks to which several of important international problems were solved, greatly helped to create the prerequisites for the victory of the democratic forces in Central and Southeast Europe.
At the wartime Yalta Conference, the Soviet Government succeeded in getting decisions adopted which corresponded to the interests of 42 the liberated European peoples, and to the establishment of a lasting peace. In the "Declaration on Liberated Europe'', approved at the Conference, the governments of the USSR, the United States and Great Britain declared their agreement to assist the peoples liberated from the domination of nazi Germany and "the peoples of the former Axis satellite States of Europe" in solving by democratic means "their pressing political and economic problems".^^1^^ The governments of the three powers proclaimed their readiness to ensure "the restoration of sovereign rights and self-government to those peoples who have been forcibly deprived of them by the aggressor nations".^^2^^
Thus, at Yalta the governments of the United States and Britain had to agree to accept democratic principles of a postwar peace settlement, though this did not conform to the aims they had pursued during and after the war. This was largely attributable to the outstanding victories of the Soviet Army in the war against the fascist aggressors, the enhanced prestige of the USSR and the growth of the revolutionary and democratic movement the world over. The same circumstances basically explain the consent of the Western governments to adopt joint decisions on a number of questions at the Potsdam Conference.
That did not mean that the Western ruling circles really wanted to establish a democratic peace or to resolve questions of a postwar settlement justly. Despite their hypocritical statements about freedom and democracy and declarations _-_-_
~^^1^^ The Tehran, Yalta and Potsdam Conferences, p. 136.
~^^2^^ Ibid.
43 that they did not pursue any other aim except delivering the peoples from fascist tyranny, they actually tried to set up a system that would make all the European countries economically and politically dependent on them. In the United States and Britain, some statesmen had been quite explicit on this point even during the war. Expressing the viewpoint of influential circles Neil MacNeil, an American journalist, wrote outright as early as 1944 in his book An American Peace that the US Government should "effect a peace based on American principles. . . . We should insist upon an American peace. We should accept nothing less".^^1^^Even earlier, Henry Luce, well-known spokesman of American imperialism, in his book The American Century referred to the United States as "the most powerful and vital nation'', and urged Americans "to exert upon the world the full impact of our influence, for such purposes as we see fit and by such means as we see fit".^^2^^
Immediately after the war their imperialist plans logically led Britain and the USA to renounce the jointly-adopted decisions on a postwar settlement, the principles elaborated and adopted as guidelines by the Big Three at the Tehran, Yalta and Potsdam conferences. They exerted much effort to impose an imperialist peace on the peoples of the defeated countries.
A keen struggle arose over the framing and adoption of peace treaties with the former allies _-_-_
~^^1^^ N. MacNeil, An American Peace, New York, 1944 pp. 263, 264.
~^^2^^ Henry R. Luce, The American Century, New York, 1941, p. 23.
44 of nazi Germany---Italy, Finland, Rumania, Hungary and Bulgaria---and over the German problem; on one side stood the Western imperialist powers and, on the other, the Soviet Union supported by all peace-loving peoples and democratic world opinion.The Potsdam Conference of the Heads of Government of the Great Powers set up an ad hoc agency---the Council of Foreign Ministers--- to do preparatory work for a peaceful settlement and discussion of other major questions; it was charged with the urgent task of drawing up peace treaties for Italy, Rumania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Finland and the framing of proposals for settling outstanding territorial issues which had arisen out of the war in Europe.
The first session of the Council of Foreign Ministers opened in London on September 11, 1945. It was attended by the ministers of five Great Powers---the USSR, the United States, Britain, France and China. The London session was to prepare draft peace treaties with Germany's former allies, but owing to the truculence of the Western governments who sought to impose their will on the Soviet Union, the session was unable to cope with the tasks before it. The failure of the London session was regarded by the US and British ruling circles as a victory for their diplomacy. Nevertheless, afraid of a further rise in Soviet authority among Germany's former allies and an even greater advance of the democratic movement in Europe, they had to agree to hold a meeting of the Foreign Ministers of three powers (the USSR, Britain and the United States) in Moscow to discuss questions of vital mutual importance. The Moscow meeting 45 (December 16--26, 1945) was a major step in preparing peace treaties with the former allies of nazi Germany. It elaborated the procedure for preparing the draft treaties, the composition and dates of the future peace conference.
``In the drawing up by the Council of Foreign Ministers of treaties of peace with Italy, Rumania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Finland,'' it was pointed out in the decision of the Moscow meeting, "only members of the Council who are or under the terms of the agreement establishing the Council of Foreign Ministers adopted at the Berlin conference are deemed to be signatory of the surrender terms, will participate unless and until the Council takes further action under the agreement to invite other members of the Council to participate on questions directly concerning them.''^^1^^
The Moscow meeting of the three Foreign Ministers laid down that the terms of the peace treaties for Italy would be formulated by the US, British, Soviet and French Foreign Ministers, and for Rumania and Bulgaria by the Soviet and British Foreign Ministers. It was further agreed that, after the drafts were prepared, a conference would be convened for considering the peace treaties with the above countries and that the conference would consist of the five members of the Council of Foreign Ministers and all members of the United Nations which had contributed substantial military force in the war against European enemy states. Representatives of 21 states were to participate in the peace _-_-_
~^^1^^ United Nations Documents, 1941--1945, London, 1946, p. 257.
46 conference. It was also laid down that the conference would adopt recommendations, not decisions, and these would have to be examined by the signatories to the armistice terms for Italy, Rumania, Hungary, Bulgaria and Finland in drawing up the respective final texts of the peace treaties.As a result of persistent Soviet efforts to apply democratic principles in framing the peace treaties for the former nazi allies, draft treaties, just and democratic in the main, were submitted to the Paris Peace Conference which opened on July 29, 1946. With few exceptions on fundamental questions of their content, the Foreign Ministers of the great powers had adopted agreed decisions. This, however, did not deter the Western delegates from attempting to spurn the joint decisions and, with the support of delegates from capitalist countries dependent on them, to push through recommendations which violated the previously agreed decisions. They sought to impose on the defeated countries terms which would make them fully dependent on US and British monopoly capital. Such imperialist terms were especially pressed on Hungary, Rumania and Bulgaria.
Imperialist circles conducted this diplomatic offensive to carry out their plans which had been hatched vis-a-vis Eastern Europe during the war and had been foiled by the swift advance of the Soviet Armed Forces. Winston Churchill's "Balkan plan" held a prominent place among them; he wanted to invade the Balkans instead of opening a second front in Western Europe. William Neumann, an American historian, wrote subsequently that "a Balkan invasion would have 47 built a military barrier against Russian expansion and have given Britain and the United States a lever by which Eastern Europe's orientation could have been turned westward".^^1^^
Thus, at the Paris Conference the imperialist states endeavoured to trample underfoot the national independence of the liberated peoples and restore on the Western frontiers of the USSR the old, prewar order by which neighbouring countries would become adjuncts of international imperialism.
By contrast with the period after the First World War when Great Britain, France and the United States had been the main architects of the postwar system, the Soviet Union now played a paramount part in the peace settlement. It opposed the Western policy with a policy of democratic peace and equality of the nations, implacably exposing all the artifices of imperialist diplomacy and upholding to the end both its own interests and the interests of all the peoples.
Georgi Dimitrov, speaking about the fundamental difference in the two postwar situations, noted at the enlarged Plenary Meeting of the Central Committee of the Workers' (Communist) Party of Bulgaria in August 1946: "There is a big difference between the situation today and that after the First World War. Today the Soviet Union is powerful and invincible.. .. Today the terms of the peace treaties are discussed not in secret chancelleries and offices. Today international democracy is able to influence the _-_-_
~^^1^^ William L. Neumann, Making the Peace. 1941--1945, Washington, 1950, p. 100.
48 decisions taken with regard to the future peace. This is a fact of exceptionally great importance.''^^1^^Two opposing tendencies clashed on the question of peace treaties with former enemy states: on the one hand, the Western desire to impose imperialist terms of peace on the defeated countries; on the other, the Soviet struggle to prepare for the former enemy states democratic, just peace treaties, and to establish stable international co-operation based on recognition of the equality and legitimate interests of all countries and peoples, big and small. The proceedings of the Paris Peace Conference were marked by obstinate struggle of these two tendencies developing from the outset on a number of major territorial, economic and political issues directly linked with the draft peace treaties.^^2^^
The Soviet delegation, for example, opposed the unjustified claims on age-old Bulgarian and Albanian lands made by the Greek Government and backed by Anglo-US imperialist circles. The Greek Government laid claim to one-tenth of Bulgaria's territory and a considerable part of Albania. It demanded, supposedly for rectifying frontiers, the valley lying to the north beyond the Rhodope Mountains in the interior of Bulgaria. Satisfaction of these demands would have shifted the northeastern frontier of Greece considerably to the north and brought it nearer to Bulgaria's vital areas.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Rabotnichesko Dclo, August 17, 1946.
^^2^^ Subsequently we deal with questions affecting not all former allies of Germany, but only those which are now socialist states.
__PRINTERS_P_49_COMMENT__ 4---500 49The Greek Government backed its claims on Bulgarian territories by ``strategic'' considerations, the desire to ``defend'' its frontiers from the Bulgarian side. Needless to say, Bulgaria because of her peaceable policy did not and could not threaten anyone, Greece included.
The US and British ruling circles supported the Greek demands, thereby violating the decisions agreed in the Council of Foreign Minister!; which left the Bulgarian frontiers unchanged. Thus, Warner, Britain's representative in the committee on political and territorial questions for the peace treaty with Bulgaria, peremptorily declared that the Greek claims to part of Bulgarian territory were justified and that the reasons given for them were based on ``strategic'' considerations and were weighty. The Western powers could not find another reason for the Greek claims since Bulgarians have been living since times immemorial within this territory.
In their support for the unjustified Greek demands, the US and British Governments were prompted by a desire to bring pressure to bear on the Bulgarian Government and to prevent radical economic and political changes. This is demonstrated in particular by the statement made by the US delegate on October 1, 1946, to the political committee of the conference to the effect that some delegations had several times mentioned the progress of democratic institutions of the Bulgarian Government and noted that the Bulgarian Government intended to maintain friendly relations with Greece. The US delegation had not been impressed by these arguments; 50 on the contrary, the US delegation entertained serious doubts concerning the development of democracy in Bulgaria as it understood it.^^1^^
The Soviet delegation revealed the underlying reason for the Greek claims on Bulgarian lands. In a bitter struggle in the political committee on the peace treaty with Bulgaria it succeeded in upholding the proposal of the Council of Foreign Ministers to preserve the former Bulgarian-Greek frontier. The overwhelming majority of the delegations, including those of Britain, the United States and the Soviet Union, voted in the committee for the proposal to retain the existing frontier. This notwithstanding, at the plenary session of the conference, the leader of the British delegation headed a group of delegations which abstained from voting on the question of preserving the Bulgarian-Greek frontier; as a result the conference took no decision at all. This was explained by the desire of the Western powers to deepen the dispute by supporting Greece's unjustified demands, and to turn it into an instrument of pressure on Bulgaria.
But the Soviet Union firmly upheld the interests of the Bulgarian people. The next session of the Council of Foreign Ministers in New York (November 4-December 13, 1946), having examined the recommendations of the Paris Conference, finally approved a decision on the strength of which it was recorded in the Treaty of Peace _-_-_
~^^1^^ Sovietskiye delegatsii na Parizhskoi konferentsii. Sbornik vystuplenii i materialov (The Soviet Delegations at the Paris Conference. Collection of Statements and Materials), Gospolitizdat, 1947, p. 301.
51 with Bulgaria that "the frontiers of Bulgaria . . . shall be those which existed on January 1, 1941".^^1^^The imperialist claims of the Greek ruling circles to part of Albanian territory were similarly turned down thanks to the principled stand of the USSR.
At the Paris Conference and then at the New York session of the Council of Foreign Ministers, the Soviet Government also upheld the only democratic decisions consolidating peace in Europe on other territorial questions recorded in the armistice terms (annulment of the decisions of the Vienna Awards in 1938 and 1940, and others).
A keen struggle was fought at the Paris Conference on the economic aspects of the peace treaties with Rumania, Hungary and Bulgaria. The Soviet delegation championed the decisions recorded in the armistice agreements with Rumania and Hungary, taking into consideration the privileges gained by these countries from the USSR.
The Soviet Government frustrated the attempts of US imperialism to utilise, as a means of blackmail and pressure on the Hungarian Republic, the property removed from Hungary into the American occupation zones of Germany and Austria. The United States made a settlement of the question of this property conditional on a change in the composition of the Hungarian Government and its renunciation of close economic and political co-operation with the USSR and other People's Democracies. The Soviet _-_-_
~^^1^^ Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria, Paris, 10th February, 1947.
52 Union succeeded in having the Paris Conference and the New York session of the Council of Foreign Ministers approve the reparations terms recorded in the armistice agreement with Hungary.The USSR also defended the Bulgarian Republic from the excessive reparation demands made by the Greek Government. First Greece demanded reparations of $985 million, a sum it subsequently reduced to $708 million, while at the Paris Conference it abandoned the astronomical figure and reduced its reparation claims still further to $125 million. Yet even this sum was greatly exaggerated. Just as in its territorial claims, the Greek Government was energetically supported by the United States, Britain and other capitalist powers which sought to exert political pressure on the Fatherland Front Government. Thanks to the efforts of the Soviet Union, the peace treaty with Bulgaria incorporated just decisions on reparations which did not infringe upon Bulgaria's national independence and sovereignty. The sum of reparations was fixed at $70 million to be paid over eight years. Greece was to receive $45 million and Yugoslavia $25 million.
In an effort to restore their positions in the countries of Central and Southeast Europe the Western governments employed a favourite old method---reference to the so-called equal opportunities principle. On October 10, 1946, Ernest Bevin, the head of the British delegation, introduced in the commission on economic questions for Rumania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Finland, the proposal that the "equal opportunities principle" be applied on the territory of former enemy 53 states for trading, industrial and enterprising activity of "all the United Nations'', that is, all states which not only actually but even formally belonged to the anti-Hitler coalition. This in effect would have meant licence for imperialist plunder in these countries and deprived them of the right to decide their own affairs. The imposition of such an approach to defeated small countries weakened by the war would actually have destroyed their economic independence and subordinated their economies to the interests of the imperialist powers.
Solution of the Danubian problem, which for a long time had been utilised by the imperialist states for fanning hostility among countries of the Danubian area and consolidating their control in it, was of great importance for the young People's Democracies.
After the war the United States, with the active support of Britain and France, took every measure to restore the old imperialist regime on the Danube, to bar the Danubian countries from settling the question of shipping on the Danube which is of vital importance for them, and to reintroduce the privileged position of the Western powers in the Danube basin. To achieve this end, the Western powers raised the question of internationalising the Danube, hoping to settle it by means of the "voting machine'', the bloc of capitalist states mainly dependent on the USA and created by it at the Paris Conference.
The Western powers wanted to impose their will not only on the defeated Danubian states--- Rumania, Hungary and Bulgaria---but also on Danubian countries which belonged to the anti-- 54 Hitler coalition and were present at the Paris Peace Conference among the victorious countries (the USSR, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia). But the firm policy of the Soviet Union completely foiled the schemes to utilise the Paris Conference for imposing an imperialist navigation regime on the Danubian countries. The New York session of the Council of Foreign Ministers, which examined the recommendations of the Paris Conference, accepted the Soviet proposal and recorded it in the following wording in the treaties of peace with Bulgaria, Hungary and Rumania: " Navigation on the Danube shall be free and open for the nationals, vessels of commerce, and goods of all States, on a footing of equality in regard to port and navigation charges and conditions for merchant shipping. The foregoing shall not apply to traffic between ports of the same State.''^^1^^
Moreover, the Council of Foreign Ministers decided to convene a conference to frame a new convention on the navigation regime on the Danube. The conference was to be attended by representatives of the Danubian states (the USSR, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Czechoslovakia, Rumania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Hungary) and also representatives of member states of the Council of Foreign Ministers---the United States, Great Britain and France. Delegates of Austria were invited to the conference with an advisory vote.
The Danubian Conference in this composition _-_-_
~^^1^^ Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria, Article 34, Paris, 10th February, 1947. Similar clauses are contained in the Treaties of Peace with Rumania and Hungary (Articles 31 and 38 respectively).
55 opened in Belgrade on July 30 and ended on August 18, 1948.The United States, Britain and France came to the conference with the selfsame imperialist plans. In contrast to this, the Soviet Union and the People's Democracies demanded the establishment of a navigation regime which would be based on the principle of equality of the Danubian states and prevent a revival of domination by the imperialist powers. The Soviet delegation vigorously rejected the Western efforts to impose their will on the Danubian states by threats and ultimatums.
The exertions of the Western powers which referred to their ``acquired'' rights with regard to the Danube, were unsuccessful. Having taken as a basis the Soviet draft, the delegations of the Danubian countries, after a persistent three-week struggle against the imperialist encroachments, drew up and signed a new convention on the navigation regime on the Danube which fully met the interests of all the riparian states. It was based on the principle of protecting the sovereign rights of countries in the Danube basin.
The Danubian Conference proclaimed that free navigation on the Danube should be effected "in conformity with the interests and sovereign rights of the Danubian countries and also for the purpose of strengthening the economic and cultural ties of the Danubian countries among themselves and with other countries. . . .''^^1^^
Article 1 of the Convention fully reproduces the respective articles of the peace treaties with Rumania, Bulgaria and Hungary concerning _-_-_
~^^1^^ Conference Danubicnne, Belgrade, 1948. p. 373.
56 freedom of navigation on the Danube. But the Convention precludes any possibility for utilising this freedom for intervention in the domestic affairs of Danubian states. It extends the international regime only to the navigable part of the Danube (and not to the territory along the river banks)---from Ulm to the Black Sea, through the Sulin Mouth, with an outlet to the sea through the Sulin Canal (Article 2).The Convention envisaged the setting up of a Danubian Commission from representatives of the Danubian countries, one from each. The Soviet Union ceded second place in the commission in favour of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. The competence of the Danubian commission includes: supervision over the implementation of the decisions of the Convention on the navigation regime on the Danube; drawing up of a general plan of main work in the interest of navigation on the basis of proposals and projects of Danubian states and also the compilation of a general estimate of the expenditure for these jobs. In special cases the Commission acts as an economic organisation which performs work on the Danube when a riparian state is unable to do it itself. The Commission offers consultations to Danubian states and authorities concerning the performance of jobs, establishes a single system of navigation management, unifies the rules of river supervision, keeps navigation statistics, issues manuals, sailing directions, navigation maps and atlases, draws up the budget and collects duties from vessels (Article 8).
The principle of observing the sovereign rights of the riparian countries thus permeates all the articles of the Convention. In contrast to the old 57 Danubian Commission, the new one does not stand above state bodies of Danubian states and is not the unlimited master in the basin of the Danube. It is an agency of the riparian states which carries out their will and is subordinate to them in all respects.
The Convention was adopted at the Belgrade Conference by representatives of all Danubian states and signed by them on August 18, 1948. The Western powers---the United States, Great Britain and France---refused to recognise the democratic navigation regime on the Danube; their representatives voted against the Convention and refused to sign it.
In May 1949, the Convention came into force. It put an end to the unjust regime on the Danube which had existed for about 100 years. For the first time a democratic status was instituted in the legal regime of a major international waterway, a status which met the sovereign rights of all the riparian states, precluded any possibility for the imperialist monopolies to penetrate the basin of the Danube, and conformed to the radical changes in this area after the Second World War.
The new regime, instituted by the Danubian Convention, is fully based on the principles of equal rights and mutual: non-interference of countries in each other's affairs. It opened up big prospects to the Danubian countries (at present Austria, too, belongs to the countries represented on the Danubian Commission) in using this waterway. The Convention on the navigation regime on the Danube promoted the strengthening and development of economic co-operation and cultural ties between the USSR and European socialist countries.
58 __NUMERIC_LVL2__ Chapter II. __ALPHA_LVL2__ FORMATION OF THE WORLDThe liberation struggle against nazi Germany which spread in wartime within countries that fell under the nazi heel was directed not only against the invaders but also against the reactionary regimes which had brought national disaster, loss of independence and immeasurable suffering and destruction.
The westward liberation campaign of the Soviet Army enabled all the democratic patriotic forces to unite in the struggle against the local and foreign exploiters, for the overthrow of the bourgeois-landowner regime and development towards People's Democracies.
The destinies of West European countries occupied by the American and British forces were shaped differently. The ruling circles of the Western powers gave every help to the local reactionary bourgeoisie in suppressing the workingclass and revolutionary movement in Western Europe and in preserving the capitalist system. Exploiting the considerable economic and political weakening of the West European countries, the 59 United States undertook to establish its diktat immediately after the war.
In Eastern Europe, too, the US and British ruling circles did everything to prevent the historically natural development of events, to block the road to popular revolutionary change. To this end all the weapons in imperialism's arsenal were utilised---from diplomatic pressure, blackmail and intimidation of the young People's Democracies, to attempts at directly interfering in their internal affairs. Even during the war the US and British ruling element began to prepare the ground for the subsequent subjugation of Central and Southeast Europe, and established contacts with emissaries of bourgeois parties in Bulgaria, Hungary and Rumania, setting them the task of capturing power and converting their countries into an obedient tool of Western policy. US and British representatives conducted negotiations in Cairo with Barbu Stirbey, a leader of the so-called historical parties of Rumania, reached understanding in the Vatican with Hungarian ex-Premier Miklos Kallay and in Ankara with Gemeto, a reactionary Bulgarian politician.
But the imperialist forces were unable to alter the course of events in Central and Southeast Europe and to embroil the peoples in cruel civil wars primarily because these peoples were liberated by the Soviet Army. At the 5th Congress of the Bulgarian Workers' (Communist) Party in 1948, G. M. Dimitrov stressed that if the offensive of internal and international reaction in Bulgaria during the first years of popular democratic rule did not assume the form of open armed action, this was explained not only by the determined measures of the people's government, the vigilance 60 and the energy of the Bulgarian Communist Party, but in "a large degree by the presence ot units of the Soviet liberation army, whose mere presence simply fettered the reactionary forces".^^1^^
The influence of the bourgeoisie in economic and political life was still substantial during the early stage of popular democratic revolutions in Central and Southeast Europe. The bourgeoisie held strong positions in the economy and played quite a considerable part in political life. The reactionary and the democratic forces clashed bitterly on all important issues of home and foreign policy. The reactionaries exerted much effort to foil fundamental economic and political reforms and to restore the old order. Bourgeois political parties sabotaged democratic measures applied by the working class with the Communist Parties at its head, and hampered the establishment and strengthening of truly democratic state institutions.
Bourgeois political parties relied on the support of the Western powers whose representatives tried to meddle in the internal affairs of Eastern Europe and to aggravate the political situation. They repeatedly sought to utilise for their selfish ends the Allied Control Commissions. On October 1, 1946, US representative Major General V. M. Robertson, for example, demanded of Soviet Colonel General Biryuzov, Vice-Chairman of the Allied Control Commission in Bulgaria, "to convene a special meeting of the Commission to examine what measures it could take to ensure free _-_-_
~^^1^^ G. M. Dimitrov, Political Report at the 5th Congress of the Bulgarian Workers (Communist) Party, Sofia, 1948, p. 63 (in Russian).
61 elections to the Bulgarian Grand National Assembly on October 27'', including such questions as `` freedom'' of the press, radio and assembly for the opposition, the release of political prisoners, and so on.^^1^^ In other words the American representative wanted to use the Allied Control Commission for flagrant interference in Bulgaria's internal politics.In his letter of reply of October 4, the Soviet representative stated that "the ensuring of free elections is a prerogative of the Bulgarian Government which has done everything necessary in this respect.... Consequently a discussion of the questions you raised in the Allied Control Commission, and, the more so, the adoption of any measures by it would be a violation of these prerogatives and crass interference in Bulgaria's internal affairs. Furthermore, the Allied Control Commission cannot discuss these questions because they do not come within its competence, as determined by the armistice agreement with Bulgaria.''^^2^^
As the national and democratic revolutions developed the working class and its vanguard won new positions in the course of bitter class struggle, strengthening and developing popular rule. Though the struggle was acute in every country it did not turn into open civil war. The Soviet Union's defence of the interests of the People's Democracies scotched such attempts by the Western powers. The victory of the working class which headed all national and patriotic _-_-_
~^^1^^ Arkhiv vneshnei politiki SSSR (Archives of the Foreign Policy of the USSR), Series 074, Inventory List 35, Volume 127, File 20, p. 72. (Hereafter---AVP SSSR.)
~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 73.
62 forces was in fact scored in relatively peaceful conditions.The struggle of the patriotic forces for winning and consolidating popular rule had much in common in various countries. In all People's Democracies, the working class, closely allied with the peasants, was the leading force of the revolution. This was the decisive factor which ensured complete victory over the bourgeoisie and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. At the same time, the revolutionary process in each country of Central and Southeast Europe had its distinctive features depending on the actual situation, the maturity of the revolutionary situation and the power of resistance offered by the bourgeoisie.
Let us take Czechoslovakia as an example. The bourgeoisie was able to retain in the first postwar years more ground in economic and political life than it did in neighbouring People's Democracies. Moreover, it had much experience and an elaborate system of combating the revolutionary working-class movement. The working class and the Communist Party thus faced a cunning and perfidious enemy---the Czechoslovak bourgeoisie with its political parties, which was highly skilled in playing at democracy and relied on the support of international imperialism, above all the US ruling circles. Imperialist reaction staked on the Czech and Slovak capitalists headed by Benes, who was then President of Czechoslovakia. Benes at one time stated that he was "afraid of two things only, a war and then Bolshevism".^^1^^ The _-_-_
~^^1^^ Documents on German Foreign Policy, 1918--1945, Series D, Vol. II, p. 633.
63 United States expected to utilise Benes and others of like mind for keeping Czechoslovakia within the capitalist system and for blocking the further development of people's democratic revolutions in other countries.But the working people of Czechoslovakia led by their Communist Party scored a splendid victory over the reactionary and counter-- revolutionary forces in the decisive clash in February 1948. The popular victory resulted in the establishment of undivided proletarian dictatorship.
No less keen was the class struggle in the People's Democracies over foreign policy issues, above all the basic question of relations with the Soviet Union. Internal reactionaries and international imperialists did everything possible to isolate the young People's Democracies from the USSR, to deprive them of Soviet support and then crush the revolutionary movement. They sought in particular to control the Foreign Ministries. In Rumania up to the autumn of 1947 the Foreign Ministry was headed by Tatarescu, a bourgeois leader who said outright that though Rumania was bound to the Soviet Union geographically, long-standing traditions and sympathies bound her to the Western powers. Tatarescu converted the Foreign Ministry into a nest of the reactionary forces.
Reactionary politicians fully realised that were it not for the energetic economic and political support of the Soviet Union, the bourgeoisie would still be able to stem the incipient process of revolutionary changes and to restore the capitalist system. That is why for the People's Democracies the question of relations with the first socialist state in the world turned into a keystone 64 of their foreign policy from the very start. In this sphere, too, the people were victorious.
This is how the working class during a sharp class struggle, in close co-operation with the peasants, and under the leadership of Communist and Workers' Parties, successfully broke down the bitter resistance of the exploiting classes and their political parties. The fundamental revolutionary measures carried out by the working class strengthened popular rule and led to the establishment of firm proletarian dictatorship, the isolation and then the abolition of the exploiting classes and the ousting of their parties.
In countries of Central and Southeast Europe a dictatorship of the proletariat was established not in the form of Soviets, as in the USSR, but in the form of People's Democracy, which was a novel feature in the political organisation of society. It reflected the specific features of the development of the socialist revolution in conditions where imperialism was weakened and the balance of forces had changed in favour of socialism. It also reflected the historical and national distinctions of individual countries.
The experience of socialist revolution in the USSR and the People's Democracies corroborated Lenin's proposition that the transition to socialism in various countries is not always effected in the same way. At the same time, it demonstrated that there are basic, cardinal laws governing this transition which are common for all countries.
The victory of socialist revolutions in a number of European and Asian countries was ensured because the Communist and Workers' Parties were consistently guided by Lenin's ideas on the __PRINTERS_P_65_COMMENT__ 5-500 65 general laws and national distinctions of the transition to socialism.
The experience of victorious socialist revolutions in different countries marked by great diversity of local conditions, the experience accumulated over more than half a century, gives a more precise idea of these general laws and distinctions than was possible in the early period of the socialist system.
To begin with, practical experience has confirmed the conclusion of the Marxist-Leninist doctrine that the leading role of the working class and its core, the Marxist-Leninist Party, in carrying out the proletarian revolution and establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat is one of the cardinal principles of the transition to socialism, which is of general significance and is preserved in any conditions.
The proletariat carries through socialist revolution in close alliance with the non-proletarian working masses. But the proletariat is unable to lead these masses and score victory in the revolution if it does not create its revolutionary organisation, a Marxist-Leninist Party.
The experience of the USSR and the People's Democracies further shows that the exploiting classes do not cede power without desperate resistance. They disdain no method of struggle to regain political dominance and restore the bourgeois order. Moreover, the exploiting classes rely not only on their own forces, preserved initially after the socialist revolution, but also on the help of the entire world reaction.
The working class must create a strong power, it has to establish its dictatorship in order to preserve and firmly consolidate the revolutionary 66 gains and to suppress any attempt to restore capitalism. This proposition, first theoretically deduced by the founders of scientific socialism and then confirmed by the experience of the working class of one country, namely, Russia, is now being corroborated by the experience of many socialist countries.
Another general principle of the socialist revolution, likewise now confirmed by the record of a number of socialist revolutions, is that the tasks of proletarian dictatorship are not limited to crushing the resistance of the exploiting classes within a country. It is necessary to ensure the country's independence from the encroachments of world reaction, to create favourable external conditions for the transition to socialism. After the October Revolution in Russia it was the dictatorship of the proletariat that enabled the young Soviet state to repulse the internal counterrevolution and the interventionist forces of 14 imperialist powers, to break down the economic blockade and to foil the attempts to strangle the socialist state. Following the directions of the CPSU, the Soviet people steadily applied the principles of proletarian dictatorship. This was a guarantee of foiling all the intrigues of socialism's enemies. The dictatorship of the proletariat was the chief weapon which ensured the triumph of socialism in the USSR.
The tasks of the socialist states in foreign policy which arose after the Second World War were greatly eased by the very existence of the Soviet Union. The resolute and consistent defence of the young People's Democracies by the USSR enabled them to avoid civil war and open armed intervention by world imperialism. Drawing on Soviet __PRINTERS_P_67_COMMENT__ 5* 67 assistance, the People's Democracies successfully coped with the difficulties in laying the foundations for a socialist economy.
The experience of history thus fully confirmed Lenin's idea that the transition from capitalism to communism cannot but provide a great abundance and diversity of political forms, but the essence is inevitably the same: dictatorship of the proletariat.
The dictatorship of the proletariat has assumed different forms in different countries and in different historical conditions.
The Paris Commune in 1871 was the first experiment in the dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin pointed out that despite all its mistakes the Commune was the superb example of the greatest proletarian movement in the 19th century. The Commune was short-lived, but it was first to demonstrate that the revolutionary working class could guide society and create its own state. The revolutionary masses of Russia established the dictatorship of the proletariat in the form of Soviets. Soviets existed for a certain time in Hungary, Slovakia and Bavaria and for a number of years in some areas of China. After the Second World War the revolutionary endeavour of the masses in a number of European and Asian countries created another form of proletarian dictatorship, People's Democracy.
The experience of a number of countries has demonstrated the universal significance of the principle of transition to socialism, namely, that the proletarian .dictatorship derives its main strength from the alliance of the working class with the main mass of all other working people.
The alliance of the working class with the 68 non-proletarian masses is the hub of revolutionary people's power. Its utmost strengthening and extension guarantees the success of socialist changes and ensures the invincibility of the system born of the proletarian revolution. The close, unbreakable, fraternal alliance of the working class with all the other sections of the working people, above all with the peasants, expresses a prime distinction of the dictatorship of the proletariat---its true democracy. The dictatorship of the proletariat represents the highest form of democracy, democracy for all the working people. Whatever the form in which the transition from capitalism to socialism is effected, that transition can come about only through revolution. However varied the forms of a new, people's state power in the period of socialist construction, their essence will be the same---dictatorship of the proletariat.
Moreover, the principal laws governing the development of the socialist revolution and socialist construction, reaffirmed by the experience of all the socialist states, include: establishment of ownership of the major means of production by the whole people; socialist transformation of agriculture; planned, proportional development of the economy; socialist revolution in ideology and culture, the development of a body of intellectuals linked with the people; abolition of national oppression and the establishment of full equality and fraternal friendship among peoples; defence of socialist gains from external and internal enemies; proletarian internationalism; and consistent struggle for lasting peace.
These laws are inextricably interconnected. To ignore, underestimate or renounce even one of 69 these general principles is to undermine the socialist system and endanger the revolutionary gains.
At the same time, it would be wrong to think that since the principal laws governing the revolutionary transition from capitalism to socialism are the same and since the principal tasks of socialist changes in society coincide in the main, the forms and methods of achieving this aim are the same for all countries.
In Russia, whose working people were the first in the world to blaze the trail to socialism, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie was overthrown very quickly. The central agencies of bourgeois political power were destroyed by the armed uprising of the Petrograd proletariat and the revolutionary soldiers on November 7 and 8, 1917. A few days or weeks were needed for overthrowing the local bourgeois authorities. The situation was different in most of the People's Democracies. There one of the distinctions of the socialist revolution was the gradual takeover of all power by the working people, the gradual development of the anti-fascist, antiimperialist revolution into socialist revolution. This process continued for a comparatively long time. During the first years of the existence of People's Democracy the bourgeoisie preserved important positions in the economy and in politics. Representatives of bourgeois parties were in the parliaments, governments and local administrative bodies.
By opposing progressive measures, the bourgeois parties and their representatives increasingly exposed themselves as a reactionary force. The working masses learned from their own 70 experience that the policy of these parties ran counter to their fundamental interests. This ultimately resulted in the complete political isolation of bourgeois parties, their ousting from state bodies and, subsequently, to their organisational disintegration.
The distinctions of the socialist revolution in the People's Democracies were also displayed in the setting up of mass political organisations which united all the democratic forces of a country, People's Fronts led by the Communists. Rallying together in a People's Front, the democratic forces defeated the internal reactionaries and destroyed the political positions of the exploiting classes. This created favourable conditions for the economic suppression of the exploiters, for nationalising industry and effecting socialist changes in the countryside.
The existence of several political parties of the working people is a manifestation of the specific nature of socialist construction in some People's Democracies. In addition to the United Workers' Party there are the United Peasants' and Democratic parties in Poland. The Christian Democratic Union, the National Democratic Party, the Liberal Democratic Party and the Democratic Peasants' Party are participating, together with the Socialist Unity Party of Germany, in the building of socialism in the German Democratic Republic. In Czechoslovakia, the Communist Party is joined by the Czechoslovak Socialist Party, Czechoslovak People's Party and the Slovak Reconstruction Party.
All these parties are actively co-operating with the Marxist-Leninist Parties; they recognise their leading role in all social and political spheres 71 but, expressing the particular interests of certain groups of the working people who are building socialism, they have their representatives in central and local government bodies. The Communist and Workers' Parties, in drawing up plans for socialist construction, consult the other parties, taking into account their opinions and wishes. Co-operation of a number of parties of the working people, spearheaded by the MarxistLeninist Party, is a form of the alliance of the working class, peasants, intellectuals and artisans.
One more distinction of People's Democracy should be mentioned. In Russia the proletariat, on winning power, had to disfranchise the bourgeoisie. In the People's Democracies the bourgeoisie was not deprived of political rights ( except war criminals, quislings and other accomplices of the fascist regime). The bourgeois political parties for some time had their own press and their representatives in state bodies. What is important, however, is that they were deprived of the privileges they enjoyed under the old regime and were removed from key political and economic positions.
There are also many original features in the methods of the socialist remaking of the economy in People's Democracies. While the Soviet Union, being encircled by capitalist states, could not count on outside economic aid the People's Democracies found themselves in a much more advantageous position. Immediately after liberation they were able to rely on the disinterested all-round support of the USSR. They could draw on the wealth of experience accumulated by the Soviet Union. They have solved, and are solving, problems of socialist construction in an 72 atmosphere of fraternal co-operation with the USSR and with each other, and in conditions when a powerful world socialist system exists.
The problem of organising agricultural cooperatives has also been solved in a specific way in the People's Democracies. In the USSR the land was nationalised, that is, taken over by the socialist state. The People's Democracies did not nationalise the land. Only the property of traitors who had collaborated with the nazis was confiscated. A considerable part of the land was turned over to peasants who had little or no land at all. This determined certain distinctions in the forms of peasant co-operatives. In the People's Democracies there are, for example, agricultural cooperatives in which the income is divided among members both according to their work and depending on the size of the plots given to the co-operative. In guiding the building of the new life, the Communist and Workers' Parties always consider the national and historical distinctions of their countries. They act on the principle that blind copying of the experience of other fraternal countries, the application of methods of socialist construction suitable for the conditions of another country but hardly efficacious in the given country, lead to serious mistakes and distortions in building socialism. At the same time, however, exaggeration of the role of national distinctions also represents a serious threat to the socialist gains.
To avoid mistakes and distortions in socialist construction Marxist-Leninist Parties creatively apply the general principles of the socialist revolution and socialist construction depending on the actual historical conditions of each country, 73 firmly adhering to the demands of MarxismLeninism about the proper combination in politics of the principles of internationalism and patriotism. Only such an approach ensures the combining of the interests of each socialist country and of the entire socialist community and strengthens its unity.
The period between 1947 and 1949 marked an important stage in the development of the Peoples Democracies and the transition of the people's democratic revolution into socialist revolution. Fundamental revolutionary changes in the economy and political life brought about the victory of socialist production relations and strengthened popular rule. This above all was the nationalisation of large-scale industry, a major revolutionary measure which struck a hammer blow at the exploiting classes. It was carried out in Bulgaria in 1947; Rumania in mid-1948; Poland at the beginning of 1946; Czechoslovakia in two stages ---in 1945 and 1948; Hungary from 1947 to 1949; the German Democratic Republic in 1949, and in Albania by the beginning of 1947.
In the political sphere, bourgeois elements and Right-wing political parties were isolated and ousted, on the one hand, and the democratic forces were consolidated and reinforced, on the other. A tremendous part in this was played by the elimination of the split in the ranks of the working class, the merger of Workers' Parties--- Communist and Social-Democratic.
The change in the political relationship of the class forces in favour of democracy is 74 demonstrated by data on the composition of governments during the first years of People's Democracy. The government formed in Bulgaria on September 10, 1944 (the day after the overthrow of the fascist dictatorship) included only three representatives of the Communist Party; the other ministerial posts were given to the Zveno Party (4), Agricultural Union (4), Social-- Democrats (2) and Radicals (1). In the cabinet formed in November 1946 the Communists received ten seats and ten seats were given to representatives of the Agricultural Union, Zveno, Social-- Democrats and Independents (the monarchy was abolished as a result of the referendum held on September 8, 1946). The Fatherland Front Government, formed in December 1947, consisted of 14 Communists, 5 representatives of the Agricultural Union, 2 representatives of Zveno and 2 Social-Democrats.
In Czechoslovakia only 4 Communists entered the coalition government set up on April 7, 1945. The other 16 members were representatives of other parties: Social-Democrats (3), National Socialists (3), Catholics (3), and non-party members (7). Edvard Benes who headed the country's reactionary forces held the post of president up to February 1948. After the victory in February 1948, the alignment of political forces radically changed. A member of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia became president and the National Front Government was formed of 12 Communists, 3 Social-Democrats, 3 representatives of the Slovak Reconstruction Party and 3 of the People's Party.
In Hungary in the initial period the pettybourgeois Smallholders Party (representing 75 mainly rich peasants) held important positions in the government. In the coalition cabinet, formed by four political parties in April 1947, this party held half the seats and the Communists only four.
A keen political struggle developed in Poland after liberation. Reactionary bourgeois parties and above all the Peasant Party of Mikolajczyk, held important posts in the country's leadership up to 1947.
In Rumania where the monarchy existed up to the end of 1947, bourgeois parties had lost their positions in the government in the main by the beginning of 1948. The government formed in April 1948 consisted of 11 representatives of the Workers' Party, four of the Agricultural Union, one of the National People's Party and two non-party members.
The economic, cultural and political rapprochement of the People's Democracies and the Soviet Union was deepened and new, socialist international relations emerged and developed as these states progressed and, by carrying out fundamental revolutionary changes, strengthened the economic and political positions of socialism. A socialist community began to take shape in the course of struggle against internal and international reactionary forces.
The People's Democracies inherited a grave legacy. In the past most of them were economically backward agricultural appendages of big capitalist states and had no heavy industry. Prolonged domination of the foreign monopolies, fascist occupation and hostilities---all this resulted in their emerging from the war with a wrecked economy. Some of them had been brought to the 76 brink of economic catastrophe by fascism and their own bourgeoisie and landowners. In Rumania, for example, industrial output at the beginning of 1947 barely reached 48 per cent of the 1938 level. Industrial production in Bulgaria after the war amounted to 64 per cent of the prewar level, and agricultural production, about 70 per cent. The German invaders inflicted tremendous damage on the economy of Poland. War destruction and looting by the nazis reduced the country's national wealth by 38 per cent, greatly undermined the productive forces and substantially depressed the living standard of the people even as compared with the low prewar level. The capacity of Hungary's industry in 1945 was only 60 per cent of 1938, while industrial output amounted only to one-third of the 1938 level.
This situation demanded of the Communist and Workers' Parties in the People's Democracies the greatest exertion of effort for restoring their economies.
From the start the Peole's Democracies relied on the all-round support and assistance of the Soviet Union in restoring and advancing their economies. Though the USSR itself faced tremendous difficulties after the war, it immediately after the liberation of the countries of Central and Southeast Europe began to render them extensive material aid in restoring their economies and readjusting to normal life.
In the first years after liberation Soviet assistance played a major part in coping with postwar difficulties and in defending their economic, and, 77 consequently, also national independence from the encroachments of the imperialist powers.
Thus, on February 20, 1945, the Soviet Government extended to Hungary, not yet fully liberated, credits to the sum of ten million pengos at the request of her Provisional Government; additional credits of 250 million pengos were given on March 7 and 500 million pengos on May 10, 1945. The USSR helped Hungary to carry out spring sowing and saved the people from starvation. In March, May and June 1945, the Soviet Government allotted from the stocks of the Soviet Army 33,000 tons of grain, 4,431 tons of meat, 3,333 tons of sugar and other foodstuffs for the population of large Hungarian cities.
The first trade agreements and the consequent Soviet deliveries of raw materials, equipment and foodstuffs strikingly attest to the fraternal assistance of the USSR to the People's Democracies in the initial period of their existence.
The first trade agreement between the USSR and Bulgaria was signed as early as March 14, 1945. It recorded that both parties considered it the first stage in developing economic relations between their countries in the new conditions and that they would elaborate a programme of measures to promote fuller economic co-operation. On December 15 of the same year an agreement was signed on the delivery of 30,000 tons of maize and 20,000 tons of wheat to Bulgaria by the Soviet Government.
The worsened food situation compelled the Bulgarian Government to ask the Soviet Union for additional grain deliveries. In reply to the request an additional 40,000 tons of maize and wheat were delivered within 4 months.
78Under the first agreements Bulgaria received from the Soviet Union considerable quantities of oil, metal, chemicals, rubber and grain. What is particularly important is that she received raw materials, about 10,000 tons of cotton and 2,000 tons of wool, for the textile industry, the leading sector at the time. This enabled the spinning mills to work at full capacity in two and three shifts and avoid unemployment.
Another Bulgarian-Soviet trade agreement was signed in Moscow on April 27, 1946. It called for imports of Soviet goods 2.5 times greater than under the 1945 agreement. Between 1945 and 1947 Bulgaria received from the Soviet Union on the strength of these agreements 229,000 tons of oil products and lubricants, 217,000 tons of metals and metalwares, 33,000 tons of cotton, 72,000 sets of automobile tyres, 2,020 lorries and tractors, large quantities of self-propelled combines, agricultural machinery, rail waggons and spare parts.
V. Kolarov, prominent leader of the Bulgarian working-class movement, stated: "Immediately after the armistice (October 1944), the Soviet Government displayed magnanimity towards the Bulgarian people. We were regarded . . . not as a defeated country, but as a friendly country. From 1946 to 1949 the Soviet Government supplied 345,000 tons of grain to save the population in drought-stricken areas of our country.''^^1^^
The two-year agreement, signed between the USSR and Bulgaria on July 5, 1947, provided _-_-_
~^^1^^ D. Blagoycv, G. Dimitrov, V. Kolarov and others, For Unbreakable Soviet-Bulgarian Friendship, Sofia, 1951, pp. 241--42 (in Bulgarian).
79 for still greater extension of trade. Imports of Soviet oil products, ferrous and non-ferrous metals and metalwares were envisaged in quantities fully satisfying Bulgaria's needs. In addition, she received the necessary quantities of paper and cellulose, substantial quantities of natural and synthetic rubber and rubber goods, thousands of goods waggons and passenger coaches, trolleybuses, lorries and motorcars, metal-cutting machine tools, electric power stations and radio stations. In exchange Bulgaria sent to the Soviet Union tobacco, metal ores and concentrates, tinned fruit and vegetables. The agreement was concluded at a time when Bulgaria launched her two-year economic restoration and development plan (1947--1948).This was followed by the signing on August 28, 1947, of an agreement on Soviet deliveries of industrial plant on credit and the rendering of technical assistance in building new industrial enterprises. It was dovetailed with the republic's two-year plan in whose successful implementation Soviet assistance played a considerable part.
As a result of the fulfilment of the two-year plan Bulgaria's industrial output exceeded the prewar level by 71.5 per cent, with the growth rates of heavy industry being considerably higher than in light industry. Notwithstanding three poor years, the grain harvest approached the 1939 level. Agricultural labour co-operatives became firmly established as the new form of organisation in agriculture. At the end of 1948, more than 1,000 of these co-operatives united 74,000 peasants and they owned about 3,000,000 decares of land (a decare equals about one-tenth of a hectare).
The Rumanian People's Republic has 80 repeatedly voiced its great appreciation of Soviet assistance rendered above all in foodstuffs. In 1945, the Soviet Union gave Rumania, by way of a loan, 300,000 tons of grain which helped her to cope with the serious food difficulties resulting from crop failure. In 1946, in view of the repeated poor crop, the USSR again came to her aid.
The import of Soviet grain to Rumania was also of great political significance. Speaking on June 27, 1947, at the graduation of political workers of the Rumanian Army, Premier Petru Groza said: "The years of drought placed us in a difficult position. We were compelled to pay gold for maize from the West. The terms imposed on us were onerous, and this notwithstanding, we received very little maize. We again had to knock at the doors of our friends in the East. We know that they too suffered from drought and, nevertheless, last year they loaned us 30,000 carloads of grain delivered to our country, without demanding any guarantees, without demanding gold, and we were unable to repay this loan. Yet, when we again turned to our friends they understood us and are helping us again.''^^1^^
Serious food supply difficulties also arose in the Czechoslovak Republic. Here, too, Soviet assistance was of political as well as economic significance.
In 1945 and 1946 the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia made reciprocal deliveries of goods which subsequently were included in the nomenclature of mutual deliveries provided for by the agreement of April 12, 1946. On the same _-_-_
^^1^^ AVP SSSR, Series 0125, Inventory List 38, Volume 180, File 41, p. 18.
__PRINTERS_P_81_COMMENT__ 6---500 81 day, a protocol on grain assistance to Czechoslovakia was also signed.In mid-July 1947, it was decided at the SovietCzechoslovak talks in Moscow that the two countries would conclude a five-year agreement. Specifically, it was decided that the Soviet Union would supply Czechoslovakia in 1948 with 400,000 tons of grain, including 200,000 tons of wheat. But on November 25, 1947, the Czechoslovak Government asked the Soviet Union to increase grain deliveries. By November 29 the Soviet Government had already informed Czechoslovakia that the request would be satisfied.
The Soviet Union rendered considerable financial assistance to the People's Democracies during those years. Under the agreement of December 14, 1948, Czechoslovakia received from the USSR a loan in gold totalling 132.5 million rubles at an annual interest of 2.5 per cent.
The European People's Democracies completed economic restoration in the main in 1948 and 1949, when two- or three-year restoration and development plans were carried out. As a result, industrial output in all these countries regained the prewar level and in some even topped it. Czechoslovakia, for example, reached the prewar level in 1948; moreover, it surpassed it by more than 30 per cent in the output of means of production. Poland's industry was restored and substantially reconstructed as a result of her fulfilling the three-year plan (1947--1949). Bulgaria's industrial output reached 170 per cent of the prewar level at the end of 1948.
The People's Democracies swiftly organised their economic life and began to advance rapidly. While the index of industrial output (1937 = 100) 82 of six European capitalist countries (Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, Greece, Luxemburg and France) amounted to 102 in 1948, 111 in 1949 and 116 in 1950, in the six European People's Democracies (Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland and Rumania) which suffered from the war much more than the capitalist states, this index was 122 in 1948, 151 in 1949 and 185 in 1950. In other words, in the People's Democracies industrial production at the end of 1950 was almost twice as high as before the war, while in the European capitalist countries it rose only by 16 per cent.
The fulfilment of plans for restoring the war-ravaged economy and the revolutionary economic and politlcal changes led to the introduction of socialist production relations. All this enabled the European People's Democracies to begin long-term economic planning. The first five-year plans adopted by Bulgaria (1949--1953), Czechoslovakia (1949-- 1953), Hungary (1950--1954'), Rumania (1951-- 1955), Albania (1951--1955) and the German Democratic Republic (1951--1955) provided for the development of heavy industry and the laying of the economic foundations of socialism.
