p Immediately after the war, the “unifying” trend clearly dominated relations among the imperialist states.

p That resulted, first, from the overall weakened position of imperialism in the world and the growth of opposition forces, especially the Soviet Union and the People’s Democracies, and the working-class movement led by Communists. When the countries in Central and Southeastern Europe embarked on the road to socialism, the capitalist system lost territory of over one million square kilometres and a population of over 90 million. If one takes into consideration China with its vast territory, population and material resources, and several other countries of Asia, then the scale of the loss to world capitalism, the narrowing of its sphere of domination, becomes all too apparent. It is therefore understandable that the attitude to the Soviet Union, the other socialist countries of Eastern Europe, the Korean People’s Democratic Republic, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and 206 the Chinese People’s Republic should take an increasingly important place in inter-imperialist relations.

p Such factors as the growth of communist influence in Western Europe, the implementation there of certain progressive measures, especially the nationalisation of some industries and factories, attest to the general weakening of capitalist positions. Frightened by such facts, the bourgeoisie in Europe feverishly seek to save themselves in an alliance of their forces under the leadership of the most powerful capitalist country, the United States, and in the activisation of imperialist policy designed to halt the forces of social progress. In that sense, postwar imperialist policy has illustrated the characteristic feature noted by Lenin back in 1920: “The more victorious we are the more the capitalist exploiters learn to unite....”  [206•* 

p Another factor producing the dominating tendency after the war towards unity of imperialist forces was the relative strengthening, as a result of the war, of American capitalism both at the expense of its major rivals—Germany, Japan and Italy, which had been put out of action through military defeat—and at the expense of its allies, Britain, France and other West European states, whose economies had been greatly weakened.

p The American share in the industrial output of the capitalist world grew from 36.6 per cent in 1938 to 55.8 per cent in 1948, while the British share diminished from 15.6 to 11.9 per cent, that of France from 6.2 to 4.5 per cent, of West Germany from 12 to 4.2 per cent, of Italy from 3.2 to 2.2 per cent, and of Japan from 4.8 to 1.3 per cent.  [206•** 

p A similar trend was apparent in international trade, where American share of capitalist exports had grown from 15 per cent in 1938 to 33 per cent in 1947. The outlook for the other capitalist states was not so rosy: 10.3 per cent for Germany in 1937 fell to 0.5 per cent for West Germany in 1947, 11.8 to 10.0 per cent for Britain, 4.3 to 4.1 per cent for 207 France, 2.7 to 1.4 per cent for Italy, and 5.4 to 0.4 per cent for Japan.  [207•* 

p The figures on gold and foreign currency reserves are just as noteworthy: while the US reserves doubled between 1937 and 1948, the British reserves fell by 60 per cent, the French by 80 per cent, and the Japanese by 83.3 per cent.  [207•** 

p America’s overwhelming economic and military superiority over other capitalist countries enabled it to act as the leader of the capitalist world, called upon to head the fight to maintain and bolster the positions of capitalism in face of the growth of world socialism and all progressive forces.

p The Information Meeting of Representatives of Several Communist and Workers’ Parties that met in September 1947 noted the formation of the imperialist and anti-democratic camp whose main aim was to establish the world domination of American imperialism and the defeat of democracy.

p A major manifestation of the “unifying” tendencies in inter-imperialist relations was the Marshall Plan, especially devised to unite the efforts of the American and European bourgeoisie to save capitalism in Western Europe, to hamper the development of revolutionary processes within it and to halt the strengthening of socialist positions in Eastern Europe. The Marshall Plan, whose outward aspect was economic rehabilitation of the war-damaged European countries, paved the way for the far-reaching penetration of American capital into West European countries and facilitated American interference in their domestic affairs. Thus, under American pressure, Communists were kept out of French and Italian governments in 1947. The blatantly biassed social meaning and political orientation of the Marshall Plan resulted in the refusal of the People’s Democracies of Eastern Europe to take part in it.

p The next military and political stage in the attempts to consolidate and unify the forces of world capitalism was the creation in 1949 of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation 208 (NATO)—an aggressive anti-Soviet bloc which united the major capitalist countries headed by the United States and included those who during the Second World War had been on opposing sides.

p NATO is a military and political alliance of imperialist countries such as had previously been unknown in history. It has well-defined organisational forms, a far-reaching integration in the military sphere, combined armed forces and commands, wide co-operation in military production, and an apparatus designed to co-ordinate the foreign policy of its members. From all these points of view, the creation of NATO in peacetime went far beyond other coalitions of capitalist powers that had been formed in the past during wartime.

