13

p The new aspects of modern capitalism’s development that powerfully influence the political strategy of imperialism and determine its specifics are analysed in the documents of the 1969 Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties in Moscow, the 24th Congress of the CPSU and the congresses of other fraternal parties. Of these, the principal aspect is that imperialism has to adapt itself to the qualitative changes that have taken place in the balance of class and political forces in the world as a result of the further growth of socialism’s might and its impact on the economic and political processes in capitalist countries.

p Peaceful coexistence and mutually beneficial co-operation between countries with different social systems are winning ever wider recognition in international relations. This has consistently been the objective of the Soviet Union and other countries of the socialist community. The implementation of the Peace Programme, adopted by the 24th Congress of the CPSU, which outlines the concrete ways and means of relaxing world tension and ensuring the security of all nations, has eloquently demonstrated the utter hollowness of imperialism’s “positions of strength” policy. The positive changes in USSR-US relations, the treaties signed between European socialist and capitalist countries on the 14 recognition that existing frontiers are inviolate and on the renunciation of the use of force in the settlement of international disputes, and the expansion of economic, commercial, and scientific ties between socialist and capitalist countries are convincing evidence of the switch in the development of international relations from tension and the cold war to detente and peaceful co-operation between states with different social systems. The socialist community and all the revolutionary forces are increasingly forcing on imperialism their solution of the historic dispute between the two world social systems through peaceful competition. This competition, which is unfolding against the background of the scientific and technological revolution, is influencing the whole of imperialism’s present political strategy.

p One of the highlights of this strategy is that imperialist leaders are making every effort to use the scientific and technological revolution to bolster the position of the old system in the struggle against socialism and other revolutionary forces. Relying on its historically preconditioned, temporary economic superiority, state-monopoly capitalism widely uses science and technology as a key instrument of its economic, political and ideological struggle against socialism. In this context state interference in the economy in the interests of monopoly capital has mounted steeply. The state has undertaken comprehensive programmes of research not only in technology but also in economics and politics. Parallel with their quest for the forms and methods of long-term regulation of the capitalist economy on a national and an international scale, the capitalist countries are trying to find the ways and means of exercising a longterm influence on social relations, on the class struggle at home and on the international scene.

p As a result, imperialism’s political strategy is becoming more complex and purposeful, embracing an ever-wider area of social life. With the growth of the ramified state mechanism and the spread of its operation to new spheres of economic life and social relations state-monopoly 15 capitalism enlarges the possibilities of its large-scale anti- communist activities, for which it utilises all the means at its disposal, including the achievements of the scientific and technological revolution. The activities of the bourgeois political parties are acquiring an increasingly anti-communist orientation. Innumerable specialised anti-communist organisations, operating in the most diverse areas of social life, are springing up. State-monopoly capitalism uses the large state apparatus and the mass media for its anti-communist policies and propaganda. Imperialism’s long-term, comprehensive political strategy covers economic, military and foreign policy, propaganda in individual countries and in international relations.

p Here the bourgeois social sciences are beginning to play a growing role. State-monopoly capitalism’s need for recommendations founded on knowledge of the actual situation is fostering the numerical growth of specialised research centres.

p In the US, over 200 centres devise imperialism’s anticommunist strategy and tactics. In West Germany there are nearly 100 centres of this kind. Scores of such institutions function in Britain. The socialist countries and the international communist movement are minutely studied in France and some other capitalist countries. In addition to national centres, there are international research institutions that work on problems of anti-communist strategy and tactics. One of them is the Atlantic Institute in Paris set up on NATO funds.

p Anti-communist theorists draw up not only situation reviews but also long-term forecasts and formulate conclusions and recommendations providing the “scientific” basis for global anti-communist policy and propaganda. For instance, no sooner had Peking broken the unity of the socialist countries and begun to pursue a policy hostile to the Soviet Union than the Columbia Research Institute on Communist Affairs, headed by Zbigniew Brzezinski, began drawing up recommendations on the forms and methods of stimulating 16 the “erosion” of socialism. As soon as “Leftist” elements became active in the revolutionary movement in Latin American countries, a House Subcommittee in Washington recommended, on the basis of a report from a team of experts, that the appropriate US agencies use “Leftist” and “ultra-Leftist” elements against the Communist parties.

p To give its anti-communist strategy a theoretical foundation imperialism enlists the services of many bourgeois scholars and politicians, who by joint effort seek to evolve the ways and means of weakening and undermining the revolutionary forces opposed to imperialism.

p These theorists of anti-communism are working in three main directions.