The transition to long-term planning, in turn, created a solid basis for long-term economic agreements, for deepening and extending co-operation, and for the emergence arid development of new forms of economic ties between socialist states. The treaties of commerce and navigation and other long-term agreements played a big part 83 in the economic relations between the USSR and the People's Democracies. The Soviet Union and Rumania concluded a treaty of commerce and navigation in Moscow on February 20, 1947. The parties agreed to accord each other unconditional and unlimited most-favoured-nation treatment with regard to all questions of trade and navigation and also of industry and other kinds of economic activity on their territories. The Soviet Union concluded similar agreements with other socialist countries: Hungary (July 15, 1947), Czechoslovakia (December 11, 1947), and Bulgaria (April 1, 1948). Article 1 of the SovietBulgarian Treaty stipulated that the governments of both countries would from time to time conclude agreements determining the volume and composition of reciprocal deliveries of goods, both for annual and longer periods and also other terms ensuring the uninterrupted and increasing trade between both countries in conformity with the economic needs of each. An agreement on reciprocal deliveries of goods in the period 1948-- 1952 was signed between the USSR and the Polish Republic on January 26, 1948. It fixed the main contingents of mutual deliveries of goods, totalling more than $1,000 million. In addition, an agreement was signed on deliveries of industrial plant on credit to Poland (1948--1956).
The trade and economic agreements between the Soviet Union and the People's Democracies concluded between 1947 and 1950 reflected the new economic relations which were arising between socialist states. Their substance consisted in the striving of the socialist countries to help each other and to work jointly for general advance. The rise of such forms of co-operation 84 as co-ordination of national economic plans and industrial co-operation were a striking expression of the new economic relations. In the course of carrying out these agreements mutually-beneficial economic ties were extended and consolidated and the foreign trade of the People's Democracies grew swiftly not only with socialist, but also with capitalist states.
The following figures illustrate the expansion of foreign trade of the European People's Democracies (1946=100).
1947 1948 1950 1951 Poland .... 207 385 479 617 Czechoslovakia 233 306 288 370 Hungary . . . Rumania . . . 315 244 493 629 955 1041 1169 1198 Bulgaria . . . 142 228 228 231The trend of the foreign trade of these countries is marked by a relative decrease in the share of capitalist states and an increase in the share of socialist states. The share of capitalist states in the foreign trade of socialist countries dropped from 88 per cent in 1937 to 35 per cent in 1951, while the share of reciprocal trade of the presentday European socialist countries rose from 11.7 per cent in 1937 to 65 per cent in 1951.
The founding of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA) was an event of primary significance for the further improvement of economic co-operation among the socialist countries, an event which reflected the laws governing the emergence of the world socialist economic system. 85 The decision to found CMEA was taken at an economic conference of delegates of Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Rumania and the USSR held in Moscow in January 1949. The conference discussed the possibility of broader economic co-operation of the European People's Democracies and the USSR. For these purposes it found it necessary to set up the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance from representatives of the countries participating in the conference on the basis of equal representation with the aim of exchanging economic know-how, rendering each other technical assistance and mutual aid in raw materials, food, machinery and equipment. The conference stressed that the CMEA was an open organisation which could also be joined by other European countries subscribing to its principles and wishing to participate in broad economic co-operation with its member countries. In February 1949 CMEA was joined by Albania, in September 1950 by the German Democratic Republic and in July 1962 by the Mongolian People's Republic.
The establishment of CMEA ushered in a new stage in strengthening economic co-operation among the socialist countries and in developing the socialist international division of labour.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 2. Alliance of Equal and Sovereign States.The strong alliance and unbreakable friendship between the Soviet Union and the People's Democracies which arose during and after the Second 86 World War were legally consolidated in treaties of friendship, mutual assistance and postwar cooperation.
The treaties of friendship and mutual assistance between the USSR and the People's Democracies are international legal documents of historic significance, fundamentally differing from treaties concluded between capitalist states. They are treaties of truly equal partners, documents mirroring international relations of a new type. Reflecting the fundamental changes in the world relationship of political forces as a result of the Second World War, they consolidate relations based on the principles of proletarian internationalism.
The treaties concluded between the Soviet Union and the People's Democracies legally put an end to the reciprocal estrangement and hostility which were artificially implanted by governments under the bourgeois-landowner system.
Treaties of friendship and mutual assistance were concluded in different periods and in different historical conditions. We have already mentioned the treaties between the USSR and Czechoslovakia and the Polish Republic. They were signed during the Second World War and, therefore, naturally bore the nature of a military alliance of the contracting parties in the armed struggle against the common enemy.
The treaty concluded between the USSR and the Czechoslovak Republic in 1943 acquired a qualitatively new meaning after the defeat of the reactionary forces in February 1948, which signified the final victory of the dictatorship of the proletariat in that country.
After the war, too, the reactionary forces tried to annul the revolutionary gains of the 87 people, to take the country back onto the capitalist path and to sever it from the Soviet Union and the People's Democracies. But the people thought and acted otherwise. Under the guidance of the working class headed by the Communist Party, the people of Czechoslovakia upheld and extended their gains in sharp class struggle against the reactionaries. The Communist Party of Czechoslovakia successfully broke down the obstinate resistance of the internal and international reactionaries who in February 1948 mounted a general offensive against the democratic forces in order to seize power.
The government crisis in February 1948, provoked on orders from Washington and London by Czechoslovak reactionaries, was rooted in their desire to torpedo democratic measures and to set Czechoslovakia at loggerheads with her true friends. The Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia pointed out that the Czech and Slovak bourgeoisie were not in the least disturbed by the fact that this would precipitate another Munich, a new national and state disaster.
In the crucial February days, the Czechoslovak patriots, irrespective of party affiliation, on the call of the Communist Party rose up to defend their freedom and social gains, upholding at the same time the Soviet-Czechoslovak alliance as the decisive factor for preserving national independence and sovereignty. The February events put an end to the hypocritical policy of the bourgeoisie towards the country's powerful ally, the Soviet Union. Czechoslovakia took up a firm place in the socialist camp.
The treaty of friendship and mutual assistance 88 between the USSR and the Czechoslovak Republic was a major means for strengthening the unbreakable alliance between the peoples of the two fraternal countries, of safeguarding Czechoslovakia's national independence and state sovereignty. At the same time, the treaty helped consolidate the Soviet Union's international position. It became an important instrument of the Soviet and Czechoslovak peoples in their struggle against the aggressive plans of the West German revanchists backed by US imperialism.
As for Poland, her provisional democratic government, complying with the popular will, concluded a Treaty of Friendship, Mutual Assistance and Postwar Co-operation with the Soviet Union on April 21, 1945. The treaty legally consolidated the relations of alliance and friendly co-operation between the two countries which had arisen during the liberation war against nazi Germany, in conformity with the principles of mutual respect for their independence and sovereignty and also non-interference in each other's internal affairs. The parties assumed the obligation, after the end of the war against Germany, to resort to joint measures at their disposal for eliminating any threat of a recurrence of aggression on the part of Germany or any other state which would unite with Germany directly or in any other way. They stressed that they would participate in the spirit of the most sincere cooperation in all international undertakings designed to safeguard the peace and security of the nations and would fully contribute to the achievement of these lofty aims. Should one of the parties after the war become involved in hostilities against Germany, which would resume 89 her aggressive policy, or against any other state which would unite with her, the treaty provided for the rendering of military and other assistance and support by all available means. Provision was made for co-operation in the spirit of friendship with the object of further developing and strengthening economic and cultural ties and mutual assistance in economic restoration. The treaty of April 21, 1945, became a guarantee of the independence, might and prosperity of the Polish People's Republic.
Treaties of friendship and mutual assistance were concluded at the beginning of 1948 between the USSR and Bulgaria, the USSR and Hungary, and the USSR and Rumania, which during the war had been satellites of nazi Germany because of their pro-Hitler governments, but after the war embarked on the path of People's Democracy.
The signing of the treaties with these countries was determined by the international situation which arose after the Second World War--- the formation of two opposing camps and the exacerbation of relations between them because of the frankly expansionist course proclaimed by the US imperialists. The United States began to prepare and organise aggression. In Europe the United States and Britain mainly staked on the revival of the militarist and revanchist forces in West Germany occupied by them together with France. They tried to utilise it as the main basis for preparing war against the socialist states.
The Truman Doctrine proclaimed on March 12, 1947, and the Marshall Plan initiated on June 5, 1947, were an expression of the expansionist aspirations of the United States. The Truman Doctrine provided for American ``aid'' to 90 countries with reactionary regimes which energetically opposed the democratic forces; it was of a frankly aggressive nature. Specifically mentioning Greece and Turkey, President Truman asked Congress to appropriate $400 million up to June 30, 1948, for ``aid'' to them. Washington expected to turn these countries into a bastion of American imperialism in the Balkans, to set up its naval bases in the Eastern part of the Mediterranean and, relying on them, threaten the Soviet Union and the People's Democracies, above all those in Southeast Europe. According to Thomas Bailey, an American bourgeois historian, "the Truman Doctrine was the major opening gun in what journalists called the 'cold war'---a war waged by means other than shooting".^^1^^
The Marshall Plan was a continuation and development of the Truman Doctrine, being aimed at the economic and political subordination of the European countries to American imperialism, and at reviving the West German military potential. It envisaged far-reaching strategic aims. This was stated outright by the President's foreign aid consultative committee. One of the reports of the committee pointed out that the interests of the United States in Europe must not be regarded merely from the economic angle. They also have a strategic and political character.^^2^^ The substance of the Marshall Plan was described even more clearly by US Secretary of Defence Forrestal. At the beginning of 1948 he stated in a Senate committee that it was _-_-_
~^^1^^ Thomas A. Bailey, A Diplomatic History of ihc American People, New York, 1958, p. 797.
~^^2^^ Sec Pravda, February 28, 1948.
91 necessary to unite the armed forces of Europe under the guidance of the United States. As for the place of West Germany in American plans, John Foster Dulles stated that Germany offered the United States an exceptional opportunity for assuming a leading role.The Marshall Plan, camouflaged as a programme for restoring war-ruined Europe, was in reality designed to arm and mobilise the European capitalist countries for a clash with the USSR and the People's Democracies. Forrestal said he was confident that Marshall (Secretary of State at the time) would demand of the European nations military bases for the American armed forces as compensation for American aid. Forrestal hoped that the US Department of Defence would be charged with co-ordinating the armed forces of the 16 countries covered by the Marshall Plan.^^1^^
This imperialist plan thus posed the question of organising a military political bloc of Western states under the aegis of the United States and which would be directed against the USSR and the People's Democracies. This bloc was formalised in April 1949 and christened the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), initially joined by 12 states: the United States, Britain, France, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Canada, Norway, Denmark, Iceland and Portugal. In 1952 Greece and Turkey were admitted.
The United States decided to utilise West Germany as the chief instrument of its policy in Europe. The ruling circles of the Western _-_-_
~^^1^^ The New York Times, January 16, 1948.
92 powers actually renounced the jointly adopted decisions on Germany envisaging that Germany would be regarded as a single economic entity. Immediately after the war ended they adopted the policy of dividing Germany, reviving in her Western part the old militarist forces and enrolling her in the aggressive military bloc directed against the USSR and the People's Democracies. By combining the three occupation zones (American, British and French) and creating the Bonn state (September 1949), the United States, Britain and France placed the Western part of Germany outside the joint control of the four powers. At the same time they undertook to whip together a special group of West European states counterposed to the countries of Eastern Europe, which resulted, as pointed out in the Soviet Government's note, "in the political division of Europe and the formation of two camps of European countries".^^1^^Under those circumstances the Soviet Union and the People's Democracies had to see to the strengthening of their defence and security system, to preventing fresh German aggression.
The treaties of friendship and mutual assistance between the Soviet Union and Rumania (February 4, 1948), Hungary (February 18, 1948) and Bulgaria (March 18, 1948) and the treaties with other People's Democracies became another barrier in the way of the aggressive imperialist plans.
The conclusion of the treaties was facilitated both by the internal political conditions in these countries and by the ever growing Soviet _-_-_
~^^1^^ Pravda, March 9, 1948.
93 economic and political co-operation with the People's Democracies.The treaties were fully based on the principles of equality of nations, big- and small, and noninterlerence in each other's internal affairs. In contrast to treaties and pacts between countries in the imperialist camp, treaties between the USSR and the People's Democracies have always been designed to safeguard general peace and the security of the peoples. They reflect the new relations which struck root among the fraternal countries.
Let us examine the basic propositions of these documents taking the Soviet-Rumanian treaty as an example. It consists of six articles. The preamble defines the aims of the contracting parties: consolidation of friendly relations and the maintenance of close co-operation in the interest of strengthening general peace and security in conformity with the purposes and principles of the United Nations, maintenance of friendship and good-neighbourliness between the USSR and Rumania conforming to the vital interests of the peoples of both countries.
Proceeding from the bitter lessons of the last war and the international situation which arose after it, the contracting parties undertook to prevent a recurrence of German aggression and to this end take "jointly all measures for eliminating any threat of a repetition of aggression on the part of Germany or any other state which would unite with Germany directly or in any other form''. The treaty provided for the participation of the parties in all international actions aimed at safeguarding the peace and security of nations (Article 1). In the event of one party becoming 94 embroiled in war against Germany or any state which would unite with the latter, the other party is obliged to render every possible military and other assistance to the other party (Article 2).
Consequently, the treaty is designated above all for preventing possible aggression by German imperialism.
Each party pledged not to participate in alliances and coalitions hostile toward the other party and also in actions or measures directed against it (Article 3). They undertook to consult each other "on all important international issues affecting the interests of both parties" (Article 4) and to act in the spirit of friendship and cooperation so as to develop and strengthen economic and cultural ties between both states, "adhering to the principles of mutual respect for their independence and sovereignty and also noninterference in the internal affairs of the other state" (Article 5). The term of the treaty was set at 20 years (Article 6).
The contents of treaties of friendship and mutual assistance concluded by the USSR with Hungary and Bulgaria in f948 are similar.
The treaties with Rumania, Hungary and Bulgaria completed the series of pacts of friendship and mutual assistance with all states along the western frontier of the USSR---from the Black to the Baltic seas.
The treaties received high acclaim in the People's Democracies. "Hungarian public opinion and governmental circles,'' the Soviet Minister to Hungary, for example, reported to the USSR Foreign Ministry on February 28, 1948, "received with great satisfaction news of the conclusion of the Soviet-Hungarian Treaty of Friendship, 95 Cooperation and Mutual Assistance. The day after the government delegation had left for Moscow, the Hungarian newspapers wrote that the Soviet Union was the only great power in the world which could ensure Hungary's independence both politically and economically; without close cooperation with it the building of a genuine People's Democracy in Hungary would be inconceivable.''^^1^^
The alliance of the Soviet and the Chinese peoples aimed at maintaining world peace was likewise of historic significance. This alliance became possible after the victory of the popular revolution in China and the formation of the People's Republic of China in 1949. The Treaty of Friendship, Alliance and Mutual Assistance between the USSR and the People's Republic of China, concluded on February 14, 1950, was a big contribution to the strengthening of peace and democracy in the Far East.
Treaties of friendship, co-operation and mutual assistance were also concluded between the People's Democracies. These documents were likewise based on the principles of equality and noninterference in each other's internal affairs. They fully met the interests of safeguarding the security, independence and territorial integrity of countries in the socialist camp, fully conformed to the principles of the United Nations and were designed to promote peace and international cooperation.
Treaties of friendship and mutual assistance were concluded: between Bulgaria and Rumania on January 16, 1948; between Poland and _-_-_
~^^1^^ AVP SSSR, Scries 059, Volume 38, File 274, p. 223.
96 Czechoslovakia, on March 10, 1947; between Rumania and Czechoslovakia, on July 21, 1948; Hungary and Poland, on June 18, 1948; Hungary and Rumania, on January 24, 1948; Rumania and Poland, on January 26, 1949; and between Albania and Bulgaria, on December 18, 1947.Thus, by 1950 the Soviet Union had concluded treaties of friendship, co-operation and mutual assistance with almost all the People's Democracies, and similar agreements had also been signed between European people's democratic states.
The Warsaw Treaty of Friendship, Co-- operation and Mutual Assistance signed by the Soviet Union and all the European People's Democracies on May 14, 1955, became an important landmark in the history of the socialist camp. The conclusion of the Warsaw Treaty was dictated by the interests of reinforcing the defence capacity of the socialist countries, developing their friendship and mutual assistance in full conformity with respect for and recognition of the independence and sovereignty of the member states, and noninterference in their internal affairs.
The Warsaw Treaty, which is defensive in nature, was concluded after the ratification by the Western powers of the Paris agreements which incorporated West Germany into the aggressive groups---the North Atlantic alliance and the Western Union created as its component part. These powers refused to accept the proposal for the dissolution of military blocs and the creation of a collective security system. The ratification of the Paris agreements created a new situation in Europe: militarist West Germany officially became an ally of the United States, Britain and __PRINTERS_P_97_COMMENT__ 7---500 97 other Western members of the North Atlantic bloc and received their sanction to build up her armed forces; this heightened the danger of another world war and the imperialist threat to the national security of peace-loving states.
In the preamble to the Warsaw Treaty the signatory states declared their readiness "to participate in the spirit of sincere co-operation in all international actions designed to safeguard international peace and security''; they "will fully dedicate their efforts to achieving these aims" (Article 2). Article 3 provides for consultations among the contracting parties on all important international questions affecting their common interests. "They shall at once consult among themselves,'' Article 3 reads, "every time when, in the opinion of any one of them, a threat arises of armed attack on one or several members of the Treaty, in the interest of ensuring joint defence and maintaining peace and security.''
In the event of armed attack in Europe on one or several member states by any other state or group of states every member shall render to the state or states subjected to attack immediate aid "by every means it deems necessary, including the use of armed force. Members of the Treaty shall immediately consult on joint measures which must be undertaken to restore and maintain international peace and security" (Article 4). On the basis of Article 5 of the Treaty, its signatories organised a joint command of the armed forces assigned to this command. The Treaty provided for the setting up of a Political Consultative Committee which meets periodically and adopts agreed decisions on major questions pertaining to the further 98 development and strengthening of co-operation between member countries in the prevailing international situation.
In contrast to Western alliances, the Warsaw Treaty is open to other states, irrespective of their social and state system, which "express readiness, by participating in the present Treaty, to promote the pooling of effort by peace-loving states for the purpose of safeguarding the peace and security of nations" (Article 9).
The Treaty was concluded for a term of 20 years with the subsequent prolongation for ten years by members which one year prior to the expiration of the 20-year term, do not denounce it. There is a special reservation that in the event of a collective security system being established in Europe, the Warsaw Treaty shall lose its force from the day a general European treaty of collective security becomes operative.
The Warsaw Treaty was another major step in strengthening and developing economic, political and military co-operation of socialist countries and creating a reliable collective security system of socialist states.
The wide system of equal and friendly interstate relations which arose in the socialist camp reflected the all-round co-operation of the socialist countries which was growing in scale and depth. A characteristic feature of all treaties of friendship and mutual assistance between socialist countries is that they aim to guarantee an enduring peace and international security and to prevent imperialist aggression.
Treaties between the USSR and the People's Democracies offer no advantages and privileges to one contracting party over the other. Far from __PRINTERS_P_99_COMMENT__ 7* 99 Emacs-File-stamp: "/home/ysverdlov/leninist.biz/en/1972/WSS409/20070904/199.tx" __EMAIL__ webmaster@leninist.biz __OCR__ ABBYY 6 Professional (2007.09.05) __WHERE_PAGE_NUMBERS__ bottom __FOOTNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [0-9]+ __ENDNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [0-9]+ infringing in any degree the national interests of the People's Democracies, they are designed to strengthen security and to ensure national independence and sovereignty.
The treaties of friendship and mutual assistance between the USSR and the People's Democracies and between the People's Democracies themselves, being the very opposite in nature and substance to the treaties of an imperialist type, reflect the new, socialist international relations. They make up the foundation of the collective security of the countries in the world socialist community, serve as an important instrument for ensuring international co-operation and consolidating world peace, and are a stumbling block to imperialism's aggressive plans. These treaties helped to weld together the socialist countries into a single family, to reinforce the might of the socialist community and to create the necessary international conditions for building socialism and communism.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 3. Conversion of Socialism into a World SystemThe formation of the world socialist system is an intricate and prolonged process which began in October 1917 when the new, socialist world was born.
The victory of popular democratic revolutions in a number of European and Asian countries after the Second World War created prerequisites for their socialist development and the formation of a world system of states with a socio-- 100 economic order of a common type. This system crystallised and developed as the popular democratic revolutions advanced and turned into socialist revolutions, as socialist production relations and proletarian dictatorship struck root.
In the immediate postwar years the internal development of the People's Democracies was marked by a sharp class struggle between the exploiting classes and the working people, a determined struggle by all the democratic forces for popular rule, the people's democratic path of development and for preventing the restoration of the old, bourgeois-landowner regimes. It was during this period that the foundations were laid for fraternal co-operation between the USSR and the People's Democracies. This unity was wrought in the course of the joint struggle for winning and preserving national independence, for safeguarding and extending the revolutionary gains of the peoples, in the struggle for socialism.
The world socialist system took shape in the main in the years 1949 and 1950. By that time socialism had triumphed in the European People's Democracies; socialist production relations had fully gained the upper hand and the dictatorship of the proletariat in the form of People's Democracy had been fully established. The weight and prestige of these countries in the world rose substantially and their international positions were consolidated.
The formation of People's Democracies in Asia---the Korean People's Democratic Republic and the Democratic Republic of Vietnam---was of great importance.
The proclamation of the Korean People's Democratic Republic (September 1948) had been 101 preceded by deep-going changes in North Korea, where, on the strength of inter-Allied agreements, after the defeat of militarist Japan Soviet troops were stationed, playing a part similar to that in Central and Southeast Europe. The democratic, patriotic forces of the Korean people received full scope for their activity in North Korea. A land reform which abolished the system of semi-feudal exploitation, was carried out; industrial enterprises which had belonged to Japanese capitalists and traitors to the Korean people were nationalised.
In an attempt to prevent democratic changes, to keep Korea as an object of exploitation and convert her into a military bridgehead, the US imperialists, whose forces occupied the southern part of the country, split Korea, setting up a puppet government in the south. In reply to the actions of the imperialists and their agents, representatives of political parties and mass organisations of North and South Korea, who met in Pyongyang in June-July 1948, decided to hold elections to the Supreme National Assembly on the entire territory of the country. Despite the terror and repressions, 77.5 per cent of the voters went to the polls in South Korea (99.97 per cent in North Korea). The Supreme National Assembly consisted of 360 South Korean and 121 North Korean representatives. The Assembly which opened on September 2, 1948, proclaimed the Korean People's Democratic Republic and approved its constitution. Between 1950 and 1953, the Korean people repulsed the attempts of imperialism to abolish the Korean People's Democratic Republic by force of arms.
The struggle of the Vietnamese patriots and 102 the advance of the liberation movement in Vietnam after the expulsion of the Japanese invaders resulted in the Vietnamese people taking power into their own hands in the course of a general insurrection, and forming the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. As a result of the eightyear bitter armed struggle, the French colonialists were driven from the country and its Northern part took the road of socialism. The Democratic Republic of Vietnam, like the Korean People's Democratic Republic, firmly joined the family of socialist countries.
The victory of the people's revolution in China and the formation of the People's Republic of China in October 1949 was a paramount stage in the development of world socialism.
The formation in October 1949 of the German Democratic Republic, the first state of workers and peasants in the history of the German people, was an event of momentous importance. The victory of People's Democracy in the Eastern part of Germany essentially curtailed the basis of German imperialism and militarism. The German Democratic Republic at once undertook the complete uprooting of all vestiges of militarism and imperialism. From the very beginning fraternal relations were established between the GDR and other socialist states. Recognising the existing frontiers, the GDR maintains close economic and political relations with all its neighbours. The German Democratic Republic, the most western outpost of socialism in Europe, is the force which not only resists revanchist and militarist West Germany, but also shows that the German nation can develop along the road of peace and democracy.
103It is natural that the People's Republic of China and the German Democratic Republic, just as the Korean People's Democratic Republic and the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, differed at the initial stage from other socialist states in degree of socio-economic change. There, socialist production relations triumphed after they had entered the world socialist system. The fact that the world socialist system was joined by countries differing so much in economic and cultural levels---economically developed and backward, those who had passed the capitalist stage and those who had bypassed it---from the very start determined the complex development of the community of socialist states.
The formation of the world socialist system signified the accomplishment of the great task set by Lenin at the beginning of the 1920s: the conversion of proletarian dictatorship from a national into an international development. The world socialist system is a social, economic and political community of free, sovereign peoples following the road of socialism and communism and united by common interests, aims, and close ties of international socialist solidarity. The countries of the socialist community have the same type of economic basis---social ownership of the means of production; the same type of political system---rule of the people with the working class at their head; a common ideology---Marxism-Leninism; common interests in the defence of their revolutionary gains and national independence from encroachments by the imperialist camp; and a great common goal--- communism.
This socio-economic and political community 104 furnishes an objective basis for new, socialist international relations. A new world has arisen next to the capitalist countries, a new system of states with their own social, economic and political order.
The formation of the world socialist system has changed not only the structure of the contemporary world, it has introduced radical changes in the system of international relations. Their basic content is determined above all by the struggle of the two opposing systems, with socialism exerting steadily growing influence on the entire course of world events.
In the social sphere, the birth of the world socialist system means that the socialist system, now encompassing a number of states, has finally struck root in the world. The world system of socialist states represents the prototype of the future social organisation of all mankind. Broad prospects for successful advance along the road of social progress opened for all peoples. At whatever economic and political level a people may be they can clearly visualise how to advance further, to determine the aims of their struggle.
Economically, socialism has introduced in the contemporary world a system radically differing from the capitalist economy and counterposed to it. The world socialist economic system which arose as a result of economic co-operation of socialist countries delineates the future integral world economic system. "The objective laws of the world socialist system,'' it is stated in the CPSU Programme, "the growth of the productive forces of socialist society and the vital interests of the peoples of the socialist countries predetermine the increasing affinity of the various 105 national economies. As Lenin foresaw, tendencies develop towards the future creation of a world communist economy regulated by the victorious working people according to one single plan.''^^1^^
All these social and economic processes are exerting a decisive impact on the outcome of the struggle of ideologies in the world. The formation of the world socialist system exacerbated the crisis of bourgeois ideology. Growing fear of the future, of progress, the stake on anti-communism, disbelief in human capabilities, the absence of a perspective and positive programme---all this is a manifestation of the very deep crisis gripping bourgeois ideology.
Having lost undivided world domination in October 1917, imperialism far from regaining it, has suffered the biggest defeats in the battle against socialism. The rise of the world socialist system signifies a new stage in the disintegration of the world capitalist system and accelerates this process.
The formation of the world socialist system gave rise to new factors which began to determine the further course of historic development. It meant that the entire course of world events, all the international processes, including the capitalist system itself, were increasingly determined by the direct or indirect influence of world socialism. The era of capitalism's ``quiet'' development, interrupted only at certain times by crises and wars, has gone. Times have arrived when capitalism's upheavals are becoming a constantly operating factor.
The narrower the bounds in which the laws of _-_-_
~^^1^^ Programme of the CPSU, p, 113.
106 the old, capitalist society operate, the more intensive the destructive impact of the laws governing the decline of capitalism within these bounds. Internal processes in the capitalist world are increasingly undermining the mainstays of the bourgeois system. The sharper class struggle is increasingly joined by the numerically larger proletariat whose activity and consciousness are rising. It rallies all the healthy forces of the nations resisting the omnipotence of the monopolies. At the same time the general instability of the capitalist economy is displayed more than ever, and the law of uneven development of capitalist states operates more intensively and disastrously. Against the background of capitalism's general weakening, changes in the relationship of forces between these states proceed with unusual rapidity. The growth of imperialist contradictions has become particularly acute. The loss by imperialism of its colonial hinterland, the mounting national liberation struggle, the new, sharper form of contradictions between the colonies and metropolitan countries (between young independent states, on the one hand, and the imperialist powers, on the other) still further exacerbate the crisis now encompassing the entire imperialist system.Prior to the Second World War when only one socialist state existed, the defenders of capitalism were much more certain of the future of their system. Many even believed in the inevitable collapse of the "Soviet experiment''. Now that a mighty camp of socialist states has arisen, the ruling imperialist upper crust has practically nothing left of these illusions, and this affects its behaviour and its entire policy.
107Fear of the inevitable doom of the exploiting system, of the powerful socialist and democratic movement, of world socialism, has become a main factor determining the nature of imperialism's entire policy in the postwar period. Monopoly capital tries to employ against the forces of socialism, democracy, national liberation and peace, an ever more aggressive policy, intrigues, flanking manoeuvres, subversive and splitting actions, local wars and the threat of a world war. The American monopoly bourgeoisie is seeking to establish its international diktat, and is proclaiming virtually the entire globe the "security zone" of the USA (in other words, the zone of American diktat and preparations for aggression).
The intricate and ramified network of US military bases on foreign territories, the system of the North Atlantic Treaty and other military blocs, without precedent in history, of blocs which are intertwined and supplement each other---this entire cumbersome "security system" which the United States launched in the second half of the 1940s was conceived as a single mechanism for the entire capitalist world set into motion from a central "control board" in Washington. The US ruling element hoped to "exercise leadership" with the help of this mechanism, i.e., to achieve undivided supremacy in the part of the world where the capitalist system is still preserved and to carry out plans for restoring capitalism in socialist countries and for suppressing the national liberation, working-class and revolutionary movement in capitalist countries.
An analysis of historical development shows that the shaping of the world socialist system proceeded in exceedingly intricate international 108 conditions of fierce struggle between the forces of the new, socialist world and the united front of the imperialist powers. Moreover, international imperialism has more than once tried to defeat socialism by armed force.
But in its desire to ``extinguish'' the world revolutionary process, international imperialism headed by the United States tackled a task beyond its strength. It has not succeeded, and will not succeed, in preventing society's progress and in stemming the natural process of historical development. This is strikingly demonstrated by the epochal events after the Second World War, particularly after the emergence of the world socialist system. The victory of the socialist revolution in Cuba, which ushered in a new stage in the history of the peoples of America, the collapse of imperialism's colonial system and the transition of a number of Afro-Asian countries to the non-capitalist path, the growth of the working-class and revolutionary movement in Western countries, the advent of a new, third stage in the general crisis of the world capitalist system---all these events took place under the direct impact of the world socialist system, introduced further radical change in the alignment of class and political forces internationally in favour of socialism, and considerably accelerated the disintegration of the old world. The operation of the laws of the new, socialist society is increasingly evident in world politics, in international events, in the world-wide system of international relations.
[109] __NUMERIC_LVL2__ Chapter III. __ALPHA_LVL2__ RISE OF SOCIALISTThe birth and consolidation of the world socialist system brought into being new socialist international relations conforming to the nature of socialism and based on the principles of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism. Relations of a new type radically differing from anything known to exploiting society were established between socialist countries. Underlying them is the socialist system of property, the antithesis of private property. Socialism's laws determine the nature and development of these relations.
The theses of the Central Committee of the CPSU "50 Years of the Great October Socialist Revolution" stressed that "the victories and achievements of socialism are inextricably linked with the formation and development of a new, socialist type of international relations, based on the principles of equality and national sovereignty, all-round mutually beneficial co-- operation and fraternal mutual assistance of the socialist states''.
The international relations of a new type corroborate the foresight of Marx who, in the "First 110 Address of the General Council of the International Working Men's Association on the FrancoPrussian War'', written in July 1870, gave this classical formulation: ".. .in contrast to old society with its economical miseries and its political delirium, a new society is springing up, whose international rule will be Peace, because its national ruler will be everywhere the same Labour!"^^1^^
Peace as the international rule conforming to a society where labour is the ruler of the people, that is, socialist society, is an entirely different concept than ``peace'' in a society of inequality, exploitation and oppression. The foreign-policy aims of bourgeois states throughout history have mostly been of the kind that their attainment did not demand peace; peace was regarded merely as a ``respite'' offering the opportunity best to prepare for waging and winning a war or to reap the fruits of victory without employing arms on the battlefield.
Socialism not only extends the bounds of the old concept of ``peace'' but also invests a new meaning into it. The international principle proclaimed by Marxism regards peace not merely as the antithesis to war, but as a condition favouring the introduction of the new mode of production and new, socialist social relations.
The socialist socio-economic system is a new, ongoing system which is constantly gaining in strength, and the future belongs to it. That is why in international politics, too, the future belongs to relations of the new, socialist type. _-_-_
~^^1^^ K. Marx and F. Engels, Selected Works, in three volumes, Vol. II, Moscow, 1969, pp. 193--94.
111 The capitalist system is doomed, it is outliving its age, and its international relations have no future.Socialism has irrefutably proved its superiority over capitalism, and similarly both the international relations and the foreign policy brought into being by the socialist system have demonstrated their indisputable superiority over the entire system of international relations in the capitalist world. At times this is banefully admitted even by zealous votaries of imperialism. Professor William S. Schlamm, the author of the sensational anti-communist monograph 'The Boundaries of the Miracle wrote: "The monstrous substance of the conflict between communism and the West (that is imperialism---Sh. S.}, so monstrous that no one dares to mention this fact, consists in that communism thrives in conditions of peace, wants peace and triumphs in an atmosphere of peace.''^^1^^
The entire course of historical development has prepared the birth of international relations of the socialist type.
Marx and Engels theoretically demonstrated the need for an alliance and fraternal unity of the workers of different countries, they put forward and expounded the idea of proletarian internationalism and laid the foundations for applying the principles of the international proletarian solidarity of the workers and all other working people. The great process of uniting the forces of the workers of all countries in the struggle for social emancipation and progress was _-_-_
~^^1^^ W. S. Schlamm, Die Grenzen des Wnnders, Zurich, 1959, S. 185.
112 initiated by the Communist League, founded by Marx and Engels in the mid-19th century and by the famous Communist Manifesto which proclaimed the slogan: "Working Men of All Countries, Unite!" This document, being the keystone of the communist and working-class movement, declares that when the exploitation of one individual by another is abolished, exploitation of one nation by another will stop; so too will the antagonism of classes within nations, and hostile relations among nations.The First International, the International Working Men's Association, founded by Marx and Engels in 1864, embodied the principles of proletarian internationalism. "To make the workmen of different countries not only feel but act as brethren and comrades"^^1^^ in the army of emancipation was regarded by Marx as a primary aim of the International. One of the major reasons for it, according to Marx, is experience which showed that "disregard of that bond of brotherhood which ought to exist between the workmen of different countries, and incite them to stand firmly by each other in all their struggle for emancipation, will be chastised by the common discomfort of their incoherent efforts".^^2^^ And, conversely, united efforts led to victory.
Persistently combatting opportunism and all attempts to disunite the working people of different countries, Marxists constantly tried to implement the principles of proletarian internationalism, to unite the forces of the working _-_-_
~^^1^^ K. Marx and F. Engels, Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 78.
~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 17.
__PRINTERS_P_113_COMMENT__ 8---500 113 people headed by the working class both within a single country and internationally.When capitalism dominated the world undividedly, relations of fraternal alliance between the working class of different countries could not go beyond the bounds of class solidarity of the exploited. A new phase in the development of the international solidarity of the working people, a new epoch in international relations arrived after the victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution in Russia, when the workers of all countries acquired a solid platform for world proletarian revolution---the first socialist country in the world.
From the very outset proletarian internationalism has served as the guiding principle of Soviet international policy. Marxist-Leninist principles of proletarian internationalism underlie all Soviet foreign-policy steps, beginning with the Decree on Peace. Speaking of the initial moves of the Soviet Republic in foreign policy, Lenin stressed:
``In this way we served the interests of the working class of Russia and of other countries, we strengthened the proletariat and weakened the bourgeoisie of the whole world.''^^1^^
The experience of successfully applying the Leninist national policy in the Soviet Union, the experience of relations among the free and equal Soviet Republics and also the experience, though small, of interstate socialist relations accumulated even prior to the birth of the world socialist system, were of essential significance for _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 28, p. 67.
114 shaping the present-day socialist international relations.Speaking of the sources of these relations, a highly important factor must be mentioned, namely, the role played by the Communist International in the theoretical development and practical application of Lenin's ideas. That Parties of the Third International jointly decided not only ideological but also practical questions of the international communist movement served as an inexhaustible well-spring enriching the theory of Marxism-Leninism and the practical activities of the Communist and Workers' Parties.
The programme of the Communist International expounded in particular the principles of relations between nations which had discarded the capitalist yoke. These principles have preserved their force to this day. Among them are: recognition of the right of all nations to full self-determination; voluntary union and centralisation of the military and economic forces of all peoples emancipated from capitalism for struggle against imperialism and for the building of the socialist economy; utmost and determined struggle against any restrictions and oppression directed against any nationality, nation and race; utmost assistance in the economic, political and cultural advance of the formerly oppressed regions, borderlands and colonies towards their socialist transformation for the purpose of creating a solid basis for genuine and complete national equality; struggle against all remnants of chauvinism, national enmity, racial prejudice and other ideological products of feudal and capitalist barbarity.
__PRINTERS_P_115_COMMENT__ 8* 115The nature of the socialist system wnicn has completely triumphed in the USSR and other socialist countries, defines the character of socialist international relations.
The socialist system has eradicated the causes disuniting peoples and breeding exploitation of some nations by others. It has created the conditions for uniting peoples of different countries around common interests and a single goal---the victory of socialism and communism. Triumphant socialism has given practical meaning to Marx's theoretical conclusion that "for the peoples to be able really to unite they must have common interests. For their interests to be common the existing property relations must be abolished because the existing property relations determine the exploitation of some peoples by others; only the working class is interested in the abolition of the existing property relations... . Victory of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie at the same time signifies the elimination of all national and industrial conflicts which now give rise to hostility among nations".^^1^^
Only in socialist society is real meaning also invested in the general democratic propositions of international law which were put forward in the period of bourgeois revolution to fight against the feudal absolutist system; they were later to be discarded in the period of imperialism when international law and order, even in a bourgeois _-_-_
~^^1^^ Marx-Engels, Wcrke, Bd. 4, Dietz Verlag, Berlin, 1969, S. 416.
116 form, became a hindrance and burden for the capitalists.Equality, respect for territorial integrity, state independence and sovereignty, non-interference in each other's internal affairs---these principles of international law are formally recognised by all. Yet for the imperialist states formal recognition of equality, non-interference and sovereign rights are merely a screen for concealing their aggressive designs. Moreover, some international law experts serving imperialism openly declare that these principles are inapplicable in relations between countries with different social systems, thus misinterpreting the United Nations Charter. Prof. G. Leibholz, a West German jurist, wrote in his article "Aggression in International Law from the Standpoint of Ideological Conflict": "Affairs which in essence fall within the competence of states and, according to the Charter (of the United Nations---Sh. S.), cannot be intervened in without the intervener being branded as an aggressor, today no longer include political and ideological affairs; these ideological changes are so fundamental that they simultaneously incur important shifts of political forces.''^^1^^ Thus, Leibholz negates the principle of non-interference, one of the primary general democratic principles of international law proclaimed in the past by the bourgeoisie itself. Instances of violation of this and other generally recognised principles of international law by the imperialist states are exceedingly numerous nowadays.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Dr. G. Leibholz, " `Aggression' in Volkerrecht und im Bereich ideologischer Auseinandersetzung'', Vicrtrljahrhcjtc fur Zeitgcsckichlc, 1958, S. 170.
117In relations with each other and with nonsocialist states, socialist countries apply the principles which should determine relations between any sovereign states. The firm and consistent implementation of these principles is a major feature of the foreign policy of socialist countries.
General democratic principles (in the legalistic sense), however, are insufficient for encompassing the entire content and all aspects of relations between socialist countries. They represent only a minimum on which relations between any states should be based and which do not yet reflect the fundamentally new features that distinguish interstate contacts of socialist countries.
The new relations conforming to the socialist system are based on wider and more embracive principles of proletarian internationalism. The operation of these principles, naturally, is not limited to interstate relations of socialist countries. Proletarian internationalism permeates the entire policy of these countries and of the Communist and Workers' Parties which head them. The peoples of these countries are discharging their internationalist duty to the working masses of the world above all by building socialist and communist society. In working to build communism, the CPSU and the Soviet people are carrying out Lenin's behest to do "the utmost possible in one country for the development, support and awakening of the revolution in all countries".^^1^^
The principles of proletarian internationalism, having become the basis of interstate relations _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 28, p. 292.
118 of socialist countries, have attained a new, higher level. No other principles are capable of fully exhausting the relations between states which are linked by the unity of the socialist social and political system, community of Marxist-Leninist ideology, common interests of struggle against world imperialism and unity in ultimate aim--- the building of socialism and communism.In arranging its relations with the capitalist states, the Soviet Union is striving to base them on the principles of peaceful coexistence. The Soviet state, by advocating peaceful coexistence of capitalist and socialist states, the maintenance of normal relations with all countries, the settlement of disputed international questions through negotiation, not war, at the same time stresses that the peaceful coexistence principle is inapplicable in relations between oppressors and oppressed, between colonialists and their victims.
The principles of proletarian internationalism express the interests of the working class, the class interests of the working people of the socialist countries. Proletarian internationalism implies close alliance, fraternal solidarity and mutual assistance of peoples free from exploitation in building socialist and communist society.
The growing might of world socialism and the deepening general crisis of capitalism arouse alarm among the ruling circles of the imperialist powers. It is hardly surprising that the ideologists of contemporary imperialism should constantly engage in drawing up strategic and tactical plans against the Soviet Union and other socialist countries, plans for saving the old world from doom. William Schlamm writes: "To defeat communism the West needs a strategy which would 119 constantly keep the Soviet Union under an ever increasing strain, including a serious threat of a military clash. . . . The only reasonable strategy of the West would be constantly to confront communism with the danger of war.''^^1^^ "Better dead than red" has become practically the chief slogan of the imperialist ideologists.
The ruling circles of the imperialist powers are so much on edge that their advocates are losing their mental equilibrium. In their exertions to save the sinking ship of world capitalism they are employing every means in the struggle against the socialist world. Relying on the system of aggressive blocs, they resort to all kinds of reckless ventures, which endanger the peace and security of nations, and they are escalating their aggressive actions and aggravating the international situation.
The aggressiveness of the United States, which has burgeoned in recent years, by no means testifies to any change in the relationship of world forces in favour of international imperialism. On the contrary, it reflects the mounting difficulties and contradictions which the world capitalist system is inevitably encountering.
Alongside aggressive actions and provocative attacks on socialist countries, alongside direct subversive activity, the international reactionary forces have launched widespread ideological subversion. Imperialism's apologists slander the relations between socialist countries, branding their alliance as the "Soviet empire'', and call for the ``liberation'' of the peoples of Eastern Europe. With the help of fabrications the enemies of _-_-_
~^^1^^ W. S. Sclilamm, Of,, cit., S 200, 201.
120 socialism are trying to create the impression that the victory of socialist revolution in the People's Democracies was an accident or even extraneously imposed, not a result of the law-governed development of contemporary society. History has ``zigzagged'', deviated from its normal course and, consequently, it has to be ``rectified''.Slander against relations between socialist countries is one of the chief techniques of imperialist propaganda, its main thesis being the myth of inequality in relations between members of the socialist community and the existence of ``dominating'' and ``enslaved'' peoples within it. The imperialists do not begrudge hundreds of millions of dollars for bolstering up this false thesis. Its circulation is promoted by "captive nations weeks'', the activity of Free Europe and other radio stations and the vast stream of slanderous literature---from sham scholarly " theoretical studies" to primitive pamphlets.
The extensive use of such ``arguments'' by the imperialists suggests that they regard the revival of nationalist tendencies in socialist countries as their most important and, perhaps, last trump in the struggle against socialism. They would like to turn nationalism into an instrument for weakening the international ties between peoples of the socialist states.
This is frankly admitted by imperialism's ideologists themselves. In an official government pamphlet prepared by the Central Intelligence Agency in co-operation with the State Department and Defence Department, the use of nationalism for weakening the world socialist system is described as a prime necessity, while nationalism in socialist countries is defined as the most 121 powerful existing political force (naturally, favouring capitalism). The authors of the pamphlet frankly reveal the close bond between nationalism and anti-communism. They declare that these two factors supplement each other.^^1^^
The imperialists expect to exploit the remnants of national discord which for centuries had been fanned by the ruling exploiting classes among the peoples of the present socialist countries. They stake on the point that bourgeois nationalism and chauvinism are among the strongest survivals in the minds of men. Nationalism disappears from the minds of people more slowly than other survivals of capitalism and produces more relapses. Accordingly, nationalism and chauvinism may present a danger even after the question of socialism prevailing in economic and social relations was settled in favour of socialism. If the struggle against nationalism and chauvinism is relaxed their survivals may be so reinforced as to become capable of endangering the socialist gains of one or another people.
The special emphasis laid on nationalism by the imperialists shows that their ideological arsenal has been vastly depleted. The course of the struggle and competition between the two socio-economic systems makes the inevitable doom of the old world increasingly apparent. As bait the blessings of "free enterprise and initiative" are becoming less and less attractive. On the admission of the Western press, "a sense of the inferiority of capitalism" is becoming general. _-_-_
~^^1^^ Comparisons of the United Slates and Soviet Economies. Prepared by the Central Intelligence Agency in Co-operation with the Department of State and Department of Defence, Washington, 1960, p. 16.
122 In one of his speeches Averell Harriman, prominent American businessman and politician, said that capitalism was a discredited word, a word which aroused horror. Moreover, the leaders of imperialism are aware that attempts to restore capitalism in socialist countries with the help of military force are fraught with mortal danger for the entire capitalist system. Hence the hopes pinned on nationalism, the attempts to induce relapses in socialist countries---with the help of persistent propaganda, of course.Notwithstanding its tenacity, nationalism undoubtedly is powerless in an open clash against internationalism. Insofar as it reflects the ideology of moribund classes, nationalism is doomed, just as other manifestations of ideology of the society which brought it into being. Nevertheless, the serious danger represented by the least display of nationalist tendencies must not be underestimated. Each such manifestation adds grist to the mill of communism's enemies. That is why struggle against nationalism and chauvinism is a prerequisite for the successful development of the world socialist system. The imperialists who dream of rekindling nationalist passions in the socialist countries, of undermining the chief mainstay of the fraternal community of socialist countries, are well aware that today the socialist community and its mounting economic might and political unity are the mainstay and prerequisite for the existence of each socialist country, of their advance in building a new society.
It is for this reason that international imperialism mainly attacks the unity and cohesion of the socialist countries. Laying stress on bourgeois nationalism in the struggle against the socialist 123 community, the imperialists are trying (not always without success) to play on differences in the socio-economic and cultural development levels of socialist countries. They stake mainly on non-proletarian sections of the population, among whom nationalist tendencies are particularly keen. It is no secret that in some socialist countries these sections make up the main mass of the population and the overwhelming majority of members of the ruling Communist and Workers' Parties.
In his book American Policy Toward Communist Eastern Europe. The Choices Ahead, J. Campbell, a former State Department official and now a senior research fellow of the American Council on Foreign Relations, examines in detail possible variants of US policy toward European socialist countries. One of the main variants proceeds from recognition of differences in development levels. The aim is to utilise these differences for severing European socialist countries from the Soviet Union and setting them at loggerheads. Ultimately, Campbell writes, the aim of such a policy would be to have East European countries "move towards a status like that of Yugoslavia, or possibly Finland and Austria".^^1^^ Walt Rostow, another prominent ideologist of US imperialism, also urges the Western countries to work for the "assertion of nationalism and national interests within the Communist bloc".^^2^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ J. Campbell, American Policy 'toward Communist Eastern Europe, '[he Choices Ahead, Minneapolis, 1905, pp. 99--100.
~^^2^^ W. Rostow, View \rorn the Seventh Floor, New York, 1964, p. 32.
124It is these motives that underlie the tactics and strategy of the Western powers vis-a-vis the countries of the socialist community. It goes without saying that under such circumstances any relapse into nationalism and great-power chauvinism, any deviation from the standards of socialist internationalism, play into the hands of international imperialism and cause rejoicing in the enemy camp. The ideologists of imperialism are trying to exploit all the factors which could serve as a source for reanimating and exacerbating nationalist passions.
The old system left a legacy of many knotty problems, and imperialism is trying to utilise them in the struggle against social progress, against the peoples which have escaped from the clutches of capitalism. The existence of such problems in different parts of the world, including the socialist system, demands of Marxism-- Leninism close attention to the national question. It is natural that some propositions put forward prior to the October Revolution and in the first Soviet years, have now become obsolete. We should bear in mind Lenin's proposition that "the categorical requirement of Marxist theory in investigating any social question is that it be examined within definite historical limits, and, if it refers to a particular country (e.g., the national programme for a given country), that account be taken of the specific features distinguishing that country from others in the same historical epoch".^^1^^ This advice should be remembered.
The formation and development of the world _-_-_
^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 20, pp. 400--01.
125 socialist system changed more than the international situation as a whole, it led to a radical change in the international positions of each country entering this system. The international positions of the USSR, the pioneer socialist country, grew stronger than ever. The Soviet Union finally emerged from international isolation and escaped the encirclement of capitalist states. This predetermined the complete and ultimate triumph of socialism and accelerated the transition to the full-scale building of communism in the USSR.The People's Democracies, in turn, with the help of the Soviet Union, withstood the onslaught of international imperialism and extended their gains in building a new life. Some of them have largely completed the building of socialism, others are about to complete it. The international conditions which arose as a result of the development of socialism as a world system greatly contributed to the unprecedented advance of the creative forces of the peoples in the socialist countries and their progress towards the great goal.
The efficacious use of the advantages resulting from the formation of the world socialist system is of tremendous significance for developing and improving the world socialist economic system, for deepening the international socialist division of labour, industrial specialisation and co-- operation, co-ordination of national economic plans and improvement of the world socialist market. Their use is of primary importance for the utmost strengthening of the international positions and defence potential of each socialist country and the entire community of socialist states.
