274

p The reasons why the Communist parties, while proclaiming the normalisation of international relations as one of their aims, consider the ideological struggle inevitable and necessary are quite evident.

p The essence of the Leninist concept of peaceful coexistence is that it envisages the parallel existence not simply of different states, but of states belonging to opposite social systems. Hence the relations between these systems cannot be confined to conventional diplomatic relations, important as they are in themselves. The existence of the two systems has another aspect, namely, that each of them embodies the rule of a class—the capitalist class in one case, and the working class in the other, and that an uncompromising struggle, forming the basic content of our epoch, rages between them. The struggle between these classes began 275 long before the first Communist Party came into being, and it was not called to life by Marx.

p As the Marxists-Leninists see it, this struggle can only end with the triumph of communism. Socialism’s victory in the countries that today form the world socialist system is an important stage on the road to this objective. But this success does not and cannot mean the termination of the class struggle. Between the working class and the bourgeoisie the struggle goes on and will continue in individual countries and on the world scene, which, in addition to the clash of political and economic interests, witnesses a historic duel between the two social systems. This duel, which is unfolding in the economic, political and ideological spheres, began more than half a century ago and it will not end until the more progressive system is completely victorious. Such is the incontrovertible law of social development, a law dictated not by somebody’s evil will but by objective conditions.

p No government and no political party can nullify this fact or call a halt to the class struggle. But the choice of the form of the historically inevitable struggle depends largely on the governments, the ruling classes and the political parties. In proposing peaceful coexistence the Communists act on the principle that it is possible and necessary to prevent this struggle from erupting into armed conflicts between states and to direct it into channels that would bring no calamities to the peoples and to civilisation as a whole.

p In this the Communists see the benefits and desirability of peaceful coexistence, which signifies a repudiation of armed forms of struggle between states in favour of forms such as a competition between the social systems that would demonstrate the advantages of the more advanced system and ensure to it the support of the peoples. This form of struggle best of all conforms to the interests of mankind. It rules out attempts to impose one or the other social system on another nation by force of arms. It reserves to each nation the right to decide for itself which system can provide it with the highest standard of living, genuine freedom, a flourishing culture and the best conditions for the development of the individual.

p But this form of struggle inescapably presupposes an ideological struggle. Inasmuch as capitalism and socialism 18* 276 compete for the support of the peoples, the war of ideas is inevitable.

p Is this a good prospect for mankind? Undoubtedly. Moreover, it may be regarded as the best of the prospects possible under present-day conditions.

p Incorrigible falsifiers are the only people who can keep up the pretence that an idyll of fraternity and friendship, of love and kisses reigned in the world prior to the emergence of socialism, and that the Communists came along and demanded some competition between the systems and an ideological struggle. The real history of international relations is far removed from this idyll. It is a history of destructive wars, colonialist expansion and endless attempts of the strong to enrich themselves at the expense of the weak. Nor is the world today facing a choice between universal fraternity and affluence, on the one hand, and, on the other, an ideological struggle and a competition on which the Communists insist. The latter is the alternative not of universal fraternity and affluence, which have never existed in a world ruled by imperialism, but of a world war, of armed conflicts and a cold war. To accept this challenge would clearly signify not a step back or stagnation but immense progress in improving international relations.

p There is no better road for mankind today. Small wonder that even the most zealous critics of peaceful coexistence can offer no coherent constructive proposals of their own.

p Indeed, would it be conceivable, say, to suggest coexistence on the basis of "ideological unity" instead of peaceful coexistence under conditions of an ideological struggle. By no means, for in practice this would mean the adoption by the whole world of one of the two opposing ideologies—bourgeois or socialist. Insofar as neither side expresses a willingness to capitulate ideologically, this plan would be not a programme of peace but a programme of violent struggle with the accompanying aggravation of international tension.