p First, they are evolving increasingly more subtle forms and methods of falsifying Marxism-Leninism and slandering socialist society and the Communist parties. They misrepresent the theory of scientific communism, counterposing what they call “humane socialism” and “new”, “national” models of socialism to existing socialism and endeavouring to neutralise the programmes of the Communist parties of capitalist countries with allegations that Marxism-Leninism is a purely “local” phenomenon and that it is unsuitable for the “civilised” West.

p Second, they construct various concepts designed to build a “scientific” foundation for the policy of the imperialist states toward the socialist countries, the countries of the Third World and the working-class movement in the industrialised capitalist states.

p The 1969 International Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties noted that pseudo-scientific constructions, such as the “convergence” theory, served exactly that purpose. It was pointed out that imperialism was using the “convergence” and “industrial society” theories in its efforts to undermine the positions of the working class and socialism and persuade the working people that by an “ internal evolution of socialism” and some “modernisation of 17 capitalism” it would be possible to achieve a mutually acceptable synthesis of the two opposing social systems. But when by the beginning of the 1970s the course of world history, particularly the enhanced unity and solidarity of the socialist community, and the progress made by socialist economic integration had demonstrated the hollowness of the “ convergence” theory, the anti-communist theorists advanced new ideological constructions.

p The “convergence” theory was augmented with the concepts of “post-industrial” or “technetronic” society. Ignoring the class content of social processes and proclaiming scientific and technological advancement as the principal factor of history, the architects of these concepts proceed from the assumption that mankind’s—particularly the socialist countries’—gradual “de-ideologisation” is inevitable under the impact of the scientific and technological revolution and spearhead their theories against scientific socialism. According to Zbigniew Brzezinski, author of the “technetronic society” theory, by the year 2000 the world will be divided into five groups of countries differing solely by their scientific and technological level and led by the most advanced post-industrial states of the technetronic era (the USA and others). He maintains that the socialist system is inconsistent with the requirements of scientific progress. The duty of the “advanced countries”, he says, is to “create a propitious climate for the positive evolution of the East European political systems and, eventually, within the Soviet Union itself”^^2^^. The purpose of such theories is to use the detente in Europe and the expanding economic, scientific and technological co-operation between capitalist and socialist countries for ideological subversion in the socialist states in order to initiate their “de-ideologisation”.

p Third, increasing prominence is being given to evolving alternative ideology and policy which would replace scientific communism and enable the imperialist bourgeoisie to create qualitatively new means of combating socialism.

A specific of imperialism’s present political strategy is that

18 it increasingly acquires a global character. Over half a century ago, in analysing imperialism’s trend toward the creation of international alliances against the liberation movement, Lenin noted the emergence on this foundation of imperialism’s international anti-communist strategy as a concentrated expression of the monopoly bourgeoisie’s international class interests. Drawing attention to the inexorable internationalisation of capital and foreseeing the inevitable growth of the class solidarity of the imperialists in their savage struggle against socialism, Lenin called this “the main economic trend of the capitalist system”.^^3^^ The imperialist forces of different countries now strive more than ever before to work out a common political strategy that would take the international experience of the class struggle into account and be directed against the international communist movement.

p In their efforts to chart a common political strategy against world socialism, the working-class movement and the national liberation revolutions, the imperialists are trying to use the internationalisation of economic life that has been speeded up by the scientific and technological revolution, the accelerated formation of multinational monopolies, state-monopoly capitalism’s spread beyond national boundaries and the appearance of international state- monopoly organisations. The emergent multinational monopolies and state-monopoly associations of the bourgeoisie serve as the basis for further expanding the latter’s international co-operation and framing imperialism’s general strategy.

p This strategy is seen in the identical aims of the political actions of capitalist states (particularly in internal policies —anti-communist legislation, social manoeuvring), in the parallel actions of the organisations of the monopoly bourgeoisie, political parties, businessmen’s associations and so on. In many ways this sort of co-ordinated action by the capitalist states is facilitated by the system of bilateral and multilateral contacts established between the bourgeois 19 governments after the Second World War. The US remains the principal economic and military power in that system of capitalist states and exercises considerable influence on the overall class strategy of the capitalist world. However, the relative strengthening of the position of some of the US partners in military blocs, particularly the appearance of a new “power centre” in Western Europe following the formation of the Common Market and Japan’s enhanced strength, compels US imperialism to give consideration to the specific interests of other imperialist powers. Yet, US imperialism endeavours to continue influencing other capitalist countries and pursue a common policy in the main areas of the class struggle.

p Imperialism’s common anti-communist policy manifests itself to a still greater extent in the actions of bourgeois states and non-government organisations co-ordinated through a specially formed system of international alliances. The imperialist countries have utilised their common class political interests and the integrational processes that have been speeded up in the economy of the capitalist world by the scientific and technological revolution to build up a system of military-political and economic organisations and international state-monopoly associations having a mechanism for subordinating, to one extent or another, the interests of individual capitalist countries to the class interests of all the member-states and for pursuing a common policy.