126The advantages which arose from the birth of the world socialist system favourably affect the foreign-policy activity of the socialist states. They promote the successful pursuance of each state's foreign-policy programme, the solution of general and national problems in the interests of all socialist countries. This objectively dictates the joint co-ordinated actions of the socialist countries on basic contemporary problems. Such actions are a result not of some kind of `` pressure'', as claimed by the enemies of socialism, but of the unity of foreign-policy interests and coincidence of views on basic international problems.
In joint agreed actions a special part naturally devolves on the Soviet Union which possesses a mighty military-economic potential and is one of the leading world powers.
The vanguard role played by the Soviet Union is linked with the mission entrusted to it by history and which stems from its international solidarity with peoples who have taken the socialist road. In discharging its internationalist duty, the Soviet Union is rendering every assistance and support to other socialist countries in economic, political, military and cultural spheres. Together with other socialist countries, the Soviet Union stands guard over the great gains of world socialism, of peace and social progress.
That the CPSU and the Soviet Union act as a vanguard is recognised by other socialist countries, by the world communist movement. At their Meeting held in Moscow in 1960 the Communist and Workers' Parties unanimously stated: "The Communist Party of the Soviet Union has been and remains the universally recognised vanguard 127 of the world communist movement, being the most experienced and steeled contingent of the international communist movement. The experience which the CPSU has gained in the struggle for the victory of the working class, in socialist construction and in the full-scale construction of communism, is of fundamental significance for the whole of the world communist movement. The example of GPSU and its fraternal solidarity inspire all the Communist Parties in their struggle for peace and socialism, and represent the revolutionary principles of proletarian internationalism applied in practice.''^^1^^
``. .. The rallying of the socialist states in one camp,'' it was pointed out in the statement of the 1960 Meeting, "and the growing unity and steadily increasing strength of this camp ensure complete victory for socialism within the entire system.''^^2^^
Lenin stressed that only the proletariat's international struggle against the bourgeoisie could preserve what it had won and open the road to a better future to the oppressed masses. While the unity of the proletariat of different countries is indispensable for the success of its struggle for freedom, it is no less necessary for the successful struggle of the peoples who have discarded the capitalist yoke, for preserving the revolutionary gains and achieving their ultimate goal of communism.
Socialist countries are successfully eliminating the objective causes of national estrangement and _-_-_
~^^1^^ The Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, p. 80.
~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 13.
128 national oppression both within individual states and in the entire socialist community. Here all the peoples arc actually equal, irrespective of whether they are big of small, far advanced on the road of socialism or at its initial stages. No state in the socialist camp can lay claim to any special rights with regard to another fraternal country. Relations between them rest on the immutable foundation of fraternal alliance and mutual assistance. The experience of every socialist country is becoming the possession of all, its achievements strengthen the entire socialist camp. That is why the essence of socialist international relations is mutual care, mutual assistance in all economic, political and cultural spheres.Each socialist country is making its contribution to the development of the community of the fraternal peoples and states. Naturally, his contribution depends on the economic development level, the socio-economic changes, the role each country plays in the socialist system and in the world. Genuine equality in the family of socialist states is determined by the very nature of their system and the principles of proletarian internationalism.
Such an approach to equality is dictated by Lenin's injunction not to forget the elementary duty of every democrat to fight for the recognition of the full and unqualified equality of nations.
The role of a vanguard played by the Soviet Union, by the CPSU in the world socialist system, far from infringing the rights of other fraternal countries, far from violating the principle of equality among states of the socialist community, imposes on the USSR special duties, special responsibility for the destinies of all the fraternal __PRINTERS_P_129_COMMENT__ 9---500 129 countries, for the destinies and progress of the entire socialist system and all mankind.
The entire experience of co-operation among socialist countries since the inception of the world socialist system shows that socialism does bring the nations genuine state independence. The economic mutual assistance of socialist states and Soviet help to other socialist countries do not infringe upon the national interests of the latter but, on the contrary, consolidate their economic and political independence. Cohesion of the socialist countries, their fraternal co-operation and mutual assistance based on the principle of proletarian internationalism ensure the general advance of the socialist economy, make it possible to eliminate the economic and cultural inequality inherited from the past.
The relations between socialist countries are a decisive factor in the advance of their peoples to socialism and communism. Socialist international relations help both the joint effort to build socialism and communism and the international struggle to promote the building of socialism and communism.
The socialist foreign-policy aims are to secure, by joint effort, favourable international conditions for the building of socialism and communism; to consolidate the unity and cohesion of the socialist countries, friendship and fraternity between them; to support the national liberation movement and co-operate in every way with the young developing states; consistently to uphold the principle of peaceful coexistence of states with differing social systems; vigorously to rebuff the aggressive forces of imperialism and to save mankind from another world war.
130These aims emanate from the nature of the socialist system and radically differ from bourgeois loreign-policy aims; moreover, they afford much wider scope for the activity of socialist countries in foreign policy than those which exist in the capitalist part of the world. First, socialist foreign policy encompasses a wide and diverse range of questions pertaining to all facets of relations among states and peoples. Second---and this is exceptionally important---besides government agencies, a very active part in the pursuance of socialist foreign policy is taken by political and mass organisations of the working people, by the people themselves.
International relations in the socialist community are relations between peoples in the full sense of the term. They reflect the basic interests of all peoples, they are a manifestation of truly equal relations and they help to eliminate obstacles and difficulties to the further rapprochement of the socialist nations and to their advance to the great common goal.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 2. Socialist Internationalism as a MotiveThe relations of friendship and mutual assistance which arose during the joint effort of the USSR and the People's Democracies in building socialism and communism make up the qualitatively new content which proletarian internationalism acquired in the world socialist system. It is no longer a matter of moral and political mutual assistance, of proletarian solidarity of the workers of all countries, but of all-round mutual support and assistance of free and sovereign peoples in building the new life, in raising the economy of __PRINTERS_P_131_COMMENT__ 9* 131 backward countries to the level of the industrially developed states, in the eiiort to extend the revolutionary gains and defend them from encroachments of both international and internal reactionaries.
Consequently, today the concept of proletarian internationalism has become immeasurably richer and broader. History has shown that socialist internationalism best of all contributes to combining effort for the economic and political development of each country with the common effort to strengthen fraternal co-operation and mutual assistance of socialist states.
Today, the socialist states have entered a period when their economic co-operation is rising to a new, higher level, largely because such lorms of co-operation and mutual assistance as co-- ordination of national economic plans, the international socialist division of labour, industrial co-operation and specialisation are becoming the chief forms of economic co-operation and increasingly represent the requisites for the development of socialist integration.
The peoples of the Soviet Union are implementing a sweeping programme of building the material and technical basis of communism. Most of the People's Democracies stand at the threshold of completing the construction of socialism and the gradual transition to building communism. Close co-ordination of national economic plans, including long-term programmes, provides a tangible foundation for concerted action in socialist and communist construction and for further successes. The time is not too distant when a single socialist world economy regulated by a common plan will be created.
132The development of close economic co-- operation is increasingly strengthening fraternal relations among the socialist countries in political, cultural and military spheres. All forms and methods of intercourse among socialist states will be further improved.
The political relations existing between socialist countries are an embodiment of the new diplomacy conceived by socialism. It differs essentially from the diplomacy of the bourgeois world and reflects the direct, candid and honest fraternal relations between states of a new type.
The characteristic features of the politics and diplomacy of the socialist community are constant concern for the consolidation of economic, political, military and cultural relations, business-like and frank discussion of pertinent problems, common striving for just solution of all problems in the interest of encouraging fraternal ties, the rendering of constant and effective assistance to each other internationally, and co-ordination of a fundamental line on major foreign-policy problems.
Faced with the growing forces of world socialism, the defenders of capitalism resort to lies, slander and deception, the favourite methods of bourgeois diplomacy, and explore ways for uniting the forces of the old world under the banner of anti-communism. There is reason why so much is written in the West about the need for co-- ordinating the policy of the capitalist countries. Konrad Adenauer in an article contributed to the American journal Foreign Affairs wrote that "it is necessary for Europe to create a strictly co-ordinated policy with regard to vital problems, and especially in foreign policy''. Such is the main idea 133 of a plan for creating an alliance of European capitalist states to strengthen political co-- operation.
It must be noted that the Western powers do succeed to some extent in ``co-ordinating'' their international actions. Despite the sharp inter-- imperialist contradictions they at times find a common language, especially with regard to hostile actions against the USSR and other socialist states. They act more or less in concert, for example, in inventing new pretexts for dragging out a solution of the disarmament problem or prohibition of all tests and use of nuclear weapons, in resisting the elimination of the remnants of the Second World War, in fighting against the national liberation movement and jointly trying to implant neo-colonialism in young Afro-Asian states.
It is such common action, the allocation of roles in the struggle against the forces of socialism, national liberation, democracy and peace, that imperialist leaders have in mind when they speak of a "co-ordinated policy''. Anti-communism underlies the ``common'' policy of the imperialist powers. Today, all enemies of social progress are united under the banner of anti-communism: the financial oligarchy and the military, fascists and reactionary clericals, colonialists and landowners, all ideological and political accomplices of imperialist reaction.
Thus, ``unity'' in the Western world is a kind of union of the doomed in the struggle against the new, socialist world for the prevention of mankind's progressive development. It is, moreover, a union rent by internal strife. It is based on infringing the sovereignty and suppressing the 134 independence of small and medium capitalist states in carrying out the aggressive policy of the imperialist powers, the United States first and foremost. That is why this ``unity'' cannot be strong and enduring.
Unity of the socialist countries, however, fully accords with the interests of their peoples, the interests of peace and mankind's social progress. It is based on their socio-economic, political and ideological community, which creates an objective foundation for firm and truly fraternal relations. This unity, in turn, gives rise to a unity of the main foreign-policy aims based on socialist internationalism within the community and on peaceful coexistence with the capitalist states.
Proletarian internationalism is the ideology and policy of the international solidarity of the working people of all countries. It defines the nature and content of relations between states of the same class type in which the people headed by the working class are in power, and the attitude of the working people of other countries to the existing socialist states.
Peaceful coexistence can operate only in relations between states of the two opposing socioeconomic systems while the social and political problems now dividing mankind have to find their solution through internal development in the capitalist world.
Proletarian internationalism implies support to the policy of peaceful coexistence as a policy meeting the interests of the working people of all countries. The Soviet Union and other socialist countries regard peaceful coexistence of states with differing social systems as a form of the class struggle between socialism and capitalism, 135 and at the same time consistently advocate the maintenance of normal peaceful relations with capitalist countries. The policy of peaceful coexistence reflects the vital interest of socialist states in preserving peace for constructive labour, their desire to save mankind from a nuclear holocaust. It is a manifestation of the humanism of socialist foreign policy, the basis for the joint coordinated international actions of the USSR and other socialist countries.
Socialist internationalism is the essence of the tremendous diversity ot forms and methods of relations between the fraternal countries, including the nature of their diplomatic ties. Socialist diplomacy, a major means of implementing foreign policy, serves to sterngthen truly equal and fraternal relations between the USSR and other socialist states. It is one of the constantly operating factors in the development of the socialist community.
The diplomacy of all members of the socialist community has common foundations and principles. Each of them implements a foreign-policy programme resting on the same Leninist principles as the foreign policy of the others. It is this meaning that is invested in the concept " socialist diplomacy'', which above all incorporates the common features that stem from the principles of socialism's foreign policy and comprises the basis of the diplomacy of each socialist country.
Quite a few different definitions of diplomacy are given in foreign and Soviet literature.^^1^^ _-_-_
^^1^^ "Diplomacy is the management of international relations by negotiation; the method by which these relations __NOTE__ Footnote cont. on page 137. 136 Today, however, it is not enough to confine oneself to a definition of diplomacy in general. Such an approach was to some extent justified in the past when the diplomacy of the old world dominated international relations in the main.
At present it is more correct to approach in a differentiated way an analysis of diplomatic practices of states belonging to different socio-- economic systems. Moreover, the diplomacy of young developing countries, which has many original and specific features, is also an essential factor today.
Socialist diplomacy represents the sum total of ways and means of implementing the aims and tasks of the foreign policy of socialist states with _-_-_ __NOTE__ Footnote cont. from page 136. are adjusted and managed by ambassadors and envoys.'' This definition given by the Oxford English dictionary is quoted by Harold Nicholson in his Diplomacy (London, 1950, p. 15).
The definitions of diplomacy given in the Large Soviet Encyclopedia and in the Diplomatic Dictionary (second edition) are current in Soviet literature. They regard diplomacy as a strikingly pronounced class phenomenon of the political life of a state. "Diplomacy. . . is the activity of state agencies for foreign relations in representing the state and in peacefully defending its rights and interests abroad for achieving the foreign-policy aims of the class dominating the state. ... In the narrow sense diplomacy denotes the art of conducting negotiations and concluding treaties between states" (Large Soviet Encyclopedia, Vol. 14, 2nd Russian edition, p. 405). ''. . . Diplomacy is the activity of foreign-relations agencies and civil servants in representing a state in foreign affairs; in realising through negotiation and other peaceful means the aims and tasks of its foreign policy determined by the interests of the ruling class; in defending in a peaceful way its rights and interests abroad.'' (V. A. Zorin, Osnavy ( liplomtiticlu'skoi sluzhby (Basic Principles of the Diplomatic Service). Publishing House of the Institute of International Relations, 19(>4, pp. 14--15).
137 regard to the socialist countries themselves, to developing states, and also in interstate relations of socialism and capitalism.Partisanship and guidance by the Communist and Workers' Parties is a distinction of socialist foreign policy and diplomacy. Lenin attached great significance to the collective discussion and settlement of questions of foreign policy and diplomacy, always underlining the leading, guiding role of the Party and its Central Committee in pursuing the Soviet state's foreign policy and in the activities of Soviet diplomacy.
Party leadership of foreign policy and the combining in this activity of state and Party guidance signify first of all collective discussion and solution by the principal Party bodies of all fundamental questions of policy and diplomacy, and the carrying out of foreign-policy actions along state lines through the government and its special departments which have the requisite powers and personnel.
From this it does not follow that all socialist countries have one and the same foreign policy and that the diplomatic practices of one country in no way differ from those of others. Such a notion of foreign policy and diplomacy of the socialist countries is absurd. It is spread by reactionary bourgeois propaganda and is designed to belittle the steadily increasing role of the diplomacy of each socialist country in international affairs and to sow discord between the peoples of the socialist countries.
We often also use the term "bourgeois diplomacy'', but no one can assert that all capitalist countries---from the United States to Liechtenstein--- follow one and the same diplomatic line, that the 138 diplomacy and foreign policy of these countries are identical. The foreign policy of France, for example, has in recent years diverged in many respects from that of the United States, Britain and the FRG. Denmark does not and, moreover, cannot apply the same foreign policy as the United States. The policy of Finland in many respects differs from the course pursued in foreign affairs by other capitalist states. Such are the realities, although in all these countries the ruling classes naturally apply a foreign policy and diplomacy which correspond to the nature of the incumbent regime.
In assessing the policy and diplomacy of a country we proceed from Lenin's statement that politics is the basic course of a state, a definition of the forms, tasks and content of the state's activities which, in turn, depend on the socio-economic system of the given country.
The existence of a common basis for foreign policy and diplomacy in the world socialist system, far from diminishing the independent role of the diplomacy and foreign policv of each socialist country, on the contrary, helps to strengthen the positions of all these states in foreign affairs and raises the efficacy of their actions.
Speaking of the diplomacy of a socialist country, we must not confine ourselves to statements which give only a general idea of socialist diplomacy. The diplomacy of each socialist state is action in foreign affairs taken along the lines of co-ordinated activities of the countries in the community for the purpose of solving general problems (consolidation of peace, disarmament, prohibition of the use and manufacture of nuclear weapons, European security, final abolition of 139 colonialism, etc.) and also action designed to settle specific questions of foreign policy facing the given country or group of countries.
``Our opponents and even some of our wellwishers,'' writes Gyula Kallai, Hungarian political leader, "ask: is there an independent Hungarian foreign policy?
``Yes, there is. The fact that in international affairs we take a common stand with the most progressive forces, the countries of the world Socialist system, in no way detracts from the independence of our foreign policy. On the contrary, it is independent and national because the world Socialist system, apart from serving the general interests of peace and progress, also serves Hungary's specific interests. This makes our independence firm and reliable. Although ours is a small country, we enjoy genuine international prestige and our voice in world affairs is heeded for the first time in history.''^^1^^
National foreign-policy distinctions depend on the specific features in the development and the tasks facing each fraternal country. They are dictated by many historically-shaped political, economic and geographical factors. Here there must be no stereotype, no classification according to a priori schemes. Relations between fraternal countries and their development are an intricate and many-sided process, they require close attention and a differentiated analysis and appraisal.
That relations between socialist countries are determined by socialist internationalism, far from weakening, enhances the operation of the general democratic principles of international law, like _-_-_
^^1^^ International A[fnirs, No. 10, Moscow. I9(>4. p. /JO.
140 equality, respect for independence and sovereignty, non-interference in internal affairs, and so on. It is also important to note that within the socialist community political, economic and cultural ties between countries are not stereotyped, they cannot develop identically. Many factors play a part, including the level of economic and cultural development, traditions in relations between countries, and distinctions in ties with neighbours.Let us take as an example the relations between socialist countries formalised by treaties. The European socialist states are bound by bilateral treaties of friendship, co-operation and mutual assistance. Moreover, in 1955 they concluded a defence alliance, the Warsaw Treaty. This is explained by their special interest in preventing aggression of the West German militarists and revanchists and in safeguarding European security. On the other hand, not all European socialist countries are in a military and political alliance with Asian People's Democracies. The Soviet Union is the exception here. Similarly, the socialist countries which now have the most favourable conditions for co-ordinating plans and industrial co-operation are members of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance.
Socialist diplomacy acts on the principle that the unity of socialist countries is ensured only through the strengthening of their sovereignty and equality. The very nature of the interstate relations and the laws governing the economic and political development of socialist countries are incompatible with diplomatic actions that infringe upon the interests of other states and peoples, with diktat and blackmail, hypocrisy and lies---methods inherent in the diplomatic practices 141 of Western countries and engendered by the exploiting system, the class nature of the capitalist states.
What are the main lorms and methods of the diplomacy of socialist countries in relations with one another?
At first glance socialist states employ the traditional forms of ties inherent in classical diplomacy. Indeed, such diplomatic practices as international conferences, diplomatic correspondence, the preparation and conclusion of international treaties and agreements, diplomatic missions and their activities, participation in the work of international organisations and political alliances, are also widely applied in relations among states of the socialist community. But they radically differ from the same forms when they are employed by bourgeois diplomacy.
Let us take the main method of diplomatic work---negotiation. A characteristic feature of the method of negotiation in the capitalist world is the desire of the imperialist powers to utilise the whole arsenal of diplomatic methods of the exploiting society, based on the strength of some countries and the weakness of others, namely, diktat, arm twisting, secret compacts, deception of public opinion.
It is characteristic that among European politicians the most zealous votaries of an alliance with the United States as the strongest imperialist power constantly claim that nowadays such concepts as sovereignty and national independence are an anachronism. Paul-Henri Spaak, a noted leader of West European diplomacy, writes: "What I wish to condemn is an idea which is untenable in the twentieth century---the idea 142 that individual peoples, no matter how strong, can solve by their own efforts alone the political, military and economic problems they encounter.''^^1^^ Spaak makes short shrift of the sovereignty of states, branding as ``nationalism'' any manifestation of a policy which goes beyond the bounds of the "Atlantic Alliance''.
This thesis is championed strongly by the ideologists of American imperialism. ".. . An international system based on unlimited national sovereignty has become an intolerably dangerous anachronism (my italics---Sh.S.) in the nuclear age,'' so writes J. William Fulbright, chairman of the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, in his book Prospects for the West, "not only for small nations, but for great nations as well, indeed especially for great nations. ... If we are to survive under these conditions the nation-state can no longer serve as the ultimate unit of law and human association.''^^2^^
It is not difficult to divine the meaning and purpose of such "theoretical discoveries''. They are designated to justify Washington's diktat in the Western world, the plans for introducing American supremacy in the world under the signboard of "world order''.
``World order'', in the lexicon of American ruling circles, implies the unlimited diktat of the United States. Self-determination, equality, national independence and state sovereignty were long ago proclaimed "old-fashioned nationalism'', while political leaders who champion these principles are considered "potential enemies of the _-_-_
~^^1^^ Foreign Affairs, January 1905, p. 200.
~^^2^^ J. W. Fulbright, Prospects [or the West, Cambridge, Mass., 19G3, pp. 42--43.
143 free world''. "Men must learn.'' Walt Rostow, former chairman of the State Department Policy Planning Council, writes, "that at this period of history, simple, old-fashioned nationalism is a peculiarly unsatisfactory basis for solving problems in a highly interdependent world. . .. Simple, old-fashioned nationalism is potentially disruptive.''^^1^^ ``Interdependence'', in fact, signifies making all Western countries dependent on the United States. These ``theoretical'' precepts determine the essence of Washington's diplomacy.In the world socialist system the settling of questions through negotiation objectively becomes the only method. The use of force, threats, pressure and the like run counter to the spirit of socialist politics and diplomacy. Socialist diplomacy can discharge its mission only if pursued in conditions of full equality and the striving of fraternal countries to settle all questions in the interest of strengthening the world socialist community.
The activities of diplomatic missions of fraternal countries in socialist states have their specific features. The functions of diplomatic missions have been considerably extended, the forms and methods of their work have become more diversified and the range of questions they daily handle has been broadened. This is natural because relations between socialist countries consist both of interstate ties, and of relations between fraternal Parties.
The interstate and inter-Party relations of fraternal countries and Parties are closely intertwined. The ideology and practical activities of the ruling Communist and Workers' Parties _-_-_
~^^1^^ The Christian Science Monitor, September 21, 1965, p. 7.
144 underlie the entire foreign policy of socialist states. This is one of the decisive factors ensuring the community of basic interests of membres of the world socialist system.It does not follow, however, that interstate and inter-Party relations in the world socialist system are identical. These are different spheres, although the close and unbreakable connection between them offers socialist international relations inestimable advantages.
Lenin pointed out that "the working people must not forget that capitalism has divided nations into a small number of oppressor Great-- Power (imperialist), sovereign and privileged nations, and an overwhelming majority of oppressed, dependent and semi-dependent, non-sovereign nations. ... For centuries the indignation and distrust of the non-sovereign and dependent nations towards the dominant and oppressor nations have been accumulating.. .''.^^1^^
The grave legacy of the past is being successfully eliminated in the joint struggle of the peoples for socialism. This is not a swift process, however. It would be wrong to claim that the survivals of the past have been fully eliminated in relations between socialist peoples, and that they have been fully brought up in the spirit of internationalism. Lenin pointed out: "We want a voluntary union of nations---a union which precludes any coercion of one nation by another---a union founded on complete confidence, on a clear recognition of brotherly unity, on absolutey voluntary consent. Such a union cannot be effected at one stroke; we have to work towards it with the greatest patience _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 30, p. 293.
__PRINTERS_P_145_COMMENT__ 10--500 145 and circumspection, so as not to spoil matters and not to arouse distrust, and so that the distrust inherited from centuries of landowner and capitalist oppression, centuries of private property and the enmity caused by its divisions and redivisions may have a chance to wear off.''^^1^^National mistrust is worn off in the course of joint struggle for upholding the great revolutionary gains, in joint actions against international imperialist reaction, the joint effort to build socialism and communism. Only joint struggle shows the working people the great need for close union of all socialist countries---economic, political and military---as a guarantee of their independence. The systematic education of the working people in the spirit of proletarian internationalism is of great significance.
In its definition of the general Hne of the Communist Party of the ooviet Union, the building of communist society, the Programme of the CPSU notes the special importance of educating the working people in the spirit of internationalism, socialist partriotism and intolerance of all manifestations of nationalism and chauvinism.
Under socialism the operation of objective laws of social development brings about a new relationship between two tendencies: to unite countries and peoples, their striving to draw closer together and to maintain constant ties, on the one hand and to preserve independence and sovereignty, on the other. While in bourgeois society these tendencies are irreconcilable, under _-_-_
^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 30, p. 293.
146 socialism they are organically combined; it is therefore possible to eliminate both nationalism and cosmopolitanism, and foster socialist patriotism and proletarian internationalism.Nationalism and cosmopolitanism are manifestations of bourgeois ideology and always serve the interests of the exploiting classes, while patriotism and internationalism are their antitheses in class essence and they meet the interests of the proletariat and of socialism.
Patriotism and internationalism are historical categories. They have appeared at different times and in different socio-economic conditions. Patriotism originated in hoary antiquity; in the course of history its class content and forms have changed. Socialist patriotism is the supreme manifestation of patriotism.
Internationalism arose only recently, in the bourgeois epoch, together with the ideology of the working class, Marxism, when the proletariat became aware that it was an international force opposed to the international force of capitalism. It has also passed a number of stages, each one having its distinctions emanating from the development level of the world revolutionary and working-class movement.
After the formation of the world socialist system the concept of proletarian internationalism began to include not only the international solidarity of workers of various countries, but also the content, nature and trend of relations between states of the socialist community. This, naturally, also told on the driving forces of socialist society. Driving forces like collective labour based on socialist property, moral and political unity and friendship of socialist nations, operate in every __PRINTERS_P_147_COMMENT__ 10* 147 socialist country. They promote the constant strengthening and expansion of relations of comradely mutual assistance and co-operation, the unity and solidarity of the working people of all socialist nations in an effort to solve major problems facing each socialist country and all of them. Friendship of socialist nations and collective work in conditions of the international socialist division of labour are factors that operate on the scale of the entire world socialist system, facilitating the further strengthening of the unity, mutual assistance and fraternal co-operation of the peoples and states of the socialist community.
The same applies to socialist patriotism. In the world socialist system it is inseparable from socialist internationalism; they determine and supplement each other. Socialist patriotism is the direct antithesis of nationalism and chauvinism. Patriotism is a socially historical, class phenomenon. This, Lenin pointed out, "is one of the most deeply ingrained sentiments, inculcated by the existence of separate fatherlands for hundreds and thousands of years".^^1^^ The social content of patriotism has changed with the change in historical conditions. When nations were shaped and national states created, the bourgeoisie utilised patriotism in the struggle against feudalism and feudal fragmentation, for uniting nationalities into modern nations. At that time it was subordinated to the class needs of incipient capitalism, to the selfish interests of the exploiting classes. The young bourgeoisie exploited the popular patriotic sentiments in the struggle against feudalism and for the establishment of its rule.
_-_-_~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 28, p. 187.
148The class nature of bourgeois ``patriotism'' became very clear in the imperialist epoch when the ruling circles of imperialist states, behind the cover of false statements about love for one's country, utilised patriotism for enslaving and oppressing peoples of other countries, for exonerating imperialist piracy. The mind of the masses was poisoned by slogans like "my country right or wrong'', intended to justify the enslavement of other peoples.
Even prior to the First World War Lenin exposed the hypocrisy of the imperialist bourgeoisie's ``patriotism''. He laid bare the true essence of the bourgeois slogan of "defence of the fatherland'', demonstrating how the ruling classes utilised national prejudices to divert the proletarian masses from accomplishing their class tasks and to force them to serve the interests of the exploiters. Lenin debunked the two ``extreme'' positions which existed in the Social-Democratic movement at the time: those who defended the fatherland, on the one hand, and those who ignored the national factor, on the other.
Lenin examined defence of the fatherland from the viewpoint of the class struggle and the class interests of the proletariat. "The fatherland, i. e., the given political, cultural and social environment,'' Lenin pointed out, "is a most powerful factor in the class struggle of the proletariat.. . The proletariat cannot be indifferent to the political, social and cultural conditions of its struggle; consequently it cannot be indifferent to the destinies of its country. But the destinies of the country interest it only to the extent that they affect its class struggle, and not in virtue of some bourgeois 149 `patriotism', quite indecent on the lips of a SocialDemocrat.''^^1^^
The intrinsic patriotism of the working class and its political vanguard is fully subordinate to the interests of the revolutionary liberation of the working people from the oppression of capital, of winning power by the proletariat and establishing a new, socialist system, in other words, socialist patriotism. In Russia, socialist patriotism developed after the October Revolution. For the first time in history, the working masses created their own truly socialist fatherland, love for which merged with devotion to the socialist system. This provided the basis for the development of Soviet patriotism which became one of the driving forces of socialist society.
Consequently, with the victory of the proletariat and the establishment of the dictatorship of the working class, patriotism becomes qualitatively different from the patriotism characteristic of the proletariat in the period of capitalism's rule. Patriotism which has emerged in the new, socialist system has facilitated not merely the unprecedented labour uplift in building the new society, and acceleration of the Soviet Union's economic and cultural development. It has been an important factor, too, in welding together the different nations into one multinational family of the peoples of the Soviet Union, one of the primary elements in Soviet society's moral and political unity.
In the years of gravest danger for the USSR, during foreign military intervention, civil war and especially the Great Patriotic War, the life-- _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 15, pp. 194, 195.
150 giving force of Soviet patriotism was displayed to the full. But it was no less clear that this patriotism is of a profoundly international nature. Not only the destiny of the Soviet state, not only the future of the great revolutionary gains of the Soviet people, but also the destinies of many peoples and the future of socialism in general were decided in the war against nazi Germany.Soviet patriotism represents the Soviet people's boundless love for, and devotion to, their Homeland, to the cause of socialism and communism. Engendering mass heroism at the front and in the rear, it formed the basis of unexampled bravery and courage which made possible the great victory over the chief strike force of world imperialism, nazi Germany. Such patriotism has nothing in common with parochialism and national prejudice. During the Great Patriotic War the Soviet people, defending their Homeland, thereby also discharged their internationalist duty to the working peoples of other countries enslaved by the nazis and also to the German people and the peoples of the countries belonging to the anti-Hitler coalition, to mankind. The great liberation mission performed by the Soviet Armed Forces was the supreme manifestation of the Soviet people's internationalism.
Love for the Socialist Homeland and sentiments of fraternal solidarity with the working people of other countries, characteristic of Soviet patriotism from the very beginning, deepened as the world socialist system grew. In the new conditions socialist patriotism cannot be confined to the bounds of one country. Now that the world community of socialist countries exists, the patriotism of their peoples increasingly draws closer to socialist 151 internationalism and depends on the attitude of the members of society both to their own country and to the entire socialist community.
The concept of patriotism is thus enriched with new content. "In fostering the Soviet people's love of their country,'' it is pointed out in the Programme of the CPSU, "the Party maintains that with the emergence of the world socialist system the patriotism of the members of socialist society is expressed in devotion and loyalty to their own country and to the entire community of socialist countries. Socialist patriotism and socialist internationalism necessarily imply proletarian solidarity with the working class and the working people of all countries.''^^1^^
Patriotism in respect of the entire community of socialist states increasingly spreads among members of socialist society whatever country they live in. The achievements of every socialist country evoke pride, just as the reverses and difficulties are taken to heart. The Soviet people rejoice in the labour accomplishments of the peoples of the German Democratic Republic, Czechoslovakia, Poland and other socialist countries. They are always ready to come to their aid if their socialist gains are threatened. Unhesitatingly Soviet people shed their blood in the struggle against the Hungarian counter-revolution which in 1956 let loose brutal terror, when the imperialists tried to abolish socialism in Hungary.
In their turn, the peoples of other socialist states consider each victory of the Soviet people in communist construction as one more contribution to the common cause. Indicative in this respect is _-_-_
^^1^^ Programme of the CPSU, p. 101.
152 the patriotic uplift aroused in all socialist countries by the great achievements of Soviet science and technology in exploring outer space, which is a success for the entire socialist community.The working people of other socialist countries enthusiastically acclaim the labour achievements of the Soviet people, their economic plans. Thus, Y. Tsedenbal, First Secretary of the Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party, addressing the 23rd Congress of the CPSU, said about the Directives of the Soviet Union's new five-year plan: "The Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party and the Mongolian people sincerely take as much pride in the successes of their loyal friend, the heroic Soviet people, as they do in their own successes, as in the successes of all progressive forces of the world, because the historic gains of the Soviet Union decisively augment the might of world socialism and weaken the positions of international imperialism.''^^1^^
Extension of the concept of socialist patriotism is natural in that it stems from life's developments, particularly the revolutionary changes effected in the socialist countries and the economic, political and cultural rapprochement of socialist nations. The mounting political and economic consolidation of socialist countries is an objective reality which underlies the world socialist system's stability and inviolability.
Like every historical process, however, it is prolonged and intricate. History shows that such processes cannot be accelerated artificially. That can bring the opposite results. Disregard of _-_-_
~^^1^^ Pravda, April 1966.
153 national specific features, of real differences between nations, attempts to introduce unification by decree can only fan national prejudices.National state formations, like national differences, will exist for a long time to come, and national states will serve as an instrument of building communist society. In this sphere, too, the imposing of one country's will on another is impossible.
Extension of the concept of socialist patriotism has become possible owing to the establishment of the same socio-economic formation in the Soviet Union and other socialist countries, and the emergence, on this basis, of interstate relations of fraternal friendship and mutual assistance. A certain share in the accomplishments of each country is contributed by the collective labour of the peoples of other countries. The progress of one member state of the socialist community largely depends on the assistance and support of the peoples of other countries. It is these conditions that made possible the rapid economic advance of the People's Democracies in historically brief periods, for which many decades and possibly even centuries would have been needed under capitalism.
In the process of moulding the new man. understanding of national duty rises to understanding of the internationalist duty in the mind of socialist society's members. This process will be speeded up as the separate economies draw closer together and the world communist economy is created, as the material and spiritual aspects of socialist nations merge.
154 __ALPHA_LVL3__ 3. Community of Socialist CountriesThe history-making achievements of communist construction in the USSR, the victory of the socialist revolution in a number of European and Asian countries and the rise and consolidation of the world socialist system have ushered in a new stage in the joint struggle of these countries for socialism and communism. New possibilities and prospects for achieving the ultimate goal of communism have opened to all socialist states.
Today, the joint struggle of the peoples of the socialist states for communism is an objective historical law determined by the development level of the world socialist economic system. As socialist society advances towards communism, this law is increasingly in evidence.
The operation of capitalism's economic laws, which radically differ from the laws governing the development of socialism, determines the uneven, faltering development of capitalist countries, especially at the imperialist stage. The quest of the monopolies for ever bigger profits and the fierce competitive struggle of monopoly groups preclude harmonious development. Today some states spurt ahead, tomorrow others. Those who are in the lead persistently fight to preserve it, to extend their influence and subordinate other countries.
Under capitalism the contradictions between states are ``resolved'' only by subordinating some countries to others and this, of course, does not genuinely resolve them. On the contrary, it is a major cause of increasing struggle. Constant bitter rivalry, conflicts, the rise of militarism and the threat of world wars---such is the inevitable 155 consequence of the law of capitalism's uneven development. All this further exacerbates contradictions and ultimately weakens the world capitalist system as a whole.
Entirely different laws operate in the socialist system. The law of planned, proportional economic development fully precludes the anomalies inherent in the capitalist world. Its operation is displayed specifically in that erstwhile economicallybackward countries draw on the experience of other socialist states, on equal co-operation and fraternal mutual assistance, making up for lost time and bringing their economies up to the level of the advanced countries.
The possibility of evening out economic levels was first demonstrated in the course of socialist and communist construction in the USSR. This experience is of the greatest international significance. The successful elimination of the economic backwardness of socialist countries is, in effect, a continuation of the same process as the abolition of economic and cultural backwardness of the many nationalities in the Soviet Union.
In analysing the prospects of the People's Democracies one must consider the incredibly low level of productive forces most of them had under capitalism. Here are some examples. In a quarter of a century (from 1913 to 1938) Poland, far from making any headway economically, did not even regain in many respects the level that existed before the First World War. In 1938, for example, industrial output was 95 per cent of that in 1913. Steel production did not exceed 1.4 million tons, while in 1913 it was 1.7 million tons. The respective figures for pig iron were 900,000 156 tons and 1,100,000 tons and oil, 507,000 and 1,114,000 tons.
Even in Czechoslovakia, which had a comparatively advanced industry, the main branches developed at a slow pace during the interwar years. In Bulgaria the share of industry in the gross national product was less than one-third in 1938.
These data show that under capitalism the economy of the present People's Democracies would simply have languished, particularly since the Second World War inflicted tremendous losses.
The task facing the countries which embarked on the socialist path was not limited to eliminating the consequences of centuries-old economic backwardness and war devastation. In the course of socialist construction they had to efface the aftermath of uneven economic development by bringing up the economically backward areas of each country and the countries themselves to the level of advanced areas and states.
Socialism's intrinsic law of planned, proportional development began to operate on the scale of the entire socialist system. In the Soviet Union the operation of this law resulted in eliminating in a relatively brief period the backwardness of the Soviet Eastern Republics, most of which stood at the pre-capitalist stage prior to the October Revolution. While for the Soviet Union as a whole total industrial output (within present borders) increased 66 times between 1913 and 1966, it rose 101 times in Kazakhstan, 117 times in Kirghizia and 119 times in Armenia. The evening-out of the economic level of the Union Republics and their general advance enabled all Soviet peoples successfully to complete the building of socialism and __PARAGRAPH_PAUSE__ 157 Growth Rates of Industrial Output (per cent of previous years) 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1907 1968 1969 Member countries of CMEA . 110 109 109 107 108 109 103 109 108 107 USSR ........ 110 109 110 108 107 103 109 110 108 107 Member countries of CMEA excluding USSR . Bulgaria . 111 113 109 112 108 111 105 110 108 110 109 115 108 112 109 113 108 110 108 110 Hungary ...... 112 110 108 107 109 105 107 109 105 103 German Democratic Republic ........ 103 106 106 104 107 100 106 107 106 108 Mongolian People's Republic ........ 128 125 114 104 103 107 110 107 108 110 Poland ........ 111 110 108 105 109 109 107 108 109 109 Rumania ........ Czechoslovakia 116 112 116 109 114 106 112 99 114 104 113 108 112 107 114 107 112 106 111 105 [158] __PARAGRAPH_CONT__ simultaneously to undertake the full-scale building of communism.
The evening-out of the economic levels of fraternal socialist countries is a law of socialism and a process that is inseparably linked with the growth rates of industry.
The table on page 158 shows that growth rates of industrially less-developed countries are much higher than in the industrially developed. This is a characteristic feature of economic growth of socialist countries and determines the main trend in the process of evening-out economic levels.
These figures show that notwithstanding serious difficulties which arose at certain stages (for example, in 1961--1965),^^1^^ the main tendency, the relative evening-out of economic levels, was maintained and developed. At the same time, these data indicate that this is quite an intricate process which requires a whole historical epoch. It cannot be approached in a simplified way. Mutual assistance of fraternal countries and the system of their economic relations create objective conditions for bringing the less-developed countries up to the level of the industrially advanced. This system undoubtedly helps to step up the pace of this process, but this does not mean that the evening-out of levels is a single action or that it can be done in, say, live or ten years. It has to take place without upsetting a country's natural _-_-_
~^^1^^ During this period growth rales were reduced in industry, agriculture, the national income and the overall standard of living. In 1956--60 the average annual increase of gross industrial output in the socialist countries was 13.6 per cent (10.4 per cent in CMEA countries), while in 1961--65 it was 7.3 per cent (8.2 per cent in CMEA countries).
159 economic development or reducing the economic growth rates of one country or a group of countries. As all countries of the socialist community advance economically, the gap in their levels is being bridged at an accelerated pace. Should the rates decrease the bridging of the gap would slow down. Many other factors connected both with the internal problems of each country and with an improvement of major forms of economic cooperation among socialist states, are equally important.The economic development of all countries in the socialist community has assumed an industrial trend. Industrial output accounts on the average for about 75 per cent of their gross national product.
These achievements have been made possible by the advantages of the socialist system and the benefits each country enjoys in the world socialist economy. The forms of economic co-operation of socialist countries are increasingly improved, and they facilitate the gradual rapprochement of the peoples, the successful development of national economies and the world socialist economy as a whole. The process of political and economic consolidation is a decisive factor in making the entire world socialist system stable and immutable.
Mutual co-operation helps to accelerate growth rates of all countries, including the highly developed. The concern of each country for the interests of all is one of the cardinal manifestations of proletarian internationalism in socialist relations, which demand both good will, thoughtful analysis and sober account of the economic expediency of all measures taken.
For the socialist community to thrive the 160 economy of each member has to operate profitably in the broadest sense of the word. " Combining efforts to develop the national economy of each socialist country with the common effort to strengthen and extend economic co-operation and mutual assistance---such is the highroad for the further advance of the world socialist economy."^^1^^
But the rational use of internal resources is possible only with the broad mutual assistance of socialist countries, their all-round and constantly intensifying economic co-operation.
Industrial specialisation and co-operation are the highest form of the international socialist division of labour. They open up additional possibilities for accelerating economic growth rates both in the socialist system as a whole and in each of its members.
Prior to 1964, national economic plans of CMEA member countries were co-ordinated as follows: the Soviet Union and the other CMEA countries first drew up national economic plans, approved them and only then undertook to coordinate them. Naturally, thorough dovetailing of the long-term plans of the fraternal countries was not always achieved because the planning agencies of the respective countries, co-ordinating the approved plans, for understandable reasons could not introduce essential changes, although this was at times dictated by economic necessity. Under the changed procedure the USSR and the other CMEA countries hold preliminary bilateral consultations on draft long-term plans. The _-_-_
~^^1^^ Osnovniye printsipy mezhdunarodnogo sotsialistichcskogo razdeleniya truda (Basic Principles of the International Socialist Division of Labour) Ekonomika Publishers, 1964, p. 5.
__PRINTERS_P_161_COMMENT__ 11--500 161 national economic plans for 1966--1970 were formulated on the basis of initial projections. Ihese drafts were first coordinated and only then approved by the directing bodies of the fraternal countries.The constant improvement of the international socialist division of labour made it necessary to choose the major trends of industrial specialisation in each country of the socialist community. To ensure their general needs in the most efficient way it is important to determine what sectors and in what combination have to be developed in each country, what raw materials are to be used.
The economic aspect of individual socialist countries in the system of the international socialist division of labour already looms quite clearly. In Bulgaria, for example, primary significance attaches to branches of the engineeringindustry which produce equipment for the light and food industries, farm machinery and electrical equipment which use the country's non-ferrous metals, and also some sectors of the chemical industry. Alongside this, an important part in the economy, as before, will be played by the growing of fruit, grapes and early vegetables, and the processing of agricultural raw materials. In Czechoslovakia, priority is given to the heavy and power machinery, chemical industries and some branches of light industry. Engineering, particularly the production of chemical equipment, metal-working machine tools, ships, and precision tools and optical equipment have become the major specialisation sector of the German Democratic Republic. The chemical industry and consumer goods also occupy an important place in the economy of the GDR.
162Specialisation and co-operation enable each country not to disperse its forces but to concentrate efforts on sectors for the development of which it has the necessary conditions: raw materials, skilled workers and engineering and technical personnel, and production know-how.
The development and improvement of the international socialist division of labour and the most active participation of countries in it are a vital necessity and constitute a definite law. The international socialist division of labour promotes the solution of the basic tasks confronting each socialisl country and the world socialist system as a whole.
Proper use of the internal resources of each country, in combination with the advantages of the world socialist system, open up unlimited possibilities for solving all problems of socialist and communist construction. At the same time, this promotes the further drawing together of national economies and the evening-out of economic and cultural levels and stimulates the integration of the countries in the world socialist system.
Proletarian internationalism is a multifaceted and diversified phenomenon. It must not be reduced, for example, solely to economic assistance. By building communism, the Soviet people are blazing the trail for all mankind, testing in practice the correctness of this path and elaborating the forms and methods of building the future society. Since the laws of communist construction in the USSR and other socialist countries are basically the same (taking into account the historical and national specific features of each country), the advance ol all is essentially facilitated.
The experience accumulated by the Soviet 163 Union during socialist construction has played a tremendous part in creating a developed national economy and in building the first phase of communism in all the socialist countries. Thanks to Soviet know-how these states have been able swiftly to accomplish the main tasks of socialist construction---and do so much faster than the Soviet Union which had to cope with them singlehanded and without experience. That is not all. By building communism, the Soviet Union is substantially strengthening the economic potential and defensive capacity of the entire community, is erecting a high barrier against imperialist reaction and aggression. Never before in their entire history were these states so confident in their strength and in their future. The constantly growing economic and military potential of the socialist community fully guarantees their advance along the chosen path, the security of each socialist country against the reckless onslaughts of international imperialism.
The course of history made the Soviet Union the first country in which the new social system triumphed. The European and Asian countries which fell away from the capitalist system and took to the socialist path after the Second World War, stood at a somewhat different stage of development. That the Soviet Union is the first to undertake the building of communism fully meets the interests of all socialist states, the nature of their community and the relations established between them. Such development of world communism is quite natural. It were strange if, say, the Soviet Union, which earlier than others completed the building of socialism, would wait for 164 the evening-out of the general economic levels of the socialist countries and only then launch the building of communism.
Such an approach to the transition of socialist states to communism would be at odds with Marxism-Leninism and the international solidarity of the working people. It would run counter to the Leninist doctrine of socialist revolution. The consequences of such an approach could be quite negative both for the Soviet Union and for the entire international working class and communist movement.
This question is of general significance. The world socialist system expands through the falling away of new countries from capitalism, including economically-backward states. Heroic Cuba embarked on the socialist path in the 1960s. This process will take up an entire historical epoch. Have the existing socialist states a right "to wait" until the new socialist states, in whose economy traces of former backwardness are strongly felt, are raised economically and culturally to the level of the industrially developed socialist countries?
The building of communism in the USSR fully meets the interests of all socialist countries. Communist and Workers' Parties and the People's Democracies have taken the magnificent plans of communist construction in the Soviet Union as their own vital cause, as a prerequisite for the further advance of all socialist countries to their single goal.
The steady advance of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries towards communism meets the basic interests of the working people 165 of the world, the aspirations of all mankind. Today, it is clear more than ever before that as the might of the socialist system grows it increasingly helps accelerate the progressive development of mankind.
Substantial changes, determined by the change in the relationship of world forces in favour of socialism, are under way in all spheres of international relations. In the past it was difficult to imagine the liberation of the colonies without prolonged and bitter struggle. Prior to the Second World War, the numerous revolts of the enslaved peoples, like the Riff uprising in Morocco in the 1920s, were cruelly suppressed. In our days, too, we also witness colonial wars. But in contrast to the past, these wars as a rule end in the victory of the enslaved peoples. In a number of cases the colonialists have had to grant some form of independence so as to prevent open rebellion. The imperialists have grown ``wiser'' and will " withdraw from the colonies" just before being ejected by the people.
Thus, depending on the situation, the forms of imperialism's disintegration, abolition of the colonial system and transition of new peoples to the socialist path, may differ. The strength of the world socialist community is today such that it can affect the nature of these processes so as to ensure the success of the revolutionary changes of society through bloodless methods. In these conditions the humane content of socialism and communism is displayed ever more strikingly.
At the same time, the emergence of such possibilities creates new favourable requisites for accelerating revolutionary transformations 166 because it enlists into the social and national revolutions sections of the population of capitalist countries which, until now, refrained from participating in national liberation movements, fearing grave, bloody upheavals. In other words, the strengthening of the world socialist community and the consequent emergence of possibilities not only for the forcible, but also relatively peaceful accomplishment of the tasks of national liberation and social remaking of society, have greatly improved the prospects of the world revolution in a broad sense, have imparted a new, unprecedented scope to the struggle for the revolutionary transformation of human society.
The attempts of international imperialist reactionaries to stem or at least halt temporarily the powerful movement towards socialism and communism arc doomed to failure because they cannot arrest the objective course of history. Never bci'oie have there stood out in such bold relief the con I ours of future human society, whose prototype is the world socialist system---namely, a social, economic and political community of free and sovereign peoples and states following the road of socialism and communism.
[167] ~ [168] __NUMERIC_LVL1__ Part Two __ALPHA_LVL1__ MAIN STAGESIn the history of the world socialist system the period between 1950 and 1956 was extremely complex. It was pointed out earlier that the formation of the world socialist system was completed in the main at the end of the 1940s.
The period examined in this chapter coincides with the rise of some People's Democracies, whose initial development entailed overcoming- internal and external difficulties. These difficulties were above all caused by the policy of the imperialist powers, the United States first and foremost, their drive against the forces of socialism, national liberation, democracy and peace.
In the 1950s, the US imperialists, after sustaining a telling defeat in their attempts to block the road of democratic development in Central and Southeast Europe, exerted desperate efforts in the Far East to prevent the collapse of colonial regimes. US imperialism has always attached special significance to this area. As early as the dawn of its colonial expansion it staked a claim to exclusive rights in exploiting the wealth of the Far East. The very first war of the epoch of imperialism, the 1898 Spanish-American war 171 unleashed by Washington, laid bare the desire of the American monopolies to gain a foothold in the Pacific region, specifically in the Philippines, which particularly attracted New York and Boston businessmen because they are located on the direct approaches to China.
The "open door" doctrine, proclaimed in 1899 by US Secretary of State Hay vis-a-vis China, reaffirmed the far-reaching plans of American finance capital.
At the same time the United States long encouraged Japanese imperialism, hoping to utilise it as its ``watchdog'' in the Far East. These calculations determined Washington's stand both during the Russo-Japanese War of 1904--1905 and subsequently, in 1931, when it encouraged Japan to attack China.
The policy of encouraging the aggressor suffered a fiasco, as became obvious in 1941 when Japan launched war against the United States. Washington did not therefore succeed in carrying out its schemes with regard to the Far East. Even in the period of imperialism's undivided domination in this area, the American monopolies had to share power with other imperialist pirates. Subsequently, when the might of the ``old'' colonial powers which had exploited the Far East collapsed, the attempts of the United States to become their heir were likewise foiled. The popular struggle was the main factor which foredoomed the policy of imperialism, as the outcome of the Second World War in the Far East clearly revealed. The rise of People's Democracies in Asia---the Korean People's Democratic Republic, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the People's Republic of China---and the powerful 172 upsurge of the national liberation movement were major defeats sustained by imperialism.
