p The certain modifications that have been introduced into present-day anti-communist policy will, ultimately, not save it from collapse. The very need for these modifications is an indication that the positions of anti-communism are weak. However, in view of the refined, camouflaged, flexible methods used by this policy these modifications unquestionably make it more dangerous.

p There is a huge gap between the aims of anti- communism’s political strategy and the attainment of these aims. This gap is due mainly to the incompatibility between imperialism’s end purposes and the means that it has for achieving these purposes. The fact that in some sectors of the struggle imperialism is mounting a counter-offensive does not mean it is able to halt social progress and reverse the world-wide transition from capitalism to socialism.

p Imperialism is futilely aspiring to use the scientific and technological revolution to remake the economic and social structure of the capitalist countries in the interests of monopoly capital and disunite and undermine the forces opposing it. The reality of capitalist exploitation, the contradictions of capitalism and the class struggle in the capitalist countries are constantly erecting new obstacles to anticommunism.

p In the 1960s, despite the many distinctions between them, bourgeois social theories gave prominence to the basic view that the coming decades, notably the 1970s, would witness the reorganisation of the capitalist system, in the course of which capitalism’s main contradictions and ailments, particularly economic crises and class contradictions, would be removed with the foundations of capitalist society remaining inviolate. Bourgeois ideologists believed that the scientific and technological revolution would help achieve a swift growth of production and attain an unprecedented economic growth rate. This, they felt, would allow increasing profits and wages and carrying out a broad programme of social reforms, thereby eliminating class contradictions and the class struggle.

p Experience, however, has shown that although the acceleration of scientific and technological progress has led to a growth of production, the largest growth has been registered by profits. This resulted in an aggravation of capitalism’s main contradictions and a sharp intensification of the class struggle, rather than in an “epoch of social peace”. By the early 1970s the imperialist economy was experiencing its most difficult period since the end of the Second World War. The cyclical crisis, stagnation, the energy crisis, the monetary crisis, inflation and the aggravation of the trade war have intertwined. The early 1970s have lucidly demonstrated that under capitalism the scientific and technological revolution cannot resolve social and cultural problems in the interests of the people.

p In the face of the Soviet Union’s peace policy bourgeois propagandists are finding it extremely hard to sustain the bogey of “the Soviet Union’s expansionist ambitions” and “the threat from the East”. But this by no means signifies that the rabidly reactionary forces of imperialism are not endeavouring to revive outworn anti-communist slander in order to change the political situation in their own favour. A key role in these attempts is played by anti-Soviet campaigns. In pursuing their peace policy the Soviet Union and 39 other socialist countries have, especially in recent years, achieved obvious and, for many people, tangible successes and provided so much proof of their desire for peace that this sort of anti-communism cannot hope to succeed.

p The economic might of the socialist community that is increasingly used to satisfy the material and cultural requirements of the working people is lending more weight to the influence exercised by the socialist economic system, thereby cutting the ground from under the anti-communist slander. Here an immense role will be played by combining the achievements of the scientific and technological revolution with the advantages of the socialist system.

p The high level and universality of socialist public education and the fact that the state is directing its economic, political and cultural work toward satisfying the material and cultural requirements of the people and moulding the new socialist citizen are demolishing the anti-communist aspersion that socialism paralyses the creative development of the individual.

p The new balance of forces between socialism and imperialism has, particularly in Europe, crushed the cold war policies. For many imperialist states the prime issue today is the restoration of normal economic and political relations with socialist countries.

p Imperialist policy toward the Third World nations has likewise proved to be abortive. Imperialism’s economic resources for social manoeuvring are limited, while the fog of verbiage about “partnership in development” is inescapably dispersing, laying bare the exploiting nature of imperialist partnership. This is eloquently demonstrated by the Alliance for Progress activities in Latin America which have been abandoned even by its United States sponsors. Ultimately we observe an exacerbation of the contradictions between imperialism and the peoples of the developing countries whose liberation struggle is steadily widening. The events of recent years indicate that in the developing countries the processes leading to the restriction and even 40 unsaddlement of the large Western monopoly corporations and the creation of an independent economy are gaining ground. The contradictions between the Third World nations and the imperialist powers are also mounting over many key issues of international politics. This has been strikingly shown at the 1973 Algiers Conference of non-aligned states, which demonstrated their determination to resist imperialist diktat and arbitrary rule. Despite the efforts of anti- communist policy and propaganda, the Third World countries are establishing close co-operation with socialist states.

p The fiasco suffered by the imperialist “positions of strength” policy in relation to the socialist countries has brought to light the fact that each of the imperialist states pursues its own aims and interests and holds its own views on questions of war and peace. For instance, despite imperialism’s desperate efforts to internationalise the conflict in Vietnam, that conflict only intensified the inter-imperialist contradictions. Moreover, the successes achieved by embattled Vietnam with the support of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries put an end to the imperialist aggression. Combined with the unremitting efforts of Soviet foreign policy to find the way to a peace settlement in the Middle East, all-round Soviet support for Egypt and Syria in their struggle against Israeli aggression in the autumn of 1973 struck yet another blow at the “positions of strength” policy. Further, undisguised US support for Israel in that military conflict sparked an explosion of discontent in West European NATO states and a sharpening of contradictions within that bloc. Notwithstanding the efforts of US diplomacy, the NATO Council was unable, at its session in December 1973, to work out a common stance on the Middle East conflict. The Soviet Government and the CPSU have always declared their firm determination to abide by the socialist, Leninist policy in opposing imperialism and continuing their support for nations that assert their right to independence and social progress.

p The calculation of the anti-communist strategists on 41 capitalist integration is not justifying itself either. Although the international intertwining of capital has been stepped up in the imperialist blocs, the competitive struggle intrinsic to capitalism continues between the monopolies, and under state-monopoly rule inevitably leads to a struggle between states for influence in these blocs. Monopoly capital retains its basic national-exclusive character, and its agreements with its partners are based on a balance of forces that in the epoch of the scientific and technological revolution can only be temporary on account of uneven economic and political development.

p The general crisis of capitalism and the intensifying competitive struggle between the monopolies for markets are heightening the interest of many capitalist countries in contacts with the socialist market, whose capacity is steadily growing and which is free of market fluctuations. Hence the failure of the innumerable attempts to make the capitalist countries pursue a common economic strategy.

p The aggravating inter-imperialist contradictions are making it difficult for the imperialist powers to attain their class aims, particularly in the Third World, where the discrepancy between their common and specific interests is particularly pronounced. NATO is in the throes of a serious crisis. The aggressive blocs set up in Asia are cracking. Western Europe is turning into an arena of strife between capitalist countries. The gulf between the USA and the Latin American members of OAS is widening. Latest developments are showing that neither the processes of integration nor the class interests of the imperialist concerted action against world socialism have removed the contradictions between the imperialist states.

p The mounting inter-imperialist contradictions are holding up the currently predominant tendency toward the unification of imperialist forces and the subordination of their policies to their common purpose of fighting world _ socialism, national liberation revolutions and the working-class movement.

In the teaching of Marxism-Leninism the international communist and working-class movement has a weapon that is omnipotent because it is correct. The Communists unswervingly counter the ideological subversion by imperialism and its sycophants, and detect and expose imperialism’s new political manoeuvres. The differentiation in anti- communism is evidence of the growing futility of the ideology and policy of imperialism and the increasing influence of socialism and the teaching of Marxism-Leninism.