Log in

View Full Version : Stalin on peaceful coexistence



heiss93
19th January 2010, 14:42
Coexistence, American-Soviet Cooperation, Atomic Energy, Europe
April 9, 1947

Source: For Peaceful Coexistence: Post War Interviews
Publisher: International Publishers, New York, 1951
Transcription/Markup: Brian Reid

[Interview with Harold Stassen, April 9, 1947]

Stassen: Generalissimo Stalin, on this European trip I am particularly interested in studying conditions of an economic nature. In this regard, of course, the relations of the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. are very important. I realize that we have two economic systems that are very different. The U.S.S.R. with the Communist Party and with its planned economy and socialized collective state, and the United States of America with its free economy and regulated private capitalism are very different. I would be interested to know if you think these two economic systems can exist together in the same modern world in harmony with each other?

Stalin: Of course they can. The difference between them is not important so far as co-operation is concerned. The systems in Germany and the United States are the same but war broke out between them. The U.S. and U.S.S.R. systems are different but we didn’t wage war against each other and the U.S.S.R. does not propose to. If during the war they could co-operate, why can’t they today in peace, given the wish to co-operate? Of course, if there is no desire to co-operate, even with the same economic system they may fall out as was the case with Germany.

Stassen: I believe, of course, that they can co-operate if they both have the desire to, but there have been many statements about not being able to co-operate. Some of these were made by the Generalissimo himself before the war. But is it possible, now that the fascist axis has been defeated, that the situation has changed?

Stalin: It’s not possible that I said that the two economic systems could not co-operate. Co-operation ideas were expressed by Lenin. I might have said that one system was reluctant to co-operate, but that concerned only one side. But as to the possibility of co-operation, I adhere to Lenin who expressed both the possibility and the desire of co-operation. As to the desire of the people to co-operate on the part of the U.S.S.R. and the Party, it is possible—and the two countries could only benefit by this co-operation.

Stassen: That last part is clear. The statements I referred to are those made by you at the Eighteenth Communist Party Congress in 1939 and the plenary session in 1937—statements about capitalist encirclement and monopoly. I assume from your statement now that the defeat of fascist Germany and Japan has not charged that situation.

Stalin:There was not a single Party congress or plenary session of the Central Committee of the Communist Party at which I said or could have said that co-operation between the two systems was impossible. I did say that there existed capitalist encirclement and danger of attack on the U.S.S.R. If one party does not wish to co-operate, then that means there exists a threat of attack. And actually Germany, not wishing to co-operate with the U.S.S.R., attacked the U.S.S.R. Could the U.S.S.R, have co-operated with Germany? Yes, the U.S.S.R. could have cooperated with Germany but the Germans did not wish to co-operate. Otherwise the U.S.S.R. could have co-operated with Germany as with any other country. As you see, this concerns the sphere of desire and not the possibility of co-operating. It is necessary to make a distinction between the possibility; of co-operating and the wish to co-operate. The possibility of co-operation always exists but there is not always present the wish to co-operate. If one party does not wish to co-operate, then the result will be conflict, war.

Stassen: It must be mutual.

Stalin: Yes. I want to bear testimony to the fact that Russia wants to co-operate.

Stassen: I wish to point out with reference to your earlier statement that there was a great difference between Germany and the United States at the time Germany started the war.

Stalin: There was a difference in government but no difference in the economic systems. The government was a temporary factor.

Stassen: I do not agree. Yes, there was a difference of economic systems too. Imperialism, the development of state monopoly, and the oppression of workers are the evils of capitalism practiced by the Nazis. It seems to me we have been successful in America in preventing the monopoly of capitalism and the imperialistic trend, and that the workers have made greater progress through use of the strength of their vote and their freedom than Karl Marx or Frederick Engels thought they could make-and this regulation of free capital and prevention of monopoly and freedom of workers in America makes the economic situation quite different from that which existed in Germany.