p The creation and activity of NATO reflects the anti- Soviet, anti-socialist and counter-revolutionary aspirations of the contemporary imperialist bourgeoisie. The article in its Charter envisaging intervention in the internal affairs of its members to put down a revolutionary movement demonstrates the well-defined social and class orientation of NATO.

p Several other blocs and a system of bilateral relations between the United States and other capitalist countries were also set up. The basic plan behind the creation and activity of all these aggressive blocs was exposed in the Statement of the 1960 Moscow Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties: “The imperialists form military-political alliances under US leadership to fight in common against the socialist camp and to strangle the national liberation, working-class and socialist movements.”  [208•* 

p From the standpoint of inter-imperialist relations, however, the matter does not end with “external” function. One of the major US aims was also to subordinate the economy and policy of the capitalist countries—members of the blocs— to the global interests of American imperialism, thereby smoothing over the inter-imperialist contradictions. In that respect noticeable changes took place during the immediate postwar years. One obvious result of the measures to unite imperialist states was not so much a strengthening of 209 imperialism as a whole as the strengthening of American military and political hegemony within the capitalist world to the detriment of other capitalist countries.

p Modern writings by leading American ideologists contain a certain nostalgia for what they call “the good old days”.

p Both the practical policy of the United States and other capitalist countries, as well as the activity of ideologists of the monopoly bourgeoisie and US propaganda agencies were employed to promote the unity of the imperialist camp. The creation and spreading of such myths as “world communist conspiracy”, “Red imperialism" and “threat of Soviet aggression”, the playing up of the “general values of Christian civilisation”, “the free world”, “Western democracy”, and the formulation of the “containment” and “rolling back" of communism doctrines were all mobilised in order to substantiate the hegemony of American imperialism and to disguise the aggressive, counter-revolutionary essence of imperialist unity.

p The concept of the “interdependence” of capitalist countries because of the atomic age and, in particular, the development of nuclear-missile weapons, occupied an important place in the ideological campaign for unity of the "free world" under US leadership in the latter part of the 1950s. This concept is loaded with an utterly overt propagandist aim and serves primarily the hegemonistic aspirations of the United States; at the same time it rests on the objectively prevailing community of basic class interests among the monopoly bourgeoisie of different countries and on the real processes taking place in the economy and policy of contemporary capitalism.

p The general alignment of forces in the world, the fear of a further strengthening of the world socialist system and other anti-imperialist forces produce stronger class solidarity among the monopoly bourgeoisie of different countries and encourage a trend towards an "alliance of all imperialists”, towards their international collaboration, at any rate, in relation to the socialist countries. This trend finds its expression in the common positions taken by the monopoly bourgeoisie of different countries on major international 210 issues, during acute crisis situations, and also in their attempts to work out a common strategy in relation to the socialist countries and to co-ordinate foreign policy measures.

p “Under conditions where the struggle between the two world systems is becoming sharper,” the 1969 International Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties noted, “the capitalist powers seek, despite the growing contradictions dividing them, to unite their efforts to uphold and strengthen the system of exploitation and oppression and regain the positions they have lost. US imperialism strives to retain its influence over other capitalist countries and pursue a common policy with them in the main spheres of the class struggle.”  [210•* 

p American imperialists are the inspirers and organisers of the cold war, the formation of aggressive blocs and policies aggravating international tension. At the same time reactionary circles in the USA are anxious for their country to remain the leader of the Western world in conditions of a world detente and enjoy control of the measures taken by some Western countries in improving relations with the socialist states. This is an important aspect of the “bridge building" concept advanced by the former US President Johnson. In April 1966 the then Under Secretary of State John Ball stressed, for instance, that the bridges between East and West should be built on a firm foundation of a strong Western union.