p The danger of this concept is seen also by some bourgeois authors. Dizard, for instance, quite rightly notes: "If we approach our differences with the Communists in an aggressively crusading spirit, every small quarrel between East and West becomes a possible fight to the finish. One of the lessons of history is that it is difficult to stop short in an 277 ideological crusade. Unlike the earlier Crusades, any attempt on our part to smote the heathen could end in nuclear pulverisation."  [277•* 

p True, there is another variant of "ideological unity" which is sooner pacifist than bellicose. This is the “convergence” theory, according to which both capitalism and socialism are undergoing an evolution that is smoothing out the differences between the two systems and will ultimately establish a uniform society. Marxist criticism has long ago shown that this theory is scientifically hollow. Since its proponents are seeking to change the very principles underlying the relations between countries with different social systems and induce these countries to call off the ideological struggle, it would be appropriate to add yet another consideration. In spite of all their seeming pacifism, the advocates of “convergence” do not by their arguments contribute anything towards improving relations between the socialist and capitalist countries. Their reasoning not only misrepresents the character of the processes of social development but objectively constitutes an attempt to fight shy of today’s pressing, acute and complex problems by postponing their solution indefinitely, to the time when, they say, the two social systems will draw closer to each other and even “converge”.

p Not a whit more realistic is the plan for peaceful coexistence on the basis of an "ideological armistice”, under which each would stick to his own ideology but renounce the ideological struggle. This “project” can only be considered realistic by people who do not understand the essence of the social processes taking place in the world and who entertain the illusion that the wheel of history can be halted by mutual agreement.

p In an epoch when millions of people have been set in motion, when they can decide for themselves what social system will bring them a better life, a life worthy of man, all eyes are focussed on what is happending in the socialist and the capitalist world. In this situation decisive ideological significance attaches not so much to words as to results: the standard of living in the given countries, their economic 278 and social achievements, their successes in promoting democracy, science and culture, the rate of their progress.

p In this context foreign policy is no exception, especially today when the freedom, welfare and very physical existence of whole nations depend so heavily on it. The working masses have long ago accepted foreign policy as the criterion of the merits or demerits of the social system in their country. This was noted by Lenin, who wrote: "The workers of the whole world, no matter in what country they live, greet us, sympathise with us, applaud us for breaking the iron ring of imperialist ties, of sordid imperialist treaties, of imperialist chains—for breaking through to freedom, and making the heaviest sacrifices in doing so—for, as a socialist republic, although torn and plundered by the imperialists, keeping out of the imperialist war and raising the banner of peace, the banner of socialism for the whole world to see".  [278•*  On the other hand, the criminal foreign policy of the imperialists and the wars unleashed by them are profoundly influencing the masses, enlightening them and helping them to take the road of determined revolutionary action.

p Similarly, today the policy of peace and peaceful coexistence pursued by the socialist countries is winning millions of working people to socialist ideals, while imperialism’s aggressive policies are alienating growing sections of public opinion.

p The interest that people take in what is happening in the world cannot be killed in the same way that our planet cannot be partitioned into sealed compartments by erecting barriers that would be impenetrable to the gaze and to words. Wherever man lives his day-to-day life poses him with scores and hundreds of acute questions which he expects to be answered by ideology. He cannot be denied these answers, for the working people have become an immense power which even the capitalist system can no longer ignore. No policy is possible today without talking to the masses—and that is pure ideology, an ideological struggle. Not a day has passed without capitalism striving to retain its spiritual hold on the masses. Even without extraneous influences a struggle goes on between bourgeois and socialist ideas, a struggle that began long before the first socialist country 279 came into being. This struggle is going on also in socialist countries, where initially bourgeois ideology held strong positions and then its survivals persevere for a long time in people’s minds, habits, morals and traditions. What sort of "ideological armistice”, the peaceful cohabitation of the two ideologies, can one speak of under these conditions?

p And if anybody in the West still clings to this ludicrous idea and even tries, in the terms of an ultimatum, to demand that the socialist countries cease the ideological struggle as a condition for peaceful coexistence, it is not so much the result of incomprehension of the situation as of the definite political design of clearing the way for bourgeois ideology and securing communism’s bourgeois degeneration. The demand that the Communist parties and the socialist countries abandon the ideological struggle is an expression of a definite ideology or, to be more exact, of ideological subversion.

