F. A. ApSatoB
HflEOJTOrHHECKAH EOPfcEA B COBPEMEHHHX
OTHOHIEHHHX
Ha
HSUKC
First printing 1973
Printed in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
[5] CONTENTS Page Author's Note ..................... 7 Introduction ...................... 9 Chapter I. Intensification of the Ideological Struggle .... '27 1. Ideological Consequences of the World's Division Into Two Systems.................... 33 2. The People and Foreign Policy........... 48 3. Growth of the People's Role and the Modern Bourgeoisie 90 Chapter II. The Crisis of Bourgeois Ideology....... 105 1. The Modern Bourgeoisie's Ideological Poverty . . . 106 2. Anti-Communism, a Weapon of the Doomed..... 129 Chapter III. Imperialism's Foreign Political Propaganda Today....................... ,153 1. Doctrine and Methods of Imperialism's Foreign Political Propaganda .................. 153 2. Imperialism's Foreign Political Propaganda Machine 199 3. Strategy and Tactics of Imperialist Policy and Propaganda ...................... 222 Chapter IV. Peaceful Coexistence and the War of Ideas . . . 255 Conclusion ....................... 297 [6] ~ [7] __ALPHA_LVL1__ AUTHOR'S NOTEThe Russian language edition of this book was brought out in the autumn of 1970. In the two years that have passed the world has witnessed major events that have a direct bearing on the subject discussed in the book. I should like to say a few words about some of these events in the foreword to this edition, which, with the exception of a few amendments and specifications, faithfully reproduces the Russian original.
The principal event, unquestionably, was the 24th Congress of the CPSU, which enriched Marxist-Leninist theory with new propositions and conclusions and mapped out the CPSU's home and foreign policy for the immediate future. The Peace Programme formulated by the Congress is of especially great significance to the subject dealt with in this book.
That programme may be justifiably regarded as a major contribution not only to the struggle for world peace and security but also to the ideological struggle in the world between the two social systems, as a document dealing a crushing blow at the foundations of anti-communism, which is trying to intimidate the peoples with fabrications about a "communist threat'', as a document that helps to educate the masses and activate their struggle for peace, an improved jinternational situation and international co-operation.
The Congress decisions derive their enormous strength from the fact that they are backed by the policy consistently pursued by the CPSU and the Soviet Government. This fully applies also to the Peace Programme. By steadfastly carrying it out during the two years that have elapsed since the Congress, the Soviet Union has secured some momentous changes in the international situation.
Above all, this concerns the situation in Europe. The USSR-FRG and Polish-FRG treaties have helped to remove the most formidable barriers to an improvement of the 8 __NOTE__ Left running header: (set-register ?L "\n\nGEORGI ARBATOV\n\n") __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV political atmosphere and create favourable conditions for a further drive towards setting up a system of collective security and fostering constructive co-operation between the peoples of Europe. Also, this concerns Soviet-US relations, in which the outlines can now be seen of a marked shift towards normalisation. President Richard M. Nixon's visit to Moscow and the treaties and agreements that were signed as a result of the talks are a considerable contribution not only towards improving the relations between the two countries but also towards strengthening world peace and security.
Recent developments have given evidence that in our epoch of transition from capitalism to socialism one of the factors introducing far-reaching changes in international relations and diplomacy is the active struggle of the peoples for their foreign political interests. This is one of the principal factors that predetermined the new tendencies in the policies of the USA, the Federal Republic of Germany and many other countries, where with growing determination public opinion is demanding the eradication of manifestations of the cold war and denouncing military adventures and the arms race.
A major source giving the Soviet Union's principled peace policy its strength is that its aims have the support of the working class, of broad sections of public opinion throughout the world, and activate the massive struggle for peace, security and international co-operation.
At the same time, recent developments have shown that the international situation can be changed only as a result of a resolute struggle against imperialist reaction. The ideological front, the battle for people's minds, remains one of the principal bridgeheads of that struggle. The 24th Congress of the CPSU drew special attention to the tasks that in this field confront the communist movement and all the other forces of peace and progress. All the more is this true in view of the fact that far from dying down, the ideological struggle remains acute in spite of the relaxation of international tension.
It seems to me that these considerations have a direct bearing on all the chapters of this book.
G. Arbatov
[9] __ALPHA_LVL1__ INTRODUCTIONIn no other epoch have there been such marked and farreaching changes as in ours. This is only natural because our epoch witnesses history's most momentous changes linked with the transition from the millennia-old rule of the exploiting classes to socialism and communism, with the transition from prehistory to mankind's real history. "Mankind,'' it was recorded by the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties held in Moscow in June 1969, "has entered the last third of our century in a situation marked by a sharpening of the historic struggle between the forces of progress and reaction, between socialism and imperialism. This clash is world-wide and embraces all the basic spheres of social life: economy, politics, ideology and = culture."^^*^^
A scientific and technological revolution, which, in its turn, powerfully influences economics, politics, people's minds and international relations, is unfolding parallel with and under the impact of the radical social changes taking place in the world.
The character of the epoch determines not only the scale but also the speed of the changes. Less than half a century ago Lenin wrote of the "tremendous acceleration of world development'',^^**^^ which formed a contrast even in comparison with the past century. But in comparison with our _-_-_
^^*^^ = __CHILD_CITATION_BEG__ = International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow, 1969, Prague, 1969, p. 11. = __CHILD_CITATION_END__ =
^^**^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 349.
10 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV day history's progress of even a few decades ago may be described as having been slow.Swift, radical transformations are taking place in all spheres of social life, giving rise to many totally new phenomena. International relations are no exception. With the appearance of socialism the social substance of international relations has undergone a fundamental modification. Whereas formerly they were the arena in which various national contingents of one and- the same class or socially homogeneous (exploiting) classes came into conflict, in our day they are the arena of the class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, between the two main classes of the contemporary epoch. Whereas only a few decades ago the subject of "big policy'', which determined the course and principal direction of international relations, constituted a handful of so-called civilised nations, the disintegration of the colonial empires has brought many new states into the channel of this policy, involving in international relations not a minority but the overwhelming majority of mankind. At the same time there has been an unprecedented growth of the role played by the masses in foreign policy. The change of the balance of strength in favour of socialism and the development of nuclear-- missile weapons have posed the problem of war and peace in an entirely new way.
Among the changes is the immense qualitative growth of the role played by ideological propaganda in international relations. This is an outcome of contemporary international relations. It has brought to life new methods and instruments of foreign policy, given prominence to new diplomatic tasks and engendered new directions for foreign policy.
These changes receive considerable attention from bourgeois politicians and propagandists. We do not mean those who may be regarded, so to speak, as professionals in the world-wide war of = ideas.^^*^^ In recent years the ideological _-_-_
^^*^^ For instance, in International Propaganda (Minneapolis, 1958, p. 57), the American researcher John L. Martin writes: "...it is through propaganda that many of our international conflicts of the future will be decided. Psychological warfare, the war of words, the battle for men's minds---these are the methods of the present and of the future.'' Wilson P. Dizard. another American propaganda expert __NOTE__ footnote continued on page 11 11 __NOTE__ Right running header: (set-register ?R "\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\n") __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ INTRODUCTION struggle in international relations has begun to receive due attention even from those who in foreign policy would have preferred to rely on other, traditional means and methods, above all on military strength. This may be illustrated by citing R. Strausz-Hupe, W. Kintner and S. Possony, prominent representatives of the extreme Right wing of United States political science, who admit that " psychological strategy and the systematic rise of propaganda influences, and at times influences decisively, international action".^^*^^
Had this statement been made some 20--30 years ago its authors would have been credited with keen foresight. Today it is almost banal, for what it says is quite obvious and has become a major feature of the present epoch with its specific international relations, and methods and instruments of foreign policy.
Perhaps the first thing that strikes the eye in this connection is that all the big (and many medium and small) countries have gone over to organised and systematic foreign political propaganda. The very appearance of this term in political jargon is in itself indicative.
One could, of course, argue about the modern meaning of the term "foreign political = propaganda".^^**^^ Other terms are also used ``(international propaganda'', "international information'', "psychological warfare" and so on), but this does not change the main thing, namely, the appearance and rapid development of a new weapon of foreign policy and _-_-_ __NOTE__ footnote continued from page 10 (who had been associated with USIA, the US central propaganda agency), concretised this idea as follows: "Unless there is a suicidal nuclear war the balance of power between ourselves and the Communists will be largely determined in the arena of world opinion" (The Strategy of Truth, Washington, 1961, p. 186). In an effort to explain the growing role played by ideological propaganda in international relations, Dizard's colleague Philip H. Coombs (former Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs) writes that ideology "has unleashed human drives far more powerful in their impact on societies ... than the force of nuclear energy" (The Fourth Dimension of Foreign Policy: Educational and Cultural Affairs, New York, 1964, p. 13).
^^*^^ R. Strausz-Hupe, W. Kintner, S. Possony, A Forward Strategy for America, New York, 1961, p. 253.
^^**^^ In this book the term "foreign political propaganda" is used to designate propaganda directed abroad for consumption by the population of foreign countries. It is quite legitimate to interpret this term more broadly as all propaganda linked with foreign policy.
12 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV diplomacy which owes its birth to the enhanced significance of ideological propaganda in international relations.Foreign political propaganda has reached a scale that would have been regarded as fantastic only recently. It has become a profession for tens of thousands of people, while the expenditures of the leading states on this sphere of activity are running into many hundreds of millions and even billions of dollars. (The true figure, naturally, comes to light indirectly. President Lyndon B. Johnson remarked to a group of US propaganda chiefs that "the government was spending almost a billion dollars on people like them and they better start earning it".^^*^^)
Traditional instruments of foreign policy, notably diplomacy, are likewise being adapted to the ideological struggle. Diplomacy has assumed new functions which would have seemed incredible some fifty years ago. Noting this, StrauszHupe wrote early in the 1950s: "In diplomacy, the task is no longer to anticipate a move by the opponent, but to anticipate its effect upon the psychology of the masses, one's own and the opponent's. This is the meaning of 'direct' and 'open' diplomacy, a contest for mass opinion in which the techniques of propaganda, commercial advertising, and allied arts are more important than the techniques of diplomacy proper and the concrete diplomatic = issue."^^**^^
This is, of course, a simplified and one-sided assessment of modern diplomacy generally and of ``open'' diplomacy in particular. But it makes a number of important new points, which are indeed typical of present-day diplomacy: many foreign policy acts, pronouncements by statesmen and diplomats, diplomatic documents, negotiations, the work of international conferences and organisations, and even traditional methods of diplomatic practice such as the recognition of countries, the rupture or establishment of relations and so forth, are largely and sometimes chiefly directed at influencing the public mind in one's own and other countries.
The ``ideologisation'' of international relations has another major aspect, but it concerns not the means and methods _-_-_
^^*^^ Theodore H. White, The Making of the President 1964, New York, 1965, p. 57.
^^**^^ R Strausz-Hupe, The Zone of Indifference, New York, 1952, p. 125.
13 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ INTRODUCTION of struggle between states but the very content of these relations in our epoch. This is the steadily deeper ^eciprdeal penetration of ideology and foreign policy---two important spheres of political relations, which had formerly not been so closely connected and mutually dependent.As soon as this fact caught their attention some Western researchers began to say that ideological propaganda had become a cause of international conflicts, a factor determining modern foreign policy. One cannot agree with this. Today, as tens and hundreds of years ago, underlying the struggles and conflicts in the world are, above all, the economic and socio-political interests of the ruling classes. The fact that more frequently than before these classes have recourse to a propaganda screen ``(struggle against communism" and "defence of the values of Western civilisation, democracy and freedom'') and mask the utterly prosaic fear of the monopolies for their investments, and their interest in sources of raw materials and markets is the other side of the coin. As a matter of fact, even long centuries ago the fable about delivering the Holy Land from the hands of infidels or of saving "lost souls" by converting other peoples into the "true faith" masked the piratical aims of the Crusaders in the East.
Where the source of contradictions is the economic or political interest of the ruling bourgeoisie it is compelled more frequently than before to resort to a propaganda cover for its traditional policy. But this is not the main thing.
A specific of our epoch is that in relation to the general ideological picture of the world and of world affairs foreign policy is being regarded more and more by both its subjects and its ``objects'' from the angle of the major ideas and ideological conflicts that have become the factor moulding public opinion.
For that very reason many of the actions that have become usual for imperialist powers and which conform to the age-old ``traditions'' of the exploiters---such as the aggression in Vietnam or the ``minor'' police action of the USA in the Dominican Republic---are today regarded by hundreds of millions of people as disgraceful not only for the United States but for capitalist foreign policy and the capitalist social system as such.
14 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOVMoreover, many present-day problems of international relations are becoming essentially ideological problems. The fact is that we are witnessing a world-wide collision of the two basic classes of modern society representing the two social systems---the capitalist class and the proletariat, who are locked not only in an economic and political but also in an ideological struggle. The ideological struggle and even the forms in which it is waged can influence international relations, give rise to specific political conflicts and determine the course of individual developments. This has been illustrated by the experience of the cold war, the consequences of imperialism's acts of ideological subversion and of its subversive propaganda.
Such, in general outline, are the principal manifestations of the war of ideas in international relations. They are extremely important both from the theoretical and the practical political points of view.
The new phenomena in international relations could not fail to be noted by Marxist science, while many of them were first spotted and studied by Marxists. This is quite natural because the founders of Marxism-Leninism had evolved not only the method but also the basic principles for the study of ideological and political processes. This gave the key for analysing a given problem under different historical conditions.
As it develops the ideological struggle in international relations, as other major phenomena in social life, posed and continues to pose the Marxist-Leninist science of society with new tasks in creative research. The conditions for such research have become extremely favourable: the dogmatic, stagnant trends, springing from the personality cult, and manifestations of subjectivism have been surmounted, and theoretical Marxist thought has marked further great progress.
The decisions of the 20th-24th congresses of the CPSU and the documents of international meetings of Communist and Workers' parties have provided a reliable foundation for the further study of questions linked with the ideological struggle in international relations and have formulated or concretised a number of fundamental propositions applicable to the modern epoch. Moreover, they have set researchers important tasks and showed that it was necessary 15 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ INTRODUCTION to concentrate increasing theoretical effort in this sphere. This was underscored by the 24th Congress of the CPStL which focussed considerable attention on questions of ideology and the ideological struggle.
This work, naturally, cannot claim to be an exhaustive analysis of all the problems of the war of ideas in presentday international relations. Such a task would require the efforts of many scholars. The author has, therefore, concentrated on a limited range of problems, selecting those that are most important from the standpoint of theory and political practice. His analysis covers chiefly:
problems of the theory of present-day international relations linked with new phenomena, which determine the enhanced role of the ideological struggle in foreign policy;
the salient features of imperialist propaganda in the international arena, its doctrine, methods and organisation;
some problems of the ideological struggle of the socialist countries linked, in particular, with the policy of peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems.
Attention is centred mainly on the ideological struggle between imperialism and socialism as being of the greatest consequence to the war of ideas in the world as a whole. Other major channels of this struggle, linked in particular with the downfall of colonial empires and the emergence on the historical scene of peoples who have been oppressed by imperialism, are necessarily considered only in connection with the principal ideological conflict in the modern world. Partly, this also concerns the ideological struggle in the imperialist camp. Lastly, although the author has had to deal with the divergences in the world revolutionary movement, they too belong to the problems of the ideological struggle which are not "the central subject of study in this book.
In the ideological struggle socialism and capitalism have diverse and, one may even say, antithetic sources of strength. In one case they are the subjective efforts of a historically outworn class that possesses extensive material potentialities and experience. In the other, they are objective processes of social development. But this does not mean that in the ideological struggle the Communist parties and the socialist countries can rely on the objective processes of 16 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV social development taking their natural course. The ideological struggle is a sphere of social life where very much depends on how capably and skilfully the objective economic and socio-political processes are utilised.
That explains why the Communist parties attach so much significance to improving their ideological work and set their ideological workers, scholars and propagandists responsible tasks in propagating the Marxist-Leninist teaching and combating bourgeois ideology.
A point to be noted is that the bourgeois researchers who have devoted many scores of books and papers to a study of Soviet propaganda usually assess it very highly ( sometimes engaging in fantastic speculations regarding Soviet propaganda's means and potentialities).
True, behind these assessments one must discern attempts to offer some explanation for the failures suffered by imperialist propaganda, for its setbacks in the struggle for people's minds (sometimes this conceals another, purely utilitarian aim---that of justifying the demands for more allocations for Western foreign political propaganda). However, these assessments are, at the same time, a forced admission of the successes scored by the Soviet Union and other socialist countries and by the fraternal Communist parties in their struggle for the triumph of the ideals of socialism, against imperialist ideology.
__*_*_*__In addition to theory, the war of ideas in international relations has a history of its own.
Ideology and the war of ideas emerged together with classes, the class struggle and statehood. The ideological struggle became one of the most important spheres of sociopolitical relations in society thousands of years ago. The ruling classes had long ago begun to use ideology and propaganda in their foreign policy. But for a long time these were only isolated cases. In order to make the ideological struggle part, let alone an important part, of international relations there had to be the corresponding prerequisites determining both the need for exercising an ideological influence on the population (or definite groups of the population) in other countries and the practical possibility of 17 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ INTRODUCTION exercising such influence, the possibility for the ideological penetration of the state frontiers of other countries.
The individual cases where this need and possibility arose in the past help us to gain a better understanding of modern times, when both the need and possibility have become a feature of the entire system of international relations. In the literature on this subject there are essential differences regarding the dating of the first steps in this sphere, particularly foreign political propaganda. Some scholars are inclined to see an unbroken succession and to regard the present role and scale of the ideological struggle in international relations only as a purely quantitative development. The Austrian historian Alfred Sturminger, for instance, considers that "in the modern sense of the word, organised political propaganda (on the international level as well.--- G.A.) has been in existence for = millennia".^^*^^ Others give a much later date, the Napoleonic = wars^^**^^ or, more frequently, the birth of ``open'' diplomacy, i.e., the end of the First World = War^^***^^ as the beginning of systematic organised foreign political propaganda. Still others hold that in international relations (excluding wartime conditions) the ideological struggle began only after the Second World = War.^^****^^
Their arguments and counter-arguments bear no particular relation to the subject dealt with in this book. The important thing is to understand precisely under what social and political conditions the ideological struggle acquired a sufficiently noteworthy scale in the past. Even a quick historical scrutiny made from this angle will be quite instructive because with rare exceptions almost all the historical episodes referred to by students of propaganda boil down to three situations:
_-_-_^^*^^ Alfred Sturminger, 3000 Jahre Politische Propaganda, Vienna-Munich, Verlag Herald, 1960, S. 7.
^^**^^ For example, Vance Packard, The Hidden Persuaders, New York, 1961.
^^***^^ Walter Lippmann, The Public Philosophy, New York, 1955; Sisley Huddleston, Popular Diplomacy and War, Rindge, 1954. The same view is propounded by John L. Martin, who has been mentioned earlier. He considers that systematic foreign political propaganda was started after the First World War.
^^****^^ R.~Strausz-Hupe, W.~Kintner, S.~Possony, op. cit.
__PRINTERS_P_17_COMMENT__ 2 --- 0706 18 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOVfirst, a war situation: not any war but a war fought by relatively large armies and, in one way or another, drawing into its vortex a more or less considerable portion of the population of one's own country, of the enemy and allied countries and even of neutral countries;
second, a situation in which to conquer another country it is necessary to ensure a definite behaviour of its population and some form of relations with it (assimilation, relations of dependence, or direct subjugation);
third, a situation springing from a revolution: not any revolution but chiefly one that, having broken out in one country, can spread to other countries by virtue of a community of social problems (which, on the one hand, forces the governments of neighbouring countries to look for ways of strangling the revolution or at least preventing it from spreading, and, on the other, compels the revolutionary governments to strive to influence the rear of their adversaries by disseminating revolutionary ideas).
As regards the first of these situations---wars and conquests---they witnessed the earliest examples of the use of foreign political propaganda dating back to antiquity (the preaching of Pan-Hellenism and its use by Philip II, Alexander the Great and others) and, particularly, to the Middle Ages, when religion became a weapon not only of internal but of foreign policy. This was especially typical of wars, mainly those that required the creation of large international coalitions or the participation of broad sections of the population, and not only of mercenaries (the most striking examples are the crusades organised in the llth-13th centuries by a number of European feudal states and the Roman Catholic Church, and the Thirty Years' and other ``religious'' wars).
Besides giving wars ideological ``backing'', ideological propaganda was, already in feudal times, used as a means of spiritually ``developing'' conquered territory through the indoctrination of the population or of penetrating other countries in order to facilitate their subsequent conquest. The two major religions of that epoch---Christianity and Islam---were most efficaciously adapted (to be more exact, had been adapted after they had become state religions) for the fulfilment of this function. The very idea of converting--- forcibly, if necessary---all ``heathens'' and ``infidels'' into 19 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ INTRODUCTION the ``true'' faith harboured in itself the potential of a powerful weapon of ideological aggression. It will be borne in mind that ``conversion'' was accompanied by the destruction of old spiritual links, culture and ideological foundations and by the suppression of moral sources of resistance.
Religion played an enormous role in the enslavement of the peoples of the colonies. It retains much of this role under capitalism and imperialism. Attention must be drawn, first and foremost, to the activities conducted by missionaries under the direct guidance of the corresponding governments. It was through conversion to Christianity that the colonialists recruited their agents among the local population (incidentally, Chiang Kai-shek is also a "converted heathen" and the ``honour'' for bringing him into the Christian fold belongs to United States Protestant missionaries, while Ngo Dinh Diem was converted to Catholicism by the French). In many colonial countries the planting of Christianity was an effective means of spiritually enslaving the local population.
Whereas the above examples illustrate the first two (i.e., war and the consolidation of conquest) political situations, which had made ideology a means of struggle in foreign policy in the distant past, the epoch of the 18 thcentury bourgeois-democratic revolutions allows us to form an idea of the third of the above-mentioned situations.
These revolutions took place when a developed system of inter-state relations had taken shape and any major change could upset the existing balance of strength and set off a chain of foreign political consequences. This made these revolutions, more than any other before them, not only national but international, threading together a large range of internal and foreign political problems.
On the one hand, a successful revolution, which put an end to absolutism in one country, threatened the old ruling classes in other countries by spurring the mature revolutionary processes in these countries. This created the foundation for the international unity of the forces of the old world against the revolution---not only for counter-revolutionary wars but also for other actions designed to throttle revolutionary ideas wherever they had gained strength.
On the other hand, the new class that had come to power as a result of the revolution could not fail to see that its 2* 20 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV duty, stemming from solidarity with the oppressed, lay in spreading revolutionary ideas in other countries.
The Great French Bourgeois Revolution's slogan, calling for the revolutionary liberation of the peoples of Europe, and the National Convention's decree of November 19, 1792 on assistance to all peoples aspiring to depose their tyrants, on the basis of which the ideas of the revolution were propagated on an international scale, were unquestionably born of the desire to help achieve the triumph of the ideals of freedom and democracy throughout the world. That epoch witnessed the appearance of the internationalist type of revolutionary, for instance, the Frenchman Marquis de Lafayette and the Pole Thaddeus Kosciuszko, who went to America to serve in the revolutionary war, the German Anacharsis Cloots, who was active in the French Revolution, the Englishman Thomas Paine, who played an outstanding part in the War of Independence in America and then went to France to help her revolutionaries. When Robespierre declared that France was fighting for the liberation of the world there is no doubt that he sincerely believed what he was saying.
Obviously, international revolutionary propaganda was required by the vital political interests of the revolution, by the interests of its defence against the external enemy. It was by giving its defensive war a revolutionary character that the young French bourgeoisie was able to fire the masses with enthusiasm and defeat a militarily stronger opponent. "The whole people,'' Lenin wrote, "and especially the masses, i.e., the oppressed classes, were swept up by boundless revolutionary enthusiasm; everybody considered the war a just war of defence, as it actually = was."^^*^^ The revolutionary character of the war and of the entire foreign policy allowed the French bourgeoisie to exercise a strong influence on the population of their opponents and thereby seriously undermine their strength.
Foreign political propaganda played a considerable role also during the American bourgeois-democratic revolution--- the War of Independence---although its revolutionary nature was not very pronounced. In this connection mention may be made of Benjamin Franklin's mission to France in 1776 _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 25, p. 362.
21 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ INTRODUCTION for the purpose of winning French support for the independence struggle of the seceded colonies. Today United States propaganda experts legitimately regard that mission as "a diplomatic success and a stunning venture in international = propaganda".^^*^^The War of Independence has entered the history of propaganda as an example where means of persuasion were used skilfully on the battlefield. To crush the revolution the British king sent an expeditionary corps of 30,000 German mercenaries. The US Congress set up a commission to draw up a plan whereby to induce these mercenaries to desert. On the commission's recommendations the Congress passed a bill according all deserters and defectors citizenship with all the accompanying rights and, what was most essential, a grant of 50 acres of land that was to be owned in perpetuity by the recipient and his = heirs.^^**^^
The measures taken by the US Congress and the propaganda campaign that was started on their basis had a substantial effect. American researchers estimate that of the 30,000 German mercenaries between 5,000 and 6,000 deserted.^^***^^
The close of the 18th and the opening years of the 19th century give what is essentially history's first instance in which broad, planned and organised use of ideological means of struggle was made in foreign policy, thus turning foreign political propaganda into an important component of state activity. We refer to Napoleon, who was an innovator in propaganda, including foreign political propaganda. This is mentioned by many of his celebrated contemporaries, Metternich among them. Noting that Napoleon was the first to use the press as a vehicle of military and political leadership, Metternich wrote: "It is something new in history that a sovereign should frequently and directly _-_-_
^^*^^ Wilson P. Dizard, op. cit., p. 29.
^^**^^ An interesting point is that this very same method was used against the USA in the war of 1846--48 by the Mexicans, who gave all defectors citizenship rights and 320 acres of land. The San Patricio Battalion was formed during the war of the Irishmen who defected to the Mexican side. (William E. Daugherty, Morris Janowitz, A Psychological Warfare Casebook, Baltimore, 1958, p. 72.)
^^***^^ Paper by L. Butterfield in Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, 1950, No.~3, pp. 240--41.
22 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV address the public. Napoleon introduced this method and greatly benefited by = it."^^*^^Napoleon's broad and frequently very successful use of ideological means of struggle can by no means be ascribed to his personal inclinations and talents. This was chiefly due to objective circumstances, which made the use of these means necessary and possible.
Indeed, Napoleon's first problem when he came to power was to justify and consolidate his rule in a country which had just had a revolution and where the monarchy had fallen and the old principles of legitimism had given way to national sovereignty. In this situation it was absolutely vital to the usurper that the public should ``sanction'' his right to power. To obtain this sanction public opinion had to be correspondingly manipulated. Another major factor was the changed character of the army, which had been turned from an army of professional hired soldiers into a mass army recruited from among broad strata of the population. An army like that in post-revolutionary France clearly had to have incentives other than only the possibility of gain and plunder. To maintain high morale and fighting efficiency in the army it was necessary to appeal to national feelings, patriotism and so on.
Also important was that having come to power on the crest of a great revolution Napoleon had the possibility of reaping many of its ideological fruits despite the fact that they had nothing to do with his actual aims and intentions.^^**^^ Thanks to the efforts of his revolutionary predecessors, other nations identified France with the ideals of freedom, equality and fraternity. Napoleon appreciated the power of these ideals and used them in his own interests against his monarchist adversaries. That was why he caused the works of the enlighteners to be disseminated in foreign countries, although he had them thrown out of fashion _-_-_
^^*^^ Rene-Henri Wiist, La guerre psychologique, Lausanne, 1954, p. 12.
^^**^^ "The tragedy,'' Engels wrote, "is that the party supporting war a entrance, war for the emancipation of the nations, is proved in the right and that the Republic gets the better of all Europe, but only after that party itself has long been beheaded; while in place of the propagandist war comes the Peace of Basle and the bourgeois orgy of the Directory" (Marx and Engels, Selected Correspondence, Moscow, 1965, p. 406).
23 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ INTRODUCTION in France herself, disguised his plans of plundering Russia with talk about the freedom of Poland and the emancipation of the serfs, and generally took every opportunity to profit ideologically by the revolution he had himself trampled.The Napoleonic wars made the European monarchs determined to wage an uncompromising struggle against revolutionary ideas. Thus was born the Holy Alliance, which was likewise destined to set an important precedent in the sphere interesting us, a precedent of action (and of an international organisation specially set up for such action) against ``seditious'' ideas in other countries.
The beginning of the epoch of imperialism marked the end of the prehistory and the commencement of the real history of the ideological struggle in international relations in the modern meaning of the term. The First World War is usually regarded as a milestone in the shaping of foreign political propaganda. Bourgeois historiography dates the emergence of official government foreign political propaganda agencies from the period of the First World War. The British Ministry of Information under Lord Beaverbrook and the Department of Enemy Propaganda headed by Lord Northcliffe, the American Committee on Public Information or the Creel = Committee,^^*^^ the Allied International Committee, which supervised the concerted propaganda of the Entente, the German Kriegspresseamt (War Press Department), which was subordinated to the General Staff and the Ministry of Foreign = Affairs^^**^^---these and analogous agencies and departments generally anticipated the organisation of imperialist foreign and domestic propaganda in its modern form.
The techniques and methods of propaganda for the army and population of other countries---not only enemy but also neutral and allied countries---likewise took shape in general outline.
In short, many facts indicate that the First World War was indeed an important milestone in the development of _-_-_
^^*^^ The official version of its history is given in the memoirs of George Creel, who headed this committee. (George Creel, How We Advertised America, New York, London, 1920; also see James R. Mock, Cedric Larson, Words That Won the War, Princeton, 1939.)
^^**^^ This organisation is described by Wolfgang Foerster in Kampjer an Vergessenen Fronten, Berlin, 1931.
24 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV foreign political propaganda. But bourgeois researchers overlook the point that decisive here was not the war itself but the entire range of socio-political changes arising from capitalism's transition to its imperialist stage, from the beginning of the epoch of its general crisis.The transition to imperialism and the ruling bourgeoisie's shift towards reaction all along the line made the spiritual suppression of the people a major instrument of politics alongside physical violence. At the close of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century there was in most capitalist countries a trend towards a sharp curtailment of freedom of speech and the press, intensified censorship and repression of ``dissidents''. Most indicative was the unprecedented scale of the organised propaganda of the ruling class, the instruments for which were the press, the school, the Church and various reactionary institutions.
This period witnessed a change in the bourgeoisie's notions about the ideological struggle. It abandoned its former liberal practice of limited interference and went over to an active struggle for all-embracing control over people's way of thinking, over public opinion. Accordingly, the foundations were laid for the imperialist ``theory'' of propaganda, for the subtle ``science'' of manipulating people, which achieved its full development in our day. Naturally, the colossal activation of the ruling bourgeoisie's ideological propaganda could no longer be confined to the boundaries of capitalist countries.
One of the cardinal aims of this ideological activity was to serve the aggressive foreign policy of the imperialists. Expansion and the preparation and conduct of wars of aggrandisement occupied a hitherto unparalleled place in the policy of bourgeois states.
Imperialism is inseparably linked with wars, with the struggle for the division and redivision of the world, for the enslavement of peoples. It will be appreciated that the imperialist state ultimately had to back up such a policy ideologically. This was mirrored in domestic propaganda vindicating aggressive foreign policy, fanning chauvinism, distrust and hatred of other peoples, justifying war and fostering a spirit of militarism.
The First World War was a catalyst, as it were, that speeded up these processes and, at the same time, created 25 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ INTRODUCTION the conditions under which it was possible to give effect to plans that had been drawn up in peacetime in the silence of war and diplomatic departments. The armed collision most strikingly proved that it was vital to enlist the people's moral support for imperialist policy. Touching on the First World War, John L. Martin writes: "It was then discovered that total war could be fought only by attacking the minds as well as the bodies of = men."^^*^^
As regards the efficacy of the propaganda used against the armed forces and population of other countries on a massive scale for the first time during the First World War there are contradictory opinions in bourgeois literature. Following that war a version that gained currency in Germany was that Allied (particularly British) propaganda played the decisive role in ensuring victory to the Entente. But this version, even in the opinion of serious bourgeois researchers, is absolutely untenable. It was fabricated to back up the legend, invented by the German militarists, that the German army remained unbeaten in the field of battle and that Germany was defeated because she "had been let down and deserted by her = allies".^^**^^ It is generally recognised that Entente propaganda was more effective against Austria-Hungary, where it found much more fertile soil.
When the First World War ended the foreign political propaganda apparatus that had been set up to serve it was dissolved. For some time it seemed that everything had reverted to the old ways. But this was only an outward impression. Actually, the war of ideas in international relations continued to be conducted and intensified on various fronts, above all on the front of struggle between imperialism and socialism and also in inter-imperialist clashes and in the conflicts between the imperialists and the peoples of the colonies. With the development of new means of communication, the first-ever special government foreign political propaganda agency began to take shape in peacetime.
In 1927 the Netherlands pioneered short-wave broadcasts for the colonies. France followed suit in 1931. The British Broadcasting Corporation's Empire Service was inaugurated _-_-_
^^*^^ John L. Martin, op. cit., p. 6.
^^**^^ Lindley Fraser, Propaganda, London, 1957, pp. 47--48.
26 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV in 1932. Active foreign radio propaganda was started by Germany in 1933, by Italy in 1935 and by the United States in = 1939.^^*^^The nazis, it must be said, set up an unprecedented "total propaganda" system and machinery, whose annual expenditures are assessed by American experts as having exceeded 500 million = dollars.^^**^^ Most of this budget was for foreign political propaganda, which was directly controlled by the Foreign Policy Office of the Nazi Party (the department chief was Alfred Rosenberg) and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Large foreign political propaganda agencies were set up in other imperialist countries during the Second World War. These included the Ministry of Information and the Psychological Warfare Committee in Britain, and the Foreign Information Service and the Office of War Information in the USA. Active propaganda was conducted also by the military command, which bore the direct responsibility for tactical propaganda in the battlefield and for propaganda among the population of occupied territories.
The years of the Second World War witnessed a colossal development of imperialist propaganda in its modern form, particularly the evolution of the theory, techniques and methods of propaganda. Unlike the propaganda activities during the First World War, the propaganda efforts of the leading imperialist countries (with the exception of the defeated states) did not cease after the Second World War, and instead of being dissolved the foreign political propaganda machine was reorganised. The propaganda lull that followed the establishment of peace proved to be extremely shortlived. Two or three years after the end of the Second World War the imperialists started the cold war in which foreign political propaganda was one of the principal weapons.
Thus, in all the leading capitalist countries foreign political propaganda turned from activity typical of military crises and emergencies into permanent and legally established activity.
_-_-_^^*^^ John L. Martin, op. cit., pp. 8-9.
^^**^^ If Men Want Peace. The Mandates of World Order, ed. by Joseph B. Harrison, Linden A. Mander and Nathaniel H. Engle, New York, 1947, p. 218.
[27] __NUMERIC_LVL1__ CHAPTER I __ALPHA_LVL1__ INTENSIFICATION OFThe ideological struggle has today acquired such significance and dimensions in the foreign political operations of states that it has compelled our ideological adversaries to speak of serious, qualitative changes in international relations, of the ``ideologisation'' of these relations or, as some bourgeois theorists put it, of their ``emotionalisation''. The very fact of these changes and their significance are universally recognised. Noting the growing importance of the ideological struggle, the American researchers George Gordon, Irving Falk and William Hodapp have come to the conclusion that "international relations have changed more radically in the past forty years than in all the centuries before.... For the first time in the history of the world, no government can afford not to be in the business of mass persuasion".^^*^^
Analogous conclusions are offered in many official documents and pronouncements. An example is the report presented by the President's Committee on Information Activities Abroad (Mansfield-Sprague Committee) to the US President during the last months of the Eisenhower Administration. "We are now in a period when the mission and style of diplomacy is changing,'' the report stated. It went on to explain: "Today it is recognised that unless governments effectively communicate their policies and actions to all politically influential elements of foreign populations, _-_-_
^^*^^ George N. Gordon, Irving Falk, William Hodapp, The Idea Invaders, New York,*1963, pp. 187--88.
28 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV their programmes can be impeded and their security placed in = jeopardy."^^*^^William Benton, former US Assistant Secretary of State who later became a Senator, likewise spoke of a new stage in the development of international relations and diplomacy. "In the older diplomacy,'' he declared, "force, military might, lay in the background of most negotiations, sometimes very close to the surface. In most recent years economic considerations have played an increasing role. Today the diplomacy of public opinion is the emerging factor. Indeed, the diplomacy of public opinion is here for all to = see."^^**^^ Benton speaks of the appearance of a new type of international relations which have given birth to the new, ``total'' diplomacy, whose prime objective "is to win men's minds and loyalties''. This diplomacy, "to be total, must include as a major element psychological efforts directed at whole peoples. It must include practical means, direct as well as indirect, for waging psychological = diplomacy".^^***^^ Similar views were recorded in the official documents which the Republican Co-ordinating Committee published in 1968 as the basis of us election programme. Inone of these documents, drawn up under the direction of Robert C. Hill, a former Assistant Secretary of State, it is stated that in the 20th century psychological operations were being elevated to the level of traditional diplomatic, military and economic instruments of foreign = policy.^^****^^
These formulations of the problem are accompanied by attempts to explain the growing importance of ideological propaganda, which has wrought such radical changes in international relations and diplomacy.
In the Mansfield-Sprague Committee's report, for instance, it is noted: "These changes reflect technical developments in transport and communications, the growing role of public opinion in world affairs.'' Further down, the report states: "The steady mounting force of public opinion in world affairs is evident in all parts of the world.... Its _-_-_
^^*^^ The Department of State Bulletin, February 6, 1961, pp. 185, 186.
^^**^^ Congressional Record, Vol. 96, March 22, 1950, p. 3764.
^^***^^ Ibid.
^^****^^ Choice for America. Republican Answers to the Challenge of Now. Reports of the Republican Coordinating Committee 1965--1968, Washington, 1968, p. 398.
29 __NOTE__ Right running header: (set-register ?R "\n\nCH. I. INTENSIFICATION OF THE IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLE\n\n") __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. I. INTENSIFICATION OF THE IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLE rising force is explained by the growth of literacy and education, the introduction of new and wider channels of communication, and the spread of the democratic = idea."^^*^^Identical conclusions are contained in the above-- mentioned documents of the Republican Co-ordinating Committee. In the opinion of the documents' authors, the prime factor raising psychological instruments to the level of diplomatic, military and economic means was that the "revolutionary advances in mass communications have made it possible to disseminate ideas and information with great speed not only to national leaders, but also to the entire population''. Further, the report declares that "policy-makers must realise that aggressive and intelligent use of modern communications may often be the shortest and most effective route to specific overseas = objectives".^^**^^
Gordon, Falk and Hodapp give a similar but more detailed answer to the above question. In this connection they speak of three vital changes that have taken place first in the Western and then in the Eastern = world.^^***^^
"First came the invention of the means of mass communications. This meant the cheap and effective spread of words and images to more people than ever before in history. And, as each medium of communication was perfected and massproduced --- from printing to film to radio to television --- this mass audience increased apace.
"Second, from the beginning of the nineteenth century onward (a by-product of the democratic ideal of free, universal education), larger and larger numbers of people were learning to read--- at least to read enough to constitute a fair target for the man with a message if his medium of communication was the printed word.
"Third, and also as a corollary of democratic idealism, people en masse became increasingly important as instruments of political activity, both national and international, and public opinion became more and more a vital factor in political and diplomatic manoeuvres. It mattered not a bit what the medieval serf thought on any _-_-_
^^*^^ The Department of State Bulletin, February 6, . 1961, pp. 185, 186.
^^**^^ Choice for America..., pp. 398, 399.
^^***^^ George N. Gordon, Irving Falk, William Hodapp, op. cit., p. 20.
30 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV particular issue; he was politically inert, impotent to change the forces which governed his life in terms of both national and international issues. When the serf was educated and given political power by means of the vote and taught the equalitarian ideas of democracy, it did matter crucially what he thought, and there was more than likely to be someone around who attempted to manage his thinking for him."^^*^^We have quoted this long passage as typical of presentday bourgeois professorial sagacity in which forced admissions rub shoulders with outright inventions and tendentious arguments (they persist in their contention that the masses are not the makers of policy and history but the ``instrument'' of politics). From this we can see that Western researchers divide the reasons for the growing role of the ideological struggle in international relations into roughly two categories: technical and social.
The fact that enormous progress has been made in the technology of mass communications is unquestioned and nobody disputes the role it plays in the political phenomena we are discussing. Although history knows of examples of broad and systematic propaganda efforts, which did not rely on sophisticated technical means of mass communication (the most striking is the example of the Church), it is quite obvious that ideological propaganda would not have reached its present scale had it not been for the availability of technical means. This is air the more true of the war of ideas in international relations.
During the past few decades mass media of unprecedented effectiveness, scope and radius of action such as radio, films and television have been made available to propaganda. These media are being steadily improved, giving the propagandist an increasingly wider audience and the possibility of stepping across space and national frontiers.
Many new achievements of science and technology, notably the development of communications satellites, hold out immense possibilities for foreign political propaganda.
_-_-_^^*^^ George N. Gordon, Irving Falk, William Hodapp, op. cit. pp. 20--21.
31 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. I. INTENSIFICATION OF THE IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLEWith the launching of the first American communications satellite, Echo-1, early in the 1960s, the USA began working on far-reaching plans for utilising outer space for the direct transmission of television programmes to other, even the most remote, countries. As John Pierce, director of the Bell Telephone System's research division, admitted at the time, many politicians in Washington began thinking of outer space as of a unique field of battle in the cold war and studying the possibility of using communications satellites in the propaganda war against the Soviet Union.
Considerations of this kind undoubtedly played their role, and the International Conference on Communications Satellites with a membership of more than 60 countries was set up in 1964. It is indicative that not very long ago Leonard Marks, former USIA director, was named head of the United States delegation to Intelsat. The launching in 1969 of four Intelsat-3 satellites, each of which could transmit four TV programmes simultaneously, was regarded as an important step towards the creation of a global communications system.
In August 1967 President Johnson set up a communications policy committee (beaded by Eugene V. Rostow) with the task of drawing up recommendations for the broader use of communications satellites for the requirements of state policy.
The new potentialities being opened for propaganda by scientific and technological progress are not confined to the perfection of the technical means of mass communication. Enormous attention is devoted to quests for ways of influencing people's minds more effectively and reliably by subtle methods of propaganda and various means designed to intensify ``suggestibility'', in other words, to make people helpless in face of planned propaganda pressure.
For the ideological struggle the development of sophisticated means of mass communication and the swift progress in this sphere have been unquestionably of both technical and fundamental significance. In effect, more than ever before the means of propaganda have become a most potent weapon of political power, a major element of the political machinery ensuring domination in class society.
The experience of the past few decades has clearly shown that in the class struggle the monopoly over these means 32 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV has become just as important as the monopoly over traditional instruments of power---the machinery of coercion, including the army, the police, the jails, the courts and so forth. Hence the new importance of some of the old slogans of the democratic movement, for example, the slogan of freedom of speech and the press, under which a struggle is now being waged against the monopoly of the reactionary classes over these key means of political power. Hence, also, the vital importance to the victorious working class and its party of retaining control of the mass media. Experience has shown that the dictatorship of the proletariat should treat this task just as seriously as the task of controlling the apparatus of coercion and state administration.
There is no particular argument with bourgeois authors over the significance of progress in the techniques of mass communications or over the importance of literacy in extending the sphere of propaganda influence.
The argument is over something else---the social reasons for the growth of the role of ideological propaganda in international relations.
It is utterly wrong to regard the masses as an " instrument" of policy used at will by omnipotent manipulators in the same way as centuries ago, with the sole difference that these manipulators now have to influence one more factor, namely, public opinion.
This approach to the masses is dictated by the class interests of the modern bourgeoisie and it determines the point of departure of the bourgeois theorists when they analyse the reasons for the increased role played by public opinion in political life. It is not accidental that in this issue they try to reduce matter to the vote and other formal rights and freedoms that fit quite well into the framework of bourgeois democracy. Here the aim is, essentially, to belittle the significance of the profound and irreversible socio-political changes that are steadily altering the balance of strength in the world in favour of socialism and the working class. It is in these changes that one must look for the origin of the changes that have taken place in international relations, notably the increased influence of the masses, of public opinion, on foreign policy.
33 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. I. INTENSIFICATION OF THE IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLE __ALPHA_LVL2__ 1. IDEOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE WORLD'SThe new role which the ideological struggle began to play in international relations is linked mainly with the world's division into two socio-political systems. This historic event determined the substance of the principal conflict in international relations for our entire epoch, giving it the nature of a clash between two classes---the bourgeoisie (chiefly the monopoly bourgeoisie) and the working class.
On the international scene, collisions not simply between nations and peoples but between states are not something new, of course. In some cases states were able to defend national interests, while in others they acted against these interests, depending on the interests and aims of the ruling class. International relations have always been class relations. But the distinguishing feature here was that whereas in a society split into hostile classes the specific determining social relations had always been the struggle between opposing, antagonistic classes, on the international scene the relations between states were in past epochs usually determined by the struggle between socially similar classes. Naturally, this rule was not without its exceptions. Take, for example, the relations between bourgeois-- revolutionary France and her feudal-absolutist neighbours: to a certain extent the spread of the class struggle between the two main classes of that epoch beyond national frontiers to the international arena had consequences similar to those which confront the world = today.^^*^^ But instead of nullifying the general rule, exceptions of this kind only confirm it.
The evolution of the contradiction between the principal classes---between the antagonists of contemporary society--- into the main contradiction of international relations is _-_-_
^^*^^ Of course, this, as any other, similarity has its boundaries. Fundamentally, the world's present divfeion into two systems has no precedent. Earlier, it was a question of classes and types of societies that were similar in the decisive respect that they were founded on private ownership of the means of production and on the exploitation of man by man. The world's division was caused by the appearance of a fundamentally new type of society, a society which has established social ownership and completely eradicated exploitation.
__PRINTERS_P_33_COMMENT__ 3 --- 0706 34 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV a feature characterising precisely our epoch. Moreover, it has no precedent in history because the international relations in the transitional periods (i.e., in the periods of transition from one socio-economic formation to another) of the past had always developed under conditions in which world-wide social systems comparable with those in existence today did not and could not take shape.But even today international relations cannot be reduced to the contradiction between the capitalist and the socialist system. There are other contradictions as well, namely, between the imperialist powers and the peoples who have won deliverance from colonial tyranny or are fighting for national liberation, between the leading imperialist powers and the less powerful capitalist states and, lastly, between the imperialist vultures themselves.
In international relations growing importance is being acquired by a new type of relations, namely, co-operation in the socialist community, and between socialist countries and the new national states that have won freedom from colonial exploitation. Experience has shown that some contradictions can spring up at the early stages even in the socialist system and that these contradictions can assume considerable proportions if the leadership of the countries concerned departs from the principles of socialist internationalism.
However, the main contradiction determining the foundations of present-day international relations remains between the two social = systems.^^*^^
Lenin had pointed this out when the first socialist state, Soviet Russia, appeared on the world scene and the socialist system, which opposes imperialism, was only in its formative stage. He wrote: "...in the present world situation following the imperialist war, reciprocal relations between peoples and the world political system as a whole are _-_-_
^^*^^ This conclusion is disputed by the Chinese leaders, who call the struggle of the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America against imperialism the "principal knot" of contradictions and propound the theory of "intermediate zones'', a theory dividing the world into a ``world town'' and a ``world village'', and so forth. It has been shown by the Marxist-Leninist parties that these theories have been designed to give Peking hegemony in the Third World and undermine the policy of peaceful coexistence.
35 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. I. INTENSIFICATION OF THE IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLE determined by the struggle waged by a small group of imperialist nations against the Soviet movement and the Soviet states headed by Soviet Russia. Unless we bear that in mind, we shall not be able to pose a single national or colonial problem correctly, even if it concerns a most outlying part of the world. The Communist parties, in civilised and backward countries alike, can pose and solve political problems correctly only if they make this postulate their starting-point."^^*^^The fact that the pivot of the struggle in international relations has become the contradiction between the two world systems representing the two principal antagonistic classes of contemporary society also determines the content of that struggle. Here the crucial point is that essentially it is an antagonistic struggle which leads not to any reciprocal drawing together or even fusion of the two systems, as is maintained by the exponents of the ``convergence'' theory, but to the victory of the most advanced system, socialism, and to the subsequent reorganisation of all international relations in accordance with the laws of life and the development of the new society.
The nature of the main contradiction of present-day international relations by no means predetermines the forms in which it manifests itself and is resolved. The classantagonistic character of this contradiction does not in any way make international conflicts inevitably sharper than before or involve the broader use of coercive methods of struggle.
The forms of the struggle between states, including extreme means of violence such as war, occupation, annexation and colonisation, were engendered and, in effect, legalised by the social system founded on private ownership and exploitation. This is vividly borne out by the entire history of international relations, including the history of the two world wars. With the appearance of socialism the possibility of averting world wars and opposing aggression and colonialism has been immeasurably widened.
This brings us to one of the basic theoretical and political problems of modern international relations---the problem of the content and forms of the inevitable struggle between _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 241.
__PRINTERS_P_36_COMMENT__ 3* 36 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV the two world systems. A sound approach, in fact the only approach that can bear fruit, is provided by the principle of peaceful coexistence as propounded by the socialist countries.Although the main contradiction in international relations determines the content of the foreign policy pursued by countries belonging to different social systems, Marxists-Leninists are of the opinion that it cannot be resolved in the sphere of foreign policy (say, by one group of countries forcing other countries to adopt their social system). Here the decisive role is played by the inner processes of the class struggle in society in accordance with the objective laws of its development. This is the substance of the Marxist-Leninist approach to modern international relations. This approach determines the point of departure of socialist foreign policy and elucidates not only the common features but also the specifics that distinguish the class struggle on the world scene from the class struggle within society.
The conversion of the contradiction between the two principal classes of contemporary society into the main contradiction also in international relations signified a far-reaching change in these relations and gave them many new features. One of these new features is what is known as the ``ideologisation'' of international relations. As soon as the determining factor in these relations became the struggle between the two classes opposed to each other in modern society, ideological issues quite naturally acquired a new significance. From that moment onwards international relations became the arena of the class struggle in politics, economics and, inevitably, ideology. In foreign policy it is a clash between two classes, which have their own ideology, views and notions about the world, about politics and all major social problems. In other words, with the world's division into two systems not only every individual society and state but international relations became the arena of the clash between the two opposing class ideologies.
Properly speaking, it is only after this that the war of ideas in international relations acquires a genuinely ideological character. Formerly, it was sooner a case of utilising definite means for the promotion of ideas and definite methods of influencing people's minds in times of conflict, 37 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. I. INTENSIFICATION OF THE IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLE which very rarely bore the nature of a clash of opposing ideologies. Propaganda was an auxiliary weapon of foreign policy, which, as a rule, was not directly linked with the basic social and, therefore, ideological conflicts in society. In the centre of international relations today are modern society's fundamental ideological problems, which have been increasingly penetrating foreign policy since the world's division into two systems.
It is important to stress that we are concerned with natural-historic changes in international relations, with changes that take place objectively, regardless of the will of individuals and of governments. By virtue of the laws of the class struggle unfolding in the world, the ideological struggle between states belonging to different systems would have gone on even if these states had ``decided'' to abandon such a form of the struggle as foreign political propaganda. It will be borne in mind that we are witnessing the internationalisation of the class struggle, when the struggle between the main classes in society is fusing with their struggle on the international scene, when the triumph or defeat of each class in its own country has immediate repercussions in other countries, when each of these classes acts not only as a national but also as an international force.
These changes in international relations have confronted bourgeois theory with a very specific problem. On the one hand, it could not ignore-the obvious growth of the role played by the ideological struggle in foreign policy, especially as the practical requirements of the imperialist state demanded an account of this new phenomenon in international relations. On the other hand, an objective analysis of the tap-root of this phenomenon inevitably had to lead to the recognition of the law-governed nature of these changes, including the world's division into two systems and this division's deep-going link with the class struggle in capitalist society.
That is why in bourgeois literature questions related to the ideological struggle in foreign (and, as a matter of fact, domestic) policy are usually interpreted outside genuinely ideological, class concepts and categories. A favourite and customary method of this interpretation is to supplant the concept of ideology with the concept of "public opinion".
38 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOVThe validity of the category "public opinion" in political theory is beyond question. But it is one thing to understand as public opinion real situations in the public mind arising from a whole series of causes (the influence of the conditions of life of the various classes and groups, the ideological and other influences acting on these classes, information, socio-psychological factors and so on), and quite another to take it to mean that elusive, spectral phenomenon, which bourgeois authors try to give out for ideological and class consciousness. Properly speaking, on the lips of bourgeois politicians and, frequently, theorists the concept "public opinion" often sounds as a piece of political banality devoid of real meaning. It is ordinarily used for purely utilitarian purposes in order to justify or reject some idea, measure or demand (Western "public opinion'', we are told for example, does not accept communism; or, on the contrary, " public opinion" supports the policy of a given bourgeois government).
The war of ideas on the international scene is not, of course, always expressed in a direct, frontal clash between the proletarian and the bourgeois philosophies. Very frequently it goes on round more specific and, therefore, more local issues---a crisis in international relations, the problem of disarmament, the recognition of a new country or regime, and so forth. But today such issues range beyond the local framework and are inevitably regarded as part of the world pattern.
However, the significance of the ideological struggle in international relations does not boil down to this, so to speak, passive aspect---to the fact that international phenomena and developments are increasingly regarded by the people in the context of existing and contending ideologies. Ideas and ideologies are growing into a powerful force that is influencing politics and is being used in the political struggle.
This circumstance could not escape the notice of many bourgeois researchers, who endeavour to give it their own interpretation. One of these attempts has been made by Professor Hans J. Morgenthau, founder of the "political realism" school. "Men in politics,'' he says, "seek power and they come into conflict with others engaged in the same truest. They use moral justifications to cover their 39 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. I. INTENSIFICATION OF THE IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLE aspirations and thus heighten and intensify the = struggle."^^*^^ This quite accurately mirrors a key feature of present-day bourgeois ideology---the desire to conceal and disguise the real aims of its class. But if we are to speak of the theoretical meaning of this concept, it will become obvious that we have before us an attempt to transfer the ideological struggle to the individual (or group) sphere of a ``free'' struggle of individuals and groups for power, an attempt to divorce this struggle from classes and class relations.
Morgenthau sees the link between ideology and politics, although he divorces both ideology and politics from class relations. Many other bourgeois researchers are unable to achieve this degree of theoretical generalisation, failing to rise above banalities.
One of them is the Austrian historian Alfred Sturminger. Here is the pertinent passage from his book on the history of propaganda: "It is the inborn property of human nature that various, frequently contradictory views and ideas inescapably arise when general situations in life are assessed. The more human thought has developed and the more differentiated have the components of a state union become, the more differences of opinion have there been. Hence the desire and need to convey to other people one's own ideas and convictions, to influence them and repulse contradictory influences. Political propaganda has thus been in existence ever since the rise of society in = general."^^**^^
Arguments of this kind are not worth a serious analysis because they explain nothing, and are far removed from life and from the ideological struggle, which has nothing in common with the picture of peaceful and truly academic discussion drawn by Sturminger.
Both the problem of the ideological struggle as a form of the class struggle and the problem of the relation between the ideological and the political struggle have been convincingly resolved in Marxist-Leninist theory. The point of departure in this solution is of fundamental importance also for understanding the entire range of issues linked with _-_-_
^^*^^ This summary of Morgenthau's views is given by Kenneth W. Thompson in Political Realism and the Crisis of World Politics, Princeton, I960, p. 34.
^^**^^ Alfred Sturminger, op. cit., p. 9.
40 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV the present-day war of ideas, including the struggle on the international scene.As has been shown by Marxism-Leninism, the ideological struggle between opposing classes arises just as naturally (not spontaneously, of course) as each class develops its own understanding and explanation of the world, and. perceives its position in society, its interests and aims and the ways of fighting for these interests and aims. Antagonistic classes have different, antipodal and incompatible systems of ideas, and once these ideas are shaped the only relations they can have between them are those of struggle. There is no connection here with the psychological factor, with ideological intolerance, which, some bourgeois ideologists contend, is inherent in human nature and compels man to strive to mould the thinking of others. In effect, such intolerance is not a psychological but a class-political phenomenon. The heart of the matter is that ideas and the ideological struggle are not solely the product of class relations but a powerful weapon of the class struggle.
Having established the secondary nature of social consciousness, of the world of ideas in respect to social being and the world of things, Marxism-Leninism has thereby in no way belittled the role of ideas in social life. It has only given a scientific explanation of their origin. As regards the role of ideas and, generally, of people's conscious activity, Marxism-Leninism has always accorded them an important place in social life and in politics.
It is precisely through ideas and the ideological struggle that each class becomes conscious of itself as a special class in society, as a class with its own aims and interests, to say nothing of its attitude to economic, political and other problems. This is the starting-point of the class struggle, regardless of the class or political system concerned.
Further, ideas and the ideological struggle play an immense part in resolving a central task of politics such as winning the support of the masses. The masses are, of course, stirred to action under the impact of objective influences underlying the very conditions of their existence. But ideas and the ideological struggle become a vital element of this objective process. This was underscored by Marx, who noted that "theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has 41 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. I. INTENSIFICATION OF THE IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLE gripped the = masses".^^*^^ The same point was made by Lenin, who censured the underestimation of ideas and ideals by those who were inclined to reduce Marxism to economic determinism. He wrote:
"Justice is an empty word, say the intellectuals and those rascals who are inclined to proclaim themselves Marxists on the lofty grounds that they have 'contemplated the hind parts' of economic materialism.
"Ideas become a power when they grip the people. And precisely at the present time the Bolsheviks, i.e., the representatives of revolutionary proletarian internationalism, have embodied in their policy the idea that is motivating countless working people all over the = world."^^**^^
This proposition of Marxist-Leninist theory is the key to understanding the problem of the correlation and interrelation of the ideological and political struggle within society and on an international scale.
In the ideological struggle the basic aim of any class is to bring the largest number of people under the influence of its ideas and tear them away from the spiritual influence of the class adversary. This task inevitably begins with the ideological conquest of the masses of its own class without which the class cannot be united in the struggle for its interests and aims. A class consists of many thousands and even millions of people scattered about the country, engaged in different affairs and in many cases even unaware of their common condition and interests. This is particularly true of a class which is still only fighting for power. For this class a common ideology becomes the principal, and at a definite stage, the only organising element, the means of uniting and mustering its forces, a means that precedes other, including political, instruments of unity. The decisive stage of the struggle for power both by the bourgeoisie and the proletariat began precisely with ideological unity, with propaganda within the class.
At the same time, ideological propaganda is used by a class as a means of undermining the spiritual unity of the class adversary and ensuring to itself the broadest possible influence in his ranks. Naturally, in this respect the _-_-_
^^*^^ Marx and Engels, On Religion, Moscow, 1966, p. 45.
^^**^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 26, pp. 129--30.
42 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV possibillties of the rising class are limited inasmuch as it has to contend with an enemy who is well aware of his aims and interests and is organised for the defence of these, aims and interests. Here it can only be a matter of influencing individual, foremost elements of the other class who are capable of rising above class interests. Such elements have been won over not only by the revolutionary bourgeoisie (from among the aristocracy) but also by the working class (from among the bourgeoisie). The examples are well known and they are rather the exception than the rule in the class struggle.The case is different as regards the ideological influence exercised by the governing class over its class adversaries. The possibilities for exercising such influence are quite considerable and the efforts to ensure this influence comprise an important sphere of the ideological struggle. Marx's proposition that the ideas of the ruling class are predominant in society remains true to this day. This is vividly illustrated by modern bourgeois society, in which the ideological efforts of the ruling class are directed towards ensuring a spiritual influence on the working class, splitting it and cultivating anti-communism, reformism, religious ideology, nationalism and chauvinism in its ranks.
Lastly, the purpose of ideological propaganda is to win the support of the mass of the intermediate classes and social strata. Even in developed bourgeois society, where the working class constitutes a huge section of the population (the majority in some countries), the outcome of the struggle depends to a large extent on the support of the intermediate classes and strata---peasants, urban petty bourgeoisie, white collar workers, intellectuals and so on. This is especially true of countries where capitalist relations have not reached a high level of development and the classes contesting the issue of power do not constitute the majority in society.
Naturally, international relations have their own specifics, which, as we have already noted, spring from the fact that for entire epochs the political struggle on the international scene was, with rare exceptions, waged between socially similar ruling classes. This determined the specifics of the ideological struggle as well.
The situation is changing fundamentally with the world's division into two systems. This division is taking place 43 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. I. INTENSIFICATION OF THE IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLE in an epoch witnessing an unprecedented growth of the political activity of the masses and their mounting influence on politics, both internal and external. Also important is the fact that the struggle in international relations is, as we have pointed out earlier, intertwined with the class struggle within society by virtue of its social content. In both cases it is a struggle between two historical types of society---socialism and capitalism---between the two principal classes of the modern epoch, the working class and the bourgeoisie. Moreover, this intertwining has its ideological expression, for in both cases the main conflict acquires an ideological aspect stemming from the collision and struggle between two class philosophies, between the socialist and the bourgeois philosophies.
As a result, many of the partitions that have for centuries separated foreign policy from internal policy are disappearing and giving place to a more profound and closer interlacing of the class struggle within society with the class struggle on a global scale.
Even bourgeois scholars cannot deny these changes. The West German historian Erwin Holzle, who devoted one of his books to the problems arising from the world's division into two systems, says that an "age of world-wide ideology"^^*^^ has commenced in which the boundary between internal arid external policy has melted, while "internal political ideas and forms such as democracy (as Holzle prefers to call capitalism.---G.A.) and communism have become the foreign political ideologies of the whole = world".^^**^^ The American scholar John S. Gibson unequivocally stresses that the war of ideas owes its sharpness to the world's division into two systems, to the fact that "two ways of life oppose each other. Two diametrically different ways of government compete with each other, along with two different economic = systems".^^***^^
But not all bourgeois theorists are prepared to attribute this change directly to the world's division into capitalism _-_-_
^^*^^ Erwin Holzle, Die Revolution der zweigeteilten Welt; eine Geschichte der Machte 1905--1929, Hamburg, 1963, S. 76.
^^**^^ Ibid.
^^***^^ John S. Gibson, Ideology and World Affairs, Boston, 1964, p. 13.
