297

In the modern world an unprecedented battle rages for the minds of men. It is not only taking place in individual countries but permeates all international relations and is a significant element of the struggle between the two social systems. This is one of the salient features of the epoch of mankind’s transition from capitalism to socialism. As any change of the socio-economic system, socialism’s emergence is governed by the objective laws of historical -7 development. The speed of this transition depends in many ways on the course of the ideological struggle. In that struggle socialism is winning to its side millions of working people and making them conscious fighters for the new social -3 system.

The main direction of the contemporary ideological struggle is thus determined by the cardinal contradiction, by the principal social conflict in the world today. This is the conflict between socialist ideology and the ideology of the imperialist bourgeoisie. The position of the sides -5 involved in this pivotal direction of ideological battles is -5 determined by the position held on the international scene by the classes and social systems propounding these -6 ideologies.

One of the expressions of the general crisis of capitalism is the crisis of bourgeois ideology, the fact that it has ceased to attract the masses throughout the world. To make up for its ideological weakness, the monopoly bourgeoisie is perfecting the methods and organisation of propaganda, particularly of foreign political propaganda. Imperialism’s 298 position in the world-wide fight for the minds of men -2 increasingly depends on these efforts.

The ideals of the working class and socialism derive their strength from the fact that they express a scientific -5 understanding of the world and, at the same time, the hopes and aspirations of the broad masses. Here the very practice of building the new society—socialism and then -9 communismis a major ideological factor. The greater the progress in socialist construction the more attractive the communist ideals become. On the other hand, setbacks and errors in building socialism weaken the influence,of the working class and of world socialism on the working masses. Ideologists are not the only people involved in the ideological struggle waged by socialism. A large contribution is made by all the working people of the Soviet Union, by the tens of -3 millions of workers, collective farmers and intellectuals -5 building the new society and, by their dedicated labour, laying the foundations of communism. It is precisely the new -3 system’s superiority in all spheres, a superiority that is being proved in practice, that will in the long run decide the -3 outcome of the great battle for people’s minds.

The triumph of Marxism-Leninism lies in its -10 implementation in practice. The socialist ideal, the ideas of communism have gone through a long period of development. -5 Communism’s source is the dream of the working people for a happy life, for a perfect social system, a dream that in the distant past frequently acquired the features of the communist ideal: the abolition of property distinctions, the -9 establishment of common ownership of the means of production and joint labour. It was this picture of communism that lived for thousands of years in tales and legends and then in the Utopias conjured up by the outstanding thinkers of their day and expressing the cherished aspirations of millions of working people.

More than a hundred years ago communism was converted from a dream into a science, into scientific knowledge of the laws of life and social development leading to the attainment of this ideal, of the ways of translating this ideal into life. This was the scientific achievement of Marx and Engels, an achievement that has no parallel in the entire history of human thought.

p We are living in an epoch when communism is becoming 299 CONCLUSION ") reality. Already today Soviet people are by their work taking part in this historical change. Building the new society shoulder to shoulder with them are the peoples of other socialist countries.

p The implementation of the communist ideals, of the theory of scientific communism, in practice is a triumph of Marxism-Leninism, a decisive victory in the ideological struggle with the imperialist bourgeoisie, a victory of truly international significance.

p Earlier we mentioned the importance Lenin attached to the power of socialism’s example. He saw it as the main form of assistance from socialist countries to the revolutionary struggle of the working people in the capitalist countries.

p This function of socialism’s achievements in the economic competition with capitalism and in promoting the economic, cultural and democratic advancement of the socialist countries has become an inalienable feature of the presentday revolutionary process.

p Revolutions have always stimulated the class struggle in other countries. This was proved by the bourgeois- democratic revolutions: the French revolution of the 18th century and the revolution of 1848. The 1905 revolution in Russia had considerable repercussions throughout the world.  [299•*  All the greater, therefore, is the stimulating effect of revolutions on other countries in our epoch, when the internationalisation of the life of all mankind is proceeding on an unparalleled scale. A realistic approach to developments compels one to regard the force of the example of the socialist countries not simply as some additional 300 revolutionary stimulant but as a specific new element of the class struggle and of the present-day revolutionary process, as a factor that cannot be replaced either by "revolutionary war" or any other means proposed by the “Left” critics of the communist movement’s Leninist general line.

p First and foremost, the force of the example set by the socialist countries has in our epoch become a vital means of infusing socialist consciousness into the working-class movement, of spreading that consciousness among the masses. This, as history has shown, is crucial, especially when objectively the conditions for the transition from capitalism to socialism have matured.

