p In the period in which feudalism emerged, the ideological struggle in the world arena was carried on mainly in religious form; the spread of Christianity reflected the collapse of the slave-holding world and the emergence of feudalism. The process consisted in the new society’s assimilating the religious legacy of the outgoing slave-holding system, in modifying Christianity to adapt it to the new conditions of social and political life. Islam became the ideology of the emergent feudal system in the East. Changes in religious ideology characterised the formation of feudalism in India and China. At the same time, political theory was also incorporated in religious conceptions.

p The battles in the sphere of religious ideology were especially acute at the “start of the capitalist era”, when the bourgeois versions of Christianity came out against its feudal form. In the sphere of political ideology the struggle was carried on against the feudal-absolutist doctrines which ignored the rights of national states and their sovereignty. Capitalism raised the banner of national sovereignty, while the leading thinkers of America loudly declared, for instance, that the people had the right to revolution. Feudal-absolutist reaction continued stubbornly to assert its illusory “right” to interfere in the domestic affairs of other states in order to establish “order” everywhere. In this way the ideas of legitimism appeared in the world arena and became the central issue in the struggle.

p However, the key sphere of struggle was the field of battle in which scientific knowledge upheld its inalienable right to give a lead to mankind’s progressive development, while philosophical materialism was adopted as the banner of society’s leading forces. The struggle ranged over every sphere of spiritual life and was persistently carried on in art and literature. Of course, this struggle was of tremendous importance for historical development, but bourgeois sociologists, beginning with Max Weber, tried to turn the whole process on its head, arguing that even economics was determined by ideological struggle and 392 that the development of capitalism proceeded under the impact of religious ideology.

p That is, of course, an idealistic distortion of the historical process. Any attempt to set up ideological or political struggle as an absolute is a departure from Marxism-Leninism. The scientific theory of social development, in effect, asserts that the formation of ideology, corresponding to the new mode of production, has a considerable part to play in its triumph and consolidation. There is no doubt that feudalism in Europe developed a powerful spiritual weapon for its domination and the highest sanction for the feudal system in elaborating the ideology of Catholicism. The spread of Christianity to Ancient Rus also meant a break with the tribal way of life and helped the country to move on to feudalism. Islam, which sanctioned the emergent feudal order and the establishment of the exploitative state among the Arabs emerged in fierce struggle against the survivals of the tribal system and its allied religious cults. The emergence and spread of bourgeois forms of Christianity, like Calvinism, helped to strengthen and develop the bourgeois order and to establish the rules which emerged on the basis of bourgeois society.

p The fact that the progressive sections of the bourgeoisie turned to science and adopted philosophical materialism, developing new political doctrines, naturally all had a tremendous part to play in the struggle against feudal-absolutist reaction.

p In that period, ideological struggle went hand in hand with political struggle, and the latter could not develop successfully without the corresponding ideological substantiation. But both political and ideological struggle in that period were an expression of the stages of formation of a new mode of production.

p Today, ideological struggle is waged over the true and uncompromising scientific world outlook, for the triumph of the ideology of labour over the ideology of parasitism. It has a great role to play in converting the world socialist system into the decisive force of historical development. Today, the basic issue in the struggle between capitalism and socialism is the strengthening of the might of socialism and its fulfilment of the great historical tasks facing the new system.

p Some bourgeois theorists try to emphasise the ideological conflict between socialism and capitalism in an effort to find justification for present-day militarism. Here they stress the Communists’ conviction that communism is bound to win out on a global scale because of the progressive development of society. It is this fact, according to the bourgeois theorists, that goes to make the present-day ideological conflict so acute, resulting in “cold” and even “hot” wars. This idea is being broadly used by bourgeois propaganda in its fight against the Communists and, one must admit, it has penetrated the minds of some Western intellectuals.

p The new move by the bourgeois ideologists is to concentrate attention on the ideological differences between the opposite systems, and to draw the conclusion that in the presence of such contradictions it is quite impossible for the two systems to coexist peacefully. This is an effort to prove that because the two systems have different ideologies there is no basis for peaceful coexistence and, conversely, every reason for the militarisation of the economy and the arms drive.

p Some bourgeois ideologists have not abandoned their attempts to induce the peoples to accept the idea that the contest between capitalism and socialism cannot be resolved by peaceful means. They say that peaceful relations between capitalist and socialist states can be established only if the contest between them ceases altogether and the ideological struggle is wound up.

p For example, the Right-wing Labour leader Christopher Mayhew has put out a special pamphlet on this subject with the title Coexistence Plus. A Positive Approach to World Peace. To the established conception of peaceful coexistence, Mayhew wants to add ideological coexistence and an end to the ideological struggle between “so-called capitalism" and “so-called communism”. Mayhew prefers not to call a spade a spade. He hates to call capitalism capitalism, and to admit that there is exploitation in the “free world”. Nor does he want to call communism communism and to admit that this system abolishes exploitation. Instead of trying to find out what the contradiction between the two systems is and whether it must result in armed conflicts between them, many bourgeois theorists merely skate on the surface.

