256

For the Communist parties that have come to power the attitude to the relations between socialist and capitalist countries has become one of the principal issues between Leninism and opportunism. From the very outset the complexity of this problem was linked with the fact that it embraced not only the guidelines of socialist foreign policy towards capitalist countries but also the forms and ways in which the victorious working class could help the revolution in other countries.

" This is a fundamental problem of the policy of any -6 socialist state, a basic question of proletarian internationalism. Essentially, the socialist revolution is an international process. The working class cannot consider its mission fulfilled when it seizes power and even builds the new -5 society in its own country. Its duty, as Lenin pointed out, is to accomplish "the utmost possible in one country for the development, support and awakening of the revolution in all countries".  [256•*  Those who do not acknowledge this duty cannot consider themselves proletarian revolutionaries, they cannot claim to be Marxists-Leninists.

p What are the methods by which the victorious working class can and must help the revolutionary struggle of the working people in other countries? Time and again there has been a sharp ideological struggle over this issue. Soon after the October Revolution of 1917 it became apparent that some elements in the communist movement felt that one of the principal ways by which the victorious working class could help the revolution was by fighting a " -10 revolutionary war" against the bourgeoisie of other countries. This was the line which the “Left” Communists and the -5 Trotskyites wanted the communist movement to adopt. Although 257 CH. IV. PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE AND THE WAR OF IDEAS ") these elements were ideologically defeated during Lenin’s lifetime, analogous “Left”-opportunist views are preached to this day. Their proponents include the leadership of the Communist Party of China which repudiates the significance of socialism’s triumphs in the peaceful competition with capitalist countries and propounds a more or less welldefined "revolutionary war" concept.

p The “Left”-opportunist views regarding the ways*the socialist countries can influence the world socialist revolution are at variance with the basic tenets of Marxism- Leninism.

p One of these tenets is that a socialist revolution should not be imposed on the peoples by force, that it must be their own affair. Speaking of the future relations of the victorious working class of the developed capitalist countries with colonial peoples (inasmuch as in those days the socialist revolution was pictured only as a revolution in all the capitalist countries, this, naturally, was the only context in which the relations between the victorious proletariat and the working people of other countries where the revolution had not been accomplished could be visualised), Engels stressed the cardinal and indisputable fact that "the victorious proletariat can force no blessings of any kind upon any foreign nation without undermining its own victory by so doing".  [257•*  He regarded the force of example as the principal way by which future socialist countries would exercise a revolutionary influence on the colonial peoples: "Once Europe is reorganised, and North America, that will furnish such colossal power and such an example that the semi-civilised countries will of themselves follow in their wake; economic needs, if anything, will see to that."  [257•** 

p The increasingly uneven economic and political development of the capitalist countries in the epoch of imperialism made it possible for the working class to triumph initially in several or even one country. The Great October Socialist Revolution in Russia demonstrated that that was precisely how the revolutionary world-wide march of socialism had 258 begun. But, at the same time, this made a burning political issue of the question of relations between countries belonging to different social systems, including the question of the ways and means by which the victorious working class would support the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat in other countries. In fact, this question became so crucial that on a correct answer depended the very desttny of socialism, which was only emergent at the time.

p One of the great services rendered by Lenin was that he quickly found such an answer and worked out the fundamental principles of the view on the world socialist revolution under the new conditions. He rejected the idea of "exporting revolution”, of imposing socialism on other countries by force, as contradicting the very nature of socialism and of the socialist revolution. In a polemic with the “Left” Communists in 1918, he asked whether they believed "that the interests of the world revolution require that it should be given a push, and that such a push can be given only by war, never by peace, which might give the people the impression that imperialism was being ’legitimised’?" To this he replied: "Such a ’theory’ would be completely at variance with Marxism, for Marxism has always been opposed to ’pushing’ revolutions, which develop with the growing acuteness of the class antagonisms that engender revolutions."  [258•* 

p On the basis of this genuinely Marxist understanding of the laws of the socialist revolution, Lenin put forward the principle of peaceful coexistence (or cohabitation) as the foundation of the Soviet Republic’s relations with capitalist countries. This policy, he always stressed, was by no means contrary to the interests of the world socialist revolution. He ridiculed those who, while pleading these interests, were opposed to the normalisation of relations and the establishment of economic ties with the capitalist world. By categorically rejecting relations with capitalism, he wrote, the socialist republic "could not exist at all, without flying to the moon".  [258•** 