Imperialist postwar aggression in the Far East was designed to stille the national liberation movement, to neutralise the revolutionising influence exerted by the world socialist system on Asian countries and to prevent the collapse of the colonial order.
Having failed in attempts to crush the Chinese revolution with the help of the Japanese military and the troops of Chiang Kai-shek, armed with American weapons, and also through direct intervention, the United States occupied China's ageold territory, the island of Taiwan (Formosa), in order to convert it into its "unsinkable aircraft carrier''.
In the mid-1950s the aggressive imperialist policy in Asia was extended by the United States launching war against the Korean People's Democratic Republic. Its aims were formulated in a report of the Office of Intelligence Research, US Department of State, prepared as early as the beginning of 1949: "To secure through a stable and friendly government in Korea a partial stabilisation of the Far East and to offset, by success in Korea, diplomatic reverses suffered elsewhere in Asia.''^^1^^
It will be recalled that the US imperialists who succeeded in masking their aggression under the ilag of the United Nations did not score the wanted success. The Korean people, headed by _-_-_
^^1^^ Documents and Materials Exposing the Instigators of the Civil War in Korea. Documents from the Archives of the Rhec Syngman Government, Pyongyang, 1950, p. 210.
173 their vanguard, the Workers' Party of Korea, together with Chinese volunteers, rose to the defence of their freedom and independence against the combined forces of South Korean reactionaries and the American interventionists. The war ended with the signing of an armistice agreement on July 27, 1953.In their just anti-imperialist liberation war the Korean people enjoyed the all-round material, military and moral support of the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China and other countries. The aggressive plans of American imperialism failed and the victory of the Korean people s just cause was secured thanks to powerful support for their struggle by all socialist states, as a result of the united, co-ordinated and determined actions of these states against the common enemy. The heroism of the Korean people, the unity and solidarity of the socialist countries in the struggle against American aggression during the war in Korea, in defence of the freedom and independence of the Korean People's Democratic Republic, were the main causes which compelled the United States to abandon its interventionist plans in the Far East at that time.
As for the development of the world socialist system the period between 1950 and 1956 was marked not only by the signal economic and political achievements of the socialist countries, but also by the joint struggle of their peoples to preserve and consolidate the independence of each of them. They had to stamp out the hotbeds of war which, owing to imperialism's aggressive policy, existed in the world socialist system. This laid its imprint on all events in the world socialist system.
174A large part was played by joint diplomatic actions undertaken by the Soviet Union and other socialist countries in defence of the Korean People's Democratic Republic, their exposure of the aggressive policy of the United States and other Western powers both in and outside the United Nations. In the very first days of the military intervention by the United States in Korea, the Soviet Government declared that the "US Government has violated the peace and turned from the policy of preparing aggression to direct acts of aggression simultaneously in a number of Asian countries".^^1^^ The Soviet Government exposed the real objectives of American aggression, pointing out that in the open war against the Korean people US imperialism aimed "to deprive Korea of national independence, to prevent the establishment of single democratic Korean state and to implant by force an antipopular regime which would enable the US ruling circles to convert her into their colony and utilise Korean territory as a bridgehead in the Far East".^^2^^
The struggle of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries and their joint efforts in exposing US aggressive policy helped to mobilise the progressive forces in support of the just cause of the Korean people and to spread a powerful movement for ending the war in Korea and for a peaceful settlement of the Korean question. Soviet moral and political support of the initiative _-_-_
~^^1^^ Vncshnaya politika Sovietskogo Soyuza, 1950 god Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union in 1950), Gospolitizdut, 1953, p. 201.
^^2^^ Ibid., pp. 200--01.
175 of the Korean People's Democratic Republic and the People's Republic of China concerning an armistice agreement greatly facilitated its conclusion despite Washington's exertions to foil the talks. "During the gravest period for our country,'' said Kim II Sung, General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Workers' Party of Korea, "the Soviet Union . . . rendered the Korean people tremendous help and support, defending our legitimate rights and interests internationally and inspiring our people to selfless struggle for our just cause and reinforcing our people's faith in victory. This was one of the decisive reasons for our victory.''^^1^^Another conflagration flared up in Indo-China, where the people of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam were compelled to wage armed struggle against the French colonialists. For eight years, from 1946 to 1954, the French imperialists, with the direct support of the United States, sought to crush the Vietnamese people by a war of attrition. Here the imperialists pursued the same objectives as in other areas: to prevent the victory of People's Democracy, preserve the old, colonial regime and crush the national liberation movement.
Washington made no secret of its desire to entrench itself in the Indo-Chinese Peninsula, ousting its French allies. The US Government openly spoke of its intention to utilise the area as a strategic base against the socialist countries and the national liberation movement in Asia. Thomas Finletter, former US Secretary of the Air Force, wrote: "It was absolutely necessary, the United States had said again and again, to hold _-_-_
~^^1^^ Pravda, September 20, 1953.
176 Indo-China. If it fell, all Southeast Asia would fall, and Southeast Asia was vital to the interests of the United States.''^^1^^ The statement of President Truman of June 27, 1950, who ordered the launching of military operations in Korea and Taiwan, noted also that he "similarly directed acceleration in the furnishing of military assistance to the forces of France and the Associated States in Indo-China and the dispatch of a military mission to provide close working relations with these forces".^^2^^The Vietnamese people won victory in this drawn-out and hard war, and the French colonialists had to leave the Indo-Chinese Peninsula and stop hostilities in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Agreements on ending hostilities were signed at a conference of Foreign Ministers held in Geneva from April 26 to July 21, 1954.
The results of the Geneva Conference were recorded in 12 documents and the Final Declaration inseverably connected with them.
In the Final Declaration, "the Conference takes note of the clauses in the agreement on the cessation of hostilities in Vietnam to the effect that no military base under the control of a foreign state may be established in the regrouping zones of the two parties, the latter having the obligation to see that the zones allotted to them shall not constitute part of any military alliance and shall not be utilised for the resumption of hostilities or in the service of an aggressive policy''. The _-_-_
~^^1^^ Thomas K. Finletter, Power and Policy. US Foreign Policy cmd Military Power in the Hydrogen Age, New York, 1954, p. 139.
^^2^^ The Department of State Bulletin, July 3, 1950, p. 5.
177 Conference pointed out that "the essential purpose of the agreement relating to Vietnam is to settle military questions with a view to ending hostilities and that the military demarcation line is provisional and should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary.'' It was stated in the Declaration that so far as Vietnam is concerned, the settlement of political problems, effected on the basis of respect for the principles of independence, unity and territorial integrity should permit the Vietnamese people to enjoy the fundamental freedoms, guaranteed by democratic institutions established as a result of free general elections by secret ballot. General elections were to be held in July 1956 under the supervision of an international commission.^^1^^The signing of these agreements was a great success for the peace-loving forces; it put an end to the eight-year war in Indo-China and abolished a dangerous hotbed threatening peace in Asia. Actually the agreements recorded the international recognition of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam which embarked on the socialist path. This foiled the plans of the world reactionary forces which sought to destroy the DRV. The Soviet Government pointed out in its statement of July 23, 1954, that the Geneva agreements promoted an international detente and created favourable conditions for settling other outstanding international issues pertaining to Europe as well as Asia.
But, contrary to its own commitments, assumed _-_-_
~^^1^^ The 1954 Geneva Agreement on Vietnam, Supplement to Bulletin of the World Council oj Peace, No. 11, London, 19G5.
178 in Geneva,^^1^^ the United States frustrated the normalisation of the situation in the Indo-Chinese Peninsula. The US ruling circles at once attacked the Geneva agreements and began to carry out plans for converting South Vietnam into an American base. These actions torpedoed the implementation of the important decisions on general elections in Vietnam. Thus, the United States pursued in Indo-China a policy of aggression from the very outset.Subsequently, the United States intervened in the affairs of South Vietnam and launched aggression against the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. While prior to mid-1965 it, at least officially, did not participate in the South Vietnamese war, its participation has since become open and official. The escalation of the war proclaimed by Washington included the extension of hostilities against the patriots in South Vietnam and the spread of military operations to the entire IndoChinese Peninsula. The Vietnamese people, with the support of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries, of all the peace-loving nations, are offering brave resistance to the interventionists.
The discontinuation of the war in Korea in 1953 and in Vietnam in 1954 signified victory for _-_-_
~^^1^^ At the Geneva Conference the US Government took note ol the concluded agreements and also declared that "(I) it will refrain from the threat or the use of force to disturb them, in accordance with Article 2 (4) of the Charter of the United Nations dealing with the obligation of members to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force, and (II) it would view any renewal of the aggression in violation of the aforesaid agreements with grave concern and as seriously threatening international peace and security" (The New York Times. July 22, 1954, p. 2).
__PRINTERS_P_179_COMMENT__ 12* 179 peace and the just cause of their peoples, a victory that became possible thanks to the existence of the world socialist system.``Applying the Leninist principles of internationalism,'' Ho Chi Minh, the late President of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, stated, "the Soviet Union, the country of triumphant socialism, has always rendered great moral assistance to the national liberation movement in the colonies and dependent countries. In particular, the Soviet Union by its unswerving policy of peace and thanks to its great prestige the world over has rendered mighty support to the peoples of Korea and Vietnam who defended their country from the American imperialists and their allies. The diplomatic activity of the USSR has played a decisive part in the cease-fire in Korea and Vietnam.''^^1^^
The cease-fire in Korea and Vietnam was of great significance for preserving their revolutionary gains and for their advance along the road of socialism. At the same time, it helped strengthen world socialism, and increased the impact of the socialist system on the development of the AfroAsian national liberation struggle.
Tension in the Far East was greatly increased by the aggressive actions of the United States against the People's Republic of China. This time the main stake of the United States was on Taiwan and the Chinese offshore islands where the Chiang Kai-shek regime, ejected from the mainland, had entrenched itself with the help of the Pentagon. American military aid to Chiang _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ho Chi Minh, Selected Articles and Speeches, Gospolitizdat, 1959, p. 559 (in Russian).
180 Kaishek was substantially stepped up. Taiwan was occupied by US forces and turned into an American military base, a point of support for all kinds of provocations against China.The United States and Chiang Kai-shek signed a military treaty on December 2, 1954, which, according to Washington's intentions, was legally to consolidate American occupation of age-old Chinese territories.
The offshore islands of China were thus turned into a dangerous seat of international tension, in effect, into a constant hotbed of war against China and other socialist states. If at particularly tense moments the imperialists did not venture to launch a major war against China it was only because of the world socialist system, the joint actions of the socialist countries in China's defence.
The situation in the Far East and Southeast Asia became especially acute after the signing of the pact which founded the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO) in Manila on September 8,1954. SEATO was to become the "Pacific equivalent" of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and to be employed by the imperialists against the forces of socialism, the national liberation movement and peace in Asia.
All this created the complex external conditions in which Asian peoples had to build the new socialist society. Immediately after the cessation of hostilities the peoples of North Korea and North Vietnam undertook to restore their war-ravaged economies. These countries, which for a long time had been under the heel of foreign colonialists, had an extremely backward economy when they embarked on the road of democratic 181 development. They had no modern industries and the main sector, agriculture, stood at a low level. During the restoration period they built the foundations of a modern industry and undertook the revolutionary reconstruction of the entire economy. But, because of imperialist aggression, the radical changes they had launched were not all completed.
The three-year plan (1954--1956) of the economic restoration and development of the Korean People's Democratic Republic was fulfilled ahead of time. In 1955 gross industrial output topped the targets set for 1956. In three years more than 320 large and medium-sized industrial enterprises were restored or built anew. In 1956 gross production of state and co-operative industry was double the level of the prewar year 1949. The output of means of production in three years (1954--1956) grew at an annual rate of 59 per cent and the output of consumer goods at 28 per cent. During this period the share of socio-economic sectors in gross industrial output changed radically, with the result that the socialist sector became predominant in the economy. Revolutionary land reforms were completed in the mid1950s. At the end of 1956 agricultural co-- operatives united about four-fifths of all the peasant households.
The fraternal assistance of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries played a big part in successfully surmounting the difficulties of economic restoration and development in the KPDR. The USSR rendered the republic free material and technical assistance totalling 1,000 million rubles. In addition, long-term aid was furnished in August 1956. The KPDR received mainly 182 goods for productive purposes: machinery and equipment, oil products, rolling stock, building materials and so on. These goods made up 75 per cent of all the imports from the USSR. The biggest industrial enterprises were restored or built with Soviet assistance. The People's Republic of China rendered the Korean people help in restoring the railways, and supplied raw materials for industry, food and consumer goods. The republic received considerable aid and technical support from the German Democratic Republic, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary and Rumania. The Mongolian People's Republic furnished considerable help in livestock breeding.
Successful implementation of the three-year plan enabled the Workers' Party of Korea to outline the main trends of the first five-year (1957-- 1961) economic plan at its Third Congress in April 1956.
The Vietnamese people had to cope with tremendous difficulties in restoring and developing their wrecked economy. They inherited from the colonial regime an extremely backward industry which, moreover, was destroyed in the course of the 15-year war. Industry was mainly of a handicraft nature: in 1954 there were 24,000 handicraft workshops and in 1955, 53,000. In 1956, it accounted only for 17 per cent of the gross industrial and agricultural output.
The Democratic Republic of Vietnam restored its economy in 1955 and 1956, during which period important industrial projects were built with the help of the Soviet Union and other fraternal countries. During the visit of a DRV Government delegation to the USSR, China and the Mongolian People's Republic in the summer 183 of 1955, agreements were reached on free aid by these countries to the Vietnamese people in restoring their economy. The Soviet Union allotted 400 million rubles for this purpose, part of which went for restoring and building 25 industrial enterprises and public utilities. The USSR rendered great help in training specialists, and in geological prospecting. The People's Republic of China helped its neighbour restore the railways, docks, highways and bridges. During the same years North Vietnam established close economic ties with European socialist countries which supplied it with diverse machinery and equipment.
Extensive measures were carried out during the restoration period in agriculture, the basic economic sector of the country. A land reform was completed in 1956, abolishing feudal landed proprietorship. The first steps were made in the socialist reconstruction of agriculture: state farms and mutual labour assistance teams were organised.
Both in North Korea and North Vietnam the difficulties caused by the aftermath of the colonial past and the drawn-out wars were exacerbated by the division of these countries, the aggressive policy of the United States and the conversion of South Korea and South Vietnam into American strategic bases directed against the socialist countries. In mid-1950s US Senator Mansfield admitted that "what exists in the Far East is no peace at all; it is a truce, a tenuous truce" which "can collapse at any time. Each of these situations, Korea, Vietnam, and Formosa, contains a danger of war, which is not now adequately controlled. . . . Should local military action break out at 184 any of these points, it is almost inevitable that the great powers . . . will be drawn into the maelstrom.''^^1^^ The vast system of military bases created by the United States in these areas and named by Washington a "defence network'', was manned by some 1,750,000 troops.
This situation naturally affected all political and economic developments in the People's Republic of China against which the aggressive policy of the United States was primarily directed. This notwithstanding, the Chinese people effected a number of revolutionary socio-economic changes which radically altered the country's aspect and strengthened the new popular democratic government.
Fundamental transformations were wrought in agriculture too, which were largely completed in 1956, with about 89 per cent of all peasant households uniting into co-operatives.
The first five-year (1953--1957) economic plan was of particular significance, the main objectives being formulated as follows: laying a primary basis for the country's socialist industrialisation, the socialist remaking of agriculture and the handicraft industry; creation of a basis for the socialist transformation of private industry and trade by transferring them mainly onto the lines of state capitalism. In September 1956, the 8th Congress of the Communist Party of China noted that socialist changes in agriculture, the handicraft industry, capitalist industry and trade had been largely completed by the middle of that year.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Congressional Record, May 26, 1958, pp. 9464--65.
185In coping with economic problems, the Chinese people relied on the disinterested help of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries. "In the period of restoring the economy and of carrying out the first five-year economic plan our country received tremendous sincere assistance from the Soviet Union and other fraternal countries,'' Ghou En-lai noted in his report to the 8th Congress of the Communist Party of China. "This assistance helped us to overcome many difficulties and enabled our country to further socialist construction at comparatively high rates.''^^1^^
China received from the Soviet Union the bulk of plant and materials for entire enterprises; during the first five-year plan the Soviet Union furnished assistance in building 156 industrial enterprises and 21 factory shops for which it supplied 50--70 per cent of the equipment. Moreover, an agreement was signed in April 1956 on Soviet help to China in building another 55 industrial projects. During the period under review 211 industrial enterprises were being under construction in China with the help of the USSR, including large iron and steel works, electric power stations, coal mines, automobile and tractor works, oil refineries, and chemical plants. Subsequently, they became the core of the country's modern industry. Works built with Soviet assistance had an annual capacity of 8.4 million tons of steel and 8.7 million tons of pig iron (in 1955 10 million tons of steel were produced in the PRC). Czechoslovakia, Poland, the German Democratic Republic and Bulgaria also rendered considerable industrial assistance to China.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Pravda, September 19, 1956.
186In the political sphere Soviet-Chinese relations developed on the basis of the Treaty of Friendship, Alliance and Mutual Assistance of February 14, 1950. There is an interesting admission of the importance of this treaty for China made by General G. Marshall, a leader of US imperialism. Marshall said that had it not been for the SovietChinese alliance, the United States would have freely used its naval and air forces for an attack on China at the beginning of 1951.
A Joint Declaration of the governments of the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China, signed on October 12, 1954, reaffirmed that relations between the two countries were maintained "in full conformity with the Treaty of Friendship, Co-operation and Mutual Assistance of February 14, 1950".^^1^^ They denounced the aggressive policy of the United States in the Far East. "This policy, like the direct acts of aggression committed by the United States vis-a-vis the People's Republic of China, particularly the continued occupation by the USA of part of its territory, the island of Taiwan, and also the military and financial support given to the Chiang Kai-shek clique hostile to the Chinese people, are incompatible with the tasks of maintaining peace in the Far East and reducing international tension,'' it was pointed out in the Joint Declaration.^^2^^
An agreement on the Chinese Changchun Railway, Port Arthur and Dalny was signed together _-_-_
~^^1^^ Sbornik dcistvuyushchikh dogovorov, soglashcnii i konventsii, zaklyuchcnnykli SSSR s inostrannymi gosudarstvnmi (Collection of Operating 'Treaties, Agreements and Conventions Concluded by the USSR with Foreign States), Issue XVI, Gospolitizdat, 1957, p. 12.
~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 13.
187 with the Friendship Treaty of February 14, 1950. Under this agreement, the handing over of the Chinese Changchun Railway and Port Arthur to China was made conditional on the conclusion of a peace treaty with Japan; Port Dalny was handed over at once. The handing over of the Chinese Changchun Railway with all its property was completed on December 31, 1952, in accordance with the special agreement signed on September 15 of the same year. Simultaneously with the Joint Declaration of October 12, 1954, a communique was signed on the withdrawal of Soviet military units from the jointly used Port Arthur naval base and the transfer of this base to the full disposal of the People's Republic of China. The sides agreed that the withdrawal of Soviet military units from the Port Arthur base would be completed by May 31, 1955; installations in the area of the naval base would be handed over gratuitously to the Chinese Government. A final protocol of the Soviet-Chinese combined military commission on the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Port Arthur and the handing over of Soviet installations to China was signed on May 24, 1955.These facts show that from the moment the People's Republic of China was founded the Soviet Union displayed special concern for the development of Soviet-Chinese relations on the basis of genuine equality and rendered all possible assistance in restoring and developing the economy, in reinforcing the defence capacity and consolidating and extending China's international positions.
The period from 1950 to 1956 was one of hard struggle for the peoples of China, North Vietnam 188 and North Korea for their independence, and the preservation and strengthening of the revolutionary gains from the encroachments of international imperialism, especially American. In this difficult struggle the people enjoyed the mighty material and moral assistance of the Soviet Union and other fraternal countries; this was a decisive factor ensuring victory over the foreign interventionists and colonialists.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 2. Consolidation of the EconomicFor the European People's Democracies the period from 1950 to 1956 was marked, on the one hand, by the continued consolidation of the people's democratic regimes and, on the other, by the struggle of the people headed by their communist vanguard to overcome the difficulties which had arisen in the course of building the new society.
In the economic sphere the European socialist countries launched long-term five- and six-year economic plans designed to lay the foundations of socialism. They envisaged high industrial growth rates, especially in countries which lagged behind industrially, and the creation of new modern industries.
The first long-term plans were completed by Bulgaria in 1952, Czechoslovakia in 1953, Hungary in 1954 and Poland, the German Democratic Republic, Rumania and Albania in 1955. As a result, total industrial output in the European People's Democracies in 1956 was 3.3 times above 189 the prewar level (Poland more than 5 times; Czechoslovakia, over 2.7 times, the German Democratic Republic, 2.2 times; Hungary, 3.2 times; Rumania, almost 3.3 times; Bulgaria, more than 6 times and Albania, over 11.5 times). During the same period capitalist industrial output increased only by 90 per cent.
In 1956 the socialist countries produced more than 955 million tons of coal (as against 385 million tons in 1937), over 68 million tons of steel (24.7 million tons before the war) and 290,000 million kwh of electric power (as compared with 72,700 million kwh in 1937). Consolidation of the positions of socialism continued in all spheres of the European People's Democracies. In industry the socialist sector fully triumphed and the organisation of co-operatives in agriculture proceeded at a steady pace. In Rumania, for example, as a result of the fulfilment of the first five-year plan, at the end of 1955 the socialist sector accounted for almost 100 per cent in industry, 100 per cent in the financial and banking system and foreign trade, 90 per cent in the transport services, and over 80 per cent in home trade. The share of the socialist sector in agriculture grew uninterruptedly. In Bulgaria the socialist sector accounted for 97.7 per cent of the gross industrial output in 1956. Collectivisation of agriculture reached 77.4 per cent (the share of land tilled by co-operatives).
Economic co-operation of the Soviet Union and the People's Democracies played an important part in the fulfilment of the long-term economic plans. This equal co-operation was effected both within the framework of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance and under bilateral 190 agrcements. Particularly important was Soviet assistance in reconstructing the economy, laying an industrial basis, in scientific and technical guidance, designing and construction of important projects in heavy and light industries. Sixty large industrial enterprises were built in Poland with the Soviet help. In addition to complete plant from them, the Soviet Union delivered various machine tools, cranes, raw and other materials. The USSR also furnished considerable assistance to Rumania and other socialist countries.
At that time foreign trade held a predominant place in socialist economic co-operation. In 1956 socialist countries accounted for 60 per cent of the entire foreign trade in Poland, 64 per cent in Czechoslovakia, 73 per cent in the German Democratic Republic, 78 per cent in Rumania, 84 per cent in Bulgaria and 97 per cent in Albania. Eighty per cent of all foreign commerce of the USSR was with socialist states. In 1955 the share of the USSR in the foreign trade of Poland was 27.5 per cent; Hungary and Czechoslovakia, more than 30 per cent; the German Democratic Republic, over 40 per cent; Rumania, 48 per cent; Bulgaria, 44 per cent, and Albania, more than 40 per cent.
At this stage it was still impossible to apply such improved forms of economic co-operation as co-ordination of economic plans and industrial co-operation, because the initial economic levels of the countries were too diverse. The aim was common: to build up the economic basis of socialist society, but the concrete tasks facing each country did not coincide. More sophisticated forms of the socialist international division of labour and economic co-operation were 191 introduced in relations between member countries of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance at the end of the 1950s.
The problem of improving the forms of economic relations, however, had already arisen when the first long-term economic plans were being carried out. The initial steps in co-- ordinating plans between the Soviet Union and other CMEA countries in some sectors were made at that time.
The period between 1950 and 1956 witnessed the overcoming of serious difficulties in the economy of the People's Democracies in Asia as well as in Europe. These difficulties, stemming from the economic backwardness of most of them, were exacerbated by substantial disproportions in the economy, which had arisen because of the priority given to sectors which were decisive for creating the material basis of socialism. For example, in Hungary and Poland the development of the primary industries and agricultural production lagged seriously behind general economic growth towards the end of this period. The disproportions in the economy of the German Democratic Republic were of a somewhat different nature: they arose largely because of the division of Germany by the imperialists in violation of the Potsdam agreements.
The elimination of economic difficulties proceeded amidst a sharp class struggle. Hostile elements within the People's Democracies, relying on the imperialist bourgeoisie and in many cases acting on direct orders from the Western powers, exploited the difficulties and mistakes made in the course of industrialisation and co-operation of agriculture. The remnants of the defeated 192 exploiting classes would not reconcile themselves to the loss of dominating positions and did not withdraw from the scene without obstinate and bitter struggle. World imperialism, anxious to restore the exploiting regimes in the People's Democracies, did everything in its power to aggravate the situation in Europe escalating the cold war in every way, resorting to provocations and ideological subversion. Escalation of the cold war in Europe and the aggressive actions of the United States in the Far East and Southeast Asia were closely interconnected, being components of the ``global'' policy of the ruling element of the United States and other Western powers spearheaded against the forces of socialism, democracy and peace. This policy, launched immediately after the Second World War (and even during its concluding phase), was specified and finally formalised in the aggressive North Atlantic pact.
Paul-Henri Spaak, former Secretary General of NATO, defending the positions of the Western countries in his pamphlet Why NATO? ( published in 1959 for the 10th anniversary of the pact), referred to the territorial expansion of the socialist system after the war, to the development of the revolutionary movement in France, Italy, Greece, and other European countries as the main reasons which prompted the imperialists to set up this military bloc. It goes without saying that the unfounded attempt to ascribe the course of events to the "subversive activity" of the Soviet Union and the international communist movement is made by the ideologists of military blocs who follow the well-trodden path of those who justify their own aggressive policy with the help of __PRINTERS_P_193_COMMENT__ 13---500 193 slander against the USSR. Here, however, it is important to stress that one of these ideologists frankly admits that the main purpose of whipping together aggressive blocs is not only to ``contain'' socialism, to stop the advance of the peoples along the road of social progress, but also to launch an attack against the world socialist system, against the unity of its member countries.^^1^^
In their campaign against the Soviet Union and other socialist states the ruling circles of the Western powers staked on the revanchist and militarist forces of West Germany. John Foster Dulles unequivocally explained what US imperialism regarded as a ``prize'' which a "revived, nationalistic Germany'', that is, a militarist German state, could represent for the West. Relying on it, he wrote, "the West can gain an advanced strategic position in Central Europe which will undermine the Soviet communist military and political positions in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and other neighbouring countries".^^2^^ But since the decisive contribution of the Soviet Union to the defeat of the nazis and its participation in the postwar settlement made the rivival of German militarism over the entire country impossible, it was decided, as the US Newsweek magazine put it, to save for the Western powers at least a part of Germany.^^3^^
As a result of the divisive policy of the Western powers, pursued in league with the German reactionaries, the Federal Republic of Germany was _-_-_
~^^1^^ P. H. Spaak, Pourquoi I'OTAN?, Paris, 1959.
~^^2^^ J. F. Dulles, War or Peace, New York, 1950, pp. 156--57.
~^^3^^ Newsweek, July 24, 1947.
194 set up in September 1949 for the purpose of creating a bridgehead against socialist Europe. NATO's sphere of operation was extended to the Federal Republic. The Foreign Ministers of the United States, Britain and France, at their meeting in New York in September 1950, decided to incorporate the Federal Republic into the North Atlantic pact in one form or another and considered creating a West German army.The policy of drawing West Germany into NATO and its remilitarisation was covered up by talk about "terminating the state of war with Germany''. In reality this policy signified a flagrant violation of the commitments assumed by the governments of the United States and other Western powers under the Potsdam agreements. The real meaning of the New York decisions was exposed in the statement of Foreign Ministers of the USSR, Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Rumania, Hungary and the German Democratic Republic made public on October 22, 1950. It pointed out that the Western powers wanted a free hand for using West Germany, its manpower and material resources in their imperialist interests for carrying out their strategic plans which concealed the striving of US rulingcircles to establish world domination. On the pretext of terminating the state of war with Germany, they sought to create conditions for openly incorporating West Germany into NATO and finally converting it into an instrument of their aggressive strategic plans in Europe.
Subsequent developments fully confirmed the conclusions contained in this statement. A number of documents signed at a meeting of NATO members in Paris on October 23, 1954, admitted __PRINTERS_P_195_COMMENT__ 13* 195 West Germany into NATO and the Western European Union. This legalised the creation in West Germany of armed forces and a military industrial potential---the material basis for West German militarism and revanchism.
In response to this threat to peace, the socialist countries took new steps to safeguard European security. A conference of European countries was held in Moscow between November 29 and December 2, 1954, attended by representatives of the Soviet Union and the other European socialist countries (except Yugoslavia); a representative of the People's Republic of China attended as observer. In the declaration adopted at the conference, the signatories warned of the serious danger that would arise in Europe if the Paris agreements were ratified. "The ratification and implementation of these agreements,'' the declaration said, "increase the war danger and will threaten the national security of peace-loving European states, particularly states neighbouring on Germany.''^^1^^
The conference proposed to all European countries to take measures for creating an all-- European security system. At the same time it noted that the existing situation dictated the adoption of measures for strengthening the defensive powers of the socialist camp and safeguarding its security.
``The existing situation raises the issue of uniting the efforts of the states represented at this conference for the purpose of safeguarding their security,'' the participants in the Moscow conference noted. "The peace-loving states are _-_-_
~^^1^^ Sbornik deistvuyushchikh dogovorov, soglashenii i konventsii. . ., Issue XVI, p. 63.
196 compelled to take urgent measures to oppose the aggressive forces of the military bloc of Western powers with the combined might of the peaceloving states in the interest of safeguarding their security.''^^1^^The states participating in the conference proclaimed their resolve to carry out, if the Paris agreements were ratified, joint measures in organising armed forces and their command and other steps for reinforcing the defensive powers of the socialist countries.
Despite this warning, the Paris agreements were ratified by the Western powers and came into force on May 5, 1955. This further worsened the situation in Europe, increased the threat to the security of the socialist states and the danger of another war. By implementing the Paris agreements, which created in Europe a new aggressive group with the participation of the West German revanchists, the imperialist powers expected to reinforce their positions and to tilt the strategic balance of forces in their favour.
For their part, the militarist and revanchist circles of the Federal Republic associated with the Paris agreements their far-reaching plans for rebuilding the military potential and extending their power to the entire territory of Germany within her prewar frontiers. Operating through the military groups of the Western powers, to which Bonn was admitted, they expected to strengthen their positions in Europe and to draw their partners into reckless ventures. Konrad Adenauer, who was then Federal Chancellor, frankly stated: "The creation of a politically strong Europe _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid.
197 is the only way for Germany to recover her eastern territories. It is one of our prime tasks."^^1^^ According to the revanchists, NATO, the integration of Western Europe and the Common Market were to serve their interests and put the Federal Republic at the head of the West European countries.The West German military openly proclaimed slogans calling for the immediate building of a powerful army for new campaigns in the East, against the USSR and other socialist countries. At the same time, relying on such an army, it wanted to dictate its will to Western countries, too.
The West German Gcneral-Anzeiger stressed at the end of 1956 that "Strauss (shortly before he was appointed Federal Defence Minister---Sh.S.) wants to make the Bundeswehr something not only the Soviets, but also Britain and France would have to reckon with".^^2^^
The imperialist powers, staking on West Germany's militarist and revanchist forces in the struggle against the socialist states, undermined the foundations of European security. Possibilities arose not only for the remilitarisation of West Germany but also for new military ventures and aggression. In these conditions the Soviet Union and other socialist states were naturally compelled to take steps for strengthening their defensive powers and collective measures for reinforcing the security of their frontiers.
To this end, a conference of European states for safeguarding peace and security in Europe was held in Warsaw from May 11 to May 14, _-_-_
~^^1^^ International Affairs. No. 8, 1957, p. 94.
~^^2^^ Ibid.
198 1955. The conference was attended by Albania Bulgaria, Hungary, the German Democratic Republic,^^1^^ Poland, Rumania, the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia, with a representative of the People's Republic of China present as observer.The conference participants discussed changes in the international situation resulting from the ratification of the Paris agreements and came to the conclusion that the ratification of the agreements which provided for the setting up of a military group in the form of the Western European Union with the participation of a remilitarised West Germany and its incorporation into the North Atlantic bloc, increased the danger of another war and created a threat to the national security of the peace-loving states. They therefore concluded a Treaty of Friendship, Co-- operation and Mutual Assistance to safeguard their security and maintain peace in Europe.
The Warsaw Treaty, signed on May 14, 1955, is a major landmark in the development of the military-political alliance of socialist countries. It is a treaty of a purely defensive nature dictated by the aggressive measures of the Western powers. It greatly contributed to the strengthening of the economic, political and military co-- operation of socialist countries, the creation of a reliable system of collective security; it played a big _-_-_
~^^1^^ On January 25, 1955, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR issued a decree ending the state of war between the Soviet Union and Germany. This decree proclaimed the termination of the state of war between the Soviet Union and Germany and the establishment of peaceful relations between them (Sbornik deistvuyushchikh dogovorov, soglashenii i konvcntsii. . ., Issues XVII and XVIII, Gospolitizdat, 1960, pp. 229--30).
199 Emacs-File-stamp: "/home/ysverdlov/leninist.biz/en/1972/WSS409/20070904/299.tx" __EMAIL__ webmaster@leninist.biz __OCR__ ABBYY 6 Professional (2007.09.05) __WHERE_PAGE_NUMBERS__ bottom __FOOTNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [0-9]+ __ENDNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [0-9]+ part in furthering the unity of socialist countries and rebuffing imperialist attacks against them.``The solidarity of the socialist countries,'' it is pointed out in the Declaration of the 1957 Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, "is not directed against any other country. On the contrary, it serves the interests of all the peace-loving peoples, restrains the aggressive strivings of the bellicose imperialist circles and supports and encourages the growing forces of peace. The socialist countries are against the division of the world into military blocs. But in view of the situation that has arisen, with the Western powers refusing to accept the proposals of the socialist countries for mutual abolition of military blocs, the Warsaw Treaty Organisation, which is of a defensive nature and serves the security of the peoples of Europe and peace throughout the world, must be preserved and strengthened.''^^1^^
The military-political co-operation of the Soviet Union and European socialist countries was developed on the basis of the Warsaw Treaty. Specifically, co-operation of the German Democratic Republic with other fraternal countries was further extended.
A treaty on relations between the Soviet Union and the German Democratic Republic was signed on September 20, 1955. It confirmed that " relations between them are based on complete equality, mutual respect for sovereignty and non-- interference in internal affairs".^^2^^ The German _-_-_
~^^1^^ The Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, pp. 12--13.
~^^2^^ Sbornik deistvuyushchikh dogovorov, soglashenii i konventsii..., Issues XVII and XVIII, p. 18.
200 Democratic Republic "is free in deciding issues of domestic and foreign policy, including relations with the Federal Republic of Germany, and also the establishment of relations with other states''. Article 3 provides for the further development of economic, scientific, technical and cultural ties between the two countries, the mutual rendering of all possible economic assistance and the implementation of the necessary economic, scientific and technical co-operation. "Soviet troops now on the territory of the German Democratic Republic in accordance with the existing international agreements shall remain there temporarily with the consent of its Government on terms which shall be specified by an additional agreement between the Government of the Soviet Union and the Government of the German Democratic Republic. These Soviet forces shall not interfere in the internal affairs of the German Democratic Republic and in the country's socio-political life" (Article 4). The parties agreed to proclaim once again that the achievement, through negotiation, of a peaceful settlement for all of Germany was their basic aim. "Accordingly, they shall exert the necessary efforts for a settlement by a peace treaty and the restoration of Germany's unity along peaceful and democratic lines" (Article 5).Thus, between 1950 and 1956, co-operation among socialist countries, despite the many obstacles, grew stronger and the consolidation of the world socialist system continued.
The 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, from February 14 to 25, 1956, had a tremendous impact on these processes, just as on all socio-political development in the socialist countries.
201The 20th Congress noted that the historical experience in the development of all socialist countries fully confirmed the Leninist proposition regarding the transition to socialism in different countries.
``At present,'' it was pointed out in the Resolution of the Congress, "alongside the Soviet form of reconstructing society along socialist lines, there is the form of People's Democracy. It has withstood all-round tests for ten years and has fully proved its merit.''^^1^^
Utmost consolidation of fraternal relations with all People's Democracies was proclaimed a primary task in foreign policy by the 20th Congress which emphasised that the more solid and powerful the socialist states are, the more reliable is peace.
The 20th Congress was held in a complex international situation inasmuch as imperialist reaction had stepped up its aggressive actions against the socialist states both in Asia and in Europe. It was during this period that the US ruling circles raised subversive activity against socialist countries to the level of official state policy by adopting special laws on financing hostile actions of subversive organisations both internationally and within these countries. The armed revolt in democratic Berlin, capital of the German Democratic Republic, which was organised by Western intelligence agencies in June 1953 and ended in complete _-_-_
^^1^^ XX syezd Kommunisticheskoi partii Sovietskogo Soyuza 14--25 fevralya 1956 goda. Stenografichesky otchot (20th Congress of the CPSU, February 14--25, 1956. Verbatim report), Vol. II, Gospolitizdat, 1956, p. 415.
202 failure, was one of the serious and dangerous manifestations of this policy.The counter-revolutionary armed uprising in Hungary was directed against the new system, the people's state, against the socialist gains of the Hungarian people. Analysing the causes of the 1956 events in Hungary, Janos Kadar, First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party, pointed out at the Party's 7th Congress at the end of 1959 that, in the opinion of the Party's Central Committee, an essential part had been played by the mistakes of the country's former leaders, Rakosi and his group. "These mistakes,'' Kadar pointed out, "mainly consisted in ignoring the specific features and national distinctions of Hungary, as a result of which after a certain time Rakosi and his entourage proved incapable of properly applying in the conditions of our country the main laws of building socialism which are of international significance. These mistakes, further, consisted in violating Party democracy and socialist legality, and also in distortions in economic policy.''^^1^^
Former ruling classes, landowners and capitalists, who after loss of power became the accomplices and allies of international imperialism were the main force behind the counter-- revolutionary uprising. A leading place among them was held by the "Crossed Arrows" fascist group which had organised mass pogroms and acts of terror. Even sworn enemies of socialist Hungary like the renegade Francois Fejto had to admit that during the counter-revolutionary rebellion _-_-_
~^^1^^ Janos Kadar, Selected Artides and Speeches, Russ. ed., Gospolitizdat, 1960, p. 502.
203 ``alarming demonstrations of a fascist nature could be seen on the streets of Budapest and, even more so, on the streets of provincial towns with a poorly developed industry. The 'Grossed Arrows' party tried to revive its organisation. . .. There were regrettable instances of manhunts and settling of personal scores. . "^^1^^International imperialism was the organising and directing force of the uprising. "International imperialism headed by US reactionary circles was the most powerful factor in the counter-- revolutionary uprising in Hungary,'' Kadar pointed out at the 7th Congress of the Party. "From the first days of our country's liberation, they supported enemies of the Hungarian people of all degrees and ranks with every means. For many years the imperialists engaged in a whispering campaign, they incited and organised the counter-revolutionary rebellion, and, at long last, unleashed it with the help of their agents and political allies, Imre Nagy and his group, and also with the aid of bourgeois counter-revolutionary forces within the country. In fact two forces united in a bloc attacked the Hungarian People's Republic---the internal counter-revolution and international imperialism.''^^2^^ That is why the defeat of the counter-revolutionary rebellion was more than the internal affair of the Hungarian people, it also vitally concerned the entire socialist community.
International imperialism wanted to crush the Hungarian People's Republic, just as it did the _-_-_
~^^1^^ Francois Fejto, La tragedie hongroise, Paris, 1956, p. 309.
~^^2^^ Janos Kadar, Op. cit., pp. 503--04.
204 Hungarian Soviet Republic in 1919. But in 1956 the imperialist bourgeoisie did not and could not succeed in repeating the events of 1919. The Hungarian Soviet Republic had been defeated because at that time Soviet Russia was beating back the furious attacks of numerous internal and external enemies and could not render direct military help to proletarian Hungary. But in 1956 the Western powers were already deprived of the possibility of restoring the power of the landowners and capitalists in Hungary by armed force. The Hungarian people, with the help of other socialist states, the Soviet Union first and foremost, routed the counter-revolutionary forces and upheld their revolutionary gains. "The defeat of the counterrevolution in Hungary,'' writes Dezso Nemes, a noted Hungarian public figure and historian, "was a victory for the working class and the people of Hungary, a victory for the socialist camp as a whole. . . .''^^1^^At the request of the Hungarian Government Soviet troops stationed in Hungary came to the aid of the country's socialist forces in their struggle against counter-revolution. Acting in accordance with Article 5 of the Warsaw Treaty, the USSR helped the revolutionary Workers' and Peasants' Government of Hungary to bar the way to reaction and fascism. The unity and solidarity of the socialist countries, their concerted action in defence of the socialist gains in Hungary and in other fraternal countries, played a decisive part in repulsing international imperialism.
The Declaration of the Soviet Government on _-_-_
~^^1^^ Deszo Nemes, Hungary in 1945--1961, Russ. ed., Gospolitizdat, 1962, p. 61.
205 the Basic Principles for the Development and Further Strengthening of Friendship and Co-- operation between the USSR and Other Socialist Countries, published on October 30, 1956, was of considerable significance for overcoming the difficulties which had arisen earlier in relations between the Soviet Union and other socialist countries. "United by common ideals of building socialist society and the principles of proletarian internationalism,'' it was pointed out in the Declaration, "the countries of the great community of socialist nations can arrange their relations only on the principles of complete equality, respect for territorial integrity, state independence and sovereignty and non-interference in each other's internal affairs. This, far from precluding, on the contrary, presupposes close fraternal co-- operation and mutual assistance of the socialist countries in the economic, political and cultural spheres.''^^1^^The Soviet Government proclaimed its readiness to discuss, jointly with the governments of other socialist countries, measures ensuring the consolidation of economic ties between them so as to eliminate any possibility of violating the principles of state sovereignty, mutual benefit and equality in economic relations. The Declaration specifically spoke of the Soviet readiness at once to examine the expediency of the further stay of Soviet specialists, engineers, agronomists, scientists and military advisers in the People's Democracies. By that time highly competent national personnel in all spheres of economic and military development had been trained.
_-_-_^^1^^ Pravda, October 31, 195G.
206The Soviet Government expressed its readiness to examine with other Warsaw Treaty member countries the presence of Soviet troops on their territory (Hungary, Rumania and Poland) in accordance with this Treaty and inter-governmental agreements.
The Declaration of the Soviet Government was received with approval by the peoples of all socialist countries. Their governments stated their approval of the principles enunciated in the Declaration and support of the propositions it contained. The German Democratic Republic acclaimed the Declaration as fully coinciding with the point of view of its Government. The Polish 'frybuna Ludu pointed out editorially that the publication of the Declaration was an exceptionally important world event. Public opinion in Poland, the newspaper noted, received the Declaration with satisfaction, being vitally interested in alliance with the USSR and in strengthening this alliance and friendship on the basis of full equality and sovereignty of states.
In keeping with the principles expounded in the Declaration, negotiations between the USSR and other socialist countries began shortly after its publication. At the end of 1956 Government Delegations of Poland and Rumania visited Moscow. Major questions of interstate relations were discussed during the talks and settled in the interest of further strengthening friendship and equal co-operation of the USSR and the People's Democracies.
It will be recalled that in accordance with the Warsaw Treaty and governmental agreements between its members, Soviet troops were stationed in Hungary and Rumania. In Poland and the 207 German Democratic Republic, Soviet troops were kept in accordance with the Warsaw Treaty and the Potsdam agreements of the four powers: Britain, France, the Soviet Union and the United States. It was stressed in the joint Statement of the Party and Government Delegations of the Soviet Union and the Polish People's Republic of November 18, 1956, that the threat to Poland from the revanchist forces of West Germany and the existing international situation would confirm that the "temporary presence of Soviet units on the territory of Poland is still expedient, which is also linked with the necessity for the presence of Soviet troops in Germany on the basis of international treaties and agreements".^^1^^ The Statement outlined the principles defining the status of Soviet units on Poland's territory, according to which their temporary presence could in no way affect the sovereignty of the Polish state and could not lead to their interference in the internal affairs of the Polish People's Republic.
The temporary presence of Soviet military units, in conformity with the Warsaw Treaty, on the territory of Rumania was also considered expedient in the joint statement of the Government Delegations of the Soviet Union and the Rumanian People's Republic of December 3, 1956.^^2^^ Subsequently, in May 1958, the Political Consultative Committee of the Warsaw Treaty member _-_-_
~^^1^^ Deklaratsii, zayavleniya i kommyunike Sovietskogo Pravitehtva s pravitelstvami inostrannykh gosudarstv ( Declarations, Statements and Communiques of the Soviet Government with Governments of Foreign Countries), Gospolitizdat, 1957, p. 229.
~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 237.
208 states approved the proposal of the Soviet Government, agreed upon with the Government of the Rumanian People's Republic, on the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Rumania.^^1^^Thus, the principles of the Soviet Government's Declaration were consistently implemented, which was noted at the Budapest meeting of representatives of the Communist and Workers' Parties and the Governments of Bulgaria, Hungary, Rumania, the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia. " Representatives of the countries,'' it was stated in a communique after the meeting, "noted with satisfaction that the provisions of the declaration are successfully being implemented in relations between socialist states, which facilitates the further cohesion of the socialist camp, the further economic and cultural advance of the socialist countries, the strengthening of friendship and development of fraternal mutual assistance between their peoples.''^^2^^
Having jointly repulsed the offensive of international imperialist reaction, having upheld the socialist gains and eliminated the past mistakes in relations between them, the Communist and Workers' Parties of socialist countries paved the way for closer economic, political, cultural and military co-operation, for the successful solution _-_-_
^^1^^ Matcrialy sovyeshchaniya politickeskogo konsultativnogo komitcta gosudarstv---uchastnihov Varshavskogo dogovora o druzhbc, sotrudnichcstve i vzaimnoi pomoshchi. 24 maya 1958 g. (Materials of the Meeting of the Political Consultative Committee of Member Countries of the Warsaw Treaty of Friendship, Co-operation and Mutual Assistance. May 24, 1958), Gospolitizdat, 1958, p. 5.
~^^2^^ Deklaratsii, zayavleniya i kommyunike..., p. 327.
__PRINTERS_P_209_COMMENT__ 14---600 209 of major problems of socialist construction. A new stage had arrived in the history of the world socialist system, in the development of socialist international relations, a stage marked by the consolidation of political forces in the People's Democracies, further extension and strengthening of fraternal relations. [210] __NUMERIC_LVL2__ Chapter V. __ALPHA_LVL2__ IMPROVEMENT IN ECONOMIC ANDA new stage in the world socialist system began after 1956 marked by a certain consolidation of forces both in the system as a whole and in individual states after the events of the mid-1950s, and by further economic, political and cultural co-operation.
This was facilitated by both internal political factors and the international situation. The policy of aggression and war pursued by the United States and other imperialist powers, the policy of exporting counter-revolution, came to grief at the beginning of this period. All the People's Democracies both in Europe and Asia successfully resisted the massive onslaught of world imperialism and, with Soviet help, upheld their socialist gains. They confidently made progress in building a new life with the support of the USSR and relying on the growing might of the socialist system as a whole.
The hotbeds of war in various parts of the world were stamped out by the joint effort of the socialist countries. The defeat of the imperialist policy "from positions of strength" and of the cold war was so obvious that the ruling element __PRINTERS_P_211_COMMENT__ 14* 211 of the United States and other Western powers which had tried to dictate terms to the Soviet Union and other socialist countries found it necessary to undertake a "reappraisal of values''. It was becoming clear to imperialist leaders that all doctrines like the ``liberation'' of socialist countries (i.e., the forcible restoration of capitalism, the "rolling back" of socialism and threatening the Soviet Union with "massive nuclear retaliation" if it did not agree to abandon the fraternal countries to their fate) were quite at odds with the real situation and balance of powcr in the world.
Lenin had shown that in the period of transition from capitalism to socialism the overthrown exploiting classes "inevitably cherish the hope of restoration, and this hope turns into attempts at restoration".^^1^^ The wars in Korea and Vietnam, the counter-revolutionary rebellions in Berlin and Hungary were attempts at such restoration by armed force. The entire cold war policy with its successively alternating variants like the policy of ``containment'' and of ``liberation'', served as the ideological and political basis of such attempts and shaped their general trend.
It would be wrong to assume that the imperialists, undertaking a ``reappraisal'' or ``review'' of the world situation intended to give up their main objective, namely, to abolish the world socialist system and restore the worldwide omnipotence of imperialism. But, while in the preceding period, the US ruling circles proceeded from the viewpoint formulated by President Truman as early as April 6, 1946, that owing to the monopoly _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 28, p. 254.
212 of atomic weapons there was no country stronger than the United States, at the end of the 1950s events made them realise the untenability of plans to achieve the results they wanted by force, blackmail and war. "Mr. Dulles (who was most intimately associated with the most aggressive forms of the cold war of American imperialism--- Sh.S.} had been defeated by the will of the peoples to live, by the continued upsurge of the communist peoples he sought to confine, by his clinging to obviously untenable outposts at the recurrent risk of a world conflagration, and by his defence of the status quo,"^^1^^ so stated British scholar D. F. Fleming in The Cold War and Its Origins.As time went on, more and more American politicians (at least, those capable of sober thinking) arrived at the conclusion which perhaps has been expounded most exhaustively by Henry Kissinger, prominent theoretician of US foreign and military policy. He called for an end to illusions, stating in his book The Necessity for Choice: "We are not omnipotent. We are no longer invulnerable.''^^2^^
Such a conclusion was tantamount to admitting the complete failure of the Pax Americana concept conceived in the first postwar years, i.e., peace on American terms, peace imposed by the United States on all other countries. Yet it was this concept that underpinned US foreign policy vis-a-vis the Soviet Union and other socialist countries.