44 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV and = socialism.^^*^^ But the fact that the role of the ideological struggle in the world has undergone a change is no longer denied by anybody.While the fact that ideology and the war of ideas have penetrated international relations is generally recognised, there are diverse opinions regarding the depth and significance of this new factor's influence on foreign policy. Farther down in this book we shall deal in some detail with the views of individual bourgeois theorists, who contend that in our epoch ideology and ideological differences have been the basic cause of the main contradictions and conflicts in the world. We cannot agree with this view. And not only because it nurtures the harmful illusion that in international relations there will be peace and universal concord as soon as the ideological struggle gives way to a "peaceful coexistence of ideas''. This view is essentially misconceived, for whatever role they play ideological differences and the war of ideas are not the cause but the effect of basic sociopolitical contradictions and conflicts, including contradictions in international relations.
Today, more than in the past, we encounter attempts to give various political actions and conflicts an ideological twist despite the fact that underlying them are economic or military-political motives. This is a typical method employed by imperialist policy, which disguises its real aims with arguments about defending freedom and democracy, countering "communist intrigues" and so forth.
This practice, unquestionably, creates a favourable atmosphere for opposite views, according to which ideology and the war of ideas in themselves play no role in international affairs and are sooner a facade screening the same political motivations and realities as hundreds and even thousands of years ago.
For a long time these were the views propounded by the ``realist'' school in United States political science. It holds that the struggle for power, above all for military power, is the immutable substance of all international relations. _-_-_
^^*^^ The West German sociologist Frank Thiess, for instance, attaches more importance to the spiritual and religious conflict linked with the manner in which Christianity had spread in Russia (Die geschichtlichen Grundlagen des Ost-West Geeensatzes. Frankfurt am Main, 1960).
45 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. I. INTENSIFICATION OF THE IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLE``Statesmen and peoples,'' writes Hans J. Morgenthau, "may ultimately seek freedom, security, prosperity, or power itself. They may define their goals in terms of a religious, philosophic, economic, or social ideal.... But whenever they strive to realise their goal by means of international politics, they do so by striving for power.... In international politics, in particular, armed strength as a threat or a potentiality is the most important material factor making for the political power of a nation.... The struggle for power is universal in time and = space."^^*^^
It goes without saying that Morgenthau has fpithfully characterised the substance of imperialist policy, which had relied on military strength for a long time and is still trying to do so. But the crux of the problem is that in our day the factors of strength in international politics, one of which is ideology, have grown more complex and broader.
There are ideas and ideas (the American propaganda experts Gordon, Falk and Hodapp rightly note in this connection that "ideas can be inert thoughts, speculations, dreams; they can be spurs to action, fuses for = dynamite"^^**^^). It is a feature of our epoch that with the world's division into two systems ideological strength, the ability to ensure the influence of one's own ideas, has become a new and important source of the strength and influence of states on the international scene.
Today this cannot be denied even by the most ardent admirers of the unconditional priority of military power and other ``material'' sources of strength. This is seen also in the most recent works by representatives of the ``realist'' school. They are far from linking this new factor of strength with the fundamental social processes taking place in the world, above all with the aggravation of the struggle between the two principal classes in individual countries and on the world scene. They are sooner prepared to regard the war of ideas as a new effective instrument of strength in the struggle between states.
In an article published in 1967 Morgenthau wrote: "The United States and the Soviet Union face each other not only as two great powers which in the traditional ways compete _-_-_
^^*^^ Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations, New York, 1954, pp. 25, 27, 30.
^^**^^ George Gordon, Irving Falk, William Hodapp, op. cit., p. 9.
46 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV for advantage. They also face each other as the fountainheads of two hostile and incompatible ideologies, systems of government and ways of life, each trying to expand the reach of its respective political values and institutions and to prevent the expansion of the other. Thus the cold war has not only been a conflict between two world powers but also a contest between two secular religions.'' Morgenthau sees as highly significant the fact that the means of ideological struggle make it possible to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries. This struggle, he declares, is the "dynamic force" behind the policy of intervention "all over the globe, sometimes surreptitiously, sometimes openly, sometimes with the accepted methods of diplomatic pressure and propaganda, sometimes with the frowned-upon instruments of covert subversion and open = force".^^*^^The switch towards recognition of a large number of new factors of international politics is in many ways linked with the fact that in recent years many Western politicians and theorists have lost their faith in the potentialities of military power, which had long been regarded as an omnipotent instrument of foreign policy. Today, in the light of the US aggression in Vietnam, conclusions of this kind have become more and more widespread. But some Western scholars arrived at similar conclusions some years ago, long before recent developments had shown the changes in international relations and narrowed down the boundaries for the effective use of military strength. In a book entitled Our Depleted Society, one of these scholars, Seymour Melman, writes: "...most of us have agreed with Voltaire that God is on the side with the heaviest battalions. If it were true that the strongest military power always gets its way, then the United States, possessor of the greatest stock of nuclear military weapons in the world, should be able to exercise its will among other nations with substantial success. But this has not been the case; military power is becoming increasingly ineffective as an instrument of international = policy."^^**^^
This view was expressed long ago by the US Senator J. William Fulbright. Noting that many old formulas are _-_-_
^^*^^ Foreign Affairs, April 1967, pp. 428--29.
^^**^^ Seymour Melman, Our Depleted Society, New York, 1965, p. 157.
47 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. I. INTENSIFICATION OF THE IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLE losing their significance in face of the vast means of destruction developed by science and technology, he writes that there is an absolute disproportion between war as an instrument of politics and its possible aims. "Nuclear weapons,'' he stresses, "have deprived force of its utility as an instrument of national = policy."^^*^^ In the light of the experience of the Vietnam war, Fulbright expounds this view in greater detail in the book The Arrogance of = Power.^^**^^Many United States politicians, who have never had the reputation of being pacifists, are coming round to interesting conclusions. Typical in this respect is the statement by Henry A. Kissinger that "power no longer translates automatically into = influence".^^***^^
Indeed, the new factors of power in international politics merit an independent examination. Here we are interested only in the aspect linked with ideology's conversion into one of these factors. A point we should like to make is that Marxists had seen and assessed this factor long before the appearance of nuclear weapons. During the initial years of Soviet power Lenin said: "A certain unstable equilibrium has been reached. Materially---economically and militarily---we are extremely weak; but morally---by which, of course, I mean not abstract morals, but the alignment of the real forces of all classes in all countries---we are the strongest of all. This has been proved in practice; it has been proved not merely by words but by deeds; it has been proved once and, if history takes a certain turn, it will, perhaps, be proved many times = again."^^****^^
Lenin's words that "economically and militarily we are extremely weak" referred, of course, to a certain period in history. The USSR's present enormous economic and military potential is well known. But this does not reduce the significance of the ideological and moral superiority of socialism, which has developed into a colossal power in the course of sharp class struggles in international relations.
_-_-_^^*^^ J. William Fulbright, Old Myths and New Realities, New York, 1964, p. 56.
^^**^^ J. William Fulbright, The Arrogance of Power, New York, 1966.
^^***^^ Agenda for the Nation, Washington, 1968, p. 589.
^^****^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 151.
48 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOVThe world's division into two systems is thus the principal reason and chief factor of the enhanced role played by the war of ideas in international relations, which are being increasingly determined by the contradictions and struggle between the working class and the bourgeoisie (notably, the imperialist bourgeoisie), the two main classes wielding state power today.
At the same time, the war of ideas is by no means becoming the initial or even the main cause of the struggle, collisions and conflicts on the world scene. It is only one of the forms of the class struggle in international relations. But it is an important form, which in these relations plays an immense role especially in view of the fact that the class struggle in the world and within society intertwines very closely in the sphere of ideology. This makes the war of ideas a serious factor of strength in international politics.
This factor has to be reckoned with by the imperialist rulers, for with its invasion of the sphere of foreign policy, problems of immense importance linked not only with the struggle for traditional foreign political aims but also with the very direction of historical development began to be resolved in international relations.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 2. THE PEOPLE AND FOREIGN POLICY __ALPHA_LVL3__ [introduction] __NOTE__ 2006.11.23 - added the above LVL3; modified index.tab.The growth of the influence exercised by the masses on foreign policy is another major factor turning the war of ideas into an indispensable and essential aspect of international relations. This factor, first noted by MarxistsLeninists, by those who have always regarded the working masses as their natural ally, is gradually gaining increasing recognition also from bourgeois scholars.
Their ``enlightenment'' in this question began, essentially, after the Second World War. The first works devoted to the increased role played by the masses in foreign policy attracted attention as early as the 1950s. In these works the growing influence of the masses on social life was described as both sensational and undesirable.
"Mass opinion'', wrote the noted American journalist Walter Lippmann, "has acquired mounting power in this century. It has shown itself to be a dangerous master of decisions 49 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. I. INTENSIFICATION OF THE IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLE when the stakes are life and = death."^^*^^ The American diplomatic observer Sisley Huddleston, who headed the AngloAmerican Press Association, wrote: "...our epoch is distinguished from preceding epochs by the overwhelming influence of the masses on our communal life.... Nothing remains either of the monarchs by divine right or their agents who shared, in the eyes of the crowd, something of that divine right. Today, the people---that is to say, the crowd---is the natural heir of that divine right, and woe betide those who set themselves up in opposition to the = masses."^^**^^
Within 10--15 years of the time these questions became a topic of serious discussion in bourgeois literature, the people's new role in politics ceased to be a sensation. It began to be treated as a reality by more and more Western sociologists and political theorists. A typical approach is that of the American researcher John S. Gibson, who wrote: "Public opinion in all countries must be taken into consideration by national leaders in the shaping of their domestic and foreign policies. Only a few decades ago, the principal decisions in world affairs were made by the leaders of states, and their diplomats. For the most part, the people within the state had little or no influence in directing the course of national policy. Today, the man in the street or the field or the jungle wants to be = heard."^^***^^
Statements of this kind, of course, must be treated with caution. While they are basically correct, the arguments about the importance of taking public opinion into consideration and references to the demands and will of the man in the street are frequently used in order to conceal the fact that despite the increased influence of the masses, the internal and external policies of the capitalist states continue to be shaped by the ruling bourgeoisie and its political representatives. Nonetheless, the imperialist governments are finding that they have to give more and more consideration to this new socio-political factor. This is seen in their efforts to mould public opinion and in their manoeuvres and concessions when the people's resistance to imperialist policy stiffens.
_-_-_^^*^^ Walter Lippmann, The Public Philosophy, Boston, 1955, p. 20.
^^**^^ Sisley Huddleston, Popular Diplomacy and War, Rindge, New Hampshire, 1954, pp. 145, 147.
^^***^^ John S. Gibson, op. cit., p. 14.
50 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOVWhile recognising the people's enhanced role in international affairs, the bourgeois theorists, naturally, seek to explain the origin of this factor.
One of the most widespread explanations is that as a result of the ``distortion'' of democracy the ``crowd'' arbitrarily assumes the right to interfere in affairs of state and tries to use democratic freedoms to influence diplomatic decisions. This, in particular, is the view offered by Walter Lippmann. It is shared by others with the difference that they abstain from negative assessments. Above we have quoted the pertinent passages from the Mansfield-Sprague Committee report and from a book by Gordon, Falk and Hodapp, who attribute the heightened influence of public opinion chiefly to the spread of "democratic ideas'', the extension of suffrage, and so on.
The existence of even formal, curtailed democratic rights and freedoms unquestionably facilitates political activity by the working people and by their parties and organisations, and enables them to exert a more effective influence on state policy (including external policy) and to make it difficult for the monopoly bourgeoisie to carry out its plans. That is why the all-out assault on the democratic rights and freedoms of the people and the intensification of reaction in internal policy are an inalienable element of the preparations of the imperialist states for war and aggression.
But the attempts to attribute the increased role of public opinion in international relations solely to the existence of bourgeois-democratic freedoms are untenable whatever the significance of suffrage and other democratic civil rights under capitalism.
The growth of the people's role in politics is not preceded by democracy. On the contrary, the democratic rights and freedoms enjoyed by the masses sooner depend on this role. These rights and freedoms have never been presented to the working people. They have been won by them as a result of a persevering struggle. It was due to this struggle that some of the institutions and principles of the bourgeois state owe much of their vaunted ``democracy''.
Following the revolution of the 18th century, many of the leaders of the French revolutionary bourgeoisie, to whom bourgeois democracy owes a great deal, were not 51 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. I. INTENSIFICATION OF THE IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLE out to establish a republic and had no objection to the preservation of the monarchy as a form of administration, which had for ages reliably protected the basic interests of the propertied classes. It was only under the influence of the people, including the emerging proletariat, that the French bourgeoisie, as Lenin pointed out, "in its entirety was recast into a republican bourgeoisie, retrained, re-educated, reborn"^^*^^ and evolved forms of administration which became the model for bourgeois democracy.
All the more is this true of the modern imperialist bourgeoisie, which has long ago rid itself of any illusion that the social practices benefiting it are immutable and incontestable. It has realised that it can retain power only insofar as it is able to hold the oppressed majority of society in leash. In this situation even any bourgeois-democratic institution remains the object of a continuous struggle. Had it not been for the resistance of the proletariat and other working people, there is no telling what would have remained of suffrage, of formal civil liberties and other attributes of bourgeois democracy, to which the increased socio-political role of the people is ascribed. Thus, it was not bourgeois democracy that enabled the people to influence politics; on the contrary, bourgeois-democratic principles and institutions developed as a result of the people's increased role and activity in social life.
In explaining the reasons for the people's influence on foreign policy, other bourgeois researchers point not to the ``distortion'' of democracy but to the ``distortion'' of the nature of modern diplomacy. Typical in this respect are the arguments of Sisley Huddleston, who says that since the First World War the old, ``traditional'' diplomacy had been supplanted by the new, ``open'' or ``popular'' diplomacy, which, he claims, awakened in the ``crowd'' a sharpened interest in foreign policy.
Put in this way, this argument has many flaws. First and foremost, it is necessary to analyse what is meant by ``open'', ``popular'' diplomacy where the foreign policy of bourgeois countries is concerned. As can be seen from Huddleston's book as well, diplomacy finds itself compelled to appeal to public opinion, to the people, i.e., to enter _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 17, p. 413.
__PRINTERS_P_52_COMMENT__ 4* 52 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV actively into the ideological struggle. But in this case we again encounter the replacement of the cause (the growth of the people's role in foreign policy) by the effect (the change in the character of diplomacy, the substance of this change being that now diplomacy has to serve state policy not only in the traditional context of government-to-- government relations but also by bringing influence to bear on public opinion).One can understand why bourgeois researchers are unable to offer a tenable explanation of the reasons for the increased role played by the people in international relations. This is one of the issues in which the class interests of the modern bourgeoisie form an insuperable barrier to an objective analysis, for to show the real reasons of this phenomenon it would be necessary to go deep into an analysis of the fundamental socio-political changes linked with capitalism's decline, the upsurge of the new class (the proletariat) and the new social system (socialism), and the growth of their influence on the entire course of historical development.
These are the changes that have led to the growth of the people's role in political affairs generally and in foreign policy and international relations in particular.
One of the corner-stones of the materialist understanding of history is that the development of society is determined not by outstanding personalities but by the masses. This proposition was substantiated by the Marxist-Leninist science on society, by its analysis of the role played by the masses in all the principal spheres of social life---social production, spiritual culture and politics. Here we are interested in the role of the masses in politics.
A distinctive situation took shape in this sphere in the course of the centuries. The very existence of the exploiting system is conceivable only if politics are determined by the exploiting classes and not by the masses. But this does not signify that the Marxist proposition on the masses as the makers of history does not embrace such an important sphere of social life as politics.
First and foremost, the role played by the masses grows immeasurably in the most decisive periods of history, namely, in periods of social revolutions, when they become the prime force behind revolutionary activity which smashes the chains fettering social progress and breaks the old 53 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. I. INTENSIFICATION OF THE IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLE relations of production and the old social and state system. Small wonder Lenin called revolutions "festivals of the oppressed and the = exploited".^^*^^ No change from one socioeconomic system to another, in other words, no social progress is possible without revolution.
During the ``peaceful'', ``normal'' periods of the development of exploiting society, the masses, naturally, take no direct part in the shaping of official policy (legislation, the making of government decisions, and so on) and the ruling classes use every means to exclude them from political life. The only means of influence left to the masses during such periods is resistance to the policies of the governing classes.
The situation changes only after the socialist revolution, when the masses emerge from their status of the object of politics to become its subject. Socialism does not simply ``permit'' active historical creativity by the masses but necessarily presupposes such activity, for without it, by virtue of the scale and character of the tasks confronting society, it cannot triumph and develop = normally.^^**^^ That is why, as distinct from all the preceding social systems, even after it triumphs, socialism remains vitally interested in the maximum unfolding of the people's creative revolutionary energy, in the maximum manifestation of their decisive role in the socio-historical processes, and does not and cannot reconcile itself to any hindrances on this road, including, for example, the views and practices of the personality cult. The socialist revolution ushers in a qualitatively new stage of social development, a stage which makes it possible and urgent to awaken the creative energy of the masses and at which, as Lenin put it, history is "independently made by millions and tens of millions of people".^^***^^
In capitalist society the people's role in political life depends primarily on their possibilities of protecting their interests, on their resistance to the official policy of the ruling bourgeoisie. In other words, it depends on the intensity of the working people's class struggle.
_-_-_^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 9, p. 113.
^^**^^ Lenin pointed out that "socialism can be built only when ten and a hundred times more people themselves begin to build the state and the new economic life" (Collected Works, Vol. 28, p. 403).
^^***^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 27, p. 162.
54 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOVIn our epoch these possibilities are much greater than under any preceding social system, for the class struggle has been joined by the proletariat, the most politicallyconscious, organised and revolutionary class in history, a class that has its own political parties, professional and other organisations, and a scientific programme with a rich arsenal of forms, methods and tactical means of struggle.
This applies particularly to the contemporary period of capitalist development, to the epoch of its deepening general crisis, which is characterised by a radical shift in the balance of class forces in the world. The growth of the people's socio-political role springing from the basic features of our epoch---the victory of the working people in a number of countries, the world socialist system's conversion into the decisive factor of world development, the upswing of the class struggle of the proletariat in the capitalist countries and of the democratic movements, and the independent historical activity of the millions who had been subjected to colonial oppression---has not only changed the political picture of the world but predicated the immense acceleration of the rate of social development.
Only a century ago, Lenin wrote in 1918, "history was made by handfuls of nobles and a sprinkling of bourgeois intellectuals, while the worker and peasant masses were somnolent and dormant. As a result history at that time could only crawl along at a terribly slow = pace".^^*^^ In 1922, noting that measured in terms of struggle and movement the past decade had been equal to a century, Lenin wrote that the "basic reason for this tremendous acceleration of world development is that new hundreds of millions of people have been drawn into it''. Most of the world's population, he said, "has now awakened and has begun a movement which even the `mightiest' powers cannot = stem".^^**^^
The fundamental socio-political changes that have taken place during the past few decades have thus predicated the growth of the working people's influence not only on internal politics but also on international relations. This creates a particularly sharp contrast in comparison with the past--- _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 27, p. 162.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 33, pp. 349, 350.
55 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. I. INTENSIFICATION OF THE IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLE not only with pre-capitalist epochs but also with the preceding periods of the history of capitalism.As a ``realm'' of professional politicians and career diplomats, foreign policy has been zealously guarded against the influence of the masses. It was studiously kept away from the public gaze and every effort was made to conceal its motive forces, including the real sources and causes of wars for which the working people, above all, had to pay a heavy price.
The first signs of change appeared only when the working class entered the arena of history. As the class struggle mounted the masses acquired steadily broader possibilities of influencing foreign policy.
These new possibilities were noted by Marx. Back in the 1860s he wrote that the crimes perpetrated by the reactionary classes in international politics "have taught the working classes the duty to master themselves the mysteries of international politics; to watch the diplomatic acts of their respective governments; to counteract them, if necessary, by all means in their = power".^^*^^
Marx saw the class struggle of the workers as the force capable of influencing the oppressors and disrupting their criminal foreign policy plans. The events of those years, particularly the struggle of the British proletariat against the plans of its national bourgeoisie to intervene in the American Civil War on the side of the Confederacy, convinced Marx of the reality of this force.
In the history of capitalism there have been other casesof the people actively influencing the decision of foreign policy problems. But for a long time all these cases were exceptions. As Lenin wrote, the "most important questions--- war, peace, diplomatic questions---are decided by a small handful of capitalists, who deceive not only the masses, but very often parliament = itself".^^**^^
In this area, too, radical changes have taken place only during the past few decades when capitalism entered the epoch of its general crisis.
In this respect the decisive role was played by the appearance on the stage of history of a fundamentally new type _-_-_
^^*^^ Marx and Engels, Selected Works in three volumes, Vol. 2, Moscow, 1969, p. 18.
^^**^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 30, p. 488.
56 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV of foreign policy and diplomacy, the foreign policy and diplomacy of the socialist countries, which not only expresses the interests and will of the masses but consciously pursues the aim of securing to the working masses the utmost influence on international relations.Moreover, of considerable significance was the fact that although the monopoly bourgeoisie had gathered all the strings of power in the capitalist countries into its own hands and gained control of the state machine, the conditions have arisen, particularly since the Second World War, giving the working masses wider possibilities of fighting for their own foreign policy interests and demands.
Lastly, the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America, who constitute the majority of mankind and had only recently been nothing more than the object of the foreign policy of the imperialist vultures, have awoken to independent state and political life. But the social conditions enabling the masses to play an active role in politics are not emerging in all the new national states. Nonetheless, the foreign policy of many of these countries is being shaped with some account of the people's aspirations and interests, in particular of their desire for peace, national independence and friendly relations with countries belonging to the socialist community.
A feature of the present epoch of mankind's transition from capitalism to socialism is that international relations are to some extent also acquiring a transitional character. These relations form an extraordinarily intricate picture of the intermingling, collision and interaction of elements of the new and the old---of capitalism and the relations among nations engendered by it, on the one hand, and socialism and the new, socialist international relations, on the other; of the traditional foreign policy of the exploiting classes and states and the foreign policy of the socialist states and of the working masses headed by the proletariat.
In addition to the real possibilities of influencing politics, the activity and the scale of the struggle of the working masses depend on the desire of the masses to resolve foreign policy problems. Even where the working masses are able to offer powerful resistance to the oppressors they understandably have recourse to such resistance only in the struggle for foreign policy demands that actually affect 57 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. I. INTENSIFICATION OF THE IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLE their vital interests. Another factor that must be taken into consideration is that in order to begin a struggle the masses must not only be objectively interested in the solution of a given foreign policy problem but they must understand that their interests are affected. There have been frequent cases in the past where the working people remained passive observers of developments only because they did not realise the significance or consequences of the given foreign policy actions of the oppressor governments.
Where these two decisive factors are concerned the epoch of the general crisis of capitalism, particularly the period following the Second World War, has brought with it vital modifications. One of these modifications is linked with the new forms and means of waging wars, notably, the development of nuclear-missile weapons of mass annihilation. The other is connected with the open diplomacy of the socialist countries.
__NOTE__ "Dialectics of Materialism" is first occurrence of sub-section title inset to left of first three lines that are shorter than the rest. __ALPHA_LVL3__ DialecticsThe ideological struggle on the international scene was frequently activated in the past during periods of war. At first glance, this may be regarded as a paradox, for if of all the methods and means of struggle for foreign policy objectives the choice falls on war it would be logical to expect other methods and means, including the methods of persuasion, to recede into the background. Why had this not happened and why, having given preference to military means, governments found themselves compelled to activate ideological, propaganda efforts in order to influence their own and other peoples? The answer to this question must be sought in the fact that of all the problems of foreign policy war has always powerfully and directly affected the vital interests of the masses. Also, of all the means of pursuing foreign policy war demands the active participation of more or less considerable masses of the population.
The changes in weapons and methods of warfare, the changes in the character and consequences of war have naturally heightened the interest of the masses in problems of foreign policy and gave them greater possibility of prevailing on this policy.
In recent years bourgeois sociologists have also begun to recognise the link between the changes in weapons and 58 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV the character of wars, on the one hand, and the ideological struggle, on the other. In particular, they refer to the appearance of nuclear weapons as one of the factors determining the increased significance of the ideological struggle in international relations.
Precisely what do they have in mind?
First, the circumstance that the appearance of weapons of mass annihilation makes an all-out thermonuclear war an unsuitable or, in any case, an ``impracticable'' means of struggle for the attainment of imperialism's basic foreign policy objective of crushing the socialist countries. Naturally, this enhances the role of other, including ideological, means of foreign policy.
In the West, it should be noted, this view became widespread not only as a result of the development of nuclear weapons and modern means of delivery. This question was not raised as long as the imperialist powers had the monopoly or, at least, considerable superiority in this sphere. The situation changed only when at the close of the 1950s and the early 1960s the Soviet Union's achievements in the production of nuclear weapons and of the means of delivering them (notably, missiles) had become obvious. That marked the beginning of the period of so-called " painful reassessment" of imperialism's military-political doctrines, when the suicidal concept of ``liberation'' and "massive retaliation" gave way to the doctrine of "flexible response''. The emphasis was shifted to a quest for political means that held out the promise of success without a direct threat of a global missile-nuclear conflict.
This was the period when the new realities in international relations began to receive recognition in Western political literature. Typical in this respect is the way this question is put by Charles H. Donnelly. "Armed force,'' he writes, "remains an important instrument of national foreign policy but, today, the danger inherent in its use has caused the world powers to turn more frequently to other means of attaining national objectives. These means include use of political or diplomatic pressure; economic measures, such as loans, grants, favourable trade arrangements, and technical co-operation; and psychological methods which include propaganda, threats, gestures of goodwill, and sometimes domestic policies intended to impress other 59 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. I. INTENSIFICATION OF THE IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLE countries."^^*^^ A concept steadily gaining ground is that weapons are ceasing to be a sword in the sense of a world war and becoming a shield for other methods of foreign policy.
In analysing the possibilities of fighting socialism in the conditions of the "nuclear deadlock'', many Western sociologists have begun to give prominence to means of ideological pressure, to foreign political propaganda. Among them are Gordon, Falk and Hodapp, who write: "... propaganda today has become an arm of diplomacy, and every modern state is vigorously engaged in the invasion of ideas. In the vacuum created by fear of atomic warfare, this war of words may therefore be the life-or-death = struggle".^^**^^ This ``vacuum'' is mentioned also by Walter Joyce, editor of the journal Printer's Ink, which may be regarded as the official mouthpiece of the American advertising business (which has lately been showing a growing interest in foreign political propaganda). In The Propaganda Gap, a book urging an all-out ideological war against communism, he writes: "Now we are approaching a political Armageddon. The military capabilities of the Communists and the Free World have, for all practical purposes, cancelled each other, simply because it would be impracticable for either side to resort to nuclear warfare.'' Hence the accent on the war of ideas, on subordinating politics to its tasks. "Unless we want to and are prepared to launch an all-out war of aggression against the Communists,'' Joyce writes, "there is not a national objective in which psychological aspects are not = predominant."^^***^^
This may be taken as recognition of some of the basic propositions of the principle of peaceful coexistence which the Communists had formulated long ago. But the Communists had enunciated this principle long before the appearance of nuclear weapons, proposing that war should be renounced and that the inevitable struggle between the two systems should be confined to ideological propaganda _-_-_
^^*^^ "Evolution of United States Military Strategic Thought" by Charles H. Donnelly in An American Foreign Policy Reader, edited by Harry Howe Ransom, New York, 1965, p. 143.
^^**^^ G. Gordon, I. Falk, W. Hodapp, op. cit., pp.~28--29.
^^***^^ Walter Joyce, The Propaganda Gap, New York, pp. 28--29, 3.
60 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV and economic competition. Progress in military techniques and the development of unprecedentedly destructive means of mass annihilation have compelled even some of the most bitter enemies of communism to recognise the expediency of these proposals. It is another matter that these concessions to the demands of life are very small and ambiguous, owing, among other things, to the imperialists' view of the nature of the war of ideas and the methods employed by them.The consequences of the changes in weapons and in the nature of warfare are not, however, confined to the fact that the imperialist powers have found themselves compelled to pay more attention than before to non-military means of fighting socialism. These changes have a direct bearing on the question of the people's influence on foreign policy---the problem that interests us.
Before analysing this problem we must specify some questions concerning the method of examining it.
In recent years, some people calling themselves Marxists have sought to question the validity of the problem of the influence of new types of weapons on political relations. These people, Mao Tse-tung and his associates among them, went against the co-ordinated conclusions of the Communist parties regarding the political consequences of modern weapons of mass annihilation. In so doing they go so far as to build their arguments on the Marxist-Leninist teaching that the masses are the makers of history.
In one of the articles with which Peking started the polemic on this issue it is stated: "We do not subscribe to the theory that nuclear weapons are all-powerful. We have never considered that nuclear weapons decide the destiny of mankind. We are deeply convinced that the masses are the decisive force of historical development, that only the masses decide mankind's historical destiny."
The words about the "theory that nuclear weapons are all-powerful" are in this case nothing more than a piece of sheer = hypocrisy.^^*^^ No Marxist has ever propounded or supported any ``theory'' of this kind. But at the moment we are _-_-_
^^*^^ All the more hypocritical in view of the priority that the Peking leaders have given to the creation of their own nuclear weapons over all the other problems confronting China. And this despite the fact that China's defence against imperialism was reliably ensured by the might of the socialist community.
61 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. I. INTENSIFICATION OF THE IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLE interested in something else: What is there of the MarxistLeninist understanding of history in the thesis that the masses are omnipotent.It is quite true that by their production activity, their indirect and direct participation in the creation of cultural values and---in certain forms and at certain stages of social development---by their political activity the masses ultimately determine the course of history. But is this grounds for drawing the conclusion that in class society only the masses decide the outcome of each political event? By no means. The fact that fundamental political affairs are directed not by the masses but by the ruling classes is the bed-rock of exploiting class society. Such was the case in the past and such, despite the increased socio-political role of the masses, is the case in the capitalist countries today. Otherwise exploitation, oppression, social injustice and predatory wars would have been impossible.
He is a poor revolutionary who fails to see this reality, who believes that the working masses can always, at any time and under any conditions, direct the course of events into any channel they desire. Lenin, it will be recalled, ridiculed the Russian Narodniks (Populists) when they advocated Utopian plans of struggle on the argument that strength was "already on the side of the working people and their ideologists, and that all that remained was to indicate the 'immediate', 'expedient', etc,, methods of using this strength''. "This is,'' Lenin underscored, "a sickening lie from beginning to = end."^^*^^
The Marxist-Leninist proposition about the masses being the real makers of history was put forwad to counter the idealist view that history was made not by the masses but by outstanding personalities---kings, military leaders, philosophers, legislators and so on. But this does not mean that the masses can achieve what they want in any situation and under any conditions.
The proposition that the masses are the makers of history in no way invalidates the fact that their activity is limited by objective possibilities, which in each concrete epoch determine the extent of their influence on politics and other social affairs.
_-_-_^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 1, p. 391.
62 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOVAs regards weapons, in class society they are not only armaments but also an important material factor of social relations. Indeed, why had the masses been for thousands of years unable to execute their will and forced to submit to the dictation of the exploiting classes? Not even the Peking theoreticians will venture to deny that this situation is rooted in the real historical conditions, which for thousands of years had made it impossible to build a society in which the power would be in the hands not of the exploiters but of the working people. The working masses were oppressed, humiliated and disinherited because for long centuries the power in society was wielded not by them but by the exploiters. This power was ensured by economic domination; by spiritual or ideological domination; and lastly, by force in the direct meaning of the word---by armed force, which had always been the foundation of state power.
But armed force does not consist solely of a superior military organisation. One of its major components is superior armaments, which the ruling class has and the masses have not. Let us recall Lenin's well-known pronouncement on this score: "In every class society, whether based on slavery, serfdom, or, as at present, on wage labour, the oppressor class is always armed. Not only the modern standing army, but even the modern militia---and even in the most democratic bourgeois republics, Switzerland, for instance--- represent the bourgeoisie armed against the proletariat. That is such an elementary truth that it is hardly necessary to dwell on = it."^^*^^
Metaphorically speaking, weapons are one of the instruments by which the exploiting minority has always compensated for its numerical weakness in face of the oppressed majority and nullified the numerical superiority of the working people.
Armaments thus play an immense socio-political role as a key instrument of class coercion, which in antagonistic society is a cardinal method of politics.
This logical link between armaments and politics was traced by the founders of Marxism-Leninism. Important in this respect is the assessment given by Marx and Engels of the invention of firearms. In Wage Labour and Capital _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 23, p. 80.
63 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. I. INTENSIFICATION OF THE IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLE Marx wrote: "With the invention of a new instrument of warfare, firearms, the whole internal organisation of the army necessarily changed; the relationships within which individuals can constitute an army and act as an army were transformed and the relations of different armies to one another also = changed."^^*^^ Dwelling on the significance of these changes Engels noted in Anti-Dnhring: "And the introduction of firearms had a revolutionising effect not only on the conduct of war itself, but also on the political relationships of domination and = subjection."^^**^^It may be asked: If this is the standpoint of the Marxists then what is the difference between their views and the views of the bourgeois sociologists who see the key to the explanation of all social and political phenomena in equipment, including military equipment? There is a difference, and it is a fundamental one.
Bourgeois sociologists see a direct and closed link between equipment and politics, ignoring the class, social relationships, which are decisive in all cases. The Marxists, on the other hand, regard new equipment only as one of the material elements of economic and political relationships, in the context of the influence which this element exercises on the condition of the given classes and on the relations between them. To illustrate the substance of this approach, let us again refer to Engels' pronouncement, in which he lays bare the impact of weapons "on the political relationships of domination and subjection".
"The procurement of powder and firearms,'' he wrote, enlarging on his proposition, "required industry and money, and both of these were in the hands of the burghers of the towns. From the outset, therefore, firearms were the weapons of the towns, and of the rising town-supported monarchy against the feudal nobility. The stone walls of the noblemen's castles, hitherto unapproachable, fell before the cannon of the burghers, and the bullets of the burghers' arquebuses pierced the armour of the knights. With the defeat of the nobility's armour-clad cavalry, the- nobility's supremacy was = broken."^^***^^
_-_-_^^*^^ Karl Marx, Wage Labour and Capital, Moscow, 1967, p. 28.
^^**^^ Frederick Engels, Anti-Diihring, Moscow, 1969, p. 200.
^^***^^ Ibid., pp. 200--01.
64 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOVThe analysis made by Marx and Engels of the consequences of the development of firearms does not, of course, give grounds for drawing direct historical analogies (the appearance of nuclear weapons did not lead to any shift of the class forces in capitalist = society.)^^*^^ But it retains all its value as a method indicating the far-reaching political and social consequences that may ensue from a seeming purely technical innovation---in the given case, the invention of a new weapon.
Moreover, in Anti-Duhring Engels analysed the substance of militarism, the child of the class relations of bourgeois society and of the policies of the ruling bourgeoisie. At the close of the 19th century militarism developed into a social phenomenon that acquired relative independence and, as Engels emphasised, its own "dialectics of evolution".
Here, too, the point of departure for an analysis consisted of the changes in armaments (the appearance of quickfiring rifles, machine-guns, new types of ordnance, and new types of warships) and in the organisation of armies ( replacement of hired, professional troops by massive armies, which, in effect, meant the arming of whole nations). In considering these changes, Engels wrote: "The army has become the main purpose of the state, and an end in itself; the people are there only to provide soldiers and feed them. Militarism dominates and is swallowing Europe. But this militarism also bears within itself the seed of its own destruction."^^**^^
In this connection, Engels noted, first, the huge growth of military spending and, second, the fact that the rivalry between states was forcing them "to resort to universal compulsory military service more and more extensively, thus in the long run making the whole people familiar with the use of arms, and therefore enabling them at a given moment to make their will prevail against the war-lords in command. And this moment will arrive as soon as the mass _-_-_
^^*^^ In the sphere of armaments the scientific and technological revolution could not but affect the alignment of political forces in the ruling circles of the imperialist countries, particularly in the USA. With this is linked, notably, the increased influence of the war-industrial complex, the so-called new technocratic \'elite, and so on.
^^**^^ Frederick Engels, op. cit., p. 204.
65 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. I. INTENSIFICATION OF THE IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLE of the people---town and country workers and peasants--- will have a will. At this point the armies of the princes become transformed into armies of the people; the machine refuses to work, and militarism collapses by the dialectics of its own = evolution."^^*^^Engels developed this idea in many of his other works. For instance, in the introduction to Marx's The Class Struggles in France, 1848 to 1850, he summed up the latest changes in military armament and organisation as follows: "The recruitment of the whole of the population able to bear arms into armies that henceforth could be counted only in millions, and the introduction of firearms, projectiles and explosives of hitherto undreamt-of ^efficacy, created a complete revolution in all warfare...by making any war other than a world war of unheard-of cruelty and absolutely incalculable outcome an = impossibility."^^**^^
This brings out the logic of that brilliant Marxist's analysis. Using the changes in armaments and in the organisation of armies as his point of departure and taking account of all the economic, social and political conditions of the society of his day, he drew significant conclusions which unquestionably helped succeeding generations of Marxists to map out the correct policy, strategy and tactics for the proletarian class struggle. In these prophetic pronouncements Engels outlined a number of fundamental principles that played & decisive role in the subsequent revolutionary battles of the working class.
He advanced the important proposition that under certain conditions the military organisation in existence since the close of the 19th century (the transition to massive armies) created the possibility of turning the army of a monarch or a bourgeois republic into a people's army, in other words, into a revolutionary army.
He foresaw the national crises that stem from world wars and, in their turn, grow into revolutionary situations.
He anticipated the basic tactical watchword of the working class vis-a-vis the war unleashed by capitalism, namely: "Turn the imperialist war into a civil war!"
_-_-_^^*^^ Ibid., pp. 204--05.
^^**^^ Marx and Engels, Selected Works, Vol. 1, Moscow, 1969. p. 194.
__PRINTERS_P_65_COMMENT__ 5 --- 0706 66 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOVLastly, he drew the prophetic conclusion about the " dialectics of militarism": by swelling militarism to gigantic proportions the capitalist system has sown the seeds of destruction not only of this bloodthirsty creation of its own but also of the social system on whose soil militarism has grown and which it is dragging into the grave after it.
Lenin enlarged on the tenets of Marx and Engels in conformity with the new level achieved by armaments and military organisation in the first quarter of the 20th century. He laid bare the social significance of these changes not only in order to add to the exposure of capitalism's antipopular nature but also in order to chart for the working class a new approach to the struggle for socialism, to the struggle against war. Wars between countries, Lenin noted, "will end only when the capitalist system ceases to exist, or when the immensity of human and financial sacrifice caused by the development of military technique, and the indignation which armaments arouse in the people, lead to the elimination of the = system".^^*^^ Nadezhda Krupskaya tells us that as early as the beginning of 1918 Lenin said that "modern technology is now helping wars to become more and more destructive. But the time will come when war will be so destructive as to be ruled out = completely".^^**^^
Borne out by the further course of history, these precepts of the founders of Marxism-Leninism preserve their full significance andjserve as a reliable method for analysing the changes that have taken place in international relations in the subsequent decades.
As regards the impact of the innovations in armaments and military organisation on the role played by the masses in international politics, the first problem that we have to consider is that of massive armies and the destiny of militarism.
Of the innovations in the military sphere, on the basis of which Engels drew his conclusions, the most important from the standpoint of historical experience was the appearance of massive armies in the principal European powers. Indeed, beginning with the last 30 years of the 19th century these became standing armies.
_-_-_^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 15, p. 193.
^^**^^ N. K. Krupskaya, O Lenine (in Russian), Moscow, 1960, pp. 40--41.
67 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. I. INTENSIFICATION OF THE IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLEWhat is the fundamental significance of this fact? First, that the bourgeoisie found it had to train and arm its class adversaries---the workers and peasants. It was no longer a professional army consisting of representatives of the ruling class (such as the medieval knights) or of declassed and bribed strata of society (such as were the mercenary armies of the monarchs) but the armed people that had to become the military mainstay of the capitalist oppressors and the weapon of their anti-popular aggressive foreign policy.
Further, the transition to massive armies made wars increasingly more destructive. The foreign political adventures of the ruling classes cost the people a steadily heavier price in blood and enormous material privation, which inevitably intensified the class hatred of the working people for their oppressors, for the warmongers.
Lastly, war, waged by massive armies, had become total war, and under certain conditions could weaken and disorganise the political rule of the capitalists, i.e., create one of the indispensable prerequisites of a revolutionary situation.
It would be hard to overestimate the significance of these factors. All operate in one direction, that is to say, they intensify the social contradictions of capitalist society, facilitate revolutionary action by the proletariat and other working people and inexorably push the masses into the struggle against militarism and the bourgeois system that has given it birth.
This theoretical conclusion, drawn by Marxist thinkers at the close of the 19th century, has been fully borne out by developments. Many of the major wars provoked during the past century by the aggressive bourgeoisie were accompanied by powerful revolutionary action on the part of the working masses headed by the proletariat. One of the consequences of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870--71 was the Paris Commune. The Russo-Japanese War ended not only with the Treaty of Portsmouth but also with the revolution of 1905--07. The First World War ended with socialist and democratic revolutions in many countries, notably with the Great October Socialist Revolution in Russia. Imperialism was punished for the Second World War by the peoples of a number of European and Asian countries shaking off __PRINTERS_P_67_COMMENT__ 5* 68 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV bourgeois rule and taking the road of socialism, and by a massive upsurge of the national liberation struggle, which quickly destroyed the main colonial empires.
We thus see a definite interdependence: where the class antagonisms of bourgeois society are aggravated, wars with the participation of massive armies end with serious upheavals in a growing number of countries and, moreover, with the destruction of the social system that gives rise to armed conflicts. Of course, this does not mean that wars are the cause of socialist = revolution.^^*^^ But many of the wars during the past century have stimulated the processes giving rise to revolutions, accelerated them and cleared the way to their victory.
The conclusion may be drawn that the above-mentioned changes in the nature of wars have made the ruling classes much more dependent on the working masses, on their will, sentiments, and attitude to the foreign policy of their governments. This has become a new real factor, which can no longer be ignored. Also of immense importance is the fact that with the appearance of massive armies the sentiments and morale of the masses have become a cardinal element of the military potential of any country. "In the final analysis, victory in any war,'' Lenin wrote, "depends on the spirit animating the masses that spill their own blood on the field of battle.... The realisation by the masses of the causes and aims of the war is of tremendous importance and ensures victory."^^**^^
_-_-_^^*^^ This must be strongly emphasised in view of the Maoists' deliberate distortion of this problem and attempts to portray war if not as the sole then as the principal cause of revolution. In fact, no causal link between the two exists. Many wars were not followed by revolutionary explosions. On the contrary, in many cases they enabled the reactionary ruling classes to suppress the revolutionary movement of the working people and drown it in a turbid flood of chauvinism and nationalism stirred up in the course of war. In this connection it is very important to stress that a revolution of the exploited is stimulated by war only when it becomes obvious to the working masses that the exploiting ruling classes are responsible for the war and its accompanying calamities and that the revolutionary party has fought consistently against war. If revolutionaries were to follow the counsels of Mao Tse-tung and provoked wars themselves this would turn the indignation of the masses against them and not against the exploiting ruling classes.
^^**^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 137.
69 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. I. INTENSIFICATION OF THE IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLEMoreover, the changes in the nature of wars have, for the first time, compelled the bourgeoisie, when starting a new adventure, to reckon with the possibility of defeat in battle and with the real prospect of revolutionary action in the rear. The attitude of the masses to war and to the foreign policy preceding it thus becomes not only a supreme military but also a major political factor on which may depend the destiny of the social system guilty of unleashing wars.
The risk linked with war has thereby increased considerably for the imperialists, for their power and privileges may be jeopardised. The changes that have taken place in armaments and military organisation in the first half of the 20th century have heightened the people's interest in foreign policy and increased their real possibilities of influencing international relations.The working people have used these possibilities time and again. Suffice it to recall their antiintervention struggle under the slogan of "Hands Off Russia'', which substantially influenced the policy of the ruling classes. Fear of possible action by the masses was one of the reasons imperialism did not dare to unleash aggression against the socialist countries immediately after the Second World War when it still had a monopoly on nuclear weapons.
The first post-war months of 1945 could not fail to reaffirm in the eyes of imperialist politicians the fact that with antifascist feeling running high throughout the world the existence of massive armies could seriously affect imperialism's political plans. In fact, at the time, the mood of the masses compelled Washington to speed up demobilisation. "We and our Western allies,'' Dean Acheson wrote, "demobilised our military forces. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that the people demobilised = themselves."^^*^^ Ordinary Americans saw no necessity not only for a large army after the victory over the Axis powers but also for compulsory military conscription. Congress rejected Harry S. Truman's energetic efforts to make it law. General George C. Marshall, who was Chief-of-Staff of the US Army, said in the autumn of 1945: "For the moment, in a widespread emotional crisis of the American people, demobilisation has become, in effect, _-_-_
^^*^^ Dean Acheson, A Democrat Looks at His Party, New York, 1955, p. 91.
70 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV disintegration, not only of the armed forces, but apparently of all conception of world = responsibility."^^*^^It goes without saying that this could not force the monopoly bourgeoisie to renounce its aggressive foreign policies. But neither could it totally ignore the changes: it had to, as in other major issues, adapt itself to the new realities of the age. First and foremost, this concerned its efforts to make careful political and ideological preparations for war through the establishment of an absolute dictatorship and through an offensive on democratic rights and freedoms, and also through intensifying the indoctrination of the public mind by means of massive internal and external political propaganda.
Moreover, a striving was evident to break the dependence into which the imperialist rulers had been forced by the need to maintain a massive army. Bourgeois politicians, military leaders and theoreticians very quickly realised the danger harboured by this need. Directly after the First World War the quest for ways of doing without massive armies and replacing them with machines served by a small professional army became one of the chief directions of the development of imperialist military thought. In this connection one can refer, say, to the "air war" doctrine of the Italian Giulio Douhet and the American General William Mitchell, or the "tank war" theories of Generals J. F. Fuller (Britain) and Heinz Guderian (Germany).
Bourgeois research in the development of armaments followed the same line of thought. The persevering, unceasing quest for ``super-weapons'', for "total weapons" was doubtlessly dictated not only by the aspiration to achieve military supremacy over the external enemy but also by the desire to have a safeguard against the ``internal'' enemy---the working masses. As the Second World War showed, the desired result was not brought about either by aircraft or tanks or other types of new conventional weapons.
An atomic bomb was used for the first time in the history of war in August 1945. The development of various types of weapons of mass annihilation went forward rapidly during the following decades. New and continuously perfected _-_-_
^^*^^ Quoted by Herman Finer in America's Destiny, New York, 1947, p. 29.
71 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. I. INTENSIFICATION OF THE IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLE means of delivering these weapons---jet aircraft and later rockets---appeared in parallel.Could it be that these were the weapons the reactionary politicians and generals had dreamed of for so long? Were they not the very means for the "push-button war" that would at last have made them invulnerable against the wrath of the peoples and turned the peoples into pawns that could be moved about the chessboard, exchanged or sacrificed in the sanguinary gambits of imperialist expansion?
Some Western political and military leaders entertained illusions of this kind. But they sobered up very quickly. This was largely due to the fact that Soviet achievements in the development of armaments had broken the US monopoly on nuclear weapons. Besides, military experts had come to the conclusion that massive armies were still necessary. But the main factor dispelling such illusions lay in the social and political consequences of the invention and development of modern weapons of mass annihilation.
It is not the purpose of this work to analyse these consequences. We are only interested in problems that have a direct bearing on the new potentialities and directions of the people's influence on international politics, and hence on the increased role of the battle of ideas in international relations.
At preceding stages the development of armaments and military organisation had made the question of war and peace and, thereby, of foreign politics, increasingly more vital to the masses and gave this question prominence in the political struggle of the working people.
It this connection Engels and then Lenin underscored the implications of the economic and political consequences of militarism. They noted, in particular, the immense growth of spending on armaments, which was threatening to throw out of gear the entire economic mechanism of even the rich powers, and the burden it was placing on the shoulders of the working people. The further course of events fully bore out their prevision.
Some idea of the material expenditures that have been consumed by wars is given by the computations of the West German engineer Bernhard Endrucks, who had devoted many years to a study of this problem in order to substantiate his plans for disarmament. He gives the following figures: 72 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV
"A total of 52,600 million dollars were spent on the preparations for the First World War. The war itself and the destruction wrought by it cost mankind 260,000 million dollars. The Second World War cost approximately 12 times as much---3,300,000 million dollars. During the first seven years after the war, 1945--52 (the last year in Endrucks' computations.---G. A.), mankind spent 777,600 million dollars on military requirements. Altogether, from 1900 to 1951 wars and the preparations for them deprived the peoples of the fantastic sum of 7,000,000 million = dollars."^^*^^
If we take Endrucks' figures as our basis we can, of course, introduce some corrections. But official figures do not differ very much from his computations. In 1968 the Economic Bureau of the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency published a review in which military expenditures in the world during the period from 1900 to 1967 were estimated at more than 4,000,000 million dollars and it was stated that "if the current level of military spending should continue, this total will be doubled in only = 20~years".^^**^^ Such are the astronomical sums being absorbed by modern militarism.
An idea of what these figures mean in terms of real values is given in an interesting computation made by the American pacifist Quaker Jerome Davis. According to his figures, the money swallowed by the Second World War would have sufficed to built a five-room house for every family in the world and thereby to solve the housing problem, which is among the most acute in all countries. Moreover, enough would have been left to build and maintain for ten years a hospital in every town of over 5,000 people and thereby solve yet another major problem, that of public = health.^^***^^
It goes without saying that questions of this kind have never worried the monopoly elite, which determines the policies of the bourgeois countries. The reason for this lies not only in the fact that it is little concerned with the moral aspect, including how world problems could be resolved on the money absorbed by war and militarism, but also in the _-_-_
^^*^^ Bernhard Endrucks, Das Ende aller Kriege. Ein Appell an die Memchheit, Munich, 1959, pp. 28--29.
^^**^^ World Military Expenditures and Related Data. Calendar Year 1966 and Summary Trends, 1962--1967, Washington, 1968, p. 2.
^^***^^ Jerome Davis, Peace, War and You, New York, 1952, p. 22.
73 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. I. INTENSIFICATION OF THE IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLE fact that quite different book-keeping rules guide the monopolies in their calculation of the efficacy of their investments: they are concerned not with the direct or indirect losses sustained by society but with the profits derived by them as a result of the military expenditures of nations, of expenditures that turn into a mammoth pump directing social wealth into the safes of the industrialists and financiers.But a situation, in which the growth of military expenditures depletes national wealth, strengthens the economic position of the ruling bourgeoisie, maintains a high level of profits and, at the same time, does not in any way threaten the stability of capitalist society could not be expected to last for ever.
The fantastic achievements of science and technology in the development of means of destruction inevitably brought with them a similarly fantastic growth of military spending. This growth could not fail to have qualitative economic consequences.
The journal US News and World Report published incisively eloquent figures to illustrate the rising cost of arms. Whereas an American aircraft carrier of World War II times cost 55 million dollars, a modern atomic-powered aircraft carrier costs 545 million dollars. Whereas a submarine of the World War II period cost 4,700,000 dollars, a nuclear submarine built in 1968 cost 200 million dollars. In the 1940s a bomber cost 218,000 dollars, while the B-52 bomber built in 1961 cost 7,900,000 dollars. The cost of a modern inter-continental ballistic missile exceeds 2,000,000 dollars.^^*^^
The expenditures on the large modern weapons systems, on which present-day armament is based, are running into incredible figures. For instance, according to American estimates, the anti-missile defence system (whose efficacy is extremely doubtful) will cost from 30,000 to 60,000 million dollars. In 1968, when the Republican Administration was installed in the USA, the War Department's projects for putting new weapons systems into operation cost approximately 100,000 million dollars.
Under the present development level of armaments one _-_-_
^^*^^ US News and World Report, February 3, 1969, p. 31.
74 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV can easily picture new systems of armaments whose creation would within a few years ruin even the richest country with the greatest economic resources. Symptoms of this danger have lately appeared in the United States economy, which has run into serious difficulties.Inflation, a growing state debt and currency difficulties characterised the US economy even during the rapid and prolonged upsurge of the 1960s. Beginning in 1970, when a cyclic crisis of overproduction set in, the existing problems were supplemented with new ones such as steadily mounting unemployment, diminishing production, decreasing corporate profits and falling prices of shares in the stock = market.^^*^^
The economic difficulties are accompanied by an aggravation of the social contradictions of American society and the emergence of a wide range of internal problems linked with poverty, the urban crisis, the condition of the Nefgo population and the growth of crime. The stresses working on the US budget and the inability to allocate funds for the solution of pressing social problems are becoming increasingly more pronounced.
Most of these difficulties have been caused by the huge spending on armaments and the war in Vietnam. They have aggravated the political situation in the United States itself as is seen by the mounting and increasingly more energetic opposition, including the massive Negro movement, the movement of the poorest sections of the white population, and the turbulent actions of young people.
In this situation even the struggle of the American working people for their direct interests---which has been and remains one of the cardinal elements of the class struggle in every capitalist country---has begun to go beyond purely economic _-_-_
^^*^^ The following data give an idea of the difficulties faced by the US economy. In 1970 the national debt of the USA reached the sum of 483,000 million as compared with 308,000 million dollars in 1960. The country's gold reserves decreased by 10,000 million dollars between 1950 and 1970. The assets of the US trade balance showed a drop, and in 1971, for the first time since 1893, it showed a deficit of over 2,000 million dollars. Between 1966 and 1970 consumer prices rose 26 per cent. In 1970 industrial output was 3 per cent lower than in 1969; and the unemployment level reached 6.2 per cent as against 3.5 per cent in 1969 (Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1971, Washington, 1972, pp. 441, 432; Economic Position of the Capitalist and Developing Countries. Survey for 1970 and the Beginning of 1971, Moscow, 1971, Russ. ed., pp. 81, 84).
75 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. I. INTENSIFICATION OF THE IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLE demands and leads to large-scale political actions, including opposition to the Government's aggressive foreign policy. A similar situation obtains in other capitalist countries whose governments have actively joined in the arms race and war preparations.But material expenditures are not the only, nor even the heaviest part of military expenses. More fearful is the tribute in blood, in lives and health, that is demanded by war and which grows continuously with the advances in armaments and military organisation. The Soviet demographer B. T. Urlanis compiled the following table to show how many lives were lost in wars in Europe during various periods of economic = development^^*^^:
Period Years Number of soldiers and officers killed (millions) Duration of the period (years) Average annual number of killed ( thousands) I. Pre-monopoly capitalism Crystallisation of the capitalist mode of production Industrial capitalism II. Imperialism 1600---99 3.3 100 33 1700---88 3.9 89 44 1789---1897 6.8 109 62 1898---1965 28^^**^^ 68 410But even these losses pale in comparison with what a nuclear war would cost in terms of human life. Such a war would threaten the physical existence of entire nations, and the losses would be measured not in tens but in hundreds of millions of lives. Besides, the radioactive ruins of the present large and small centres of production and culture would endanger the life not only of the survivors of a thermonuclear war but also of many generations of their descendants.
Modern weapons of mass annihilation have thus enormously intensified all the war-linked factors that as early as the beginning of the present century made the question of war _-_-_
^^*^^ B. T. Urlanis, Wars and Populations, Moscow, 1971, p. 223.
^^**^^ The figure for the Second World War includes the casualties suffered by non-European countries and the civilian population.
76 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV and peace, i.e., of foreign policy, so vital to the broad masses and placed this question in the centre of the basic interests and, therefore, of the struggle of the masses.The conclusion may be drawn that the revolution in armaments, which produced the modern weapons of mass annihilation, has led, to use Engels' terminology, to a new turningpoint in the entire dialectics of militarism.
First, if imperialism ventures to start a world thermonuclear war the masses will sweep it away as a system responsible for a monstrous calamity. This is recognised even by some of the most bellicose bourgeois theorists. For instance, in a book entitled On Thermonuclear War, which the American public justifiably regarded as incendiary, Herman Kahn, director of the Hudson Institute (USA), had to acknowledge as one of the most dangerous consequences of such a war the fact that there "would probably be a complete rejection of the pre-war government, and possibly the pre-war ideas and institutions as = well."^^*^^
Moreover, whereas formerly revolution was the penalty, as it were, inflicted on imperialism for the crime of war, today by the objective logic of social life, it may be a measure to avert the terrible menace overhanging mankind. This is the consequence of the development of new weapons of mass destruction in a period witnessing fundamental sociopolitical changes in the world. The prospect of imperialism paying that penalty is linked with the tremendous growth of the people's influence on socio-political life.
The desire to avert a world thermonuclear catastrophe is sufficient motivation for the most energetic mass political actions and, under certain conditions, for revolution In this respect the threat to the physical existence of whole nations creates as large if not a larger potential and a similar if not a more revolutionary situation than poverty, political oppression and national tyranny, which have hitherto roused millions of people to the revolutionary struggle.
Possibly, neither the working masses themselves nor the imperialist rulers have realised the full implications of these new elements of the contemporary political situation. But these elements are already making themselves felt if only as factors restraining the imperialists and compelling _-_-_
^^*^^ Herman Kahn, On Thermonuclear War, Princeton, 1960, p. 90.
77 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. I. INTENSIFICATION OF THE IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLE them to manoeuvre and resort to subterfuges, thereby markedly influencing the international situation.Second, the threat to mankind by the advances in armaments has set in motion new vast social forces of self-defence and self-preservation against not only the menace of a thermonuclear war bvit against all wars of aggression, against militarism and, in the long run, against imperialism's aggressive foreign policies.
The present situation in the USA is very symptomatic in this respect. As early as the beginning of the 1960s that country's ruling circles saw that by relying solely on a thermonuclear war and political blackmail with such a war as the threat they were narrowing down the possibility of using force to back up their policies. The doctrine of " massive retaliation" was replaced with the doctrine of "flexible response" providing for a ``dosed'' use of force, in particular in ``limited'' and ``local'' wars.
This was designed as a means to calm the "home front'', i.e., American public opinion, to force it to reconcile itself to Washington's aggressive policy in its modern shape and thereby give the ruling circles a free hand to pursue this policy. Vietnam became the proving ground of the new military and political doctrines.
It grew quite apparent that parallel with its inability to secure a military victory in Vietnam US imperialism had suffered a serious political setback in its own country, where a mass protest movement has unfolded.
The ``local'' and ``limited'' war in Vietnam showed millions of Americans more vividly than ever before that a situation where the ruling circles could involve the country in a perilous adventure was abnormal and impermissible, the more so in the epoch of thermonuclear weapons. The movement against the criminal aggression in Vietnam grew into something bigger, into a struggle against all manifestations of aggression, against the arms race and against the rise of the war-industrial complex and militarism.
For the first time since the Second World War the Pentagon and the war-industrial complex became the target of scathing criticism from not only Left-wing circles but also from a considerable section of Congressmen, liberals and many bourgeois press organs. A striking indication of this change of mood was the publication of a secret Pentagon 78 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV report in The New York Times and other leading American newspapers. This exposure of United States policy in Southeast Asia, despite the efforts of the Government to prevent the publication of the above-mentioned report, was doubtlessly made possible through the support of a substantial section of the country's ruling circles. On the whole, one can draw the conclusion that in the USA the opposition to militarism is now growing into a mass movement.
It the summer of 1969 Professor John K. Galbraith wrote an article for Harper's Magazine designed as a "moderate programme" of opposition to the war-industrial complex and militarism. "When I started work on this paper some months ago,'' Galbraith wrote, "I hazarded the guess that the military power was by way of provoking the same public reaction as did the Vietnam war. Now this is no longer in doubt.... What is clear is that a drastic change is occurring in public attitudes towards the military and its industrial = allies."^^*^^
The future will show, of course, how strong and effective this anti-military movement becomes and whether it will be able to shake the position of the brass hats and war industrialists who have strongly entrenched themselves in the US economic and political world. But the very fact that such changes are occurring in public attitudes may be the herald of far-reaching political and social battles in the United States, a country that has long ago become the bastion and mainstay of modern imperialism.
The revolution in armaments and methods of warfare has brought to the political scene new forces, which are opposing war and militarism with growing determination. This opposition must inevitably develop into a struggle against the social system that has given birth to militarism and war.
As is underscored in the Document adopted by the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, held in Moscow in 1969, the "main link of united action of the anti-imperialist forces remains the struggle against war for world peace, against the menace of a thermonuclear world war and mass extermination which continues to hang over = mankind".^^**^^
Thus, drastic changes are taking place in international relations, one of the mainsprings of which is the growing _-_-_
^^*^^ Harper's Magazine, June 1969, p. 32.
^^**^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, p. 31.
79 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. I. INTENSIFICATION OF THE IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLE role played by the masses due, in particular, to the fact that they have a larger stake than ever before in questions of war and peace, in questions of foreign policy. __ALPHA_LVL3__ Open Diplomacy ofThroughout the centuries foreign policy has been perhaps the most jealously guarded realm of the exploiting ruling classes and has been shrouded by them in strict secrecy. Foreign policy has been zealously concealed and fenced off from the man in the street, from the working masses. This was by no means accidental. Closely-guarded secrecy was an indispensable condition for the diplomatic activity of the exploiting ruling classes and of the governments carrying out their will, for it enabled them to make their preparations for war, shamelessly sell the real interests, freedom and independence of peoples, and conclude monstrous bargains in which the profits of a handful of oppressors were paid for with the suffering and blood of the working masses, with the ruin of entire countries and continents. In particular, this is true of imperialist diplomacy, which Lenin compared with a labyrinth artificially built by "people, classes, parties and groups who like to fish in muddy waters, or who are compelled to do = so".^^*^^
To put an end to this situation it was necessary, first and foremost, to tear off the shroud of secrecy surrounding foreign policy and help the working people to understand politics and teach them to put up an effective resistance to the foreign policy adventures of the oppressors. This was made all the more necessary because objective conditions were facilitating the endeavours of the exploiting classes to isolate the people from foreign policy. These objective conditions were: first, the fact that up to a certain point foreign policy usually affected the direct interests of the working people less than internal policy; second, in foreign policy, as distinct from internal policy, class relations come to the fore not in a direct, undisguised, form but in a mediated form that is deliberately masked by categories such as national community, national and state interests, and so forth, which usually foster stable illusions and delude the people.
_-_-_^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 27, p. 366.