Stalin: Let us not mutually criticize our systems. Everyone has the right to follow the system he wants to maintain. Which one is better will be said by history. We should respect the systems chosen by the people, and whether the system is good or bad is the business of the American people. To co-operate, one does not need the same systems. One should respect the other system when approved by the people. Only on this basis can we secure co-operation. Only, if we criticize, it will lead us too far.

As for Marx and Engels, they were unable to foresee what would happen forty years after their death. But we should adhere to mutual respect of people. Some people call the Soviet system totalitarian. Our people call the American system monopoly capitalism. If we start calling each other names with the words monopolist and totalitarian, it will lead to no co-operation.

We must start from the historical fact that there are two systems approved by the people. Only on that basis is co-operation possible. If we distract each other with criticism, that is propaganda.

As to propaganda, I am not a propagandist but a business-like man. We should not be sectarian. When the people wish to change the systems they will do so. When we met with Roosevelt to discuss the questions of war, we did not call each other names. We established co-operation and succeeded in defeating the enemy.

Stassen: That sort of criticism has been a cause of misunderstanding after the war. Do you look forward in the future to a greater exchange of ideas and news, of students and teachers, of artists, of tourists, if there is co-operation?

Stalin: This will happen inevitably if co-operation is established. For an exchange of goods will lead to an exchange of people. . . .

Stassen: As I see it, then, you think it is possible that there will be co-operation provided there is a will and desire to co-operate. Stalin: That is correct.

Stassen: In the development of the standards of living of the people, mechanization and electrification have been of major significance. The new development of atomic energy is of very great importance to all peoples of the world. I feel that the matter of international inspection, effective controls and outlawing the use for war of atomic energy is of supreme importance to all peoples of the world. Do you feel that there is a reasonable prospect of working out agreements for the long-term future for the peaceful development of atomic energy?

Stalin: I hope for this. There are big differences of views among us, but in the long run I hope we shall come to an understanding. International control and inspection will be established, in any view, and it will be of great importance. The peaceful use of atomic energy will bring great technological changes. It is a very great matter. As for the use of atomic energy for war purposes, this in all probability will be prohibited. It will be a problem in the long run that will be met by the consciences of the people and it will be prohibited.

Stassen: Yes, that is one of our important problems and if solved it can be a great boon—and if not, a great curse to the people of the world.

Stalin: I think we shall succeed in establishing international inspection and control. Things are leading up to it.

Stassen: I appreciate the opportunity of talking with you.

(The interview had now lasted forty minutes and Stassen prepared to take his leave. However, Stalin indicated a willingness to continue the discussion. The remainder of the conversation dealt with prevailing economic conditions in Europe and the United States.—Ed.)

Uppercut
26th January 2010, 13:20
Ah, it seems Stalin knew what he was doing. "Some people call the Soviet system totalitarian. Our people call the American system monopoly capitalism." I like that quote. I may not agree with Stalin on every one of his policies, but all in all, I don't think he was as bad as most people make him out to be.

A toast to comrade Stalin!

btpound
10th February 2010, 02:32
It's interesting to see his position change through the years. I know he did say the two could not co-operate earlier on, but now he flip flops. Stalin would rather befriend someone than fight them. I guess I can understand that position.

Uncle Rob
10th February 2010, 02:40
I think it should be understood that he probably said this because of the World War II pact they had with the Allies. I'm sure he didn't feel that way during the cold war.

Clarksist
10th February 2010, 03:07
The sentiment, taken at face value, is exactly what was needed. Of course, the name calling was not limited, and co-operation was not what it could have been - to the detriment of the world.

Kléber
10th February 2010, 04:45
I think it should be understood that he probably said this because of the World War II pact they had with the Allies. I'm sure he didn't feel that way during the cold war.
This interview is from 1947.

heiss93
10th February 2010, 05:29
Do you see this as an endorsement of the legitimacy of bourgeois elections?

"Stalin: Let us not mutually criticize our systems. Everyone has the right to follow the system he wants to maintain. Which one is better will be said by history. We should respect the systems chosen by the people, and whether the system is good or bad is the business of the American people. To co-operate, one does not need the same systems. One should respect the other system when approved by the people. Only on this basis can we secure co-operation. Only, if we criticize, it will lead us too far."