p We should like to make one more point about the arguments of the critics of the Marxist-Leninist concept of peaceful coexistence. If one accepts the fact that the ideological struggle is inevitable on the world scene, does it not mean (by virtue of objective conditions) that peaceful coexistence is possible only in the shape of some kind of cold war and that there cannot be good-neighbour, normal relations between states?

p Many bourgeois authors accentuate precisely this argument, declaring that the way to genuine, not artificial, peace lies through quests for ideological understanding and ending the ideological conflict. In fact, this is the viewpoint even of some people who cannot be suspected of sympathising with imperialism. For instance, in the foreword to Barbara Ward’s Five Ideas That Change the World, the late Kwame Nkrumah wrote: "Never before has the world been so divided by conflicting ideologies, never has so much depended upon the finding, not, perhaps, of a reconciliation of the ideologies, but of a means of coexistence. The very continuation of the human race would seem to hang upon a solution of this problem."  [279•*  Properly speaking, in bourgeois literature the 280 almost unanimous opinion is that the cold war began as a consequence of the ideological conflict.  [280•* 

p But the fact that an opinion is widespread is not yet proof that it is true. Delusions can also gain currency, especially if influential circles want them to be spread. Whichever way one looks at it, the ideological struggle is not an obstacle to the consolidation of peace, the termination of the cold war, the normalisation of international relations and mutually beneficial co-operation between countries belonging to different social systems.

p Indeed, do ideological differences underlie most of the problems harbouring the threat of war and international tension? Certainly not. For instance, the stumbling-block on the path to disarmament is not any difference in ideology but the reluctance of the influential monopolies to part with the profits they are deriving from the arms race. It is not the war of ideas but the policy of colonialism and neocolonialism that sustains the dangerous tension in Asia and Africa.

p The lesson of history is that the major wars of the past decades were not sparked off by the ideological struggle or the argument about the advantages or disadvantages of one social system or another, but by quite different factors, namely, the imperialist pursuit for profits, colonies, spheres of influence, sources of raw material and markets. Hardly anybody will question the fact that long before the appearance of the world’s first socialist state, when there was nothing to overshadow its "ideological unity”, the bourgeois world 281 had been continuously rent by conflicts and wars.  [281•*  On the other hand, although it intensified the ideological struggle in the world, the appearance and consolidation of the world socialist system became a factor restraining the attempts to start wars.

p Here it would be in order to recall some of history’s many instances of normal and even friendly relations between countries with different political systems and ideologies. In the days when the USA was a bourgeois-democratic republic and Russia an absolutist monarchy the acute differences between them did not prevent them not only from living in peace for more than a century but also from developing quite staunch loyalties. Neither did differences in ideology prevent an alliance between the socialist Soviet Union and the capitalist USA and Britain during the Second World War. Even today normal and very friendly relations exist between countries divided by fairly sharp ideological differences, for example, between the Soviet Union, on the one hand, and India, Afghanistan and Finland, on the other.

p With regard to present-day relations between the USA and the USSR, realistic American researchers do not consider ideological distinctions an obstacle to normalising and strengthening these relations. One of them, Professor David F. Trask of New York University, draws the following conclusion in his latest treatise on US foreign policy: "Much has been written about the historical and ideological gulfs dividing America and Russia, but far less about the ties that increasingly bind the two peoples.” Enumerating these ties—the need for disarmament, scientific and technological co-operation, and so on, he writes: "We live in a world of 282 hard choices; the circle constantly narrows. The time for decision is now. It will profit us nothing if, by continuing our present ways, we postpone another general war for ten, twenty or thirty years. The imperative task is to insure against the recurrence of general warfare at any time."  [282•* 

Past experience and present-day reality thus show that if one does not deliberately look upon ideological differences as a pretext for aggravating relations, these differences cannot hinder normal relations between countries with different social systems. Under conditions of a competition and a war of ideas between the two systems there is every possibility for putting an end to the cold war and achieving not a substitute for peace, as imperialist propaganda claims, but genuinely normal good-neighbour relations that embrace mutually beneficial co-operation in many spheres. The obstacle to this objective is not ideology but the interests of imperialist reaction, which must be curbed if peace is to be preserved and consolidated.