p The whole of bourgeois propaganda picked up the fashionable notion of equating the cold war and ideological conflict. Hence the recipe for ending the cold war: preparation for war will end with the abolition of ideological struggle and unification of men’s views.

p It is quite clear that this is a confusion of correct propositions with deliberately false ones. Will anyone argue that the cold war means preparation for war? Will anyone object that the cold war was started by men’s attitudes, with militaristic propaganda, which was carried on by many imperialist statesmen, whole parties and organisations? That, too, is true. But to regard the cold war as a kind of ideological struggle, to equate these two phenomena, to say nothing of demanding an end to ideological struggle as a condition for relaxing international tensions is to engage in theoretically untenable and politically harmful exercises. To put an end to the cold war is in the vital interests of all people. But ideological struggle is a form of class struggle and it will go on and remain a factor of social development so long as antagonistic classes with their opposite ideologies remain.

p The Programme of the CPSU emphasises: “A grim struggle is going on between two ideologies—communist and bourgeois—in the world today. This struggle is a reflection, in the spiritual life of 394 mankind, of the historic process of transition from capitalism to socialism.”  [394•1 

p The idea that wars are engendered by ideological conflicts is idealistic through and through, because this ultimately makes ideas and attitudes the basis of social being. The idea has been accepted by generations of men in the West who have been bred in the idealist tradition. Idealistic views of society and its history are inculcated at school, where the teenager is told that the Crusades were mainly religiously motivated. One of the first pages in the modern science of history opens with the exposure of this invention: the establishment of real, mundane causes for the Crusades was a great achievement of the scientific world outlook. The plunderous campaigns mounted by the feudal lords of Europe in their drive to conquer the “fabulously” rich countries of the East were merely veiled in religious form and slogans for the “recovery of the Holy Sepulchre”. The leading historians exposed the very down-to-earth aims of these military colonising expeditions, which resulted in the Crusaders’ plundering the “most Christian" state of Byzantium with monstrous cynicism in 1204. No one but those who are blinded by bourgeois ignorance will refer to the Crusades as being “evidence” of the thesis that wars are caused by ideas.

p It is equally wrong to refer to the religious wars of the 16th century. What is really important is that these were, in effect, civil wars in France expressing the crisis of absolutism. The fact that in that period two powerful parties—Huguenots and Catholics—emerged under the religious flag does nothing to refute the truth that these parties pursued political interests. The Massacre of St. Bartholomew, when the Huguenots were slaughtered (1572), was also a political act. The religious form merely emphasised that the political ideology of the contending social forces was not fully developed because of the existing historical conditions. Religious ideology carried the methods used in the struggle to fanaticism and cruelty, but to say that religious ideas caused civil wars would be to return historical science to its infancy.

p This question was, indeed, confused by bourgeois social thought, but historical science still found a way to its solution. The anti-clericals among bourgeois Enlighteners, who took the idealist attitude in the study of society, claimed that religious fanaticism impelled men to fight sanguinary wars. Meanwhile the reactionaries and the clericals insisted that it was the neglect of the true faith by men who had been confused by “false teachings" that made the sanguinary outcome of the religious strife inevitable. Actually, men were impelled to armed conflicts by mundane interests, with religion presenting no more than a convenient form for these bloody conflicts.

p Historical science made its way through the fog of preconceptions, getting at the real earthly causes of the 16th-century wars which were fought under religious banners, but which were an expression of the conflicting interests of the feudal aristocracy and the emergent bourgeoisie. But bourgeois scholastic theory cherished the idealistic interpretation of history, while university science raised such interpretations of history to the level of philosophical generalisations about ideas causing wars. The propaganda of false views concerning the causes of wars fell on idealism-fertilised soil in the West, where idealism continued its political work.

p It is not surprising that even those who are actively fighting for peace in the capitalist world will refer to the Crusades or religious wars as evidence that ideological conflicts may cause war. Such views are widespread among bourgeois pacifists.

p The emergence in the world arena of a new force in the epoch of imperialism led to bloody clashes unleashed by imperialist states, but the emergence of the world socialist system does not at all lead to wars, because socialism has no reason either for using armed force to take anything away from capitalism, or for “exporting revolutions”. Economic and social development in socialist society does not produce any Gordian knots in its relations with capitalism that have to be cut through by the sword. Growing and consolidating socialism has invited capitalism to peaceful coexistence in the economic sphere. Bourgeois theorists will not always easily accept the idea.

p Those are the theoretical prerequisites for the origination and spread of the idea that the ideological battle between communism and capitalism must lead to war. The real causes of its emergence are different and will be found in the political attitude which was taken by the ruling classes in present-day bourgeois society on peaceful competition with the socialist system.

p The ruling circles of the imperialist powers are known to dread peaceful competition with socialism in the sphere of production. While bourgeois theorists are inclined to boast that the Soviet Union will never reach the level of US production, more and more economists and politicians in the USA have been sounding the alarm. Some theorists and propagandists of imperialism are apprehensive of the outcome not only of the economic competition but also of the current ideological struggle. Of course, Western journals keep carrying immoderate self-praise of bourgeois ideology, but that is frequently no more than a badly veiled expression of alarm.