Kléber
10th February 2010, 07:51
Do you see this as an endorsement of the legitimacy of bourgeois elections?
It comes close, but that quote itself could be interpreted in many ways.

What is certain is that the Comintern was disbanded in 1943 (although it had already ceased to function as a revolutionary, or even independent organization since the beginning of the "Popular Front" period in 1934-5), so by the time of this speech, it had been more than a decade since the USSR's foreign policy had officially abandoned world revolution.

Stalin most infamously outlined this position, among other outrageous feats of revisionism, in an earlier interview (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1936/03/01.htm):


Howard : Does this, your statement, mean that the Soviet Union has to any degree abandoned its plans and intentions for bringing about world revolution?

Stalin : We never had such plans and intentions.

Howard : You appreciate, no doubt, Mr. Stalin, that much of the world has long entertained a different impression.

Stalin : This is the product of a misunderstanding.

Howard : A tragic misunderstanding?

Stalin : No, a comical one. Or, perhaps, tragicomic.

heiss93
11th February 2010, 22:24
What about this line:
"We should respect the systems chosen by the people, and whether the system is good or bad is the business of the American people. "

Now it is one thing to say that only Americans can make their own revolution, but he seems to be saying that Americans chose the capitalist system presumably through bourgeois elections.

scarletghoul
11th February 2010, 22:57
This was the time, just after the war, when Stalin was diplomatically pwning the US/UK and helping establish socialist government across half of Europe. Anyone who knows anything about Stalin knows that he was two-faced to say the least. Maybe he said something about peaceful coexistance at the time to some western guy, but history has clearly shown that Stalin had great success in helping establish socialism across the world.

A toast to comrade Stalin!
Ha, my friend and I actually did toast to comrade Stalin yestoday. lol

Kléber
11th February 2010, 23:02
history has clearly shown that Stalin had great success in helping establish socialism across the world.
Clearly.

Uppercut
15th February 2010, 03:58
Howard : Does this, your statement, mean that the Soviet Union has to any degree abandoned its plans and intentions for bringing about world revolution?

Stalin : We never had such plans and intentions.

Howard : You appreciate, no doubt, Mr. Stalin, that much of the world has long entertained a different impression.

Stalin : This is the product of a misunderstanding.

Howard : A tragic misunderstanding?

Stalin : No, a comical one. Or, perhaps, tragicomic.

Stalin is saying that the USSR is not going to force revolution across the globe. If a country was in the middle of a revolution and the country's vanguard party asked for help, then the USSR would lend aid, ammo, and troops (Korea, for example).
He wasn't an imperialist, like some others in the party...

OldMoney
15th February 2010, 09:21
I think Joe realizes that the Americans will never co-operate, knowing full well that the imperialists cant coexist with a comunist state. The people ruled by the imperialts would see how much better off the comunists were and there system would end in revolution and utter failure. Why not agree to co-opperate, you win either way.

I like this quote

"Imperialism, the development of state monopoly, and the oppression of workers are the evils of capitalism practiced by the Nazis"

Kléber
15th February 2010, 09:24
He wasn't an imperialist, like some others in the party...
The planned division of Europe into spheres of influence with Nazi Germany, actual division of Europe into capitalist puppet states with the Allied imperialists, chauvinist policies in the 1930's such as the veil ban in Central Asia, and the forced resettlement of peoples during Stalin's administration, definitely reek of imperialism.

Uppercut
15th February 2010, 12:24
The planned division of Europe into spheres of influence with Nazi Germany, actual division of Europe into capitalist puppet states with the Allied imperialists

Playing one imperialistic power off of another is a classical military strategy. Besides, both sides knew the purpose of the division of Poland: To build up their armies and prepare for the inevitable. The whole world knew a Soviet-Nazi war was coming.


chauvinist policies in the 1930's such as the veil ban in Central Asia

How is banning the veil and giving women the same societal status of women chauvenistic? Females were allowed to show their face in public, and without the assistance of a male. If anything, it's feministic.


the forced resettlement of peoples during Stalin's administration, definitely reek of imperialism.