p Ideas about using NATO as a mechanism for co- ordinating “peace initiatives" in relation to the Soviet Union and the socialist countries of Eastern Europe are widespread in the United States. The Atlantic Alliance, as President Johnson said in October 1966, “must become a forum for increasingly close consultations. These should cover the full range of joint concerns—from East-West relations to crisis management.”  [210•** 

p Richard Nixon, who in 1969 succeeded Johnson as US President, has completely taken over these ideas. His journeys to Western Europe have been largely dictated by his concern for smoothing over the contradictions within the 211 imperialist camp. Speaking in February 1969 in the North Atlantic Council and underlining the desire of the American Administration for wide consultation and co-operation with its allies as a basis for impending negotiations with the USSR, Nixon said: “...1 pledge to you today that in any negotiations affecting the interests of the NATO nations, there will be full and genuine consultation before and during these negotiations.”  [211•* 

p An extra stimulus to the trend towards imperialist unity since the last war has been the rapid upsurge in the national liberation movement in colonial and dependent countries, which former colonial powers have been unable to cope with by themselves. Hence the increasingly frequent attempts by the imperialists to guarantee their positions and interests in African and Asian countries through concerted colonialist acts. As an example one may refer to the aid given by the United States and other powers to the French colonialists in suppressing the national liberation movements in Indochina and in Algeria from the mid-1940s to the early 1960s, to the Anglo-French collaboration in the 1956 war against Egypt, to the joint actions by the imperialists in the Congo, to NATO solidarity with the Portuguese colonialists, the encouragement by the imperialists of provocative actions taken by Portugal against Guinea, and their encouragement of the South African and Rhodesian racialists. With the hypocrisy and demagogy typical of bourgeois politicians, the British Foreign Secretary, Sir Alec Douglas-Home, described the purpose of joint Western actions as follows: “If we are to meet the communist challenge, if we are to negotiate with the Communists in order to arrange a modus vivendi and if, above all, we are to fertilise the underdeveloped world with well-directed wealth, then it is Europe and America and the Commonwealth that should co-ordinate their policies together. We should not be separated.”  [211•** 

p Thus, the unity of the imperialist camp is based on a community of basic class interests and the general political strategy of the monopoly bourgeoisie in regard to the world 212 revolutionary process. At the same time, purely economic factors play a certain part in strengthening this trend; first the insufficient resources of individual capitalist countries to restore and develop their economies, the large scale of American loans and mutual financial dependence, and subsequently the objective requirements of developing productive forces, and the growing internationalisation of economic life as the scientific and technological revolution get under way. One of the specific features of inter-imperialist relations is perhaps the fact that the influence of purely economic factors is telling more directly and markedly than in any other sphere. This is especially apparent in relations between the capitalist countries of Western Europe where, even in the early 1950s, the European Coal and Steel Community began to function, and from the end of the 1950s economic integration of the six Western European countries (France, Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands and Luxemburg) began to play a growing part in the overall inter-imperialist relations, with the signing in 1957 of the Treaty of Rome setting up the European Economic Community (Common Market).

p The creation and activity of the Common Market became an essentially new element not only in international economic but also in international political relations. It would be wrong to see it as an ordinary customs union or chance interim phenomenon. Its aims are much more ambitious.

p Political relations between capitalist states have also been influenced to a certain extent by the creation of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA—Britain, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, Austria and Portugal), the multilateral negotiations between capitalist countries on a general tariff reduction (the Kennedy Round) and the activity of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

p Together with various kinds of subjective factors and political designs of the members of the Common Market and other economic groups, their emergence and activity reflect important objective processes in contemporary productive forces and, primarily, the trend towards economic internationalisation noted by Lenin. This trend is becoming today, 213 with the rapid scientific and technological progress, more and more noticeable, a fact that has been rightly mentioned by writers of various shades of opinion. The French writer F. Thoraval, has said in the magazine Economic et politique: “The development of exchange among the Six cannot be separated from a tendency towards the internationalisation of economic phenomena which is general throughout the world. It is especially manifest among the imperialist countries on a scale which exceeds the borders of the Six and which has been reflected in the Kennedy Round.”  [213•* 

p At the same time, one should stress that the strengthening among imperialist states, since the last war, of the trend towards co-ordinated efforts and co-operation, towards unification in various forms on the basis of the objective community of basic class interests, has by no means meant either the beginning of a new stage in the development of capitalism or the overcoming of its anarchy and rivalry, or the eradication of inter-imperialist contradictions and the dawning of an era of harmonious co-operation among all capitalist countries, as some ideologists in the Western world and reformist Social-Democratic leaders are inclined to interpret the above-mentioned facts.

The course of events in the capitalist world, including inter-imperialist relations, refutes these theories and confirms the vitality of Lenin’s basic ideas concerning uneven development, the battle between imperialist powers and between capitalist monopolies for spheres of influence.