this is done under the slogan of ``bringing socialism closer
to democracy''.
theories
and
critical
studies
[4]
Translated from the Russian
Contributing authors: V. Artyomov, E. Batalov,
Anti-communism is imperialism's ideology and policy directed against socialism, the revolutionary working-class movement and all other democratic forces. It dates back to the days when the working-class movement became organised and began its struggle against capitalist exploitation and bourgeois rule. Today, as in those days, anti-communism is used as a weapon for holding up social advancement. Its aim is to split the revolutionary forces and undermine socialism. The growing international influence exercised by the socialist community and Marxism-Leninism compels modern imperialism to resort to new and diverse forms of anti-communism. Seen from this angle, it becomes crystalclear that present-day anti-communism mirrors the deepgoing crisis of bourgeois ideology. Anti-communism is imperialism's principal ideological and political instrument, whose purpose is to slander the socialist system and misrepresent the policy and aims of the Communist parties and the teaching of Marxism-Leninism. Under the spurious slogans of anti-communism imperialist reaction persecutes and intimidates all advanced, revolutionary movements and endeavours to sow dissension among the working people and paralyse the militancy of the working class. All the enemies of social progress---the financial oligarchy, the military, the fascists, the reactionary clericals, the colonialists, the landowners, and all the ideological and political 8 __RUNNING_HEADER_LEFT__ CONTEMPORARY ANTI-COMMUNISM: POLICY AND IDEOLOGY accomplices of imperialist reaction---have now united under this black banner. Determined opposition to anti-communism is one of the conditions for the success of the genuinely democratic and communist movement. The eminent German author and humanist Thomas Mann called anti-communism the most colossal absurdity of our epoch.
Anti-communism spells out not only slander against the scientific philosophy of the working class but also ruthless persecution and suppression of its most consistent spokesmen: Communists, democrats and other fighters for social advancement. In the class struggle anti-communism is used not only against the Communists but also against the working masses, against progressive mankind as a whole. However, it is spearheaded first and foremost against the revolutionary vanguard of the anti-imperialist forces and seeks to isolate the Communists from the people and use every possible means for suppressing the international communist movement.
The first practical experience of the organised struggle of the proletariat's vanguard was generalised by Marx and Engels in the Introduction to the Manifesto of the Communist Party, in which it is stated: ``A spectre is haunting Europe---the spectre of communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre... = .''^^1^^ In the subsequent decades the class battles have shown that with the growth of the class struggle of the proletariat and its organised movement the methods employed by anti-communism become more subtle. The ruling circles of the bourgeoisie have never abandoned every possible means which they feel can safeguard the outworn capitalist social system. They fight the Communist and Workers' parties, and every democratic movement that threatens capitalist rule, not shrinking from physically destroying Communists and democrats.
Although the substance of anti-communism has remained unchanged at all the phases of history, its forms have been modified. Under the impact of the mounting influence of 9 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ STRATEGY OF IMPERIALISM AND PRESENT-DAY ANTI-COMMUNISM socialism and the revolutionary working-class movement, when it is becoming increasingly more obvious that capitalism is on the defensive, the ruling circles of the bourgeoisie have to adapt themselves to the new situation. This, naturally, limits the possibility for open forms of anticommunist policy and ideology. For that reason, alongside undisguised, violent forms of anti-communism they have recourse to more flexible methods, combining frontal assaults with efforts to ``soften'' socialism and erode it from within.
Time has distinctly brought to light the following phases of anti-communism.
The first phase embraced the period from the rise of the communist movement to the October Socialist Revolution in Russia. During that period the ruling classes used primitive anti-communism, chiefly in the form of anti-Marxism, in their striving to subordinate the working-class movement to bourgeois influence and obstruct the formation and growth of independent parties of the proletariat.
Following the Paris Commune the ruling classes resorted to every possible slander and falsification in order to halt the spread of revolutionary Marxism in the international revolutionary movement. By portraying the revolutionary spokesmen of the working class as ``enemies of the state'', ``traitors'', ``homeless tramps'', ``criminals'' and = __NOTE__ Missing `` before murderers ``murderers'' seeking to shake the foundations of the family, society, civilisation and morals, they counted on stopping the offensive of the revolutionary working-class movement.
Lies, slander, bans, persecution, imprisonment, exile and violence failed to hold up Marxism's advance and its further development in Marxism-Leninism. Working-class organisations grew stronger and, finally, in the early 20th century the working class of Russia with Lenin at its head created the first party of a new type. Thus, alongside objective conditions the subjective prerequisites matured for the overthrow of capitalism, which had by then entered its imperialist stage of development.
10However, the ruling bourgeoisie of the imperialist states had no intention of surrendering its positions without a battle. On the contrary, the development of the first phase of capitalism's general crisis and the victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution and the advance of socialism in the Soviet Union marked the beginning of the second phase of anti-communism.
The most prominent specific of that phase was that as a result of socialism's successful development the contradiction between socialism and imperialism became the principal contradiction of the new epoch. Anti-communism's distinctive feature is that it has always been directed against the leading revolutionary forces. Since from the moment of its establishment the Soviet state led by the Communist Party showed that it was the main force of the world revolutionary process, anti-Sovietism became the core of anticommunism. For all reactionaries, beginning from the fascists and ending with the ``Left'' opportunists, antiSovietism became a hallmark determining the substance of their reactionary, anti-socialist policy and ideology. It evolved into the predominant state doctrine in the imperialist countries.
Acting on the recommendations of Winston Churchill, who urged a war against ``Bolshevik tyranny'' as early as 1917, imperialist leaders embarked upon a crusade against historical progress, against socialism.
Fascism, which aims at exterminating Communists and all other consistent democrats and forcibly uprooting MarxistLeninist ideals from people's minds, has been the most open and inhuman form of anti-communism. Its rise to power in Germany was the first direct step toward the political, ideological and military preparations for the Second World War. The world will never forget fascism's crimes, its monstrous persecution, barbarous torture and extermination of Communists and other fighters for democracy, against imperialism. This was all done under the guise of fighting communism. But the results of the second phase of 11 anti-communism proved even more strikingly than hitherto that the anti-communist stand of the imperialist bourgeoisie has no future. Fascism's defeat led to the emergence of the world socialist community and struck another blow at the ideology and policy of anti-communism.
But the weakening of imperialism's positions by no means signified that its ideological champions were prepared to lay down their arms. They persisted in their efforts to reanimate anti-communism and make it more effective by resorting to new forms and methods.
The third phase of anti-communism, which began after the Second World War, was characterised by an intensifying struggle between imperialism and socialism, which had spread beyond the frontiers of one country and developed into a world system. A new wave of anti-communism swept across the world as a result of the cold war policy pursued in those years by the imperialists.
But monopoly capital and its accomplices were unable to halt the historic advance of the revolutionary forces, much less reverse it. By the end of the 1950s it had become obvious that nothing had come of imperialism's design of ``rolling back'' communism by high-handed military, political and economic pressure on the socialist countries. Despite all the efforts of anti-communism, the socialist countries steadily built up their economic, political and defensive might. The cohesion of the socio-political community of socialist states and the formation of the world socialist economic system disrupted imperialism's political strategy of undermining and overthrowing the new system in at least one of these countries. The Soviet Union's scientific and technological achievements in the development of thermonuclear energy and the build-up of a powerful missile potential made it highly dangerous for the imperialists to continue using their traditional means of international policy. Socialism gave the peace forces enormous resources for curbing imperialist aggression. The untenability of the calculations on the success of the 12 ``policy of strength'' became increasingly evident to imperialism's political strategists. This was admitted by one of the architects of the policy of ``rolling back'' communism, John Foster Dulles, when in November 1956 he categorically refused to render military assistance to the counter- revolutionaries in Hungary. He declared that such interference would trigger a nuclear war.
Later imperialism was unable to hinder the victory of the revolution in Cuba and, in 1961, to prevent the GDR from exercising her sovereign rights in Berlin.
The change in the world balance of forces compelled imperialism to bring its policy and ideology into conformity with the new situation. Open military, economic and political pressure on the socialist countries gradually gave way to a policy of undermining the world socialist community by ``eroding'' the social system in the socialist countries and disuniting these countries and other anti-imperialist forces. The end goal of imperialism's political strategy has remained unchanged, namely, to preserve and, if possible, strengthen and enlarge capitalism's position, to disable and crush the liberation movement. Imperialism's counter-revolutionary activity, which is openly directed mainly against MarxismLeninism and its champions---the socialist countries and the Communist and Workers' parties---in fact has as its objective the suppression of all the forces fettering arbitrary rule by the imperialist bourgeoisie. It is mirrored by the propaganda and policy of various non-government and government agencies in the bourgeois states. With the development of state-monopoly capitalism, anti-communism was raised to the level of state policy in the capitalist countries. The efforts to overwhelm the socialist states and the communist movement in the capitalist world form the pivot of imperialism's political strategy. The failure of anti- communism as a result of the further growth and consolidation of the revolutionary forces and the change in the world balance of forces, which became particularly evident in the 1960s-1970s, induced imperialism to begin a feverish quest 13 for ways of adapting itself to the changing situation. To this end, imperialism's leaders are perfecting their political strategy, which more fully reflects the class aims of the monopoly bourgeoisie in the different countries, the principal orientations of the struggle to achieve these aims, and the means, methods and forms of this struggle, including their replacement and combination. As the concentrated expression of economics and politics, imperialism's anti- communist political strategy inevitably mirrors the appearance of new phenomena in these spheres.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 2. ANTI-COMMUNISM'S POLITICAL STRATEGY TODAYThe 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
These theorists of anti-communism are working in three main directions.
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.
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.
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.
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''.
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
__PRINTERS_P_17_COMMENT__ 2---2810
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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^^
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.
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.
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.
25The 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.
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''.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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''.
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.
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^^
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^^
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^^
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.
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.
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. -
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.
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.
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.
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 __PRINTERS_P_33_COMMENT__ 3---2810 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.
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.
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^^
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.
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.
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^^
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.
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''.
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.
37Appreciating 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^^
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 3. CONTRADICTIONS AND INEVITABLE DOOMThe 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.
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.
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.
38In 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
42 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.
[43]
__NUMERIC_LVL1__
CHAPTER TWO
__ALPHA_LVL1__
A CRITIQUE OF THE ANTI-COMMUNIST
``THEORIES'' OF THE ECONOMY OF SOCIALISM
AND CAPITALISM
__ALPHA_LVL2__
[introduction.]
The slander levelled at the socialist economy and economic policy has long been part of the arsenal of anti- communist propaganda.
The economy as the principal area of the drive to build a developed socialist society and create the material and technical basis of communism is the target of intensive ideological attacks by the enemies of socialism.
The anti-communist ideas about the economy of socialism and capitalism have undergone considerable modifications. The appearance of one theory or another and the choice of one or another method of fighting socialism depend on many factors, the chief ones being the achievements of socialism and the alignment of forces in the world.
The first anti-communist theories about the socialist economy were founded on the belief that socialism could not be built and that all the attempts to that end were doomed to failure.
Such was the basic concept of the first critics of socialism
as an economic system, namely, the founders of the 19
thcentury subjective school of bourgeois political economy
(Eugen Bohm-Bawerk, Leon Walras and others). Walras, for
instance, emphasised time and again that the socialists neither
knew nor understood economic laws. He regarded the
system of dynamic equilibrium, allegedly generated by
44
__RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__
ANTI-COMMUNIST THEORIES OF SOCIALIST & CAPITALIST ECONOMY
spontaneous market competition, as the best means of achieving
a highly effective economy. As he saw it, socialism with its
measures to eradicate social vices in fact spelled out coercion
over economic laws. He contended that by introducing into
the principle of the distribution of resources a moral
criterion, that was alien to the interests of production, socialism
was undermining the foundations of the economic system
itself.
Immediately after the October Revolution in Russia the monopoly bourgeoisie and its spokesmen hoped that the socialist economy and socialism itself would prove to be unviable. Robert Wilton, correspondent of The New York Times at Petrograd, wrote at the time: ``Obviously, Bolshevism is a destructive, not a constructive, agency.... Thus from an economic point of view the continuance of the present regime is an impossibility. From a political standpoint it is equally = absurd.''^^1^^
However, as the course of events upset all these forecasts, socialism won growing actual recognition as a viable economic system. From the theory that socialism would unescapably collapse the bourgeois ideologists began gradually to go over to the theory that socialism would inevitably lag behind the capitalist countries.
The successful building of socialism in the 1930s, the outcome of the Second World War, the building of a developed socialist society by the Soviet people after the war, and the achievements of the other socialist countries led to a further change in the attitude of the theorists of anti- communism. Bourgeois science and propaganda had to acknowledge not only the very possibility of the existence of a socialist economy but also many of socialism's economic advances. In recent years this recognition took the form of the theory of the ``convergence'' of the two socio-economic systems. The declaration of the architects of this theory to the effect that the finest elements of the two systems converge contains the admission that these finest elements are to be found in socialism. This attitude is essentially at 45 variance with the formerly predominant belief that socialism would inevitably fail and collapse.
This virtual recognition of socialism's achievements did not signify a change in the basic attitude of the ideologists of the bourgeoisie. The fundamental aim of the various bourgeois theories about socialism remains to distort the nature and mechanism of the socialist system. But today new methods and tactics are being used in an effort to attain that aim.
One of the major new orientations of anti-communist activity relative to the socialist countries is to try to provoke socialism's degeneration, to ``soften'' socialist ideology and the political regime.
To this end the anti-communists are concentrating their efforts mainly on giving a false picture of socialism's socioeconomic system and of the position of the individual in socialist society. Their prime targets are the CPSU and the Soviet Union. Anti-Sovietism is thereby becoming the main content of anti-communist policy and propaganda.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 1. MAIN ANTI-COMMUNIST THEORIESIn anti-communist literature dealing with socialist economy, eloquently-worded and often mutually excluding views are offered on practically every question. These views are constantly modified and corrected to fit in with the aims of the ideological struggle and the requirements of current policy.
At the same time, the views of the vast majority of bourgeois economists have features in common. The modern anti-communist theories dealing with the economy of socialism pursue the common purpose of misrepresenting the social content and popular character of the socialist system. They employ idealistic and metaphysical methods.
46In the attitude common to most bourgeois economists there are several main orientations. These are, first, the so-called neo-classical orientation, whose proponents regard some general economic principles of the socialist economy as functional forms inherent in society at all stages of development, regardless of the socio-economic system.
The second orientation may be characterised as neoliberal. It preaches that objective economic categories and laws cannot exist in a planned, consciously directed socialist economy.
Lastly, the number of economists occupying an intermediate position, as it were, between the two above-mentioned orientations has been growing in recent years. They acknowledge the objective character of some categories of socialism. Moreover, they transplant these laws into an ``ideal'' society that is, of course, fundamentally non-socialist. This is the view of many of the proponents of socio-economic ``convergence''.
Revisionist theories that claim to uphold ``true'' socialism form a group by themselves.
Among the proponents of the so-called neo-classical orientation there are many champions of ``economic psychology'', a relatively new scientific school that has been winning adherents in the USA, France and other capitalist countries. The theorists of this school use the scientific and technological revolution, which is enhancing the significance of social psychology, to psychologise the basic categories of political economy. They declare that they are free of the moral and political influences of any social clans or groups. They argue that socialism simply does not have specific categories and laws on the grounds that economic categories spring from human psychology which does not depend on the specifics of a socio-economic system. In his The Generalised Economy and the Degree of Growth, Pierre-Louis Reynaud asserts that because they are laws of ``economic psychology'', economic laws do not depend on the social system and the relations of production. ``It is thus the human factor,'' he 47 writes, ``seen through the laws of economic psychology and understood as a synthesis of certain data of psychology and economy, which constitutes the bond and infrastructure of the various existing = regimes.''^^2^^
The concept of psychical energy, introduced by economico-psychologists to replace the concept of labour in ``traditional'' political economy, makes the foundation of the general theory of ``economic psychology''. To use Reynaud's words, the ``liberals'', especially the socialists, have found that labour is ``an essential link between the human factor and = wealth''.^^3^^ The concept of psychical energy is much broader than the category of labour.
In assessing this innovation, note must be taken of the conditional nature of the category of psychical energy. Materialist psychologists hold that the present state of knowledge gives no grounds for assuming that alongside electrical, chemical and other forms of energy there is a special, similar-type psychical energy, although metaphorically this concept is used for characterising the ``psycho-energy'' of the organism. To counterpose psychical energy to the category of labour signifies virtually reducing labour to physical labour.
Significantly, the economico-psychologists use the concept of psychical energy to divorce production from exchange, distribution and consumption, which, together with production, comprise the dialectical unity off the process of reproduction. Notwithstanding their specifics, each of these spheres is part of social reproduction, a sphere in which labour activity, which is vital to society, manifests itself.
The introduction of psychical energy as the ``essential link between the human factor and wealth'' under the guise of renouncing the ``one-sided'' approach of ``traditional'' political economy signifies a transition to the posture of subjectivism. This is most strikingly seen on the example of the economico-psychological theory of value.
The economico-psychologists level their heaviest criticism 48 at the labour theory of value in Marxist-Leninist political economy. Had this theory been consonant with reality, Reynaud declares, there would have been material and moral justification for the communist regime and the dictatorship of the = proletariat.^^4^^ Indeed, in the opinion of the economico-psychologists the labour theory is no less onesided than any other. They regard it as an expression of ``workshop = psychology''.^^5^^ While recognising that many workers, who are not Marxists, spontaneously accept the labour theory of value, Reynaud sees this as an indication of the . .. narrowness of Marxism, allegedly expressing the interests of only the factory = proletariat.^^6^^
In place of what they describe as ``obsolete'' and `` onesided'' conceptual patterns, the economico-psychologists offer the theory of ``final value''. They depict the genesis of economic value as the result of the ``opposition of different social strata and their psychological influence on each other''. ``Each stratum defends its theoretical conceptions and the final value cannot be but the result of these various currents.''^^5^^ They regard value as ``absolutely rational and not = ideological''.^^4^^
This negation of the labour theory of value through the ``deideologisation'' of political economy serves as a means of attacking the central Marxist-Leninist idea, namely, that of the historic role of the working class as the leading force capable, in alliance with the other working people, of destroying capitalism and building a new, genuinely humane and just society.
On the basis of their concepts of ``psychical energy'' and ``final value'', the economico-psychologists maintain that ``the mental progress of the individual, and not the class = factor''^^6^^ is the basic law of economic development, arguing that the only way to resolve all social and economic problems is to raise ``the mental = level''^^7^^ of the individual.
The bourgeois economists and sociologists who propound ``economic psychology'' and other neo-classical concepts portray the economic categories of capitalism and socialism 49 as being qualitatively identical. They contend that these categories carry out the same functions in the economic world which has limited resources. They therefore advise a functional analysis of these categories on the basis of the socalled fundamental economic science that rejects the specifics of economic relations.
The existence of some common externally similar economic categories is used to prove that the socialist and the capitalist economies are identical. But in offering this `` argument'' the bourgeois ideologists forget the main thing, namely, the qualitative content of these categories and how these categories manifest themselves in each of the opposing systems. Thus, objectively, wage, interest and profit are forms of the realisation of economic interests under both socialism and capitalism. But the content of these forms and categories and their role and functions differ fundamentally in the socialist and the capitalist economy. For instance, under socialism profit is a concrete form of the movement of the surplus product and has a content that differs essentially from that under capitalism. It materially expresses collective, rather than private economic interests that are intrinsic exclusively to the new social system, to socialism. Under socialism profit is not the principal aim of economic development or the basic regulator of its proportions as in the capitalist system. For that reason, the efforts to ``draw together'' the economy of capitalism and socialism on this basis are quite untenable.
The proponents of the second, so-called neo-liberal, school altogether reject the possibility of using a number of economic categories and forms in the socialist economy, maintaining that in socialist economy categories such as price and profit are purely relative. In the vast majority of cases they entirely deny the objective character of commoditymoney relations under socialism. In their writings the socialist economy is described as a ``command economy'' deprived of ``objective economic expediency''. As a means of enhancing its efficacy they recommend the renunciation
__PRINTERS_P_49_COMMENT__ 4---2810 50
of the ``etatist principle'' and the adoption of a ``market
socialism'' structure that bears a striking resemblance to the ij
state-monopoly structure of the West.
In the arsenal of the neo-liberal theorists, as indeed in that of the proponents of other anti-communist theories, a major place is occupied by deliberately spurious interpretations of the economic reforms carried out in the socialist countries. The new methods of economic management, the improved planning and larger material incentives are seen by these theorists as a ``retreat from the model of socialism''.
The use of economic levers to stimulate labour productivity in keeping with the principles of socialist distribution according to work is portrayed by the anti-communists as a ``departure from doctrine''. The use of commodity-money relations is depicted as a borrowed specific of capitalism, while the considerable attention devoted in the Soviet Union and other socialist countries to achieving a further rise in the living standard---a natural development in socialist society in keeping with its basic laws---is characterised as the implementation of the bourgeois theory of converting socialist society into a ``consumer society''.
In misrepresenting the substance of the economic reform, the champions of bourgeois methods of economic management seek to depict it as a factor stimulating ``convergence''. A typical example is the attitude of Revue economique, an economic magazine which in September 1967 asserted that in order to put the economic reform into effect successfully the socialist countries had to move to free prices and to free private = enterprise.^^8^^
The ``convergence'' theory was a typical theoretical expression of how the minds of a large segment of the bourgeois intelligentsia work. Great hopes were pinned on this theory by the anti-communist academic representatives of monopoly capital and by the liberal bourgeois scholars who sincerely desire peaceful coexistence among nations.
The polymorphous character of this theory and the 51 apparent credibility of many of its arguments made it a dangerous ideological and theoretical threat to Marxism.
The bourgeois ideologists, basing themselves on the `` convergence theory'', claim that a new social system free of the shortcomings of capitalism and socialism would arise. However, the advocates of the ``convergence'' theory see this ``new, synthetic'' society in modern state-monopoly capitalism. They hold that all the latter needs is some partial improvements. As regards socialism, they suggest ``liberalisation'', meaning the gradual weakening of its positions and, ultimately, its degeneration into capitalism, as the means of improvement.
Zbigniew Brzezinski and Samuel Huntington frankly admit: ``.. .most theories of the so-called convergence in reality posit not convergence but submergence of the opposite = system.''^^9^^
In the ``convergence'' theory one can clearly distinguish two basic aspects: first, camouflage of the nature of capitalism and, second, falsification of the essence of socialism.
At the same time, there are some disparities among the advocates of this theory as regards, primarily, their way of reasoning and their objectives. Jean Laloy, who has classified the concepts of ``convergence'', singles out their main objectives. The adherents of the first concept pin their hopes mainly on the ``liberalisation of the Eastern regimes'', as a result of which the distinctions between countries belonging to the two social systems must disappear.
Laloy calls the second concept ``scientific rationalism''. In the opinion of its protagonists the discovery of nuclear energy and other scientific and technological achievements will gradually create a ``new type of solidarity'', which will lead to the eradication of the differences between the social systems.
Laloy characterises the third concept as ``supranational'' or ``European''. It has set its sights on the creation of a ``supranational system'' whose influence would spread beyond 52 its own boundaries and include the East European coun- tries.^^10^^
Despite the differences in their views, all the conscious proponents of the ``convergence'' theory are united by their striving to use it as a means of disproving Marxism- Leninism's time-tested conclusion that the revolutionary replacement of the capitalist by the socialist system is historically inevitable. The fact that the ``convergence'' theory has become widespread is evidence of present-day anti- communism's defensive posture in the face of the mounting achievements of the forces of socialism. In a situation witnessing an aggravation of the ideological struggle, every effort is made to stimulate the activities of various renegades, organise a vociferous campaign to propagate revisionist concepts, use these concepts for ideological subversion in order to undermine the unity of the socialist countries, split the world revolutionary movement and influence a segment of the population in the socialist states themselves and in the capitalist countries.
Typical in this respect are the activities of Ota Sik. On the pretext of restoring ``true'' socialism through a ``system of democratic economic management'' he attacks the socialist nature of Czechoslovakia's economy and casts aspersions on the Leninist principles of democratic centralism in general. In an article enunciating a positive programme for the attainment of ``true socialism'', he repeats the standard set of bourgeois-reformist demands, which, relative to a socialist country, can only signify one thing---a return to capitalism (the introduction of a modern pluralist system of `` competition of interest groups'', the market mechanism, and so on). Small wonder that Sik regards the Soviet Union as the most formidable obstacle to any advance toward a ``progressive and humane'' socialism.
Despite its outwardly revolutionary character, present-day ``Left'' revisionism likewise has primary postulates in common with the anti-communism of the bourgeoisie. A close scrutiny of the Maoist theories about the economy of 53 socialism shows that they resemble some propositions of the neoliberals. Like the latter, the Maoists in fact reject the objective character of the economic laws of socialism. Screened by far-reaching political aims, the nihilism of the Maoists relative to the economic laws of socialism coalesces with the neo-liberal interpretation of the socialist economy as a ``command economy''. The theories and practices of Maoism show that ideologically and politically it is a pettybourgeois, nationalistic socio-political school with clearcut anti-Marxist, anti-Leninist leanings. Through their policies the Maoists are directly abetting imperialism.
Lately the concepts about the economy of socialism enunciated by the bourgeois anti-communist theorists and their accomplices---revisionists of all shades and hues---have been increasingly dealing with the problems of the economic efficacy and optimisation of social reproduction.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 2. ANTI-COMMUNIST VIEWS ON PLANNINGDevelopments have demonstrated that socialism with its planned economy gives the broadest scope for all-round scientific and technological progress in the interests of society. Today the Soviet Union and other socialist countries are working on the major problem of combining the achievements of the scientific and technological revolution with the advantages of the socialist economic system. Scientific and technological competition is one of the main areas of the class struggle between socialism and capitalism.
Under these conditions economic efficacy and scientific
and technological advancement have become a cardinal
sphere of the ideological struggle. In one way or another
most of the present anti-communist theories on the economy
of socialism touch on these problems. Almost all the
bourgeois works on these subjects have some features in
common. One of these features is their recognition, to one extent
54
or another, of the socialist economy's achievements. The
noted French bourgeois scholar Francois Perroux has
declared that today the Western mind ``has been stunned by
this elementary fact: capitalism has a =
competitor''.^^11^^ Another
feature common to the anti-communist theories on the
problems of efficiency and scientific and technological progress
in the socialist countries is the striving of their authors to
belittle the achievements of the socialist countries in this
sphere and misrepresent the roots and social content of these
achievements.
To this day Warren Nutter, Naum Jasny, Harry Schwarts and other American bourgeois economists assert that because the socialist system is inconsistent with capitalism's individualistic and egoistic stimuli of economic progress it will inevitably = collapse.^^12^^ Some of them assert that socialism hinders the rational management of production, lowers labour productivity and slows down the rates of technological advance.
The untenability of these assertions becomes obvious when they are compared with the facts.
Dynamics of the Growth of Labour Productivity
in Soviet'Industry in the Period 1917--1974
(1913==100)^^13^^
For the rate of growth of labour productivity the Soviet Union is well ahead of the industrialised capitalist nations. In the course of 50 years (1917--1967) the annual labour productivity growth rate averaged 5.3 per cent in the USSR, as compared with 2.3 per cent in the USA, 1.2 per cent in Britain and 2 per cent in = France.^^14^^ This has enabled the USSR to reach the labour productivity level of Britain and France and draw close to the US level.
Another indicator is the growth of industrial output, the national income and the fixed assets of the CMEA countries. During the 25 years from 1949 to 1973, their industrial output grew more than 12-fold, while in the industrialised capitalist states it increased only 4-fold. Since 1950 the national income of the CMEA nations has increased by nearly 470 per cent, which is approximately double the same indicator in the industrialised capitalist states.
In this situation many bourgeois scholars can no longer entirely deny the achievements of the socialist countries in enhancing the efficiency of their economy. The present phase of the scientific and technological competition makes it imperative for the ruling circles of the USA and other capitalist states to have more objective information on economic development in the socialist world.
In the latter half of the 1960s the Joint Economic Committee of the US Congress undertook a series of studies of the Soviet economy. The Committee's experts published several reports in 1966 and in subsequent years. Some of these reports contained a fairly profound analysis of the indicators of industrial, scientific and technological development in the USSR. In analysing the dynamics of labour productivity, one of these experts, James H. Noren, had to note: ``Thus the high rate of growth observed in Soviet industry can be explained, in large part, by the continued commitment of large doses of economic resources---capital investment and = labour.''^^15^^
Another widespread allegation of anti-communist propaganda is that the socialist countries had to pay a 56 prohibitive price for every economic achievement. Assertions of this kind are a fixed idea of the vast literature devoted to the history of socio-economic development in the Soviet Union and other socialist countries. For instance, interest in problems of the transitional period in the history of the socialist countries has grown in recent years in a number of capitalist states. This is mirrored by the many publications on this period in the Soviet Union, the new economic policy, the first socialist reforms, industrialisation and collectivisation, and the cultural revolution in the USSR. The following conclusion may be drawn from an analysis of the articles, reviews, brochures and monographs dealing with these topics, namely that every effort is being made to denigrate the modern achievements of the socialist economy and to give the impression that a huge price had been paid for these achievements, which the bourgeois authors nonetheless acknowledge.
Moreover, efforts are being made to pick out points of difference between the works written by Soviet authors in the period of transition and present-day Soviet economic science and to prove that individual concepts of the 1920s clash with the present policy of the CPSU and the international communist movement. Very indicative in this context are the pronouncements on the works of Y. Preobrazhensky, a noted Russian economist of the 1920s. In the introduction to Preobrazhensky's New Economic Policy published in the West Ernest Mandel calls it one of the outstanding works of Soviet economic = thought.^^16^^ This opinion is shared by Guy Caire in a review carried by the journal Revue economique.^^17^^
What do the Sovietologists find attractive in Preobrazhensky's works? They laud the ``law of primary socialist accumulation'' to which Preobrazhensky had given much of his attention. The substance of this ``law'' was quite thoroughly exposed by the Communist Party in the 1920s. By equating the peasant economy to the colonial economy Preobrazhensky sought to undermine socialist 57 industrialisation, which was founded on economic co-operation between the proletariat and the peasants.
By making much of Preobrazhensky's ideas the anticommunists are trying to scare away from the Communists the innumerable middle urban and rural strata, who, on account of their interests and domination by monopoly capital, objectively remain interested in unity with the proletariat. This laudation of the ``law of primary accumulation of capital'' pursues the obvious aim of belittling the significance of the Soviet experience of socialist construction in the eyes of large segments of the people in the developing countries.
One of the most common ways in which the anti- communists falsify socialism's economic achievements is the manipulation of factors that have nothing to do with the nature of the socialist system. For instance, they depict industrialisation in the USSR as an ordinary development in a backward country entering a certain phase of its evolution. This development, they assert, does not differ from capitalist industrialisation. Characteristic in this respect is an essay by the British anti-communist E. H. Carr in a volume entitled Socialism, Capitalism and Economic Growth. ``The conclusion I should like to draw,'' he writes, ``is that Soviet industrialisation is neither a unique phenomenon, nor a deviation from an established and accepted model, but an important stage in a process of development which began two centuries = ago.''^^18^^
True, some authors of this hue have to admit that the rate
of industrialisation is beneficially influenced by such specifics
of the socialist economic system as public ownership of the
means of production and socialist planning. At the same
time they seek to belittle these factors. One of them, Henri
Chambre, in his book The Soviet Union and Economic
Development endeavours to substantiate the thesis that
collective ownership acted as a certain stimulant only at the
first stage of the Soviet Union's development by virtue of
its economic weakness and backwardness at that stage.
58
Today, he contends, the collectivist relations of production
and institutions conforming to them have become a negative
factor slowing down and even obstructing economic
advancement.
Considerable significance is acquired today by the anticommunist speculations on the new phenomena linked with the scientific and technological revolution that has been unfolding since the 1950s.
The anti-communists give a false picture of the social content and effects of the scientific and technological revolution in the capitalist states. But they are only labouring in vain in trying to portray scientific and technological progress as an instrument of the ``self-abolition'' of capitalist society's antagonistic contradictions. Life is bearing out Lenin's conclusion that under capitalism a conscious application of science only intensifies ``its slavery in the interests of dirty capitalist = greed''.^^19^^
However, bourgeois theorists describe state-monopoly capitalism as an ``optimum'' economic system. The theoretical basis for this attitude is their falsification of the very concept of ``optimum''. They usually interpret ``economic optimum'' as meaning the fullest utilisation of limited resources for the ``maximum usefulness''. Although this ``deideologised'' interpretation of the concept reflects some common elements inherent in production at any of its historical phases, it is formally abstract. It circumvents the basic question of society's socio-economic structure, which is what determines the social content of the term ``optimum'' and the social conditions for its realisation.
True optimal development presupposes not only the choice of methods for the attainment of the aims of production but also the choice of these aims, which are dominated by the relations of production. From this point of view, socialism is the only system that creates the social conditions for the most efficient utilisation of resources in the interests of society. It may be said that socialism ensures the economic optimum. As a problem of a conscious choice of alternatives 59 in economic development on a national scale in the interests of the whole of society, the optimum, as is noted by the Soviet economist Y. Olsevich, ``can be ensured only under socialism, on the basis of public ownership of the means of production''.^^20^^
Socialism is the only society that frees science of bourgeois fetters and creates colossal opportunities for scientific progress in the interests of society as a whole. As is noted in the Programme of the CPSU, with the enforcement of a series of measures in the Soviet Union ``science will itself in full measure become a direct productive = force''.^^21^^ The further enhancement of the role played by science and the acceleration of scientific and technological progress are one of the central aims of the programmes of socio-economic development approved by the 24th Congress of the CPSU and by the congresses of the Communist parties of other socialist countries.
Also an extremely significant aspect of the bourgeois
interpretation of the optimum is that it is static. As a rule,
their definition excludes the need for the most efficient
utilisation of resources that are being developed for
attaining new goals. It is symptomatic that many anti-communist
theorists use the Soviet Union's lag behind the USA in one
field or another as proof of their contention that no
economic optimum exists or is even possible in the socialist economy.
For instance, Stanley H. Cohn, an expert of the US
Congress, tries to prove that there is no optimisation of social
production in the Soviet Union (he asserts that decline and
stagnation prevail in the Soviet economy) by comparing the
GNP of the USSR and the USA. However, the data on the
Soviet Union's lag behind the USA in the total volume of
production or some other similar data have no bearing on the
ability of one social system or another of achieving economic
optimisation. These data can characterise, though only
partially, the efficiency of production within a certain span of
time. At each phase this efficiency depends not only on the
socio-economic system but also on many historical and
60
international factors, including the starting level of development,
the duration of wars, the devastation wrought by them,
natural factors, and so on.
The objective logic of the economic development of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries increasingly lays bare the untenability of the bourgeois economists' static approach to problems of the economic optimum. Lately, this has led to a trend, typical particularly of the neo-classical school, toward bringing dynamics into the category of the optimum. A case in point is the ``latest'' concept elaborated by the American economist Abram Bergson in his Planning and Productivity under Soviet = Socialism?^^3^^' Taking into account the vulnerability of the static approach to the socialist economy, he endeavours to work out a method of assessing the efficiency of the growing socialist economy that would be acceptable to bourgeois political economy. For this purpose he uses the bourgeois ``structural'' theories of economic development, including the theory of stages of economic growth. But even in their ``dynamic'' form the bourgeois theories ignore social factors. With references to ``dynamic efficiency'' he tries, in effect, to by-pass the question of socialism's historically progressive character as a socio-economic system. This progressive character is seen in the fact that socialism sets and successfully achieves the aims of attaining the world's highest level of efficiency and the planned development of the national economy.
The anti-communists argue that the socialist planned economy, centralised planning and management of the economy and the determining role of the socialist state in economic development are incompatible with economic rationality and true humanism and democracy. The market, i.e., the capitalist economy, they claim, creates the conditions for initiative in the interests of all members of society.
Most of the bourgeois economists are no longer arguing that the plan and the market are incompatible. Many proponents of the ``convergence'' theory (Raymond Aron, Pitirim A. Sorokin and John K. Galbraith, to name a few) 61 regard state-monopoly regulation in the imperialist states as the beginning of economic planning. ``Elements of planning are included in the market economy of the Western industrialised states,'' declares one of these = proponents.^^23^^ ``Planning and socialism are not one and the same thing,'' says another.
As regards the economic development of the socialist countries this theory is based on the deliberately false premise that the basic principles of socialist planning have not justified themselves and should therefore be abandoned. They refer here to centralised planning of the entire economy, the mandatory nature of plans, and to the fact that the principles of socialist planning are identified with administrative methods of economic management.
Characteristic in this respect is the support given by the anti-communists in West Germany and other capitalist countries to the revisionist ``champions of the market economy'' who had suffered a fiasco in = Czechoslovakia.^^24^^
Essentially, the attacks on centralised planning and management of the economy and the laudation of the market as a regulator of production raise the question of the stimuli of economic progress under socialism. Are they the result of a mutual antagonism between branches of the economy and between individuals (which under market regulation is called competition) or are they the result of their co-operation?
Under socialism appropriation is a process that has from the very beginning been consciously given a social character. This has been clearly defined in the works of the classics of Marxism-Leninism, for whom socialist ownership in principle signified appropriation in the interests of the whole of society.
Planned administration of society in the interests of the
working people forms the substance of socialism. Contrary
to this, the mechanism of competition, demanded by the
revisionists, would undermine the homogeneity of socialist
ownership and the power of the working class which rests
on that ownership (this was demonstrated by the inglorious
62
counter-revolutionary theories of the revisionist economists
in Czechoslovakia).
The dogged efforts of the anti-communists of all hues to portray the socialist principle of planning as an attempt by the state to centralise and regulate all aspects of life cannot find tangible justification. Socialism is a highly organised, dynamic system with close interaction and interdependence between the planned regulation on the scale of the whole of society and the initiative of individual enterprises, districts and regions. Centralised state management and planning in the major fields of social development are organically linked with the responsibility borne by enterprises and local bodies, which plan their own work. This system is not merely economically more efficient than the capitalist market mechanism, competition and anarchy of production. It is also much more democratic, for it combines the interests of the working class and all other working people in an integral system of socialist social relations.
During the building of a developed socialist society and the foundations of communism under conditions of intensive expanded reproduction, the basic principles of management and planning of the socialist economy must receive priority development as compared with the principles that were applied during the building of socialism and fundamentally extensive expanded reproduction. This includes the further consistent development of commodity-money relations, which, despite all the attempts by the anti-communists to interpret them in their own way, are one of the main components of the socialist economy. Of decisive significance is the fact that the basic principles of planning and managing the socialist economy remain immutable.
Had the principle of universal regulation, which suppresses all initiative, actually been applied in the socialist economy and had this been really intrinsic to that economy, what motivated the free development of mass initiative that commenced during the very first days of socialism's existence in the Soviet Union? In each new period of development 63 the creative initiative of the working people manifested itself as a profoundly democratic movement. It grew in accordance with the tasks facing society and yielded increasing economic benefits.
For instance, the number of production rationalisation suggestions increased from 591,000 in 1940 to 4,733,000 in 1972. The saving from their utilisation grew from 90 million rubles in 1940 to 3,410 million in = 1972.^^25^^ Similar processes are to be observed in other socialist countries.
There is only one explanation for all this---a spirit of genuine emulation on a mass scale emerges only on the basis of socialist ownership, with help from centralised management and planning, in an atmosphere of comradely cooperation and mutual assistance. This is one of the cardinal advantages of socialism, which shows its superiority over the capitalist principle of competition and monopoly domination, based on massive plunder of social wealth, on the victory of one rival group over another. The question should therefore be not of the abolition of state management and planning, whose importance increases with the growth of the socialisation of labour in all spheres of social production, but of the enlistment of all working people into the administration of the state and the economy.
Bourgeois economists, who can no longer deny the expediency of centralised economic planning, now assert that in view of the present enormous scale of planned production there cannot be democracy and creative activity by the working people anywhere in the world. Centralism and democracy, they claim, are incompatible. John K. Galbraith said that ``a tendency threatening that the huge bureaucratic economic machine ... would occupy the dominant position in society was growing increasingly pronounced in all industrialised = nations''.^^26^^
State-monopoly centralism is thus identified with socialist
democratic centralism. The policies of the Communist and
Workers' parties of the socialist states, including their
economic policy, are permeated with the striving to do as
64
much as possible for the welfare of the people, in the
interests of the working class and all other working people,
and together with them discuss all undertakings, adopt and
carry out decisions. This was clearly expressed in the
documents of the 24th Congress of the CPSU and of the
congresses of the Communist parties of other socialist countries.
The centralism of the socialist state is therefore just as
democratic as the creative initiative of the people in
production or in their residential district. Their participation
in the charting of state decisions is a tested principle of
socialist centralism. The recommendations made by the
people during nationwide discussions and the commitments
that were made during the preparations for the 24th
Congress of the CPSU eloquently exemplify the democratic
character of socialist centralism, which is a principle of
political life in other socialist countries as well. In the
German Democratic Republic, for instance, seven million
people took part in discussing a draft code of labour
laws.
Thus, socialist society takes shape and the socialist economy develops with the active participation of millions of people. Socialist society and economy are improving because the working class and all other working people are growing more skilful in the art of economic management and state administration.
One of the key conditions for this is the growth of the role played by the Party of the working class, which is the highest form of its organisation in the building of socialism and communism. The role of the working class in the development of socialist society and the significance of its initiative and conscious, purposeful activity as the champion of social progress are enhanced in proportion to the growth of its political activity, knowledge, ability to carry out economic and technical tasks, and cultural level. The art of leadership by the Communist Party consists in training the working class to carry out new functions and tasks in the building of communism.
65The Communist Party concentrates its attention on providing political leadership to economic processes, for ``without a correct political approach to the matter the given class will be unable to stay on top, and consequently, will be incapable of solving its production problem either''.^^27^^
By demanding the Communist Party's removal from economic management the revisionists are encroaching on the command heights of socialism, for economy is the main area of the struggle for socialism. It creates the material conditions for progress in all spheres of social life. The experience of socialist construction has proved time and again that social progress depends largely on the ability of the Communist Party to give a politically correct orientation to economic development, constructively implement the leading role of the working class and utilise the creative powers of the working people.
An objective law of the building of a developed socialist society is therefore not the abolition, as is preached by the revisionists, but the growth of the guiding, leading role of the Communist Party in the economy, for the larger the scale of socialist construction and the more complex the tasks it entails, the greater becomes the role and responsibility of the Communist Party.
In its analysis of the present phase of development, the 24th Congress of the CPSU presented a scientific solution to the main problems of the economic policy and socio- political and cultural development of Soviet society. Proceeding from the specifics of the present phase of communist construction, the Congress set forth the fundamental objectives of economic development for 1971--1975 and for a longer term.
The main goal of the CPSU's economic policy is to achieve a substantial rise of the people's living standards. This is what evokes the greatest hostility of the anti-communists. While misrepresenting the humane and democratic character of the programme adopted by the 24th Congress, they __PRINTERS_P_65_COMMENT__ 5---2810 66 have to take into consideration the present-day specifics of the struggle between the two social systems.
In the ideological attacks of the reactionaries against socialism no little importance is acquired by outwardly objective theories, whose authors reluctantly acknowledge some of the socio-economic achievements of the socialist countries but seek to distort the content of these achievements. Moreover, they vociferously declare that the purpose of their criticism is to ``protect humanism''.
The aim pursued by these more subtle falsifiers of the documents and decisions of the 24th CPSU Congress may be clearly seen in analysing the pronouncements of the participants in a ``round-table discussion'' in Turin on the subject ``Where is the USSR of the 1970s heading?''. Organised after the 24th Congress of the CPSU, it was attended by prominent Western anti-communists and Sovietologists. Many of them had to acknowledge ``the improved situation in the USSR'' and the positive character of some of the Congress decisions. In the words of Richard Lowenthal, the Congress adopted a very significant decision---to improve the condition of the Soviet consumer. But Lowenthal, as the other anti-communists, made this admission only in order to misrepresent entirely the reasons underlying the decisions passed at the = Congress.^^28^^
While acknowledging the turn in favour of the consumer, Arrigo Levi, who also attended the ``round-table discussion'', asserted that the Soviet Union did not have the potential to accelerate the output of consumer = goods.^^29^^ His ``computations'' led to the absurd conclusion that under the ninth five-year plan no investments would be made in the services industry. Further, he ``discovered'' that the Congress had introduced a more rigid wage policy, abandoned the economic reform and renounced economic incentives.
In dealing with the socio-economic programme of the 24th CPSU Congress, there has been a distribution of roles among representatives of various schools of anti-communism. The neo-liberals base their criticism on the traditional 67 theories about the ``organic mismanagement'' that is allegedly inherent in the socialist economy. The positive programme of the Congress is characterised as ``wishful thinking'' and the ``sheerest Utopia''. In the distorting mirror of the anti-communists even the task of ensuring an increment in social production through a higher level of labour productivity is characterised as a ``broad offensive against the Soviet working = class.''^^29^^
The ``convergence'' theory advocates hold that the Soviet Union owes its recent economic successes to the `` transplantation'' of some elements of the Western economy to socialism and that the task is to move further in that direction.
The ``Left'' revisionists likewise attack the programme adopted at the 24th CPSU Congress. While the Right opportunists speak of what they call the meagre consumption in the Soviet Union, the ``Left'' revisionists harp on the ``bourgeoisification'' of Soviet society. The Maoists try to justify Peking's anti-popular policies by proclaiming poverty as a factor that automatically determines man's lofty morals. They are making futile attempts to portray concern for people, condemning the rise of the living standard and the flourishing of culture and science as an indication of bourgeois degeneration.
The ideals of scientific communism, reflected and enlarged on in the decisions of the 24th CPSU Congress, are as far removed from the consumption cult propounded by the bourgeois ideologists and the Right opportunists as from the hypocritical extolling of poverty by the ``Left'' revisionists, who deny the humanism of Marxism-Leninism. The `` barrack socialism'' of the Maoists and the ``humane'' or `` democratic'' socialism of the Right opportunists ultimately boil down to betrayal of the interests of the working people.
The duplicity and spuriousness of all these arguments of the anti-communists are strikingly brought to light when they are compared with the facts.
A highly-developed agriculture is an inalienable part of communism's material and technical basis and an 68 indispensable condition for a rapid rise of the living standard. The anti-communists have done much to falsify the actual situation in Soviet agriculture. Contrary to their assertions about a crisis and a decline, Soviet agriculture is surmounting difficulties and developing successfully. This is demonstrated by the data on the increase in the output of grain: from an annual average of 121,500,000 tons in 1956--1960 to 130,300,000 tons in 1961--1965 and to 167,500,000 tons in 1966--1970; and to 190,600,000 in = 1971--1975^^30^^.
The growth of production and efficiency created a dependable foundation for the fulfilment of the broad social programme during the period of the ninth five-year plan. This programme provided for a system of measures to improve the condition of all strata of the population; a more rational use of labour resources and the further improvement of working conditions; an accelerated growth of the people's incomes and an improvement of the distribution of these incomes, of the wage system and of economic incentives; a substantial increase of the funds allocated for the education of the rising generation, for assistance to large families and for improving the working conditions and life of women; a further growth of the people's cultural and educational level and the promotion of culture and science; a considerable levelling up of the rural and urban living standards; a broader development of the health services and measures to safeguard the health of Soviet = people.^^31^^
The growth of incomes is a key element of the rise of the living standard. In 1974, the per capita real incomes in the Soviet Union constituted 104.2 per cent, as compared to 1973.
Parallel with the rise in wage incomes the Soviet Communist Party has set the task of substantially increasing the social consumption funds. The allowances and benefits received by the population have increased from 4,600 million to 73,000 million rubles between 1940 and 1972, while the per capita allowances and benefits increased from 24 to 295 rubles annually during the same = period.^^32^^
69The attainment of these targets involves a considerable acceleration of the development of the services industry. In terms of the entire gainfully employed population, the number of people employed in this industry has risen from 5 per cent in 1913 to 22.6 per cent in recent years, which totals over 25 million. Over one-third of the investments and roughly 40--45 per cent of the consumption funds are directed into the services industry. The further expansion of this industry will intensify its active influence on extended reproduction and on all aspects of social life. The growth of the living standard and cultural level of the people and the further democratisation of political and social life in the socialist countries are debunking the anticommunist fabrications as regards the theory and practice of building the new society.
The humane essence of socialism is today becoming clear to a growing number of people. The Communists are striving to ensure the rise of the living standard, the further humanisation of social relations and, on that basis, the all-round development of the individual, the enrichment of his interests and the broadening of his creative activity. Communism stands for the free and all-round development of the individual as the condition for the free development of all the members of society.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 3. ANTI-COMMUNIST FABRICATIONS ABOUT 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''.
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.
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^^
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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^^
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.
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^^
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.
74The 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).
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.
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.
The CMEA Comprehensive Programme for socialist economic integration provides for a further increase in the export of machines and equipment.
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.
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^^
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.
Under cover of ``deideologisation'' an attempt is made to deprive socialist economic integration of its main content, namely, of its socialist character.
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''.
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.
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.
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.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 4. ANTI-COMMUNIST ``THEORISTS''Apologetics of capitalism are part and parcel of current anti-communist ideology and propaganda. With capitalism's positions weakening in the competition with socialism, the ideological defence of capitalism and the concealment of its deep-rooted antagonistic contradictions are becoming one of the main aims of the anti-communists.
Under the impact of the unfolding class struggle the anticommunists have to modify their methods of ideological defence of capitalism. The theories now being proliferated 77 by them differ essentially from their former direct apologia of capitalism. One of the most significant changes now taking place in bourgeois social science is the broad dissemination of the theory of capitalism's ``transformation''.
Bourgeois ideology had always championed capitalism, which it proclaimed as the only possible social system. Capitalism was regarded as an order that most fully conformed to the nature of man and that had allegedly always existed in human society. Private property, private enterprise and private profit were extolled as the natural foundation of society. Society's existence was said to be inconceivable without them.
To this day some bourgeois theorists continue to defend capitalism in the same way. But these direct means of ideologically championing capitalism are steadily losing their value to the apologists of present-day Western society.
The various theories claiming that the nature of capitalism has been regenerated, that the exploiting substance of bourgeois society has been modified and that it has surmounted social injustice are now among the most popular ideological myths of imperialism. Their ultimate aim is to prevent society's socialist reorganisation.
The switch to ``transformation'' is due mostly to the crisis of bourgeois ideology, politics and morals. Capitalism has still further discredited itself in the eyes of broad public opinion. In this psychological climate it has become practically impossible and dangerous to champion capitalism under its own name. For that reason its high priests have begun to propound the theory that capitalism is `` disappearing''.
The different theories about capitalism's ``transformation'' are counterposed chiefly to Marxism-Leninism. It is asserted that owing to its own properties capitalism is turning into an industrial, post-industrial or mixed society that cannot be considered capitalist. These theories are used by the bourgeoisie in order to slow down the working-class struggle against capitalism.
78According to the proponents of these theories, the main manifestations of capitalism's ``transformation'' are modifications in private property, the social structure of modern capitalist society and the functions of the state.
``Transformation'' of private capitalist property. This theory asserts that in the course of capitalism's evolution private property automatically disappears and on this basis proclaims as senseless any demand for its revolutionary abolition.
Bourgeois sociologists offer three main arguments to prove the theory of the ``transformation'' of private property.
This ``transformation'', they argue, is expressed, first, in the separation of management from the right of property, second, in its diffusion and ``democratisation'' and, third, in its ``socialisation''. Together these processes are, allegedly, radically reshaping private capitalist property, stripping it of its former character as the means of exploitation of man by man.
Bourgeois ideologists counterpose the separation of management from the right of ownership to the Marxist- Leninist proposition of the growing concentration of property in the hands of the capitalist elite. They are trying to make people believe that inasmuch as the bourgeoisie is being ``progressively removed'' from power and steadily losing control of the implements and means of production there is no longer any sense whatever in fighting the capitalist proprietors. In this situation a struggle against capital would be absurd because the capitalists are ceasing to occupy the dominant position in society. In the industrialised capitalist countries, they say, power is increasingly concentrating in the hands of ``non-proprietors''---civil servants and corporation managers. This is leading to the disappearance of the contradiction between labour and capital, and since the capitalists are allegedly being removed from power, a contradiction is appearing between the managed and the managers.
79Bourgeois ideology sees the substance of the separation of management from the right of ownership in the growing role played by salaried personnel in the management of private enterprises.
Actually, the undisputed growth of the role played by salaried personnel in capitalist society by no means weakens the dominant position of the capitalist proprietors. All the functions and rights of salaried managers are in fact and judicially founded on the power and rights of the private proprietors hiring them and obliging them to fulfil managerial duties in their name. It cannot be denied that the importance of the managerial and technical personnel of capitalist enterprises has grown. However, the authority enjoyed by this personnel does not give it the power to abolish the right of the private proprietors to receive dividends, to change the purpose of capitalist business (that of obtaining private profit) or to ignore the other interests of the proprietors.
If it deals with private or state-capitalist property the management of a capitalist enterprise cannot act in the interests of the people. Private proprietors, even if they have removed themselves entirely from activity (although these are in the minority), continue their parasitical appropriation of incomes. What has been separated from them is not property but managerial labour, which in most cases was formerly performed by the entrepreneur himself. However, this cannot be regarded as evidence of any change in the substance of capitalist private property.
