Maoist revisionism vs. Marxism-Leninism

[Unicorn]

I find this 1973 article a good summary of the Chinese foreign policy.



Pravda, 7 August 1973
I. ALEKSANDROV: IN THE INTERESTS OF PEACE AND SOCIALISM
(Translated excerpts)

...

The policy of the Chinese leadership continues in sharp discord
to the co-ordinated activity of the socialist states, designed
to consolidate peace and to strengthen the international positions
of socialism.

The PRC's widespread efforts on the international scene have left
the essence of Chinese policy and its aims unchanged, even though
the forms and methods of this policy have changed substantially,
and have become more dangerous. Casting off its
"ultrarevolutionary" ideological disguise, the Peking leadership is acting,
literally along all lines as a force hostile to the policy and
interests of the socialist world, at the same time becoming ever
more frequently the immediate ally of the most reactionary
imperialist circles.

In Europe, Peking is trying to counteract the entire policy of
the socialist countries, which is designed to strengthen security,
and it expects to come to terms, on an anti-Soviet platform, with
the "Common Market" and the NATO countries. In Asia, Africa,
and Latin America, Peking is continually intriguing against the
countries of the socialist community, forming blocs for this
purpose with anybody available. With respect to disarmament
questions, the Chinese leaders stick to the same positions as
the so-called military-industrial complex of the imperialist
great powers. In the United Nations, the Chinese
representatives sometimes find themselves in one and the same company with fascist Portugal and the racist South African regime, merely in
order to hamper some Soviet initiative.

Not a day passes that the Chinese leaders do not engage in
feverish attempts to slander the Soviet Union and the other
fraternal countries, casting aspersions on their common foreign
policy and trying to drive them apart.

It is with particular persistence that the Peking politicians and
propagandists are spreading the theory of "the two superpowers"
which have allegedly reached an agreement and want to impose
their will upon all other countries. This false premise, which
is taken up by the anti-Sovietists of all kinds and shades,
testifies more strikingly than anything else to Peking's complete
renunciation of class principles in international politics, to
its full break with Marxism-Lenninism, and to its complete
departure from the common policy of the socialist countries.

[page 67]

The communists struggle for the unity of the socialist countries
and the young national states against imperialism, in the interest
of peace and social and national progress. To counterbalance
this line, Peking pushes forward another line, which pits the
so-called "superpowers"-irrespective of their social systems
and the concrete contents of their policies-against the small
and medium-sized countries which, of course, are completely
heterogeneous in the political respect. As a matter of fact, all
this demagoguery about "superpowers" serves as a cloak for Peking's
unprincipled compact with the bourgeois states, and as a
justification for the hegemonistic pretensions of the Chinese leaders
to leadership of the third world.

Peking has now turned the spearhead of its undermining activity
against the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries. This
activity is hostile to the interests of international socialism
and of the national liberation movement. The Chinese leadership
is trying to present this point in such way as if the issue were
"national" disagreements between the Soviet Union and China. As
a matter of fact, the Maoist leadership is waging a struggle from
social-chauvinistic positions against the principles of
Marxism-Leninism and against the program of the struggle against
imperialism and for peace, democracy, and socialism, a program collectively
prepared at the international conferences of communists of 1957,
1960, and 1969.

During the past few years, the Soviet Union has repeatedly come
out with constructive proposals for improving Soviet-Chinese
relations. However, all these proposals have either been rejected
by the Chinese leadership, or have been left unanswered........

[Unicorn]

Debunking Maoist lies about the theory of peaceful coexistence:



1. Peaceful Coexistence -- The Marxist-Leninist View

The bloc's "ideologically negative" experiments in East-West
co-operation and the dangers inherent in broadening contacts with
the West have also determined to a great extent the "positive"
message and the main targets of the campaign. At the center of its
interest, of course, lies the principle of peaceful coexistence.
This principle is destined to be the foundation stone of East-West
relations, and one of the main endeavors of the campaign is
therefore to ram into everyone's mind, in East and West alike, the bloc's
own interpretation of what it means. Once the Marxist-Leninist
concept of this principle is understood, all other ideological issues
relevant to East-West co-operation can be resolved more easily --
at least this is the regimes' speculative view of their intricate
task. Statements, commentaries, and essays on this subject have
accentuated eight main features of bloc thinking on this matter.

a) Peaceful coexistence does not mean that one does nothing
to avoid war. It requires determination by the participants to
settle all outstanding international problems at the conference
table and to seek mutually advantageous co-operation in the political,
economic, scientific-technological, and cultural fields. But this

-----------------------------
(7) Miklos Ovari, "Several Practical Problems of Mass
Political Work After the November 1972 CC Resolution,"
Bulletin der Botschaft der Ungarischen Volksrepublik
In the DDR (East Berlin), 26 April 1973. The excerpt
is translated from the German text.

