164

p Compared with the Latin American countries with dependent economies, there are some distinctive specifics in the forms in which anti-communism spreads its influence and in the methods it employs in the young African and Asian states.

p The term “young African and Asian states” is an historical paradox because it is applied to regions where the earliest seats of civilisation and culture arose. Nonetheless, most of the African and Asian nations appeared on the political map of the world only recently as a result of the downfall of imperialism’s old colonial system and the conquest of state independence.

p Apart from common specifics of the emergence of these countries on the world political scene there are similarities in their economic situation and, in particular, common problems of social progress. It was in the African and Asian countries that the anti-imperialist national liberation movements, in the true sense of the term, unfolded, and it is there that prominence is gained by the struggle not only for national, but also for social emancipation. This area is witnessing the justification of Lenin’s keen prevision that the anti- colonial, anti-imperialist movement of the peoples of the East would inevitably evolve into a struggle against capitalism, for the national and social emancipation of man.^^12^^

p Parallel with the continued exploitation and pillaging of the former colonies and dependent countries, a major aim of imperialist strategy is to give an anti-socialist orientation 165 to the economic and social development of the new states and hold them as dependent elements and a social reserve of the world capitalist system.

p In the socio-economic context most of the African and Asian countries, unlike the Latin American states, were not capitalist at the time they won political independence.

p Most of them had a multistructural economy (mono-crop or mono-product) with a pre-capitalist basis. This accounts for the specifics of their social structure. A feature common to them is, above all, the fact that so far political liberation has not brought economic independence, whose attainment is their cardinal national problem. Soviet and foreign economists have shown that the payment by these countries of interest and dividends on invested state and private capital is the main channel by which they are exploited by the imperialists. According to UN statistics, in the 1970s the developing states will pay the foreign monopolies over 11,000 million dollars, while their debt will run into 100,000 million dollars.^^13^^

p Anti-imperialist socio-economic reforms have to be enforced before technical and economic backwardness and dependence can be abolished. Consequently, in the class context, the struggle for the economic liberation of the developing states objectively requires the establishment of an anti- imperialist national democracy as the transitional social formation on the road to socialism.

p In addition to economic dependence on imperialism and imperialist neocolonial expansion, the obstacles to the establishment of a national democracy are remnants of old economic systems and structures and the acuteness of the national question. Political consolidation within the framework of independent states was only the preliminary condition for development and the reshaping into nations of such socio-ethnical communities as tribes and nationalities. In many Asian and African countries the consolidation of peoples into nations is hindered by tribal discord, which is sowed and fanned to this day by the imperialists. Tribalism—the 166 insularity and ranging of some socio-ethnical communities against others—conforms to the class-egoistical interests of the clan and tribal elite and the foreign monopolies, and is used by them to weaken the anti-imperialist revolutionary forces.

p A feature in these countries is that false interpretations of national problems frequently obscure the class content of the liberation movements. The class structure of these countries is very specific and complex, as could be seen at the very first phase of the national liberation revolutions. This specific is accentuated by the absence or weakness of the material and technical prerequisites of socialism, and by the peculiar social and class differentiation and the accompanying contradictions.

p In most of these countries the peasants, and also rural and urban workers and artisans, were the social mainstay of the national liberation, anti-colonial revolutions. However, the national-democratic movement is much broader than the peasant movements of the past, whose aims boiled down chiefly to liberation from exploiters and the receipt of land as the basic means of production. The broader national and democratic decisions are involving other classes and social strata as well.

p One more feature of the class structure of many developing nations is that the two principal classes of capitalist society—the proletariat and the bourgeoisie—are still numerically small, while in some of them they are only nascent. In a number of Asian and African countries the industrial bourgeoisie was practically non-existent, while economically and politically the relatively larger strata of the merchant and, in particular, the bureaucratic bourgeoisie were entirely dependent on the international monopolies and for that reason the bourgeoisie was unable to play the role of political leader of the liberation movement.

p On the theoretical and practical levels it is important to note the new processes of the rise and formation of the bourgeoisie and the working class. Unlike the classical 167 European process of the formation of capitalism in feudal society and the successive rise of the merchant, industrial and then the rural bourgeoisie, in the colonial and dependent countries this process follows a pattern of its own. Correspondingly, contingents of the working class in many cases have appeared in a different historical sequence.