p Lenin, it will be recalled, wrote that a spontaneous working-class movement can only give birth to the ideology of trade-unionism, i.e., an ideology, which, in its understanding of the condition, aims and ways of struggle of the workers, cannot range beyond the framework of the defence of the direct (primarily, economic) interests of the proletariat. By remaining at that level of class consciousness, the working class may at best secure somewhat better conditions for the sale of its labour but cannot abolish the very system of wage-slavery and effect the transition to socialism.

p This is true even of countries where the working class constitutes the overwhelming majority of the population and has an excellent professional organisaton—the examples are Britain, Sweden and some other developed capitalist countries, where to this day the ideology of the bulk of the workers is essentially trade-unionist. This is also true of countries where the proletariat’s class hatred of its oppressors has reached near-bursting point. History provides many instances when the discontent of the masses with their difficult conditions of life did not find the proper outlet or was deliberately used by the reactionaries to further their own ends. Suffice it to recall the Luddites, who sought an outlet in the destruction of machines, the Russian workers who were led to the Winter Palace in 1905 by the priest Gapon, or the German masses who were deceived by the subtle social demagogy of Hitler.

p These examples demonstrate that the struggle for socialism is not sparked off solely by discontent with capitalism or by a class hatred of oppressors, a hatred generated by capitalism itself. There must also be an understanding of the 301 real causes of the sufferings of the working people, of the proletariat’s status in society, of its interests, of the end goals of the struggle and of the ways leading to these goals. In other words, there must be a socialist consciousness, which, as Lenin proved, must be injected into the spontaneous movement of the working class by its class-conscious vanguard, by its party.

p This cannot be regarded as having been achieved with the emergence of Marxism-Leninism and the formation of revolutionary parties of the proletariat. It is a task that requires constant attention, in view of the fact that a socialist consciousness is vital to every new generation of the proletariat and other people and also of the fact that the proletarian world outlook itself develops uninterruptedly in accordance with the development of society, science and reality.

p There was a time when the socialist ideal and a scientific theory showing the working people the ways and means of achieving their goal were the only means by which the Marxist Party could foster socialist consciousness in the working-class movement headed by it. The year 1917, when the Great October Socialist Revolution was accomplished, marked the beginning of a new epoch in which socialism is judged by the working people of capitalist countries not only and even not so much from books or from theoretical arguments as from the arguments of-practice, from the reality of socialist countries.

p It is hard to overestimate the significance of this change.

p It is not simply a matter of the former arguments in favour of socialism being reinforced with new ones. If that were the case such arguments could, be used in a situation made favourable as a result of impressive headway by socialism, or if, for some reason, the socialist countries encountered difficulties, these arguments could be put aside and, as in former days, reliance could be placed on theoretical arguments, on references to the socialist ideal.

But in life this road is closed. Regardless of anybody’s wishes, socialism as a reality can no longer be divorced from socialism as a theory or a social ideal. The ideology and theory of socialism today develop under the impact of what is taking place in countries where it is implemented in practice.

302

p On the whole, this has been a tremendous victory for socialism because the arguments of practice, especially when the broad masses have to be convinced, are the most cogent, understandable and irrefutable. Immediately after the revolution Lenin saw the immense new prospects that were opening in this connection for the revolutionary movement in all countries.  [302•*  Hence his accent on the need for making the utmost use of the force of socialism’s example.

p But, naturally, the possibility of the practice of socialist construction in proletarian-governed countries influencing the class struggle of the working people in capitalist states depends on concrete historical conditions, on whether the Communist Party pursues the correct policy, and on some other circumstances.

p On the whole, however, the conditions under which the building of socialism was started were unfavourable. In particular, this concerns Russia, which prior to the revolution was a relatively backward country economically and culturally and, besides, had suffered terrible destruction and loss of life in World War I and the Civil War. Moreover, international imperialism went to all ends to obstruct the building of the new society in Soviet Russia by starting an intervention, organising subversive activities in the country and subjecting it to an economic blockade. The imperialist powers, Lenin wrote at the time, prevented the new system created by the revolution "from at once taking the step forward that would have justified the forecasts of the Socialists, that would have enabled the latter to develop the productive forces with enormous speed, to develop all the potentialities which, taken together, would have produced socialism; Socialists would thus have proved to all and sundry that socialism contains within itself gigantic forces and that mankind had now entered into a new stage of development of extraordinarily brilliant prospects".  [302•** 

p This could not help but affect the force of socialism’s example and for a-long time did not allow it to show its full 303 strength. However, a point that must be made is that in spite of the unfavourable objective conditions the impact of socialism’s achievements on the minds of men throughout the world became a key revolutionising factor from the very beginning. Sometimes, precisely because the conditions were so difficult, these achievements exercised a particularly great influence on the masses. A striking example is provided by the history of the Soviet Union,,where as soon as the revolution was accomplished the working people received political and social rights that the working people of the richest and most highly developed capitalist countries were still only dreaming of.