p The objective community of the imperialist bourgeoisie’s ultimate class aims does not automatically lead to the coordination of the anti-communist policy of the different imperialist powers. Each pursues its own objectives. The non-coincidence of the general and specific interests of the imperialist powers, the unevenness of their economic and political development, augmented by the current scientific and technological revolution, and inter-monopoly competition are aggravating the contradictions between countries belonging to imperialist blocs. However, in a situation 20 marked by the ever sharpening struggle between the two world systems, the capitalist powers, despite the growing contradictions dividing them, strive to combine their efforts in order to preserve and strengthen the system of exploitation and oppression and retrieve the positions they have lost. For that reason imperialism’s global policy is implemented as a trend pushing its way through the continued internal struggle between the members of the imperialist camp. This trend manifests itself differently relative to the different revolutionary forces and in different concrete situations.

p Complete coincidence of the global anti-communist policy of the leading imperialist powers is possible in limited cases of the acute conflict between the two social systems, when fear for the future of the entire capitalist system pushes the imperialists towards maximum unity. In a situation where a day-to-day struggle is waged by international reaction against the world liberation movement, constant and farreaching co-ordination of the policies of the imperialist states is only achieved in those areas of the struggle and in those geographical regions where the common class interests of the monopoly bourgeoisie are affected most of all or where by using the processes of economic integration the bourgeoisie can find a “common denominator” for the conflicting interests of its various groups.

p The community of imperialist policies is mirrored in the structure and activity of the agencies of the military- political and economic blocs set up to co-ordinate these policies. The system of multilateral military-political blocs embraces most of the capitalist world. These blocs are NATO, OAS, SEATO, CENTO and ANZUS. To a varying degree these blocs serve to co-ordinate the policies of their members and play dissimilar roles in imperialism’s general anticommunist policy.

p The most important of these blocs is the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which includes most of the imperialist states and serves as the main instrument of aggression. The principle of military integration underlies the military 21 policy of NATO’s members. A plan for the enlargement of the NATO armed forces for 1973-1977 was adopted by the NATO Council at its meeting in Brussels in December 1972. This plan emanates from the unified military doctrine, which, in its turn, springs from the common aim of the class strategy of the NATO countries’ ruling circles to create a superiority in armed forces that would allow them to impose their will on the socialist countries and the world liberation movement. Despite the relaxation of tension the military budgets of the NATO states, particularly of the so-called Eurogroup, continue to grow. The five-year programme for the build-up of armaments, adopted by them in 1970, is annually overfulfilled. In the US and other NATO states great attention is accorded to the qualitative improvement of armaments and to the uninterrupted modernisation of the bloc’s entire military machine. If we discount the NATO members’ usual “defensive” demagogy, we shall clearly see the bellicose anti-communist orientation of these military preparations. The “threat of communism” bogey and references to “military security” were used by the NATO leaders to subordinate the foreign policy of individual countries to the common policy pursued by the bloc’s member-states mainly as regards relations with socialist countries.

p It is much more difficult today than in previous years to co-ordinate the policy of member-states through NATO organs. “Hard” methods are combined with “soft”. This concerns not only the joint fanning of world tension with the purpose of furthering the arms race. The bloc’s organs also use the detente to “build bridges” to the socialist countries through, among other things, the bilateral relations of the bloc’s members with individual socialist countries.

p In the capitalist countries NATO militarism is a mainstay of extreme imperialist reaction, which seeks to subordinate the entire policy of these countries and suppress the revolutionary working-class and democratic movements. 22 Support for the dictatorship in Spain and encouragement of the reactionaries in West Germany are indicative of NATO policy’s anti-democratic character.

p This repressive policy is directed against the national liberation movement as well. NATO bears much of the responsibility for the encouragement of the racists in South Africa and Rhodesia.

p In addition to its police functions, the NATO machine grinds out propaganda in the member-states. These functions are discharged by the NATO Public Relations Committee and a number of other propaganda divisions. The NATO information service uses the official press and private mass media, various Atlantic research centres and public organisations for the anti-communist and anti- Soviet indoctrination of public opinion in non-socialist countries and for ideological subversion in the socialist states.