[page 14]

co-operation is limited to interstate relations; it does not
affect class warfare and the ideological struggle between the two
opposing systems. Class warfare cannot cease so long as classes exist;
and ideological peace, or the reconciliation of ideologies, is
incompatible with their very nature. Even if agreements were
reached to this effect, they could not end the struggle between
ideologies, because ideologies by definition can never be at peace:
"their role is to shape the thinking of the masses and, sooner or
later, to find expression in the deeds and acts of the masses."

b) In this sense, peaceful coexistence is a new, historical
form of the continuation of class warfare and ideological
conflict in an uninterrupted confrontation between the two systems --
a form, however, which permits the avoidance of war, the
limitation of the arms race, etc.[8] The avoidance of war with the West
must not be construed as a sanctioning of the "capitalist" social
system or as a recognition that it has a right to exist. Its fate
will be decided "by the processes which are developing within the [capitalist]
states" and no socialist can be uninterested in this matter. [9]
Furthermore, peaceful coexistence does not simply mean the absence
of war and the continuation of class warfare and the ideological
struggle, but a constant sharpening of the two.

Is there a contradiction here? The answer is no, for two
reasons. First, with the broadening of political d�tente, the
contradictions and tensions implicit in the relationship of the
two systems will increasingly shift to, and manifest themselves
in, the ideological field. Secondly, an atmosphere of political
trust between the two worlds presupposes the "unmasking of the
confusions about socialism disseminated by the bourgeois ideologists."

c) Consequently, Western efforts to extent peaceful
coexistence to cover ideologies and class warfare are inconsistent with
the very nature of that concept, or with the realities of historical
progress. Those who preach the reconciliation of ideologies in

----------------------------
(8) Of. Brezhnev's recent statement:
The CPSU has proceeded and still proceeds from the
premise that the class struggle of the two systems
--capitalist, and. socialist-- in the sphere of economics,
politics, and, of course, ideology will continue. It
cannot be otherwise because the world outlook and class
objectives of socialism and capitalism are opposite and
irreconcilable. But we shall strive to ensure that this
historically inevitable struggle is channeled in a
direction which does not threaten wars, dangerous conflicts,
and an uncontrolled arms race.

As quoted by Novoye Vremya (Moscow), 4 May 1973.

[9] Dr. Rolf Otto, "Peaceful Coexistence as a Form of Class
Struggle," Deutsche Lehrerzeitung (East Berlin), January
1973; Moskovskaya Pravda (Moscow), 26 July 1973.

[page 15]

reality want to "falsify the essence of peaceful coexistence," to
"change it into a sort of Trojan horse," to "enforce the
ideological capitulation of socialism}1 etc. One of their main sources
of inspiration is the concept of convergence, a fallacious myth
based on a (nonexisting)common denominator beneath the two systems.
Even under the circumstances of today "capitalism remains
capitalism and socialism remains socialism," and an intensification of
their conflict is unavoidable. "No one can dismiss, or escape
from, this struggle, which is a major characteristic of our era."[10]

d) It comes as no surprise to find that the same Western
forces which want to extend the scope of peaceful coexistence to
include ideology have in fact stepped up their ideological
campaign against the socialist countries, and have used "illegal
methods" of doing so. A typical example is the freer flow proposal
which -- if accepted in its original form -- would open the door
to the ideological subversion of the East mainly through radio
programs and possibly by the introduction of satellite TV
transmissions,[11] as well as by misusing human contacts and other
cultural exchanges. This is interference in the internal affairs of
the socialist countries, and resembles cold war tactics.[12]

What is even worse, the West expects this issue to take up much
of the security conference's time. But this European convention
was never intended to spend its energies in ideological debate.
Co-operation in Europe can be based only on the recognition of the
existing situation, which includes the fact that on the continent
there are two different socioeconomic systems, and it is not the
task of the security conference to alter existing realities: "The
creation of the hoped-for European security system will not put an
end to the ideological-political division of Europe; rather, on
a basis of the recognition of the dissimilarity of the social
system [the conference] will work out certain practical norms of
contact in Europe."[13]

e) The socialist countries realize, of course, that
peaceful coexistence and all-European co-operation are inevitably linked
with an increase in human contacts and cultural exchanges which

----------------------------
(10) Heinz Geggel, "No Ideological Cease Fire," Einheit
(East Berlin), January 1973; Krasnaya Zvezda (Moscow)
21 July 1973.

(11) V. Jirasek, "The United Nations Organization and the
Ideological Struggle," Tribuna (Prague), 4 July 1973.

(12) E.g., Y. Nikolayev, "Co-operation and Ideological
Confrontation," International Affairs (Moscow) No.4, 1973.

(13) Gabor Suto's contribution to a discussion on "The
Characterization of Present International Power
Relations," Nemzetkozi Szemle "(Budapest) No.l, 1973.