p Although Lenin denounced “pushing” the revolution by 259 war, he always regarded aid to the liberation struggle of the working people of other countries as a lofty obligation, as the internationalist duty of a socialist state. But this aid had to be rendered by methods other than " exporting" revolution. In this connection Lenin drew the conclusion that "we are now exercising our main influence on the international revolution through our economic policy.... The struggle in this field has now become global. Once we solve this problem, we shall have certainly and finally won on an international scale".  [259•*  Lenin attached immense significance to the revolutionising influence of socialism’s example on other countries, writing that "we have said, and still say, that socialism has the force of example. Coercion is effective against those who want to restore their rule. But at this stage the significance of force ends, and after that only influence and example are effective. We must show the significance of communism in practice, by example".  [259•** 

p At the same time, Lenin underscored the importance of the ideological struggle, of revolutionary propaganda designed to help educate the working class of other countries and oppose the imperialist bourgeoisie’s systematic efforts to deceive the working masses and maintain its spiritual hold on society.

p This, in brief, is the substance of Lenin’s propositions on the question of the relations of socialist countries with the capitalist world. The significance of these propositions is more than historical. To this day they provide the Marxist-Leninist parties with the guideline in their struggle against the opportunists.

p It will be recalled that this was the issue over which the Chinese leadership started its attacks on the CPSU and other Communist parties. Mao Tse-tung and his group sought to distort Lenin’s views and depict the foreign policy of the CPSU and other fraternal parties as a “betrayal” of Leninism, as a “betrayal” of the interests of the revolution. The arguments of the Chinese leaders brought them close to the contentions of bourgeois propaganda, which 260 likewise tries to prove that the principles of peace and peaceful coexistence are alien to Leninism.  [260•* 

p In their efforts to use Lenin’s authority for their attacks on Leninism, both the “Left” opportunists and the bourgeois ideologists use one and the same set of quotations—some of Lenin’s pronouncements on the problem of armed assistance to the struggle of the proletariat of other countries, assistance which is justified and necessary under certain conditions. But are these quotations grounds for considering Lenin a supporter of the views propounded by the present “Lefts” or for at least speaking of “contradictions” in Lenin’s formulation of this question? By no means. To see that this is so one has only to recall the specific conditions under which Lenin made the pronouncements that are now being quoted by those who are out to prove that the CPSU has “departed” from Leninism.

p These pronouncements were made at the very height of the Civil War and military intervention in Russia. In that situation was it possible to feature the question of peaceful coexistence between socialism and capitalism? Obviously, not. By launching an armed intervention, the world bourgeoisie itself gave the liberation struggle of Russia’s proletariat the nature of an international military collision. This character of the struggle was further accentuated by the revolutionary actions of the working people in the imperialist countries, by actions which in some states ended with the establishment of a socialist (Soviet) power. Against these states, too (Finland, Hungary and others), the international bourgeoisie had recourse to intervention.

p All this gave full grounds for considering that a socialist revolution was unfolding not in one but at least in several countries. Moreover, the scale of the clash between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie became international from the very beginning. On several occasions Lenin mentioned that this was precisely how the situation was assessed at the time. For example, at the 9th All-Russia Congress of Soviets in 1921 he noted: "We imagined (and it is perhaps well worth remembering this now because it will help us in our 261 practical conclusions on the main economic problems) that future development would take a more simple, a more direct form than the one it took. We told ourselves and we told the working class and all working people both of Russia and of other countries that^there was no way out of the ’accursed, criminal imperialist slaughter except through revolution, and that by breaking off the imperialist war by revolution we were opening up the only possible way out of this criminal slaughter for all peoples. It seemed to us then, as it was bound to, that this was the obvious, direct and easiest path to take. This direct path ... proved to be one which other nations were unable to take—at any rate not as quickly as we had thought they would."  [261•* 

p There was thus a period when the objective situation made it possible to believe that the revolution was unfolding in several countries, that it had already acquired (on the initiative of world imperialism) the character of armed opposition by the working people of a number of countries to the actions of the united bourgeoisie. Naturally, the Bolsheviks of Russia had had to take that situation as their point of departure when they determined the forms of their assistance to the proletariat of given countries. Their allowance, in that situation, for armed assistance had nothing in common with "exporting revolution".