p As non-military means of struggle acquire increasing weight in imperialism’s class strategy, the bloc’s leaders endeavour to promote the social aspects of NATO’s activities. For instance, in 1969 NATO set up a special committee charged with co-ordinating research and practical work in social studies. In the quest for non-military means of anticommunist policy an important place is occupied by the elaboration of plans for using the integrational processes in the capitalist economy to achieve the closest possible unity among the NATO member-states. NATO strategists count on the international intertwining of capital, particularly of US and West European capital. Since American corporations are five times bigger than the leading British and West German companies and ten times bigger than the largest French monopolies in the corresponding fields, the Atlantic strategists calculate that NATO’s economic foundation will rest on the dominant position of the US monopolies in these mammoth super-trusts in the Atlantic zone.

p The bloc’s leaders are currently making every effort to invigorate this process and looking for forms and methods, 23 acceptable to most of the capitalist states, of restructuring the economic and political relations between them. These efforts are directed toward creating a mechanism for smoothing the contradictions between the NATO members, which would thus be adapted, as much as possible, to the changes in the balance of strength between them and would be in a position to compensate for concessions of some participants in one sphere (military or political) with concessions by other participants in some other sphere (economic, scientific, and so on). They thereby expect not only to strengthen NATO, which is cracking under the weight of internal contradictions between the member-states, but also obtain, in addition to the military and propaganda machine, an economic mechanism for the struggle against world socialism and other revolutionary forces. In 1973, in this very context, Washington proposed the adoption of a new Atlantic Charter as an all-embracing document defining the principles of economic, political and military co-operation among the member-states. Although the attitude of NATO’s West European members to this idea was contradictory, the proposal itself led to the drawing up of a number of documents serving as the basis for the all-sided co-ordination of the policies of the industrialised capitalist countries.

p The steps to improve the NATO mechanism are closely linked with imperialism’s striving to use the international state-monopoly associations, notably the European Economic Community, in its anti-communist policy. Circles close to NATO underscore the importance of the links with the EEC.^^4^^

p Imperialism’s efforts to improve and enlarge the alliance of the capitalist states in the Atlantic are part and parcel of their drive to set up a global system of inter-imperialist bonds embracing the entire capitalist world. Efforts in this direction are being made in Latin America, too. Various projects for the creation and enlargement of blocs covering non-socialist Asian countries, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa are mooted. They are aimed at 24 coordinating all aspects of the international activities of the capitalist states and creating a sort of “ultra-imperialist alliance” that would combine the might of the capitalist states and monopolies on an international scale.

p Lastly, still another highlight of imperialism’s anti- communist strategy closely bound up with its other specifics is that the tactics of carrying it out are growing more flexible and varied in the different regions of the world and relative to different countries. Diverse forms and methods and their combinations are being applied. In these tactics there are two basic courses. It is, first, the course (that was particularly widespread in the past) toward frontal attacks on the revolutionary forces—open aggression, cold war, fascist terror and military coups. However, today imperialism has to take into account the new balance of forces on the international scene, the possible consequences of a world nuclear-missile war and the present improvement of international relations. In this situation the ruling circles of the imperialist states are laying particular stress on local wars that would strike at individual contingents of the forces opposed to imperialism. This is demonstrated by the military adventures launched by imperialist forces against the Arab states, particularly the Israeli aggression. By means of “small” wars, sudden local attacks on socialist and newly-independent states and military-fascist coups imperialism counts on gradually coming closer to its end goal, the suppression of the world liberation movement.

p However, under present-day conditions of the competition and struggle between the two world systems predominance is gained by the second tactical course, whose salient features are flexibility and circumspection. It rejects frontal attacks in favour of disuniting and disintegrating the revolutionary forces through the subtle use of economic, political and ideological levers. These tactics amount to a policy of a “quiet counter-revolution” relative to socialist countries, neocolonialism as regards Third World countries, and various forms of social manoeuvring by monopoly capital.

25

p The new forms of the policy which imperialism has to employ in view of socialism’s growing might pursue the aim of more secretly helping to achieve the old imperialist goals. In the present situation, as well, anti-communism remains a distinctive feature of imperialism’s political strategy, but in its concrete expression it comes forward as an instrument of ideological subversion against socialism. The policy and ideology of imperialism continue to direct their main efforts against socialism and its principal force, the Soviet Union. This focusses attention on the attempts being made to destroy the unity of the socialist countries and generate the “erosion” of socialism from within. The more flexible, subtle and differentiated anti-communist propaganda directed at individual socialist countries seeks to use nationalistic tendencies, “national-communist” variants of socialism and “national models of socialism” as the means of engineering a split in the community of socialist countries.