p The abolition of exploitation, the far-reaching social changes that put an end to unemployment and crises and opened the door to education and culture for the working people, and the creation of a new economic system, envisaging planned economic development in the interests of the working people and not of a handful of capitalists, not only demonstrated that it was possible to live without capitalists but also showed the indisputable advantages of the new social system.

p Nevertheless, the unfavourable conditions under which the building of socialism was started in the Soviet Union and, after the Second World War, in many other socialist countries, most of which had inherited an undeveloped economy and suffered heavily during the war, for a long time fettered the influence of the force of socialism’s example.

p There is not a shadow of doubt that although a considerable section of the working people of the capitalist countries had always shown profound understanding for the Soviet Union and other socialist countries and had supported them in moments of difficulty, far from all of them were able to see in actually existing socialist reality the prototype of the happy future, in picturing which every working man could say that socialism was worth fighting for and that he had to take part in that struggle because the building of socialism conformed to his vital interests.

p With bourgeois propaganda constantly seeking to profit by any difficulty in the building of socialism and poisoning people’s minds with lies and slander, the conclusion that socialism is worth fighting for could be drawn only by the 304 most conscious working people, who were able to understand reality in its historical perspective. This was one of the reasons why in the capitalist countries a large section of the workers, who spontaneously set their sights on socialism, followed not the Communists but the Right Socialists.

p Nobody will question the fact that today the socialist world has reached a level of development that opens up incomparably more favourable possibilities for intensifying the force of the new system’s example and enhancing its influence on the socio-political struggle in the world.

p Here the front of economic construction is decisive. In the final analysis the achievements on that front determine everything: the economic and defence might of socialism, the rise of the living standard, and the rate of communist social transformations. That is why the world communist movement attaches such great significance to socialism’s economic achievements.

p In the Document adopted on June 17, 1969 by the International Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties, it is noted: "The contribution of the world socialist system to the common cause of the anti-imperialist forces is determined primarily by its growing economic potential. The swift economic development of the countries belonging to the socialist system at rates outpacing the economic growth of the capitalist countries, the advance of socialism to leading positions in a number of fields of scientific and technological progress, and the blazing of a trial into outer space by the Soviet Union—all these tangible results, produced by the creative endeavours of the peoples of the socialist countries, decisively contribute to the preponderance of the forces of peace, democracy and socialism over imperialism".  [304•* 

p In the economic competition with capitalism the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Soviet people have scored conspicuous successes. During the eight and a half years from 1960 to mid-1969, industrial output in the Soviet Union increased 150 per cent, agricultural production grew nearly 33 per cent, and real incomes rose 43 per cent. This has substantially narrowed down the gap between the 305 economies of the USA and the USSR. Whereas in 1960 the gross industrial product of the Soviet Union was 55 per cent or that of the USA, in 1968 it grew to 70 per cent. Citing these figures at the 1969 Meeting in Moscow, L. I. Brezhnev said: "I should like to stress, comrades, that our country’s unquestioned achievements in recent years have not made us lose sight of the shortcomings which exist in our work and of the serious problems confronting us."  [305•* 

p The scientific and technological revolution is one of the main areas of the historic competition between capitalism and socialism. In this area the Soviet Union has scored a number of notable achievements: it was the first to harness nuclear energy to peaceful purposes and to put a man in outer space.

p "But, speaking of these successes,” L. I. Brezhnev said, "we do not want to underrate the forces of those with whom we have to compete in the scientific and technological sphere. Here the struggle will be a long and difficult one. And we are fully resolved to wage it in earnest so as to demonstrate the superiority of socialism in this sphere as well. This meets not only the interests of communist construction in our country but also those of world socialism and the entire revolutionary and liberation movement."  [305•** 

p It must be noted that imperialist politicians and theorists are well aware of the significance of the economic achievements of the socialist countries to the struggle between the two systems.