p The advocates of imperialism have been thinking hard about what capitalism can put up in contrast to communism in the raging battles for the hearts and minds of men. The loud propaganda about the “ideals of the free world" merely goes to expose the ideological poverty of imperialism. It is ever more obvious that these ideas have been borrowed 396 from the premonopoly stage of capitalism. The ideological armour dating to the late 18th and early 19th centuries, which has been borrowed from the museums, is worn out. There are no new ideals. All of this is an indication that private property has worked itself out in social development. There is an inevitable urge for scientific communist ideas, which show mankind the way to establish social property, clearly identifying the goal of the emancipation struggle, reflecting the vital interests and aspirations of all the working people, and inspiring them with historical optimism and faith in their strength and vast potentialities.

p In these conditions, some people in the West have decided to start a propaganda drive against ideological struggle, and to call for an end to it. A closer look at this effort will show that behind the demand to abandon “ideological struggle in general" is an attempt to play down the ideological influence of communism. The advocates of this conception insist that “ideological disarmament" is the only condition for lasting peace. In this way, first, they seek to divide the forces acting for peace, and second, to protect those who are preparing a war under any possible pretext, including ideological differences.

p Life has already ridiculed some of the most reactionary spokesmen of Catholicism, who urge “ideological disarmament”. Thus, a leader of the French Catholic Church, Guerry, in his book The Church and the Community of Peoples, put forward the following idea: in order to bridge the gap between the two blocs, there is need to have a common principle, namely, a positive ideal of human and moral civilisation. Everyone knows that the Communists do not believe capitalist civilisation to be an ideal, and have been resolutely criticising bourgeois morality. Consequently, the Catholic writer argued, it is hopeless to try to bridge the gap between the two systems.  [396•2  But the author has engaged in a gross subterfuge. The fact is that the Communists and the Catholics have different notions of the present and the future of human civilisation, but there is no reason why the Communists cannot agree with Catholic working people on one very positive matter, which is the need to safeguard peace as the apple of one’s eye, the need to prevent the aggressors from starting war, and the need to have mankind live in peace without wars. Honest men all over the globe are, consequently, united in the idea of the need to preserve and strengthen peace, and this is an idea most cherished by the working people. This has been understood by leaders of the Catholic Church like Pope John XXIII, who stood for peace and peaceful coexistence.

p Nothing can prevent practising Catholics from hearing the communist call to preserve peace and have relations between the peoples rest on the simple rules of morality and justice, as the CPSU Programme puts it. 397 The Communists have been carrying on an implacable ideological struggle against the advocates of war and against the ideology of hatred and hostility among nations.

p The assertion of the bourgeois theorists that ideological struggle constituted the content of the cold war and that it was a struggle that had to develop into a shooting war was profoundly defective. A cold war was not just an ideological struggle or an ideological conflict, but the ideological preparation for war. The sharpness and depth of the ideological struggle do not at all signify that it must become the ideological preparation for war. Ideological struggle becomes preparation for war when the struggle contains within itself the idea that ideological instruments are inadequate, that they are ineffective in achieving success; that is when the inevitability of armed conflict is asserted and the slogan of “guns instead of ideas" preached.

p What has been said above shows that identification of the characteristic features of the new stage of world history which opened with the emergence and strengthening of the world socialist system enriches our whole concept of the historical process and of the change of socio-economic formations. The conclusion that the new system initially has no decisive influence on the course of world history and acquires such a possibility only later on is profoundly scientific.

p The definition of the present epoch as one of transition from capitalism to socialism, with socialism becoming a decisive factor of world development, is a great achievement of creative Marxism, for without it the world communist movement would have been unable correctly to orient itself in the present historical situation or to formulate its correct political line based on the principles of Leninism.

p Lenin stressed that the proletarian dictatorship must win out in at least a number of advanced countries if it is to exert a decisive influence on world affairs. Why did Lenin insist on the advanced countries? He held that the socialist system which has won out in several underdeveloped countries could not exert such an influence because the socialist countries, without adequate economic strength, could not be completely rid of capitalist influence. Consequently, it takes more than a mere increase in the number of countries carrying out the socialist revolution to convert the proletarian dictatorship into an international force. Lenin also stressed the qualitative side, namely, the need for these countries to be advanced, if they are to exert a decisive influence on world affairs.

p Socialism initially won out in the Soviet Union, which lagged in technical and economic terms behind the advanced capitalist countries. For socialism to become a decisive force it has to win in a number of countries, with the countries taking the socialist way becoming advanced in technical and economic terms. This task has been fulfilled by the Communist Party and the Soviet people, by building up a mighty socialist power.

The transformation of socialism into the decisive force of world history is fundamentally different from the triumph of feudalism or capitalism, both exploitative formations, over their predecessors. Socialism does not realise its superiority in conquests, for it has no need of wars of aggrandisement. On the contrary, it carries on a struggle to prevent capitalism from translating the contest into the language of guns and bombs. Socialism begins to exert its decisive influence on the course of world history by standing up for peace, checking the arbitrary acts and use of force by the imperialists in the world arena. The successes of socialism along this way clearly show its transformation into the decisive force.