p In the former colonial and dependent countries individual contingents of the working class came into being at monopoly enterprises, particularly in mining and farming, prior to the appearance of contingents of the local bourgeoisie.

p The long colonial rule, the imperialist deformation of the national economy and the mono-crop or mono-product character of the economy predetermined the nature of the contradictions between classes and strata, in particular, the fragmentation of the bourgeoisie and the working class. Most of the workers are employed at the innumerable small enterprises. A result of this inadequate concentration is that they are poorly organised and the level of their class consciousness is low.

p At the same time, the local, usually bureaucratic or merchant bourgeoisie was very far from being a national bourgeoisie, i.e., a bourgeoisie that consistently championed the democratic interests of the national economy. Although in some countries (for instance, in India and Indonesia) some contingents of the bourgeoisie played the social role of a national bourgeoisie and headed the national liberation movement, this role was in most cases dropped when political liberation was achieved.

p The immaturity of the main classes, the unconsummated class differentiation in society and the very process of the formation of various social forces brought the local intermediate strata into prominence. It was found that the local bourgeoisie was unable to head the anti-imperialist national front. Moreover, the emergent working class in Asia and Africa had still to show its revolutionary potential. In many cases this placed the leadership of the democratic national liberation movement in the hands of the intermediate 168 social forces, the middle strata, and the civilian and military revolutionary-democratic intelligentsia.

p Experience shows that national-revolutionary democracy plays a very large role not only in the anti-colonial struggle. In some liberated, countries (for instance, Burma and Guinea), where the material prerequisites in the economy are scant, and the working class is numerically small and inadequately organised, the consistent national-revolutionary democrats strive to go over to socialist positions and lead their country along the non-capitalist road of social development. Naturally, in the different countries and groups of countries there are many trends in revolutionary democracy. Inasmuch as the revolutionary democrats are susceptible to bourgeois influence and are recruited mostly from among students, intellectuals and non-proletarian middle strata, they tend to vacillate in ideology and politics.

p As its classical counterpart, national-revolutionary pettybourgeois democracy, which is prominent in the anti- imperialist movements, usually, as Lenin noted, takes into account, adopts and uses only individual aspects of the Marxist theory in its political struggle. Referring to an analogous case, Lenin wrote: “.. .The rate at which capitalism develops varies in different countries and in different spheres of the national economy. Marxism is most easily, rapidly, completely and lastingly assimilated by the working class and its ideologists where large-scale industry is most developed. Economic relations which are backward, or which lag in their development, constantly lead to the appearance of supporters of the labour movement who assimilate only certain aspects of Marxism, only certain parts of the new world outlook, or individual slogans and demands, being unable to make a determined break with all the traditions of the bourgeois world outlook in general and the bourgeois-democratic world outlook in particular.”^^14^^

p A scrutiny of the aspects of the objective content and subjective factor of the revolutionary process in African and Asian countries makes it possible to classify them in the most 169 general outline according to the basic problem of social progress, namely the choice of the way of development and of the social prospect. At the beginning of the 1970s the largest was the group of countries that had not finally decided between capitalist and non-capitalist development and where this problem remains the pivot of a sharp inner-political and international struggle. There was also another group of countries whose development, after they had achieved political independence, may be defined as capitalist evolution. Now, there is a growing number of countries ruled by national-revolutionary democrats, who have proclaimed and are enforcing socio-economic and political reforms for the transition to socialism. Lastly, there are some African and Asian countries where the national liberation revolution has grown into a form of people’s democracy with a feasible socialist prospect.

p The complexity and contradictory nature of the presentday stage of the national liberation revolutions, and the steep and frequently unexpected zigzags of their main tendencies are closely linked with the diversity of the forms, methods, means and manifestations of anti-communism in the African and Asian countries.

p Of no little significance is the fact that in these regions the anti-imperialist front of liberation movements is opposed by the common interests of the “free world”, which are served up in the ornate packing of the theories of “ decolonisation” and “progressive colonialism”. The switch from individual political dominion to domination by the methods and means of collective neocolonialism has given rise to some features of anti-communist ideology and politics.

p The most commanding feature of anti-communism in the African and Asian countries is the direct economic, financial and military support given by the international monopolies to the most reactionary forces: the local pre-feudal and feudal nobility, the compradore and bureaucratic bourgeoisie and the military and civilian politicians. Direct military and political interference in the internal political struggle (for 170 instance, in Indochina, Congo, Tanzania and elsewhere), i.e., export of counter-revolution, is combined with conspiracies and military-political coups. The subversion against progressive regimes, which has long ceased to be a secret, is justified by anti-communist propaganda as necessary in the interests of security and civilisation.

p The second feature is the elevation of anti-communism to the level of state policy of the military-political blocs formed by imperialism and of countries ruled by dictatorial regimes. The ideological equipment of the pro-imperialist regimes consists of white and coloured racism and also of Zionism, all of which are closely associated with anti- communism. Today the bulwarks of neocolonialism are the racists of South Africa and Rhodesia and the Zionists in Israel.

p The third feature is the differentiated and composite way in which anti-communism is proliferated to embrace the economic, political and cultural life of the African and Asian nations. The multinational monopolies spare no material expense for the psychological and ideological indoctrination of the people, for training anti-communist cadres, politicians and technocrats who could ensure the adoption of an antisocialist policy by their countries. In the USA, the FRG and other imperialist countries specialised institutions are devising sociological models, methodological recipes and sociopolitical concepts of the development of the new states, extolling “aid”, “co-operation” and “partnership”.

p Lastly, the fourth feature is the flexible use that the multinational monopolies are making of the anti-communist ideological and political experience of their own and dependent capitalist countries. They are spreading tested varieties of anti-communism that take into account the socioclass conditions, the specifics of the national mentality and the religious and nationalistic traditions. For its socio-class character in the African and Asian countries anti- communism falls into several types that, in one way or another, provide the internal bulwark for the strategy pursued by international imperialism.

171

p The first type is the conservative-protective anti- communism of the clan-tribal and feudal-theocratic elite, which guards its privileges and, for that reason, savagely opposes all revolutionary changes. The anti-communism of this type is most frequently disguised by religion; it uses the traditional authority of tribal chiefs, imams and kings, who in many cases command the secular and temporal power, and forms political groupings based on religious-ethnical distinctions.

p The second type owes its origin to the capitalist evolution •of countries that have won political independence and expresses the class interests of the local, including liberal, bour- .geoisie. This anti-communism is usually the result of a class awareness of the need for an alliance with the West and with international imperialism in face of the threat of a social revolution, and it takes shape mainly under the guise of bourgeois nationalism.

p By its socio-class nature the third type of anti- communism is petty-bourgeois, although due consideration must be given to its proponents, who represent the very large and motley middle strata in the African and Asian countries. The instability of the social position of these strata is due to the large amplitude of their political waverings—from profascist to social-reformist, Right-socialist anti-communism.

p This division of anti-communism into socio-class types serves as a compass in the kaleidoscope of political developments and for an analysis and assessment of and the struggle against the different varieties and forms of anti- communist ideology, politics and practices. In the Asian and African countries there are specific varieties of anti- communism—neo-fascist, racist and clerical anti-communism which embraces the reactionary elements not only of Catholicism but also of other world religions: Islam, Hinduism and Judaism.

p However, imperialist reaction is pinning its hopes mainly on anti-communist nationalism. By pitting nationalism against socialism the anti-communists endeavour to ensure a “special road” of social development in the African and Asian countries, supporting the theory of a “coloured revolution” 172 as a counter-balance to “European white man’s” socialism.

p The historic achievements of world socialism and its disinterested economic, political and ideological assistance to the peoples fighting against the neocolonialist expansion of international imperialism are one of the most effective antidotes to the influence of anti-communism in the zone of the national and social liberation revolutions. Moreover, the Marxists bear an immensely heightening responsibility, in the ideological and political struggle, for inculcation of socialist consciousness not only among the working class but also among the mass of participants in the anti-imperialist, national-democratic revolutions.

p The collective neocolonialism of the imperialist centres is resisted by the joint actions of the young states fighting for economic independence. The Organisation of African Unity, the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries and other agencies have proved to be quite effective against neocolonialism and Zionism in Africa and the Middle East. Concerted action within the framework of these organisations makes it possible to use the inter-imperialist contradictions and the rivalry of multinational and national monopolies and to protect the national economic and political interests of the new states more successfully. This became evident in the early 1970s in connection with the energy crisis in the capitalist world and the currency speculations in the imperialist centres, particularly by the multinational corporations. This refers not only to the utilisation of the problem of oil as an instrument of economic pressure on the imperialist states in order to achieve a political settlement of the ArabIsraeli conflict. The organisations of the new states, that are the objects of neocolonialist expansion, act vigorously against racist and colonial regimes and help to improve inter-state relations and settle frontier, territorial and national-ethnical problems.

p Many countries in Asia and Africa have embarked on non-capitalist development. They are carrying out sweeping socio-economic reforms and laying the foundations for the 173 building of socialism in the future. The appearance of these socialist-oriented countries is evidence that the struggle for national liberation has in fact begun to evolve into a struggle against feudal and capitalist exploitation that is conserving their scientific and technical backwardness and their dependence on the centres of world capitalism.

p The new international division of labour is giving rise to economic and social conditions for the formation of local dependent capitalism controlled by foreign monopoly capital. This capitalism champions the interests of the huge international monopolies and is their ally against world socialism.

p Relying on its social basis in the Third World, chiefly on local capitalism, imperialism is trying to hinder the creation of an international system of an equitable and mutually advantageous division of labour that would be entirely consistent with the political and economic interests of world socialism and the national and social liberation of the formerly oppressed nations. To this end imperialism draws upon its anti-communist strategy and policy that are charted and enforced within the framework of state-monopoly capitalism. When we speak of the state-monopoly character of imperialism’s anti-communist strategy and policy we mean that the imperialist states have set up a special mechanism designed to influence the Third World politically, economically and ideologically. Under this mechanism the organs of the bourgeois state are closely linked with the private monopolies and the social sciences, chiefly political economy, sociology and philosophy.

p The use that the monopolies make of the social sciences is not confined to eliciting recommendations for individual anti-communist actions. Bourgeois political economy, in particular, is trying to produce a long-term anti-communist strategy that could be employed in the Third World, and forecast the prospects of these nations for socio-economic development, their position in the world capitalist economy and the further evolution of their economic relations with the socialist countries.

174

p Attempts are being made to provide a pseudo-scientific basis for the efforts of state-monopoly capitalism to give shape to a new, “technological” international division of labour by utilising the present internationalisation of economic life and the striving of the liberated countries to achieve economic independence. The purport of these efforts is to stimulate in the Third World the development of a neocolonialist-type local capitalism allied to the foreign monopolies and, to some extent, help to build up labour- consuming processing industries, for this would make it possible to use much of the cheap, surplus labour power in these countries.

p The foreign monopolies are thus creating the conditions for the receipt of super-profits under the “new industrial specialisation” between industrialised capitalist countries and the developing nations, thereby subordinating the development of these nations to their influence.

p Anti-communist aims have always been part and parcel of neocolonialism, notably of the Western “aid” policy. In the notorious Point IV of Harry Truman’s Programme, formulated in 1949, the “struggle against communism” was bluntly proclaimed as one of the central objectives of the US “aid” programme for underdeveloped nations and regions.

p During that period imperialist policy rested mainly on the myth of a “communist threat” to the liberated states. Imperialism used that myth to create a sort of “cordon sanitaire” of military aggressive blocs and a network of military bases around the USSR and the other socialist countries. At the time the West gave broad support for the openly reactionary regimes in the liberated nations, for instance, in Asia, instigated the suppression of progressive forces, chiefly Communists, in these countries, and pursued a hard line toward the liberated countries that refused to adhere to a proWestern orientation in their foreign policy and championed a policy of neutrality and non-alignment with military blocs.

p One of the cardinal factors behind the failure of the strategy of “sterile anti-communism” was the dissolution of 175 imperialism’s monopoly in international economic relations as a result of the credits, machinery, equipment and technical assistance extended to the developing countries by the USSR and other socialist states, and the establishment and promotion of commercial, economic, scientific and technological co-operation between world socialism and the Third World.

p Since then imperialism has been bending every effort to adapt itself to the quickly changing situation in the developing countries. The innumerable special committees and commissions set up in the imperialist states mapped out a strategy known as the “new course”, “new approach” and “co- operation and partnership” that was launched at the close of the 1960s and gained full momentum in the early 1970s.

p The following, in outline, are the goals of this strategy.

p First, to destroy the alliance of the world revolutionary forces and isolate the national liberation movements from world socialism and the international working class.

p Second, to obstruct the social progress of the developing nations, discredit the countries that have adopted the socialist orientation and erect every possible obstacle to their successful advance along that road.

p Third, to keep the developing nations within the orbit of the capitalist world economy, prevent them from attaining economic independence, enlarge the social basis of capitalism in these countries, and use their ruling circles as allies in the implementation of anti-communist plans.

p In its anti-communist strategy imperialism utilises the difficulties hampering economic development in these countries—the multistructural, backward economy, dependence on industrialised capitalist states, immaturity of the classsocial structure. The complex, frequently contradictory process of national consolidation, the deepening of class differentiation and the natural growth of national self-awareness of the liberated nations allow imperialism to use nationalism as an instrument for splitting the forces of the national liberation movement.

p The monopolies have built up a multi-tiered mechanism 176 for bringing the theory and policy of anti-communism into line with the specifics of the national liberation movement in one region or another, of individual developing nations, of definite classes and of the social forces in power in a given country and of that country’s home and foreign policies. On the upper tiers they are working on theories that could influence the views of the ideologists (mainly, politologists, economists and sociologists) of the developing nations and also their ruling circles and political leaders. As a result, in the African and Asian countries some statesmen are finding themselves collaborating in anti-communist actions, facilitating imperialism’s designs against their own countries and, in contravention of the interests of their peoples, helping to weaken friendly relations with the Soviet Union and other socialist countries.

p On the middle tiers they are evolving methods of exercising ideological influence on various links of the state apparatus, the army, the trade unions and the youth and women’s organisations. Lastly, on the lower tiers, they produce anti-communist propaganda stereotypes, which are used through the mass media—radio, cinema, television and the press—for brainwashing the population of the developing states in an anti-communist spirit.

p “For all the manifest importance of co-operation with the socialist countries,” notes Khaled Mohei El-Din, a prominent Egyptian public leader, “certain objective factors in Africa today adversely affect the trend toward closer relations between African and socialist countries. Among these is the West’s political, cultural and ideological influence, which is gaining ground in the administration and in the armed forces of some countries. Contacts between certain African countries and the socialist countries are seriously handicapped by survivals of anti-communism, by fear and mistrust of communism that are fomented in a variety of ways. These realities make it necessary for every advocate of co- operation to exert much effort in the ideological field to weed out the survivals of anti-communism.”^^15^^

177

p A large role in spreading anti-communism and slanderous fabrications about the Soviet Union and other socialist countries is played by the information and propaganda agencies maintained by the imperialist states in the liberated countries, by Western radio stations and by the large number of experts and teachers sent to the Third World by the industrialised capitalist states. This coterie includes various “volunteer” organisations formed on the pattern of the American “Peace Corps”. Students and scientists from the Third World are heavily indoctrinated in an anti-communist spirit in the West.

p Because of its predominantly spying and anti-communist activities the “Peace Corps” has evoked resentment and indignation among large segments of the population of the Third World. Some of the developing nations have dispensed with its services and expelled its “volunteers”. As a result of the reorganisation of the “Peace Corps”, it now admits representatives from the developing states who are to work under the direction and control of American instructors.

p In implementing its anti-communist policies US and European imperialism looks for allies and “partners” in the liberated nations who could undertake the unseemly role of proponents of its anti-communist ideas.

p A primary aim of imperialism’s present-day anti- communist strategy in worldwide economic relations is to undermine the Soviet Union’s economic co-operation with the developing nations and deprive the progressive forces in the national liberation movement of support from the USSR. State-monopoly capitalism regulates its neocolonialist policy depending on the course of the struggle against the world socialist community, chiefly against the USSR. It does not rely on the spontaneous growth of capitalism in the developing nations, but strives to speed up this growth under its own control.

p In unison with Peking, reactionary bourgeois economists, “experts” on the Soviet Union, are zealously advocating the 178 concept of “rich” and “poor” nations. This concept was evolved in detail in the mid-1960s by the French bourgeois economist Pierre Moussa.^^16^^ It was soon adopted by the Peking ideologists and also by some people in the newly- liberated countries.

p This concept has been designed to bracket together capitalist and socialist countries and obscure the fundamental difference between the Soviet Union’s economic co-operation with the developing nations and the West’s neocolonialist “aid” policy.

p The Peking leaders have enlarged on the concept of “rich” and “poor” nations, declaring China to be the leader of the “poor” nations. Actually, in their foreign policy relative to the developing nations the Maoists are pursuing hegemonistic and chauvinist aims, seeking to destroy the united anti-imperialist front and isolate the national liberation movement from world socialism and the international working class. They are trying to win the leaders of the developing nations over to the idea of “reliance on one’s own resources”, which in fact signifies capitulation to imperialist pressure.

p The concept of “rich” and “poor” nations is inflicting considerable harm on the struggle of the developing nations to consolidate their political sovereignty, achieve economic independence and further the cause of social progress and peace. “Peking,” the weekly France Noiwelle wrote, “advises the Asian and African countries, that have only recently won political independence but have still to free themselves from neocolonial economic tutelage, to count solely on their own resources and break off relations with the ‘rich nations’ (among whom it includes the USSR). This Leftist, deceitful verbiage about ’rich nations’ and ’poor nations’, which masks the true class relations, plays well into the hands of the im- perialists.”^^17^^

p The 1970s ushered in new qualitative changes in the national liberation movement: the struggle to consolidate political independence is intertwining more closely with the 179 struggle for social emancipation, for the abolition of all types of exploiting social relations. This process is penetrating ever deeper into different spheres of life, particularly the economy, of the developing nations.

p Lenin foresaw that the victorious proletariat of Russia would expand its co-operation with the peoples of the East in every way, in order to “help them pass to the use of machinery, to the lightening of labour, to democracy, to social- ism”.^^18^^ Under these conditions equitable economic co- operation of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries with the developing nations acquires considerable importance as a major external factor facilitating the independent economic growth of the Asian and African countries and the progressive trends in their development.

p As distinct from Western economic “aid”, which is a vehicle of neocolonialism, Soviet economic co-operation with Asian and African countries represents a new type of international relations that are based on the principles of freedom, equality and mutual respect and take into account mutual interests and the constant interaction in the struggle against imperialism and neocolonialism.

p In expanding its economic relations with the developing countries the Soviet Union wishes to establish such forms of economic relations as would be consistent with the socioeconomic conditions in each of these countries and consolidate the progressive trends of their development. The adoption by one country or another of non-capitalist development and the enforcement of basic socio-economic reforms in it widen its economic co-operation with the socialist states, which directly help it to effect the transition to democracy and socialism.

p By the beginning of the 1970s many African and Asian countries had used Soviet assistance to give effect to important measures that fostered the development, reconstruction or creation of new vital branches of their national economy. Over 700 industrial, agricultural, transport and cultural projects have been built or are under construction in the 180 developing countries with Soviet assistance. Half of them have been placed in operation. Two-thirds of the Soviet credits granted to African and Asian countries are used for industrialisation, for building the foundations of an independent economy.

p The character and content of the economic relations maintained by the socialist states with developing nations are compelling the ideologists of anti-communism to look for new ways of discrediting and distorting the foreign economic policy of the world socialist community.

p Bourgeois Sovietologists, for instance, the American M. Goldman, the British A. Nove and the Canadian S. Clarkson, have been lately giving prominence to the theory that the Soviet Union was being guided solely by the motive of profit and enrichment, that there was a similarity between capitalism and socialism in the sphere of trade with the developing nations, that the Soviet Union was participating in the exploitation of these nations through the mechanism of foreign trade.

p This theory is shared and enlarged on by some economists in the liberated countries of Asia and Africa. These economists have no knowledge whatever of the mechanism of internal price-formation in the USSR, declare that the lifting of tariffs on goods imported to the USSR from the liberated countries is a fiction and regard the turnover tax as the principal reason hindering the export of tropical foods to the Soviet Union.

p The Soviet Union abolished all customs tariffs on imports from the liberated countries as early as 1965. At the same time, following the example of the Soviet Union, these countries started a determined drive to obtain customs preferences for their exports to Western countries. This long struggle received every possible support from the USSR. As a result —this must be emphasised—of the joint actions of the USSR and other socialist countries, and of the newly-developed nations, the imperialist states and associations granted preferences to the Third World countries.

181

p True, these were only partial concessions. The preferences do not by any means cover all the staple exports of the developing nations and their operation is limited to only ten years; moreover, the Western countries have reserved the right to introduce discriminations unilaterally against exports from former colonial and dependent states.

p Nonetheless, these preferences are regarded as a major success of the concerted efforts of the socialist and developing countries in international economic relations.

p As regards the traditional tropical foods which the USSR imports from the developing nations, they comprise onethird of its trade with that group of states. In the person of the USSR these countries have a reliable trade partner whose commercial relations with them are based on equality, mutual benefit and prevailing world prices.

p Underlying the formation of these prices is international value, a complex world economic factor reflecting in each given period, among other things, the objective laws of the development of the productive forces, the character of the international division of labour and the level of labour productivity in different countries and regions.

p In its foreign trade the Soviet Union adheres strictly to the principle of world prices and emphatically condemns the domination of world trade by the foreign monopolies, which attempt to flout this principle and pursue a policy of exploiting and plundering economically backward nations. The USSR wants broader trade with the developing countries on the basis of long-term agreements for from three to five years. By the beginning of the 1970s it had such agreements with more than 30 of these countries. These agreements state the annual co-ordinated quotas of basic exports and imports, including foodstuffs. In the yearly protocols these quotas are specified and corrected.

p In recent years the Soviet Union has been taking steps to enlarge the range of imports from the developing nations beyond the assortment of goods traditionally exported by them, giving wide opportunities for the import of the output 182 of the new national industries, of mineral raw materials, oil, gas and other goods.

p Economic relations with socialist countries are bitterly opposed by the imperialist powers, the forms of this opposition depending on the concrete conditions of the development of one liberated nation or another, the alignment of class forces in it, the policy pursued by its ruling circles and the positions held in it by foreign monopoly capital.

p It is indicative that in recent years the growing economic co-operation between the USSR and the developing nations has compelled the imperialist powers to modify their tactics. They are no longer so openly hostile to such cooperation. On the other hand, relying on traditional links with local firms and using their agents in the state apparatus and their knowledge of the local market and economic situation as a whole, they subvert these relations in a number of countries, erect obstacles to the operation of public enterprises built with Soviet assistance and create discriminatory conditions for the work of Soviet foreign trade organisations.

p As a rule, the large foreign monopolies support local reactionary industrial and business circles which want the public enterprises built with Soviet assistance to be placed in their hands. These circles sometimes act through various state agencies to secure the enactment of laws liquidating these enterprises, which play a key role in creating the foundations for an independent national economy.

p Some of the anti-communist theories propagated by bourgeois economists have served as a sort of point of departure for various parliamentary and other commissions in the developing countries, which, as in India in the spring of 1970, recommended that some of the industrial enterprises built with Soviet assistance should be closed as operating at a loss or sold for next to nothing to the private sector. However, the democratic, progressive forces aborted these designs of big Indian private capital and the imperialists.

p The different class-social forces in power in the developing nations have their own approach to economic co- 183 operation with the USSR. There are countries where the ruling circles continue to maintain a one-sided foreign economic orientation toward the Western powers and refuse to broaden commercial relations with the socialist states (local firms that show an interest in business with Soviet foreign trade organisations are pressured, threatened with closure or fines, and so on).

p In some countries the reactionary circles, while declaring their fidelity to the anti-imperialist struggle, in fact bring pressure to bear on the governments to come to terms with the imperialist powers and obtain as much economic “aid” as possible from them. They have set their sights on using the economic relations with the USSR for their class aims of promoting a neocolonialist type of national capital.