p This enhances the anti-communist role of the Right-wing leaders of Social-Democratic parties and their slogan of “social-democratisation” in the socialist countries. In the US the benefit of this slogan to imperialism’s aggressive strategy was quickly appreciated. The formula of “ social-democratisation” has become a major component of imperialism’s global strategy. This new form of anti-communism unquestionably signifies a re-examination of former attitudes. The old forms of slandering and rejecting socialism can hardly be expected to be successful today. A steadily diminishing number of people are inclined to believe the assertions that “communism stands for poverty, suffering and terror”. Taking these changes in public opinion into account, the anti-communism of the Right-wing SocialDemocrats, acting hand in glove with the anti-communist propaganda of the present-day revisionists and “Left” opportunists, now attacks the political and economic foundations of socialism, the leading role of the working class and its party, democratic centralism and public ownership. All 26 this is done under the slogan of “bringing socialism closer to democracy”.

p At the 1969 Moscow Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties it was noted that the calculations on the disintegration of the communist and entire revolutionary movement from within now form a major policy line of imperialism’s class strategy. This line is closely intertwined with other policies. The new, more flexible forms and methods of anticommunist policy and propaganda accompany the old, traditional forms and methods: in Europe, the course toward an expansion of peaceful co-operation is combined with the stepping up of the ideological struggle. In Latin America, the “big stick” policy is alternated with neocolonialism in its various aspects.

p It must be stressed, however, that the renewal of the policy and ideology of anti-communism is not a straightforward, conflict-free process. The changes in the world balance of forces have powerfully aggravated the contradictions in the camp of the monopoly bourgeoisie.

p On the one hand, imperialism has not renounced armed action against the revolutionary movement, although the stake on the distintegration of that movement differs with regard to each of the three main revolutionary forces: the peoples building socialism and communism, the working class of the industrialised capitalist countries, and the movement for social and national liberation of the oppressed peoples and the peoples of the developing countries. However, the futility of the policy of direct, frontal attacks, whose continuation is still advocated in the NATO countries by the champions of the cold war and of the existence of blocs, is acknowledged even in the traditional citadels of anti- communism—the US and West Germany. The successful restructuring of Soviet-US relations on the basis of peaceful coexistence and the turn toward normal peace-time relations and mutually beneficial co-operation between the Soviet Union and West Germany in combination with the consistent, principled struggle waged by the Soviet Union and 27 other socialist countries for an improvement of the international climate in a situation witnessing the growing might and cohesion of the socialist community are yielding tangible results.

p On the other hand, in this situation imperialism’s most aggressive forces are persisting in their efforts to disunite the forces of world socialism. There are two distinct aspects in this anti-communist policy. The first aspect is the striving to undermine the cohesion of the world socialist community, the friendship between the Soviet Union and the other socialist states, particularly among the members of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance and the Warsaw Treaty Organisation. The second aspect is that this policy is aimed at shattering and undermining the socialist system and finding the possibility of eroding it in the Soviet Union and in the other socialist states.

Both these interrelated aspects of imperialism’s strategy reflect the aspiration of the proponents of the “bridge building” doctrine, who preach using the easing of international tension and the promotion of commercial, scientific and technical relations with the East European socialist countries for ideological subversion in these countries, whipping up nationalistic feeling and encouraging revisionist elements. By bringing sustained, differentiated ideological, political and economic influence to bear on the socialist countries the imperialists strive to divide them in their attitude to various economic, political and international problems and subvert the socialist community. The initiators of this strategy, dating back to the mid-1960s, calculated on enticing individual socialist countries with economic, scientific and technological co-operation with the capitalist states and, as the price for this co-operation, on compelling them to pare down their links with the Soviet Union. This policy, pursued by some capitalist states, is aimed at encouraging nationalistic, anti-socialist and revisionist elements in the East European countries and, with their assistance, shattering the foundations of the socialist system.

28

p The objectives and methods of this strategy are quite frankly stated in the numerous writings of its exponents— from Zbigniew Brzezinski in the US to Richard Lowenthal, a high priest of social-reformism in West Germany. These writings give prominence to ideological subversion—the organisation of systematic attacks on the leading role of the working class and its vanguard—the Communist Party—in socialist society, and on Marxist-Leninist ideology. The strategists of anti-communism have picked, as the instrument of their ideological subversion, petty-bourgeois nationalistic and revisionist, opportunist elements in the East European countries who oppose socialism under the banner of “ national models” of socialism, “democratising” and “liberalising” socialism, and so on.

p They believe that they will be aided by the difficulties attending the formation of the unprecedented international relations based on socialist internationalism that are sometimes misinterpreted by petty-bourgeois and revisionist elements. Incessant nationalistic, anti-Soviet propaganda is conducted under cover of quests for “national socialism”.