_-_-_~^^1^^ D. F. Fleming, The Cold War and Its Origins, 1917-- 1960, Vol. II. London, 19G1, p. 943.
^^2^^ H. A. Kissinger, 'The Necessity for Choice. Prospects of American Foreign Policy, New York, 1961, p. 2.
213Talk of ``reappraisal'' was started, of course, not in order to bring the main aims of US foreign policy in line with world realities, but, on the contrary, to explore new methods for achieving the selfsame reckless objectives. Overwhelmingly the critics in the bourgeois press were troubled not by the aggressive nature of American policy but by the fact that it was pursued ``ineptly'', it was insufficiently ``dynamic'' and ``purposeful'' and, therefore, produced no results.
It was from this angle that at the end of the 1950s Washington arranged for a broad study of the world situation in which the ideological past masters of American imperialism took part. They prepared for the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations a whole series of reports on diverse aspects of the international situation, the world balance of power and practically all the main aspects of American foreign policy. Although the reports laid claim to a profoundly scientific approach, they again revealed the inability of imperialism's ideologists to study society from the standpoint of genuine science and to understand the essence of social development. They were marked by subjectivism, bias and arbitrary interpretation of events, and above all hatred for socialism and fear of it.
At the same time, the reports reflected two features equally characteristic of foreign-policy thinking and practices of the US ruling circles. On the one hand, there were the deep differences in methods of pursuing foreign policy and, on the other, the obstinate refusal to give up its adventurist, unfeasible aims. Once again imperialism strikingly displayed how immutably aggressive it is.
214This aggressiveness was particularly evident in the report on US policy towards the Soviet Union and other European socialist countries prepared by a group of experts from Columbia and Harvard universities.
The experts admitted that the American public was weary of the cold war against the socialist countries. They also made another significant admission: arguments about the aggressiveness of the Soviet Union, its desire to rule the world and about communist conspiracy were oversimplified and insolvent. At the same time, they appreciated that socialism was exerting a tremendous influence on people by force of example. Many facts "reinforce the impression that the Soviet Union (meaning the socialist system--- Sh. S.) represents the future''. The former policy of the United States, according to the experts, did not justify itself. The American bubble of confidence had burst. But the conclusions and recommendations of the experts boiled down to retaining the old policy. They did not consider it possible to end the cold war and asserted that the preservation of peace must not be the primary aim of the Western powers. ".. .The absolute pursuit of peace as the primary objective of policy would, under present world conditions, result in our surrender to Soviet domination.. .. We may have overdone the atmosphere of an imminent military crisis,'' the experts admitted, but advised that it was necessary to continue acting in the same way. Under no circumstances must there be an "imbalance of military forces in favour of the Soviet Union''. Moreover, even if it is inexpedient to launch a preventive war against the socialist countries, the possibility of striking a pre-emptive 215 blow, which is essentially one and the same thing, should be considered.^^1^^
Such recommendations were also contained in other reports, like the report on the development of weaponry and its influence on the strategy and foreign policy of the United States, prepared by the Washington Centre for the Study of Foreign Policy Problems at John Hopkins University. Fifteen years after Truman's statement quoted earlier, this report again declared that the United States had assumed the main share of responsibility in the struggle against Soviet ``aspirations'' and contained a call for an ``all-embracive'' cold war policy. The report "US Foreign Policy, Ideology and Foreign Affairs'', prepared by Harvard University's Centre for International Affairs, recommended intensive actions from the outside to erode communist ideology in socialist countries, in other words, to launch extensive ideological subversion against them.
The ``reappraisal'' of US foreign policy was thus reduced to an attempt to elaborate even more aggressive and cunning methods of applying the old policy of restoring imperialist world domination. The matter was not limited to theoretical arguments and verbal recommendations. In the new conditions the imperialists sought to step up their efforts, to prevent the consolidation of the world socialist system and make new attempts to exacerbate the international situation in Europe _-_-_
~^^1^^ United States Foreign Policy. USSR rn/d Eastern Europe. A Study Prepared al the Request of the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, by a ColumbiaHarvard Research Group under the Administration of Columbia University. Washington, I960, pp. 3, 34, 23, 57, 18, 22, 19.
216 and the Far East. Although the end of hostilities in Korea and Vietnam had helped to stabilise the situation in these areas, the American imperialists kept up their aggressive intrigues, constantly violating the Geneva and other international agreements. In Europe they accelerated the rearmament of West Germany and its conversion into a hotbed of war provocation and aggression. At the end of the 1950s the revanchist programme of the West German ruling circles began to be quite explicit, being combined with open demands for access to nuclear weapons and changes in legislation allowing the Federal Republic to possess such weapons. At " GermanAmerican talks" in Bad Godesberg in the autumn of 1959, A. Weinstein, a prominent ideologist of the West German military, openly expounded their programme and demanded that the Federal Republic be given strategic weapons, that a line of fortifications be built on the border with the German Democratic Republic and "guerrilla detachments" be set up for use against the German Democratic Republic and other socialist countries.^^1^^ In August 1960, the revanchist programme was spelled out in an even more insolent form in the "Memorandum of Generals'', a joint statement by a number of leaders of the Bundeswehr.^^2^^The leaders of the Bonn military, elaborating and advertising the "forward strategy" which was to become the official strategy of NATO, demagogically claimed that it would facilitate "a solution of the German problem'', in other words, the annexation of the German Democratic Republic _-_-_
~^^1^^ Neucs Deutschland, October 3, 1959.
~^^2^^ Die Welt, August 19, 1960.
217 by the Federal Republic of Germany by force. But the initiators of the new "strategic concept" made no secret of the fact that they had in view something much bigger. Paul Wengler, editor-- inchief of the Rheinischcr Merkur which is close to the Christian Democratic Union, the party which was in office at that time, wrote that "the German question is a specific case of liberating the population of 100 million in Bolshevised Central and Eastern Europe".^^1^^The line of restoring West German militarism and utilising it in the campaign against the Soviet Union and the People's Democracies, adopted by the United States and other Western powers after the Second World War, strongly resembles their policy towards Germany in the interwar years, the Munich policy which led to disastrous consequences. On the eve of the Second World War Germany had a gigantic war machine and represented a formidable threat to Europe, while its manpower, material and other resources were sufficient to absorb many European countries one after the other. It is this that partly explains the military successes of nazi Germany during the initial period of the war, when she occupied many countries, threatened to invade the British Isles and endangered the security of America.
At that time, the encouragement of nazi aggression by the ruling circles of Britain, France and the United States played a decisive part. Hoping to steer the German war machine eastward, that is, against the first socialist country in the world, they deliberately closed their eyes to the threat _-_-_
~^^1^^ P. W. Wengler, Wer gewinnt. Deutschland?, StuttgartDcgerloch, 1959, S. 87.
218 presented to their own countries and peoples by the reinforcement of German militarism. Here is how their position was described by William Dodd who at that time was US Ambassador in Berlin and personally favoured a united stand against nazi Germany and co-operation with the Soviet Union. In his Diary he wrote about a letter received early in May 1935 from Lord Lothian, a leader of the so-called Cliveden set of reactionary British politicians who enjoyed quite substantial influence in the Conservative Government. "He indicated clearly that he favours a coalition of the democracies (that is the Western imperialist powers---Sh. S.) to block any German move in their direction and to turn Germany's course eastwards. That this might lead to a war between Russia and Germany does not seem to disturb him seriously."^^1^^ Another British reactionary, Lord Lloyd of Dolobran, stated that Hitler could lay claim to a defence of general European interests against a world revolution.^^2^^For its part the Soviet Union, following its peace-loving policy, worked to build up an effective collective security system in Europe. In particular, the Soviet Government exerted great efforts to conclude an Eastern pact which could seriously hamper nazi aggression. The ruling circles of the Western powers frustrated the conclusion of this treaty and resorted to a direct compact with nazi Germany.
Archive documents relating to negotiations about an Eastern pact shed additional light on the _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ambassador Dodd's Diary. 1933--1938, New York, 1941, p. 241.
~^^2^^ Lloyd of Dolobran, The British Case. New York, 1940, p. 83.
219 extent the rulers of Britain and France were blinded by their hatred for the USSR and also by fascist demagogy and how they betrayed the national interests of their own states.At the end of March 1935 Anthony Eden, who at that time was Lord Privy Seal in the British Government, visited Moscow and had talks with Soviet officials concerning the conclusion of a mutual assistance treaty with the participation of a number of European countries (that is how the Eastern pact was called officially). On March 30 Eden had a conversation with Soviet leaders. The Soviet side, demonstrating the need for the treaty, emphasised that Germany should participate in it. "We do not want to surround anyone, we do not seek to isolate Germany. On the contrary, we want to maintain friendly relations with Germany. The Germans are a great and brave people. We never forget this. They cannot be kept fettered by the Versailles Treaty for long. Sooner or later the German people have to be free of the Versailles chains. But the forms and circumstances of liberation from Versailles are such as to evoke our serious alarm, and definite guarantee is necessary to prevent any unpleasant complication. Such guarantee is the Eastern Mutual Assistance Pact, of course, with Germany if there is any possibility for it.''^^1^^
In the same conversation it was intimated to Eden that Hitler was playing a double game. The Soviet leaders pointed out that "odd people" were in office in Berlin, who are engaged in "petty politics": they were frightening the British by _-_-_
~^^1^^ AVP SSSR, Series 0.5, Inventory List 15, File 3, pp. 276--77.
220 the war bogy of the USSR, but at the same time they were expressing readiness "to deliver to us on credit such products of which it is even inconvenient to speak openly---armaments, chemicals, and so on".^^1^^But London and Paris did not heed the Soviet warnings, which was hardly surprising. The ruling classes of the Western countries who assigned to nazi Germany the role of Europe's policeman wanted to use the hands of the nazi butchers to strangle the USSR and the European revolutionary movement. At the same time they hoped that during the war against the Soviet Union, German imperialism itself would be weakened and that would rid them of a dangerous competitor. Therefore, they encouraged German aggression, and concluded a compact with Hitler. Even previously, on November 19, 1937, Lord Halifax, who acted as special envoy of Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain (shortly afterwards to become foreign secretary), told Hitler at a meeting in Obersaltzberg that he and other members of the British Government were aware that the Fiihrer had accomplished much not only in Germany herself, but, by destroying communism in his own country, he had blocked its path in Western Europe and therefore Germany could rightly be considered the bastion of the West against Bolshevism.^^2^^
The postwar policy of the Western powers with regard to German militarism is, in fact, a _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid.
~^^2^^ Dokumcnty i matcrialy kanuna vtoroi tnirovoi voiny (Documents and Materials Relating to the Eve of the Second World War), Vol. I, Gospolitizdat, 1948, p. 16.
221 direct continuation of Munich, with its class roots manifest even more. But today the policy, whose insolvency and danger were already evident in the 1930s, can lead to even greater miscalculations and create an even bigger danger.Despite all the exertions of the Western ruling circles, the Western German militarists and revanchists are presently deprived of the favourable opportunities they had in the past. First, the power of the imperialists does not extend to all Germany: the first socialist state of German workers and peasants is successfully developing in the Eastern part, and it is consistently applying a policy of peace and friendship with all nations.
Furthermore, profound changes have taken place throughout Europe. The rise in the East, alongside the Soviet Union, of other socialist states has radically changed the balance of power in favour of socialism and created an entirely new situation. The balance of power has tilted in favour of democracy and socialism more than on any other continent. The might of the Soviet Union has grown immeasurably as compared with the prewar period: now, together with the European part of the Soviet Union, European socialist countries take up 62.7 per cent of the continent's territory, and contain more than half its population. European socialist states now contribute a considerable part of Europe's industrial output.
The revolutionary changes in Europe after the Second World War have also altered the position of German imperialism. In Eastern Europe it has to contend not with countries disunited and weak militarily and economically, not with an isolated socialist island, as in the past, but with a single 222 socialist community that has a mighty military and economic potential.
For all the class blindness of the ruling Western circles, they have not been able fully to ignore realities, the mounting role of the socialist system in international relations, the fundamental changes in the world, above all the world revolutionary process of our time that has encompassed all continents, including Asia. Africa and Latin America. The disintegration of imperialism's colonial system is one of the primary factors of international postwar development. This process has gained momentum especially since 1957, stimulated by the existence of the world socialist system which has gained in strength and become the bulwark of the freedom and independence of the peoples. While the United Nations admitted on the average one new independent state each year between 1946 and 1955, the number increased more than fourfold between 1955 and 1960. In I960 alone more young states became members of the United Nations than during the entire period from 1947 to 1959.
Towards the end of the 1950s the relationship of political forces tilted even more towards world socialism. Its advantages over capitalism were displayed more visibly. "The world socialist system, which is growing and becoming stronger,'' it was noted by the Moscow Meeting of Representatives of the Communist and Workers' Parties of Socialist Countries in 1957, "is exerting ever greater influence upon the international situation in the interests of peace and progress and the freedom of the peoples.''^^1^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ The Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, pp. 7--8.
223The economic, scientific and technological progress of the socialist countries, particularly the Soviet Union, was of great importance for the consolidation of the world socialist system, for strengthening its international positions and prestige. The launching of the first artificial earth satellite by the Soviet Union on October 4, 1957, was the first step in space exploration. This great scientific achievement at once reverberated on international relations, facilitating further great change in the alignment of class and political forces in favour of world socialism. The American Communist leader William Z. Foster pointed out in an article in the American The Worker that "the launching of the man-made satellite by the USSR is, by common agreement, an event of stupendous scientific importance, marking a new era of scientific accomplishment. It is also a splendid demonstration of the superiority, technically and otherwise, of the Socialist system over that of capitalism.''^^1^^
It is not surprising that the international situation at that time was evaluated primarily in the light of the initial Soviet step in space exploration. "The launching of a sputnik into international space has completely staggered the Western world,"^^2^^ so wrote Le Monde diplomatique. Even American journalist Harry Schwartz, a rabid anti-Communist, had to admit that it would be necessary to discard "the consistent tendency to underestimate Soviet capabilities'', engendered by hatred for the USSR "that results in wishes being substituted for facts".^^3^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ The Worker, New York, October 9, 1957, p. 4.
^^2^^ Le Monde diplomatique. No. 44, 1957, p. 1.
~^^3^^ 'The New York 'Times, October 7, 1957.
224The New America, written by Adlai Stevenson, a leader of the Democratic Party, was published in New York, in 1957. Stevenson for a long time was instrumental in shaping Washington's foreign policy and in the last years of his life was the permanent US delegate to the United Nations. Examining Soviet influence on the world, Stevenson arrived at conclusions which were not pleasing for capitalist ruling circles. "Everywhere people seeking a short cut to raise their own standards of life,'' he wrote, "are told that the Soviet Union alone has mastered the secret of converting a peasant economy into a modern industrial state in a single generation.... Today the peoples of the proud, poor, new nations can find little in official United States policy which seems addressed to them and their problems... . Much of the world has come to think of us as militarists, and even a menace to peace.''^^1^^
The socialist system continued to gain in strength, unity and cohesion in this international political situation which was marked, on the one hand, by greater aggressiveness of world imperialism and, on the other, by a further shift in the balance of power towards socialism, the national liberation movement, democracy and peace. Both objective and subjective factors thus acted in favour of socialism. New forms of unity of the socialist countries arose and new important events occurred in the history of world socialism.
A Meeting of Representatives of Communist and Workers' Parties of Socialist Countries, held in Moscow on November 14--16, 1957, played an _-_-_
~^^1^^ Adlai A. Stevenson, The New America, New York, 1957, pp. 22--23.
__PRINTERS_P_225_COMMENT__ 15---500 225 important part in consolidating the socialist forces and strengthening the international communist and working-class movement.The Declaration adopted at the Meeting pointed out that the cohesion and unity of the socialist countries was the true guarantee of the national independence and sovereignty of each of them. "Stronger fraternal relations and friendship between the socialist countries call for a MarxistLeninist internationalist policy on the part of the Communist and Workers' Parties, for educating all the working people in the spirit of combining internationalism with patriotism and for a determined effort to overcome the survivals of bourgeois nationalism and chauvinism. All issues pertaining to relations between the socialist countries can be fully settled through comradely discussion, with strict observance of the principles of socialist internationalism.''^^1^^
The Meeting stressed the need for stepping up the struggle against opportunist trends in the working-class and communist movement and eliminating revisionism and dogmatism in the Communist and Workers' Parties. It emphasised that the Parties of the fraternal countries must firmly adhere to the principles of combining the general truth of Marxism-Leninism with the practical activities of socialist revolution and socialist construction in conformity with each country's conditions.
The 1957 Moscow Meeting was of great importance for mobilising all forces for solving _-_-_
~^^1^^ The Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, p. 13.
226 economic, political and cultural problems of the world socialist community.Reciprocal visits of socialist Party and Government leaders helped immensely to strengthen unity and political co-operation among socialist states. Such visits, exchanges of opinion on basic problems of foreign policy and international relations facilitated the solution of burning issues, the co-ordination and working out of a common policy on major international issues. They became not only an important means for solving political problems arising in relations between the socialist countries, but also a medium for exchanging know-how.
The late 1950s were marked by another historic triumph for world socialism: the Cuban revolution of January 1, 1959. The birth of the first socialist state in the Western Hemisphere on the doorstep of the citadel of world imperialism, the United States, ushered in a qualitatively new stage in the liberation struggle against US diktat in Latin America. It visibly demonstrated the weakening of the world positions of US imperialism. But significance of the Cuban revolution is not conlined to that; it demonstrated the unity of the world revolutionary process inasmuch as the national liberation revolution had directly grown into socialist revolution. This became possible only when a world socialist system already existed, when the united actions of its members had created an international situation in which the world revolutionary process, all anti-imperialist movements---whether on a global or local scale--- could proceed rapidly, at minimal cost and in the most favourable way.
__PRINTERS_P_227_COMMENT__ 15* 227 __ALPHA_LVL3__ 2. Further ImprovementThe period under review was also marked by an important milestone in the development of economic co-operation.
A Meeting of Representatives of Communist and Workers' Parties of CMEA Member Countries was held in May 1958. It was also attended by representatives of the Communist Party of China, the Working People's Party of Vietnam, the Workers' Party of Korea and the Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party. The Meeting and also the subsequent 10th and llth sessions of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance outlined ways for further improving the forms of economic co-operation between fraternal countries and best utilising the immanent advantages of the world socialist economic system.
The Meeting agreed that now the economic ties between socialist states were considerably stronger and comprehensive, special importance attached to "greater specialisation and co-- operation in production between interconnected sectors of the economies of socialist countries".^^1^^ Industrial specialisation and co-operation ensure a saving of material resources and a rise in labour productivity, the most rational use of the natural resources and economic conditions of the socialist countries for accelerating the rates of extended socialist reproduction.
Improvement in the forms of economic co-operation enhanced the role of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance. The 12th CMEA session held in 1959 played an essential part in _-_-_
^^1^^ Izvestia, May 25, 1958.
228 coping with these tasks. It approved a CMEA Charter which came into force on April 13, 1960. The Charter emphasises the resolve of members to continue developing all-round economic co-operation on the basis of consistent implementation of the international socialist division of labour for the sake of building socialism and communism in their countries and ensuring durable peace the world over. It defines the aims of the Council as follows: to promote, by pooling and co-ordinating efforts, the planned development of national economies, acceleration of economic and technological progress, greater industrialisation in less-industrially advanced countries, continuous growth of labour productivity and higher living standards.The Charter recorded the crystallised principles of the Council's activities. This international organisation operates on the basis of equality of all members, respect for sovereignty and national interests, mutual benefit and comradely mutual assistance. These principles are reflected specifically in Article 4 of the Charter which reads:
``All recommendations and decisions in the Council are adopted only with the consent of the interested member countries of the Council; moreover, every country has a right to declare its interest in any question examined in the Council.
``Recommendations and decisions do not extend to countries which declare their non-interest in the given question. But each of these countries may subsequently accede to the recommendations and decisions adopted by the other member countries.''^^1^^
_-_-_^^1^^ Vneshnaya lorgovlyu, No. 9, 1960, p. 40.
229While at the initial stage of the world socialist system economic ties were effected chiefly through bilateral trade, scientific and technical exchange, after the establishment of CMEA and particularly in the period under review multilateral cooperation gained ground. In 1956 CMEA began to co-ordinate national economic plans; specifically the main indicators for various economic sectors were co-ordinated for 1956--1960. In 1956 and 1957 the Council set up standing commissions on the engineering industry, geology, the oil and gas industry, iron and steel and non-ferrous metals industries, chemical industry, agriculture, exchange of electric power, and foreign trade. The commissions facilitate application of the principles of socialist international division of labour, coordination of national economic plans and industrial co-operation.
Regular consultations between Party and Government leaders on key economic and political problems began to play an important part.
All these measures ensured greater division of labour, industrial specialisation and co-operation and further improvement of methods for making the socialist economy more efficient.
In this period, too, a number of People's Democracies (Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria and Rumania) completed the construction of socialist foundations. These countries now launched the full-scale building of socialist society. The German Democratic Republic, in fact, was completing this stage.
Achievements of the fraternal countries in socialist construction promoted the steady growth in the might and economic potential of the world socialist system. In 1960 the socialist countries 230 accounted for some 36 per cent of world industrial output; about 50 per cent of the production of coal, steel, pig iron, and some other items.
Soviet economic ties with Asian socialist countries were extensively developed during this period. In particular, besides the active assistance of the Soviet Union to China in building more than 200 large industrial enterprises and creating such important new industries as the automobile, tractor, aircraft, power, heavy and precision engineering, precision instruments and radio equipment industries, the USSR handed over to the People's Republic of China between 1954 and 1963 more than 24,000 sets of scientific and technological documentation, including over 1,400 designs of large enterprises. The Soviet Union did much, too, to bolster China's defences, build up a modern defence industry, to train engineers, technicians and skilled workers, and furnished long-term credits totalling 1,816 million rubles on favourable terms.
It should be noted, however, that at the end of the 1950s Mao Tse-tung and his group charted a special course in home and foreign policy which ran counter to the principles of proletarian internationalism, the basic laws of building socialism, Marxism-Leninism, and the general political line of the countries in the socialist community and the world communist movement.
To sum up, in the period between 1957 and 1960, despite the continued efforts of international imperialism both in Europe and in Asia to intensify the provocative cold war policy, the international positions of the socialist countries were considerably strengthened. Unity of international 231 action consolidated the positions of the forces of socialism, the national liberation movement, democracy and peace, and facilitated the development of the world revolutionary process.
[232] __NUMERIC_LVL2__ Chapter VI. __ALPHA_LVL2__ THE WORLD SOCIALIST SYSTEMThe considerable economic achievements of the socialist countries formed the foundation for strengthening world socialism, which has solidly struck root as a socio-economic system. The USSR and the European People's Democracies fulfilled and also partly overfulfilled long-term economic plans and undertook deep-going economic reforms in planning and administration whose purpose was to intensify economic development, to raise the efficiency of both production and exchange and to stimulate technological progress. The economic reforms emanate from a whole range of new problems which have arisen and are determined by socialism's economic laws.
Economic, political, military and cultural cooperation has further improved and co-ordination of economic plans and industrial co-operation have advanced to a new level. New forms of equal and mutually beneficial co-operation arose on the basis of the international socialist division of labour. It was in the 1960s, for example, that CMEA member states began jointly to build major projects of economic importance to the participants.
233In ten years (1957--1967) CMEA countries concluded 14 bilateral and 2 multilateral agreements on co-operation in building industrial projects or developing individual industries. They jointly built a number of big economic projects like the Druzhba (Friendship) Oil Pipeline, the Mir (Peace) Power System with a central dispatcher service and the CMEA Standardisation Institute. Steps were taken to extend co-operation to agriculture and a top-level conference for the exchange of know-how was held in Moscow on February 2-3, 1960, with the participation of representatives of the Communist and Workers' Parties of European socialist countries.
A second Conference of Representatives of the Communist and Workers' Parties of Socialist Countries, members of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, held in June 1962, was of exceptional importance, ratifying the "Basic Principles of the International Socialist Division of Labour'', drawn up by the 15th CMEA session. This document defined the main trend, content and basic forms of economic co-operation among CMEA countries at the present stage of their development when favourable conditions exist for the purposeful and planned international socialist division of labour. It clearly defined the aim of the international socialist division of labour, namely, to raise production efficiency, promote high growth rates in the economy and the standard of living in all socialist countries, to industrialise and gradually eliminate the historical differences in economic levels of the socialist countries and to create the material basis for their more or less simultaneous transition to communism, within a single epoch.
234An inter-session standing body, the Executive Committee of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, was set up with broad powers at the 16th CMEA session. The 1962 Conference formulated general principles of co-ordinating economic plans and provided for their application by coordinating the five-year economic development plans for 1961--1965. It also resolved that the first secretaries of the fraternal Parties and Heads of Government of CMEA countries would meet regularly to discuss urgent problems of economic co-operation.
This was an important step in furthering industrial specialisation and co-operation. Lenin had conceived the future socialist co-operation as a single world co-operative where the economy functions to a common plan. He said in 1918: "Now all we need is a single will to enter with an open heart that single world co-operative."^^1^^ The June 1962 Conference made a big step in that direction now that member states had irrevocably embarked on the path of socialism.
This policy was continued by a conference of the First Secretaries of the Central Committees of the Communist and Workers' Parties and Heads of Government of CMEA member countries held in Moscow on July 24--26, 1963. "Comradely mutual assistance and mutual benefit from economic co-operation of socialist countries, developing on the basis of the principles of equality, strict observance of sovereignty, comradely mutual assistance and mutual benefit,'' the Conference pointed out, "help the world socialist system advance to new landmarks in _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 28, p. 333.
235 strengthening its economic might, developing science and technology, and improving the living standard of the working people in peaceful economic competition with capitalism.''^^1^^ The Conference approved the periods for co-ordination of national economic plans for the following five years (1966-- 1970) and endorsed proposals drawn up by the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance on the change-over to multilateral settlements in trade between CMEA countries and the establishment for these purposes of an International Bank for Economic Co-operation (IBEC).The agreement on multilateral settlements in transferable rubles and the founding of the International Bank for Economic Co-operation, signed in Moscow in October 1963, put into operation a new system of settlement and monetary relations corresponding to the current level of economic co-operation. IBEC is to promote the economic co-operation and development of signatories to the agreement, to extend their mutually beneficial trade and economic ties, and also to stimulate co-operation of Bank members with other countries. The Bank's purpose is to effect multilateral settlements in transferable rubles and operations in freely convertible and other currencies, to credit foreign-trade and other operations of member countries, attract and keep free resources in transferable rubles, keep an account of payment obligations of member countries and to engage in other banking operations conforming to the aims and tasks contained in its Charter. On the instructions of its members, the Bank finances and credits joint building, reconstruction _-_-_
~^^1^^ Pravda, July 28, 1963.
236 and operation of industrial enterprises and other projects with the resources allotted by these countries.The principles on which the activity of the International Bank for Economic Co-operation is based radically differ from those prevailing in monetary and financial organisations of capitalist countries. The United States, for example, has in the International Monetary Fund almost as many votes as 50 Asian, African and Latin American countries and has even more votes in the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development than all the participating less-- developed countries combined. The Americans are the actual masters of these organisations and dictate to them decisions that suit Wall Street.
IBEC activity, on the other hand, is based on truly democratic principles, full equality and respect for the sovereignty of member countries. All participants enjoy equal rights in its administrative bodies---the Council and the Board. Decisions in the supreme body of the Bank, the Council, are taken only with the consent of all the countries represented in it.
The considerable achievements between 1956 and 1967 in intensifying and extending the international socialist division of labour and improving the forms and methods of economic ties, in developing new, better forms of co-operation enabled CMEA states to increase the economic and military potential of the world socialist system. It was pointed out in the statement of the Moscow Meeting of Representatives of the Communist and Workers' Parties in 1960 that the socio-economic possibilities for restoring capitalism had been abolished in the Soviet Union and other socialist 237 countries. The combined forces of the socialist community reliably protect each socialist country from the encroachments of imperialist reaction. Thus, the welding together of the socialist states into a single community, its growing unity and might ensure the complete victory of socialism within the whole community.
The economic and political level and militaryeconomic potential of the world community of socialist states, its iniluence in international relations, offered the 1960 Meeting of the Communist and Workers' Parties grounds for conclusion that "the world socialist system is becoming the decisive factor in the development of society".^^1^^
Rational use of internal resources, in combination with the general advantages of the socialist mode of production, offers to each socialist country unlimited possibilities for effectively solving all problems of socialist and communist construction. Today Lenin's forecast has come true in the Soviet Union and on an international scale, within the world socialist system. Lenin stated in November 1922: "Nobody believes that any important change can be achieved at a fantastic speed; but we do believe in real speed, speed compared with the rate of development in any period in history you like to take---especially if progress is guided by a genuinely revolutionary party; and this speed we shall achieve at all costs.''^^2^^
In our days the actual speed in building the new society is a result of the conscious use of the advantages of the socialist mode of production on _-_-_
~^^1^^ The Struggle {or Peace, Democracy and Socialism, p. 38.
~^^2^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 392.
238 an international scale. Socialist countries, as before, firmly hold the lead in economic growth rates and are scoring new successes in peaceful economic competition with capitalism. In 1961-- 1966 socialist economic development, as hitherto, was primarily of an industrial nature and was expressed in high industrial growth rates. Average annual growth in 1961--1965 was: in Bulgaria 11.7 per cent, Czechoslovakia 5.2 per cent, Hungary 7.5 per cent, German Democratic Republic 6 per cent, Mongolia 10.5 per cent, Poland 8.5 per cent, Rumania 13.8 per cent, and USSR 8.6 per cent. Between 1961 and 1964 industrial output of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam increased on the average by 13.9 per cent, the Korean People's Democratic Republic 14.6 per cent, Yugoslavia 11.3 per cent and Albania 6.9 per cent. On the whole the average annual increase in the industrial output of the world socialist system was 7.4 per cent in 1961--1965, of which 8.5 per cent was in CMEA countries. In the rest of the world the increase during the same period was 6 per cent, of which it was 5.7 per cent in developed capitalist states. Let us also recall that whereas before the Second World War socialist countries accounted for about 17 per cent of the territory and 9 per cent of the population of the world, now their share is about 26 and 35.1 per cent respectively.In 1950 the world share of industrial output of socialist countries was about 20 per cent. In 1953 it had risen approximately to 27 per cent, and in 1966 to about 38 per cent, of which the USSR contributed almost 20 per cent. The national income in the Soviet Union rose in 1965 by 261 per cent as compared with 1950 (182 per cent per 239 capita), Bulgaria 286 per cent (241 per cent per capita); Czechoslovakia 127 per cent (98 per cent per capita); Hungary 135 per cent (115 per cent per capita); German Democratic Republic 186 per cent and 209 per cent respectively; Poland 306 per cent and 119 per cent, and in Yugoslavia by 181 and 135 per cent.
The following data give an idea of the course of the economic competition between the two systems in the 15 years since 1950.
In 1965 world industrial output increased by 185 per cent as compared with 1950. The accretion achieved during this period in all countries, except the socialist states, was 125 per cent. In the developed capitalist states it amounted to 116 per cent (in the United States 91 per cent). In socialist countries industrial production increased during this period by 412 per cent (in the Soviet Union by 358 per cent).
The average annual growth rate of world industrial production in 1951--1965 was 7.2 per cent, in non-socialist countries 5.6 per cent, and in developed capitalist states 5.3 per cent (the United States 4.4 per cent), whereas in socialist countries, industrial production rose by 11.5 per cent annually, and by 10.6 per cent in CMEA countries (the USSR 10.7 per cent). At the same time, in the five years (1961--1965) industrial growth rates in socialist countries declined somewhat: 7.4 per cent for all socialist countries, 8.5 per cent in CMEA countries and 8.6 per cent in the USSR. The decrease is explained by a number of reasons, including the serious lag in agriculture. Nevertheless in this five-year period industrial growth rates in the socialist countries were higher than those of the world (6.5 per cent) and of advanced 240 capitalist states (5.7 per cent, including 5.6 per cent in the USA).
Socialist states attained a high level in industrial development: they accounted for a considerable part of world industrial output and, for some goods (per capita), already held a leading place in the world. There were, however, quite a few difficulties in socialist economic growth, particularly in the early 1960s, which appeared variously in different countries. For example, the Soviet Union did not fulfil the targets of the seven-year plan (1959--1965) in some industries, and agricultural output increased only by 14 per cent. The lag in agriculture resulted in non-- fulfilment of the plan targets by the light and food industries, and this affected the growth rate of national income and material welfare. Growth rates of labour productivity decreased. While in 1956--1960 labour productivity in industry rose by 6.6 per cent annually on the average, in 1961-- 1965 the figure was 4.8 per cent.
One reason for the slower growth rate of national income was the increase in defence expenditure dictated by increasing international tension and the greater aggressiveness of US policy. Another reason was mistakes and miscalculations in formulating national economic plans and a voluntaristic approach to the solution of some economic problems, thus upsetting the balance between various economic sectors and within them. The 23rd Congress of the CPSU pointed out that the "deficiencies in economic development are largely due to the disparity that has appeared in the past few years between the steeply increased scale of production, the recently discarded methods of economic planning and __PRINTERS_P_241_COMMENT__ 16---500 241 managemcnt, and the system of incentives. The initiative ol enterprises was held in eheek, their rights were restricted and their responsibility lowered. Costaccounting relations between enterprises were largely of a formal nature. The operation of objective economic laws was underrated in economic planning and management. Subjectivism, arbitrary changes of proportions in the development of some branches of production and economically unsubstantiated decisions all played a negative role.''^^1^^
The GPSU denounced subjectivism in deciding economic questions as amateurish contempt for science and practice, which is alien to Leninism. The decisions of the Plenary Meeting of the Party's Central Committee in October 1964 and of subsequent Plenary Meetings put an end to such methods, restored the Leninist principles of scientifically guiding socialist construction and adapted them to modern conditions. These decisions were aimed at bringing administration and planning in line with socialism's objective economic laws, at mobilising and placing at the service of communist construction all the advantages of a planned economy and stimulating popular initiative.
Other socialist countries, too, had shortcomings in economic planning and administration. Thus, the political report of the Central Committee ol the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia at its f 3th Congress pointed out that the current efficiency of the economy was inadequate for ensuring planned growth of consumption. "We did not do enough to improve the quality of output and to _-_-_
~^^1^^ 23rd Congress of llti: Cl'SU, pp. 319--20.
242 prevent substantial losses and uneconomical functioning. The material incentive principle was utilised insufficiently, and this has led to levelling in payment for work. All these reasons and the gradual loss of efficiency by the old system of management led to a temporary imbalance between the creation of economic resources and their use.''^^1^^Economic reforms were launched in the USSR and European socialist countries almost simultaneously in the mid-1960s and, naturally, they are being carried out differently in various countries being based on the specific economic features of each one along with the interests of further strengthening the world socialist economy. The purpose of the reforms is to improve economic guidance by perfecting planning, stimulating production, extending the initiative and economic independence of enterprises, and enhancing people's material interest in their work.
Proper combination of centralised planned guidance with greater initiative and independence for industrial enterprises is one of the primary demands of scientific economic management in socialist states. Introduction of the new economic management system opened wide scope for the operation of the law of planned proportional economic development, made it possible to eliminate disproportion between industries and raised production efficiency.
Bourgeois commentators alleged that the economic reforms were a sign of ``deviation'' from socialism and ``evolution'' towards capitalism, that _-_-_
^^1^^ Rud\'e Pr'avo, June 1, 1966.
243 they confirmed the hopes cherished by imperialist ideologists over the years. As early as 1962 Edgar Morin, a French sociologist, claimed that "the USSR is entering the phase of bourgeois civilisation...''.^^1^^ A "plurality of possibilities" for Soviet society supposedly exists and attempts are made to put a "theoretical basis" under such fabrications. For example, Walt Rostow, noted ideologist of American monopoly capital, has formulated a theory concerning the "stages of economic growth" which rejects the idea that countries belong to socio-economic systems and proclaims as the decisive factor oi history the attainment by them of a particular ``stage''; moreover, at the "industrial stage" differences in social system are `` obliterated''. Bourgeois sociologists like Pitirim Sorokin and Raymond Aron put forward "the concept of synthesis" or ``convergence'' of capitalism and socialism.In the period preceding the 23rd Congress of the CPSU, the Western press was full of fabrications about the ``crisis'' in the socialist economy, the ``adoption'' by the socialist countries of capitalist economic methods, and the like. This was nonsense. The economic reforms in the Soviet Union and other socialist countries consolidated the socialist economy, ensured the necessary prerequisites for accelerating the growth rates of industry and agriculture, and material and cultural standards. They strengthened the positions of socialism in its economic competition with capitalism and promoted the fuller use of the advantages of the socialist system. This, as stressed by the 23rd Congress of the CPSU, disappointed the _-_-_
~^^1^^ La NEF, No. 9, January--March, 19G2, p. 89.
244 imperialist politicians and propagandists. The New York Herald Tribune, for example, wrote that the 23rd Congress once again confirmed how dangerous it was to indulge in suppositions, particularly when the wish was taken for reality.^^1^^The reforms are in full accord with the economic laws of socialism and the level of socio-- economic development and achievements in socialist and communist construction.
``The reform,'' it was pointed out, for example, in the decision of the Central Committee of the Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party, "is backed by economic and political arguments. It is necessary because the old important sources and potentialities of economic growth have been largely exhausted and in future swift growth is possible only through more intensively tapping the internal economic potentialities and accelerating technological progress. The political significance of the reform consists above all in that it is designed to ensure a swifter rise in the living standard of the masses and is aimed at making the living standard of every workingman individually depend, to a greater extent than now, on the social usefulness of his labour. Furthermore, the political aim is to remove excessive restrictions which hamper the development of personal initiative and responsibility, and to curb bureaucratic tendencies. Greater possibilities should be afforded for the free development of creative endeavour facilitating the progress of socialism and promoting the interests of society. Lastly, the political aim is to create, with the help of the reform, more _-_-_
~^^1^^ New York Herald Tribune, October 31, 1966.
245 favourable conditions for (he further development of socialist democracy.''^^1^^In each country the economic reform is implemented in full conformity with the interests ol the national economy, but it also reflects improvements in economic management in almost all the European socialist states. "This is a general natural phenomenon dictated by similar tendencies, aims and tasks at the present stage of the socialist economy and the prospects for its further development,"^^2^^ Todor Zhivkov, First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party, stated at the Plenary Meeting of the Party's Central Committee at the end of April 1966.
The economic reform in the USSR, the German Democratic Republic, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Bulgaria and Hungary, includes a whole set of interconnected measures for improving socialist relations of production. As a result, the Party's leading role in economic development is being consolidated on the basis of a precise delineation of functions and responsibility between the Party and the state apparatus. The problem of scientifically basing the economic plan of every fraternal country is also being tackled, particularly with a view to utilising science and technology to the full and securing the maximum efficiency of all economic sectors.
An important element of the economic reform is the normalisation of commodity-money relations in the economy and wide use of the law of value and all economic instruments and stimuli (price, profit, credit, taxes, economic contracts) in _-_-_
^^1^^ Nttiszabddsiig, May 29, 1966.
~^^2^^ Rnbotnichcsko Dclo, April 29, 1966.
246 order to raise the efficiency of social production. The organisation of industrial production, capital construction, home and foreign trade is improving in the socialist countries where reforms are being carried out. The establishment of closer links between production and exchange of goods in both home and foreign markets is an important task being accomplished in the course of the reform.In implementing the reforms, each socialist country considers the specific features which have emerged in the process of building up the economy. Particular aspects in the reorganisation of economic management have assumed different forms in different countries.
Quite a few specific problems result from the unequal level of economic development. This explains both the difference in the pace of the reforms and their scale and depth. The economic independence given to individual enterprises or production associations and the degree of use of commodity-money instruments also differ.
Though the forms of transition to the new economic system vary greatly, the main trend of the reforms remains the same.
The diversity of ways and means of reorganising economic control dictates the need for interstate exchange of know-how in guiding and developing the economy, for considering the internal conditions and interests of each country before deciding how to improve economic co-- operation.
Specific features of introducing new elements can be illustrated by the problem of the most rational and efficient combination of central planning with the economic independence of enterprises and industrial associations.
247In the German Democratic Republic, associations of people's enterprises and the enterprises themselves are given targets for marketable output, the share of export goods, size of profit, growth of labour productivity and number of workers. But most of the plan indicators are drawn up by the associations and the enterprises themselves. The new element in long-term planning is the introduction of two stages: the first stage is a forecast of the development of the productive forces covering a period of 15 to 20 years; the second stage involves comprehensive planning for a five-or seven-year period. Formerly, the main criterion in assessing the operation of an enterprise was the fulfilment of the gross output plan. Now chief attention is paid to the profit indicator, which has become the major criterion for judging the operation of an enterprise. This indicator is supplemented by data on the reduction of costs, growth of labour productivity, fulfilment of the export plan, and so on. Enterprises are given considerable financial independence, the right themselves to sell goods on the home market and, in a number of cases, on the foreign market too. At the same time, as pointed out earlier, under the new system the activity of enterprises is also regulated by obligatory plan targets received from above.
In Bulgaria and Hungary, under the new system the plan is the main instrument for guiding the economy, but it does not involve directive regulation of the economy from above in all details. It is primarily a means of economically influencing production as a whole. The state sets the main proportions in the economy by pursuing a single policy in technological progress, capital investment, foreign trade, payment for work and finance.
248On the basis of the state five-year plan Bulgarian and Hungarian enterprises draw up their own five-year plans enjoying greater economic autonomy than, say, in the German Democratic Republic. In Bulgaria, for example, enterprises have the right to dispose of the state funds they receive, to sell surplus assets, to establish economic ties with one another, extend and technically improve production, assign money for collective and personal consumption, and so on. The criterion in assessing the operation of enterprises is the income (net output) created per employee and the ratio in which this income is distributed between the enterprise and society, between wages and the net income (profit).
The national economic plans in Bulgaria, Hungary and Czechoslovakia are binding on enterprises in the sense that they must proceed from the long-term course of the country's economic development, but not necessarily for every indicator, which can be in the nature of a guideline. Thus, in Czechoslovakia the plan for 1966 contained only about 70 obligatory and more than 330 guideline indicators (in the plan for 1965 there were more than 1,000 obligatory indicators).
The relationship between the economic and the administrative influence exerted on economic sectors is of a differentiated character under the new system in Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland. To a certain extent this also applies to the German Democratic Republic. The decisive part is played by the availability of goods and the export orientation of an enterprise or industry. Where economic reforms are carried out. measures are implemented lor greater application of 249 cost accounting in the sphere ol exchange, and more rational use of economic instruments, particularly in foreign trade.
Under the old system of planning, enterprises were not duly interested in production for export, in increasing export receipts and in saving imported raw materials, machinery and equipment. The old system did not stimulate a country to participate more energetically in the international specialisation of production. The sphere of production, as it were, was divorced from the sphere ol exchange, from foreign trade, which adversely affected the international socialist division of labour.
To eliminate these shortcomings, measures were taken in the German Democratic Republic, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Bulgaria to establish closer business links between industrial enterprises (or associations) and foreign trade organisations (export and import associations). For example, in the German Democratic Republic some foreign-trade organisations were turned into affiliates of associations of people's enterprises in charge of the sale of their output on foreign markets. In particular, the right to export complete plant for chemical factories and sugar refineries was given to the Chemieanlagen Association of People's Enterprises, for which purpose the Chemieanlagen Export Company was set up. It is under dual jurisdiction of the Ministry of Foreign and Intra-German Trade and the Chemieanlagen Association.
The right to operate independently on the foreign market was also given to individual industrial enterprises which produce mostly for export, for example, the Karl Zeiss enterprise.
250Foreign-trade organisations, industrial enterprises (authorised by the Ministry of Foreign and Intra-German Trade) and also industrial enterprises and associations independently engaged in export and import operations thus represent the German Democratic Republic on the world markets. Similar measures have also been taken in other European socialist countries. Naturally, the accomplishment of this task as a whole involves overcoming quite a few difficulties and the solution of additional problems, such as the form of foreign-trade monopoly, elaboration of a system for properly calculating the efficiency indicators of foreign trade operations and so on.
Greater application and development of the socialist principles of cost accounting in economic co-operation between CMEA countries is a matter that has acquired great significance. The point is the optimal use of the law of value in the world socialist economy, its more active employment for the planned intensification of industrial specialisation and the approximation of the economic levels. In particular, great importance attaches to the problem of applying economicallybased foreign-trade prices for specialised goods, which would take into account the interests of both the economy of each co-operating country and of the entire socialist community.
The long-term national economic plans of CMEA countries for f966--1970 were drawn up with an eye to the demands, tasks and trends of the new stage. Specifically they, alongside a further advance of the economy, ensured a fresh expansion of their economic co-operation. The consolidation and development of all forms and methods of economic and political co-operation 251 promote integration processes in the world socialist system and the removal of economic and political barriers between socialist countries by evening out the levels of their economic and political development. "The economic integration of the socialist countries,'' it was pointed out in the Report of the CPSU Central Committee to the 24th Party Congress, "is a new and complex process. It implies a new and broader approach to many economic questions, and the ability to find the most rational solutions, meeting the interests not only of the given country but of all the co-operating participants. It requires firm orientation on the latest scientific and technical achievements, and the most profitable and technically advanced lines.''^^1^^
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 2. Military and Political Co-operation.The period under examination is also important for the development of relations between the Soviet Union and other socialist countries, which are based on treaties and other legal documents.
New treaties of alliance were concluded between the USSR and a number of other socialist countries, or the term of operation of old treaties was prolonged.
_-_-_~^^1^^ 2-fth Congress nf l/ic CI'Sl', Documents, Moscow, 1971, p. 13.
252A Treaty of Fi iendship, Co-operation and Mutual Assistance between the USSR and the Korean People's Democratic Republic was signed in Moscow, on July 6, 1961.^^1^^ The contracting parties declared that they "in future too will participate in all international actions designed to ensure peace and security in the Far East and the world over and contribute to the attainment of these lofty goals''. Should one of the parties be subjected to armed attack by any state or coalition of states and thus find itself in a state of war, the other party shall immediately render military and other assistance by all means at its disposal. The parties undertook to develop and consolidate economic and cultural ties in the spirit of friendship and co-operation, on the basis of equality, mutual respect for state sovereignty, territorial integrity and non-interference in each other's internal affairs.
On the same day the Government of the Korean People's Democratic Republic made a statement, pointing out that the treaty was concluded with the intention of "safeguarding peace and security in the Far East and the world over, and strengthening the unbreakable friendship and unity of the peoples ol Korea and the Soviet Union based on the principles of socialist internationalism''. The treaty, which is of historical significance, "fully meets the national interests of the Korean people'', it was stressed in the statement. At the same time it noted that, in signing the treaty, the Government of the Korean People's Democratic Republic acted on the principle that all military _-_-_
~^^1^^ I'rnviln, July 7, 19(il.
253 and political treaties and agreements concluded both by South and North Korea prior to the unification of the country "become null and void when Korea is united on a peaceful and democratic basis''.The terms of operation of treaties concluded earlier by the USSR with Czechoslovakia and the Mongolian People's Republic expired between 1963 and f966. The protocol on the prolongation of the Treaty of Friendship, Mutual Assistance and Postwar Co-operation between the USSR and Czechoslovakia of December 12, 1943, and the treaties of friendship and mutual assistance signed by the Soviet Union with Poland (April 8, 1965), Mongolia (January 15, 1966), Bulgaria (May 12, 1967), and with Hungary (September 7, 1967), reaffirmed the loyalty of the contracting parties to the aims and principles recorded in the treaties concluded during and shortly after the war.
The protocol on the prolongation of the treaty between the USSR and Czechoslovakia noted with satisfaction that one of the two sovereign states formed on the territory of the former German Reich, the socialist German Democratic Republic, was following the path of peace and was an important factor in safeguarding security in Europe and preventing the threat of war.
The Treaty of Friendship, Co-operation and Mutual Assistance between the USSR and the Polish People's Republic,^^1^^ stressing the role of the German Democratic Republic in preserving the peace in Europe, also points to the serious threat in Europe created by West German militarism _-_-_
^^1^^ J'ravda, April 10, 1965.
254 and revanchism. In keeping with the principles of socialist internationalism, the parties undertook "to strengthen eternal and unbreakable friendship, to develop all-round co-operation and render each other assistance on the basis of equality, respect for the sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of the other party" (Article 1). The new treaty, like the preceding one, carries an article pertaining to the security of the parties. They undertook "jointly to employ all available means to eliminate the threat of aggression on the part of the West German forces of militarism and revanchism or any other state that would enter into an alliance with them" (Article 6). Article 5 is also of great importance in that it records the provision that the "inviolability of the state frontier of the Polish People's Republic along the Oder-Neisse" is one of the basic factors of European security.A Treaty of Friendship and Mutual Assistance between the USSR and the German Democratic Republic was signed on June 12, 1964. Its significance goes far beyond the bounds of relations between the two countries. It represents another step in consolidating European security, in reinforcing socialist defences. It provides for the pooling of effort by the two countries to safeguard peace and security in Europe and throughout the world. The parties undertook to do everything within their power to settle fundamental international issues on the basis of peaceful coexistence. They solemnly proclaimed that inviolability of the state frontiers of the German Democratic Republic was one of the principal factors of European security and reiterated their firm resolve to ensure their inviolability in conformity with the Warsaw 255 Treaty (Article !>). The treaty reflects the special status of West Berlin which is regarded as an independent political unit (Article 6). It envisages the further development and consolidation of economic, scientific and technical ties between the USSR and the GDR in accordance with the principles of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance.