p They began to speak of this with undisguised anxiety as early as the opening years of the 1960s. Evidence of this is to be found, for example, in The Cold War Economic Gap. The Increasing Threat to American Supremacy, a book written by a team of American scholars headed by Professor John P. Hardt of Columbia University. The book abounds in statements to the effect that "Soviet growth has captured the imagination of the world" and that "the USSR was muscling the United States out of a position of predominance".  [305•***  But the words that most eloquently express this 306 anxiety are: "...we might adopt an old Russian trad^ion... that finds its roots in the democratic institutions/ of old Novgorod. When this famous trading city was in’danger, a citizen would ring the alarm bell, the kolokol. The population would then gather to hear a report of the danger, discuss alternative courses of action.... Our alarm bell has been rung. How are we to answer?"  [306•* 

p Of course, it cannot be said that imperialism is not looking for an answer. Fear of the prospect of defeat in the economic competition with socialism and an awareness of the socioeconomic and ideological consequences of such a defeat underlie many of the measures being taken by the modern bourgeoisie. This is seen in the efforts which the ruling circles of the USA and other capitalist countries are making to speed up scientific and technological progress, improve the management and organisation of production and plan and programme economic development. Moreover, it is seen in the certain concessions that have been made to the working-class movement and in the attempts somehow to “reform” capitalism.

p At the same time, imperialism is using all the means available to it in a bid to impede the further advance of the socialist countries in the economic competition with capitalism. However, these means are steadily losing their efficacy and are more and more frequently inflicting greater harm on the capitalist countries than on the socialist community. This concerns, above all, old weapons such as the economic blockade and restrictions on economic relations and trade. The socialist world has today reached an economic development level where restrictions of this kind can no longer have any effect. But in the capitalist economy these restrictions are giving rise to additional complications.

p Incomparably greater difficulties for the building of the new society stem from the arms race, which capitalism has forced on the socialist countries. The expenditures on defence, necessitated by the policies of imperialism, divert funds, labour and resources and this unquestionably slows 307 down the development of the socialist countries. However, socialism has reached a level of economic might where despite the expenditures on defence it can forge quickly ahead also in peaceful construction. On the other hand, in view of its present proportions the arms race is growing into an increasingly unbearable burden for the economy of the imperialist countries where, in addition, it gives rise to serious political difficulties.

p The changed historical conditions are opening for the socialist countries immense possibilities for accelerating economic, scientific and technological progress. However, the utilisation of these possibilities demands the solution of many complex problems, unswerving creative quests and a high sense of responsibility. The GPSU and other fraternal parties respond to these demands by mobilising the people for new achievements and directing their efforts towards successful economic development.

p Alongside the economic, scientific and technological advances, the achievements of the socialist countries in promoting democracy and culture and creating the condir tions for the all-sided development of the individual play a significant part in the economic competition between the two systems and in augmenting the force of socialism’s example. These aspects of the development of the new society are likewise receiving increasing attention from the Communist parties.

p The tasks that the Soviet people have set themselves in the competition between the two social systems are set out eloquently in the Programme of the CPSU. Fulfilment of the plan of economic growth charted by the CPSU Programme will enable the Soviet Union to move into first place in the world for the volume of output, the level of labour productivity and the size of the national income and, on that basis, to achieve a higher living standard than in any capitalist country. Moreover, the CPSU Programme envisages the promotion of socialist democracy, the growth of the education and cultural level of the population, and social changes that will usher in the classless communist society.

p These achievements will be immensely significant not only for the Soviet people. The attractiveness of communist ideas will grow with the building of communism in the 20* 308 Soviet Union. "When the Soviet people will enjoy the hlessings of communism”, states the Programme of the CPSU, "new hundreds of millions of people on earth will say: ’We are for communism!’ It is not through war with other countries, but by the example of a more perfect organisation of society, by rapid progress in developing the productive forces, the creation of all conditions for the happiness and well-being of man, that the ideas of communism win the minds and hearts of the masses."  [308•* 

p In this respect the line charted by the 24th Congress of the CPSU with the aim of speeding up the rise of the Soviet living standard and furthering cultural development and socialist democracy is and will be of immense significance.