80 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOVIt was only when the working class appeared on the stage of history armed with a scientific teaching, which enabled it to understand the substance of internal and foreign policy acts correctly, that it became possible to demolish the wall of secrecy, lies, illusions and prejudices that had stood between the people and the realities of international relations for such a long time. In line with Marx's precept, the foremost representatives of the organised working-class movement had long ago seen that one of their duties was to help the working class to unravel the secrets of international politics, watch the diplomatic activities of their governments and, when necessary, to oppose these activities with every possible means.
This acquired vital significance in view of the criminal wars that the imperialists were organising and starting. The exposure of the preparations for such wars and counteraction to militarist propaganda grew into a major independent task of the workers' parties, of their ideological, propaganda and political activities. The political parties of the working class were confronted with this task in its full stature when the threat of the First World War loomed large.
Extensive work was accomplished in this sphere by Lenin and the Bolshevik Party. When chauvinistic passions gripped the whole of Europe and spread to the USA, the Bolshevik Party's attitude to the war and to imperialist foreign policy, its anti-war, anti-imperialist propaganda and its watchword that the imperialist war should be turned into a civil war gave the finest representatives of the proletariat and other working people an understanding of what was taking place and a clear-cut programme of action. Although in the situation obtaining at the time it did not prove to be possible to avert war, all this played an immense role several years later, when revolutionary upheavals began to shake one European country after another.
The working-class movement will always cherish the names of Karl Liebknecht, Jean Jaures, Eugene Debs and many other ardent and dedicated fighters against militarist barbarism who tirelessly exposed imperialism's foreign policy and were not daunted by slander, repressions and police terror.
These efforts of the finest sons of the working-class movement unquestionably helped to organise mass opposition 81 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. I. INTENSIFICATION OF THE IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLE to and fetter the predatory foreign policy of imperialism. But at the time the possibilities for such propaganda were limited. As long as the working class of at least one country did not have a foreign policy and diplomacy of its own it was extremely difficult to take a hand in international affairs in order to intervene effectively in the foreign policy activities of governments. The situation underwent a fundamental change with the appearance of the first socialist state, which moulded the new, socialist diplomacy.
The key role in working out its underlying principles was played by Lenin. One of these principles was that the socialist state had the mission of turning government-- to-government relations, to which the relations between countries had hitherto been reduced, into genuinely international relations.
This was by no means a ``tactic'' prompted by the perilous position in which the Soviet Republic, surrounded on all sides by enemies, found itself. It was a matter of a principle, which subsequently became the guideline of the foreign policy and diplomacy of the first socialist state. Thus, this principle was not accidentally proclaimed in Lenin's Decree on Peace, the first foreign policy document of the socialist state. "We do not want any secrets,'' Lenin said in closing the debate on this decree at the Second All-Russia Congress of Soviets. "We want a Government to be always under the supervision of the public opinion of its = country."^^*^^
In this first foreign policy act the Soviet Government outlined a programme of steps designed to make it easier for the people, for the working masses, to intervene in foreign policy, which had hitherto been out of bounds to them. In the Decree on Peace it is stated: "The Government abolishes secret diplomacy, and, for its part, announces its firm intention to conduct all negotiations quite openly in full view of the whole people. It will proceed immediately with the full publication of the secret = treaties."^^**^^
The publication of the secret treaties laid bare the dirty machinations that had led to the First World War, which the governments of all the belligerent countries had portrayed as a just, defensive war. To a huge extent this historic _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 26, p. 254,
^^**^^ Ibid., p.. 250.
82 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV step of the Soviet Government stimulated the growth of anti-war sentiments and played a major role in the antiwar struggle, which a year later forced the imperialists to stop the monstrous slaughter, which had cost the peoples many millions of lives.Some time later, touching on the significance of Soviet Russia's first diplomatic steps, Lenin pointed out: "We frankly told the working people the whole truth. We exposed the secret imperialist treaties, the fruits of a policy which serves as a massive instrument of deception, and which in America today, the most advanced of the bourgeois imperialist democratic republics, is more than ever deceiving the people and leading them by the nose. When the imperialist character of the war became patent to all, the Russian Soviet Republic was the only country that completely shattered the bourgeoisie's secret foreign = policy."^^*^^
This was an invaluable contribution not only to the mass peace movement but also to the revolutionary struggle against imperialism. That is how it was assessed by Lenin. He said: "No matter how sound our conviction that a revolutionary force was being and had been created throughout Europe and that the war would not end without revolution, there were no signs at the time that a revolution had begun or was beginning. In these circumstances we could do nothing but direct our foreign policy efforts to enlightening the working people of Western Europe. This was not because we claimed to be more enlightened than they, but because so long as the bourgeoisie of a country have not been overthrown, military censorship and that fantastically bloodthirsty atmosphere which accompanies every war, particularly a reactionary one, predominate in that country.... We did everything possible for this when we annulled and published the disgraceful secret treaties which the ex-tsar had concluded with the British and French capitalists to the benefit of the Russian capitalists....
"If we now make a general survey of the results gained by the exposure of German imperialism, we shall see that it is now obvious to the working people of all countries that they were made to wage a bloody and predatory war. And at the end of this year of war the behaviour of Britain and _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 28, p. 144.
83 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. I. INTENSIFICATION OF THE IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLE America is beginning to be exposed in the same way, since the people are opening their eyes and beginning to see through the evil designs. That is all we have done, but we have done our bit. The exposure of these treaties was a blow to = imperialism.''^^*^^The emergence of open socialist diplomacy signified a rupture with the age-long diplomatic tradition established by the exploiting states. By going over to this diplomacy the Soviet Union ushered in a new phase in the history of international relations.
Its open diplomacy had world-wide repercussions and that was why it was given a hostile reception by the enemies of socialism. Soviet Russia's anti-imperialist propaganda provoked such fury in the imperialist camp that it was time and again the cause even of serious demarches, ultimatums, refusals to extend diplomatic recognition and so = on.^^**^^
But the changes that had taken place in international relations under the impact of Soviet Russia's open diplomacy proved to be irreversible. There was nothing that could stop, much less reverse, the course of events. When that became evident the imperialist powers tried to adapt themselves to these changes despite all their howls about violations of _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., pp. 151--52.
^^**^^ In one of his speeches Lenin quoted the text of a note received by the People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs, G. V. Chicherin, from the German Government in November 1918. The note protested that "Russian official authorities" were agitating "against German state institutions''. Further, it was stated that the German Government "can no longer confine itself to protests against this campaign, which is not only a violation of the said stipulations of the Treaty (the Brest Peace Treaty.--- G.A.), but a serious departure from normal international practice" (V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 28, p. 147).
The pretext that ``propaganda'' was violating diplomatic traditions and practice was used to motivate refusals to accord the Soviet Government diplomatic recognition. For example, in a letter to Samuel Gompers, then President of the American Federation of Labour, Charles E. Hughes, who was US Secretary of State at the time, wrote in this connection that the US Government had decided not to recognise the Bolshevik Government in Russia because it had repudiated the obligation "inherent in international intercourse'', including "abstention from hostile propaganda by one country in the territory of the other''. (The United States and the Soviet Union. A Report on the Controlling Factors in the Relations Between the United States and the Soviet Union, New York, 1933, p. 39.)
84 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV the ``traditions'' and ``practices'' of international intercourse.Very indicative in this light was the story behind the Wilson's notorious Fourteen Points. Today bourgeois theorists are trying to portray them as a milestone in the history of international relations, almost as the beginning of the age of "open diplomacy''. But there are many documents that shed light on how matters really stood. Among them are the memoirs of Edgar Sisson, who represented the Committee on Public Information (Creel Committee) in Russia.^^*^^
Sisson relates that soon after the October Revolution he telegraphed Washington recommending that the US President should re-state America's "anti-imperialistic war aims and democratic peace = requisites".^^**^^ This recommendation was undoubtedly made because Sisson realised that Soviet Russia's peace-loving foreign policy and her open diplomacy, which had torn the mask from the instigators of the First World War, had profoundly impressed the working masses of all countries.
Sisson's recommendation was approved and a few. days later President Wilson stated his Fourteen Points in a message to the US Congress. As a matter of fact, even without the admissions of Sisson and other authorities, the very content of that document leaves not a shadow of a doubt about its real motivations and origin. Take the point stating that the USA was determined to put an end to secret diplomacy. Or the statement that foreign troops had to be withdrawn from Russian territory and that the attitude of countries to Russia was the touchstone of their goodwill. This is irrefutable testimony of the fact that the Wilson Fourteen Points were conceived as a reply to the challenge made by revolutionary Russia's foreign policy and diplomacy. Walter Lippmann, dean of United States journalism, who had taken part in drawing up the Fourteen Points, frankly declared: "I think the Fourteen Points were an attempt---or 8 of the 14~points, to be more exact---to offset and uncommit the Allied forces from the secret treaties which had been found and _-_-_
^^*^^ Edgar Sisson, One Hundred Red Days. A Personal Chronicle of the Bolshevik Revolution, London, 1931.
^^**^^ Ibid., p. 205.
85 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. I. INTENSIFICATION OF THE IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLE published by the Bolsheviks when they seized power in the revolution of = 1917."^^*^^In face of Soviet open diplomacy Washington could do nothing but accept the challenge, thus becoming the first in the history of imperialist diplomacy to make a direct appeal to world opinion and to make, in words at least, some concessions to it.
Incidentally, these concessions aroused discontent with the Fourteen Points among the ruling elite of the Entente countries and in influential circles in the USA = itself.^^**^^
In a number of books published in the West it is acknowledged that the Wilson programme was an attempt to give a direct reply to the Leninist Decree on Peace. One of these books is by the American historian Arno J. Mayer, who writes that by including some of the propositions of the Decree on Peace and of the Soviet proposals at the Brest peace talks in his Fourteen Points "Wilson praised the Bolshevik = diplomacy".^^***^^ A bourgeois historian, Mayer in effect bears out Lenin's assessment of the Fourteen Points further by the fact that he regards the "liberal-progressive ideology" enunciated in them as an attempt to divert the working masses from the revolution.
The story behind the Wilson Fourteen Points is indicative in yet another aspect. It quickly revealed the vulnerability, the Achilles heel of the pseudo-open diplomacy adopted by the imperialist powers after socialism had appeared on the world scene. This was the discrepancy between the words and actions of the bourgeois politicians---it will be remembered that all the basic points of the Wilson programme remained only on paper: not only the points concerning Soviet Russia (the withdrawal of foreign troops and so on) but also the post-war peace generally. Small wonder that the Wilson Fourteen Points are remembered as an evasive diplomatic manoeuvre.
Beginning with the Wilson Fourteen Points this glaring discrepancy between words and deeds has always been _-_-_
^^*^^ The New York Times Magazine, September 14, 1969, Part 1, p. 136.
^^**^^ For details see The Intimate Papers of Colonel House, arranged as a narrative by Charles Seymour, London, 1926.
^^***^^ Arno J. Mayer, Political Origins of the New Diplomacy, 1917-- 1918, New Haven, 1959, p. 369.
86 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV ultimately self-destructive in the attempts of the bourgeois governments to adopt new methods of diplomacy. The enormous strength of the open diplomacy initiated by Lenin, and of the Soviet power generally, lies in the fact that its words and declarations have always been backed up with action.Was it due solely to its wording that the Decree on Peace had such a great impact on public opinion? Lenin later noted that "all over the world there had been an inordinate amount of pacifist talk, an unusual number of pacifist phrases and assurances, and even vows against war and against peace, 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."^^*^^
This was the line pursued by the Soviet Government. It renounced all of tsarism's Great-Power claims, consistently pursued a policy based on the self-determination of nations (an example being its policy towards Finland and Poland) and took effective and concrete steps (the Brest Treaty) to withdraw from the war. That was what mainly impressed public opinion and made open diplomacy something much bigger than propaganda. It was a policy which exposed the imperialists not with words but by action and roused the masses against the imperialists.
In his analysis of the sequel and significance of the Brest Treaty Lenin emphasised: "The terms of the peace treaty which we were compelled to conclude proved to be a powerful weapon of propaganda and agitation; we did more with them than any government or nation has done.... We said that we had no intention of allying ourselves with robbers and becoming robbers ourselves; no, we expected to arouse the proletariat of the enemy countries. We were jeered at and told we were preparing to arouse the German proletariat _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 386.
87 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. I. INTENSIFICATION OF THE IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLE which would strangle us while we were preparing to launch a propaganda attack. But facts have shown we were right to assume that the working people in all countries are equally hostile to = imperialism."^^*^^The same significance was acquired by other foreign policy acts of the Soviet Government which won to its side not only the proletariat but, in a number of cases, also bourgeois public opinion in countries which had experienced imperialist oppression. A striking example of this is the peace with Estonia. Here is Lenin's assessment of its significance: "What was it that enabled us to prevail over the combined forces of world imperialism in regard to Estonia, a country which had always suffered violence at the hands of the Russia of the tsars and landowners? It was our proving our ability to renounce, in all sincerity, the use of force at the appropriate moment, in order to change to a peace policy, and so win the sympathy of the bourgeois government of a small country, regardless of all the support given it by international capital.... The entire pressure of international capital was overcome in that area where our rejection of the use of force was recognised to be = sincere."^^**^^
And further: "I state that this victory is of gigantic historical significance, because it has been gained without the use of force. This victory over world imperialism is a victory that is bringing the Bolsheviks the sympathy of the whole world. This victory by no means denotes that universal peace will be concluded immediately; but it does show that we represent the peace interests of the majority of the world's population against the imperialist = warmongers."^^***^^
In this lies the substance of the open diplomacy charted by Lenin and pursued by socialism. Naturally, it does not rule out certain political secrets---in the struggle against imperialism one cannot divulge to the enemy all of one's plans, intentions and tactical moves. But it begins where the fundamental political aims of the state and the very essence of foreign policy are such that they need not be hidden from the peoples. On the contrary, knowing these aims the working masses give them not only moral support but also take an active part in their implementation.
_-_-_^^*^^ Ibid., Vol. 28, pp. 152--53.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 30, pp. 318--19.
^^***^^ Ibid., p. 323.
88 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOVThis is what makes open diplomacy a weapon by no means suitable for any policy or any social system. It is essentially a party political instrument that reliably serves solely a policy upholding the interests of the masses. Open diplomacy emerged as the only possible diplomacy of the new social system that came into being as a result of revolution, a system whose fundamental interests are shared by the masses not only of its own country but also of all the other countries in the world. This system does not conceal its foreign policy aims and actions from the masses. On the contrary, it desires to give the masses access to foreign policy and enhance their influence on international relations.
Lenin's line of orienting the foreign policy of the first socialist state on the working masses of all countries and of helping them to intervene actively and exercise an influence on international affairs underlie all subsequent Soviet diplomacy and later the diplomacy of other socialist countries.
To a considerable extent socialist diplomacy has been instrumental in strengthening the influence of the people on foreign policy and international relations.
If we examine the period preceding the Second World War we shall find that it was namely Soviet foreign policy and the USSR's consistent efforts to safeguard international security, and its exposure of the fascist policy of aggression and war and also of the Western powers' ``appeasement'' of the aggressors that helped public opinion to see the threat hanging over mankind. It was largely owing to Soviet foreign policy that the political atmosphere was created that led to the establishment of the anti-fascist coalition, which represented not an agreement "at the top" but an invincible alliance of peoples who had risen against fascist barbarism.
Soviet foreign policy helped the working people of many countries to see the real causes of the Second World War, the unseemly or criminal role played by their ruling bourgeoisie in precipitating the war, and this became one of the factors of the socio-political changes that took place in the world after the war.
In the post-war period the foreign policy of the USSR and other countries of the socialist community helped to mobilise the masses of the whole world against the preparations of the imperialists for a thermonuclear war and to 89 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. I. INTENSIFICATION OF THE IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLE launch a global peace campaign. In this light immense significance attaches to the Peace Programme and the foreign policy decisions adopted by the 24th Congress of the CPSU. The consistent implementation of these decisions has already led to major, tangible successes and helped to activate the mass struggle for peace in other countries. Socialist foreign policy has become a key factor allowing the national liberation movement to gain strength and stimulating world condemnation of colonialism.
The socialist countries' consistent exposure of imperialist aggression and of its inspirers and accomplices was unquestionably of vital significance to the struggle against the criminal US war in Indochina and remains of vital importance in opposing the imperialist intrigues in ihe Middle East.
The entire latest history of international relations shows that socialist diplomacy has been a powerful factor awakening the political awareness and activity of the masses, who are coming out more and more energetically against imperialism and reaction, for peace and international security.
__*_*_*__The new possibilities which the people now have of defending their interests as a result of the working class' emergence on the stage of history, the unparalleled growth of the people's interest in foreign policy owing to the changes that progress in armaments has introduced into the nature of warfare, and the people's considerably greater awareness of their foreign policy interests and the ways and means of fighting for them, an awareness that has been fostered largely by the open diplomacy of the socialist countries, are the principal factors that have increased the influence exercised by the masses on international relations. Following the world's division into two systems and the formation of the world socialist community, and also the downfall of imperialism's colonial system, this increased influence has largely accounted for the changes that have taken place in modern international relations.
This is strongly affecting the alignment of forces in the contemporary world, undermining the position of world capitalism and, at the same time, strengthening the might 90 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV and international influence of socialism, for the two social systems, whose collision forms the main content of the modern epoch, have different interests and different sources of strength. As was noted by Lenin: "According to the bourgeois conception, there is strength when the people go blindly to the slaughter in obedience to the imperialist governments. The bourgeoisie admit a state to be strong only when it can, by the power of the government apparatus, hurl the people wherever the bourgeois rulers want them = hurled".^^*^^ Socialism draws its strength from a diametrically opposite source. "Our idea of strength,"Lenin said, "is different. Our idea is that a state is strong when the people are politically conscious. It is strong when the people know everything, can form an opinion of everything and do everything = consciously".^^**^^ This is the basic distinction between the two systems and the reason for their different attitudes to the people's growing role in international relations and other spheres of social life.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 3. GROWTH OF THE PEOPLE'S ROLEThe changes that have taken place in international relations differently affect the interests and position of the two world systems and of the two main contending classes, strengthening one of them, the proletariat, and weakening the other, the bourgeoisie. This is correspondingly refracted in the class consciousness and policy of the modern bourgeoisie. In its socio-political views there is perhaps no other problem in which there has been such an obvious shift from democracy to political reaction. Lenin regarded this shift as the substance of imperialism.
The democratic views and ideas of the bourgeoisie when it was an historically progressive class have given way to totally different views expressing the basic fact that there has been a change in the position of the class that has degenerated from a proponent and champion of progress into a conservative force holding up social development. The purpose of these views is to substantiate an entire system of measures _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 26, p. 256.
^^**^^ Ibid.
91 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. I. INTENSIFICATION OF THE IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLE designed to limit the people's influence on social life. Their target is to slander the masses and to revive in a new aspect the concepts that had been used through the ages to justify the denial of rights to the majority of society and the unlimited power of the oppressor minority.Of course, modern anti-popular ideology cannot be founded on references to God, to the divine rights of the chosen elite, rights that had been claimed by the feudal nobility. The high priests of the modern bourgeoisie had had to construct a new argument, which they tried to find mainly in references to the nature of man. The new interpretation of this nature given by contemporary bourgeois theory is the exact opposite of the interpretation that was offered by ideologists when the bourgeoisie was a progressive = class.^^*^^ The earlier interpretation is now declared ``pre-scientific'',. naive, or simply ``Jacobinic'' heresy (this is the assessment of, among others, Walter Lippmann). In bourgeois ideology the predominant theory today is that as soon as a person becomes part of the masses, part of the ``mob'', he loses his ability to think rationally and is motivated by blind instincts and emotions, which can only be shed by outstanding personalities, by the ``\'elite''.
Gustave Le Bon, who published a number of books at the close of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, _-_-_
^^*^^ "The fundamental principle of all morality,'' said Jean-Jacques Rousseau, "is that man is a being naturally good, loving justice and order: that there is not any original perversity in the human heart, and that the first movements of nature are always right" (quoted by Walter Lippmann in The Public Philosophy, Boston, 1955, p. 74). This was the view not only of the French Enlighteners but also of the Anglo-Saxon bourgeois revolutionary democrats. For instance, Thomas Paine formulated this view as follows'in The Rights of Man: "It shows, that man, were he not corrupted by governments, is naturally the friend of man, and that human nature is not of itself vicious" ( Thomas Paine, Selections From His Writings, New York, 1937, p. 91). These primary postulates of the philosophy""^! the bourgeoisie when it was young determined the political stand of many bourgeois democrats. Thomas Jefferson, for example, said: "I am not among those who fear the people. They, and not the rich, are the dependence for continued freedom.'' Then there is the famous remark made by Abraham Lincoln to his friend Richard Oglesby: "Remember, Dick, to keep close to the people---they are always right and will mislead no one" (quoted in Political Affairs, August 1955, p. 58).
92 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV is generally regarded as the father of this = theory.^^*^^ To this day references to these works are to be found in almost every book by bourgeois scholars on the problem of the masses, "human nature" and the war of ideas. The views preached by Le Bon are now in vogue, having become a virtual craze in bourgeois sociology. At the turn of the century they were zealously propounded by German reactionary ideologists, who were destined to become the spiritual forerunners of nazism. These ideologists went so far as to identify the "human herd" with animals---``gregarious'' or " predatory".^^**^^ In the ideology of national-socialism the masses were altogether accorded the lot of an inarticulate and thoughtless instrument in the hands of the f\"uhrer.The attempts to prove the irrationality and psychological poverty of the masses have today become pivotal in imperialism's ideology and propaganda, for they unite the most diverse schools and trends of bourgeois sociological thought.
According to Arnold J. Toynbee, for example, society divides into ``creators'', who make history, and ``non-creators'', internal and external ``barbarians'', who, in the long run, destroy every = civilisation.^^***^^
The German bourgeois philosopher Karl Jaspers divides mankind into a "faceless mass" and a "spiritual aristocracy''. Martin Heidegger ascribes to the masses the socially dangerous "irrational psychology of the herd''. Gabriel Marcel, a leader of the Right wing of the French existentialists, asserts that the masses "are the degraded state of humanity".^^****^^ These are only a few haphazardly chosen examples, but they give a sufficiently clear idea of the general picture.
It goes without saying that in this age of science attempts are being made to give assertions of this kind a semblance _-_-_
^^*^^ The best known of these work? is La psychologie .des foules (Crowd Psychology), which was first published in Paris in 1895.
^^**^^ Wilhelm Jerusalem, Einleitung in die Philosophie, Vienna, Leipzig, 1919; Oswald Spengler, Der Mensch und die Technik, Munich, 1931. In Jahre der Entscheidung (Years of Decision) Spengler enlarges on his ``theory'' as follows: "Man is a beast of prey.... When I call man a beast of prey whom do I insult---the man or the beast? Whatever way you look at it a large beast of prey is a noble creation of the most perfect species, to whom the falsity of human morality emanating from weakness is not intrinsic" (Munich edition, 1933, p. 14).
^^***^^ Arnold J. Toynbee, A Study of History, London, 1962, p. 309.
^^****^^ Gabriel Marcel, Les hommes contre I'humain, Paris, 1951, p. 13.
93 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. I. INTENSIFICATION OF THE IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLE of scientific authenticity (in this respect the contemporary bourgeois theoreticians have moved far ahead of, say, Le Bon, who proclaimed his revelations with the air of a prophet, caring nothing for arguments). To this end they are trying to enlist the services of = biology,^^*^^ biochemistry^^**^^ and, above all, psychology (in particular, the theories of Freud, the behaviourists and other = schools).^^***^^A kind of ``comprehensive'' sociological theory of "mass society" has lately become widespread. It was originated by the Spanish philosopher Jose Ortega y Gasset, who proclaimed that the 20th century was the age of "the rebellion of the masses against individuality''. According to this theory, in modern society people have lost their group (class and other) ties, and this has resulted in "social atomisation''. Having lost their individuality, independence and their intolerance of injustice, people have, by virtue of their ``mass'' behaviour, become helpless before any skilful demagogue and manipulator. The American sociologist William Kornhauser explains that "mass society is a system in which there is a high availability of a population for mobilisation by = elites".^^****^^ This sort of argumentation makes it easy to whitewash the bourgeois system and its creations such as fascism. This, as a matter of fact, is exactly what _-_-_
^^*^^ The ``biological'' argument is typical of the social-Darwinians and especially of the neo-Malthusians. The American Elmer Pendell, for instance, propounds the theory of mankind's "genetical erosion'', according to which the "genetic potential" of the population is steadily diminishing as a result of the higher birth rate among the ``lower'' classes (Elmer Pendell, Population on the Loose, New York, 1951).
^^**^^ A typical example of this approach is given in the works of the well-known American biochemist Roger J. Williams, who with references to congenital differences in the functioning of the endocrine glands tries to prove that society's division into an ``elite'' and " inferior races" is natural (Roger J. Williams, Free and Unequal, Austin, 1953, p. 122).
^^***^^ According to Aldous Huxley, the ``post-Freudian'' philosopher sees that in addition to the "power to respond to reason and truth" there is "the tendency to respond to unreason and falsehood--- particularly in those cases where the falsehood evokes some enjoyable emotion, or where the appeal to unreason strikes some answering chord in the primitive, subhuman depths of our being" (Brave New World Revisited, London, 1959, pp. 49, 51--52).
^^****^^ William Kornhauser, The Politics of Mass Society, London, 1960, p. 33.
94 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV Kornhauser seeks to do, writing that "totalitarian movements are fundamentally mass movements rather than class movements''.^^*^^The "mass society" theory doubtlessly merits an independent study on account of the importance and complexity of the social phenomena that serve as its object. One of these phenomena is bourgeois society's real and actually existing problem of the alienation of the individual from politics, which for many millions of people who, for one reason or another, have not found their place in the social struggle, remains an elemental force that produces confusion and a sense of helplessness. The American authors Ernst Kris and Nathan Leites have given a fairly vivid picture of the psychological aspect of this state of the individual in a paper entitled Trends in Twentieth Century Propaganda. " Individuals in the mass societies of the twentieth century,"they write, "are to an ever increasing extent involved in public affairs; it becomes increasingly difficult to ignore them. But 'ordinary' individuals have ever less the feeling that they can understand or influence the very events upon which their life and happiness is known to depend.... The common man is usually acutely aware of the fact that the 'button' he is `pushing' belongs to an apparatus far out of the reach of any unorganised individual.
"This feeling of disparity greatly affects the common man's attitude to foreign policy. The potential proximity of total war produces situations that not only seem inherently incomprehensible, but that he, the common man, feels cannot be made comprehensible to him by his government. 'Security considerations', he infers, are the reason why the 'real dope' is kept away from him. Thus the distance between the common man and the policy maker has grown to such an extent that awe and distrust support each other.
"The common man feels impotent in a world where specialised skills control events that any moment may transform his life. That feeling of impotence bestows upon political facts something of the solidity of natural events, like weather or hurricane, that come and = go."^^**^^
_-_-_^^*^^ William Kornhauser, op. cit., p. 14.
^^**^^ Reader in Public Opinion and Communication, New York, London. 1966, pp. 271--72.
95 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. I. INTENSIFICATION OF THE IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLEA socio-psychological state of this sort is understandably fertile soil for demagogues, for the manipulation of the masses. Modern mass media provide the suitable weapon for such manipulation. Explosions of fanaticism reminiscent of fits of mass madness have often been deliberately precipitated in the past. Recall the medieval witch-hunts and pogroms and certain episodes of the Crusades. The sole difference is that media like the press, the radio, the cinema and, more recently, television have made it possible to foment such explosions on a nation-wide scale and sustain hysteria for a relatively long time, the best illustration of this being the fascist dictatorships.
Of course, these may be called extreme political situations that are by no means typical of all countries or of all [ periods of history. But the socio-psychological attitudes we are referring to, together with the attempts to utilise them for political ends, are typical in one way or another of the political life of modern bourgeois society. To a considerable extent this is the basis for the day-to-day propaganda, for the shaping of public opinion by the imperialist ``elite''. This propaganda unquestionably turns to account not only the public's insufficient information or ideological delusions but also some elements of psychological vulnerability (this sphere evidently merits a closer study by materialist psychology and social psychology).
But all this does not alter the fact that the attempts to blame human nature, the masses, for social and political calamities are untenable. The masses are people living in the real conditions of their social environment on which depends both the level of their enlightenment and information and their ability to act intelligently in defence of their cognised interests.
This also concerns the foreign policy interests of the masses, no matter how some bourgeois theorists try to repudiate their ability not only to act in accordance with these interests but also to perceive them intelligently. It is simply that the gulf between the interests of the masses and those of the ruling ``elite'' of the imperialist powers is steadily growing wider---this is precisely what is being misrepresented by the bourgeois theorists opposed to the people's intervention in politics. Some of these theorists speak quite frankly of the real motives behind their outcry.
96 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV __NOTE__ Page number error: "66" (not 96) in original.Very curious in this respect are the arguments of Sisley Huddleston. He begins his excursion into the nebulous sphere of "crowd psychology" with the words: "Vox populi, vox Dei. Was ever a greater or more dangerous falsehood uttered?"^^*^^ And he crowns it with what he believes to be the incontestable conclusion that today public intervention in foreign policy is a greater menace to mankind than the atomic bomb. This intervention, he declares, "may well be the method whereby the species known as homo sapiens will commit racial suicide and be eliminated from its reigning position".^^**^^
But here we are by no means interested in Huddleston's psychological exercises especially as he is in no way an expert in that field. Much more interesting are his examples of specific cases of public intervention in politics which, he opines, have caused damage to mankind. One of these cases, he says, was the League of Nations, whose activities "were a direct and leading cause of the Second World = War".^^***^^ He does not mean the inability of that organisation to create an effective system for curbing aggressors. He sees the root of evil in something else, namely, that under the impact of public opinion the rostrum in that organisation was given to Soviet = diplomacy.^^****^^
He regards the emphatic condemnation of the Munichmen and appeasers as another crime of public = opinion.^^*****^^ He waxes similarly indignant over post-war developments. "We continue to inquire first of all of any country whether it is anti-fascist or pro-fascist, whether it is anti-communist or procommunist is of secondary importance,'' he writes. Why, he asks, is the USSR a member of the United Nations, while Franco Spain is still = excluded?^^******^^
__NOTE__ "******" is "*)"True, far from all the adversaries of public intervention in foreign policy preach such extreme reactionary views as Huddleston. Among them are people of quite another stamp, for instance, people like Walter Lippmann (he calls _-_-_
^^*^^ Sisley Huddleston, op. cit., p. 156.
^^**^^ Ibid., pp. 252--53.
^^***^^ Ibid.,
p. 123.
^^****^^ Ibid.
^^*****^^ Ibid.,
p. 25.
^^******^^ Ibid., pp. 137--38, 139.
97 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. I. INTENSIFICATION OF THE IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLE himself a "liberal democrat''). These people ascribe different sins to public opinion. Lippmann speaks of the Munich conspiracy from a totally different angle. He argues that the responsibility for that conspiracy is borne not by the appeasers of the nazis but by public opinion which, he alleges, forced the British and French governments to come to terms with Hitler at any price. He interprets some other international events in the same spirit.Whatever his approach, Lippmann nonetheless arrives at essentially the same conclusions as Huddleston. Like Huddleston he regards the people's increased role in politics generally and in foreign policy in particular as something that has to be combated, arguing that popular influence is a hindrance to effective policy and hamstrings political leaders and governments. "Where mass opinion dominates the government,'' he writes, "there is a morbid derangement of the true functions of power. The derangement brings about the enfeeblement, verging on paralysis, of the capacity to = govern."^^*^^
In the light of these arguments the basic question is: precisely how does popular influence hamstring the freedom of action of governments?
Lippmann tries to prove that this influence hampers enlightened, flexible and subtle policy and destroys the very art of diplomacy. In this he has the support of many well-known career diplomats. Harold Nicolson, one of the veterans of that honoured profession, has aptly expressed the feelings of his colleagues, their nostalgia for the good old days. "In the days of the old diplomacy'', he wrote, "it would have been regarded as an act of unthinkable vulgarity to appeal to the common people upon any issue of international = policy."^^**^^
However, neither Lippmann, nor Nicolson, nor the other admirers of the old, traditional diplomacy found the time to prove the main thing, namely, that once the governments and career diplomats received the desired freedom of action, fenced international relations off from popular intervention, from the influence of public opinion, they would indeed revert to the enlightened and intelligent foreign policy so admired by these authors.
_-_-_^^*^^ Walter Lippmann, op. cit., p. 15.
^^**^^ Harold Nicolson, Diplomacy, London, 1942, p. 168.
98 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOVThe whole history of secret diplomacy shows that a return to these "good old days" would not augur well for the peoples, for civilisation. Not a shadow of a doubt is left on this score by the pronouncements of some particularly zealous critics of the increased public influence on foreign policy. An example of this are the writings of the West German sociologist and publicist Winfried Martini, who does not even try to make believe he fears the ``irrationalism'' or ``unreason'' of the masses. Their intervention in foreign policy does not suit him for other reasons. "In all cases'', he writes, "the masses want to settle the conflict between state interests and morality in favour of the = latter."^^*^^ In particular, they regard war "as a crime" and they generally regard as quite intolerable the "robber morals'', which, as Martini declares, may perfectly well be inherent in realistic policy and to which only the "numerically small stratum of leaders" can spiritually accommodate = themselves.^^**^^
Admissions of this sort help us to understand why the imperialist bourgeoisie regards the people's increased role in socio-political affairs as a veritable calamity.
However, the bourgeois theorists do not only condemn the people's increased influence on international relations. They also offer recipes on the ways and means of offsetting this influence. Naturally, the exact recipes largely depend on the political standing of the theorist in question and on his understanding of what has caused this increased^ public influence on politics.
We have already mentioned the imperialist concept of a "push-button war'', and the recommendations to re-- professionalise armies in order to safeguard imperialism against the threat of an armed people, of the existence of massive armies.
Many of the Western researchers writing about the masses recommend the curtailment of democratic rights and freedoms and the establishment of a "strong arm" regime.
This, in particular, is the gist of the recommendations of the "liberal democrat" Walter Lippmann, who offers as a model the practices in 18th-century England where, if the king so desired, he coud consult the parliament while _-_-_
^^*^^ Aussenpolitik, July 1954, pp. 431, 432.
^^**^^ Ibid.
99 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. I. INTENSIFICATION OF THE IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLE retaining an absolutely free hand in deciding matters of foreign policy.^^*^^ Lippmann does not, of course, suggest restoring the "divine rights" of kings. He urges something else---the further intensification of executive authority at the expense of representative institutions.Another recommendation to Western politicians is that they should return to the traditional secret diplomacy of the old days in order to deprive the people of access to foreign policy information and gradually make them lose all interest in international politics. This is precisely what was recommended, for instance, by Huddleston. "We must return to the more discreet and competent methods of professional diplomacy. This is my basic contention.... Back, then, to real = diplomacy."^^**^^
The significance of these recommendations from a diehard reactionary and undisguised apologist of the Munichmen hardly requires comment.
In all fairness it must be said that similar recommendations may be heard from more respectable authors, who belong if not to the liberal then at least to the moderate wing of bourgeois scholars.
One of them is the American historian Theodore Sands, who was associated with the US Department of State. In "Propaganda vs. Diplomacy'', an article written for the journal The Nation, he protested strongly against the situation in which "diplomacy, which once was a whispered secret, has now become the favoured subject of radio, television and newspapers; daily we are bombarded with the moves and proclamations of national = leaders".^^***^^ In fact, Sands goes so far as to deny to this diplomacy even its name. "Much of what passes today for diplomacy'', he writes, "is not diplomacy at all: it is propaganda. Yet unless the practice of proper diplomacy is protected and preserved, the means required to find future solutions of current problems will not be available.'' On the basis of this argument he recommends that the US Government should take the "initiative to force a separation of diplomacy from = propaganda".^^^^****^^^^
_-_-_^^*^^ Walter Lippmann, op. cit., p. 56.
^^**^^ Sisley Huddleston, op. cit., pp. 261, 272.
^^***^^ The Nation, May 30, 1959, p. 488.
^^****^^ Ibid.
__PRINTERS_P_99_COMMENT__ 7* 100 Emacs-File-stamp: "/home/ysverdlov/leninist.biz/en/1973/WICIR317/20051015/199.tx" __EMAIL__ webmaster@leninist.biz __OCR__ ABBYY 6 Professional (2005.10.14) __WHERE_PAGE_NUMBERS__ top __FOOTNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [*]+[)]? __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOVThe questions raised by Sands, especially as in one way or another they are dealt with by some other bourgeois theorists, merit a closer examination. In Sands' arguments there is more than simply nostalgia for the old days when foreign policy was charted by governments without any hindrance from the public. As far as may be judged from his article, Theodore Sands is worried also by the propaganda abuses that, condoned by cold war diplomacy, far from helping to settle international issues make the very possibility of such a settlement difficult.
Does this problem actually exist? Yes and no.
No, because diplomacy cannot be regarded solely as an instrument for the settlement of conflicts, and propaganda only as an instrument of fanning conflicts. Both the one and the other are instruments of foreign policy, and provided the mechanism of state functions normally they serve the objective of the given government. In some cases this objective may be the peaceful settlement of international issues, and in others, the kindling of conflicts. One can hardly believe that this is not appreciated by a person who has had to do directly with foreign policy.
Sands is sooner worried by something else, namely, that among other factors ideology is today influencing foreign policy itself. This may not be to the liking of certain career diplomats, but in an age when the main contradiction in international relations is between the two social systems things could not have been otherwise. The only consolation that one can offer the retired American diplomat is that in the past, in the clays of traditional diplomacy, there had been a surfeit of conflicts, including bloody ones, and that this diplomacy, fully "separated from propaganda'', had not only been unable to avert them but had meekly helped to precipitate them.
Nevertheless, the anxiety voiced by Sands can hardly be written off altogether as unfounded or invented. Farther in this book we shall yet deal with the complicated question of the borderline between the historically inevitable ideological struggle between the two systems, and propaganda of the cold war type. The latter is indeed not inevitable, but under certain conditions it can become not only the creation but also an additional source of international tension, 101 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. I. INTENSIFICATION OF THE IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLE particularly if diplomacy is also enlisted into the service of such propaganda.
With this is linked yet another problem---that of the contradiction that may arise between a hard and uncompromising position in ideology and the flexible approach, i.e., the realistic attitude to compromises, that may be demanded of diplomacy. The United States diplomats have evidently felt the acuteness of the problem when the cold war tension began to relax and there appeared not only the possibility but also a vital need (from the standpoint of properly understood state interests of the USA as well) for a definite normalisation of the international situation, and also when the entire ideological and psychological heritage of the cold war and MacCarthyism, with its fanatical anti-communism, intolerance and prejudices, formed a bulky obstacle to a policy of relaxation. But the substance of problems of this kind lies in the qualitative characteristics of ideologies and the war of ideas, in their conformity to reality and the genuine interests of the given country and people.
As regards the question of whether, having assumed definite ideological functions, diplomacy can serve the cause of peace, we find ourselves returning to the argument about the advantages and shortcomings of the new (open) and traditional (secret) diplomacy, which we have partially touched on in the preceding chapter.
In the case of open diplomacy, we understand it as the diplomacy of a country whose fundamental foreign policy interests and objectives do not require secrecy and can be openly proclaimed and championed before the eyes of its own and other peoples. It undoubtedly may and does employ methods facilitating the most effective conduct of its foreign policy, including behind the scenes contacts, soundings, and confidential correspondence and negotiation. But this is a diplomacy which, in addition, employs new methods that enable it to make full use of the advantages of a foreign policy that rules out secret compacts at the expense of the people's interests. Such precisely is the foreign policy and diplomacy of socialism whose foundations were laid by Lenin. It is not in anybody's power to "annul it'', even if the US Government were to follow Sands' recommendations.
In this context Sands' assertion that "Russian-style diplomacy has become more an instrument for extending 102 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV conflict than for reconciling = differences"^^*^^ can only give rise to puzzlement. Besides, even Sands himself is unable to uphold this contention with any minimally convincing examples.
It will be noted that in the West they are beginning to use the name ``open'' diplomacy for any diplomacy in which the propaganda aspect has acquired a considerable role--- including purely imperialist diplomacy. This ``publicity'' for diplomacy has been a step forced on the bourgeois powers by the far-reaching changes that have taken place in i\ nternational relations, by the increased public influence on foreign policy and by the birth of socialism with its new, really open diplomacy. But this is not open diplomacy. It is sooner a new form of the traditional, secret diplomacy, which imperialism has been unable to renounce. In anything, including politics, the truth can be concealed not only through silence but also through deliberate deceit.
Without belittling the threat that such deceit holds out to peace, one can place it on record that the necessity compelling imperialism to win public support to its foreign policy creates a certain obstacle to aggression and war. This is a new element in politics which can be regarded legitimately as an achievement of the masses, the working class and socialism. It goes without saying that all the recipes for a return to traditional diplomacy with its total disregard for public opinion are a sheer utopia.
This is evidently realised by most bourgeois scholars. And it is the point of departure of the official policy of the imperialist countries. This policy counts not on chimerical attempts to return to the old days but on adaptation to the new situation. It has to reckon with the fact that the struggle for the support or at least for the neutralisation of the masses, the struggle for public opinion, has become part and parcel of foreign policy efforts.
In the above-mentioned Mansfield-Sprague report to the US President, for instance, it is stated that in the present epoch "formal and traditional diplomacy of the predominantly government-to-government type often plays a limited role. This means that our diplomacy increasingly must understand public opinion in all countries, open and closed, old _-_-_
^^*^^ The Nation, May 30, 1959, p. 488.
103 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. I. INTENSIFICATION OF THE IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLE and new, and must give greater emphasis to this factor in the handling of conferences and negotiations, in the selection and training of members of the foreign services, and in our treatment of foreign = visitors".^^*^^ The report offers the following conclusion: "The Committee therefore believes that world opinion should be fully considered in the development of policies and programmes---diplomatic, economic and military---which have impact = abroad.^^**^^In recent years this approach has been winning broad recognition. It would be difficult to find a more or less serious work in which this standpoint is not stated, even in the examination of the semi-technical questions of diplomacy.^^***^^
An interesting point is that this subject is dealt with at some length in the memoirs of some United States ambassadors. Chester Bowles, for instance, writes: "An ambassador's job is no longer the relatively simple one of carrying out the policy of his government on a high level in the country to which he is assigned. As I see it his job is also to reach the people."^^****^^
Moreover, increasing recognition is being won by the idea that, to say nothing of major problems of the ideological struggle between the two systems, even the conduct of " dayto-day" foreign policy is no longer conceivable without influencing public opinion, without winning its support. This _-_-_
^^*^^ The Department of State Bulletin, February 6, 1961, p, 192.
^^**^^ Ibid., p. 186.
^^***^^ As an example we can refer to a volume published in the USA under the title The Secretary of State. In one of the articles, written by John S. Dickey, a former diplomat, it is underscored that "today the public's relation to our foreign affairs is a major, perhaps the major factor, in our diplomacy''. In another article, written by the well-known American diplomat Paul H. Nitze, it is stated in connection with the problem of the techniques of diplomatic negotiations: "In today's world of mass communication and mass opinion the public-opinion effect of negotiations may be more important to the participants than the agreements arrived at'' (The Secretary of State, edited by Don K. Price, New York, 1960, pp. 140, 16). Noting the present-day changes in the ""character of diplomacy the American sociologist Philip H. Coombs writes: "...they (ideas) are also shaping the relationships among nations. The resulting transformation of diplomacy has become one of the facts of our times. Diplomacy can no longer be simply a dialogue between governments" (Philip H. Coombs, The Fourth Dimension of Foreign Policy, p. 14).
^^****^^ Chester Bowles Ambassador's Report, New York, 1954, p. 19.
[104] __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV question receives considerable attention from the Professor Eugen Fischer-Baling of West Berlin in his book The Theory of Foreign Policy. It is his opinion that it is necessary "to use every means" in order to persuade public opinion that "government policy best of all serves the common = good".^^*^^ Similar views are offered by the American sociologist Kenneth W. Thompson, who considers that public support cannot be won without a "moral evaluation" of foreign policy. "No problem on the agenda of America's relations with the rest of the world'', he writes, "is more bewildering, compelling and ultimately decisive than the moral evaluation of foreign policy".^^**^^The increased public influence on foreign policy is a process which is undermining the positions of imperialism. This process is irreversible. In proportion to its realisation of this truth the imperialist bourgeoisie is intensifying its efforts to adapt itself to this process.
_-_-_^^*^^ Eugen Fischer-Baling, Theorie der auswartigen Politik, Koln, 1960, pp. 74--75,
^^**^^ K. W. Thompson, Political Realism and the Crisis of World Politics, Princeton, 1960, p. 135.
[105] __NUMERIC_LVL1__ CHAPTER II __ALPHA_LVL1__ THE CRISIS OF BOURGEOISIn international relations, too, regardless of the will and desire of its leaders and compelled by deep-rooted objective reasons, the bourgeoisie has had to give ideological battle to the rising class---the proletariat and the world socialist system created by it. We are referring to the changes linked in one way or another with the deepening crisis of the bourgeois social system and with the fact that it is becoming increasingly difficult for the imperialist powers to pursue their policies without taking the public mind and mood into account.
The general crisis of the capitalist system is also expressed by the deepening crisis of bourgeois ideology, a crisis that is seriously undermining imperialism's position in this area of struggle as well.
"The new historical epoch,'' it is stated in the Programme of the CPSU, "has brought the revolutionary world outlook of the proletariat a genuine triumph. Marxism-Leninism has gripped the minds of progressive mankind.
"Bourgeois doctrines and schools have failed in the test of history. They have been and still are unable to furnish scientific answers to the questions posed by life. The bourgeoisie is no longer in a position to put forward ideas that will induce the masses to follow it. More and more people in the capitalist countries are renouncing the bourgeois world outlook. Bourgeois ideology is experiencing a grave = crisis."^^*^^
The fact that bourgeois ideology is in the throes of a crisis does not mean Marx's postulate about the ideology of _-_-_
^^*^^ The Road to Communism, Moscow, 1961, p. 497.
106 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV the ruling class being the prevailing ideology in society has become obsolete. The doctrines of the monopoly bourgeoisie continue to predominate in capitalist society. But their influence on the masses is weakening, with the result that to maintain its spiritual supremacy the ruling bourgeoisie has to expend increasing effort and resources.The crisis of bourgeois ideology has deep internal mainsprings linked with the altered position of the capitalist class on the stage of history, with its conversion into a reactionary class and the principal force holding up social progress. Under these conditions the interests and aspirations of the majority of the population are coming into conflict with the doctrines and views predominant in capitalist society.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 1. THE MODERN BOURGEOISIE'S IDEOLOGICALIdeas are the product of people's conscious activity. At the same time they do not constitute a sphere in which the people can act freely, without restrictions. In one way or another the world of ideas has always been bound up with the world of things---with objective reality. This is the source of the acute contradiction that determines the position of the contemporary bourgeoisie in the war of ideas. On the one hand, it has never before experienced such a pressing political need for reliable means of spiritually ruling the masses, for ideas that could secure for it the support of the masses. On the other hand, its ideology bears the stamp of decline and is proving to be less and less suitable for the struggle for people's minds and hearts.
The crisis of modern bourgeois ideology expresses itself in many ways, one of them being the growing historical pessimism reflecting the position held in society by a reactionary, outworn class that has no future. The attitude of bourgeois ideology to the future is usually permeated with deep-seated pessimism, with a foreboding of destruction, with apocalyptic attitudes.
This fully applies to the bourgeois "philosophy of history'', a typical feature of which is no longer the theory of progress as enunciated by the bourgeoisie when it was young but the 107 __NOTE__ Right running header: (set-register ?R "\n\nCH. II. THE CRISIS OF BOURGEOIS IDEOLOGY\n\n") __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. II. THE CRISIS OF BOURGEOIS IDEOLOGY doctrine of social stagnation and decline or, at best, of historical cycles, according to which every civilisation is doomed to destruction, to a return to its original startingpoint of development.
This modification in the historical thinking of the bourgeoisie is now universally recognised. For evidence let us refer to the British historian Professor Edward Hallett Carr, who gives a fairly keen insight into the reasons for the pessimism of the Western "philosophy of history''; "In the nineteenth century British historians with scarcely an exception regarded the course of history as a demonstration of the principle of progress: they expressed the ideology of a society in a condition of remarkably rapid progress. History was full of meaning for British historians, so long as it seemed to be going our way; now that it has taken a wrong turning, belief in the meaning of history has become a heresy. After the First World War, Toynbee made a desperate attempt to replace a linear view of history by a cyclical theory---the characteristic ideology of a society in decline. Since Toynbee's failure, British historians have for the most part been content to throw up their hands and declare that there is no general pattern in history at = all."^^*^^ Further, Carr notes: "Nicholas I of Russia is said to have issued an order banning the word 'progress': nowadays the philosophers and historians of Western Europe, and even the United States, have come belatedly to agree with him."^^**^^
Perhaps even more striking than in historical and sociological doctrines, pessimism and the loss of faith in progress are manifested in bourgeois Utopian literature. It usually describes some terrible catastrophe that wipes out mankind, or gives a picture of a degenerate society, of a callous machine civilisation that has jettisoned all human values and created a savage political regime eclipsing even the horrors of fascism.
Small wonder that in philosophy and literary criticism this sort of literature is called ``anti-utopian''. True, among bourgeois theorists there are some who have tried to _-_-_
^^*^^ Edward Hallett Carr, What Is History?, London, 1962, p. 37.
^^**^^ Ibid., p. 106.
108 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV portray anti-utopia as a reaction to the reality of socialist society.It goes without saying that some anti-utopias are outright anti-communist concoctions. Take, for instance, George Orwell's novel 1984 or Zamyatin's = We.^^*^^ But books of this sort do not change the fact that the bourgeois antiutopia is a reaction to the spiritual crisis of the capitalist world, an expression of its lack of a future, its dismal expectations, loss of faith in progress, and sometimes an attempt at a social criticism of the bourgeois way of life in which people are becoming depersonalised adjuncts of machines, a way of life that is crushing human values and leading to the degeneration of culture and a marked decline of civilisation. This sort of society is pictured in the best-known modern Utopias, beginning with the novels of Aldous Huxley, one of the founders of this genre.
One of the best known of these books is a novel with the ironic title Brave New World that was published in 1932. But in the mid-1950s Huxley wrote another novel, Brave New World Revisited, in which he declared that all his gloomiest predictions of a society seeking to turn its members into slaves, into mental and moral degenerates incapable of the least protest and suited only for thoughtless labour were now being increasingly confirmed and would come true earlier than he had thought (formerly he said this would take several centuries). Although Huxley does not differentiate between the social forces locked in struggle in our epoch and considers that a horrible future is in store for all countries, for the entire planet, there is no doubt at all that the gloomy pictures opening before the eyes of the writer are inspired by capitalist reality. The Brave New World is above all the old, dying world of capitalism projected into the future, _-_-_
^^*^^ It is symptomatic that to many thinking people in the West, with all the anti-Soviet calumny contained in books like 1984, the disgusting processes described in them are reminiscent of capitalism. The American politician Adlai Stevenson noted that the situation in the USA at the close of the 1950s was ``something like Orwell's 1984, if you please.... 'Big Brother Is Watching You!' Informers seem to be everywhere''. Stevenson did not, of course, make this revelation from a rostrum. He mentioned it in a conversation with his sister. (Victor Lasky, Robert F. Kennedy: The Myth and the Man, New York, 1968, p. 187.)
109 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. II. THE CRISIS OF BOURGEOIS IDEOLOGY a portrayal of what the inner logic of that system's development is leading to.Modern bourgeois Utopian literature is being created by authors of different calibre. But they are united by their deep-rooted pessimism and sense of helplessness. Capitalism has nothing it can offer people, and the future it holds out to them is totally inacceptable---such, whether these authors like it or not, is the conclusion to be drawn from the contemporary philosophies and the modern Utopian literature of bourgeois society.
The stamp of a profound ideological crisis lies on every aspect of the spiritual life of modern capitalism. Instead of helping to understand reality and giving expression to the urgent tasks of social development, the ideas and doctrines of the bourgeoisie are increasingly trying to defend and justify the outworn social patterns and institutions hindering progress. In philosophy this finds expression in the fact that despite the existence of numerous trends and schools, a dominant position has been firmly seized by different variants of idealism and irrationalism ranging from subtle theories wearing the mask of a science to overtly mystical and religious doctrines.
Explaining the political implications of the attack on the mind and scientific knowledge in current spiritual life Henry M. Magid, a lecturer at the University of New York City, wrote that "the aim of philosophy is truth; the aim of society is self-preservation" and hence the need to draw a boundary for the pursuit of truth. He noted that "society in the interest of self-preservation, or well-being, or justice, may feel, and perhaps rightly, that it is necessary to limit the pursuit of knowledge because the pursuit of knowledge as the highest goal from the human perspective almost always contains the seeds of subversion from the political perspective''. On the basis of this contention he formulates the following three objectives of political philosophy.
First, "education for loyalty''. ``(The young are taken in hand before they can have achieved intellectual maturity and critical skill, and they are taught how to be loyal and what to be loyal to.'')
Second, "education for the elite or education for leadership" of those to whom the ruling class entrusts social affairs.
110 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOVAnd, third and last, "education for understanding'', i.e., to help the elite, the rulers themselves, to master the art and science of = administration.^^*^^
Symptomatic changes have occurred in bourgeois ideology's attitude to man and human nature. Ideas and theories portraying human nature as the focus of base instincts and bestial inclinations are becoming widespread. With the help of these ideas and theories bourgeois ideologists are not only trying to absolve the capitalist system of its intrinsic social vices but justifying imperialism's inherent turn towards political reaction. They contend that inasmuch as in their actions the masses are guided by destructive instincts, the task of political power is to ``curb'' man, to ``manipulate'' the masses. "Let us not try to persuade ourselves'', declared Gabriel Marcel, the French existentialist, "that it is possible to educate the masses; this is an internal contradiction. Only the individual, to be more exact, the personality, is educable. Outside that there is only place for = training."^^**^^
The crisis and ideological impoverishment of present-day bourgeois socio-political thought are frequently given the disguise of new "scientific methods" and masked through the accentuation of the applied basis in social science. But, as a rule, this is a screen for sociology's departure from the basic problems of social life to a study of problems that have nothing to do with the fundamental issues of social reorganisation. This evolution of bourgeois social thought is extremely indicative. Its origins are the sharp social criticism and substantiation of the revolutionary changes, points typical of the bourgeoisie in its youth, when it preached the doctrines of social agreement, the sovereignty of the people and the inalienable rights and liberties of man. Following the bourgeois-democratic revolutions bourgeois sociology turned towards a kind of reformism, to the charting of programmes of reforms that would ``improve'' the existing system and bring about the triumph of the ideals of these revolutions.
But even that tradition, started by Herbert Spenser and Auguste Comte, is now dying away. Bourgeois sociology is _-_-_
^^*^^ The Journal of Philosophy, Vol LII, No.~2, January 20, 1955. pp. 41, 37, 39.
^^**^^ Gabriel Marcel, op. cit., p. 13.
111 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. II. THE CRISIS OF BOURGEOIS IDEOLOGY now engaged in an open apology of reactionary policies (racist theories, geopolitics, neo-Malthusianism, and so on), while ancillary applied research is used as a means to help the capitalist state govern society. Characterising these changes, the well-known American sociologist C. Wright Mills says that "sociology has lost its reforming push; its tendencies toward fragmentary problems and scattered causation have been conservatively turned to the use of corporation, army, and = state".^^*^^The ideological crisis is seen not only in bourgeois philosophy, sociology and social thought but also in bourgeois culture. Decadence, a morbid interest in bestial instincts and forms of behaviour, violence and depravity have become the inevitable bedfellows of the ``cultural'' life of modern bourgeois society. These ugly phenomena on no account represent the general state of affairs. Among broad sections of the population there is a growing interest in real culture and art. But parallel with this, mounting efforts are being made by those who profit by the production of substitutes of culture to poison the minds of millions upon millions of people with these substitutes.
Present-day bourgeois ideology provides abundant evidence of capitalism's deadly social illness. Capitalism is being overwhelmed by fear of the future, by fear of reality, by fear of reason and by fear of man.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ Imperialism in FaceIn the political context the principal manifestation of the imperialist bourgeoisie's ideological crisis is the deepening crisis of mankind's confidence in capitalism, in all its economic and sociopolitical institutions and ideals. The most obvious evidence of this crisis is that a considerable part of mankind has broken completely with capitalism and linked its destiny with the socialist system. But that is not the only evidence.
As socialism proves its historical superiority in the great competition between the two systems, capitalism steadily loses the trust of the peoples. It has lost its attraction for the peoples who have shaken off the fetters of colonialism or are fighting for national liberation. Faced with the choice _-_-_
^^*^^ C. Wright Mills, The Sociological Imagination, New York, 1959, p. 92.
112 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV of the road of further development, these peoples do not see in capitalism an acceptable social model. Moreover, as time moves on the crisis of confidence in capitalism grows more pronounced in its own citadels, in the imperialist countries. In recent years the rate of this process has been steadily increasing. One of its most vivid manifestations is that parallel with the activation of the working-class movement in a number of countries, youth actions have been shaking the entire capitalist world.Even in ``classical'' bourgeois countries capitalism is having to hide its face, to give itself out for what it actually is not. This concerns not some individual features, the most glaring crimes of capitalism (the bourgeoisie has always taken the trouble to hide these crimes) but the social system itself.
Precisely this is the gist of the debate that has been raging for many years round the problem of the ``identification'' of the capitalist system. The substance of this debate has been quite eloquently expressed by Dan McLellan, an American missionary in Peru, whose television interview in the autumn of 1962 created a stir. "Some smart boy on Madison Avenue,'' he said, "ought to dream up another word for capitalism, because capitalism has become a dirty word all over the world."^^*^^
This is the opinion not only of an unsophisticated American missionary. In a book entitled Just Friends and Brave Enemies, in which he gave his generalised impressions of a tour of Asia and Europe, the late Senator Robert F. Kennedy likewise noted that capitalism had become "the dirty word of the Orient" in spite of all American propaganda and economic = aid.^^**^^
The fact that this has become a major problem is testified to by many other bourgeois politicians and theorists. They are particularly alarmed by the circumstance that while capitalism is being discredited, the prestige of socialism and communism, which can no longer be used as a bugbear and an invective, is steadily soaring. Here is what, for example, Strausz-Hupe, Kintner and Possony write: "If the Soviets _-_-_
^^*^^ Walter Joyce, op. cit., p. 82.
^^**^^ Robert F. Kennedy, Just Friends and Brave Enemies, New York, 1962, p. 118.
113 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. II. THE CRISIS OF BOURGEOIS IDEOLOGY are successful in convincing the bulk of the world's population that the Soviet-American confrontation is primarily a struggle between economic systems---between socialist co-- operation and capitalist exploitation---our task in the ideological conflict will be rendered more difficult. For in the underdeveloped areas an acceptance of some measure of socialism and state planning is the rule. By and large, the general concept of a free enterprise society, associated in many parts of the globe with the United States, does not command many adherents in Asia, Africa and much of Latin = America."^^*^^This idea is put in even more categorical terms by Walter Joyce, who writes that "the greatest service we may be performing for the communist cause is to promote capitalism.... The second greatest service we may be performing for them is to call them Communists. Communism may be a dirty word to us.... The Communists, however, picture it as an economic system that can be quickly attained by political = means".^^**^^
Many efforts have been made in the West to resolve this problem of ``identification'' (the best known of these attempts are the "stages of growth" theory of Walt W. Rostow, and the ``convergence'' and "affluent society" theories). But this has proved to be an incredibly difficult task, and by no means because the bourgeois theorists lack imagination. For them the biggest headache is that not only the word " capitalism" but many of capitalism's basic institutions have been discredited and can no longer be defended.
The time has gone long ago when the high priests of capitalism unanimously eulogised private ownership of the means of production, which underlies the bourgeois system. Today in a number of countries many of them have had to give if not actual then at least formal recognition to socialisation in the form of nationalisation, to agree, at least in words, that the concentration of property in the hands of a few threatens the interests of society, and in some cases to back up this agreement with legislation against the practice of monopolisation. One can understand, of course, that these acts on no account change the character of capitalism's economic system. As a rule, they only affect the form, not _-_-_
^^*^^ R. Strausz-Hupe, W. Kintner, S. Possony, op. cit., p. 267.
^^**^^ Walter Joyce, op. cit., pp. 82--83.
__PRINTERS_P_113_COMMENT__ 8 --- 0706 114 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV the substance of capitalist ownership. Nonetheless, it is a fact that capitalism is finding it increasingly difficult to defend its positions, and not only because the relations of production and the forms of ownership and appropriation intrinsic to it have come into conflict with the development of the productive forces but also because in one way or another this contradiction is being recognised by the broad masses.The same may be said of the principle of free enterprise and its socio-ethical double, the principle of bourgeois individualism. Less and less is being said of ``healthy'' natural selection, of the benefits of a society in which each looks after himself and "the devil take the hindmost'', of a society which allegedly creates the most perfect social harmony and moulds the most perfect human specimens. At the same time, it is becoming the fashion to talk of a "welfare society" that allegedly undertakes to look after everything and everybody, of the ``socialisation'' of more and more spheres of life.
The open defence of colonialism is irreversibly receding into the past, and not only because it is extremely damaging to the imperialist countries on the international scene. Even in the metropolises fewer and fewer people now believe the talk about the "white man's burden" and about the "beneficial mission" of colonial oppression. The experience of Vietnam and Algeria, Congo and the Suez, the Dominican Republic and Cuba has shown the world that this talk is only a cover for colonial wars and piracy that benefit the capitalists but cost the peoples dear in lives, high taxes and intensified political reaction.
In our epoch it is quite impossible to defend war, a classical institution of capitalism. The bourgeoisie has always been careful to withhold the truth about war from the masses, giving the defence of ``national'' interests, freedom and so on as the justification for it. But whereas formerly, by juggling with these slogans, the bourgeoisie could quite easily make the masses accept war, fan chauvinistic passions and arouse a willingness to bear sacrifice, today this is becoming increasingly difficult to do. Of course, even today war is still glorified by various diehard militarists, but this "ideological platform" can no longer be adopted officially by any imperialist country. Everi the most aggressive ruling groups are finding they have to plead they want nothing 115 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. II. THE CRISIS OF BOURGEOIS IDEOLOGY but peace. It cannot be otherwise in an epoch when a social system is assessed by its attitude to the question of war and peace.