The content of the treaty between the USSR and the GDR reflects the specific features of relations between the two fraternal countries and their position in the system of European security. "This treaty,'' Walter Ulbricht said, "corresponds to the provisions of the Warsaw Treaty and provides an additional element of stability and efficacy of the jointly charted political course.''^^1^^
The operation of the Treaty of Friendship and Mutual Assistance and the Economic and Cultural Co-operation Agreement between the USSR and the Mongolian People's Republic of February 27, f946, expired in 1966. Accordingly, a new Treaty of Friendship and Mutual Assistance between the two countries was signed in Ulan Bator on January 15, 1966,^^2^^ bringing up to date SovietMongolian relations based on the traditional unbreakable friendship, all-round close co-operation and mutual assistance of the two fraternal peoples and states. The treaty lays down that both parties "will render mutual assistance in safeguarding the defensive powers of both countries so as to reinforce the defence potential of the socialist community ... will consult on all major international problems affecting the interests of _-_-_
^^1^^ Pravdu, June 13, 1964.
^^2^^ Pravtlti, J;inu;iry IS, 1966.
256 both countries or the interests of peace and international co-operation and, acting in the spirit of their good traditions and also the United Nations Charter, will jointly take all necessary measures, including military ones, to safeguard the security, independence and territorial integrity of both countries" (Article ,5). The Soviet-- Mongolian Treaty, like the documents mentioned earlier, was concluded for a term of 20 years.As a result ol talks held in Sofia a new Treaty of Friendship, Co-operation and Mutual Assistance between the USSR and the People's Republic of Bulgaria was signed on May 12, 1967.^^1^^ Both parties were prompted by a desire to strengthen Soviet-Bulgarian relations and also by the pending expiry of the earlier Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance, concluded on March 18, 1948, which played an outstanding part in developing fraternal relations and all-round co-operation between the two countries. In signing the new treaty, the parties noted that all the prerequisites were available for closer co-operation between the Soviet and Bulgarian peoples which fully corresponded to historical traditions and also the Marxist-Leninist views on relations between socialist states.
Under the treaty of May 12, 1967, the parties undertook, in conformity with the principles of socialist internationalism, "to strengthen the eternal, unbreakable friendship between the peoples of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the People's Republic of Bulgaria and to develop allround co-operation between the two countries, to render each other fraternal assistance on the basis _-_-_
~^^1^^ Pravdu, May 14, 1967.
__PRINTERS_P_257_COMMENT__ 17---500 257 of mutual respect for state sovereignty, equality and non-interference in each other's internal affairs''. The treaty notes that the two countries will continue to act to consolidate the unity and cohesion of socialist countries, their friendship and brotherhood (Article 1). Proceeding from the principles of mutual assistance and the international socialist division of labour, the Soviet Union and Bulgaria will further develop mutually beneficial economic, scientific and technical co-operation on a bilateral and multilateral basis, still closer coordinate key sectors of the economy through industrial specialisation and co-operation and the extension of scientific and technical ties with the object of further drawing together the economies of both countries. The parties will also promote the further development of economic ties and cooperation within the framework of CMEA ( Article 2), and develop co-operation and joint creaiive activity in culture (Article 3).A number of articles deals with the reciprocal international commitments of the Soviet Union and Bulgaria. Under Article 5, they "will continue to take measures to strengthen the might of the world socialist system, defend international peace and the security of nations from encroachments of the aggressive forces of imperialism and reaction, attain general and complete disarmament, finally abolish colonialism in all its forms and manifestations, and render support to countries which have discarded colonialism and are strengthening national independence and sovereignty''. As European states, the USSR and Bulgaria proclaimed that "effective resistance to the threat from revanchist and militarist forces which are striving for the forcible change of frontiers 258 that emerged in Europe after (he Second World War is an important requisite for safeguarding European security" (Article 6). The parties voiced "their firm resolve, jointly with other member states of the Warsaw Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance and in accordance with it, to ensure the inviolability of the state frontiers of the signatories to this treaty and take all measures lor preventing aggression by any forces of militarism and revanchism and repulsing the aggressor"' (Article 6). Article 7 provides, in the event of armed attack on one party, for the immediate rendering by the other party of every assistance, including military, and support by all means at its disposal by way of exercising the right to individual and collective self-defence in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter. Provisions were also made for consultations by the parties and co-ordination of their positions on all important international issues affecting the interests of both contracting parties (Article 9).
Allied treaties between other European socialist states are important factors in strengthening the co-operation of the fraternal countries and safeguarding European security. New treaties of friendship and mutual assistance were concluded between Poland and the GDR (March 15, 1967), Poland and Bulgaria (April 6, 1967), Hungary and the GDR (May 18, 1967), Bulgaria and the GDR (September 7, 1967).
All these treaties reflect the natural process of further drawing together the socialist nations, the new, higher level of co-operation between them. Consolidating what has been achieved in preceding decades, they go much farther in __PRINTERS_P_259_COMMENT__ 17* 259 strengthening the fraternal ties binding the socialist countries and open up new opportunities for their political, economic and cultural cooperation.
The treaties also take into account world changes of recent decades, and the new situation which arose as a result ot the development of the world socialist system in the postwar period.
In the first place, the new treaties proceed from the tasks facing the USSR and other socialist countries in their effort to safeguard peace and security and in economic and political rapprochement. Second, they reflect the desire of fraternal Parties and countries to do all they can to strengthen the socialist community, consistently consolidate the world communist movement and unite all revolutionary forces. Third, they determine the joint action of socialist states in the struggle for their common interests, against imperialist reaction, for peace, democracy and socialism.
In their totality all treaties among socialist countries, including the Warsaw Treaty, represent an international system of great efficacy which reliably guarantees the frontiers of these countries, the constructive labour of their peoples from any encroachment by the imperialists, and ensures the development of fraternal friendship and cooperation in every sphere.
The period after 1961 was thus marked by the further strengthening of the military and political alliance of socialist states. Differences, however, between the leadership of the People's Republic of China and other socialist countries were openly revealed. It became clear that the divisive activities of the Chinese leaders and their anti-Soviet 260 policy were driving them into a blind alley and had, in fact, isolated them.
The communique of the llth Plenary Meeting of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China which was held in August 1966 under the guidance of Mao Tse-tung, shows that the Chinese leadership approved the anti-Soviet line as the official policy of the Party. That Plenary Meeting in effect rejected the proposal of the CPSU and other fraternal Parties on joint action in the struggle against imperialism, including US imperialist aggression in Vietnam.
The record of two decades has shown that the unity of socialist states is important not only for successfully building socialism and communism in each state by joint effort. It is also a factor which determines the triumphant march of world socialism, the advance of human society along the road of peace and social progress. The world revolutionary process depends on the unity and solidarity of the socialist countries, of the international communist movement. That is why progressive world opinion rightly regards any step directed against the unity and solidarity of fraternal countries and fraternal Parties as harmful to the great cause of all the peoples who are fighting for liberation, for socialism and peace. Progressive people are watching with regret and anxiety the actions of the Chinese leaders deviating from the common line of the international communist movement, openly provoking a split in the unity of the socialist countries, the unity and cohesion of the world communist movement.
The chauvinistic, anti-Soviet policy and the reckless course of Mao Tse-tung and his group have plunged the country into chaos, disorganised 261 its economic, political and social life. An involved situation arose in China and the political struggle assumed a tragic nature.
Events in China leave no room for doubt that the policy of the Chinese leaders has entered a new and dangerous phase. The Plenary Meeting of the Central Committee of the CPSU, held in December 1966, stressed in its resolution that the course of Mao Tse-tung and his entourage had nothing in common with Marxism-Leninism. "Such a policy, such action,'' it was pointed out by the Plenary Meeting, "inflict harm on the interests of socialism, the international workingclass and liberation movement, the socialist gains of the Chinese people, and objectively they only help imperialism.''^^1^^ The Plenary Meeting emphasised the need for vigorously exposing the antiLeninist views and great-power nationalistic course of the Chinese leadership, for intensifying the struggle in defence of Marxism-Leninism, the general line of the international communist movement charted by the Moscow Meetings in 1957 and 1960.
Throughout the world Marxists-Leninists express anxiety over the future of the revolutionary gains of the Chinese people. A statement by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Finland, issued on February 2, 1967, noted that the functions of state bodies and of the Communist Party of China were "more and more openly taken over by Red Guards, by Party leaders who are supporting and inciting them. The impression is that violations of legality and democracy in the life of the Party and the state _-_-_
~^^1^^ I'ravila, December 14, IIKili.
262 have become a daily occurrence, the personality cult alien to socialism has been developed to the limit.'' "It is already clear now,'' it was pointed out in documents of the Meeting of Representatives of the Communist Parties of Arab countries held in May 1967, "that the purpose of the ' cultural revolution' is radically to change the superstructure of China by getting rid of Chinese Communist Party members who passed through the school of revolution and are devoted to MarxismLeninism, by breaking up the Party, the trade unions and other mass organisations and also the state apparatus, and by establishing a military dictatorship in the country. The Mao Tse-tung group has replaced the anti-imperialist struggle by a campaign against the Soviet Union and other socialist countries, against the world communist movement, against the national liberation and the entire world revolutionary movement.''The divisive policy of the Chinese leadership was in no way engendered by the nature of socialist international relations, but rather by the specific situation that arose in China as a result of the adventurist policy of Mao Tse-tung and his entourage. The "cultural revolution" launched in 1966, under whose flag an attempt was made to crush the healthy forces of the CPC, the finest representatives of the Chinese intellectuals, and the methods of this ``revolution'' fully exposed the real purpose behind Mao Tse-tung's strategy and tactics, namely, to establish a military dictatorship in the country with all its evil consequences. Because the Chinese leadership considered the socialist countries and Communist and Workers' Parties a big obstacle to this aim, it decided fully to insulate the country from their influence.
263Exposure of the divisive policy of Mao Tsetung and his entourage, an analysis of the real essence of events which took place in China under the guise of the "cultural revolution" represent real help to the healthy forces of the CPC and the People's Republic of China in the struggle for preserving the revolutionary gains, against Maoism, against the ideology of petty-bourgeois adventurism, rabid nationalism and great-power chauvinism.
In exposing the ideology and policy of the incumbent Peking leaders, which have nothing in common with Marxism-Leninism, L. I. Brezhnev, General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU, pointed out, "we are thereby waging a struggle not against the CPC, not against China, but for the Communist Party of China, for its return onto the path of internationalism, for its unity with all the fraternal Parties on the principled basis of Marxism-Leninism, the general line of the communist movement.''^^1^^
The Soviet people are sincere friends of the Chinese people, the Chinese working class, peasants and intellectuals. "At all stages of the revolutionary struggle and socialist construction in China, the Soviet people and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union have invariably been and remain loyal friends of the Chinese people, consistent proponents of strengthening solidarity between our countries,"^^2^^ it was stated in the message of greetings sent by the Central Committee of the CPSU, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, and the USSR Council of Ministers _-_-_
^^1^^ Pravda, January 14, 1967.
^^2^^ Pravda, October 1, I960.
264 to mark the 17th anniversary of the People's Republic of China on October 1, 1966. Guided by the principles of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism, the Soviet people and the CPSU have steadily pursued a policy of normalising relations with the People's Republic of China. An improvement of relations between the USSR and the PRC, the restoration of good-- neighbourliness and friendship between them, it was pointed out at the 24th CPSU Congress, would meet the fundamental, long-term interests of both countries, the interests of socialism, freedom of the peoples and the strengthening of peace.It should be stressed that differences and difficulties which at various stages arise in relations between socialist states cannot alter the general line of development of the world socialist system or the nature of the objective laws governing its progress. While in the first years after the Great October Socialist Revolution international imperialism succeeded with relative ease in defeating revolutionaries in some European countries, in overthrowing Soviet power in them and restoring capitalism, the situation is different now. The relationship of forces in the world has greatly shifted to the detriment of imperialism.
This, of course, does not mean that the enemies of socialism have abandoned their insane plans for restoring capitalism in socialist countries. Today, imperialism places its main stake on disuniting the socialist countries, on separating them. In the opinion of the ideologists of the imperialist bourgeoisie, this can create certain prerequisites for capitalist restoration from within. The strategy of imperialist states vis-a-vis the socialist system is in the main based on exploiting 265 difficulties which accompany the development of the socialist community.
With the deepening general crisis of capitalism, the collapse of the colonial system and the exacerbation of inter-imperialist contradictions, on the one hand, and the advance of world socialism, on the other, the ideological struggle of the two world systems has entered a new phase. The alignment of political and class forces in the world is compelling the imperialists to pay more attention to ``peaceful'' means of struggle against the socialist countries, to utilise more extensively in the ideological struggle not only ``classical'' bourgeois methods and forms of propaganda, but also all kinds of revisionist, Right Social-Democratic and opportunist concepts which are current in the working-class movement. Imperialist propaganda nowadays juggles quite freely with slogans of " national communism'', "democratic socialism,'' and other catchwords borrowed from the ideological arsenal of reformism and revisionism. Thus, the ranks of all the enemies of socialism, all the antiSoviet, anti-socialist forces are being consolidated on the basis of anti-communism and anti-- Sovietism.
This is one distinction of the ideological struggle in the world today. That is why MarxistsLeninists regard it as their prime task to expose all intrigues of the imperialist reactionary forces, to reveal the true substance of all anti-socialist concepts spread by the ideologists of the monopoly bourgeoisie and, simultaneously, to intensify the struggle against revisionism, reformism and other opportunist trends in the working-class movement.
Special significance attaches to the struggle 266 against the manifestations of nationalism and great-power chauvinism on which the enemies of socialism count in their attacks on the unity of the socialist countries and the world communist movement. They employ every means to undermine the socialist community from within. The ideologists of imperialism are resorting to all kinds of manoeuvres, are seeking out weak links and combine various forms of struggle against the socialist countries. They most often turn to methods of exaggerating national distinctions in a country, playing on the national sentiments of different sections of the community, especially the intellectuals.
Anti-Sovietism is the platform which unites all the enemies of socialist countries, internal and external. This is demonstrated by the historical experience of the revolutionary movement and specifically the Hungarian events in 1956 and the events in Czechoslovakia in 1968.
In our days it is not so easy openly to call for restoring the capitalist system in a socialist country. That is why anti-socialist elements extensively utilise demagogy, playing on difficulties of growth and mistakes made in the course of socialist construction.
Lenin once said: "I will never tire of repeating that demagogues are the worst enemies of the working class.''^^1^^ He considered them enemies because it is more difficult for the workers to recognise their true face, because in a period of disarray and vacillation there is nothing easier than to lure the masses by means of demagogy. They, as Lenin said, will learn of their mistake _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. 1. Li-uin. Coll,rl,;l Works, Vol. f,. p. 4(«.
267 later on, at a price of bitter suffering. These words have not lost their significance to this day.The enemies of socialism sought to carry out in Czechoslovakia one of their greatest bids to drive a breach in the socialist community, to tilt the world balance of forces in their favour. In 1968 Czechoslovakia became a sector of bitter struggle between the forces of imperialist reaction and counter-revolution, on the one hand, and the forces of socialism, on the other. That is why the entry of allied troops into Czechoslovakia in August 1968 was a key factor in defending the revolutionary gains of the peoples of Czechoslovakia, of world socialism.
We mentioned earlier what great attention Lenin paid to the national question, to relations between the Soviet socialist republics and the organisation of their close union. Lenin demanded the utmost consideration for the rights of all peoples, big and small, and worked for the establishment of genuine equal relations between them. At the same time he tirelessly called for proceeding from the class interests of the working people, the interests of the revolutionary struggle of the working class. Lenin taught the Communist Parties "to base their policy .. . not on abstract and formal principles but ... on a clear distinction between the interests of the oppressed classes, of working and exploited people, and the general concept of national interests as a whole. . .".^^1^^
Such an approach offers the key to a genuinely scientific understanding of the interconnection between proletarian internationalism and such principles of interstate relations as sovereignty, _-_-_
^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 145.
268 non-interference, equality, the right of nations to self-determination. These principles, far from running counter to the theory and practice of socialist internationalism, acquire a new content in relations between fraternal countries under the influence of socialist solidarity; they help to eliminate survivals of bourgeois nationalism, discord and mistrust between peoples, to consolidate their alliance in the struggle for preserving the gains of socialism and simultaneously strengthen the national independence of every socialist country.Socialist unity is not an abstract concept. It presupposes definite action which follows from Marxist-Leninist ideology, from the principles of socialist internationalism, which include: common defence of the revolutionary gains of the peoples of every socialist country; broad and close co-- operation and fraternal mutual assistance in building socialism and communism; joint action in defence of peace and international security, in the struggle against imperialism; every assistance to tile revolutionary forces of capitalist countries in their struggle for social liberation; support for the national liberation movements, for the popular struggle in young states for consolidating their independence and national regeneration.
Consequently, socialist unity is above all the practical application of the principles of proletarian internationalism, fraternal solidarity in the struggle for common aims and against common enemies.
The main laws of socialist construction are common to all countries. At the same time, as pointed out in the report of the Central Committee of the CPSU to the 23rd Party Congress, countries of 269 the socialist system "arc constantly coming up against new problems engendered by the realities of life in all its complexity and variety. It stands to reason that there are no ready-made solutions to these problems, nor can there be any. The development of the world socialist system, therefore, requires a constant creative approach, on the tried and tested basis of Marxism-Leninism, to the problems that arise, it requires the pooling of experience and opinions".^^1^^
Experience shows that socialist countries achieve the biggest successes when they act together, co-operating in building the new life, in energetic struggle for peace and social progress and against the imperialist policy of war and oppression. Today, the proper combination of the interests of every country with the interests of the entire community acquires paramount significance.
It would be wrong to assume that with the general advance and consolidation of socialist statehood, relations between socialist countries will grow simpler. Every country has its distinctions and historical traditions which do not necessarily coincide with those of other countries. Unity through diversity, through combining national and international interests---here is the way further to strengthen the socialist system. Lenin pointed out that "the unity of the international tactics of the communist working-class movement in all countries demands, not the elimination of variety or the suppression of national distinctions ... but the application of the fundamental principles of communism .,. which will correctly modify these principles in certain particulars, correctly adapt _-_-_
~^^1^^ 23rd Congress of the CPSU, p. 11.
270 and apply them to national and national-state distinctions''.^^1^^By their joint efforts the Communist and Workers' Parties which are at the helm in socialist states are overcoming the difficulties of growth. Undoubtedly, some zigzags and misunderstandings are possible at a particular stage of the greatest of all revolutions in history---the revolutionary transition from the exploiting society, which reached its final formation, to socialist and communist society based on entirely different principles. This is a process of unusual complexity and it would be naive to expect that its development should be straightforward.
But the record of the world socialist community attests to the indisputable advance of humanity to higher forms of social system and to the inevitable complete and final triumph of socialism and communism the world over.
_-_-_^^1^^ V.I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 92.
[271] ~ [272] __NUMERIC_LVL1__ Part Three __ALPHA_LVL1__ SOCIALIST FOREIGNThe Great October Socialist Revolution for the first time opened up the possibility of introducing democratic principles in interstate relations. It exerted a tremendous impact on international relations, demonstrated the inevitability of the ultimate complete triumph of the new international relations and laid the foundations for socialist foreign policy and diplomacy, which are opposed to those in exploiting society.
Prior to the October Revolution the world had no system of international relations which would not be based on plunder and violence, enslavement and oppression. "The art and activity of all hitherto existing rulers and their diplomats in essence resolved to setting nations at loggerheads, to utilising one nation for oppressing another,"^^1^^ Engels wrote. Born of revolution, the Soviet state was the first in world history to proclaim and apply a policy of peace and friendship among nations and states, a policy which best suits the interests of all working people. It became the _-_-_
~^^1^^ Marx/Engels, Wcrke, Bd. 5, Dictz Verlag, Berlin, 1969, S. 154.
__PRINTERS_P_275_COMMENT__ 18* 275 bulwark of peace and progress, and won the respect and affection of hundreds of millions of people.The victorious socialist revolution in Russia at once faced numerous internal and external enemies; the first state of workers and peasants arose in a capitalist encirclement. The young Soviet Republic had hardly withdrawn from the imperialist war and concluded the Brest Peace with Germany than it had to fight reactionary rebellions and repulse British, American, French, Japanese and other interventionists.
The fundamental principles of Soviet foreign policy were crystallised under incredibly difficult conditions. Nevertheless the young Soviet state, encircled by a fiery ring of fronts, fighting a lifeand-death battle and gripped in the vice of an economic blockade, succeeded in formulating and undeviatingly pursuing its own foreign-policy programme. This was another manifestation of the vitality of the new socialist system, of MarxismLeninism.
By the time the socialist revolution occurred in Russia Lenin had scientifically elaborated the main principles and trends of socialism's foreign policy. He solved the primary problems of the Communist Party's strategy and tactics, and expounded his views on the main issues of the working class's international policy. Consequently, by the time the Russian proletariat took power, the Party had already been equipped with a MarxistLeninist doctrine of socialist foreign policy.
The foreign policy and diplomacy of socialism differ radically from their bourgeois counterparts. Capitalist countries practically have always had foreign-policy aims which above all require war, and not diplomacy for their accomplishment. 276 Diplomacy to a large extent is called upon to serve a war policy---either in preparing for war or ensuring the most favourable conditions for it, or securing the best peace terms whether as a result of victory or defeat. If diplomatic means are not employed directly for preparing, waging and ending military conflicts, they, according to a remark imputed to the noted French diplomat Jules Cambon, help to achieve victory without resort to arms.
Such an approach is totally alien to the foreign policy of socialism. This was demonstrated by the very first international steps of the Soviet state. The main content of Soviet foreign policy has from the very outset been determined by the campaign for peace. This was a struggle not only for deliverance from imperialist aggression---first on the part of German imperialism, then, the British, American, French and Japanese interventionists---but also for the establishment and consolidation of conditions that are the only normal ones for human society and fully meet the requirements of progressive development. In the appeal "To the Citizens of Russia!'', written by Lenin on October 25 (November 7), 1917, he, in defining "the cause for which the people have fought'', put in the first place "the immediate offer of a democratic peace".^^1^^
The Soviet Republic began its foreign-policy activity by appealing to the peoples and governments that took part in the war to conclude a just and democratic peace, and by adopting the Decree on Peace which proclaimed aggressive war the greatest of crimes against humanity.
_-_-_~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 26, p. 236.
277The Decree on Peace, written by Lenin and adopted by the Second Congress of Soviets on the day after the victory of the October Revolution, was a document of historic importance. To this day its principles determine the leading line of Soviet foreign policy. Other socialist countries, too, are guided by the ideas of peace, peaceful coexistence and international co-operation which are embodied in the Decree. These ideas have to a certain extent also influenced the foreign policy of a number of young states brought into being by the national liberation struggle in former colonies and semi-colonies.
Lenin's Decree on Peace introduced in international relations for the first time the concept of a just, democratic peace without annexation, i.e., without the seizure of foreign lands, without the forcible incorporation of foreign nationalities, and without indemnities. Lenin gave a classical definition of annexation: "the government conceives the annexation or seizure of foreign lands to mean every incorporation of a small or weak nation into a large or powerful state without the precisely, clearly and voluntarily expressed consent and wish of that nation, irrespective of the time when such forcible incorporation took place, irrespective also of the degree of development or backwardness of the nation forcibly annexed to the given state, or forcibly retained within its borders, and irrespective, finally, of whether this nation is in Europe or in distant, overseas countries.''^^1^^
This Decree established the link between the struggle for peace and the principle of proletarian _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 26, p. 250.
278 internationalism. It appealed "in particular ... to the class-conscious workers" of Britain, France and Germany and voiced confidence that they would "understand the duty that now faces them of saving mankind from the horrors of war and its consequences" and "by comprehensive, determined and supremely vigorous action, will help us to conclude peace successfully, and at the same time emancipate the labouring and exploited masses of our population from all forms of slavery and all forms of exploitation".^^1^^By the Decree on Peace the Soviet Government renounced secret diplomacy and proclaimed a new principle, unknown in the practices of capitalist states,---the principle of conducting international negotiations "quite openly in full view of the whole people''.^^2^^ It announced the forthcoming open publication of all secret treaties which had been concluded by the tsarist and Provisional governments with other imperialist states. Emphasising the significance of renouncing secret diplomacy, the Soviet Government noted on November 9 (22), 1917: "The abolition of secret diplomacy is the primary requisite for honesty, for a people's, truly democratic foreign policy. Soviet power sets itself the task of pursuing such a policy.''^^3^^
This step was of fundamental significance because it stressed that the time when people's destinies were decided behind their backs, in the quiet of diplomatic chancelleries, was gone for ever.
Karl Marx wrote that it was the duty of the _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., pp. 251, 252.
^^2^^ Ibid., p. 250.
^^3^^ Dokumcnty vnc.ilinei pnliliki SSSR, Vol. I, p. 21.
279 working class to master itself the mysteries of international politics and to take an active part in international affairs. The government born of the Great October Revolution was the first to apply these behests. The frantic anti-Soviet campaign launched by the West in response to the publication of the secret treaties was caused not only by the exposure of the imperialist reactionary schemes. It was also evoked by fear that this step would awaken the initiative of the masses, that the October Revolution would lift to unprecedented heights their role in the struggle for solving international problems on the basis of justice and genuine democracy.The victory of the socialist revolution in Russia gave the people a great say in deciding the destinies of the world, creating the prerequisites for their active participation in international affairs, in solving questions of peace and war---this is the distinction of international development after 1917.
Socialist foreign policy, like home policy, is intrinsically honest and sincere. "Sincerity in politics, that is, in that sphere of human relations which involves, not individuals, but the millions, is a correspondence between word and deed that lends itself to verification.''^^1^^
From the very first days of the Soviet state millions of people saw with their own eyes that its words were matched by its deeds. The very fact that Soviet diplomacy openly and directly appealed not only to governments but also to peoples, and everything it said was close and clear to the working people, gave it great force.
_-_-_~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 24, p. 574.
280Lenin, the founder of the Soviet state and the Communist Party, was also the initiator of socialist foreign policy and the science of international politics.
The bourgeoisie, even when it was at its apex, could not rise above Otto Bismarck's famous formula which defined politics as "the art of the possible''. Afterwards it abandoned even that approach. Foreign policy was "the field for the display of character and craft" and opposed to science. A prominent German ideologist E. Banse wrote that "these two things have nothing in common and probably are mutually exclusive".^^1^^
Only Marxism-Leninism, which armed the proletariat with knowledge of the prospects of development, was able to place foreign policy on a scientific basis. G. V. Chicherin, a prominent statesman who had taken part in the creation of socialist diplomacy, defined it in the following way in 1923: "The methods of Soviet diplomacy set it sharply apart from the old diplomacy and, therefore, from the diplomacy of other countries. It acts with the help of Marxist analysis of history and, therefore, seeks out the main, deepest trends in contemporary political and economic relations. Through present-day relations it tries to perceive the main driving forces of contemporary events in order to adapt its activity to their progressive movement.'' Soviet diplomacy sees its primary task not in temporary combinations but "in shaping its policy on the basic principles of history so as to allow, notwithstanding temporary obstacles resulting from separate slips, the _-_-_
~^^1^^ E. Banse, Was dcr Deutsche vom Auslande wissen mufi. Einc weltkundliche Fibel, Leipzig, 1934, S. 11.
281 insuperable power of the main world historical streams to carry forward on their waves the ship of Soviet policy and the historical destiny of the working people of Russia".^^1^^Lenin pointed out that it was fundamentally wrong, un-Marxist and unscientific to single out foreign policy from policy in general, let alone counterpose foreign policy to home policy.
Both the home-policy aims of a socialist country, the building of socialism and communism, and the aims and tasks of its foreign policy express the interests and aspirations of the working class and all the working people of the world and meet the innermost hopes of the nations. The very origin of a new, socialist, Leninist foreign policy and diplomacy struck a heavy blow at the diplomatic activity of the exploiting classes and greatly limited their possibilities of disuniting the peoples, setting them at loggerheads and inflicting harm on them.
The first steps of the Soviet Republic in foreign policy clearly showed that "the Bolsheviks are establishing completely different international relations which make it possible for all oppressed peoples to rid themselves of the imperialist yoke".^^2^^
Such is the essence of the Declaration of Rights of the Peoples of Russia (November 15, 1917) and the appeal of the Soviet Government To All the Toiling Moslems of Russia and the East ( December 3, 1917), that were issued after the Decree on Peace.
_-_-_~^^1^^ G. V. Chichcrin, Stalyi i redd po voprosam mczhdnniirodnoi politiki (Articles and Speeches on Questions of International Politics), Sotsekgiz, Moscow, 19G1, p. 238.
~^^2^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 477.
282These documents, which embodied in state acts the great propositions of Leninism on national and colonial questions, preserve their great significance to this day. It was the first official condemnation of the colonial system, coming from the Government of a great power. It was a political programme, which for the first time envisaged the immediate and practical implementation of the principle of self-determination,
``The Declaration of Rights of the Peoples of Russia" solemnly proclaimed absolutely new principles to be implemented at once: the equality and sovereignty of the peoples of Russia, their right to free self-determination (up to and including secession and formation of independent states), abolition of all national and national-religious privileges and restrictions, and free development of the national minorities and ethnographic groups inhabiting the territory of Russia.
In the very first days after the October Revolution the Soviet Government annulled all the unequal treaties and agreements without exception which had been concluded by the tsarist government with Eastern countries, recognised their inalienable rights and established with them relations based on the principles of equality and respect for national independence and state sovereignty. In December 1917, the Council of People's Commissars, "in full conformity with the principle of the right of nations to self-- determination'', recognised the independence of the Republic of Finland.
The socialist state clearly put up against the imperialist policy of enslaving and robbing the colonies, of turning independent countries into dependencies, its policy of fully and actually 283 liberating the oppressed peoples and establishing really equal relations with them. The Great October Socialist Revolution broke in Russia the chains of national oppression, eliminated national inequality for ever, promoted the fraternity of nations and elevated the formerly oppressed peoples to the status of free and equal nations.
This development naturally accelerated the upsurge of the national liberation movement of the oppressed peoples the world over. The October Revolution radically changed the international position of colonial and dependent countries in the East, because it created a new alignment of forces, more favourable for the peoples in these countries. Before the October Revolution the peoples of the colonial world had to deal with the united front of imperialist powers, including tsarist Russia, which pursued a ruthless colonial policy in the East. The victory of the revolution in Russia breached the front of the colonial powers. From its very first days the Soviet state which arose on the ruins of imperialist Russia rejected a colonial policy, recognised the right of all the Eastern peoples to independence and freedom, and fully sided with them in their struggle against colonialism.
In the appeal To All the Toiling Moslems of Russia and the East, the Soviet Government stressed: "It is not from Russia and her revolutionary government that your enslavement is to be expected, but from the European imperialist robbers who have turned your fatherland into their plundered and despoiled `colony'.''^^1^^
The oppressed peoples found their sincere friend in the Soviet Republic. The October _-_-_
^^1^^ Dokumenty vncshnci politiki SSSR, Vol. I, p. 35.
284 Revolution became a great source of inspiration and moral, and not only moral, support for the fighters against colonialism. The ideas of the October Revolution played a great role in spreading the national liberation movement in Eastern countries and in accelerating the disintegration of imperialism's colonial system. The October Revolution, which proclaimed entirely new principles of relations with Eastern countries, hastened and facilitated the ripening of prerequisites for delivering the Afro-Asian peoples from colonial bondage.Thus, with the victory of the revolution and the establishment of the first socialist state in the world, a fundamentally new foreign policy arose, a policy which corresponds to the nature of socialism and is fully aimed at ensuring a lasting peace, consolidating international co-operation, a policy of genuine equality among peoples. With the formation of the world socialist system it has become the policy of a number of states. Its impact on the whole fabric of international relations and the course of world events has been constantly growing. Today this beneficial influence is stronger than ever, because the world socialist system has become considerably stronger, its international prestige has risen, and so has its impact on the destiny of mankind.
Speaking about the foreign policy of socialist countries, we mean, first, the relations among these countries; second, the relations between socialist countries and the capitalist world; third, the support of the national liberation movement by the socialist countries and their relations with young national states of Asia and Africa, and, fourth, all possible assistance rendered to the development of the world working-class movement.
285As to the policy toward capitalist countries, it has been, and is, based on the Leninist principle of peaceful coexistence of states belonging to the two different socio-economic systems. Since its first days the Soviet state has adhered to this principle. To this day it forms the basis of the foreign policy of the Soviet state and other socialist states towards capitalist countries.
The struggle for peace, for introducing the principle of peaceful coexistence into international relations, has been conducted in different historical conditions. Before the Second World War, when the Soviet Union was the only socialist state, it was subjected to numerous attacks from world imperialism, up to open military intervention, and it had to resist the whole front of the imperialist forces. The struggle of the USSR for the prevention of war was closely intertwined with the struggle for the preservation of the great achievements of the October Revolution, for the creation of peaceful conditions for building socialism in the USSR. This struggle was waged by the Soviet people with the active moral support of the working masses of other countries.
At that time the relationship of forces in the world enabled the ruling circles of the imperialist states to plan all kinds of aggressive ventures against the first socialist state, maintain an atmosphere of tension and confront it with serious difficulties. In campaigning for peaceful coexistence, the Soviet Union strove to preserve peaceful conditions, to prevent war as long as possible, to build socialism and reinforce its defence potential. In other words, peaceful coexistence implied normal political and economic relations between the USSR and capitalist countries. But at that time 286 the ruling circles of capitalist states did not even entertain the idea of peaceful coexistence, of reconciling themselves to the existence of a socialist state.
Absolutely different conditions for the international co-operation of states with different systems arose after the Second World War. The emergence and advance of the world socialist system blasted finally the bourgeois thesis of the " temporary nature of the Soviet experiment''.
The new relationship of forces in the world, the great achievements of science and technology raised the problem of peaceful coexistence in a different way. The world socialist system reached in its development a level when it is increasingly exerting decisive influence on the world situation, on the whole course of international events. The Programme of the CPSU states that "socialism, outstripping capitalism in a number of important branches of science and technology, has supplied the peace-loving peoples with powerful material means of curbing imperialist aggression".^^1^^
The development of science and technology and the possession of nuclear missiles by a number of countries make the problem of preventing another world war especially acute, and the maintenance and strengthening of peace an issue of vital importance for all peoples.
The Soviet Union, together with fraternal socialist countries and other peace-loving states, is the mainstay of mankind in the struggle for peace and international security. It is firmly and consistently pursuing a policy of peace. All the activities of the Communist Party and the Soviet _-_-_
^^1^^ Programme of the CPSU, p. 47.
287 Government and their practical steps in foreign affairs are infused with the striving to deliver mankind from a devastating nuclear war. The resolution of the 23rd Congress of the CPSU emphasised that "the socialist countries play a special role in safeguarding the peace. Our Party is convinced that the conclusion of the world communist movement on the possibility to bridle the aggressor and avert a new world war is correct.''^^1^^The principle of peaceful coexistence formulated by Lenin gained wide recognition as the only true way for preserving peace and preventing another world war. It underlies the policy of socialist states in relations with countries of the other socio-economic system. At the same time, a number of non-socialist states has recognised it as a point of departure in relations with countries of the world socialist community. Many bourgeois leaders, taking into account the situation in the world, have also arrived at the conclusion that peaceful coexistence of capitalist and socialist states is a requisite for preventing a nuclear-- missile war.
Here is how the situation was evaluated early in the 1960s by Alois Gerlo, a Belgian scientist, in his work on questions of disarmament and coexistence. Pointing out that the very term " peaceful coexistence" is of a Marxist origin and that not long ago it was regarded as ``propaganda'' in the West, he writes: "At present the term `coexistence' is utilised by all statesmen both in the West and in the East, and, it may be said, has become a generally accepted term.. .. Today coexistence is a much broader concept than the mere fact that _-_-_
^^1^^ 23rd Congress of the CPSU, p. 288.
288 a number of states with different regimes exist. Coexistence is an active concept: it presupposes that states with different social and political regimes ... strive to improve friendly relations.''^^1^^Some imperialist politicians would like to impose on socialist countries a false interpretation of the principle of coexistence, demanding of these countries guarantees against social upheavals in the bourgeois world. For example, G. Catlin, an American sociologist, includes in the concept peaceful coexistence "civil peace" between the exploiters and exploited in the capitalist countries.^^2^^ The socialist states, according to John H. Herz, Professor of Government at New York City College, must "sanction.. . the continuation of what in communist ideology constitutes the rule of the "wealthy few' over the 'exploited masses' ".^^3^^ Then, supposedly, peaceful coexistence will be possible.
No one, naturally, can or will give such `` sanctions'' and ``guarantees''. Peaceful coexistence is a principle of relations between states which does not extend to relations between the exploited and the exploiters, the oppressed peoples and the colonialists. The question as to what system a country should have is the internal affair of its people, a matter of the balance of the internal social forces. Marxists-Leninists see in peaceful coexistence a special form of the class struggle between socialism and capitalism in the world, a principle whose _-_-_
~^^1^^ A. Gerlo, Coexistence et desarmement, Brussels, 19G1, pp. 3, 4.
~^^2^^ 'The Western Political Quarterly, December 1959, p. 917.
~^^3^^ J. H. Herz, International Politics in the Atomic Age, New York, 1959, p. 260.
__PRINTERS_P_289_COMMENT__ 19---500 289 implementation ensures the most favourable conditions for the world revolutionary process.In our days, the popularity of the ideas of peace and the principle of peaceful coexistence is so great that even the most aggressive imperialists who are out to unleash war hide behind false statements about love for peace, distorting in every way the peace-loving policy of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries. The tremendous influence exerted by the socialist countries on international events and the prestige they enjoy among the masses deprive the apologists of imperialism of the possibility to speak openly. Hence the false phrases about imperialism's "love for peace''. Referring to such artifices Lenin said: "It must be remembered that all over the world there has been an inordinate amount of pacifist talk, an unusual number of pacifist phrases and assurances, and even vows against war and against peace (meaning the peace under the Treaty of Versailles---Ed.), although there is usually little preparedness on the part of the majority of states, especially on the part of the modern civilised states, to take any realistic steps, even the most simple, to ensure peace. On this, and on similar questions, we should like to see a minimum of general assurances, solemn promises and grandiloquent formulas, and the greatest possible number of the simplest and most obvious decisions and measures that would certainly lead to peace, if not to the complete elimination of the war danger.''^^1^^
The ideologists of the bourgeoisie can put up nothing against the clear-cut, peace-loving foreign policy of the USSR and other socialist countries _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 386.
290 which meets the vital interests of all the nations, nothing except demagogic outbursts and false statements that for the USSR peaceful coexistence is a "policy of concealed war" and a "temporary manoeuvre''. But, despite all their exertions, the imperialist ideologists cannot refute the generally known fact that struggle for the preservation and strengthening of peace among the nations has been, and remains, the cornerstone of socialist foreign policy. __ALPHA_LVL3__ 2. Socialist CountriesAfter the socialist community had arisen, the principle of peaceful coexistence became the basis of the policy of all its countries with regard to capitalist states. This common basis makes it possible constantly to carry out joint actions in foreign policy and facilitates the close co-operation of fraternal countries both in foreign policy and in diplomacy. The aim of this co-operation is jointly to create the conditions for building socialism and communism in the fraternal countries, to support the working-class movement in the capitalist world and the struggle of the Asian, African and Latin American peoples for national liberation.
Joint international socialist action, co-- ordination of policy on fundamental issues, which signifies above all the proper combination of national and international interests, joint action on questions of war and peace and against the 291 aggressive intrigues of the United States and other imperialist powers, for the building up of a collective security system in Europe and in Asia, for the complete and final abolition of colonialism in all its forms and manifestations---all this is of inestimable significance for the preservation of peace and international security, the consolidation of the unity of all the progressive and peace-- loving forces. The joint efforts of the socialist states more than once helped to eliminate serious postwar crises resulting from the actions of the imperialist circles and endangering world peace.
Socialist diplomacy must not, however, be reduced to joint action for peace and international co-operation. Another major aspect should be considered---the national distinctions of every socialist country, which are also displayed in its foreign policy and diplomacy.
Every socialist country also has its specific tasks in foreign policy which it seeks to accomplish relying on the assistance of other fraternal states. These tasks stem from the national interests of the country and objectively do not run counter to the general interests of the socialist community. On the contrary, the successful solution of national foreign-policy problems further strengthens the world socialist system.
The struggle of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam against US imperialist aggression and for the solution of the Vietnamese people's national problem, the unification of the country; the national problem of the Korean people, the unification of the country on a democratic basis, whose solution is the cardinal task of the foreign policy and diplomacy of the Korean People's 292 Democratic Republic; the struggle of the People's Republic of China for the liberation of age-old Chinese territory, Taiwan---all these problems are not merely of a local nature. Not only the countries which raise them but also all the other socialist countries, all the peace-loving states are vitally interested in their settlement. A just solution of the national problems of the Chinese, Vietnamese and Korean peoples, and the stamping out of the constant source of tension created by the US imperialists would greatly improve the situation not only in the Far East and in Southeast Asia, but throughout the world.
European socialist states, too, have their specific tasks in foreign policy in that they, for example, show a special interest in building up a European security system and in thwarting the aggression of West German imperialism. That is why the socialist states of Central and Southeast Europe are working hard to solve the problems of European security. Mention should be made of the diplomatic actions undertaken by the governments of Poland, Rumania, Bulgaria, the German Democratic Republic and other countries aimed at setting up atom-free zones, at freezing the level of atomic armaments in Central Europe and at convening a conference of European states to discuss and settle questions of the continent's security.
European socialist states do not, of course, confine their diplomatic activity to moves on these questions. They take steps to create the necessary conditions for a radical improvement of the situation in Europe. Among them are, for example, the conclusion of a number of important economic and cultural agreements between the countries of 293 Eastcrn and Western Europe and the enlivening of trade between them.
In this context mention should be made of certain political speculations in the West, where reactionary circles propound the thesis that the sovereignty of socialist states is measured by the degree of their activity in foreign affairs. But, first, that their activity is high is confirmed by the cited examples refuting the fabrications. Second, activity in foreign affairs cannot be regarded as the sole yardstick of state sovereignty. It is not the number of diplomatic steps that attests to the degree of a country's independence; it lies in the essence and rational nature of the policv pursued, to what extent it conforms to national interests and helps to create the necessary external conditions for the solution of national problems, internal and foreign; in the strengthening of the socialist community as a whole. Lastly, what is important is the extent to which a country's foreign policy contributes to the accomplishment of the task of all mankind---to preserve peace and prevent another world war.
As long as the two systems exist and the socialist countries are confronted bv forces of world imperialism that are still considerable, these countries have different possibilities for being active in foreign affairs. Moreover, it must be borne in mind that as long as imperialism, the constant source of aggression and war, exists, the military economic potential of every socialist country is highly important.
Because of a number of historical, economic, military and political factors the Soviet Union plays a special part in international affairs. This imposes on it special responsibility in the struggle 294 for consolidating the international positions of all the socialist states and compels it constantly to care for the destinies of peace and international security. That the Soviet Union successfully copes with the task entrusted to it by the objective course of events is a practical embodiment of the principles of fraternal solidarity of socialist countries, the principles of socialist internationalism.
Any step the USSR takes in foreign policy, far from infringing the interests of other fraternal countries, on the contrary, helps to strengthen their positions, consolidates the international weight and prestige of the socialist community as a whole and of each of its members separately. If the USSR takes special interest, for example, in questions of disarmament and prohibition of nuclear tests, does this mean that it ``usurps'' someone else's rights? Of course not. The energetic policy of the Soviet Union in the struggle to preserve peace, its firm defence of the international positions of world socialism demonstrate the strength and might of the USSR and other socialist countries.
Some people in the West would like to regard any step of a socialist country towards improving relations with capitalist states not as an ordinary development in the diplomatic sphere, but almost as a ``deviation'' from socialism or, to use the expression of Western leaders, as readiness to act as a "bridge between Eastern and Western Europe and between the capitalist and the communist systems''.
A worthy rebuff to such attempts has been given, in particular, by the Polish Trybuna Ludu in an editorial article entitled: "What Is the Real State of Affairs?''
295``Foredoomed are the expectations,'' the newspaper states, "that slogans of 'co-operation with the East' and the mirages of economic advantages will lead to disunity in the socialist camp, that the liquidation of the German Democratic Republic or a change in the frontiers of socialist states in general can be `bought'. The object of our foreign trade are goods, and not the national interests of Poland and let no one expect that at the price of a trade transaction with our country it is possible to gain any political concessions.''^^1^^
The imperialist circles headed by the United States are again and again trying to "reappraise values''. The collapse of the "positions of strength" policy, failure of the imperialist concepts of "rolling back" communism and ``liberating'' the peoples of Eastern Europe, the further change in the relationship of world forces in favour of socialism---all this inevitably leads to corrections to the strategy and tactics of international imperialism. When he was US Secretary of Defence, Robert McNamara stated that personally he thought the United States could not achieve victory in a nuclear war, in a strategic war, in the normal meaning of the word ``victory''.
``The policies of both containment and liberation were of necessity rather rigid, whereas this policy of 'peaceful involvement' leaves considerable freedom of action,'' we read in the American Current History.^^2^^ ``... As anyone willing to see clearly already knows,'' Adlai E. Stevenson, US representative to the United Nations, stated _-_-_
~^^1^^ Trybuna Ludu, February 21, 1965.
~^^2^^ Current History, March 1965, p. 132.
296 shortly before his death, "the current course of world affairs calls for something more than a ' policy of containment'. ... I would suggest that we have begun to move beyond the policy of containment; that the central trend of our times is the emergence of what, for lack of a better label, might be called a policy of cease-fire and peaceful change.''^^1^^ The purpose of the policy "of cease-fire and peaceful change" or, to use the terminology of ex-President Lyndon Johnson, of "building East-West bridges" naturally remains the same. This is frankly stated by Washington's spokesmen. "It is not necessary to think of liberation as the result of some cataclysmic clash of nations; one can begin to think of liberation through change,"^^2^^ Dean Rusk, the then Secretary of State, declared in the Economic Club of Detroit in September 1964. Former US Vice-President Hubert Humphrey spoke in the same vein when he said: "I know that some persons believe that the best way to deal with Communism is simply to hate it or ignore it, hoping that it will go away. But real life is simply not that way.... I am in favour of competition in all possible ways with the Communist world. But I believe, too, in trade and exchange of all kinds when trade and exchange serve our self-interest.''^^3^^Realising that former methods did not justify themselves and that the application of military force against the socialist community as a whole _-_-_
^^1^^ The Quest for Peace. Tlic Dag Hammarsltjitld Memorial Lectures, New York, 1965, p. 57.
~^^2^^ The Department of State Bulletin, October 5. 1964._
^^3^^ Hubert H. Humphrey, The Cause Is Mankind. A Libert/I Program for Modern America, New York, 1964, p. 141.
297 is very risky (although the imperialists have used, and still use, military force against certain countries of the community), imperialism's strategists are trying to use more ``effective'' methods of struggle against the socialist countries, methods which, in their opinion, are more suitable to the obtaining situation.Both in substance and aim the new manoeuvres in no way differ from all the ideological subversions the Western powers have employed so far against the socialist countries. As for the "external distinction" of the latest ideological subversion, it undoubtedly seems more refined and disguised to the ruling circles of the United States and other imperialist countries. Imperialist diplomacy makes the present manoeuvres under pleasant-sounding slogans of "improving relations" with the Eastern countries, "extending economic ties'', and so on. Western capitals do not conceal their intention to exploit temporary difficulties and differences in relations between countries of the world socialist system and in the international communist movement in order to sow mistrust among them.
The foes of socialism circulate the theory that "ideological tolerance is inherent in democratic society" (meaning the bourgeois world), but is absent in the socialist community. From this they draw the conclusion that it is impossible to eliminate "internal differences" in the communist world. Proceeding from this conclusion, they formulate their current political principles as regards relations with socialist countries. "The West can encourage a certain degree of national independence within the Communist world (i.e., spread mistrust among socialist countries---S/i. S.} through limited programs of aid and other forms of 298 cooperation"^^1^^ with some East European countries--- this is what J. William Fulbright advises Western ruling circles in his book Prospects for the "West.
The ruling circles of the United States and their Western allies are openly trying to make an impact on developments in the world socialist system, to influence the position of the USSR and other fraternal countries on major international issues. The imperialists are seeking to combine this new ideological and political subversion with acts of aggression and military ventures against socialist countries.
Socialist states maintain extensive diplomatic relations with most countries in the world.^^2^^ The economic and political relations of these states with non-socialist countries shape and develop differently. The conditions in which the relations are maintained differ in each case and the degree of interest of the sides is not the same. But in all cases socialist states arrange their relations with capitalist countries on the basis of the principles of peaceful coexistence. Each socialist country develops its economic, political and cultural relations with Western countries only on the basis of _-_-_
~^^1^^ J. W. Fulbright, Prospects for the West, Cambridge, Mass.'. 1963, p. 2-1.''
~^^2^^ The following are data on the diplomatic and consular relations of socialist countries: The People's Republic of Albania maintains diplomatic relations with 4(J countries; the People's Republic of Bulgaria, 83; the People's Republic of China, 51; Republic of Cuba, 45; the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, 83; the German Democratic Republic, 42; the Hungarian People's Republic, 86; the Korean People's Democratic Republic. 44; the Mongolian People's Republic, 50: (he Polish People's Republic, SS; the Socialist Republic of Rumania, 96; the USSR, 108; the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, 37, and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia with 90 countries.
299 Emacs-File-stamp: "/home/ysverdlov/leninist.biz/en/1972/WSS409/20070904/399.tx" __EMAIL__ webmaster@leninist.biz __OCR__ ABBYY 6 Professional (2007.09.05) __WHERE_PAGE_NUMBERS__ bottom __FOOTNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [0-9]+ __ENDNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [0-9]+ complete equality, observance of sovereignty and mutual non-interference in internal affairs.Since one of the parties is a socialist state, the various machinations abounding in the practices of bourgeois diplomacy must be ruled out in these relations. It is not in the interest of a socialist country to utilise relations with capitalist countries to the detriment of other fraternal states. On the contrary, the interests of all socialist states demand that the international positions of each of them be strengthened to the utmost, that their international prestige grow constantly. A weakening in the position of any one of them in foreign policy, just as the slightest violation of their unity, inevitably reduces the efficacy of the efforts of all these countries in foreign affairs. Hence the need for indefatigable joint struggle against all attempts of the imperialist powers to attack the foreign-policy interests of any socialist country.
The Soviet Union and other socialist countries tirelessly worked for the restoration of the legitimate rights of the People's Republic of China in the United Nations and against the reactionary theory of "two Chinas'', and constantly defending the interests of the German Democratic Republic, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Korean People's Democratic Republic in the United Nations, where these countries are unrepresented, and in other international organisations.
Socialist countries are vigorously campaigning in the United Nations for peace and international security, for solution of the pressing problems of our time.
The world has no organisation more representative than the United Nations. Today 127 states 300 are members of the United Nations by comparison with the 51 when the UN was founded. This fact alone demonstrates the peoples' desire to turn the United Nations into a truly universal organisation for the maintenance of peace and international security.
The path of the United Nations, founded after the Second World War, one of the greatest tragedies in mankind's history, is difficult and at times torturous. It is impossible to ignore the fact that the basic changes in the world during the postwar period affected, despite the resistance of the imperialist powers, both the alignment of political forces and the general situation in the United Nations. Its destinies and prospects have been linked with such historic events as the collapse of the colonial system which has directly influenced UN membership. It was stressed in the political Report of the Central Committee of the CPSU to the 23rd Party Congress that "the admittance of many newly-free countries to UN membership has substantially changed the situation in that organisation, and the change has not been in favour of the imperialists. In the UN the Soviet Union undeviatingly strives to facilitate the unity of countries opposing aggression and thereby enhances the role played by the UN in the struggle for universal peace and the independence of the peoples".^^1^^
Being a worldwide forum, the United Nations naturally must keep in step with the times in order that the shifts in the Organisation fully meet the progressive processes underway in our constantly changing world. So far this has not _-_-_
~^^1^^ 23rd Congress o/ the CPSU, p. 54.
301 been the case. Nevertheless, it is indisputable that a number of actions undertaken within the framework of the United Nations, specifically the adoption of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, has played a positive part.When the United Nations was founded, hardly any of the realistically-minded political leaders expected that its establishment would eliminate contradictions arising between states, that fundamental differences in the social nature of states and the consequent differences in the aims and methods of their policies, would be overcome. At the same time, it was beyond doubt that a universal organisation for the maintenance of peace and security is capable of playing a useful part in world affairs if it, responding to the demand of the nations, would adhere to the principles of equality, respect for state sovereignty and free choice of ways of social development, recorded in the Charter.
If the United Nations, notwithstanding the substantial resources and possibilities it possesses, has not become a genuine centre of co-ordinated action in the interests of peace, international security and defence of human rights, the reasons are well known. The imperialist powers, the United States first and foremost, have exerted every effort to turn the United Nations into their obedient tool. Washington's actions have more than once caused serious political crises in the United Nations; such, for example, as the "financial crisis" artificially created by the USA in 1964, which actually paralysed the 19th session of the General Assembly. The United States tried to hold the Soviet Union responsible for the 302 deficit in the UN budget resulting from expenditure on the so-called UN operations in the Congo and in the Middle East, in other words, for the interventionist actions of the imperialist powers in these areas, which were opposed by the USSR and other peace-loving states.
Western diplomacy has tried and is trying to impose on the United Nations the order inherent in the bourgeois world, is seeking to introduce in it the worst methods of bourgeois parliamentarism which would turn it and its agencies into worthless debating societies. This is particularly felt during the sessions of the General Assembly, and is an element of the politics pursued by the United States and some other countries vis-a-vis the UN.
Lenin pointed out: "Take any parliamentary country, from America to Switzerland, from France to Britain, Norway and so forth---in these countries the real business of `state' is performed behind the scenes and is carried on by the departments, chancelleries and General Staffs. Parliament is given up to talk for the special purpose of fooling the 'common people'.''^^1^^ This apt description comes to mind when one analyses the speeches of representatives of certain countries.
There is no denying, of course, the significance of business-like discussions which develop in the United Nations on important international issues. Such discussions (especially during periods of crisis) have their positive side, even if they do not lead to actual decisions; they make it easier to rally world opinion against the forces of war and reaction and to expose these forces.
The United Nations has not turned into an _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 25, p. 423.
303 organisation of the type of a bourgeois parliament, it has its own face, and credit for this must go above all to the diplomacy of the socialist countries and other peace-loving states, which defend the principles of the UN Charter and uphold progressive, democratic procedures and methods in it. By their peace-loving actions in the United Nations the Soviet Union and other socialist countries help mobilise the peoples to fight against the plans of the imperialist states, the USA especially, designed to paralyse the UN or turn it into a tool of their wishes.Official US representatives increasingly resort to advertising methods in the case of big political issues. This is symptomatic of the present situation in the United Nations; unable any longer to impose their will on the organisation with the help of the "voting machine'', US leaders utilise the UN rostrum to perorate on every convenient occasion about their striving for peace, equality and freedom of the peoples. One might justifiably conclude that the purpose of such propaganda artifices is to divert attention from US acts of aggression in different parts of the world, from its reckless ventures in foreign policy.
More than half of all UN members are young Afro-Asian states, who naturally place special hopes in the Organisation. Their representatives raise many questions pertaining to the elimination of economic backwardness, this grave legacy of colonialism. There is no doubt that the UN could render effective economic and technical assistance to the peoples who have taken the road of independent development, and that something is being done in this respect. But for this assistance to be substantial its main share should be 304 contributed by those who for centuries usurped the lion's share of the wealth of the Eastern peoples and are responsible for their present economic situation. This is how the question is posed by these countries, and this is justified from every angle: from the viewpoint of compensation (at least partial) for the damage caused, and from the viewpoint of moral and political responsibility.
But the Western representatives will not see it that way. They prefer to engage at General Assembly sessions and committee meetings in endless general discussions on a question that is of vital importance for the developing countries and is not terribly intricate. Western diplomacy utilises an examination of aid problems for demagogic purposes. It tries to submerge in endless debate solution of these questions and of burning issues of war and peace for which purpose the United Nations was founded.
In contrast to this, the initiative of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries in the UN is always dictated by vital requirements, by deep concern for the destinies of peace and social progress. It is based on a scientific analysis of processes underway in the world and also of the main trends of the imperialist powers' foreign policy at a particular stage in international relations.
Adhering to their peace-loving course, the socialist countries submit urgent problems for discussion to the General Assembly. Their representatives focus attention on issues, on whose settlement depend the stamping out of seats of tension and the strengthening of international co-operation. They extensively utilise the UN and its rostrum for exposing and frustrating the __PRINTERS_P_305_COMMENT__ 20--500 305 aggressive plans of the imperialist powers, for mobilising world opinion to work for these aims.
Energetic activity in the United Nations holds an important place in the foreign policy of socialist countries. Fraternal mutual support internationally, and defence of the interests of one another in foreign affairs are a characteristic feature of the policy and diplomacy of socialist countries. Difficulties and differences naturally can exist, and do exist, in interpreting specific international issues. There are also divergences in opinion associated with countries' historical distinctions, the specifics of a particular stage of their development. These differences stem from the historical situation in each country and its national distinctions. But such distinctions, far from precluding, in fact presuppose the solution of common problems on the basis of the principles of socialist internationalism.
The Leninist principle of peaceful coexistence which determines the socialist policy towards capitalist states helps strengthen co-operation of the fraternal countries in foreign policy. Today, attempts to deviate from this position exacerbate the situation in the world, and, moreover, weaken the international positions of the socialist community and the anti-imperialist front.
At the same time, a correct interpretation of the principle of peaceful coexistence plays a big part both for the scientific elaboration of problems of foreign policy and the diplomatic practices of socialist states. Unfortunately, in this matter there have been fallacious statements in Soviet literature in the recent past in which concepts were seriously misinterpreted. Particularly widespread were the attempts to reduce all Soviet foreign policy 306 essentially to this principle alone. It was asserted, for example, that peaceful coexistence was the general line of Soviet foreign policy. Such an interpretation ran counter to the theoretical principles and practices of Soviet foreign policy and also to the definition of the main purpose of the activity of the Soviet state given in the Party Programme.
``The CPSU considers that the chief aim of its foreign-policy activity is to provide peaceful conditions for the building of a communist society in the USSR and developing the world socialist system, and together with the other peace-loving peoples to deliver mankind from a world war of extermination,'' it is pointed out in the Programme of the CPSU.^^1^^ The foreign policy of the USSR was defined as follows by the 23rd Party Congress: "The foreign policy of the Soviet Union, together with that of other socialist countries, is aimed at securing favourable international conditions for the building of socialism and communism; strengthening the unity and cohesion, the friendship and fraternity of the socialist countries; supporting the national liberation movements and maintaining all-round cooperation with the young developing countries; upholding consistently the principle of the peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems, firmly repelling the aggressive forces of imperialism and delivering mankind from the threat of a new world war.''^^2^^
The practical embodiment of the general course of Soviet foreign policy in any situation is dictated _-_-_
~^^1^^ Programme of the CPSU, p. 40.
~^^2^^ 23rd Congress of the CPSU, p. 2SS.
__PRINTERS_P_307_COMMENT__ 20* 307 not by chance circumstances, not by someone's ``good'' or ``ill'' will, it is a result of a scientific, Marxist-Leninist analysis of the situation, a thorough study of the causes which gave rise to it, the tendencies and prospects for development.As for the definition of peaceful coexistence as the general line of Soviet foreign policy, it does not reflect the diversity of the activities of the CPSU and the Soviet Government in foreign policy. Peaceful coexistence is the basic principle of interstate relations with countries of the capitalist system. It is only one, indisputably important, but only one of the trends in Soviet foreign policy.
Soviet foreign policy also has other major aspects: relations with fraternal socialist countries, relations with young Afro-Asian states, many of which have taken or are taking the non-capitalist path of development, the attitude to the revolutionary movement in other countries. The ignoring of any of these aspects of Soviet foreign policy can lead to serious mistakes.
When we speak of the policy of peaceful coexistence, one must bear in mind that the development of peaceful, good-neighbourly relations between the countries of the two systems depends not only, and not so much, on the socialist countries. It depends to a no lesser extent on the policy of the capitalist countries, on the political processes underway in each capitalist country and in the Western world as a whole. Therefore it is very important to assess the policy of these countries in a strictly differentiated way, taking into account all the specific circumstances. One should consider what policy the given country applies towards socialist states at a given stage. 308 Experience shows that a stereotyped approach to Soviet relations with other countries is harmful in general and especially in regard to capitalist states. The steps of the Soviet Government after the Plenary Meeting of the Central Committee of the CPSU held in October 1964, put an end to relapses of such an approach.
The peace-loving forces in all countries are interested in creating a situation where the principles of peaceful coexistence would become universal and wholly determine relations between all socialist countries, on the one hand, and all capitalist countries on the other. But possibilities should be distinguished from reality. One must consider not only the striving and policy of the socialist countries but also political trends. In the scientific elaboration of foreign policy, one must act on the principle that peaceful coexistence is a real category and is applicable only to the sphere of relations between states of the two systems. The policy of peaceful coexistence must be kept on terra firma and not turned into an amorphous, abstract concept, into a subject of scholastic arguments. This is a real category which has its own definite sphere of action. The 23rd Congress of the CPSU resolutely stressed that "the principle of peaceful coexistence does not apply to relations between oppressors and oppressed, between colonialists and the victims of colonial oppression''.^^1^^
Many Western leaders are blinded by class hatred for socialism and fear of it, they are incapable of understanding the meaning of the great revolutionary changes in the world. They _-_-_
~^^1^^ 2.W Congress of the CPSU, p.
309 cannot reconcile themselves to the fact that socialism, having emerged beyond the bounds of one country, has become a world system and is turning into a decisive factor of world development. They refuse to understand that the world has entered a stage marked by the accelerated disintegration of capitalism and the break-up of colonialism. Imperialism has not only lost its monopoly in international relations, it is now incapable of fully running affairs even in the part of the world where capitalist relations still exist. The attempts of the Western ruling classes to pursue the old policy of dictation in the new historical conditions, as though nothing has changed, are unwise. Hence the crisis in the policy of the imperialist states, the blind alley in which they find themselves in foreign affairs.All this is also confirmed by the situation in the imperialist camp. Heightened war preparations, the arms race and the cold war hysteria, on the one hand, and the mortal danger of a thermonuclear war which the ruling circles of the United States and other imperialist powers have to reckon with, on the other---all this creates an impasse for the leaders of the imperialist bloc. In his speech at the 16th Session of the UN General Assembly the late President Kennedy had to admit that an unconditional war could no longer lead to unconditional victory. It could no longer serve as a means of resolving disputes.
Many capitalist leaders admit that this crisis is the result of the disparity between the means and the aims of Western policy. The aims were set at a time, according to Iqbal Singh, well-known Indian publicist, when the Western bloc was much stronger. Yet even then it could not 310 measure up to the task of gaining supremacy over the rest of the world, which is the goal of the Western alliance. Some public circles in Western countries are beginning to realise that the relationship of forces is changing, but there is no corresponding change in the aims and tasks.
The peoples of the world are learning from experience that the policy of peaceful coexistence pursued by the countries of the socialist community meets the interests of all nations, including the Western powers, that it was thanks to this policy that the world has been saved more than once from a devastating thermonuclear war. This has become possible because the aggressive policy of the imperialist powers is resisted by the greater forces of peace and socialism. The fight by the socialist countries and all the peace-loving forces against preparation for another world war has been, and remains, the main content of contemporary world politics. The socialist system has become the natural centre of attraction for all peace-loving forces.
Pursuance of the policy of peaceful coexistence is creating the prerequisites for normalising the international situation, is facilitating the development of relations between states on the basis of consideration for mutual interests and the settlement of outstanding problems through negotiation.
The Soviet Union has always championed the maintenance of normal relations with all countries and the settlement of international issues through negotiation, and not war.
This fundamental principle of Soviet foreign policy was strikingly displayed at the Tashkent meeting of government heads of India and Pakistan (January 1966), during which the Soviet 311 Government for the first time in history acted as mediator and, moreover, was instrumental in attaining a peaceful settlement of the PakistaniIndian dispute which had threatened to become a serious danger to peace.
Growth of the forces which stand for the preservation of peace and the consolidation of the security of the peoples is a determining feature of the present world situation. In contrast to prewar situations in the past, the alarming development of events today, caused primarily by the increasingly aggressive policy of the principal imperialist power, is not irreversible. In this situation, socialist foreign policy, socialist diplomacy is scoring substantial successes in the struggle for peace and against the forces of aggression and imperialist reaction. The record of international affairs shows that whenever there is progress in solving urgent problems, whenever international co-operation is arranged and the sphere of operation of the peaceful coexistence principle is extended, whenever the aggressive forces are compelled to retreat and the peaceloving forces are registering successes---in all these instances the initiative is shown by the Soviet Union, other socialist countries and all peace-- loving states, by their activity and efficacious efforts.
Socialist states, relying on their mighty economic, military and technical potential, are making a tremendous contribution to world peace and preventing another world war. "The joint proposals and political actions of socialist states,'' the 24th CPSU Congress pointed out in its Resolution, "are exerting a positive influence on the development of the entire international situation. Many 312 plans of the imperialist aggressors have been frustrated by the vigorous resistance of socialist states.''
Socialist states, together with the peace-loving forces in other countries, are working to normalise the world climate, are foiling the aggressive plans of the imperialists and isolating the reactionary forces. The Leninist policy of peace and peaceful coexistence, firmly and consistently pursued by the Soviet Union and other fraternal countries, is playing the determining part in the effort to preserve world peace and normalise the situation in different regions of the world.
Without the joint and consistent efforts of socialist countries it would have hardly been possible to achieve, say, the conclusion of international agreements like the treaties on the ban of nuclear weapon tests in three media, the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons, the peaceful use of outer space, and on the prohibition of the use of the sea and ocean bed for military purposes. All this is not a result of a Soviet-American ``deal'', as some falsifiers claim. The drafting and signing of each of these treaties demanded the exertion of immense effort by socialist diplomacy and comprised a whole stage in the history of international relations and the diplomatic struggle of the two world systems in the United Nations and outside of it.
Of considerable importance is the fact that socialist countries step by step are ``accustoming'', if we may put it that way, world opinion, and first of all Western diplomacy, to the practice of preparing and signing, together with socialist countries, important international documents and, what is most significant, to the idea that such 313 treaties and agreements are essential. Socialist states are imposing their initiative on Western countries; by concerted and energetic actions they are compelling their capitalist partners in negotiations to agree to the solution of various problems, to compromises which in no way fit into the course of the Western powers, but are a reflection of their being forced to take into account the real state of affairs.
That problems of European security hold a special place in the policy of socialist countries is natural. The political climate in the world largely depends on the situation and developments in the European continent.
``Conservative state wisdom'', which twice in our century has turned Europe into the main arena of world wars unleashed by German imperialism, is impelling the self-same sinister forces to make another attempt, this time, most likely, on a nuclear level. One shudders to think what this might spell for a continent with the highest population density in the world, a highly developed industry, immense cultural treasures and, above all, with a highly organised proletariat, what this might mean for the nations of the entire world, what this, especially, might mean from the viewpoint of mankind's further progress and the prospects of the world revolutionary process. Europe has always played an important part in the destinies of mankind, in the development of civilisation, and is the homeland of socialism. The course of all international development, therefore, largely depends on the situation in Europe.
Throughout the postwar years the safeguarding of European security has been one of the most burning and paramount issues. The socialist states 314 of Europe have made a notable contribution to the exploration of ways for its solution.
What complicates the situation in Europe is not only that states of two different socio-- economic systems coexist here but also that two powerful military and political blocs confront each other in this continent. The situation is further entangled by the military presence in Europe of the United States, the leading power of the capitalist world, which in its foreign policy steadily furnishes fresh proof of imperialism's unchanging, reactionary aggressive nature. The United States pursues definite objectives in Europe: to preserve supremacy over its West European allies and to save at all costs its single-handed leadership in the "Atlantic community''.
The USSR and other fraternal countries are jointly discussing European security problems, are charting a common course based on the Leninist doctrine of peaceful coexistence and are consistently adhering to it. The policy of socialist countries in European affairs and their co-ordinated actions are designed to safeguard effective security in this continent, to bring about a turn from the policy of controntation to mutual understanding and co-operation between all European states.
To sum up, here are some results of the persistent efforts of these states to safeguard European security and arrange all-European co-operation. First, a steadily increasing tendency towards such co-operation has definitely emerged in Europe. Second, the striving of West European countries to get rid of American dictation has substantially grown. Third, disintegration of the system of aggressive blocs created by US imperialism has noticeably increased. Fourth, the 315 most aggressive circles of Europe, the West German militarists and revanchists are clearly and increasingly being isolated.
All these processes are based on the laws of capitalism at its last, imperialist stage of development. But they all are taking place under the impact of the socialist foreign policy which is guided by Lenin's injunctions on utilising contradictions in the capitalist world.
Among the actions of socialist foreign policy designed to safeguard European security an important place is held by the constructive, businesslike programme proclaimed by the Political Consultative Committee of Warsaw Treaty member states at its meeting held in Bucharest on July 4-6, 1966, in the Declaration on Safeguarding Peace and Security in Europe. A thorough scientific analysis of the situation, the balance of power, possibilities and prospects makes feasible the measures outlined in this truly historic document of socialist foreign policy. These measures meet the most profound needs of current development which are common for all European peoples.
The main prerequisites for safeguarding security in Europe, it is pointed out in the Declaration, are the unconditional recognition of the inviolability of the existing frontiers, including the Oder-Neisse line and the boundary between the two German states and also prevention of the access of West Germany to nuclear weapons in any form. Exploration of a German peaceful settlement, on the basis of recognising the existence of two German states, would be of considerable importance.
The Conference of European Communist and Workers' Parties, held in Karlovy Vary on April 316 24--26, 1967, offered another striking confirmation of the concern of the progressive forces for safeguarding European security. The statement adopted at the Conference pointed out that the constructive proposals on the question of consolidating peace and security in Europe, outlined by the socialist countries in the Bucharest Declaration of Warsaw Treaty member states and also the proposals that Communist Parties of capitalist countries put forward at their meetings and in their decisions, represent a realistic basis for strengthening peace and security in Europe. As a result of a free and extensive discussion and fraternal co-operation in the spirit of internationalism, the participants in the Karlovy Vary Conference examined European problems and the measures needed for safeguarding security in Europe.
The programme of action elaborated by the Conference opened up to Europe a prospect of veering away from a division of the continent into confronting military blocs to all-European cooperation and peace. All states, as it is pointed out in the statement of the Conference, should accept the realities of the European situation. This implies recognition of the existing frontiers in Europe, recognition of the existence of two sovereign equal German states, the German Democratic Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany, the ruling out of any access by the Bundeswehr to nuclear weapons, recognition of the invalidity of the Munich agreement from the moment it was concluded. The Communists of Europe proposed measures capable of promoting peaceful relations between all European powers, such as the conclusion of a treaty renouncing the use of force; 317 normalisation of relations between all states and the German Democratic Republic and also between the two German states; consistent defence and development of democracy in the Federal Republic of Germany, which implies every support to the struggle by its progressive forces for the outlawing of neo-nazi organisations and any revanchist propaganda, annulment of emergency legislation, and freedom of activity for democratic and peace-loving forces.
The Conference stressed the importance of the unity and solidarity of the Communist and Workers' Parties of Europe and the entire world for effective struggle to safeguard European security. It appealed to all people of good will to take part in this struggle. "The European peoples are themselves able to settle questions of peace and security of their continent,'' it was stressed in the conference statement. "Let them take the destinies of Europe into their own hands!''
Questions pertaining to the situation in Europe are constantly examined at meetings of Warsaw Treaty countries, and a common stand on them is elaborated to meet the security interests of the European states. It is generally known what an important part in spreading the idea of consolidating security and normalising the climate in Europe has been played by the documents adopted at the conferences of Warsaw Treaty states held in Bucharest in 1969 and in Berlin in 1970 and at meetings of the Foreign Ministers of these states in Prague and Budapest in 1969 and 1970. These documents outlined a common programme of action and concrete measures for solving these problems, including the convocation of an allEuropean conference, and they reaffirmed the 318 demand for the inviolability of the state frontiers existing in Europe.
It was pointed out in the Report of the Central Committee of the CPSU to the 24th Congress that the joint efforts of socialist states prevented the implementation of NATO plans for giving the West German militarists access to nuclear weapons, brought about substantial progress in accomplishing such an important task in stabilising the situation in Europe as the strengthening of the international positions of the German Democratic Republic and helped to torpedo the so-called Halstein doctrine.
The efforts to arrange all-European co-- operation exerted by socialist states and the Communists of countries in both the Eastern and Western part of the continent are especially valuable because these are practical steps and each of these states actually strives to create a model of peaceful coexistence of European countries with different social systems.
Although the biggest forces of international imperialism are concentrated in Europe, the socialist countries and the Communist and Workers' Parties increasingly influence the situation, striving for its normalisation. Sucli is the natural result of unity and solidarity, of purposeful, coordinated action. Whether these are joint actions or steps in foreign policy of individual socialist countries they meet the interests of each country and the entire socialist community, the interests of all the peoples and the task of strengthening world peace. These interests are also served by measures of socialist countries to reinforce their defence potential which is needed in a situation when the imperialist circles are trying to shore up their 319 military political blocs and stepping up their aggressive policy.
The policy of peaceful coexistence by no means signifies a weakening of the defence potential, ``self-disarmament'' of the socialist countries in the face of the unceasing military provocations of the imperialist powers. It is clear that if the aggressive forces of international imperialism continue the arms race and war preparations the socialist countries will have to build up a military potential exceeding that of the imperialist powers both quantitatively and qualitatively.
[320] __NUMERIC_LVL2__ Chapter VIII. __ALPHA_LVL2__ SOCIALIST COUNTRIES AND YOUNGThe Great October Socialist Revolution which abolished capitalist oppression and human exploitation over one-sixth of the globe simultaneously signified a historic turn in the destinies of the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America. Besides bringing into being new forms of social life, it provided a powerful impetus to the anticolonialist struggle, engendered its new forms and opened up entirely new possibilities.
The October Revolution drew the peoples of the colonial countries into the mainstream of the worldwide revolutionary movement and initiated the break-up of the colonial system. It led to the merging of the international proletarian and the national liberation movement into a single antiimperialist revolutionary stream, thus imparting tremendous strength to the ideas of national independence.
The peoples of the oppressed countries clearly saw that the domination of the imperialists was neither immutable nor eternal. "Up to now,'' Lenin wrote in 1921, "the Eastern peoples may have been like sheep before the imperialist wolf, but Soviet Russia was the first to show that, despite __PRINTERS_P_321_COMMENT__ 21--500 321 her unparalleled military weakness, it is not so easy for the wolf to get his claws and teeth into her. This example has proved to be catching for many nations. . . .''^^1^^
The birth of the Soviet state was of tremendous significance for the destinies of the peoples enslaved by imperialism. Jawaharlal Nehru, who had played a prominent part in national liberation before becoming the Indian Premier, stated: "I had no doubt that the Soviet revolution had advanced human society by a great leap and had lit a bright llame which could not be smothered, and that it had laid the foundations for that 'new civilisation' toward which the world would advance.''^^2^^ A characteristic document was presented to Y. M. Sverdlov, Chairman of the All-Russia Central Executive Committee of the Russian Federation, at the end of November 1918 by an Indian delegation which had come to revolutionary Russia and had been received by Lenin. The delegation consisted of two representatives of British-enslaved India. Its memorandum stated that the revolution in Russia had made the strongest impression on the minds of the Indian people. Despite all the exertions of Britain the slogan of self-determination had reached India.^^3^^
After the October Revolution the national liberation movement in the colonies began to turn into a force ever more formidable for imperialism. ''. . . What the Red Army has accomplished, its struggle, and the history of its victory,'' Lenin _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 32, p. 147.
^^2^^ J. Nehru, 'Ike Discovery of India, New York, 1946, p. 17.
^^3^^ Izvcslia, November 26, 1918.
322 stated, "will be of colossal, epochal significance for all the peoples of the East.''^^1^^ This proposition was especially corroborated by the vital part played by the Soviet Union in the Second World War. With the formation of the world socialist system, the movement for national liberation, with the support of the USSR and other socialist states, quite rapidly demolished the colonial system of imperialism which had been built up over the centuries and in 1919 had encompassed 77.2 per cent of the territory and 69.2 per cent of the world population.Even before the October Revolution Lenin had formulated one of the basic principles of proletarian internationalism---the alliance of the proletariat in capitalist countries with the oppressed peoples of the colonies and dependencies. With the birth of the Soviet state international solidarity with the struggle of these peoples became a major trend of its foreign policy.
In the Rough Outline of the Draft Programme of the Bolshevik Party, written in early 1918, Lenin defined the main trends of the Party's international policy and stated:
``Support of the revolutionary movement of the socialist proletariat in the advanced countries in the first instance.. ..
``Support of the democratic and revolutionary movement in all countries in general, and especially in the colonies and dependent countries.''^^2^^
From the first days of the young socialist state, its foreign policy acquired paramount significance for the peoples oppressed by imperialism: it at _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 30, p. 153.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 27, pp. 157--58.
__PRINTERS_P_323_COMMENT__ 21* 323 once began to exert a favourable influence on the struggle of many Eastern countries for national independence.The basic principles of the Soviet Government's peace-loving, democratic policy, the principles of the Leninist policy of friendship with the Eastern peoples, were expounded in the initial documents of the Soviet state. Renunciation of annexation, proclaimed in the Decree on Peace, was directed primarily against the colonial policy of the imperialist powers.
The Soviet Government advocated selfdetermination of the peoples, their right to arrange their life at their own discretion, without outside interference. Of great significance were the "Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia'', the address of the Soviet Government "To All the Toiling Moslems of Russia and the East" and the "Declaration of Rights of the Working and Exploited People'', proclaimed at the Third All-Russia Congress of Soviets on January 25, 1918.
Right at the outset the foreign policy of the Soviet state was based on a complete break with the barbarous policy of bourgeois civilisation which based the prosperity of the exploiters, of the few chosen nations, on the enslavement of hundreds of millions of people in Asia, the colonies in general and in small countries. The peoples held in imperialist bondage gained a loyal friend in the first socialist state in the world, which itself had had to fight for freedom and independence, and which rendered every support to the colonial peoples striving for national liberation.
At the same time, the diplomacy of the young Soviet Republic in its very first international steps 324 sought to draw the Eastern states and peoples into active participation in solving cardinal problems of world politics. The draft proposals of Soviet Russia to the Genoa Conference in 1922, drawn up by G. V. Chicherin and approved by Lenin, read in part: "The novelty of our international plan must consist in that black peoples, just as other colonial peoples, participate on an equal footing with European peoples in conferences and commissions and have the right to prevent interference in their internal life.''^^1^^
While rendering friendly assistance and support to the peoples fighting for their national independence, the Soviet Union opposed the "export of revolution" and at the same time energetically countered imperialist attempts to "export counterrevolution''.
Bourgeois historians have long slandered Soviet foreign policy by asserting that the Soviet state continues the predatory policy of tsarism with regard to Eastern countries and peoples and is even creating some kind of a "new stage" in this policy. Thus, Current History, an American journal which lays claim to being academic, in a special issue (January 1956) alleged that in 1917-- 1921 Soviet Russia intended to ``incorporate'' Afghanistan, Iran and Turkey "in the Soviet system and to destroy their religion as well as their political independence" and that in general the policy of the Soviet Government in the Middle East is only "the latest episode in 400 years of Russian expansion at the expense of the Muslim world".^^2^^
_-_-_^^1^^ Lenin Miscflltiny XXXVI, Russ. ed., Gospolitizclat, 1959, p. 451.
~^^2^^ Current History, February 1957.
325The slanderers naturally cannot find such proof because none exists. Let us cite an inference by the same journal as an example of the equilibristics to which they resort; it could be considered a curiosity if it were an exception, but such is the level of all the ``arguments'' adduced by imperialist savants. Given that in 1923 the Communist Party of Egypt had included in its programme the demand for nationalisation of the Suez Canal and that this is mentioned in a textbook of contemporary history of Eastern countries, published in Moscow in 1954, the journal comes to the conclusion that the Soviet Union was behind the Egyptian Government's nationalisation of the canal in 1956.
Soviet policy from the start was the opposite of the policy of tsarism and Russian imperialism: both with regard to the East and all other countries, the Soviet Government has strictly abided by the principle of non-interference in internal affairs. This is attested to by Soviet historical documents. A circular telegram sent by the People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs to Soviet diplomatic representatives abroad, dated September 10, 1920, emphasised: "The Soviet Government is sufficiently clearly aware that the revolutionary movement of the working people in each country is their own cause and their own task; the Government therefore steadfastly adheres to the view that the communist system cannot be imposed by force on another people and must be fought for solely by the working people of each country.''^^1^^
The young Soviet state proved in action that in _-_-_
^^1^^ Dokumenty vneshnei politiki SSSR, Vol. Ill, p. 176.
326 working for and achieving good relations with Eastern peoples it has always been prompted by genuine unselfishness and good will. The Soviet Government has graphically demonstrated to the world that relations of equality and friendship are possible between strong and weak states.Lenin repeatedly pointed to the need for joint action of the Soviet state and Eastern countries in the struggle against imperialism. He emphasised that Soviet policy rallied imperialism-oppressed states round the Land of the Soviets. These Leninist ideas were reflected in the instructions of the People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs to the Soviet Ambassador in Afghanistan of June 3, 1921. "At present, when the Eastern peoples, being economically backward, painfully feel foreign economic oppression, socialist Soviet Russia is a natural friend for them. . . . Our policy in the East is not aggressive. It is a policy of peace and friendship.''^^1^^
The aims of the Soviet Government in establishing relations with all Eastern neighbours were outlined in a note of the Soviet diplomatic representative in Persia (Iran): "The entire Eastern policy of Russia will remain diametrically opposed to the Eastern policy of the imperialist powers and will strive for the independent economic and political development of the Eastern peoples and will render them every support. The Soviet people and Government see their role and their mission in being the natural and disinterested friends and allies of the peoples fighting for their full independent, economic and political freedom.''^^2^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ Documenty vneshnei politiki SSSR, Vol. IV, p. 166,
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. V, pp. 80--81.
327The Soviet Republic heartily welcomed the liberation struggle of the Turks. G. V. Chicherin, People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the RSFSR, wrote in a letter to Mustapha Kemal Pasha (Kemal Atatiirk), Chairman of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey: "The Soviet Government is following with the liveliest interest the heroic struggle of the Turkish people for their independence and sovereignty....''^^1^^
In its first years the Soviet Republic rendered the colonial and dependent peoples all possible material as well as moral support. The 8th AllRussia Congress of Soviets adopted a decision on December 5, 1919, stating: "The Congress . . . conveys its warm greetings to all classes, peoples and races fighting against brazen imperialist brutality and exploitation and expresses the complete readiness of the Russian workers and peasants to render them both moral and material support.''^^2^^
Soviet renunciation of all debts, payments and concessions which tsarist Russia had had in Asia was of essential material help to the Asian coun-, tries. For Iran it meant a gain of more than 500 million gold rubles.
In 1921 and 1922 the Soviet state gave the Turkish Government financial assistance amounting to 10 million gold rubles. At that time Soviet Russia began to render Eastern peoples help in training local personnel: in March 1922, the _-_-_
~^^1^^ Dokumenty vneshnei politiki SSSR, Vol. II, p. 555.
^^2^^ Syezdy Sovietov RSFSR i avtonomnykh respublik RSFSR. Sbornik dokumentov. 1917--1922 (Congresses of Soviets of the RSFSR and Autonomous Republics of the RSFSR. Collection of Documents. 1917--1922), Vol. I, Gosyurizdat, 1959, p. 103.
328 Soviet Government informed the Government of Turkey that it was offering 100 places to Turkish citizens in Russian higher educational establishments and that subsequently the number of places for Turkish students would be increased. Shortly afterwards, it offered 100 places to Iranian citizens wishing to obtain a higher education in the RSFSR.Soviet Russia rendered all-round assistance to Mongolia which, after the popular revolution of 1921, became the first Eastern country to win full political independence and, moreover, was able swiftly to advance economically and culturally, having chosen the socialist path of development.
There are many documents in which the peoples and governments of Eastern countries voice their appreciation and high appraisal of Soviet Russia's efforts to ensure their independence, sovereignty and equality, expressing their gratitude to the Soviet Government. We shall confine ourselves to three countries which, according to Current History, Soviet Russia wanted to incorporate in its system.
Amanullah Khan, the Emir of Afghanistan, in his message to the Soviet Government of April 7, 1919, called Lenin and his colleagues "friends of mankind''. "You . . . undertook the honourable and lofty task of caring for the peace and welfare of people and proclaimed the principle of freedom and equal rights of the countries and peoples of the world.''^^1^^
In a note of January 30, 1918, the Charge d'Affairs of Persia informed the Soviet Government that he is "authorised to extend to the _-_-_
^^1^^ Dokumenty vneshnei politiki SSSR, Vol. II, p. 175.
329 Government of the Russian Republic, on behalf of the Persian people as represented by their Government, gratitude for the act of justice displayed to Persia.''^^1^^ This "act of justice" was the Soviet abrogation of the Anglo-Russian agreement of 1907, under which Persia had been divided into "spheres of influence'', and of other international agreements infringing Persia's independence. "It is impossible to convey the impression made on the Persians by this news,'' the Soviet diplomatic agent in Tehran wrote on January 31, 1918. "Tehran is literally overwhelmed by an outburst of universal rejoicing. I do not have a free minute because of the endless number of delegations and individuals who come to greet me.''^^2^^``I am boundlessly grateful to you for the farsighted policy which the Soviet Republic, upon your lofty initiative, has begun to apply in the East and throughout the world,"^^3^^ Mustapha Kemal Pasha wrote in a telegram to Lenin on December 18, 1920. In 1927 Y. Z. Surits, Plenipotentiary Representative of the USSR in Turkey, informing the People's Commissariat for Foreign Affairs about a reception on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the October Revolution, wrote that Kemal had come to the reception even though he was sick and against his doctors' orders not to leave the house, because, as he put it, he had wanted at all costs to celebrate the anniversary. Kemal, Surits wrote, "asked me to inform you that as long as he is alive, as long as he heads the _-_-_
~^^1^^ Dokumenty vneshnei politiki SSSR, Vol. I. p. 93.
~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 713.
~^^3^^ Ibid., Vol. Ill, p. 451,
330 state, alliance with the Soviet Republics will be a keystone of Turkish foreign policy.''^^1^^As the Soviet Union developed its economy, science, technology and culture, the truth of its achievements reached the peoples of the colonial world and made an ever greater impression on them. In his book The Discovery of India, Jawaharlal Nehru wrote: ''. .. we had the example of the Soviet Union, which in two brief decades full of war and civil strife, and in the face of what appeared to be insurmountable difficulties, had made tremendous progress. Some were attracted to communism, others were not, but all were fascinated by the advance of the Soviet Union in education and culture and medical care and physical fitness and in the solution of the problem of nationalities---by the amazing and prodigious effort to create a new world out of the dregs of the old.... If others could do it, why not we?''^^2^^
By its example, by rapid progress in all spheres of the economy and culture the USSR exerted a great influence on the national liberation struggle. Even then, the Soviet Union tried to find the resources to help the Eastern countries fighting against imperialism and which had turned to it for material support. As soon as industrialisation commenced, the Soviet Union gave disinterested assistance to Turkey, granting it in 1932 an interest-free credit of $8 million for a term of 20 years, with repayment in Turkish currency. Turkey used this credit for buying industrial equipment and building two textile mills in _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. X, p. 481.
~^^2^^ J. Nehru, Op. tit., p. 376.
331 Kaysery and Nazilli which to this day form the core of the country's textile industry.The volume of this assistance, particularly judged on present standards, was certainly small. Much as it wanted, the Soviet Union for many years could not assign considerable resources for material support to less-developed countries, because the big and intricate tasks of economic construction and the need swiftly to turn the backward land into an advanced industrial state demanded of the Soviet people the mobilisation of all forces and all internal material resources.
Moreover, in the 1920s and 1930s most of the Eastern countries were colonies and semi-colonies and were unable to appeal for, or accept, Soviet assistance.
During the Second World War, the Soviet Union invariably stressed that it upheld the sovereign rights of all peoples, the right of nations to self-determination. "In its entire national policy which underlies the state system of the Soviet Union'', it was pointed out, for example, in the Declaration of the Soviet Government at the Inter-Allied Conference in London in September 1941, "the USSR proceeds from the principle based on recognition of the sovereignty and equality of the nations. Acting on this principle, the Soviet Union upholds the right of each people to state independence and the territorial inviolability of its country, the right to establish a social system and choose a form of government it considers expedient and necessary in order to ensure the economic and cultural progress of its country.''^^1^^ Mobilising all resources for _-_-_
~^^1^^ Pravda, September 26, 1941.
332 accomplishing the immediate vital task---liberation from the nazi invaders and the defeat of fascism---the Soviet Union throughout the war never deviated from its fundamental position on the colonial and national questions.The victory over fascism, to which the Soviet Union decisively contributed, the formation of the world socialist system, the powerful advance of the national liberation struggle in Asia, Africa and Latin America brought about the break-up of imperialism's colonial system, on the ruins of which more than 70 new sovereign states arose. These factors encouraged the rapid growth of economic co-operation between the socialist countries and newly-independent states.
A major reason for the unprecedented success of the national liberation struggle is the help socialist countries render the anti-colonial forces. "The world socialist system is the decisive force in the anti-imperialist struggle,'' it was stressed in the Statement of the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties held in 1969. "Each liberation struggle receives indispensable aid from the world socialist system, above all from the Soviet Union.''^^1^^
The Eastern countries have emerged onto the international arena at a time when two powerful groups of states, capitalist and socialist, have arisen, namely, a group of highly developed capitalist states, yesterday's rulers of the colonies, and a group of developed socialist states, which pursue a fundamentally different policy from the _-_-_
~^^1^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow, 1969, Prague, 1969, p. 23.
333 capitalist countries. It is a policy of rendering the young developing states every assistance and support in the struggle for genuine independence, for the opportunity to choose their way of development without outside imperialist interference. Moreover, simultaneously socialist countries demonstrate the advantages of the way they themselves are following. The national liberation movements and the young developing states see in the socialist countries their natural ally in the anti-imperialist struggle. The USSR has always supported the just struggle for national liberation both in peaceful forms and in the form of armed struggle when the peoples are forced to it by the colonialists. The USSR has more than once compelled the imperialists to abandon encroachments on the independence of newly-free peoples. It helps to reinforce the defences of young national states. Socialist countries, above all the Soviet Union, have deprived imperialism of the monopoly of arms production; their military support has been of essential importance for the success of the national liberation movements. Soviet military might offers young countries a shield against imperialist aggression.Socialist foreign policy and diplomacy have played, and continue to play a tremendous part in defending the national interests of developing countries internationally. They have tirelessly upheld by every available means the rights of oppressed peoples, resolutely working for the complete and final abolition of colonialism. Since Afro-Asian countries won political independence, socialist diplomacy, acting on the principle that fraternal alliance with the ex-colonial peoples is one of the cornerstones of the international policy 334 of socialist states, has been constantly rendering them help in the struggle against the neocolonialist intrigues of the imperialist powers and for the consolidation of their international positions.
It is thanks to this policy that favourable conditions have emerged for the successful advance of young Afro-Asian states along the path of national regeneration and the winning of economic independence. Without such support they would be unable to withstand the onslaught of the imperialist powers, above all the neo-colonialist aspirations of the United States which is ruthlessly suppressing the national liberation movements in several areas.
Today, joint socialist action in support of the national liberation movement acquires inestimable significance not only for the newly-free countries, but for the entire world revolutionary process. The joint action of fraternal countries here, too, is fully based on the principles of socialist solidarity with the peoples who were, and are being oppressed, which fully precludes any great-power, racial and religious prejudices. Violation of these principles inevitably weakens the anti-imperialist front and disunites the revolutionary and national liberation forces.
The Communist and Workers' Parties of socialist countries attach great importance to the development of truly equal and mutually beneficial relations with ex-colonies and are seeking to consolidate the fraternal ties established with many of them.
The level of political, economic and cultural relations between socialist and young developing states is not and cannot be the same in all cases. 335 This is due to many reasons connected with the history and national traditions of various countries, the level of their socio-economic and political development and also with the degree of economic dependence on, and the political influence of, colonial powers in formerly dependent countries or their consequences and the scale of the national liberation revolution.
The main trend of socialist foreign policy and diplomacy with regard to young national states is to develop relations of friendship and co-- operation, to render them every moral and material assistance in the struggle against imperialism and colonialism, to contribute in all ways to the winning and consolidating of their economic and political independence.
The existence of a powerful socialist community, its assistance to Afro-Asian and Latin American peoples and its anti-colonialist, antiimperialist policy have contributed, and are contributing, to the intensification of the national liberation movement, to the acceleration of the final break-up of imperialism's colonial system, and to the preservation and strengthening of the independence of states which have embarked on the road of independent development. If in the postwar period the imperialist powers have been compelled to recognise the independence of many Afro-Asian states without resorting to open armed struggle, this proves above all that the former colonial masters have had to reckon with the impact exerted by the world socialist system on the changes taking place in the Third World.
The birth of the world socialist system and the disintegration of imperialism's colonial system are two sides of the single, though multifarious world 336 revolutionary process. A powerful worldwide front against colonialism has emerged in our epoch based on the alliance of the forces of socialism and national liberation revolutions. "The GPSU,'' it is pointed out in the Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, "considers fraternal alliance with the peoples who have thrown off colonial or semi-colonial tyranny to be a cornerstone of its international policy. This alliance is based on the common vital interests of world socialism and the world national liberation movement. The GPSU regards it as its internationalist duty to assist the peoples who have set out to win and strengthen their national independence, all peoples who are fighting for the complete abolition of the colonial system.''^^1^^
The socialist states have become a powerful ally and bulwark for the peoples of the developing countries in their struggle against the imperialist pirates. The economic, diplomatic and, when necessary, military assistance of the world socialist system is a guarantee that the freedom fighters or those who have already won independence will not be overpowered even by the concerted effort of the colonialists. The world socialist community is protecting the newly-free countries from intervention, and this enables all of them, irrespective of their level of socio-economic development, boldly to choose the road of social progress.
The determined stand taken by the Soviet Union and other socialist states during the AngloFranco-Israeli intervention in Egypt in 1956 _-_-_
~^^1^^ Programme of the CPSU, p. 41. 22--500
337 prevented its triggering off a big colonial war spearheaded against the freedom and independence both of the Egyptian and of many other newly-independent peoples. A similar situation arose in the autumn of 1957 when the imperialists tried to unleash an aggressive war against the Syrian people, in the summer of 1958 when American forces invaded the Lebanon and British forces invaded Jordan, and in the summer of 1967 when Israel launched aggression against the United Arab Republic, Syria and Jordan.The impact of socialism on the national liberation movement is of major significance for the entire trend of development of newly-independent countries. It is hardly surprising, then, that most young sovereign states should adhere to the nonalignment policy and actively oppose imperialism. The main task facing their peoples is to achieve economic independence by strengthening their political independence. The record shows that the biggest results in building an independent economy have been attained by countries which pursue an active anti-imperialist policy, balk attempts to inveigle them into imperialist military blocs and firmly adhere to the principles of peace and lasting international security.
The formation of a large group of young sovereign Afro-Asian states is a major feature of the present international situation. The number of countries pursuing a policy of non-alignment and seeking to protect themselves from the danger fraught in participation in aggressive military blocs is steadily growing. Dozens of Afro-Asian countries, with a population comprising one-third of mankind, have declared their unwillingness to join military-political groups and have 338 proclaimed non-alignment the basis of their foreign policy.
The non-alignment policy is a new development in international relations. For young sovereign Afro-Asian states it stems not from temporary or time-serving considerations, but from the very nature of states whose peoples have liberated themselves from centuries-old imperialist oppression. Afro-Asian neutralism is dictated primarily by internal reasons; it emanates from the objective need to preserve and strengthen peace as a major prerequisite for successfully accomplishing economic, cultural and social tasks.
Since their interests in the struggle for peace and against imperialism objectively coincide, the socialist states are striving to arrange and extend co-operation with non-aligned countries on all major international issues. Displaying great tact for the interests of Afro-Asian states, socialist countries reflect their wishes in proposals and statements in international organisations and conferences. The world socialist community is invariably ready to accept proposals from developing countries which meet the interests of peace and security. Many Afro-Asian countries side with the socialist states on basic international issues of our time.
The countries of the world socialist system and the young Afro-Asian national states are energetically working to prevent a world nuclear war, to safeguard lasting peace throughout the world. They are convinced that general and complete disarmament and the solution of other urgent contemporary problems would be decisive for establishing enduring peace.
A solution to the disarmament problem would __PRINTERS_P_339_COMMENT__ 22* 339 make it possible to shift the vast resources now spent for military purposes to peaceful constructive needs. This would create favourable conditions for raising the living standards of the peoples of all states, especially those which have recently won political independence. In a report on the economic and social consequences of disarmament, prepared in late 1961 and early 1962 by a group of experts from different countries for the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, it was calculated that if countries with a less developed economy were given half of the resources released as a result of disarmament for productive capital investment, and, alongside this, the general influx of capital from the more developed countries would rise approximately to $15,000 million annually (only a little more than 1 per cent of their gross national product---a tiny fraction as compared with their present expenditure on military purposes) the growth rate of the per capita income in newly-free countries would treble. If one-fifth of the resources spent for military purposes by member states of military-political groups were given as aid for the economic development of these countries, it would amount to $20,000 million annually or $500,000 million in 25 years. According to available estimates, this sum, together with the internal reserves and accumulation sources, would be sufficient to enable all the less-developed countries to eliminate their economic backwardness within 20--25 years, that is, within the lifetime of the present generation.
The socialist and non-aligned states act in a united front to put a stop to all nuclear weapon tests, rightly considering that this measure would 340 lessen international tension and facilitate solution of the problem of complete and general disarmament. They resolutely oppose the further proliferation of nuclear weapons and fight for their prohibition.
The socialist and neutral states hold similar positions on important issues such as withdrawal of armed forces stationed abroad. They hold that the presence of foreign troops not only increases mistrust between countries and infringes the national interests of states on whose territory they are stationed, but also is fraught with a serious danger of military conflicts.
The peace-loving foreign policy of young sovereign Afro-Asian states has great popular support. Their energetic actions in defence of peace often paralyse the pressure exerted by aggressive Western forces and their agents on these countries. The report "US Foreign Policy. Ideology and Foreign Affairs'', mentioned earlier, admits that it is very unlikely that any policy deviating from non-alignment could secure similar support within any country.
This, of course, does not mean that the imperialists have given up their attempts to enmesh one or another neutralist state in the web of their aggressive policy. They exert much effort to disrupt the policy of non-participation in military alliances and are trying to swerve the newly-- independent states from their path, to distort the essential meaning of the processes of social and political development underway in the world. Utilising new forms of colonialism, particularly ``aid'' to economically less developed countries, the ruling circles of the imperialist powers are 341 trying to preserve key positions in their economy and to re-enslave their peoples.
Many of the newly-independent countries have entered a new stage---the stage of struggle for economic independence against the neo-colonialist attempts of the imperialists to regain lost positions and obstruct social progress.
Imperialism does not stand on ceremony, and often resorts to armed force to interfere in the internal affairs of the liberated countries. Lately the imperialists have stepped up subversive activities, especially against the governments of countries where deep-going social reconstruction is under way.