The wealth controlled by the financial oligarchy is unremittingly growing. For instance, in the early 1960s, 50 of the top financial groups of the bourgeois world were in control of assets valued at 529,300 million dollars, while in 1967 assets totalling 590,400 million dollars were controlled by only 20 of the largest monopoly = groups.^^38^^ During the period from 1960 to 1970 the wealth possessed by 20 of the most powerful groups in the capitalist world more than doubled.
80The self-removal of the private proprietors from managerial duties unquestionably is a new element but it does not transform capitalism. The proprietor class has thereby , accelerated its conversion into a parasitical class, which nonetheless retains supreme economic and political power.
The growth of the role played by employees of all ranks is an essential condition of socialist reorganisation. The mechanism of day-to-day management operating without the direct participation of the proprietor class is taking shape in society. For that reason the separation of management from property does not signify a qualitative `` transformation'' of capitalism but it nonetheless leads to the development of the prerequisites of socialism in capitalism.
As evidence of capitalism's transformation bourgeois ideology gives, in addition to the separation of management from property, the development of joint-stock forms of capital. The appearance and growth of this capital are proclaimed as the ``diffusion'' and ``democratisation'' of private | property.
'
Bourgeois ideology seeks to persuade people that instead of concentrating, as forecast by the Communists, private property is ``deconcentrating''. Actually, it falsifies the substance of the process of ``diffusion'' when it describes this as the ``diffusion'' of private property. Ownership of shares is not the same as the ownership of factories, and ; therefore in all cases it does not mean ownership of private property. It can turn into shared private ownership of the means of production only when the quantity of shares makes it possible for their owner to acquire real power over these means.
The facts show that the ``diffusion'' of shares is taking ; place not through the elimination of large shareholders, whose role and importance are rising. Researchers agree that the richest families in the USA have at their disposal at least 77.5 per cent of all the privately owned shares and 65 per cent of the shares in joint-stock companies. During 81 the past 40 years only the wealth of, for instance, the Rockefellers has increased eight-fold, of the Morgans three-fold, of the Fords seven-fold, of the Mellons eight-fold and of the Du Fonts roughly 15-fold. As a result, the key positions in the US economy are occupied by only a few hundred big monopoly families, whose wealth runs into astronomical figures.^^39^^
In summing up their assertions about proprietors losing power and about the ``democratisation'' of property, some bourgeois ideologists draw the conclusion that this is a specific process of capitalist ``socialisation'' of private property.
They see this ``socialisation'' first in the above-mentioned ``diffusion'' of property and its separation from power and, second, in the management of private property by the state through innumerable social institutions. This latter is alleged to be ``socialisation''.
Whereas formerly the capitalist could arbitrarily make decisions concerning the management of his enterprise, today, declare the proponents of the theory of the `` socialisation'' of private property, every decision of the management reflects the opinion and will of many persons and institutions. They include managers, trade unions, the government, consumers' unions, the Church, local self- government bodies, and so on. Consequently, they assert, one cannot speak of the predominant will of private proprietors. Their role has declined and, therefore, private property, and with it capitalism, have ``transformed'' into a `` socialised'' society.
The French economist Francois Perroux was one of the first to write of the ``socialisation'' of private property. In his view ``private ownership of the means of production is strongly corrected by public control.... Private enterprises are being consciously placed into the intricate apparatus of collective = production''.^^40^^
In his Economics, Peace, and Laughter the US economist John K. Galbraith seriously writes of the ``socialisation'' of __PRINTERS_P_81_COMMENT__ 6---2810 82 no less than the New York Stock = Exchange.^^41^^ From the theory of the ``socialisation'' of private property some bourgeois economists and sociologists draw the conclusion that this is a much more effective way of achieving a more just distribution of wealth than nationalisation. From their point of view, the West's social problem is now not in the very fact of private property but only in the way that property is utilised. Property, they hold, should be not nationalised but ``socialised'', in other words, state intervention must be used to rule out the possibility of private property being used for personal enrichment by obligating proprietors to invest profits and manage property not for personal gain but in the interests of society. In this way, they maintain, the problem of social parasitism, for instance, will be resolved without a revolution, because, as they put it, parasitism lies not in the appropriation of unearned income but in the selfish use of that income.
They only make a play of the term ``socialisation'' so as to persuade people that state-capitalist intervention in the private capitalist economy turns it into a socialist economy.
In itself, the theory that the state plays a growing role in the economy of the capitalist countries does not evoke objections. But the bourgeois ideologists avoid the crucial question of the social character of the state and whose interests it defends in participating in the process of reproduction, in regulating and programming the economy. The strengthening of state-monopoly capitalism allows the financial oligarchy to oppress the entire nation.
However, the growing property distinctions and the concentration of most of the means of production in the hands of a small elite explode the fiction about the `` democratisation'' and ``socialisation'' of private property.
For instance, in West Germany there were in 1969 a total of 15,404 millionaires with an aggregate fortune of 49,400 million marks. In the same year, in Denmark the number of millionaires was 6,500, or 0.8 per cent of the population, 83 but they owned 25 per cent of all the private accumulations in that country. In 1970, the Netherlands had 5,451 millionaires, of whom 99 had a capital exceeding 10 million guilders. In Finland, the wealthiest 5 per cent of the employed population receives 22 per cent of the incomes, while the poorest 20 per cent have to rest content with 2.5 per cent. In Sweden, one-third of industry is controlled by 15 families. In Brazil 5 per cent of the population receives one-third of all the incomes in the country.
Private property can only be transformed by its replacement by public, socialist ownership of the implements and means of production. This signifies a socialist revolution which, naturally, can only be accomplished by the classes that are not interested in preserving private property.
The ``transformation'' of the social structure of capitalism, according to the proponents of this view, is further manifested in bourgeois society's social structure in the `` deproletarianisation'' and ``integration'' of the professional groups. This, they say, is giving rise to a ``new'' society that is free of social contradictions and class distinctions.
The anti-communist orientation of this theory lies in the striving of its proponents to refute the Marxist-Leninist idea that in capitalist society polarisation is steadily intensifying as a result of social differentiation and the mounting class antagonisms between the working people and the monopoly elite. Contrary to the facts, bourgeois ideologists maintain that the classes and, generally, all professional groups are ``drawing together''. Capitalism's `` transformation'', they assert, is accompanied by society's progressive integration fostered by the people's ``fundamental community of interests'', and by the development of class co-operation and social partnership between employers and the working people.
This, they argue, obviates the need for a socialist revolution as the means of resolving the problems of social relations and the abolition of the poles of wealth and poverty.
84Much as the arguments that the capitalists have lost their power over their property, the theory of the `` transformation'' of the social structure hides the existence of an authoritarian ruling class in modern capitalist society. ``During the earlier stages of industrialisation,'' writes the US sociologist Gerhard E. Lenski, ``the entrepreneurial class appeared destined to be the dominant class in new societies. Today this is no longer the case. This class had already vanished in some industrial societies and is slowly but surely declining, in both size and power, in most of the = rest.''^^42^^
Lenski, Aron and others of their school claim that the modern working class differs sharply from the proletariat seen by Karl Marx. The workers being ``integrated'' into bourgeois society cease to be opponents of capitalism and begin to identify their interests with those of their capitalist enterprise.
Lenski and his US colleague A. Kenkel have evolved the ``social continuity'' theory, according to which in US society the distinctions between the nearest social strata are disappearing and, although the poles still exist, the transition from one strata to another proceeds smoothly, without perceptible intermediate stages.
In an industrialised capitalist society the `` transformation'' of social relations, the bourgeois ideologists endeavour to persuade the working people, is finally undermining the prospect of a socialist revolution on account of the disappearance of social antagonisms and the setting in of a ``class peace''. They depict the class struggle as simple competition for a larger share of the national income, as an exception, rather than the law of antagonistic society. They argue that the class struggle is ``possible'' only in connection with some shortcomings in national legislation and that it expresses the ``quest for equilibrium'' between the various social forces.
The facts refute the myth of the bourgeois ideologists that the social structure of industrialised capitalist society is 85 ``transforming'' in the direction of the abolition of class contradictions.
``Transformation'' of the state. The criticism of the bourgeois state by the communist and, earlier, to a certain extent, by the social-democratic movement has effectively exposed it as an instrument of the privileged classes, of the bourgeoisie, and chiefly of the monopolies. The peoples can no longer believe that the bourgeois governments have always been concerned with their interests. This has induced bourgeois ideology to assert in its defence of the bourgeois state that it is ``reforming'' and turning from a class instrument into an organ serving the interests of the whole of society. A theory widely propounded today in bourgeois economic and sociological literature is that the bourgeois state is undergoing a cardinal change in the direction of a `` welfare state''.
The anti-communist content of this theory lies in its attempt to disprove the Marxist-Leninist theory that the bourgeois state is an instrument of class rule and of the suppression of the working masses. While the Communists are seeking to abolish the bourgeois state and create a new, socialist state, because the interests of the working masses cannot be safeguarded in any other way, bourgeois ideologists assert that the present ``transformation'' of the bourgeois state conforms to the interests of the working masses.
The pivot of bourgeois ideology's interpretation of the ``transformation'' of the state is its thesis about the contradiction between the capitalist class and the bourgeois state. It is alleged that the modern bourgeois state is purposefully ``modifying'' capitalism in accordance with the requirements of the scientific and technological revolution. Moreover, it is accomplishing this in the interests of the whole of society, even in spite of the wishes of the propertied classes. As a result of this ``revolutionary'' activity of the bourgeois state, ``unrestricted'' capitalism in the industrialised capitalist nations has now been superseded by capitalism whose power is 86 ``restricted'' by the state, which is forcefully intervening in the political and economic life of bourgeois society in the interests not of the bourgeoisie but of the entire population. For that reason, declares, for instance, the British sociologist, Karl Raimund Popper, it is quite absurd to identify the system of modern democracies with the system which Marx called capitalism.
The theory of ``political pluralism'' is opposed to the scientifically proved fact that the power of the monopolies is increasingly intertwining with the power of the imperialist state in a single state-monopoly system of domination. State power takes into account and integrates the interests of the ``pluralist groups'' that bring pressure to bear on it.
By offering this theory the bourgeois theorists speculate on the actual fact of the imperialist state's growing activity. The existence of the state-monopoly sector, state fiscal, tax and credit policy, state orders to private monopolies, state funding of research and development, state economic development programmes and much else are indeed ways and means by which the modern imperialist state influences the actual course of capitalist reproduction.
However, the apologists of imperialism interpret these changes as the ``transformation'' of capitalism, declaring that in this way the state takes the interests of the working people into consideration. They argue that today the imperialist state is able to assure ``full employment'', ``equitable distribution of incomes'', ``participation in decision making'', ``the modernisation of the economy'' and ``improved living conditions''. The various theories being offered today include the theories of the ``global management of the economy'' and ``co-ordinated action'' by the state, entrepreneurs and trade unions (West Germany), the theory of a ``co-ordinated economy'' (France) and the theory of a ``welfare state'' (USA).
The ``transformation'' of capitalism, which the bourgeois theorists tirelessly proclaim, proves to be nothing more than the formation of a system of state capitalism in the 87 industrialised capitalist countries. Life is showing that under statemonopoly capitalism the working people remain as bereft of the right to democratic participation in decision making as in the past. Even bourgeois authors have to admit that the formal bourgeois-democratic rights and freedoms today ``remain outside the gate of their factories''. But these rights are constantly infringed upon. The authoritarianism of a single and concentrated political power is growing. The political and economic rule of the monopolies is accompanied by a steady intensification of exploitation and social inequality.
On closer examination the ``revolution in incomes'', which the apologists of capitalism constantly talk about, spells out an intensification of social polarisation, the further enrichment of society's elite and continued privations and difficulties for the working people in town and countryside and for the non-monopoly strata of society.
Typical in this respect is the sharp criticism by the Danish Social-Democrat Bent Hansen of the theory that as industrial development proceeds class distinctions are erased. In noting the rise of the living standard in Denmark, he writes: ``It would be wrong to believe that thereby it has become possible to abolish social distinctions, which actually are indicators of the exploitation of some by others.'' He criticises the assertion that ``economic and technological development resolves the problems of the old society: the lower classes disappear, the working class is no longer a working class but is becoming a kind of middle class''. Comparing the share of social wealth going, on the one hand, to the mass of the people and, on the other, to the privileged elite, he draws the following conclusion: ``Actually, there has been no redistribution in favour of the lower-paid categories of people.'' As formerly, there is a solid, exclusive higher class at one pole, and a lower class at the other. While one-third of the Danish tax-payers, Hansen writes, have no savings and no real estate, one-tenth own twothirds of all the savings and real estate of the country. ``The 88 Danes have made no progress whatever toward the creation of a society of equality,'' Hansen = concludes.^^43^^
The scientific and technological revolution is creating the possibilities for fully satisfying the vitally necessary and socially important requirements of the people. But this is hindered by the capitalist system, which uses scientific and technological achievements as a means of deriving monopoly profits. In this situation the concept of a ``welfare state'' is nothing less than ideological bluff masking the reality of capitalism. The slogans of ``democracy'' and ``humanism'', which the anti-communists borrow from progressive forces, cannot conceal the nature of the capitalist system, which has entered the period of its historical eclipse. Militarism, political repressions, encouragements of fascist tendencies, police brutality, and social demagogy are only some of the methods used by the bourgeoisie to bolster its role.
Bourgeois rule intensifies exploitation. The moral climate of capitalist society is essentially anti-humane.
Whatever the efforts bourgeois theorists make to evade this conclusion, inventing various theories about capitalism's ``transformation'', the ``welfare state'' and so on, experience bears out the untenability of these inventions.
[89] __NUMERIC_LVL1__ CHAPTER THREE __ALPHA_LVL1__ FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN ANTI-COMMUNISM'SAn analysis of ideological life in the non-socialist world and a study of the characteristic features of the evolution of the intellectual atmosphere as well as of the ideological struggle between capitalism and socialism allow us to draw the conclusion that today this struggle has reached an unparalleled pitch. It has widened and deepened, influencing all parts of the globe and becoming more massive and more intensive than ever before. Today, no country in the world is ideologically neutral.
Bourgeois ideologists and politicians are making desperate efforts to tip the world balance of forces in favour of capitalism. Along with traditional means of anti-communist falsifications of Marxist-Leninist theory and the experience of socialist and communist construction, they are resorting to more subtle and crafty methods of struggle.
Anti-communism is spearheaded at the main revolutionary forces---the world socialist system, the international communist movement and the movement for social and national liberation---and at their unity. It is making a frontal assault on a global scale so as to keep every stratum of the population and every mass movement under its influence.
Within the capitalist system the working class is the leading force in the struggle against the imperialist monopolies. Therefore, the full weight of the slander fabricated by the bourgeois ideologists and the revisionists naturally 90 falls on the working class. They preach the shoddy reactionary idea that it is ``degenerating'', ``losing its revolutionary spirit'' and so forth. The facts, however, indicate that as the leading revolutionary force of the epoch, the working class and none other is capable of crushing capitalism. This is borne out by both quantitative and qualitative indicators. In the large capitalist countries the numerical strength of the working class and the army of wage labour is growing inexorably.
The strike movement is on the upswing, while the importance of the political actions of the working class is mounting. In 1965 the strikes in all the capitalist countries involved 57 million, while in 1974, 65 million people.
The crisis of world capitalism, on the one hand, and the successes of the theory and practice of the communist movement, on the other, are steadily aggravating the class struggle between capitalism and socialism. In the ideological sphere this is mirrored by the intensification of the struggle between Marxist-Leninist ideology and the ideology of the bourgeoisie, of which anti-communism is the extreme form.
Anti-communist ideologists and politicians reprove the Soviet Union for not spreading the principle of peaceful coexistence to ideology. The Communists, they complain, reject the policy of coexistence as a means of ``building bridges'' between the West and the East, and the Soviet Union is waging an uncompromising ideological struggle against the West.^^1^^ This complaint mirrors their typical attitude to the ideological struggle. What they are demanding is the relaxation not of the ideological struggle but of communism's ideological resistance to the onslaught of bourgeois ideology in order to ensure bridgeheads for ideological infiltration into the socialist countries. Whereas only a few years ago the bourgeois ideologists were more cautious, saying that it was necessary to ``build bridges'' between the West and the East, today they are quite bluntly declaring that bridges are being built with one-way traffic, namely from West to East.
91Anti-communist reaction now displays considerable social and ideological adaptability to the alignment of class and political forces on the international scene, thereby increasing the strength of its resistance. In some areas it employs its favourite ``carrot and stick'' tactics in an effort to give effect to the insidious policy of ``selective coexistence'' with individual socialist countries, encouraging and flirting with opportunism and, at the same time, playing on the nationalistic feeling of backward people in order to link anticommunism with revisionism, chauvinism, nationalism and religious fanaticism. Imperialist reaction is using every possible means to create an atmosphere of anti-communist hysteria and, under its cover, deal summarily with the progressive forces, mainly the Communists, massacring them in a number of countries.
The bourgeoisie, which is experienced in ideological and political actions against the working class, is having ever wider recourse to its smooth-running mechanism of social demagogy in order to discredit revolutionary thought and action. It plays on revolutionary slogans to suppress the revolutionary movement and organise counter-revolution. It strips concepts such as ``socialism'', ``democracy'', ``humanism'', ``patriotism'', and ``national interests'' of their genuinely humanistic and revolutionary content in order to lull the political vigilance of the working people, and uses revolutionary slogans which it borrows and distorts to further its class, anti-communist aims.
Throughout its fairly long history, anti-communism, which is essentially a reaction to the developing theory and practice of the communist movement, has not had its own clearly delineated line of evolution dictated by the internal logic of some special independent trends. Changes take place in the strategy and tactics of anti-communism depending on how the bourgeois politicians and ideologists perceive one or another phase of the revolutionary movement. The reactionary essence of anti-communism is manifested in concrete tactics depending on major political and ideological 92 events that characterise the international communist movement and the phases of its development. For instance, during the preparations for and after the 1969 International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties the accent in anti-communist policy and ideology was placed on efforts to split the communist movement and secure its disintegration as a united international force. The course was steered toward the intensive isolation of the communist movement from the other anti-imperialist forces.
The bourgeois mind refuses to reconcile itself to the endless cascade of blows that socialism is striking at capitalism. On the one hand, this evokes and stimulates growing protests against the bankruptcy of imperialist policy and fosters increasing criticism of that policy. On the other hand, this entails intensive quests for new tactics for the most effective ways of fighting communism; strategic plans are drawn up to weaken the Soviet Union's positions, undermine its international prestige and discredit its policies. Seemingly opposed to each other, both these lines of the evolution of the bourgeois mind cross because they do not go beyond the framework of bourgeois political and ideological aims. A covert apologetics is usually much more dangerous than self-exposing open demagogy.
At the same time, we must distinguish between liberal and extremist bourgeois ideologists. This is important, first, because the governments of many capitalist states have to take both points of view into account in their practical work; depending on which is given preference, some formal modifications in foreign policy may be foreseen. Second, in the polemic between the ``opposing'' anti-communist groups, a real opposition often takes shape gradually, furthering anti-imperialist feeling and helping to put an end to anti-communist prejudices among large sections of the population.
The liberal bourgeois mind is characterised mainly by theories built up on criticism of the most glaring vices of capitalism and suggesting ``positive'', ``realistic'' ways of 93 abolishing them in order to improve the same old capitalism. Henry Morgenthau, leader of the US school of ``political realism'', could not help noting the obvious setbacks of imperialist policy and admitting the successes of Soviet foreign policy.
All this is further evidence that despite the elaboration of anti-Marxist doctrines, the falsification and misrepresentation of communist theory and practice, the bourgeois politicians and ideologists are unable to effectively resist the spread of communist ideas throughout the world.
Awareness of this fact has led many of them to attempts to find ``new'' ways of fighting the ``global advance of communism''.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 2. ESCALATIONThe study of communism is one of the principal functions of the ramified system of imperialist anti-communist organisations and institutions. Imperialism's need to adapt itself to the new conditions has influenced bourgeois studies of communism basically in two respects:~
first, communism studies are still required to evolve diverse and more flexible concepts of anti-communist ideology;~
second, they must contribute to the elaboration of diverse forms, methods, strategies and tactics of the imperialist struggle against socialism.
Until the 1950s imperialist ideology had been extolling capitalist society without subjecting it to any criticism. It denied its obvious social vices and antagonistic contradictions and lauded formal, bourgeois parliamentary democracy. At the same time, it utterly rejected socialism, reviling it as anti-humane, unnatural social system, fraught with fatal consequences, and slandering socialist society as the outcome of mankind's fatal delusion.
94Today imperialist ideology has to reckon with the fact that the existence of socialist society is a constant factor. Moreover, the imperialist policy of open military confrontation on the ``brink of war'', military encirclement, attempts at political blackmail and foreign policy isolation, and its economic sanctions under the slogans of ``containing'' and ``rolling back'' socialism have unquestionably proved to be abortive. The new situation in which imperialism has found itself is characterised as follows by the US political scientist William W. Kaufman: ``We are flung into a straitjacket of rationality which prevents us from lashing out at the = enemy.''^^2^^
Imperialist students of communism are now more closely studying the political, economic and ideological links in the world socialist community, its policies toward capitalist and developing nations, and the political, economic, social and ideological processes in individual socialist states. This conforms to the increasing adaptation of politology as a whole, and US politology in particular, to the requirements of imperialist foreign policy.
Imperialist students of communism attach paramount significance to their study of the internal processes of development in the world socialist system chiefly for two reasons.
First, they look for real and probable possibilities of weakening and gradually breaking up the socialist community. Franz-Josef Strauss, a leading representative of the Right-wing conservative forces in West Germany, declared: ``We have to analyse the state of East-West relations in order to work out the best form of rapprochement by means of which it will be possible to weaken the international organisation of the world communist empire and destroy it from within by peaceful = means.''^^3^^
Second, they need more flexible anti-communist ideological concepts and doctrines. The champions of traditional anti-communism, which predominated in the 1950s and conformed to the unrealistic imperialist policy of `` 95 containing'' and ``rolling back'' communism, had attached much too little significance to studying the processes actually taking place in the socialist countries.
Today, instead of denying and crudely falsifying facts and the actual state of affairs, anti-communist ideology has begun to give preference to differentiated means of mendaciously interpreting the processes taking place in socialist society, of distorting them in the spirit of bourgeois social theories and concepts of development. The various ideological concepts of anti-communism not only determine the main content of imperialism's ideological struggle against socialism but also play a major role in working out and substantiating strategy.
In the 1960s there was a considerable expansion of the organisational base of communism studies, and also of political, strategic and foreign policy research generally. Columbia University's Institute on Communist Affairs, headed by Zbigniew Brzezinski, was founded in 1961. The Institute on East Central Europe was set up at the same university in 1965. Similar research centres were formed at almost all other American universities.
Since the early 1960s various monopoly foundations (in particular, the Ford, Carnegie and Rockefeller foundations) have been showing a heightened interest in communism studies and allocating huge funds for this purpose. Since then the leading research centres studying communism and also questions of strategy and foreign policy have been enlisted on a growing scale by leading state-monopoly agencies directly into the quests for and charting of political decisions. An example is Brzezinski's official capacity as a political adviser to the White House.
Other imperialist states, too (for instance, Britain, France, Italy and West Germany), have enlarged the centres studying communism, strategy and foreign policy and, moreover, set up new analogous institutions, albeit on a more modest scale than in the United States. In 1967 the British students of communism united in the National 96 Association ior Soviet and East European Studies, which holds annual symposiums on major issues of communism. The London Institute for Strategic Studies, founded in 1958, has likewise joined in the study of individual issues of communism. Research centres in West Germany have been drawn into the struggle against socialism in order to reinforce anti-communism and work out a more flexible strategy for this struggle. The Federal Institute for the Study of MarxismLeninism (Institute of Sovietology) was founded in Cologne in 1961; in 1966, for tactical reasons, it was renamed the Federal Institute for the Study of Eastern and International Policy. This institute is the most influential centre for communism studies in West Germany.
In 1969, on instructions from the Minister of German Affairs, the Federal Department on German Problems, which has the same tasks as the Cologne Federal Institute but specialises in the study of the GDR, was formed through the merging of various organisations and institutions engaged in subversion against the GDR. In West Germany today there are over 100 institutions studying socialism and the world communist movement, elaborating and disseminating anti-communist ideology and evolving strategy and tactics for the struggle against socialism. These institutions are financed by the state budget, by monopoly foundations (for instance, the Fritz Thyssen Foundation) or by various monopoly associations.
The Federal Government's heightened interest in communism studies is also shown by the fact that it is financing the publication of an encyclopedia entitled The Soviet System and Democratic Society (Sowjctsystem und demokratische Gesellschaft).
Western communism studies have borrowed heavily from the ideological foundations, schools and methods of bourgeois politology and sociology, becoming a branch of politology and constituting an attempt to answer the challenge of Marxist-Leninist theory and practice in the debate with socialism. In the 1950s, in keeping with the anti-- 97 communist doctrine of totalitarianism that had taken shape at the time, the students of communism in the West regarded socialism as a static society destroyable by a powerful strike from without. However, the change in the world balance of forces showed that the hope that socialism would be destroyed by force was an illusion of the anti-communist day dreamers, and brought into prominence the aim of eroding it from within.
The more flexible characteristic of the socialist system, a characteristic that no longer asserts that it is unviable and unnatural only because it is socialist, retains its anti- communist substance, denying that socialism plays a historic role as a higher socio-economic formation naturally replacing capitalism; it distorts the character of the modern epoch of transition from capitalism to socialism on a global scale; it denies that the working class and its militant revolutionary Party have the historic mission of building the new, socialist society; it panegyrises capitalism as a society that has a future and is superior to socialism.
Modified concepts of socialism continue the speculations founded on the ``convergence'' theory. Early in the 1960s notions about socialism automatically converging with capitalism exercised no little influence on politics, although they never had the unanimous support of the imperialist ideologists and strategists. Socialist society's successful development, particularly its economic progress and scientific and technological achievements linked with the consolidation of socialist state power and the further accentuation of the social system's socialist character, gradually moved the naive ``convergence'' theory into the background as being clearly illusory.
In the same way as bourgeois sociology, communism studies have had to reconsider and modify the views about the future development of socialism. This retreat gave rise to the evolutionary theory.
98 __ALPHA_LVL2__ 3. THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORYThe fact that socialist society was scrutinised through the prism of concepts about an industrial society, which distorted reality, gave rise, as we have mentioned earlier, to the illusory idea that political and ideological processes, which must gradually lead to the restoration of the capitalist class structure, superstructure and, ultimately, relations of production, spontaneously develop in the socialist states parallel with scientific and technological progress. The theoretical foundation for this idea was its propounders' total disregard for the concrete content of social development and their denial of the existence of opposing class social formations with diametrically opposite specific laws of development. Moreover, it has as its basis the legend, scientifically untenable but entirely acceptable to imperialist class interests, that socialism is a specific, undeveloped form of a single industrial society, of which capitalism is the developed, mature prototype. This is linked with the refusal to recognise socialism and communism as the natural outcome of social development, and the attempt to depict communist, classless society as an unattainable utopia in principle.
Socialist society's successful development has compelled all the imperialist ideologists, the ``experts on communism'' in particular, to modify their ``convergence'' theory-based ideas.
Similarly, more realistic views forced their way into the orthodox imperialist mind. The bourgeois newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, which during the first half of the 1960s had given its unqualified backing to the hopes for a spontaneous disintegration of the socialist system, wrote on March 19, 1970: ``There can be no question of the systems drawing together as a result of the universally operating 'objective need' of the scientific and technological revolutions.''
The stillborn hopes of the ``experts on communism'' for a relatively swift and easy disintegration of socialism found 99 their theoretical expression in the form of further borrowings from bourgeois sociology. They adopted some of the macrosociological theories and models of social changes that bourgeois sociology had evolved in the preceding years and began to apply them in their studies of socialist society. A specific of these theories and models is that they outline longterm processes of development on the common basis of the ``industrial society'' theory. Bourgeois sociology's structuralfunctional method, which falsifies the actual dialectics of the basis and superstructure and studies the superstructure idealistically, without taking the social character of the basis into account, has become the principal method in the studies of communism as well. The fundamental theoretical and methodological errors of bourgeois social theories, in particular the absolutisation of technical factors of social development and the negation of its social content, were thus repeated and even deepened.
Since the close of the 1960s the ``experts on communism'' have been engaged in comparative studies of the development of individual socialist countries in order to understand the distinctions in the specifics of the socialist social system in these countries and reinforce the differentiated policy aimed at splitting the socialist community. Moreover, the purpose of these comparative studies is to provide arguments for the ideological struggle and help to work out methods for the selective discrediting of socialism.
The imperialist evolutionary theory is directed toward the erosion and ultimate dissolution of the leading role played by the Marxist-Leninist Party in socialist society.
Small wonder, therefore, that the ``experts on communism'' are completely at variance with objective laws. They offer the theory that the building of socialist society gradually and involuntarily undermines the foundations of the MarxistLeninist Party's existence. The authors of the evolutionary theory would like to give the impression that counter- revolutionary strategic concepts are based on some general 100 Emacs-File-stamp: "/home/ysverdlov/leninist.biz/en/1976/CAC343/20061227/199.tx" __EMAIL__ webmaster@leninist.biz __OCR__ ABBYY 6 Professional (2006.12.28) __WHERE_PAGE_NUMBERS__ top __FOOTNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ nil __ENDNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [0-9]+ laws of the development of an ``integral industrial society'', laws which determine the development of socialist society as well. But inasmuch as ``industrial society'' represents a theoretical absolutisation of society generally, and the political and social structures of capitalist society in particular, in the distorting mirror of communism studies the development of socialist society is in principle accompanied by the same political and social phenomena as in the development of capitalist society.
One of the most detailed models has been built by Peter Christian Ludz, a ``specialist'' on the GDR, who delivered a series of lectures at Columbia University, USA, and had carried out many official missions for the West German Government.
Ludz takes as his point of departure the thesis that the principles of an ``industrial society'' exercise a ``determining'' influence on socialist society and that the latter's development therefore ``cannot be regarded as a process organised and directed by the Party''. He maintains that new important social structural indications had appeared and acquired their own law long ago. This is but a repetition of the old postulate that there are some common laws of ``industrial society'' which are not influenced in any way by the opposing relations of property and, consequently, by the opposing bases of modern societies. Ludz invents contradictions between the aims of the Marxist-Leninist Party (aims that are scientifically substantiated by the Marxist-Leninist theory) and the actual requirements of scientific and technological development.
However, he has in mind not real contradictions, contradictions that exist or may appear under socialism. His pattern of contradictions is purely speculative. His imagined conflict between the purpose of the Marxist-Leninist Party--- that of building communism---and the requirements of ``industrial society's'' development presupposes the formation of opposing groups or factions, each representing one side of the conflict. On one side are the Marxist-Leninist 101 forces, and on the other---specialists in different sciences, technology and the economy, and there are insoluble contradictions between them. This is Ludz's vision of the present position of the Marxist-Leninist parties in the socialist countries.
He ignores the fact that socialism objectively creates the most propitious conditions for the free development of science, technology and the economy, that the alliance between politics (which is itself an applied science) and science is one of the key criteria of socialism, and that thus no real social foundation exists for the emergence of conflicts between Marxist-Leninist policy and science. Further, Ludz even has a ready-made recipe for settling the imagined conflict: this recipe requires a ``basic restructuring of the Par- ty'',^^4^^ ``an organisational structure of the Party that would conform to the economic structure based on the division of labour'',^^5^^ implying by this the relinquishment of the principle of democratic centralism, in other words, the Party's unity, cohesion and ability to function.
Johann Georg Reissmiiller, another West German ``expert on communism'', has formulated the same aim with less pretension to theoretical backing and with less ambiguity: ``The pluralisation of the Party and, subsequently, its = possible liquidation.''^^6^^ This is the principal objective of the evolutionary theory.
The ``experts on communism'' are, of course, not interested in adequately understanding the actual changes taking place in the social structure in the course of the building of the foundations of socialism, the formation of a develooed socialist society and the transition to communism. Moreover, they entirely ignore the historical place and character of the contradictions that are inevitable in socialist society.
These contradictions---for instance, between the traditional division of labour into labour by brain and by hand, between the working class and the peasants---have been inherited from the capitalist past, and socialist society cannot 102 eradicate them simply at the wave of a magic wand. They can only be removed at a higher stage of the development of production. In socialist society there still is actual inequality, since it springs from objective distinctions in the content of social labour, and this is reflected in the socialist principle of distribution.
With these contradictions inherited from the past intertwine contradictions generated by the obsolescence of some aspects, forms and features of the economic and social relations created by socialism itself, and, lastly, contradictions arising from subjective errors.
First, these contradictions differ fundamentally from the contradictions of an antagonistic class society; they are not antagonistic. Second, they are gradually surmounted with the development of socialist society and its growth into a communist society. A specific of socialist society is its conscious and planned solution of social contradictions. This is unquestionably a complex process. However, already today, in developed socialist society, as a result of the policy of the Marxist-Leninist Party, the scientific prerequisites for the success of this process are being created alongside material prerequisites.
The contradictions of socialist society imaged by the `` experts on communism'' have nothing in common with the actual course of development. These ``experts'' are only fulfilling their class function of formulating the points of departure for the imperialist strategy of undermining and destroying socialism. In this context they interpret existing contradictions as mounting, antagonistic contradictions, and dispute the possibility for eradicating them in the socialist system.
The thesis that social stratification is inevitable is acquiring special significance in communism studies in the West. This modern variant of the bourgeois theory of the elite, evolved by Vilfredo Pareto and included in the ``industrial society'' concept, masks the social influence of the traditional elite groups of capitalist society. A direct outcome of the elite 103 theory is the interest shown by the imperialist ideologists in scientific, technical and creative intellectuals and in functionaries of the Party and state apparatus. The working class is regarded by them, if it at all comes into their field of vision, mainly as an object of social development. They largely ignore the fact that in socialist society the working class is the most organised class which is most closely linked with socialist public property, that it creates the largest portion of all the material values, comprises most of the working people and bears the largest responsibility for the destiny of the whole of society. The growth of the collective farm peasantry is also represented by the ``experts on communism'' as not meriting attention.
According to the evolutionary theory, the ultimate goal of imperialist strategy must be achieved by several intermediate phases. One of the most important phases is to be marked by the gradual abolition of socialist democracy and the planting of elements of bourgeois parliamentarism and political freedom for the anti-socialist activity of that leading strata of ``industrial society'' that aspires ``for its own special interests to acquire more independence and greater participation in the exercise of political = power''.^^7^^ It must, for instance, get the possibility for propagating ``rival platforms'' and obtaining a vote on them in the Communist- nonpartisan = bloc.^^8^^ Prior to the general assault on the MarxistLeninist Party, the socialist state apparatus must be turned into a bastion of the anti-socialist = forces.^^9^^
From the standpoint of imperialist aims it is quite logical that the struggle against Marxism-Leninism and the leading role of the revolutionary Party of the working class is a prime task of the evolutionary theory, and the ``experts on communism'' are making every effort to give such a struggle an ideological and theoretical foundation. In this context there is a growing striving to enhance the social significance of ideology. This is most strikingly seen in Ideology and Society (Ideologic und Gesellschaft), a book by Eugen Lemberg, in which he attempts to work out a universal theory of 104 ideological systems and prove that ideology is a vital and basic element of social = processes.^^10^^
Lemberg believes that he can squeeze Marxism-Leninism into his ``dialectical'' pattern of ideological stages that claims to bring to light the laws and forces determining the development of all ideologies. A comparative study allows Lemberg to ``discover'' a ``universally significant'' three-phased, or ideally typical, process of development that is allegedly mandatory for all ideologies: ``the period of revolutionary struggle before the conquest of power, the consolidation and expansion of newly-won power and, lastly, a departure from aims to the means of power, the phase of deideologisation and decline that simultaneously signifies the birth of a new ideology.''^^10^^ With this by no means dialectical but rather metaphysical and extremely speculative pattern Lemberg hopes to forecast desirable ideological processes in socialist society.
In this he is not alone. Brzezinski, too, stresses that ideological subversion is the chief form of the imperialist struggle against socialism. Early in 1968 he declared that changes in ideology would help to effect political changes.^^11^^
The growing significance that the ``experts on communism'' attach to the struggle against Marxism-Leninism is demonstrated by the programme character of these postulates. On the one hand, the evolutionary theory urges bourgeois social psychology to step up its efforts to improve the methods of ideological struggle. On the other hand, it helps anti-communists working on radio and television to substantiate the increasing efforts to activate the export of various bourgeois ideologies to the socialist states.
Erich Honecker, First Secretary of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany, noted that the ideological struggle was acquiring increasing significance, that it was growing in volume and = intensity.^^12^^
Imperialism is striving to use peaceful coexistence for more vigorous ideological subversion.
105With capitalist society's contradictions growing steadily deeper and imperialism's inability to suggest an alternative to socialist society becoming increasingly obvious, the accent is being placed more and more on evolutionary concepts of society as propounded by the revisionists and the SocialDemocrats. The ``experts on communism'' have realised that the exhortations of the revisionists that socialism should not be abolished but only improved and made more attractive are almost ideal for camouflaging imperialist aims in the struggle against socialism. The possibility of utilising revisionism has become much greater, the reason for this being that in its key aspects, regardless of the subjective intentions of its exponents, its political concept falls into line with the objectives of the evolutionary theory. This concerns the restriction and ultimate abolition of the leading role of the working class and its Marxist-Leninist Party, the attacks on Marxism-Leninism under the slogan of its ``modernisation'' and adaptation to the latest achievements of science, the abolition of socialist democracy and the injection of elements of bourgeois-parliamentary democracy. In addition, this concerns the repudiation of centralised state planning and administration in fundamental areas of social development and, lastly, the repudiation of a conscious moulding of social relations under socialism and the glorification of spontaneous development.
In the mid-1960s and particularly after revisionist trends became active in Czechoslovakia, the ``experts on communism'' got down to a serious study and propagation of revisionism.
But even after the collapse of the imperialist plans in Czechoslovakia in 1968 the ``experts on communism'' did not relinquish their hopes for the success of the evolutionary theory, which had been given the trappings of revisionism, although some leading ``experts'' criticised the ``abstract and essentially Utopian nature of the revisionist teachings'' and urged revisionism to adopt a positivist = orientation.^^13^^ The ``experts on communism'' hope that capitalist reforms, whose 106 substance is veiled by social-democratic ideology with the slogan of ``democratic socialism'', will allow them to exercise an ideological influence on the social forces in individual socialist countries, where traditional reformist views persist. Moreover, they take into consideration the close political and ideological resemblance of social-democratic doctrines to the basic elements of revisionist ideology.
In conclusion, a brief characteristic must be given of the place the evolutionary theory accords to bourgeois nationalism in the imperialist onslaughts against social- ism.
The history of imperialism has shown that nationalism endeavours to obscure the actual class contradictions by accentuating common national specifics. Nationalism has always played a large part in the ideological kitchen of imperialist policy. Small wonder, therefore, that in its attacks on socialism, imperialism does not renounce this tested ideological weapon. Bourgeois social science is taking vigorous steps (which have not yet been adequately studied by MarxistLeninist science) to reason out more thoroughly than hitherto the specific historical background and social roots of nationalism and show that it is a constant element of social development. Karl W. Deutsch, of Harvard University, has spent many years trying to modernise the imperialist theory of nationalism. With the aid of communicative theoretical constructions and quantitative methods he has proclaimed that nationalism is the motor of social change and economic growth in an ``industrial society''. This, he contends, has led to the formation of stable social systems of communication, which inevitably isolate themselves from each other and are represented ideologically by = nationalism.^^14^^
Propositions on the emergence of nations, borrowed from the materialists, are placed by Deutsch in the service of antihistorical concepts. He absolutises the economic and socialpsycholosrical conditions of the formation of nations and ignores their class foundation. For that reason there are neither bourgeois nor socialist nations in his functional model 107 of nations, and in this lies its scientific untenability and, at the same time, its suitability for ideological attacks on socialism. According to Deutsch, nationalism and self-isolation are the inevitable product of any industrial development, characterising the development of socialist states over a long period of = time.^^15^^ This thesis is designed to help imperialist strategy in its striving to bring about the disintegration of the socialist community. Deutsch entirely ignores the fact that bourgeois and socialist nations have a totally different class basis and different superstructures with dissimilar dominant ideologies and entirely different relations.
The bourgeois concepts of nationalism serve not only as the theoretical foundation for the striving to hinder the objective, all-sided integration of the community of socialist states, break their unity and cohesion and emasculate proletarian internationalism as the paramount principle of relations between socialist countries. The illusion about `` national, independent trends'' in the socialist community and about that community's gradual disintegration is predominant in the minds of the imperialist experts on Eastern affairs.
The bourgeois theories of nationalism attempt to substantiate the importance that is attached by the evolutionary theory to undermining the socialist social system.
Hence the tireless underscoring by the ``experts on communism'' of national specifics, for instance, their attempts to forecast nationalistic deformations in socialist policy on the basis of the social structure in various socialist states ( considerable predomination of peasants and other non- proletarian strata) or recommend the supplanting of the MarxistLeninist understanding of class by what is described as the incomparably broader and traditional sense of national com- munity^^16^^ allegedly in order to strengthen the socialist system. Attempts are also being made to formulate special regional interests (for instance, in Southeastern Europe).
The ``inevitable isolation'' of individual socialist countries in the process of socialist construction, declares Hans Hartl, 108 who is another imperialist expert on Eastern affairs, will give a progressing ``national hue to independent socialist models''.^^17^^ With this is linked the assertion that the European socialist states ``will ultimately become more European than = communist''.^^18^^
All this is indicative of the imperialists' aspiration to destroy the socialist social system. They are gambling on the objectively existing ties between nationalism and revisionism that come to light mostly in the frankly anti-Soviet components of revisionist theories and which the ``experts on communism'' stress in their own way, elevating revisionism to the rank of a ``European'' ideological school and qualifying Marxism-Leninism as non-European, as inconsistent with European conditions.
The evolutionary theory has had an integrating influence on imperialist studies of communism, but today it is gradually giving way to more realistic views. An indicative pronouncement was made in 1970 by Wilhelm G. Grewe, former foreign policy adviser to Konrad Adenauer and a champion of the ``positions of strength'' policy toward socialist countries. He wrote: ``In the long run the detente policy reflects the switch to modified aims and methods: renunciation of all short-term efforts with the purpose of liberating the East European peoples from communist regimes. . ., orientation toward long-term internal changes in the Eastern bloc, in the course of which... possible assistance would be rendered with the aim of gradually restructuring the socio-political system in the Eastern = states.''^^19^^ This is unquestionably an apt characteristic of the essence and aims of the evolutionary theory. ``It is today too early to say,'' Grewe continued, ``whether this theory of `peaceful changes' will prove to be suitable for use. Its weakness is that it can become effective only with the passage of a long period of time.... Its strong point is the absence of any alternative to it, and even an uncertain chance is better than complete submission to = destiny.''^^19^^
These are unusual words for an imperialist proponent of 109 extreme measures. It may be assumed that they were not easy to pronounce. But even Grewe can no longer close his eyes to the continued change of the power balance in the world. In his own way he acknowledges that nothing remains to imperialism save to adapt itself to circumstances over which it has no control.
[110] __NUMERIC_LVL1__ CHAPTER FOUR __ALPHA_LVL1__ IDEOLOGICAL SUBVERSION AGAINSTIn all parts of the world and in all spheres of its activity imperialism comes into collision with socialism, notably with the Soviet Union, which is the main barrier to imperialist ambitions. For that reason imperialism regards the USSR as its principal adversary and its attacks are directed chiefly against it.
Bourgeois politicians, ideologists and scholars understand the significance and effects of the USSR's growing influence on world development. Typical in this respect is the admission by the US Professor Arthur F. Adams, who studies the development and influence of the Soviet Union: ``Since the end of the Second World War a paramount problem for the Western world has been represented by the dynamic growth of the Soviet Union and by the continuing spread of world communism from. .. its Soviet = centre.''^^1^^
Drawing on the accumulated experience of struggle against the USSR, imperialist bourgeois politicians and ideologists are devising new ways and means of fighting socialism. Today the main arena of the struggle between the two world systems is ideology, and ideological subversion is the chief weapon of anti-communism.
Ideological subversion, which has in recent years been dubbed ``psychological warfare'' by its authors, has always had an important place in imperialism's struggle against 111 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ IDEOLOGICAL SUBVERSION AGAINST THE SOVIET UNION socialism. Its substance consists principally of anti-Sovietism, of efforts to slander the Soviet socialist system, downgrade the experience of building the new society in the USSR and falsify the policies pursued by the CPSU. To this day antiSovietism remains the central feature of anti-communism and it is spearheaded at the CPSU, which is the leading force of Soviet society.
The imperialist doctrine of ``building bridges'' envisages, on the one hand, an expansion of economic, political and cultural contacts and links with socialist countries and, on the other, the extension of the war of ideas to socialist society and bringing ideological pressure to bear on its members. As conceived by the strategists of anti-communism, this may bring about ideological changes that will eventually lead to political changes. What kind of changes they sought to achieve was demonstrated by the events of 1968 in Czechoslovakia, when counter-revolutionary and anti-socialist forces tried to nullify that country's socialist gains.
The hopes set by the imperialist strategists on an ideological war against socialism and the USSR are linked with the plans not only to ensure the survival of capitalism but also to weaken and undermine socialism. For instance, in studies prepared in 1967 for the US Congress, it is emphasised that the outcome of the struggle between the two worlds will be settled not by military means, not by nuclear weapons, but by = propaganda.^^2^^
Through ideological subversion imperialist propaganda strives to disseminate bourgeois ideology among the people of the socialist world, influence them, make them distrustful of the Communist parties, deprive these parties of the support of the masses and thereby weaken the socialist states.
The character, scale and methods of ideological subversion against socialism were noted by the 24th Congress of the CPSU: ``We are living under conditions of unabating ideological struggle, which imperialist propaganda is waging against our country, against the world of socialism, using 112 the most subtle methods and powerful technical means. All the instruments that the bourgeoisie has of influencing minds---the press, cinema and radio---have been mobilised to delude people, to make them believe that under capitalism they are living in a near-paradise, and to slander social- ism.''^^3^^
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 1. FALSIFICATION OF THE ROLE PLAYEDFalsification of the role played by the CPSU in Soviet society is one of the main components of anti-communism's struggle against the USSR.
The leading role of the Communist Party is one of the fundamental issues of the revolutionary movement and the building of the new society. Today it has become the pivot of the struggle between Marxist-Leninists and the proponents of various forms of revisionism.
The attacks on the CPSU's leading role are linked with the far-reaching changes that form the content of the modern epoch, with the influence that the Soviet Union and the socialist community as a whole exercise on world development. The CPSU and the Communist parties of other socialist countries have not only headed the working class and all other working people in the drive for society's revolutionary transformation but have achieved outstanding results on that road.
In order to discredit the CPSU's leading role and sow distrust for its policies, anti-communists distort the results, character and methods of the Communist Party's work and the entire experience accumulated by the USSR and the CPSU. They believe that the dissemination of new, subtle falsifications may encourage ``critical'' assessments by the citizens of the USSR and other socialist countries, particularly by young people, of the Communist Party's policies and of the results that have been achieved on the basis of 113 these policies, sow distrust in these policies and precipitate a striving to change them.
The same objective is pursued by the attacks on the CPSU, its policies and the experience of the USSR by the Right and ``Left'' revisionists, Trotskyists, renegades of communism and the Peking ``theorists''. Their anti-Sovietism dovetails with imperialist anti-Soviet propaganda, with anti- communism, and objectively serves the interests of imperialism. The revisionists' attacks pour grist on the mill of anti- communist propaganda in its efforts to undermine the CPSU's leading role and weaken Soviet society.
Anti-communist propaganda plays on the CPSU's criticism of the personality cult and constantly misconstrues the history of the CPSU.
The idea behind the falsifications of the CPSU's role in Soviet society is that at the present technical and economic level achieved by the Soviet Union as a result of the scientific and technical revolution, the Communist Party is no longer needed as a leading force; more, that it is an obstruction to the further development of the USSR. The Sovietologists attempt to substantiate this false idea by denying the scientific character of the Communist Party's ideological and theoretical foundations, of the principles of its leadership and organisation and of its entire policy.
Although Marxism-Leninism consistently expresses the basic interests of the working class and all working people and is a tested scientific theory giving an objective picture of the world and a true orientation in practical activity, and although it is adopted by a growing number of fighters against exploitation and oppression, subtle attempts are made to prove that it is unscientific. These attempts include portraying Leninism as a specifically Russian doctrine, depicting Marxism as a faith, as a special religion, presenting Marxism-Leninism as ``disintegrating'' or ``pluralistic'', ``obsolete'', ``inhumane'' and ``anti-democratic''. The oracles of anti-communism do not scruple to use any means and methods to sell their own interpretations of Lenin that have __PRINTERS_P_114_COMMENT__ 8---2810 114 nothing to do with the true purport of his works, attributing their own views to him and mixing Marxism-Leninism with revisionist distortions. These methods are calculated on influencing uninformed people, who know of Marxism-Leninism only from the writings of the anticommunists.
Richard Lowenthal, a leading West German anti- communist, dismisses the communist concept of a classless society as Utopian and on that basis denies the socialist character of society in the USSR and the other European socialist countries in an effort to prove that Marxism-Leninism is ``unscientific''. In his opinion, the only genuine type of socialist society is one that is founded on the ideas and principles of Right-wing social-democracy/* He saw the profile of consummated social democracy in the plans of the counterrevolutionary, anti-socialist forces in Czechoslovakia who attempted to effect a return to capitalism under the signboard of democracy. It does not disturb him that all the SocialDemocratic parties that had the possibility of creating a ``society of complete social democracy'' or a ``democratic socialist society'' used the power, given them by electors, to create conditions beneficial to private property which is the foundation of exploitation of man by man.
The anti-communists depict the policies of the CPSU as being the ``only correct policy'', adding however that it is dictated by ``practical needs'' and ``traditional national interests'', and not by ``theoretical formulas''. In this way they seek to discredit practical policy and its basis, revolutionary theory.
In the writings of bourgeois political experts Soviet society and the socialist system are portrayed as having taken shape by virtue of circumstances unforeseen by the Communist Party, and in spite of the theories not only of Marx and Engels but also of ``pre-revolutionary'' Lenin. It would be ludicrous to expect that the unprecedented social system the Communists had undertaken to build should act immediately as a smoothly operating mechanism.
115The building of socialist society in the USSR presented many difficult problems, which sprang not only from the country's relative economic backwardness, that was compounded by the ravages of two wars and the intervention, but also by the fact that there were no ready-made models and no experience of socialist construction to go by. The new society was built in a complex international situation, in a country encircled by hostile capitalist states. In working out concrete forms of organising and managing the economy the Communist Party had to experiment, reject unjustified methods, look for and test new ways. The Communists have never claimed to have ready-made recipes for every day, for each step. However, the Communist Party had at its disposal a scientific theory---Marxism-Leninism---that gave it a sure orientation, indicated the correct path leading to socialism and the guiding principles for advancing along that path. By applying Marxism-Leninism to concrete conditions the Communist Party drew up the programme for socialist construction in the USSR.
The Soviet experience is universally valid not because, as is alleged, it was subsequently attributed to the teaching of Marx but because it reflects the general laws of the transition to socialism discovered on the basis of Marxism- Leninism and confirmed by practice.
The views propounded by Roger Garaudy, who ``defends'' the purity of Marxism against the Soviet practice of socialist construction, have much in common with those of Brzezinski. Garaudy dismisses the CPSU's ideological foundations by rejecting the scientific character of its policies.
It must be underscored that, like the renegades, the Right and ``Left'' revisionists are, by their claims that they want to ``protect'' and ``enrich'' Marxism, return to ``true Leninism'' and raise on high the ``red banner of Marxism- Leninism'', in fact rendering anti-communism an invaluable service. By depicting every distortion of Marxism-Leninism as ``true Marxism'' or ``true Leninism'' and by ``defending'' it 116 against the practice of socialist construction in the USSR and existing socialist society they are validating the fabrications of anti-communist propaganda about the `` disintegration'' of Marxism and the ``unscientific'' character of the CPSU's ideological foundations.
Anti-communist propaganda's efforts to prove that communism is unscientific are not accidental. The anti- communists believe that by using this as the basis for all their falsifications of the Communist Party's role in Soviet society, of its aims, organisation and political principles they can easily prove that its role in Soviet society is determined not by objective requirements but by subjective factors such as the desire to ``retain power'', to ensure ``domination by a definite stratum or a group'', and so on. The sense and purpose of this logic was revealed by the US Professor of Sociology Mark G. Field, who wrote: ``If the party were to discover, or acknowledge, that its ideology is based on 'false premises' (an improbable event, to be sure), it would logically have no choice but to dissolve = itself.''^^5^^ The reason for the tireless efforts of the Sovietologists to discover ``false premises'' of MarxismLeninism is to all intents and purposes linked with the hopes of precipitating the dissolution of the CPSU.