All this is additional evidence that the capitalist system has outworn itself, that it no longer meets the requirements of social development. Naturally, it is not insusceptible to change. In order to preserve its fundamental exploiting, oppressor principles it has to adapt itself in many ways to the new realities of history, to the class struggle, and to its defeats in the competition with socialism.
This adaptation is expressed also in certain concessions to the spirit of the times, to the pressure of the class struggle. Inconceivable only two or three decades ago, these concessions embrace the economy, social and political relations, the attitude to colonies, domestic and external policy, and other spheres. But however considerable they sometimes may be, only incorrigible apologists of capitalism and politicians lacking vision can, under the impact of these concessions, harbour the illusion that capitalism has changed its nature and begun to sprout shoots of socialism. Actually, neither these concessions, much less the new labels invented by bourgeois ideologists, alter the fact that capitalism remains an exploiting social system that brings the working masses incalculable suffering.
However, what is unquestionable is that the functions of bourgeois ideology are undergoing a change in the epoch of the general crisis of capitalism. Whereas formerly its functions were, above all, to whitewash capitalism, justify the expediency of its institutions and win for it the support of the masses, today an increasingly important function is to portray capitalism as some non-capitalist system and camouflage the real substance of the existing system, of its social nature and institutions.
This reveals also the weakness of the bourgeoisie's ideological principles. As a matter of fact, the bourgeois ideologists are" faced with the insoluble problem of simultaneously defending and repudiating the ideals and institutions of capitalism, and in trying to tackle this problem they inevitably come into conflict with reality. In collisions of this kind reality always wins in the long run, while ideology, losing its link with reality, disintegrates and becomes unable to ensure a stable influence on the masses.
8* 116 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOVThis is exactly what is currently happening to the ideology of imperialism, and it is glumly acknowledged by a number of bourgeois theorists and politicians. One of them, for example Daniel Bell, writes in a book symptomatically titled The End of Ideology that "ideology, which once was a road to action, has come to be a dead = end".^^*^^ "We are,'' echoes Ronald Steel, "the last of the ideologues.... We live in a time of dying ideologies and obsolete = slogans."^^**^^
The ideological problems confronting imperialism are growing so complicated and insoluble that one frequently hears that social life should be generally ``deideologised''. This is evidence that many bourgeois leaders are aware of the difficulties involved in creating an integral and allembracing ideology capable of countering the ideals of communism. Hence the striving to avoid a direct collision between the two ideologies. And hence the talk about the " special" character of modern Western ideology, that as a " democratic" ideology, which absorbs the entire diversity of views and interests, it is not called upon to give its own comprehensive explanation of the world in opposition to communism. This is the view, for instance, of the American historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr., President John F. Kennedy's biographer (he was special adviser in the Kennedy Administration). His contention is that any integral ideology is not a vision of reality but only an "abstraction of reality" which replaces reality = itself.^^***^^
A similar view is enunciated by John H. Bunzel, author of the book Anti-Politics in America. He argues that politics has to be ``deideologised'' on the grounds that ideology distorts the "perception of political reality" because the "certitude of an ideology stands in sharp contrast to the ambiguities of democratic politics. There can be no freedom when everything is inevitable and = certain".^^****^^ Practical conclusions are drawn on these grounds by Zbigniew Brzezinski, a leading ``expert'' on East European socialist countries. _-_-_
^^*^^ Daniel Bell, The End of Ideology, Glencoe (Illinois), 1960, p. 370.
^^**^^ Ronald Steel, Pax Americana, New York, 1967, p. 27.
^^***^^ This is enlarged on by Schlesinger in the journal America, 1964, No.~96, p. 15.
^^****^^ John H. Bunzel, Anti-Politics in America, New York, 1967, pp. 126, 128.
117 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. II. THE CRISIS OF BOURGEOIS IDEOLOGY Maintaining that the United States has "traditionally been the pragmatic society, free of ideological shackles'', he warns that it "would be unfortunate" if it succumbed belatedly to = ideologisation.^^*^^Interesting in this respect is the comment of Edward R. Murrow, director of USIA, one of the United States' principal propaganda agencies, on a message of the US President: "Ours is a land of the multiple ideology. Democracy is not simple but complex. We allow, even encourage dissent. Variety is our hallmark. We have made it a national credo not to have one belief, one rationale, one guide, one dogma. We have made a veritable dogma of having no dogma."^^**^^
All these arguments are nothing more than an attempt to make a virtue out of modern capitalism's fundamental ideological weakness. But the bourgeois ideologists are themselves frequently forced to look for the reason of the West's ideological weakness, of its lack of an integral ideology, not in ``democracy'' and "spiritual freedom''. For instance, Frank J. Johnson writes: "It is said that we have no American ideology. The charge is true. We have no ideology because we have largely lost faith in the principles which made us a great nation. As a people, we have developed, individually and collectively, an inferiority complex. We are ashamed of = ourselves."^^***^^ Much could be added, of course, to this characteristic, but the point is that it completely refutes the theories we have mentioned earlier.
As regards the attempts to identify ideology with dogma, the existence of an integral ideology on no account presupposes dogmatism or an ossified world outlook. Ideology is a system of ideas expressing the world outlook of one class or another, and its understanding of aims and tasks of society. In this sense modern capitalism, too, unquestionably has an ideology even if it does not have the shape of a single, generally accepted concept. But many of capitalism's ideologists are now well aware that the capitalist class cannot openly come forward with its real programme, with its _-_-_
^^*^^ Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Implications of Change for United States Foreign Policy, Washington, 1967, p. 4.
^^**^^ The New York Times, September 8, 1963.
^^***^^ Frank J. Johnson, No Substitute for Victory, Chicago, 1962, p. 221.
118 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV real symbol of faith. Hence the ``multiplicity'' of ideology, i.e., the attempt to offer some interpretation, acceptable from the propaganda point of view, of each individual problem in isolation from the general picture of social development and political events. This most certainly remains a major weakness of modern bourgeois ideology, particularly in face of an adversary like scientific communism.Bourgeois politicians and ideologists are very much alive to this weakness, and if anybody they are the ones who know the worth of the arguments to the effect that the absence of an integral and dynamic system of ideas is almost an advantage of the West.
In this connection we can quote the pronouncements of the American author Saul K. Padover, who during the Second World War was an intelligence officer with the US Office of Strategic Services in Europe assigned to psychological warfare activities. He says that many of the USA's political setbacks were due to the fact that its policy "has been largely negative: against communism, against Sovietism, against dictatorship. But for what?" This question,.he says, remains unanswered because the USA has not given the world an "inspirational ideal or positive social programme'', i.e., something ideology is called upon to give. "And it is an axiom,'' he declares, "that you cannot beat something with nothing. In consequence, our psychological warfare, even as our foreign policy, which it reflects, suffers from intellectual and spiritual emptiness. Perforce it must continue to do so until such a time as the United States shall have formulated a positive programme for action, an ideal around which to rally = men."^^*^^
We could quote many admissions of this kind. And not only admissions. One hears of more and more appeals and concrete proposals for the ``creation'' of an ideology that would strengthen imperialism's position in the struggle for people's minds. One of these appeals was made by Robert F. = Kennedy.^^**^^ Murray Dyer, a noted American propaganda expert bluntly states that it is the task of the philosopher to _-_-_
^^*^^ Propaganda and International Relations, compiled and edited by Urban G. Whitaker Jr., San Francisco, 1962, p. 143.
^^**^^ Robert F. Kennedy, op. cit., p. 200.
119 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. II. THE CRISIS OF BOURGEOIS IDEOLOGY formulate an ideology that could compete with = communism.^^*^^ Congressman Barrat O'Hara urged looking for such an ideology in the works of the "classics of democracy" and suggested publishing these works in massive editions for dissemination in foreign countries, believing that this would help to surmount the "free world's" principal weakness in that "it has had no common or universal fund of political = doctrine".^^**^^ To achieve this aim the French Right Socialist Suzanne Labin, a notorious anti-Communist, has succeeded in setting up the Institute for Ideological = Resistance.^^***^^Can one, in this light, believe that the absence of an integral and intelligible ideology is almost a virtue of the West? No. And imperialism will not succeed in evading a comparison and collision of ideologies. As a matter of fact, not even the bourgeois leaders are seriously pinning their hopes on this. They are directing their efforts towards somehow patching the gaping rents in their ideology and making it a suitable weapon in the great battle for people's minds that has unfolded throughout the world today.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ ``Ideology''Professor Monsen has given the incisive label "export ideology" to the ideas and theories that are being thought up specially for US foreign political = propaganda.^^****^^ This, in the final analysis, is the sum total of the ideological facade that modern imperialism is showing to the masses. Although there has been plenty of hypocrisy in bourgeois society's spiritual life before, the gap between the real ideology of the ruling class, between its real symbol of faith, and the pseudo-ideology which is being offered to the man in the street as official doctrine has never been so great as today.
The interests of the monopolies lie in intensifying exploitation and political oppression, curtailing democracy and _-_-_
^^*^^ Murray Dyer, The Weapon on the Wall. Rethinking Psychological Warfare, Baltimore, 1959, p. 225.
^^**^^ Congressional Record, Vol. 106, August, 31, 1960, p. 18873.
^^***^^ Suzanne Labin, The Unrelenting War, New York, 1960, p. 43.
^^****^^ This is also noted by Herbert J. Spiro, who points out that American politicians need "an ideological underpinning, or at least an ideological facade, for their own foreign policies to make them more respectable---and, therefore, more `saleable'" (Herbert J. Spiro, World Politics: the Global System, = Homewood, Illinois, 1966, p. 299).
120 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV crushing all resistance to their reactionary and aggressive political plans. Naturally, these interests are mirrored in definite ideas of the ruling class: its views on human nature, which, as we have already noted, are not the only confirmation of our contention. The whole system of imperialism's political ideas is directed at justifying its right to rule, widening the channel for the monopoly-governed state's interference in all spheres of life and enabling it to manipulate the masses and misinform public opinion.But these ideas, in which in one way or another the monopoly bourgeoisie appears as a class "for itself'', prove to be unsuitable when, in appealing to public opinion, it tries to substantiate its right to leadership. In this respect there have been radical changes linked not only with the fact that the interests of the bourgeoisie have still further diverged from those of the other classes and social strata of capitalist society, but also with the fact that stronger ideological positions have been won by its principal adversary---the working class and world socialism, whose influence on all mankind, even though sometimes indirect, has increased.
This does not signify that in bourgeois society the majority has already been won to the ideals of Marxism-Leninism. In the capitalist countries this problem is still far from having been resolved. But it does mean that a certain system of ideas and ideals linked with the philosophy of socialism has sunk deep roots, is winning the masses and helping them to see their true interests more and more clearly. Under the impact of these ideals the masses are beginning to feel as unnatural the state of affairs where all the economic power is in the hands of a few monopolies. They are moving towards an understanding of the truth that foreign policy, notably the question of war and peace, is not the ``sacred'' prerogative of the ruling class. The respect that has been cultivated through the ages for private property and state power is steadily waning. To a very large extent this is due to communist ideology, the influence of the socialist countries and the force of their example.
These irreversible changes in the public mind are making the ideas of the imperialist bourgeoisie, in which it seeks ``self-expression'', an unsuitable weapon in the battle for people's minds, in the struggle for the masses. Hence the 121 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. II. THE CRISIS OF BOURGEOIS IDEOLOGY efforts to create an "export ideology" and hence the peculiar situation in which in the world-wide war of ideas imperialism is compelled to act under banners and slogans stolen from its class adversaries or from its bourgeois-democratic forerunners.
Precisely this is one of the foundations of the modern imperialist bourgeoisie's strategy in the ideological struggle.
Of course, when we analyse the intricate ideological processes going on in capitalist society today we must be careful not to simplify the picture. In particular, although they are not Marxist-Leninist, the more or less democratic ideas and theories current in bourgeois countries should not be regarded as demagogy, deceit or subterfuge. When we speak of the ideology of the modern bourgeoisie we mean the ideology of imperialism, of the monopoly upper crust of the capitalist class and not the entire range of ideas that determine the motley spiritual life of capitalist society.
Although socialist ideology is winning firmer positions among the working people of the capitalist countries it should be borne in mind that the mastering of socialist ideas is a long and sometimes contradictory process, in the course of which bourgeois views and prejudices are surmounted. Quite often this process goes through diverse intermediate stages, during which socialist and bourgeois ideas rub shoulders not in "peaceful coexistence" but in sharp conflict even in the minds of individuals.
Under state-monopoly capitalism contradictions break out and deepen between the ruling monopoly elite and not only the working class but also other classes and social substrata, including the bulk of the intelligentsia, the urban petty bourgeoisie and so on. From the standpoint of their objective interests most of these classes and substrata become allies of the working class. But their subjective perception of these interests very frequently lags behind, giving rise to attempts to substantiate their own special position ``outside'' the principal social forces locked in struggle. This finds expression also in their ideology, which while being non-socialist, in many ways purely bourgeois, is opposed to the reactionary ideas of the monopoly bourgeoisie.
Also expressed in the spiritual life of bourgeois society is the fact that under the impact of socialism's achievements in the peaceful competition with capitalism and of the 122 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV proletariat's class struggle the imperialist bourgeoisie is more and more frequently compelled to manoeuvre and make concessions. We do not mean that imperialism actually accepts various socialist ideas or agrees to an ideological compromise with its class adversary. This can never happen. But the political tactics of individual concessions and the efforts to heal the most obvious ulcers of the capitalist system are clearly mirrored in some ideas.
When the ruling class is forced by the class struggle of the working people to effect individual reforms it finds it difficult to preserve unchanged its official ideological doctrine. This doctrine has to be accommodated to the tactics of reform. The same may be said of the concessions in foreign policy and many other areas. Naturally, the tactics of concessions and their ideological reflection are a bone of contention among the monopoly bourgeoisie itself. It is split into groups, each of which has its own ideas. In this sense the ideological struggle rages within the ruling class as well, and is the continuation of the political struggle (including between the more moderate circles and the diehard reactionaries) in which questions of tactics, concrete policies and so on are decided.
All this must be borne in mind when we analyse the ideology and ideological strategy of modern imperialism so that we do not lapse into sectarianism and do not artificially increase the number of our enemies, and so that we can look for ways of broadening the anti-imperialist coalition. But this does not change the basic fact that the official ideological doctrine of the ruling bourgeoisie divides into an ideology for "home consumption" and an ideology for ``export''. This division can be seen very clearly when we analyse imperialism's ideological efforts in areas where its ideas come directly into collision with the ideas of socialism, with the philosophy of communism, namely, in foreign political propaganda. This is vividly shown by the fact that today imperialism is fighting for the minds of men under stolen banners.
Among them is not only the banner of peace. In their foreign policy the imperialists have long ago been concealing their true objectives and intentions and giving themselves out for champions of peace. They assert that the threat of war emanates from the socialist countries. (Efforts in this 123 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. II. THE CRISIS OF BOURGEOIS IDEOLOGY direction have been steadily mounting.) Today imperialism makes wide use of stolen slogans and ideals in its ideological campaign, its entire propaganda.
It is symptomatic that unlike socialism it is not even attempting to act under its own name, the name of capitalism (to say nothing of imperialism, although in bygone days this was not regarded as a dirty word in bourgeois society). Instead, it is using terms such as "free world" and "Western democracies''. Freedom, democracy, rights of the individual and so on are slogans borrowed from the revolutionary bourgeoisie of the 18th-19th centuries. Indeed, these slogans figured on its banners and despite the class narrowness of the bourgeoisie's contribution in bringing these ideals to life they had a profound historical significance. Today, as used by the monopoly bourgeoisie, they have lost that significance. In the epoch of imperialism the democratic heritage of the fathers of bourgeois society has been dissipated by their grandsons and great-grandsons at the fanatic fascist gatherings, in the Oswieciin and Mauthausen death camps, at the disgraceful trials staged by the reactionaries in the USA, in the secret police offices, and on the battlefields of colonial wars.
The difficulties confronting imperialist propaganda in this connection are evident to many bourgeois theorists. The American sociologist Daniel Lerner writes: "For psychological strategy a difficulty fraught with grave consequences lay in finding a suitable symbol that would give the coalition a uniform identification. Many designations--- 'democracy', 'Atlantic community', 'Western world', ' nonCommunist world', 'free world'---have been used for that coalition during the past ten years. All these designations came into conflict with the inner psychopolitical diversity, to say nothing of the distinctions in the = coalition."^^*^^
Lerner sees the untenability of the term "Atlantic community" for the coalition that includes Turkey, Pakistan, Japan, Thailand and Australia. The Asians and Africans, he says, immediately associate the term "Western world" with colonialism. The designation "non-Communist world" is inacceptable to those who are firmly determined to remain unaligned. But the most essential thing, Lerner points out, _-_-_
^^*^^ Helmut Bohn, Siegen ohne Krieg, Cologne, 1959, p. 132.
124 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV is that even the most attractive of these terms---``democracy'' and "free world"---are worthless for they are used to designate a coalition that includes Franco Spain and many brutal dictatorships in Asia and Latin = America.^^*^^No, it is not the imperialist bourgeoisie but the revolutionary working class that has become the true exponent of the ideals of freedom and democracy. The reason for this is not only that in this sphere it is the legitimate heir of all the finest achievements of the bourgeois-democratic revolutions of the past. But still more important is the fact that to the working class has fallen the historic mission of surmounting the formal character and narrowness of bourgeois democracy and of enriching the ideals of freedom and democracy with a new and deeper content. That is why imperialism, which is conscious of the attraction of these ideals, is reaching out for the slogans of freedom and democracy in an attempt to appropriate them.
Imperialist propaganda is manipulating with the slogans of freedom and democracy for one more reason: it seeks to give a new connotation to the principal conflict in the world--- the clash between the two social systems---to portray it as a struggle between Western ``freedom'' and "communist totalitarianism''. Hence its misrepresentation of the substance of the social system in the capitalist countries with the aid of countless variants of "people's" and ``democratic'' capitalism, "share democracy" and so forth. But a closer study of these variants will make it clear that here too most of the slogans and ideals are borrowed.
The aim of all these concepts and theories is to prove the ``disappearance'' chiefly of those features of the social relationships inherent in capitalism which are being surmounted by socialism, namely, the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a tiny minority of the population, anarchy of production, parasitical appropriation, the glaring injustice in the distribution of social wealth, the people's lack of confidence in their future, and egoistic individualism. If one stops to think one will see what lies behind the arguments about "share democracy'', the "levelling of wealth'', which is supposedly achieved by special forms of taxation, and " welfare society''. The ideologists of imperialism, who had openly _-_-_
^^*^^ Helmut Bohn, op, cit., p. 132.
125 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. II. THE CRISIS OF BOURGEOIS IDEOLOGY championed the right of "the most adapted" to a privileged position in society are now trying to appropriate a specific communist ideal like the building of a classless society. They are talking about ``deproletarianisation'', which they say is predicated by the growth of a "middle class" and have put forward deceptive patterns of "social stratification" in which classes disappear and only purely professional or ``functional'' distinctions remain.The stolen slogans strategy has become widespread since the mid-1950s. Within its framework attempts have been made to appropriate even the slogans of revolution. The purport of this operation was laid bare by John J. McCloy, a prominent figure in US political and military circles. In a foreword to the book Russia and America, published in 1956, he wrote: "We commonly think of the Soviet Union as the revolutionary force in the world today. In doing so we run the risk of allowing the Soviets to pre-empt the role of the symbol and inspiration for constructive change in the conditions of hundreds of millions of people throughout the world.'' Fearing this prospect, he says that "we fail to remind others that less than two centuries ago the American people helped to ignite a great revolution which is still sweeping over the earth'', and that the Communists should be labelled ``counter-revolutionaries'' who had perverted the aims of democracy.^^*^^
In the 1960s this propaganda line was used more and more frequently even in formulating the official ideological doctrine of the USA. The highest-ranking officials, beginning with the US President, missed no opportunity to speak of the USA's revolutionary past and to claim that the USA was again called on to become the "crucible of revolutionary ideas".
Influential circles in the USA were aware, of course, that the talk about ``revolution'' might evoke some misunderstanding and confusion among "loyal citizens" brought up in a spirit of hatred of that word, to say nothing of "pillars of society" of the Goldwater and Wallace type. Hence the efforts to pacify this section of ``society'' and show it that, properly speaking, no upheaval of the foundations was intended. This _-_-_
^^*^^ Henry L. Roberts, Russia and America, New York, 1956, pp. XXVII-XXVIII.
126 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV mission was evidently undertaken as early as 1961 by the journal Foreign Affairs, which devoted an article to this theme, "The Age of Revolution'', written by a certain Henry M. Wriston. "The first necessity,'' this article says, "is to rid ourselves of nervousness when 'revolution' is mentioned.... The slightest acquaintance with history makes it clear that revolutions are as old as recorded history---and as current as today's = news."^^*^^ This was backed up with long-winded arguments about the USA's revolutionary past and with quotations from the Declaration of Independence and from the Constitution of "even a state we regard as conservative, New = Hampshire".^^**^^But none of these subterfuges can help the US ruling circles to hide the fact that they are the mainstay of counterrevolution. Reminders of the "revolutionary past" cannot wash away their notoriety as the stranglers of modern revolutions, as the adversaries of the "constructive changes" mentioned by McCloy. These are not the reminders by which the peoples will judge the USA's attitude to revolution.
For them the important thing is not whether the USA has had its ``own'' revolution (the American bourgeois democracy of the 18th century has as much in common with modern US monopoly capitalism as Thomas Paine has with Barry Goldwater, or Thomas Jefferson with George Wallace) but the attitude of that country's ruling class to modern revolutions. To this history gives us the most eloquent answer. The USA was the last country to recognise the Soviet Union, which was created by the greatest of modern revolutions. The same thing has happened with regard to Washington's recognition of the actual changes that sprang from the revolutions accomplished by the people in a number of countries after the Second World War. It is not, however, a matter solely of diplomatic recognition. US imperialism was active in the armed intervention in Soviet Russia. It inspired subversion against all the socialist revolutions without exception, and to this day its political, economic and ideological line is _-_-_
^^*^^ Foreign Affairs, July 1961, p. 536. The American historian Robert R. Palmer has gone so far as to try to classify revolutions, dividing them into ``moderate'' (and meriting approval) and "massive explosions" (meriting condemnation) (Robert R. Palmer, The Age of the Democratic Revolution. The Challenge, Princeton, 1959, p. 20.
^^**^^ Ibid., p. 536.
127 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. II. THE CRISIS OF BOURGEOIS IDEOLOGY hostile to them. US imperialism tried to crush the Cuban revolution by military force. It organised the shameful counter-revolutionary war in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.Similarly indicative is the attitude of US imperialism to the national liberation revolutions. It is openly seeking to throttle these revolutions in Latin America, Southeast Asia and other parts of the world. In other areas it operates more subtly, especially with regard to revolutions against the rule of its imperialist rivals. The very fact that for years it has supported political figures like Chiang Kai-shek, Ngo Dinh Diem, Syngman Rhee and Batista, and other Asian and Latin American dictators speaks for itself.
This is all quite natural because US imperialism's counterrevolutionary stand springs not simply from somebody's evil intentions or mistakes but from the objective nature of the modern revolutions. These are socialist and anti-imperialist revolutions towards which, on account of its social nature and political interests, the ruling class of the largest and most powerful imperialist country can show nothing but the most savage hatred.
It is quite another matter that this line of action adopted by USftimperialism as a result of the role of world policeman that it had assumed after the Second World War, a line that has time and again led to armed intervention and bloody wars with the USA's direct participation, is today becoming increasingly the target of bitter criticism not only from world opinion but also from opinion in the USA itself. Under pressure of this criticism and of the objective realities of the modern world, misgivings over this policy are today beginning to be voiced also by some sections of the US ruling circles. To some extent this is influencing government policy and giving rise to steps that in fact signify a certain recognition of these realities.
The untenability of the attempts of the US imperialists to pose as ``revolutionaries'' is so obvious that they have evoked many sceptical comments in the West as well.
Professor Bernard Lavergne of France, for instance, writes: "In the same way as at the close of the 18th and throughout the 19th century the French revolution was the overshadowing event in the political and economic spheres, the Soviet revolution of 1917 has been and remains, whether one likes 128 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV it or not, the main centre of attraction for human societies throughout the 20th = century."^^*^^
Similar comments on the subterfuges of US propaganda have been made also by some uncompromisingly conservative bourgeois scholars. One of them is the English historian Arnold T. Toynbee, who in 1962 published a work entitled America and the World Revolution. Toynbee's political sympathies are quite obvious. He regards revolution as an abstract category and treats as such all the major social upheavals beginning from the 13th century. But there is no doubt in his mind that fundamental changes have taken place in our century in the alignment of revolutionary and counterrevolutionary forces, and he assesses these changes correctly.
In spite of his wholehearted sympathy for the USA (he speaks of it in his foreword), he comes to the conclusion that "America is today the leader of the world-wide anti-- revolutionary movement in defence of vested = interests".^^**^^ "I am maintaining,'' Toynbee continues, "that, since 1917, America has reversed her role in the world. She has become the arch-conservative power instead of the arch-- revolutionary one. Stranger still, she has made a present of her glorious discarded role to the country which was the arch-- conservative power in the nineteenth century, the country which, since 1946, has been regarded by America as being America's Enemy Number One. America has presented her historic revolutionary role to = Russia."^^***^^ Nothing can stop the revolution, "not even the American hands, that first set it rolling".^^****^^
This criticism of even a well-wisher of the USA as Toynbee is evidence that with its talk about revolution US propaganda is treading on thin ice. But it is not because the situation is favourable to it that Washington has decided to fight the ideological war with stolen banners. This is further proof of imperialism's ideological and moral impoverishment, which compelled it to borrow ideological clothes. No borrowed garment has ever fitted.
_-_-_^^*^^ Bernard Lavergne, Pourquoi le conflit Occident-Union Sovietique, Paris, 1962, p. 55.
^^**^^ Arnold T. Toynbee, America and the World Revolution, London, 1962, p. 16.
^^***^^ Ibid., p. 102.
^^****^^ Ibid., p. 74.
129 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. II. THE CRISIS OF BOURGEOIS IDEOLOGYThus, in the present world-wide war of ideas the forces of socialism, peace and progress face an adversary who is wearing a mask and tries to use an ideological weapon that is alien to him. Naturally, this makes the ideological struggle more complicated and creates the danger that some sections of world opinion will be muddled and deceived by imperialist propaganda. But a closer look will show that this contains the seeds of imperialism's utter defeat. The ideals of peace, of a just social system, of freedom and democracy and of the revolutionary changes propounded by socialism are winning people's minds, while imperialism has nothing it can offer as a substitute. That is why it has been forced to shift the weight of its ideological struggle to the argument: Which of the two systems champions and represents these ideals?
The fact that imperialism has had to retreat to this area is a signal triumph of the anti-imperialist forces and it cannot help but have political repercussions. It is not only that this feature of imperialism's ideological propaganda makes the imperialists more vulnerable and in some measure fetters the monopolies in both internal and external policy. Equally important is that the outcome of the war of ideas is being increasingly decided by the competition between the two systems, a competition in which the determining role is played not so much by words, by the skill of propagandists, as by deeds, by tangible achievements, by the contribution made towards the implementation of ideals that have won the minds of mankind. This means that the socialist countries have a greater possibility of influencing the course of world events through their practical achievements in the building of the new society and through their policies.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 2. ANTI-COMMUNISM, A WEAPON OF THE DOOMED __ALPHA_LVL3__ [introduction.]The imperialist bourgeoisie is seeing with growing clarity that a direct confrontation between the two ideologies is spelling out its defeat. Hence the shift from an ideological defence of its social system, of its principles and institutions, to anti-communism.
As a policy and as an ideology, anti-communism is not something new. Back in 1848 Marx and Engels wrote that __PRINTERS_P_129_COMMENT__ 9 --- 0706 130 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV "all the powers of Old Europe... Pope and Czar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies" had united to attack = communism.^^*^^ The stronger communism grew the more forces and means were thrown against it by the old world.
But the anti-communist campaign has reached unprecedented proportions today. "The chief ideological and political weapon of imperialism,'' states the Programme of the CPSU, "is anti-communism, which consists mainly in slandering the socialist system and distorting the policy and objectives of the Communist parties and Marxist-Leninist theory. Under the false slogans of anti-communism, imperialist reaction persecutes and hounds all that is progressive and revolutionary; it seeks to split the ranks of the working people and to paralyse the proletarians' will to fight. Rallied to this black banner today are all the enemies of social progress: the finance oligarchy and the military, the fascists and reactionary clericals, the colonialists and landlords, and all the ideological and political supporters of imperialist reaction. Anti-communism is a reflection of the extreme decadence of bourgeois = ideology."^^**^^
In a certain sense the entire policy and ideology of the modern bourgeoisie is anti-communist. But when it is interpreted in this light we lose sight of anti-communism's specific as a policy and ideology directed against communism, while the concept itself becomes a synonym of bourgeois policy and ideology.
In our view, and from the standpoint of both theory and politics, it is important to distinguish, above all, between the ``non''-communism intrinsic to the bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeoisie and the bellicose ``anti''-communism of the most reactionary and aggressive circles of imperialism which finds expression in a system of political and ideological actions spearheaded against the ideals of communism, against the communist movement and the socialist countries. Today these actions form the chief element of the official policy and propaganda of the principal imperialist powers.
_-_-_^^*^^ Marx and Engels, Selected Works in three volumes, Vol. 1, Moscow, 1969,fp. 108.
^^**^^ The Road to Communism, p. 498.
131 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. II. THE CRISIS OF BOURGEOIS IDEOLOGYMoreover, it is important to distinguish anti-communism as purposeful and organised activity on the part of imperialist reaction from the anti-communist moods and prejudices which still influence a certain section of the working masses, the intermediate sections of bourgeois society and certain circles of the national liberation movement.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ Anti-CommunismAnti-communist policy is the weapon of the extreme reactionary circles of the imperialist bourgeoisie. This is shown by the experience of fascism and by the experience of the years since the Second World War.
In internal policy anti-communism was practised in its purest form during these years in the USA (the McCarthy era), when the Communist Party and progressive organisations and trade unions were all but outlawed, when the witch-hunt was part and parcel of official policy, and methods of persecution and repression frequently reminiscent of fascism flourished. Legislation, the courts and the executive power were all subordinated to anti-communist aims.
A similar picture is to be seen in the post-war history of West Germany.
In other imperialist countries, too, there are patently anti-communist trends in internal policy and these spread not only to official state policy but also to the activities of the Right-wing leadership of the trade unions and of the reformist Social-Democratic = parties.^^*^^ The anti-communist campaign has been blown up to unparalleled dimensions in countries like Greece, where fascist or semi-fascist elements have come to power with the support of US and British imperialism. There anti-communism has, from the very beginning, taken the form of open fascist terror. The same _-_-_
^^*^^ Suffice it to mention the split in the international trade union movement, the anti-communist discrimination practised by the British Labour Party, the formation of Right-wing trade union associations in a number of countries, and so forth. The Right-wing Socialists even began to regard anti-communist activities as their chief service. For instance, Ulrich Lohmar, a Right-wing Socialist deputy in the FRG Bundestag, asserts that the principal achievement of the Social-Democratic Party of Germany since 1945 has been the inculcation of anti-communist notions in the West German working-class movement (Helmut Bonn, op. cit., p. 47).
132 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV concerns the puppet regimes that have been set up by the imperialists in some Asian, African and Latin American countries.Besides, from time to time anti-communism becomes the official policy of the ruling circles of some of the new national states that have won liberation from colonial oppression. This policy has been and continues to be forced on them by imperialism. A concession on this point threatens the gains achieved by the people in the national liberation struggle.
Ever since the establishment of the first socialist state and particularly after socialism appeared on the international scene, anti-communism has been a feature distinguishing not only the internal but also the foreign policy of imperialist reaction. It underlies the activities aimed at undermining the new system in socialist countries, forming aggressive blocs against these countries, and establishing co-operation between the reactionary classes of different countries with the object of suppressing the revolutionary movement and exporting counter-revolution.
There is not a shadow of a doubt that both the external and internal policies of imperialism are spearheaded against communism. It is similarly obvious that the Communists are far from being the only targets of this policy. Moreover, anti-communism is used as a cover for the basic aims of the monopolists' class policy.
This is clearly seen in the sphere of foreign policy. The world remembers that on the eve of the Second World War the alliance of the German, Italian and Japanese fascists took the form of an "anti-Comintern pact''. But this was only a cover for the preparations for a piratical war, for a struggle for world supremacy, for the enslavement "*not only of the Soviet Union but also of the bourgeois countries of Europe and other continents, and for a redivisionof the colonial empires. Similarly, the present howls about a "communist threat" that screen the formation of aggressive blocs, the arms race and interference in the affairs of other countries are a cover for the expansionist aspirations of the leading imperialist powers, principally the United States of America, that are seeking to strengthen their position in the world, enlarge their spheres of influence and subjugate other peoples.
133 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. II. THE CRISIS OF BOURGEOIS IDEOLOGYThe picture is the same in internal policy. The bugbear of anti-communism is used by the reactionaries to attack not only the Communist parties but also all other progressive organisations, the trade unions, all democrats and even liberals, curtail democracy and strengthen the dictatorship of the monopolies. That was how the fascists acted in Germany and Italy. And that was how the reactionary elements acted in the USA after the Second World War. In that country the tactical role of anti-communism was even more pronounced. The relatively small Communist Party in that country gave no cause for the virulent anticommunist campaign that reached nation-wide proportions in the USA. But soon public opinion found that that campaign was directed not only against the Communists.
Describing the situation in the US scientific world in the early 1950s, Professor Zecharian Chaffee Jr., an American lawyer, noted: "What began years ago as an onslaught on a few Communist scholars has long since transformed into an onslaught on a great many scholars who are not Communists, but who are suspected of holding views which happen to be unpopular with an influential number of = citizens."^^*^^ The same situation obtained in other spheres---in the working-class movement, in the world of art and education, among white collar workers and so on. Developments showed how naive was the belief of some bourgeois liberal intellectuals that by sacrificing the Communists they would satisfy the bloodthirsty obscurantists and purchase tranquillity for themselves. Actually, these concessions only whetted the appetites of the witch-hunters and undermined the unity of the forces fighting for freedom and democracy.
The most sinister forces of reaction always appear in the forefront of political life under the banner of anti-- communism. Particularly dangerous in this respect are the militarists, who are the most reactionary and aggressive clique of myrmidons of the monopoly bourgeoisie. They actively take part in fanning anti-communist campaigns and then utilise the aftermaths to make further claims to power. Captain Souyris, a French ``ultra'' who is regarded as an expert on anti-communism, bluntly declared that the army "is about the only institution of the nation which realises _-_-_
^^*^^ The Atlantic, January 1955, p. 29.
134 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV that the third world war has already begun.... Its traditions and. determination make it particularly suitable for undertaking psychological action against communism.... The army has every ground for asserting that it has a correct notion about the `higher interests of the = nation'\thinspace''.^^*^^ In view of claims of this kind even the West German publishers of the volume containing Souyris' paper had to dissociate themselves from its author and declare that in the light of Germany's experience the army's conversion into a "school for the nation" was dubious and = dangerous.^^**^^Another way in which anti-communism is used for tactical or, to be more exact, provocative purposes is to blame the Communists for the difficulties or calamities encountered by the people. This method has long been part of the bourgeois arsenal. In 1872 Marx wrote: "When the great conflagration took place at Chicago, the telegraph round the world announced it as the infernal deed of the International; and it is really wonderful that to its demoniacal agency has not been attributed the hurricane ravaging West Indies."^^***^^
In putting the blame for various misfortunes on the Communists the reactionaries aim much farther than to ignite hatred and distrust. They want the people to believe that the Communists are at the root of all the difficulties and suffering caused by capitalism. Precisely this is the purpose of the tale about communism's ``aggressiveness'', which imperialist propaganda is using in an effort to account for the tension in international relations and the threat of a thermonuclear war hanging over the world, and justify imperialism's aggressive policy and the arms race. The "Communist intrigue" story has been used time and again _-_-_
^^*^^ Helmut Bohn, op. cit., p. 99.
^^**^^ Ibid., p. 151.
^^***^^ The General Council of the First International 1871--1872, Minutes, Moscow, p. 461. As a matter of fact, even some bourgeois scholars acknowledge that the tap-root of modern anti-communism lies largely in the striving to find outside capitalist society a scapegoat for all evils and, on that basis, create something in the nature of an " ersatzideology''. In this connection Herbert J. Spiro writes that soon after the Second World War the Western allies, with the USA at their head, created their own ``counter-ideology'', which attributed all the evils in the world to the "international communist conspiracy" (Herbert J. Spiro, op. cit., p. 104).
135 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. II. THE CRISIS OF BOURGEOIS IDEOLOGY to justify the curtailment of democratic rights and liberties.Like the use of anti-communism for tactical purposes, anti-communist policy has to be given an ideological foundation. The repressions against Communists and other progressive and democratic elements and the aggressive foreign policy acts aimed at the socialist countries obviously require ideological justification and substantiation. Anti-- communism can be used as a tactic only when the public is intimidated and fears communism, when distrust for the Communists and anti-communist prejudices have been sown. This alone explains the scale reached by anti-communist propaganda in our day.
Besides, the imperialists accord this propaganda an independent role as a vital component of the worldwide struggle for people's minds, as a means of discrediting communism ideologically, politically, theoretically and practically.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ Basic DirectionsAlthough many imperialist leaders are now trying to prove that their real adversary is not the ideology of communism but only its political organisation---the socialist states and the Communist parties---these assertions are in themselves an attempt to discredit the ideals of communism and make out that these ideals are used as an instrument, as a cover for sinister political designs.
Actually, one of the cardinal directions of anti-communist propaganda has been and remains the campaign attacking the ideals of communism, the scientific teaching of MarxismLeninism. This campaign was started long ago. But its methods change in accordance with the times and the public frame of mind. In our day they are no longer accentuating the ``godlessness'' of the communist teaching, its incompatibility with the way of thinking of ``respectable'' citizens. Present-day critics prefer to speak of the ``obsolescence'' of Marxism-Leninism, of its incompatibility with the modern epoch and modern scientific = progress.^^*^^
_-_-_^^*^^ For example, Professor Stanley W. Page, the American historian, bluntly declares that the prime aim is "to remove Leninism from the realm of the scientific and indisputable" (Lenin and World Revolution, New York, 1959, p. XVIII).
136 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOVThe authors of scores of books and hundreds of papers devoted to a criticism of dialectical materialism go to all lengths in an effort to prove that this teaching is merely one of many speculative philosophical theories and, moreover, that it is based on 19th-century science which does not take the latest scientific achievements into account. The ``obsolescence'' of Marxism is also the theme of the critics of Marxist political economy who are trying to turn to account some new phenomena of capitalism. Similar criticism is levelled at historical materialism, which is depicted as an abstract theory far removed from life and unable to provide the key to understanding and solving complex contemporary problems.
This line of attack is clearly pronounced in compressed form in The New Frontier of War, a book written by two acknowledged experts on anti-communism---Professor William K. Kintuer and the renegade Joseph Z. Kornfeder (who quitted the Communist Party of the USA in 1930). "The more deeply man explores matter,'' they write, "the more probabilistic and less predetermined does the basic substance of the universe appear to be. Hence a system which asserts that the process of history unfolds according to determinate forces inherent in the very structure of matter rests on a precarious foundation. Likewise the communist concept that the human personality is solely the product of external environment is, in the light of modern investigation, more questionable than it has ever been.... The science of biochemistry has unveiled the structure of the nucleus of the living cell. It now appears that each individual human being's cell plasm is coded differently so that each person is a unique creature and is inherently beyond the reach of even the most drastic application of external manipulation."^^*^^
Here mention is made of only a few of the discoveries bourgeois ideologists are trying to use for their ends, but they give an idea of the method itself. It is, properly speaking, not new. Lenin exposed it in Materialism and EmpirioCriticism as an attempt to parasitise on every breakdown of customary concepts and ideas that inevitably follows major _-_-_
^^*^^ William K. Kintner, Joseph Z. Kornfeder, The New Frontier of War, Chicago, 1962, p. 323.
137 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. II. THE CRISIS OF BOURGEOIS IDEOLOGY scientific discoveries. With science and technology accomplishing spectacular breakthroughs into hitherto unknown spheres of nature such breakdowns are becoming more frequent and far-reaching. This is precisely what the adversaries of Marxism-Leninism seek to turn to = account.^^*^^Similarly, they are trying to make capital out of the momentous socio-political changes taking place in the world, of the new developments in social life, which, naturally, could not have been mirrored in the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin.
For their attacks on Marxism-Leninism from the position of "modern science" and the latest knowledge, the bourgeois ideologists are trying to use, as they have always done, every manifestation of dogmatism, bigotry and diehard adherence to obsolete formulas on the part of some champions of Marxism. Small wonder that in the works of many bourgeois ``refuters'' of Marxist theory one can find references to the most unsuccessful, dogmatic and vulgar writings. In particular, this concerns works which from allegedly Marxist positions reject modern genetics, the theory of relativity, cybernetics and some other major = discoveries,^^**^^ _-_-_
^^*^^ Incidentally, there have lately appeared reluctant admissions that the Marxist-Leninist ideology is developing in a fertile alliance with modern science. Such admissions are to be found, for example, in a volume containing the essays read at a symposium on Soviet science and ideology in New York in 1966. In the foreword written by George Fischer it is noted that "there is a common theme running through the essays. They appear to agree that, in its present Soviet setting, the encounter of science with ideology need not always result in conflict. Specifically, they hold---in varying degrees---that in the 1960s Soviet science (or at least the disciplines covered here) may in fact help to sustain the established system and its ideology rather than weaken or erode them. ...each author finds that in his own field the evidence fails to bear out the opposite view, so widely held in the West. In contrast with many writers and observers who speak of an endemic and ubiquitous conflict between science and Soviet ideology, the contributors to this volume point to some interesting elements of harmony or even mutual reinforcement" (Science and Ideology in Soviet Society, edited by George Fischer, New York, 1967, pp. VIIIIX). This sort of argument is, of course, the realm of academic works which are by no means published in large editions.
^^**^^ Works of this kind were damaging, of course, not only because they provided the arguments for slanderous fabrications by bourgeois propaganda. The main thing was that they were detrimental to Soviet science and for some time held up the development of some of its branches. Besides, the authors of these works masked their own __NOTE__ footnote continued on page 138 138 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV and also the vulgar works of some economists and sociologists who interpreted problems of the economy, sociopolitical relationships and culture of the modern world superficially, without a knowledge of life.
In recent years the upswing of creative Marxism together with the surmounting of subjectivist side-stepping and the struggle against revisionist distortions of Marxist theory have seriously undermined these areas of anti-communist propaganda. The enhanced prestige enjoyed by world socialism and the communist movement is evoking a heightened interest in Marxism-Leninism among broad circles of people in the capitalist countries as = well.^^*^^
A study of this theory from primary sources, major party documents and Marxist theoretical works utterly demolishes the lies and slander spread by the ideologists of imperialism. Moreover, such a study brings many honourable people, including leading scientists, round to repudiating bourgeois ideology. Under the impact of MarxismLeninism there is taking place a stratification in some _-_-_ __NOTE__ footnote continued from page 137 dogmatism, torpid thinking or simply lack of knowledge with lofty ideological considerations, with ``concern'' for the purity of MarxistLeninist theory. No genuinely scientific discovery has undermined or can undermine this theory, all of whose roots are linked with science, with scientific progress, with the uninterrupted development of human knowledge. This fact, incidentally, is appreciated by some bourgeois scholars. Take the case of cybernetics, which had been undeservedly denigrated by some Soviet authors. In a major work entitled Prospects for Soviet Society, compiled at the request of the US Council on Foreign Relations, it is stated that the appearance and development of this science "has reinforced their (scientists') adherence to the ontological foundations of Leninist materialism. The extension of the concept of 'self-adjusting complex dynamic^systems' to the living world, to the world of social and economic organisation, and to the psychological make-up of organisms adds a scientifically sophisticated prop to Soviet atheistic propaganda. Cybernetics has also facilitated the modernisation of social science methodology and it has become a prime mover in the proliferation of modern computers and various other types of scientific instruments. In the Soviet Union cybernetics is not only a science, or a scientific method, but also a philosophical vantage point and a social-cultural force of considerable importance'' (Prospects for Soviet Society, edited by Allen Kassof, New York, 1968, p. 350).
^^*^^ In particular, there is immense interest in Marxism among young people and students in the United States (Gus Hall, For a Radical Change. The Communist View, New York, 1966, pp. 63--64, quoted from World Marxist Review, Prague, 1966, No.~10, p. 28; Pravda, September 14, 1966).
139 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. II. THE CRISIS OF BOURGEOIS IDEOLOGY bourgeois ideological schools and trends, in which Left-wing groups frequently emerge.The architects of anti-communism are, evidently, themselves aware of the limited possibility of a ``theoretical'' criticism of Marxism-Leninism, especially in an epoch when communism is developing not only in works on philosophy and economics, but chiefly in the practice of building the new society. This explains the accent imperialist propaganda is putting on the efforts to give a denigratory interpretation of the practice and policies of world communism.
One of the principal areas for this slander is the foreign policy of the socialist countries, which it tries to portray as ``aggressive'' and prove that this policy is the main source of the threat of war to the world. The attention given to this sort of propaganda is easily explained. Its purpose is not only to conceal the real reasons" for the threat of war and whitewash the foreign policy of imperialism but also to justify all its foreign policy and many internal policy actions--- the arms race, the formation of aggressive military blocs, the swollen military budgets, and the reactionary attacks on democratic rights and freedoms.
The relations in the socialist community are also grossly misrepresented. It will be recalled that the imperialist press went on a propaganda rampage in connection with the events in Czechoslovakia in 1968. It sought to present these events as evidence that the foreign policy of the USSR and other socialist countries was ``violating'' the principle of sovereignty and national independence. This subversive bourgeois propaganda was exposed at the 1969 International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties by L. I. Brezhnev, who said:
"Bourgeois propaganda goes out of its way to malign the principle of proletarian internationalism and to oppose it artificially to the principles of independence, sovereignty and equality of the national contingents of the workingclass and communist movement. That is the purpose for which imperialist propagandists have fabricated and put into circulation the notorious theory of 'limited sovereignty'.
"As for us, Soviet Communists, we hold that the present world situation again forcefully bears out the validity and 140 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV viability of Lenin's concept of proletarian internationalism."^^*^^
Imperialist propaganda directs all its efforts to discredit socialist reality and slander tbe practices and institutions in the socialist countries. There is hardly a sphere of life which this propaganda has not tried to smear and picture in a false light. The economy and the state system, culture and morals, the system of administration and every current action of the socialist countries are made the targets of the most virulent distortion, lie and slander. Being unable to disrupt the advancement of the peoples building the new society, the imperialists seek to belittle their achievements and play down the impression that these achievements make on the working people of all countries. Here special emphasis is laid on a ``criticism'' of socialism and Marxist, theory from the standpoint of ethics and "human values''. The social system and the scientific philosophy of the working class are accused of disregarding these values, ignoring the problem of the freedom of the individual and absolutising economic factors.
Still another major area of anti-communist propaganda is its slander against the Communist parties and the international communist movement. The recipes for this propaganda were concocted long ago and they are used to this day. First and foremost, they are attempts to portray the Communist parties as ``anti-national'' forces, as a kind of "fifth column" operating on orders from without and serving the interests of a foreign power, namely, the Soviet Union. Further, it is alleged that instead of showing a desire to improve the condition of the working people and solve the problems confronting the nation the Communists use the sufferings of the working people and unresolved social problems for their own mercenary aims---to whip up mass indignation that would bring them to power.
Moreover, imperialist propaganda vainly tries to prove that the Communist parties even desire a worsening of the condition of the people in order to embitter them, that the principle of the Communists is "the worse (for the working people) the better (for the cause of communism)'', and that _-_-_
^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, pp. 160--61.
141 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. II. THE CRISIS OF BOURGEOIS IDEOLOGY all their actions in defence of the people's interests are nothing but demagogy. Lastly, the advocates of anticommunism slanderously distort the tactical principles of the communist movement, depicting the Communist parties as groups of conspirators prepared to use any means and stopping at nothing in the drive towards their ends. The aim of all fabrications of this kind is not only to alienate the masses from the Communists but also to justify repressions against the Communist parties. Small wonder that these fabrications invariably figure in the debates on anticommunist laws and in the trials of Communists organised by the reactionaries.Such are the main directions of anti-communist propaganda, which has reached huge proportions in the imperialisl countries. It is served by an enormous state apparatus and numerous organisations set up by the monopolies and the imperialist intelligence agencies, and involves the Church and the Right-wing leadership of the Social-Democratic parties and the reformist trade unions.
Besides, the imperialist bourgeoisie, which only recently scoffed at the communist movement and the socialist countries and considered it ban ton to show ignorance in questions of communism, has set up a large machinery for the study of the communist ideology and of the history, economy and social relations of the socialist countries. In the USA, the Federal Republic of Germany, Britain and other countries there are today many scores of institutes and research centres engaged in this study and training " specialists".
Summing up the results of the training of ``Sovietologists'' in the USA, Walter Z. Laqueur, editor of the journal Survey, an international anti-communist organ, wrote in 1967: "Between 1850 and 1950 some 250 doctoral dissertations on Russia and the Soviet Union were approved in American universities. The number accepted since 1950 is estimated at 1,000 and probably already exceeded this = figure."^^*^^
A new drive to set up anti-communist centres was started in the 1960s. Harvard University, which already had a Russian Research Centre (founded in 1948), established the _-_-_
^^*^^ W. Laqueur, The Fate of the Revolution. Interpretation of Soviet History, New York, 1967, p. 27.
142 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV new Centre for International Affairs specialising in tjhe study of socialist foreign policy. Columbia University, which founded the first Russian Institute in 1946, set up a new Research Institute on Communist Affairs in 1961 and an Institute of East and Central Europe in 1965. The University of California in Berkeley established its Centre for Slavic and East European Studies. The University of Southern California in Los Angeles followed the establishment of its Centre for Soviet-Asian Research in 1958 with the formation of the Research Institute on Communist Strategy and Propaganda in 1961.In the ramified network of institutions of this kind in the USA there are some which are regarded as ``outstanding''. These are the Foreign Policy Research Institute of Pennsylvania State University, the Hoover Institute on War, Revolution and Peace of Stanford University, the Hodge Institute (until recently known as the Centre for Strategic Studies) of Georgetown University, and the Research Institute on Communist Affairs of Columbia University.
Sited in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania University's Foreign Policy Research Institute, as its name implies, studies problems of foreign policy and international relations. Its executives, notably its director Robert Strausz-Hupe, are associated with extremely influential ultra-Right groups in banking, industrial and military circles, which, in their turn, use the institute as a mouthpiece for bellicose reactionaries. Declaring that communism had to be destroyed at all costs, the Pennsylvanians began their activities in the mid-1950s by urging a "preventive war" and to this day they advocate the use of the USA's nuclear arsenal in local wars and also the employment of chemical and bacteriological weapons.
The views of this group coincide with the basic activities of the Hoover Institute and the Hodge Institute. The Hoover Institute on War, Revolution and Peace was founded in 1919 in order, to use the words of the late US President Herbert Hoover, to lay bare the ``evil'' of the teaching of Karl Marx. Although the basic function of the Hoover Institute is to collect and systematise material on problems of war, revolution and peace, the Foreign Policy Research Institute has been in operation within its framework since
143 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. II. THE CRISIS OF BOURGEOIS IDEOLOGY 1961. The latter is headed by Stefan Possony, a co-author of Strausz-Hupe in many works and a rabid advocate of adventurism in foreign policy.Georgetown University's Centre for Strategic Studies, now known as the Hodge Institute, was founded at the close of 1962. It is headed by Arleigh A. Burke, a retired admiral and an odious figure, who is a member of the board of a number of war-industrial concerns and is known to have close ties with the John Birch Society.
,
Some effort is made to camouflage the reactionary character of Columbia University's Research Institute on Communist Affairs. Its director, Zbigniew Brzezinski, is an advocate of a more ``subtle'' policy of ideological subversion against the forces of socialism and progress. This is the institution that propagates the theories of "bridge building" and of the ``erosion'' of communism, which at first glance differ radically from the bellicose declarations of people like Strausz-Hupe and Possony but which, in fact, pursue the same objective, that of destroying socialism.
Similarly intensive ``research'' of this kind is conducted in the Federal Republic of Germany, where, it is estimated, there are nearly 30 centres, including the institutes of East Europe and Southeast Europe (both are in Munich), the Federal Institute for the Study of Marxism-Leninism (in Cologne), the East Europe Institute (in Mainz), the East Europe Institute of the Free University in West Berlin, and the German Society for Eastern European Studies (in Stuttgart).
Even small Denmark has two institutes of this kind, one at Copenhagen University and the other at Aarhus University.^^*^^
Never before has there been such a spate of anti-communist literature in the capitalist countries as there is today. These are not simply agitational publications but voluminous works generalising vast material and designed not only for propaganda purposes but also for the propagandists themselves. But there is yet another objective of this research and it is to find vulnerable areas and vantage points for an ideological offensive.
_-_-_^^*^^ Osteuropa, No.~7-8, 1963, p. 467.
144 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOVAs was noted by Professor A. R. Miller, unless ihe Americans had a perfect knowledge of communism, l^neir prospects of defeat were just = fine.^^*^^
As far as can be judged, the material compiled by experts is indeed used on a growing scale in day-to-day propaganda. These experts frequently take a direct hand in the most important propaganda operations.
For instance, in 1962 the Research Institute on Communist Strategy and Propaganda at the University of Southern California co-operated with Hollywood studios in the production of a series of 39 faked ``documentaries'' about communism. In the course of 39 weeks the films, divided into seven sections ``(Background and Ideology'', "The Soviet System'', "Life in the Soviet Union'', "Communism in China'', "Eastern Europe Under Communism'', " MoscowPeking Foreign Policies" and "Communism in the Americas'') were broadcast by four major television centres owned by the Columbia Broadcasting System on a nation-wide network, and also by 32 stations abroad. Moreover, copies were made for telecasts in other = countries.^^**^^
As regards the anti-communist propaganda apparatus, it is hardly worth singling out from the apparatus disseminating imperialist propaganda inasmuch as the latter is largely preoccupied with spreading anti-communist calumny.
Modern anti-communism is thus a mammoth ideological and political ``enterprise'' and constitutes one of the foundations of the policies and ideology of imperialism. For its personnel, resources, capital investments and scale of activity it is the largest ideological ``enterprise'' in the history of capitalism. Notwithstanding its impressive facade it is hollow ideologically.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ The FutilityTo say nothing of the fact that propaganda aimed at discrediting communist ideals and the practice of socialism is losing its effectiveness as socialism and the communist movement grow stronger and free themselves of all that had prevented them at the early stages of their _-_-_
^^*^^ See A. R. Miller, Teaching about Communism, New York, 1966, p. 14.
^^**^^ For details about this ``operation'' see Communist A fairs, AprilMay, 1963, Vol. i, No.~6, pp. 7--9.
145 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. II. THE CRISIS OF BOURGEOIS IDEOLOGY existence from showing all their power of attraction, the negative approach to the ideological struggle cannot in principle win the broad masses to capitalism.Writing that in the ideological struggle "the United States ... are on the = defensive'',^^*^^ Murray Dyer, the American foreign policy propaganda expert we have already mentioned, notes that "we have wasted our time arguing with Russia, attempting to deny the premises for her ideas, seeking to preserve a status quo''. The world is changing rapidly and therefore the "critical question is not the preservation of outmoded social forms, but the evolution of new = forms".^^**^^
But that is just what anti-communism is unable to do. More, by concentrating their propaganda attacks on an ideology that is offering mankind a positive solution of its basic problems and by their inability to suggest an acceptable alternative to this ideology, the imperialists are in the long run alienating the masses, who want constructive changes. The peoples legitimately assess this position as conservatism, as a defence of outmoded practices to which they no longer desire to reconcile themselves.
A book entitled Around the Edge of War was brought out in the USA in 1961 under a pen-name---John F. Amory, who, the publishers say, "is a strategically placed Washington = expert".^^***^^ From the contents it becomes clear why the author uses a pen-name: the book is an indictment of US foreign policy and propaganda. The author writes that the basic shortcoming of this propaganda is that it "offers no solutions except a glorified status = quo".^^****^^ The US information agencies, the author says, are engaged solely in grinding out propaganda for big business, while US foreignpolicies"protect immediate American overseas = interests".^^*****^^
While laying bare the imperialist substance of Western policies, anti-communist propaganda is beginning to yield smaller dividends for a number of other reasons. First and foremost, it has not succeeded in shifting to communism _-_-_
^^*^^ Murray Dyer, op. cit., p. 4.
^^**^^ Ibid., p. 6.
^^***^^ John F. Amory, Ground the Edge of War, New York, 1961, on the back cover.
^^****^^ Ibid., pp. 99--100.
^^*****^^ ibid., p. 65.
146 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV the blame for the difficulties and hardships that a^e falling to the lot of the peoples.. Amory ridicules the attempts of US propaganda to make a scapegoat out of the Coinmunists. Similar ridicule comes from other quarters. The American poet Archibald MacLeish, who headed one of the first US Government propaganda agencies (Office of Facts and Figures), fully subscribes to this view, saying that attempts to blame the Soviet Union and the Communists for all misfortunes are unconvincing even to adversaries of communism. "It is not communism...,'' MacLeish writes, "which has begotten the new nations of Asia and Africa or the new nationalistic stirrings in South America and the Caribbean and even in = Europe."^^*^^Another typical example is the following pronouncement by W. W. Kulsky, an American foreign policy expert. He says that "the problems of our epoch would have existed without communism or the communist bloc. The nuclear revolution in military technology was due to science, not to communist ideology. As a matter of fact, the first and only use of nuclear weapons cannot be blamed on a communist power. The national awakening of the non-European countries began before the October Revolution.... The crisis of the colonial system and the movement for the modernisation of retarded societies would have occurred, quite independent of communism and the communist movement".^^**^^
The keynote of these admissions is that in a situation witnessing the rapid growth of popular influence on politics directed towards solving problems affecting the vital interests of the people, an ideological campaign that fails to answer these problems and is essentially negative is doomed to failure. It is unable to resolve even the negative task of undermining trust for the ideology and aims of communism. In this respect there have been in recent years radical changes in the ideology and psychology of the world. In spite of all its efforts imperialist propaganda is unable to turn communism into a bugbear that would frighten _-_-_
^^*^^ The National Purpose. America in Crisis: an Urgent Summons, New York, 1960, p. 41.
^^**^^ W. W. Kulsky, International Politics in a Revolutionary Age, New York, 1964, p. 334.
147 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. II. THE CRISIS OF BOURGEOIS IDEOLOGY the peoples. This is being admitted with growing anxiety by bourgeois leaders as well.Extremely symptomatic in this light is a book entitled An Approach to Peace by Professor H. Stuart Hughes of Harvard University, who takes an uncompromising stand against anti-communism on the contention that it is growing increasingly hollow and fruitless. Communism, he writes, is "a positive force of social and economic reconstruction with a profound appeal to more than half the population of the world''. That is why, despite all the exertions of Western propaganda, "communism seems likely to remain a permanent (and growing) feature of the ideological landscape".^^*^^
It may safely be said that as early as at the close of the 1950s and the beginning of the 1960s it became obvious to a considerable number of imperialist politicians and ideologists that in its former shape, as a policy and propaganda intensely hostile to socialist and communist ideals, anti-communism had become ineffective. More, some of them realised that it could damage imperialism itself while helping to rally its adversaries.
In 1967 the influential American journal Commentary organised an opinion poll among prominent American liberals who in the 1940s and 1950s had made a large contribution towards fostering anti-communism. The journal put its question bluntly: To what extent was the anticommunism of the ``Lefts'' responsible for the war in Vietnam and what the attitude of those questioned was to their anti-communist stand in the past? The questionnaire was answered by 21 people. With few exceptions they dissociated themselves from traditional anti-communism in the sense that it was running counter to US national interests, as they understood them today, and could have disastrous consequences in the age of missile-nuclear weapons. In short, they believed that anti-communism could not serve as the basis of national foreign policy.
Lewis A. Coser, editor of the journal Dissent, writes: "Hoisted by its own ideological petard, American foreign policy is now committed to a global anti-communist stance.... It has led to alignment of America on the side _-_-_
^^*^^ H. Stuart Hughes, An Approach to Peace, New York, 1962, p. 19.
148 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV of some of the most reactionary and illiberal regimes. Anticommunism has become the last refuge of all the scoundrels of the world in their effort to get backing from America.... The official anti-communism of our governmental and military establishment ... is a profoundly regressive ideology which American intellectuals need to oppose in a principled and decided manner if they wish to play a political role on the American scene.'' Richard H. Rovere, a well-known political commentator and the Washington correspondent of The New Yorker, notes: "...more important, I think, and especially among liberals, is a realisation of the awful inadequacy of anti-communism as a foundation for a global policy.'' Arthur Schlesinger (believing as he does that a liberal cannot help being an anti-communist) declares that it is high time to put an end to doctrinaire debates and take up other problems, namely, "the problems of the control of nuclear weapons, of the modernisation of the underdeveloped world and of the humanisation of industrial = society".^^*^^In all this one can see the result of imperialism's countless setbacks in the global struggle for people's minds. These setbacks did not, of course, come of themselves. They are due not simply to the "propaganda skill" of the Communists but to the superiority of their ideology and to the superiority of the social system, which has been proved not only in theory but also in practice. They are due to the dedicated labour of the peoples of the socialist countries and to the correct policy and selfless struggle of the Marxist-Leninist parties, who form the vanguard of the working people. They are due to the extensive work that has been accomplished throughout the recent period by the communist movement to surmount bigotry, dogmatism and subjectivism, to sweep away all the stumbling-blocks to the successful development of the new social system and show its advantages in all spheres of life. They are due to the work charted by the 20th-24th congresses of the CPSU, and by the latest International Meetings of Communist and Workers' Parties, and to the creative efforts of all the adherents and champions of Marxism-Leninism.
All this could not fail to yield results. Despite the increased activity of the anti-communist forces there has been _-_-_
^^*^^ Commentary, September 1967, pp. 40, 41, 67, 71.
149 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. II. THE CRISIS OF BOURGEOIS IDEOLOGY a marked change in the mood of world public opinion, in its attitude to communism.Anti-communist propaganda has also mirrored this in its own way, in its main trend and character.