p The strategists of imperialism pin high hopes on the Peking leadership’s hostile actions against the Soviet Union and the entire socialist community. Peking’s readiness to form an anti-Soviet bloc with any reactionary forces such as the fascist junta in Chile and revanchist elements in West Germany, and their ceaseless attempts to split the socialist community receive the approval of anti-communist politicians and ideologists. Peking’s policy toward socialist countries fully accords with the imperialist efforts to “erode” the socialist community. To the great joy of the imperialist adversaries of detente, the Maoists made an attempt, at the 10th Congress of the CPC in 1973, to “substantiate” Peking’s anti-Sovietism with statements about the threat of a “sudden attack on our country by social-imperialism”. Cloaked in pseudo-Marxist verbiage, these anti-Soviet fabrications of the Maoists essentially harmonise with the slanderous 29 assertions of the most bellicose bourgeois anti-communists. Peking’s anti-Soviet policies and its attacks on the unity of the socialist countries and the world communist movement and on the efforts of the peace-loving states and peoples to ease international tension are harming the cause of peace and international socialism.

p With the failure, as the 1968 events in Czechoslovakia demonstrated, of the attempts to draw individual countries away from the socialist community through a policy of “selective coexistence”, the anti-communist ideologists and politicians began to look for more flexible ways of undermining the unity of the socialist states. The “bridge- building” rhetoric gave way to verbiage about a “new strategy in the interests of peace”. One of the aims of this “new” strategy, which pursues the old anti-communist goals, was very eloquently stated in the anti-communist journal Preuves in the summer of 1971. While sounding the alarm over the plans for the economic integration of the CMEA memberstates, the journal urged the American and other Western governments to expand dramatically their economic, scientific and technological relations with all socialist countries, including the Soviet Union. It suggested that such relations should be used to make the CMEA member-states dependent on the capitalist economy and thereby slow down socialist integration. It stressed that in this area it was important that the US and other NATO countries should coordinate their policies, maintaining that nothing but a common economic strategy by the West would finally lead to the “evolution of the socialist countries”.^^5^^

p Another aim of imperialism’s latest anti-socialist strategy was brought to light by the Western propaganda campaign under the hypocritical slogan of “protecting human rights” in socialist countries. The initiators of this campaign seek to take advantage of the detente and make changes in the internal order of the socialist countries an indispensable condition for the easing of tension. The “liberalisation” of the socialist system, i.e., the liquidation of the actual 30 achievements of socialism, and the emasculation of the socio- political rights of the peoples of socialist countries are depicted by the bourgeois “champions of human rights” as a guarantee of international security. They ignore the indisputable fact that with the world divided into two systems international security can only be achieved through the full and absolute observance of the principles of peaceful coexistence, particularly non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries. The perseverance of the architects of this propaganda campaign is due to their striving to use the expansion of economic, scientific, technological, cultural and political relations between capitalist and socialist states to find channels for invigorating bourgeois survivals in people’s minds and destroying the unity of the peoples and countries of the socialist community. This has been quite openly declared by Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the inspirers of this strategy of ideological subversion. “Persistent efforts to improve relations with the communist states,” he said, “will J help the forces that press for liberalisation.”^^6^^

p The theorists of anti-communism vainly hope for a “growing diversity of communisms”, for these hopes are widely at variance with the objective trend toward the unity of the socialist countries by virtue of the essentially internationalist character JQ{ their state system, which in all these countries rests on an identical economic basis (public ownership of the means of production), an identical political system (government by the people headed by the working class) and the ideology of Marxism-Leninism. The internationalisation of economic life, expedited by the scientific and technological revolution, gives rise to an increasing number of problems that can only be resolved by the concerted efforts of the countries belonging to the socialist community. The basic interests of each of the socialist countries—opposition to imperialism’s aggressive policies and successful building of the new society—determine the need for a reliable system of all-sided fraternal co-operation that for each of these countries has become a natural norm of 31 life. In the course of this co-operation each has found the ways of combining its interests with the common interests of the community and of arriving at a just solution of problems that are unsolvable in capitalist society. Directed scientifically by the fraternal Marxist-Leninist parties, the broadening political, economic, scientific, technical and cultural co-operation among the socialist states leads to a mutual adaptation of national economic patterns and the levelling up of the economic and cultural development of these countries. This renders hopeless the search of imperialism’s strategists for fissures in the relations between socialist states. Evidence of the expanding relations between these countries is provided by their co-ordinated foreign policy, their common foreign-policy strategy, the fulfilment of the comprehensive programme for the economic integration of the CMEA member-states, the further cultural affinity of the socialist countries and the closer contacts among the fraternal parties. In stressing the need for further unity and co-operation among the socialist countries, Leonid Brezhnev said: “Today we require unity, co-operation and joint action chiefly in order to accomplish more quickly and effectively the tasks of developing socialist society and building communism. Moreover, we require unity, cohesion and co- operation in order to safeguard and consolidate the peace, so vital for all the peoples, as successfully as possible, to carry forward the international detente, and to effectively repulse all aggressive sallies of the imperialists, all attempts to impinge on the interests of socialism.”^^7^^

p Imperialism’s policy of physically crushing or demoralising the forces opposed to it clearly manifests itself also relative to the revolutionary working-class movement of the industrialised capitalist countries and to the anti-imperialist movement of the Third World countries. This policy is spearheaded against the Communist parties—the revolutionary vanguard of the liberation movement.