There is a feedback in the methods employed by anticommunist propaganda: from the ``unscientific'' character of Marxism-Leninism it deduces that the Communist Party had ``usurped'' the leading position in socialist society. To prove their point the anti-communists make wide use of their distortions of the history of the CPSU.
In order to denigrate the CPSU's leading role in Soviet society they falsify its lofty and noble aims, which express the vital interests of the working class and all other working people, the dream of the exploited and the oppressed for a just society, and which are winning many millions of people to the side of the communist movement.
To the natural question of the purpose pursued by the Communists in taking and holding power, the sages of anticommunism have several answers, which, they feel, must 117 satisfy different groups of people depending on their political views, education, experience, prejudices and so forth.
For the philistine held captive by anti-communist propaganda they have the argument that the purpose of the Communist Party is to seize power first in one country and then to ``export communism'' to other countries and forcibly establish communist world rule. These purposes concocted by the anti-communists and attributed to the CPSU were used as the cover for the cold war against communism and the USSR.
After the Soviet policy of peace had exploded the `` communist threat'' myth that was being spread in the West, the Sovietologists began to look for new arguments in support of their allegations. For instance, out of the fact that the Soviet Union has become a mighty industrial power anticommunist propaganda seeks to draw the conclusion that the CPSU pursues ``expansionist'' aims. Alvin Z. Rubinstein of the USA, who styles himself as a ``Kremlinologist'', asserts that having become a ``super-power'' the Soviet Union `` believes ... it is entitled to a far greater measure of participation in the evolution and management of the nation-state system lying beyond its immediate borders''. He interprets this as ``the will to maximise its presence in an expanding network of areas and = relationships''.^^6^^
Aims of this sort have never been pursued by the Soviet Union. The foreign policy programme charted by the 24th Congress of the CPSU is known to the whole world. It is a policy of resolutely opposing the imperialist designs of war and aggression, of preserving peace, of establishing and consolidating friendship among nations. An inseverable point of this programme is solidarity with the peoples fighting for national and social emancipation.
The CPSU's policy has nothing in common with the aims attributed to it by Rubinstein.
Some Sovietologists are prepared to ``assume'' that the Bolsheviks had seized power in order to modernise the country and put an end to its economic backwardness. 118 However, this is not only a distortion of the Communist Party's actual aims and work by reducing them to individual concrete tasks that were tackled during the building of socialism. This conclusion is the prelude to proving that the Communist Party becomes superfluous after a country has been industrialised and modernised.
The attacks on the CPSU's leading role in Soviet society take the form of portraying it as an obstacle to further progress in the age of the scientific and technical revolution. Typical in this respect is the conclusion offered by Mark G. Field that ``the party has become in many respects a conservative, if not a reactionary, force in Soviet = society''.^^7^^
A closer look at the ``arguments'' advanced by the anticommunists in support of this slander shows that they distort facts and documents or are, at best, groundless assertions.
For instance, Raymond Aron, who is regarded as a prominent French anti-communist theorist, claims that after it seizes power the Communist Party inevitably evolves into a conservative force. ``After they came to power,'' he writes, ``the Marxist-Leninists, the ex-revolutionaries, have themselves become conservatives and are preaching the old dogmas of conservatism: extolling national unity and denouncing individuals and groups who prejudice this = unity.''^^8^^
In declaring that national unity is a conservative idea, Aron refuses to consider the foundation and motivation for the proclamation and build up of national unity. He equates the national unity of the working class and all other working people, needed for the building of a socialist society and the abolition of exploitation and oppression, with the national unity slogan used by fascism for enslavement, aggression and the perpetuation of exploitation and oppression.
The Communist Party has always regarded the nationalities question and the problem of national unity in the context of the interests of the working class and socialism. For that reason it considered the unity of the working people, irrespective of their nationality, as central in the drive to 119 build a socialist society, and for that reason it emphatically condemned all the enemies of internationalist unity who hindered the consolidation of socialist society.
The Soviet Union's experience over the past half century shows that without the internationalist unity of the working class and the whole Soviet people it would have been impossible to build up a strong multinational state, surmount the enormous difficulties of socialist construction, defeat the powerful forces of fascist aggression and successfully champion peace.
The CPSU's Leninist national policy and its struggle for the internationalist unity of the working class and all other working people in the USSR have given shape to new relations between nations based on equality, mutual assistance, friendship and co-operation.
The anti-communist ideologists are attempting to deduce that the CPSU plays a ``retarding role'' from their imagined contradiction between the ``totalitarian state'', as they call the USSR, and the requirements of what they term the rising ``producers' society'', between the requirements of scientific and technological progress and the system of power.
Keith Pavitt, the British student of problems of economic development, believes that the requirements of the Soviet Union's economic development are in collision with its political system, and that even if attempts were made to adapt that system to the requirements of the scientific and technological revolution it would be very difficult to surmount = that collision.^^9^^ Richard Lowenthal holds that there is a `` contradiction between the aspiration to achieve a fuller satisfaction of the requirements of Soviet consumers and the need to strengthen and extend the influence of Soviet ideology . . . to strengthen control by the Soviet Party apparatus over all other = spheres''.^^10^^ Lowenthal is aware of the decisions of the 24th CPSU Congress to raise the living standard of the Soviet people and of the CPSU's policy in carrying out these decisions, but he discounts them as they are at variance with his conclusions.
120In spite of all its efforts bourgeois political science has failed to come up with an adequate description of the Soviet social and political system and of the role played in it by the Communist Party. Whereas some ten years ago the Sovietologists, according to their own admission, agreed on the substance of the Soviet system and the character of the relationship between the Party and society, today that unanimity has vanished. ``Now,'' writes the Canadian Professor of Political Science, Jerry F. Hough, ``there are a number of competing images or = models.''^^11^^
The model of a ``directed society'' portrays the Soviet social and political system as the result of the determination and actions of political leaders to mould a new man ``without regard to the individual and to social costs''.
In the model of ``oligarchic petrification'', Soviet society is depicted as a hierarchic pyramid. The Communist Party is identified with the Party apparatus and presented as the centre of the entire state and economic apparatus. The political leaders, the exponents of this model assert, constantly underline the significance of ideology but lack the determination to remake society.
The model of ``institutional pluralism'' describes Soviet society as a series of changes generated by industrialisation, and the officials of the state and economic apparatus are depicted as functional specialists, who, much as Western specialists, are the main agents of these changes.
Neither ``directed society'' nor ``oligarchic petrification'' satisfies Professor Hough as a model characterising the present-day development of Soviet society. While the model of a ``directed society'', he says, may help to explain some achievements rooted in an earlier period of the USSR, it seems of very little use in explaining the dynamics of = recent years.^^12^^ Hough rejects this model as utterly useless in explaining the striving of the Soviet leadership to heed the suggestions from the people and the practice of discussing political issues. He sees the ``oligarchic petrification'' model as coming into conflict with the existing trend toward the 121 rejuvenation of the Party leadership at town and district level, the concentration of all levels of the leadership on the scientific organisation of labour, the discussion of the need for modifying the balance of investments between the producer and consumer industries, the reflection of this in the ninth five-year plan, which called for an increase in the output of consumer goods, the more rapid growth of the incomes of collective farmers as compared with other groups of the population, and the present Party policy of levelling up the living standards of different groups of the population. Hough considers that the steps initiated in the USSR in recent years to reduce the differences in incomes have had a much greater effect for the lower-paid categories than the declaration of war on poverty by the Lyndon B. Johnson Administration in the USA. He writes that ``the Soviet Union in recent years has seen a shift in income distribution that is quite striking by Western standards, and that the pattern of income distribution in the Soviet Union today is substantially more egalitarian than it is in the advanced Western countries, particularly if income from property is taken into account''.^^13^^
No unbiassed observer can be satisfied with the ``directed society'' and ``oligarchic petrification'' models because of the obvious discrepancy between their postulates and the selfevident facts of Soviet reality.
The attempts to surmount this discrepancy by squeezing the facts of Soviet reality into these patterns or new models result in an interpretation that has nothing in common with reality. For instance, efforts to explain why broad discussions of political issues have lately entered into the practice of the CPSU lead the exponents of the ``institutional pluralism'' model, to put it mildly, to the unsubstantiated assertion that the Soviet leadership lacks assurance and confidence in resolving social problems.
The reason of the dissatisfaction of the Sovietologists with the models proffered by bourgeois science is not only that with their help they cannot explain many indisputable 122 facts of Soviet reality and the Soviet Union's achievements but also that on their basis it is impossible to foretell the future development of Soviet society. While for the man-in-the-street the discrepancies between the characteristics stemming from these models and the indisputable facts of Soviet reality may be explained by stretching a point or misrepresenting the role and policies of the Communist Party, this can hardly satisfy the rulers of the capitalist world. For them it is imperative to know what changes and achievements in the USSR they have and will have to deal with, how the present-day development of the USSR may ``threaten'' the capitalist world in the future and what they must be prepared for.
Bourgeois political science's inability to offer a correct analysis of the Soviet social and political system and its present-day achievements and to pinpoint the trends of its development and its possible results in the immediate future is by no means due to the ``inconsistent'' development of the USSR, as the Sovietologists assert, but to the class character of that science and its unscientific approach. Professor Hough urges Sovietologists ``to separate our distaste for the Soviet system from our descriptive analysis of = it''.^^14^^ However, this is unattainable to bourgeois political science as a whole and to Sovietology in particular, for it would mean an acknowledgement by bourgeois social science of its class character and, consequently, of its bourgeois, class, biassed approach to the study of social phenomena.
The scientific character of the Communist Party's policies is determined by the need for economic and social prognostication in elaborating and implementing the plans for communist construction in the epoch of the scientific and technical revolution.
Without a scientific approach it is impossible not only to see the laws of social development but also to make a comprehensive study and analysis of the actual present-day processes and emergent tendencies and to take the experience of the people into account.
123The fact that the policies of the Communist Party are scientific is one of the cardinal reasons of their success. It is this that enables the Communist Party to set tasks conforming to the requirements of social development and define the entire sum and interrelation of basic economic, socio-political and ideological factors. By virtue of the scientific character of its policies the Communist Party knows not only what society is like at a given moment but what it will be like after a scientific plan of all-sided development is carried out.
Anti-communist propaganda is aided by various renegades, who in an effort to lend weight to their utterances claim that as former members of Communist parties they have a better understanding of the essence and problems of the communist movement.
In their attacks on the CPSU and other Communist parties, Milovan Djilas, Teodoro Petkoff, Roger Garaudy, Ernst Fischer and other revisionists repeat the familiar thesis of anti-communist propaganda that the Party of the Leninist type is obsolete and useless. In support of this slanderous assertion, Fischer echoes the argument of the Sovietologists that the Leninist-type Party, which had been formed in the historical conditions of Russia, is unsuited for developed countries. Instead of Communist parties, he and Garaudy suggest creating a new ``Left'' coalition, in which nothing would remain of the Communist Party as a militant leader. Fischer sees the ``possibility of forming new associations of like-minded people and fighters in spite of the old, fossilised positions. If you like, of Marxists and non-Marxists, of Communists and Social-Democrats, of Catholics and Protes- tants.''^^15^^
The fact that the attacks of the revisionists against the CPSU and other Communist parties serve the aims of anticommunist propaganda has been noted with satisfaction by Zbigniew Brzezinski. He declared that they ``have already emphasised the need to redefine the Communist Party as an altogether new Party that would include the entire Left, that 124 would not be ideological in the strict sense of the word, and that would certainly not be = Leninist''.^^16^^ This chimes in with the interests of the anti-communists who dream of ending the Communist Party's leadership of the revolutionary process and the role played by the CPSU in Soviet society.
This role is by no means determined by the seizure of power, it does not depend on the need to extend power or establish complete control over society, much less on the need to preserve the ruling position of the elite, by which the anti-communists mean the Communist Party. History knows of societies and states in which the rulers, parties and entire classes used every means to retain their predominance. However, history has inexorably and mercilessly passed sentence on them and there was nothing that could save them.
The Communist Party's leading role does not depend solely on the desires of its members or its leaders. This role springs from the sum total of objective and subjective factors governing the revolutionary remaking of society, from the role and tasks of the working class in this transformation.
The Right and ``Left'' revisionists deny the leading role of the working class in the revolutionary process, charging that it is incapable of waging a revolutionary struggle, that it has lost its revolutionary traditions and spirit. On this basis they try to belittle the role played by the Communist Party in the struggle of the working class and in the building of the new society, and demand that it yield its place to various kinds of associations.
The experience of the working-class struggle in all countries has borne out the key thesis of Marxism-Leninism that the working class cannot fulfil its historic mission without having its own militant revolutionary MarxistLeninist Party. The Communist Party enables the working class to unite, become organised and implement its leading role in the revolution and in the building of a socialist society. Through the Communist Party the working class provides society with political leadership and unites all the working people in their struggle for their vital interests, for 125 the further development of mature socialism and its growth into communism.
The Communist Party formulates the aim of social development, which expresses the basic interests of the people and becomes their own aim. The governing Party undertakes the responsibility for the attainment of this aim. It is responsible for the way in which the country develops and for what has been done toward the attainment of the set aim.
The Communist Party's leading role in Soviet society and the growth of that role under developed socialism and during the building of communism are determined by the complexity of the tasks involved in the practical building of a classless society, by the steady enhancement of the significance of a scientific policy under the conditions created by the scientific and technological revolution, by the need for bringing to light and making comprehensive use of all the advantages of a developed socialist society, and by the international significance of communist construction that is proceeding in a situation marked by the struggle between socialism and capitalism.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 2. ANTI-COMMUNIST FALSIFICATIONSAs we have pointed out earlier, a major objective of modern imperialism's strategy and tactics is to disunite the revolutionary forces. In this connection, imperialist policy and propaganda, directed against the Soviet Union and the other countries of the socialist community, accentuate the use of all available forms of nationalism and support the various ways in which it is revived and manifested. Speaking on the 50th anniversary of the USSR, Leonid Brezhnev noted that the question of nationalities is one of the most decisive areas of the struggle between capitalism and socialism.
The 50th anniversary of the founding and development of the USSR set off a wave of anti-communist attacks on the experience of socialism. The anti-communists published 126 new editions of old and brought out innumerable new publications on national relations and the nationalities policy of the Communist parties of the USSR, the GDR, Czechoslovakia and other socialist countries and articulated new and old fabrications about the inequality of and discrimination against ethnic minorities.
Considerable prominence is given in anti-communist literature to the question of the incompatibility between socialism and nationalism. However, in most cases, this complex and contradictory problem is reduced to the dilemma of ``either socialism or nationalism'', and is resolved depending on the author's political attitude and sympathies. Moreover, in recent years a heightened interest has been shown in the question of nationalism's historical prospects and its influence on the future of socialism and the revolutionary movements. The calculations of the anti-communist strategists on an ``explosive wave'' of nationalism are presented in various packings: the national question is said to be fatal and unsolvable, modern history is defined as the ``age of nationalism'', and so on. Moreover, attempts are being made to present nationalism as an everlasting and independent phenomenon that today, allegedly, dominates the ``principal ideologies'', above all, the teaching of scientific socialism, the political ideology of the working = class.^^17^^ In the Western world there is now a phalanx of prophets, oracles and futurologists foretelling the disintegration, degeneration, evolution or destruction of socialism, particularly in the USSR.
Many opuses have been published with pretentious titles, for instance, Nationalism, the Last Phase of Communism. Lastly, there are books and articles that claim to give an unbiassed exposition of national problems and their prospects under socialism. Let us examine in greater detail the arguments presented in one of these articles printed in Problems of Communism, an anti-communist = journal.^^18^^ The article in question, ``Sociology in the Soviet Union'', was penned by Zev Katz who is associated with the Russian 127 Research Centre at Harvard University and the Institute of Soviet and East European Studies at Glasgow University. His being an ``expert'' on Russian affairs makes his revelations all the more interesting.
In the section ``Ethnical Relations'' in which, according to Katz, he deals with ``one of the touchiest problem areas facing Soviet policymakers'', he considers what he calls negative national attitudes. Referring to studies by Soviet sociologists and interpreting the data given by them through his own prism he writes that in the USSR there are two types of nationalism. One is the traditional type of national prejudices as a consequence of inadequate education, existing religious bigotry and absence of contacts between nationalities; this type is losing its foundation and tends to disappear. The second---nationalism of a new type---is generated by the conditions of a mixed national environment, in which there is an intensification of competition for prestigious jobs and so on. This is the ``new nationalism'' that gives Soviet leaders three reasons for anxiety. The first is that the ``new nationalism'' clashes with one of the basic principles of Soviet ideology, namely, that socialist development automatically removes all national prejudices. The second, Katz writes, is that bitter ingratitude may be what the Russians will get as a reward for their efforts in building socialism, for their investment of labour and capital in the non-Russian areas. Lastly, the third reason, the rapid population growth of the non-Russian minorities and even the accelerated growth of their intelligentsia, may make the Soviet leaders apprehensive that their policy is helping to strengthen precisely these nationalistic elements.
That is how Katz pictures the state and prospects of the national relations in the Soviet Union. These and other `` findings'', with references to studies by Soviet sociologists, give the article the semblance of objectivity. Actually, on the theoretical level we have before us a case of typical objectivism that juggles facts in order to draw sensational conclusions conforming to the anti-communist political 128 orientation of the author, who clearly does not wish to reckon with the natural link between facts and events and show their movement and the historical prospects for national relations. The Soviet Union's experience of the past half century does indeed attract the scientific and practical interest of any unbiassed researcher, for this experience gives striking, concentrated expression of the socialist alternative to all varieties and forms of modern nationalism.
The Soviet Government's very first decree---Lenin's Decree on Peace---gave legislative force to the principle of the self-determination of nations up to and including secession, of the sovereign right of each nation to decide the question of the democratic principles and forms of its state system. Many judicial acts have been passed to reaffirm the equality of big and small nations, abolishing all the claims of Russian imperialism to supremacy over non-Russian nations and nationalities, and annulling national and estate privileges. These acts include the Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia, the Message of the Council of People's Commissars to All the Working Moslems of Russia and the East, the Declaration of the Rights of the Toiling and Exploited People, the decrees on the self-determination of the Ukraine, Finland, Poland and Armenia, and the decree of the Council of People's Commissars on nipping the antiSemitic movement in the bud. In an acute ideological and political struggle the Soviet Government rejected misconceived national-nihilistic views and substantiated and implemented the policy of setting up sovereign national Soviet republics. At the same time, Lenin linked the prospects of the Soviet state directly to the military, political and economic alliance of the Soviet republics. This alliance took the shape of a federation of equal socialist states founded on the principles of voluntary unity, fraternal co-operation and mutual assistance.
The historical social experiment of resurrecting and rejuvenating nations, of their socialist transformation and of determining the development trend of national relations 129 is, needless to say, long and difficult. For that reason, at the dawn of Soviet power Lenin noted that it was necessary to ``study the specific features of the extremely difficult and new path to socialism without concealing our mistakes and weaknesses''.^^19^^ However, despite the difficulties, errors and distortions in the implementation of the Leninist nationalities policy, its principal achievement is the viability and flourishing of the alliance of equal Soviet republics that has passed the test of development and, especially, of the struggle against the foreign intervention and the nazi invasion. This experience of the voluntary union and development of the socialist nations and nationalities, the realisation of the Leninist nationalities policy and its international significance are the main objects of anti-Soviet falsifications by the Sovietologists.
And now a few words about the present state and development trends of nationalities and nations in the Soviet Union and the content of national relations under socialism. The changes in the national relations and their trends and prospects cannot be considered in isolation from the general development of the social structure. The social content of the relations within and between nations is determined chiefly by the given society's economic and class structure. It is unquestionable, for example, that the development of capitalism had not only consolidated nations but also, to a certain degree, facilitated the integration of the population within the framework of national-state communities. However, in antagonistic societies the integration of the population, included in one or several socio-ethnical communities, is accompanied by a class division into exploiters and the exploited. Social practice demonstrates that capitalism deepens the incompatibility of the economic and cultural interests of the opposing classes in individual nations, generates and accentuates the class contrasts of culture and ideology in each nation and inescapably pursues a policy of social and national discrimination.
An entirely different situation is to be observed in a __PRINTERS_P_130_COMMENT__ 9---2810 130 developed socialist society. In it the leading tendency of change in the social structure is toward growing social homogeneity expressed in the drawing together of classes and social groups and the erasure of the essential distinctions between town and countryside, between workers by brain and by hand in each of the socialist nations.
For instance, the growth of the productive forces in agriculture, the gradual conversion of farm labour into a variety of industrial labour, the rising cultural standards in the countryside and the restructuring of rural life are changing the social make-up and mentality of the peasant. He acquires more and more traits of the industrial worker as the number of collective farmers whose labour is directly linked with machines and mechanisms grows and their educational level rises. On the other hand, the percentage of rural workers increases in the composition of the working class as a whole.
The qualitative changes in the occupation of people and their place in the system of social production, the character of their labour and their role in the social organisation of labour, and the growing identification of the labour of workers with that of engineers and technicians are typical of the increasing homogeneity of Soviet society's social structure. It goes without saying that this tendency towards social homogeneity predominates also in each socialist nation.
This was preceded by a long and persevering struggle against all survivals of national oppression and colonial slavery, by the abolition of the bitter legacy of the old system in the shape of the economic, political and cultural inequality of nations.
The situation was compounded by the fact that the numerous peoples of old Russia were at various stages of socioeconomic development, ranging from the patriarchal-clan to the capitalist system, with a large portion of the population ---over 25 million---running their farms in backward, precapitalist ways. In these conditions the Russian proletariat had to give effective and sustained assistance to the 131 backward peoples in their economic and cultural construction. The unification of formerly backward peoples with the more developed nations in a single socialist state made it possible, in each Union republic, to build up a modern industry and a mechanised agriculture, train large numbers of national personnel and surmount the actual inequality by levelling up the economic and cultural development of all nations. Socialist co-operation and the new specialisation of the economy of the republics and autonomous regions have put an end to social inequality, although historical distinctions still remain in the economy and in culture.
But these distinctions give no grounds for the assertions of some anti-communists that the question of nationalities or national antagonisms have not been resolved and that national discrimination persists in the Soviet Union. The facts are utterly ignored by the British sociologist Geoffrey Wheeler, who alleges that the economy of the Central Asian Soviet republics is of a colonial nature (in the book The Modern History of Soviet Central Asia), and by Hugh Seton-Watson, Professor of Russian History at the School of Slavonic and East European Studies at London University, who claims that in the backward non-Russian areas the economic upsurge was promoted in the interests of the Soviet ``empire'' (in the book The New Imperialism).
Suffice it to recall some indicators of the industrial and cultural advance of the Central Asian republics over which the anti-communists shed crocodile tears. Under Soviet power the volume of industrial output rose 600-fold in Kazakhstan, over 500-fold in Tajikistan, more than 400-fold in Kirghizia, nearly 240-fold in Uzbekistan and more than 130- fold in Turkmenia. In Kazakhstan and the Central Asian republics there is practically 100 per cent literacy, and almost half of the population have either a higher or a secondary education. There are similar indices in all the non-Russian areas without exception, which today comprise the voluntary union of socialist nations.
The creation of a single material and technical basis of 132 socialism in the non-Russian republics does not, of course, mean that unification of their development has been achieved by decree. Some of the socialist nations---Russian, Ukrainian, Byelorussian, Georgian, Estonian etc.---were remoulded on the basis of nations that had taken shape long ago; others---Udmurt, Kazakh, Mari, Tajik---were formed as a result of the consolidation of nationalities and tribes that by-passed capitalism or the phase of developed capitalism. A number of socialist nationalities were consolidated on the basis of numerically small tribes and nationalities that had preserved patriarchal-clan relations (for instance, the Chukchi, the Evenki and other Northern peoples). Naturally, compared with the developed socialist nations, certain distinctions still remain in the development level of the economy, culture and art of these peoples.
One of the most significant results of the transformation of socio-ethnic communities under socialism is not only the abolition of antagonistic classes but also the removal of the socio-economic and class roots of hostility for other nations.
The national salvation or resurrection of a socio-ethnic community and its socialist transformation and swift economic and cultural advancement form the content of one of the progressive tendencies in the development of national relations, the tendency towards the flowering of nations. This tendency characterises chiefly the orientation and result of internal national self-development under socialism. Similarly progressive is the tendency that shows the relations of a given socio-ethnic community to other communities within the framework of a multinational socialist state and in regard to other socialist nations. This tendency stems from the basic nature of socialism, which, to use the words of Lenin, facilitates and gigantically accelerates the drawing together of = nations.^^20^^ Moreover, Lenin pointed out that ``the aim of socialism is ... not only to bring the nations closer together but to integrate = them''.^^21^^
Incidentally, it will be noted that the development of those two tendencies is deliberately misrepresented by the 133 anti-communists, who sometimes portray them as mutually excluding opposites and, on that basis, try to find insoluble contradictions in the Marxist-Leninist theory of national relations under socialism. Yet history amply shows that periods of the rapid development of individual peoples were not ushered in by isolation from or by opposition to other civilisations. On the contrary, they came largely as a result of the adoption, spread and assimilation of the finest achievements of the material and spiritual culture of other peoples.
Such, in general outline, was the natural process of the mutual enrichment of earlier civilisations and cultures that was disrupted mainly by the class-egoistical aims of the ruling social groups. It is, therefore, not surprising that the internationalist character of material production and the consolidation of the economic and political community of the multinational Soviet people actively facilitate the internationalisation of their cultural life and intensify the drawing together of the Soviet nations.
The new historical community known as the Soviet people embodies Lenin's theory of the drawing together of nations in the course of socialist and communist construction.
The multinational Soviet people are characterised by social unity springing from their community and the unity of basic economic, political, national and ideological interests. Citizens of the Soviet Union are people with equal rights and free of exploitation, who are the bearers of socialist material and spiritual relations. In the national respect the Soviet people are a state association of nations and nationalities resting on a socialist foundation, the unity and the optimum combination of internationalist and national interests, the political consolidation of nations and the socialist integration of their economic life. They have a common language of intercourse that furthers the mutual enrichment of their developing socialist cultures.
From the theoretical standpoint the Soviet people represent a transitional historical form of social community. The 134 internationalisation of mankind's material and spiritual life is evidently realised through the drawing together and fusion of nations and, in the future communist society, it will give rise to new forms of human association. The transition to this association presupposes a radical transformation on an international scale of each of the elements of socialist society's structure. This concerns, consequently, not only the reshaping of the class structure and the building of a classless society but also a fundamental restructuring of state and national communities which will ultimately lead to the communist structure characterised by the absence of classes, the state and the nationality.
As regards modern socialism, despite the political speculations of its enemies on existing national distinctions and nonantagonistic contradictions between the nations of socialist countries, its analysis allows drawing some important conclusions.
First, unlike capitalism, developed socialism has already proved the fundamental possibility of solving the question of nationalities as a political problem of the abolition of national oppression and national discrimination and attaining actual equality among the socialist nations, nationalities and national minorities.
Second, the experience that has been accumulated of building socialism and communism bears out the theory that the tendency toward the flowering and drawing together of nations is linked with socio-economic, class-political and cultural changes on a socialist foundation.
Third, the new social community---the Soviet people--- brought into being by the practice of the world's first socialist state gives in general outline the possible models and phases of the historical process of the drawing together of nations through which, with various modifications, the whole of mankind is destined to pass.
[135] __ALPHA_LVL2__ 3. SOME ASPECTS OF THE ACTIVITIES OF ANTI-COMMUNIST CENTRESThe hopes that the rulers of the capitalist world pin on psychological warfare may be seen from the colossal scale of the anti-communist, anti-Soviet propaganda that has been unfolded by imperialism, from the fact that the struggle against communism has been elevated to the rank of state policy involving state agencies and statesmen, a large army of professional propagandists and special institutions, to say nothing of the many ``public'' organisations occupying the most bellicose anti-communist positions and maintained on funds provided by the monopolies.
The best scientists, many universities and research centres and the latest means developed by science are used in order to find vulnerable spots in the socialist community and evolve the ways and means of undermining and destroying the ideological, economic and moral foundations of the socialist system. Everything is directed toward evolving new orientations of anti-communist and anti-Soviet propaganda and providing it with new arguments.
The main centres of anti-communism are in the USA, the FRG and Britain. There are centres in France, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark, Austria, Sweden, Canada, Australia, Spain, Portugal, Israel, Latin American countries and in the framework of the aggressive NATO bloc.
The largest mass media---major news agencies, radio and TV stations, film companies, newspapers and magazines--- belong to monopoly capital, thus giving it the decisive influence on the aims and orientation of propaganda.
One of the major anti-communist centres of the USA, the Free Europe Committee, is financed by the monopolies. Its annual budget amounts to about 15 million dollars. It runs Radio Free Europe, publishes several anti-communist journals, including Ost-europdische Rundschau, and works fighting methods for the eradication of socialism in East 136 Europcan countries. This committee organised the launching of balloons with anti-communist leaflets in the direction of socialist countries and issued directives to the counter- revolutionaries during the counter-revolutionary rising in Hungary in 1956 and the events of 1968 in Czechoslovakia. The US monopolies also finance the anti-communist Radio Liberty Committee, which operates Radio Liberty. The latter's staff consists of rabid enemies of communism, traitors and defectors.
Giant US monopolies provide most of the funds for the upkeep of Stanford University's Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, the notorious ``brain trust'' for anticommunism's political strategy that was set up in 1919. This institute, which is one of the chief centres of anti-communist and anti-Soviet propaganda, prepares anti-Soviet and anticommunist books, pamphlets, articles, lectures and radio and television broadcasts.
In its work on anti-communist and anti-Soviet publications the institute enlists the services of prominent Sovietologists from other American universities and from foreign countries, such as Zbigniew Brzezinski, director of the Institute on Communist Affairs at Columbia University. Nearly 60 per cent of the institute's budget is made up of donations by the monopolies. For instance, Mellon and Sons donated half a million dollars to it in 1967.
Lately, the institute has expanded its publishing activity. Since 1967 it has been publishing a yearbook on the international communist movement. It sponsors international conferences and symposiums on the political strategy of anticommunism and on the ways and means of combating communism.
Monopoly capital has played the principal role also in setting up other anti-communist ``brain trusts'' in the USA and in the training of experts on various aspects of anticommunism. Through a system of foundations the major monopolies control the ideological orientation of research and the ideological training of experts.
137In 1946 the Rockefeller Foundation helped Columbia University to set up its Russian Institute and later its Research Institute on Communist Affairs. The Russian Research Centre at Harvard University was founded in 1948 on Carnegie money through the Carnegie Foundation. The Research Institute on Communist Strategy and Propaganda was founded at the University of Southern California. Similar centres have been set up at other leading US universities.
In the USA over 20 university centres are studying the USSR and other socialist countries and the communist movement. In addition, many universities and colleges have departments and faculties engaged in anti-communism and Sovietology. All are working on various problems of anti- communist strategy.
The innumerable Zionist organisations in the USA are also helping to devise anti-communist strategy and spread anti-communist propaganda. For instance, the American Jewish League Against Communism pursues the object of drawing Jews into the struggle against communism. Essentially, this is the aim of the United Jewish Appeal and the American Zionist Organisation. Influential Zionist organisations in the USA use the World Jewish Congress and the World Zionist Organisation for anti-Soviet propaganda.
Altogether there are several hundred anti-communist organisations in the USA, of which over 20 are large centres exercising considerable influence. Various estimates set the aggregate membership of these organisations at from 500,000 to several million.
Further, neo-fascist anti-communist organisations have been activated in recent years. They are drawing new segments of the population into their ranks and are making attempts to consolidate and organise themselves on a national scale, form a mass political party and seize power.
One of these attempts is the establishment of the AllAmerican Conference to Combat Communism, an anti-- 138 Soviet, anti-communist centre consisting of some 40 organisations. The Conference helps to arrange anti-Soviet and anticommunist congresses, symposiums and seminars at various places, including educational institutions, providing them with rapporteurs and experts on anti-communism.
Under pressure from the neo-fascist organisations, anticommunism has been introduced as a subject at American secondary schools. These organisations have actively helped to draw up the curriculum for this subject.
While the research and university centres concentrate on the ``scientific'' and ``ideological'' aspects of anti-communism and anti-Sovietism, the neo-fascist organisations endeavour to translate them into practice, in day-to-day life. This is seen not only in the baiting of progressives that erupts into acts of violence and terror, but also in the pressure brought to bear on the government by various means and in attempts to direct foreign policy towards war against communism.
Despite this ``division of labour'', the anti-communist, anti-Soviet centres comprise an interrelated system of agencies striving to bring every citizen of the USA under anti- communist influence and spread this influence to all the countries of the world. By devious ways they are trying to spread anti-communism also in the socialist countries, where their aim is to undermine and destroy communism.
In the FRG, as in the USA, they are looking for the most effective means of combating communism, with Sovietology being accorded one of the key roles.
One of the largest organisations involved in this work is the Ostforschung (Eastern Studies), which was founded at the close of the 19th century and consists of a ramified network of over 90 institutes, societies and libraries.
Money from the CIA, the US monopolies and West German intelligence agencies is used for the maintenance of various centres and associations of emigres from the USSR and other socialist countries, institutions that engage in anticommunist propaganda, and plan and carry out acts of 139 subversion against the socialist community. They include the Volksarbeitsbund in Frankfort on the Main, which publishes more than 30 periodicals specialising in anti-Soviet slander and containing instructions for its agents; the Organisation Ukrainischer Nationalisten in Munich; and Russische PresseAgentur in Frankfort on the Main.
All the institutions engaged in anti-communism are wellfunded and have large libraries. For instance, the Cologne Institute for the Study of Marxism-Leninism has a library of 20,000 volumes and regularly subscribes for over 700 periodicals in the Soviet Union and other socialist countries, including local Soviet republican and regional newspapers, and a large number of popular-science publications. From Peking the Institute receives innumerable pamphlets, including German language publications, and materials containing information on the divergences between the Communist Party of China and the CPSU.
Britain, too, is a seat of anti-communism and Sovietology. Although for the scale of their activities the British centres are smaller than the centres in the USA and the FRG, in recent years, as the Sovietologists themselves acknowledge, considerable advances have been made in Sovietology in Britain. The main British centres of anti-communism and Sovietology are the British Council, the British Broadcasting Corporation and the London School of Economics and Political Science.
All these centres publish special journals printing articles by British, American and West German Sovietologists. What are regarded as the most vital programmes are entrusted to people like the British Sovietologists Leonard Schapiro, Hugh Seton-Watson and Alec Nove.
There are anti-communist centres in other countries, the most prominent being the Socialist International and the Fourth, Trotskyist, International.
The activities of all anti-communist centres are directed toward influencing the Soviet people ideologically by various means: by verbal anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda 140 through talks, discussions, radio programmes, and the dissemination of publications, leaflets and other printed matter which is smuggled into the USSR by tourists, members of various delegations or sent by mail. In addition, they make use of exhibitions, film festivals, television broadcasts, scientific and cultural exchanges and exchanges of students.
To this day the anti-communist centres are active in the attempts of imperialism's most aggressive forces to prolong the cold war artificially, fanning anti-communist and antiSoviet hysteria and denigrating the Soviet Union's efforts to relax international tension. For this purpose they use the slanderous anti-Soviet pronouncements and actions of renegades.
Regardless of the character of anti-communist propaganda and the means of conducting it the main objective consistently pursued in imposing monographs prepared at the institutes of Sovietology, in the broadcasts of Radio Free Europe, in leaflets and in verbal pronouncements, is to undermine the moral and political foundations of Soviet society, influence Soviet people in a manner advantageous to imperialism and erode Soviet society. All the attacks by anticommunist propaganda are ultimately aimed at the CPSU, at its leading role in Soviet society.
[141] __NUMERIC_LVL1__ CHAPTER FIVE __ALPHA_LVL1__ ANTI-COMMUNISM:Neocolonialist ideology and policy play a large part in imperialism's attempts to weaken socialism's positions, suppress the national liberation movement and halt the irreversible decline of capitalism.
The content, aims and social role of imperialism's neocolonialist strategy and tactics can be correctly understood and explained only if account is taken of the objective trends of social progress in the modern epoch. A key place among these is occupied by the tendency toward internationalism, whose objective foundation lies in the increasingly pronounced social character of the present-day productive forces. Lenin regarded internationalism as a derivative of modern large-scale machine industry, which breaks down national partitions.^^1^^ The swift growth of modern industrial production and the use of the latest achievements of the scientific and technical revolution give rise to new philosophical, socioeconomic and political problems. This concerns not only the enormously greater possibilities for the production of material goods but also the new phenomena in the international division of social labour, in the co-operation, specialisation and integration of the world economy. The utilisation of the tendency toward internationalism and the attitude to it are one of the watersheds between the forces of progress and reaction and underscore the socio-economic difference between world socialism and world capitalism. Expressions of 142 this difference are, in particular, socialist economic integration, whose principles have been stated in the Comprehensive Programme of the CMEA countries, and imperialist integration as exemplified by the Common Market in Europe and similar other associations.
The tendency towards internationalism manifests itself in economic integrational processes and in the socio-political sphere. An important progressive feature of the present revolutionary process is its international character. The internationalisation of the class struggle and all areas of social life is making steady headway despite differences in the socio-economic level, the multistructural character of various national economies and the unevenness of economic and political development in different countries.
Apart from its economic foundations, this process is in many ways expedited by the means of communication, by the possibilities for broad contacts, interaction and mutual influence of nations that are at different stages of historical development.
The combination of the socio-political revolutionary transformations with the social effects of the scientific and technological revolution has also become an important factor in world development. Together, these progressive changes have brought the interests and aims of international imperialism and of the industrial and financial oligarchy in individual countries into conflict with the interests of the army of wage labour and small proprietors, and with the true national interests of all nations.
Alongside the existence of world socialism and the downfall of the old colonial system, this circumstance has substantially narrowed the social basis for monopoly domination, aggravated the old contradictions and generated new ones.
It is important to note that different authors are not unanimous in their interpretation of the term ``neocolonialism''. According to an interpretation that predominated until the close of the 1960s, neocolonialism is the logical continuation of the old colonial policy under fundamentally different 143 conditions. Exponents of this view stress that for their substance and aims there is complete identity between modern and ``classic'' colonialism. The only new major difference relates to the methods, forms and tactics of the colonial policy pursued by the imperialist metropolises toward the new, formally independent states.
Different variants of another widespread viewpoint overrate and absolutise the new neocolonialist methods and tactics employed by the imperialist monopolies in the developing countries. According to this view neocolonialism amounts to the modernisation of the mode of colonial exploitation and the neutralisation of the consequences of the colonial system's disintegration. Unwittingly or deliberately the exponents of this view reduce the foundation of neocolonialism to the subjective will of the monopolies, to a striving to modernise their methods of domination.
One of the most urgent methodological problems requiring study by Marxist scholars is to ascertain the actual historical place, substance and social role of neocolonialism. In this context the reader is offered some initial ideas and considerations.
First, any one-sided assessment of neocolonialism's substance or methods, laying undue emphasis on its economic or political aspects, does not simply distort the true picture but may serve as an obstacle to the struggle against the various forms of neocolonialist expansion.
Second, in defining neocolonialism one should use definite criteria, the most significant of which are the objective conditions of the rise, substance and basic aims of neocolonialism, its methods, means and class exponents. The sum of these criteria makes it possible to spell out neocolonialism's actual content, historical place and social role.
Third, a fundamental distinction between ``classical'' colonialism and neocolonialism is that the former was the natural imperialist policy of the world's territorial and economic partition and of oppressing nations mainly by extraeconomic means in the past historical epoch when monopoly 144 capital held unchallenged sway in the world. Neocolonialism likewise conforms to the nature and substance of imperialism, but under totally different conditions that arose in the modern epoch, when imperialism had lost the historic initiative and now seeks to work out the ways and means for its social self-preservation.
Fourth, a new approach is required also because the old interpretation gave neocolonialism a geographical hue: it was frequently regarded as an imperialist policy of pillaging and oppressing the peoples of three continents: Asia, Africa and Latin America. This interpretation contained at least two essential shortcomings. The first is that the countries of the three continents are artificially united by the sole indicator of economic backwardness, though actually many of these countries are at different levels of social and political development and have different socio-economic systems.
The second shortcoming is that the stereotype characteristics---economic underdevelopment, a multistructural system ---applied to these countries according to a pattern obscure rather than bring to light the actual alignment of class forces, the content of the liberation movements and the historical prospects. For instance, it is indeed obvious that the capitalist-based multistructural system in most Latin American states predetermines a different content and different phases of the revolutionary process as compared with the multistructural systems based on feudal (or even pre-feudal) relations in some Asian and African countries.
Fifth, and last, the beginning of the 1970s has eloquently shown that there is a need for a broader interpretation of neocolonialism, which in one way or another affects all the capitalist countries and many aspects of their social life. In connection with imperialist economic and political integration, the imperialist monopolies are intensifying their penetration and influence not only in countries with a low and medium level of capitalist development but also in the industrialised capitalist states.
It is extremely indicative that after the monetary 145 upheavals of recent years the term ``economic nationalism'' has come into use and vogue in the Western press. This term implies the defence of the national trade, economic and currency interests of the capitalist countries, for instance, of France, Canada, Japan and other nations. It is a sort of reaction to what the Western press calls ``economic neocolonialism''.
These considerations allow us to draw the conclusion that neocolonialism is ceasing to be a specific policy of the imperialist monopolies toward the new countries that have won political independence. As we see it, neocolonialism expresses the global strategy of modern imperialism, which is determined to find, enlist and mobilise the social reserves for the re-adaptation and self-preservation of the world system of capitalism, for erecting new barriers and obstacles to the socialist tendencies of the epoch and to the anti-imperialist struggle for social and national emancipation.
As Lenin had noted, oppression of foreign nations by the imperialist powers ``is a source for artificially retarding the collapse of = capitalism''.^^2^^ A direct link exists between neocolonialism and anti-communism, the latter being the ideological and political foundation of neocolonialism and expressing the substance of imperialist foreign policy.
The anti-communist orientation of imperialism's neocolonialist foreign policy was underscored in the documents of the 1969 International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, where it is stated: ``In its struggle against the national liberation movement, imperialism stubbornly defends the remnants of the colonial system, on the one hand, and, on the other, uses methods of neocolonialism in an effort to prevent the economic and social advance of developing states, of countries which have won national sovereignty. To this end it supports reactionary circles, retards the abolition of the most backward social structures and tries to obstruct progress along the road to socialism or along the road of progressive non-capitalist development, which can open the way to = socialism.''^^3^^
__PRINTERS_P_146_COMMENT__ 10---2810 146Under cover of ``urgent problems and vast opportunities that know no geographical and ideological frontiers'' imperialism strives to rule everywhere, interferes in the affairs of other nations, high-handedly violates their legitimate rights and sovereignty and tries to impose its will on countries and entire regions by force, bribery and economic infiltration.
International imperialism's neocolonialist expansion is multiform for its objectives, methods, forms and combinations of tasks and aims (immediate and long-term, tactical and strategical, economic, military, ideological and political). Special study is needed before an overall characteristic can be given of this problem, which is pressing from both the scientific and political angles. In the context we are interested in we shall note those aspects, particularly the new ones, that show in bold relief the link between neocolonialism and anti-communism.
First, attention is attracted by the sharp multiplication of the objectives of neocolonialist expansion harmonising with international imperialism's global anti-communist strategy. The objects of penetration, influence, interference and establishment of various forms of monopoly control and domination are not only the former colonies and dominions, the historically backward countries and regions. Neocolonialist expansion also embraces countries with different levels of capitalist development, the capitalist states dependent on imperialism's international centres, and countries that have adopted the socialist orientation. The content of financial-economic, military, political, cultural and ideological expansion mirrors the new historical conditions and aims of each of the state-monopoly capitalist nations, the multinational monopolies and the traditional centres of international imperialism.
For instance, in the economic sphere expansion is accompanied, in addition to non-equivalent commodity exchanges, by a new system of financial and monetary dependence, customs preferences and a relative intensification of 147 technological expansion. Military and political expansion reflects the impact of the new historical, social, military and technical conditions. Monopoly reaction is confining itself to local wars, being compelled to abandon direct annexations and to have more and more frequent recourse to the anti- communist strategy of indirect strikes. The crisis and decay of the imperialist military and political blocs, notably SEATO in Asia and the Inter-American Military Forces of the Organisation of American States, are making imperialism look for new forms of military and political expansion.
Cultural and ideological expansion has not merely broadened in volume but has grown deeper and more differentiated by zones, countries and social strata. Today it covers social knowledge on the theoretical level, indoctrination, the manipulation of the public mind on the level of people's traditional attitudes and the training of anti- communistoriented personnel in all spheres of social life.
Considerable changes have taken place also in the main orientations of neocolonialist expansion in different countries and regions.
West German neocolonialism has its own specifics that spring from historical, socio-economic and political factors. Hiding behind the mask of non-complicity in colonial pillage, due to the fact that it has no colonies, West German imperialism endeavours to spread its political and economic influence not only in the European capitalist nations but also in the former colonial and dependent countries.
Since the end of World War II the build up of an industrial, economic and military potential by the West German monopolies has been accompanied by foreign trade expansion and growing demands for a redivision of spheres of economic and political influence. The failure of the Hallstein Doctrine as a result of the GDR's recognition by a number of Asian and African countries accelerated the elaboration of a neocolonialist programme with a ``new orientation'' in the ``aid'' policy, which in fact constitutes a new phase of West German imperialist expansion. The purport 148 of this programme is to give the West greater influence over the social processes taking place in these states and thereby oppose their revolutionary reforms and socialist orientation. The ``aid policy'' is prejudicing the public sector in the newly-independent countries in order to increase their trade, technical, technological, monetary and financial dependence.
Moreover, this policy is used as an instrument of ideologically influencing public opinion through many institutions and organisations (of which there are over 150 in West Germany operating in Asian, African and Latin American states). Prominent among them are Das Deutsche Institute fur Entwicklungspolitik (the German Institute of Development Policy), Das Deutsche Entwicklungsdienst (the German Development Agency) and Der Deutsche Hilfsfond fur Entwicklungslander (the German Foundation for Aid to Developing States). The aims of the German Institute of Development Policy, which receives formal backing from the government and the anti-communist Ford Foundation, were formulated in 1965 by Heinrich Lubke, who was West German President at the time: ``For the sake of the very existence and future of these countries the free industrialised nations must not allow communism to create large contingents in the regions threatened by hunger, epidemics and igno- rance.''^^4^^
Anti-communist neocolonialist influence is spread also by the ``volunteers'' of the German Development Agency who operate in 27 countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Similarly active in this area are the Protestant and Catholic churches of West Germany, which exercise moral and ideological influence through their own channels and organisations.
West German imperialism is enlarging its neocolonialist positions independently and through the European Economic Community, which is a state-monopoly agency of collective neocolonialism. The anti-communist substance of the FRG's foreign policy in Latin America, Asia and Africa is borne out by the military aid given to Israel over a period of 149 many years and by the close contacts with military dictatorships, for instance, in Brazil and the Republic of South Africa. This adds weight to the words of the journal Sechaba, organ of the African National Congress of the RSA, which speaks of a Bonn-Pretoria axis. It reports that the Federal Republic of Germany uses its industrial potential for neocolonialist penetration into the Third World and for subverting the liberation movements of Asia, Africa and Latin America.^^5^^
Neocolonialism's anti-communist substance is even more pronounced in the main areas of expansion by the former metropolises and by the USA, the leading centre of imperialism. As distinct from the colonialism of the past epoch, neocolonialist expansion is directed at countries where social and national liberation movements are in progress. Here it must be noted that the current term ``Third World'' or `` developing countries'' does not exactly reflect the different situations in these countries. They should be grouped by levels of their historical, socio-economic and political development, the degree of national self-determination achieved by their peoples and the level and prospects of the revolutionary processes.
This approach makes it possible to distinguish, first, a group of Latin American states where anti-imperialist democratic and socialist revolutions are on the agenda; and second, the group of newly-independent African and Asian countries where the socialist-oriented anti-imperialist national-democratic revolutions are determining the destiny and prospects of national and social progress.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 2. ANTI-COMMUNIST POLICYThe specifics of anti-communist ideology and policy and the place and role of anti-communism in the life of the Latin American nations are determined by different historical 150 levels of socio-economic, political and cultural development and also by the degree of national self-determination and the maturity of the revolutionary changes. A simple classification of countries from this point of view brings to light the untenability of the geographical, continental approach.
In Latin America today the highest level of national and social progress has been achieved by Cuba, which is in the final stage of transition from capitalism to socialism and is part of the world socialist system. New transitional sociopolitical structures have also emerged (for instance, in Peru), where anti-imperialist revolutionary regimes have to one extent or another broken the chain of dependence on imperialism and are destroying the system of monopoly exploitation.
Capitalist relations of production and political relations predominate in most Latin American states. In some of them, for instance, Paraguay and Haiti, the level of capitalist development is low. Others have reached a medium level of capitalist development with more or less pronounced elements of state-monopoly capitalism (for example, Brazil and Mexico).
In addition, there are new nations such as Guyana, which have received formal independence as a result of the crumbling of the old colonial system but have not put an end to neocolonialist dependence. Lastly, in Latin America there still are what are virtually colonies of the USA, Britain, France and the Netherlands. These states are mainly in the Caribbean basin which occupies a special place in international imperialism's political and military strategy.
This classification of the Latin American states in accordance with their level of historical and socio-political development leads, naturally, to the conclusion that the revolutionary liberation movements have a diversity of specifics.
The objective basis of the revolutionary movements in Latin America is characterised by a combination of general and specific socio-economic prerequisites and conditions. A specific of most of the Latin American countries is their 150 years' experience of socio-economic development as national-- 151 state entities. The state-political independence won in struggle from the Spanish and Portuguese colonialists was reduced within a century to financial, economic, military and diplomatic dependence on the leading imperialist powers. This formal state-political independence and virtual economic, diplomatic, military and other dependence predetermine the nature of relations between the Latin American nations and international imperialism.
A specific system of socio-economic and political contradictions has consequently taken shape in that continent. Chief among these is the contradiction between the Latin American peoples and foreign, chiefly US, imperialism. It has predetermined the anti-imperialist content and national- democratic nature of the revolutionary movements because it has grown from an external into an internal contradiction that permeates the entire fabric of social relations.
Consequently, the democratic, anti-dictatorship, agrarian revolutions in Latin America have the solution of this main contradiction as their objective and are directed mainly against foreign imperialism and its class allies in each country. These revolutions thereby not only hit the foreign monopolies but also undermine the foundations of world capitalism, particularly as they evolve into socialist revolutions.
The revolutionary processes in Latin America differ substantially from the national liberation movements in Asia and Africa by the combination of material, technical, objective socio-political and subjective prerequisites and conditions. Today most of the Latin American states have their own national internal markets, and although their economies are multistructural and are often mono-crop or mono- product, the image of the region is determined by capitalist relations of production. The level of capitalist development is, as we have noted, low or medium in the majority of the Latin American states, but local monopolies have been formed and state-monopoly capitalism is maturing in some of them.
152In order to keep these countries in the channel of capitalist development, US imperialism is stepping up not only its economic penetration but also its interference in their political, ideological and cultural life. World imperialism uses anti-communist ideology and policy as a weapon against champions of social and national progress.
Sources and varieties of anti-communism. In Latin America anti-communist ideas, concepts and methods have two basic historical sources: German nazism and US imperialism. Following fascism's military and political defeat, the influence of the fascist variety of anti-communism sharply declined, although its remnants persist in some of the Latin American states. This relates not only to the numerous centres of former nazi agents who had taken refuge in South America to escape punishment, but to the attempts of the USA, the neo-fascist parties and other agencies of the monopolies to galvanise the pro-fascist type of anti-communism.
In political practice this type of anti-communism has developed into a system of terrorist organisations specialising in subversion, in the assassination of revolutionaries, and in spying on Communist parties and other progressive democratic organisations. Pro-fascist anti-communism concentrates on kindling fear and on slandering socialism and progressive, revolutionary forces. However, this anti- communism does not satisfy the requirements of the reactionaries, who are evolving and disseminating other types of anticommunism.
In Latin America the most conspicuous of these types is ``positive'' or ``alternative'' anti-communism. Gambling on the technical and economic backwardness and the poverty of the population in Latin American countries, its exponents, for instance, Robert J. Alexander of Rutgers University, USA, and Victor Alba, a former Spanish Trotskyist residing in Mexico, are spreading the idea of a ``continental American democratic revolution'' with the middle strata, particularly intellectuals and students, as its main motive force, and are writing of the integration of various social 153 groups and the integration of Latin America into a modern West. They are flirting with the working-class movement, stressing that it has to be united and, most important, `` independent''. These are obviously attempts to neutralise the influence of the Communist parties in the working-class movement and divert the latter from the political antiimperialist struggle.
Spurious slogans of ``national integration'' and `` national unity'' are the keynotes of a variety that may be called nationalistic anti-communism. Its central idea is that as the generalisation of the experience of solely European nations, Marxism-Leninism reflects the reality of industrialised capitalist countries and is unsuitable for an analysis of Latin American reality and the solution of its social problems.
The reservation must be made that far from all the na tionalistic socio-political trends in Latin America are anticommunist. A combination of class and national antagonisms and the general importance of national democratic problems in the anti-imperialist struggle predetermine the existence of democratic elements in nationalism.