The changes that have taken place in this sphere are not absolute, of course. In the anti-communist chorus they are singing in different keys. This is seen, above all, in the fact that there are ``soloists'', who, in spite of everything, doggedly sing the old, plaintive refrain. But if one listens closely to this many-voiced anti-communist chorus one will easily pick out new tunes. The criticism of socialism and of communist ideals no longer concentrates solely on refuting them but is increasingly looking for ``deviations'' from these ideals in the practice of socialist construction and in the communist movement, for past or present errors or inconsistencies in the policies of individual Communist parties and socialist countries. Paradoxical as it may seem, but it is a fact that anti-communist propaganda is sometimes conducted as though its organisers were criticising communism not so much for being communism as for being insufficiently ``communist'', for not fully realising its ideals and aims.
It is urged that propaganda should concentrate on criticising not communism as such but its "vulnerable spots''. This is urged in the works of an increasing number of anticommunist theorists and even of those who belong to the wing of the most diehard and uncompromising enemies of socialism and of communist ideals.
Very typical in this light is how this question is put in The New Frontier of War by William K. Kintner and Joseph Z. Kornfeder. They strongly recommend stressing " unfulfilled" revolutionary promises, saying that the "Communists of yesterday can be used against the communism of = today".^^*^^
Hence their advocacy of an emphasis on the negative. They recommend shelving until better times the attempts to convert the peoples of the socialist countries to the capitalist = faith,^^**^^ concentrating on stirring discontent and accentuating individual shortcomings, "unfulfilled promises" and ``inconsistencies'' between various aspects of life and Marxist theory.
_-_-_^^*^^ William K. Kintner, Joseph Z. Kornfeder, op. cit., p. 332.
^^**^^ Ibid., p. 342.
150 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOVThe authors of A Forward Strategy for America, StrauszHupe, Possony and the above-mentioned Kintner insist that one of the points Western foreign political propaganda should stress is that "the Western world is not 'capitalist' nor is the communist bloc = `socialist'\thinspace".^^*^^ The propaganda keynote offered by them is that "communism is not an economic system but a political weapon ...for seizing and consolidating political = power".^^**^^
Hence the concrete plans for foreign political propaganda calling for manipulation with themes such as inner-party democracy, the strengthening of legality in socialist countries, the extension of trade union rights, and so = forth.^^***^^ In other words, the matter concerns a series of programme propositions put forward by the Marxist-Leninist parties of the socialist countries and envisaging not only the eradication of some past mistakes and shortcomings, but also the natural development of important tenets of socialism calling for the strengthening of that system and the gradual transition to communism.
These then are the processes to which imperialist propaganda is trying to ``adjust'' itself in order to make political capital! This is not only duplicity but a reflection of its crisis caused by the fact that traditional anti-communism has entered a blind alley and is turning into a boomerang hitting those who are trying to use it as a weapon.
In itself the anti-communism of the modern bourgeoisie is evidence of the degradation of bourgeois = ideology,^^****^^ a weapon which imperialism had hoped would extricate it from its profound ideological crisis. But as was to be expected, the position of the bourgeoisie in the war of ideas is growing increasingly more precarious.
_-_-_^^*^^ R. Strausz-Hupe, W. Kintner, S. Possony, op. cit., p. 267.
^^**^^ Ibid., p. 268.
^^***^^ Ibid., p. 272.
^^****^^ This fact is today acknowledged by more and more bourgeois researchers. As one of many examples we can quote the following passage from Ronald Steel's Pax Americana: "America has not been able to evolve a coherent concept of what she wants and what she may reasonably expect to attain in the world.... She is ... plagued by terrible insecurities over her global responsibilities and even over her own identity.... One of the expressions of this insecurity has been the emergence of anti-communism as an ideology" (p. 24).
151 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. II. THE CRISIS OF BOURGEOIS IDEOLOGYProfessor Bernard Lavergne, the French economist and sociologist, justifiably writes: ``\thinspace`0 liberty, liberty, what crimes are committed in your name!' runs a famous saying. '0 anti-communism, what absurdities are perpetrated in your name!' is what we ought to say today. Because in that state of frightful intellectual decline, which on the political level remains the principal characteristic of the past quarter of a century, the Western countries are continuously having to resort to measures that most of all foster their = downfall."^^*^^
The increasingly lucid evidence of anti-communism's doom, of its crisis and spiritual emptiness is regarded by Marxists-Leninists as the natural outcome of the development of modern political relations. But they also appreciate the fact that victory over anti-communism is not something inevitable that does not depend on their own actions, something presented to communism by the very course of events. Incorrect policy and departures from MarxistLeninist principles can seriously hinder this victory, help anti-communism and put off the total defeat of that archreactionary policy and ideology.
The experience of recent years has yielded much convincing evidence on this score. An example is what happened in Czechoslovakia. The activation of anti-socialist forces in that country in 1968 as a result of the errors made by the former leadership of the party and the government was widely used by the imperialists in an effort to discredit socialism and prove that that system was incompatible with the interests of the masses and was encountering resistance from the people.
Imperialist propaganda and policy are making similarly energetic use of the activities of the leaders of the Communist Party of China, using their errors and distortions to vilify the socialist social system and the ideals of communism.
Anti-communism's setbacks, which since the end of the 1950s and the beginning of the 1960s were apparent to many Western observers, have by no means induced the imperialist bourgeoisie to renounce this weapon of its policy and propaganda. But it has been forced, as is in fact the case, to modify the strategy and tactics of _-_-_
^^*^^ Bernard Lavergne, op. cit., pp. 260--61.
152 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV anti-communism. This finds expression in the increasing employment of the methods and subterfuges we have already mentioned. Moreover, it finds expression in a subtle ideological campaign designed to provoke the notorious ``erosion'', i.e., the gradual weathering and emasculation of communist ideals, the infiltration of bourgeois ideology into socialist countries and intensified efforts to utilise the divergences in the socialist community and the communist movement and also manifestations of nationalism and of ``Left'' and Right opportunism in the policies and ideology of some Communist and Workers' parties.That is what makes the present-day efforts to cement the unity of the communist movement on the principled foundation of Marxism-Leninism and surmount Right and ``Left'' opportunism and nationalistic deviations a major factor of the struggle against imperialist ideology and anticommunism and one of the prerequisites of final and complete victory in this struggle.
There is not the least doubt that in the long run the Marxist-Leninist parties will successfully carry out this task as well.
[153] __NUMERIC_LVL1__ CHAPTER III __ALPHA_LVL1__ IMPERIALISM'S FOREIGNAfter the Second World War propaganda became an inalienable component of imperialist foreign policy and one of the weapons in the cold war. This propaganda receives annual allocations amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars, is served by an army of tens of thousands of experts, and is given unremitting attention by the leaders of the Western powers.
Naturally, the captaincy of imperialism's ideological struggle on the international scene was taken over by the USA. However, the propaganda efforts of Britain, the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Japan and other countries were also stepped up considerably. Today this propaganda is directed towards all peoples, towards the entire world.
Foreign political propaganda's conversion into one of the major instruments of imperialist policy spurred the development of the bourgeois theory of propaganda, of its methods, techniques and organisation. The study of all these aspects of the activity of the imperialist bourgeoisie is becoming an essential part of the research into modern international relations, foreign policy and diplomacy.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 1. DOCTRINE AND METHODS OF IMPERIALISM'SIn itself the aspiration to employ the most skilful methods of influencing people, of impressing ideas on them and, therefore, of moulding forms of behaviour is not new. 154 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV This sort of activity has long ago become an important function not only of individual political leaders but also of many special institutions and organisations set up by the ruling and, sometimes, by the oppressed classes. A classical example of this kind of organisation is the Church. It has not only accumulated vast experience, but long before propaganda became the object of scientific study and public discussion it generalised its centuries-old practice and evolved the principles of the art of propaganda, which were then passed on to its ministers from one generation to another.
This art attracted the attention of politicians long ago. However, in political study and theory propaganda itself and the art of propaganda began to be discussed much later. In modern bourgeois literature on propaganda the beginning of this discussion is usually associated with Nicolo Machiavelli.
Long before Machiavelli the sphere of political activity now called propaganda had been dealt with, of course, by many outstanding thinkers beginning with Plato. But one cannot fail to see the reasons why Machiavelli and his works receive special attention from bourgeois historians and propaganda theorists, for it was Machiavelli's interpretation of the aims and functions of political propaganda that proved to be the closest to modern bourgeois theory. We mean Machiavelli's idea that the state, political power is the highest independent value, while the ``subject'' is the "object of manipulation" by every possible means, including propaganda.
The second figure constantly mentioned in Western literature as one of the ``fathers'' of propaganda is the French sociologist Gustav Le Bon, who was active at the dawn of imperialism and considerably influenced some of the concepts constructed by the political theorists of the imperialist bourgeoisie.
Which of Le Bon's ideas are regarded as particularly important today? First and foremost, those in which the behaviour of "large crowds'', i.e., of the masses, is interpreted as being fundamentally different from the behaviour of individuals, as being "more primitive'', "less civilised" and characterised by "a diminution of social controls" and a "sense of irresponsibility'', in other words, as being 155 __NOTE__ Right running header: (set-register ?R "\n\nCH. III. IMPERIALIST PROPAGANDA TODAY\n\n") __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. III. IMPERIALIST PROPAGANDA TODAY determined by "the primitive sides of man's = nature".^^*^^ Bourgeois propaganda experts think very highly of these ideas of Le Bon, seeing in them "useful practical guides in manipulating = masses".^^**^^
__ALPHA_LVL3__ FormationAttempts to provide a ``scientific'' foundation for these ideas were made after Le Bon's death.
Here the milestone was the First World War. According to the British propaganda expert Lindley Fraser, that war "marked the emergence of propaganda from being an art, or craft, to becoming a (rudimentary) = science".^^***^^ The reasons are obvious. They lie not only and not so much in the increased prestige enjoyed by science as such, which bourgeois authors are nothing loth to mention, as in the imperialist bourgeoisie's heightened need for more effective means of spiritually influencing the masses, a need that sprang directly from the conditions under which the general crisis of capitalism began.
Propaganda problems were given the closest attention in the USA, and it was in that country that the first books were brought out in which the principles of the modern bourgeois approach to propaganda were enunciated (one of these books was Walter Lippmann's Public Opinion published in 1922). But perhaps even more significant is the fact that in the USA whole schools of political theory sprang up which sought to make a serious study of propaganda problems. Among them, for instance, was the school of Professor Harold D. Lasswell, whom bourgeois science regards as one of the leading experts in this field.
Lasswell did not produce anything particularly original. His contribution consists of a variant of the ``elite'' theory. But he devoted more attention than his predecessors to the "psychological relationships" between the ``elite'' and the ``masses'', i.e., to problems of public opinion and propaganda.
Lasswell was one of the first bourgeois scholars to try to provide a scientific basis for these problems not only in internal politics but also in international relations. In _-_-_
^^*^^ G. Gordon, I. Falk, W. Hodapp, op. cit., p. 25.
^^**^^ Ibid., p. 26.
^^***^^ Lindley Fraser, op. cit., p. 32.
156 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV an article entitled ``Propaganda'', written for The Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences long before the Second World War, he stressed that propaganda "assists in making a fiction of the national state and in fabricating new control areas which follow activity areas, intersecting old control areas in ever/ direction. Thus propaganda on an international scale is one important medium for transmitting those pressures which are tending to burst the bonds of the traditional social = order."^^*^^ The experience of the Second World War and the expansionist foreign policy aims of US imperialism gave Lasswell grounds for stating bluntly: " Propaganda is an instrument of total policy, together with diplomacy, economic arrangements and armed forces. Political propaganda is the management of mass communications for power purposes. ...the aim is to economise the material cost of world = dominance."^^**^^It is significant that a British theorist, Bernard Crick, has described Lasswell as arguing "that there was a world revolutionary situation unique to our = age".^^***^^
A number of institutions for the study of propaganda problems was set up in the USA in the period between the two world wars. One of these, founded in 1937, is Columbia University's Institute for Propaganda = Analysis.^^****^^
In the USA the first experiments in the use of psychological science for "commercial propaganda'', in other words, for advertisements, which was to play a considerable role in developing the theory of propaganda methods, were made in the 1930s.
This work, on a much smaller scale, was conducted also in other imperialist states. A seemingly surprising fact is that although in those years the nazis poured much more money into propaganda (both internal and foreign political) they lagged behind the rulers of the United States.
First and foremost, a point to be borne in mind is that on _-_-_
^^*^^ The Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. 12, New York, 1934, p. 526.
^^**^^ Propaganda in War and Crisis, edited by Daniel Lerner, New York, 1951, p. 27.
^^***^^ Bernard Crick, The American Science of Politics. Its Origins and Conditions, London, 1959, p. 182.
^^****^^ For a description see Wilson P. Dizard, op. cit., p. 31.
157 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. III. IMPERIALIST PROPAGANDA TODAY account of the political doctrine of German nazism, questions of power, policy and propaganda were shrouded in mysticism, which did not lend itself to a searching social investigation, especially as the word of Hitler or even of Goebbels carried more weight than the recommendations of entire institutes. Though they gave them a mystical twist, these nazi ringleaders by and large formulated the same tenets by which imperialist propaganda has been abiding from the days of Le Bon to our times---emphasis on emotional rather than on rational influences, contempt for the people, the striving to play on base instincts, and so on.By giving a considerable impetus to the development of the foreign political propaganda of the leading imperialist powers, chiefly the USA and Britain, the Second World War ushered in a new phase in propaganda research. True, this was brought into prominence at the termination of the war tfhen the corresponding personnel was released from functions directly connected with propaganda within the context of the war effort. Beginning in 1945 there was a substantial animation in the sciences linked with propaganda in the USA and, to a lesser extent, in Britain. A whole army of experts appeared. Abundant literature began to be published---at first devoted to the history of propaganda during the Second World War and to generalisations of its experience, then of a general theoretical and historical character and, lastly, dedicated to the tasks and methods of psychological warfare, i.e., to propaganda in the context of the cold war started by the USA and its allies against the socialist countries.
Numerous institutions were set up to promote internal and foreign political propaganda. These included private agencies studying public opinion, institutes and departments" at universities studying communism for anti-- communist propaganda, centres working out the theory and methods of propaganda (one of them, which subsequently became a major centre of international research, was set up at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology) and divisions at research institutes serving military and foreign policy.
In short, this signified the formation of a new branch of social science studying and serving the entire range of 158 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV problems linked with propaganda, a branch that in effect united a number of affiliated social = sciences.^^*^^
The US Army manual on psychological warfare says that in propaganda an important role is played by sociological, economic and political investigation (notably in connection with the need for studying the audience---its social composition, interests, cultural level, conflicts in society, and so = forth).^^**^^ One often hears that ethnography and anthropology are also important to propaganda. The American anthropologist Clyde Kluckhohn, for instance, spoke in this connection of the importance of studying the different cultures and, as an example, mentioned what he described as Japanese ``situational'' morale which completely baffled American propaganda during the = war.^^***^^
However, psychology unquestionably occupies the central place in the modern bourgeois propaganda theories. This is due not only to the significance of that science in the study of human behaviour but also to some specifics of the imperialist propaganda doctrine.
Lately bourgeois social thought has been attaching increasing importance to psychology precisely because of the possibilities it holds out in controlling the public mind. The well-known English philosopher Bertrand Russell believes that "before very long psychology, and especially mass psychology, will be recognised as the most important of all sciences from the standpoint of human welfare, and that whether civilisation can long survive now depends on = psychology".^^****^^ The West German expert on propaganda (particularly military propaganda) Major I. G. Leschinsky describes scientific psychology's penetration of social life _-_-_
^^*^^ On this point Michael Choukas writes: "The modern propagandist is a social engineer attempting to construct behaviour patterns as the physical engineer builds bridges, roads, steamboats and other physical structures. Just as the latter has to depend on knowledge supplied to him by the physical sciences, so the propagandist must rely upon the knowledge and the mental tools the psychological and social sciences can give him" (Propaganda Comes of Age, Washington, 1965, p. 93).
^^**^^ Department of the Army Field Manual, FM 33-2, Psychological Warfare Operations, Washington, March 1955, pp. 76--77.
^^***^^ Clyde Kluckhohn, Mirror for Man. The Relation of Anthropology to Modern Life, New York, 1949, pp. 176--78.
^^****^^ Propaganda and International Relations, San Francisco, 1962, p. 12.
159 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. III. IMPERIALIST PROPAGANDA TODAY as follows: "Following scientific psychology's emergence at the close of the 19th century, the method of exercising a purposeful influence on people was taken from its arsenal.... Today we find that psychological discoveries are systematically used in medicine, education, the economy, journalism and, last but not least, = politics."^^*^^Western theoreticians are of the opinion that propaganda cannot be effective today without psychology. On this score Paul Linebarger writes: "It (propaganda) can become true psychological warfare, scientific in spirit and developed as a teachable skill, only by having its premises clearly stated, its mission defined, its instruments put in systematic readiness, and its operations subject to at least partial check, only by the use of techniques borrowed from science."^^**^^
When bourgeois propagandists speak of enlisting the services of science for propaganda, the use of techniques borrowed from science and so forth they have in mind not only and not so much the elucidation of propaganda's place in politics or the elaboration of its ideological content as its purely applied functions---the framing of its methods, forms and techniques.
This is motivated, above all, by objective factors: where the task of propaganda is to indoctrinate millions of people with different social backgrounds and education levels and containing different age groups, the methods for such indoctrination indeed become one of the chief problems of propagandists. There is yet another reason, particularly in the USA, that is, a strong influence exerted on political propaganda by the premises and approach evolved by business, which has long ago come to appreciate the necessity of moulding the public mind in the course of day-to-day business and commercial activity.
This applied function is very much pronounced in the researches, which, since the war, the United States monopolies have been sponsoring on a growing scale in order to use scientific data to improve advertising, the selection of personnel, the organisation of production, and so on. _-_-_
^^*^^ Helmut Bohn, op. cit., p. 79.
^^**^^ Paul M. A. Linebarger, Psychological Warfare, Washington, 1954, p. 27
160 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV Take, for example, "motivational research" that has become widespread since the close of the 1940s and the early 1950s. Some of the institutions set up for this purpose in the USA have become quite well known, for instance, the Institute of Motivational Research, the Colour Research Institute of America and the Institute for Social Research. Huge sums of money are paid to these institutes and individual experts for their recommendations on sales organisation. Their services are sought by General Motors, General Foods, Goodyear Tire and Rubber and many other leading monopolies. It is estimated that as early as 1956 annual expenditures on this research amounted to 12~million = dollars.^^*^^Speaking of advertising methods, the British sociologist Vance Packard cites facts to show that the research in this area is conducted along the same lines as in political propaganda. From advertising "depth research" moved on to the selection of personnel, production organisation, the ``reconstruction'' of relations in production, methods of disorganising the working class and so = on.^^**^^ This brought into being branches of research such as "social engineering" and "social relations''. An indication of the scale of this research is that 40,000 experts are engaged in the study of "social relations" and that a hundred leading companies are spending more than 50 million dollars a year on this research.^^***^^
The growth of all the branches directly serving the interests of big capital has whetted the appetites of their organisers. One of them, Edward G. Pendray, is quoted as having declared: "To public-relations men must go the most important social engineering role of them all---the gradual reorganisation of human society, piece by piece and structure by structure."^^****^^ Lately the experts in ``motivation'', "social relations" and so on have been insisting, in particular, on the reorganisation of foreign political propaganda in _-_-_
^^*^^ Vance Packard, The Hidden Persuaders, New York, 1961, p. 37.
^^**^^ In fact there are now several research firms specialising in the collection of money for various funds: philanthropic, political campaigns, etc. These firms keep files on many tens of thousands of people in which their inclinations, weaknesses and tastes are recorded in details.
^^***^^ Vance Packard, op. cit., p. 186.
^^****^^ Ibid., p. 187.
161 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. III. IMPERIALIST PROPAGANDA TODAY accordance with their recommendations, which envisage making this propaganda more aggressive, a further intensification of anti-communism, and so on.Already today the recommendations of research institutions (both political and commercial) are being widely applied in propaganda. Since the election campaigns of 1952--56 the bourgeois parties in the USA have been making extensive use of psychology and other sciences serving propaganda in order to step up the efficacy of their election fights.
The first experiments of this kind are described by Aldous Huxley on the evidence of the publisher of a leading American commercial newspaper: "...all the resources of psychology and the social sciences are mobilised and set to work. Carefully selected samples of the electorate are given ' interviews in depth'. These interviews in depth reveal the unconscious fears and wishes most prevalent in a given society at the time of an election. Phrases and images aimed at allaying or, if necessary, enhancing these fears, at satisfying these wishes (at least symbolically), are then chosen by the experts, tried out on readers and audiences, changed or improved in the light of the information thus obtained. After which the political campaign is ready for the mass communicators. All that is now needed is money and a candidate who can be coached to look 'sincere'. Under the new dispensation, political principles and plans for specific action have come to lose most of their importance. The personality of the candidate and the way he is projected by the advertising experts are the things that really matter."^^*^^
At the 1960 presidential elections John F. Kennedy's "brains trust" did not remain content with evolving the methods of running the campaign by conventional means--- the drawing up of memos, speeches and so on. They were the first in the history of US elections to use computers. The results of an opinion poll involving 100,000 Americans carefully divided into groups were fed into these machines, whose task was to compute the ``parameters'' of the average American elector, try to foretell his behaviour at the _-_-_
^^*^^ Aldous Huxley, Brave New World Revisited, London, 1959, pp. 83--84.
162 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV elections and determine the best propaganda methods of influencing public = opinion.^^*^^Similar techniques in propaganda, and particularly in foreign policy, worked out. on the basis of recipes produced by psychology and other sciences, are directly serving the class interests of the imperialist bourgeoisie.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ SubstanceIn short, the propaganda concepts prevailing among imperialist theoreticians (and practitioners) boil down to the task of influencing not only and not so much a person's mind as his emotions. Under this approach ideological influences are in fact supplanted by psychological pressures (hence, undoubtedly, the enhanced role played by psychologists in propaganda) in the sense acquired by this word after Freud.
This is the approach also of the most ``moderate'' of the bourgeois experts. For instance, Lindley Fraser defines propaganda "as the activity, or the art, of inducing others to behave in a way in which they would not behave in its absence'',^^**^^ and writes: "We may indeed affect people's behaviour by appeals to their intellects alone; but if we do, our activities will not by any standard be described as propagandist (in this case, he says, it will be ``educational'' ---G.A.).... It follows that propaganda is, at least to a large extent, emotional in its appeal, whether directly or indirectly."^^***^^ And adds: "On which emotions can propaganda operate, whether directly or indirectly? The answer is, on all of them: simple emotions like fear, complex emotions like pride or the sense of adventure; unworthy emotions like greed, creditable emotions like sympathy or self-respect; self-regarding emotions like ambition, other-regarding emotions like family love. All human emotions and instincts have at one time or another provided propagandists with a means of influencing or trying to influence the behaviour of their = targets."^^****^^
This point of view is stated most bluntly by Professor Jacques Ellul of Bordeaux University, who describes modern political propaganda as having gone over "to the use of _-_-_
^^*^^ Victor Lasky, op. cit., pp. 153--54.
^^**^^ Lindley Fraser, op. cit., p. 1.
^^***^^ Ibid., p. 7.
^^****^^ Ibid., p. 10.
163 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. III. IMPERIALIST PROPAGANDA TODAY psychological and psychoanalytical methods of influencing individuals in depth''. "In propaganda,'' he writes, "they are no longer openly writing in the newspapers or stating in radio broadcasts exactly what the propagandist wants the individual to think or what he must believe in. Actually, the problem is to induce such and such a person to think in such and such a way or, to be more exact, induce a certain group of people to act in this fashion. How is this achieved? People are not told directly: `Act in this or that way'. A psychological stratagem is found to produce the needed reaction. This psychological stratagem is called a `stimulus'. As we can see, propaganda thus no longer has anything in common with the diffusion of ideas. Its purpose is to diffuse `stimuli', in other words, psychological and psychoanalytical snares that provoke certain actions, feelings and mystical = impulses."^^*^^A question one could ask is: Does bourgeois propaganda not use and disseminate definite ideas, does it not polemise, in particular, with Marxism-Leninism? Indeed, this polemic goes on constantly, even in mass propaganda. But if one takes a closer look one will find that here ideas and ideologies are used as ``stimuli'' appealing to emotions and instincts rather than as a system of views and arguments appealing to the intellect. For instance, more and more frequently propaganda does not discuss communism as such but concerns itself with coining catchwords that would provoke a certain emotion (fear, aversion, and so on) in the audience and with using concepts such as ``democracy'' and "free world" to create symbols inducing a favourable attitude to capitalism. Increasing use is now being made of these methods in imperialist propaganda for the mass audience.
One sometimes encounters attempts to prove that in this case propaganda only ministers to the wishes and inclinations of its audience, which does not desire to ponder, and collate ideas, to think independently, preferring easy and understandable solutions and explanations, which, besides, conform to their original wishes. Not long ago an American author wrote in this connection that the reason for this is that today logic "is losing" its role, that people believe only what they want to believe. Therefore, he says, to persuade _-_-_
^^*^^ Rene-Henri Wiist, op. cit., p. 116.
164 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV the audience it is important to appeal constantly not so much to the intellect as to emotions ---for then the appeal will be remembered and used for = ``self-persuasion''.^^*^^This approach does not hold water. Imperialist propaganda plays on the emotions not because the audience cannot think logically but because it aims to force people to accept its views running counter to their logic which reflects their real interests and aims. This was frankly admitted by Michael Choukas, whom we have already mentioned. He writes that the objective of propaganda techniques is "an individual thoroughly drained of all powers of discrimination, of all critical and reasoning ability, and reduced to the lowest possible human plane, the emotional, where he can operate only under external, and hence artificial stimulation and guidance".^^**^^
The reader may say that there is really nothing new in this propaganda approach.
True, but formerly it was sooner an intuitive, pragmatic approach. Today it is founded on all the information that can be offered by science, which has produced an entire arsenal of methods of influencing the masses. This is a striking change in comparison with the bourgeois concepts of the 18th and 19th centuries, when the prevalent view was that man was a being for whom it was necessary to produce arguments appealing to his = intellect.^^***^^
There obviously are two sources of the modern bourgeois conception of the ideological struggle, of propaganda.
The first is the crisis of bourgeois ideology, which is making it necessary to turn to other, ``non-ideological'' forms and methods of influencing people.
The second is the new interpretations of human nature that have sprung, as we have noted above, partly from the political requirements of the ruling class and partly from _-_-_
^^*^^ Jeremy J. Stone, Strategic Persuasion, New York, 1967, p. 7.
^^**^^ Michael Choukas, op. cit., p. 146.
^^***^^ Here virtually not a single major scientific discovery is disregarded by the imperialist propagandists. Some of them are seriously thinking of utilising the theory of conditioned reflexes evolved by the noted Russian scientist Ivan Pavlov. In the West a series of books was published which suggest propaganda methods based on this theory. (Serge Chakotin, The Rape of the Masses, New York, 1940; William Sargant, Battle for the Mind, New York, 1957; Joost A. M. Meerloo, Rape of the Mind, Cleveland, 1956.)
165 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. III. IMPERIALIST PROPAGANDA TODAY the directions in which bourgeois psychology has been developing beginning with Freud. Attempts are being made to explain man's psychical life and, in the long run, his behaviour as being rooted in unconscious instincts, in emotions (inborn or acquired in childhood) and in unchangeable inclinations that determine or prevail over the intellect.It is not our intention to analyse psychological theories of this kind, but in the given case it is important to note that in the West these theories are regarded as the key to the problem facing imperialist propaganda, the problem of how to influence the masses spiritually under conditions where the balance of ideological forces has changed to the detriment of the bourgeoisie. The political theory of the imperialist bourgeoisie has long ago ensured for the ``elite'' the possibility of ``manipulating'' the masses without hindrance. One of the principal means for this was found in psychology, in its quest for methods of influencing man "in depth" that can circumvent or prevail on the intellect.
Thus was born not only the theory but also the political practice of ``deideologised'' propaganda through which, it was believed, and as many people still believe, it was possible to go over from a disadvantageous field of ideological battle, that promised nothing save more and more serious setbacks, to a more promising bridgehead, isolated from and indifferent to social realities, for a direct intrusion into the psychical world, where the dominant role is played by physiological and psychophysiological rather than socio-ideological mechanisms.
This is clearly enunciated by Alfred Sturminger, who writes that in political propaganda there is always one and only one"object---human nature. Decisive importance may attach to manipulating "psychological elements" such as "basic hope" or "basic fear'', and also "mankind's atavisms" which in periods of excitement "are easily revealed and brought to the surface by awakening and whipping up base inclinations and = instincts".^^*^^
In describing psychology's ``contribution'', Sturminger says in conclusion: "In short, efforts are being made to use _-_-_
^^*^^ Alfred Sturminger, op. cit., p. 11.
166 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV all, really all, means to study the 'irrational element' in thinking and feeling and to place the results of this study in the service of political = propaganda."^^*^^In defining the place of the psychologist in propaganda, the American Professor Paul Linebarger writes "he can show how to convert lust into resentment, individual resourcefulness into mass cowardice, friction into distrust, prejudice into fury. He does so by going down to the unconscious mind for his source = materials".^^**^^
In effect this concept of ideological propaganda is the answer of the imperialist theoreticians to the fact (rejected and yet intuitively acknowledged by them) that ideology is objective, that the people's ideas and thinking are moulded by their social environment. This is neither more nor less than an attempt to give politics a means of fighting the objective factors of ideological propaganda (factors which are unfavourable to it) through subjective interference in human thinking and behaviour.
With the exception of the quite fanatical adherents of ``depth'' psychology, bourgeois propaganda theorists cannot deny out of hand that there is a connection between human thinking and objective reality, the influence exercised on human thinking not only by the ``unconscious'' but also by the economic, social and political conditions of life. This gives rise to yet another important concept, the concept of ``information'', which is also aimed at surmounting the operation of objective factors in the propaganda war and which has made a deep imprint on imperialist propaganda as a whole.
The main idea underlying this concept is illustrated by an episode described by Walter Lippmann in the opening chapter of his book, Public Opinion, which was one of the first attempts at a sociological study of the entire range of problems linked with public opinion and propaganda. This episode took place on an island, which in 1914 had a mixed British, German and French community. From mail which arrived in the island in mid-September they learned that _-_-_
^^*^^ Alfred Sturminger, op. cit., p. 15.
^^**^^ Paul Linebarger, op. cit., p. 26. (Linebarger mentions what he believes are two other important tasks of the psychologist. These are to determine the adversary's morale and to recommend propaganda techniques.)
167 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. III. IMPERIALIST PROPAGANDA TODAY their countries had been at war for six weeks, and immediately their attitude to each other underwent a drastic change. "We can see that the news ... comes to us now fast, now slowly; but that whatever we believe to be a true picture, we treat as if it were the environment = itself."^^*^^In other words, a person's political thinking depends above all not on the information he receives directly from his experience and impressions but on the information that comes to him indirectly from newspapers, the radio, hearsay, and so on, and is moulded accordingly. There is thus a whole series of intermediate links between reality and the subject. This creates the possibility of isolating the latter from the former, disrupting the objective links between the social being and social consciousness and thereby opening additional channels for subjectively influencing the very process of the formation of ideas and views.
Hypothetically, we could picture a situation where Lippmann's islanders never learned of the war between their countries (especially if it was a short war) and their views and attitudes were not influenced by their environment. Or, on the contrary, they could have heard false rumours about the war and thought and acted accordingly even though objective reality did not give any grounds for such thoughts and actions.
These premises, naturally, lead to definite conclusions for propaganda, both in the sense of limiting unfavourable information and in the sense of misinforming the people, fabricating information or even, as the highest stage, fabricating ``news'' that could later provide the basis for the desired information.
All these methods have long been in use in the policies of the exploiting states, which through the centuries have had recourse not only to the propagation of ideas and views but also to the concealment (through secrecy or the censorship) of unfavourable information or to the spread of the desired information. Modern bourgeois sociology and political theory have only transferred these methods and political institutions from intuitive ``statesmanship'' to the level of a science and tried to adapt them to contemporary conditions.
_-_-_^^*^^ Walter Lippmann, Public Opinion, New York, 1945, pp. 3-4.
168 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOVThis is of paramount importance. Despite the identity of the basic aims and methods in the policies of past and present exploiting states, one cannot fail to see some significant distinctions. In the case of the sphere interesting us it is necessary to underscore the growth of the people's political awareness and cultural level, the progress that has been achieved in means of communication and information, the democratic gains of the working people and the undermining of the ruling bourgeoisie's monopoly of the means and sources of information due to the growth of the workers' press, the emergence of socialist countries, their information agencies, and so on.
These changes have substantially altered the situation. In most of the capitalist states they have impaired the efficacy of the censorship (which exists in one form or another even in the most democratic bourgeois countries) and impeded if not the dissemination then at least the efficacy of downright and obvious lies about the facts of social life in one's own country and abroad.
The imperialist bourgeoisie has not, of course, abandoned its attempts to influence the public mind by interfering in the process of information. On the contrary, such interference has assumed even larger proportions than before. But the ways for it have grown complicated, while the methods have been improved. "News,'' writes John L. Martin, "is the most important tool of the propagandist. The successful propagandist combines favourable with unfavourable news, playing down the latter and making it seem of no consequence, while playing up the = former."^^*^^
This is, of course, the most simplified enunciation of the principal methods of information as a tool of propaganda as understood by bourgeois theory. Actually, these methods are much more subtle. But the above enunciation clearly shows the attitude that must be adopted to the persevering efforts of the imperialists to depict their propaganda as ``news'' or to their talk about ``truth'' being the substance of this propaganda.
This kind of talk has been going on for a long ti me and with mounting doggedness. Suffice it to rec all President Harry S. Truman's statement to the American Society of _-_-_
^^*^^ John L. Martin, op. cit., p. 17.
169 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. III. IMPERIALIST PROPAGANDA TODAY Newspaper Editors in which he declared that the "campaign of truth" underlay US foreign political propaganda and that "plain, simple, unvarnished truth" was the best weapon against = communism.^^*^^Commenting on this imposing declaration, Martin wittily noted: "It must be remembered, of course, that the propagandist has a choice of = truths."^^**^^ This view was shared by the American propaganda expert Kurt London: " Information. This term is a euphemism. Informative reporting can in itself have strong propagandist^ effects, even when truly objective. It also can appear objective but be loaded with slanted items, specifically designed to propagandise.... One also must consider the fact that absolute objectivity in news reporting is virtually = non-existent."^^***^^
From the standpoint of the imperialist bourgeoisie the most perfect propaganda doctrines also provide for highly subtle methods of creating ``facts'', which are then used as the basis of information and propaganda.
In order to make propaganda more effective some of the architects of official US propaganda insist on measures that would if not eliminate then at least demonstrate a reduction of the discrepancy between words, and deeds in foreign policy, and demand reinforcing propaganda with action. This is the keynote of Truth Is Our Weapon, a book by Edward W. Barrett, a former US Assistant Secretary of State.^^****^^ The same view is propounded by Professor Ralph K. White, who stresses that "our actions must be in line with our words'', that the "propaganda of the deed is more potent than the propaganda of the = word".^^*****^^
In these pronouncements one must distinguish two tendencies: one is purely propagandistic and boils down to the recommendation of some demonstrative actions that would help propaganda and make it more effective; the other is political and represents a certain adjustment of policy to reality, concessions to the most pressing demands of public opinion, in other words, it is a form of bourgeois reformism. _-_-_
^^*^^ The New York Times, April 21, 1950, p. 4.
^^**^^ John L. Martin, op. cit., p. 7.
^^***^^ Kurt London, The Making of Foreign Policy. East and West, Philadelphia, 1965, p. 255.
^^****^^ Edward W. Barrett, Truth Is Our Weapon, New York, 1953.
^^*****^^ The Public Opinion Quarterly, Winter 1952/53, p. 540.
170 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV The first, naturally, has to be simply exposed. The second, despite all its points of contact with the first, requires a more cautious approach by socialist countries and all other progressive forces, because in addition to its attempts atv deception it is necessary to see in it real concessions to the working people (whether in foreign or in domestic policy) as a result of their struggle for their direct interests and for reforms.Various ways of diverting people from information giving them the lead to ideas, views and conclusions that are undesirable from the standpoint of the propagandist are a form of interfering in man's perception of the reality around him. We are referring to the organised and systematic attempts to make people lose interest in real, vital problems of social life.
This form of ensuring spiritual domination in society is likewise not something fundamentally new in the exploiting state. Distraction has always been one of the main functions of religion. A principle in operation in Ancient Rome called for "bread and spectacles'', in other words for the satisfaction of elementary requirements and the distraction of the masses from politics and the class struggle with the aid of varied entertainment.
In present-day capitalist society this activity has reached fantastic proportions. In the West the press, literature, cinema, radio and television seek to concentrate people's attention on sex, sports, the private lives of new ``heroes'' artificially created by the propaganda machine (film stars, gangsters, and similar personalities), crime, film hits, pop music, dances and new cars. The incredible clamour raised round these objects, sometimes whipped up to the scale of mass hysteria, has become a feature of the modern bourgeois way of life and culture in the USA and other countries.
In bourgeois sociological literature one finds attempts to depict this as the inevitable outcome not only of the higher standard of living but also of the social changes brought about by the people's increased influence on social life and culture (the "mass culture" = theory).^^*^^ Some authors _-_-_
^^*^^ Diverse views on this problem are given in Mass Culture. The Popular Arts in America, edited by B. Rosenberg and D. White, New York, 1965; "Art and the Affluent Society'', an article by Eric Larrabee in The Crossroad Papers. A Look Into the American Future, New York, 1965.
171 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. III. IMPERIALIST PROPAGANDA TODAY even try to prove that this is a healthy development, that it safeguards people against the emotional stresses inherent in the way of life in modern ``industrial'' and "mass society" with its rapid pace and its satiation with politics and propaganda. For example, in a book entitled The Effects of Mass Communication, Joseph T. Klapper, Secretary-- Treasurer of the American Association for Public Opinion, maintains that books and radio programmes that divert people from their day-to-day worries and transport them to a mythical world of success and heroes are beneficial for they " produce certain, psychophysica.l effects as, for example, ... a temporary mood of = relaxation".^^*^^Klapper pretends he does not notice that entertainment (in addition to being a source of huge profits) is becoming a major instrument for the preservation of the ideological domination of the ruling classes and a means of corrupting the mind and exerting spiritual pressure on the masses.
However, this is acknowledged by many bourgeois theorists, who give ``escapism'' and the tactics of ``diversion'' a prominent place in propaganda. Aldous Huxley, for instance, in assessing the significance of entertainment writes that in the West it, like other media of mass communications, is "concerned in the main neither with the true nor the false, but with an unreal, the more or less totally irrelevant".^^**^^ In modern society entertainment has thus taken the place once held by the Church. "The other world of religion,'' Huxley notes, "is different from the other world of entertainment; but they resemble one another in being most decidedly 'not of this world'. Both are distractions and, if lived in too continuously, both can become, in Marx's phrase, 'the opium of the people', and so a threat to = freedom."^^***^^ For, he explains, in the West "the non-stop distractions" are "now threatening to drown in a sea of irrelevance the rational = propaganda".^^****^^
"A society,'' he writes, "most of whose members spend a a great part of their time not on the spot, not here and now and in the calculable future, but somewhere else, in the _-_-_
^^*^^ Joseph T. Klapper, The Effects of Mass Communication, Glencoe, 1961, p. 201.
^^**^^ Aldous Huxley, Brave New World Revisited, p. 55.
^^***^^ Ibid., p. 56.
^^****^^ Ibid.
172 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV irrelevant other world of sport and soap opera, of mythology and metaphysical phantasy, will find it hard to resist the encroachments of those who would manipulate and control it."^^*^^Like the other authors, who are opposed to the mounting anti-democratic reactionary trends in the political life of the Western countries, Huxley is not inclined to depict it as the result of some spontaneous processes. Besides, it is hard not to see that behind the mass diffusion of the "opium of the people" are the real interests (commercial and political) of those in whose hands economic and political power is concentrated.
In information, as in entertainment and culture, the function of the imperialist bourgeoisie is thus aimed at replacing objective reality with an artificial ``reality'' and thereby intruding into the very process of the people's cognition of reality and distorting this process in its own interests. On a larger plane this is the very tendency of counteracting the objective factors of the ideological struggle through subjective interference that we have spoken of earlier in connection with propaganda aimed at unconscious feelings, at stirring irrational instincts and = emotions.^^**^^ This tendency, which is in fact a war on the human mind, is gradually becoming the keynote of imperialist bourgeois propaganda.
Moreover, in contrast to the medieval obscurantists, who counted chiefly on the ignorance and wretchedness of the masses, this propaganda is making increasing use of mankind's finest achievements---the latest discoveries of science and technology.
_-_-_^^*^^ Aldous Huxley, op. cit., p. 56.
^^**^^ Choukas quite figuratively shows the influence of such methods on the individual and the results of this influence: "Under the constant bombardment of propagandist ideas, an individual is sooner or later detached from the real.... One by one the links that might have held him to the world of reality are broken off; and with the propagandist always at hand to supply him with all the answers, his natural curiosity is satisfied; all initiative vanishes, and his mental horizon becomes fixed and stable. His whole personality becomes frozen and static. Under these circumstances, whatever will power he might have developed under more normal conditions fails to materialise since, as he comes completely under the spell of the propagandist, all the behaviour controls are ultimately transferred from his inner psyche to the hands of the propagandist" (Michael Choukas, op. cit., p. 257).
173 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. III. IMPERIALIST PROPAGANDA TODAYMuch has already been done in this direction. But even more sinister are some of the current purely exploratory experiments whose results may quite possibly be added to the propaganda arsenal in the future. Since we have mentioned the future, it would be worth our while, before discussing these experiments, to refer again to a work of bourgeois science fiction which accurately and very impressively noted the direction of the quests of bourgeois propaganda and the sciences serving it.
This is Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, published in the 1930s and today a classic ``anti-utopia''. It depicts the "society of the future'', a monstrous world, which with bitter irony the author calls a ``brave'' and ``new'' world, where all human values have been trampled---freedom, comradeship, love, and the very ability of the intellect to think independently and creatively, a world that has been turned not even into a barracks but into a giant and forbiddingly efficient ``man-breeding'' = farm.^^*^^
As every significant work of the Utopian genre (and Brave New World, despite the author's basically misconceived ideological positions, is unquestionably significant), this book is a criticism of the ``true'', although, as any other " antiutopia" (as distinct from a ``utopia'') it contains no description of the ``proper''. In this case this ``true'' is the practice of the fascist states and also some of the tendencies that have begun to take shape also in the Western bourgeoisdemocratic countries, namely, violence against the individual, spiritual enslavement of the masses, the Hitlerite plans for the nation s "genetic adjustment'', and some research that could give dictators new means and methods of bending people to their will.
Brave New World was designed by its author as a warning against the terrible fate awaiting all mankind if it did not get off that road.
Such are the general premises in Huxley's book. In the given case what interests us in particular is Huxley's description of the methods, which, he says, within a few centuries will be used by "scientifically organised" tyranny for the spiritual enslavement of the masses. Some of these methods still have a fantastic ring today: for instance, people are _-_-_
^^*^^ Aldous Huxley, Brave New World, London, 1934.
174 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV ``hatched'' or ``decanted'' in incubators, where through the addition of various chemicals injected into an artificially inseminated ovum they produce individuals with various ``qualities'', from intelligent ``alphas'', future executives, to half-witted ``epsilons'', future = labourers.^^*^^Unfortunately, some of the other methods are no longer as fantastic as they at first seemed. Among them, for example, are psychological methods of inducing definite social reflexes, viz., contentedness with one's life and position in society, contempt for everybody on the lower rungs of the social ladder and servility to all who are on the higher rungs. Moreover, they include the utilisation of all possible forms of "opium of the people"---entertainment, the techniques for which reach their highest level of perfection in Huxley's book (erotic delights ensured by total moral permissiveness and the abolition of the family, infallible contraceptives and ``soma'', a narcotic that causes intoxication without the ill effects of alcohol or morphine). Lastly, they consist of a careful sifting of information and ideas for the people (this sifting would require the destruction of literature as such, including the classics, which would be dangerous on account of their humanistic ideas). These methods, Huxley believes, are sufficient to ensure the total suppression of the individual and make him an obedient tool in the hands of dictators, to force man not only to reconcile himself to his fate but even to regard it as the happiest state he can achieve.
In the 1930s most readers could regard this novel as a purely fantastic work of literature even if it touched on some sinister aspects of reality (notably the aspects linked with fascism). But a quarter of a century later Huxley returned to the theme of the "brave new world" not in the form of a novel but in the form of a purely political work--- Brave New World Revisited.
In the new work the writer's former caustic irony gives way to panic. "The prophecies made in 1931,'' he writes, _-_-_
^^*^^ As a matter of fact some bourgeois specialists are currently working in this direction. Zbigniew Brzezinski, in effect, uses ideas of this kind for his picture of the future, the ``technotronic'' age, where society is "conscious not only of the principle of equal opportunity for all but of special opportunity for the singularly talented few" (Encounter, January 1968, p. 23).
175 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. III. IMPERIALIST PROPAGANDA TODAY "are coming true much sooner than I thought they would.... The nightmare of total organisation, which I had situated in the seventh century after Ford, has emerged from the safe, remote future and is now awaiting us, just around the next = corner."^^*^^One of the principal facts on which Huxley bases this gloomy prophecy is, as he himself points out, the progress in some spheres of science and technology which holds out for dictators of the future unlimited possibilities for controlling the minds and hearts of people.
Is this fact cause for anxiety? Most certainly. There may be different attitudes to the results of the recent intensive research in ``depth'' psychology and even in telepathy, regarding which there are contradictory opinions, ranging from their total repudiation as sheer charlatanry, to unequivocal or partial acknowledgement. It is still difficult to make a proper assessment also of the experiments in utilising the data of corresponding research in advertising and propaganda.^^**^^
_-_-_^^*^^ Aldous Huxley, Brave New World Revisited, pp. 11--12.
^^**^^ There have been frequent reports in the press, for example, about attempts to influence the subconscious mind with the aid of various symbols, by utilising the "subthreshold effect''. Thus, to enhance the effect of "horror films'', split-second images of various symbols (say, the skull and crossbones symbol) or inscriptions (such as ``blood'' or ``death'') are flashed on the screen. Similar experiments are conducted in advertisement films, and bourgeois psychologists believe this makes them more effective (See Vance Packard, op. cit., p. 35). Speaking of these experiments in Brave New World Revisited, Huxley describes a meeting of the future during which special machines are used to project images, symbols and words and produce corresponding sounds which are unknowingly recorded by the subconscious mind. He writes that according to specialists one-fifth of any audience can be hypnotised almost immediately, one-seventh can be relieved of pain by injections of water, and one-fourth will respond to hypnopedia (Aldous Huxley, op. cit., pp. 112--13, 133). W. Phillips Davison, an American propaganda expert, speaks of influencing the subconscious mind through the "confrontation of an audience with stimuli that are below the threshold of conscious perception but nevertheless register on the sensory organs'', and draws the following conclusion: "This technique might make it possible for an idea to penetrate the mind without being inhibited or modified by the psychological defences that a person sets up to protect his established attitudes" (W. Phillips Davison, International Political Communication, New York, 1965, p. 48).
176 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOVThere is no doubt whatever that immense advances have been made in recent years by research into the mechanism of mental processes and the influence exercised on them by chemical, electronic and other stimuli.
Grave apprehensions have also been aroused by some of the latest achievements of pharmacology in the production of mind stimulating drugs. Nobody will deny their use as a new and powerful means of fighting mental and nervous diseases. But there is now a new and dangerous field for the abuse of scientific achievements, for their use as agents prejudicial to health. It will be recalled that when the nazis interrogated political prisoners they used drugs (for instance, scopolamine) to break down the resistance of their victims. Today there are incomparably more powerful means of sapping people's will power and influencing their minds without even resorting to violence, simply through the resultant narcotic effect. There is an eager market for drugs of this kind and they increase the danger of mass addiction, which is already an ominous menace. The most widely-known drugs of this category are the American-invented silosibin and LSD, which not only stupefy people but make them more receptive to mysticism. Doctors are alarmed by the mass use of various sedatives that injure the organism and suppress normal mind reactions to reality. Huxley's ``soma'' is thus no longer a fantastic means of suppressing man's will power.
Lastly, mention must be made of the experiments being conducted with electronic devices in a number of countries, notably in the USA. Describing these experiments by Professor Jose Delgado of Yale University, the French newspaper Arts wrote: "Delgado plans to design a tiny electronic device capable of compelling any person, at the very mention of the word 'communism', say, to kill the president of the republic or begin to = roar."^^*^^ An American medical journal reported that similar experiments were being conducted at another American university by Robert = Heath.^^**^^
Commenting on these experiments an Arts observer wrote with horror of the torrent of electronic stimuli "which completely pervert people. Their personalities change to such _-_-_
^^*^^ Arts, June 24--30, 1964, p. 1.
^^**^^ See American Journal of Psychiatry, October 1963.
177 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. III. IMPERIALIST PROPAGANDA TODAY an extent that they are reduced to a state of total irresponsibility and are capable of the monstrous actions. Thus, in June of this abundant year of 1964, it has become possible to induce lust in any child, to provoke a girl to murder and to make a blood-thirsty vampire out of a village schoolteacher."^^*^^ The French newspaper justly sees the end goal and chief danger of these ``experiments'' in that they are out to "turn people into slaves" and "rape the mind".All this is still in the experimental stage, of course. But the fact that such ``experiments'' are being conducted and that there are already repercussions forces one to take a serious attitude to the prospects for the development of the "science of manipulation'', especially if one views them in the light of the efforts imperialist propaganda is making to deaden the mind, to transfer the struggle for people's minds and hearts from the sphere of ideology proper, where imperialism is at a disadvantage, to the sphere of " manipulation" by playing on emotions and instincts, by isolating man from his environment and by direct, so to say, supraideological influences on higher nervous activity.
This anti-humane doctrine, which is gradually being translated into political practice, is evoking protests from a growing number of bourgeois scholars. An example is Rene-Henri Wust's La guerre psychologique, brought out in Switzerland in the mid-1950s. This book's keynote is that mankind has not yet realised the terrible threat emanating from the possibilities of using such a powerful weapon as psychological control. "Everybody knows and condemns the nuclear form of war,'' the author writes. "The psychological weapon is much more secret--- Hitherto it has not caused any outburst of public indignation or led to any 'appeal to universal conscience'.... But is not a weapon terrifying which enables the modern state to mechanise minds, to impose its domination on people from infancy and compel everybody to act without = thinking?"^^**^^
The analogy which Wiist draws between the thermonuclear and the psychological weapon cannot be called arbitrary. Indeed, in both cases it is a question of a monstrous _-_-_
^^*^^ Arts, June 24--30, 1964, p. 7.
^^**^^ Rene-Henri Wiist, op. cit., pp. 117--18.
178 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV distortion of progress, of the achievements of science, of the mind, seriously imperilling the human race.And in both cases there is hope, unnoticed by most bourgeois scientists, linked with progress in another sphere, in social development, with progress creating new possibilities for excluding such a total abuse of science, technology and other fruits of civilisation. In the case of thermonuclear weapons, such progress has already found its expression in the fact that imperialism is confronted by socialism, by the forces of peace. This creates new possibilities for averting a thermonuclear catastrophe, although the threat of such a catastrophe has not been completely removed. The same concerns the most perfect present and future forms of psychological weapons.
Progress in this sphere promoted by scientific achievements is taking place in an epoch witnessing a similarly rapid growth of the socio-political forces opposed to the imperialist corrupters of minds. The growth of culture, the conscious political activity of the masses, their mounting struggle for socialism and democracy, and the increasing influence of socialist ideas largely facilitated by the socialist community's successes in the building of the new society, are the tangible factors fortifying the belief that the terrible fate of the "brave new world" will remain one of the many unfulfilled prophecies of visionaries.
But it would be absurd to ignore the serious threat that nevertheless comes from imperialist propaganda, which has become an inalienable weapon of imperialist policy, a weapon on which this policy relies and on which depends the very, existence of imperialism, reaction and aggression. The threat is real and this devolves immense responsibility on the forces heading the struggle of the peoples for peace, democracy, national independence and socialism. To be successful the fight against imperialist propaganda needs understanding not only of its general principles but also of its specific methods.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ MethodsIn the war of ideas imperialism has recourse to a huge range of propaganda methods and techniques. It would be a simplification to believe that in all cases they are the result of planned and purposeful efforts based on scientific and expert recommendations. 179 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. III. IMPERIALIST PROPAGANDA TODAY The intuition and improvisation of practicians still plays a large role. Many of the methods and techniques are founded on the experience of moulding public opinion accumulated by commercial advertising agencies, the Church and other organisations engaged in propaganda.
Nonetheless, a typical feature of present-day imperialist propaganda (particularly of foreign political propaganda) is, we repeat, its attempts to use science as the means of working out the most effective methods of influencing public opinion.
It seeks if not to change then at least to augment its ideological means of swaying the public mind and prevailing on emotions, to play on irrational elements, on prejudices and misconceptions. These methods are widespread particularly in psychological warfare.
The theoretical premises on which the methods of imperialist propaganda are founded will, in many ways, not stand the test of real scientific criticism, particularly criticism by scientific psychology. The falsity of many of these premises, notably, the orientation on the subconscious, which disparages man's ability to think rationally, cannot help but affect the efficacy of this propaganda.
However, it would be wrong to belittle the threat harboured in the very aspiration to compensate ideological weakness with improved methods of spiritually influencing the masses. This aspiration counts on the fact that many people are uninformed and have an inadequate level of culture, on prejudices and human weaknesses, on the vulnerability created by these chinks. Moreover, this aspiration is founded on an analysis and generalisation of the immense experience of deceiving people accumulated by the bourgeoisie and its predecessors, the exploiting classes of past epochs. Lastly, it is based on the extensive work of many thousands of astute, cynical and frequently very capable people with extensive experience and competent training in propaganda, which is their main occupation.
All in all, this has enabled the modern bourgeoisie to build up an impressive arsenal of propaganda methods and techniques designed to intensify its influence on the public mind. The training of propaganda experts is conducted along these lines.
180 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOVMany propaganda writings devote much attention to studying the audience, its changing moods and all shades of its ideas and feelings, eveji its favourite images and turns of speech. On this point Michael Choukas writes: "The effectiveness of the propagandist's effort to manipulate opinion directly is measured by the degree to which the choices offered correspond to the cognitive and emotional predispositions of the individual at the time. The more compatible the ready-made opinions are with the individual's predilections at the moment the more readily they will be accepted and incorporated into the individual's own = thinking."^^*^^
Some critical researchers attribute many of the major setbacks of US foreign political propaganda to an inability to reckon with the specifics of an = audience.^^**^^
Of the bourgeois countries, Britain has perhaps the largest experience of organised foreign political propaganda. This is reflected in research literature. An example of this literature is Lindley Eraser's Propaganda, which, unlike many other works on this subject by Western authors, adopts a sober, cautious attitude to the recipes of ``wonder-working'' mountebanks among bourgeois psychologists and sociologists, who regard propaganda as an omnipotent weapon that can independently resolve political problems.
_-_-_^^*^^ Michael Choukas, op. cit. pp. 197--98.
^^**^^ An American author who uses the pen-name John Forth Amory writes, for instance: "Propaganda, like war, is merely one means of carrying out foreign policy, of trying to impose that policy on others. Success in propaganda, as in war, depends on the use of power (words) at the right time, in the right place, in the right amount and in the right way. In propaganda, as in war, a key element in success is to know the enemy as well as yourself---by no means an easy knowledge to attain---and to know your allies. Words are the weapons in propaganda, but words, unlike bombs, are not necessarily the same for all men.
"Propaganda, no matter how true or false, passes through the filter of man's mind: and-in the passage it may come to have a wholly different meaning. American lack of knowledge of how and what the great majorities feel and think in the areas of upheaval---a lack directly traceable to the make-up of our intelligence organisation---has tendered our propaganda peculiarly ineffective and even counter-productive among these masses of people, quite apart from its basic flaw, derived from its orientation and content'' (An American Foreign Policy Reader, New York, 1965, pp. 289--90).
181 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. III. IMPERIALIST PROPAGANDA TODAYFraser is a practician and, to some extent, a theorist of imperialist propaganda. He is not worried about the moral aspect, and this is expressed in his book. Raising the question of what methods are permissible for the propagandist, he replies: "...all of them; subject only to the limitations already indicated, namely, that by using violence or rewards to achieve his result (as opposed to threats of the former or promises of the latter) he by definition ceases to be a propagandist."^^*^^ He adopts the same approach to ``black'' propaganda (a variety we shall discuss further on). "From a moral point of view,'' he writes, "the technique is of course distasteful, but as a device for deceiving and discouraging the enemy it is evidently a legitimate and possibly an effective weapon of war, no less than the dropping of forged banknotes or ration = books."^^**^^
This attitude, this attempt to rise "above good and evil" is characteristic of the British expert even when he interprets the problem of truth, which is a central problem of the theory and practice of propaganda. Naturally, Fraser is not against lies as such, saying "there may be and indeed certainly are occasions when the propagandist who refuses to depart from the truth may weaken, perhaps decisively, his own = efficiency".^^***^^
But he urges the utmost caution in the use of lies, noting that Goebbels' apology of the "big lie" as the foundation of propaganda was "absolute rubbish''. In practice one of the cardinal conditions for the propagandist is not even truth but a reputation for^ reliability, which can be jeopardised by only one or two = lies.^^****^^ Fraser offers the following advice: "Do not lie in peace-time if you wish to maintain your influence in international councils; do not lie in war time if you expect the war to be a long one; do not lie about your peace aims if you are concerned that peace when it comes shall be secure and lasting; in short, do not lie if you are likely to be found out and remember that in time you are likely, perhaps even certain, to be found = out."^^*****^^
_-_-_^^*^^ Lindley Fraser, op. cit., p. 11.
^^**^^ Ibid., p. 122.
^^***^^ Ibid., p. 13.
^^****^^ Ibid., p. 207.
^^*****^^ Ibid., p. 208.
182 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOVThese general premises underlie the close attention which Eraser's book, as other voluminous tomes on propaganda, devotes to the ways and means of winning a reputation for reliability. Referring to some aspects of the experience gained by British propaganda during the Second World War, he notes: "Its successes were achieved at least as much by self-restraint and doing nothing as by positive intervention. And this may well be a general propaganda principle.... The propagandist must always be on his guard against overstating his case, against alienating potential sympathisers through exaggeration or excessive repetition, in short, he must beware of converting what may within its limits be an effective weapon against the enemy into a boomerang which damages instead himself and his = friends."^^*^^
Attention to this aspect of propaganda is drawn also by Richard H. S. Grossman, a British journalist and a leading member of the Labour Party, who was one of the directors of Anglo-US propaganda during the war. In a lecture at the British Royal United Service Institute he stressed that "in a cold war, as in a hot war, the major aim of propaganda is to achieve credibility. Long before you try to demoralise, exdoctrinate or indoctrinate, the first job is to be = believed."^^**^^ Summarising the experience of the war years, he said: "From the point of view of psychological warfare, a defeat is a great opportunity, especially if you are skilful and say that your defeat is worse than it is. You must be frank about it, franker than the facts. Then you really begin to gain the enemy's = confidence."^^***^^ In this connection Grossman recalled the first massive German air raid on London, when the British announced their losses earlier than the Germans and gave higher figures than the latter. ``That'', he said, "was _-_-_
^^*^^ Lindley Fraser, op. cit., p. 38. The book contains many examples to show the attention this aspect received from British propaganda during the war. For example, BBC programmes beamed on Germany were conducted by people speaking German with a pronounced British accent to avoid the danger that in the eyes of listeners the broadcaster would be ranked as a traitor. On the contrary, broadcasts for France were conducted by Frenchmen. In its broadcasts for Germany the BBC avoided direct advice on the organisation of subversion and sabotage, while in the broadcasts for France this advice always received prominence (ibid., pp. 101--03).
^^**^^ William E. Daugherty, Morris Janowitz, op. cit., p. 45.
^^***^^ Ibid., p. 40.
183 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. III. IMPERIALIST PROPAGANDA TODAY the great psychological warfare triumph of the = year."^^*^^One more important conclusion drawn by Fraser is that as distinct from his employer the propagandist, "if he is to carry conviction with his targets, must himself believe that what he is saying is true; not necessarily the whole truth, because he cannot expect to know all details... but at least not a gross distortion of the = truth".^^**^^ He makes this point again and again: "The good propagandist may be cynical in detail (as the armchair student of propaganda must be to some extent if he is to understand his subject) but in the long run he will not convince others unless he is first and foremost convinced himself''; "the propagandist who is a pure cynic is almost certain to be a bad propagandist"^^***^^.
In the case of British and United States war-time propaganda for Germany, one of the reasons of its successes was, possibly, the fact that among those who conducted it there were many sincere patriots and anti-fascists, some of whom had fled Germany for political reasons. The democratic content of many aspects of the Western Allies' propaganda for Germany was largely determined by the anti-fascist character of the = war.^^****^^
Naturally the views of Fraser and Grossman should under no circumstances be regarded as the credo of contemporary _-_-_
^^*^^ Tbid.
^^**^^ Lindley Fraser, op. cit., p. 209.
^^***^^ Ibid., pp. 209, 195.
^^****^^ In this connection Grossman recalled that during the war many leaflets and other printed materials had to be even classified in order to prevent them from becoming known to parliament and the press and thereby evoking the fury of the Conservatives and reactionaries in Britain herself (William E. Daugherty, Morris Janowitz, op. cit., p. 45). However, subterfuges of this kind did not always help. Immediately after the war the Office of War Information, the principal US war-time propaganda agency, was dissolved with, what Wilson P. Dizard calls, "more than indecent haste''. Explaining the motives for this action, he cites a statement by the reactionary columnist Westbrook Pegler, a statement that was typical of the times, to the effect that the OWI "was a hide-out for privileged intellectual New Deal cowards and Communists''. According to Dizard it cost a great effort to save at least part of that propaganda machine. Big new foreign political propaganda agencies were set up soon afterwards but even they were at first under suspicion on account of the prejudices that had come to the fore during the war years. As a result they were ``investigated'' four times during the 1950s. The Senate commission headed by Joseph McCarthy was particularly zealous in this witch-- __NOTE__ Footnote continued on page 184. 184 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV imperialist propaganda. First, they express the ideas of British propaganda, which, while being more subtle and skilful, has long ago ceased to play the determining role in imperialist ideological propaganda, control of which has passed to the USA. Second, their views are rooted in a definite and by no means currently typical period of the history of Western foreign political propaganda, a period when Britain, the USA and some other bourgeois countries were members of an anti-fascist coalition; naturally, this affected the nature of their ideological efforts. Third, in the books of these experts one can easily detect an undertone of protest against the propaganda methods used by these countries in the period of the cold war. Many of the maxims propounded by Fraser and Grossman sound as a rebuke and frequently a taunt at post-war United States, and also British, propaganda.
