p To ignore the changes which have taken place . . . and to continue advocating the old solutions given by Marxism, would mean being true to the letter but not to the spirit of the teaching, would mean repeating the old conclusions by rote, without being able to use the Marxist method of research to analyse the new political situation.

p V. I. Lenin

p Although we are only just about to enter the last quarter of the 20th century, the events and revolutionary changes of the past decades make its commencement seem immeasurably remote. We view the earlier part of the century through a mist of time. The remoteness is due more to the scale of events and transformations that have revolutionised the face of nations, continents and the entire world than to mere passing years.

p Our age is one of unparalleled historical change. Conditions of human life are changing faster than ever before and drawing in their wake people, their way of life and thought and their notions of life. Many new facts and phenomena no longer fit the old framework and resolutely demand a new formula and the revision of familiar concepts. Events today severely put to the test both the old settled views and the latest theoretical constructions. The ideologists and politicians of the exploiting classes who but recently regarded themselves as commanding the minds and fates of mankind are hopelessly behind the times; more, they seem to belong to another era. A multitude of concepts that only yesterday were accepted as irrefutable have today been overtaken by the pace of historical change.

p The Italian Marxist Antonio Labriola, writing in 189.’) on the Communist Manifesto, noted with some regret: "In the fifty years which separate us from the publication of the Manifesto the specialisation and the complexity of the proletarian movement have become such that there is henceforth no mind capable of embracing it in its completeness, of understanding it in its details and grasping its real causes and exact relations.  [8•* ;

p Labriola was not to know that at the time he was writing these lines, Vladimir Lenin in far-off Russia was taking his first steps in the revolutionary movement; Lenin was able not only to sum up the historical experience of his time, he was able to look far into the future. As a philosopher and a revolutionary he left an indelible trace upon the turbulent events of the 20th century and made an incomparable contribution to the formation of the world of today.

p Against the background of continual change in our time the intransient importance of Lenin’s heritage has become increasingly evident. At the Lenin Centenary meeting on April 21, 1970, Leonid Brezhnev said: "The scope of Lenin’s thoughts and deeds was so vast, his understanding and expression of the pressing needs of his epoch were so profound that even today Lenin’s ideas are a powerful weapon in the hands of the fighters for the happiness of peoples.”  [8•**  Today, iust over 100 years since Lenin was born, the words of the Soviet poet Vladimir Mayakovsky are as relevant as ever:

p There’s no one
more alive
than Lenin in the world,
our strength,
our wisdom,
surest of our weapons.  [8•*** 

p It is only natural that in our attempt to find answers to new complex issues which arise during the last third of 9 our century, we turn time and again to the work of Lenin, and to Leninist thinking.

p In turning to Lenin’s invaluable heritage we do not simply pay tribute to the memory of a great man. In the works of many outstanding individuals of the past we often come across ideas that are atuned to our time, and, with one or two reservations, we may use them as an aid in understanding present-day events. When we use the theoretical work of Lenin and creatively apply Lenin’s ideas, however, we do so as a vital need, as an essential part of gaining a scientific understanding of the social realities of our day.

p Naturally, this does not mean that Lenin’s works contain an explanation of every specific event in the present very complex and constantly changing actuality, that they give a ready answer to all topical questions. Lenin himself often condemned such an approach to social theories. He refuted the idea that one could find in some textbook or other "all the forms of development of subsequent world history. It would be timely to say that those who think so are simply fools".  [9•* 

p Being a true follower of Marx and Engels and creatively developing Marxism in a new epoch, Lenin stressed above all the methodological importance of their teaching for understanding history. “.. .Materialism in history,” he wrote, “has never claimed to explain everything, but merely to indicate the ’only scientific’, to use Marx’s expression (Capital), method of explaining history.”  [9•** 

p By the whole of his work Lenin amplified Marxism’s revolutionary content and raised it to a higher level. In his “Theses on Feuerbach”, Karl Marx formulated the true meaning of revolutionary philosophy as follows: “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it.”  [9•***  Acting in the spirit of Marx’s words, Lenin tackled theoretical problems in inseparable connection with practical work, with the class struggle.