p Each socialist country, whatever the level reached by it in building the new society, makes and will make a large contribution towards the further enhancement of the revolutionary force of socialism’s example. This is very important because socialism thereby demonstrates that it brings progress to all countries, from those with the highest economic development to countries that have not yet reached the capitalist stage of development. It should be borne in mind that countries of the non-socialist world substantially differ from each other for their level of economic development, social make-up and so on. Quite understandably, for each of them the most eloquent example is that set by one or more socialist countries that began building the new life under comparable conditions.

p The fact that socialism has become a world system opens up further possibilities for economic progress and advancement in other spheres, and this too enhances the force of example thanks to the advantages held out by mutual assistance, concerted effort, the international division of labour, co-operation and specialisation. Moreover, the development of the socialist world system makes it possible to demonstrate the new system’s advantages in yet another area, namely, government-to-government relations, by setting an example of relations based on fraternity, internationalism and disinterested co-operation.

p Thus, further favourable opportunities are opening today 309 for exercising an ideological influence through the force of the example set by socialist countries. Of course, these opportunities cannot be given a simplified interpretation in the sense that one fine day, upon learning that socialism has won the peaceful competition with capitalism, the working people of all countries will vote for the Communists or stream out to the barricades in order to establish socialism in their countries.

p The impact of the socialist countries’ achievements in building the new society makes itself felt in a different, more complex and no less effective manner. First and foremost, these achievements are increasingly isolating both the ideology and propaganda of anti-communism, which has become the main spiritual weapon of monopoly capitalism. Moreover, they steadily consolidate the position and influence of the Communist parties, which are the vanguard of the proletariat and all other working people, and win more supporters for socialism. Lastly, the example set by socialism brings the working people round to the formulation of new demands and slogans, and gives them new criteria for assessing their condition and, in the long run, for assessing the social system in which they live.

p This is felt daily, in the course of the people’s struggle for their direct interests. It was socialism’s example that showed the masses that unemployment and economic crises are by no means a normal and inevitable phenomenon that has to be accepted, but that they are a vice of the capitalist system. A similar influence is exercised by socialism’s achievements in all other areas. Hence the growing number of demands put forward by the masses, and their intensifying pressure on capitalism. This pressure has increased to such an extent that it is compelling the monopolies to make concessions more and more frequently.

p Here it would be appropriate to recall the words used by Lenin to express what the workers thought and felt about the concessions into which the Provisional Government was forced by the developments in July 1917: "We squeezed ’them’ a bit; ’they’ won’t dare to lord it over us as they did before."  [309•* 

p The same thing happened on a global scale when the 310 socialist system emerged and began to gain strength. In face of the threat of the most far-reaching upheavals, the bourgeoisie now has to manoeuvre and make concessions, including such that would have been qualified as inconceivable only two or three decades ago. The very framework of the reforms possible under capitalism is expanding, and the working people of many capitalist countries are registering substantial social and political gains.

p Sectarians are the only people who contend that this undermines the possibilities of the revolution. Actually, no concession made by capitalism can bring “harmony” to its disfunctioning social organism. The growth of the working people’s political awareness and the experience they are acquiring in these day-to-day battles for partial demands are making it increasingly difficult for capitalism to avert the intensification of the class struggle by means of concessions and handouts.

p To see that such is indeed the case it is enough to scrutinise the current programmes of struggle of the working-class movement of the capitalist countries for the direct interests of the working people. Figuring prominently in these programmes are sweeping anti-monopoly, democratic demands such as nationalisation in the interests of the working people and not of the monopolies, restriction of monopoly rule, anti-crisis measures, workers’ participation in the management of enterprises, the development of backward or calamity-hit areas, and so on. Unprecedented demands (also largely due to the example of socialism) are being made by the working people in social insurance, culture and, most important of all, in the political sphere.

p Under these conditions every new concession wrung from the monopolies gives birth to fresh demands, involves the people more and more deeply in the struggle and ultimately brings them to the threshold of the socialist revolution.

p Thus, the example of socialism in many ways facilitates the shaping of new forms and means of struggle. This is particularly important in view of the fact that in future revolutionary crises will not necessarily be the result of such disastrous, truly catastrophic upheavals of capitalism as world wars. Today it is possible to avert another world war, and the working-class movement is making every 311 effort to translate this possibility into reality. The new conditions for the revolution clearly demand new ways of leading the masses up to it. They demand new forms of revolutionary action, forms whose shaping is in many ways unquestionably linked with the growing influence of socialism’s economic achievements on the working masses.