p Lenin constantly warned against all attempts to carry the revolution and socialist transformations to other countries at bayonet point. The proposition that the revolution should not be “pushed” is from an article, written in 1918, in which Lenin noted that under certain conditions (which we have already mentioned) it was not only possible but mandatory for Soviet Russia to render armed assistance to the insurgent proletariat of other countries. But even under these conditions Lenin made no allowance for interference from without as a substitute for the revolutionary movement and the revolutionary explosion that matures as a result of the operation of inner laws. While showing that socialism could triumph initially in one country, he never said that immediately following its triumph in one country the revolution could not unfold in other countries and that thereby the revolutions in several countries could 262 not merge into a single torrent. In their application to the foreign policy pursued by the socialist countries the pronouncements made by Lenin during the Civil War enable us to draw quite different conclusions: not on legitimising the "export of revolution" but on the right and duty of the peoples who have raised the banner of the socialist revolution to use their best endeavours to prevent the international bourgeoisie from "exporting counter-revolution”. This principle has indeed become one of the foundations of the foreign policy pursued by the socialist community. The Soviet Union has proved its fidelity to this principle not by words but by deeds. Suffice it to recall the assistance rendered to the working people of Hungary during the 1956 counter-revolutionary uprising, the firm and consistent defence of the Cuban people’s revolutionary gains, the assistance to Vietnam against US aggression, and the fraternal internationalist assistance to the Czechoslovak people in August 1968. With regard to the joint defence of the world socialist system Soviet policy is principled, consistent and clear-cut.

p If this is all borne in mind and if quotations are not divested of their historical context and the situation to which they refer is not forgotten, it will become perfectly clear that the Lenin passages so eagerly quoted both by imperialist propaganda and “Left”-sectarian elements simply have no relation to the problems which they are currently called upon to substantiate.

p These pronouncements, as we have already said, refer to a case where revolutions broke out simultaneously in several capitalist countries and the international bourgeoisie began a counter-revolutionary war against the international proletariat. In that situation what Lenin said was unquestionably true; in those conditions a revolutionary war of the united international proletariat against the united international counter-revolution was the only alternative open to the working class.

p The way in which the revolutionary process actually developed was through the victory of socialism initially in one country and then through the separation of other countries from the capitalist system. This way presupposes the prolonged coexistence of socialist and imperialist states and dictates different forms of assistance from the victorious 263 working class to the revolution in other countries. VVhen it became clear that this was how the revolution would develop, Lenin closely studied and substantiated these forms of assistance. On the basis of his study he drew his conclusion on the peaceful cohabitation of the two systems, the force of socialism’s example and socialism’s ideological and political influence on the class struggle in the capitalist world.

p Such, in outline, is the history of this problem.

p The very concept of peaceful coexistence developed in the course of over half a century in accordance with the changes in objective reality. The young Soviet state, which had inherited the traditional ideals of the working-class movement, one of which was peace between peoples, had to chart its policy in conformity with the real situation. In a situation where the young Soviet Republic had to repulse the unremitting attacks of the enemies encircling it, the Bolsheviks, notwithstanding their striving for peace between nations, had to begin by defending the revolution in a bitter war and then winning at least a temporary respite. So long as war remained inevitable and the real forces capable of averting it were non-existent in the world, they had to reckon with the fact that no matter where a military conflict broke out the imperialist powers would try to use it in order to force a war on the Soviet state. For that reason the peaceful coexistence policy was expressed for many years in a struggle to draw out the peaceful respite as long as possible.

p The CPSU and the world communist movement came to the conclusion that a world war was no longer inevitable only after a new balance of strength took place in the world and it became really possible to curb the imperialist warmongers. That gave a new slant to the question of peaceful coexistence. The principle itself acquired a broader content and in effect became a political programme envisaging not only the prolongation of the peaceful respite in the relations between states belonging to different social systems but the total exclusion of wars from these relations.

p At the 1969 International Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties L. I. Brezhnev declared that one of the major foreign policy objectives of the socialist countries 264 was to ensure the "peaceful coexistence of states irrespective of their social system".  [264•* 

p As we have already noted, the Communist parties have had to safeguard the principle of peaceful coexistence against distortion by both the “Left” and Right opportunists. The latter endeavoured to spread this principle from government-to-government relations to the class struggle, to the relations between the working class and the bourgeoisie and to the relations between the oppressed peoples and the imperialist colonialists.

Essentially speaking the reformist and revisionist distorters of Marxism-Leninism did not offer any new propositions on this point. All they did was to dress up the Second International "class peace" ideas in new verbiage. One of the targets of their attacks was the proposition that peaceful coexistence does not rule out an uncompromising struggle between socialist and bourgeois ideology. On this point they actually joined hands with the bourgeois theorists and politicians.