p The early 1970s saw a sharp intensification of Peking’s anti-Soviet policies. After their ill-starred endeavours to win over the developing nations with the aid of their theory of the “struggle of the world village against the world town”, the Maoists have lately begun to accentuate their theory of “two super-powers”. The term “super-power” itself has been borrowed by Peking from the ideological arsenal of international imperialism, thus further demonstrating the close link between the Maoists and the reactionary imperialist forces in the sphere of anti-communist and anti-Soviet policy.

p The Maoists have developed the “two super-powers” theory to the extent that it has become an open ideological platform for the organisation of a crusade against the Soviet Union. They hope to draw socialist, developing and industrialised capitalist countries into that crusade.

p Essentially, the spurious arguments in the theory of “two super-powers”, which are allegedly ranged against the rest of the world, are a cover for the treachery of the Maoists who, to achieve their hegemonistic ambitions, have betrayed the interests of world socialism and the world anti- imperialist front. It is symbolic that in the course of the Sino-US rapprochement that became closer as a result of the failure of the US aggression against the peoples of Indochina and of 184 China’s growing isolation in the Third World, the “ superpowers” theory began to be modified: in Peking they have begun to speak not of two but of “one or two super- powers”. The Maoists are openly calling for a “class peace” in the developing nations, for co-operation with the imperialist powers and for a struggle against the USSR.

p The ideologists of the local semi-feudal bourgeois circles and, in many cases, representatives of the middle strata have lately been sharply attacking the Soviet Union, alleging that it is planning to “exploit the Third World countries”, and that in its concern for its interests as a “super-power” it is not increasing its economic assistance to these countries.

p The “super-powers” theory suits imperialism. While the theory of the struggle of the “world village against the world town” aroused some suspicions, the “super-powers” theory, especially in its modified form, is fully consistent with its “co-operation and partnership” doctrine. The neocolonialist ideologists argue that henceforth the USA is no longer a “super-power” but a “partner” of the developing nations, which must themselves make every effort to further the growth of local capitalist enterprise and co-operate with imperialism in the attainment of the aims of its anti- communist strategy.

p The “super-powers” theory is used not only by the imperialist ideologists and the Peking leaders. The leaders of some developing nations are trying to impress this theory on all the Third World countries. At the conference of the Heads of State and Government of Non-Aligned Countries in Lusaka, Zambia, in 1970, they called for a struggle against all the military alliances and pacts of the great powers. It is quite evident that to bracket the aggressive NATO alliance with the defensive Warsaw Treaty means to obscure the fundamental difference between the two world systems. The foreign policy of the socialist states pursues the objectives of preserving and strengthening peace, ending the arms race and promoting co-operation between all nations. Imperialism, on the other hand, strives to fan international 185 tension, spark military conflicts in different parts of the world and use neocolonialism to deepen the economic and political subordination of the liberated nations and interfere in their internal affairs.

p The Lusaka Declaration stated that the “balance of fear” between the super-powers was not bringing peace and security to the rest of the world. Despite the Soviet Union’s huge military and industrial potential it has never based its relations with other countries, big or small, on dictation and subordination. More, it has always sided with the nations that imperialism endeavours to intimidate by threats, blackmail and aggressive attacks. The theory of a “balance of fear” between the “super-powers” is false from beginning to end, for its purpose is to bracket world socialism with world imperialism. It is designed to make the liberated nations fear imperialism and deprive them of the will to oppose its aggressive ambitions. It harmonises with the anti-communist assertions that Soviet foreign policy is a continuation of the foreign policy of tsarist Russia.

The Sovietologists are bending every effort to make the Third World states believe that no co-operation is possible between the Communists and the democratic and progressive forces, particularly in socialist-oriented countries, where the ruling revolutionary democrats are allegedly threatened by an “internal communist menace”. The reactionaries in the developing countries laud these anti-communist fabrications and institute repressions against democratic and progressive elements, notably against Communists, who are devoted and staunch champions of freedom and social progress. Developments make it plain that anti-communism is directed not only against the world socialist community and its bulwark, the USSR, not only against the international working-class movement and the Communists in the developing states. It comes into conflict with the vital interests of the broad masses in the developing states for it hinders their progress, their advance toward socialism, toward complete liberation from all forms of exploitation.