There are many varieties of nationalistic anti-communism, but it is perhaps most strikingly seen in the ideology and political programme of the so-called Peruvian Popular Revolutionary Party, whose political leader Haya de la Torre juggles with slanderous theories about the bourgeois nature of the Soviet State and the need for a united front of small nations for a joint struggle against the ``great powers'', in which he includes the Western imperialist states and the USSR. While proclaiming a nationalistic concept of an `` underdeveloped front'', the leaders of that party are attacking the anti-imperialist reforms being put into effect by the progressive regime in Peru.
A more subtle form of nationalistic anti-communism is propagated by a number of sociological theories, in which an attempt is made to show that Latin America has its own road of historical and social development. The bourgeois theories about a special Latin American road of development 154 are founded on the absolutisation of psychological and religious traditions, of the ``spiritual essence'' of the Latin American peoples. Theories of this kind are typical of ecclesiastical anti-communism. Reactionary ecclesiastics have, for a long time, and not without grounds, taken pride in the fact that the Catholic Church has been one of the most solid mainstays against communism. Today they are displaying considerable manoeuvrability and ideological and political flexibility in order to use even the new trends in Catholicism as a ``positive alternative of atheistic materialism and communism''. It should be borne in mind that Latin America is the only continent that may be called Catholic in the sense of that Church's traditional predominance.
The ecclesiastical elite has long ago and not unsuccessfully been adapting itself to the zigzags of modern sociopolitical processes. Whereas formerly a Catholic was threatened with excommunication if he joined a revolutionary party, in 1966 the Vatican, speaking through Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, allowed Catholics to join Communist parties. True, this ``progress'' was accompanied by the essential reservation that a Catholic should not embrace and propagate the ``wicked'' teaching of dialectical materialism.
In Latin America ecclesiastical anti-communism has worked out and is preaching a theory about a ``Christian revolution''. In one of these theories it is asserted, for instance, that neither ``individualism'' (i.e., liberal capitalism of the past and present-day economic imperialism) nor `` collectivism'' (Marxist communism, or ``new imperialism'') are suitable for the Latin Americans. As the ideal social prospect for the ``Catholic continent'' it propounds ``Christian solidarity'', which, when put to the test, for example, in the practice of the Christian-Democratic parties, turns out to mean truncated reforms that preserve capitalism and dependence on the imperialist monopolies.
However, the logic of the anti-imperialist struggle, and of world and their own revolutionary experience convinces the working Catholics, the Christian-Democrats and the Catholic 155 priests linked with the people that ecclesiastical anti- communism is untenable. This logic thereby fosters the growth of the front of anti-imperialist revolutionary forces.
Police-militarist anti-communism, exported to Latin America from the USA, is directed precisely at this growing anti-imperialist front. Drawing upon the experience of imperialist reaction's attacks on the liberation movement, it propounds a programme of military, political and ideological operations, a sort of ``preventive war'', against `` subversive and communist actions'', calling for the psychological and ideological indoctrination of public opinion, economic and political pressure and blackmail, clandestine spy operations and direct military suppression of revolutionary actions.
The architects, organisers and ideological leaders of this ``preventive war'' are the Pentagon and the US intelligence agencies, while the executors are the reactionary elite among the Latin American military and the officers and troops specially trained for ``counter-guerrilla'' warfare. According to the underlying military-political doctrine, the old geographical frontiers, i.e., the frontiers of the Latin American states, are replaced by ``ideological'' frontiers with the aim of ``containing the pressure of communism and safeguarding the foundations of Western civilisation''.
This programme for the creation of an invisible empire, for colonisation without colonies has been deciphered long ago in Latin America. Former President of Guatemala Juan Jose Arevalo eloquently described the situation when he spoke of the imperialist shark and the Latin American sardines. He spoke with the knowledge of his country's bitter experience. Following suppression of the anti-imperialist and anti-feudal revolution by a military intervention in 1954, the USA has for two decades been supporting subservient military dictatorships in Guatemala. Arevalo's book Anti-Communism in Latin America (An X-Ray of New Coloni- = sation)^^6^^ is a blistering indictment of the policy and ideology of the USA, the local military-oligarchal juntas and the ecclesiastical elite, showing them as the socio-political 156 foundation of the anti-communism directed against the liberation movement in Latin America. The significance of this indictment is accentuated by the fact that, far from being a revolutionary, Arevalo is an exponent of ``ethical socialism''.
Imperialism and the internal reactionaries in Latin America are attacking the revolutionary forces along a wide front, flexibly combining repressions with social demagogy and bourgeois reformism.
International imperialism is determined to crush the liberation movement in that region of the world with the aid of a policy of ``sanifying'' the socio-economic structure of the Latin American states. This policy, alongside intensified expansion in all its forms, has brought to life plans for bourgeois agrarian reforms and for stimulating the national economy by attracting foreign investments and applying the latest scientific and technological achievements at enterprises run by local monopoly capital. Encountering growing popular resistance, the US, West German and Japanese monopolies continued their neocolonialist expansion under the guise of assistance to a ``younger brother'', under cover of `` goodneighbour'', ``New Frontiers'', and ``Alliance for Progress'' programmes and a modified ``equal partnership'' doctrine.
Foreign capital continues its massive penetration of the Latin American economy. There has been a notable growth of the influence exercised by West German and Japanese monopolies, but over 80 per cent of the investments are from the USA. A new element in the export of private capital is the swift growth of direct investments in the processing industries of the Latin American states and the larger measure of control gained by the foreign monopolies over their advanced and most profitable industries and spheres of finance, credits and trade.
Nearly one-third of the industrial output in the Latin American countries is in the hands of the US monopolies.
Without entirely renouncing their former policy of acquiring economic concessions, these monopolies began setting up mixed enterprises and followed this up by investing in 157 the processing industry in order to retain command of key branches of the economy and intensify the technological dependence of many Latin American countries on the USA. As is stressed by the Programme adopted by the Communist Party of Colombia at its llth Congress in December 1971, US imperialism ``is completely or partially predominant in the key branches of the economy through direct or technological = control''.^^7^^
These tactics are designed to place the Latin American countries in heavier economic and political dependence on foreign capital. A case in point is Chile. Prior to the coup of September 1973, when the Salvador Allende Popular Unity Government was in power, the US monopolies ceased exporting machines, equipment and other manufactured goods needed by that country's industry in order to halt the changes that were being instituted.
Where imperialist-run enterprises are nationalised, monopoly capital denies the revolutionary governments supplies of means of production, of equipment, hinders the sale of traditional goods in the world market and seeks to undermine the economic basis of the countries concerned and discredit the revolutionary changes in them. The Latin American Free Trade Association and the plans for economic integration and regional common markets are new, disguised forms of domination by US monopoly capital and its anticommunist policies. These policies are only intensifying the economic plunder of the Latin American nations.
Parallel with its heightened financial and economic penetration of the Latin American countries, US imperialism is aiming to turn the armed forces of these countries into its main weapon for suppressing popular revolutionary actions and crushing the guerrilla movement. Reporting to the 13th Congress of the Communist Party of Argentina, the CPA's General Secretary Geronimo Arnedo Alvarez spoke of the aggressive plans of the US military with regard to the Latin American liberation movements; he quoted the US journal U.S. News & World Report as saying that currently the USA 158 was conducting a new type of secret war, using 25,000 specially trained people and spending 2,000 million dollars annually for this = purpose.^^8^^
In their policy of aggression and violence toward the countries of this region the imperialists maintain and plant, in most cases by military coups, reactionary dictatorships, intensify their splitting activities in the trade union movement and spread their influence in the armed forces and the police.
Their record includes the coup in Brazil, where the government of Joao Goulart was deposed, the overthrow of the government of Carlos Julio Arosemena and the installation of a military junta in Ecuador, the overthrow of the government of Arturo U. Illia and the establishment of a semi-fascist military dictatorship in Argentina. The US monopolies inspired the violence of the ``lawful'' government of Carlos Lleras Restrepo against the revolutionary masses in Colombia, the massacres in Guatemala by the `` democratic'' Montenegro administration, and the bloody repressions against Venezuela's finest sons by the ``republican methods'' of Romulo Betancourt and Raul Leoni. US capital is the mainstay of the military dictatorships of Alfredo Stroessner in Paraguay and Hugo Banzer Suarez in Bolivia, who came to power as a result of a coup and the overthrow of the government of Juan Jose Torres in August 1971.
The new concept of the anti-communist policy of ``equal partnership'' was proclaimed in the lengthy Rockefeller Report on the Americas that was drawn up following four tours of Latin America by Nelson Rockefeller in 1969. Drawing attention to the ominous neocolonialist declarations in the Rockefeller Report, a conference of twelve Latin American Communist parties noted that ``we are dealing with a perfidious, sinister, cunning and experienced enemy, who skilfully combines the most brutal repressive measures with demagogy, with concessions to some circles among the ruling classes that are loyal to him and whom he needs in order to preserve his = rule''.^^9^^
159The fact that the Soviet Union grants the Latin American states long-term (12 year) credits at 2.5 per cent interest repayable with traditional exports, while US capital charges from 5 to 6 per cent interest payable in dollars is regarded by the US monopolies' ideologists as a threat to the USA's positions. It worries them that the events in Peru and Bolivia in 1968 and 1969 had gradually led to a considerable expansion of aid and trade ties between these countries and the USSR and East European states.
Relying on the reactionaries among the Latin American bourgeoisie and latifundistas, US imperialism uses anti- communism in an effort to disunite the revolutionaries in the Latin American countries and isolate them from their staunchest friends---the socialist states and the revolutionary working-class movement of the capitalist states.
The Rockefeller Report supports the renovated variant of the ``inter-American peace forces'', saying: ``The United States should respond to requests for assistance of the police and security forces of the hemisphere by providing them with the essential tools to do their job. Accordingly, the United States should meet reasonable requests from other hemisphere governments for trucks, jeeps, helicopters, and like equipment to provide mobility and logistical support for these forces; for radios, and other command control equipment for proper communication among the = forces.''^^10^^ The USA thus displays touching concern for the organisation and material supplies of a variety of the ``special war'', whose substance is that Latin Americans should kill Latin Americans in order to bring larger profits to imperialism and preserve the sanctity of US monopoly investments.
The anti-communist policy of the monopolies is thus expressed in open support for military and civilian pro-US terrorist dictatorships, in the stepped up militarisation of the continent, in the formation of a ``co-ordinated command of armed police forces'' (a repressive organ that is a variety of the ``inter-American peace forces'') and in the enlargement of the police force in each of the Latin Airerican republics.
160Moreover, the imperialist bourgeoisie is engaged in the total ideological mobilisation of all reactionaries under the flag of anti-communism and anti-Sovietism. Its ideologists are trying to persuade the Latin American peoples that `` intensified economic growth requires a larger flow of private capital, both local and foreign''. While acknowledging that most people in Latin America regard US private investments as a form of exploitation and economic colonialism, they vainly endeavour to disprove the widespread opinion that this capital takes more from these countries than it gives them. They argue that there are no grounds for these suspicions and fears, contending that economic development is most successful in the Latin American states which encourage US private investments.
However, the facts expose the duplicity of the anti- communist ``equal partnership'' doctrine. For instance, the events of 1970 in Bolivia brought to power the government of General Torres, which relied on the alliance of the patriotic bourgeoisie and some segments of the petty bourgeoisie, took steps to protect the interests of the people and safeguard the nation's sovereignty, and sought popular support for a democratic anti-fascist and progressive policy.
The considerable involvement of the working people in the unfolding struggle opened up new prospects for giving the political process a more revolutionary content. The higher level of organisation and political unity gave the working masses the possibility of changing in their favour the alignment of forces that emerged as a result of clashes between different circles in the armed forces. The historical prospect for building socialism opened in Bolivia.
However, the formation of an anti-imperialist popular front was cut short by the military fascist coup of August 19, 1971 that was engineered and financed by US imperialism with the assistance of the dictators who rule in Brazil, the pro-imperialist dictatorship in Paraguay and some extreme Right-wing circles in Argentina.
Anti-communist military dictatorships were installed in 161 Bolivia and then in Uruguay in accordance with a pattern worked out and approved by US imperialism. This evoked no surprise in the Latin American states, much less among international opinion. The character of the events in Chile in 1970--1973 and then international reaction to them was totally different. First, the very fact that the Left-wing bloc won the presidential elections and that a National Unity Government was formed constitutionally and remained in power for three years eloquently showed that given certain conditions an extremely rare and valuable possibility arises and may be utilised for taking power peacefully.
Of the many theoretical and political problems linked with the Chilean events attention must be drawn to those in which new aspects of imperialism's neocolonialist expansion came to light. It is indicative that instead of direct military and political interference at state level US imperialism preferred to use a combination of economic, ideological and political means of pressure in order to prepare and accomplish an internal counter-revolutionary coup. It was revealed that the Right-wing, pro-fascist elements in Chile were co- ordinated and directed by special agencies of the Pentagon and the CIA and by emissaries of the multinational monopolies. The actions of the bloc of internal and external counterrevolution were of a clearly pronounced anti-communist and anti-democratic character. Although Chile remained a capitalist country where the people's revolutionary government was instituting not socialist but anti-imperialist and anti- oligarchal reforms, the leaders of the military-fascist junta acted under the hypocritical slogan of ``liberating the country from Marxist oppression''.
The counter-revolutionary coup and its tragic consequences are evidence of a new phase in the intensification of militarism and neo-fascism in the Latin American states. The relatively small armed forces in these countries are organised and trained by the imperialist and internal oligarchy as professional armies for a preventive war against ``subversion''. Despite the certain spread of anti-imperialist feeling, the __PRINTERS_P_161_COMMENT__ 11---2810 162 officers' corps in the Latin American states is on the whole brought up in the spirit of ``law and order''. Besides, in Chile the imperialist and internal oligarchy made adroit use of the illusion about the democratic attitudes of the Chilean army.
From the theoretical angle, the experience of Chile is a ``presidential'' variant of peaceful revolutionary development that was halted at its anti-imperialist, democratic phase. A significant outcome of the Chilean events is the revival of the anti-communist and ultra-Left attempts to discredit both the presidential and parliamentary variants of revolutionary changes, and to show that the ``price for the revolution'' was the break-down of production, the shrinkage of exports and a sharp deterioration of the living standard. Actually, all this was provoked through the concerted efforts of the external and internal counter-revolution, which to this day uses those setbacks as arguments vilifying the idea and theory of the socialist revolution.
The tendency toward Latin American solidarity, which became manifest after the Chilean events, is spurring the intrigues of the ideologists of neocolonialism. Attention is attracted, in particular, by the attempts to portray the events in Chile as a defeat of socialist ideas in the Latin American continent. At the same time, they are preaching the idea of ``Latin American democratic socialism'' as opposed to existing socialism.
In Latin America the revolutionary process is compounded not only by the anti-communist policy of the US monopolies and their local sycophants. Today the need and feasibility of the anti-imperialist, agrarian, democratic and socialist revolution have to be substantiated theoretically, and the tactics meeting the specific conditions and national features of the Latin American states have to be mapped out in an unremitting struggle against various schools of ``Left'' anti-communism, particularly petty-bourgeois ultra- revolutionary theories.
Adventurist Left-opportunist groups have mushroomed in Latin America under the impact of the anti-Marxist theories 163 of Maoism. Ultra-Left views found the social soil for their dissemination among the petty-bourgeois non-proletarian strata that have joined the revolutionary movement. The political guidelines of these Left-opportunist groups coincide with the ``theories'' of the Trotskyist elements, who, relying on Maoism, are also trying to win more influence in the Latin American revolutionary movement.
The ultra-Left and pseudo-revolutionary trends and groups, which comprise ``Left'' anti-communism, style themselves as the ``true revolutionary forces'' and sometimes claim to act in the name of Marxism and ``true Leninism''. Their attacks are spearheaded not at imperialism, the big Latin American bourgeoisie and the landed oligarchy but at the Communist parties, the Soviet Union and other socialist countries. These trends and groups are constantly engaged in provocations, which in some cases are the result of their petty-bourgeois desperation and hopelessness, while in others they are led by police and agents of international intelligence services who have infiltrated their ranks. ``Left'' anti-communism complements the attacks of the Right-wing forces on the Latin American Communist parties.
In the Latin American states the Communist parties unhesitatingly denounce the revolutionary verbiage of the ultraLeft and Right extremists, who have discarded the MarxistLeninist theory of the socialist revolution, the theory of Marx, Engels and Lenin on the forms of the struggle for power and the leading role of the working class in the antiimperialist movement, the principles underlying the workerpeasant alliance and the role of the Marxist-Leninist Party as the political vanguard in the revolutionary struggle.
The Latin American Communist parties are pressing for the unity of all democratic and progressive forces in a political army of the anti-imperialist, agrarian, democratic revolution that will put an end to US imperialist domination and the power of the latifundistas and big bourgeoisie and clear the road to the socialist revolution. They have denounced Maoism as an anti-Marxist and anti-Leninist trend and 164 are condemning all forms of anti-Sovietism. ``The fact cannot be ignored,'' said Luis Corvalan, ``that the Soviet Union is the bulwark of the liberation cause of peoples and that it and its Party have played and continue to play the decisive role in the history of our = epoch.''^^11^^
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 3. ANTI-COMMUNIST MANOEUVRESCompared 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.
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.
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^^
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.
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.
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^^
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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^^
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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''.
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.
171The 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
174Attempts 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The following, in outline, are the goals of this strategy.
First, to destroy the alliance of the world revolutionary forces and isolate the national liberation movements from world socialism and the international working class.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
``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^^
177A 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.
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.
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.
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.
In unison with Peking, reactionary bourgeois economists, ``experts'' on the Soviet Union, are zealously advocating the __PRINTERS_P_177_COMMENT__ 12---2810 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.
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.
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.
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^^
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
181True, 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.
Nonetheless, these preferences are regarded as a major success of the concerted efforts of the socialist and developing countries in international economic relations.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[186] __NUMERIC_LVL1__ CHAPTER SIX __ALPHA_LVL1__ ANTI-COMMUNISM AND OPPORTUNISMOne of anti-communism's main tendencies today is toward an intensification of its attempts to exercise a political and ideological influence on the working masses, particularly on the organised working-class movement. All sorts of opportunist trends, notably revisionism and social-reformism, serve as the main channels by which anti-communism penetrates the communist movement and the working-class movement as a whole.
A closer look at the essence of opportunism helps to understand its social role and its relation to anti-communism. By and large, opportunism may be defined as an expression of bourgeois or petty-bourgeois ideology in the working-class movement. It denies the need for the class struggle, the revolutionary remoulding of the capitalist system and the seizure of political power by the working class.
Lenin regarded opportunism in the working-class movement as a social trend that accentuates transient, selfish, mercenary, specific aims to the detriment of the class interests and historic social mission of the proletariat. He noted that the essence of opportunism lay in ``sacrificing the fundamental interests of the masses to the temporary interests of an insignificant minority of the workers or, in other words, an alliance between a section of the workers and the bourgeoisie, directed against the mass of the = proletariat''.^^1^^ As he put it, opportunism spelled out mainly class co-operation, a union 187 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ ANTI-COMMUNISM & OPPORTUNISM IN WORKING-CLASS MOVEMENT or agreement between the bourgeoisie and its antipode, the working class. Opportunism's principal political function is to split the working-class movement and bind large contingents of the working class to the capitalist system politically and ideologically. The fact that the monopoly bourgeoisie receives huge monopoly profits enabling it to ``bribe a large minority of workers'', Lenin said, facilitates the spread of opportunism.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 1. REVISIONISM IN THE SERVICEOne of the features of the development of MarxismLeninism is that at various stages of the class struggle it has to come to grips uncompromisingly not only with the avowed anti-Marxist ideas and teachings of the imperialist bourgeoisie but also with various forms of revisionism.
Acting within the communist and working-class movement in the capitalist world and in some countries of the socialist community, revisionism recasts the general laws of the socialist revolution and of socialist construction under the guise of ``anti-dogmatism'' and ``taking specifics into consideration''.
In the mid-1960s the international communist movement witnessed an activation of revisionism. Compelled to adapt themselves to the new balance of forces, to the influence of the world socialist community on the course of international development, imperialism and revisionism began to look for new ``arguments'' and methods of fighting socialism and the revolutionary working-class movement. One of these new elements in the ideological struggle of the 1960s was the animation of ``ultra-Left'' opportunism and revisionism, which used the ``arguments'' of Maoism. Grave aftermaths also stemmed from the actions of Right-wing revisionism in the latter half of the 1960s in a number of Communist parties of Western Europe and some socialist countries of 188 Eastern Europe. Ernst Fischer in the Communist Party of Austria, Roger Garaudy in the French Communist Party and the Right-wing revisionists in Czechoslovakia sparked a serious crisis in some areas of the European communist and working-class movement (the events of 1968 in Czechoslovakia were part of this crisis).
What were the basic specific features of the revisionism of the 1960s? What were the fundamental elements of the ideology of contemporary revisionism at the beginning of the 1970s? In what lay their scientific untenability and reactionary character? The most evident specific feature of the revisionism of the second half of the 1960s was its international character. For instance, the Communists of Czechoslovakia, Austria and France came into collision with revisionism in 1968. The revisionists of those countries had close contact with each other and a common language--- antiSovietism. But this fairly widespread social phenomenon evidently has its own common social mainsprings. The change in the world balance of forces in favour of socialism and the steadily growing role played by the world revolutionary process were misrepresented in the revisionism of the end of the 1960s. Revisionism comes forward as a reaction to the enhanced unity of the international communist movement and to the impressive successes achieved by the USSR and the other countries of the socialist community in building the new, developed socialist society. The economic reforms that some of the developed socialist states began to put into effect in the 1960s were used by the anti-communists and revisionists for a further distortion of the theory and practice of socialist construction in the spirit of the theories of ``a single industrial society'' and ``convergence''.
Yet another specific feature of the revisionism of the close of the 1960s, namely, its attempts to misconstrue the social aftermaths of the scientific and technological revolution, is linked with economic problems.
Let us consider in some detail the ideology of modern revisionism as exemplified by the actions of the Fischer-Marek 189 group in Austria, the Garaudy group in France and the revisionists in Czechoslovakia in 1968.
In the Communist parties of Austria and France some intellectuals began to succumb to the pressure of new and more sophisticated forms of bourgeois ideology and revise the philosophical foundations of Marxism-Leninism. One of the first manifestations of this philosophical revisionism was seen in the pronouncements of Roger Garaudy, Ernst Fischer and a number of Czechoslovak writers in 1963 at a conference held in Liboce (near Prague) in commemoration of the 80th anniversary of the birth of Franz Kafka. Outwardly these pronouncements touched on a fairly abstract philosophical problem, namely, the problem of ``alienation'', which Kafka discussed in artistic form from the standpoint of existentialism.
It will be recalled that in his Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 Karl Marx showed how and why in capitalist society the labour of man is alienated, turned into activity alien and hostile to him. Further, Marx demonstrated that only the socialist revolution and communist society were able to and had the mission of transcending capitalist alienation of labour, of the product of labour, of the implements and means of production, of people toward each other.
In existentialism alienation is stripped of its concrete historical, class character and converted into an abstract, extrahistorical, eternally anthropological and insurmountable collision between the individual and society. Under monopoly capitalism the petty bourgeois sees himself also turned into a toy of blind and incomprehensible social forces. However, his disgust with and even his protest against the dominant forces of monopoly capital remain a Utopian and hopeless ``rebellion'' and ``rejection''.
Garaudy and Fischer departed from Marxist-Leninist views, went over to an existentialist interpretation of alienation and as early as 1963 began to revise the philosophy of Marxism. At the Liboce conference in May 1963 the 190 revisionism of Garaudy, Fischer and the Czechoslovak writer E. Goldstiicker was sharply criticised by Professor Alfred Kurella of the GDR. ``My objections,'' Professor Kurella later wrote, ``were aimed mainly at the striving to attribute all the misfortunes of this world to alienation, at the extension of that concept which led even to attempts to regard the forces of nature, before which primitive man was helpless, as 'ancient and natural' forms of alienation. According to Garaudy man tried to counter this alienation by creating idols. These ideas, which do not square with the modern level of research into the relations between man and nature and with the fundamentals of art, cannot be regarded as an ideological enrichment of scientific = socialism.''^^2^^
In retrospect it may be said that at the 1963 conference an ideological alliance of the revisionists of France, Austria and Czechoslovakia took shape, and it was formalised in 1968--1969. In 1965, Zbigniew Brzezinski published the books Alternative to Partition. For a Broader Conception of America's Role in = Europe^^3^^ and (in collaboration with Samuel P. Huntington) Political Power: USA/USSR. Similarities and Contrasts. Convergence or Evolution?^ in which he oriented anti-communist propaganda toward energetic support of these revisionist actions in the socialist countries and the Communist parties of Europe. In the same 1965 the ideological evolution of Garaudy and Fischer gave further confirmation of the hopes and calculations of the anticommunists.
Garaudy's attitude at the conference of Marxists and Christians sponsored by the Catholic St. Paul's Society in Salzburg, Austria, was also typical of the revisionism propounded by him. In his paper at the Salzburg conference, published under the heading From Anathema to Dialogue, he entirely rejected the principles of scientific materialism and revised some of Marxism's fundamental propositions.
He defined Marxism as a ``methodology of historical initiative'' for the realisation of ``total man''. Christian and generally religious myths were equated to the Marxist 191 negation of the present and to the prevision of the future. But this prevision was interpreted as the construction of models, as a creative project in a subjective-idealistic, existentialist understanding of the word ``project'', as a manifestation of the freedom of the individual and a negation of the objective laws of development. Garaudy rejected the Leninist theory of reflection, offering his concept of a cybernetic model instead.
In the dialogue with Christians Garaudy absolutised the active aspect of cognition only as an act of the abstract individual, as an expression of purely individualistic and voluntaristic ``practice'', thereby revealing the socio-political orientation of his revision of scientific materialism and of the dialectical-materialist theory of cognition. He counterposed other ``models'' to the ``Soviet model of socialism''.
His speech at the conference showed that he had in fact shifted to the stand proposed in 1960 by Jean-Paul Sartre who, in his book A Critique of Dialectical Reason, intended to complement Marxist philosophy with existentialism.
A similar revision of Marxism-Leninism from a somewhat different angle was urged by Ernst Fischer. In ``Marxism and Ideology'', an article carried by Weg und Ziel, the theoretical organ of the Communist Party of Austria, in 1965--- shortly before he had published it in a supplement to Rindscita, organ of the Italian Communist Party, under the title ``Closer to the Truth''---Fischer attempted to differentiate between ideology as a partisan, socially-conditioned outlook and scientific truth as such. He interpreted every sociallyconditioned ideology as false, distorted or ``alienated'' consciousness, and every truth as being incompatible with partisanship. From this position he urged the ``renunciation of ideology'' in Marxism. He wrote that in evaluating ideas they should not be defined as ``bourgeois'' or ``socialist'' or `` antiMarxist'', but that they should be assessed solely as ``true'' or ``false''.
In the discussion of Fischer's article conducted by Weg und Ziel, the Austrian Marxists Friedl Fiirnberg and Ernst Wimmer (No. 6, 1965), Hans Kalt (No. 9) and Walter 192 Hollitscher (No. 9) showed that these ideas of Fischer's were scientifically untenable and reactionary. A fundamental distinction between the ideology of the revolutionary proletariat, of its Marxist-Leninist theory, and the ideologies of all the other classes of bourgeois society is that the partisan ideology of the working class does not clash with, but requires an objective scientific knowledge of all things and phenomena so that they may be successfully remoulded.
However, Fischer did not heed this criticism. A year later he published a book under the title Art and Coexistence, in which he linked his philosophical revisionism with anti-Sovietism. Polemising openly with the Leninist teaching of the partisanship of literature and art, he interpreted the partisanship of Soviet art as a manifestation of a ``new form of alienation'', as a result of the `` institutionalisation and bureaucratisation of power'' under socialism. He declared that the entire socialist superstructure of Soviet society is ``hostile to man'' and as ``proof'' offered A. Solzhenitsyn's story One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich. He rejected the entire selfless struggle of the Soviet peoples under the leadership of the CPSU and slanderously identified the epochal achievements of this struggle with the negative consequences of the Stalin personality cult. Repenting that he had himself been a ``Stalinist'', he embraced anti-communism and anti-Sovietism under the guise of combating = ``Stalinism''.^^5^^
The link between opportunism and bourgeois ideology becomes more pronounced on the basis of anti-Sovietism.
This link is eloquently demonstrated by Wolfgang Leonhard, a West German Sovietologist and one of the most active exponents of anti-communism, in the book Division of Marxism into Three Parts. Genesis and Development of Soviet Marxism, Maoism and Reformist Communism? In this book Leonhard, who has for many years been preaching bellicose anti-communism in literature and on West German radio and television, extols modern revisionism, which he calls ``reformist communism'' for its anti-Soviet orientation and divisive, nationalistic activities. On the pretext of 193 combating ``Stalinism'' and propagating ``human socialism'' or ``socialism with a human face'', this revisionism absolutises the negative consequences of the Stalin personality cult, denies all the historic achievements of the more than halfcentury development of the new, socialist society in the USSR, and rejects the dictatorship of the proletariat and the objective laws of the socialist revolution and of the period of transition from capitalism to socialism. Influenced by the present schools of bourgeois subjectivist-idealist philosophy, particularly existentialism, this revisionism renounces philosophical materialism and materialist dialectics, adopting abstract humanism and the philosophy of ``practice'' instead. It falsifies the integral teaching of MarxismLeninism, laying claim to ``creatively developing'' and even ``rejuvenating'' it. This, Leonhard asserts, is the only kind of ``Marxism'' that has a future.
The ideologists of Right-wing opportunism coalesce with the exponents of ``Left'' opportunism, the Maoists, neoTrotskyites and the petty-bourgeois ``New Left'', who have proclaimed Marcuse a ``Marxist thinker''.
When Marcuse's One-Dimensional Man was published the crisis of bourgeois ideology in the USA and other statemonopoly capitalist countries had entered a new stage. The first social effects of the scientific and technological revolution had begun to manifest themselves. These new social developments were differently portrayed by Daniel Bell of Columbia University in The End of = Ideology^^1^^ and by Marcuse in his One-Dimensional Man. The war of US imperialism against the heroic Vietnamese people, the broad movement of American Blacks and the student unrest had obviously undermined the frankly apologetic bourgeois ideology. The myths about the ``Great Society'' in the USA, about the ``new horizons'' and prospects of the ``American way of life'' had crumbled. The word ``deideologisation'' quickly took root in the capitalist world and the anti-communists are endeavouring to use this against Marxism-Leninism, which they claim is obsolete. The ``Left'' revisionists are urging a __PRINTERS_P_193_COMMENT__ 13---2810 194 return to utopianism and the renunciation of faith in science. In the same spirit, the Right-wing revisionists urge the abandonment of partisanship, of a class evaluation of ideas and events. Garaudy in the dialogue with the Christians and in the book Realism Without Shores (1966) and Fischer in the book Art and Coexistence call for coexistence in the sphere of ideas as well.
Having begun with a revisionism of the philosophical principles of Marxism-Leninism and with a shift to antiSovietism, the Right-wing revisionists in the West European capitalist states went over in 1968 to the massive peddling of their anti-Marxist ideas. These ideas were given their fullest expression in Garaudy's For a French Model of Socialism (1968) and The Great Turn of Socialism = (1969),^^8^^ and in a series of books by Fischer and Marek under the heading What Marx Really Said (1968) and What Lenin Really Said = (1969).^^9^^ One of the underlying ideas of this revisionism is that of the ``pluralism'' of Marxism, and one of the end products of these ideas is the ``new model of socialism''. Another ``contribution'' of the revisionists to the elaboration of new, pressing issues generated by the scientific and technological revolution and by the contradictions of statemonopoly capitalism is their absolutisation of the role of intellectuals in the revolutionary process and their negation of the revolutionary role of the proletariat.
Let us make a closer study of these elements of revisionism on the basis of a critical analysis of the above-mentioned works by Garaudy and Fischer.
At the close of the 1960s the revisionist idea of the `` pluralism'' of Marxism and of the ``pluralism'' of models of socialism attempted to make capital chiefly out of the negative consequences in the socialist world resulting from the anti-Leninist policies of China's leaders. Following in the footsteps of the anti-Leninism of the rabid enemies of Marxism, the revisionists preach the need for different ``variants'' of Marxist theory and different `` models'' of socialism. While the anti-communist Wolfgang 195 Leonhard lists three forms of Marxism ``(Soviet Marxism, Maoism and reformist communism''), Fischer distinguishes four ``modern variants'' of Marxism: ``Marxism as a ` scientific outlook', as a `philosophy of man', as a `structure' or `system of concepts' and as a `scientific method of examining history and political = initiative'.''^^10^^ If in this way MarxismLeninism is turned into an eclectic conglomeration of all sorts of ideas, if Marxism is taken to mean the purely arbitrary, speculative constructions of different schools of the ``critically thinking elite'', and if Marxism is associated with the primitive ideas of Maoism that have nothing in common with it, then nothing will remain of it as a scientific theory. But there can only be one scientific objective truth, a truth that does not depend for its content on the subjective opinions of various authors, a truth that faithfully mirrors objective reality in all its wealth, diversity and dialectical development. This truth is the theory of Marxism-Leninism in its continuous enrichment and development. Its objective character has been tested and reaffirmed by decades of socio-historical practice, by the experience of the proletarian class struggle and by the building of socialism. Its specificity lies in the fact that it is not confined to abstract generalities but covers the entire wealth of concrete, multiform and changing reality. This objective truth cannot break down into ``Soviet'', ``Chinese'', ``French'' and other ``national truths''.
The universality of Marxist-Leninist theory does not exclude but, on the contrary, presupposes a strict account of the concrete historical conditions, of the concrete features of one country or another and of the diversity in the manifestation of the general laws of the class struggle and of the socialist revolution. In generalising the experience of recent years, the 1969 Moscow International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties noted that ``following the victory of the socialist revolution in many countries, the building of socialism on the basis of general laws is proceeding in various forms, which take into account concrete historical conditions __PRINTERS_P_195_COMMENT__ 13* 196 and national = distinctions''.^^11^^ These distinctions of forms, and account of concrete conditions and national distinctions have nothing in common with an arbitrary and subjectivist `` construction of cybernetic models of socialism''. They are founded on objective factors that are cognised on the basis of an integral scientific theory. In itself the method of modelling as an instrument of cognition does not contradict science, provided an account is taken of the entire sum of the objective laws of the object underlying one model or another. But the method of ``constructing models'' suggested by modern revisionism violates all the conditions of scientific modelling, for it ignores the objective reality of socialism and the laws of the class struggle and the socialist revolution, replacing this socialism with diverse varieties of antisocialist or Utopian visions and falsifications of socialism.
Garaudy's criticism of the ``Soviet model'' of socialism boils down in the long run to a negation of the leading role played by the Party of the working class in the building of socialist and communist society. He regards it as the enemy of ``human subjectivity'', whose outburst comprises, in his opinion, the substance of the ``cybernetic turn'' in modern society. Fischer urges the replacement of all Communist parties by a ``coalition of Left forces'', ``of Marxists and non-Marxists, of Communists and Social-Democrats, of Catholics and = Protestants''.^^12^^ For Garaudy a ``pluralist attitude to philosophy'' must be the indication of the future party: ``It cannot have an `official philosophy' and it cannot in principle be idealistic, materialistic, religious or athe- istic.''^^13^^
This preaching of pluralism and the abolition of the Marxist-Leninist Party of the working class, this negation of the Party's role of leader and organiser essentially mirror the revisionists' adulation of bourgeois democracy, admiration of the parliamentary struggle and negation of the inevitability of and need for the dictatorship of the proletariat. At the same time this pluralist ideology of Right-wing opportunism reflects the petty-bourgeois individualism of the exponents of 197 these ideas, their elitist distrust for the organised working-class movement and their organic non-acceptance of the principles of democratic centralism.
This provides further evidence of how the revisionists approach the socialist state: they, too, see only negative aspects, an element of bureaucracy, etatism and alienation. In solidarity with anti-communists like Leonhard or Brzezinski, the revisionists suggest abolishing the socialist states as quickly as possible for the sake of a transition to a ``self-- administration of producers'', referring, in particular, to the `` Yugoslav example''. In this, too, modern revisionism does not display originality. Day-to-day experience shows the steadily growing role played by the Communist parties of the working class and the need for the socialist state in order to ensure the complete triumph of communism. This is demanded not only by the objective internal requirements of developed socialist society but also by the conditions of the struggle between the two opposing world systems, between capitalism and socialism.
A new element in many of the revisionist pronouncements at the close of the 1960s as compared with the revisionism of the past is the claim to have theoretically resolved the problems of the scientific and technological revolution. Their points of departure are: a) the denial that under state- monopoly capitalism the working class plays a revolutionary role; b) the absolutisation of the role played by intellectuals and by their ``critical = thinking'';^^14^^ c) the absolutisation of the mass media and means of manipulating public consciousness; and d) the denial that the social consequences of the scientific and technological revolution differ fundamentally under socialism and capitalism.
It is nonetheless unquestionable that for its role in social production and for its role in the revolutionary process the proletariat of the industrialised capitalist countries has been and remains the principal force of the socialist revolution.
As regards the intelligentsia, its numerical growth and its role in the context of science's conversion into a direct 198 productive force, the Communist parties adhering to the positions of creative Marxism-Leninism had been studying these new developments long before the appearance of the writings of Garaudy or Fischer. In the Main Document adopted by the 1969 Moscow Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties it is stated: ``In this age, when science is becoming a direct productive force, growing numbers of intellectuals are swelling the ranks of wage and salary workers. Their social interests intertwine with those of the working class; their creative aspirations clash with the interests of the monopoly employers, who place profit above all else. Despite the great diversity in their positions, different groups of intellectuals are coming more and more into conflict with the monopolies and the imperialist policy of governments. The crisis of bourgeois ideology and the attraction of socialism help to bring intellectuals into the anti-imperialist = struggle.''^^15^^ The conditions are arising for a broad working-class alliance not only with the peasants and the urban middle strata but also with the bulk of the intelligentsia. The need for this alliance is becoming more apparent in dealing with questions of war and peace and democracy, and democratic control of production and of cultural, information, scientific and educational institutions.
An indication of this is the New Left movement. Uniting a segment of radical intellectuals and young people, mostly students, lacking ideological and organisational homogeneity and easily succumbing to the influence of the revolutionary verbiage of the Maoists or the Trotskyists, this movement signified a shift to the Left. Where the Communists were able to free the participants of the New Left movement of their anti-communist prejudices and of the influence of the Maoist and Trotskyist splitters, the majority in the movement began gravitating toward a union with the workingclass movement, seriously studying the theory of MarxismLeninism and waging a more consistent and organised struggle against imperialism. At the same time, this movement provided further evidence that the intelligentsia has by no 199 means become part of the proletariat and has not, as Garaudy claims, formed a ``new historic bloc''. The intelligentsia retains its specific features as a special social stratum in the state-monopoly capitalist states despite the scientific and technological revolution.
The problems of the scientific and technological revolution and its social consequences are resolved quite differently in developed socialist society. This society, it was re- emphasised at the 24th Congress of the CPSU, faces the historic task of organically combining the achievements of the scientific and technological revolution with the advantages of the socialist economic system. Moreover, socialism fosters the further union between the socialist working class, the socialist peasantry and the new socialist intelligentsia and the gradual erasure of the essential distinctions between town and countryside and between labour by brain and by hand in the process of building the classless communist society.
Here the working class remains not only society's main productive force but also the leading force in the drive for communism. Its revolutionary spirit, discipline, organisation and sense of collectivism, the growth of its cultural and educational level and political activity, and its communist ideology determine its leading role in the development of mature socialist society. This is most fully reflected by the natural heightening of the leadership provided by the Communist Party as the highest form of the working class's political organisation and as the vanguard of all working people in a socialist society.
In the 1960s the question of the role played by the Communist Party became the focus of the struggle between the Marxist-Leninists and the different schools of revisionism. In early 1968 the revisionists in Czechoslovakia used the motto of ``democratising socialism'' to demand the diminution of the activity and influence of the Communist Party and its self-removal from power, from the direction of economic policy, from the guidance of the mass media, and so on. In areas where these demands encountered little resistance they 200 Emacs-File-stamp: "/home/ysverdlov/leninist.biz/en/1976/CAC343/20061227/299.tx" __EMAIL__ webmaster@leninist.biz __OCR__ ABBYY 6 Professional (2006.12.28) __WHERE_PAGE_NUMBERS__ top __FOOTNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ nil __ENDNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [0-9]+ were immediately utilised by anti-socialist elements to set up a ``spontaneous movement'' as a counter-balance to genuinely socialist organisation and consciousness. The mass media were seized b,y petty-bourgeois revisionist ideologists and propagandists and used for undermining the influence of the socialist administration, the working-class organs of power.
It must be noted that modern revisionism frequently uses the growing influence of new mass media on public opinion, particularly television and the cheap gutter press with its huge circulation, to manipulate people's minds, spread anticommunist ideology and reinforce anti-communist prejudices in the capitalist countries. Although most of the new mass media are run by the monopolies, the governments and the political parties of monopoly capital, they give the growing democratic, anti-monopoly forces new opportunities for influencing people and spreading the truth.
Were the seemingly all-powerful US press agencies and radio able to avert the worldwide anti-American feeling and movement in defence of the peace and independence of the peoples of Indochina? The torrents of anti-communist propaganda can no longer halt the growth of the world socialist community's influence on the minds of people in the rest of the world and stop the proliferating interest in the ideas of socialism, in the theory of MarxismLeninism.
It is evidently not a matter of absolutising the role and significance of the mass media but one of placing them under democratic control, of perceiving the laws of the overall intensification of the ideological struggle on a global scale, of the Communist parties' correctly using the new possibilities being created by the scientific and technological revolution for moulding a revolutionary class consciousness. In the Federal Republic of Germany, for instance, a massive campaign was unfolded at the end of the 1960s against the reactionary newspaper baron Axel Springer, whose daily publications with their multimillion circulation poison people's 201 minds with anti-communism and misinformation. A situation can and should be created where the worker will adopt a critical attitude to such misinformation and ultimately reject it. When even the Springer press has to write anxiously about the growing influence of the more than 300 factory newspapers published by the German Communist Party and disseminated at the largest factories in West Germany and about the growing influence of GDR radio broadcasts on public opinion in West Germany, this strikingly disproves the revisionists' capitulatory thesis that the media for the mass manipulation of the public mind in the hands of the monopolies are omnipotent.
Relative to the fundamental distinctions between the consequences of the scientific and technological revolution under capitalism and socialism, the revisionists' negation or disregard of these distinctions are refuted by the experience and achievements of developed socialist society. Unlike monopoly capitalism, socialism is able to successfully resolve for the welfare of man and mankind the problems related to the rational use of natural resources, air and water pollution, urban development, mass motoring and the emergence of a ``consumer society'' with the rise of the living standard and cultural level. The advantages of the socialist system of secondary and higher education have received worldwide recognition long ago. Growing recognition is being received throughout the world by the new qualitative aspects distinguishing life in developed socialist society from the American way of life: the all-round promotion of each person's creative abilities, the true socialist humanism that permeates culture, education and everyday life, the mounting social activity and consciousness of the people and the assertion of new moral values.
In the latter half of the 1960s vacillating Marxists degenerated from a revision of the philosophical principles of Marxism to a total rejection of Marxism-Leninism, to apostasy. The most dangerous were those manifestations of revisionism which took place in a ruling Communist Party 202 when a section of its leadership not only failed to wage a consistent struggle against revisionism but for a time itself slid into revisionist positions: this refers to the crisis in the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia in 1968.
The decisions of the CPC Central Committee's plenary meeting in December 1970 and the 14th Congress of the CPC (May 1971) contain a detailed analysis of how the ideology and policy of revisionism, which had become an instrument of anti-communism, prepared the ground for this crisis. Anti-Sovietism and nationalism were the common denominator of the anti-communist and revisionist forces in Czechoslovakia. By dissociating themselves from the class position of proletarian internationalism and gradually yielding to the pressure of bourgeois nationalism, that acted under the banner of anti-Sovietism, the ideologists of revisionism in Czechoslovakia tried to create a massive basis for anti-socialist actions.
The broad popularity of the ideas of socialism made the anti-socialist forces fight them under the revisionist slogan of ``improving'' or ``democratising'' or ``liberalising'' socialism.
The ``new model'' of socialism suggested by the revisionists thus proved to be a petty-bourgeois model of `` consumer'' socialism. The common foundation of all these versions of revisionist models was their rejection of the leading role of the working class and its Marxist-Leninist Party in a socialist society. With this was linked the revisionist rejection of the class approach to the question of state and power under socialism, in other words, a revision of the pivotal issue of the entire theory of Marxism-Leninism, namely, the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat. With this ``model'' is also linked the revision of the political economy of socialism directed toward abolishing planning, rejecting the priority of class policy over economics during the period of socialist construction, and proclaiming market self- regulation as the basis of the economy.
A profound critical analysis of the.reasons for the crisis in Czechoslovakia and the role played by revisionism in 203 precipitating it is given in the ``Report of the CPC Central Committee on the Party's Work and Social Development after the 13th Congress of the CPC and the Party's Further Tasks''. ``In the period when Czechoslovakia became the object of the concentrated pressure and ideological subversion of Western anti-communist centres,'' Gustav Husak said at the 14th Congress of the CPC, ``which directed their activities toward discrediting socialist principles and values, kindling nationalistic and anti-Soviet feeling and fanning petty-bourgeois prejudices, the Party leadership's unprincipled policy resulted in the key positions in culture, the social sciences, the mass media and also the public organisations and state and Party organs being taken over by people who lacked staunchness and even by those who did not adhere to socialist = positions.''^^16^^
Further, he noted: ``An objective analysis of the course of events during that period makes it plain that without the opportune internationalist assistance of our closest socialist allies, the power of the working class and working people in our country would have been defeated.. .. This internationalist act saved the lives of thousands of people, ensured the internal and external conditions for peaceful and tranquil labour, strengthened the Western boundaries of the socialist community and destroyed the hopes of the imperialist circles for a revision of the results of the Second World War.''^^17^^
Thus ended one of the most dangerous and serious actions of the revisionists at the close of the 1960s. Thus was foiled one of international anti-communism's strongest trumps--- revisionism in Czechoslovakia. It is necessary to recall these lessons of the struggle against revisionism because the Rightwing revisionists in the CPC leadership in 1968 went to considerable lengths to misinform the international workingclass and communist movement of the actual substance of the crisis in Czechoslovakia and the CPC and of the extent of the counter-revolutionary threat in that country, coalescing here, too, with the mammoth anti-Soviet campaign that 204 was launched throughout the world by the ideologists of imperialism and anti-communism.
Present-day revisionism has a number of specifics. One of them springs from its attempts to make capital out of the consequences of the scientific and technological revolution by accusing Marxism-Leninism of ignoring this problem. Actually, it was Marx who theoretically substantiated the role played by science in the development of the productive forces and showed that science naturally tended to turn into a direct productive force, while Lenin charted the ways of using science and technology during the building of the new, socialist society.
Similarly untenable are the attempts of the revisionists to reject the dictatorship of the proletariat under slogans of ``liberalisation'' and ``democratisation'' and to identify it with the errors generated by the personality cult and subjectivism. The abstract, non-class interpretations of the revisionists conceal their attempts to replace the leading role of the working class by the leading role of the petty- bourgeois ``spiritual elite'' with arguments about a ``pluralist'' society, and to discredit the administrative mechanism of socialist society under the guise of combating the ``apparatus''.
In actual fact the development of the working class of socialist society is accompanied by the growth of its influence on social processes. This finds concrete expression also in the growth of that class's political vanguard, its Marxist- Leninist Party. By consciously shaping the world outlook of millions of people, the Communist Party of socialist society creates for each person the conditions for his all-round, harmonious development, for his conscious, enterprising, responsible and creative participation in social life, for his real participation in the management of social affairs.
It is the Party that makes sure that the scientific and technological revolution results not in comfortable idleness and consumer ideology, a withdrawal into the petty world of philistine or even acquisitive moods but in more leisure time 205 and a higher level of culture and education that would lead to the moulding of the citizen of communist society.
In the capitalist world the scientific and technological revolution cannot yield and is not yielding the effects the revisionists speak of. On the contrary, the role of the proletariat is growing, the economic (monetary) and spiritual crisis of bourgeois society is mounting and the mass political army of the socialist revolution is emerging.
Neither anti-communism nor revisionism have been or will be able to halt the increasing interest that the masses, particularly the young people, are showing in MarxismLeninism. Even the New Left movement, in which anti- communist prejudices and revisionist ideas persist, is finding that its finest segment is drawing steadily closer to the workers and the communist movement, adopting the ideological positions of true Marxism-Leninism and joining in the active and organised anti-imperialist struggle. But even here a systematic, uncompromising struggle by the Communists against all manifestations of revisionism is the condition for the triumph of this trend.
At present the ideologists of anti-communism in the USA and West Germany are tending to urge reideologisation because ``deideologisation'' is making it increasingly harder to counter the growing influence of the proletariat's revolutionary scientific ideology.
True, anti-communism is looking for and sometimes finding new renegades among the multimillion-strong workingclass movement and vociferously praising them with the aid of the mass media. But these outcasts cannot halt the irreversible consolidation and strengthening of the militant unity of the world communist and working-class movement. The lessons of the struggle against revisionism in the 1960s have not passed in vain, and there is every reason to regard the future with optimism.
206 __ALPHA_LVL2__ 2. ANTI-COMMUNISM IN THE IDEOLOGICAL ARSENALPresent-day Social-Democracy is the reformist, Right- opportunist wing of the working-class movement. Its ideologists, mainly of the Right wing, champion the capitalist system and anti-communism. The significance of the struggle against anti-communism in the social-democratic movement is determined chiefly by the fact that it is directly linked with the implementation of the strategy of the Communist parties of capitalist countries to set up a wide anti-monopoly front that could overwhelm imperialism. The unity of the working class itself, which is still disunited, is the key condition for the formation of this front. In the industrialised states, notably of Western Europe, co-operation between Communists and Social-Democrats is vital to the achievement of working-class unity. These parties have the largest following among the West European proletariat and also among the proletariat in Japan, Australia and New Zealand.
Anti-communism penetrates the working-class movement side by side with reformism as a consequence of bourgeois ideological and political influence on the working class. This influence is spread by Right-wing Social-Democrats.
However, the aforesaid by no means signifies that bourgeois, imperialist anti-communism is identical with its Rightwing social-democratic variety. On the contrary, it is quite evident that whereas anti-communism is intrinsic to the ideology and policy of the imperialist bourgeoisie, it is alien from the class and ideological standpoint to the workingclass movement, of which Social-Democracy is a part. This fact strongly influences the character of the Right-wing social-democratic variant of anti-communism. It makes the struggle of the Communists to expel anti-communism from the ranks of the Social-Democrats a means of ending the split of the working class and uniting it under the banner of common class interests and aims.
207The contradiction inherent in the anti-communist platform of Right-wing Social-Democracy, namely, its virtual transition to the class positions of the bourgeoisie and the objective need for preserving a certain anti-capitalist orientation, is the principal factor determining the specific feature of this variety of anti-communism, a feature that is seen mainly in the fact that with the aggravation of capitalism's contradictions reformist policy is finding it has to adapt itself to the requirements of capitalist reality.
Further, this specific feature manifests itself in the character of the problems raised by the ideologists of Right-wing Social-Democracy as regards their basic anti-communist concepts. It springs from the very substance of social- democratic ideology as an ideology of opportunism. The fundamental ideological divergences between the Communists and the Social-Democrats embrace issues such as the ways and means of transition to socialism, the very content of the terms ``socialism'', ``freedom'', ``dictatorship'' and `` democracy''. These ideological divergences also predetermine the specifics of the Right-wing social-democratic variant of anticommunism, which is called ``democratic'' anti-communism.
In the social-democratic movement anti-communism developed over many decades. Its foundations were laid long before the formal rupture with Marxism, at a time when opportunism was nascent in the working-class movement. Its prehistory is traced from the revisionism of Eduard Bernstein to the social-chauvinism of the leaders of the Second International during the First World War and to the antiSovietism that sprang up after the Great October Socialist Revolution.
The present phase of social-reformism and of its anticommunist ideology owes its specific feature to socialism's economic, social and political achievements and to the exacerbation of capitalism's internal contradictions.
The imperialist bourgeoisie is aware of the possibilities afforded by the utilisation of the ``democratic'' variant of anti-communism in its anti-labour policies. These 208 possibilities stem from that variant's formal ``anti-capitalist'' orientation. The social-reformists characterise their platform as being opposed to both imperialism and communism, as a ``third way'', as the way to ``democratic socialism''. The `` democratic'' verbiage and ``anti-capitalist'' orientation of Rightwing social-democratic anti-communism render a substantial service to imperialist propaganda against Marxist-Leninist ideology, to the attempts to keep the foundations of the capitalist system intact at all costs. The more far-sighted ideologists of imperialism strive to make the utmost use of the Right-wing social-democratic variant of anti- communism and help to disseminate it in order to emasculate socialism from within. This was seen in bold relief during the events of 1968 in Czechoslovakia, where the counter- revolution used the disguise of ``democratic'' and ``humane'' socialism.
The specific of contemporary social-democratic anti- communism manifests itself also in the forms of anti-communist propaganda. Its proponents understand that in face of socialism's achievements it would be futile to launch undisguised slander, direct ideological and political provocations and unsubstantiated, crude attempts to discredit the sociopolitical system in the countries of the socialist community.
``Democratic'' anti-communism camouflaged with pseudosocialist verbiage is unquestionably beginning to forge into the forefront. In the capitalist countries public opinion regards the term ``anti-communist'' as almost synonymous with the terms ``reactionary'' and ``conservative''. For instance, Willy Brandt, leader of the Social-Democratic Party of Germany, pointed out that anti-communism was used as a camouflage for the struggle against every kind of = progress.^^18^^
Nonetheless, anti-communism remains a key element of the ideological platform of modern Social-Democracy, particularly of its Right wing. The entire range of the theories used and evolved by the Right-wing Social-Democrats for anticommunist purposes may be divided into two large groups. These are, first, the theories designed to ``refute'' or smear the 209 Marxist-Leninist teaching as a whole or its individual components. Second, these are theories that boil down to attempts to discredit social development in the socialist countries, notably the Soviet Union, and the revolutionary working-class movement. The reverse side of the anti-communist theories is an apologia of the capitalist socio-political and economic system, which is likewise formalised as a system of concepts.
For a long time the Right-wing Social-Democrats sought to prove that Marxism was obsolete. Initially, when Right-wing opportunism first made its appearance in the working-class movement, these attempts took the shape of a striving to `` correct'' and ``renew'' some Marxist propositions. This brought about Right-wing Social-Democracy's complete rupture with the ideology and practice of Marxism, manifested not only by the departure from Marxist propositions in most of SocialDemocracy's programme documents but also by a total renunciation of Marxism as the ideological foundation of the Workers' Party. Social-Democracy moved from the ``philosophical neutrality'' of the leaders of the Second International to ``ideological neutrality'', to the thesis that no theory was needed for the struggle for socialism.
In order to make the social-democratic rank-and-file forget Marx and give them a misconceived idea about Marxism, the reformist leaders propagated pseudo-Marxism, `` Austrian Marxism'', proclaiming as ``Marxists'' Bernstein, Kautsky, Marcuse and Mao Tse-tung, and others. Today this thesis has taken the form of the theory about the ``pluralism'' of Marxism-Leninism and is an attempt to discredit the theory of Marx, Engels and Lenin.
Another method used in the attempts to undermine the ideology of scientific communism is to run a dividing line between the ``young'' and ``humanist'' Marx and the `` mature'' Marx, and between Leninism and Marxism. This is one of the principal orientations of the anti-communist methods of falsifying Marxist-Leninist theory.
The social-democratic theorists counterpose Leninism to Marxism mainly in basic issues of the socialist revolution and __PRINTERS_P_209_COMMENT__ 14---2810 210 in questions relating to the principles underlying the organisation and functions of the Party of the working class. All that Lenin had done to deepen and creatively develop Marxism is declared as ``running counter'' to the heritage of Marx.
By falsifying the integral Marxist-Leninist theory in this manner, the Right-wing Social-Democrats endeavour to prove that the sphere for the application of Leninism is limited. Leninism, they assert, is a purely Russian theory, whose practical value is confined to pre-capitalist society, in other words, Leninism is applicable, at best, in underdeveloped countries, where the working class is weak and the peasants are the predominant force. Assertions of this kind synchronise with the preachings of bourgeois anti- communism.
The political and ideological aim of these fabrications is obviously to belittle and primitivise Leninism, to portray it as a local doctrine that has no international significance and is inapplicable under developed capitalism. Thereby the goal is set of proving that Leninism is inacceptable in developed capitalist countries, which are the main sphere of socialdemocratic activity.
Growing importance is being attached to Right-wing social-democratic anti-communist misrepresentation of the practice of Marxism-Leninism and of the socio-political development of real socialism.
The method for misrepresenting socialist and communist construction follows a considered and formally logical pattern. Practically every major problem of the creation and development of the socialist states has been interpreted in an anti-communist spirit by the social-democratic ideologists.
Following in the footsteps of the bourgeois ideologists, they misconstrue the nature of the socialist revolution, asserting, for instance, that the material conditions did not exist for the Great October Socialist Revolution because capitalist development had not reached an adequate level 211 in Russia at the time. Directly linked with the attempts to separate Leninism from Marxism, this assertion carries to an absurdity the fact of pre-revolutionary Russia's certain economic lag behind the leading capitalist countries of the early 20th century---Germany, Britain and the USA. However, the monopolisation of the capitalist economy was progressing in Russia, too, while the organisation level of the working class was very high. Russia held an important position in the world capitalist economy, being a focal point of imperialist contradictions and a weak link of the imperialist system. Lenin's theory of imperialism, in which he creatively developed Marx's teaching in the new historical conditions, and his observation that the socialist revolution was inevitable in Russia were borne out by the entire course of subsequent events.
While going to all lengths to belittle the significance of the Soviet experience, the ideologists of Right-wing SocialDemocracy put a false colour on the economic foundations of the socialist system, refusing to acknowledge the socialist character of the economy of the Soviet Union and other countries of the socialist community and maintaining that only a form of ``totalitarian state capitalism'' exists in these countries. Closely linked with this thesis is their distortion of the nature of socialism. ``International communism,'' declares a programme document of the Socialist International headed Aims and Tasks of Democratic Socialism, ``is the instrument of a new imperialism.... By producing glaring contrasts of wealth and privilege it has created a new class = society.''^^19^^ The regularity existing under capitalism (where property and class distinctions, in the main, coincide) is thus mechanically spread to socialist society, which is free of antagonistic classes. These assertions are, of course, designed for politically inexperienced people in the capitalist countries. However, as the truth about socialism's achievements becomes known to an ever larger number of people, these propagandist theses, as their own authors themselves admit, lose their efficacy.
__PRINTERS_P_211_COMMENT__ 14* 212The Communists have never made a secret of the fact that under socialism, where material abundance is yet to be achieved, income distinctions are inevitable as a transitional phenomenon that is being steadily overcome. `` Socialism,'' Lenin noted, ``is not a ready-made system that will be mankind's benefactor. Socialism is the class struggle of the present-day proletariat as it advances from one objective today to another objective tomorrow for the sake of its basic objective, to which it is coming nearer every = day.''^^20^^ Socialism has abolished the division of people into exploiters and exploited, into haves and have-nots, and in this is manifested the practical attainment of its cardinal aim of putting an end to all forms of social distinctions. As social practice demonstrates, the remnants of these distinctions are eradicated with the rise of the general standard of living, which is becoming a pressing requirement of socialism's economic development and one of the vital economic conditions for the rapid growth of production. Socialism's achievements eloquently show all mankind the advantages of its economic system. The practice of real socialism is a reliable instrument in the struggle against bourgeois and reformist ideology. By helping to shape a socialist consciousness among the working class and other working people of the capitalist countries, the example of socialism thereby expedites the maturing of the political conditions for the future socialist revolutions in these countries.
A central theme is the falsification by the Right-wing Social-Democrats of the political system in the socialist countries, which they characterise as a ``totalitarian dictatorship''. Questions related to democracy and its correlation with dictatorship, notions of socialist democracy and the dictatorship of the proletariat attract the heightened attention of the Right-wing social-democratic theorists. Today these questions have become particularly acute because the burden of the struggle for democracy in the capitalist states is borne by the working class, which heads all the democratic forces.
213Democracy is a painful issue for the Right-wing socialdemocratic ideologists. In their writings the word `` democracy'' is used perhaps more frequently than any other. They proclaim democracy the panacea for all socio-economic ills. The content that they give the word is eloquently shown by the fact that Social-Democracy, which, as Bruno Kreisky, Chairman of the Socialist Party of Austria, said, ``is the only possible alternative to communist dictatorship'', is described as the sole consistent champion of = democracy.^^21^^ The Austrian Socialists now lay claim to be the ``ideological headquarters'' of Social-Democracy. The Congress of the Socialist Party of Austria in April 1972 set itself the task of defining the main socio-political objectives of Social-Democracy. In its resolution the Congress used the word ``democracy'' in every possible manner and noted that all the economic and political problems of social development can only be resolved in the ``spirit of democratic socialism, which signifies the consummation of = democracy''.^^22^^ The term ``consummated democracy'' is rather a linguistic than a theoretical innovation. The abstract character and vapidity of the term `` consummated democracy'' (as of the notorious theses about ``pure'' or ``absolute'' democracy) are further testimony of the refusal to analyse this problem from the class positions of the proletariat.
With ``consummated'' or ``unlimited'' democracy the Austrian Right-wing socialist ideologists link their understanding of socialism, to which they allegedly aspire. As regards the formula ``consummated democracy'', one can with equal vagueness define socialism as, say, the ``triumph of truth'' or the ``realm of reason''. To be guided by these definitions of socialism means not to see the real ways of building it.
Joining hands with the ideologists of imperialism, the Right-wing Social-Democrats continue to harp on the `` totalitarianism'' and ``anti-democratic'' character of the social system in the socialist countries. ``While in the sphere of capitalism democracy and the welfare state are gradually taking shape, in most of the rest of the world a more or less 214 camouflaged dictatorship holds sway,'' it is contended, for instance, in the Programme adopted by the Socialist Party of Austria in May = 1958.^^23^^ ``The Socialists,'' the Programme states, ``are adamant and uncompromising opponents of both fascism and communism. They reject any minority dictatorship and, equally, majority coercion that flouts the human rights of the minority.''
This thesis is typical of the programmes of most SocialDemocratic parties and of the writings of Right-wing socialdemocratic ideologists.
The anti-communists deliberately distort the substance of the problem of the correlation between dictatorship and democracy, stripping these concepts of their class content, identifying the formal judicial and class content of the concept dictatorship and seeking to attribute to the dictatorship of the proletariat of the socialist state the features and methods typical of the dictatorial, fascist regimes in capitalist countries. Far from being accidental, this juggling of concepts is the logical outcome of Right-wing Social-Democracy's complete rupture with Marxism, of its rejection of the class analysis of social-political factors.
For Marxist-Leninists, democracy and dictatorship are not antipodal but interrelated concepts that have a clear-cut class content. As for the social-democratic theorists, who pose as proponents of ``pure'' democracy, they prove in practice to be only supporters of bourgeois-democratic systems.
The class approach to democracy from the positions of Marxism-Leninism signifies not the negation but, on the contrary, the true assertion of democracy. Far from removing democracy, the dictatorship of the proletariat consolidates it for the working masses, i.e., for the overwhelming majority of the population. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the guarantee of socialist democracy.
Socialism signifies the implementation of an incomparably higher democracy than any form of bourgeois democracy. Indeed, democracy is effective only when the means of production belong to the working people, i.e., the overwhelming 215 majority of the population, this being possible only with the triumph of socialism. ``Proletarian democracy...,'' Lenin wrote, ``has brought a development and expansion of democracy unprecedented in the world, for the vast majority of the population, for the exploited and working = people.''^^24^^
Moreover, for the working class the dictatorship is not an end in itself but the means of eradicating exploitation and building the new, socialist society. Experience shows that the exploiters do not cede their positions voluntarily. In order to break their resistance the proletariat has to possess absolute political power, i.e., exercise dictatorship. The method for suppressing the exploiting classes depends on the resistance of these classes to the new system, on the concrete internal political and international conditions for the socialist revolution in a given country.
In whatever form the dictatorship of the proletariat is established violence is not its main aspect, as the anti- communists assert. Its principal objective is to carry out the gigantic task of restructuring society on a socialist foundation. This creative task is carried out by the working class under the leadership of the Communist Party and in alliance with the other strata of working people, with the masses participating in the state administration. The struggle for socialism is thus a struggle for the broadest democracy. After fulfilling its historic mission of ensuring the full and final victory of socialism, the dictatorship of the proletariat ceases to be necessary and evolves into a state of the whole people in which the leading role continues to be played by the working class. Such is the historical experience of developed socialism. Regardless of the attitude to it of the socialdemocratic ideologists, this experience is the real truth of history.
In their attempts to prove that the socialist social system is ``anti-democratic'', the Social-Democrats submit the theory that genuine democracy is inconceivable without a multiparty system. They argue that the existence of one party is tantamount to totalitarianism, which rules out all political 216 freedom. This absolutisation of the multiparty principle by the social-democratic theorists degenerates into a dogma. ``No Socialist,'' wrote Jules Moch, a prominent member of the French Socialist Party, ``can make allowance, at least in a country that is not illiterate, for the concept of a single party even if it is open to all and if the most complete democracy reigns in = it.''^^25^^
The Right-wing Socialists charge the Communists with aspiring to ``suppress'' all other parties in the course of the struggle for power. It is indicative that in this issue the Social-Democrats find a common language with the bourgeois ideologists and with the Right-wing revisionists.
In this question, it must be noted, the attitude of the Communists to the issue of the number of parties in the period of the struggle for socialism is falsified and distorted. Prior to its counter-revolutionary rising, the Socialist-Revolutionary Party was, together with the Bolshevik Party, at the helm of the state. It was only its action to seize power that placed it outside the pale of the law.
Developments have demonstrated that depending on specific historical conditions, in a socialist country there may be one or several parties, the crux of the matter being not the number but the programmes and concrete actions of these parties. Where they co-operate for the attainment of common aims, the cause of socialism triumphs. In other words, the Communists are not against a multiparty system. They are against counter-revolution, against inter-party antagonism, against reaction.
Antagonistic parties exist only where there are antagonistic classes. When class antagonisms are surmounted, the need for antagonistic parties falls away. The concrete conditions of the struggle for socialism in one country or another may lead to the formation of one party of the working class or to the need for two or more parties, which, while championing the specific interests of different strata of the population, direct their efforts toward the attainment of the common goal, socialism.
217The question of the number of parties is decided in the course of the class struggle itself. Ultimately, for the working people the important point is not how many parties participate in political life but how they conform to their interests and ensure them. The social homogeneity achieved in Soviet society unites all citizens so solidly that there is no necessity for a multiparty system. The fact that the CPSU has become the only political party in the USSR is the result of an objective historical process, of a bitter class struggle.
Despite the fabrications of the anti-communists, the CPSU, which unites in its ranks millions of the finest representatives of the Soviet people, reliably guarantees socialist democracy and ensures the interests of Soviet society as a whole. Marxism-Leninism has nothing in common with dogmatic attempts to give the single-party system the character of a universal law for all countries and historical periods. At the 1960 Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties it was clearly stated that the Communists were in favour of cooperation with the Social-Democratic parties not only in the struggle to raise the living standard of the people and extend and preserve their democratic rights, in the struggle for world peace, but also in the struggle for power and the building of = socialism.^^26^^
This general principle is a major element of the platform of the Communist parties, notably in industrialised capitalist states. ``We believe,'' said Enrico Berlinguer, General Secretary of the Italian Communist Party, at a joint sitting of the CPSU Central Committee and the Supreme Soviets of the USSR and the Russian Federation in commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the USSR, ``that we can and should not only advance toward socialism but also build socialism with the participation of various political forces, organisations and = parties.''^^27^^
By rejecting the theory of scientific communism and the experience of existing socialism the Social-Democrats do not, in their positive programme, go beyond the framework of 218 bourgeois liberalism, and endeavour to reduce the struggle for democracy to attempts to achieve ``social partnership'' with the bourgeoisie and confine the struggle for socialism to patching the vices of capitalism. The bourgeois and reformist ideologists give out for ``capitalist achievements'' what is being attained by the working class of a number of capitalist countries at the price of tenacious class battles, in a situation witnessing an acute struggle between the two systems, and under the impact of the growing successes and prestige of world socialism.
The hard-line price and income policy, spelling out the freezing of wages and an intensification of exploitation, which the bourgeois state initiated with the aid of capitalist methods of economic regulation and programming, whose apologists included the social-reformists, shattered the myth about ``social partnership'' and the ``welfare state'', bringing more and more people round to the realisation that reformism as the theory and practice of Right-wing SocialDemocracy cannot put an end to the omnipotence of the monopolies.
In spite of the assertions of the Right-wing Social- Democrats about ``class co-operation'', recent years have witnessed a further intensification of the class struggle and massive actions by the working people of the USA, Britain, France, Italy, Japan and other countries to back up their economic and political demands. It is indicative that precisely at a time when the bourgeois and reformist ideologists stepped up the dissemination of the myth that ``social peace'' had been achieved as a result of partial reforms there was a steady upswing of the working-class struggle in the industrialised capitalist states. For example, in the period from 1958 to 1971 the number of people involved in strikes in these countries increased from 13,500,000 to 48,000,000. Even among the Right-wing Social-Democrats pronouncements were made in which it was frankly admitted that reformism and the policy of ``class co-operation'' had limited possibilities. One of these pronouncements came from Giuseppe Tamburrano, a leader of 219 the Italian Socialist Party, who wrote in early 1971 that the Socialists would ``be hard put to maintain that the reforms effected in England and the Scandinavian countries have introduced socialism or set these countries on the road to socialism''.^^28^^
The fact that social-reformism cannot put an end to monopoly rule has been made abundantly clear by the scientific and technological revolution, whose achievements are widely used by the monopolies to strengthen their positions. The concomitant upswing of the struggle of the working people is compelling the social-democratic leaders to abandon some of the political slogans that only yesterday were regarded as traditional and, in order to retain their influence among the masses, to aggravate some areas of their relations with the bourgeois state.
Many specific political issues are now being gradually reconsidered by the leading Social-Democratic parties of Western Europe. Quite significant in this context is SocialDemocracy's change of attitude to some foreign policy issues. The peace policy of the Soviet Union and the other countries of the socialist community has given the lie to the `` communist aggression'' fiction spread by anti-communist propaganda most intensively during the cold war years. At the same time, the internationalisation of the economy, the scientific and technological revolution and its influence on the manufacture of armaments, especially of weapons of mass destruction, are making imperialist aggressive policy particularly dangerous, enhancing the importance of international problems and linking their settlement directly with the destiny of nations.
The Communist Party of the Soviet Union has done much to foster contacts and co-operation with the Social- Democrats on international issues. Delegations of some Social- Democratic parties (for instance, of Finland, Japan, Britain and other countries) have visited the Soviet Union, where they could see the successes of communist construction for themselves.
220Today Social-Democrats head or are members of the governments of many capitalist countries. The settlement of international security issues and the organisation of beneficial international co-operation, which constitute one of the prime aims of Soviet foreign policy, thus depend on them to a large extent.
This consistent foreign policy of the Soviet Union and the other countries of the socialist community is yielding fruit, the evidence being, among other things, the renunciation by many Social-Democrats of the ``Atlantic solidarity'' and ``communist aggression'' doctrines and the broadening of Left-wing trends in a number of leading Social- Democratic parties, particularly the Labour Party of Great Britain, the Social Democratic Party of Germany and the Social Democratic Party of Sweden.
International issues are now evolving into factors widening the split between realistic and anti-communist forces in the social-democratic movement. Whereas initially, for example, the US aggression in Vietnam was condemned only by the Socialist Party of Japan, the New Democratic Party of Canada and the Left socialist parties not affiliated to the Socialist International, subsequently most of the Social-Democratic parties had to reckon with the demands of the peoples for an end to the US aggression in Indochina. The Government of Sweden was the first Social-Democratic administration to establish diplomatic relations with the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and to extend economic assistance to it. The governments formed in Norway and Denmark by the Social-Democratic parties likewise recognised the DRV and established diplomatic relations with it.
Positive changes have taken place in the attitudes of the Social-Democrats also in important international issues such as European security and relations with the Soviet Union and other socialist countries. In this area note must be made primarily of the signing and ratification of the USSR-West Germany treaty that was a significant foreign policy act of 221 the government headed by the leader of the West German Social-Democrats, Willy Brandt. West Germany signed treaties with the Polish People's Republic and other socialist countries on the basis of the same principles as those that underlie its treaty with the Soviet Union. Peace-loving world opinion welcomed the ratification of these treaties and the expansion of contacts between West Germany and the USSR on state level. On December 21, 1972 representatives of the German Democratic Republic and West Germany signed a treaty on the principles governing relations between these two countries. This, too, was a major milestone toward converting Europe into a zone of peace and international cooperation. The realistic foreign policy of the West German government, headed at that time by Willy Brandt, which contributed toward an improvement of the situation in Europe, was one of the key factors of the SDP/FDP coalition's victory at the parliamentary elections in West Germany in November 1972. Commenting on these developments, Leonid Brezhnev noted: ``The treaties between the USSR and the FRG, and between Poland and the FRG, which formalised the inviolability of the existing European frontiers, the set of agreements on West Berlin, and the treaty on the principles governing relations between the GDR and the FRG..., the final break-through of the diplomatic blockade of the GDR---all these are important steps in Europe's progress towards peace and security. And all this is not any one country's gain alone, but a big victory for reason and realism in international = relations.''^^29^^
Differentiation is deepening in the Social-Democratic parties under the impact of the growing might and prestige of the world socialist community, the aggravation of modern capitalism's contradictions and the pressure of the working people. It has now become quite apparent that Social- Democracy is by no means a homogeneous and united movement. The differentiation in the Social-Democratic parties signifies, above all, the creation of new conditions for achieving working-class unity in the anti-imperialist struggle and 222 for the key issue of the struggle for this unity, namely, cooperation between the Social-Democrats and the Communists.
The most adamant adversaries of co-operation with the Communists are the Right-wing forces in the social- democratic movement, who are aware that this co-operation directly threatens their conciliatory, anti-communist positions. Reflecting the attitude of these forces, Mannheimer Morgen wrote in December 1972 that there was no possibility for a political or ideological rapprochement with the Communists and that such rapprochement could be effected only if the Communist parties ceased to be what they were. Bruno Pittermann, Chairman of the Socialist International, expressed himself in the same spirit. In an article published in Arbeiterzeitung, organ of the Socialist Party of Austria, on January 7, 1973 he said that discussions between the SocialDemocrats and the Communists were possible only in `` democratic countries'', while in the countries ``governed by the Communists'', chiefly in the Soviet Union, Social-Democrats were suppressed and persecuted as enemies of the state. One can only guess the sources of information that were used by the Chairman of the Socialist International, who with serious mien wrote of mythical suppressed Social- Democrats in the USSR. What does not require guesswork is the bluntly anti-communist political aim of utterances of this kind.
However, the consistent drive of the Communist parties for co-operation with the Social-Democrats is yielding tangible results. In Finland, the Communists and the Social- Democrats jointly participated in the government in 1966--1971 and this resulted in a series of measures that directly conformed to the interests of the people and in the enhancement of Finland's international prestige.
In Japan, the Left-wing candidates, mainly Communists and Socialists, were successful at the elections to local organs of self-administration held in 1971 and 1972 in six prefectures, that have nearly one-fourth of the country's 223 population. At the close of 1972 the candidates of the united Left front headed the municipal councils in 49 Japanese cities. At the parliamentary elections on December 10, 1972 the Socialists and the Communists made impressive gains: their parties received nearly 17 million votes (over 32 per cent of the votes cast at those elections).
The Left wing in the Italian Socialist Party has strengthened its position substantially. The decision of the extraordinary congress of the Italian Socialist Party of Proletarian Unity (July 1972) on the party's self-disbandment and on the entry of its members into the Italian Communist Party was a major step toward uniting the Italian working-class movement. The fact that over 67 per cent of the ISPPU membership joined the Italian Communist Party enhanced the latter's strength and unity. Of identical significance was the decision passed at the close of 1972 by Italy's three largest trade unions---the General Italian Confederation of Labour, the Italian Federation of Trade Unions and the General Union of Italian Workers---on a merger into a federation, which had been opposed for a long time by the Right-wing elements. However, the new federation proved its viability soon after it was formed: in January and February 1973 it led two national strikes involving 20 and 14 million people respectively.
At the end of June 1972 the struggle of the French Communists for working-class unity was marked by a major success---the signing of a joint government programme by the Communist and Socialist parties of France. This development had a long prehistory of complex and contradictory relations between the Communists and the Socialists. Among the French Socialists anti-communist feeling combined with a sense of class solidarity, which was strengthened when serious danger loomed: during the period when fascism ran amuck and the Popular Front was formed, during the years of joint struggle in the Resistance movement, and during the period when the one-man regime was established and consolidated.
224Considerable progress toward achieving united action by the Communists and Socialists was made with the adoption in December 1970 of a joint declaration in which the two parties agreed in their evaluation of some of France's political and economic prospects. It is important to note that in this document the Socialist Party agreed that the aim of the two parties was not to reform but to replace the capitalist system. In the document this replacement was described as a ``revolutionary change''.
At the close of March 1972 the Communists and the Socialists decided to adopt a joint government programme, the impetus for this decision coming largely from the programme for a Popular Action democratic government that was published by the Communist Party in the autumn of 1971 and received the approbation of large sections of the French working people. Further, the Socialist Party adopted an action programme at its national conference on March 12, 1972. A joint programme calling for far-reaching political, economic and social changes was signed on the basis of these two documents. The essence of these changes was stated in the programme, which consisted of four parts devoted respectively to social issues, the democratisation of the national economy, the promotion of democratic rights and freedoms, and foreign policy.
As was noted by Georges Marchais, General Secretary of the French Communist Party, at the FCP's national conference in July 1972, the joint programme, naturally, does not contain all the recommendations made in the FCP programme, but neither does it contain anything that conies into conflict with the Communist programme, the decisions of the FCP's 19th Congress and the principle of proletarian internationalism. Its aim is to facilitate the creation of the most favourable conditions for continuing the struggle of the working people to persuade the majority of the nation that socialist reforms are necessary.
The leaders of the Communist and Socialist parties said they were confident that their joint programme could serve 225 as the action platform of all the democratic forces in France. This confidence was confirmed, in particular, when the Left wing of the Radical-Socialist Party subscribed to the joint government programme on July 12, 1972. This is noteworthy not least because the Right-wing leadership of the Radical-Socialists headed by Jean-Jacques Servan-Schreiber (which had expelled the Left-wing group for aligning itself with the joint programme of the Communists and Socialists) had lately pressed for a ``democratic coalition'' without Communists with the basic aim of trying to undermine the growing Communist-Socialist unity and isolating the Communist Party. The failure of these manoeuvres, that had wide support from a number of bourgeois parties, was a major success of France's democratic forces.
The enormous significance of the Communist-Socialist joint government programme is evidenced by the savage attacks of bourgeois circles, which have fished out the myth about the striving of the Communists to ``subordinate'' all the Leftwing forces, about the threat of a ``Communist dictatorship''. Moreover, this is borne out by the violent attacks of the Trotskyists, the Maoists and other ultra-Leftists, who, in keeping with their adventurist principle of ``all or nothing'', argue that the programme ``gives nothing'' to the working people.
However, as Georges Marchais declared at the FCP national conference, the existence of the joint government programme substantially changes the balance of political forces in France and is evidence of the major changes taking place in the French working-class movement.
One cannot assume, of course, that the adoption of the joint programme will automatically lead to the removal of the divergences between the Communists and the Socialists. The distance between them is preserved on account of the different and even antipodal approach of these parties to key ideological issues. The French Communists stress that only an active struggle by the working masses themselves can translate the programme's provisions into reality.
__PRINTERS_P_225_COMMENT__ 15---2810 226The joint programme was an important factor of the major success scored by the Left forces at the parliamentary elections in France in March 1973. The united Left front (which was not joined only by tiny Leftist groups) received almost 11 million votes, or two million votes more than at the previous parliamentary elections. In assessing the results of the 1973 elections, it must be taken into account that the Left forces were opposed by a powerful coalition of government parties, which had the state propaganda machine at their disposal and had acquired considerable prestige on account of their realistic foreign policy. Progressive opinion and the leaders of the Left parties drew attention, moreover, to the massive propaganda campaign in which the bourgeois parties intimidated electors with the ``threat of a communist dictatorship'', ``mass collectivisation'' and other fabrications distorting the actual aims of the joint government programme of the Left forces.
Nonetheless, the Left forces made substantial gains, widening their political support among the French working people, in whose direct interest it is to restrict the power of monopoly capital and enforce the democratic sociopolitical reforms envisaged in the joint government programme.
It is thus evident that the leaders of some Social- Democratic parties are beginning to adopt a more realistic approach to pressing problems of internal and international policy and shake off many of the anti-communist prejudices of the past. It is symptomatic, for example, that the Council Conference of the Socialist International in Helsinki in May 1971 did not, as had been the case at all its previous sittings, adopt an openly anti-communist resolution. More, at the Special Bureau Meeting in Amsterdam on April 7-8, 1972, it was declared that ``member Parties of the International should be free to decide their own bilateral relations with other parties'', although the proviso was made that `` SocialDemocracy neither should nor could make any ideological concessions to = communism''.^^30^^ This was an indicative decision, 227 although it was not fundamental inasmuch as its aim was to avert an aggravation of the disagreements over this issue at the 12th Congress of the Socialist International. At the congress itself the question of relations with the Communists was not on the agenda, but it was found that there were sharp differences in the attitude of individual Social-Democratic parties. For instance, K. Sorsa, Secretary of the Social Democratic Party of Finland, spoke of the ``need for an unbiassed approach to the initiatives of the ruling parties of the socialist countries'' and declared that the Finnish SocialDemocrats would continue discussing practical and ideological questions with the Communist parties of the socialist countries and that his party's contacts with the CPSU and the Communist parties of other socialist countries ``were extremely useful from the standpoint of both national and party interests''. The importance of co-operation with the Communists in the struggle against reaction was noted by Francois Mitterand, First Secretary of the Socialist Party of France. However, representatives of other parties, in particular the Austrian Socialist Party, urged the continuation of the ideological struggle against the Communist parties, against what they called ``communist dictatorships''. The Chairman of the Socialist International, Bruno Pittermann, repeated the anti-communist thesis that the renunciation of force in ideology, which, he said, should be shown chiefly through `` permission for the operation of Social-Democratic parties in the communist countries'', must be a condition for co-operation with the Communists.
The new aspects in the practical policies of the Social- Democratic parties have sprung from the changes in the social basis of social-reformism resulting from the enlargement of the social composition of the labour force under presentday state-monopoly capitalism. However, this same social basis predetermines the inconsistency of the changes in the policies of the Social-Democratic parties. The processes now taking place in the international social-democratic movement are so complex, multiform and contradictory __PRINTERS_P_227_COMMENT__ 15* 228 that it would, of course, be premature to draw any hard and fast conclusions.
The aggravation of the divergences in the Social- Democratic parties is a dual process: realisation of the danger of anti-communism and attempts to surmount the policy of class co-operation with the bourgeoisie, on the one hand, and, on the other, the sowing by the anti-communists of more sophisticated and camouflaged forms of attacks on the communist movement. There was an activation of anti-communism in the Socialist Party of Austria and in the Social Democratic Party of Italy, whose leaders proposed forming a coalition of all ``non-communist democratic forces'' with the undisguised aim of combating the growing influence of the Communists and isolating the Communist parties. This attitude had the unqualified support of the monopoly bourgeoisie, which spares no expense in its efforts to widen the split among the working class and prevent united action by the Social-Democrats and the Communists.
Today, when the conditions and possibilities for achieving united action by the Communists and the Social- Democrats are becoming more favourable, the anti-communists, too, are changing their tactics. Compelled to reckon with the aspirations of the social-democratic masses, who are demanding a revision of the old political attitudes and the abandonment of anti-communism, the social-democratic ideologists are beginning to evolve their own ``models of co- operation'', requiring the Communist parties, as a condition for joint action, to abandon, neither more nor less, their ideological principles, the principles of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism. For example, the aforementioned Giuseppe Tamburrano in his report on relations with the Communist parties at a special seminar held by the Socialist International in Vienna in December 1970 proposed that a condition for a dialogue with the Communists should be the admission by the Communist parties of capitalist countries that the society created in the Soviet Union and other states of the socialist community ``has nothing to do with 229 socialism''.^^31^^ Alwar Alsterdal, a leader of the Swedish Social Democratic Party, who is likewise styled as an expert on questions of relations with the Communists, declares that the Communists' offers of co-operation are always based on the latter's conditions, which the Social-Democrats cannot accept, and suggests that co-operation is possible solely on the condition that the Communists renounce the principles of Marxism-Leninism.^^32^^
This formulation of the issue demolishes the very idea of co-operation and fosters the split of the working class in the anti-imperialist struggle. Pronouncements of this kind by the Right-wing socialist ideologists are founded on the untenable thesis that the ideological and political divergences between the Communists and the Social-Democrats preclude co-operation between them. However, the practical results of the struggle waged by the working class bear out the opposite thesis championed by the Communists, namely, that ideological divergences cannot and should not serve as a barrier to co-operation among the parties of the working class, whose interests they are called upon to express. This concerns not ideological ``co-operation'', which is indeed impossible between true revolutionaries and reformists, but a joint struggle against monopoly capital, a joint struggle for the basic interests of all segments of the working people.
The attitude of the Communists to Social-Democracy is quite clear-cut. In the Central Committee report to the 24th Congress of the CPSU it is stated: ``In accordance with the line laid down by the 1969 International Meeting, the CPSU is prepared to develop co-operation with the Social- Democrats both in the struggle for peace and democracy, and in the struggle for socialism, without, of course, making any concessions in ideology and revolutionary principles. However, this line of the Communists has been meeting with stubborn resistance from the Right-wing leaders of the SocialDemocrats. Our Party has carried on and will continue to carry on an implacable struggle against any attitudes which 230 tend to subordinate the working-class movement to the interests of monopoly capital, and to undermine the cause of the working people's struggle for peace, democracy and so- cialism.''^^33^^
The need to combat anti-communist ideology and policy is especially obvious today when ideological problems have become one of the main spheres of the struggle between reaction and progress. On the other hand, any disagreement with the Communists does not signify hostility for communism. Lenin did not regard the ideological and political differentiation between the various contingents of the working class as an insurmountable barrier to joint action for the common interests of the working people. He stressed that international unity was possible even ``under existing deep-seated political = differences''.^^34^^ At the same time he emphatically denounced unprincipled unity with Right-wing elements, who speak in the name of the working class but in fact pursue a conciliatory policy of co-operation with the bourgeoisie. Thus, for the Communists class unity signifies a consistent, principled struggle against social-reformism, against Right and ``Left'' opportunism.
When the Communists speak of anti-communism in the social-democratic movement they mean that it is the outcome of the influence of bourgeois ideology and have in mind the fact that the Social-Democratic parties are an inalienable part of the working-class movement in the capitalist countries and cannot be sweepingly characterised as ``bourgeois agents''. ``Regarding Social-Democracy as the bulwark of capitalism was the source of the idea of social-fascism,'' William Kashtan, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Canada, justifiably noted. ``From this perhaps grew the idea at one time of the communist world movement that the main blow had to be dealt against Left-wing Social-- Democracy.''^^35^^
The exposure of and struggle against anti-communism require that a thorough account should be taken of the diversity of its forms and manifestations and a concrete and real- 231 istic assessment should be made of the forces opposed to communism. It is particularly important to take this into consideration when analysing the anti-communism among the Social-Democrats, for the conscious anti-communism of the bourgeoisified Right-wing leaders of the Social- Democrats should in no way be identified with the ``traditional'' distrust of the Communists that still persists in the ideology of leaders who nonetheless adhere to firm anti-imperialist, anti-monopoly positions, much less with the anti- communist prejudices of rank-and-file Socialists that are due to an inadequate level of class consciousness and come into conflict with their actual class interests.
Notwithstanding the assertions of the Right-wing socialdemocratic ideologists, the practical struggle waged by the working class shows that an alliance between the Communists and the Social-Democrats benefits both sides, while anticommunism only plays into the hands of the imperialist bourgeoisie.
With the interests of working-class unity underlying their policy, the Communists constantly make new concrete proposals for co-operation. The united front policy helps to uproot anti-communist views and surmount the distrust of the Communists among the middle and lower echelons of the social-democratic movement. The conditions obtaining under state-monopoly capitalism dictate the need for the unity of the working class, of all working and exploited strata of the population of the capitalist countries in the struggle against the monopolies. This has to be reckoned with also by the leaders of the Social-Democrats. One of the major tasks of the entire international working-class movement is to translate this need into a reality.
The unity and close cohesion of the working class are the decisive condition for the success of its struggle against its class adversary. However, this unity, ``owing to the splitting, disuniting and dulling conditions of capitalism, is not achieved with immediacy, but only at the cost of persistent effort and tremendous = patience''.^^36^^
232Under bourgeois economic, political and ideological pressure some groups of the working class fall short of the development level reached by the working-class movement as a whole, are inclined towards conformism and fear the most acute political forms of the class struggle. This makes the inculcation of a class, revolutionary consciousness among the working masses one of the central problems of the ideological struggle in the capitalist countries. The Communist parties, which are the vanguard of the entire anti-imperialist struggle of the working class, play the leading role in resolving this problem. The Communists, who are armed with Marxist-Leninist theory, with the experience of the struggle of the entire communist movement and with the experience of real socialism, have the mission of helping the working class to understand the social significance of the measures instituted by state-monopoly capitalism, showing the reactionary character of these measures and making the people see from their own experience that they have to unite in the struggle against the combined forces of monopoly capital.
The change of the world balance of strength between socialism and imperialism and the accompanying turn towards detente have in recent years, as we have already noted, led to an animation of the ideological and political discussions in the Social-Democratic parties and to a partial modification of the guidelines of these parties, particularly in the sphere of foreign policy. At the same time, the leaders of some SocialDemocratic parties are intensifying the ideological and political struggle against the Communists in their countries and looking for new and more flexible forms of ideological subversion against the socialist states. An analysis of the anticommunism, its ideology and policy brings to light the complexity of the struggle waged by the Communists to promote the class consciousness of the workers in the capitalist countries, where the Right-wing Social-Democrats are in power and have the support of most of the working class, and shows the need for united action by the Communists and the Social-Democrats.
233The peace policy pursued consistently by the Soviet Union and the other countries of the socialist community is gradually bringing the capitalist world round to the realisation that it has to regulate its relations with the socialist countries on the basis of peaceful coexistence. The influential political forces in West Germany that cannot avoid acknowledging this fact include the leadership of the Social Democratic Party. Their transition to a realistic stand on some foreign policy issues is today exercising a positive influence on the situation in Europe. For that reason the Communist parties of the socialist community welcomed the positive role played by the foreign policy initiated by the Brandt Government. In a principled assessment of the political stand of the Social-Democratic leaders, Erich Honecker declared at the 8th plenary meeting of the Central Committee of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany: ``Although in foreign policy they react to the changed balance of strength in the world more realistically and with greater mobility than their predecessors in government office, this has brought no change at all to their socio-political and ideological concepts. In this respect their views and actions are unquestionably determined by bourgeois = principles.''^^37^^ To make this situation clear the SUPG and the other Communist and Workers' parties underscore the incompatibility between MarxistLeninist and social-democratic ideology and the fundamental distinctions between socialist and bourgeois ideologies.
The SDPG policy-makers likewise repeatedly declared their fundamental irreconcilability to Marxism-Leninism and the communist working-class movement. At the 12th Congress of the Socialist International Willy Brandt said that ``inter-state treaties and multilateral agreements do not remove fundamental ideological = contradictions''.^^38^^
In the theses headed Social-Democracy and Communism, Ulrich Lohmar, a leading SDPG ideologist, wrote unambiguously: ``In the sphere of ideology and strategy the SocialDemocrats and the Communists have no common aims.'' Therefore, he noted, ``there are no grounds for the 234 Social-Democrats to suppress their desire to see the world not capitalist or communist but = social-democratic''.^^39^^ Relative to the socialist countries these words express the hope and desire to reverse their development from socialism. In this strategic objective the Right-wing social-democratic politicians are basically at one with imperialist ideologists like Brzezinski, who urges the ``social-democratisation'' of the socialist countries. Precisely in this context the fundamentally anti-communist resolution of the SDPG leadership under the heading ``Social-Democracy and Communism'' (February 1971) declares: ``Social-democratic policy cannot set itself the objective of liberating the Communist-governed countries, including the GDR. The erosion of the communist order can take place only from within.'' Further down in the resolution it is stated: ``We do not rule out the possibility of this development and would welcome = it.''^^40^^ A policy aimed at ``erosion from within'' mirrors the basic changes in the international situation. The incompatible contradiction between socialism and imperialism has by no means disappeared. But in the new situation, where the struggle between the two systems is not conducted by military means, the socialdemocratic leaders consider that ideology must be used more effectively as a weapon in this struggle.
Taking the new situation into consideration, the SDPG leadership charts its policy on the basis of a long-term strategy. The central element of this strategy is the creation first of a social-democratic Western Europe as the alternative to really existing socialism and influencing the latter ideologically. Anti-communism, too, must be adapted to this policy. Hence the currently predominant attempt to use ``flexible'' and long-term anti-communism as the means of generating anti-socialist tendencies, principally in the GDR.
The overall intensification of anti-communist activity during the past three or four years is an indication of the policy pursued by the social-democratic politicians in West Germany. There has been an increased spate of statements, decisions and publications directed against the theory and 235 practice of the communist movement and against the theoretical and practical activity of the socialist countries.
The reason for this activation of anti-communism lies in the processes that began to take shape in West Germany as a result of the class battles in the 1960s and on the threshold of the 1970s. In the Federal Republic of Germany the social and political contradictions are growing more apparent, a fact that even the leading social-democratic politicians have to admit. These contradictions pose the working class, particularly young people, with the question of resolving basic present-day social problems and the question of future development with growing urgency. All this is taking place at a time when the socialist countries are convincingly demonstrating their settlement of these basic present-day issues and advancing concrete plans that guarantee the future in a world of peace and social justice. This is attracting increasing interest in the theory and practice of the communist movement in, among other countries, West Germany. The German Communist Party, which is waging a struggle for social progress, for anti-monopoly democracy and the socialist remoulding of social and political relations in West Germany, has been functioning legally in that country since the end of 1968. It offers all peonle who want fundamental social changes a real, scientific alternative.
Despite the innumerable statements about ``extending democracy'', all sorts of reforms and a more attentive account of the ``social component'', the Government of West Germany led by Social-Democrats considers that its main task is to stabilise the existing socio-political system.
Another factor is that the present aggravation of the class struggle is taking place not in a cold war situation but in an atmosphere of detente. Mirrored, in particular, in the signing and ratification of the treaties with the USSR, Poland, Czechoslovakia and the GDR, this gainsays the lie about the ``threat from the East'' and creates favourable conditions 236 for deflating the anti-communist prejudices in the public mind.
The influence of these factors is reflected in the West German trade unions and in the social-democratic estimation of reality in the Federal Republic of Germany, particularly by the Young Socialists in the SDPG.
In recent years the social-democratic and the trade union leaders have repeatedly qualified as a ``socio-political scandal'' the fact that in West Germany 2.7 per cent of the population own 70 per cent of the ``production potential''. Taking into account the ensuing glaring political and social inequality in West Germany, the social-democratic politicians are growing more and more apprehensive of the attitude (negative, from their point of view) which the workers are adopting toward the monopoly capitalist state. They are demanding a ``serious approach to the integration of the workers'' and are calling upon the trade unions to display a sense of responsibility for their country ``as a whole''.
To this it must be added that ``many young SocialDemocrats who have in recent years come into contact with the Communists and with communist activity are articulating the fear that Social-Democracy may fall into the trap of anti-communism instead of concentrating on the struggle against the opposition from the Right, which in internal policy is a much larger = force''^^41^^ in the FRG, Influential leaders of Social-Democracy see in these phenomena two ``dangers'', which they strive to forestall. First, they are apprehensive about the increased readiness of social- democratic workers to enter into joint actions with the Communists, for instancq, in repulsing the attacks of the Right-wing forces, safeguarding political or social rights or in the struggle to extend these rights. Second, they fear for the political credit which they had earned by their policy from a section of the monopoly bourgeois elite. They are therefore stepping up their anti-communist activities among the working class of the FRG.
237In this area, a major part is played by the SDPG ideologists and politicians whose efforts are directed toward further elaborating and disseminating the concept of ``democratic socialism'' as an alternative to really existing socialism and Marxism-Leninism.
At the same time, they are trying to guide the new theoretical discussion into an acceptable channel, believing that the concept of ``democratic socialism'' will help them to substantiate their policy theoretically. With the aid of this concept they hope to ``put the world in order'' on the basis of social-democratic principles.
But on closer scrutiny their policy will be found to be directed toward making capitalism ``more tolerable'', extending the influence of Social-Democracy to the national liberation movement and eroding the socialist countries from within. The resolution adopted by the SDPG leadership in February 1971 states that ``democratic socialism'' is designed to ``serve as the political alternative to communism in the future as = well''.^^42^^ What is the content of ``democratic socialism'' as seen from the explanations given by its protagonists?
It is a more or less rounded-off doctrine, which was evolved in the 1940s and the 1950s by some Social-Democratic parties, including the Social Democratic Party of Germany. In the economic sphere it preaches the renunciation of socialised means of production, while in the political sphere it rejects the need for a class struggle and the seizure of power by the working class. The Godesberg Programme defines socialism as a ``permanent task of winning and preserving freedom and justice''. Freedom, justice and solidarity are interpreted as everlasting ethical ``basic values'' existing, so to speak, ``in themselves'', separately from society's material conditions of life, from production, the relations of production and the class struggle. The Draft Economic and Political Programme for 1973--1985 declares: ``Social-democratic policy strives to achieve the aims of the Godesberg Programme: a new social order conforming to 238 the fundamental values of = socialism.''^^43^^ In practice, this spells out the defence of capitalism, private ownership of the means of production and the capitalist state. As understood by the Social-Democrats, ``democratic socialism'' means nothing more than ``democratised capitalism''. Essentially, the theoretical inventions of the social-democratic leaders are designed to obscure the class content of the existing system and create illusions about the actual relations of power and about the social system. Their ``democracy'' is aimed at securing the ``voluntary'' integration of the working class into state-monopoly capitalist society.
They hope to achieve a ``just distribution of property'' by legislation while remaining on the soil of state-monopoly capitalism. They thereby wish to give the impression that social contradictions can be surmounted under the existing system, that the workers are equal in that society, that present-day capitalism is itself moving toward socialism and that nothing remains for the working class but to submit to this spontaneous process.
The ultimate objective of these arguments is to disarm the working class ideologically.
The social-democratic politicians and the politologists and futurologists associated with them tirelessly picture capitalism as the society of the future, and in this connection frequently speak of capitalism's capacity for ``change''. This was expressed in the following words by Vice-Chairman of the Social Democratic Party of Germany Herbert Wehner in an interview carried by the party's theoretical organ Die Neue Gesellschaft under the heading ``On the Road to Social Democracy'': ``I was recently asked if it is true that the Social-Democrats no longer have the intention of overthrowing capitalism. I replied that they indeed have no intention of doing so. Since capitalism is not something that can be overthrown, the thing to do is to change = it.''^^44^^
In elaborating on ``democratic socialism'' as the present social-democratic theory and as an alternative to the theory and practice of really existing socialism, the social-- 239 democratic ideologists and policy-makers devote much attention to the question of ownership of the means of production and to the question of power. This is not accidental. Ownership and power are the central categories of any social theory. The answer to all the other socio-political issues depends on who has the means of production and the political power.
A resume of what is said in the resolutions of the SDPG congresses and in the speeches and articles of its leaders will make it clear that instead of demanding the abolition of private ownership of the means of production, which was an important component of the social-democratic programmes, they dwell on competitiveness, the market economy, the policy of growth and so forth.
The social-democratic ideologists are now trying to dispute the significance of the question of ownership of the means of production, depict capitalist ownership as the basis and guarantee of political freedoms under capitalism and peddle the idea that public ownership of the means of production is the mainspring of the ``totalitarian'' political system of socialism.
This approach to the ownership of the means of production underlies the above-mentioned resolution adopted by the SDPG in February 1971. That document reaffirms the proposition of the Godesberg Programme that private ownership of the means of production must be recognised: ``To this day, as is recorded in the Godesberg Programme, it is axiomatic that private ownership of the means of production has the right to be upheld and supported if it does not obstruct the building of a just social = order.''^^45^^
In the Manifesto of the Communist Party Karl Marx and Frederick Engels characterised the question of ownership as being the basic question of the movement and showed that the abolition of capitalist ownership of the means of production was the decisive condition of society's reorganisation. They wrote: ``The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations. . . . The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all 240 capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling = class....''^^46^^
But this is exactly what the social-democratic leadership does not want. On the contrary, it pursues a policy of preserving and fostering capitalist ownership.
The social-democratic ideologists argue that the question of ownership will be decided by ``social control of the economic means of power with the help of the state''. In reviving the idea of economic control by the bourgeois state R. L6- wenthal refers to Marx and = Engels.^^47^^ But Marx and Engels had in mind a proletarian state, while the Right-wing socialdemocratic leaders suggest public control through the imperialist state, this being tantamount to self-control by the monopolies.
In order to blur the actual relations of ownership, the Right-wing social-democratic leaders declare that today the owners of the means of production exercise their property rights to a very small extent and that, therefore, the basic question is not the form of ownership but control of property.
The pseudo-theoretical point of departure of this thesis is the unscientific and practice-rejected interpretation that had been characterised by Marx as a tendency to separate capital as property from the functions of capital, and ownership of the means of production from the disposal of the means of production. ``The disposal of the means of production,'' wrote Ulrich Lohmar, ``is an essential question when the matter concerns how to tie in equality and freedom, social duty and personal interest.'' Social-democratic policy wants to resolve the contradiction between public and private interests ``by participating in economic management, by creating employee ownership with the purpose of redistributing the ownership of the means of production and by state tentative regulation and the establishment of social and political aims''. However, Lohmar has had to admit that ``no substantial headway has been made in any of these 241 three = orientations''.^^48^^ The concentration of production and capital continues in West Germany under the government headed by Social-Democrats.
Further, the social-democratic ideologists argue that exploitation, social injustice and poverty can be abolished in countries where the social system is based on private ownership. In order to conceal the discrepancy between words and reality they often speak of changes in the relations of ownership. For instance, Georg Leber, who was Chairman of the Building Workers Union and a minister in the Brandt Government, said that an ``evolutionary solution'' had to be found for the problem of ownership of the means of production in order to counter the revolutionary solution recommended by the = Communists.^^49^^ ``For the Social- Democrats,'' writes another social-democratic ideologist, ``property is a major condition for a balanced distribution of society's material goods and the preservation of the independence of its members. They want not the expropriation but the allotment of = property.''^^50^^ These recipes for the solution of the question of ownership of the means of production are suggested mainly as an alternative to socialist ownership.
With the concepts about ``creating working-class ownership'' and about the ``social duty of big proprietors'', the SDPG leaders strive to give the working people who support them the illusory impression that their theories about property can be translated into reality. But in fact they obscure the actual relations of power. The official social- democratic concept of power is undeniably directed against the workers and young people, who insist that it is possible and necessary to socialise private ownership of the means of production. These workers and young people regard, for example, the struggle for a better ``quality of life'' (the term the social-democratic leaders use to describe their proposal for reforming social policy, and policy in education, public health, transport and so on) as follows: ``If what is understood by `quality of life' is taken seriously, it will be hardly __PRINTERS_P_241_COMMENT__ 16---2810 242 possible to avoid affecting the nerve centre of the entire capitalist = system.''^^51^^ This is evidence of a stirring of a class feeling in the question of property.
In reply to the anti-capitalist demands of the ``Young Socialists'', Herbert Wehner declared: ``What they say about property irritates me more than anything = else.''^^52^^
The leading social-democratic ideologists argue that the question of society's class structure has likewise lost its significance. A fundamental article contributed to the discussion about the ``basic values of democratic socialism'' states: ``The Godesberg Programme . . . quite definitely propounds the proposition that our society is no longer divided into structurally demarcated classes---- The class distinctions have weakened and the class contradictions have = abated.''^^53^^ In West Germany the exacerbation of the contradictions between the exploiters and the exploited and the unceasing class struggle undeniably refute these assertions. The scope of the strike movement in recent years has clearly reaffirmed the class, antagonistic nature of West German society. Some contingents of the working class wage a struggle against exploitation and for the preservation of their jobs both during economic upswings and during recessions.
From time to time the class contradictions in West Germany compel the SDPG leaders to admit that ``Social- Democracy is aware how far our modern society ... is removed from the actual equality of opportunities and social jus- tice''.^^54^^ They constantly console their rank and file and electors and declare that the building of social democracy is an exhaustless never-ending task.
More, they depict the economic power of the monopolies in isolation from state power, as though the two were independent of each other; in other words, they deny the natural link between economics and politics.
Marxism-Leninism has proved that in a society torn by class antagonisms the state is the most potent instrument by which the economically predominant class exercises its political supremacy. This applies fully to West Germany where 243 the political power is characterised by the intertwining of monopoly and state power in a single mechanism, which while not being free of contradictions gives the monopolies not only political power but also new sources of profit. The big monopolies influence legislation and state policy mainly through their economic power, their close tie-up with the state bureaucracy, the entrepreneurial associations and the parties represented in the Bundestag.
The SDPG leaders make every attempt to camouflage this fact. They portray the imperialist state and capitalist ownership of the means of production as being ``neutral'' relative to classes. The state, they declare, has the task of ``balancing'' and ``harmonising'' differing interests. However, the fact that despite all manipulations the working class refuses to identify itself with state power, with the exploiter-state, which endeavours to divert it from the struggle for its rights, refutes the assertion about the state's class neutrality.