p Leninism is Marxism in the era of imperialism and proletarian revolutions, the era of the downfall of colonialism and the victory of national liberation movements, the era of the transition from capitalism to socialism and the building of communism; it is therefore a supreme example of combining both the theoretical and the practical functions of the revolutionary philosophy.

p Without Lenin and Leninism, it is impossible to understand the contemporary world properly, the complex way the various trends and processes move and become intertwined, and the prospects for world development. Furthermore, Leninism, as the ideology of the revolutionary class, has played and continues to play an active part in the transformation of the world; it has had and continues to have a direct impact on the destiny of mankind.

p The supreme importance of Leninist thought for analysing contemporary events and the great transforming power of Leninism are readily apparent when one examines international relations, a sphere which is particularly complex and affected by various objective and subjective factors, and in which the changes of past decades are extremely radical. To realise the nature and scale of these changes one has only to glance at the international arena at the turn of the century, when Lenin was beginning his activity, and compare it with the world today.

p At that time the stage was dominated by a handful of states which differed in size of territory, level of development and state structure, but were identical as regards their social and economic relations. The strongest European powers and the United States of America set the tone in world politics. Most countries on other continents, although being drawn gradually into international relations as objects of expansion of the major powers, had a dependent status owing to their economic and social backwardness, and did not play an independent political role. The vast lands of Asia and Africa remained deprived colonies or semi-colonies subjected to the most shameless exploitation and oppression by the colonial powers. Millions of people were completely deprived of any chance to decide international issues. Even in the then advanced European countries, where the 11 working class was taking part in the political struggle, international relations and foreign policy remained a sphere in which access was open only to the chosen few and the final word always belonged to the ruling classes. “What a pity that the masses cannot read books on the history of diplomacy, or the editorials in the capitalist newspapers,”  [11•*  Lenin exclaimed bitterly in early 1917.

p Since then the sphere of international relations has changed beyond recognition along with the changing world. The legendary salvo from the cruiser Aurora in the evening of November 7, 1917, announcing the proletarian revolution in Russia, has resounded throughout the world. The effect of the triumph of the Great October Socialist Revolution in Russia on world politics was immediate; it revolutionised the whole course of international relations. A socialist state with a socialist foreign policy appeared as a fundamentally new factor in international relations.

p For more than half a century now that new factor has been exerting an active and increasingly vigorous influence on international developments. Today socialism is represented by a number of states spread over several continents. The world socialist community continues to develop and grow stronger. The balance of power in the world has changed radically in favour of socialism, and the contest between the two systems lies at the centre of international politics. Popular interest in international politics has grown immeasurably; the influence of the peoples has increased in settling these issues. The rise of dozens of new sovereign states in Africa and Asia has led to a further change in the political atlas. The rapid development of productive forces is being accompanied by widening economic links between countries. The scientific and technological revolution is reducing the distance between continents and facilitating the exchange of material and other values. The appearance of new types of weapons of mass destruction has put the question of war and peace in a new light.

p As a result, international relations have become more complex and their range has extended. Moreover, they have 12 come to dominate other social events; their influence on the course of history and on the lives of millions of people has grown immeasurably. The interconnection and interaction between international relations and the world revolutionary process, and between foreign and home policy have become closer and deeper than ever before; in many cases foreign policy is acquiring increasing significance.

p Even representatives of reactionary classes—politicians and ideologists in the bourgeois world—are no longer able to ignore the immense changes. Most books and articles written on political themes and that aspire to be taken seriously cannot today avoid some sort of judgement on the changes in the world. In an article published in Foreign Affairs, Nelson Rockefeller, one of the best known spokesmen of the American ruling class, refers constantly to “the rapid and often bewildering change that characterises our age”, to “a revolutionary period”, and to “an age of revolutionary transformation”.  [12•*  The American international commentator Hans Morgenthau writes of the revolutionary period in his book The New Foreign Policy for the United States. The same idea is present in a book by David Lilienthal, first Chairman of the US Atomic Energy Commission: “It is a world of change—swift, radical change, change at a tempo—unprecedented in history. It is a world of creativity ... of new ideas .. ., a world where outworn ideas are being discarded. A world in transformation.”  [12•** 

p Often, in their speeches, capitalist statesmen recognise the irreversible historical changes and express a scarcely concealed fear of them. ”. . .We know,” President Lyndon Johnson said on October 7, 1966, “that the world is changing. ... In every part of the world, new forces are at the gates: new countries, new aspirations, new men.”  [12•***  Variations on the same theme occurred in other speeches by President Johnson: in January 1967, for example, in his Address to Congress on the State of the Union, he said: “A time of testing—yes. And a time of transition. The transition is 13 sometimes slow; sometimes unpopular; almost always very painful; and often quite dangerous.”  [13•*  President Richard Nixon has made similar statements on the changes that have taken place in international politics.

p But it is one thing to note changes in the world and new phenomena in international relations, and it is quite another to .comprehend and to explain their causes, let alone to influence them. It is here that bourgeois politicians, despite their vain attempts to come to grips with a new situation, usually show their inability or disinclination to draw the correct conclusions from world events. Walter Lippmann made the astute admission, in 1968, that America and Britain are run by people who will not seriously accept the historical changes of the postwar world; he went on to say that their governments are controlled by people who are unable to appreciate the radical changes in the international situation, changes which have occurred since the end of the war; the world has therefore to suffer the tragic consequences that arise from the fact that these countries are run by people whose outlook was formed in another era and who have not been able to shed their old way of looking at things.

p A growing awareness of the problems of contemporary international relations is evident in bourgeois writings; a vast quantity of research, books, articles and speeches on this subject is constantly being published in the West. These and the numerous conferences, seminars and symposiums show that it would be wrong to brand the aim of bourgeois studies in international relations simply as an apology for and propaganda of imperialist foreign policy. The ruling classes in the West are bound to have an interest in objectively understanding the complex paths of world development today, and many bourgeois writers are helping them by attempting to produce a careful study of international relations. However, their results are not commensurate with their efforts.

p In the light of the revolutionary changes taking place in the world, the basic failure of bourgeois social science is 14 increasingly obvious. The philosophical and sociological conceptions propounded by bourgeois authors limit the significance of theoretical generalisations of new phenomena on the world scene; they hamper one in gaining a proper prospective on future international relations and in outlining practical ways of resolving the urgent problems of world politics.

p Works by bourgeois authors devoted to contemporary international relations and foreign policy show signs of hankering after the good old days, a fear of the growth and strengthening of revolutionary forces, confusion when faced by the complex and changing international situation, an inability correctly to understand it, let alone to influence it. In an analysis of American foreign policy, the Director of Intelligence and Research in the State Department, Thomas L. Hughes, has said: “...We live in an age which constantly presents us with impossible alternatives—none of which appears to lead us where we want to go.”  [14•*  His article was typically called “Policy-Making in a World Turned Upside Down”. In the book Power and Impotence. The Failure of America s Foreign Policy, by Edmund Stillman and William Pfaff, published in 1966, the question is posed: ”. . .Can America accept the world for what it is, for its dismaying and tragic reality?”  [14•** 

p Irrespective of their differences of opinion on contemporary international affairs and foreign policy, the vast majority of bourgeois academics of various schools disregard the profound social and economic processes and the class struggle, and ignore the law-governed nature of the growth of world socialism and other revolutionary forces and their impact on world politics; the formal nature of the schemes and theoretical constructions they elaborate merely reflects their idealist notions of international affairs.

This demonstrates more clearly than ever the importance of Lenin’s ideas on international relations and their creative development for scientifically analysing new events in 15 international all airs, lor correctly evaluating the complex and changing international scene and for carrying out a vigorous and effective foreign policy.