[page 16]

is -- In principle -- perfectly compatible with their own concept
of peaceful coexistence and d�tente. The big question is: what
should be the content of these exchanges and how should they be
carried out? The promoters of the freer flow proposal think in
terms of importing decadent culture and subversive material, and
the simultaneous development of the socialist countries'
ideological offensive is justified by the intensification of the
ideological struggle in general and by the West's stepping up of
its antisocialist campaign in particular. The aim of the
socialist offensive is not only to protect Marxism-Leninism against
bourgeois influence but also to assist the workers' movement in its
world-wide struggle against the bourgeoisie -- in short, to help
defeat "bourgeois ideology" and thus "create the conditions needed
for the political victory of the workers' movement."[14]

The difference between the two ideological offensives is that
while the West disseminates misinformation, slander, and national
liatre, and misuses East-West co-operation, the socialists are
engaged in an honest, objective propagation of the advantages of
the socialist system and of the true, oppressive nature of
"capitalism." From this angle, the West's behavior is not ideological
struggle at all, but a continuation of the cold war, while the
socialist campaign is fully in accord with the requirements of
peace and progress, and is in line with the principles of
peaceful coexistence and of international law. [15]

f) The first positive achievements of the policy of
peaceful coexistence -- the Ostvertraege, Nixon's adherence to the
principle of coexistence, Brezhnev's summit diplomacy, and the
staging of the CSCE -- are not the result (as many erroneously
believe) of changes in the nature of "capitalism" nor are they the
result of the Soviet Union, as the leader of the bloc, acting from
a position of weakness. The contrary is true. The policy of
peaceful coexistence is successful because the international balance of
power has shifted to the advantage of the socialist countries owing
to their consolidated power and consolidated actions. They are
new in a position where they can impose their policy on the West,
which has thus been compelled to accept the rules of the game of
peaceful coexistence diplomacy. Naturally, the economic factor,
especially the critical industrial power, situation, in the United
States, has also had a role to play.

On the other hand, the West's acceptance of contemporary
realities should not be regarded as final. The revanchist,
reactionary, cold war voices are still very strong in NATO (as the

---------------------------
(14) J. Kucera, "Ideological Offensive," Tribuna (Prague),
20 June 1973.

(15) Nikolayev, op.cit.

[page 17]

freer flow proposal shows); the political integrationists have
not given up their struggle in the Common Market; and the CSCE
idea still has many powerful antagonists in the West, treacherously
encouraged by Chinese diplomacy.

Nor should one ignore those who dream of "selective
coexistence." These people would normalize relations with the powerful
Soviet Union and leave out in the cold Moscow's East European
partners; some of them would even increase contacts with one
or two small members of the bloc at the expense of the rest. In
the bloc's view, the real aim behind all such efforts is to split
the unity of the socialist community and bring the small
countries "back into Europe." But, as one Soviet writer put it:

This approach is tantamount to a total rejection of
peaceful coexistence. It is impermissible and dangerous to
pursue a realistic policy toward certain socialist countries
and a policy of military pressure, intimidation, blockade,
and aggression toward others. The principle of peaceful
coexistence is as indivisible as peace. It is universal in
nature and equally valid in relations among all states
belonging to the different social systems.[16]

g) To ensure the continuation of the policy of peaceful
coexistence, the socialist countries must maintain their strength,
including military power, and continue to consolidate their
all-round unity. But the fact that the Soviet bloc has attained a
favorable position in East-West relations does not mean that its
members, including the Soviet Union, will not make concessions to
the other side or accept compromise solutions.

East-West co-operation is built on the prospect of mutually
advantageous agreements, which are only possible if both sides are
willing to give up something. Agreements with the West, however,
have always to be viewed from a long-term, historical viewpoint:
if they contribute to the. "improvement of socialist class objectives,"
if they "create more favorable conditions for international class
warfare," mutual concessions are always acceptable to
Marxist-Leninists. [17] This is fully in line with Lenin's teaching:

--------------------------
(16) A Sovetov, "Peaceful Coexistence, a Real Factor in
International Relations," Mezhdun aro dn ay a Zhi zn (Moscow),
No.8, 1972.

(17) E.g., R. Garai, "The New Conditions and Phenomena of the
Policy of Peaceful Coexistence," Partelet (Budapest),
September 1972.

[page 18]

negotiations with the West are conducted by the socialist states
in order to achieve "movement forward" with the intention of
selecting "the most effective path to the planned objective in the given
situation.