The state is by no means the factor that ``balances'' monopoly capital, although in its concrete policy it has to take the interests of other classes and strata into consideration in order to strengthen the imperialist system. The extent to which the imperialist state and the given government have to pursue a policy affecting individual issues, albeit partially, is a question of the alignment of the class forces, of the class struggle. But this is the very issue which the social- democratic fiction about the state's class neutrality seeks to consign to oblivion.
If the aims which the SDPG leaders combine in their concept of ``democratic socialism'' are summed up, it will be found that a) they stress that social democracy is incompatible with scientific communism; b) with their interpretation of ``democratic socialism'' they strive to break the resistance of critical opposition in the SDPG ranks; c) the socio- political ideas underlying ``democratic socialism'' pursue the aim of ``theoretically substantiating'' the policy that in fact strengthens the positions of state-monopoly capitalism in its struggle against the West German working class; and d) the 244 SDPG leaders regard ``democratic socialism'' as the alternative to real socialism.
``The purpose of the slogan of democratic socialism,'' Erich Honecker said at the Central Conference of Functionaries of the Association of Free German Youth, ``is to deceive the workers and divert them from the struggle for emancipation from absolute state-capitalist rule. We Communists have no illusions whatsoever about the attitude of the SDPG leaders to the basic issues of society. We have never regarded the SDPG as a force striving to clear the road for a social revolution... . Our aspiration for normal and even goodneighbour relations with West Germany thus by no means signifies that we support a mixture of socialism and capitalism.''^^53^^
The SDPG leaders combine their efforts to theoretically substantiate their ideology and programme with a series of political, organisational and propagandist measures--- including the use of the levers of state power---in order to foster anti-communism among the West German working class.
Their anti-communist activity today unfolds mainly in three directions.
First, tightening discipline in the SDPG by ideologically ``protecting'' the membership against the influence of scientific socialism and live socialist practice and by drastic organisational measures.
Second, disseminating anti-communism among the West German working class.
Third, distorting the theory and practice of the German Communist Party in order to isolate it from the working class and prevent the spread of its influence in the workingclass movement.
These three orientations are closely interconnected.
The growing incidence of political and social actions in the Federal Republic of Germany, particularly since the close of the 1960s, and the accompanying, albeit still limited, growth of working-class consciousness has affected the Social Democratic Party differently.
245The aggravation of the social and political contradictions in West Germany has led to some local actions against the provocations of the Right-wing forces and against inflated rents and transport rates. In these actions the Social- Democrats, particularly the Young Socialists, consciously and openly co-operated with the Communists. These joint actions reached one of their highest levels during the massive movement for the ratification of the FRG's treaties with the Soviet Union and Poland in April and May 1972.
The SDPG leadership is taking various measures against these ``menacing'' tendencies in the party. One of these measures is ``reideologisation'', which has been mentioned above. A segment of the Young Socialists, municipal politicians, many social-democratic members of trade unions and some other elements are demanding social changes in West Germany. The SDPG leaders are trying to direct the current dialogue in their party into the desired channel, emasculate the ``radical'' demands and return the ``Leftist critics'' to the party platform by means of ``talks'' between the party's leaders and the Young Socialists.
The intra-party dialogue is used by the SDPG leaders for high-pressure indoctrination of the membership in a spirit of ``democratic socialism'', the main subjects of discussion being property, worker participation in factory management, democracy and the character of power. The overriding aim is to make membership ideologically immune to the influence of socialist theory and practice and to the widening social and political contradictions in the capitalist system.
The fact that SDPG members hold high office in the Federal Government is used by the party leaders as another means of curtailing political discussion in the party, particularly among functionaries belonging to and actively working in the trade unions. Alleging that the responsibility they now bear is the only means by which ``social democracy'' can be achieved, the party leaders urge solidarity in and with the party, a solidarity which they identify with their policy.
Lastly, they have recourse to organisational repressions 246 against members favouring or taking part in joint actions with the Communists. On November 14, 1970 the SDPG Council in Munich passed a decision stating that no united action was possible with the Communists and obliging all SDPG organisations, in cases where party members conducted joint actions with members of the German Communist Party, SED---West Berlin and other communist organisations, published joint statements, signed joint appeals, leaflets, invitations and so on, and also in cases where Social- Democrats co-operated in publications brought out by the German Communist Party and the FDJ, to make it plain to these members that their behaviour was prejudicial to the party and where necessary to take party disciplinary action against them.^^56^^
At a meeting on February 26, 1971 the SDPG leading organs felt it was necessary to pass an additional decision establishing the boundaries of party membership and to reemphasise: ``The Party Council, the Party Board and the Control Commission expect all Party members to acknowledge unambiguously the decision on the incompatibility of joint actions with Communist organisations regardless of their = orientation.''^^57^^
The ceaseless efforts of the SDPG leadership to draw a dividing line only on the Left and its tolerance of Rightwing extremist elements, including in the party itself, can only be explained by the fact that its policies are oriented basically not toward the interests of the people (despite all the declarations to the contrary) but toward the requirements of the ruling elite of the monopoly bourgeoisie. This explains its readiness to make concessions to the Right-wing forces.
Parallel with the intensified anti-communist indoctrination of the membership, the SDPG leadership continues to disseminate anti-communism among all sections of the West German working class. In this context there have recently been some new developments compared with the decade following the adoption of the Godesberg Programme: the SDPG leaders have again begun to give more 247 attention to the working class of West Germany. This manifests itself in different forms.
The strong emphasis that the SDPG leaders place on the party's links with the working class is designed to step up anti-communist activity at the factories. In addition to a resolution providing for general measures to intensify SDPG political work at the factories, the Central Conference of Social-Democratic Workers, held in October 1970, passed a special decision headed the ``Struggle Against Communism''.
This decision mirrors the numbing fear that the SDPG leaders have for the Communists at the factories. Despite the latter's numerical weakness, they are the most consistent champions of the workers. This is seen, in particular, in the work of the production councils and most strikingly during strikes and the struggle for higher pay.
In this struggle, especially during strikes, the SDPG is mostly restrained, ``neutral'' or conciliatory, while the Communists openly side with the strikers and actively help them. For that reason at the factories the Communists frequently enjoy more influence than could be expected, judging by the numerical strength of their factory cells.
The increased activity of the SDPG leadership relative to the working class and, in particular, their anti- communist activities at the factories, demonstrate that the German Communist Party has become a factor that can no longer be ignored. This explains the all-out effort of the SDPG leaders to isolate the German Communist Party, to prevent it from becoming a major political force in the working-class movement. On this issue the social-democratic politicians side with the provocateurs of the CDU/CSU. In response to Rainer Barzel's appeal for solidarity against ``radicalism on the Left'', Willy Brandt declared in the Bundestag on October 21, 1971: ``It is not necessary to urge the German Social-Democrats to fight the Communists.. . Acting on our own convictions ... we are waging that struggle already today.''^^58^^ In this struggle the SDPG leaders are stepping beyond the framework of ideological warfare, using the 248 levers of state power against the German Communist Party. In early 1972 at a conference of Lander prime ministers, with the overwhelming participation of Social-Democrats, a decision was passed that transcended the Fundamental Law in that it closed the civil services (including teaching jobs at general educational schools and institutions of higher learning) to members of the GCP. This decision is being implemented and in fact signifies official support for the actions against the Communists.
The political methods that the Right-wing social- democratic politicians and propagandists use against the Communists have undergone little change. True, from time to time the SDPG press urges the lifting of the ban on the GCP. However, as in past years, the hard line and old methods predominate in the struggle of the SDPG leaders against the Communists in West Germany: facts are most brazenly juggled and distorted in order to slander the Communist Party. Here two central ``arguments'' are used: first, the Communist Party is charged with pursuing anti-democratic objectives; second, it is alleged that it is not a national force, not independent, that in foreign policy it does not champion the interests of the West German working class but follows in the wake of socialist states---the Soviet Union and the GDR.
The first lie is supported by the social-democratic politicians by depicting the political aim of the Communists, the establishment of a socialist system, as undemocratic and ``totalitarian''.
The second assertion, namely, that the GCP is not independent and that in foreign policy it represents the interests of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries, is evidence that anti-Sovietism remains the basis of socialdemocratic anti-communism. This assertion seeks to stir nationalism and rests on a distortion of the principle of proletarian internationalism that has underlain the activities of the Communists as representatives of the working class since the days of Marx and Engels. The SDPG ideologists 249 and politicians are making use of the fact that the class consciousness of many workers is still not sufficiently mature on account of the long influence of social-democratic ideology and policy.
From the beginning of this century the social-democratic ideologists have done much to confuse the workers' notions about the relationship between the class struggle and national interests. They have adopted (or supported) the socialchauvinistic attitudes of ``their own'' monopoly bourgeoisie and completely ignored the fact that since the emergence of imperialism and in the epoch of transition from capitalism to socialism the class struggle is being waged as an international struggle and that ever since the establishment of working-class rule in one and then in other countries it has been raised to the state level and thereby brought into inter-state relations. This fact has received contradictory expression in the public mind, while the anticommunist politicians, often with success, keep bringing the sense of proletarian solidarity into conflict with bourgeois patriotism and the nationalism of the masses. We know from history that even when there is a worldwide revolutionary upswing bourgeois nationalism can gain the upper hand over proletarian internationalist duty.
Today nationalism prevents the working class from utilising the favorable international conditions created in the world by the achievements of socialism and by the weakening of imperialism and reaction. The Communists of West Germany support the foreign policy of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries, including the GDR, chiefly because socialist foreign policy is the policy of the working class exercising power and conforms to the interests of the West German workers and all other peace-loving people. Moreover, this policy of peace fetters the aggressive forces in the FRG and creates for the West German working class better conditions in its struggle for an extension of political and social rights.
The fundamental coincidence of the policy pursued by 250 the socialist countries with the aspirations of the West German working class emanates from the common class interests of the workers of socialist and capitalist states. This is the foundation of the attitude of the Communists, including the Communists of West Germany, to the Soviet Union and other socialist countries and to their foreign policy.
The Communists' policy of organising working-class united action is of pressing political significance to the SDPG leadership, which for that reason concentrates its attacks on this unity, using the old methods of slandering and falsifying its content and aims. They have evolved three groups of ``arguments'' against united action by the Social-Democrats and the Communists.
The first group contains the contention that united action is a Communist tactic and method aimed at strengthening the Communist Party. It is alleged that the GCP is out to play a role in politics at the expense of the SDPG. Where the Communists rule, they hold, the Social-Democrats are deprived of political power.
The Communists have clearly enunciated the aims and tasks of united action policy. In the Main Document of the 1969 International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties it is stated: ``Communists, who attribute decisive importance to working-class unity, are in favour of co- operation with the Socialists and Social-Democrats to establish an advanced democratic regime and to build a socialist society in the = future.''^^59^^ In calling for united action the Moscow Meeting appealed to all opponents of imperialism and to all people prepared to fight for peace, freedom and progress, stating that the central point of the programme for united action is that peace must be defended and ensured against all imperialist acts of aggression in all parts of the world. A component of this paramount task is the struggle against the threat of fascism, for democracy in all spheres of social life.
Inasmuch as the aim of the united action policy is to uphold the interests of the working class and strengthen its 251 position in a given country's political and social life, the question arises of the content of the policy pursued by the party representing the working class: how far it is consistent with the elementary interests of the working class and whether it strengthens or weakens the position of the proletariat in the class struggle? The answer to this question necessarily evokes communist criticism of the policy pursued by the SDPG leadership because that policy weakens the position of the working class by subordinating its interests to those of its class enemy.
In connection with this criticism the SDPG leaders advance their second group of arguments against the united action policy: they allege that the Communists regard the SDPG as their principal enemy, that they pursue the united action policy in order to prejudice the SDPG, weaken it and discredit it in the eyes of the people, that the Communists are trying to drive a wedge between the SDPG leadership and the rank and file. They assert that the Communists want united action of the working class against the socialdemocratic leadership and are thereby becoming an auxiliary detachment of reaction and undermining democracy.
Here, too, they deliberately falsify the aims of the Communists urging united action. Not only the statements of the GCP but its day-to-day struggle prove that it is fighting the state-monopoly system and the ultra- reactionary, openly revanchist forces assembled in the CDU/CSU. The SDPG leadership has the support of the West German Communists on issues in which its attitude is realistic and harmonises with the interests of the working class, for instance, in some areas of current foreign policy. The Diisseldorf Congress of the GCP stated: ``The GCP supports any action of the Government that ... is conducive to realistic steps towards peace and European security'' and will ``make every effort to prevent the CDU/CSU from returning to power''.
The Communists criticise the policies of the SDPG's Right-wing leaders not because they are at the helm of that 252 party but because their policies are helping to stabilise the state-monopoly regime and strengthen its main political forces to the detriment of the working class.
The optimism of the Communists that united action will be achieved and their unflagging efforts, despite hostility and negative responses, to attain that aim are founded on the objective class interest of the workers in peace, democracy and social and political progress.
The third group of arguments against united action allege that the Social-Democrats and the Communists have nothing in common in ideology or politics and that, therefore, there are no grounds for talks, much less for joint action. Indeed, there are fundamental ideological divergences between the Communists and the Social-Democrats. Hence their different and even antipodal assessment of present-day realities and of the prospects for the class struggle. That is precisely why the Communists consider it necessary and state their readiness to discuss these divergences. By means of a theoretical discussion, which is already in progress throughout the world, including the Federal Republic of Germany, the Communists intend to make the basic issues of the class struggle clear to the proletariat and thereby reinforce its anti-imperialist actions.
The SDPG leaders declare they are prepared to conduct a dialogue with the Communists of other countries but refuse to sit down to talks with the Communists of West Germany. They calculate that stepped up propagation of ``democratic socialism'' will harness the working class more tightly to the state-monopoly system. In particular, as was stated by Kurt Bachmann in a talk on the relations between the Communists and the Social-Democrats in West Germany, they are out to prevent the emergent peaceful coexistence with the socialist countries from leading to a new, friendly attitude of the West German workers to the Soviet Union and the GDR and to their shedding their anti-communist = feeling.^^60^^
The allegation that the Communists and the Social- Democrats have nothing in common in politics likewise serves 253 the SDPG leaders as a means of hindering joint action by the Communists and the Social-Democrats. We have already shown the untenability of the attempts to prove this allegation. The struggle for higher wages, the strikes of the West German workers, the actions against the provocations staged by the Right-wing forces, the support for the realistic foreign policy of the Government led by the Social-Democrats toward the socialist countries, the demands for worker participation in the management of production and the economy, the changes that have taken place in the relations of ownership and property, and the demand for equal opportunities for education demonstrate that the Communists and the SocialDemocrats have common political aims. This community of aims is founded on common class interests that unite the Communists and the Social-Democrats. The difference between them is that the Communists are consistent in their struggle to give the working class the leading role in politics and the economy. They urge the abolition of monopoly capital rule and show that socialism has to be established in West Germany. The policy of united action of the workingclass is aimed at achieving these objectives.
It is only a joint struggle with the Communists for the basic and day-to-day interests of the workers and other working people that can guarantee the future of the Social-Democratic Party as a political movement with particularly close ties with the working class and contiguous strata of the population. But this signifies that anti- communism, which is a major component of social- democratic ideology and policy and a serious obstacle to united action, must be surmounted. This conclusion is prompted by the history of the social-democratic movement, particularly the German social-democratic movement, from 1917 onwards. Social-Democracy can have broad prospects as an independent political movement firmly linked with the working-class movement only if it renounces anti- communism. For this reason, too, the struggle for united action meets with the interests of the social-democratic movement itself.
[254] __NUMERIC_LVL1__ CHAPTER SEVEN __ALPHA_LVL1__ ANTI-COMMUNISM AND PETTY-BOURGEOISAnti-communist feeling and ideas may be regarded as a yardstick of the consciousness of the petty-bourgeois strata, and anti-communism as a facet of the policy of these strata especially when they are involved in political power.
In the 1920--1930s, as an extreme form of anti-communism, fascism brought a considerable segment of the non- proletarian mass of the working people under its influence in Spain, Italy and, especially, in Germany. It is no secret that along with the declassed strata, the urban and rural petty bourgeoisie formed the backbone of Italian and German fascism. Extremist reactionary forces continue to be activated in these countries on the same social foundation. This is also true of the radical extremist movements in the USA, Britain, Scandinavia, and partially in Arab states, India and Latin America.
Anti-communist ideological and political trends are to be observed today also in mass movements oriented mainly toward the Left-radical model---movements consisting chiefly of the urban and rural petty bourgeoisie and the marginal social strata standing close to them.
In characterising the state of the petty bourgeoisie in capitalist society, Marx and Engels saw a traditional feature defining its social being and, consequently, its group social consciousness in its duality, which is due to its intermediate 255 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ ANTI-COMMUNISM AND PETTY-BOURGEOIS IDEOLOGY position in a developed class society. The petty bourgeois is a toiler, proprietor, bourgeois and ``the people'' rolled into one. He strives to ``make his way in the world'', i.e., to become a big bourgeois or, at least, preserve his status as a small proprietor. But big capital brings constant pressure to bear on him, turning the small proprietor, despite his will, into a proletarian.
Against the background of the scientific and technological revolution this process is speedily gaining momentum. True, big capital can never entirely oust the petty bourgeoisie, much less since it itself requires its assistance in some areas of industry and services that are unprofitable to the monopolies, and in certain measure facilitates the permanent reproduction of the petty-bourgeois entrepreneur. To some extent this impels the latter to link his destiny with the monopolies. Nevertheless, the trend toward the systematic ousting of the small proprietor from his traditional spheres of activity, toward restricting his free entrepreneurial operations and intensifying his dependence on big capital, toward diminishing the numerical strength of the petty bourgeoisie and the relative worsening of the conditions of its existence generates utter uncertainty in the future and the accompanying existential tension. In the mind of every petty bourgeois this trend accentuates his awareness that the contradictions of his own social being have to be resolved in a desperate struggle for the preservation of the positions that he can still hold. When the possibility for retaining these positions becomes totally unreal or highly problematic, his only recourse is to press for society's immediate and radical reorganisation, which alternative would avert the proletarianisation he regards as undesirable, and in the long run preserve that sum of blessings which big capital threatens to deny him. In the latter case he becomes either an arch-extremist of the fascist type or a ``Left'' radical-revolutionary, depending on the political situation in the world and the political climate in the given country, its political traditions, the alignment and strength of classes and parties and, last but 256 not least, the policy of the Communists toward the petty bourgeoisie. The significance of this policy is enhanced by the fact that the spontaneous striving of a segment of the petty bourgeoisie for a radical rejection of capitalist relations and their replacement by socialist relations is not entirely unfounded.
In the programmes of the Communist and Workers' parties of a number of countries it is noted that the establishment of socialism in these countries would conform to the vital interests of the petty bourgeoisie, interests that cannot be guaranteed by big capital. The Manifesto of the Central Committee of the French Communist Party (1968) states that owing to the conditions peculiar to France large nationalised industrial associations will develop for a long time side by side with small and medium private enterprises.
Definite forms of association between the socialist state and these enterprises will give the latter guarantees that they do not have under their present status, which is entirely dependent on the monopolies. In the Manifesto it is underscored that the contribution of private entrepreneurs to the promotion of the national economy will be essential for a long period and it will therefore be valued and encouraged.
In the Draft Theses for the 3rd Congress of the Lebanese Communist Party (1971) it is stated that the socialist power of the working class and its allies will be based on the transfer of the basic means of production and circulation to collective ownership. Nationalisation will not only not affect the property of the petty bourgeoisie---artisans, small and medium producers and owners---in industry, tourism, the services industry, internal trade and of the professionals but, on the contrary, their labour and contribution to the economy, to production will be respected and acknowledged with gratitude, and they will receive every possible support, for these segments, which are numerous in the Lebanon, can make a large contribution to the national economy within the framework of planned general development and inject their 257 dynamic energy into this plan enriching it with their experience and creative initiative.
There are similar provisions in the programmes of a number of other Communist parties.
However, the duality we have mentioned is not the exclusive characteristic of the petty bourgeoisie (in the strict sense of the word). Duality also characterises the strata that modern sociological literature calls the ``middle strata'', the ``middle classes'' or ``intermediate strata'', but which it would evidently be more correct to call marginal, transient, and bracket them, since they are characterised by some `` petty-bourgeois'' features, with the petty bourgeoisie (we shall also call them ``petty-bourgeois strata'') without identifying them directly with the petty bourgeoisie.
The inevitable result of increasing social mobility in developed capitalist society owing to the scientific and technological revolution is that some social strata and groups that had formerly had a more or less fixed status in the social hierarchy and long-standing links with other groups and classes, and which gravitated toward the bourgeoisie, are gradually finding themselves dislodged from their customary social track, losing their traditional links and former stability and going over to a new status in society. Moreover, the concept ``marginal'' describes the state of this protracted and painful transition, when a group has more or less lost (or is losing) its former social status, but has not yet entirely acquired a new status, has not affiliated itself with new groups, i.e., when it is on the borderline dividing groups with their own traditional statuses, cultures, philosophies, psychological stereotypes and political orientations.
In the industrialised capitalist countries large segments of the intelligentsia (both technical and humanitarian), and the growing student body as ``prospective intellectuals'', belong to these marginal strata. The changes in the status of the intelligentsia of the industrialised capitalist countries have been noted and in some measure analysed in Marxist literature over the past few years. The substance of these changes __PRINTERS_P_257_COMMENT__ 17---2810 258 lies in the following. In the 19th century and in the first half of the 20th century (approximately until the 1950s) the intelligentsia (chiefly humanitarians) comprised a relatively small segment of society and enjoyed quite considerable `` production independence''. The intellectual was not directly involved in the process of producing surplus value, and the character of his labour was unproductive. By keeping aloof from industrially organised production and, at the same time, being the master of his ``implements of labour'', the intellectual was not alienated from the individual craft production that formed the basic content of his socially useful activity: from beginning to end he controlled all the technological links of the manufacture of the product created personally by him---created not ``to order'', but at a ``will of heart''---and was his own seller. The circumstance that he could be ruthlessly robbed by the entrepreneur with whom he ultimately entered into relations of purchase and sale, that his ``inalienability'' did not range beyond individual craft production and evaporated as soon as he came into contact with the market, and that his free activity was in the long run mediated by the mechanism of supply and demand in the capitalist market for goods of spiritual manufacture was either unnoticed by him or of secondary importance to him. Hence the self-awareness of this rank-and-file intellectual as a free creator rising above the struggle of parties, independent of big capital and feeling himself quite secure in his social status. Hence his sense of elitist exclusiveness that sometimes flings him to the barricades in the name of truth, but most frequently keeps him very far from the people, impels him to condescendingly serve the upper ten thousand and protect the existing system of social relations or tacitly accept it.
Today the situation is changing radically. The inadequacy of the purely economic levers of inducing the labouring mass to support the existing relations of domination and subordination and the need for exercising a direct, ``scientifically'' organised influence on the consciousness of this mass (by 259 advertisements, films, television, the press, ``mass'' literature, the organisation of sociological research, and so forth) have led to the appearance of an industry of culture organised on the latest pattern of industrial production and serviced by persons who had traditionally belonged to the category of ``free-lancers''. Science's direct invasion of industrial production, the services industry and administrative clerical work has likewise led to a considerable growth of the number of intellectuals employed in these spheres.
This could not help but generate a numerical growth of the once small segment of intellectuals and turn them into a steadily expanding social group, and, moreover, modify the character of intellectual labour and the social status of the intellectual. From a member of an elite, a narrow corporation of ``free-lancers'', he has become a rank-and-file employee of a big capitalist corporation, a wage labourer working strictly by order, frequently against his inner inclinations, and riveted to a more or less definite sector of the conveyer, performing narrow functions and altogether losing the privilege of all-embracing control of the manufacture of the product created by him. Characterising the position of the creative intelligentsia in the Western capitalist countries today, the English bourgeois sociologist T.R. Fyvel, who has studied this question, writes: ``Not so long ago the picture of a writer was largely that of a free intellectual, solitary in his room with his sense of ennui or rebellion. Today 90 per cent of writers are essentially literary technicians, turning out a precisely requisitioned product for advertising, for magazine, film or television editors, taking their work and status as part of a technical team for = granted.''^^1^^ Having ceased to be a type of solitary craftsman and having been deprived of his ``implements of labour'', the intellectual has lost his erstwhile, albeit limited, power over himself, the right to control his own activity. He is losing (meaning a tendency, of course) his former social status.
This makes the condition of the intellectual in developed capitalist society dual and contradictory, and brings it __PRINTERS_P_259_COMMENT__ 17* 260 very close to the condition traditionally ascribed to the petty bourgeoisie. The intellectual is being proletarianised, becoming a wage labourer, a ``partial worker'', and his social being is drawing close to that of the modern industrial proletarian. But while he is no longer a bourgeois, he is neither a proletarian in the true sense of the word---he still enjoys some privileges, has not broken off all links with the traditional stereotypes of the ``free'' intellectual, and still thinks in his former, mostly archaic, categories. He is on the borderline, as it were, of different social groups and, as a petty bourgeois, links the preservation of his privileges either with a struggle to retrieve the positions he has lost or, when he sees that these positions cannot be retrieved, with radical changes of the social relations that no longer satisfy him.
The student body in the industrialised capitalist countries is in an analogous situation, and the more the students follow the behaviour pattern of the present intelligentsia the more profoundly they become aware of the fact that in the immediate future they are destined to share the lot of the proletarianised intellectual.
Indicative in this context is a leaflet circulated by Sorbonne students in May 1968: ``Formerly we were a tiny minority of future privileged persons. Today we are a much too large 'minority'... . Such is the contradiction in which we, sons of the bourgeoisie, have been placed. We are no longer certain of our future status as leaders. This is the mainspring of our revolutionary spirit. . . . Henceforth we are working people like all the = others.''^^2^^
The duality of the social being of the petty bourgeoisie and the marginal strata determines the duality, i.e., the internal fragmentation, contradictory character, of their social consciousness. Marx noted in this connection that ``the petty bourgeois is composed of on-the-one-hand and on-the- otherhand. This is so in his economic interests and therefore in his politics, in his religious, scientific and artistic views. So in his morals, in = everything''.^^3^^ This duality makes the member of the petty-bourgeois strata both a conservative, 261 inasmuch as he defends his social status, and a revolutionary, inasmuch as he is being deprived of that status; he is both an adherent and an opponent of social change.
The instability of the petty-bourgeois strata's social status generates a sense of general instability, vacillation and a feeling that the world they live in has been plunged into tragedy. This forms a specific of their group consciousness, of their ``petty-bourgeois consciousness''. This typical `` unhappy consciousness'' (Hegel), which earlier and more acutely, than any other group consciousness, pinpoints the contradictions of the modern social world on both the quotidian (commonplace) and theoretical (ideological) levels and in crisis situations appeals for an immediate and radical solution of these contradictions.
Since as a factor revolutionising the petty-bourgeois consciousness the transition to the ranks of the proletariat is today becoming a mass phenomenon, revolution-oriented radicalism rather than conservatism is becoming the dominant factor of this consciousness. But while identifying himself with the ``new proletarian'' and advocating revolution, the mass representative of the petty-bourgeois strata is unable to make a complete and final break with his bourgeois views and adopt the views of the proletariat. For that reason, while insisting on revolution he behaves as a pettybourgeois socialist vacillating by nature but aggressive by necessity,^^4^^ capable of drastic switches from activity to passivity, from optimism to pessimism, from an apologia to criticism.
These specifics of the consciousness of the petty-bourgeois strata determine their contradictory nature and their dual and vacillating attitude to the theory and practice of communism. The petty bourgeois does not accept communism, which abolishes private property, but at the same time appeals to it because it abolishes big capital and rejects the relations of domination and subordination.
Today it would be imprudent to belittle the danger of Right-wing petty-bourgeois criticism of communism and the 262 possibility of extreme Right-wing trends gaining ground among the petty-bourgeois strata. That danger exists. Nonetheless, it must be noted that the social processes taking place in the world today (the scientific and technological revolution, science's conversion into a direct productive force, the development of the national liberation movement and the accompanying emergence of the peasant and petty- bourgeois masses on the historical scene) are intensifying the Left-radical orientation of the petty-bourgeois and marginal strata in both the industrialised and the developing countries. In this context, ``Left'' criticism of the theory and practice of communism, which is seen quite clearly in the pronouncements of Left-radical leaders championing the interest and feeling of the petty-bourgeois strata, is now mounting to prominence. They include the ideologists and leaders of the American and European New Lefts, the Maoists, the guerrillas, and the Left-radical groups that had formed in some Communist parties some years ago and then broke away from them not only theoretically and politically, but also organisationally (a typical example being the ``II~Manifesto'' group in Italy).
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 2. THEORY AND PRACTICE OF COMMUNISMThe history of anti-communism is closely associated with the history of the appearance of scientific communism, its development and implementation. Anti-communism does not have a range of problems of its own. It lives parasitically on the errors and difficulties in the shaping and development of communism as a theory and as practice, having recourse to falsifications of this theory and practice in its tactics of ``flexible reaction''. For that reason its forms correspond to the stages of the development of communism.
Initially, when the theory of scientific communism emerged anti-communism came forward as a bellicose refutation of 263 that theory, i.e., in the form of anti-Marxism. Later, when the theory of scientific communism was adopted by the working-class movement of the European countries anti- communism came forward with criticism of the communist workingclass movement and criticism of the policy of the SocialDemocratic (and later Communist) parties.
The further evolution of anti-communism followed the revolutionary changes in social relations and the ascension to power of the working class led by Communist and Marxist Workers' parties. In response to the socialist revolution in Russia and the establishment of Soviet power the imperialist bourgeoisie (and partly the petty bourgeoisie in the West) propagated anti-Sovietism as a violently hostile criticism of the nascent implementation of socialism in its concrete, namely Soviet, form. Three decades later, with the formation of the world socialist community and the appearance of new forms of implementing socialism, anti- communism, too, acquired a new form---criticism of the aggregate experience of a number of countries in putting the principles of scientific communism into effect.
Today anti-communism exists in various forms that are, needless to say, intertwined, but which must nevertheless be differentiated when it is necessary to ascertain the specific attitude to the theory and practice of communism of various social groups and even of one and the same group in different regions and countries.
While in the person of its ideologists and politicians the imperialist bourgeoisie conducts an unflagging offensive against communism all along the line, the petty bourgeoisie, by virtue of the contradictory nature of its being and consciousness, displays a dissimilar and inconsistent attitude to it.
The distinctions between the attitudes of the big imperialist bourgeoisie and the petty-bourgeois strata to communism are seen principally in their attitude to Marxist theory.
The attitude of the petty-bourgeois strata (in the person 264 of their ideologists) to Marxism has never been simple. Their Right wing has always been sharply critical of Marxist theory, siding with the reactionary bourgeoisie, who justifiably regarded Marxism as the spiritual weapon of the proletariat directed against it. This hostility received its most concentrated expression in the ideology of fascism, which grafted a racist overtone on its criticism of Marxism.
The attitude of the revolutionary sections of the pettybourgeois strata to Marxism has been and remains much more complicated. The petty-bourgeois revolutionaries need a radical revolutionary theory that would demonstrate the necessity for demolishing the bourgeois social structures and open up an historical prospect for the anti-capitalist forces. Insofar as Marxism meets these expectations the pettybourgeois revolutionary turns to it as a radical revolutionary theory. For the petty-bourgeois strata of the Third World another circumstance attracting them to Marxism is that they see in it an ideological weapon, which, duly modified, can help them achieve their nationalistic ambitions. For the petty-bourgeois leaders of the African and Asian countries the victory of the socialist revolution in Russia and then in a number of other countries under the leadership of parties adhering to the teaching of Marx and Lenin is evidence of Marxism's efficacy as a teaching capable of raising a country with a low or medium level of economic development to the level of advanced states and of helping it to achieve social and national liberation. (In this, as a matter of fact, lies the key to the settlement of the question why Mao Tse-tung proclaimed himself a proponent of Marxism and dressed his nationalistic ideology in the toga of Marxism.)
But Marxism links the socialist revolution with, above all, the revolutionary practice of the proletariat, with the effective leadership of the Marxist Party, and does not reduce revolution to a total rejection and demolition of all the structures that have taken shape in capitalist society. On the 265 contrary, it regards it only as an element of the natural historical process that rejects the anarcho-apocalyptical approach to historical creativity. Hence the criticism of Marxism by the petty-bourgeois revolutionary. He suggests his own revolutionary theoretical alternative that claims to take ``national'' and ``regional'' conditions, the ``latest socioeconomic changes'', and so on into account, but which in fact reproduces the internal contradictions and fragmentation of the petty-bourgeois consciousness and ideologically converges with the revisionist orientation in the international communist movement.
This revision of Marxism has specifics of its own in different countries and regions. But it also has features in common that unite the New Lefts, the Maoists and the protagonists of various ``national socialisms''. These are: 1) negation of the revolutionary role of the working class on a national and world scale; 2) exaggeration of the role of the petty bourgeoisie and the marginal strata in the modern revolutionary process; 3) overestimation of the role of sociopolitical violence in society's revolutionary reorganisation and negation of the dialectics of peaceful and non-peaceful forms of the class struggle; 4) exaggeration of the role of the consciousness and the active subject in history and disregard for the material conditions of the socialist revolution.
However, it would be wrong to equate the rejection of Marxism by the ideologists of the imperialist bourgeoisie and the petty-bourgeois criticism of Marxism. This identification would mean ignoring the development prospects of the petty-bourgeois strata and the possibility of drawing them into the international revolutionary workingclass movement. In summing up the experience of drawing non-proletarian strata into the revolutionary working-class movement at the close of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries, Lenin noted that ``the enlistment of larger and larger numbers of new 'recruits', the attraction of new sections of the working people'' (into the working-class 266 movement.---Authors.) ``must inevitably be accompanied by waverings in the sphere of theory and tactics, by repetitions of old mistakes, by a temporary reversion to antiquated views and antiquated methods, and so = forth''.^^5^^
Today, with the widening of the zone of the world revolutionary process the rate of this involvement is steadily increasing and, consequently, the former vacillation in the sphere of theory and the former errors are reproduced 'm, a larger volume. Drawn by history into this process, the revolutionary segments of the petty-bourgeois strata cannot directly and unconditionally go over to the positions of Marxism. Their contradictory attitude to Marxist theory is an element of the quest for a revolutionary theory which, with further evolution toward union with the revolutionary working class, can culminate in a rupture with former views and in the adoption of the socialist philosophy.
While adopting a dual attitude to Marxism, the Left wing of the petty-bourgeois strata is, as a rule, extremely critical of, if not hostile to, the communist movement. True, this critical attitude is manifested differently in different regions.
Committed to one form of political power or another and, consequently, taking part in charting and implementing foreign policy, the petty-bourgeois strata of the developing countries have to take into consideration not only the world socialist community as a source of aid and protection of the gains of the national liberation movement from inroads by the imperialists, but also, by virtue of the above-mentioned circumstance, the communist movement and have at least to tone down or somehow camouflage their criticism of the latter.
Their attitude to ``internal communism'', i.e., to the Communist and Workers' parties in their countries, hostility for whom erupts into brutal massacres, is quite another matter. Inasmuch as these parties are ``by their side'', the pettybourgeois strata of the developing countries are inclined to treat them as a rival in the struggle for power, a rival who is more consistent in giving effect to internal socio-economic and political reforms and in the struggle against imperialism 267 and colonialism on the international scene, a rival who threatens their interests. In the shaping of this attitude toward Communists a role of no little importance is played by imperialist propaganda and the policies of the local big bourgeoisie (where it exists) and the feudal reactionaries, who regard Communists as their class enemy. In this area there is organisational and political solidarity between the petty bourgeoisie, the marginal strata, the big bourgeoisie and the feudal reactionaries. True, in periods when international imperialism or the internal Right-wing forces become active and crucially threaten the interests of the petty bourgeoisie, it can, as recent developments have shown, somewhat relax its own anti-communism and even enter into a bloc with Communists. However, these blocs do not as yet show sufficient stability and tend to disintegrate, especially when Communists activate their work and strive to secure a consistent implementation of the Marxist line in internal policy.
Also of no little importance is the circumstance that the petty-bourgeois ideologists, particularly those who declare they are ``protagonists of socialism'' and even followers of Marx and adherents of Marxism, regard the national Communist and Workers' parties not only as a political, but also as an ideological rival threatening their ideological hegemony and monopoly over the moulding of the people's revolutionary consciousness. For them this is another motivation for attacking ``local communism''. They thereby undermine the front of the national liberation movement. At the 1969 International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties it was recorded that the interests of ``the social progress of the peoples in the newly-liberated countries demand close co-operation between the Communist and Workers' Parties and the other patriotic and progressive forces. A hostile attitude to communism, and persecution of Communists harm the struggle for national and social emanci- pation''.^^6^^ Needless to say, while setting their sights on close co-operation with the patriotic forces, of whom a 268 considerable proportion consists of petty-bourgeois and marginal strata, Communists cannot ignore the fact that anti- communist elements in the minds of petty-bourgeois ideologists and politicians (as, indeed, in the mind of the petty- bourgeois philistine brought up in panic fear of communism) can only be surmounted as a result of a basic remoulding of these strata and a fundamental reorganisation of the social structure.
Unlike the petty-bourgeois strata of the developing states, the petty-bourgeois strata of the capitalist countries do not, as a rule, participate directly in political power. But the question of power is today one of the most crucial for them. ``Left'' criticism of the Communist and Workers' parties of the capitalist countries has intensified in connection with the dialogue on this question which grew sharp in the 1960s.
As we have already noted, when the petty-bourgeois strata find that the possibility of preserving their status quo is either unreal or highly problematic, they are inclined to look for a solution of their own contradictions in an immediate and radical restructuring of society. Since this is associated with the activity of the Communist Party, particularly large parties like the Italian and French, as a force capable of opposing capitalism, the exponent of petty- bourgeois consciousness demands ``genuinely revolutionary'' actions from the Communists. However, he judges the revolutionary character of the Communist Party by his own, petty-bourgeois criteria, on the basis of his own ideas, and the models of his own behaviour characterised by abrupt vacillations from one extreme to another, impatience, anarchism and adventurist experimentation. For that reason everything in the political behaviour of the Communist Party that does not square with the petty-bourgeois notions of a revolutionary spirit is rejected as its antipode, in other words, as ``bourgeois conciliation'', ``conservatism'', `` treachery'', ``thick-headedness'', ``bureaucracy'', and so forth. The inculcation of these assessments into the mass nonproletarian mind is considerably facilitated by the 269 circumstance that although by their concrete form they appear as ``inversions'' of the stereotypes of imperialist anti- communism, which bourgeois propaganda has been spreading in the course of many decades, they mostly coincide with these stereotypes.
The verisimilitude of these assessments may generate actual errors, against which no Communist Party is insured and which, in particular, were self-critically acknowledged by the Communists of a number of Western Communist parties during the broad 1968 movement of students and intellectuals.
In petty-bourgeois ideology, notably in Left-radical ideology, the Western Communist parties, above all, the French Communist Party, are the targets of similarly heavy attacks as those directed at monopoly capitalism, imperialism or Right-wing bourgeois parties. Here it is a case of a kind of ``substitution effect'': the petty-bourgeois strata are discontented with the existing order and they transfer their hatred of society to the Communists, who, they feel, do not go beyond the framework of the ``rules of the game'' and support the existing system.
In May 1968 and subsequently the violent attacks on the French Communist Party united on an anti-communist platform many anti-bourgeois non-proletarian intellectuals and students, who on many other issues stood (or still stand) aloof from the anti-communism of the imperialist bourgeoisie. Herbert Marcuse charged that the Communist parties of the industrialised capitalist states had ceased to be protagonists of a revolutionary consciousness, that they had ``parliamentarised'' themselves and lost the function of the ideological and political catalyst of the revolution. ``It was the traditional role of the Marxist-Leninist Party,'' he wrote, ``to prepare the ground for this development ( promoting a radical political consciousness in the masses.--- Authors.). The stabilising and integrating power of advanced capitalism, and the requirement of `peaceful coexistence' forced this party to `parliamentarise' itself, to integrate 270 itself into the bourgeois-democratic process, and to concentrate on economic demands, thereby inhibiting rather than promoting the growth of a radical political = consciousness.''^^7^^
By urging attacks on Communists, the petty-bourgeois revolutionary comes forward not only as an anti-communist, but also as an idealist squeezing the real historical process into a Procrustean bed of speculatively constructed ``ideal types''. His slogans are highly ``revolutionary'', of course: ``take the state machine by assault'', ``destroy the power of the bourgeoisie'', ``disperse the illusions of parliamentarism'', and so on. But he links the implementation of these slogans with the operation of forces and mechanisms that obviously cannot bring them to realisation. As an anarchist he is disgusted with the very idea of party organisation, which requires discipline and is based on the principles of democratic centralism because he regards any system of subordination as personifying the abstract principle of `` domination-subordination''. He rejects revolutionary organisation in favour of the ``revolutionary vanguard'' principle, which he endows with only one function, that of agitation (but by no means organisation!). In May 1968 the Left-radical leaders claimed that their movement rested on uncontrollable spontaneity, which it impelled, and made no attempt to channel or use in its favour the actions that it had = generated.^^8^^
In this the Left-radical ideologists come strictly speaking into conflict with themselves: on the one hand, they recognise the strength of corporate capitalism and the repressive power of the bourgeois state machine; on the other, they reject the need for a strong mass counter-organisation (the Communist Party being precisely such an organisation), which, as a material force, could not only withstand but smash the bourgeois state machine. This approach predestines the revolutionary actions of the masses to defeat, while the very summons for spontaneous action acquires---whether the Left-radical leaders want it or not---a provocative character.
To this it must be added that while they criticise what 271 they call the ``inadequate'' revolutionary spirit of the communist programme, the Left-radical ideologists do not (and cannot) suggest a realistic political programme based on a sociological analysis of the actual political situation and tied in with the objective trends of historical development. What they offer is nothing more than a categorical imperative of political action, i.e., abstract revolutionariness, whose orientation is linked with the typical petty-bourgeois divorce of freedom from responsibility. Being in a critical position, the petty bourgeois believes that he has nothing to lose and that he stands to gain the privileges he has lost (or their equivalent). Hence his orientation toward spontaneity, toward ``absolute'' freedom, which is not commensurate to historical responsibility for the possible after-effects of an adventurist policy.
A different stand is adopted by Communists, for whom revolutionary activity is not an end in itself but the means of restructuring society, of developing and consolidating the gains achieved at preceding phases of the struggle against capitalism. As an art revolution cannot, of course, totally rule out the element of risk, but the measure of risk cannot fail to be corrected by the degree of the danger of losing the real gains of preceding generations of the working class, gains attesting not to the ``integration'' of the working class into the system of state-monopoly capitalism, but to the progress achieved on the road to the victory of the revolution. Moreover, today when the repercussions of radical political events in one country (or region) or another have amplified and these events are becoming a tangible factor of the struggle between the two world systems, the responsibility devolving on each national contingent of Communists is growing. In determining their political guidelines they put on the scales the achievements of the entire international communist movement and world socialism.
No Communist Party is insured against errors much as no revolutionary movement of the working class is insured against temporary declines. Neither is the working class 272 itself insured against manifestations of passivity or even conservatism in individual segments. But these errors and declines cannot be surmounted without a self-developing revolutionary organisation such as the Communist Party. ``Only the Communist Party, if it is really the vanguard of the revolutionary class, if it really comprises all the finest representatives of that class, if it consists of fully conscious and staunch Communists who have been educated and steeled by the experience of a persistent revolutionary struggle, and if it has succeeded in linking itself inseparably with the whole life of its class and, through it, with the whole mass of the exploited, and in completely winning the confidence of this class and this mass---only such a party is capable of leading the proletariat in a final, most ruthless and decisive struggle against all the forces of capitalism. On the other hand, it is only under the leadership of such a party that the proletariat is capable of displaying the full might of its revolutionary onslaught, and of overcoming the inevitable apathy and occasional resistance of that small minority, the labour aristocracy, who have been corrupted by capitalism, the old trade union and co-operative leaders, etc.---only then will it be capable of displaying its full might.''^^9^^
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 3. ANTI-SOVIETISM IN PETTY-BOURGEOIS IDEOLOGYFor the anti-communism of the imperialist bourgeoisie the socialist countries, notably the Soviet Union, have always been and still are the objective of bellicose criticism that in many cases is based on fabrications about Soviet internal and foreign policy and about the character of the socio-economic and political transformations in the USSR.
Very frequently the petty-bourgeois philistine is held captive by distorted ideas about the socialist countries, particularly about the Soviet Union. His position in society compels him to strive for radical changes but, at the same time, he fears these changes. By and large, fear is the 273 constant modus of petty-bourgeois consciousness. The imperialist bourgeoisie skilfully fans this fear by portraying the socialist countries as embodying the ``communist threat''.
However, the duality of the position of the petty- bourgeois strata does not permit them to adopt a consistent attitude to the socialist countries, for, as was put by Marx and Engels in the proposition we have already cited, by the logic of their social being the representative of the ``middle estates'' remains a critic of capitalism and, as such, turns his gaze to the socialist countries as the practical negation of capitalism.
The commonplace petty-bourgeois consciousness judges socialism by its own short yardstick of customary notions of ``welfare'', ``good'', ``evil'', ``humanism'', everyday comforts and all forms of political vital activity. When the pettybourgeois consciousness is ``happy'', i.e., when its exponent is fundamentally satisfied with his existence, the positive elements of his attitude to socialism are measured by the extent the latter is consistent with the material and spiritual values of the bourgeois society in which he lives. On the contrary, when the changing conditions of life make this consciousness ``unhappy'', it is forced to look for values outside its own world and, in this quest, turn its eyes to socialism. The ``unhappy'' consciousness, thirsting to avenge its torments, depicts the world only in sombre hues and, in accordance with this mode of vision, regards real socialism as ``inverted'' capitalism, as exemplifying the tokens of capitalist values turned inside out, as the conversion of ``white'' into ``black'', and vice versa. For this consciousness socialism is depicted as a society in which the capitalist, exploiting form of organising production and consumption is instantly replaced with the revolutionary self- administration; where anarchy takes the place of discipline; where the structure of requirements (and, partly, the level of consumption) differs fundamentally from the corresponding indicators of capitalist society; where abstract humanism reigns. For this consciousness socialism is a paradise, a fairy __PRINTERS_P_273_COMMENT__ 18---2810 274 tale come true, a realised Utopia and an embodied ideal of human existence. The historical approach to social forms is totally alien to this consciousness on both the commonplace and the theoretical level. The consciousness thinking in terms of black and white records society's static state and does not perceive historical movement, the transition from one stage of social development to another and the distinctions in the content of identical forms. For that reason when practically embodied socialism, particularly in its Soviet form, proves to be unidentifiable with the image of `` inverted capitalism'' created by this consciousness, when its exponents see the contradictory, ``incomplete'' character of socialism and, especially, the errors that inevitably accompany the advance along a new, unexplored road, they frequently back away from socialism if they do not become its inimical critics, joining hands with the Sovietologists in the camp of the imperialist bourgeoisie.
In the developing countries, especially in those that have adopted the socialist orientation, the guarded attitude of the petty-bourgeois strata and, as a matter of fact, of a certain section of the proletariat to the Soviet Union is linked with some additional factors, notably with their disappointment over the forms of social organisation that are regarded as socialism by the working people of these countries, although actually they are a deviation from socialism or, to use the words of Ahmed Hamrouch, editor of the Egyptian journal Rose el Youssef, ``slandered socialism''.
In an article of the same heading published in the journal in January 1968, Hamrouch wrote: ``Unable to find who can help and deliver him from injustice, the peasant, who is subjected to exploitation and the injustices from persons directing the work of the agricultural co-operative, is losing faith in the revolution.... The worker suffering from the actions of the management, which ignores the difficulties of his life, will never trouble himself with an attempt to analyse and find the difference between the principle itself and the actions of those who translate it into life. The senior or 275 junior employee, who is persecuted or discharged without an investigation of the reasons, will never look for the difference between theory and practice. Those who have been treated unjustly accuse socialism, i.e., slandered socialism, to which are attributed all the errors and deviations committed by some people in high office in various spheres of activity.''^^10^^
Ahmed Hamrouch sees the direct reason for these deviations in the fact that ``most of the persons entrusted with giving practical effect to the socialist idea were, actually, not adherents of socialism. Their convictions were far removed from socialism, and it was alien to their thoughts. Socialism was completely at variance with their paltry dreams, which they had constructed under the influence of capitalist methods or under the influence of the way of life to which they had aspired before our social revolution was accomplished. In private conversation they deride socialism, but laud it at general = meetings.''^^10^^
Whatever the actual motivations for the ``disappointment'' with socialism, the guarded attitude and hostility to it, they are tangible yardsticks of the consciousness of a section of the petty-bourgeois and marginal strata of the capitalist and the developing countries.
The intensification of Left-wing tendencies among the petty-bourgeois strata (particularly in the industrialised states) has in recent years led the petty-bourgeois ideologists to redouble their attacks on the practical forms in which socialism has been embodied in the European socialist countries, especially in the Soviet Union.
These attacks unite the ideologists and leaders of the European and American New Lefts, the Maoists and the Left-radical groups in some Communist parties (a typical example, as we have already noted, being the ``II~Manifesto'' group).
The petty-bourgeois critic of Soviet society regards it either as having from the very beginning ``deviated from true aims'' and from the ``outline'' charted by Marx and __PRINTERS_P_275_COMMENT__ 18* 276 Engels, or having, with the passage of time, shed revolutionary proletarian ideals and become a variety of `` integrated industrial society'' suffering from the vices of `` consumption'', disintegrating into classes with differing interests and eroded by bureaucracy.
For the petty-bourgeois ideologist the ``distortion'' and the ``deviation of socialism from true aims'' are linked with two main orientations. First, with the ``orientation of the socialist countries toward the capitalist model of industrialisation'', with the efforts to overtake and surpass the industrialised capitalist countries in the sphere of technology, attempts which are regarded as automatically leading to the reproduction of the relations and values of capitalist society under new social conditions. The genuinely socialist goal, Herbert Marcuse wrote in this connection, ``implies rejection of those policies of reconstruction, no matter how revolutionary, which are bound to perpetuate (or to introduce) the pattern of the unfree societies and their needs. Such false policy is perhaps best summed up in the formula 'to catch up with and to overtake the productivity level of the advanced capitalist countries'. What is wrong with this formula is not the emphasis on the rapid improvement of the material conditions but on the model guiding their improvement. The model denies the alternative, the qualitative difference...''^^11^^ Enlarging upon this argument, he said that he believed the building of free socialism implied rejection of the American model of industrialisation and modernisation, efforts to find a new model for the creation of a totally new social, technical and natural environment, a world no longer dominated by the aggressive needs cultivated by capitalism and where an entirely new type of man would emerge.^^12^^
Second, socialism's ``degradation'' is, in the opinion of the ``Left'' critics of communism, linked with the orientation of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries toward peaceful coexistence with the capitalist world. ``This coexistence explains in large measure socialism's deviation 277 from its initial idea and the fundamental transformation of capitalism. Today coexistence determines socialism's future.''^^13^^ ``In important aspects, this coexistence has contributed to the stabilisation of capitalism: `world communism' has been the Enemy who would have to be invented if he did not exist---the Enemy whose strength justified the `defence economy' and the mobilisation of the people in the national interest. Moreover, as the common Enemy of all capitalism, communism promoted the organisation of a common interest superseding the inter-capitalist differences and = conflicts.''^^14^^
By claiming that socialism has deviated from the initial goal and idea, from the ``ideal'', the exponent of ``unhappy consciousness'' argues in terms of the typical providentialist, as a wanderer who has suffered much, who seeks the road to the promised land, promised to him by a higher power, and cannot find it. He judges socialism not by collating the historical reality of socialism with the actual possibilities, springing from society's preceding development, of achieving socialism in a concrete historical situation, but by comparing reality with an abstract moral and aesthetic ideal that had allegedly been given shape by Marx and Engels in the last century but which ``had not come true''.
Marx had indeed given shape to the ideal of the harmonious, universal development of the individual, having in mind the individual's ability to assimilate creatively the achievements of mankind's aggregate development and actively deploy this wealth in all-sided contact with other individuals. For that reason Marx spoke of communism as ``an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of = all''.^^15^^ However, Marx, Engels and Lenin had never regarded communism (socialism) as a ready-made abstract model that had only to be realised in practice, or as an ideal society offering every conceivable benefit. This has been clearly stated by the founders of scientific communism at the very outset. ``Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is 278 to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in = existence.''^^16^^
The founders of Marxism approached socialism as historians and natural scientists who did not invent ideal types, but studied the actual condition in which people have been placed and which they aimed to remake. ``There is,'' Lenin wrote, ``no trace of an attempt on Marx's part to make up a utopia, to indulge in idle guess-work about what cannot be known. Marx treated the question of communism in the same way as a naturalist would treat the question of the development of, say, a new biological variety, once we know that it had originated in such and such a way and was changing in such and such a definite = direction.''^^17^^
But in a natural-historical approach to socialism the latter is seen not as a speculatively constructed ``perfect'' society embodying a radical rupture with preceding history, but as a new phase of historical development that ``sublates'' the preceding stages, in other words, simultaneously breaks with them and represents their natural historical continuation and, consequently, determined by them to one extent or another and reproducing various of their aspects in new forms, depending on the specific social, political and economic conditions in which the revolution had taken place.