p But the favourable possibilities for the revolutionary struggle created by socialism’s victories in the competition with capitalism are not everything. How they will be utilised will depend on the struggle of the working masses of each country, on the efforts and policies of the Communist Party. This concerns not only the future but the present, for already today the force of socialism’s example is immense. The Communists are fully aware that this force can only be used in combination with skilful and persevering ideological work that brings the people the truth about socialism. Another point of departure is that without efficient organisational work today the Communist parties will be unable to use future possibilities (even the most favourable). Lastly, every Communist knows that there is also a reverse connection between socialism’s achievements and the class struggle of the working people in the capitalist countries. The more energetically this struggle is waged and the more it ties down the imperialists, creating firm guarantees of peace, the better will the conditions become for the constructive effort of the peoples of the socialist countries and the quicker will they be able to carry out their impressive plans and programmes.

p The spirit of parasitism has always been alien to the Communists. The foundation of proletarian internationalism is that every national contingent of the working class and every Communist Party fights for the common cause with utter devotion and contributes as much as it can to this cause without bargaining, without calculating what it can get in return. The responsibility for the triumph of socialism, for the triumph of communist ideals throughout the world devolves not on some select party or people but on the entire international working-class and communist movement.

p The sense of such profound responsibility to its own people and to the international communist and working-class movement, to history permeates all the actions of the CPSU. 312 This sense of responsibility is today a distinguishing feature of every Marxist-Leninist Party.

p In the light of the growing gravitation towards unity, towards common action in the struggle against imperialism, for peace, democracy, national independence and socialism, an extraordinarily unseemly role is played by the divisive policies pursued by the leadership of the Communist Party of China, especially, as here it is not only a matter of undermining the unity of the socialist countries, in itself an issue of vast importance. In fact, Peking’s policies are giving wide scope for imperialist propaganda aimed at weakening the influence exercised by the socialist countries on world development. Though vitally important this is far from being the only issue on which the Chinese leaders have departed from Leninism.

p Mao Tse-tung and his entourage have advanced a series of phoney propositions on the building of socialism and, in effect, distorted the socialist and communist ideal itself. From their pronouncements and political practices one gels the picture of a quite definite type of society which they regard as socialism but which, in fact, comes into conflict with the key tenets of Marxist-Leninist theory, with all the objective processes of social development spelling out the triumph of scientific socialism.

p By propounding this sort of “socialism” in theory and implementing it in practice the Chinese leaders are injuring the revolutionary struggle of the working people and objectively helping the imperialists, bringing grist to the mill of their propaganda.

That is precisely why the principled rejection of the Mao group’s false tenets is regarded by the Marxist-Leninist parties as a key condition of the struggle for the purity of their theory, for the cause of the revolution, for victory over imperialism. The defence of the principled stand on all issues of the revolutionary struggle and the building of socialism has been and remains an important component of the common struggle of the Communist parties for the triumph of their ideals, against the spiritual influence of the pimerialists on the masses, in other words, of the struggle for the creation of the ideological prerequisites for the further unfolding of the world revolutionary process.

313

p Shortly after Soviet power was established, Lenin wrote: "Our socialist Republic of Soviets will stand secure as a torch of international socialism and as an example to all the working people. Over there—conflict, war, bloodshed, the sacrifice of millions of people, capitalist exploitation; here—a genuine policy of peace and a socialist Republic of Soviets."  [313•* 

p Subsequent developments have shown how right Lenin was, how effective the influence of socialism’s example can be. This is one of the forms of assistance from socialist countries to the cause of revolution in other countries, to the law-governed internal processes leading to the proletarian revolution, to socialism.

p The fact that in their ideological struggle the Communist parties and the socialist countries rely on objective socioeconomic processes, on the historical superiority of the new social system, explains their confidence that the ideals of socialism will be triumphant. In effect, the war of ideas in international relations has become a kind of “superstructure” over the competition between the two systems, and its only outcome can be the victory of socialism and the defeat of capitalism.

It goes without saying that this attitude has nothing in common with fatalism, with belief in the automatic triumph of the communist ideal. The Communist parties and the socialist countries hold that both on the international scene, and within society the ideological struggle is a major independent form of the class struggle that requires special efforts, not only in propagating socialism’s achievements and exposing the anti-communist slander, by means of which imperialism is trying to undermine the influence of the example set by the new society, but also by waging an unremitting, frontal struggle against imperialist ideology all along the line. This struggle has become an important part of the relations between the two systems, and far from being ruled out it is presupposed and upheld by the Communist concept of peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems.