p The rise of international relations, just as the formation of social classes and states and nations, was directly connected with a certain level of development of the productive forces, with the growth of commodity production and of the need for economic exchange among people, the producers of material goods. Marx and Engels made the point that “the relations of different nations among themselves depend upon the extent to which each has developed its productive forces, the division of labour and internal intercourse”.  [30•*  The level of development of the productive forces, the nature of relations of production and the mode of production determine ultimately the intensity and character of relations not only between classes, but also between countries. In that sense international relations, as Marx wrote, are “secondary and tertiary phenomena, in general derived and transmitted, i.e., non-primary, conditions of production”.  [30•** 

p The development of the productive forces affects international relations directly by engendering economic ties on the basis of an international division of labour and by predetermining their intensity, scale and even their technique; it also affects them indirectly through production relations and the socio-economic system.

p Naturally, a substantial influence is exerted on international relations directly and through the mode of production, by geographical location, the existence of natural wealth and other factors.

p Size and density of population also have some effect on international relations. But the demographic and geographical factors, despite their obviously objective nature, do not explain by themselves the essence of international relations, the shifts and leaps which occur in this area, and the deep-going differences in the part played by individual countries in the world.

p At the base of international relations as a whole and of the qualitative changes that take place in that sphere, as Marxism-Leninism shows, lie changes in the mode of production and in the alignment of class forces. Despite their specific features, international relations are subject to the general laws of social development. This is a historical phenomenon associated with particular historical conditions and with the particular epoch. Lenin considered it necessary in analysing international relations “to seek for the roots of social phenomena in production relations”, “to reduce them to the interests of definite classes. . .”.  [31•* 

p Marxist-Leninist theory of the class struggle enables us to reveal the laws in that seemingly confused labyrinth and chaos, which Lenin described in the following manner: “The strivings of some of its [society’s—Ed.] members conflict with the strivings of others . . . social life is full of contradictions . . . history reveals a struggle between nations and societies, as well as within nations and societies, and, besides, an alternation of periods of revolution and reaction, peace and war, stagnation and rapid progress or decline.”  [31•**  Changes in the mode of production, social revolutions, the replacement of one socio-economic system by another, changes in the alignment of the main class forces and the growth of the class struggle bring about revolutionary changes also in international relations. The entire course of history testifies to these Marxist-Leninist propositions.

p A particular type of international relations corresponds to each historical epoch, determined by the predominance of one or another socio-economic structure, and by one or another array of the main class forces. Without dwelling on international relations in slave-owning and feudal epochs, let us turn to a period nearer at hand.

p The direct dependence of the nature and content of international relations on the mode of production and the social system finds ample elucidation in the works of Lenin. He saw the complex skein of international events at the turn of the century—the increasing militarisation and economic 32 and political expansion of the Great Powers, the territorial division of the world and the fight for its redivision, and the predatory wars of plunder—as a natural manifestation of the basic characteristic features of the capitalist mode of production at its imperialist stage. Thus, Lenin described war as “a direct and inevitable outcome” of the foundations of private property  [32•*  and colonial, expansionist policy of the Great Powers as “an inevitable consequence of the very foundations of capitalism”.  [32•** 

p In his analysis of imperialist international relations, Lenin stressed their direct dependence on the nature of the times and on the basic features of socio-economic development. He described the imperialist tendency in the 20th century capitalism as follows: “There is not a single major question of home or foreign policy which could be settled in any way except from the point of view of this tendency.”  [32•*** 

p The domination of monopoly capital, with all its features, determined the nature and basic content of international relations of the time. In his work Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Lenin wrote: “Domination, and the violence that is associated with it, such are the relationships that are typical of the ‘latest phase of capitalist development’; this is what inevitably had to result, and has resulted, from the formation of all-powerful economic monopolies.”  [32•**** 

p Lenin’s ideas on the direct dependence of the substance and nature of international relations on the general character of the epoch, on the mode of production and on the basic features of socio-economic development, were forcefully borne out after the Great October Socialist Revolution, which opened up a new era in world history. International relations of this era differ in quality from those of the era when imperialism held undisputed sway. The October Revolution split the world into two diametrically opposed systems, broke the undivided domination of imperialism and led to the appearance of a fundamentally new power in international relations.

p While, prior to 1917, the international stage was held by exploiting states, primarily capitalist, after the October Revolution a socialist state became one of the principal participants in international relations. From that time on international relations were no longer determined completely by imperialist laws. Socialism and its inherent laws began to have an increasing impact on international relations, the whole content of which began to change. International relations when imperialism holds undivided sway, when the substance of these relations is determined largely by the interests and rivalry of similar exploiting classes and similar states thirsting to preserve and extend their positions both internally and externally, to conquer fresh markets and to consolidate their hegemony over other countries— international relations of this kind are one thing. However, the international relations that developed after 1917, which have been directly affected by the main class contradiction of the epoch, are quite another thing. Their content has become determined primarily by the existence, interests and struggle of antagonistic classes and states with opposed social and economic systems. The simultaneous existence of two diametrically opposed modes of production—capitalist and socialist—and the battle between them in material production, i. e., economic competition between the two social and economic systems, constitute the objective basis of contemporary international relations.

p Our day, as noted by the International Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties in 1969, is characterised by the exacerbation of “the historic struggle between the forces of progress and reaction, between socialism and imperialism. This clash is worldwide and embraces all the basic spheres of social life: economy, politics, ideology and culture.”  [33•* 

p The contradiction between the two world systems affects international relations in their entirety; it is the sphere where the two systems clash in the most direct way. Today, relations between imperialist states themselves and 34 international relations in Asia, Africa and Latin America are formed in quite a different way than they used to be.

p The revolutionary changes in international relations under the impact of the developing new socio-economic structure are manifested also in another way. The emergence of socialism beyoi-jd the bounds of one country and the formation of a world socialist community, the triumph of socialist relations of production in a number of countries, have led to the establishment of altogether new international relations—relations between socialist states.

p The basically new feature of these relations is determined by the radical difference between the socialist and capitalist modes of production, between the socialist and capitalist relations of production. The socialist mode of production and the abolition of antagonistic classes in socialist countries presuppose the removal of antagonisms and the military conflicts between nations engendered by them, and the establishment of friendship and equal co-operation between them on the principles of socialist internationalism.

p When classified according to the socio-economic system and class-political character of their participants, contemporary international relations can be divided into the following types: relations between states of the two world social systems; relations between capitalist states; relations between socialist states; relations between imperialist states and developing countries; relations between socialist states and developing countries, and, finally, the fairly variegated relations between developing countries themselves. Relations between states with different social systems play the major part in the contemporary world. This circumstance directly stems from the main contradiction of our epoch and its fundamental essence—the transition from capitalism to socialism.

p The nature of the contemporary epoch, which the CPSU Programme and documents of the international communist movement define as the epoch of struggle between opposing social systems, an epoch of socialist and national liberation revolutions, an epoch of the downfall of imperialism and liquidation of colonialism, an epoch of the transition of more and more nations to socialism, and the triumph of 35 socialism and communism on a worldwide scale, all go to define the substance of international relations today, including their complexity, contradictoriness and dynamism.

p Meanwhile, the direct influence of the productive forces on international relations is also growing today, as is apparent both in the expansion of international economic exchange, whose development in the scientific and technological revolution is outpacing the growth of the economy as a whole, in the increasing trend towards the internationalisation of science and in the technological improvement of international communications. Contemporary international relations are also affected by the revolution in the art of warfare, particularly the appearance of totally new types of weapons and means of their delivery.

Socio-economic factors constitute the objective basis of international relations; they do not depend on the will of people, parties or classes. Thorough consideration of the whole complex of these objective factors, including the pattern of class forces and correlation of class interests, is most important element in the Leninist understanding of international relations and a prerequisite for influencing them.