As they fight for their independence the peoples of young independent states become increasingly convinced that only by strengthening friendly ties with the Soviet Union and other socialist states, by creating a united front of all anti-imperialist forces, will they be able to cope with the intricate problems confronting them.
The common approach of socialist and neutral states to the evaluation and methods of settling many world issues has ensured the adoption of a number of important international decisions meeting the interests of the nations, the interests of peace and progress. For example, such an approach to problems of colonialism enabled the 15th session of the UN General Assembly to adopt in December 1960 a Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. The adoption of the Declaration, the draft of which was submitted by the delegations of 43 Afro-Asian countries and incorporated a number of fundamental propositions of the Soviet draft, was a grand victory for the foreign policy 342 of the USSR and the other socialist states, a victory for the foreign policy of independent Asian, African and Latin American states, a victory for all peace-loving and freedom-loving forces.
The Soviet Union and other socialist countries are energetically working to consolidate the prestige and enhance the role of independent Afro-Asian states internationally. The Soviet Government has made many proposals on the enlistment of these states in the work of numerous international conferences and on the reorganisation of the United Nations Secretariat, taking into account the interests of these countries.
The economic sphere is now the focal point of the struggle of young sovereign Afro-Asian states for genuine independence and progress. The signal socialist economic achievements are of tremendous significance for these countries, indicating to them a reliable way for deliverance from backwardness and poverty.
The further development of the former colonies is a question that is being settled in the course of the struggle for economic independence. The imperialist states, resorting to methods of neocolonialism and implanting new forms of exploitation, expose themselves before the peoples of the newly-free countries who increasingly favour the non-capitalist path of development. Their striving to eliminate economic backwardness is displayed in the policy of nationalisation, the building up and development of a national industry, in agrarian reforms and encouragement of the growth of the state economic sector.
Ft is natural that in coping with tasks of economic advance the new sovereign countries should 343 rely primarily on their own resources. But they lack financial and material resources and skilled personnel to move very fast, so they have to lean heavily on industrially developed states for scientific and technological know-how. Although outside assistance is not the main source of their economic growth, it does exert quite a considerable impact on it---accelerating or impeding it, depending on who offers the aid and for what purpose.
``Aid" from the imperialist powers to countries with a backward economy is designed to keep these countries economically dependent upon the monopoly capital of the former metropolitan states. This ``aid'' is accompanied, as a rule, by overt or concealed political, economic and military strings which endanger the national sovereignty of the recipients.
Socialist aid is of an entirely different nature. Relations between socialist states and ex-colonies are based on principles devoid of any selfish motives. The assistance is highly efficacious and is aimed at the early achievement of economic independence, being based on full equality and carrying no political, military or other strings incompatible with the national interests and dignity of the developing countries.
The socialist states see their international duty in helping the peoples of less developed countries to reinforce their national independence and to put an end to the age-old lag in their economic and cultural development. The socialist peoples who had themselves once suffered imperialist oppression and exploitation regard with sympathy and understanding the striving of the newlyindependent nations rapidly to attain economic and cultural progress. Such economic and 344 technical co-operation is therefore a logical continuation of the fraternal support the socialist states have always given to the anti-imperialist movement.
Mutually beneficial and equal economic and technical co-operation of socialist countries with young independent states is favourably affecting the economic growth of the countries involved. It relieves the developing countries of dependence on the imperialist powers, enables them to avoid new enslavement and accelerates the internal processes which lead to the highroad of social development, to socialism.
Proceeding from the principles of proletarian internationalism, the Soviet Union and other socialist countries consider such co-operation important and necessary for peace and peaceful coexistence of states belonging to different socioeconomic systems.
The socialist states promote the building up of an independent national economy in the former colonies through economic and technical cooperation and the strengthening of equal and mutually beneficial trade relations.
The growth of Soviet economic might furnishes the necessary material basis for extending assistance to developing countries, and as a result of the great industrial progress made by other socialist countries, they too can assign resources for such assistance. They support in every way the industrialisation of young independent states and provide them with up-to-date equipment, yet they do not demand any part in the capital or share holdings of the jointly-built enterprises. Rather, they hand them over to the client country and seek no right of control over its economy.
The friendly, equal nature of such economic 345 co-operation precludes from the relations any hint of charity which insults national dignity.
The disinterested assistance of socialist countries enables the young states to refuse the fettering terms dictated by the Western monopolies when they grant ``aid'' and creates formidable obstacles to imperialism's economic and political expansion. The extensive socialist assistance programme has undermined imperialism's monopoly of credit, delivery of modern industrial equipment and the rendering of scientific and technical assistance to less developed countries. Imperialist powers are today forced to reckon with the fact that young national states can turn for economic assistance to the socialist countries and that it will be rendered to them on advantageous terms. That is why the imperialist powers in their economic relations with excolonies and dependencies are compelled to make certain concessions and offer more acceptable terms.
Socialist economic and technical assistance represents friendly support to the peoples of national states and not to certain privileged groups. Differences in social systems, in the state and political order and in ideology do not prevent socialist states from energetically promoting economic co-operation with newly-independent countries.
Socialist states are giving them effective help in building heavy industrial enterprises and other important industrial projects. Six hundred industrial enterprises and other projects are being built with Soviet assistance in a total of 35 Asian, African and Latin American countries. They include iron and steel works, engineering and 346 metal-working and chemical enterprises, oil refineries, electric power stations, building materials plants, and factories of the light and food industries. Among them are the Bhilai iron and steel works and the Anklesvar oilfields in India, a river port and modern bakery in Afghanistan, the Aswan Dam and cotton spinning mills in the United Arab Republic, and a sea port in Yemen.
Geological prospecting with the help of Soviet specialists has brought to light large resources of oil and gas in India (in Cambay, Anklesvar, Rudrasagar, Kalol, Vavel and other places), one of the world's biggest deposits of sulphur in Iraq, industrial reserves of coal in the United Arab Republic, iron ore, phosphates and rock salt in Syria, gas in Afghanistan, cement raw material in Mali and Ghana and diamonds in Guinea.
Other socialist countries are also rendering considerable assistance to developing states. For example, Czechoslovakia has built more than 150 industrial enterprises and other projects in Asian, African and Latin American countries since the war, and delivered complete plant for 550 enterprises in the chemical, power, footwear, cement, sugar and other industries. Altogether, member states of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance are assisting 50 Asian, African and Latin American countries in building about 2,000 industrial enterprises and other projects, with priority accorded to heavy industry. In Africa alone more than 700 enterprises and other projects are under construction with the help of CMEA members: 126 enterprises have been built or are under construction with the participation of Czechoslovakia. The German Democratic 347 Republic has assisted the United Arab Republic in erecting several textile mills.
By the mid-1960s, 26,000 Soviet experts had been sent to developing countries to assist in designing and building industrial enterprises.
Credit designated for the development of key sectors of the economy is one of the major forms of socialist assistance to newly-free countries.
The Soviet Union has given developing countries credit totalling about 5,000 million rubles. It is a rule that the credit is furnished on easy terms---at an annual interest rate of 2.5-3 per cent and with repayment over 12--15 years. In some cases the terms are even more favourable.
Czechoslovak credit to Asian, African and Latin American states amounts to about 300 million rubles, Polish 160 million and Rumanian to 70 million rubles. The German Democratic Republic is crediting various development projects in the United Arab Republic and Brazil, and Hungary, in Indonesia and Brazil.
Socialist credit covers a considerable part of capital investment and foreign currency receipts for economic development: in Afghanistan, for example, Soviet assistance accounted for more than one-third of all investment under the first five-year plan (1956--1961), and in India about 12 per cent of state investment in industry under the third five-year plan (1961/62--1965/66).
Socialist credit radically differs from that of the imperialist powers, representing friendly assistance, not the export of capital. It helps to build up an independent national economy in the former colonies and dependencies, while the capitalist powers offer credit to enmesh these countries in new economic and political dependence.
348Socialist credit is designated for essential development in economically backward countries, primarily for the state sector which is the strongest foundation of genuine independence. On the other hand, the imperialist credit policy is designed mainly to strengthen the dominating positions of foreign monopoly capital and to support the local big bourgeoisie and the upper landowner crust which prevent deep-going economic and social changes.
The terms for the repayment of socialist credit are not burdensome: the credit, as a rule, goes into building enterprises which within 12 years receive an income enabling them not only to redeem the credit and pay interest but to obtain considerable additional resources. Many credit agreements specifically stipulate that repayment shall begin one year after delivery of complete plant for a project, which actually lengthens the repayment term.
Socialist credit is mainly repaid with the traditional exports of recipient countries, chiefly raw materials (rubber, cotton, wool, cocoa beans, fruit, coffee, spices). This method of repayment is economically advantageous to the developing countries insofar as guaranteed deliveries of traditional export goods stimulate development of the export sectors, raise employment and living standards.
Socialist states give extensive scientific and technical assistance, providing specialists and modern technical documentation which enable the newly-independent countries to introduce the latest scientific and technological achievements and industrial know-how, and also to accelerate 349 the training of national specialists and skilled workers.
Research and development work, delivery of equipment and materials, training of national personnel for enterprises built with socialist assistance---these are some of the forms of socialist help to peoples who have recently won political independence. They especially appreciate the fact that projects built with socialist assistance become valuable centres for training local personnel. This is particularly important because the lack of scientists, technicians, and skilled workers is one of the handicaps inherited by young national states.
The Soviet Union greatly assists in training national personnel for work at the newly-built enterprises: more than 5,000 Indian technicians and skilled workers were trained during the construction of the Bhilai iron and steel works; more than 8,000 foremen and workers at the building of the Aswan Dam in the United Arab Republic; in Afghanistan about 30,000 people have been trained in different trades. Altogether, the number of specialists and skilled workers trained in Afro-Asian countries with Soviet assistance exceeds 100,000, while many thousands of specialists study and undergo practical training in the USSR. Soviet educational establishments play a big part in training national personnel: some 30,000 foreign workers have learned industrial and agricultural trades in the USSR and 10,000 undergraduates and postgraduates from almost 100 Asian, African and Latin American countries are studying at Soviet universities and colleges. There are about 4,000 African students alone from 42 countries in the USSR. More than 3,000 students are enrolled in the Patrice Lumumba 350 Friendship University in Moscow. Instruction and practical training are free and all students receive scholarships.
Scientific and technical co-operation of other socialist states with developing countries is also steadily extending.
Between 1962 and 1969 the volume of economic, scientific and technical assistance rendered by the Soviet Union and other socialist countries to more than 60 countries increased by 390 per cent. Deliveries of machinery and equipment to developing countries between 1955 and 1968 grew from 15.3 to 430.2 million rubles and made up 34 per cent of total Soviet exports in 1970.
In furnishing extensive economic and technical assistance, the socialist states hold that such help can serve only as an additional stimulus to economic growth and that sound economic and social development is possible primarily through the maximum use of internal resources. That is why the main trend in socialist assistance to young independent countries is the utmost strengthening of mutually beneficial and equal trade ties on maximally favourable conditions without any discrimination and interference in internal affairs.
In contrast to the imperialist powers, the socialist states do not impose on the Third World countries goods that are not needed, but deliver those required for economic development and satisfaction of vital needs. Exports from socialist states to developing countries consist mainly of equipment, machines, tools and precision instruments, ferrous and non-ferrous metals and other goods for production purposes. Equipment accounts for about 25 per cent of the exports of socialist states to developing countries and its 351 share continues to grow. Because the imperialist powers are interested in keeping them as their agrarian raw-material appendages, they often refuse to supply them with industrial plant.
Socialist states sell equipment to developing countries on deferred payment and terms advantageous to the latter. Meanwhile, these countries gain additional possibilities for the sale of export goods, which ensures the receipt of money needed to pay for the equipment and, in a number of cases, helps to maintain the prices of the goods they sell to developed capitalist states. Raw materials make up two-thirds of the exports of developing countries to socialist states.
In view of the limited gold and foreignexchange reserves of young national states, socialist countries agree to payments and settlements on trade contracts in national currencies.
As a result trade between socialist and developing countries has swiftly expanded. While in the mid-1950s the Soviet Union traded only with 17 Asian and African countries, in 1968 it engaged in commerce with most of them and had trade agreements with 45 Afro-Asian countries.
Trade of GMEA members with African countries is increasing swiftly: the share of developing countries in the foreign commerce of CMEA members rose more than 2.5 times between 1950 and 1969 and exceeded 10 per cent of the total. During the same period trade of developing countries with industrial capitalist states rose only by about 40 per cent.
In addition to industrial equipment, GMEA countries export large quantities of farm machinery to newly-independent states.
Economic co-operation of the USSR with 352 developing countries was extended in the past fiveyear period (1966--1970). Goods exchange increased and its composition changed in accordance with the shifts in the economy of the newly-free countries. Trade was expanded above all by deliveries of machinery and other manufactured goods needed for building up an independent national economy in these countries. The Soviet Union is assisting them in the development of agriculture and construction, the establishment of scientific institutes and designing organisations, and the creation of modern means of transport and communication, in geological prospecting and training of specialists and skilled workers.
The high assessment of the national economic programme adopted at the 23rd CPSU Congress by progressive forces of developing countries is understandable. Addressing the Congress S.A. Dange, Chairman of the National Council of the Communist Party of India, stressed the importance of friendly and disinterested socialist assistance for the national regeneration of India and the building up of her independent economy. "That is why every five-year plan of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries, every success in carrying out the plans of building communism is of direct help to India and all developing democratic countries in the world.''^^1^^ Pieter Keuneman, General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ceylon, stated at the Congress that fulfilment of the five-year plan and the successes of communist construction will enable _-_-_
~^^1^^ Privyetstviya XXIII syezdu KPSS (Greetings to the 23rd Congress of the CPSU), Politizdat, 1966, p. 199.
__PRINTERS_P_353_COMMENT__ 23---500 353 the Soviet Union to extend its all-round assistance to the peoples of the developing states in their struggle against imperialism and neo-colonialism, will teach them how to combine political stimuli with the proper management of the economy for further developing the national liberation revolution, and convince them that the non-capitalist path of development is the most advantageous to them.^^1^^The significance of assistance by socialist states to developing countries goes far beyond the bounds of its direct results: regeneration of the economy, stabilisation of foreign trade and finances and the rise in people's living standards. This help is also of great importance because it substantially strengthens the international positions of young national states. It lends them strength in the struggle against imperialism and for complete independence. It destroys the argument of those who try to dictate and impose fettering terms on them. The existence of the world socialist system and its readiness to give the developing countries every assistance favourably affect their position in the world economy.
``The new way of life in countries that have thrown off the colonial yoke,'' it is pointed out in the Resolution of the 23rd CPSU Congress, "is taking shape in ferocious clashes with the treacherous imperialist enemies and reactionary domestic forces which depend on imperialism for support in their efforts to guide the young states along the capitalist path. However, the peoples are more and more coming to associate the _-_-_
^^1^^ Privyctstvlya XXIII syczdu KPSS. p. 215.
354 consummation of the national liberation revolution, the elimination of their age-old backwardness and the improvement of their living conditions, with the non-capitalist path of development. Some young states have already embarked on this path, and the Soviet Union bases its relations with them on complete equality, friendship and mutual support.''^^1^^An equal co-operation and friendship between socialist states and developing countries grow stronger, the ruling circles of the leading imperialist powers are increasingly forced to consider the socialist assistance to economically less developed countries. Consolidation of the economic might of the socialist community and further development of all-round co-operation between socialist and young independent states are compelling the capitalist powers, contrary to the intentions of the monopolies, increasingly to make concessions to Afro-Asian countries.
Today when there is a world socialist system which has become the bulwark for the independent national development of the newly-free peoples, young national states have the possibility of choosing new ways. A number of independent states have chosen the non-capitalist path of development and their governments are carrying out socio-economic and political measures of a socialist nature.
By giving the developing countries extensive help, the socialist states are making an important contribution to the consolidation of peace and spreading of equal international co-operation. _-_-_
~^^1^^ 23rd Congress of the CPSU, p. 283.
355This assistance, which is an expression of the proletarian solidarity of the working people of socialist countries with Asian, African and Latin American peoples, helps them in winning economic independence, and facilitates mankind's advance along the road of peace and social progress.
[356] __NUMERIC_LVL2__ Chapter IX. __ALPHA_LVL2__ SOCIALIST FOREIGN POLICY ANDAn 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.
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.
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 357 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.
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.
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".^^1^^
Even many votaries of the old world are forced _-_-_
~^^1^^ K. Marx and F. Eng-cls, Selected Works, in three volumes, Vol. I, p. 127.
358 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".^^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.''^^2^^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.^^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.
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 _-_-_
~^^1^^ A. G. Meyer, Communism, New York, 1960, p. 3.
~^^2^^ G. F. Kennan, Russia, the. Atom and the West, London, 195S, p. 102.
~^^3^^ D. Bell, The End of Ideology, Illinois, 1960, p. 373.
359 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.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."^^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.''^^2^^ It is not difficult to understand the reason: the ``new'' is socialism.
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 _-_-_
~^^1^^ The National Purpose. America in Crisis: an Urgent Summons, New York, 1960, p. 1.
~^^2^^ H. Rauschning, Mut zu clner neuen Politik, Berlin, 1959, S. 227.
360 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.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.
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.^^1^^ Imperialism associates its political actions with the ideology of anti-communism.
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 _-_-_
^^1^^ Ideology and Foreign Affairs, p. 125.
361 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.''^^1^^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.
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".^^2^^ The policy of the _-_-_
~^^1^^ Z. Brzezinski and Samuel P. Huntington, Political Power: USA/USSR, New York, 1964, p. 17.
^^2^^ M. Donelen, The Ideas of American Foreign Policy, London, 1963, pp. 63, 64.
362 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.^^1^^.
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".^^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.
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''.
_-_-_^^1^^ The New York Times, May 7, 1965.
~^^2^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 466.
363Elevating, 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.
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".^^1^^
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.''^^2^^
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".^^3^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ B. Goldwater, The Conscience of a Conservative, New York, 1960, pp. 91--92.
~^^2^^ Quoted after W. Mills and J. Murray, Foreign Policy and the Free Society, New York, 1958, p. G7.
~^^3^^ R. Bowie, Shaping the Future. Foreign Policy in the Age of Transition, New York, 1964, p. 9.
364Others, 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.^^1^^
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.
One of the specific features of US imperialism's _-_-_
~^^1^^ J. Boynton, Aims and Means, London, 1964, p. 9.
365 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.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".^^1^^
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 _-_-_
~^^1^^ The New York Times, June 30, 1965, p. 36.
366 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.^^1^^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.''^^2^^
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.
_-_-_~^^1^^ The New York Times, June 30, 19C5.
~^^2^^ Pravda, November 4, 1967.
367The 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''.
What is this "Western unity" in the understanding of the ideologists of the monopoly bourgeoisie?
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''.
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.
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 368 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''.
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.
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 __PRINTERS_P_369_COMMENT__ 24---500 369 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.
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.
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.''^^1^^
The spread of bourgeois ideology was _-_-_
~^^1^^ Foreign Affairs, October 1964, p. 12.
370 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.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.
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 __PRINTERS_P_371_COMMENT__ 24* 371 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.''^^1^^
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.
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 _-_-_
^^1^^ World Marxist Review, January 1966, p. 2.
372 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."^^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.''^^2^^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.
Some are trying to portray peaceful coexistence _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 32.
~^^2^^ Ibid.
373 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".^^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.^^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.''^^3^^ Others recognise peaceful coexistence as a basis for relations between states of the two different social systems but with certain reservations.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.''^^4^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ Foreign A/fairs, October 1958, p. 6.
^^2^^ Die Welt, November 2, 1961, S. 3.
^^3^^ H. Scton-Watson, Neither War nor Peace, The Struggle jor Power in the Post-War World, London, I960, p. 256.
^^4^^ Partisan Review, Spring 1958, p. 230.
374Arthur 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.''^^1^^
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.
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 _-_-_
~^^1^^ Aiis Polillk unit '/.cil Gcsi-hiclitc, February 12, 1964,
375 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.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.''^^1^^
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.
_-_-_~^^1^^ William 0. Douglas, Democracy's Manifesto, New York, 1962, pp. 15--16.
376True, 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.
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.
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.
Application of the peaceful coexistence principles in such forms would legalise the crimes of the Portuguese colonialists in Angola, offer a 377 guarantee to the reactionary regimes in Spain and Portugal, preserve the domination of the US and British monopolies in Asia, Africa and Latin America.
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.
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.
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 378 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.
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.
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.
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.
379The 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.
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,"^^1^^ Riidiger Altmann, a West German journalist, writes.
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.
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 _-_-_
~^^1^^ R. Altmann, DCS Erbe Adenauers, Stuttffart-Desjerloch, 1960, S. 177.
380 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.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.
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.
These circles apparently think that 381 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.
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.
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''.
While struggle against imperialist ideology is an indispensable condition of peaceful coexistence, 382 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.
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.^^1^^
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.
``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 _-_-_
^^1^^ W. Schlamm, Of), cit., S. 185.
383 controversial interstate issues by negotiation, not by war.''^^1^^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.
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:
``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.
``The Party will steadfastly propagate the great _-_-_
^^1^^ 23rd Congress of the CPSU, p. 50.
384 advantages of socialism and communism over the declining capitalist system."^^1^^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.
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.
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.
The existence of the world socialist system, of the international communist and working-class movement, and their energetic, militant _-_-_
~^^1^^ Programme oj the CPSU, p. 102.
__PRINTERS_P_385_COMMENT__ 25---500 385 international struggle arc an important factor which is constantly deepening capitalism's general crisis and accelerating the rate of social development.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.
[386] __ALPHA_LVL1__ CONCLUSIONThe world socialist system has passed a number of stages in its development. It has been the author's purpose to outline the history of its emergence and analyse the main problems which had arisen during its development.
A study of the history of the world socialist system shows that for a proper understanding of many questions, it is necessary to delve deeply into the roots of, and prerequisites for, its formation.
Indeed, it is impossible to understand and properly evaluate the revolutionary processes underway at the end of the Second World War in Eastern and Southeast Europe without considering the revolutionary struggle of the European working class in the prewar period. It is impossible rationally to explain the reasons for the victory of people's democratic revolutions in parts of Europe and Asia without considering the tremendous experience in revolutionary struggle which the international working class gained after the Great October Socialist Revolution, without considering its direct impact on the revolutionary movement in other countries.
__PRINTERS_P_387_COMMENT__ 25* 387The formation of the world socialist system opened up entirely new horizons to the progressivelorces fighting for liberation. Socialism's possibilities for influencing entire world development were tremendously extended, so that today the socialist system is increasingly becoming the decisive factor in society's development.
This conclusion of the world communist movement has resulted from a Marxist-Leninist analysis of world events and changes, and a profound evaluation of the world relationship of the class and political forces. Life is providing ever new confirmation of this conclusion.
ft would be an oversimplification, incompatible with Marxism-Leninism, to think that in our days the course and outcome of absolutely all international events depend on the socialist countries, on their will and position. How the international situation is shaped at each stage, how it develops in each individual case, how international processes take place in the period of transition from capitalism to socialism, all depends on the competition and struggle between the two socio-- economic systems, socialism and capitalism. This is a persistent, bitter struggle. For capitalism it is a struggle for survival and it disdains no means and exerts every effort, which is still considerable. In their desire to stifle world socialism the imperialists resort not only to the ``traditional'' methods of politics elaborated over many centuries, including war, but also devise new methods and artifices.
Ultimate victory on a worldwide scale belongs to socialism as the more progressive social system ensuring the fullest development of the productive forces and their most efficient use for the 388 good of society; but this applies to the ultimate victory, and not the distinct stages of the struggle itself. They in fact chiefly make up the substance of international affairs today.
When we speak of the conversion of the socialist system into the decisive factor of world development, we refer to the historical prospects before mankind, its destiny, which is inextricably linked with socialism, with mankind's advance along the road of social progress.
Throughout the last half-century, history has incontrovertibly proved that notwithstanding the desperate resistance offered by the old world and the unceasing attempts of its leaders to restore the capitalist order on a worldwide scale, notwithstanding the aggressive actions of imperialism and the wars it has unleashed, whether local or worldwide---notwithstanding all this, the balance of world forces is steadily changing in favour of socialism and to the detriment of capitalism.
By its achievements in building socialism and communism the world socialist system is exercising a powerful influence on the minds of men. Socialist economic, scientific, technological, cultural and all other successes, including the advance of the people's living standards, demonstrate to all humanity the great advantages of the new socio-economic system, its superiority over the old one.
Herein is the essence, to use Lenin's words, of the "basic historical connection" between the world socialist system and the progress of mankind. Only by approaching it from the scientific angle are we able to view it correctly, and not to lose sight of the main substance in a "mass of detail''. The scientific, Marxist-Leninist approach __PRINTERS_P_389_COMMENT__ 26--500 389 offered the world communist movement grounds lor the conclusion that,
``'loday it is the world socialist system and t/ic lorccs lighting againsl imperialism, for a socialist transformation of society, that determine (he main content, main trend and main features of the historical development of society.''^^1^^
Today there is no longer any substantial social process in the world that would develop outside and without the influence of the world socialist system. Karl Marx once wrote of the Paris Commune: "The great social measure of the Commune was its own working existence.''^^2^^ Hence we are justified in saying that the greatest "social measure" of the past half-century was the existence, profound transforming activity and struggle, first ol the Soviet state surrounded by capitalist countries, and then, of the world socialist system.
What is exceedingly important is that the ideas of socialism lound their material embodiment in the Soviet Union and then in other socialist countries. Even prior to that the ideas of socialism had undoubtedly represented a tremendous challenge. But it was their embodiment that served as the cause, as Lenin wrote, of the "tremendous acceleration of world development'', the "great acceleration of the greatest world revolution'',^^3^^ into which hundreds of millions of people were drawn. It is in October 1917 that the rapid growth rate of historical events began, which was further accelerated after the conversion of socialism into _-_-_
~^^1^^ 'I lie Struggle for I'eticc, Democracy and Socidlist/i, p. 39.
~^^2^^ K. Marx and F. Kngels, Selected Works, Vol. 2, p. 227.
~^^3^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, pp. 349, 350.
390 a world system. In 50 years, a relatively brief period in historical terms, socialism scored victories which radically altered the entire world siluation. Kven many bourgeois ideologists are compelled to admit the mounting influence exerted by socialism, its ideas and practice. US Senator J. W. Fulbright writes in his book Pros/iccls for the West that "the success of Communism as a revolutionary force in the world is ... the result of the impact and example of the Soviet state, which .. . converted backward Russia into a powerful modern industrial society in the span of a single generation".^^1^^Under both the direct and indirect influence of the world socialist system, the world processes have become highly diverse and affect all social relations. The socialist system and its constructive function represent the bulwark of the world revolutionary process of our time, its main force, as attested to by the facts of history.
Is it indisputable, for example, that it was the existence of the world socialist community that made it possible for a socialist state to arise and survive on the very doorstep of the United States, this chief citadel of world imperialism. We refer to the Republic of Cuba.
It is likewise indisputable that it is owing to these conditions that the disintegration of the colonial system, which began immediately after the October Revolution, acquired its present scale. Moreover, in a number of cases the new sovereign states, formed in the course of the national liberation struggle, have embarked on the non-- _-_-_
~^^1^^ J. W. Fulbright, Prospects for the West, Cambridge, Mass., 1963, pp. 4-5.
__PRINTERS_P_391_COMMENT__ 26* 391 capitalist path and are utilising socialist forms and methods of operating the economy.Today, however, socialism possesses not only the attractive force of example. It is impossible to overestimate the importance of the socialist assistance and support that the peoples of developing states are able to draw on and widely utilise. This specifically is a manifestation of the influence exerted by the socialist economic achievements on the world revolutionary process. Bourgeois ideologists write with unconcealed anxiety about the social consequences of assistance of socialist countries to young national states. An official American report points out that the exchange of technical experts, economic assistance, the possibilities of reciprocal trade and enhanced prestige and might of the Soviet Union ---all these factors create the impression that the USSR is the prototype of the future society. The world socialist system is exerting an ever greater impact on the social content and ideals of the national liberation movement.
The situation in the Third World following the disintegration of the colonial system is marked by great complexity; the socio-political processes in it are diverse and at times contradictory. But if we review the record of the ex-colonies as a whole, considering the prospects, it is clear that the moral and political isolation of capitalism's proponents has increased in them, and their peoples are increasingly inclined to choose progressive ways of development.
The socialist countries are natural allies of the peoples fighting for their national and social liberation. The development of relations with young states of course depends on the nature of the 392 socio-economic and political changes in these states. Similarly, the influence of socialism on the peoples fighting colonial oppression and on the newly-free countries, increases in importance as the socialist world positions grow stronger. The change in the balance of power in socialism's favour and the weakening of imperialism archaving an all-pervading effect on the newly-- independent countries. It is not by chance, for example, that many of them are following the path of neutralism, breaking with imperialism and are developing not as ``normal'' capitalist countries.
The existence of the world socialist system and its influence on the course of events have changed the conditions of struggle by the proletariat and its allies in the capitalist countries too. The workers of the world have before them a model of socialism; they know that in a quarter of the globe their most burning problems have been solved in the interests of the working people. This opens up a clear perspective. Today, there is no capitalist country where the Communist and Workers' Parties are not carrying on their lofty struggle either openly or underground. On the whole the world communist and working-class movement represents the most influential political force of our age.
So far the history of civilisation has not known such intense combats as the competition and struggle of the socialist and the capitalist socio-- economic systems. Understandably, the situation may shape differently during separate stages of this struggle, but the main thing is that the balance of power is constantly changing in favour of the new, socialist world, that its ultimate triumph is 393 historically inevitable, whereas capitalism is historically doomed. The progressive development of all society is now proceeding under the direct or indirect inlluence of the achievements scored by the peoples of the Soviet Union and other socialist states.
Lenin formulated the proposition that socialism exerts its main influence on the international revolution by its constructive endeavours in the economy. Today these achievements are so great and visible that even men who not long ago blindly believed in capitalism are compelled to ponder over them.
In 1917 the share of Soviet Russia in world industrial output was less than 3 per cent; by 1937 it had amounted to 10 per cent; in 1959 the socialist countries were producing more than onethird of world industrial output: and today their share is about 38 per cent.
The attainments of socialist countries in the scientific and technological revolution, in the exploration of outer space, in a number of major branches of science and technology are exerting a tremendous influence on world development. What makes the scientific and technological accomplishments of the Soviet Union and other fraternal countries especially important for world development is that they are scored within the bounds of the world socialist system. Thereby, they are put at the service of all mankind, its welfare and social progress, at the service of peace.
The socialist economic, scientific, technological, cultural and social successes demonstrate to the people of the world the advantages of the new socio-economic formation. The international 394 signiiicance of the economic attainments of the socialist countries thus consists not only in that they are steadily changing the balance of world power in favour of socialism, but that everyone can clearly see what inexhaustible sources lor advance are held out by socialism. Furthermore, socialism's intrinsic high rates of economic growth enable formerly backward countries quite swiftly to attain a high economic development level, to build up modern industries, take a worthy place in the system of the international division of labour and improve living standards.
The greater the economic potential of the socialist countries, the bigger the influence socialism exerts on world development. Specifically, this shows the immense international importance of the five-year plans and economic reforms of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries.
These reforms raise the efficiency of socialist production, create conditions for the further accelerated development of the socialist system and the growth of its economic potential. They will facilitate implementation of the plans for building socialism and communism in the fraternal countries.
Fulfilment of long-term national economic plans of the socialist countries will strengthen the economic and defence potential of the socialist community and provide the basis for further extending its influence on world development.
The capitalist world is rent by the deepest contradictions. The ruling circles of a number of Western countries, while regarding the United States as the chief mainstay of capitalism, cannot but consider the real danger to their own interests fraught in blindly following "American 395 leadership''. They realise that the political course dictated by the US monopolies and West German revanchism is capable of again leading the capitalist countries, above all the West European, to national disaster. It is highly indicative that there are political leaders who, notwithstanding their hatred and fear of communism, realise that it is the USSR and other socialist states that are blocking the road of the claimants to world supremacy.
The existence of the socialist system has caused certain changes in the relations between states in the non-socialist part of the world. In their foreign policy Western countries are compelled to adapt themselves to the new situation marked by the growth of socialism's forces. The influence of the socialist system is also felt in the development of relations among the capitalist countries themselves. Many states which in the past had been inveigled into aggressive military blocs are increasingly looking to the socialist countries for a mainstay to preserve their national independence and sovereignty; they utilise relations with the Soviet Union and other socialist states as a kind of lever for bringing pressure to bear on the United States, for resisting Washington's dictation.
We have mustered graphic evidence to show that the existence of the world socialist system has introduced deep-going revolutionary changes in international relations. Of great fundamental significance is the fact that today their content is determined not by the omnipotence of imperialism, as was lite case in the past, but by the cornpetition and confrontation of the socialist and capitalist socio-economic systems. A real force waging a struggle in the interests of all mankind, 396 in the interests of peace and progress, stands opposed to imperialist arbitrary action and lawlessness in he international arena.
The Great October Socialist Revolution struck the first hammer blow at the foreign policy and diplomatic activity of the exploiting classes. A state came into being to which the methods of bourgeois diplomacy were inapplicable. Moreover, it became more difficult to apply them generally. From the very first days of the Soviet state its peace-loving foreign policy laid a deep impress on international relations. With the conversion of socialism into a world system, imperialism came face to face with a community of socialist states. This created entirely new conditions in the world and raised serious obstacles to imperialism's aggressive policy. The imperialist powers are compelled to take into account the revolutionary changes in international relations. They are trying to adapt themselves to the new situation in one way or another, to find different means of applying their policy whose substance, however, remains the same.
Today, the imperialist powers, especially the United States, pursue the same reactionary, antipopular aims in their foreign policy as in the past. This policy is increasingly determined by anticommunism which is the principal ideological weapon of imperialist reaction. This perhaps is the new feature which largely sets apart the foreign policy of contemporary imperialism from that of exploiting states in the past. As for the rest, little has changed. Henry Commager, an American historian, admits that "power exposes us (the United States---Sk.S.) to the same temptation to ruthlessness, lawlessness, hypocrisy, and __PRINTERS_P_397_COMMENT__ 27---500 397 vanity to which all great powers were exposed in the past".^^1^^
But hypocrisy, however artfully it is employed by the US ruling element, can no longer conceal imperialist lawlessness. Socialist foreign policy and diplomacy are conducting an unflagging struggle against the imperialist policy of aggression and are invariably defending peace and the national interests of the peoples.
Ever since October 1917 the history of international relations has in effect been the history of the growing influence and prestige of the Leninist, socialist foreign policy and diplomacy, of the successes registered by the policy elaborated by Lenin, namely, to wage an incessant offensive on imperialism, implacably to expose its policy of war, discord among the nations and oppression of the peoples, to bring the truth to the people. "We can counter hypocrisy and lies with the complete and honest truth,"^^2^^ Lenin wrote.
The Leninist line has been consistently pursued by the Soviet Union and other fraternal countries in all turns in the international situation. In its clash with socialist foreign policy, the oldworld diplomacy has time and again suffered reverses. Imperialism naturally will not reconcile itself to them, and there are many signs indicating that the leaders of the imperialist camp want to compensate their foreign-policy defeats by stepping up their aggression, exacerbating international tension and resorting to ventures endangering general peace.
Meanwhile, admissions are heard in the United _-_-_
~^^1^^ Saturday Review, July 10, 1965, p. 18.
~^^2^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 28, p. 87.
398 States itself that Washington's adventurist aggressive policy is based on illusory notions. Here, for example, is how the reasons for the failures of US foreign policy are explained by Richard Barnet and Marcus Raskin, co-directors of the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington.``For almost twenty years America's major foreign policy has been sustained on a nightmare and a dream. The nightmare was the Soviet threat in Europe, the prospect that by invasion, threats, or clever politics the Kremlin would expand its power and ideology over the continent. This Great Confrontation over Europe was the origin and principal battleground of the Cold War which involved the Great Powers.
``The dream was an 'Atlantic Community', a collection of supposedly like-minded peoples united, not only in their opposition to communism, but in their resolve to build the economic and political unity of the West under the leadership of the United States.''^^1^^
It is now generally recognised that the Leninist principle of peaceful coexistence of states belonging to different socio-economic systems greatly influences international relations. What is important is not only that the idea of peaceful coexistence as such has become so widespread; even more important is that the sphere for the practical application of this principle is extending. This is incontrovertibly demonstrated by relations of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries with a number of capitalist states.
_-_-_~^^1^^ R. J. Barnet and M. G. Raskin, After 20 Years. Alternatives to the Cold War in Europe, New York, 1965, p. 3.
__PRINTERS_P_399_COMMENT__ 27* 399 Emacs-File-stamp: "/home/ysverdlov/leninist.biz/en/1972/WSS409/20070904/409.tx" __EMAIL__ webmaster@leninist.biz __OCR__ ABBYY 6 Professional (2007.09.05) __WHERE_PAGE_NUMBERS__ bottom __FOOTNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [0-9]+ __ENDNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [0-9]+Peaceful coexistence incorporates both co-- operation and struggle. These two aspects are inseverably interconnected and both are of crucial importance for all the nation.-..
Socialism, besides creating the most progressive socio-economic formation, has also introduced the most expedient and just system of relations between peoples and states. Together with abolishing the antagonism between classes it has put an end to the antagonism between nations---this eternal concomitant of exploiting society which endangers clashes and constant enmity between peoples. For the first time in history a community of states has arisen in which there is no room for oppression of one nation by another, a community in which relations are fully based on complete equality and fraternal mutual assistance, on the principles of socialist internationalism.
The world socialist system represents a new type of economic and political relations between peoples; it initiates the historical process of the comprehensive rapprochement of peoples of different countries. A process is under way in the new world of eliminating national discord and seclusion, of mutually enriching national cultures and actively moulding the international features characteristic of the members of socialist society.
Socialist international relations were shaped and improved as the world socialist system gained momentum. Although the international communist movement had a rich Leninist legacy in this sphere too, although it had already gained experience in arranging socialist interstate relations, new problems and tasks accompanied the birth of the socialist system and confronted the CPSU and other fraternal Parties. It was necessary to work 400 out principles of economic, political, cultural and military co-operation of the fraternal countries that corresponded to the nature of the socialist system and ensured genuine equality and national independence.
In other words, it was necessary to create an entirely new type of interstate relations, to effect a genuine revolution in this realm too. These relations, based on the principles of Marxism-- Leninism, are the most humane, just and practicable of all those that history has known until now. For the first time, relations between big and small nations within the bounds of the socialist community are based on genuine equality. This is ensured by the consistent application of the principles of proletarian internationalism, the striving of every country to do its utmost for the development of the entire world socialist system, for the triumph of the common cause.
In the world today this new type of international relations is exerting a tremendous impact on the course and nature of events. The sphere of dominance of socialist international relations may be limited to the world socialist system, but the possibilities of their influence are practically boundless.
It is understandable that the influence of the world socialist system on international relations, on all world development, is the greater, the stronger the unity of the socialist countries, the more concerted their actions. Experience confirms the great importance of the conclusion drawn by the international communist movement at the 1969 Moscow Meeting: ".. . the most important prerequisite for increasing the Communist and Workers' Parties' contribution to the solution of 401 the problems facing the peoples is to raise the unity of the communist movement to a higher level in conformity with present-day requirements. This demands determined and persistent effort by all the Parties. The cohesion of the Communist and Workers' Parties is the most important factor in rallying together all the antiimperialist forces.''^^1^^
The following statement made by Lenin in 1920 acquires a special ring in present-day conditions: ".. .we, who are faced by a huge front of imperialist powers, we, who are fighting imperialism, represent an alliance that requires close military unity, and any attempt to violate this unity we regard as absolutely impermissible, as a betrayal of the struggle against international imperialism.''^^2^^ The economic, political and military cohesion of the socialist countries, and their joint international actions constitute a major factor determining and constantly raising their role in world development.
That the Soviet Union and other socialist countries act jointly, that by their combined efforts they defend their interests, their sovereignty, and are vigorously rebuffing the intrigues of the international reactionary forces in all parts of the world, naturally frustrates the imperialists, just as they abhor the vigorous joint actions of socialist states in defence of colonial peoples who have won independence. Many reckless imperialist plans have been shattered by these united actions. The peoples of the world have every reason to _-_-_
^^1^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow, 1969, Prague, 1969, p. 36.
~^^2^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 30, p. 325.
402 regard the socialist community as the bulwark of peace.In the Report of the Central Committee of the CPSU to the 24th Congress L. I. Brezhnev stated that the CPSU attached special importance to the development of co-operation with Communist Parties of other countries: "This co-operation, enriching us with each other's experience has enabled us jointly to work on the fundamental problems of socialist and communist construction, to find the most rational forms of economic relations, collectively to lay down a common line in foreign affairs, and to exchange opinion on questions relating to the work in the sphere of ideology and culture.''^^1^^ He noted that the fraternal socialist countries had scored telling achievements in co-ordinating their efforts in foreign policy, in collectively examining the biggest international problems and events.
Co-ordination of effort has become a major principle of socialist foreign policy and diplomacy, a factor of present-day international relations. It has largely facilitated the conversion of the world socialist system into the decisive force of the anti-imperialist struggle and enhanced the efficacy of socialist foreign policy. The Warsaw Treaty Organisation is the main centre for coordinating the activity of the fraternal countries in foreign policy.
Co-ordination in no way implies the curtailment of the foreign functions of any socialist state. On the contrary, it helps strengthen its foreign policy _-_-_
~^^1^^ Report of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Delivered by Leonid Brezhnev, Moscow 1971, pp. 11--12.
403 positions and greatly extends its possibilities of influencing world developments. Thanks to coordination both the Soviet Union and other socialist countries actively participate in solving important international issues of our time and play the part of an active factor in world politics.Co-ordination implies the proper combination of international and national tasks in the foreign policy of socialist countries. In applying it, both the general aims of the community of socialist states and the specific, national tasks of each member of the community are taken into consideration.
It is not by chance that imperialist ideologists are doing everything possible to undermine the co-operation of fraternal socialist countries in foreign policy. The favourite method of socialism's foes is to present this co-operation in a distorted light, to picture co-ordinated steps of the fraternal countries in foreign affairs as a violation of sovereignty and national independence, as actions aimed at belittling the foreign-policy activity of socialist countries. In the final analysis this pernicious activity is designed to foment nationalism, to weaken the unity and solidarity of fraternal socialist nations.
Lenin pointed out that vital questions of the struggle of the workers for their emancipation must be solved by submitting to the international discipline of the revolutionary proletariat and by effecting the unity of the class struggle of the workers for communism the world over.^^1^^ Submitting to this "international discipline of the revolutionary proletariat'', the socialist states by their _-_-_
~^^1^^ See V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 269.
404 achievements in building the new life and by their foreign policies, exert a determining influence not only on the solution of world problems, but also on the historical development; they are contributing in every way to accelerating the progress of all mankind.The effort of socialist countries to consolidate international peace is inextricably linked with their struggle for the social progress of mankind, for the triumph of freedom and justice. Such a dialectical unity of the actions of the fraternal countries in foreign affairs is determined by the community of their class interests, by the objective need jointly to defend the positions of world socialism, to uphold the interests of the peoples fighting for their social and national liberation.
The efficacy of socialist foreign policy in influencing the world revolutionary process directly depends on the close co-operation and collective efforts of the USSR and other socialist countries in the international arena. It is ensured by their joint actions against the policy of aggrandisement, the policy of exploitation and domination.
Socialist countries, their Communist and Workers' Parties are constantly rendering tremendous moral and political support to the democratic movements which are working for progressive changes in the socio-political life of their countries. Hence it is not accidental that any significant success of the democratic forces in one or another country leads to essential changes in its relations with countries of the socialist community. In their struggle against imperialism, revolutionary and democratic forces begin at once to rely on socialist countries. In so doing they proceed from the principle that without socialist countries, without their 405 active assistance and support it is impossible to ensure any successful advance, to retain the positions they have won.
Co-ordination of foreign-policy actions of socialist countries plays a big part in consolidating all the anti-imperialist forces, in reinforcing the friendly relations of socialist and young national states on the basis of the Leninist principles of fraternal solidarity, in abolishing the remnants of colonialism and in eliminating its consequences.
The emergence and development of young national states, the choice by many of them of a progressive path, the successful repulsing of the frenzied attacks of imperialism, the foiling of neocolonialist manoeuvres and, lastly, the conversion of these countries into a major factor of presentday international relations---all this is closely connected with the influence and weight of the socialist community, with its consistent struggle against imperialism.
Co-ordination of the foreign-policy actions of socialist states is a multifarious and intricate process. It requires tremendous effort and great art. It is a matter of concerting the positions of the fraternal countries on problems of contemporary international development, in whose solution they may take interest not to the same extent.
Co-operation of fraternal countries in foreign policy, naturally, is affected by the divergences and difficulties which have arisen in the world communist and working-class movement, by the differences which exist in the relations between some Communist and Workers' Parties of socialist states. These differences have brought about a 406 situation when not all countries of the world socialist system co-ordinate their actions in foreign policy with the common line of the overwhelming majority of fraternal countries. But, as demonstrated by experience, the country which underestimates the importance of co-ordination in foreign policy in fact takes the path of reducing the efficacy of its policy, the path of isolating itself in international affairs. Regardless of the number of political actions undertaken by this country and their tone and content, its influence on the course and outcome of world events and its weight and international prestige substantially decline.
The Chinese leaders are inflicting great harm on the unity of action of the socialist countries, of all the anti-imperialist forces. In their policy and propaganda they are pursuing a line hostile towards the Soviet Union and other socialist countries. But the present situation, as emphasised in the Report of the Central Committee of the CPSU to the 24th Congress, more than ever before dictates unity, joint action of all the anti-imperialist, revolutionary forces, and not the fanning of hostility between states like the USSR and China. In present-day conditions even the ruling elements of the leading imperialist states display a certain restraint, understanding what consequences may be caused for them by the fomenting of hostility to the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries and to what results unbridled anti-Sovietism may bring its inspirers.
But owing to the objective course of development some countries, which do not agree to coordination, take a stand on international problems which is similar or close to the common line. This circumstance to some extent favours the efficacy 407 of the struggle waged by the anti-imperialist forces and influences the positive development of events in the world.
Needless to say that had all the socialist countries co-ordinated their actions, for instance, in rendering assistance to the Vietnamese people struggling against American imperialism, in supporting the just struggle of the Arab peoples against the Israeli aggressors and their trans-- Atlantic patrons, most probably the US imperialists would have been much more constrained in their actions. It is no secret that in many respects they take advantage of the absence of co-ordinated and joint action of all the socialist countries in order to extend military conflicts, or to continue the war against a socialist st.ite, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, and openly back the aggressive policy of Israel in the Arab East.
Co-ordinated action of the overwhelming majority of socialist countries, the common stand elaborated by them and their indefatigable and steadfast struggle to stamp out the dangerous hotbeds of war have played, and are playing, a paramount part in foiling the strategic and tactical plans of the imperialists, in defending the revolutionary gains, freedom and independence of the peoples of South-East Asia and the Middle East. "Active and consistent support from the Soviet Union and other socialist countries is vitally important for the struggle of the peoples of Vietnam and the other countries of Indo-China against the imperialist interventionists. The steps taken by the socialist states in the Middle East have become one of the decisive factors which have frustrated the imperialist plans of overthrowing the progressive regimes in the Arab countries,'' it is pointed 408 out in the Report of the Central Committee of the CPSU to the 24th Party Congress.^^1^^ In the presentday confrontation of the two world social systems multilateral political co-operation of socialist countries which is becoming ever more close and vigorous, acquires primary significance.
Co-ordination of action in foreign policy does not in the least infringe the sovereignty and the national interests of any fraternal country. On the contrary, it helps to strengthen the world positions of every socialist country and to extend the sphere of their foreign-policy activity in solving all major problems of our time. Voluntary co-- ordination of actions in foreign policy is the supreme expression not only of the internationalist duty but also of the sovereignty of a socialist country, a striking manifestation of its readiness and ability to combine national and international interests.
The present stage in the development of international relations marked by the increasing role of foreign policy and considerable complication of the problems socialist countries have to solve, makes new demands as regards the unity and solidarity of these countries in general and their co-ordination of foreign policy in particular. Development and improvement of this co-ordination directly depends on the level and state of bilateral and multilateral---inter-Party and interstate--- relations of socialist countries.
Unity of action of socialist countries in the international arena, which is one of the main trends _-_-_
~^^1^^ Report of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Delivered by Leonid Brezhnev, Moscow, 1971, p. 13.
409 in their fraternal co-operation, has now become a major factor of peace and social progress. It undoubtedly is one of the highest forms in which the close co-operation and fraternal mutual assistance of the peoples of socialist states is displayed. Their efforts in foreign policy are co-- ordinated on a wide range of questions affecting both the interests of socialist states and the interests of world peace and international security, the destinies of all the nations. [410] __ALPHA_LVL0__ The End. [END]REQUEST TO READERS ~
Progress Publishers would be glad to have your opinion of this book, its translation and design and any suggestions you may have for future publications.
Please send all your comments to 21, Zubovsky Boulevard, Moscow, USSR.
[411]Professor ~ Shalva ~ Sanakoyev, Dr. "Sc. (History), is an eminent authority on the history of Soviet foreign policy and international relations, whose books and numerous articles are well known to scholars and a wide public in the Soviet Union and abroad.
The present book draws on extensive data, documents and many years of research, it provides for the first time a systematic exposition of the history of the world socialist system, the key stages of its development and main trends of socialist foreign policy. The author describes the relations between the USSR and other socialist countries, the treaties forming their legal basis, the principle of peaceful coexistence between states with different social systems, the ties between socialist states, and their relations with young independent states and with the capitalist world.
[412] Shalva Sanakoyev tit wirli
1st
system
[413]