p By the very logic of the class struggle the reactionaries invariably respond with savage counter-assaults to the 32 upsurge and widening of the working-class and democratic movements. The monopoly bourgeoisie resorts more frequently to extreme, authoritarian policies, organises violence, seeks to strangle the liberation movement, activates fascist groups, and so on. These trends are mirrored in the spread of anti-communist and anti-labour legislation.

p Imperialist interference in Chile’s internal affairs and the encouragement of the 1973 military coup in that country, Israel’s aggressions against the Arab states, and the conspiracies and coups organised by the imperialists with the aid of internal reactionaries are diverse manifestations of this policy in the Third World. The local reactionaries are strengthened not only by the international organisations, agencies and services of the imperialist states. They are aided by the multinational monopolies, which give them the means to conduct a political struggle and to bring off coups. The military-fascist coup in Chile is a striking example of the union between the carefully camouflaged interference of various external imperialist forces and internal reaction, which adopted the stance of an “independent national force”. The efforts of imperialist reaction in the Third World countries are likewise directed chiefly against the Communist parties, all opponents of monopoly capital being charged with affiliation to them. -

p The hope of suppressing the revolutionary movement and advanced thought by force, cherished for decades by the bourgeoisie of different countries, has thus proved to have no leg to stand on. Moreover, the direct actions of the reactionaries are being resolutely repulsed by the progressive forces. For that reason, in view of the struggle with socialism the ruling circles of the capitalist countries are particularly apprehensive that the class struggle may evolve into a mass revolutionary movement. Hence imperialism’s striving to apply ideological, political and economic forms of struggle that would be more flexible than outright repressions. This striving has three directions. First, it is expressed in the attempts to lessen the revolutionising influence of 33 Marxism-Leninism on the peoples in non-socialist countries by trying to discredit socialism and the Communist parties in the capitalist countries. Here the international character of anticommunist strategy stands out in particularly bold relief. Second, in combining repressions with social manoeuvring the imperialists seek to form an alliance with the Right and “Lett” opportunists, to demoralise the communist movement in the capitalist countries as an international force and secure the revisionist degeneration of the Communist parties of individual countries. Third, the anti-communist strategists make no little effort to work out alternatives to scientific socialism and programmes for strengthening exploiting society that would rally all the forces opposed to communism.

p The propaganda efforts of the anti-communist theorists and publicists to discredit socialist society are centred on the Soviet Union, the first socialist state and the economic, political, ideological and moral bulwark of the world revolutionary process. The anti-communists distort the actual state of affairs in Soviet society, belittle the real achievements of the Soviet people following the Great October Socialist Revolution and, playing on the difficulties and errors in the building of the new society, give out their own distorted picture for a “model” of socialism as the inevitable effect of the practical application of Marxist theory.

p In the anti-Soviet campaign that has been mounting in recent years the accent is increasingly placed on attacks on the Soviet Union’s consistent foreign policy, in which a firm rebuff to imperialism and support for the revolutionary liberation movement are invariably combined with an unswerving course toward peaceful coexistence of countries with different social systems.

p While twisting the significance of the Soviet-US talks in Moscow and Washington and the peace initiatives taken by the Soviet Union and other socialist countries to ensure security and co-operation in Europe and Asia, the anti- communist ideologists and politicians of all hues—from 34 reactionary bourgeois to the Peking Great-Power chauvinists and “ultra-Left” Trotskyists—endeavour to negate Soviet policy’s anti-imperialist spirit and clear-cut class orientation and attribute Great-Power ambitions to it.

p Soviet foreign policy has always been a class, socialist policy for its content and aims. It has been a policy of struggle against imperialism, against all forms of exploitation and oppression, for freedom and human dignity, for democracy and socialism. The socialist character of this policy makes it peaceful and consistent in the struggle against the imperialist forces of aggression and war. This has been the Soviet state’s immutable guideline from the moment it was formed, a guideline that is embodied in the Peace Programme adopted at the 24th Congress of the CPSU. The considerable strengthening of the position and unity of the socialist countries and the growth of the influence exercised by their co-ordinated policy on the course of world developments have compelled the capitalist countries to recognise the principles of peaceful coexistence as norms of relations between countries with different social systems. It is due to these factors that the relations of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries with many bourgeois states have shifted toward detente and mutually beneficial co-operation.

