p The anti-communists are extremely active in their attacks on the world socialist community, which reflects the new type of inter-state relations and the popular character of the socialist system. A keynote of all the anti-communist theories about the world socialist community is that in reality no new type of inter-state relations exist and that the same relations that prevail under capitalism are predominant in the socialist community, namely, exploitation, imperialist 70 rule, and the subordination of the economically weaker states to the economically stronger countries. The anti-communists regard the entire world through their own prism, with the result that some see in the new inter-state relations only what they call an artificially created “military and political bloc”, others see in them relations of the “ruling metropolis” and “subject satellites”, and still others simply call the socialist community a “communist empire”.

p In their efforts to sow distrust for Soviet policy, the anticommunists are, above all, misrepresenting the character of the Soviet Union’s economic relations with the other socialist countries.

p In the vast anti-communist literature devoted to socialist integration the authors doggedly write of the Soviet Union’s “hegemonistic ambitions”, of the Soviet “policy of neo- imperialism”, of the Soviet Union’s “exploitation” of other socialist countries, and so on. The theory that the socialist division of labour and the principles of co-operation are directed toward depriving socialist countries of their economic independence and subordinating them to the Soviet Union figures in the works of the British experts on integrational problems, John Finder and Michael Kaser.^^33^^

p Today imperialism is steadily concentrating its efforts on establishing close economic, scientific, technological, commercial and political relations with individual socialist states. This tactic pursues the objective of binding these countries to the imperialist powers and thereby obstructing socialist economic integration.

p But these are futile endeavours. Socialist economic integration is a natural process that is closely linked with the creation of a developed socialist society and the building of the material and technical basis of communism. The Communists proceed from the internationalist character of socialism and firmly adhere to class positions. The strength of each socialist state is, moreover, measured by its links with the rest of the socialist community. Socialist economic integration brings socialism’s advantages more fully into relief, strengthens 71 the fraternal community of the socialist states and fosters the further change of the world balance of strength in favour of socialism and peace.

p The first steps toward the fulfilment of the Comprehensive Programme for socialist economic integration, adopted by the 24th CMEA Session in 1971, show that new prospects are opening up for the peoples of the socialist states. Socialist integration is becoming one of the basic levers for stepping up economic advancement and the rate of scientific and technological progress, and one of the crucial factors of the competition with capitalism.

p In the attacks on socialist integration a particularly pernicious role is played by the Peking leaders, who have, in effect, taken China out of the socialist community. The Maoists have long been conducting smear campaigns against the Warsaw Treaty Organisation, the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance and socialist integration. It is today increasingly difficult to distinguish between Peking’s “ arguments” and the most vicious attacks of imperialist propaganda.

p The anti-communists devote particularly close attention to speculations on the difficulties existing in the relations between some socialist countries. Here the bourgeoisie has recourse to various devices, frequently exaggerating these difficulties, misrepresenting their causes and falsifying their content.

p The gamble on nationalism is the theoretical foundation of the multiform activity of the bourgeoisie and the revisionists in their efforts to undermine the unity of the socialist countries.

p It is hoped that the turbid wave of nationalistic propaganda and the political and economic flirtation with individual socialist countries will influence these countries, inspire a “creeping counter-revolution” and erode the socialist community from within.

p In their gamble on national feeling, the anti-communists hypocritically acknowledge the economic achievements of 72 individual socialist countries. Many authors on this subject strive to “weight” the “advantages and disadvantages” of socialist economic integration, chiefly the “advantages and disadvantages” of co-operation of the so-called “smaller” CMEA members with the Soviet Union.

p They cannot help admitting, for instance, that the fiveyear trade agreements guarantee the dependability of deliveries and sales in volumes that cannot be offered by any Western industrial state. They admit that a stable correlation of prices and exchanges operates in CMEA, that the Soviet Union provides the CMEA countries with raw material at unchanging prices.

p By recognising some achievements of socialist construction, the bourgeois ideologists merely dissociate themselves from the old propaganda theories which have come into such obvious conflict with socialist reality that, in the opinion of their creators, they are no longer suitable for anti- communist propaganda. This creates a semblance of “ objectivity”. With this gimmick the bourgeois ideologists are trying to turn the pride that the people of the socialist countries take in their achievements into nationalistic conceit in respect of their friends, particularly the Soviet Union.

p The main argument which they put forward against the participation of the highly developed CMEA member-states in socialist economic integration has a clear-cut anti-Soviet slant. As worded by W. Broil, a West German anti- communist, this argument reads: “While for the developing countries of Eastern Europe a unilateral orientation toward trade with the USSR had and still has its advantages (the preparedness or interest of the USSR in buying their industrial output, aid for industrialisation, a fixed correlation of prices and exchange), for the developed countries the significance of links with the USSR is limited: the Soviet Union is unable or has no desire to supply an adequate volume of industrial goods which for their quantity and quality may become the foundation for further technical and economic progress. On the contrary, the 73 huge Soviet market has lured suppliers, induced them to manufacture goods that cannot compete in the world market, to export goods whose quality falls below world stan- dards.”^^34^^

p In their generalised form the assertions of the imperialist ideologists boil down to the following: co-operation with the Soviet Union is inconsistent with the interests of the CMEA countries; under pressure from the Soviet Union the GDR, for instance, has to export a much too large quantity of industrial goods; the Soviet Union neither can nor desires to export high-quality means of production to the CMEA countries; for that reason the attainment of a high scientific and technological level and large investments in production are beyond their reach.