Nevertheless, it is useful to know this concept. The most crude and clumsy varieties of bourgeois propaganda give themselves away. The more subtle techniques used by it are what must be exposed.
An example of how the above-mentioned concepts are refracted in the views of United States propaganda experts is given by Michael Choukas, who writes: "Under certain circumstances, it may be of advantage to him (the propagandist.---G.A.) to employ accurate descriptive truth. In such cases ... an accurate description of the facts is dictated by some strategic or tactical consideration. He may be attempting to establish credibility, for instance, preparing his audience for the 'big' lie yet to come. Or, he may be simultaneously perpetrating a distortion of another order: he may be distorting the meaning of the true facts he is dispensing. What must be kept in mind is that the propagandist feels neither a like nor a dislike for truths or untruths as such. To him, both are means of mental = manipulation."^^*^^
This problem is interpreted in much the same way by the American journalist Arthur E. Meyerhoff: "While it is true _-_-_ __NOTE__ Footnote continued from page 183. hunt. The purge instituted by this commission is one of the most shameful pages of American history. Although no ``Communists'' were found in these agencies, the baiting was so vicious that there were even cases of suicide. Moreover, ``suspect'' books removed from the shelves of the agency were burned (Wilson P. Dizard, op. cit., pp. 36--43).
^^*^^ Michael Choukas, op. cit., p. 116.
185 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. III. IMPERIALIST PROPAGANDA TODAY that believability is vital to persuasiveness, it is a mistake to equate news with truth.... As such, propaganda does not necessarily represent a distortion of truth. Rather it can be based on selected truths, half-truths, or outright falsehoods, separately or in = combination."^^*^^As a matter of fact, in the years since the war the world has had ample evidence that outright falsehoods have become common not only in Washington's propaganda but also in its official statements. An example was the US Government's reaction to the shooting down of the U-2 spy plane near Sverdlovsk, USSR, in May 1960. Essentially speaking, they were making no secret of this circumstance.
At the close of 1962 Arthur Sylvester, Assistant Secretary of Defence for Public Affairs, bluntly declared: "It would seem to be basic, all through history, that it's inherent in that government's right, if necessary, to = lie."^^**^^ At a press conference in February 1968, when he faced a barrage of searching questions, Secretary of State Dean Rusk said: "There gets to be a point, when the question is, whose side are you on. I'm the Secretary of State, and I'm on our side.'' When a reporter asked the barbed question whether he was suggesting the press was disloyal, Rusk irritably replied: "None of your papers or your broadcasting apparatuses are worth a damn unless the United States succeeds. They .are trivial compared to that question. So I don't know why, to win a Pulitzer Prize, people have to go on probing for things one can bitch = about."^^***^^ So up with falsehood!
As regards the day-to-day practice of imperialist propaganda the concern to avoid exposure while systematically disseminating lies (without which this propaganda cannot function) has received peculiar expression in the attention that is given to the problem of camouflaging the real source of propaganda. It is from this angle that we must examine the main reason for the strict classification of propaganda into ``white'', ``grey'' and ``black''.
According to the authors of the handbook Psychological Warfare Operations, ``white'' propaganda is spread and _-_-_
^^*^^ Arthur E. Meyerhofi, The Strategy of Persuasion, New York, 1965, pp. 101, 79.
^^**^^ William McGaffin, Erwin Knoll, Anything But the Truth, New York, 1968, p. 84.
^^***^^ Ibid., p. 83.
186 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV acknowledged by the source or its official representatives, ``grey'' propaganda does not identify its source, and ``black'' propaganda is presented as originating from a source other than the real = one.^^*^^ This is explained even more frankly by the American psychologist Edwin G. Boring, who notes that ``grey'' and particularly ``black'' propaganda have "the advantage of irresponsibility" in that they allow spreading scandals and rumours without discrediting the government.^^**^^The aggressive techniques used by imperialist propaganda are expressed in the most undisguised manner in the American doctrine of psychological warfare. The term itself was borrowed from the nazis and became current in the USA early during the Second World War to designate propaganda linked with hostilities. Daniel Lerner, who was associated with a United States propaganda agency during the war, wrote as early as 1949: "Among the major changes involved in the transition from peace to war are these: ...sanctions become economic warfare, diplomacy becomes political warfare, propaganda becomes psychological = warfare."^^***^^
But this was soon reinterpreted. In the Dictionary of US Army Terms, published in 1950, it is stated: "Psychological warfare---the planned use by a nation in time of war or declared emergency of propaganda measures designed to influence the opinions, emotions, attitudes and behaviour of enemy, neutral, or friendly foreign groups in such a way as to support the accomplishment of its national policies and aims."^^****^^
Three years later, a revised edition of this dictionary gave a new definition: "Psychological warfare---the planned use, by a nation or group of nations, of propaganda and related informational measures directed toward enemy, neutral or friendly groups, to influence opinions, emotions, attitudes and behaviour in such a manner as to support the policies and aims of the using nation or group of nations."^^*****^^
_-_-_^^*^^ See Psychological Warfare Operations, p. 8.
^^**^^ Edwin G. Boring, Psychology for the Armed Services, Washington, 1945, p. 493.
^^***^^ Daniel Lerner, Sykewar, New York, 1949, p. 6.
^^****^^ Department of the Army. Dictionary of US Army Terms, August 1950, SR 320-5-1.
^^*****^^ Ibid., rev., November 1953.
187 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. III. IMPERIALIST PROPAGANDA TODAYThe key modification in the later definition is in the omission of the words "in time of war or declared emergency''. In other words, psychological warfare was legalised as a weapon of peace-time politics. One cannot agree with the contention of some American authors (for instance, Daugherty and Janowitz) that essentially this has changed nothing, that psychological warfare had simply become the term designating US foreign political propaganda as such. It is sooner the reverse: propaganda has been reorganised in accordance with military doctrine and now this has been legalised also in its name.
The whole point is that psychological warfare is not merely a term. It is, above all, a definite type of propaganda, a set of techniques and methods that had formerly been used" chiefly in time of war and had now been legalised in the USA and other capitalist countries for peace-time foreign political propaganda. Psychological warfare most clearly and completely embodies the most aggressive features of imperialist foreign political propaganda, features that make it not so much an instrument of persuasion as a weapon for political intervention, for interference in the internal affairs of other countries.
A specific of psychological warfare as a type of propaganda doctrine is that its objective is not to change people's views or influence their minds but to create political and psychological situations to condition the behaviour of the population as a whole, of individual groups or even of the ruling circles of other countries. But this, one may say, has been the long-standing objective of bourgeois foreign political propaganda generally. Explaining the differences in the approach to propaganda, Lindley Fraser refers to the subtle, almost untranslatable distinction between what the Germans call ``Stimmung'' and ``Haltung'', i.e., the mood in itself that remains the state of a man's inner world and can only indirectly affect his actions and behaviour, and the mood expressed by his more active attitudes, in other words, the mood that directly determines his behaviour. The propagandist's most important aim and, at the same time,* his most difficult task, to use Eraser's words, is to influence the latter, i.e., to effect the transition of mood into = behaviour.^^*^^
_-_-_^^*^^ Lindley Fraser, op. cit., p. 51.
188 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOVThis aspect receives the unequivocal attention of Western foreign political propaganda experts. For example, in Psychological Warfare Reconsidered the American Hans Speier, of the RAND Corporation, stressed that instead of concentrating on "ideological persuasion'', on attempts to ``convert'' people, the propagandist should aim at achieving "politically relevant behaviour" or, in plainer terms, inducing people to "slow down in their work, commit sabotage, spread rumours, organise those who are disaffected, or engage in illegal = activities".^^*^^
This brings us to another feature of psychological warfare, a feature intrinsic to the entire doctrine and practice of present-day imperialist foreign political propaganda--- namely, the quest for ideological instruments to replace those now in use in various kinds of provocations and actions inducing the desired behaviour. Earlier we cited the pronouncements of the American psychologist R. Williams, who contends that attempts to arrange and utilise events as the core of future operations are typical of psychological warfare.
In itself this leads to propaganda's fusion not only with politics as a whole but also, and in particular, with subversive activities and espionage. In the case of ``black'' propaganda, this distinction disappears altogether. It is not surprising, therefore, that most of the operations of this propaganda are directed by intelligence agencies. Actually, when people speak of psychological warfare (or political warfare, a term more in use in Britain) they frequently mean not only propaganda but subversive activities as such. This approach, which, in effect, erases the distinction between propaganda and espionage, subversion and even terrorist activities, is a specific of psychological warfare that has its roots in the doctrine and practice of nazi propaganda.
Many of the psychological warfare operations and the very methods of this sort of ``propaganda'' are strictly classified, of course. But some idea about them may be obtained from literature dealing with Anglo-US military propaganda during the Second World War, when some operations and methods were made public.
_-_-_^^*^^ Propaganda in War and Crisis, p. 474.
189 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. III. IMPERIALIST PROPAGANDA TODAYThe first thing that strikes one in these operations is the calculation on the indirect effect that conceals the aim of the operation. Take as an example the British and United States practice in World War II of warning the inhabitants of enemy towns of impending air raids (leaflets naming the towns listed for destruction were dropped over Japan in 1945). At first glance it might seem that the aim of this practice was to enlist the sympathy of the enemy population or in any case to play down the impression that might be caused by terrorist air raids. However, the organisers of this "psychological action" were least of all concerned with this aspect of the matter.
Their principal aims were quite different. According to Daugherty and Janowitz, one of these aims was to undermine the morale of the enemy population by demonstrating the overwhelming military superiority of the Allies, a superiority that enabled them to give advance notification of the objectives that would be attacked. The second aim was to compel the enemy population to read (or hear) the relevant material and establish a reputation of credibility for them. The third aim was to induce panic among the civilian population and reinforce its fears in order to disorganise life in the towns concerned (usually, major centres of war industry, administration and = transport).^^*^^
Analysing these propaganda actions after the war Martin F. Herz wrote: "The Western Allies also used such tactics when, at the behest of Prime Minister Churchill, they unfolded a propaganda effort early in 1945 which was designed to start large numbers of Germans trekking from certain specified 'danger areas'. These are the only known instances in the last war when threatening propaganda to civilians had the intended = effect."^^**^^
The above example shows that the "indirect effect" may be propagandistic (in the case we have cited---to prove one's military superiority or establish credibility for one's propaganda) and purely military or political (to disorganise life in the major cities), to which, in accordance with the general principles of psychological warfare, special importance is attached.
_-_-_^^*^^ William E. Daugherty, Morris Janowitz, op. cit., pp. 359--62.
^^**^^ The Public Opinion Quarterly, Fall 1949, p. 485.
190 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOVPsychological warfare---initially designed as war-time propaganda appealing to the population of an enemy country---envisages special techniques for the achievement of its aims. The substance of these techniques is that instead of counting on verbal persuasion (especially as in time of war the enemy audience is, naturally, distrustful), propaganda tries to set the enemy himself to work for it, i.e., force him to behave in such a manner as to make the population of his country open to persuasion. In other words, these techniques call for the systematic and organised use of provocations.
Characteristic in this respect is Operation "Braddock II'', which is described by Daniel = Lerner.^^*^^ In the course of this operation British and United States aircraft dropped nearly five million small time-fuse incendiaries on areas in Germany and Austria where foreign workers were concentrated. Each package contained instructions on how to use the bombs. At the same time, the call to arms was sounded in broadcasts and in leaflets over the signature of General Dwight D. Eisenhower. In this operation, too, the organisers counted not on a direct effect (sabotage), which at best was regarded as ancillary. The chief aim was to pressure the German security service and compel it to direct all its forces to these areas (in order to expose other areas in Germany where important espionage and subversive operations were planned and to provoke further brutality against foreign workers and thereby add to their repugnance of the nazi authorities). This method was regarded as more' effective than direct propaganda designed to inflame the anger of the foreign workers.
Lerner describes yet another operation that pursued similar aims and employed a similar method. It was carried out during the Blitz. The German flyers themselves were the target of this operation. At the height of the Blitz the British radio broadcast daily reports to the effect that increasing numbers of German pilots were deserting in their aircraft to the Allied side (the reports gave the names of the pilots---these were taken from documents found in downed aircraft). The aim, Lerner writes, was not to boost home morale with false reports about unrest in the Luftwaffe, _-_-_
^^*^^ Daniel Lerner, op. cit., pp. 259--60.
191 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. III. IMPERIALIST PROPAGANDA TODAY but to provoke the Gestapo into instituting a check-up and repressions against German pilots and thereby undermine the morale and efficiency of the Luftwaffe flying personnel.^^*^^Repeated attempts were made to disseminate in Germany a sort of handbook on malingering and self-mutilation. Here, too, the calculation was not on a direct effect but on heightening fault-finding and suspicion on the part of the nazi authorities: by forcing really sick people to work these authorities would themselves embitter the German population.
"Where is the Luftwaffe?" Operation is a typical example of a psychological warfare subversive action with a purely military objective. It was carried out in 1944 when Germany and her allies were bombed day and night. British and United States propaganda concentrated on ridiculing the German Air Force and Goering's promises that all attempts to bomb Germany herself would be beaten off. The outward aim of this propaganda campaign was to make the Germans themselves see the helplessness of the nazi war machine both in the rear and at the firing lines (among troops who were anxious about the safety of their relatives). However, the main objective of this operation was actually something quite different, namely, to intensify psychological pressure on the enemy military command and thereby lure the German fighter force into the air and maul it before the Allied landing in Normandy. According to Wallace Carroll, who wrote a history of psychological warfare, the success of this operation was confirmed by Lieutenant-General Kurt Dittmar, who was taken prisoner at the end of the = war.^^**^^
Operations of this kind, organised by propaganda agencies, were sometimes part of the "secret war" and had no propaganda aims. One of these operations was undertaken during the Allied landing in Italy, when Badoglio began to waver and could not make up his mind to declare Italy's withdrawal from the war and her rupture with the Axis. The text of the statement was then read over the radio by an announcer simulating Badoglio's voice. This left Badoglio with no alternative but to denounce = Mussolini.^^***^^
_-_-_^^*^^ Daniel Lerner, op. cit., pp. 258--59.
^^**^^ Wallace Carroll, Persuade or Perish, Boston, 1948, pp. 215--31.
^^***^^ William E. Daugherty, Morris Janowitz, op. cit., pp. 410--11.
192 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOVA feature typical of these psychological warfare operations was that they were directed not so much at a mass audience as at the ``elite'' of a given country---the military command, the political leaders, and so on. In the psychological warfare doctrine immense importance is attached to this audience.. Hence the thorough study of the mood "at the top'', of the groups, of the relations between = leaders.^^*^^ Some United States and British propaganda personnel specialised in operations with the enemy ``elite'' as their target.
One of these experts was Ellis M. Zacharias, a US jnaval intelligence officer, who lived in Japan for many years and was personally acquainted with many top-level Japanese military leaders. During the war he became well known for his radio broadcasts to Japan in which, quite rightly depending on monitored reports making these broadcasts known to the ruling circles, he tried to sow discord among the Japanese military and political leaders by playing on the mood of those who were inclined towards "a peace with honour".^^**^^
A group of experts on the most ingenious artifices of ``black'' popaganda won prominence among British and United States propagandists during the war. In the literature on this subject one frequently finds mention of Bruce Lockhart, who began his career as a spy and propagandist during the First World War and continued it during the Civil War in Russia. He was active in propaganda and secret operations during the Second World = War.^^***^^
Another propaganda expert who became quite well known was Benno Frank. Under the name of Captain Angers (given out as a German officer who had defected to the Allies), he was active in British and United States radio propaganda and organised the famous Radio Siege of Lorient, a _-_-_
^^*^^ Ewan Butler, a journalist who served in the British intelligence during the war, relates how he organisrd the infiltration from Sweden into Germany of postage stamps with Himmler's portrait in order to aggravate the relations between the Gestapo chief and Hitler, between whom, according to intelligence reports, there were signs of a breach (Ewan Butler, Amateur Agent, London, 1963).
^^**^^ Ellis M. Zacharias, Secret Missions. The Story of an Intelligence Officer, New York, 1946.
^^***^^ This is described by Lockhart in Comes the Reckoning, London, 1947.
193 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. III. IMPERIALIST PROPAGANDA TODAY psychological warfare operation designed to demoralise the German troops in Lorient, which was besieged by the = Allies.^^*^^But perhaps the most noteworthy figure in the psychological warfare of those years was the British journalist Delmer Sefton, who gave himself out for a German officer, a veteran of the Wehrmacht. During the war he spoke regularly over Geheim Sender Eins, a British transmitter camouflaged as an underground radio station operating allegedly in Germany. This transmitter and the ``chief'' himself (in Britain for conspiratorial purposes he was called The Beard or Henry VIII) were security-restricted so thoroughly that even the United States intelligence got the true story only in 1942.
Delmer Sefton spoke German fluently and knew Germany well. Besides, he had access to all intelligence reports. He assumed the personality of a coarse swashbuckler and rake, who hated everything and everybody---Englishmen, Russians, Jews, nazis and Hitler. His broadcasts, which were full of Army rumours and gossip, especially about circles close to the High Command, were designed mainly for the German officers' corp. Many of these broadcasts were devoted to the savouring of details from Hitler's intimate life and from his relations with the General Staff. Delmer Sefton evolved many other ``black'' propaganda artifices which have become part of that propaganda's arsenal (for instance, the smuggling in of handbooks on selfmutilation and on feigning = disease).^^**^^
Daniel Lerner, Paul Linebarger and others, who became psychological warfare experts, worked in British and United States propaganda agencies in those years. In their works _-_-_
^^*^^ William E. Daugherty, Morris Janowitz, op. cit., pp. 384--92, 248--50.
^^**^^ Delmer Seftort's activities are described by Ladislas Farago in War of Wits, New York, 1954, pp. 330--33; William E. Daugherty, Morris Janowitz, op. cit., pp. 670--71. Incidentally, his Geheim Sender Eins operation very nearly came unstuck. The British realised that if the transmitter operated too long it would make people smell a rat; they would begin to ask why it had remained elusive so long. It was, therefore, decided to stage---in the middle of one of the broadcasts--- a Gestapo raid with the firing of shots and all the other trimming. By mistake this ``raid'' broadcast was repeated, as was usually done, on the next day. Luckily, due to the intensive jamming, the first broadcast was heard by very few people.
__PRINTERS_P_193_COMMENT__ 13 --- 0706 194 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV they generalise past experience in order to adapt it to new conditions and new tasks, to foreign political propaganda directed chiefly at the Soviet Union and the socialist community, at the ideals of = communism.^^*^^There is, little doubt that the "secret operations" of this propaganda are an essential part of the psychological war which the USA and its partners have started against socialist countries. Many of the methods and artifices used in this war have been borrowed from British and United States war-time propaganda. They are resorted to in the "program of spreading anarchy and confusion in the communist camp'',^^**^^ which is so frequently proclaimed as the objective of the various propaganda agencies of the USA and other imperialist = countries.^^***^^
The launching of secret psychological warfare operations by official government agencies is always fraught with the risk of compromising the government in the event these operations are exposed. To avert this risk the United States and its allies have set up propaganda agencies as ``private'' organisations. Prominent among them (they will be mentioned later) is Radio Free Europe. Besides being a channel for routine slanderous broadcasts, this radio station is used as a means of maintaining contact with opposition and counter-revolutionary elements in socialist countries. The broadcasts contain calls for subversion and sabotage. In order to discredit honest people devoted to socialism, Radio Free Europe ran a "black list" in which these people were depicted as informers, secret agents, and so on. Small wonder that even the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, in whose territory Radio Free Europe's headquarters and transmitters are sited, found (after a series of scandalous exposures linked with the counter-revolutionary rising in Hungary in 1956) that it had to dissociate itself from the station's activities.
RIAS, the American station in West Berlin, operates along approximately the same lines as Radio Free Europe. _-_-_
^^*^^ In line with these aims, soon after the war Paul Blackstock, a US intelligence officer, wrote a book on the German experience of psychological warfare against the USSR (William E. Daugherty, Morris Janowitz, op. cit., pp. XI, 157).
^^**^^ Andrew Tully, CIA. The Inside Story, New York, 1962, p. 163.
^^***^^ Ibid.
195 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. III. IMPERIALIST PROPAGANDA TODAY It has time and again called for strikes, broadcast "technical instructions" on sabotage, and developed, as the Americans themselves admit, a "strategy of constructive subversion" and a "technique of open = conspiracy".^^*^^Official government stations such as Voice of America and the BBC frequently engage in unmitigated subversion. For instance, in their broadcasts to the People's Democracies they set afloat false rumours about money reforms, price rises and so on with the aim of disorganising economic life.^^**^^
The methods and techniques of imperialist propaganda dealt with in this chapter are far from being the complete list. The main ``mass'' of the propaganda efforts today, as before, consists of ``information'' (correspondingly selected and doctored), various techniques of diverting the people from vital problems, and other traditional methods used by imperialism in the war of ideas. All this is more or less skilfully done although, on the whole, the imperialist powers strive to achieve a high standard in their propaganda and to use sophisticated equipment.
As regards the diverse ``unorthodox'' methods and techniques, they usually play an ancillary role. By and large this role is growing steadily in proportion to the mounting difficulties encountered by imperialist ideological propaganda. It goes without saying that in all cases these methods and techniques will not bring imperialism victory in the ideological struggle. Determined by objective factors, the outcome of this struggle cannot be decided by provocative artifices from the psychological warfare arsenal, however refined they may be. But these artifices and refined techniques can undoubtedly inflict harm. That is why they must be exposed.
The basic ideas underlying all these cunning methods and techniques of propaganda gradually moved from "secret operations" to ``conventional'' propaganda, in which the accent is being increasingly placed not so much on persuasion, on the war of ideas, as on sowing uncertainty and _-_-_
^^*^^ William E. Daugherty, Morris Janowitz, op. cit., p. 149.
^^**^^ Facts of this kind are cited, for example, by L. J. Martin, op. cit., p. 161.
__PRINTERS_P_195_COMMENT__ 13* 196 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV confusion among the adversaries of = imperialism.^^*^^ To this end the imperialists try to use nationalism and other prejudices and turn to account any error, slip or omission by the adversary. They constantly select an individual target---a country, a nation, a social (for example, the intelligentsia) or an age (for example, young people) group---and concentrate their attacks on it with the purpose of tearing it away from the common struggle for socialism and peace.Imperialist propaganda is a sinister adversary. The methods it employs are such that they require new criteria in the assessment of many phenomena. Its praise and recriminations must be treated with equal caution in order to discern not only the obvious purposes but also the hidden sting of every operation.
Above all this concerns propaganda designed for socialist countries. One of the central aims of this propaganda is to* put the internal situation out of gear, break the people's ideological and political unity, sow discord among the various nationalities and undermine society's political foundations.
To achieve its aims imperialist propaganda has recourse to the most unscrupulous methods, trying not only to condition the population of socialist countries but to present the ``objects'' selected by it as a political opposition and sow _-_-_
^^*^^ As W. W. Kulsky writes, imperialist propaganda "aims at undermining the confidence of the population of the opponent state in their own government and in the righteousness or wisdom of the policies.... Propaganda also pursues the objective of winning as much sympathy as possible.... The true or alleged community of ideas and interests will be stressed" (W. W. Kulsky, op. cit., p. 593). These objectives presuppose the broad use of the appropriate methods. These methods were used extensively during the events in Czechoslovakia in 1968. At a Republican meeting of leading Communist civil employees in Prague on August 19, 1969, Gustav Husak, First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, spoke of the propaganda campaign that was conducted by the Western powers against Czechoslovakia in August 1969: "All foreign propaganda (which is quite considerable: for almost 160 hours every day bourgeois radio stations beam a torrent of falsehoods in the Czech and Slovak languages at Czechoslovakia)... seeks to take advantage of the people's lack of information on many of last years' political events, use the heightened national consciousness, the national feelings of the Czech and Slovak peoples to actuate subversion and foment new crises in our country" (Pravda, August 21, 1969).
197 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. III. IMPERIALIST PROPAGANDA TODAY distrust for particular individuals and groups. In this essentially subversive activity it uses every possible meansslander, lies and hypocritical praise compromising the target of an operation (for instance, high-powered publicity for the ideologically inadequate works of individual Soviet writers and scientists smuggled out of the USSR and published in the West).Methods of this kind are employed not only to discredit individuals or groups of the population but also the guidelines of the policy of Communist parties and socialist countries, which Western leaders regard as especially dangerous because they open up broad vistas for the successful economic development and the promotion of the socio-political relations of the socialist world. Typical in this respect is the Western propaganda campaign against the programme of economic reforms being carried out in the socialist countries to improve the methods of planning and economic management. Bourgeois propaganda has gone to all ends in its attempts to prove that these reforms are a concession to capitalism, that they lead to the capitalist degeneration of the economic system in socialist countries. One of the motives of this campaign is, of course, the desire to discredit the socialist economy by proving that it is ``unsound'', the desire to portray the economic laws and principles of capitalism as the most effective, as indispensable to the development of socialism as well.
But there is much more to it. The tenacity of this campaign makes it obvious that one of its objectives is to discredit the economic reforms in the eyes of Communist opinion in order to disrupt (or obstruct) them and thereby cripple socialism's economic progress.
Provocative methods unquestionably remain part of the imperialist arsenal and will continue to be used against socialist countries and the communist and working-class movement in the most diverse forms, on every possible pretext and in different situations, particularly in critical situations stemming from international crises precipitated by imperialism. Many events over the past few years have shown that the imperialist intelligence and psychological warfare agencies have detailed plans and a whole arsenal of knavish methods and refined techniques of ideological, psychological and other subversion, which they are 198 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV prepared to use in the event situations of this kind arise or are artificially provoked by reactionaries.
Constant readiness to repulse these intrigues is therefore a major task of the socialist community and of all anti-- imperialist forces. Psychological defence capability is determined by many political, economic and social factors. It is quite evident that this capability depends on the successes of the socialist community and the communist and liberation movements.
Decisive in this respect is the colossal work of the Communist parties and peoples of the socialist community in building the new society. Moreover, the struggle against the intrigues of the imperialist organisers of the psychological war demands the creation of a kind of immunity against these intrigues. This immunity is built up by the ideological tempering and firmness of the people, by vigilance, by unshakable class positions on the part of all workers of the ideological front, by keeping the people informed of developments in the country itself and on the international scene and, last but not least, by keeping them informed of the psychological warfare tactics and sinister methods and techniques of the imperialists.
These techniques and methods can inflict considerable harm when they are used against an unprepared adversary, who, through lack of information can yield to provocation and fail to see the real objective, the poison sting of one operation or another. An exposure of these techniques and methods will in itself help to render imperialist propaganda ineffective. The consistent exposure of imperialism's general doctrine of psychological warfare, of its methods and techniques and also of concrete actions by this aggressive propaganda is and will remain a major task. This is noted in the CC Report to the 24th Congress of the CPSU, which stated: "It is the duty of our propagandists and mass agitators to give a timely, resolute and effective rebuff to these ideological attacks and tell hundreds of millions of people the truth about the socialist society, the Soviet way of life and the building of communism in our = country".^^*^^
_-_-_^^*^^ 24th Congress of the CPSU, Moscow, 1971, p. 109.
199 __ALPHA_LVL2__ 2. IMPERIALISM'S FOREIGN POLITICALOne of the most eloquent testimonies of the role which the war of ideas plays in international relations is the significance the ruling circles of the imperialist powers attach to it. Since the Second World War they have built up a huge propaganda machine.
A machine to serve foreign political propaganda is not something new, of course. It achieved considerable dimensions during the two world wars. Nazi Germany had a large propaganda apparatus. In the period between the two world wars some propaganda institutions were set up in Britain (for instance, the British Broadcasting Corporation and the British Council). In the USA such institutions were established on the eve of World War II. But all this, including even the bulky propaganda apparatus of the nazis, can hardly be compared with the volume of modern imperialism's propaganda effort or the size of the machine through which this effort is made.
Today this machine is a highly complex mechanism. First and foremost, it consists of the apparatus belonging directly to the monopolies dominating the mass media (the press, films, radio, television, and so on) and also to monopoly organisations specialising in the dissemination of information and ideas abroad. Then there is a ramified government propaganda apparatus, both official and, for various political considerations, camouflaged. Lastly, there is the growing conventional foreign policy apparatus consisting of diplomatic institutions, intelligence agencies, institutions handling foreign trade and economic relations, and so forth. This is only natural because the foreign policy of the imperialist powers is increasingly intertwining with the war of ideas. Moreover, it requires ideological backing since this policy is itself a vehicle used by imperialism to fight for people's minds throughout the world.
Today propaganda functions of one kind or another are assumed by all or almost all forms of international contacts, including tourism and cultural exchanges, to say nothing of the overseas activities of the imperialist monopolies.
The complex structure and the diverse functions of the 200 Emacs-File-stamp: "/home/ysverdlov/leninist.biz/en/1973/WICIR317/20051015/299.tx" __EMAIL__ webmaster@leninist.biz __OCR__ ABBYY 6 Professional (2005.10.14) __WHERE_PAGE_NUMBERS__ top __FOOTNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [*]+[)]? __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV various links of this system foster the trend towards concentrating the ideological aspects of the entire propaganda apparatus serving foreign policy and international relations in the hands of the imperialist governments and monopoly organisations. In turn this leads to the appearance of new departments and institutions.
Such, in general outline, is the picture of the fairly complex and mobile machine, which is rapidly developing and changing in line with imperialism's attempts to adapt itself to the changes taking place in the world.
All the big (and some of the small) capitalist countries today have a foreign political propaganda machine. But attention is, of course, attracted mainly by the foreign political propaganda machine in the USA, not only because it is larger than the foreign political propaganda machines of all the other capitalist countries taken together but also because by analysing it we can distinctly trace the basic principles underlying the organisation and operation of the imperialist apparatus of foreign political propaganda.
Imperialist, particularly US, propaganda for foreign consumption is conducted by conventional means of ideologically influencing the masses (the press, radio, films and so on) that belong directly to the monopolies. Therefore, the measures designed to create the most favourable conditions for the expansion of these monopolies, which export their ideological products (films, books, journals, newspapers and so on) in growing quantities, form a major element of the USA's propaganda activities abroad.
All these newspaper, book-publishing and film monopolies derive large profits from the export of their products. Nevertheless, this is not simply a matter of the commercial activities of the various firms and companies or of normal cultural exchanges between countries, exchanges that are part of peace-time relations between states, but, notably, of organised foreign propaganda. This was generally recognised by American researchers soon after the Second World War. For example, in a volume entitled Public Opinion and Foreign Policy, edited by Lester Markel, we are told that "all private activities affecting public opinion abroad have, in effect, a propaganda aspect.... Although this activity is privately financed, it is a fundamental part, in some 201 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. III. IMPERIALIST PROPAGANDA TODAY countries the most important part, of the whole complex of activities which can help to make Americans better understood = abroad."^^*^^
It is precisely from this angle that US Government circles regard the activities of American monopolies in disseminating newspapers, journals, books, films, TV programmes and so on abroad.
The scale of this activity has grown to immense proportions. For instance, the Paris edition of International Herald Tribune is published for a large foreign audience. The journal Time and many other periodicals also have foreign = edition.^^**^^ Reader's Digest has a particularly large international circulation (over 17 million copies).^^***^^
Associated Press and United Press International are a major channel of ``private'' propaganda. The former agency serves more than 3,000 periodicals, and radio and TV stations in 80 countries, and also 1,700 newspapers and 2,500 radio and TV stations in its own = country.^^****^^ United Press International has over 6,500 clients, of whom more than 2,000 are in foreign countries. UPI maintains 151 branches in the USA and 110 = abroad^^*****^^ staffed by 10,000 employees and with an annual salary and operations midget of over 48~million = dollars.^^******^^ AP and UPI meet the rising cost of operations by increasing the price for their services (for instance, in February 1969 foreign clients had to pay 11 per cent more for AP services and 10 per cent more for UPI services).^^*******^^ Apprehensive lest the rising prices will reduce the clientele of these agencies, the report of the Republican Coordinating Committee, published in connection with the 1968 presidential elections, recommended subsidising _-_-_
^^*^^ Public Opinion and Foreign Policy, edited by Lester Markel, New York, 1949, p. 180.
^^**^^ Walter Joyce writes that more than a hundred US magazine publishers bring out international editions (Walter Joyce, op. cit., p. 93).
^^***^^ The New Republic, April 29, 1967, p. 6.
^^****^^ S. I. Beglov, Monopolies of Words (in Russian), Moscow, 1969, pp. 92, 369.
^^*****^^ Ibid., p. 400.
^^******^^ Ibid., p. 91.
^^*******^^ The Financial Times, March 17, 1969, p. 23.
202 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV AP and UPI so that the developing countries could afford to buy their = services.^^*^^The export of books has also reached a colossal scale. A private National Book Committee has been formed to push their = dissemination.^^**^^
American film exports are promoted on a scale that can only be described as imposing. This is explained, above all, by "business considerations": Wilson P. Dizard calculates that exports account for about 50 per cent of the profits of .the American film = companies.^^***^^ The export of filmed TV programmes has likewise assumed a huge scale in recent years.. In 1965 American firms earned nearly 125 million dollars from overseas sales of TV programmes and equipment. Moreover, American TV companies (headed by the three major corporations) own or are affiliated with television interests in over = 30~countries.^^****^^
The Americanisation of the television industry has gone so far that under pressure from public opinion many countries have lately introduced protective measures: in Canada at least 55 per cent of the TV fare must be homegrown; in Britain only 14 per cent of the programmes may be foreignoriginated; in Japan the Government has established a ceiling on prices for the purchase of foreign programmes in order to make the Jap'anese market unprofitable for foreign companies.^^*****^^
Since the Second World War the United States monopolies have regarded their export of journals, books, films and so on not only frojn the standpoint of direct commercial benefits but also from the standpoint of political interests. This is seen in the drive for ideological expansion and in the readiness to renounce part of the profits and even make considerable outlays for foreign political propaganda.
Notable in this respect are the foundations set up by the monopolies to finance activity not connected with the _-_-_
^^*^^ Choice for America, p. 400.
^^**^^ George N. Gordon, Irving Falk, William Hodapp, op. cit., p. 136.
^^***^^ Wilson P. Dizard, op. cit., p. 90.
^^****^^ Wilson P. Dizard, Television. A World View, Syracuse, 1966, p. 3.
^^*****^^ George N. Gordon, Irving Falk, William Hodapp, op. cit.., p. 140.
203 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. III. IMPERIALIST PROPAGANDA TODAY extraction of profit (as a matter of fact, it does not cost much to set up these foundations because they are exempt from taxation). In the United States today there are over 30,000 foundations. Of these, according to statistics for 1967, 249 have assets exceeding 10 million dollars each. Altogether the American foundations operate with assets worth 20,000 million dollars, and their annual allocations for various purposes total approximately 1,500 million = dollars.^^*^^ As a rule the foundations finance research, cultural projects and so forth. In recent years they have been increasing their allocations for ``projects'' linked with overseas propaganda and even subversion.An idea of this aspect of the activities engaged in by the American foundations is given by the example of the Ford Foundation, a giant in its field, which operates in the sociocultural sphere. Its assets add up to 3,000 million dollars and its annual ``disbursements'' amount to nearly 300 million = dollars.^^**^^ The anti-Soviet Free Russia Foundation was set up on funds provided by the Ford Foundation. Moreover, it has subsidised the propaganda and subversive Free Europe = organisation.^^***^^ It helps overseas American-operated educational institutions, grants scholarships for foreign students studying in the USA, finances propaganda publications and so on. In 1968, for example, the Ford Foundation's international division had a budget amounting to 68,500,000 dollars (i. e., one-third of the Foundation's total budget), while the list of organisations receiving subsidies from it shows its interest in the mass media for information and propaganda. Prominent in this list are the International Association for Cultural Freedom, the International Press Institute, the Broadcast Institute of North America and the Centre for Educational Television = Overseas.^^****^^ True, compared with the period when the cold war was at its height, the Ford Foundation has recently shown more interest in matters of another kind, linked with cultural exchanges and support for individual measures designed to ensure the extension of the East-West dialogue (the Pugwash _-_-_
^^*^^ The Economist, March 8, 1969, p. 44.
^^**^^ Business Week, January 6, 1968, pp. 46, 50.
^^***^^ Rheinisches Merkur, December 14, 1951.
^^****^^ The Ford Foundation, Annual Report, October 1, 1967, to September 30, 1968.
204 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV movement, the Dartmouth conferences and so forth). This may be explained by the fact that there has been a certain demarcation in the American business world. Some American businessmen are now more than ever anxious to avert a thermonuclear war. Moreover, the directors of some foundations have evidently felt the need to react to pressure from public opinion, which criticises the support given by the foundations for aggressive policies.The US monopolies, moreover, devote much attention to problems linked with American investments and business in foreign countries. These investments are, as everybody knows, steadily growing. Suffice it to say that between 1950 and 1966 American private investments overseas increased from 11,500 million = dollars^^*^^ to 54,000 million = dollars,^^**^^ while in 1970 they were estimated at 78,100 million dollars.^^***^^ The monopolies and politicians have begun to realise more and more clearly that American business abroad is not "just business" for the "by-product of business in these instances is propaganda, good or = bad".^^****^^
In this respect the period since World War II has been crucial. The political aspects and psychological impact of this business activity are animatedly discussed and sometimes even sharply criticised.
A characteristic example is Thomas Aitken's A Foreign Policy for American Business. Writing that "American businessmen abroad having assumed a responsibility for our country's image overseas, should not leave this vital area... to our embassy or consulate = alone,"^^*****^^ Aitken tries to formulate a "positive policy" by analysing the negative and positive practices of various American firms. Robert L. Heilbroner gives a comprehensive picture of Standard Oil's operations in Venezuela, where in an effort to offset the revolutionary movement and the rapid spread of antiYankee feeling it increased the deductions from its profits to the country's budget, raised the salaries for Venezuelans, _-_-_
^^*^^ George N. Gordon, Irving Falk, William Hodapp, op. cit., p. 145.
^^**^^ Foreign Affairs, July 1967, No.~4, pp. 639--40.
^^***^^ Survey of Current Business, October 1971, p. 32.
^^****^^ George N. Gordon, Irving Falk, William Hodapp, op. cit., p. 150.
^^*****^^ Thomas Aitken, A Foreign Policy for American Business, New York, 1962, p. 142.
205 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. III. IMPERIALIST PROPAGANDA TODAY moved local specialists into executive posts and began training them so that "some day" when the company "steps out" they should be able to take over the = management.^^*^^Walter Joyce unfolds a similar picture of the overseas practices of American firms and of their efforts to indoctrinate their local staffs in an anti-communist = spirit.^^**^^
Among American businessmen interest in this sort of activity has grown in the post-war years to the extent that special agencies have been set up to activate and coordinate propaganda. These agencies include the Business Council for International Understanding, the National Foreign Trade Council and the Latin American Information Committee.^^***^^
US imperialism gives its utmost backing to these private efforts. This backing is by no means confined to co-ordinating the operations of the involved firms and companies with government programmes through USIA's Office of Private Co-operations.
Evidence of this lies notably in a whole system of measures of a diplomatic character. Take for example the moves by US diplomacy to pull down the barriers to the broad export of the ``ideological'' output of the American monopolies. This is being done on the pretext of upholding "freedom of information" (an ideological variant of the "open door" doctrine in trade); begun during the First World War this drive continues uninterruptedly to this day (in the United Nations Organisation as well).
US diplomacy has recourse, to diverse ways of assisting the ideological expansion of the American monopolies. These include numerous official diplomatic acts, such as the Blum-Byrnes agreement which soon after World War II gave Hollywood a free hand for expansion in France, or the provisions in the vast majority of economic ``aid'' agreements stipulating favourable terms for the dissemination of American books, magazines, films and other propaganda material. Among these measures and services are the unimpeded issue of passports to representatives of the involved firms, the assistance rendered them by diplomatic missions, and _-_-_
^^*^^ Robert L. Heilbroner, The Wordly Philosophers, New York, 1962, p. 209.
^^**^^ Walter Joyce, op. cit., p. 110.
^^***^^ Ibid., p. 109.
206 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV also economic privileges. These privileges merit special attention.A law binds the US Government, the Department of State in particular, to protect the profits of these firms and companies. The 1948 Smith-Mundt Act, which shall be discussed later, contains a provision (Article 502) banning competition between official overseas propaganda and the propaganda conducted by private American firms. Under this provision the Government has to reduce its information activities whenever "corresponding private information dissemination is found to be = adequate".^^*^^ This provision was reaffirmed in 1957 by a Congress decision, which prohibits government propaganda agencies from extending their press services where they "would prevent private US concerns from selling corresponding = services."^^**^^
The private firms disseminating books, films, magazines and other propaganda material in foreign countries found they needed economic assistance especially on account of the chronic dollar shortage and currency exchange difficulties in these countries. In 1948, to overcome these difficulties the US Government began allocating substantial funds to guarantee the conversion into dollars of the money received in foreign currency from the sale of books, magazines, newspapers and films. These purposes were served by the US Government's Information Media Guarantee Programme.^^***^^ In this sphere the" monopolies receive considerable assistance from legislation. A typical example is a bill on the distribution of aid to foreign countries under which a sum of 10 million dollars was allocated for the conversion of foreign currency. Moreover, private firms are allocated large sums in order to guarantee them against losses and encourage the export of their products. This is promoted by diverse other measures, for instance, the purchase by the State Department of copyright for the publication of books in foreign countries, financial assistance to cover losses due to unsold exports, and so = on.^^****^^
_-_-_^^*^^ Francis 0. Wilcox, Thorsten V. Kalijarvi, Recent American Foreign Policy. Basic Documents 1941--1951, New York, 1952, p. 804.
^^**^^ Wilson P. Dizard, The Strategy of Truth, p. 133.
^^***^^ George N. Gordon, Irving Falk, William Hodapp, op. cit., p. 136.
^^****^^ The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, November 1951, p. 7.
207 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. III. IMPERIALIST PROPAGANDA TODAYSignificant as the ``private'' effort is in US foreign political propaganda, the scale, complexity and^size of the expenditures for this propaganda have long ago put on the agenda the question of setting up a Government agency to bear the main burden of organisation and finances.
The first of these agencies were formed by the imperialist states during the First World War (for instance, Wellington House in Britain, and the Creel Committee in the USA). The Creel Committee launched on active propaganda in close co-operation with the US Military Intelligence Bureau. Propaganda was conducted not only at the front. It penetrated deep into the enemy rear, into Germany, through the dissemination of specially selected information.^^*^^
For all practical purposes there was no official propaganda agency in the USA during the period between the two world wars. Such an agency was formed on the eve of World War II. In 1938 President Roosevelt established an Interdepartmental Committee for Scientific and Cultural Co-- operation and, within the State Department, a Division of Cultural Cooperation. The Interim International Information Service was set up in 1940. The Office of War Information, which was the principal American propaganda agency during the Second World War, was organised on June 13, 1942. Towards the close of the war it had a staff of = 13,000.^^**^^
The foreign political propaganda machine was overhauled after the war. As we have already noted, the Smith-Mundt Act was passed in 1948. It was the first law in US history to provide for the formation of a large Government propaganda machine in peace-time. In accordance with Articles 601--603 of this act, an Advisory Commission on Information and an Advisory Commission on Educational Exchange were formed to control the operation of this machine. The function of these commissions was to formulate and recommend to the Secretary of State (the Smith-Mundt Act placed all official overseas propaganda in the hands of the State Department.--- G.A.) the policy and programme in _-_-_
^^*^^ Thomas C. Sorensen, The Word War. The Story of American Propaganda, New York, 1968, p. 6.
^^**^^ Ibid., pp. 9, 10, 21, 22.
208 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV information and education. Representatives of many leading monopolies were given seats on these commissions.As regards the foreign political propaganda machine in the shape established by the Smith-Mundt Act, it was soon subjected to a series of reorganisations. A major reshuffle was conducted in 1953 in accordance with the recommendations of the Psychological Warfare Committee headed by the New York banker Jackson. Following this reshuffle the United States Information Agency, set up on August 1, 1953 through the merging of the propaganda divisions of the State Department, the Mutual Security Agency and the Technical Co-operation Administration, and also of the propaganda offices of the US authorities in West Germany, Austria and Japan, became the main organ of the official foreign political propaganda machine. USIA was subordinated to the President through the National Security Council, and it became the duty of the Secretary of State to "direct the policy and control the content of a programme for use = abroad".^^*^^
The following figures give an idea of the scale of USIA's activities: its budget in the 1968 fiscal year totalled 186,300,000 dollars and it had a staff of = 12,000.^^**^^
The backbone of this organisation is the Information Centre Services, which maintains 301 propaganda centres in 111 countries. These centres are staffed by 1,200 Americans and 5,300 people employed locally; USIA runs 223 libraries and reading rooms; its information centres arrange lectures, concerts and showings of films (according to American estimates, these showings are annually attended by up to 350 million people in 120 countries).
Every week the agency publishes 400,000 leaflets and pamphlets in 47 languages and distributes them in 115 countries. In 90 countries it distributes 24 monthly journals published in 29 languages with a total printing of 1,300,000 copies. In 1966 USIA subsidised the publication of 799 books (including translations) with a printing of six million copies.
_-_-_^^*^^ The Department of State Bulletin, June 15, 1953, p. 854.
^^**^^ These and other data on USIA are from Thomas C. Sorensen, op. cit.; Sheldon Appleton, United States Foreign Policy. Boston, 1968; United States Information Agency. 26th Report to Congress, January--June 1966.
209 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. III. IMPERIALIST PROPAGANDA TODAYThrough USIA sponsorship 2,082 TV stations in 94 countries relay American television programmes. The local press receives a daily USIA news bulletin of 12,000 words.
The Voice of America, one of the principal propaganda vehicles, is under USIA jurisdiction. It has 41 transmitters in the USA and 61 transmitters abroad relaying programmes in 38 languages for 845 hours a week. According to American estimates, the Voice of America has a daily audience of 25 millions. Moreover, USIA controls RIAS (in West Berlin) which conducts radio propaganda against the German Democratic Republic.
USIA propaganda is mainly for overseas consumption, but the agency does not leave even the American people in peace. This has evoked protests from a number of competent people, who know the worth of its propaganda creations.
Noting that USIA's publications are clearly propagandistic, Senator J. William Fulbright declared that the agency's secret book subsidies were "most objectionable, entirely contrary to our = traditions".^^*^^ At a hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Fulbright told one of the agency's directors: "USIA is not authorised to propagandise the American people. If you'd said that the books were published by USIA, it would be one thing---but not to do so is doubly subversive of our = system."^^**^^ During a House of Representatives hearing on USIA's annual 6,000,000 dollar "book development" programme, Congressman Glenard P. Lipscomb of California asked the then USIA director Leonard Marks: "Why is it wrong to let the American people know when they buy and read the book that it was developed under government sponsorship?" To which Marks replied cynically: "It minimises their value'', and went on to explain, "If we say this is our book, then the author is a government employee in effect. It changes the whole status of the = author."^^***^^
Protests of this kind had no effect on USIA's practices. A typical case involved Israel's General Moshe Dayan, who travelled to Vietnam at USIA expense to write a series of articles for the newspaper Maariv. Naturally, these articles gave a sympathetic view of American policy. They were _-_-_
^^*^^ William McGaffin, Erwin Knoll, op. cit., p. 128.
^^**^^ Ibid., p. 129.
^^***^^ Ibid.
210 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV reprinted by the Washington Post, which did not inform its readers of the arrangement with the = USIA.^^*^^Although US official foreign political propaganda is being increasingly centralised, USIA is not its only vehicle. It is handled also by a number of other government departments.
One of these is the Department of State, which in addition to directing USIA activities carries out some specific functions in overseas propaganda. After the 1953 reorganisation, the Department of State which until then had jurisdiction over the principal outlets of official overseas propaganda (including the Voice of America and the information centres), retained control of "educational exchanges''. This function was to be performed by a special department controlled by an advisory commission appointed by the President. Inasmuch as the "export of culture" was placed mainly in the hands of USIA, the competency of this department was reduced mainly to scientific exchanges and "exchanges of personnel''. This covers the conclusion of agreements, the organisation of exchanges in the scientific sphere, which is acquiring immense significance today, and the invitation of foreign students, cultural workers and other persons. Although this activity is not direct propaganda, it has certain propagandist aspects. As Lester Markel noted, the US "must also try to build in foreign countries a corps of specialists who can help explain the United States to their fellow = citizens".^^**^^
A large section of the foreign political propaganda machine is under the direct control of US military agencies and until 1953 it was used to influence public opinion in West Germany, Austria, Japan and South Korea. However, even after the reorganisation the War Department retained its overseas propaganda apparatus. Moreover, it has a large say in the general planning and direction of propaganda.
It should be borne in mind that every service of the armed forces---the Army, the Navy and the Air Force---has its own psychological warfare division and also its own schools for the training of propagandists (Fort Bragg, Fort _-_-_
^^*^^ William McGaffin, Erwin Knoll, op. cit. p. 130.
^^**^^ Public Opinion and Foreign Policy, p. 174.
211 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. III. IMPERIALIST PROPAGANDA TODAY Riley and elsewhere). These divisions are now in the reserve, so to speak. They will be brought up to full capacity in the event of war for the conduct of propaganda for the troops and population of enemy and neutral countries. However, they conduct propaganda in peace-time as well in areas where US troops are stationed and at US military bases.Moreover, the War Department has a large network of radio stations (Armed Forces Radio and Television Service), which broadcast their own propaganda programmes to foreign countries or relay Voice of America broadcasts.
The US military have at their disposal 250 radio and 34 television stations outside the USA, and according to American estimates the audience of these stations is 20 times larger than the audience of the Voice of America's Englishlanguage programmes. Even many American researchers point out that this gives the military rights which are not provided them by law and that a large part of the propaganda apparatus is beyond civilian control. One of these researchers, Tristram Coffin writes: "The radio-TV stations lack any 'overall guidance'... the commanding officer can order a station to broadcast anything he chooses, or delete whatever dispLeases him. There is no system to monitor broadcasts for political bias, error, or conformity with established national = policy."^^*^^
Lastly, in co-operation with the Central Intelligence Agency and a number of other bodies, the Army directs some of the organisations conducting ``black'', i.e., chiefly subversive, propaganda.
Naturally, the CIA's propaganda activities are shrouded in even greater secrecy than those of the War Department. It is official knowledge that the Office of Strategic Services, the CIA's predecessor, had a Morale Operations = Branch,^^**^^ which engaged in subversive propaganda. It is also known that these functions have passed to the CIA, which has a secret operations department.
In recent years, write two American journalists who had made a study of this question, the CIA and USIA "have begun commissioning their own works and subsidising _-_-_
^^*^^ Tristram Coffin, The Passion of the Hawks, Militarism in Modern America, New York, 1964, p. 230.
^^**^^ Daniel Lerner, op. cit., p. 64.
212 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV their publication and dissemination---without disclosing to the American people that they are being exposed to officially sponsored propaganda. Subscribers to the respected journal Foreign Affairs who read in 1966 a learned treatise by George Carver defending the Johnson Administration's Vietnam policy were not told by the editors if, indeed, the editors knew---that Carver was emloyed by the CIA. Americans who bought a book called The Truth About the Dominican Republic by Time magazine correspondent Jay Mallin had no way of knowing that this was 'the truth' according to USIA, which carefully selected the author, paid him, revised his manuscript, and arranged for its commercial publication in the United States. Another Mallin effort, Terror in Vietnam, was also sponsored by = USIA."^^*^^The CIA has direct or indirect control of a number of radio stations and is in virtual control of ``black'' and ``grey'' broadcasting. To say nothing of its monitoring service, it operates secret transmitters which broadcast allegedly in the name of the opposition forces, of the " resistance movement" of one country or another. One of these transmitters, on Suon Island, specialised in subversive propaganda against Cuba and played an active part in the abortive landing in the Bay of Pigs. CIA has built a secret radio station also in the = Lebanon.^^**^^
According to the American journalists David Wise and Thomas B. Ross, many of these radio stations operate as private enterprises or are a sort of hybrid financed by private corporations while remaining under the CIA's operational guidance. One of them is the already mentioned World Wide Broadcasting System, whose services in organising a counter-revolutionary revolt in Guatemala in 1954 were acknowledged in a letter of thanks from the Guatemalan dictator Castillo = Armas.^^***^^
The United States Intelligence stage-manages the activities of larger propaganda (and, in parallel, espionage and subversive) organisations that have been set up by the US imperialists as ``private'' or ``non-governmental'' but which, _-_-_
^^*^^ William McGaffin, Erwin Knoll, op. cit., p. 128.
^^**^^ David Wise, Thomas B. Ross, The Invisible Government, New York, 1964, p. 17.
^^***^^ Ibid., p. 318.
213 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. III. IMPERIALIST PROPAGANDA TODAY in fact, are part of the Government psychological warfare machine.Here mention should be made, first and foremost, of a complex of organisations in the Crusade for Freedom " movement''. This ``movement'' was initiated by a group of leading monopolists (such as Lawrence Giannini of the Bank of America and Arthur W. Page of the Chase National Bank), representatives of the military (for instance, General Lucius D. Clay, who, at the same time, represents the board of directors of the Continental Can Company and the Chemical Bank and Trust Company), prominent politicians (Dulles, Eisenhower and others), representatives of the clerical li te (for instance, the Catholic Cardinal Francis J. Spellman), pro-fascist parties and organisations (for instance, George N. Graig, National Commander of the American Legion) and = others.^^*^^
The purpose of this ``movement'' is to collect funds and institute a number of propaganda organisations with the aim of facilitating the ``liberation'' of socialist countries, in other words, of restoring capitalism in these countries and subordinating them to the imperialist powers, above all the USA.
The largest of these organisations, the Free Europe Cornmi ttjee (set up in 1949), specialises in propaganda and subversive activities against the European socialist countries. Formally it is financed privately, through contributions from individuals, and various foundations and organisations (including the Boy Scout organisations). "As to whether these contributions actually pay most of the bills for the massive enterprise...,'' Gordon, Falk and Hodapp comment, "remains anyone's guess. The Free Europe Committee has never opened its books to public = scrutiny."^^**^^
Officially, the Committee is an American private organisation acting not on behalf of the USA but in the name of the "resistance forces of socialist countries" (Free Czechoslovakia, Free Hungary and so on). This precarious status fails the test of criticism. It is no secret that the funds for this huge organisation come from the large United States monopolies and from the US government budget. Similarly, _-_-_
^^*^^ Daily Worker (New York), September 5, 1950, p. 7.
^^**^^ "George N. Gordon, Irving Falk, William Hodapp, op. cit., p. 167.
214 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV there is no doubt that its overall direction is in the hands of the US State Department and the CIA.Structurally, it consists of live operating arms.
The best-known of these is Radio Free Europe, a colossal enterprise employing 1,600 people (1,100 in Munich, 100 in New York and 400 at the relay station in Portugal). It has 28 powerful transmitters for broadcasts in six languages (Czech, Slovak, Hungarian, Polish, Rumanian and Bulgarian). The service is on the air for almost 3,000 hours a week, which, Gordon, Falk and Hodapp write, makes "it just about the most active broadcasting system in the free world---probably busier than either the British Broadcasting Company?s combined foreign and domestic services or the Voice of = America".^^*^^ Robert T. Holt says that Radio Free Europe "like NATO, is an instrument of American foreign policy---a 'non-official' instrument, to be sure, but in terms of concentrated effort in a given area, a propaganda instrument that is unprecedented in American = history".^^**^^
The Committee's other arms are the Communist Bloc Operations (whose official function is to publish, on behalf of emigres, a magazine called East Europe, which is printed in over 20,000 copies), the Free World Operations, the West European Operations (which, officially, are supposed to facilitate ``research'' on East European problems), and the Exile Political = Organisation.^^***^^ The activities of these arms of the Free Europe Committee are not publicised but one can get a fairly good idea about them from items that now and again slip into the press. For example, John L. Martin quotes John Scott, roving editor of Time magazine, who reported that that organisation had more employees on its news gathering staff than Associated Press, Time Inc. and The New York Times put together. Its research and evaluation departments, Scott noted, were larger and more effective than "those of any except half a dozen = governments".^^****^^
It is therefore not easy to say what takes precedence in the Committee's activities---espionage, the organisation of _-_-_
^^*^^ George N. Gordon, Irving Falk, William Hodapp, op. cit., p. 169.
^^**^^ Robert T. Holt, Radio Free Europe, Minneapolis, 1958, p. 4--5.
^^***^^ George N. Gordon, Irving Falk, William Hodapp, op. cit., p. 168.
^^****^^ John L. Martin, op. cit., p. 32.
215 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. III. IMPERIALIST PROPAGANDA TODAY a counter-revolutionary underground or propaganda. As regards the latter, it is of a very specific nature, being a striking example of ``black''', subversive propaganda. This had become so obvious (especially after the 1956 events in Hungary) that, as we have mentioned earlier, the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, on whose territory, under an agreement with the USA, the Committee has its main centres, found itself in a very ticklish position. A special inquiry was instituted but it yielded no results. The Free Europe Committee's activities and the part that it played in the counter-revolutionary rising in Hungary evoked a wave of indignation also in the USA and the West European capitalist states. Public pressure was so great that the Free Europe Committee found itself compelled to publish a series of books, pamphlets and articles in an effort to exonerate = itself.^^*^^Some prominent political figures in the USA have lately become sharply critical of the activities of the Free Europe and Liberty radio stations. They justifiably feel that the continued operation of these radio stations and the fact that they are financed by the US Government threaten the relaxation of tension and, as Senator Fulbright has noted, create foreign policy problems, not the least-of which concerns the scale of US interference in the internal affairs of other countries. Fulbright has a legitimate case when he says that these "radios should be given an opportunity to take their rightful place in the graveyard of cold war = relics".^^**^^
Early in the 1950s an attempt was made to set up an organisation along the lines of the Free Europe Committee for propaganda and subversive activities against the socialist countries in Asia. Called the Committee for a Free Asia, it engaged mainly in radio propaganda against China. However, it quickly disintegrated and in 1955 was renamed the Asia Foundation. According to John L. Martin its primary concern today is to arrange for the education of Asian = students.^^***^^
_-_-_^^*^^ These include the New York publications: The Press Looks at the Hungarian Revolution, published by Free Europe Committee, Inc.; The Radio Free Europe Story, published by Free Europe Committee, Inc.; Robert T. Holt, Radio Free Europe, Minneapolis, 1958.
^^**^^ The New York Times, February 21, 1972,
^^***^^ John L. Martin, op. cit., p, 33,
216 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOVLastly, the third organisation of this type is the American Committee for Liberation from Bolshevism founded in 1951 specially for propaganda and subversive activities against the peoples of the Soviet Union. The sources of its finances are even more thinly veiled. In fact, there is even no pretence of collecting private donations. Yet its expenditures are considerable. Suffice it to say that Radio Liberty (formerly called Radio Liberation) operates under its aegis. According to American researchers, its transmitters (capacity totalling over 1,500,000 watts) are more powerful than those of any other Western propaganda agency. Located in the Federal Republic of Germany, Taiwan and elsewhere, these transmitters broadcast in 17 languages of the peoples of the USSR about 1,600-1,700 transmissions a week. Radio Liberty has a staff of some 1,000 = people.^^*^^
In addition to those named above, the ``liberation'' organisations set up in the United States include numerous associations of counter-revolutionary emigres. Affiliated with them are organisations, set up in West Germany by the American occupation authorities, for espionage and propaganda against the German Democratic Republic. Among the latter are the Anti-Inhumanity Group and the Free German Jurists.
Thus, many of the propaganda and espionage-propaganda organisations operating as ``private'' agencies were formed by the US Intelligence, the military and the State Department for subversive activities in other countries (primarily in socialist = countries).^^**^^ Had this activity been carried on by official agencies the US Government would have had no reputation to speak of.
Moreover, US imperialism has a large number of propaganda agencies masked as ``private'' for somewhat different reasons. The point is that US propaganda has discredited itself in the eyes of other countries. It therefore found it _-_-_
^^*^^ George N. Gordon, Irving Falk, William Hodapp, op. cit., pp. 177--78; an article by Enno Hobbing in Reader's Digest, November 1958.
^^**^^ General Lucius D. Clay, one of the founders of the Free Europe Committee, frankly declared that its objective was to carry on a "tough, no-holds barred campaign of psychological warfare" with "the open and avowed aim to dethrone the communist governments" (Jerome Davis, Peace, War and You, New York, 1952, p. 117).
217 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. III. IMPERIALIST PROPAGANDA TODAY needed an additional screen for itself and for its sources. To this end it began to set up an increasing number of ``private'', ``public'' and international organisations.One of them is the Congress for Cultural Freedom, which specialises in propaganda for intellectuals in Western Europe, Asia and Latin America. In the same bracket is the Peace and Freedom organisation which engages in provocative anti-communist propaganda in France, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and other West European countries. According to data published in Le Monde in 1955, in France alone this organisation received over 2,000 million francs annually from the US and French governments and from individual = capitalists.^^*^^ Pro-American propaganda agencies have been formed in Britain. Some ``international'' religiouspolitical organisations, for instance, Moral Re-Armament, founded by the American priest Frank N.~D. = Buchman,^^**^^ and the Missionary Corps, have been set up as part of the psychological warfare complex.
Hundreds of Philanthropic societies (of the Care type), cultural organisations and Right-wing trade unions are used for foreign political propaganda. The US Government's overseas propaganda network thus has many adjuncts. This ``plural'' structure of the propaganda machine has convinced advocates among propaganda experts. Richard Grossman, for instance, writes that an "apparently untidy organisation ... is always the guarantee that the enemy feels he is listening, not to propaganda, but to honest men honestly and simply telling him the = truth".^^***^^
The fact that in these cases the question of co-ordinating and centralising the operaiton of this huge propaganda machine becomes particularly acute is quite another matter. To meet this requirement the Psychological Strategy Board was set up under the US State Department in 1950. In 1951 it was replaced by the Psychologiacl Warfare Board, which was subordinated to the National Security Council.
In President Truman's statement, when this supreme psychological warfare agency was formed, its functions were determined as planning, co-ordinating and conducting _-_-_
^^*^^ Le Monde, August 2, 1955.
^^**^^ For details see Frank N.D. Buchman, Remaking the World, New York, 1969, p. 85.
^^***^^ Daniel Lerner, op. cit., p. 346.
218 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV psychological operations within the framework of current policy.From official statements one could infer that a dual purpose was pursued when this Board was formed: first, to direct the huge, ramified psychological warfare apparatus (both government and private) and the psychological activities of other divisions of the US foreign policy machine that were being increasingly drawn into propaganda activities; and, second, to ensure the most effective propaganda for the military plans of the US imperialists. The implementation of this function was guaranteed by the very composition of the Board, which in addition to representatives of the State Department included representatives of the War Department and the CIA.
On the recommendation of the Jackson Committee the name of this agency was changed to Operations Co-ordinating Board in 1953.
After the Second World War when many of the actions and even guidelines of US foreign policy became more and more patently propagandist^, the US ruling circles fqund themselves faced with the urgent problem of co-ordinating foreign political propaganda. Above all, this applied to the various economic, scientific and technical aid programmes, beginning with the Marshall Plan and ending with the Alliance for Progress and Peace Corps programmes.
The same may be said of many purely political acts and programmes, notably those designed to show the USA's peaceableness and "good will" towards the developing states of Asia and Africa. Moreover, domestic political measures (for instance, measures designed to demonstrate the "success" of the Civil Rights movement and the "war on poverty" in the USA itself) are frequently also geared to the aims of foreign political propaganda.
Today one can clearly discern the trend to give the Government total control of all forms of international relations with other countries (foreign trade, cultural relations, tourism, and so forth) pursuing more than the aim of adapting them to the. interests of foreign political propaganda.
The USA, as we have already noted, has an incomparably larger foreign political propaganda machine than all the other imperialist states. Nevertheless, in the general pattern of the ideological struggle unfolding in the world, the 219 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. III. IMPERIALIST PROPAGANDA TODAY efforts of these states, especailly of the USA's chief partners in the North Atlantic bloc, constitute a factor that can under no circumstances be ignored. This is evidenced also by the foreign political propaganda apparatus set up by these countries.
Its main links and organisational principles are modelled on the US pattern. However, it has its own specifics that are linked with concrete conditions (for example, initially FRG propaganda was quite clearly oriented against the GDR, while British propaganda devotes special attention to countries which were once part of the British Empire).
NATO, too, has its amalgamated propaganda agencies: Political Advisory Committee, Committee for Information and Cultural Relations, the Secretariat's Political and Information Subdivision and the Press = Department.^^*^^ In addition, NATO has a substantial reserve propaganda apparatus that can be activated in the event of war.
All the other imperialist powers, including the "medium" and the "small", began to engage in foreign political propaganda after the Second World War. Even traditionally neutral Sweden and Switzerland have foreign broadcasting services and have set up Army psychological warfare agencies against the event of = "emergencies".^^**^^
Among the small countries conducting foreign political propaganda one of the most active is Israel, which has formed a large propaganda machine to serve its aggressive policies and disseminate Zionist ideas.
As a matter of fact, it is hard to consider this machine in isolation from US imperialist propaganda. Present-day Zionism is not only the ideology of Israel's ruling circles but also a ramified system of organisations and political practices of the big Jewish bourgeoisie which has ranged itself with the monopoly circles of the USA and other imperialist powers. Zionism's main components are bellicose chauvinism and anti-communism. To this day the World Zionist Organisation, founded in 1897 and based in the USA, is Zionism's chief organisational and ideological centre with financial resources equal to those of the world s largest monopoly associations.
_-_-_^^*^^ Gerhard Zazworka, Psychologische Kriegsfuhrung, Berlin, 1961, p. 209.
^^**^^ Herman Bohn, op. cit., pp. 108--25.
220 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOVThe Zionists publish 1,036 periodicals in 67 countries. Zionist ideas are actively propagated by the Israel Broadcasting Station, which until recently called itself Voice of Israel. In addition to 42 hours of broadcasting for its own country it broadcasts programmes in 10 European languages, in Arabic and in several African languages.
The Zionist leaders attach the utmost importance to having agents or ``sympathisers'' in the central press of different countries, in the foreign editorial staffs of radio stations, in the film industry and in television. The methods used by the Zionists in the American press, particularly in The New York Times, one of the largest newspapers in the United States, are closely scrutinised by Alfred M. Lilienthal in The Other Side of the Coin, which was published in the USA in 1965.
In 1963 the Senate Foreign Relations Committee devoted two hearings to the Zionist movement and found that large sums of money donated by Americans to the Israel Fund had been remitted back to the USA and paid out to organisations and individuals engaged in conditioning Americans in favour of Israel. This money, as was ascertained by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee headed by Senator J. William Fulbright, was used for the "cultivation of editors'', for the placement of articles on Israel in some of America's leading magazines, for radio and TV programmes sympathetic to Israel, and for subsidising trips to Israel by "public opinion = moulders".^^*^^ These hearings revealed to many unsuspecting donators that part of their donations were being used to influence Congressmen and American public opinion and to intensify propaganda appeals for more = donations.^^**^^
__*_*_*__The size and growth of the foreign political propaganda apparatus of the imperialist powers are evidence of the significance their ruling circles attach to the ideological struggle, particularly on the international scene. Properly speaking, the first reaction of the imperialist bourgeoisie _-_-_
^^*^^ Alfred M. Lilienthal, The Other Side of the Coin, New York, 1965, p. 27.
^^**^^ Ibid.
221 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. III. IMPERIALIST PROPAGANDA TODAY to failures and setbacks in this struggle was to increase the size of the propaganda apparatus and allocate further funds for its reorganisation.But even the best propaganda apparatus can only disseminate ideas and propagate policy. It cannot create them. This, as many Western observers admit, is one of imperialism's central difficulties in the war of words.
A bare intensification of the propaganda effort can sometimes lead to an undesired result. Such, in the opinion of many experts, is the case with the export of American films. In 1961 Edward R. Murrow, then head of USIA, admitted that these films, most of which deal with crime, violence, horror and sex, were prejudicing America's prestige.^^*^^ To some extent this is true of cultural exchanges as a whole. Raymond Aron, a French sociologist who cannot be suspected of Left-wing sympathies, wrote, for instance, that anti-American attitudes found expression in the hostility to American culture which other peoples get to know more and more as American propaganda becomes increasingly = active.^^**^^
The same result is observed in many cases of student exchanges. People invited to study in the imperialist countries with a view to making them friends of these countries often become confirmed enemies of imperialism. It is no secret that many of the leaders of the national liberation movement were educated in Britain, France or the USA. They had personally come up against racial discrimination and had grown disillusioned not only with the white " benefactors" but with capitalism itself.
The organisers of imperialist propaganda are even more disappointed by the contacts with the population of foreign countries arising out of mass tourism and business trips abroad. This is particularly true of the USA; the men Washington grooms as envoys of "good will'', aptly labelled as "ugly Americans'', frequently strew "little ulcers of ill will along their jet = trails".^^***^^
The propagandist exhibitions held abroad, radio _-_-_
^^*^^ George N. Gordon, Irving Falk, William Hodapp, op. cit., p. 129.
^^**^^ Ibid., pp. 216--17.
^^***^^ Ibid., p. 95.
222 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV broadcasts and so on frequently evoke a reaction that is the very opposite to what the organisers expect.While bearing all this in mind, we should assess the consequences of the establishment of this huge imperialist foreign political propaganda machine in its close relation to other measures, namely, the intensified efforts to improve propaganda methods and evolve new and more subtle propaganda tactics, and the efforts to conceal the most vulnerable points of its ideology, policies and way of life and, at the same time, to find and turn to use the weakness of its adversary.
If all these measures are regarded in a body the expansion and improvement of the foreign political propaganda apparatus will be seen in a somewhat different light, as activity compelling all opponents of imperialism to be more vigilant, step up their efforts in the war of ideas and work out the most effective forms, ways and methods of waging this war.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 3. STRATEGY AND TACTICS OF IMPERIALISTToday propaganda is part of imperialist policy and one of its most important weapons. Although imperialist propaganda has a whole range of permanent objectives of an ideological nature (attacks on socialist ideals, defence of the foundations of the bourgeois viewpoint, and so on) it is increasingly serving a definite policy of the imperialist powers and is directed and co-ordinated within the framework of their common strategy and tactics. For a study of the basic guidelines of imperialist propaganda it is necessary to examine this strategy and tactics.
In the documents of the June 1969 Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties it is underscored that the "core of the aggressive policy of imperialism is the drive to use all means to weaken the positions of socialism, suppress the national liberation movement, hamstring the struggle of the working people in the capitalist countries and halt the irreversible decline of capitalism. The spearhead of the aggressive strategy of imperialism continues to be aimed first and foremost against the socialist = countries".^^*^^
_-_-_^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, p. 12.
223 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. III. IMPERIALIST PROPAGANDA TODAYSuch are the foundations of imperialist strategy, and to lose sight of them would mean to build illusions about the policies of monopoly capitalism and to fall captive to opportunist delusions. However, the concrete requirements of the policies pursued by socialist countries, the Communist parties and the entire anti-imperialist movement demand more than simply an analysis of the strategic foundations of the class enemy's policies. The concrete trends in the policies and tactics of imperialism and the orientation of the different groups of the imperialist bourgeoisie are closely scrutinised in the documents of the 1969 Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties and in other major documents of the CPSU and the fraternal parties.
Without taking these concrete factors into account it is impossible ;for the working class, including those of its contingents that have come to power in their countries, to pursue a genuinely Marxist-Leninist policy. Here it is vital to have a clear idea of the trends and guidelines of the imperialist bourgeoisie.
In the revolutionary movement there have been, and still are, divergences of views on these issues. The Rightopportunist elements are, as a rule, inclined to underestimate the imperialist bourgeoisie's ability to act as a united class force and have a common strategy on basic issues.
The "Left''-sectarian elements, on the contrary, regard imperialism as some expressly abstract, almost mystical, force and ignore all its inner shades and contradictions. This is frequently given out as the only revolutionary and genuinely class approach. It will be recalled that this was the position from which the Chinese leaders attempted to discredit the CPSU's policy of peaceful coexistence, while they themselves preferred to demonstrate their "class implacability" in a polemic with the CPSU and other fraternal parties and not in their actual policy towards the Chinese bourgeoisie or the imperialist countries.
Marxist-Leninist theory rejects both the Right-- opportunist and the sectarian-dogmatic approach to any analysis of imperialism and its policies. This calls for unremitting attention to the new issues and problems raised by life, including the problem of differentiation and distinctions among the present-day bourgeoisie.
224 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOVPolitical usage has long ago accepted terms such as ``sober'' bourgeois politicians or the ``sober-minded'' section of the bourgeoisie as distinct from ``diehards'' or "extreme reactionaries''. Use is frequently made of other terms and concepts--- ``conservatives'' and ``liberals'', ``hawks'' and ``doves'', etc.--- depending on the problem over which there are differences, and sometimes on the given country.
If not all then many of these terms are, evidently, quite justified although not one of them is exhaustive---whether the question concerns the reasons for divergences among the ruling bourgeoisie or the real content, character and significance of these divergences. Little help can be expected here from bourgeois researchers, most of whom reduce matters to particular distinctions between individual politicians or to distinctions in ``beliefs'', philosophies and attitudes.^^*^^
In view of this problem's complexity and its immense political urgency, we should like to dwell on it in some detail without claiming to offer an exhaustive analysis. For the sake of convenience, from the motley picture of contemporary bourgeois policies we shall single out only two _-_-_
^^*^^ The American researcher G. Lowe, for example, divides American political strategists into two groups: ``Utopians'' and ``traditionalists''. The Utopians, he explains, are thinking in the absolute terms of black and white, war and peace, victory and defeat and "preventive war" is part and parcel of their strategy. Characterising the views of the ``Utopians'', Lowe writes that in their opinion there is only a quantitative difference between a thermonuclear war and the wars of the past, that such a war remains a weapon of policy and can be victorious if it is properly prepared and started first; for them " communism is an absolute enemy'' with whom a ``life-and-death struggle'' is inevitable sooner or later. Among the ``Utopians'' Lowe includes the late John Foster Dulles, Herman Kahn, Edward Teller and Stefan Possony.
The ``traditionalists'', according to Lowe, regard communism as a relative enemy, in relations with whom a modus Vivendi is quite possible; nuclear war is equally catastrophic for both parties irrespective of how far they have advanced in their war preparations, so it cannot be considered a political instrument and there is no sense in talking about ``victory'' in such a war. The ``traditionalists'' believe that nuclear potential should be maintained for the purpose of " containing communism'', but it is unrealistic to strive for nuclear superiority. In this category he includes B. H. Liddel-Hart, Robert Osgood, P. M. S. Blackett, Ralph E. Lapp, George F. Kennan, Ferdinand 0 Miksche and Raymond Aron (See G. Lowe, The Age of Deterrence, Boston, 1964, pp. 24, 50).
225 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. III. IMPERIALIST PROPAGANDA TODAY lines, especially as, by and large, they can be regarded as basic.The first is the line pursued by extreme reaction, by the most aggressive imperialist elements, who pin their hopes mainly on strength and urge a frontal attack on socialism.
The substance of this line is self-evident and hardly requires a probing.
It is a much more complicated task to analyse the second political line, which, in upholding the class interests of the bourgeoisie, allows for side-tracking manoeuvres, concessions, compromises, and so forth. Here one can be misled by the very terms by which this line's advocates are designated---``moderates'', ``liberals'', etc. This point will be appreciated when it is borne in mind that in a sharp political struggle these groups are supported by the most diverse social forces, including the liberal bourgeoisie, the pacifists and, sometimes, large sections of the working people (as was the case in the 1964 presidential elections in the USA, when the overwhelming majority, frequently acting on the principle of the ``lesser'' evil, voted for Lyndon B. Johnson, giving him a landslide victory over Barry M. Goldwater).
But if we stop to consider not those who vote for or support this policy but, notably, the interests served by it, we shall find that the terms ``liberals'' or ``moderates'' are inadequate, to say the least, or utterly untenable. Actually, the distinctions between the two lines are tactical because both pursue one and the same strategic objective, namely, that of preserving the rule of the monopoly bourgeoisie in a situation witnessing the deepening of capitalism's general crisis. Similarly, both are spearheaded at socialism, while on the world scene they are aimed at the socialist countries and the revolutionary and liberation movements.
While stressing the tactical character of the distinctions between these two political lines, we must under no circumstances belittle either the depth or the significance of these distinctions. For the working class they may signify a distinction between a terrorist dictatorship of the fascist type and a bourgeois democracy (even a curtailed one under monopoly rule), while for the socialist countries and all the peoples of the world they spell the difference between a thermonuclear war and a policy envisaging methods of struggle in the world that would not undermine the __PRINTERS_P_225_COMMENT__ 15 -- 0706 226 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV principle of peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems.^^*^^ Thus, although it is a question of distinctions of a tactical nature, these distinctions may be and are (particularly in the present epoch) of very great significance.
As regards the roots, the origins of these two tactical lines, they evidently represent different answers to one and the same basic fact of our epoch---the steady change of the alignment of class forces in favour of the international working class and the weakening of the positions and influence of world capitalism.
In assessing the strength and tactics of the class adversary at the very first stage of capitalism's general crisis, the communist movement drew the conclusion that as capitalism grows weaker its resistance becomes increasingly more savage and it resorts to more extreme and sharper forms of violence. This conclusion was fully borne out by the events of the 1920s and 1930s---the turbid wave of fascism which swept across Europe, the civil war in Spain, the outrages perpetrated by the reactionaries, and the aggressions and annexations which led to a world war.
After that war developments at first followed the same logic. After recuperating its strength, following the defeat of its most bellicose contingents---German and Italian fascism and Japanese militarism---imperialism sought to mount a new offensive on the basis of its former tactics. As early as the close of the 1940s and the beginning of the 1950s a sharp shift towards reaction was observed in most of the leading imperialist states---suffice it to recall the McCarthy witch-hunts in the USA, the expulsion of Communists from the governments and the offensive against the Constitution in France and Italy, and the revival of militarism in West Germany. On the international scene imperialism started a cold war, pursued a policy of nuclear blackmail, precipitated one grave crisis after another, kindled _-_-_
^^*^^ The significance of these distinctions was strongly underscored by Lenin, who wrote that "it is obviously by no means a matter of indifference to us whether we shall deal with those people from the bourgeois camp who are inclined to settle the problem by war, or with those who are inclined towards pacifism, even the worst kind of pacifism, which from the communist viewpoint will not stand the slightest criticism" (Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 264.)
227 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. III. IMPERIALIST PROPAGANDA TODAY local wars and provoked bloody reprisals against oppressed peoples who rose to fight for liberation.But as the years passed it was gradually found that the picture of imperialist policy was not yet complete. People began to see the outlines of a different political course, of different tactics characterised by greater flexibility, circumspection and willingness to agree to certain compromises in foreign policy, by a more subtle use of economic, political and ideological levers with the purpose of at least temporarily moderating the acuteness of upheavals and preserving power without necessarily resorting to extreme forms of mass terror, and by new methods of ruling oppressed peoples and fighting world socialism.
Imperialism's second political and tactical line thus began to move to the forefront. It does not, of course, represent something fundamentally new; there had previously been instances of the bourgeoisie having recourse to sidetracking manoeuvres, in which pressure was combined with concessions to the working = class.^^*^^ Similarly, one must not for a moment harbour the illusion that the bourgeoisie has entirely abandoned the policy of direct, frontal attacks, fascist repressions, acute cold war and foreign policy adventures fraught with the threat of a thermonuclear catastrophe. To cite recent examples, the very fact that people like Goldwater and Wallace have appeared on the political scene in the USA, the chief imperialist power, convincingly shows that this policy is still far from being an historical relic. The fact that more moderate and less diehard representatives of the bourgeoisie have triumphed at elections does not yet in itself resolve the outcome of the struggle: the ``vanquished'' may yet repeatedly attempt to take revenge, and the ``victors'' themselves do not see eye to eye with one another. Although they sometimes come to power waving ``moderation'' and ``flexibility'' as their banner one cannot rule out the possibility of their making concessions to the more extremist circles.
_-_-_^^*^^ Incidentally, George F. Kennan calls this approach ``dialectical'', writing that the "hopeful approaches have always to be dialectical ones, embracing contradictory elements, embracing both repulsion and attraction, pressure and conciliation, the readiness to defend where defence is the only answer, but also the readiness to receive, to listen, to concede, to be generous, to take chances, and to give confidence" (George F. Kennan, On Dealing with the Communist World, New York, 1964, pp. 18--19).
__PRINTERS_P_227_COMMENT__ 15* 228 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOVAnother point one must not lose sight of is that any serious economic or political crisis tends to aggravate the struggle and speed up the polarisation of forces, which may end in a political shift in various directions. One and the same economic crisis (1929--32) cleared the way to power for Roosevelt and his bourgeois-reformist New Deal in the USA, and for Hitler and nazism in Germany. Political shifts of this kind, sparked by major upheavals, cannot be discounted today (here we have the evidence of the presidential elections in the USA in 1968 when George C. Wallace, representative of the extreme reactionaries, polled nearly 10 million votes, this being the response of a considerable section of the philistine mass to the exacerbation of the domestic political situation caused by a whole series of factors---beginning with Negro and student actions and ending with an unprecedented upgrade of crime that made the slogan "law and order" attractive and topical).
Nevertheless, if we consider both these tactics in their development and if we examine the overriding trends of the class struggle, we can draw the conclusion that, while reflecting the conditions of definite historical periods, one of them sooner expresses the striving of some imperialist groups to continue using old methods in the new historical situation, and the other signifies a desire to find new ways of struggle that would be more in line with the conditions of the present and, possibly, future stages of history, in other words, it expresses capitalism's desire to adapt itself to the new conditions of its existence.
At the 1969 Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties L. I. Brezhnev noted: "The growth of socialism's might, the abolition of colonial regimes, and pressure by the workingclass movement increasingly influence the inner processes and policies of imperialism. Many important features of modern imperialism can be explained by the fact that it is compelled to adapt itself to new conditions, to the conditions of struggle between the two = systems."^^*^^
There is no doubt that this process of adaptation is going on in many capitalist countries. Even some Western observers have drawn attention to it. Commenting on the 1964 _-_-_
^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, p. 141.
229 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. III. IMPERIALIST PROPAGANDA TODAY election campaign in the USA and on the forces standing behind the two candidates, the French weekly L'Express wrote: "Ford versus Hunt (the Texas multi-millionaire, who backed Goldwater.---G.A.) spells out modern capitalism, which relies on the organs of state, versus feudal capitalism, which detests everything linked with the government and in pursuance of its mercenary interests wants the return of the old 'free enterprise'. In the persons of Johnson and Goldwater they found their candidates. Here it is not a case of a Left-wing leader in the classical sense against a Right-wing leader, but one capitalist against = another."^^*^^This analysis does not give the full picture, but it does make an important point, namely, the different attitudes of the two politicians and the two tactics to present conditions.
In elaborating on this point, it may be said that while one of these tactical lines has its roots more in the conditions of the early stages of capitalism's general crisis, the second reflects capitalism's adaptation to the realities of the present stage of its general crisis, to conditions in which the old methods of classical struggle lead to further setbacks and can only accelerate the final downfall of imperialism. Awareness of this truth is precisely what is compelling many avowed proponents of capitalism and enemies of communism to oppose people like Goldwater and Wallace.
But this does not mean that outright fascism and terror, and unconcealed warmongering in foreign policy have now become a thing of the past. In addition to the points made above, it must be noted that the two political lines we are speaking of are not divided by an insuperable barrier. The distinctions between them are tactical and fit into the framework of one and the same strategy. Besides, their differentiation is not and cannot be complete. Between them are many intermediate forces, groups and trends and this makes the picture very motley, unstable and always subject to major reshuffles, with the result that the actual programme of one or another politician always contains elements of both tactical lines. It is thus sooner a question of proportions.
_-_-_^^*^^ L'Express, August 29, 1964, p. 12.
230 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOVHowever, as we see it, the second tactical line is linked more closely with present-day conditions and reflects the attempts to adapt imperialist policy to these conditions. This process of adaptation is closely connected with the monopoly bourgeoisie's new forms of organisation, primarily with state-monopoly capitalism, which emerged not only as a consequence of the further concentration of capital and the development of the modern productive forces in conformity with the operation of the economic laws of capitalism but also as a consequence of political factors springing from the aggravation of the class struggle. In this context state-monopoly capitalism can unquestionably be regarded also as a new and improved form of organisation of the ruling bourgeoisie in its class struggle against the proletariat.
This means that the working class has to contend with a more organised class adversary, who has interlocked his economic organisations with his political (including the highest of them---the state) and ideological organisations, with an adversary who has built up a huge machine of political and spiritual rule and has lately been going over to new forms of international organisation. Monopoly capitalism's new organisation, naturally, does not yet predetermine its new tactics (an example being nazi Germany which had highly developed forms of state-monopoly capitalism). Therefore, when we speak of adaptation, we must consider these two aspects separately.
However, it is, we believe, an incontrovertible fact that under conditions witnessing a further modification of the alignment of forces the process of capitalism's adaptation to the new realities could not fail to evoke, at least in a part of the imperialist bourgeoisie, a striving to evolve new tactics in the class struggle. Here the aim is to find more effective ways of ensuring its supremacy over its class adversaries, who in addition to the proletariat, include other classes and social strata of modern bourgeois society.
Use of the increased economic potentialities, the achievements of the scientific and technological revolution, the huge, ramified apparatus of class rule, including the state, the political parties, the colossal machinery of spiritual influence and the key positions in the reformist organisations of the proletariat has given monopoly capital more 231 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. III. IMPERIALIST PROPAGANDA TODAY room for its manoeuvres and for combining pressure with concessions and social demagogy. By taking advantage of the fact that there has been a considerable expansion of the sphere of social life that lends itself to the direct and indirect influence of the state-monopoly mechanism, monopoly capital is able to agree more easily to a compromise in the area where unyielding resistance is disadvantageous or dangerous and find compensation in an area where the adversary does not expect to be attacked, is not prepared to meet such an attack and holds weak positions.
Also typical of these tactics are the attempts, while preserving inviolable the foundations of the existing system, to get rid in some way of certain extremes, some of the ugliest phenomena, which, while being traditional for capitalism and springing from its exploiting nature, are becoming increasingly dangerous---the distress of some sections of the working people, devastating economic crises, the denial of rights to racial and national minorities, etc. In a number of capitalist countries some steps have been taken in this direction and corresponding programmes have been advanced (in the USA---from the Roosevelt New Deal to the Johnson "great society" = programme).^^*^^
Of course, it would be naive to imagine that capitalism can cure its social ulcers. But in itself the "bourgeois reformism" policy is highly indicative. It is evidence not only of the fact that capitalism is growing weaker but also of the fact that there is mounting resistance from the working _-_-_
^^*^^ There are proponents and even ardent adherents of programmes of this kind not only among politicians but also among leading representatives of the monopoly elite. An example is Henry Ford II. Some idea of the views expounded by him is given by the following pronouncement in one of his programme speeches: "The American economic system has worked remarkably well for the great majority of Americans, but we cannot have a secure and healthy society until all our citizens have an equal opportunity to share in the abundance which most of us take for granted.... It is clearly in the self-interest of business both to enlarge its markets and improve its force by helping disadvantaged people to develop and employ their economic potential. Similarly, it is in the self-interest of business to help reduce dependence, frustration, crime and conflict in the community. ...the profit motive is not an anti-social force acting against the community interest, but a very practical reason why business should help solve the social as well as the economic problems that beset our nation" (Vital Speeches of the Day, July 1, 1969, p. 567).
232 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV class and pressure from the force of the example set by the socialist community, which has given the working masses new battle slogans---total employment, democratic control of the economy and policy, greater social and political rights, and so on.Such is the situation in domestic policy. As regards the imperialist bourgeoisie's class struggle on the international scene the need for new tactics became imperative as a result of the radical change in the balance of strength between capitalism and socialism and as a result of the changes in the nature of war due to the development of missile-nuclear weapons. There has been no modification of the objective of at least halting the further spread of socialism and, where possible, reversing the course of events and restoring capitalism's undivided rule in the world. But under the new conditions the struggle for this objective has demanded new political means and methods, new tactics.
At this point we should like to make some reservations in order to warn against a simplified approach to complex political problems of this kind. The political struggle remains an extremely intricate sphere. Although the imperialist bourgeoisie is making a considerable effort to conduct this struggle in a purposeful and organised manner it would be naive to surmise that the changes in the tactics, means and methods of the political struggle are taking place in the same way as in the military sphere: that a kind of political General Staff, which draws up a common plan and issues orders in accordance with which various campaigns are launched, has come into being.
When you are confronted not by an enemy army but by a social class, by a class adversary, and on an international scale to boot, things are much more complicated. Of course, this class has its various ``headquarters''--- governments, political parties and organisations, and international centres---and it tries to subordinate their activities more and more to a conscious principle, especially today, when politics enlists the services of science and numerous scientific centres.
However, in the course of a political struggle tactics, i.e., the set of applied techniques and methods, are worked out and take shape in a different way than in a military struggle. The reason for this is not only that in the first 233 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. III. IMPERIALIST PROPAGANDA TODAY case organisation is less rigid than in the second. This is sooner not the reason but the consequence of some of the vital specifics of the political struggle.
One of these specifics is that any social class is such a complex and numerous group of people that it is usually impossible to achieve complete unity among its ranks.
This applies fully to the bourgeoisie as well. Even if we discount such non-typical cases as the defection of some of its representatives to the camp of the class adversaries (such cases are known in the history of the revolutionary movement), we shall find that the bourgeoisie has always had diverse groups in its ranks. This is true also of the imperialist bourgeoisie. In almost every capitalist country it is divided not only into various parties (the distinctions between them may sometimes be purely formal), but also into groups---from fascist to liberal---rent by very real and frequently very acute contradictions.
If we bear in mind the alignment of class forces on a worldwide scale we shall see that there are other distinctions, notably distinctions and contradictions between the national contingents of the imperialist bourgeoisie. These distinctions and contradictions are so sharp that until lately they have inevitably led to military conflicts and collisions (in one of these conflicts---the Second World War---a group of capitalist powers, in alliance with the first state of the victorious proletariat, waged an armed struggle against another group of capitalist countries).
Another crucial specific of the political struggle is that as distinct from the military struggle it is much more difficult to make an immediate assessment of the real significance of an event, phenomenon or action---whether it is a ``pure'' victory or defeat, the price that has to be paid for it, the consequences it will have in the more remote future, and so forth. In this situation phenomena, events and political actions may be assessed differently by the various groups of one and the same class (in the given case, the imperialist bourgeoisie): what seems like a victory to some groups may be regarded as a defeat by others. The competitive struggle for power between the different groups sometimes makes these distinctions extremely acute, as was vividly shown by the'recent presidential election campaigns in the USA.
234 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOVAll this is mentioned as a warning against simplified, misconceived ideas about a complex and sometimes contradictory process such as the shaping of tactics in the class struggle.
In the ruling class of the Western countries the question of the methods, means and tactics to be employed against world socialism remains to this day the object of a serious internal struggle. In the USA, for example, there is on this issue a whole political palette of contradictory opinions---from the most bellicose, which in effect dovetail with the direct preaching of war (at the 1968 elections the retired General Curtis LeMay was Wallace's running mate for the Vice-Presidency---this is only one of many examples), to moderate, which can be taken to mean agreement with the principle of peaceful coexistence and competition between the two social systems.
This makes it difficult and, possibly, particularly vital, to ascertain the leading trends, which not only mirror the views and intentions of individuals or groups but may today or in the near future form the foundation for real political actions.
In the case of imperialism's policy towards the Third World, this trend, it seems to us, takes the shape of the tactics and entire set of political means and methods intrinsic to neocolonialism. But this does not rule out the use, in many cases, of such ``traditional'' methods as colonial wars, "gunboat policy" and so forth. The example of Vietnam, the Dominican Republic, some of Britain's " possessions" in the Caribbean, and the Portuguese colonies in Africa show that such methods are by no means past history. However, these same examples are evidence that such methods have no future. It must not be imagined that the lessons of recent years have been mastered only by the adversaries of imperialism, and that the imperialist camp has remained blind and deaf to them.
On the contrary, every effort is now being made to chart a new policy that could tie the Third World to imperialism with the bonds of the most diverse dependence and prevent it from taking the non-capitalist road of development. This is borne out by the fact that while formerly the imperialists deliberately sought to keep the Asian, African and Latin American countries at the pre-capitalist level of 235 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. III. IMPERIALIST PROPAGANDA TODAY development, today they are taking economic and political steps to speed up the formation of capitalist relations in these countries. Take the immense effort the USA and other imperialist countries are making to train a new ``native'' elite in these countries in the spirit needed by imperialism. Lastly, consider the vast attention that is today being accorded in the Western countries (notably in the USA) to the quest for the ways and means of resolving some of the Third World's pressing economic problems with the aid of the latest achievements of science and technology (the breeding and cultivation of new varieties of grain designed to solve the problem of starvation, the plans for nuclearpowered desalination and irrigation complexes for the seaboard regions of tropical deserts, the project for a system of "low dams" in the Amazon valley, and so on). Only naive people can accept this as disinterested philanthropy. The purpose is quite different. The imperialist states are looking for new and more effective ways of preserving their hold, in present-day conditions, on the countries that have won liberation from colonial bondage.
In relation to the socialist countries, too, imperialism's new tactics pursue obviously class aims.
It would be wrong to say that these new tactics have replaced the "rolling back" and ``liberation'' doctrines that provide solely for a military attack combined with massive subversive activities. Military pressure has by no means been removed from the agenda. In the USA, for example, forces seeking military ``superiority'' over the USSR and other socialist countries are still active. There are no grounds for saying that imperialism has relinquished or intends to relinquish its subversive activities (although the positions of these forces have been undermined by the signing of the Soviet-American Treaty on Strategic Arms Limitations and other agreements).
And yet, despite the fact that ``traditional'' means of fighting socialism have not been abandoned, there are growing signs that increasing attention will be accorded other methods and tactics.
These tactics have not yet taken final shape, although attempts have been made in that direction (the "bridge building" policy may be regarded as one such attempt). But the essence of the "new approach" to the struggle against 236 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV socialism is now quite obvious. The frantic frontal anticommunism of the old type, which, many Western political strategists believe, only led to closer unity among the socialist countries, has been rejected. Instead, a more subtle and differentiated anti-communism has been advanced, which, in individual cases, does not rule out economic, scientific, technological and cultural relations with various countries, or even certain forms of co-operation, all of which, however, pursue the aim of undermining world socialism as a whole. Within the framework of these tactics not every socialist country and not every Communist is described as a "deadly enemy''. The abolition of the socialist system and the restoration of capitalism are not proclaimed as the direct objective.
They pin their hopes on something quite different: first, on the gradual ``transformation'' (or ``erosion'') of the socialist system, which would make it more ``acceptable'' and less dangerous as a neighbour of capitalism on our planet; and, second, on disunity between the socialist countries, on the dismemberment of the socialist community into the smallest possible fragments, which would, from the standpoint of the imperialists, likewise make socialism a less dangerous adversary and undermine its influence on the course and main direction of world development.
As many imperialist theorists and politicians see it, Western policies must foster these processes. To this end they suggest a wide range of means, including support for opportunist trends in the Communist parties of socialist countries and an ideological campaign (not only propagandist but also political and economic) designed to encourage nationalism and anti-Sovietism.
The shaping of this new policy of imperialism is a complicated and sometimes contradictory process. It has many opponents in the camp of the imperialist bourgeoisie itself, especially in the most rabidly anti-communist groups, which still cling to the idea of a ``crusade'' against communism. This policy has disappointed its own architects, especially in the light of recent events, notably, the failure of the attempt to wrest Czechoslovakia away from the socialist camp.
Nevertheless, this new approach to the struggle against the socialist community is gradually winning more 237 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. III. IMPERIALIST PROPAGANDA TODAY supporters in the West largely on account of Peking's divisive, anti-Soviet policies. Characteristically, the Republican Administration that came to power in the USA in 1968 was initially quite cool to the ``bridge-building'' policy, preferring to rely on ``traditional'' methods of power policy. But within a few months it launched some experiments that fully harmonised with the recipes of the most dedicated advocates of ``bridge-building''.
From the political standpoint the composition of those who are demanding a new approach to socialist countries is quite mixed. They include not only resourceful and wily antagonists of socialism (some of the diehard reactionaries are beginning to side with them). Many aspects of the new policy and tactics have the backing also of liberal groups, which have acquired a good reputation in the West by their opposition to extreme reaction and advocacy of economic and social reforms in domestic policy, by their stand against the arms race and colonial wars, and by their demand for a relaxation of international tension and normal relations with socialist countries.
Their readiness to support the new tactics against the socialist countries should not cause surprise. They remain adversaries of socialism not only because of their world outlook and class positions. The new tactics themselves are by no means inflexible. They allow for a policy prejudicial to socialism, for political demands expressing a striving to avoid military conflicts and dangerous political confrontations, to normalise the international situation and to bring policies in line with the present-day realities. These political demands can essentially dovetail with the stand of the socialist countries upholding the principle of peaceful coexistence. An example of this kind is provided by definite changes in Soviet-American relations that found expression in the top-level meeting in May 1972 and in relevant agreements signed at the time.
At this point one could end the listing of the new elements that are increasingly determining the tactics of the imperialist bourgeoisie at the various bridgeheads of the class struggle. But in connection with imperialism's new tactics there is yet another major political question, namely, the attitude to these tactics by the adversaries of imperialism.
238 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOVThis is a significant question, because in the revolutionary movement there are sectarian groups and individuals who contend that imperialism's old, traditional policy, which still has many adherents in the most reactionary, extreme Right-wing circles of the bourgeoisie, is more preferable from the standpoint of the revolution. They argue that this policy promises to hasten the denouement, that it aggravates contradictions and very forcefully indicts imperialism (the Chinese leaders are trying to take advantage of views and sentiments of this kind).
While we are fully aware of the anti-socialist nature of the more subtle varieties of imperialist policy, of their hostility to progress and of their perfidy and danger, we cannot subscribe to these views.
The revolutionary movement of the working class has no grounds for regretting the above-mentioned modifications in the policies of the bourgeoisie. On the contrary, the very fact that these modifications have occurred reveals with increasing clarity imperialism's aspiration to shift its accent from frontal attacks to manoeuvres, to combine pressure with concessions and compromises. The working class and the liberation movement have every justification to assess these modifications as the outcome of their successes and achievements that have markedly changed the balance of strength in the world.
But that is not the only point. Colonial wars, fascism and contempt for the economic and political interests of the proletariat and all other working people spell out more sacrifice and hardships for the masses. The Communists cannot reason like bourgeois politicians, for whom the masses are merely pawns on the chessboard, where significance attaches to the end result and losses are of little account. The struggle waged by the Communists has only one objective and meaning---the defence of the interests of the working people, not only of future but also of present generations.
As regards the ``exacerbations'' springing from the old traditional policies of the imperialists, they are not the sole cause of the upsurge of the proletariat's class struggle. Had that been the case any political or economic crisis would inevitably have been accompanied by revolutionary explosions. A revolutionary upsurge takes place only when by the 239 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. III. IMPERIALIST PROPAGANDA TODAY time a favourable situation arises the problem of bringing the masses into the anti-imperialist struggle and preparing them for the socialist revolution has been resolved. This is accomplished in the course of the struggle for direct economic and political interests, for democratic objectives. That is why the tactics of the bourgeoisie provide for "safety valves" in the shape of concessions and compromises, and that is why in the long run these tactics are doomed to failure. By securing various concessions the working masses not only improve the conditions of their life and work but also gain experience---they master the new lessons of the class struggle, acquire confidence in their own strength and become more politically conscious and organised.
The class struggle has its own dialectics. The fact that the bourgeois politicians have begun to see things more clearly is not the only reason why more cautious, flexible and subtle tactics are finding many proponents among the imperialist bourgeoisie (the future will show if this is temporary or not). In the final analysis this is a result of the successes of the revolutionary struggle of the working class and the oppressed people, of the increased might of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries, and of their Leninist policy of achieving the utmost strengthening of the socialist community and supporting the revolutionary and national liberation movements, of their uncompromising struggle against imperialism and its policy of aggression, of their drive for peace and peaceful coexistence. In imperialism's new and more cautious tactics much, in effect, has been forced upon it by its adversaries.
Nothing has been changed by the fact that these new tactics are enabling imperialism to avoid some of the losses and setbacks that would otherwise have been inescapable. When one assesses the complex phenomena of politics generally, one cannot apply the elementary rules of arithmetic. In politics the loss sustained by one side is frequently by no means equal to the gain derived by the other. Decisions are sometimes made which do not benefit (or, on the contrary, benefit) either side.
Experience has shown that in the long run a fascist dictatorship boomerangs on the bourgeoisie. But this does not imply that on these grounds such a dictatorship can be welcomed by the working class. Or take the struggle to avert 240 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV a thermonuclear war. This is a vital matter to the peoples despite the fact that if imperialism starts such a war it would unquestionably be devoured by its flames.
There is another very important factor which must be considered. The imperialist bourgeoisie's new tactics in the class struggle are also a result of its efforts to adapt itself to the new realities of the epoch. It can count on success only to the extent and until the working-class and liberation movements in their turn ``adapt'' themselves to these modifications in the policies of their class enemy, until they see through the political designs of their adversary and counter these designs with their own improved tactics and organisation.
This applies to the new elements in imperialism's policies as a whole, to its struggle in all the key bridgeheads and to some aspects of its struggle against socialism. True, here we must agree on what should be considered ``new'' in these policies.
Take the attempts of the imperialists to utilise the policies of China's Maoist leadership for their anti-Soviet aims. This can hardly be attributed to the growth of liberal tendencies and the striving to pursue a more flexible and reasonable line. At the close of the 1940s and in the early 1950s (i.e., atthe very heightof the cold war), the US Government displayed similar ``flexibility'' with regard to Yugoslavia as soon as her relations with the Soviet Union deteriorated. Far from being a ``new'' element in imperialist policy this is a manifestation of new factors in the political situation (in the given case the deterioration of relations between the Soviet Union and China), which the imperialists have always tried to turn to their advantage. Characteristically, in the USA the orthodox representatives of the most extreme, diehard reactionary circles have closed ranks with the proponents of a "new policy" towards China. The American press comments on the Nixon visit to Peking in February 1972 are striking evidence that these steps by US diplomacy have the support both of those who urge normal relations with all countries, including the People's Republic of China, and those who seek to use such normalisation for anti-Soviet purposes. The same may be said of imperialism's efforts to utilise any manifestation of nationalism in socialist countries.
241 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. III. IMPERIALIST PROPAGANDA TODAYThis is approximately the case with the exhortations to make massive use of all possible means to undermine and disintegrate socialism "from within'', including support for opportunism, attempts to influence intellectuals and young people and various acts of ideological subversion. All this is today more and more frequently linked with the " bridgebuilding" policy. Indeed, this policy relies largely on methods of this kind. Here it is not a case of something ``new'' in the policy of the imperialist powers but rather a manifestation of that policy's traditional character and successiveness. Attempts to undermine socialism from within, with intensified ideological pressure as one of the vehicles, are not novel in imperialist policy as one can easily see by re-reading the works written by James Burnham, John Foster Dulles and some other high priests of anti-communism in the 1940s and 1950s.
If we look beyond the traditional, constant elements of imperialist policy towards socialist countries, we shall find that the aim of the new tactics (including the tactics expressed in the ``bridge-building'' policy) is essentially (a) not so much to crush socialism and restore capitalism as to gradually ``transform'' or ``erode'' the socialist system, and (b) to go over from a policy of uncompromising hostility and maximum restriction of contacts and relations with socialist countries all along the line to a certain expansion and utilisation of economic, scientific, technological and cultural relations.
Basically, this policy remains spearheaded against the socialist system. This must be clear to anyone who analyses imperialism and its policies from a Marxist-Leninist and not an opportunist position. But there is something else that must be clear to any Marxist-Leninist, namely, that the imperialist powers cannot be expected to have a different, friendly policy towards socialism. Properly speaking, the principles suggested by the Communists for relations between states with different social systems, the principles of peaceful coexistence, likewise do not in any way presuppose any cessation of the inevitable struggle between the two systems but only imply the exclusion of military means of waging this struggle, the relaxation of international tension and the establishment of mutually beneficial co-- operation between states in definite spheres.
__PRINTERS_P_241_COMMENT__ 16 --- 0706 242 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOVHence, in analysing imperialist policy, its assessment as ``friendly'' or ``hostile'' cannot be used as a point of departure. This policy will always be intrinsically anti-socialist. Significance attaches to something else, namely, the purport of the various trends in imperialist policy and their possible impact on the international situation and on the balance of strength in the world.
This is the standpoint from which one should consider the new elements in the imperialist policy towards the socialist countries. But since it is a matter of new elements, some of which have not yet been applied in practice but exist rather as general ideas in the minds of individual political theorists, it is quite out of the question to attempt to analyse them comprehensively. But some preliminary considerations may be offered.
The first of these elements is that imperialism's new tactics towards the socialist countries obviously express the evaporation of the hope that the socialist system lacks vitality and can be strangled by force. In this sense the new tactics are essentially defensive, and this is mirrored in the theoretical concepts on which they are founded. This applies to the ``convergence'' theory, which, with all its hostility towards socialism, not only expresses the hope that socialism will change and draw closer to capitalism but also admits that socialism has values which, if borrowed, could benefit = capitalism.^^*^^ Even the notorious " transformation" of socialism theory is regarded by many bourgeois theorists in a spirit that is new for the ideologists of anticommunism. George F. Kennan, for example, in speaking of the changes that might possibly occur in socialist countries, including the USSR, draws the conclusion that they can take place "only on the foundation of and within the framework of the present political system, which is now firmly established and which has shaped the political outlooks and assumptions of an entire = generation".^^**^^
Another consideration that suggests itself when we examine the new elements in imperialism's policy towards _-_-_
^^*^^ This point, naturally, cannot in principle change the attitude of the Marxists to the ``convergence'' theory as being totally untenable and as ignoring the nature of the two systems and the laws of social development.
^^**^^ George F. Kennan, op. cit., p. 11.
243 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. III. IMPERIALIST PROPAGANDA TODAY socialist countries is how its theorists interpret issues such as the relaxation of tension, the promotion of economic, scientific and technological contacts, and so forth. It is well known that these propositions are being put forward also by the proponents of the "new policy'', notably of the " bridgebuilding" doctrine. In themselves these propositions evoke no objections. The fact that they have been put forward by bourgeois politicians and theorists may be regarded as a sort of response to the challenge to the West from the policy of peaceful coexistence pursued by socialist countries. But to reduce the ``bridge-building'' policy to this would be tantamount to concealing its real significance. In recent years it has been developing in a totally different direction. Within the framework of overall imperialist policy even the above-mentioned positive elements have been inevitably perverted. Facts indicate that their acceptability and utility to the West are assessed by many ``bridge-building'' proponents in accordance with definite criteria totally unconnected with the contribution they can make towards strengthening peace and international security or towards the economic, scientific and cultural advancement of both sides. In fact, here the knowledge of how effectively these elements of the new policy can be used to prejudice socialism is becoming the only criterion.If, for instance, one takes the report of the Republican Co-ordinating Committee, published on the eve of the 1968 elections in the USA, where the conclusion was offered that "we should also keep clearly in mind that our sole purpose in dealing with the current communist regimes is to encourage and promote their = evolution'',^^*^^ one will see that in this context even good words about negotiations, trade and other contacts acquire the shape of ill-concealed subversive activity.^^**^^
_-_-_^^*^^ Choice for America, Washington, 1968, p. 409.
^^**^^ It must be noted that lately in the business world and in US political circles there has been a definite favourable modification of attitude towards trade with the USSR and other socialist countries. This is linked not only with the changes in the political situation but also with the mounting economic and foreign trade difficulties in the USA. These difficulties have made many Americans think more seriously of the economic benefits held out to the USA itself by trade with the socialist world.
__PRINTERS_P_243_COMMENT__ 16* 244 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOVThis attitude is neither an exception nor the monopoly of one bourgeois party. Here is another example. In a book entitled The Discipline of Power, also published shortly before the 1968 presidential elections, George W. Ball, a leading American diplomat and a prominent figure in the Democratic Party, wrote emphatically in favour of East-West trade and the removal of the discriminatory restrictions imposed on this trade by the USA. But one of his main arguments was: "Now it should be perfectly evident that to press the Soviet Union toward autarchy makes no sense from the point of view of the West.... The Soviet Union would be less able to wage a protracted war if it had to depend on sources of supply on this side of the iron = curtain".^^*^^
Speaking generally, one must say that many Western political theorists have an astonishing talent for distorting the meaning of even the most positive ideas. As they pass through the mechanism of their thinking, universally acknowledged forms of international intercourse like trade, cultural contacts and so forth, that through the ages have enjoyed a good reputation, immediately turn into their opposites, into sinister instruments of subversion and corruption of other countries.
The height of this art has been attained by Zbigniew Brzezinski. For him even peace and the relaxation of international tension have become instruments of subversion against world socialism. "Only in a relaxed international atmosphere,'' he declares, "could the hidden tensions and contradictions that plague the East surface and become politically important.'' A detente, he says, "inevitably challenges" = communism.^^**^^
Statements and declarations of this sort require a sober approach. Above all, it must be seen that there is a good deal of irresponsible propagandist jabber in them. The apologists of imperialism are now aspiring to lay claim to practically all positive ideas, lofty ideals and honoured slogans (we have already mentioned this feature of their ideological tactics) and it would be patently absurd to _-_-_
^^*^^ George W. Ball, The Discipline of Power, Boston, Toronto, 1968, pp. 276--77.
^^**^^ Zbigniew Brzezinski, Alternative to Partition, New York, 1965, p. 121.
245 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. III. IMPERIALIST PROPAGANDA TODAY acknowledge these claims and surrender to capitalism what it is trying to appropriate in this = manner.^^*^^To sum up, it may be said that the new elements in imperialism's policy towards socialist countries should evidently be assessed much in the same way as the imperialist bourgeoisie's entire new tactical line in the class struggle. These elements express the striving of the imperialists somehow to adapt themselves to the changes taking place in the world, to the new alignment of forces and to the conditions of capitalism's deepening general crisis.
However, in this area of the class struggle (possibly because for imperialism it is the most complex, important and acute), elements of a more realistic approach to politics have sprouted on the rich soil of anti-communist traditions and prejudices linked with old political guidelines, whose untenability has been demonstrated long ago by the entire course of history.
In this combination any element of realism can be simply emasculated. But events may possibly take a different turn under which the development of objective reality will, on the contrary, fortify them and enhance their influence on actual policy. Naturally, even in that case the relations between capitalism and socialism will not become idyllic. But they may enter a channel where the menace of a world war will diminish and it will be possible to coexist peacefully and co-operate normally in spheres where such co-operation is beneficial to both sides.
Properly speaking, this is precisely what is envisaged by the principles of peaceful coexistence which the Soviet Union and other socialist countries are upholding on the world scene. Moreover, this is precisely the turn the progressive, democratic forces in the capitalist countries are striving to effect. Among the more sober-minded and _-_-_
^^*^^ This also applies to their theories about the ``evolution'' or ``erosion'' of socialism. Here the principal factors are said to be the rise of the living standard and an abundance of material blessings in the socialist countries, the rise of the cultural and educational level, the development of democracy, and so on. The attempts of the bourgeois theorists to associate themselves with some of the development trends in socialist society by portraying these trends as a "return to bourgeois practices" that put the West in a good light do not stand criticism.
246 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV farsighted representatives of the bourgeoisie the trend towards such changes will become more and more pronounced as socialism grows stronger and as the hollowness of any other political line is laid bare.As regards the official policy of the imperialist powers, the socialist countries have in most cases still to contend with a line involving a variety of old and new methods of fighting the new social system.
Among these methods ideological propaganda unquestionably holds a prominent place.
From the pronouncements of some Western theorists, whom we have already mentioned, it may be inferred that the growing role played by ideological propaganda is in many ways linked with the fact that in the nuclear age it is becoming harder and more hazardous to rely on war as a means of crushing an adversary. Similar pronouncements by bourgeois policy-makers and theorists are frequently quoted in Marxist literature to explain why imperialism attaches such great significance to ideological propaganda.
As such this explanation raises no doubts. The Western leaders, who are beginning to realise that a thermonuclear war would mean suicide for imperialim, have indeed no alternative but to look for other ways of fighting socialism. One of these ways is through ideological propaganda. But this does not mean that the emphasis on ideological propaganda is a characteristic only of the present-day bourgeoisie's tactics that provide for more flexible methods and circumventing manoeuvres combined with certain concessions and compromises, while the other more rigid, frontal tactics, that include an intensification of military pressure, show no inclination to make broad use of ideological propaganda.
Actually, even the most bellicose groups of the imperialist bourgeoisie, including those who are inclined to rely more on a military* solution, are pressing for the utmost unfolding of ideological propaganda against socialism. This is hardly surprising. In imperialist countries the broad use of ideological means of struggle has always been linked with preparations for and the conduct of wars of aggrandisement. Even the most militarist circles in the West are perfectly well aware that war preparations demand the most painstaking and effective brainwashing in their own 247 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. III. IMPERIALIST PROPAGANDA TODAY country, in allied countries and in countries regarded as the enemy.
The demarcation between the proponents of the two tactical lines in their attitude to the use of ideological means of struggle should not, therefore, be regarded as a boundary on one side of which are those in favour and on the other those against the active use of propaganda. There is no question of a division on this issue. The contention is over the content, forms and methods of ideological propaganda and over its place in politics.
Actually, it is a case of a clash between two concepts of propaganda closely related with the struggle between the imperialist bourgeoisie's two tactical lines. Each of these lines, naturally, envisages its own content, forms, and methods of using all the instruments of foreign policy, including foreign political propaganda.
The hard-liners, who want to step up the cold war and launch a frontal attack on the socialist camp and on the revolutionary and liberation movements, advocate the most aggressive forms of propaganda. As they see it, the purpose of foreign political propaganda is to intensify interference in the internal affairs of the socialist countries. They regard propaganda primarily as an instrument of subversion in these countries and in the communist and national liberation movements.
The proponents of this stand frequently criticise the present propaganda efforts of imperialism as being ``soft'' and "much too cautious'', as being inadequate in volume, as containing too much information, as having too many ``scruples'' in occasionally resorting to a lie, as being too timid in using all the dirty gimmicks of psychological warfare. Most of these critics regard propaganda as an allpowerful weapon and believe that along with other methods of subversion and the corresponding military efforts it can resolve the problems of imperialist foreign policy and secure a radical change in the course of events.
They are suggesting many plans for stepping up propaganda and enlarging the already bulky propaganda machine, and are demanding a substantial increase of the allocations for it.
A series of these plans is mentioned by Wilson P. Dizard in the book The Strategy of Truth. One of them is the " 248 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV militant liberty programme" sponsored by the US Defence Department. Another, drawn up by the American Legion, proposed a Cabinet-level department devoted to " unconventional propaganda warfare''. Underlying these projects, Dizard notes, is the idea that "psychological techniques" are an independent weapon that can ensure = victory.^^*^^
Ideas of this kind are peddled also in influential political and diplomatic circles. This is best illustrated by the proposal by William Benton, former Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs, for raising the propaganda department to the level of a ministry and, at the same time, uniting the propaganda efforts of the West through "Marshall plan of = ideas".^^**^^
These projects have the backing not simply of individual fanatic advocates of ``total'' propaganda. The backstage manipulators are rather political groups that had risen to power at the height of the cold war and been educated in the spirit of the Dulles hard-line policy of "balancing on the fringe of war'', and also representatives of the topechelon military.
All of them want an ``active'' foreign policy. Denning the nature of this policy, a committee headed by Christian A. Herter wrote in its report to the President (naturally, in the most delicate terms) that it "must not only watch things happen and report them, but also help to make things happen".^^***^^ Here propaganda is accorded the role of a major instrument of such interference in the course of events.
The other foreign policy tactical line, which is more realistic, flexible and circumspect, suggests a different concept of foreign political propaganda. But it, too, accords prominence to propaganda. The proponents of this line are also demanding more funds, a bigger effort in the war of ideas and an enlargement of the propaganda machine. Similarly, they are not inclined to abandon the methods of psychological warfare and ``black'' propaganda altogether. But, first, foreign political propaganda is accorded a more modest role; the advocates of this line do not believe propaganda is all-powerful and regard policy, which can later _-_-_
^^*^^ Wilson P. Dizard, op. cit., pp. 17--18.
^^**^^ H. Speir, Force and Folly, Cambridge, 1969, p. 20.
^^***^^ Walter Joyce, op. cit., p. 124.
249 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. III. IMPERIALIST PROPAGANDA TODAY be propagated, as the main factor in the fight for people's minds. And, second, ``unconventional'' methods are given a smaller role in the propaganda effort on the grounds that their immoderate use may still further discredit foreign policy as being extremely aggressive.The proponents of these views sharply sriticise the very concept of foreign political propaganda as psychological warfare. Many leading American theorists and policymakers articulated this criticism as early as the 1950s.
One of them, Chester Bowles, pointed out that the concept of psychological warfare had been borrowed from the nazis and warned: "If we insist on employing it to describe our activities, we will continue to lose the respect of millions of people throughout the world who were brought up to believe that America is more than a clever gimmick or a cynical = manoeuvre".^^*^^
This view won supporters in official circles in the USA as early as the period of the Eisenhower Administration. A committee set up in 1953 with W. H. Jackson, a New York attorney, at its head, reported that "cold war" and "psychological warfare" were unhappy terms, and stressed that "new terms are needed... to express the solidarity of freedom-loving men and women = everywhere".^^**^^ Correspondingly, as early as 1953 the Psychological Warfare Board (set up by the National Security Council in 1951 to co-- ordinate the efforts of various departments) was renamed the Operations Co-ordinating Board. Symbolically, this measure was put into effect at a time when in US official circles they were still peddling the idea of a "liberation policy" envisaging the further intensification of all kinds of subversion, including ``psychological''. In other words, the aim of this measure was to camouflage and not to change the substance of propaganda. This was confirmed by Roland I. Perusse, a top-ranking official of the American propaganda department, who, in a comment on the report of the Jackson committee and on the reform that was enforced on the recommendations of that committee, wrote: " Abandonment of the term, however, should by no means result _-_-_
^^*^^ Chester Bowles, The New Dimensions of Peace, New York, 1955, p. 371.
^^**^^ William E. Daugherty, Morris Janowitz, op. cit., pp. 30--31.
250 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV in the abandonment of any of the processes involved in what has been known professionally as `psychological = warfare'.''^^*^^The proposed reorganisation of foreign political propaganda both as psychological warfare and as a gigantic advertising campaign was criticised by Leonard S. Cottrell Jr., a leading American sociologist, in a paper to the annual convention of the American Sociological Society in 1955. Proposals for this sort of reorganisation, he declared, were sowing the illusion that "there existed somewhere a bag of slick tricks and black magic by which advertising psychologists and other modern spell casters could put across ideas and beliefs in populations we wish to influence''. This, he said, gave the false impression that the struggle for public opinion could be waged solely by psychological means and, moreover, that it could be carried on in a vacuum with no relation "to what was going on in more tangible economic, political or military aspects of international activity''. Moreover, these illusions were giving rise to a "negative strategy'', a strategy of "stopping the advance of communism without offering a feasible alternative''. He added that the "only formula for putting power into our propaganda is that of positive action. There is nothing the soap salesman can do until that condition is met".^^**^^
An analogous conclusion is drawn by Dizard, who rejects the recipes of the proponents of extreme forms of psychological warfare and generally of those who see propaganda as the key to the solution of problems. "Whatever the value of psychological operations in the military sphere,'' he writes, "there is considerable doubt about its application to the general problem of world opinion.... Preoccupation with techniques has been a hallmark of our search for answers to the problems posed by hostile or indifferent public opinion overseas; it is indicative of a serious weakness in our = approach."^^***^^ He characterises the preachers of "total propaganda" as follows: "Propagandists themselves have an inherent tendency to exaggerate their ability to persuade. They are something like Chanticleer, the rooster _-_-_
^^*^^ William E. Daugherty, Morris Janowitz, op. cit., p. 33.
^^**^^ Ibid., p. 19.
^^***^^ Wilson P. Dizard, op. cit., pp. 18, 19.
251 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. III. IMPERIALIST PROPAGANDA TODAY of French fable, who thought the sun rose every morning because he = crowed."^^*^^In his book he quotes George Allen, the former USIA chief, as saying: "I have long been convinced that ninety per cent of the impression which the United States makes abroad depends on our policies and that no more than ten per cent, to make a rough estimate, is how we explain it--- whether we say it softly, or loudly, or strongly, or belligerently, or with dulcet tones.... I want to make it absolutely clear that I am not writing down the importance of the US Information Agency. I am writing up the importance of having the public relations aspects of policy taken into consideration when policy is = made."^^**^^
Behind these views one can, of course, discern the desire to shift most of the responsibility for the setbacks of foreign political propaganda from the propagandists to the politicians, in other words, they are a purely professional defensive response on the part of those who are directly responsible for the US propaganda effort. But while Allen and Dizard may be suspected of trying dodge responsibility, there are hundreds of people uncommitted to propaganda who have made similar statements.
Definite political tactics dictating the place that should be occupied in it by foreign political propaganda is what chiefly shapes views of this kind. It is quite obvious that political tactics providing for a more flexible adaptation of politics to the real facts and conditions of the present epoch cannot reduce all the methods of moulding public opinion to propaganda. It envisages certain corrections in the policy itself so that the latter would in itself carry a certain propaganda message and would be adapted to influencing world opinion more effectively.^^***^^
It goes without saying that what is envisaged is not _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., p. 186.
^^**^^ Ibid., p. 187.
^^***^^ Gordon, Falk and Hodapp write in this connection that parallel with Voice of America the United States needs an Ear of America whose "aim should be the importation from abroad of all that is worthwhile" and which would enable policy-makers to take account of the standpoint of the strata and groups whose support is solicited by the USA (George N. Gordon, Irving Falk, William Hodapp, op. cit., pp. 227--28).
252 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV a reshaping of United States policies in accordance with the wishes and interests of public opinion but a kind of "imperialist reformism'', whose purpose is, where possible, to strip politics of its most odious aspects and in other cases to help camouflage such aspects more thoroughly.The advocates of this line are by no means necessarily less bellicose in their attitude to communism. The differences are more frequently over something else, namely over the reasons for the wide dissemination of communist ideas and over what measures would be most effective in fighting these ideas. Extremely characteristic in this respect are the recommendations which the American preacher of anticommunism Frederick C. Barghoorn offers Western ruling circles: "The most important tool of the free world in the struggle against communist propaganda, however, is not propaganda or counter-propaganda at all, but a series of programmes designed to mitigate or eliminate the conditions which foster susceptibility to Soviet = propaganda."^^*^^
With this approach is linked the struggle which some of the directors of American foreign political propaganda and a number of politicians have been waging for many years to give the propagandist a share in charting foreign policy. They want this share in order to be able to warn the President or the Secretary of State of the consequences that a given political action might have from the propaganda point of view, or at least to be able to prepare the propaganda machine for these consequences.
The argument over the aims and methods of propaganda and its place in politics (as over the various political tactics we have mentioned above) is still going on. In the official policy of the imperialist powers this is reflected in vacillation now to one side now to the other. For instance, it may be considered that the period during which John F. Kennedy was President of the USA was marked by an upswing of the ``reformist'' line, a more sober evaluation of propaganda's potentialities, and attempts to modify policy in order to make it more effective in moulding public opinion. Of course, the war in Vietnam and the mounting aggressive trends of US policy in other parts of the world while the Johnson Administration was in office halted this process.
_-_-_^^*^^ Frederick G. Barghoorn, Soviet Foreign Propaganda, Princeton, 1964, p. 319.
253 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. III. IMPERIALIST PROPAGANDA TODAYAs regards the Nixon Administration, its line in foreign political propaganda seems to be reflected to some extent in the special report of the Republican Party's Co-- ordinating Committee drawn up under the direction of former Assistant Secretary of State R. Hill and published during the 1968 election campaign. This report contains the entire range of arguments used by the circles advocating the utmost intensification of the propaganda effort. It demands larger allocations for USIA, more efficient training for its personnel, an extension of its functions and closer co-- ordination between the government effort in propaganda and the efforts of private business.
The report dwells on propaganda's link with foreign policy and urges more active propaganda by the US foreign policy apparatus, stressing that aggressive and intelligent use of modern communications may frequently be the shortest and most effective way to carry out specific tasks overseas.^^*^^
However, the report ends with the reminder that "deeds speak louder than words" and that this old saying was applicable to the US propaganda effort. "Words can explain action,'' it says, "but cannot substitute for policy. Our actual performance at home and abroad determines the effectiveness of our psychological operations abroad. The sharp decline of confidence in and respect for America in recent years is due far more to a qualitative deterioration of policies than to USIA = shortcomings".^^**^^
Another point to be borne in mind is that US Government policy in foreign political propaganda can hardly be formulated in total isolation from its general policy towards other countries. Therefore, say, the normalisation of SovietUS relations and a relaxation in US relations with the socialist countries will raise the question of the nature of Washington's foreign political propaganda and of strengthening the hand of those who are opposed to psychological warfare methods that might serve as a source of tension.
On the whole, despite all the differences of opinion and despite the continuing struggle between viewpoints, it may _-_-_
^^*^^ Choice for America, p. 392.
^^**^^ Ibid., pp. 401--02. True, this criticism is, more than anything else, a pre-election gimmick, an attempt to discredit the policies of the rival Democratic Party.
254 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV be said that the highest point in the craze for psychological warfare as a ``total'' weapon that can almost by itself ensure victory, was evidently passed in the 1950s and the early 1960s. Foreign political propaganda is, of course, receiving serious attention. It is being heavily financed. Steps are being taken to intensify and improve it. But the experience of recent years with its disappointments and unfulfilled hopes has evidently brought the US ruling circles round to the conviction that propaganda cannot be regarded as the panacea for all evils. All the available evidence indicates that this is the framework within which the imperialist governments will act in the foreseeable future.This means that considerable attention will be given to foreign political propaganda, to improving it and stepping up its effort. But the ruling circles of the imperialist countries can hardly be expected to accept the advice of those who feel propaganda should be given precedence over other means of struggle. It may rather be expected that more attention will be given to means of struggle linked with the economic, scientific and technological competition between the two systems, and also to attempts to pursue a more differentiated policy towards individual socialist and developing countries.
However, it should be borne in mind that in this policy, too, foreign political propaganda will play a substantial role, but only as part of this policy and not as an independent factor.
[255] __NUMERIC_LVL1__ CHAPTER IV __ALPHA_LVL1__ PEACEFUL COEXISTENCEToday the war of ideas has become an inalienable part of international relations, particularly of relations between states belonging to different social systems. Naturally, this makes it one of the objects of the debate raging round the basic principles underlying these relations.
This debate has been going on for a long time, in fact ever since the Great October Socialist Revolution in Russia breached the front of imperialism and the question of relations between countries representing antipodal societies became a fundamental issue of international politics. This was a major issue both for the young Soviet Republic and for the capitalist powers encircling it.
In this great historic contention between the two social systems, the two sides made their choice immediately after the October Revolution of 1917. Capitalism opted for war in an effort to strangle the revolution, to use Winston Churchill's words, in its cradle. Socialism, on the other hand, chose the principle of peace between states as the cornerstone of its policy. This was proclaimed in the Decree on Peace, the Soviet Government's first foreign political act; it was promulgated on Lenin's initiative. Since then the idea of peaceful coexistence, advanced and substantiated by Lenin, has become a key principle of socialism's foreign policy towards capitalist countries.
But the debate over the basic issue of present-day international relations---the question whether the contradictions between socialism and capitalism will be resolved by war or peacefully---only began in 1917. Subsequent history had to provide the answer.
256 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOVFor the socialist states and for the Communist parties this debate had two aspects---internal and external.
As regards the internal aspect the cardinal task was to uphold the Leninist political line in the struggle against both ``Left''- and Right-opportunist distortions. This task was carried out in a sharp ideological struggle.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ [NIL.] __ALPHA_LVL3__ The LeninistFor 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 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 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".^^*^^ Those who do not acknowledge this duty cannot consider themselves proletarian revolutionaries, they cannot claim to be Marxists-Leninists.
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 " revolutionary war" against the bourgeoisie of other countries. This was the line which the ``Left'' Communists and the Trotskyites wanted the communist movement to adopt. Although _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 28, p. 292.
257 __NOTE__ Right running header: (set-register ?R "\n\nCH. IV. PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE AND THE WAR OF IDEAS\n\n") __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ 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.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.
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".^^*^^ 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."^^**^^
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 _-_-_
^^*^^ Marx and Engels, Selected Correspondence, Moscow, 1955, p. 423.
^^**^^ Ibid.
__PRINTERS_P_257_COMMENT__ 17 --- 0706 258 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV 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.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."^^*^^
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".^^**^^
Although Lenin denounced ``pushing'' the revolution by _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 27, pp. 71--72.
^^**^^ Ibid., p. 71.
259 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. IV. PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE AND THE WAR OF IDEAS 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".^^*^^ 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".^^**^^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.
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.
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 _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., Vol. 32, p. 437.
^^**^^ Ibid. Vol. 31, p. 457.
260 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV likewise tries to prove that the principles of peace and peaceful coexistence are alien to = Leninism.^^*^^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.
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.
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 _-_-_
^^*^^ A fairly detailed enunciation of this ``concept'' is to be found in the writings of George F. Kennan, who is regarded as an expert on ``Soviet affairs'' (for example, see the article ``Peaceful Coexistence. A Western View'', Foreign Affairs, January 1960, pp. 171--90.)
261 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. IV. PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE AND THE WAR OF IDEAS 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."^^*^^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".
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 _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 144.
262 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV 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.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.
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.
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 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. IV. PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE AND THE WAR OF IDEAS 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.
Such, in outline, is the history of this problem.
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.
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.
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 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV was to ensure the "peaceful coexistence of states irrespective of their social = system".^^*^^
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.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ Bourgeois CriticismDespite the sharpness of the discussion in the communist and revolutionary movement, the struggle round the principles of peaceful coexistence has been and remains the main front of struggle against imperialism. The prime task was to force peace on capitalism, to compel it to abandon its attempts to destroy socialism by war. Of course, this was achieved not so much by the force of theoretical argument as by the argument of the growing strength and might of socialism as proved in practice.
At first the capitalist powers were inclined to regard the proposal for peaceful coexistence as a sign of weakness. It was claimed that socialism was eagerly advocating peace only because it could not count on victory in war. It took several decades, in the course of which the imperialists time and again tested the strength of socialism by war, economic blockades and subversion, for the imperialist rulers to realise that this claim was untenable. The view that any attempt to destroy socialism by war is suicidal _-_-_
^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, p. 170.
265 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. IV. PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE AND THE WAR OF IDEAS is today accepted by a growing body of opinion among the ruling circles of the Western powers.More, this is leading to a new and more realistic approach by a considerable section of these ruling circles to the principles of peaceful coexistence. The most striking expression of these changes in Western political thinking is that the US Government has formally recognised peaceful coexistence as the only foundation of relations with the Soviet Union. In a document headed Basic Principles of Relations Between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America, signed by L. I. Brezhnev and Richard M. Nixon, it is explicitly stated that the two countries "will proceed from the common determination that in the nuclear age there is no alternative to conducting their mutual relations on the basis of peaceful = coexistence".^^*^^ This is one of the key results of the Soviet-US summit talks. The implementation of this principle could vastly influence the development of relations between the two countries and also the situation in the world as a whole.
Nevertheless, it cannot be considered that the struggle for peaceful coexistence has ended either on the practical level (for the most aggressive groups of imperialists continue to nurture plans for the military destruction of socialism) or on the level of theory and ideology.
Western theorists attack the concept of peaceful coexistence mainly along two lines.
One of these is linked with serving the policies of the most bellicose groups. It does not suit these ``critics'' that peaceful coexistence confines the struggle between the two systems to non-military means, that it excludes war from the relations between countries.
Of course, it is becoming increasingly difficult to articulate this sort of disagreement with peaceful coexistence. Nonetheless many figures in the West still venture to do so---they are representatives of extreme reaction like General LeMay and Goldwater and their fellow theorists for whom even thermonuclear war remains an acceptable instrument of struggle against communism.
A more widespread method of undermining the idea of peaceful coexistence, is the attempt to prove that the Soviet _-_-_
^^*^^ Pravda, May 30, 1972.
266 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV Union and other socialist countries do not themselves believe in peaceful coexistence and advocate it only in order to "lull the vigilance" of the West while they make their preparations for war. This view is preached by very many representatives of the imperialist circles, and to some extent it is even part of the Western official outlook and a major ideological means of spurring military preparations.More significant from the standpoint of the subject of this book is the charge that peaceful coexistence is "not peaceful enough''. Recourse is had to one and the same argument that in the Leninist understanding of the term peaceful coexistence does not rule out the war of ideas. That, they claim, makes the demand for peaceful coexistence pointless. There is no war between socialist and capitalist powers and in this situation a relentless ideological struggle is not something new or appealing---it is tantamount to the cold war that mankind had already witnessed.
These attacks on peaceful coexistence were started at the close of the 1950s and the early 1960s, precisely when the cold war began to slacken, when the first signs appeared that tension might give way to normalisation. These changes were the result of the consistent policy of peace pursued by the Soviet Union and other socialist countries. That was exactly when attempts were made, on the one hand, to credit the West with the signs of improvement in the international situation and, on the other, to discredit the socialist concept of peaceful coexistence. Bourgeois ideologists and politicians launched into clamorous assertions to the effect that only "Western democracy" was offering a programme of ``genuine'' peace, while the foreign policy principles of the socialist countries, which reject ideological tolerance, signified "aggressive coexistence" that hardly differed from the cold war. In those years these assertions were made both in the USA and in Western Europe. For example, W. Grewe, a West German apologist of bourgeois policy and ideology, wrote: "Coexistence is a form of conflict and not conciliation."^^*^^ In their arguments the bourgeois theorists make every attempt to obscure the fundamental difference between the concepts of "cold war" and "peaceful coexistence" and depict the latter as a kind of "political war".
_-_-_^^*^^ Der Tagesspiegel, July 6, 1963, p. 2.
267 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. IV. PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE AND THE WAR OF IDEASThis theme is elaborated on in particularly great detail in American literature, in which the concept of peaceful coexistence is violently attacked by theorists representing the extreme Right wing of political science. This may be illustrated with the following passage from A Forward Strategy for America by Strausz-Hupe, Kintner and Possony: "For, short of the outbreak of the Third World War, the immediate prospect is for a continuation and intensification of the cold war---the great and protracted psychopolitical conflict. For Moscow, the real alternative to a nuclear showdown is not peace or 'peaceful coexistence' as we understand these terms, but the waging of a psychopolitical war that will so weaken, demoralise and divide the free world that a general nuclear war need not be fought at all or can be waged with impunity against distraught and defenseless peoples."^^*^^
Summing up the arguments on peaceful coexistence presented in scores of new books brought out in the West and asking, "What, then, is the meaning of peaceful coexistence?'', the American anti-communist journal Problems of Communism gives the following reply: "The concensus of opinion of the books listed ... is that it is really the cold war under another name.... What peaceful coexistence does not mean is a Communist will to establish genuinely friendly relations between 'countries of different social systems'. For indeed how can there be such relations if an essential part of one system is the belief that its 'historic task' is the revolutionary overthrow of the = other?"^^**^^
In their attempts to discredit peaceful coexistence bourgeois theorists and politicians persevere in depicting it as a cunning subterfuge designed to "lull vigilance" in the West and demoralise it from within. The West German publicist Walter Schmitt declares: "Parallel with the repudiation of war peaceful coexistence amounts to nothing less than a bold attempt to nullify the value of all the former methods of defending the non-communist world from further communist seizure with the aim of changing the internal and external conditions throughout the = world."^^***^^
_-_-_^^*^^ R. Strausz-Hupe, W. Kintner, S. Possony, op. cit., p. 260.
^^**^^ Problems of Communism, July-August 1961, pp. 31, 36.
^^***^^ Walter Schmitt, Krieg in Deutschland, Strategic und Taktik der sowietrussischen Deutshlandpolitik seit 1945, Diisseldorf, 1961, p. 193.
268 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOVThis theme is featured iii the book No Substitute for Victory by Frank Johnson, whose recommendation is that the US Government send the Soviet Union a kind of ultimatum declaring that the USA interpreted the communist statements about the ultimate triumph of communism in the world as an admission that geniune peaceful coexistence was unachievable. The peaceful coexistence offered by the socialist countries, Johnson writes, represents nothing more than "rules of the game" inspired by Communists with the objective of ``converting'' the world to communism. The USA, Johnson insists, should reject these ``rules'', tell the Communists that it would not accept their concept of peaceful coexistence and bluntly state: "Our objectives ... include the liberation of every nation now under communist control and the destruction of the world-wide communist conspiracy. We will do everything within our power ... to destroy communism throughout the world and to diminish the influence, power, and prestige of the Soviet = Union."^^*^^
__NOTE__ "**" and "*" are reversed in footnotes section: "** Frank Johnson,..." and "* Problems of Communism" (not "* Frank Johnson,...).The bourgeois theorists close their eyes to the fact that the "rules of the game" determining the ``unequal'' position of capitalism and socialism in the world have been laid down not by the Communists but by history. Its laws dictate society's steady advance towards socialism, towards the downfall of the capitalist system. This is what the critics of the Marxist-Leninist concept of peaceful coexistence cannot accept. As they see it it is much more simple to regard the trends of world development as communist ``conspiracies''. In the journal Problems of Communism we read: "The syllable 'co' in 'coexistence' suggests some sort of parity or mutuality in the relations, but there is nothing equal about it as the Communists conceive it; it is designed as a game in which they can win, but never lose, because conversion in one direction ... is legitimate, but conversion in the other direction is = prohibited."^^**^^
This interpretation of a key element of peaceful coexistence as the repudiation of all attempts at ``exporting'' both revolution and counter-revolution is untenable to say the least. The socialist countries reject the idea of artificially " pushing" revolution but demand that imperialism should _-_-_
^^*^^ Frank Johnson, No Substitute for Victory, Chicago, 1962, p. 197.
^^**^^ Problems of Communism, July-August 1961, p. 33.
269 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. IV. PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE AND THE WAR OF IDEAS abandon its design of intervening in the affairs of peoples who have accomplished the revolution. On this score there can and must be complete parity between the two sides. But the Communists' belief that the laws of history will sooner or later bring capitalist society to revolution and that the reverse development is unnatural is a totally different matter.In this there can be no ``parity'' of the two sides. By demanding it the imperialist ideologists are in effect soliciting guarantees from the Communists and the socialist countries against revolution, against the growth of the influence of communist ideas throughout the world. But these solicitations are quite absurd.
A typical attempt to depict peaceful coexistence as a sinister means of achieving world supremacy was made by the ``Sovietologist'' Richard V. Allen (for a few months in 1969 he was a member of an advisory group to the US President on national security) in a book commissioned by the American Bar Association, which engages in anticommunist ``education''. Entitled Peace or Peaceful Coexistence? this book claims to be a "theoretical study" and is an attempt to discredit the concept of peaceful coexistence and undermine public trust in Soviet foreign policy. "After ten years of peaceful coexistence as the principal strategic line of the international communist movement,'' Allen writes, "we have no evidence that it seeks genuine peace with the rest of the world. Above all, it is clear that the Communists have not given up their long-range goal of world domination, and in the final analysis we must judge their motivations according to that = goal."^^*^^
We have quoted this passage because it sheds light on the fundamental tactics employed today by the opponents of peaceful coexistence: they criticise this principle from a position of ``genuine'' peace and bracket peaceful coexistence with the cold war. This swing in criticism makes it necessary to examine the basic distinctions between peaceful coexistence and the cold war.
First and foremost, it is not a case simply of distinctions but of antipodal policies and political principles. With the _-_-_
^^*^^ Richard V. Allen, Peace or Peaceful Coexistence?, Chicago, 1966, p. 174.
270 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV "hot war" advocates forced to go over to the defensive and surrender some of their positions in face of the socialist community's might and the resistance of the working people of all countries and their struggle for peace, peaceful coexistence is more and more becoming the political opposite of the cold war.The cold war is not an ideological conflict between the two opposing systems but a state of acute tension in international relations witnessing a ceaseless arms race and political, economic and, frequently, military clashes precipitated by imperialism's policies. It is a line stemming from the policy of expansion, of seizing markets and spheres of influence, of infiltrating other countries and subjugating them to the big imperialist vultures. It is a line of subversion against socialist countries with the object of restoring capitalism in these countries. It seeks to reimpose some form of colonialism on countries that have shaken off foreign rule.
Of course, compared with a world thermonuclear conflict even the coldest cold war may be regarded as a kind of peace. But it is a poor peace, a peace for which the peoples pay with astronomical spending on armaments, with political sacrifices forced on them by mounting militarism, imperialist interference in their internal affairs and pressure from the reactionaries. Besides, it is not only a poor but a precarious peace.
A whole series of international crises has demonstrated that today the threat of a global thermonuclear war comes not only from the hawks, who consciously pin their hopes on such a war. The hawk clique exists and it would be absurd to belittle its menace. But even if it is completely isolated and deprived of all political influence in the imperialist countries, would that eliminate the threat of war? It will not. In its present shape official imperialist policy itself constantly reproduces the cold war and creates the possibility of a world-wide thermonuclear explosion. This possibility lies in the policy of sustaining international tension, in the conflicts that constantly break out in different parts of the world, in the accumulation in international relations of combustible matter that any spark can set aflame.
In the past decade mankind was brought closest to a 271 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. IV. PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE AND THE WAR OF IDEAS thermonuclear war during the Caribbean crisis in 1962.^^*^^ But that crisis, it will be recalled, was provoked not by President Kennedy and his advisers deliberately steering towards a world war but by the entire logic of imperialist policy, by the power struggle engendered by that policy, by the unremitting attacks on socialist Cuba and by the unbridled nuclear arms- race. A potential threat of a big explosion existed in the sharp conflict-laden situation created by imperialist policies in Southeast Asia. It still exists in the Middle East.
Properly speaking, the threat of a world thermonuclear war has been and remains an intrinsic component of imperialist foreign policy. This was admitted officially when the USA adopted the "massive retaliation" doctrine, openly proclaiming that a nuclear war would be the response to an undesirable course of events. Nuclear blackmail has in fact been included also in the doctrines that replaced the " massive retaliation" doctrine. Within the context of these doctrines the purpose of such blackmail is to give the USA a free hand to fight ``local'' wars in different parts of the world. Constant "balancing on the brink of war" may lead to some power, which has chosen this road, losing its footing and stepping over the brink, and thereby plunging mankind into a nuclear catastrophe.
Even regardless of the subjective intentions of individual Western leaders, the policy of tension and cold war is a fearful and real threat to peace, particularly in our day when weapons of mass annihilation increase the danger of an ``accidental'' war triggered by a simple error, the breakdown of mechanisms, criminal negligence or even the insanity of individuals.
Accidents involving ``patrol'' bombers carrying nuclear bombs, such as have happened time and again on the territory of the USA and its allies, harbour the threat of an ``accidental'' war. Similar consequences may result from the failure of a radar installation, errors committed by the men _-_-_
^^*^^ This crisis is discussed at length in: Robert F. Kennedy, Thirteen Days. A Memoir of the Cuban Missile Crisis, New York, 1969; T. C. Sorensen, Kennedy, New York, 1965, pp. 667--758; Arthur Schlesmger Jr., A Thousand Days, John F. Kennedy in the White House, Boston, 1966, pp. 794--841.
272 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV on duty at command posts, and so = on.^^*^^ In an atmosphere of fear and hysteria the risk of war breaking out " accidentally" grows to the dimension of a real threat. Still more dangerous is, perhaps, the fact that such an atmosphere is to the liking of the many adventurists in imperialist circles.In short, a cold war stockpiles combustible matter and, at the same time, constantly kindles the sparks that may set it on fire. Essentially, a cold war is rather the substitute of war than the substitute (albeit a very defective one) of peace, for the cold war policy rests on military strength, includes war blackmail as an inalienable element and, in effect, pursues military aims.
A concept, widespread in the West, to the effect that in the modern world peace can only be maintained by an "equilibrium of fear" likewise exposes the practices of the imperialist policy of strength and cold war. This concept, as one can judge from many official documents, has become one of the favourite ideological covers for the arms race. For example^ in a report on military technology and its influence on the strategy and foreign policy of the USA, the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee drew the conclusion that an optimistic view on the prospects of peace can only be based on "a comparatively stable strategic nuclear stalemate''. Hence the call to go ahead with the arms drive which, it is alleged, "will lessen the risk of total war".^^**^^
_-_-_^^*^^ The problem of an ``accidental'' war is quite widely discussed also in bourgeois literature, including works of fiction. For instance, in the USA a best-selling novel, Fail-Safe by Eugene Burdick and Harvey Wheeler, tells of a thermonuclear war that broke out between the USA and the USSR as a result of the failure of a condenser in the radio-receiver of an American aircraft (Eugene Burdick, Harvey Wheeler, Fail-Safe, New York, 1963).
^^**^^ World Marxist Review, June 1960, No.~6, p. 10. An interesting point is that the Western calculation upon fear as a way to peace led to a number of projects for ``strengthening'' peace through fear. Take, for example, Stephen James' suggestion for the exchange of several hundred "peace hostages" from the families of prominent people in the USSR and the USA (The New York Times, March 15, 1962). Preventing World War III, a book edited by Quincy Wright, William M. Even and Morton Deutsch (New York, 1962), proposes an even more grandiose project---the exchange of the children of 10,000 leading citizens of the USA and the USSR. This is the tenor of the recommendations of the American nuclear physicist Leo Szilard, who suggests mining a number of large cities in the USA and the USSR with nuclear __NOTE__ footnote continued on page 273 273 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. IV. PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE AND THE WAR OF IDEAS
In the early 1960s the USA achieved its most spectacular post-war advance in the arms race. However, even many American bourgeois researchers admit that it not only failed to consolidate peace but, on the contrary, had consequences which made peace more precarious than before. Nevertheless, during the 1968 presidential elections one of the central points of the Republican Party's programme was the demand for more intensive armament. The danger of this course is self-evident. The unrestrained stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction has in itself become one of the main elements de-stabilising the international situation.
Such a policy can only benefit the armament monopolies, the militarist circles and the extreme reactionaries. It is unquestionably in their interest, even though war is becoming pointless, to go on intensifying the arms drive and international tension. This promises them enormous profits, creates the political condition in the given country for cutting back democracy, and encourages foreign policy adventures with the use of all means short of total war--- "limited wars'', blackmail and interference in the affairs of other countries. Actually, here the aim is, even under conditions where global war has to be avoided, to preserve intact imperialist aggressive foreign policy and militarism as a tested weapon of reaction. Today this aim is served by the cold war.
Peaceful coexistence, on the other hand, is the only possible alternative not only to a world war but also to the cold war. Its objective is to create firm guarantees of peace, improve the entire system of international relations, and consolidate in these relations genuinely democratic principles conforming to the interests of the peoples and to the requirements of the nuclear age. Peaceful coexistence implies more than that no state of war exists at the given time. It calls for a determined struggle against imperialist aggression, for the eradication of all the flashpoints of another world war, for the settlement of all tension-building disputes and conflicts by negotiation and in the interests of the peoples, for the cessation of the arms race, for the creation _-_-_ __NOTE__ footnote continued from page 272 bombs that would be activated by Soviet citizens in the mined American cities and by Americans in the mined Soviet cities in the event their country was attacked (Leo Szilard, "The Mined Cities'', Bullet tin of the Atomic Scientists, December 1961, pp. 407--08).
__PRINTERS_P_273_COMMENT__ 18 --- 0706 274 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV of an effective international system of preventing aggression, and for the promotion of economic, scientific, technological and cultural relations between countries.These are precisely the principles which the Soviet Union holds in international relations.
In the CC CPSU Report to the 23rd Party Congress it is stated that "while exposing the aggressive policy of imperialism 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 controversial inter-state issues by negotiation, not by war. The Soviet Union firmly stands for non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries, for respect of their sovereign rights and the inviolability of their = territories."^^*^^
The attempts to bracket peaceful coexistence with cold war are thus absolutely untenable. Their only purpose is to discredit the idea of peaceful coexistence and ``prove'' that it is not an aim worth a serious effort.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ Why PeacefulThe 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.
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 _-_-_
^^*^^ 23rd Congress of the CPSU, Moscow, 1966, p. 50.
275 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. IV. PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE AND THE WAR OF IDEAS long before the first Communist Party came into being, and it was not called to life by Marx.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.
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.
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.
But this form of struggle inescapably presupposes an ideological struggle. Inasmuch as capitalism and socialism 18* 276 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV compete for the support of the peoples, the war of ideas is inevitable.
Is this a good prospect for mankind? Undoubtedly. Moreover, it may be regarded as the best of the prospects possible under present-day conditions.
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.
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.
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.
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 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. IV. PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE AND THE WAR OF IDEAS ideological crusade. Unlike the earlier Crusades, any attempt on our part to smote the heathen could end in nuclear pulverisation."^^*^^
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''.
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.
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 _-_-_
^^*^^ Wilson P. Dizard, op. cit., p. 199.
278 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV and social achievements, their successes in promoting democracy, science and culture, the rate of their progress.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".^^*^^ 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.
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.
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 _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 28, p. 65.
279 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. IV. PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE AND THE WAR OF IDEAS 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?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.
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?
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."^^*^^ Properly speaking, in bourgeois literature the _-_-_
^^*^^ Barbara Ward, Five Ideas That Change the World, London, 1959, pp. 7-8.
280 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV almost unanimous opinion is that the cold war began as a consequence of the ideological = conflict.^^*^^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.
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.
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 _-_-_
^^*^^ One of the most serious works on the history of post-war international relations, Professor D. F. Fleming's The Cold War and Its Origins, 1917--1960 (London, 1961), exposes this fabrication and shows that the real sources of the cold war must be looked for in the policies of the Western powers. A noteworthy trend---"New Lefts"---took shape in American historiography in the 1960s. Using facts the historians of this school attacked the anti-communist cliches, convincingly showing that the aggressive policies of the West, primarily of the USA, have been the prime cause of international tension since 1945 (William Appleman Williams, The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, New York, 1962, and The Contours of American History, Chicago, 1966; Gar Alperovitz, Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam. The Use of the Atomic Bomb and the American Confrontation with Soviet Power, New York, 1965; Gabriel Kolko, The Politics of War. The World and United States Foreign Policy, 1943--1945, New York, 1968).
281 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. IV. PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE AND THE WAR OF IDEAS had been continuously rent by conflicts and = wars.^^*^^ 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.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.
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 _-_-_
^^*^^ In this connection we should like to recall the opinion of Woodrow Wilson, the US President who played a considerable part in the attacks on Soviet Russia and communism generally. Speaking on September 5, 1919 about the First World War, he said: "Why, my fellow citizens, is there any man here or any woman, let me say is there any child here, who does not know that the seed of war in the modern world is industrial and commercial rivalry? The real reason that the war that we have just finished took place was that Germany was afraid her commercial rivals were going to get the better of her, and the reason why some nations went into the war against Germany was that they thought Germany would get the commercial advantage of them.... This war, in its inception was a commercial and industrial war. It was not a political war" (Richard Hofstadter, The American Political Tradition, London, 1962, p. 271).
282 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV 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."^^*^^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.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ The War of Ideas andThe recognition that the ideological struggle is necessary and unavoidable by no means signifies that any propaganda and any activity directed towards influencing people are compatible with the principles of peaceful coexistence. It is one thing to engage in a battle of ideas, to argue about the understanding and assessment of various realities, about the ways of achieving the ideals of the majority of mankind, about the merits or demerits of a social system. Conducted in a proper manner, no matter how sharp the dialogue becomes, this struggle must not and cannot be a factor hindering peace and normal relations between socialist and capitalist countries. It is quite another thing to preach war and hatred between nations, to engage in slander, to incite sabotage and other crimes, and to spread rumours that can only sow confusion and discord in society. This sort of propaganda is not an ideological struggle but rather subversive activity tantamount to interference in the internal affairs of other countries, which is incompatible with peaceful coexistence.
Yet this is the very kind of propaganda that comprises the substance of the psychological warfare conducted by _-_-_
^^*^^ David F. Trask, Victory Without Peace, New York, 1968, p. 171.
283 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. IV. PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE AND THE WAR OF IDEAS international reaction against the socialist countries. Stating; its ``fundamental'' premises in a paper entitled " Psychological Warfare Reconsidered'', Hans Speier, who was the wartime chief of the OWI's German policy desk, wrote bluntly in those years when the foundations of US foreign political propaganda were shaped that it was useless to try to " convert" the peoples of socialist countries to the capitalist ``faith''. The purpose of propaganda, he insisted, should be to "concentrate on selected groups whose self-interest, predisposition and organisation are conducive to = deviation".^^*^^A far-reaching programme of propaganda methods of this kind was outlined in the influential West German journal Aussenpolitik by Dr. Alard von Schack in an article headed "The Spiritual War in Coexistence''. He urged the "planned employment of the pertinent methods ... and all means of modern propaganda" in order to induce in the people in socialist countries "an indifference to the aims of the Communist leadership, and to utilise national distinctions, religious prejudices, and also human weaknesses such as curiosity, vanity in women, the pursuit of pleasure''. One of the chief objectives is to provoke the population into "passive resistance'', to prevail upon the people to "slow down their work and commit = sabotage".^^**^^
We have confined ourselves to these two passages because we have already examined at length both the doctrine and methods of imperialist propaganda, including psychological warfare, which is its most aggressive variety. It is important to emphasise that this sort of propaganda is not the fantasy of individual theorists but a long-standing inalienable part of imperialist political practices. Witness the role played by imperialist propaganda in the events in Hungary in 1956 and in Czechoslovakia in 1968, the intrigues systematically woven by Western radio stations (including official government radio stations) against the German Democratic Republic, the activities of Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty and other subversive centres.
In the light of this policy it is not surprising that during the past two decades many people have grown accustomed _-_-_
^^*^^ Hans Speier, "Psychological Warfare Reconsidered" in The Policy Sciences edited by D. Lerner and H. Lasswell, Stanford, 1951, p. 261.
^^**^^ Aussenpolitik, No.~11, 1962, p. 773.
284 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV to identifying the ideological struggle with psychological warfare, which from the very beginning has indeed been inflicting considerable harm on the relations between countries and sowing distrust and hate. This is exactly what some adversaries of peaceful coexistence are today trying to turn to account.As understood by the Communists, the war of ideas has nothing in common with psychological warfare. There is the same fundamental difference between them as between peaceful coexistence and the cold war, of which they are correspondingly an inalienable component.
By attacking peaceful coexistence, the imperialist leaders have in mind not the danger emanating from the cold war methods inherent in imperialist policy. They want concessions from the Communists in something else, requiring them to "show their good will" by renouncing their world outlook, compromising in the ideological sphere and manifesting tolerance for bourgeois ideas. These groundless demands were categorically rejected by the CC CPSU at its plenary meeting in April 1968, which underscored that peaceful coexistence in ideology was unacceptable.
This approach is all the more well-founded since the imperialists themselves have no intention of disarming ideologically, no matter how much has been achieved on the road to peaceful coexistence. This was openly stated by Reuben S. Nathan, an American of German origin who headed Radio Free Europe's planning department. In an article "Western Foreign Policy and Propaganda" in the journal Aussenpolitik, he stressed that even if Western diplomacy were to show a willingness to see international tension relaxed this act "would have to be reinforced by an increasingly aggressive use of the adversary's psychological and ideological weaknesses and, correspondingly, of course, it may find itself hamstrung by limited propaganda''. "The ideological conflict,'' he maintained, "is as much a life and death struggle as were the hottest wars of past = years."^^*^^
The ideological struggle thus remains a vital element of the relations between the two social systems.
As for the cold war it, naturally, presupposes an " ideological" struggle of a special kind---aggressive propaganda _-_-_
^^*^^ Aussenpolitik, No.~8, 1962, pp. 540, 542.
285 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. IV. PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE AND THE WAR OF IDEAS designed to paralyse the resistance of the masses to imperialist policies, ensure imperialist expansion, serve as a means of interfering in the internal affairs of other countries and subjugating their peoples, and sustaining tension and conflicts in international relations. The fact that by their objectives and very essence the cold war and its propaganda machine are military means is admitted by some bourgeois theorists. For instance Major-General J.F.C. Fuller of Britain (who preached a "push-button war" doctrine) writes that insofar as nuclear weapons had made conventional war meaningless, the concept of war had to be extended through cold war methods of psychological, economic and ideological warfare for the attainment of aims which today cannot be achieved by a hot = war.^^*^^This sort of psychological and ``ideological'' struggle organised by the imperialists is indeed substantially prejudicing peace, the normalisation of the international situation and the interests of the peoples. Naturally, this is alarming all who want peace, including people far removed from Marxism-Leninism who remain proponents of capitalism, of bourgeois ideals and institutions. One hears even these people more and more frequently strongly protesting against the theory and, in particular, the practices of imperialist psychological warfare, which is poisoning the international climate.
As an example we can quote from May Man Prevail'?, a book by Erich Fromm, an American philosopher and psychologist. Of course, one cannot agree with many of the propositions offered in this book. Fromm is an idealist and in his explanations of political developments frequently ignores socio-economic factors and reduces matters to psychology. His views on Marxism-Leninism are also quite untenable. But all this does not detract from his criticism of imperialist policy and propaganda.
He is convinced that the Soviet Union wants peace and that "the cliche of the Soviet offensive ... is rather a convenient formula to support further armament and the continuation of the cold = war".^^**^^ Polemising with Hermann Kahn, _-_-_
^^*^^ J. F. C. Fuller, The Conduct of War 1789--1961, London, 1961, pp. 314, 317--18.
^^**^^ Erich Fromm, May Man Prevail? An Inquiry into the Facts arid Fictionsjof Foreign Policy, New York, 1961, pp. 116--17.
286 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV he aligns himself with the demand for disarmament, holding that this requires "psychological disarmament" as well. Elucidating his idea he writes that it means not a renunciation of the ideological struggle but that this struggle should "not be used to foster a spirit of = war".^^*^^Fromm is aware that any renunciation of psychological warfare would be resisted by influential circles in the West who dread a real ideological duel because of their "inner emptiness and deep-rooted lack of = hope".^^**^^ Nonetheless, he feels that a return to thinking based on facts and the breaking of the resistance from "the material interests of the ruling and privileged = groups"^^***^^ would result in psychological disarmament and that this would be in line with the efforts to safeguard peace and avert a thermonuclear war.
Similarly categorical opposition to the propaganda practices of the US ruling circles comes from Professor Seymour Melman, who heads Columbia University's Institute of War and Peace Studies. He writes indignantly about the methods used to regiment the thinking of the American population and produce "readiness to take human life without a sense of guilt''. "Robotism,'' he writes, "becomes the necessary state of being when the major alternatives for our society are restricted to ... `dead or = red'."^^****^^
The Hard Way to Peace by Amitai Etzioni merits mention. Etzioni contends that the aim is to promote broad co-- operation between states while preserving the different ideologies---communist and capitalist---in the world. This is undoubtedly a realistic approach, which rejects the absurd demand for "peaceful coexistence" in ideology. He is also realistic in seeing that psychological warfare is adversely affecting the international situation. Hence his recommendation that the USA put an end to the cold war hysteria and begin the "psychological phase" of normalising international relations by stopping anti-Soviet propaganda and generally halting propaganda calling on citizens of socialist countries "to reject their = governments".^^*****^^ This, in his opinion, would _-_-_
^^*^^ Erich Fromm, op. cit., p. 16.
^^**^^ Ibid.
^^***^^ Ibid., pp. 4, 16.
^^****^^ Seymour Melman, The Peace Race, London, 1962, pp. 37--38.
^^*****^^ Amitai Etzioni, The Hard, Way to Peace, A New Strategy, New York, 1962.
287 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. IV. PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE AND THE WAR OF IDEAS improve the situation and help reach agreement on disarmament and on other vital problems.This viewpoint, which is steadily gaining currency, is evidence of growing public understanding of the threat to peace from the slanderous propaganda of the warmongers, from the psychological warfare unleashed by the imperialists against the peoples. Indeed, the restriction and elimination of this propaganda has today become a major component of the general programme for normalising international relations and preserving and consolidating peace. The corresponding demands (the banning of war propaganda, the cessation of subversive propaganda and so on) are becoming an important objective of the struggle for peace, peaceful coexistence and international normalisation.
Arthur Larson, John B. Whitton, John L. Martin and other Western researchers regard, the restriction of certain forms of propaganda by signing the pertinent international legal documents as the central problem of the "psychological normalisation" of international relations. True, they may be accused of a formal juridical approach to this important issue (the struggle against propaganda endangering peace cannot be reduced to the signing of international treaties because like the struggle for peace generally it is waged chiefly by socio-political and not juridical means). However, it would be wrong to ignore the importance of the juridical, international-legal mechanism, which could play a prominent role in regulating government-to-government relations and various aspects of the international activities of states, including activity linked with the ideological struggle, with the dissemination of ideas, with propaganda.
The problem of restricting international propaganda by law is a relatively new one. For a long time this propaganda was conducted almost exclusively in time of war or in connection with war, when the right of might and not juridical restrictions, even if in the long run founded on this right, was predominant.
No wonder there are so few historical precedents of lawenforced restrictions on what we today call foreign political propaganda. Of these precedents mention may be made of the treaty signed by France and Russia in 1801, Article 3 of which stated that the signatories would not permit their subjects to carry on correspondence "with the internal enemies 288 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV of the existing government of the two states" with the aim of propagating "principles contrary to their respective constitutions, or to incite disorders''. There was a similar provision in some other treaties, including the treaty signed by Austria-Hungary and Serbia in = 1881.^^*^^
The problem of regulating and restricting foreign political propaganda by international law came to the fore only in the 20th century in connection with two different developments. The first was the socialist revolution, which made the ruling bourgeoisie resort to all means of limiting the spread of revolutionary ideas. The second was the two world wars, for whose preparation the imperialists used the weapon of propaganda, which in the ranks of the progressive, peace-loving forces gave rise to the striving to restrict the propagation of war, racial and national hatred, and so forth.
This lays bare the problem's complexity and also two conflicting approaches to it linked with different political developments and aspirations. Hence the obvious inadequacy of a formal approach calling for restrictive measures depending on the purpose they pursue.
In the new and latest history of international relations the first attempts to regulate propaganda by legal means stemmed above all, from the counter-revolutionary aspirations of the reactionaries. This will be appreciated if it is borne in mind that right until 1917 the exploiting classes interested in preserving oppressor practices and fighting the revolution were the sole subjects of international law.
That is why until recently the works of acknowledged authorities on international law dealt only with one aspect of the problem, an aspect that concerned revolutionary propaganda. Moreover, this problem was interpreted onesidedly, namely, that such propaganda was illegal. This is put in categorical terms, for example, by William 0. Manning, who wrote that a state has the right to declare war, "great as that evil is, rather than submit to that total ruin of the community which must result from the forcible provocation of = anarchy".^^**^^ In the same spirit but perhaps not quite as categorically this problem is posed by Heinrich _-_-_
^^*^^ John L. Martin, op. cit., pp. 89--90.
^^**^^ William 0. Manning, Commentaries on the Law of Nations, a new revised edition, London, 1875, p. 134.
289 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. IV. PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE AND THE WAR OF IDEAS Triepel, P. Quincy Wright, Paul Fauchille, Scipione Gemma, Hersch Lauterpach, Alfred Verdross, Lassa Oppenheim and many other Western authorities on international law.After the Great October Socialist Revolution this doctrine moved from theory to international practice. As we have already pointed out, one of the principal reasons for denying diplomatic recognition to the Soviet Government was the claim that it was conducting ``subversive'' propaganda.
At first the imperialist powers tried to give an extended interpretation of the commitments of states with regard to propaganda hostile to the governments of other countries, including in this also the activities of non-government organisations and individuals, and the propagation of social ideas that contained no direct call for the overthrow of the existing = governments.^^*^^ However, they had to reconsider this interpretation, especially as alongside subversive activities, economic embargoes and armed provocations the policy of the imperialist powers towards Soviet Russia included propaganda hostile to the socialist system.
As regards official propaganda directed at the governments of other countries, Soviet Russia declared its willingness to refrain from such propaganda on the basis of equality and reciprocity, in response to similar commitments by the governments of the capitalist countries. This was recorded in the very first treaties signed by the Soviet Government: the Brest Treaty (1918), treaties with Britain (1921), Poland (1921), Norway (1921), Italy (1921), Czechoslovakia (1922) and other countries, right until the letters exchanged in 1933 between Franklin D. Roosevelt and Maxim Litvinov on the establishment of diplomatic relations between the USSR and the = USA.^^**^^
At the same time, the Soviet Government categorically dismissed the attempts of the Western powers to force it to commit itself to halt the revolutionary propaganda conducted by the world communist movement and the fraternal Communist parties.
_-_-_^^*^^ Quoting prominent authorities, John L. Martin says that this interpretation was untenable also from the standpoint of the bourgeois doctrine of international law.
^^**^^ Dokumenty vneshnei politiki SSSR, Moscow, 1957--61, Vol. I, p. 119; Vol. Ill, pp. 618, 607; Vol. IV, pp. 298, 596; Vol. V, p. 441; Vneshnaya politika SSSR, Moscow, 1945, Vol. Ill, p. 678.
290 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOVThe first attempts to restrict propaganda prejudicial to peace were made in the period between the two world wars. They were made chiefly by non-government or ``semi''-official organisations (usually international), which for various reasons adopted a bourgeois pacifist stand. However, nothing came of these attempts: the pertinent recommendations were not translated into life and did not receive the force of law. This is understandable because underlying them were attempts to deceive public opinion or groundless and Utopian pacifist programmes that had no link with and did not rely on the mass peace movement.
But as foreign political propaganda grew into an increasingly important instrument of government-to-government relations, more frequent diplomatic attempts were made to regulate it in the conventional relations between countries with similar social systems. Somewhat more noteworthy results were achieved in this sphere. The history of diplomacy of the period between the two world wars provides many examples of a settlement of this issue by bilateral and multilateral treaties. These include an agreement signed in 1923 by Spain, France and Britain in Tangier placing a ban on propaganda from Tangier hostile to the practices in French and Spanish Morocco. A similar agreement was signed in 1928 by Spain, France, Britain and = Italy.^^*^^ Actually, these agreements were an ancillary means consolidating the colonial partition of some areas of the world.
Typical of that period were the agreements under which bourgeois powers pledged to refrain from hostile propaganda against each other. Such were the gentlemen's agreement signed by Italy and Great Britain in 1938, the FrancoItalian treaty of January 7, 1935, and the 1938 ``Press-- Non-Attack Pact" between Poland and = Lithuania.^^**^^
In short, the period between the two world wars saw the imperialist powers show a heightened interest in regulating foreign political propaganda, for by then they had seen both its dangers and its new possibilities as an instrument of diplomacy. Noting the efforts that were made in that direction, Martin writes: "Besides putting all this money into international propaganda, states have gone out of their _-_-_
^^*^^ John L. Martin, op. cit., p. 75.
^^**^^ Ibid., pp. 93, 75, 95.
291 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. IV. PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE AND THE WAR OF IDEAS way to sign treaties, especially since World War I, making important concessions to other states in exchange for a vague freedom from propaganda. Legislative bodies have drafted hundreds of statutes in an attempt to keep propaganda in check. Diplomats have cajoled, pleaded, threatened, and bargained to ward off the propaganda activities of other states. Publicists have argued vigorously on whether international propaganda, public or private, is admissible in international = law."^^*^^One of the major changes introduced by the Second World War into the problem of restricting international propaganda by law was that it opened people's eyes to the danger of an aggressor using propaganda as a political weapon. This was one of the lessons taught the world by fascism. The criminal responsibility for such propaganda was considered at the Nuremberg trial. The International Tribunal found Julius Streicher, publisher of the Jew-baiting leaflet Str\"urmer, guilty of incitement to murder and exterminate Jews. The propagation of nazi doctrines was one of the key counts against Rudolf Hess and Rosenberg. True, the Western judges found no corpus delicti in the activities of Hans Fritzsche, one of the heads of nazi Germany's propaganda machine, notably in his radio broadcasts. This elicited a legitimate protest from Nikitchenko, the Soviet representative.^^**^^ However, even though Fritzsche was not sentenced, the Nuremberg trial set an important precedent under which certain forms of propaganda may and must be regarded as a crime against peace and mankind, as being part of genocide, and as such subject to prosecution.
The cold war started by the imperialists has turned war propaganda into one of the major threats to peace. The subversive propaganda of the imperialist powers against socialist countries, which has become a notable factor of international tension, is conducted on a large scale.
This is the situation in which the two opposing attitudes to the problem have crystallised. One of them, adopted by the socialist countries, is that barriers should be erected to war propaganda and to interference in the affairs of other _-_-_
^^*^^ John L. Martin, op. cit., p. 3.
^^**^^ Nyurenbergsky protsess nad glavnymi nemetskimi voyennyrni prestupnikami, Moscow, 1961, Vol. 7, pp. 525--29.
__PRINTERS_P_291_COMMENT__ 19* 292 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV countries hy means of propaganda. This approach found expression in the efforts of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries to secure the banning of war propaganda. Under pressure from public opinion the pertinent resolutions were passed in 1947 by the UN General Assembly's Political Committee and in 1950 by the General = Assembly.^^*^^ But unlike the Soviet Union and other socialist countries, the imperialist powers did not adopt the relevant criminal law recognising only the moral aspect of these resolutions.This is a manifestation of the general approach of the imperialist countries to this problem. By their all-out resistance to any restriction on the dissemination of war propaganda, racial hatred and nationalism, and by giving free rein to subversive propaganda against socialist countries they are seeking not only to legalise this activity but also to deny to other countries the right to protect themselves against such propaganda.
This is the purpose of the ''freedom of information" demanded by the imperialist powers, notably by the USA.
Their drive for "freedom of information" began long ago, during the First World War, and the efforts of government agencies were reinforced by those of the largest monopolies, which saw not only a political but also an economic advantage in the abolition of all restrictions on ideological expansion (news agencies, newspapers, book-publishing trusts, and so on). In a book devoted to this question, the American journalist Herbert Brucker relates that on the insistence of the Associated Press Colonel House, adviser to President Wilson, applied pressure to compel the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 to include guarantees for "the free exchange of news" in the text of the peace = treaties.^^**^^ In 1934 the Associated Press, the United Press and the leading US newspapers started a campaign for a "world freedom of information''. This campaign had the backing of the US = Government.^^***^^
However, the campaign reached its highest pitch during _-_-_
^^*^^ United Nations General Assembly, Fifth Session, Document A/1532, November 21, 1950. Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixth Session, Supplement No.~1 (Document A/1844), New York, 1951, p. 65.
^^**^^ Herbert Brucker, Freedom of Information, New York, 1949, pp. 206--07.
^^***^^ Ibid., p. 208.
293 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. IV. PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE AND THE WAR OF IDEAS and immediately after the Second World War. This time its sponsors were the directly interested American organisations. Early in 1943 the pertinent resolution was passed by the American Society of Newspaper Editors, which soon afterwards sent a delegation abroad to enlist foreign supporters for the = idea.^^*^^ The US Senate joined this campaign in 1944, when it passed the Connally Resolution on "the world-wide right of interchange of news by news-gathering and distributing agencies, whether individual or associate, by any means, without discrimination as to sources, distribution, rates or charge; and that this right should be protected by international = compact".^^**^^In 1945 the US delegation raised the question of "freedom of information" at the Pan-American Conference in Mexico, and in 1948 this question was put on the agenda of the corresponding UN agencies when the draft Declaration of Human Rights was debated. In 1949 the General Assembly passed a resolution, which was soon afterwards supplemented with other resolutions, condemning censorship and also the practice of deporting foreign correspondents breaking the laws of the countries they are accredited = to.^^***^^
The real objectives of this pressure for "freedom of information" were exposed through various channels also by some bourgeois authors. In particular, commenting on Barriers Down, a much-talked-of book by the Associated Press chief Kent Cooper, the British journal The Economist wrote: "Mr.~Cooper... experiences a peculiar moral glow in finding that his idea of freedom coincides with commercial advantage. In his ode to liberty there is no suggestion that when all barriers are down the huge financial resources of the American agencies might enable them to dominate the world."^^****^^
In this connection Brucker indicates some of the political aims pursued by the corresponding monopolies in their campaign for "freedom of information''. "These agencies of information,'' he writes, "plead public service..., but they serve the ends of private profit. Even wprse, they propagate the private political and economic notions of their owners.... _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., pp. 209--14.
^^**^^ Ibid., p. 210.
^^***^^ John L. Martin, op. cit., p. 99.
^^****^^ Herbert Brucker, op. cit., p. 214.
294 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV Here is the old gag of the profit-motive industry demanding complete freedom from government = control."^^*^^However, it is quite evident that Brucker does not divulge the whole truth. Today it is no longer a question of the policy of individual monopolies but of the state policy of the leading imperialist powers, which are seeking to remove the barriers to their ideological expansion and psychological warfare. Moreover, the drive for unrestricted "freedom of information" abroad pursues the aim of facilitating espionage under the guise of news gathering. No wonder that during the debate on the Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19 of which speaks of freedom "to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of = frontiers'',^^**^^ the US delegation flatly refused to add the words "within limits not threatening the security of states''.
In the light of the debate round the problem of restricting anti-peace propaganda attention is drawn by Propaganda, Towards Disarmament in the War of Words, a fundamental work by John B. Whitton and Arthur = Larson,^^***^^ and a number of publications brought out by a research centre headed by Larson at Duke University, USA. This attention is attracted by the circumstance that Arthur Larson, an ardent proponent of restrictions on this sort of propaganda, at one time headed USIA and is able to give an expert judgement.
Stressing that "unrestrained propaganda can sometimes make the difference between peace and = war'',^^****^^ he pinpoints three types of propaganda that are particularly dangerous in this respect: war propaganda, subversive propaganda and slanderous (defamatory) propaganda. His conclusion is that with regard to all these types of propaganda " international law already contains substantive principles and rules making such propaganda = illegal".^^*****^^ To back up this _-_-_
^^*^^ Herbert Brucker, op. cit., p. 214.
^^**^^ John L. Martin, op. cit., p. 97.
^^***^^ John B. Whitton and Arthur Larson, Propaganda. Towards Disarmament in the War of Words, New York, 1963.
^^****^^ World Rule of Law Booklet Series, USA, 1966, No.~42, p. 439.
^^*****^^ Ibid., p. 442. Recognition of this fact is, incidentally, the point of departure of the authors of some ``applied'' bourgeois researches designed for practicians. In this connection reference may be made to a handbook issued by the Hans Bredow Institute for Radio and Television at Hamburg University. In the 1961 edition it is stated: "Non-hostile propaganda is permissible. Hostile propaganda is impermissible when it is carried on by states or other subjects of __NOTE__ footnote continued on page 295 295 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CH. IV. PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE AND THE WAR OF IDEAS conclusion he cites some provisions of international treaties (including the UN Charter), the norms established by the Nuremberg trial, the provisions of US common law and the opinion of leading legal experts.
In this context, Larson speaks of the obvious illegality of US Government actions such as, for instance, the annual Presidential message on the occasion of the so-called Captive Nations Week, which is, essentially, incitement to counterrevolution, to uprising against the governments of socialist countries officially recognised by the United States.
Professor John B. Whitton of Princeton University, who, like Arthur Larson, advocates the restriction of anti-peace propaganda, gives the following argument to show the urgency of the problem: "Propaganda can generate tensions by promoting subversion and arousing deep-seated feelings. It also threatens escalation of conflicts, and, because it is primarily irrational in its appeal, it tends to widen the basis for international hatred and ideological confrontation and thus to infuse issues with "emotional content.... International efforts must continue towards finding methods of inhibiting propaganda's function as a means of creating and exacerbating conflicts among = nations."^^*^^
A sharp struggle thus rages round the important problem of restricting and banning foreign political propaganda that menaces peace. In this struggle opposition to restricting propaganda, which serves as one of the sources of tension and one of the obstacles to peaceful coexistence between states, comes not from the socialist countries or the Communists but from the imperialist powers. The attempts of reactionary theorists to justify this attitude of the imperialist powers and to prove the legality of subversive propaganda and its methods and means are untenable even from the standpoint of the international law that took shape when _-_-_ __NOTE__ footnote continued from page 294 international law, or by their agencies, or dependent organisations for whom they are responsible. Both state-operated radio broadcasting and independent but actually state-directed radio broadcasting must therefore refrain from any hostile propaganda" (Internationales Handbuch fur Rundfunk und Fernsehen, Hamburg, 1961, p. E5). It is not difficult to see that according to this definition a considerable portion of the foreign political propaganda of the imperialist powers, including the propaganda disseminated by Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty and other organisations of this kind, is illegal.
^^*^^ World Rule of Law Booklet Series, pp. 620--21.
296 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV the exploiters held undivided sway and then when they attacked emergent socialism. The numerous facts and the considerable evidence we have cited show that the existing law and traditions of international relations contain some fundamentals of the mechanism that may be used to regulate both the content and methods of foreign political propaganda in order to restrict propaganda directed against peace, peaceful coexistence and the normalisation of the international situation. This is the attitude of the socialist countries, which are confident in the strength of their ideological position and are prepared to wage an open ideological struggle. But the imperialists are not prepared to adopt the same attitude. They seek to compensate their ideological weakness by making wide use of the methods of psychological warfare, which has become an instrument of their policy of aggression and of interference in the affairs of other peoples. __*_*_*__The approach of the socialist countries and of the Communists to peaceful coexistence includes an uncompromising struggle against bourgeois ideology and, whichever way international relations develop, it will always be the duty of the Communists to defend the purity of their teaching and to enlarge on it creatively.
There neither is nor can be room for compromise between the bourgeois and the proletarian world outlook. There can be no middle course in key issues like private or public ownership, bourgeois or socialist democracy, and bourgeois individualism or socialist collectivism. In propounding the principle of peaceful coexistence, the Communists do not require the bourgeoisie to play false to itself on any ideological issue. But they emphatically reject any attempt to force them into betrayal of their own ideals and principles.
The uncompromising ideological stand of the Communists is by no means a hindrance to the movement for peace and friendship among nations. On the contrary, the principled and determined ideological struggle is one of the conditions for the successful defence of peace, for a major and inalienable part of that struggle has been and remains the exposure of the enemies of peace, the unity of millions of people against the threat of another war and the defence of peace and friendship among nations.
[297] __ALPHA_LVL1__ CONCLUSIONIn 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 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 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 involved in this pivotal direction of ideological battles is determined by the position held on the international scene by the classes and social systems propounding these 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 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV position in the world-wide fight for the minds of men increasingly depends on these efforts.
The ideals of the working class and socialism derive their strength from the fact that they express a scientific 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 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 millions of workers, collective farmers and intellectuals building the new society and, by their dedicated labour, laying the foundations of communism. It is precisely the new system's superiority in all spheres, a superiority that is being proved in practice, that will in the long run decide the outcome of the great battle for people's minds.
The triumph of Marxism-Leninism lies in its implementation in practice. The socialist ideal, the ideas of communism have gone through a long period of development. 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 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.
We are living in an epoch when communism is becoming 299 __NOTE__ Right running header: (set-register ?R "\n\nCONCLUSION\n\n") __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.^^*^^ 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 _-_-_
^^*^^ Lenin wrote: "On October 17, 1905, the first great nation-wide strike was suppressed by the autocracy, but it sparked off a chain of events and workers' demonstrations in Austria, in Vienna and Prague, and that was when the Austrians won their universal suffrage. Although the Russian revolution of 1905 was crushed by tsarism, it gave hope to the West European workers of great reforms in the future, that is, the very events now taking place'' (Collected Works, Vol. 26, p. 493). As a matter of fact, the international significance of the 1905 revolution continues to receive recognition in bourgeois historiography to this day. Professor Henry F. May, the American historian, writes that it made a deep imprint on the working-class and progressive movement in the USA, where even a special ``cult of Russia'' took shape (The End of American Innocence, New York, 1959, p. 243).
300 Emacs-File-stamp: "/home/ysverdlov/leninist.biz/en/1973/WICIR317/20051015/313.tx" __EMAIL__ webmaster@leninist.biz __OCR__ ABBYY 6 Professional (2005.10.14) __WHERE_PAGE_NUMBERS__ top __FOOTNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [*]+[)]? __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV 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.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.
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.
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.
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 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CONCLUSION 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.
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.
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.
It is hard to overestimate the significance of this change.
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 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOVOn 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.^^*^^ Hence his accent on the need for making the utmost use of the force of socialism's example.
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.
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".^^**^^
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 _-_-_
^^*^^ "While formerly,'' Lenin wrote, "we carried on our propaganda by means of general truths, we are now carrying on our propaganda by our work. That is also preaching but it is preaching by action'' (Collected Works, Vol. 29, p. 209).
^^**^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 498.
303 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CONCLUSION 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.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.
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.
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.
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 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV 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.
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.
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.
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".^^*^^
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 _-_-_
^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, p. 22.
305 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CONCLUSION 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."^^*^^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.
"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."^^**^^
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.
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".^^***^^ But the words that most eloquently express this _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., p. 166.
^^**^^ Ibid. p. 167.
^^***^^ John P. Hardt, C. Darwin Stolzenbach, Martin J. Kohn, The Cold War Economic Gap. The Increasing Threat to American Supremacy, New York, 1961, p. 48.
__PRINTERS_P_305_COMMENT__ 20 --- 0706 306 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV 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?"^^*^^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.
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.
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 _-_-_
^^*^^ John. P. Hardt, C. Darwin Stolzenbach, Martin J. Kohn, op. cit., p. 82.
307 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CONCLUSION 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.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.
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.
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.
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 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV 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."^^*^^
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.
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.
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.
Thus, further favourable opportunities are opening today _-_-_
^^*^^ The Road to Communism, p. 588.
309 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CONCLUSION 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.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.
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.
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."^^*^^
The same thing happened on a global scale when the _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 26, p. 120.
310 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV 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.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.
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.
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.
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 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CONCLUSION 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.
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.
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.
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 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ GEORGI ARBATOV This sense of responsibility is today a distinguishing feature of every Marxist-Leninist Party.
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.
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.
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 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ CONCLUSION __*_*_*__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."^^*^^
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.
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.
_-_-_^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 26, p. 472.
__ALPHA_LVL0__ The End. [END] 314 __NOTE__ Left running header: (set-register ?L "\n\nNEW POPULAR SERIES!\n\n") __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ NEW POPULAR SERIES!Progress Publishers, Moscow, offer readers four series of books dealing with various social and economic aspects of the modern world.
PROGRESS • SOCIALISM TODAY
Internal and Foreign Policy of the CPSU and the Soviet Government; Problems of Development of Socialist Society and the Building of Communism in the USSR
Progress Publishers put out recently in this series:
SENIN M. Socialist Integration " Progress • Socialism Today".
Our vocabulary now includes the word ``integration'' as applicable to the economic relations between the socialist countries. The book gives examples of this integration. For instance, it has been calculated that due to specialisation and co-operation within CMEA there has been, on the average, a three-fold decrease in labour intensity in the production of electric motors during 1963--70.
What is integration? Co-operation and specialisation? Amalgamation in order to raise labour productivity? If so, is this not a restriction of the meaning of the word?
The book gives an account of the problems which the new branch of economic science poses and which are gradually being solved.
315 __NOTE__ Right running header: (set-register ?R "\n\nNEW POPULAR SERIES!\n\n") __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ NEW POPULAR SERIES!PROGRESS • CURRENT PROBLEMS
Problems of the World Communist, Working-Class and National Liberation Movement; Current International Problems; Competition Between the Two World Systems; Growth of the Influence of the World Socialist System; Analysis of New Phenomena of Modern Imperialism
Soon to be published in this series:
The World Communist Movement. "Progress • Current Problems."
This book is about the fundamentals of the Marxist-Leninist revolutionary theory and of the strategy and tactics of the communist movement. It shows the characteristic features of the contemporary workingclass movement and the reasons for its split, the co-operation between the Communists and Socialists in various countries, the Communist Parties' policies towards the peasantry, the youth, the middle urban strata of the intelligentsia and religious believers, and the struggle for national liberation and democracy. The authors reveal the substance of both Right-wing and ``Left'' opportunism and the ways in which they manifest themselves, and they show the damage opportunism is doing to the struggle for social progress.
316 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ NEW POPULAR SERIES!PROGRESS • THEORIES AND CRITICAL STUDIES
Soon to be published in this series:
KARENIN A. The Philosophy of Force. "Progress • Theories and Critical Studies".
This book analyses the views and conceptions being developed by the American experts on the problems of the US national security. It shows how they help to shape the United States' aggressive foreign policy line. The book also gives an account of how the latest doctrines on military strategy came into being.
317 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ NEW POPULAR SERIES!PROGRESS • PROBLEMS OF THE THIRD WORLD
Soon to be published in this series:
MALUMUD ATA ALLA (Gataulin)
Arab Struggle for Economic Independence.
"Progress • Problems of the Third World".
The author describes the political and economic life of the Arab Republic of Egypt, Syria, the Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Algeria, Tunisia and other countries of the Arab East, and their present international position. The book exposes the attempts of the imperialist powers to nullify their gains and to impose the yoke of colonialism upon these countries again. The author speaks of the Arab countries, struggle against Israel's aggression, of their effort to eliminate the consequences of the war and strengthen their national statehood. He dwells on the assistance rendered by socialist states to help the Arab countries in their development.
[318] __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ [319] __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__REQUEST TO READERS
Progress Publishers would be glad to have your opinion of this book, Us translation and design and any suggestions you may have for future publications.
Please send your comments to 21, Zubovsky Boulevard, Moscow, USSR.
[320] __NOTE__ (tx-chk-footnotes) (progn (delete-hook 'local-write-file-hooks 'lb-tx-chk-^^) (delete-hook 'local-write-file-hooks 'lb-tx-chk-trailing-dash)) (progn (setq lbg-ht-update-section-numbers nil) (lb-ht "en/1973/WICIR313" t ))