p The consistent efforts-exerted by the socialist community with the Soviet Union at the head to make peaceful coexistence a universally recognised standard of relations between states with different social systems in no way signify concessions to imperialist policy and ideology. “The CPSU has always held, and now holds,” Leonid Brezhnev noted, “that the class struggle between the two systems—the capitalist and the socialist—in the economic and political, and also, of course, the ideological domains, will continue. That is as it should be because the world outlook and the class aims of socialism and capitalism are opposite and irreconcilable. But we shall strive to shift this historically inevitable struggle onto a path free from the perils of war, of dangerous conflicts and an 35 uncontrolled arms race. This will be a tremendous gain for world peace, for the interests of all peoples, of all states.”^^7^^

p The class character of socialist foreign policy makes it impossible to spread peaceful coexistence to ideology. The expansion of contacts between people of different countries, of contacts fostering mutual cultural enrichment, the growth of trust between nations and the consolidation of peace and goodneighbourly relations, require the unfolding and continued activation of an uncompromising struggle against reactionary ideology, particularly against all forms of anti-communism.

p The efforts of imperialism and its partisans to denigrate socialism in the eyes of the people of non-socialist countries are accompanied by pressure on the Communist parties true to Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism.

p Bourgeois propaganda disseminates insinuations to the effect that the Communist parties are “degenerating”. Brzezinski, for instance, asserts that “in the West the Communist parties are no longer either innovative or revolutionary”, that they “have moved toward diluting their . .. ideological tradition”. As proof, he refers to their participation in national institutions, i.e., in parliaments and municipal councils, and in the governments of some countries. Brzezinski needs this reference to make credible his conclusion that the “revolutionary standard has already passed into the hands of more ideologically volatile and activist groups”.^^8^^

p The fact that imperialism’s strategists pin much of their hopes on “ideologically volatile and activist groups” is seen very clearly in the activities of the “Left-radical”— Trotskyist, Maoist and other—“ultra-revolutionary” elements, whose principal aims are to slander the Communist parties, undermine the unity of the anti-monopoly and anti- imperialist forces by imposing an adventurist policy on the democratic movement and deceiving the young people who join the revolutionary movement. The role played in this activity by the Peking leaders, who give every encouragement to the formation of Maoist groups all over the world, 36 is a particularly serious threat to social progress. The provocative exhortations of the Maoists have objectively helped the intrigues of imperialism and local reaction in a number of Asian, African and Latin American states and stimulated fascist trends in the industrialised capitalist countries. Shrouded in “Marxist” terminology, these exhortations calling for immediate violent action play into the hands of extreme imperialist reaction, who willingly identify the “ultra-revolutionaries” with Communists in order to clear the way for repressions against the democratic forces.

p The efforts of bourgeois policy and propaganda to dis- j credit existing socialism and isolate the communist movement from the people in the capitalist countries are supplemented with the manoeuvres of the Right-wing leaders of the Social-Democratic parties. Despite the nascent trend in some countries toward co-operation between Communists and socialists, the Right-wing leaders of the Social- Democratic parties in most countries of the capitalist world are waging an ideological and political struggle against the Communist parties. The revisionists and renegades expelled from the communist movement are acting in the same direction. The Right-wing Social-Democrats and the revisionists, united under the banner of anti-Sovietism, oppose what they call “humane socialism” to the “Soviet model”.

p In view of the fact that the “classical” bellicose anticommunism and anti-Sovietism of the bourgeoisie have been discredited in the eyes of the peoples, the imperialists are making wide use of the reformist, revisionist and “ Leftradical” varieties of anti-communism. The elements propounding these varieties are generously financed from the various funds of the big bourgeoisie, the mass media are placed at their disposal and they receive the support of the metropolitan press. Small wonder that the renegades and turncoats cast out by the revolutionary working-class movement are hailed as heroes by the yellow press and given a prominent place in “theoretical” compositions of bourgeois anti-communists, such as Brzezinski.

37

Appreciating that the anti-Soviet campaign serves the aims of imperialism’s anti-communist strategy in the nonsocialist countries, the Communists give a rebuff to these attacks. Thus in a joint communique of November 17, 1971, issued in Paris by the French and Italian Communist parties, it is noted: “The two parties condemn anti-communism and anti-Sovietism, wherever they are manifested, as contravening the interests of the revolutionary, democratic and national movements and furthering divisive activities and imperialism’s aggressive policy.”^^9^^