The course of the socialist revolutions and of socialist construction may prove to be quite different from the course pictured by theoretical thought before the revolution. But ``deviations'' of this kind are not necessarily evidence of the ``ideal's deformation'', of a refutation of ``Marxian prophecies''. They may be evidence of the destruction of the illusions of the petty-bourgeois ``unhappy consciousness'' that identifies the strategic goal of the proletariat--- communism---with the concrete phase of the historical advance toward that goal, and the tasks of one or several generations of revolutionaries with the tasks of many generations. Actually, on a broad historical plane, the goal of a generation 279 frequently proves to be only a means relative to the strategic goal of the many generations building communism, and when this becomes clear the dispersion of the illusions about the identity of these goals is seen by the individual who expected communism to be built overnight as the dead cause for which he had fought, or as a ``deformed goal'', or as the breakdown of ``historical prophecy''.
As the history of China exemplifies, there can indeed be deformations in the building of socialism, but this deformation consists either of surrender of positions that have already been won or betrayal of actual possibilities. If we speak of historical need, which is not given in ``ready-made'' form but is created by the people here and now, it will be seen that from the scientific standpoint the arguments about the ``deformation'' of the given socialism are utterly untenable. Indeed, if we raise the question of industrialisation, then had the Soviet state, with the relatively low level of economic development at the time the revolution was accomplished in Russia, any realistic alternative to industrialisation with the utilisation of the rational aspects of the technical experience of economically advanced countries like the USA, Britain, Germany and France? Was not the orientation toward the utilisation of this experience dictated by the social logic of socialism's establishment in a country with a medium level of development of capitalism?
Marx had pointed out that no socio-economic system perishes before the development of all the productive forces for which it gives adequate scope. With the inauguration of the epoch of imperialism and the increasingly more pronounced uneven development of capitalism, with the promotion of worldwide economic relations that are turning each country into a link of a single system of states, a realistic possibility arose of carrying out the socialist revolution initially in one country not necessarily one of the most developed. Marx's conclusion revealed a new significance: inasmuch as the requisite material conditions 280 for a socialist revolution exist on a global scale, it is possible, in a certain link of the world capitalist system, to cut short capitalism's development before it exhausts its potentialities.
But this requires a certain compensation---under the new system---by the transmuted reproduction of processes historically linked with the preceding system. These processes cannot be realised by the socialist state, by virtue of the law of saving time, without a certain copying of capitalist processes, without a certain utilisation of capitalist experience. Industrialisation is one of these processes. True, today we are witnesses of a distinctive policy proclaimed by some ``young'' socialist countries in the sphere of industrialisation and utilisation of machinery, a policy that utterly rejects the ``capitalist orientation in the use of machinery'', an orientation toward cultivating needs that are not linked with a high level of industrial development, and this evokes a fit of delight among the ``Left'' critics of socialism. But this orientation (in the relatively insignificant degree it is actually pursued) is possible for a certain time span only owing to the fact that these countries belong to the world socialist community. This means that they directly or indirectly rely on the aggregate might of the community (above all, on the might of the Soviet Union), thereby receiving the guarantee of their own existence in a situation that had once threatened the pioneers of socialism with destruction in the face of world imperialism.
Further, it goes without saying that the utilisation of the knowhow of advanced capitalist states by the socialist countries does not predetermine a rigid orientation of social development and does not signify the transfer of capitalism to a new soil. In technology certain functions are, of course, always programmed, but these functions may be attended by different social goals, for the goal of technology (with the exception of some of its specific varieties) is not necessarily directly contained in it.
Petty-bourgeois Left-radical ideology regards the `` containment'' of the world revolutionary process as an outcome 281 of peaceful coexistence. In a certain sense such containment is indeed to be observed if, say, it implies the huge unproductive expenditures forced on the socialist countries by capitalism. But peaceful coexistence has yet another aspect, namely, the class struggle between the two social systems on an international scale, a struggle in which capitalism not only advances, but is also on the defensive. Exposed as it is to dual pressure---external, from the world socialist community, and internal, from the working class and other antiimperialist forces of the capitalist countries---capitalism is compelled to take measures that are essentially alien to its nature. Although these measures are in the long run ``digested'' and ``assimilated'' by state-monopoly capitalism through the evolution of new protective mechanisms, nonetheless they and, partly, even the protective mechanisms themselves, create new material conditions for the transition to socialist society.
Peaceful coexistence is thus one of the factors making capitalism concentrate to the maximum its internal economic resources and place inner-capitalist competition under a certain measure of control if not to restrict it. Hence the active state interference in the operation of the market economy mechanism, the control over it and the attempts to replace the market with a ``conscious'' regulator in the person of the state. Tactically, these measures directly bolster the functioning of capitalism, but at the same time they are a further and very significant step toward preparing the basis for socialist structures, a step that makes it possible to hasten the completion of socialist reforms after power has been taken over by the working classes.
Peaceful coexistence, which the petty-bourgeois ideologist regards solely as a vehicle ``postponing'' or ``delaying'' the revolution and the direct seizure of power by the proletariat in the industrialised capitalist states, thus has still another very important aspect which totally escapes the consciousness of this ideologist. It latently paves the way to the revolution by creating the requisite material conditions and 282 socialist structures, and by giving effect to transmuted forms of the transformations that at preceding phases were put into effect within the framework of socialism and were regarded as the prerogative of the latter.
The ``postponement'' of revolution as a political act is in some measure compensated by socio-economic measures, which, provided the working people seize power by revolution, substantially facilitate the building of a new society (from the standpoint of the search for socialist structures adequate to the prevailing conditions, the shortening of the time needed for socialist reforms and the transition to the building of a mature communist society). Lenin agreed wholly with the thesis, advanced in 1920, that ``after the victory of the proletariat the reasons for the ease of that victory dialectically become reasons for the immense difficulty'' and that ``the rate of the onset of revolution was not directly proportionate to the maturity of capitalist relations and the type-level of the = revolution''.^^18^^
Far from losing its topicality, this thesis has received further corroboration in the history of the world revolutionary process.
Thus, neither socialist industrialisation with the use of the knowhow of the capitalist countries nor peaceful coexistence determine the ``deflection'' of countries from the road of socialism, just as rejection of industrialisation and peaceful coexistence is by no means evidence that countries that have proclaimed the socialist orientation are actually developing along socialist lines.
In their criticism of real socialism, chiefly of the Soviet Union, the petty-bourgeois Left-radical ideologists constantly stress that their attitude differs fundamentally from that of the anti-communists and Sovietologists of the imperialist bourgeois camp, arguing that the end goal of their criticism is to make a scientific analysis of the reasons for real socialism's ``deflection'' and find the way if not for its ``sanitation'' then, at least, for other countries to avoid the errors made by socialist countries.
283But whatever the actual motivations of these critics, the fact remains that in characterising the situation in the socialist countries they frequently use methods of ``analysis'' that are typical of imperialist anti-communism: a biassed attitude to the object of analysis, falsification, the juggling of facts, and so on. Indicative in this respect is the book Transition to Socialism (in the series Reference Books edited by the West German poet, author and publicist Hans Magnus Enzensberger, who is closely associated with radical Left-wing circles), recently published in West Germany. One of the contributors, Neumann, who propounds ``true socialism'', attacks the Soviet intelligentsia, alleging that in the course of the socialist transformations in the Soviet Union a new ruling class that collectively owns the means of production emerged from the proletarian intelligentsia as a result of a long = process.^^19^^
In their arbitrary, subjective interpretation of the situation in socialist countries, the petty-bourgeois ideologists in many cases do not confine themselves to an ``academic criticism'' but draw organisational and political conclusions that, in effect, put them in the same category as the ideologists of the reactionary imperialist bourgeoisie. In the abovementioned book Enzensberger writes that the proletariat has to wage ``an open class struggle against the Soviet bourgeoisie'', adding that the revolutionary ``opposition'' must vitalise its activity since there cannot be a ``spontaneous, direct transition of the Soviet proletariat from its present state to a revolutionary class = consciousness''.^^19^^ The ``great proletarian cultural revolution'' in China, which has become a ``revolutionary model'' for the petty-bourgeois Left- radical ideologists, clearly shows how this ``opposition'' is conceived and into what the ``struggle of the proletariat'' against the ``bourgeoisie'' in the socialist countries evolves. This orientation is not accidental, for the Maoists are not only conducting virulent anti-Soviet propaganda, calling upon the ``Soviet people'' to accomplish a new ``revolution'', but giving practical embodiment to the ``ultra-revolutionary'' 284 slogans coined by the European and American petty- bourgeois ideologists.
The frankly hostile criticism of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries by these ideologists nullifies the proclaimed goal of this criticism, and in the given question objectively places them in the same rank with imperialist anti-communism. Socialism in the USSR is in a state of development and does not claim to be ideal, a society free of internal contradictions and shortcomings, a society delivered entirely from survivals of the past. The striving to create better forms of social relations and constructive criticism---as an element of development---of the really existing forms of socialism---are the moral and political imperative of a Marxist and a norm of relations between Communists reaffirmed by practice. But it would be naive, to say the least, to expect that today it is possible to break through to these more improved forms of social relations by ignoring the socialist experience of the Soviet Union, rejecting it as of little practical value or even undermining the Soviet Union's position on the international scene and in the international communist movement. This attitude spells out objective betrayal of communism and enlistment in the service of capitalism.
This contradiction between the striving to create an improved society (a striving that is sincere on the part of a segment of the petty-bourgeois and marginal strata and their ideologists) and the use of these means and methods to fulfil this striving, which makes it quite impracticable and objectively helps to prolong capitalism's existence, is the crux of the tragedy of the present-day ``Left'' petty bourgeois and the representative of the marginal strata.
This contradiction is necessarily taken into account by Communists when they work out their position toward the social forces we have been considering. Marxism's ideological firmness requires a consistent and unflagging struggle against anti-communism and anti-Sovietism, regardless of the source. Moreover, if this ideology gets an outlet in the 285 foreign policy of countries where anti-Soviet oriented representatives of the petty-bourgeois strata are in power, the socialist countries thereby receive the right to a similar effective defence of their own interests and, ultimately, of the interests of world communism.
However, in view of the split consciousness of the pettybourgeois mass and the gulf between this mass and its ideological leaders, who in various aspects join hands with imperialist anti-communism, the petty bourgeoisie and the marginal strata cannot be simply qualified as a real or potential force of anti-communism, and their consciousness as simply anti-communist. This orientation may become predominant if Communists apply a simplified measure to it and abandon their unremitting and painstaking work among the non-proletarian masses.
In spite of the general trend toward the strangulation of the small proprietor by big capital, particularly in the conditions being created by the scientific and technological revolution, the petty bourgeoisie inevitably reproduces and will continue to reproduce itself as a vital condition of the functioning of big capital itself. Moreover, judging by the trend noted by modern science, the numerical strength of the petty-bourgeois strata (not belonging directly to the category of small entrepreneurs) will not diminish in the immediate future but, on the contrary, increase through the inclusion in it of the able-bodied population entering independent life and of the marginal strata. Thus Marx's surmise that ``the petty bourgeoisie will form an integral part of all the impending social = revolutions''^^20^^ remains in force. This calls for a differentiated and flexible approach to the petty-bourgeois strata and a skilful combination of the struggle against elements of anti-communism in the consciousness of these strata with a constructive search for ways of forming an alliance with all the forces capable of becoming allies of the proletariat in the anti-monopoly revolution.
[286] __NUMERIC_LVL1__ CHAPTER EIGHT __ALPHA_LVL1__ FORMS AND METHODS OF THE DISSEMINATIONIn the preceding chapters we analysed the reactionary class essence of anti-communism as the main ideological and political weapon of imperialism, examined its action programme, reviewed the arguments offered by its ideologists and apologists and showed how the anti-communists misrepresent the teaching of Marxism-Leninism and the practice of the socialist countries. However, a critique of anti- communism should not be confined to a conceptual analysis under which it is examined chiefly as a social theory, as a sum of definite propositions and dogmas formulated in voluminous tomes. In the latter case a critique boils down mainly to proving the anti-communist concepts to be unscientific and false.
However, it must be acknowledged that anti-communist propaganda succeeds in influencing the ideology and social psychology of the capitalist countries. Anti-communist feeling and garbled, distorted notions about the substance of Marxism-Leninism, the practice of socialist construction and the political and ideological life of the socialist countries are fairly widespread. There is, thus, not only an ``academic'', but also a mass, ``commonplace'' form of anticommunist ideas---anti-communism as a fragment of the social psychology and ideology of present-day bourgeois 287 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ METHODS OF DISSEMINATION OF ANTI-COMMUNIST IDEOLOGY society. In this situation a conceptual analysis of anti- communism alone is clearly inadequate. It is necessary to ascertain the socio-psychological roots of anti-communism, its internal links with various spheres of social life, with the contradictions and problems characterising social life, and the specific, ``converted'' forms in which it is mirrored in the minds of people. It is necessary to study the socio- psychological mechanism by which anti-communism is instilled in the mass consciousness of bourgeois society, which transfers anti-communism from the sphere of theoretical ideology to the sphere of social psychology.
At this point it is important to stress that for the rankand-file member of Western capitalist society anti-communist ideas do not represent (and are not adopted) as something divorced, isolated from his day-to-day experience, from his customary convictions and views. The ideologists of anticommunism peddle their ideas under the guise of protecting the traditional political and ideological values of the West. Anti-communism is linked with the crisis processes in the bourgeois consciousness and it is offered as a means of surmounting that crisis.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 1. THE CRISISThe content of the ideology predominating in the West--- in the form of official doctrines and in the shape of ideas and notions rooted in the mass consciousness---reflects the deep-going socio-economic processes that have been unfolding in the industrialised capitalist countries during the past 60--70 years. The development of monopoly capital has wrought profound changes in society's structure, the condition of the different social strata and the character of the relations between people. In one way or another these changes 288 are mirrored in the content of the spontaneously shaping experience of life, in mass ideology and in the system of value orientations. This process carries with it the indelible imprint of the crisis of the individual's condition in bourgeois society, a condition that in Western literature is usually designated by the term ``alienation''. Within the framework of the problem of ``alienation'' we are interested in how the state of ``alienation'' is refracted in the sphere of bourgeois society's traditional ideas.
In its most compact, most generalised form the influence of the new social relations on ideology and social psychology resulted in a wide disparity between the stable predominant values and the traditions of the ideology and psychology of enterprising individualism as they took shape in the 18th and 19th centuries, and the changes that took place in the conditions of life and the forms of the social structure created in the course of the development of statemonopoly capitalism.
The substance of these changes is that the once independent producer is being turned into a simple cog of enormous bureaucratic machine, that forces on him the type and limits of his activity and erases his personality, his individual characteristics. The monopoly circles subordinate the organs of state power, which are becoming more closely linked with the bureaucratic machine and increasingly independent of public opinion. The bulk of the population, the millions of rank-and-file citizens are coming face to face with a ``ready-made'' policy that is charted behind their backs and imposed on them.
Finally, man is increasingly losing his independence in the last and seemingly sovereign sphere, the sphere of spiritual life. The ramified and skilfully directed system of ideological stereotypes, standardised patterns of thinking and behaviour and various ``social drugs'' is turning the `` independent'' spiritual world of the individual into an object of programmed manipulation.
The changed social relations, under which people are 289 finding themselves in day-to-day dependence on the power of the monopolies and the gigantically swollen bureaucratic organisation of the state, are inevitably leading to a conflict between the traditional individualistic ideals, aims and values that are frequently assessed by bourgeois consciousness itself as the ``natural'' and ``immutable'' properties of man, and the ``external'' limits that are being placed on man by the bureaucratic system and which preclude the possibility for the development of these properties.
The traditional values of individualism are, above all, the ideal of personal, to be more exact, exclusive success achieved as a result of active struggle and competition, as a result of ``one's own'' enterprising initiative.
The values of individualism include the notion that in bourgeois society every person has ``equal opportunities'' for success, that by perseverance, personal initiative and hard work it is possible to become an independent entrepreneur, i.e., ``one's own master''. With this notion is associated the concept of the ``independence'' of the individual in and of society.
Moreover, in this system of values personal success is measured by the possession of wealth, capital, money. The possibility of becoming the subject and not the object in the system of management, the possibility of consuming the largest possible volume of the costliest things and services determine the social prestige of the individual, his chances for respect and self-respect.
The ideals and illusions of individualism have taken shape historically as a stable system of motivations of vital activity in the course of capitalism's development. It is no accident that this system of motivations has acquired so much influence and become the central element of the predominant ideology, for instance, in the USA, a country where capitalism had developed most freely, giving rise to individualist ideology and psychology on a mass scale.
The influence exercised by the ideals and illusions of bourgeois individualism is linked not only with traditions and __PRINTERS_P_289_COMMENT__ 19---2810 290 habits. To this day it has an objective social foundation in the practice of capitalism. Lastly, this influence is sustained by the system of mass propaganda. It is indicative that the propagation of precisely these ideals and illusions as the basic attributes of the so-called American way of life is so prominent in the propaganda campaign being launched today in the USA in connection with the coming celebrations, in 1976, of that country's 200th anniversary.
However, a growing number of Americans, who have become workers and employees of monopoly corporations, are unable to display their own enterprising initiative, to realise the ideals of individualism in practice. The actual content and institutional limits of their activity make other demands of them: obedience, subordination, precise fulfilment of formalised functions and procedures, and adherence to stereotype behaviour. Traditional individualism is thus suppressed by authoritarian bureaucracy. More and more frequently the individualist becomes the object of manipulation by the governing organisation, while the organisation itself is structured as a bureaucratic system alienated from the individual, who becomes its member.
But this is yet not all. The small and the medium entrepreneurs are being turned into office and factory workers, a process that has a painful effect on the consciousness. Discontented individualism is most frequently to be observed in the petty bourgeois---the shopkeeper, the owner of a small workshop, and the farmer, who today find themselves sinking into growing dependence on the big monopolies. The small entrepreneurs still active constitute a considerable proportion of the US population and form a substratum that may be called a lumpen-bourgeoisie. They are afraid of the future, are constantly pressured by the large bureaucratic organisations and compelled to worry not so much about prosperity as about how to survive under state-monopoly capitalism. The various petty-bourgeois strata, the small officials of the monopolies, the ruined farmers, and so on, are the exponents of the crisis phenomena in the American 291 consciousness. However, it is interesting to note that similar processes are to be observed in the consciousness of more privileged strata of American society, for instance, the topechelon employees, who are likewise becoming increasingly dependent on the disciplinary limits of the state-monopoly bureaucracy.
The fact that the conflict of discontented individualism (between the former notions about the values of private enterprise and the present forms of administration set up by the monopolies and the state) embraces not only the petty bourgeoisie, millions of wage workers and office employees, but also privileged strata, creates the illusion that it concerns ``general'' ideals that conform to the universal ``nature'' of man as such and are not strictly determined by class interests. However, the contradiction between the ideals of free enterprise and the reality of state-monopoly organisation is a contradiction of capitalist reality itself. The economy of capitalism remains founded on private ownership and one of its fundamental principles remains that of a competitive struggle for the symbols of personal success. In the monopoly economy, however, the individual activity of the vast majority of people may ``enter'' the process of social production only by means of various corporate, bureaucratic organisations through a system of social institutions isolated from man and obeying their own laws.
Attention must be drawn to a very important detail. In the specific conditions of the historical and economic formation of the American national community, when heavily accentuated individualism became the central value of the American way of life, perhaps comparable only with the extreme nationalism dished up under the guise of patriotism, its influence spread not only over bourgeois, petty-bourgeois and marginal strata of American society. Individualism became the paramount value not only of the governing but also of mass ideology, sinking deep into the consciousness of the numerous strata of the working population, including the working class.
__PRINTERS_P_291_COMMENT__ 19* 292In the USA individualism is one of the main inhibitions to the growth of the proletariat's political self-awareness. To a large extent this explains the fairly wide proliferation of the psychology of anti-communism, which can be used by the bourgeoisie, if necessary, to push individual contingents of the working class into extremist anti-communist and anti-Soviet actions.
In short, a unique situation arises where proprietary practice, on the one hand, inevitably generates ideals of proprietorship, individualism and ``business'' independence and, on the other, prevents these ideals from being translated into life, reduces the overwhelming majority of society to permanent and painfully realised dependence on the system of economic and non-economic links in which the monopolies have enmeshed the whole of society. It is here, on the borderline of the clash between traditional ideals and the framework of the reality in which these ideals cannot be implemented that the mass mood of discontent, resentment and aggressiveness is aroused.
Latent resentment inevitably seeks an outlet. The external expression of this state frequently evolves into conformism, a state of apathy and indifference, the switch of energy into trifles, and attempts to protest against lost individuality by displays of consumer capabilities, vanity and acquisition. Tension sometimes grows into unwitting hostility for everything social, into repugnance for the established standards of behaviour and into an inclination for political adventurism. The development of capitalism steadily narrows the sphere of possible, ``independent'' enterprise, and these moods are acquiring a mass scale and becoming typical. Reactionary propaganda is directed at these discontented individualists, who form the medium in which the ideology and psychology of anti-communism flourishes. Under reactionary influence the mood of the restless, discontented individualist is easily transformed into putschism, into a striving for fascist-type political activity, into a tendency toward anti-communist hysteria.
293Such is one of the features of the diffusion and influence of anti-communism: it is linked with the dissatisfaction of the restless, embittered and hysterical traditional individualist and the specific ideological and psychological atmosphere that is created by and accompanies this mood.
However, a simple recording of the overall link between the two social phenomena does not allow understanding the operation of the specific mechanisms by which this link arises and is sustained. It must be borne in mind that today anticommunism is not merely a sum of ideas, notions and moods but the content of the activity of a large number of official and ``public'' organisations.
Despite the diversity of anti-communist organisations and the motley content of their programmes they have a feature in common. In order to teach people to hate communism and involve them in anti-communist activity these organisations make deliberate use of the internal acute social problems that in the capitalist countries worry people most of all. These problems are interpreted in the spirit of anticommunism.
In other words, we are witnessing a special method of anti-communist propaganda, namely falsification of communism designed to influence the mass mind. This method relies on a system of current prejudices, illusions, and unhealthy moods that are typical of the general ideological and psychological atmosphere in capitalist countries and induced in the public mind not necessarily in connection with anti-communist activity proper but in connection with the crisis of the traditionally predominating system of values and vital orientations, the values and orientations of individualism.
Efforts are made to give an anti-communist direction to this spontaneous social criticism, to the mass discontent that is mounting as a result of the dominance of the forms of bureaucratic society and appealing to individualism, to the ``patriotic'' ideals of free enterprise and romantic-philistine dreams of personal ``independence''. Such, if we take the 294 USA, is the general programme of all Rightist organisations, beginning with George Rockwell's American Socialist Party and ending with the ``respectable'' conservatives.
Usually---and quite rightly---the imperialist state is regarded in Marxist literature as the instrument of the giant monopolies, while these monopolies, especially those linked with war orders, are seen as the mainstay of political reaction. For that reason it would seem logical to assume that all the semi-fascist and extreme Rightist organisations will move in the channel of the US Government's policy, act as apologists of the central power and counterpose their views to the traditional liberal-bourgeois liberties. However, as one can see, the actual picture frequently proves to be almost the very opposite.
In order to have a clearer idea of the alignment of forces in the USA, we have to analyse in more detail the anti- communist, political and economic views that are now offered under the slogan of ``conservatism'', ``traditionalism'', and so forth. Today, when in the capitalist countries many social problems are being aggravated, appeals to the past, the romanticisation and idealisation of the past, are becoming a very characteristic feature of mass ideological propaganda. This feature manifests itself, for instance, in the preparations for the bicentennial of the USA, with the most reactionary groups openly coming out with apologias of `` conservatism''. As a matter of fact, when the views of the reactionaries are characterised, criticism is often concentrated on hunting out compromising ``extreme'', ``extravagant'' pronouncements and aphorisms, which are given no more than moral assessments. But the logic of political struggle and social programmes do not rest on the laws of theoretical morality. They mirror definite social forces, definite trends in the consciousness, definite mass moods, and their influence depends on how adequately they express these moods and tendencies.
In the foreword to his book The Conscience of a Majority Barry Goldwater asserts that the USA is fundamentally a conservative = nation.^^1^^ He writes that most of the American 295 people, particularly young people, crave for a return to the principles of conservatism but that the realisation of this aspiration is hindered by the fact that in politics and ideology the tone is set by the liberals and radicals. Goldwater does not consider that conservatism is a political programme predicated by current and transient circumstances. He assesses it as an indispensable attribute of the American way of life and, at the same time, as an adequate expression of the very essence of man, as the formulation of the requirements springing necessarily from his nature.
Already this brings to light the position of the Right-wing groups. They claim to defend the ``inalienable'' spiritual values of man against the policy and social practice that tramples these values (this is a key to understanding the mechanism by which anti-communist psychology is ingrained into the mass consciousness of the bourgeois countries). In the categories of the bourgeois consciousness this programme is perceived as a defence of the traditional ideals, initiative and independence that had taken shape in the period of free enterprise against the changes in the social structure and the mode of functioning of the bourgeois state called forth by the concentration of capital and the bureaucratisation of state administration. Hence the attitude of the conservatives acquires the semblance of defending the highest ``spiritual'' values against utilitarian, narrow-minded practicism.
This orientation is even more distinct in the political programme of the ``ultras'' and in their protest against the concentration of power in the hands of the Federal Government. The ``ultras'' willingly play on the dissatisfaction and fear of many Americans in face of the rapid growth of the might and influence of the bureaucratic machine controlled by the Federal Government. In pursuance of their selfish interests, they frequently oppose the Presidential power. They seek to discredit the steps taken by the US President to end the cold war and endeavour to restore the atmosphere of anti- communist and anti-Soviet hysteria.
296At the same time, they play on American traditions by attacking state interference in agriculture, condemning the increase in taxes, particularly in the progressive tax on profits, and denouncing the government's intervention in education, all the government's projects for ``combating poverty'', the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court ruling on school desegregation, and so on.
What is the class content of this programme? In many ways the attacks on the Federal Government are motivated by considerations of the inner-party struggle. The attitude of the ``ultras'' reflects mainly the interests of the ``young'' monopolies that are pressing for a redistribution of spheres of influence and militating against the established links with the state. Paradoxically enough, their attitude is formed as a defence of their ``free enterprise'' with regard to the bureaucratic Establishment.
But this is only one facet of the matter.
The programme of the conservatives and traditionalists would never have exercised broad influence if it had not skilfully played on the discontent evoked among the pettybourgeois masses by the concentration of capital and the bureaucratisation of the entire organisation of capitalism in the USA. This programme gives the petty bourgeoisie and the lumpen-bourgeoisie, who are doomed to extinction, a means of expressing their discontent and directs their protest into the delusive groove ``against liberals'', against the Communists and other progressive forces. Further, the demand for economic decentralisation is combined with a defence of the specifically imperialist internal policy, with the demand for the centralisation of ideological and political life and its subordination to the interests of the monopolies. In championing the traditional slogans of individualism, the reactionaries give their unqualified support for anti-communist legislation, the actions of the Un-American Activities Committee, the persecution of progressive organisations, to say nothing of the most reactionary foreign policy. This policy, too, is quite ``realistic'' and definite inasmuch as it is 297 embodied in the actions of actual political forces. It is thus a question not of the defence of 19th-century ideals or of `` outmoded Americanism'', but of an entirely modern policy springing from the interests of the present reactionary circles of American society.
The liberals and the progressive forces are, needless to say, poles apart. Essentially, the attitude of the conservatives allows directing discontent of specifically imperialist forms of social organisation onto the path of struggle against progressive forces, onto the path of anti-communism.
Brought up on the values of individualism, the American man-in-the-street, whose knowledge of Marxism is based essentially on hearsay, fixes mainly on the fact that Marxism acts under the slogan of collectivism. This is quite natural because this slogan of socialism is opposed to capitalism's chief value---private property. He has heard that the Marxists stand for the socialisation of the means of production and institute forms of socialised production that are hostile to individualism. But he understands the content of this demand in accordance with his own social experience, in other words, with the forms of bourgeois bureaucratic collectivism that are hostile not only to petty-bourgeois individualism but also to the basic interests of millions of factory and office workers. In this situation the protest against `` substitutes for collectivism'', against the bourgeois corporate system can easily be transformed in the consciousness of the American man-in-the-street into a protest against Marxism, against scientific communism. In the consciousness of this confused man anti-communism, the struggle against the ``communist conspiracy'', and the persecution of progressive forces can be perceived as a means of resolving the acute conflicts that he encounters in life, as a form of struggle against the anti-humanitarian trends generated by the bureaucratic authoritarian pseudo-collectivism in the USA.
As everybody knows, modern state-monopoly capitalism leads to the socialisation of production on a gigantic scale. It 298 creates forms, externally similar to the forms of socialism, such as corporations that embrace millions of factory and office workers and channel their labour into a single production mechanism; it creates a system of internal planning and a system of social discipline. Moreover, these corporations formally belong not to one man or a small group of monopolists, but to millions of shareholders. Outwardly, they appear as organisations belonging to millions and uniting millions, as collectives carrying out the will of these millions. This image is intensively propped up by bourgeois propaganda. The bourgeois state, too, comes forward with the external trappings of a collective organ of society serving this society and establishing disciplinary norms in the name of social interests.
However, experience tells the American man-in-the-street that the forms of bourgeois collectivism are hostile to him. The widely propagated slogans of ``fidelity'' and ``loyalty'' to the collective ``(What is good for General Motors is good for each of the employees'') are a subtle means of spiritually enslaving and manipulating the individual. Today many Americans deprecate this bureaucratic collectivism and the ideology that champions it. But this is usually a spontaneous protest and is not accompanied by a sober understanding of the actual social substance of these phenomena. They believe that the evil lies in collectivism as such, in the principle of collectivism, regardless of society's actual class nature. These illusions are fortified by traditional bourgeois individualistic ideology. Bourgeois collectivism is artificially identified with true collectivism, with the collectivism of the revolutionary proletariat.
The logic of this thinking proves to be very simple: in American society the small and medium entrepreneur is finding his existence to be increasingly shaky. In the Soviet Union private property has been altogether abolished. Thus the objective foundation for entrepreneurial individualistic practice and ideology, which persists in the USA, is entirely non-existent in the Soviet Union. And since in the bourgeois 299 consciousness individualism is identified with individuality and freedom of the individual, it is believed that in the Soviet Union there is no individual freedom and that the individual is suppressed.
This belief is bolstered and given shape under the impact of subtle anti-communist propaganda. The embittered, discontented petty bourgeoisie---shopkeepers, small entrepreneurs and so on---are usually the most susceptible to this propaganda.
Anti-communism is presented as defending the traditional ideals of Americanism and the American way of life, as a means of explaining the actual crisis phenomena felt by many Americans. This creates the illusion that the average American's own experience, the experience of a disinherited and oppressed member of the bourgeois pseudo-collective, bears out the tenets of anti-communism, which is the doctrine of reactionary monopoly circles. Precisely these circles are the proponents and champions of anti-communism. They lavishly finance reactionary organisations and give them every possible support.
The striving to pass all the forms of pseudo-collectivist activity, the entire system of economic and non-economic links, by which the monopolies and state organisations control society, for manifestations of communist tendencies is to be seen clearly in anti-communist literature. It is alleged that the ultimate goal of communism is to achieve political dictatorship together with state monopoly in religion, education, industry and all the institutions that in ``free'' countries usually operate and flourish outside the sphere of the state and independently of it.
In short, the class substance of the phenomena linked with a country's monopolisation and bureaucratisation is distorted and the phenomena themselves are given out as the result of communist infiltration.
A point that must be taken into consideration in this context is that today, confronted by the growing popularity of the ideals and requirements of socialism and communism ~ 300 Emacs-File-stamp: "/home/ysverdlov/leninist.biz/en/1976/CAC343/20061227/343.tx" __EMAIL__ webmaster@leninist.biz __OCR__ ABBYY 6 Professional (2006.12.28) __WHERE_PAGE_NUMBERS__ top __FOOTNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ nil __ENDNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [0-9]+ among ordinary Americans, some apologists of the American way of life are trying more and more frequently to persuade the latter that these requirements, particularly, the concrete demands formulated by Marx and Engels in The Communist Manifesto, have been met in the USA. As examples they refer to state ownership of land, the progressive tax, the restricted inheritance rights, the confiscation of the property of criminals and emigres, the centralisation of credit in state banks, the nationalisation of communications and transport and the education of children at public schools. Already here the forgery is self-evident: what they indicate is not the communist programme proper, but the measures that Marx and Engels felt had to and could be enforced within the framework of the existing capitalist system.
Needless to say, it is emphasised that there still are essential distinctions between the ideal of the Communists and the actual state of affairs. Moreover, it is asserted that all the above-mentioned measures are being put into effect in spite of the influence of scientific socialism and the efforts of the Communist Party and other organisations of the proletariat, and that therefore every American should counter communism more vigorously.
In a review of anti-communist doctrines spawning on the soil of the individualistic protest against the bureaucratisation of social life it is important to mention the ``mass society'' and ``mass culture'' concepts, whose protagonists regard the ``mass'' standardisation of man as the principal obstacle to progress.
As we have already noted, when bourgeois bureaucracy hides behind the signboard of collectivism, it gives prominence to man who is aware of himself as a social being, a member of a community living to its standards. The bourgeois sociologists militating against bureaucratic pseudo- collectivism usually fail to see the class substance of this `` collectivism'' and perceive its mainsprings not in the specifics of monopoly capitalist development but in the appearance and predominance of the ``mass man''.
301The ``mass man'' is a standardised being who has lost his individualist ideals, energy and faith in himself, who has been turned into a cog and subjected to intensive bureaucratic brainwashing. Western critical liberal sociologists anxiously note the spread of this type of individual in modern capitalist society and direct the fire of their criticism at him.
This sort of protest frequently smacks distinctly of anticommunism. The anti-communists make much of the fact that Marxism is profoundly hostile to individualism and propagates the collective, the collective man, against the private proprietor, the individualist anarchist, who holds his selfish interest above the interests of advanced social forces. An inalienable element of this sort of speculation is that the ``community'' formed by the state-monopoly bureaucratic organisations is counterposed to the progressive society formed by conscious proletarians. These organisations aspire to turn the factory and the office worker into an instrument that is obedient not only to ``external'', but also to ``internal'' compulsion, to ``its own'' moral motivations and precepts. Precisely such is the content of the policy of ``human relations'', which forms a system for the manipulation of minds and engages in social ``collectivist'' demagoguery. This policy is evoking a growing protest among large segments of factory and office workers. And it is this protest that anticommunism seeks to utilise in its speculation on illusory, ``converted'' forms of social consciousness, on false notions about Marxism.
This guideline of present-day anti-communism springs from the individualism that identifies the state-monopoly bureaucratic form with every type of collectivism. But there is another guideline, which stems from state-monopoly pseudo-collectivism. It is not as hysterical as the former but enjoys similar if not more influence. This guideline is linked with the monopolies, demagogically using the slogan of `` collectivism'', and constitutes the ideology of the anti- communism linked directly with the growth of monopolies, with the 302 assertion of state and military bureaucracy in the USA. This type of anti-communism, too, usually refers to traditional individualism as an inalienable principle of social life^ However, it concentrates its ideology not around `` traditionalism'' and ``conservatism'' but around the idea of society's ``transformation'' and ``renewal'', which is propagated no longer as ``capitalist'' but as ``industrial'' or even `` postindustrial''.
While the anti-communism of the first type is studiously ideological, the exponents of ``industrial'' and ``post- industrial'' society present and regard their concepts as a means of resolving purely practical problems, namely, the ways and means of speeding scientific and technological progress. The argument with communism is conducted not only for the sake of such abstract concepts as, for instance, the freedom and sovereignty of the individual (although these concepts remain in the arsenal of the ideological struggle), but on a practical basis: over the effectiveness and harmony of industrialisation, the rates of industrial development, the level of mass consumption, and so on. In this context ``maximum efficacy'' in scientific and technological development, the ``highest living standard'', and so on, are declared essential attributes of the American way of life---the concept widely used by the apologists of state-monopoly organisation.
Naturally, nothing is said of the fact that scientific and technological achievements are effectively used by the monopolies in their own interests, or that scientific and technological progress is accompanied by acute social conflicts. More, they say nothing of the existence of class inequality in the standard of living or of the mass forms of poverty that come into bold relief against the background of the swift growth of production.
Here the basic objective is to show that the Soviet way is an ineffective method of industrialisation or a method that requires much too high a price for one achievement or another. This logic of anti-communism is not so blunt and aggressive as the logic of the ``ultra-Lefts''. Its propaganda 303 is geared to American state-monopoly capitalism that wears the mask of a ``welfare state'' and is, at the same time, virulently anti-communist.
History has shown that in the long run these two orientations of anti-communism go hand in hand, complement each other, although at the present stage they are externally antipodal.
This dichotomy (hysterical individualism---bureaucratic authoritarian collectivism) represents two mutually crossing lines that, while coming into collision, turn into each other. Although antagonistic, both are spearheaded primarily at the progressive forces, at communism. The proponents of each of these lines support various anti-communist laws. They combine the demand for economic decentralisation and freedom of the individual with the demand for the unconditional suppression of all progressive views, which they qualify as subversion.
In short, a sort of universal pattern is created: everything in keeping with the interests and views of the reactionaries is proclaimed ``genuinely American'' and ``patriotic'', and everything that clashes with these interests and views is attributed to communism. Communism is depicted as a sort of demoniacal force in whose programme are concentrated all social evils. Needless to say, the Christian pattern which portrays history as a cosmic struggle between the divine and the diabolic, is the most suited for this interpretation. Indeed, the ``godlessness'' of communism that allegedly has ``satanic protection'' is a favourite theme of anticommunism.
As soon as an organisation or a politician articulates statements that fall out of line of the interests and attitudes of the reactionaries, a chorus takes up the chant about the ``Red menace'', ``communist conspiracy'' and ``subversion''. Any pretext will do, say, the attitude to Cuba or to the struggle for peace.
The vague, hidebound, narrow and perverted notions underlying the mass consciousness of capitalist society are the 304 key condition for the continued prevalence of bourgeois ideology, especially as this ideology is riddled with vague, perverted and ill-defined notions, is eclectic by nature and is unable to offer a coherent social theory. The conversion of bourgeois thought, which is in the throes of a desperate crisis, into a material force is being increasingly made possible by the skilful manipulatory work of bourgeois ideologists and propagandists. They have learned to use many phenomena and specifics of social psychology for controlling the mass consciousness. Moreover, they have learned to use some objective regularities of social psychology in order to direct the formation of the mass consciousness, giving it a definite mood, receptivity and emotional hue.
When we say that and-communist propaganda has been able to influence the social ideology and psychology of bourgeois society, we have in mind the fact that the bourgeoisie still manages to slow down and, in some cases, halt the withering away of capitalist values in the mass mind of bourgeois society.
However, the way in which the value systems function is such that the old systems are replaced not at once but only as a result of a long struggle against the new.
The dialectics of relationship between the prevailing ideology and the predominant relations of production are such that initially ideology moves into the forefront, then for some time it harmonises with the relations of production, and ultimately begins to lag behind. The relations between people change with the advance of social production, but the dominant ideology continues to assess these relations in the old way and assert the values that have reached a critical age and no longer correspond to the state of these relations, suiting the departing ruling class, especially as that class has the means of securing these values. Even when a new progressive ideology triumphs, the old ideology clings on to life for a long time in the new society because some facet of it remains convenient and advantageous to individuals or entire social groups, in other words, 305 it helps to justify and to some extent realise their special individual or group requirements in contradistinction to the dominant social requirements.
In bourgeois society the prevailing values had taken shape and settled in the social psychology as a result of the people's past experience and have their roots in the period when the bourgeoisie was still a revolutionary class. This is what enables the bourgeois ideologists to counterpose the value categories of individualism to collectivism, which has not been tested in practice (by the working people of the capitalist countries). The fact that the people have no direct experience of a collectivist way of life allows the bourgeoisie to misrepresent the actual significance of socialism's slogan and give it a meaning that cannot be attractive to the mass consciousness brought up in the spirit of diametrically opposite values and traditions.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 2. SOCIO-PSYCHOLOGICAL MECHANISM OF THEThe use of socio-psychological stereotypes is of supreme importance to the bourgeoisie in its manipulations to bolster the bourgeois value orientation and fight the teaching of communism.
The socio-psychological stereotype is an attitude, firmly entrenched in social psychology, to matching or similar phenomena, facts, people, and so on (for instance, a stereotype Englishman has reddish hair and is imperturbable). This phenomenon is on the borderline, as it were, of all forms of psychical generalisations, being their most general expression, the sum of personal and social experience on the one hand, and the influence of definite forms of ideology and definite systems of culture, on the other. The stereotype settles in the human memory and is, in the long run, shared by many people as an emotional sensation. This __PRINTERS_P_305_COMMENT__ 20---2810 306 sensation affects many people (simultaneously or at different times) under the impact, in the process of communication, of symbols that necessarily evoke an image and which are similarly assessed by them and given a synonymous, though not always coincidental, sense.
The synthetic character of the socio-psychological stereotype is seen in a coinciding reaction to an external social fact: whether it is important or not, positive or negative, just or unjust, advantageous or disadvantageous.
As the sum of resultant diverse experience, both personal and social, and as a kind of reflection of the value orientations prevailing in the mass consciousness, the stereotype is unusually stable, inflexible and highly resistant to new views, notions and assessments. In order to restructure, shatter or destroy it, all---or, in any case, most---of its components must be modified. That is what makes the struggle for new values so complex. That is why depreciated ideals cling so tenaciously to life despite the obvious crisis of the bourgeois consciousness, above all of its basic values. Life in capitalist society is still unable to destroy all the components of the stereotype of individualism or build up the image of true collectivism.
The bourgeois ideologists and propagandists are therefore endeavouring to construct images of attractive individualism and repellent collectivism. The implantation of these emotion-charged stereotypes in mass consciousness through capitalist-nurtured habits, prejudices, illusions and spontaneous feelings and moods provides a guarantee for the preservation of the bourgeois way of life. The construction of spurious stereotypes, where emotion suppresses the rational and cognitive, and the development of ways of manipulating minds with the aid of these stereotypes are a method of bourgeois propaganda.
The stereotypes cultivated by bourgeois propaganda divert people from an objective, scientific understanding of the deep-lying crisis processes, social contradictions and class conflicts hidden behind the facade of capitalism and push 307 them into ill-considered, hasty conclusions and actions. They make them easy prey to delusive suggestions, whose aim is to compel them to follow the ruling circles of the capitalist countries blindly.
Imperialist propaganda, designed to delude people, uses stereotypes that are particularly close to the lowest level of human psychology and spontaneously evoke elementary emotional sensations---and the more primitive they are (fear, hatred, envy), the better. These stereotypes are most easily stirred, manifest themselves most turbulently and lend themselves poorly to inner self-control. These emotion-charged stereotypes help to sustain the bourgeois way of thinking and life by erecting a wall of unreceptivity to anti-capitalist views in the minds of rank-and-file members of society. A low level of spiritual culture, artificially maintained by the ruling circles of the capitalist countries, is a prerequisite to the dissemination and assertion of these stereotypes.
As a psychical element, the stereotype embraces the unity of two opposites---knowledge and attitude, of which one or the other prevails.
The content put into a stereotype is extremely important. It may express essential links of phenomena, the basic, typical features and specifics of events and people. However, if it becomes the main, dominant element in the consciousness, a stereotype may prevent understanding essential links, features and specifics and rivet attention on links, features and specifics that are inessential, superficial and casual. These stereotypes catch only what is most garish and conspicuous, what produces an external effect and stirs emotions most strongly, exciting the most stormy reaction in people's minds.
Anti-communist propaganda eagerly utilises this reaction. It makes use of the various spontaneous, ``blind'' feelings that are characteristic of people who have not mastered profoundly scientific forms of ideology. Feelings of this kind are directed into the needed channel, displaced and artificially attributed to the object of ideological attacks. __PRINTERS_P_307_COMMENT__ 20* 308 Moreover, the various stereotypes are used for demagogic purposes.
This was the socio-psychological mechanism that was used by imperialist propaganda in 1967--1968 in instigating the Czechoslovak people to rise against the very foundations of socialism in their country. In Czechoslovakia there was objective discontent with the unsatisfactory course of socialist construction. With verbiage about a desire to help Czechoslovakia build ``genuine socialism'', the British Broadcasting Corporation, Deutsche Welle, Radio Free Europe and other Western radio stations urged the Czechoslovak people to attack Communists, incited Czechs against Slovaks, and Slovaks against Czechs, and provoked acts of sabotage, acts that were detrimental to the stability and strength of socialist society.
As we have noted, the predominance of the emotional, ``committed'', appraising element in the stereotype is what makes it a socio-psychological phenomenon. Had it been governed by knowledge and a sober evaluation, it is quite evident that it would have been a purely ideological phenomenon.
In the stereotype ``better dead than Red'' the meaning is given in concentrated form. It does not offer any deep reflection of life, and its purpose is to create only an illusory, artificial background, a real sense of specific failures and a negative reaction from the environment. Combined, this gives a momentary reaction in a definite direction, namely, that it is better to keep one's distance, that it is better to condemn, that it is better to be of any other colour. An attitude is at once formed to everything associated with ``Reds'', ``Pinks'' and ``Light-Pinks'', with ``Bolshevik'', ``Communist'' and ``Soviet'', with everything that may be associated with these concepts.
Anti-communist propaganda makes wide use of this relative ease in shaping false stereotypes, for this allows it, for instance, to divert people from pressing problems and concentrate their attention on secondary issues. The propaganda 309 media are in an exclusive position in a situation where people are ignorant of the problems and facts on which their destiny depends, and have no source of personal information. Essentially, any verisimilar version of events broadcast or set in print acquires the character of an indisputable fact. Let us emphasise, it does not have to be truthful. It is enough that it is accepted for the truth. And once that happens it is assured a place among the notions that, stretching in a row and relying on each other, form a new stereotype or a new variety of an old stereotype.
As regards spurious information on questions that easily square with proliferated stereotypes, bourgeois propaganda is confident of success. In all the NATO countries, when military budgets are debated, propaganda, as if by a command, raises a howl about a ``Soviet threat'', mysterious Soviet submarines off the shores of these countries, and so on.
Let us recall by analogy how rumours are manufactured, how panic is sown, how an electrified atmosphere of mass hysteria is momentarily created. People do not know the truth, but the need for any, at least some, explanation of what is happening blunts critical perception, especially as the bourgeois propagandists have learned to dress any lie with verisimilar demagoguery and attune it to people's knowledge and outlook. ``One can lie in two cases: if you are never caught and if exposure comes long after you have achieved the desired result''---this Goebbels principle is much in vogue among bourgeois propagandists, not only among journalists but also among the ideologists of psychological warfare.
False stereotypes are easily shaped not only in situations where people are confused and disturbed. They are hatched just as easily in a normal situation if they are based on existing norms of perception built into broader standardised image-stereotypes that have sunk deep roots in people's minds.
The superficiality of the notions locked into false stereotypes makes it possible to pass the secondary for the 310 primary, the insignificant for the essential, create an erroneous impression of a familiar but not studied object, and so on.
The exploiting classes have been using this method from time immemorial. There have been innumerable instances when having brought their country to an impasse, rulers, whether slave-owners, feudal lords or bourgeois, looked for salvation in predatory wars, in adventures alien to the masses, in the kindling of racial and nationalist passions. Other nations or social groups were branded enemies. To arouse hostility for them they projected a slogan whose constant repetition created a stereotype image.
Take the example of Germany under the nazis. The Hitlerite ideologists declared the German Jews enemies of the German people, the cause of all the countless calamities that befell the Weimar Republic, especially during the economic crisis of 1929--1933. All the sins of capitalism were attributed to them and, in addition, they were accused of lacking patriotism. The nazis succeeded in rallying a considerable number of philistines in Germany to the banner of antiSemitism. These people believed that Hitler was out to liberate the German nation from exploitation, which nazi propaganda projected as being embodied by the Jewish capitalist, the Jew ``sucking'' the blood of the German nation. The petty bourgeoisie and the social forces linked with them, who formed the mainstay of Hitlerism, did not, for example, see that the persecution of the Jews was playing into the hands mainly of the richer and more powerful Aryan capitalist-exploiters. The petty-bourgeois element of Germany took the demagogic bait only because the stereotype of the capitalist drummed into it by propaganda was greatly impoverished as solely the image of the Jewish capitalist. In this stereotype the ``patriotism'' of the magnates of the Ruhr and the Rhineland, which boiled down to the protection and multiplication of their wealth at the expense of their competitors, the working people and the petty bourgeoisie, was given out as part of the interests of the German people, of every ordinary German.
311With equal facility imperialist propaganda in Germany of that time created an image of the ``communist threat'' that was attractive to the same petty-bourgeois philistines. The duality of these strata's social condition, which Lenin had repeatedly warned about and which is explained by the position of the petty bourgeois as a potential capitalist, allowed the nazi ideologists to appeal to their class `` subconsciousness''. The fear of being deprived of private property--- small, insignificant but ``my own''---and the fear of having to subordinate their individualism to the communist norms of collectivism closed the eyes of millions of petty bourgeois, the pillar of Hitlerism, to the fact that the Fiihrer's anticommunist slogans were hypocritical lies and pure demagogic verbiage.
These false slogans---stereotypes of anti-communism and anti-Semitism designed to deceive the masses and subordinate millions of petty-bourgeois elements to national socialism---strengthened Hitler's social base.
With time socio-psychological stereotypes take their place among all the established norms, customs, rules and notions sanctioned by social requirements and social practice and taken for granted. Constant repetition for an unchanging audience turns stereotypes consonant with the established socio-psychological patterns into analogues.
As an example, let us refer to social life in the United States of America. In no other country of the capitalist world, except, perhaps, Britain, are traditions, fossilised thought and fixed social standards and relations cherished so highly. All this is built into one broad stereotype---the ``American way of life''---so broad that it becomes diffused. This stereotype is the foundation onto which it is possible to graft innumerable daughter-stereotypes, which have the appearance of being habitual and part of the value- normative system of education. It is only necessary to find or create the means and excuse for graphically tying these new stereotypes in with the principal, foundation stereotype.
This was precisely how in the USA the stereotypes fitting 312 into the clich\'e ``better dead than Red'' were formed and put in circulation. For many decades it was dinned into the heads of the American people that the Communists were imperilling their welfare and fighting all the ideals of US society, the ideals to which the average American would subscribe. Special emphasis was placed on peddling the thought that the Communists were enemies of individualism, the prime American value.
Trials that received nationwide coverage were inspired in order to discredit the Communists and the Communist Party of the USA and reinforce the negative stereotype created against them at the height of the cold war. At these trials phoney witnesses charged the American Communists with unpatriotic, un-American activity in favour of a ``foreign power''. The Communists headed the lists of ``un-American'' organisations that were known to every schoolboy. As persons allegedly opposed to the American way of life, the Communists are, under the McCarran-Wood Internal Security Act, barred from government institutions and the defence industry. The Taft-Hartley Labour Management Relations Act bars the Communists from trade union leadership.
The fabricated ``un-Americanism'' of the Communist Party of the USA has received such wide publicity that the ordinary American feels he had better have nothing to do with anything that contains even a hint of communism, especially as this is linked with deprivation of material well-being and with persecution. It is no secret that in the USA special concentration camps were built for the Communists and their sympathisers to be used ``in case of an emergency''.
Here we have a case of ``substitution'' of stereotypes that is typical of imperialist propaganda. This happens when new notions begin to be propounded under the guise of habitual stereotypes with an established content. For this stereotypes, as social images of multiform phenomena that cannot always be described in one word, are given a new content or a new interpretation of the former content, and the attitude and 313 feeling fostered by a customary stereotype to an object are transferred toward a similar or entirely different object.
This was precisely how the concept ``genuine socialism'' was manipulated by anti-communist propaganda. Its content and meaning were distorted. It was turned into a typical bourgeois (or petty-bourgeois) notion, and as a stereotype it was used for the propagation of the traditional values of individualism.
The invention of illusory stereotypes has become a major method of bourgeois propaganda precisely by virtue of these objective specifics of the stereotype as a socio-psychological phenomenon. It opens the way to the manipulation of the mass mind by diverting the working people from a reasonable, critical approach to life. In the practice of Western propaganda stereotypes are becoming the guides of mass behaviour when, by playing on passions and emotions, they neutralise man's intrinsic ability to think = intelligently.^^2^^ As seen by the proponents of ``social control'', people with insular views, who are unassuming and have no attraction for anything outside their direct requirements and interests, outside their direct environment, are the ideal targets of propaganda. It is not difficult to suggest to these people that one thing is good and another bad, and they, ``saving'' time and energy, are happy to file the few concepts in their minds with the aid of familiar stereotype symbols.
The bourgeoisie has accumulated vast experience of deluding and misleading people in this manner, and has learned to apply this experience in a great diversity of forms.
The audience in socialist countries differs in having higher cultural standards and a broader outlook, and of course an incomparably higher ideological consciousness. Taking these into consideration the leaders of the anti- socialist ideological war resort to different ways and methods of employing cliches than they use in their home propaganda.
In their anti-socialist propaganda the imperialists have adopted the line of discrediting the way of life in the 314 socialist countries. But fearing to come out openly in view of the high cultural level of the audience in these countries, its broad outlook and keen ideological awareness, they are trying to achieve this goal indirectly. They are setting up a system of false stereotypes that together form the image: ``The West is the promised land with a carefree life and unlimited freedom.'' Underlying this image is the striving to create in the minds of the people in the socialist countries a positive (or at least tolerant) attitude to the bourgeois way of life, a way of life embedded in the psychology of entire social groups. In the calculations of the bourgeoisie, this attitude must evolve into a negative attitude to the socialist way of life. In order to expose and demolish this method of bourgeois propaganda it is necessary to ascertain the basic orientations along which it fabricates the specific stereotype images forming the foundation and skeleton of the main stereotype. This will make it possible to select the needed information to inhibit the creation of these false stereotypes among people in the socialist countries.
For instance, the main stereotype that Western propaganda presses on Soviet young people is that in the West young people have an easy life. This stereotype ``(easy, carefree, entertaining life in the West'') is offered in parallel with the stereotype that ``a spirit of rebellion is inherent in young people'' (in other words, if young people do not rebel there is no freedom of self-expression in society).
These stereotypes take into consideration the specific interests of young people (desire of entertainment) and its specific mood (striving for self-expression). By accentuating these points, the bourgeois propagandists respond to the fact that young people are inclined to be more susceptible to emotional than to rational influences, that lacking the necessary knowledge, life experience and settled views, young people are inclined towards hasty judgements and conclusions, and may succumb easily to the lure of simple solutions and ways of satisfying their requirements.
In order to forestall and nullify the creation of such 315 stereotypes it is necessary not only to refute and discredit the main arguments underlying the build-up of these stereotypes. It is extremely important to give the masses a credible and (this is very essential) more vivid notion of the subject than that given by the adversary. Moreover, it is important to explain why bourgeois propaganda is endeavouring to proliferate precisely this and not some other stereotype. For example, young people must be told how the class enemy is trying to exploit their age and other specifics.
The higher a person's intellect, the broader his world outlook, the better his knowledge of the question, and the more stable his convictions, especially ideological convictions, the clearer, more realistic and objective is his concept of the stereotype of the object with all its merits and demerits.
And, conversely, a narrowness of outlook in cognitive, ideological and political matters produces an impoverished, primitive, limited, subjective view of the subject, hidden by a stereotype image.
The more precise a person's knowledge of his (and his class's) place in society's life, the richer his inner world and imagination and the more profound his knowledge of the subject, the more versatile and omniform is his picture of the phenomenon mirrored in general outline in a stereotype, the more freely he operates with the concept built into it and the less place there is for biassed, superficial and unconsidered assessments and conclusions.
The higher the level of a person's education, information and consciousness, the better is his understanding of whose interests propaganda fosters. Vagueness about the content of a stereotype and the system of value-norms distorts the vision of the true picture and allows hostile class ideas to infiltrate into a person's consciousness.
However well defined and widespread the pathological tendencies and phenomena in the social psychology of capitalist society on which the reactionary forces rely and play under the slogans of anti-communism, these tendencies and 316 phenomena constitute only one aspect of the destiny of capitalism.
The other aspect is linked with the emergence and growth of progressive elements and tendencies in the consciousness of millions of people in capitalist countries, with the struggle for social progress, peace and the democratic rights of working people, against fascism and militarism. A prominent role in the progressive development of this consciousness is played by the growing political, ideological and moral prestige of the world socialist system.
History's inexorable logic is leading to the awakening of socialist tendencies in the minds of millions of people, to the growth of anti-capitalist feeling, to the enhancement of scientific socialism's standing. This logic is shattering the prejudices, illusions and ``converted'' forms of consciousness, which the reactionary forces in the imperialist states are trying to utilise.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 3. ANTI-COMMUNIST CHARACTERThe struggle to create the atmosphere of immunity toward communist ideology in the USA is multifaceted in its forms and methods and accompanies every American throughout his life. The cultivation of the salient features of the ``American way of life'' and its propaganda and proliferation as a model for other nations are a key element of anti-communist strategy.
The mass media are used extensively to educate the American in this spirit. As soon as a child learns to turn on a radio receiver or a television set he is deluged with a torrent of conditioned information. In these broadcasts the main accent is placed on fostering in children a sense of superiority in being white and an American born into the American way of life. A large portion of the broadcasts for children 317 consists of films (Western, adventure and detective) lauding violence and brutality and preaching hardness as the trait of the typical American.
One can obviously speak of a clear-cut anti-communist orientation of these radio and TV broadcasts only with a certain reservation. Their objective is of different kind, namely, to prepare the minds of children for the acceptance of the ideas and knowledge that they will receive later at school.
However, it is indicative that even at this phase one of the principal methods used to kindle hostility for communist ideology is the narrowing, the limitation of the outlook given to children.
The actual anti-communist indoctrination of children begins at school with its detailed system of education. This is facilitated by the fact that children begin going to school at the age of five or six. From the early age they thereby become the object of unflagging attention of the institutions and agencies engaged in integrating them into capitalist society's system of postulates and concepts.
One of the basic methods of ideological indoctrination employed at schools is the inclusion in the curriculum of a subject we shall conditionally call ``What Communism Is Like''. Although the heading of the subject differs at different schools, its content remains unified throughout the country: slander against the socialist community, distortion of the theory and practice of communism and constant preoccupation with the alleged threat to the USA from ``world communism'' and its agents.
Illuminating in this respect is the book Communism in Theory and Practice edited by Howard D. Mehlinger, a leading expert in this field. While claiming to give an impartial exposition, the book is so constructed (commentaries to each chapter, juggled data, generalisations based on solitary facts, and so on) as to create an ugly picture of communist society. The compilers use many photographs 318 which they accompany with the corresponding comments.^^3^^
In the chapter devoted to ``communism in the USA'' the theory and practice of communism are doctored with careful subtlety. Various ``documents'' and the depositions of former members of the Communist Party of the USA are offered as evidence that in the USA the Communists are the ``agents of the Kremlin''. Special emphasis is made on proving the fiasco of alleged attempts ``to apply the Bolshevik concept of the `dictatorship of the proletariat' to the United = States''.^^3^^ In their interpretation and slanted selection of historical documents these ``scholars'' strive to portray communism as a monster attempting to swallow the whole world, especially the USA, and turn the ``free world'' countries into a barracks denying man any possibility of finding an outlet for his aspirations and satisfying his spiritual and material requirements, where in order to survive man has no alternative to becoming a mute adjunct of an all- embracing machinery of dictatorship. Further, the idea is propounded that the Communists and other democratic forces in the USA are in the service of the ``Kremlin's international communist dictatorship'' and therefore the enemies of the average American.
In the school textbooks used in anti-communist education the usual pattern for the presentation of materials is as follows: the USSR, other socialist countries and international communism as a whole have achieved certain successes in various spheres of socio-political life, but actually---and this is where the juggling and falsification begins. In view of the prevailing mass media orientation, this method of presenting material, by virtue of the truncated information available to schoolchildren, is quite effective.
The method of training college teachers is part of the ideological indoctrination of American schoolchildren. Special courses and seminars are arranged regularly for teachers. The innumerable centres studying communism likewise devote considerable attention to the elaboration of 319 methods of teaching the subject and to the programme as a whole. One of the leaders in this field is the Institute on Communist Strategy and Propaganda at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, whose widely publicised six weeks' courses for secondary school teachers employ the services of its own staff and of prominent anticommunist ideologists.
In order to understand the substance of the ideological indoctrination of schoolchildren, it must be borne in mind that it is not always predetermined by the desire of teachers to deliberately misrepresent the existing reality of communism. In many cases the obtaining practice is predetermined by the ignorance and delusion of the teachers themselves, who have to draw their information from the mass media run by big business. Moreover, this by no means signifies that the schools are void of teachers endeavouring to foster the finest human qualities in children and resist the obscurantism that reigns in many US schools.
In response to the recent growth of the role played by young people in the USA's socio-political life, the ruling circles are intensifying the ideological indoctrination of students and young workers.
Institutions of higher learning have always held a notable place in American socio-political life. This was accentuated by the fact that a large segment of young people went to the polls for the first time during the Presidential Elections in 1972.
For its discipline specialisation the American student body may be divided into two groups, namely students of the technical and the humanitarian departments. A certain differentiation must be made in the forms and methods used to indoctrinate them ideologically, to build up a sort of immunity to scientific communism.
Students of technical departments are more isolated from the study of social disciplines by the curricula, which are constituted in such a way as to prevent a serious study of socio-political disciplines, to confer a certain technocratic 320 immunity to the acceptance of ideas that have no direct relation to the chosen profession.
This immunity is fostered in large measure by enlisting students for work on projects ordered by corporations and government agencies.
In the case of students of the humanitarian and natural science departments, obstacles of another kind are erected to their familiarisation with Marxist-Leninist ideology and policy. One of these obstacles is the selection of teachers. Most of the social science teachers at American universities and colleges are reluctant to parade their anti-communist views. They prefer to give the impression of being unbiassed, frequently criticising the government, its internal and foreign policies and some of its measures. However, it would be hard to find among these ``impartial people'' those who did not aspire to participate in the various research ordered by monopolies or by private and state institutions and agencies. Some of them get the possibility of directly participating in charting and implementing the policy of the country's ruling circles. For this purpose they are enlisted as temporary or permanent consultants of state agencies or given posts in the administration itself.
The views of students are vital to their eligibility for jobs offered by the special departments of educational establishments. Outwardly, this gives the impression of a quite natural selection of the ``most capable students'' for various research on subjects determined by clients---government and private institutions and agencies. These research groups are headed by the leading academics of the given college or university who select their own assistants.
Participation in this sort of work is the best recommendation for a student, making his name and allowing him to count on receiving ``interesting high-salaried work'' upon graduation. The situation is the same for students of technical departments. Consequently, the student is placed in a position where in order to receive not only interesting work but employment as such he has to present himself in a good 321 light, as capable and loyal. The importance of this fact has grown immensely in recent years, when upon graduation many young people have been unable to find employment in their profession. Students thus find themselves in an environment of views, requirements and stereotypes that obstruct their perception of scientific communism.
The ruling circles of the USA are today devoting much attention to educating young workers in a spirit of immunity to scientific communism. The system of steps taken in this area is designed to mould an ``ideal'' worker, the stereotype of whom was defined by the ex-chief of the FBI J. Edgar Hoover. This ``average American working man is loyal, patriotic and law-abiding. He wants security for his family and = himself.''^^4^^
After the brainwashing he gets at school, the young American finds himself the object of continued ideological indoctrination from the very outset of his work career. Here a large role is played by the vocational training system, which is under the close surveillance of government agencies, the private corporations and the AFL-GIO leadership, in particular the Committee on Political Education.
At the vocational training centres young people not only learn a trade but receive some knowledge of social disciplines. A major role is played here by the instructors, whose laudation of the advantages of free enterprise is all the more effective for coming from the lips of people belonging to the same class. The anti-communist orientation of this educational activity is often covert, its principal objective being to fortify the prevailing understanding of the values of the American way of life, in the spirit of which the young American is taught at school.
At the vocational training courses and at work the accent is placed on persuading the young American that all his day-to-day problems can be resolved through trade unionism. This is increasingly underscored in the decisions and actions of the AFL-CIO Right-wing leadership.
__PRINTERS_P_321_COMMENT__ 21---2810 322The selection of the most ``worthy'' members of the organised working-class movement has much in common with the screening practised at American institutions of higher learning. As in the first case, the young worker is taught to live with the thought that he has to concentrate on improving his professional skill and avoid involvement in the struggle for the politicisation of the working-class movement, for the replacement of the conciliatory leadership of the trade unions.
This cultivation of an immunity to communism affects not only children and young people, but also all spheres of the life of the adult population.
The quickly changing pattern of the demand for talent and labour induced by the scientific and technological revolution in the industrialised capitalist states, notably the USA, is making workers by brain and by hand give the maximum attention to improving their skills and work intensively in order to meet the requirements of the monopolies.
American economic rationalism, nourished by existing reality, now appears as a basic guideline of behaviour. Indicative in this respect are the pronouncements made by Herman Kahn, director of the Hudson Institute, published by the journal L'Express on April 11, 1971. He and other bourgeois ideologists welcome this American economic rationalism, the striving to obtain every possible material benefit not by reorganising society, but by integrating into it.
This is not always a conscious adaptation because reality places man in a position where his choice is extremely limited. Moreover, man himself is often turned into a cog of a machine and can very easily be replaced by another cog.
In the system of ways and means of making the American immune to scientific communism considerable importance is attached to suburbanisation and its effects on various aspects of the life of Americans.
323Suburbanisation has reached considerable proportions in the USA today. It is induced by economic, social and other factors. On the economic plane it is predetermined by the desire to leave the cities with their overcrowding, high rents and so on, and acquire a privately owned house. Another motivation is that people aspire to be rid of undesired neighbours, in some measure to get away from the social problems of cities and live among ``equals''. A certain role is always played by the desire to acquire some ``freedom'', a sense of independence within the existing system.
In its present form suburbanisation is indeed leading to a certain separation of various strata and groups, including various groups of workers by brain and by hand, to the segregation of the Blacks and increasing alienation between white and black Americans. On the other hand, this migration to the suburbs is making it difficult to use leisure time for active participation in the country's sociopolitical life. This is due, among other things, to the time factor: commuting frequently absorbs too much time, leaving man with the minimal possibilities for recovering the strength he has expended in the course of the working day.
The emergent trend toward building various enterprises in these areas is, at the same time, leading to the creation of closed microsocieties or, to be more exact, closed microcommunities with their specific, local interests.
The ruling circles are doing much to restrict political intercourse, participation in the struggle against the system itself, leaving open only a small field for a local struggle against some negative aspects of that system. This is not overt anti-communism, but a system of measures to create an immunity to the theory and practice of scientific communism.
Various forms of political compulsion comprise a major element of the struggle of the monopoly circles against communism in the USA. More than half a century ago Lenin had characterised the political essence of imperialism as a turn from democracy to political reaction.
__PRINTERS_P_323_COMMENT__ 21* 324This political compulsion pursues the objective of creating an atmosphere in which people fear accusations of affiliation to the ``Reds'', to a communist organisation, and, where this mechanism of fear fails to work, recourse is had to the physical suppression of the communist and any other democratic movement.
A relatively new means of instilling fear is ``thought surveillance'', which is spreading to ever larger sections of the population. Dossiers are compiled on people belonging to different groups. Today the files contain millions of these dossiers, which are, to some extent, a social X-ray of people, of their views and of the views of their friends. They are compiled not only by state agencies, but also by all sorts of private agencies, organisations and institutions.
Today it is practically impossible to establish the total number of the dossiers on American citizens. The Passport Office, for example, has about a quarter of a million dossiers of ``active surveillance''. The Civil Service Commission has two million. According to a report carried by the journal Le Nouvel Observateur on April 19, 1971, at Fort Holabird the military authorities have dossiers on eight million people. One is thus justified in speaking of total surveillance, which, in addition, implies constant telephone tapping. Further, it must be noted that the very fact of surveillance, of heightened interest in one person or another by a state or other agency may serve as sufficient grounds for dismissal.
This dossier system is dangerous to the average American also because before giving employment an entrepreneur frequently makes inquiries at various private agencies possessing such files in order to check a person's loyalty.
The publicity that has been given to the existence of this system of dossiers and to the methods of using it has evoked fear even among those who may potentially ``turn Red''.
Crime, as everybody is aware, is a social evil. Today it has also become a weapon against communism. It limits people's possibilities of participating in political activity in their 325 free time in the evenings and keeps them apprehensive of their own and their family's safety. Moreover, it has an adverse effect on young people, inculcating in a section of them the views and behaviour of declassed elements. In other words, as a negative social phenomenon crime is becoming a weapon against the spread of communist ideology, against the vitalisation of political activity by the people.
In the New Programme of the Communist Party of the USA it is noted: ``Oppression and violence assume monstrous proportions. Assassinations of public figures have become commonplace, as have murders, bombings and burnings by the hoodlums of the racist ultra-Right. Unbridled police brutality and killing prevail; social protest and rebellion are met with armed force; mass killing is practised against oppressed = minorities.''^^5^^
A logical outcome of this activity is the existence of plans and the study of the possibility of establishing a direct dictatorship of monopoly capital in the USA. The exposure of these plans caused a nationwide scandal. But the very fact that these plans exist is evidence that the most reactionary groups of the ruling circles are not relaxing their activities. On the contrary, this activity may be further vitalised as the anti-monopoly, democratic, revolutionary forces strengthen their position. However, the possibility of such a coup depends largely on the balance of political strength in the USA and on the international level.
In the struggle against communism in the USA a steadily growing part is played by the reactionary forces, by the various fascist-type organisations and Right extremist groups. They number several scores and while differing by the scale of their activity and influence, they share the striving to prevent the spread of communist ideas, to suppress and destroy any forces that propound a radical restructuring of society.
The largest of the ultra-Right organisations in the USA are the John Birch Society and the All-American 326 Conference to Combat Communism. Their geographical proliferation is extremely wide, and their activities cover all parts of the country.
Most of them are oriented toward definite strata and groups. But some of the largest of them are endeavouring to embrace the whole of American society. The organisations that specialise their activities include the American Jewish League Against Communism and the Minutewomen of the USA. A considerable role among them is played by the various organisations formed by reactionary church elements. Those with the greatest influence include the American Council of Christian Churches, the Church League of America and the Christian Crusade.
The danger from the Right is a reality. As the New Programme of the Communist Party of the USA points out, ``its most extreme manifestation is an aggressive, well- organised, politically skilled ultra-Right'', which today `` constitutes a grave menace to democratic liberties in our country''.^^5^^
The support that the ultra-Rights get is predetermined by the striving of the monopoly bourgeoisie to make use of them against the forces struggling for democracy and progress. The monopolies are working toward an atmosphere of fear of the menace from the Right as this enables them to manoeuvre and preserve the system of exploitation without having recourse to extreme forms of struggle.
The widening scale of the activities of organisations of this kind and the growing financial and other assistance given them by the ruling circles, and many other facts indicate that in its Right-extremist form anti-communism is a serious threat to the revolutionary, democratic movement.
In the USA today anti-communism is part of the system of exploitation and oppression. At the same time, being a component of imperialism, it carries with it the contradictions inherent in individual groups of the ruling circles, in the different classes and groups of the population.
327The past decade has witnessed a considerable growth of the revolutionary, democratic movement in the USA, a rising level of the political consciousness of its participants and the politicisation of life. This serves as the foundation for creating a powerful anti-monopoly front. The strengthening of the positions of the revolutionary forces, the growing influence enjoyed by the Communists, the attractiveness of scientific communism, the practice of building socialism and communism in the socialist countries, and the vast organisational and propaganda work of the American Communists indicate that in the USA the prerequisites exist for putting an end to anti-communism and to the very system of which it is a part.
[328] __ALPHA_LVL1__ AFTERWORDThe course of the class struggle today bears out the validity and viability of the Marxist-Leninist teaching, which has proved that the old social system is doomed and has shown the prospects for the world revolutionary process. Imperialism cannot reverse history. It cannot retrieve the positions and historical initiative that it has lost. The 1969 International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties had all grounds for its conclusion that the highroad of mankind's development is determined by the world socialist system, the international working class and all other revolutionary forces. A new situation has arisen in the world in recent years as a result of the efforts of the socialist countries and other revolutionary forces. The growing international prestige enjoyed by the socialist countries and their successful peace policy in the struggle against the most aggressive and reactionary forces of imperialism have helped to effect a turn in international relations---from tension and the cold war to detente and peaceful coexistence of countries with different social systems. The prospect of averting a world war has become real.
The successes of the struggle for detente are not only political, but also socio-political factors that have become major elements fostering the development of the global class struggle. The active struggle of the socialist community and all other peace forces against the threat of war, for the consolidation of world security fuses with the active revolutionary struggle of the working class of the capitalist countries and of the peoples who have shaken off imperialist 329 __RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__ AFTERWORD colonial oppression. Frequently merging into a single torrent, and stimulating and supporting each other, these two processes have brought about essential changes on the international scene.
The development of the trend toward detente in international relations by no means implies that imperialism has reconciled itself to the offensive of the revolutionary forces. Although it is doomed by history, imperialism remains a dangerous adversary who has a powerful military and economic potential and a ramified and highly developed mechanism of state power.
The present crisis of imperialism's anti-communist strategy as a result of the fiasco of the positions of strength policy does not mean that the danger from it has lessened. Despite the detente the opposite process---the arms race, which constitutes the material preparation for a world war ---continues and is even gaining momentum. In the capitalist countries there still are forces that continue to act in the cold war spirit, oppose the relaxation of international tension and aspire to return the world to the past. These are the forces of extreme reaction, racism, overt and covert colonialism and various forms of present-day fascism. They include the military-industrial complex, which is a sinister alliance of the professional militarists with the monopolies, that are amassing wealth on the manufacture of armaments. Acting in a sort of united front, the opponents of detente are doing all they can to poison our planet's political atmosphere. Myths about the ``Soviet threat'' and all sorts of anti- communist falsehoods are being unremittingly fabricated by imperialist reaction's propaganda machine in order to justify militarism and the steady improvement of armaments.
At the same time, anti-communism aspires to adapt itself to present-day conditions, and its policies and propaganda are becoming more flexible, subtle and insidious. Although the increased strength and influence of the world socialist community and the spread of the ideas of socialism and peaceful coexistence are compelling the ruling capitalist circles __PRINTERS_P_329_COMMENT__ 22---2810 330 to pursue a more realistic foreign policy, the anti-communist orientation of their class strategy is by no means evaporating. More, their leaders are redoubling the search for new ways and means of conducting the class struggle, especially those designed to disunite and subvert the forces opposed to the old world. A growing role in this political strategy of imperialism is assumed by Maoist policies and propaganda, which are directed against world socialism, the national liberation movement and the revolutionary vanguard of the working-class movement in the industrialised capitalist states.
Imperialism's ``brain trusts'' are evolving new forms and methods of anti-communist strategy and tactics, making the utmost use of state-monopoly capitalism's military might, mass media and its possibilities for manoeuvring in politics and social relations. The practical results of these `` theoretical'' quests are extremely diverse: local wars on the pattern of the Israeli aggression in the Middle East, the military-fascist coup in Chile and military coups in other Latin American states, the regrouping and regeneration of the fascist movement in Western Europe, especially in Italy, the carefully camouflaged activity relying on local reactionaries in African and Asian countries, and the worldwide slander campaigns against the Soviet Union and the socialist community as a whole.
The intensity of anti-Soviet propaganda has been stepped up in recent years in view of the increasing accent on ideological warfare due to imperialism's diminishing possibilities of bringing military pressure to bear on socialism.
Imperialism's leaders are well aware that the alliance of the socialist states is a decisive factor behind the new successes of world socialism, the new triumphs of the revolutionary movement and the preservation of lasting peace. That explains the efforts of imperialism to use the expanding political, economic and cultural relations between countries for intensified ideological infiltration into the socialist community. The entire arsenal of ideological warfare is used to exercise pressure in political, trade and commercial talks 331 as a means of weakening the positions and cohesion of the socialist countries, expecting them to make concessions in ideology and creating the conditions for broader subversion against the socialist system. They dream of resurrecting, by methods of ideological diversions, survivals of petty- bourgeois thinking in the minds of the peoples of the socialist countries---nationalism, Great-Power chauvinism, egoism and indifference to politics---and of bringing these peoples into the orbit of the ``Western way of life'' and fostering proprietary-consumer instincts that would supersede communist aims and moral principles.
International reaction is trying to weaken the role played by the peace-loving states and peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America in the struggle against imperialist aggressive policy, for national independence and social progress. Imperialism seeks to use detente notably to drive a wedge between these nations and the socialist community, above all, the Soviet Union.
In the anti-communist campaign to misrepresent Soviet foreign policy, a large part is accorded to the ``conspiracy of the super-powers'' thesis of Peking propaganda. The untenability of this thesis has been demonstrated by the history of the development of the Soviet Union's relations with the capitalist countries, including the major capitalist powers, in the course of which the USSR had always acted on the principle that these relations cannot and should not prejudice the security and legitimate interests of other countries. Besides, detente and promotion of inter-state co-operation are not the prerogative of any limited region of the world. Peace is indivisible, and the socialist countries are making every effort to spread detente throughout the world. Although their military, economic, scientific and technical potentials are objectively influencing the international situation as a whole, particularly in questions of war and peace, the relations between the Soviet Union and the United States of America do not exclude but, on the contrary, imply an active contribution by every country to the 332 development of detente. In international relations, the part played by every country is determined chiefly by the content of its policy. A truly lasting peace can only be a democratic peace based not on strength, but on respect for the rights, sovereignty and legitimate interests of all countries without exception, big or small, for the right of all nations to freedom and social progress. In consistently championing peaceful coexistence, the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries proceed from the premise that it must cover all countries. The Maoists' distortion of this fact exposes their striving to discredit the Soviet Union and its foreign policy, to pose as the champions of small and medium states and thereby reinforce Peking's chauvinist claim to the leadership of the Third World.
Naturally, Peking's ideological subversion with its aim of disuniting the anti-imperialist forces is welcomed and backed by international reaction. The reactionary propaganda mouthpieces in some Western states, including the USA, have joined the chorus propagating Peking's thesis that the super-powers are imposing their will on all other countries. In a situation where the shattered myth about the ``Soviet threat'' no longer impresses the public mind, anti-communist propaganda strives to discredit Soviet foreign policy by denying its principled class character and identifying it with the policy of the biggest imperialist power. At the same time, they endeavour to camouflage the actual aims of US imperialism. Anti-communists of all shades---from ultra-Right imperialist ideologists to ``ultra-Left'' revisionists---join hands in their efforts to sow distrust of the foreign policy of the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries.
While spearheading their ideological subversion against Soviet foreign policy, the anti-communist strategists and their accomplices are trying to discredit the very idea of detente not only as a foreign-political, but also as a sociopolitical development and, at the same time, undermine the broad peace front, whose unity is a key prerequisite to the 333 irreversibility of detente. This ideological subversion is directed against the revolutionary forces in the non-socialist states with the aim of undermining faith in proletarian internationalism, in the solidarity of the CPSU and the entire Soviet people with their class brothers waging a struggle in foreign countries, in their solidarity with the liberation, anti-imperialist movements. Combined with anti-communist hysteria, the ideological subversion against the Soviet Union pursues the purpose of preventing the further enlargement of the socio-political base for detente. In this area subversion seeks to kindle among circles with different ideological and political orientation, who had recently joined this movement, a feeling of alienation and suspicion relative to the Communists, who, true to the spirit of proletarian internationalism, are combating anti-Sovietism in all its manifestations. Moreover, this ideological subversion aims to sow among the ruling circles of capitalist countries pursuing a realistic policy, doubt in socialist foreign policy's firmness and consistence, which are major factors of the process of detente.
Imperialist reaction is striving to rally all its forces in order to sustain its attempts to prevent the consolidation of the positive changes on the international scene. In a situation tipped in favour of detente this striving increasingly finds stumbling blocks in the shape of the economic and political contradictions and conflicts between the capitalist states. However, the purposeful international strategy of anticommunism is powerfully stimulating the trend toward the worldwide unity of international reaction. In noting the possibility of the alliance of the imperialists of all countries breaking down as a result of the aggravation of inter- imperialist struggle, Lenin stressed that the trend toward this alliance ``must ultimately make itself felt with inevitable force''.^^1^^ This trend is accompanied by the deepening of old and the appearance of new inter-imperialist contradictions, by the aggravation of the class struggle and by the further internationalisation of the world revolutionary process. All 334 this bears out the perspicacity of Lenin's forecast that the contradictions and conflicts in the worldwide ``ultra- imperialist'' amalgamation of national finance capitals will bring about the downfall of imperialism before this amalgamation can take final = shape.^^2^^
Detente creates favourable conditions for the peaceful labour of the peoples of the socialist countries, for the building of a new society in these countries, for the growing cohesion of the socialist community. The successes in the building of socialism and communism and the unswerving energetic struggle of the socialist countries for international security and cooperation, for the triumph of peace, freedom and social progress are exercising a beneficial influence on the political atmosphere of the entire planet.
The peoples, their organisations and political parties are steadily widening their participation in the struggle for peace and security, for the democratisation of international relations. This struggle is being joined by new strata of the population of different countries, who are surmounting their inertia and the anti-communist prejudices of the cold war days spread by imperialist propaganda. As a result of the active struggle of the socialist community for the further deepening of detente and for the irreversibility of that process, the broad mass of the people are increasingly linking the ideas of peace, freedom and democracy with the ideas of socialism. Imperialist propaganda is trying to belittle the attractiveness of socialism in the eyes of public opinion either by openly attacking the existing socialist system or by counterposing to it an idealised picture of a ``perfect'' bourgeois society, as is being done, in particular, by the organisers of the laudation of the US bicentennial.
The dissemination of socialism's ideas is a powerful ideological means facilitating the deepening and widening of detente and the consolidation of the principles of peaceful coexistence in international life. However, this possibility can be translated into reality only given an unremitting and uncompromising struggle against all forms of anti-- 335 communism, against the ``Left'' and Right opportunist trends hostile to scientific communism, against ideological subversion by imperialist and Maoist propaganda.
The further consolidation of the unity of the world communist movement on the basis of the principles of MarxismLeninism and proletarian internationalism and co-ordinated action within that movement are a key prerequisite to the success of that struggle. The importance of co-ordinating ideological work and of collectively analysing current theoretical and political problems was underscored at the 1969 International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, at friendly meetings between the leaders of the fraternal parties of the socialist countries and at other multilateral meetings of representatives of Communist and Workers' parties. In this context, the joint study of present-day anticommunism by scholars of the Soviet Union and the German Democratic Republic is a large contribution toward exposing the theoretical concepts and practical activities of imperialist reaction.
Mankind's steady advance along the road of peace and social progress can only be assured by halting the ideological subversion and other manoeuvres of imperialist reaction directed against the implementation of the principles of peaceful coexistence in international relations. An uncompromising attitude by the proponents of Marxism-Leninism in the ideological struggle does not, as is claimed by anti- communist propaganda, signify a return to the cold war spirit or political intolerance of all people holding different views. This attitude is directed toward exposing slander, giving the truth about socialism as a really existing system and as a teaching, and showing the actual aims and policy of the Communist parties. The proponents of Marxism- Leninism are profoundly convinced that this teaching is invincible because it is true, because the policy founded on it best of all meets the requirements of the epoch---the unity of all the peace forces in the name of assuring the peaceful development of all countries, of all nations.
[336] __ALPHA_LVL1__ REFERENCESChapter One
~^^1^^ Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party, Selected Works, in three volumes, Vol. 1, Moscow, 1973, p. 108.
~^^2^^ United States Relations with Europe in the Decade of the 1970s. Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Europe of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Washington, 1970, p. 230.
~^^3^^ V. I. Lenin, ``Report on Foreign Policy'', Collected Works, Vol. 27, p. 367.
~^^4^^ United States Relations with Europe in the Decade of the 1970s, pp. 229, 343.
~^^5^^ Preuves, No. 6, 1971, pp. 73--79.
~^^6^^ United States Relations with Europe in the Decade of the 1970s, p. 230.
~^^7^^ L. I. Brezhnev, The Fiftieth Anniversary of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Moscow, 1972, pp. 43, 60.
~^^8^^ Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages. America's Role in the Technetronic Era, New York, 1970, pp. 181, 184--85.
~^^9^^ L'Humanile, November 18, 1971, p. 3.
Chapter Two
~^^1^^ Robert Wilton, Russia's Agony, New York, 1919, p. 335.
~^^2^^ Pierre-Louis Reynaud, Economic generalisee el seuils de croissancc. Paris, 1962, p. 16.
3 4 5 6 7 Pierre-Louis Reynaud, La psychologie economique, Paris, 1966, pp. 34; 72; 73; 114; 126.
~^^8^^ Revue economique, No. 9, 1967.
~^^9^^ Zbigniew Brzezinski and Samuel P. Huntington, Political Power: USA/USSR, Similarities and Contrasts. Convergence or Evolution?, New York, 1964, p. 419.
~^^10^^ Politique etrangere, No. 5-6, 1966, pp. 458--59.
~^^11^^ Francois Perroux, La coexistence pacifique, Vol. 1, Paris, 1958, p. 80.
~^^12^^ Naum Jasny, Soviet Industrialization. 1928--1952, Chicago, 1961,
337
__RUNNING_HEADER_RIGHT__
REFERENCES
p. 10; Harry Schwarts, The Soviet Economy Since Stalin, London,
1965, p. 230.
~^^13^^ Narodnoye khozyaistvo SSSR, 1922--1972. Yubileiny statistichesky yezhegodnik, Moscow, 1972, p. 48; Kritika burzhuamykh kontseptsii ekonomiki sotsializma, Moscow, 1971, p. 123. The indices for 1970- 1971 were computed according to statistics in Narodnoye khozyaistvo SSSR v 1970 godu, Moscow, 1971; Ekonomicheskaya gazeta, 1971, No. 7, p. 44; Pravda, January 23, 1973.
~^^14^^ Trud v SSSR, Moscow, 1968, p. 158.
~^^15^^ James H. Noren, New Directions in the Soviet Economy, Part II-A, Washington, 1966, p. 275.
~^^16^^ E. Preobrajensky, La Nouvelle politique economique, prefaced by Ernest Mandel, Paris, 1966, p. 1.
~^^17^^ Revue economique, No. 1, January 1967, pp. 170--71.
~^^18^^ Socialism, Capitalism and Economic Growth, Cambridge, 1967,
pp. = 281--82. ^^10^^ V. I. Lenin, ``Speech at the First Congress of Economic Councils'',
Collected Works, Vol. 27, p. 411.
~^^20^^ Kritika burzhuaznykh kontseptsii ekonomiki sotsializma, Moscow, 1971, p. 151.
~^^21^^ The Road to Communism, Moscow, 1962, p. 521.
~^^22^^ Abram Bergson, Planning and Productivity under Soviet Socialism, New York, London, 1968, pp. 16, 55--56.
~^^23^^ Futurum, No. 1, 1971, p. 9.
~^^24^^ K.P. Hensel und Mitarbeiter, Die sozialistische Marktwirtschaft der Tschechoslowakei, Stuttgart, 1968, p. 3.
~^^25^^ Narodnoye khozyaistvo SSSR, 1922--1972. Yubileiny statistichesky yezhegodnik, p. 109; SSSR v tsifrakh v 1972 godu, Moscow, 1973, p. 65.
~^^26^^ Der Spiegel, January 10, 1972, p. 89.
~^^27^^ V. I. Lenin, ``Once Again on the Trade Unions'', Collected Works, Vol. 32, p. 84.
~^^28^^ La Stampa, April 24, 1971.
~^^29^^ La Verite, 1971, No. 553, p. 89.
= :!0~^^31^^ 24th Congress of the CPSU, Moscow, 1971, pp. 50--55; 164.
~^^32^^ Narodnoye khozyaistvo SSSR, 1922--1972, p. 363; SSSR v tsifrakh v 1973 godu, p. 174.
~^^33^^ John Finder, ``Positive Integration and Negative Integration. Some Problems of Economic Union in the EEC'', The World Today, March 1968, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 88--110; Michael Kaser, COMECON. Integration Problems of the Planned Economies, London, New York, Toronto, 1967, p. 115.
~^^34^^ W. Broil, Die Wirtschaft der DDR---Lage und Aussichten, Stuttgart, 1970, p. 88.
:B sc Narodnoye khozyaistvo SSSR, 1922--1972, pp. 491; 496.
338~^^37^^ Preuves, 1971, No. 6. These views are very close to the concepts enunciated by Brzezinski in the mid-1960s (Zbigniew Brzezinski, Alternative to Partition, New York, 1963).
~^^38^^ Krupneishiye monopolii mira. Kratkii spravochnik, Moscow, 1968, pp. 12--13.
~^^39^^ S. M. Menshikov, Millionery i menedzhery, Moscow, 1966, p. 15. /l0 Francois Perroux, La coexistence pacifique, p. 102.
~^^41^^ John Kenneth Galbraith, Economics, Peace, and Laughter, New York, 1971.
~^^42^^ Gerhard E. Lenski, Power and Privilege. A Theory of Social Stratification, New York, 1966, p. 347.
~^^43^^ Bent Hansen, Velstand uden Velfaerd, 1971, pp. 19, 26, 47.
Chapter Three
~^^1^^ Robert K. Furtak, ``Die Aktionskategorien der Sowietischen Aussenpolitik im Lichte der 'Breschnew-Doktrin'\thinspace'', Aus politik und Zeitgeschichte, September 26, 1970, p. 14.
~^^2^^ Military Policy and National Security, edited by William W. Kaufmann, Princeton, 1956, p. 129.
~^^3^^ Die Welt, October 9, 1965.
= =~^^4^^~^^5^^ Peter Christian Ludz, Parteielite im Wandel, Cologne, Opladen, 1968, pp. 25; 79--80.
~^^6^^ Europa-Archiv, 1968, File 19, p. 703.
~^^7^^ Boris Meissner, ``Der soziale Strukturwandel im bolschewistischen Russland'', Sowjetgesellschaft im Wandel, Stuttgart, 1966, p. 121.
~^^8^^ Hansgeorg Conert, Der Kommunismus in der Sowjetunion. Historische Voraussetzungen, Wandlungen, gegenwdrtige Strukturen und Probleme, Frankfort on the Main, 1971, p. 93.
~^^9^^ P. Ludz, Parteielite im Wandel.
~^^10^^ Eugen Lemberg, Ideologic und Gesellschaft. Eine Theorie der ideologischen Systeme, ihrer Struktur und Funktion, Stuttgart, 1971, p. 290.
~^^11^^ Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, March 27, 1968, p. 10.
~^^12^^ Neues Deutschland, 8. Dez. 1972.
~^^13^^ Die Neue Gesellschaft, No. 1, 1970, pp. 52--61.
~^^14^^ Karl W. Deutsch, Nationalism and Social Communication. An Inquiry into the Foundations of Nationality, New York, 1953; Sowjetsystem und demokratische Gesellschaft, Vol. IV, p. 644.
~^^15^^ Karl W. Deutsch, Der Nationalisms und seine Allernativen, Munich, 1972, p. 63.
~^^16^^ Paul Lendval, Der Rote Balkan. Zwischen Nationalisms und Kommunismus, Frankfort on the Main, 1969, p. 24.
339~^^17^^ Hans Hartl, Nationalismus in Rot. Die patriotischen Wandlungen des Kommunismus in Siidosteuropa, Stuttgart, 1968, p. 24.
~^^18^^ G. lonescu, Die Zukunft des Kommunismus in Osteuropa, West Berlin, Frankfort on the Main, 1969, p. 234.
~^^19^^ W. Grewe, Spiel der Krafte in der Weltpolitik. Theorie und Praxis der internationalen Beziehungen, Diisseldorf-Vienna, 1970, p. 614.
Chapter Four
~^^1^^ The State of Soviet Studies, Cambridge, Mass., 1965, p. 115.
~^^2^^ The Techniques of Soviet Propaganda, June 12, 1967.
~^^3^^ 24th Congress of the CPSU, p. 109.
~^^4^^ Vorwarts, October 8, 1970, p. 8.
~^^5^^ Soviet and Chinese Communism. Similarities and Differences, London, 1967, p. 192.
~^^6^^ Orbis, 1971, No. 1, p. 107.
~^^7^^ Soviet and Chinese Communism, London, 1967, p. 202.
~^^8^^ Raymond Aron, Les disillusions du progres, Calmann-Levy, 1969, p. 40.
~^^9^^ World Politics, 1973, No. 2, p. 202.
~^^10^^ La Stampa, April 24, 1971.
11 12 ow probiems of Communism, March-April 1972, pp. 25; 30; 39;
45.
~^^15^^ Stern, 1969, II, 4a, p. 144.
~^^16^^ Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages, p. 185.
~^^17^^ Anthony D. Smith, Theories of Nationalism, London, 1971.
~^^18^^ Problems of Communism, May-June 1971.
~^^19^^ V. I. Lenin, ``The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government'', Collected Works, Vol. 27, p. 249.
~^^20^^ V. I. Lenin, ``The Discussion on Self-Determination Summed Up'', Collected Works, Vol. 22, p. 324.
~^^21^^ V. I. Lenin, ``Socialist Revolution and Self-Determination'', Collected Works, Vol. 22, p. 146.
Chapter Five
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, ``Preface to N. Bukharin's Pamphlet'', Collected Works, Vol. 22, pp. 104--05.
~^^2^^ V. I. Lenin, ``The Discussion on Self-Determination Summed Up'', Collected Works, Vol. 22, p. 342.
~^^3^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow 1969, Prague, 1969, p. 12.
~^^4^^ Das deutsche Presseamt, April 27, 1965.
~^^5^^ Sechaba, Dar-cs-Salam, May 1972.
~^^6^^ Juan Jose Arevalo, Anlicomunismo en America Lalina (radiografia del proceso hacia una neuva colonizacion), Mexico, 1959.
340~^^7^^ For la unidad obrera y popular hacia el socialismo. Documentos del XI Congreso del Partido Comunista de Colombia, 6-10 de diciembre de 1971, Prague, 1972, p. 166.
~^^8^^ Geronimo Arnedo Alvarez, Argentina (rente a la dicladura de los comunistas, Buenos Aires, 1969, p. 12.
~^^9^^ El Siglo, December 8, 1969.
~^^10^^ The Rockefeller Report on the Americas, Chicago, 1969, p. 35.
~^^11^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow 1969, p. 268.
~^^12^^ V. I. Lenin, ``Third Congress of the Communist International'', Collected Works, Vol. 32, p. 482.
~^^13^^ World Marxist Review, No. 5, 1971.
~^^14^^ V. I. Lenin, ``Differences in the European Labour Movement'', Collected Works, Vol. 16, p. 348.
~^^15^^ World Marxist Review, Vol. 10, No. 1, January 1967.
10 p;erre Moussa, Les £tats-Unis et les nations proletaires, Paris, 1965.
~^^17^^ France Nouvelle, February 1-7, 1972, p. 23.
~^^18^^ V. I. Lenin, ``A Caricature of Marxism'', Collected Works, Vol. 23, p. 67.
Chapter Six
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, ``The Collapse of the Second International'', Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 242.
~^^2^^ Alfred Kurella, Das Eigene und das Fremde. Neue Beitrage zum sozialistischen Humanismus, Berlin-Weimar, 1968, pp. 9-10; ``Der Fruhling, die Schwalben und Franz Kafka'', Sonntag, No. 31, 1963, p. 11.
~^^3^^ Zbigniew Brzezinski, Alternative to Partition. For a Broader Conception of America's Role in Europe.
'' Zbigniew Brzezinski and Samuel P. Huntington, Political Power: USA/USSR, Similarities and Contrasts. Convergence or Evolution?, New York, 1964.
~^^5^^ A. Kozing, Ernst Fischer---sovremenny marksist?, Moscow, 1971.
~^^6^^ Wolfgang Leonhard, Die Dreispaltung des Marxismus, Ursprung und Entwicklung des Sowjetmarxismus, Maoismus und Reformkommunismus, Dusseldorf-Vienna, 1970.
~^^7^^ Daniel Bell, The End of Ideology. On the Exhaustion of Political Ideas in the Fifties, Glencoe, Illinois, 1960.
~^^8^^ Roger Garaudy, Pour un modele frangais du socialisme, Paris, 1968; Le grand tournant du socialisme, Paris, 1969.
~^^9^^ Ernst Fischer, Frantz Marek, Was Marx wirklich sagte, Vienna, 1968; Ernst Fischer, Frantz Marek, Was Lenin wirklich sagte, Vienna, 1969.
341~^^10^^ Ernst Fischer, Frantz Marek, Was Marx wirklich sagte, pp. 159--60.
~^^11^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers Parties, Moscow 1969, Prague, 1969, p. 23.
~^^12^^ Stern, No. 49, 1969, p. 144.
~^^13^^ Roger Garaudy, Le grand tournant du socialisme, p. 284.
~^^14^^ Roger Garaudy, Le grand tournant du socialisme, p. 200; Ernst Fischer, Kunst und Koexistenz, Hamburg, 1966, p. 63.
~^^13^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow 1969, p. 25.
~^^16^^ XIV syezd kommunisticheskoi partii Chekhoslovakii, Moscow, 1971,
p. 23.
~^^17^^ Uroki krizisnogo razvitiya v kompartii Chekhoslovakii i obshchestve posle XIII syezda KPCh, Moscow, 1971.
~^^18^^ Socialist Affairs, Vol. XXIII, No. 1, January 1973, p. 23.
~^^19^^ Yearbook of the International Socialist Labour Movement, 1956- 1957, London, 1956, p. 40.
~^^20^^ V. I. Lenin, ``Conversation'', Collected Works, Vol. 19, p. 46.
~^^21^^ Socialist Affairs, Vol. XXII, No. 4, April 1972, p. 78.
~^^22^^ Arbeiter-Zeitung, Vienna, April 19, 1972.
~^^23^^ Die osterreichische Sozialdemokratie im Spiegel ihrer Programme, Vienna, 1966.
~^^24^^ V. I. Lenin, ``Proletarian Revolution and Renegade Kautsky'', Collected Works, Vol. 28, p. 246.
~^^25^^ La Revue socialiste, No. 210, February 1968, p. 174.
~^^26^^ The Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, Moscow, 1963.
~^^27^^ Pravda, December 25, 1972.
~^^28^^ Socialist Affairs, Vol. XXI, No. 2, February 1971, p. 40.
~^^29^^ L. I. Brezhnev, The Fiftieth Anniversary of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, p. 56.
~^^30^^ Socialist Affairs, Vol. XXII, No. 5, May 1972, p. 94.
~^^31^^ Socialist Affairs, February 1971, p. 40.
~^^32^^ Socialist Affairs, February 1972, p. 47.
~^^33^^ 24th Congress of the CPSU, p. 28.
~^^34^^ V. I. Lenin, ``Letter to N. I. Bukharin and G. Y. Zinoviev'', Collected Works, Vol. 42, p. 393.
~^^35^^ World Marxist Review, Vol. 8, No. 2, February 1965, p. 48.
~^^30^^ V. I. Lenin, ``A New Revolutionary Workers' Association'', Collected Works, Vol. 8, p. 509.
~^^37^^ Erich Honecker, Das Volk der DDR kann mil Zuversicht die Schwelle zum Jahr 1973 iiberschreiten, aus dem Schlusswort. S. Tagung des ZK der SED, Berlin, 1972, pp. 59--60.
~^^38^^ Willy Brandt, ``Rede auf dem Kongress der sozialistischen Internationale in Wien'', SPD-Pressemitteilungen und Informationen, June 27, 1972.
342~^^39^^ Ulrich Lohmar, ``Sozialdemokratie und Kommunismus. Anmerkungen zur 'ideologischen Koexistenz''', Die Zeit, Hamburg, April 21, 1972, p. 56.
~^^40^^ Vorwdrts, March 4, 1971, p. 10.
~^^41^^ Vorwdrts, December 24, 1970.
~^^42^^ Vorwdrts, March 4, 1971.
~^^43^^ ``Entwurf eines okonomisch-politischen Orientierungsrahmens fur die Jahre 1973--1985'', Hrsg. vom Parteistand der SPD, Bonn, 1972, p. 6.
~^^44^^ Die Neue Gesellschaft, No. 1, 1971, p. 4.
~^^45^^ Vorwdrts, March 4, 1971, pp. 10, 11.
~^^46^^ Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, ``Manifesto of the Communist Party'', Selected Works, in three volumes, Vol. 1, p. 126.
~^^47^^ Vorwdrts, December 24, 1970.
~^^48^^ Ulrich Lohmar, ``Eigentum und Sozialisierung. ..'', Die Neue Gesellschaft, No. 7, 1972, pp. 516, 517.
~^^49^^ SPD-Parteitag Nurnberg, 1968, Protokoll, p. 368.
~^^50^^ Friedrich Brand, ``Sozialismus heute'', Die Neue Gesellschaft, No. 8, 1971, pp. 586, 587.
~^^51^^ Johann Strasser, ``Plannung und okonomische Macht'', Die Neue Gesellschaft, No. 9, 1972, p. 705.
~^^62^^ Stern, March 7, 1971.
~^^53^^ Alexander Schwan, ``Freiheit, Gerechtigkeit und Solidaritat'', Berliner Stimme, October 30, 1971, Beilage, Socialdemokratiscb.es Forum, No. 1, p. 12.
~^^54^^ Vorwdrts, March 4, 1971.
~^^65^^ Erich Honecker, Die Jugend der DDR und die Aufgaben wiserer
Zeit... , Berlin, 1972, pp. = 25--26. ^^56^^ Dokumentation der Zeit, Analyse, Information, Chronik, No. 15,
1971, pp. 3-4.
~^^67^^ Vorwdrts, March 4, 1971.
~^^68^^ Siiddeutsche Zeitung, October 22, 1971.
~^^59^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow 1969, p. 24.
~^^60^^ Kommunisten und Sozialdemokraten in der Bundesrepublik. Em Gesprach mil Kurt Bachmann und Herbert Mies, Hamburg, 1971, p. 13.
Chapter Seven
^^1^^ T.R. Fyvel, Intellectuals Today. Problems in a Changing Society London, 1968, pp. 58--59.
~^^2^^ Leninism i mirovoye revolyutsionnoye rabocheye dvizheniye, Moscow, 1969, p. 495.
~^^3^^ Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works, Vol. 2, p. 30.
343~^^4^^ Leo Figuere, "Le Gauchisme'', France Nouvelle, No. 1179, June 12,
1968, p. 9.
~^^6^^ V. I. Lenin, ``Differences in the European Labour Movement'', Collected Works, Vol. 16, p. 348.
~^^6^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow
1969, Prague, 1969, p. 29.
~^^7^^ Herbert Marcuse, An Essay on Liberation, Boston, 1969, p. 54.
~^^8^^ The Times, May 29, 1968.
~^^9^^ V. I. Lenin, ``Theses on the Fundamental Tasks of the Second Congress of the Communist International'', Collected Works, Vol. 31, pp. 187--88.
~^^10^^ Rose el Youssef, January 1968 (in Arabic).
~^^11^^ Herbert Marcuse, An Essay on Liberation, pp. 87--88.
~^^12^^ Knjizevne novine, No. 336, Beograd, September 14, 1968, p. 8.
~^^13^^ Herbert Marcuse, ``Perspektiven des Socialismus in der entwickelten Industriegesellschaft'', Praxis, No. 2-3, 1965, p. 260.
~^^14^^ Herbert Marcuse, An Essay on Liberation, pp. 84--85.
~^^15^^ Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party, Selected Works, in three volumes, Vol. 1, p. 127.
~^^16^^ Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, The German Ideology, Moscow, 1968, p. 48.
~^^17^^ V. I. Lenin, ``The State and Revolution'', Collected Works, Vol. 25, p. 458.
~^^18^^ Lenin Miscellany XI, p. 398.
~^^19^^ Kursbuch 23. Vbergang zum Sozialismus, Berlin (West), 1971, pp. 140; 81.
~^^20^^ Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, ``Marx to P. V. Annenkov in Paris'', Selected Works, in three volumes, Vol. 1, p. 527.
Chapter Eight
~^^1^^ Barry Goldwater, The Conscience of a Majority, Prentice-Hall, 1970, p. 4.
~^^2^^ See Michael Choukas, Propaganda Comes of Age, Washington, 1965, p. 96.
~^^3^^ See Communism in Theory and Practice: A Book of Readings for High School Students, San Francisco, 1964, pp. 41--43; 199.
~^^4^^ John Edgar Hoover, On Communism, New York, 1969, p. 123.
~^^5^^ New Program of the Communist Party USA, New York, May 1970, pp. 9; 24.
Afterword
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, ``Report on Foreign Policy Delivered at a Joint Meeting of the All-Russia Central Executive Committee and the Moscow Soviet'', Collected Works, Vol. 27, p. 367.
~^^2^^ V. I. Lenin, ``Preface to N. Bukharin's Pamphlet'' Collected Works, Vol. 22, p. 107.
__ALPHA_LVL0__ The End. [END] [344]REQUEST TO READERS
Progress Publishers would be glad to have your opinion of this book, its translation and design and any suggestions you may have for future publications.
Please send all your comments to 21, Zubovsky Boulevard, Moscow, USSR.
[345]
theories
and
critical
studies
|)ix)gress
Contemporary Anti-Communism: Policy and Ideology
This probing study of present-day anti-communism is the product of creative co-operation between scholars of the Soviet Union and the German Democratic Republic.
The authors trace the evolution of the forms and methods of anti-communism, which is the ideology and political strategy of imperialism against world socialism, the international workingclass and the national liberation movement. This evolution has been induced by the mounting pressure of the world revolutionary forces, the current scientific and technological revolution and the internal development of statemonopoly capitalism.
They critically analyse both the theory and practice of anti-communism in all its present-day aspects.
This work is an abridged and revised version of the book Contemporary AntiCommunism: Policy and Ideology published in the Russian language in Moscow in 1973.
Contemporary
Anti-Communism:
Policy and Ideology