p But the facts give a totally different picture. The relations between the CMEA countries are founded on mutual assistance and mutual benefit. This may be traced on the example of the huge expansion of the Soviet Union’s economic relations with the other socialist countries . For example, between 1946 and 1972 the volume of Soviet trade with these countries increased 24-fold.^^35^^ The USSR exports to these countries large quantities of machines, equipment and vehicles, including equipment and materials for complete plants, trucks, passenger cars, tractors and harvester combines. With Soviet technical assistance many enterprises have been built that are playing a prominent part in the economy of the socialist countries; they include 246 projects in Bulgaria, 159 in Cuba, 316 in Mongolia, 148 in Poland and 121 in Rumania.^^36^^

p Economic integration is proving its indispensability and enormous advantages, especially for industrialised countries like the GDR. Mutually beneficial co-operation continues to develop successfully between the Soviet Union and the GDR. For instance, in 1972 nearly 80 per cent of the research and development projects under the GDR state plan for science and technology were carried out in co-operation with the USSR.

p The advantages of guaranteed Soviet deliveries of raw materials under long-term agreements and at fixed prices are acknowledged even by some “experts on Eastern affairs”. All the CMEA countries aspire to have an export-import equilibrium. For that reason they export goods valued at the sum that they expect to spend on imports. They pay for their imports with goods whose manufacture has been organised and which are required by their Soviet partner (these include industrial goods).

p The industrialisation of many of the CMEA countries would simply have been impossible without the import of machines and equipment from the Soviet Union. Even countries like the GDR and Czechoslovakia, which in CMEA are second only to the Soviet Union as exporters of machinery, could not have developed so successfully if they had not imported highly-efficient Soviet machines and equipment for entire industries and if they had not used Soviet technical assistance.

p All this has served as the basis for essential modifications in the foreign trade pattern of the CMEA countries. The share of ready-made goods, particularly goods with high technical specifications, has steadily increased, while the share of raw and other materials has decreased. In 1955, ready-made goods comprised 55.5 per cent of the export of the CMEA states; in 1970 the share of these goods rose to 66 per cent of the total. On the other hand, the share of unprocessed products dropped from 44.5 to 34 per cent. The export of machines and equipment, and also of chemical products grew very quickly.

p The CMEA Comprehensive Programme for socialist economic integration provides for a further increase in the export of machines and equipment.

p In keeping with the laws of socialist internationalisation of economic life, the CMEA countries are making ever wider use of the mutually beneficial division of labour, specialisation and co-operation in major areas of science, technology and production. They have signed many 75 bilateral and multilateral agreements on co-operation in entire industries.

p With the deepening of socialist integration many anticommunists are finding they have to change their attitude. In their latest writings John Finder, Michael Kaser and some other anti-communists are rejecting only what they term as “hegemonistic” integration that is allegedly taking place in CMEA. They recommend “reformist” integration, by which they mean Eastern European integration without Moscow. They hold out the bait of Western aid and advise the East European nations to act with circumspection, display external moderation and so on.^^37^^

p Of the means of subversion used against the socialist community note must be made of “deideologisation”. Lately, many anti-communists have been recommending that under conditions of integration the relations between the CMEA countries should have a “purely economic basis”, in other words, that these should be exclusively commercial relations.

p Under cover of “deideologisation” an attempt is made to deprive socialist economic integration of its main content, namely, of its socialist character.

p The anti-communists advise the imperialist governments and corporations to use East-West trade as a means of encouraging a “commercial way of thinking” in the CMEA countries and thereby undermine the national economy of the socialist states and “exercise a liberalising influence” on the “communist social system and its institutions”. In this way the ideologists of monopoly capital are trying to disunite the socialist nations, sow discord among them and push at least some of them into “market socialism”.

p In the decisions of recent congresses of the Communist and Workers’ parties of the CMEA countries and in the resolutions of the sessions of the CMEA Council held in Prague in 1973 a strong rebuff was given to the attacks on the cohesion of the socialist community.

p Planned co-ordination of the economic development of all the CMEA states, which is organically linked with the 76 further development of international commodity-money relations, is the principal method of improving co-operation among these states and promoting socialist economic integration. The Marxist-Leninist parties and governments of the CMEA states are steering a course toward the consolidation of the socialist planned economy. It is only on this road that socialism can utilise its advantages.

p As regards the relations among themselves, the socialist countries are now introducing new forms and methods of co-ordinating their planned economic development. For the first time in the history of the world economy this is leading to all-embracing and long-term links between the economies of all the member-states. Unlike the EEC, these links cover the entire process of reproduction.

Socialist economic integration is helping to strengthen the socialist community and each socialist country. In turn, this is giving rise to favourable conditions for implementing the Peace Programme adopted by the 24th CPSU Congress, the principles of peaceful coexistence and development of equal and mutually beneficial economic, scientific, technological and cultural relations between countries with different social systems.