The only people that were "forced" to resettle were former GULAG inmates and kulaks. You had free settlers and forced settlers. If anything, the soviets were putting them to work instead of automatically executing them. It's putting criminals and saboteurs to work for the benefit of the peasantry and workers. I see no problem with that.

Kléber
15th February 2010, 23:14
Playing one imperialistic power off of another is a classical military strategy.
Indeed. But using that as an excuse to prostitute the Comintern of Lenin, which represented the political independence and international unity of the revolutionary proletariat, to alternate camps of imperialists in the interests of Soviet foreign policy, was revisionist to the core.


Besides, both sides knew the purpose of the division of Poland: To build up their armies and prepare for the inevitable.
The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact involved much more than Poland. All of Eastern Europe was partitioned (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Ribbentrop-Molotov.svg/800px-Ribbentrop-Molotov.svg.png) into imperialist-style spheres of influence.


The whole world knew a Soviet-Nazi war was coming.
It's easy to say that now, and of course a confrontation was inevitable, but the 1939 pact nevertheless had a heavy demoralizing effect on Communists around the world and precipitated the dissolution of the Comintern altogether in 1943.


How is banning the veil and giving women the same societal status of women chauvenistic? Females were allowed to show their face in public, and without the assistance of a male. If anything, it's feministic.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hujum
In addition to being a failure, this policy was a deviation from Soviet policies during Lenin's administration which respected the religious freedom of cultural minorities. Veiling is obviously reactionary, but stopping it is the task of the women themselves, whether in France today or Central Asia then.

BTW I meant Great Russian chauvinism, not male chauvinism. But since you mention it, the USSR did have some male chauvinist policies as well aimed at reinforcing the traditional bourgeois family model. In 1936, abortion was outlawed in the USSR. Women's freedom to divorce was also curtailed. Homosexuality was banned. All of that was a retreat from social gains which women and LGBT people had made in 1917.


The only people that were "forced" to resettle were former GULAG inmates and kulaks. You had free settlers and forced settlers.Actually, entire peoples were packed up and moved, with atrocious death rates en route, Manifest Destiny style. Between 1941 and 1948, roughly 3.3 million people were resettled in ethnic operations. The Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_transfer_in_the_Soviet_Union) is polluted with an obvious anticommunist slant, but it shows the extent. These policies were a retreat from Leninist principles, back to the imperialist forced migrations of the Czarist era.


If anything, the soviets were putting them to work instead of automatically executing them.
Quite a few political prisoners were deliberately worked and/or starved to death, and many of the deaths which were officially reported as exhaustion or fighting have since turned out to be executions. Death by exhaustion itself represented a form of torture, with an industrial application for the state of the victim's labor in dying.


It's putting criminals and saboteurs to work for the benefit of the peasantry and workers. I see no problem with that.I see a problem with socialists, who had fought alongside Lenin and were veterans of the 1917 revolution, and even their families, being effectively tortured to death for their suspected opposition to the revisionist bureaucracy.

However, political prisoners were a minority of GULAG inmates. Most prisoners in Siberia were, as you imply, petty criminals, often convicted under the "Misappropriation of Socialist Property Law." Don't even get me started on that.. I'mma let you finish, but Misappropriation of Socialist Property was one of the most revisionist anti-proletarian laws of all time. It was based on the assumption that socialism existed in the USSR, so therefore, any poor person who steals a loaf of bread to feed their family is a wrecker and an agent of Nazi/British imperialism and deserves to be shot or worked to death. Even gleaners, the poorest of the poor, were often summarily murdered under the "Law of Spikelets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Spikelets)."

Uppercut
17th February 2010, 02:33
Indeed. But using that as an excuse to prostitute the Comintern of Lenin, which represented the political independence and international unity of the revolutionary proletariat

The Comintern didn't seem so united. Zinoviev sided with whoever he thought would come out on top. First he was with Stalin and Kamenev to get rid of Trotsky. Once he lost the election at the 13th Party Congress, him and Kamenev started to distance themselves from Stalin. He later ran back to Trotsky until he was arrested after Kirov was murdered.
It seems like he didn't care who he was with. He just sided with whoever he thought would win him the most control.



The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact involved much more than Poland. All of Eastern Europe was partitioned (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Ribbentrop-Molotov.svg/800px-Ribbentrop-Molotov.svg.png) into imperialist-style spheres of influence.

I know, I was using Poland as an example.
But still, there wasn't much of a choice for either side on this one. Hitler always attacked communism since the first days of his political career, and he constantly made threats of invading the USSR. Wouldn't any qualified leader attempt to prolong a world war?



It's easy to say that now, and of course a confrontation was inevitable, but the 1939 pact nevertheless had a heavy demoralizing effect on Communists around the world and precipitated the dissolution of the Comintern altogether in 1943.

I think containing Hitler was more important at the time. I understand where you're coming from, though. It may have been a road bump in the proletarian cause, but I think the options were weighed somewhat reasonably.

As for the deportations, many of those transported were Eastern Europeans who came to the USSR in search of work. However, housing was insufficient and goods were not produced in sufficient quantity for millions of people.

However, deportation, in this day and age, would be unacceptable in a modern day socialist state, don't get me wrong.

Kléber
17th February 2010, 09:16
The Comintern didn't seem so united. Zinoviev sided with whoever ... he thought would win him the most control.
Well, I didn't really mean anything about Zinoviev and his personal political antics. I was talking about the zig-zagging course where the Comintern abandoned international revolution in favor of the Popular Front after 1934, then totally abandoned that in 1939, alienating all the liberal anti-fascist support that had been deliberately courted in the years prior, only to be disbanded altogether in 1943 to please the Allied imperialists.


I know, I was using Poland as an example.
But still, there wasn't much of a choice for either side on this one. Hitler always attacked communism since the first days of his political career, and he constantly made threats of invading the USSR. Wouldn't any qualified leader attempt to prolong a world war?
A non-aggression pact would have been one thing, but there were heavy political concessions in the abandonment of the Popular Front, KPD conciliation in Germany in which some members were briefly let out of the concentration camps until 1941, and also, the Soviet foreign ministry was purged of Jews to facilitate negotiations.


I think containing Hitler was more important at the time.
The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was an abandonment of the attempt to contain Hitler which had been the Popular Front. It was an accord with Hitler in the place of what had been a hoped-for accord with the Western Allies. Together with the abandonment of the Comintern four years afterwards, the delineation of imperialist style "spheres of influence" in the Pact with Hitler marked a clear abandonment of proletarian internationalism.


As for the deportations, many of those transported were Eastern Europeans who came to the USSR in search of work. However, housing was insufficient and goods were not produced in sufficient quantity for millions of people.

However, deportation, in this day and age, would be unacceptable in a modern day socialist state, don't get me wrong.
It was already deemed unacceptable in the days of Lenin. The RSFSR was wracked by no shortage of foreign-backed ethnic revolts conspiring with the White armies, but the Bolsheviks never carried out forced migrations in those days. That would have reeked of the old Czarist regime which often forced "troublesome" peoples to migrate. The forced migrations under Stalin can therefore not be blamed on the savageness of the times or what have you, since Lenin's administration had already shown that a revolutionary war and the construction of a revolutionary state can in fact be won without chauvinist barbarism.

Nathanromml
17th February 2010, 18:03
Stalin was a good man,on a good place,doing good job.
If only he hadn't had cooperated with allies in late stage of second world war.....

Kléber
17th February 2010, 19:34
Stalin was a good man,on a good place,doing good job.
If only he hadn't had cooperated with allies in late stage of second world war..I also think that, if the Party hadn't been decapitated in 1937-38, there would have been alternatives, and a stronger socialist voice to criticize all the revisionism and bureaucratism after WWII.