Under no circumstances, however, can agreements with the
bourgeois governments impose obstacles to or limitations on the
ideological struggle of the socialist regimes. The Ostvertraege
concluded with the West Germany of Wily Brandt cannot provide an
excuse to abandon or even to limit the ideological struggle against
social democratic reformism. This is one of the cardinal points in
the "dialectics of peaceful coexistence."[18]

h) Last but not least: the Soviet bloc regimes have deemed
it particularly important to emphasize that the policy of peaceful
coexistence is not an ad hoc undertaking or an adventurous
experiment by the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact partners. The key
principles of this policy were elaborated by Lenin himself, and it was
he who implemented them for the first time in the foreign policy of
the young Soviet state. The 2 3rd CPSU Congress reaffirmed the
validity of peaceful coexistence, and its successor instructed the
CC to "continue consistently to apply in practice the principle of
peaceful coexistence, and to expand mutually advantageous links with
the capitalist countries." The mandate of the CPSU was endorsed by
other members of the Soviet bloc, and peaceful coexistence has thus
become the common policy of the whole bloc in its relations to
non-socialist states, and above all to the West. The policy of
peaceful coexistence is therefore the Leninist answer to the question of
how to resolve many practical problems connected with East-West
co-operation.

--------------------------
(18) Some of our propagandists have not yet mastered the
dialectics of peaceful coexistence, which are founded on
the premise that we may negotiate and conclude political
agreements with bourgeois governments without prejudice
to our ideological position. The fact that we conduct
diplomatic negotiations, with a country of social democratic
rule does not force us to limit our criticism of social
democracy or our attacks on the ideology of bourgeois
reformism, etc. This limitation of criticism is exactly
what our adversaries would like in order to weaken our
ideological fight. The theory that our ideological
struggle will "damage" negotiations is false.... As a
matter of fact certain Western countries negotiate with
us even though their anticommunist attacks -- for example,
some rather crude political attacks against Czechoslvoakia --
have never ceased. (Kucera, op.cit.)

[page 19]

The above analysis of the doctrine of peaceful coexistence
cannot be concluded without a short comment on this last point.
The regimes' contention that they are putting into practice the
Leninist idea of peaceful coexistence is true only with certain
limitation's. In the Khrushchev era, for instance, peaceful
coexistence underwent severe modifications and (something which is not
without interest today) one of them affected the role of ideology.
It was not Lenin but Khrushchev who firmly laid down that peaceful
coexistence does not include ideology and that it is in fact another form
of class warfare on the international scale: while states can
coexist and co-operate on the interstate level, and especially in
the economic and political domains, the ideological conflict between
the two systems will not diminish, but intensify. This modified
Khrushchevian interpretation of peaceful coexistence, with the
accent on the sharpening of the ideological struggle, was upheld
by the 1969 Moscow Conference of Communist and Workers1 Parties,[19]
and endorsed with even more emphasis on ideology by the current
Soviet bloc campaign. The exclusion of ideology from the field of
influence of peaceful coexistence is one of the major preoccupations
of the Soviet bloc regimes today, and it creates numerous obstacles
on the long road to East-West co-operation.

--------------------------
(19) "The defense of peace is inseparably linked up with the
struggle to compel the imperialists to accept peaceful
coexistence between states with different social systems,
which demands observance of the principles of the sovereignty,
equality, and territorial inviolability of every state,
big and small.....

"This policy does not imply either the preservation of the
sociopolitical status quo or a weakening of the ideological
struggle. It helps to promote the class struggle against
imperialism on a national and world-wide scale. A determined
class struggle for the abolition of monopolies and their
dominance, for the institution of a genuinely democratic
system, and for the establishment of socialist power,
whatever may be the road leading to this goal, is the
inalienable right and duty of the working people and their
communist parties in the capitalist countries. The Communists
of the world are in solidarity with this just battle.

[Unicorn]

Maoism = Nationalism



One of the most significant successes of the world socialist system is the practical affirmation of the Marxist-Leninist thesis that the disappearance of 189class antagonisms would bring about the disappearance of national antagonisms, that
barriers and enmity between peoples would be broken down and that real fraternal friendship would replace them. The development of cooperation between the fraternal states based on the principles of international relations of a new type leads to a growing unity and convergence of nations, to the strengthening of all forms of cooperation, to mutual aid in economic and cultural development and to increased cultural exchange.

p
The increased social and political unity of a nation leads to increased feelings of patriotism. Only in a socialist society does a nation really feel itself united, only here consciousness, will and action are fully integrated. This is one of the most impressive advantages of socialism over capitalism which not only divides people, but whole nations and states.

p
Today internationalism is the fundamental principle in relations between the socialist nations. On the basis of objective changes in the position of -the working people and of the educational work done by the Marxist-Leninist parties a new national consciousness has been formed which is based on the unity of socialist patriotism and internationalism. But even after the bourgeoisie have been overthrown and the foundations of socialism laid, nationalist prejudices still remain, although the class basis for nationalism has essentially disappeared. Nationalism, national egoism and national parochialism do not disappear automatically, for they are among the most stubborn survivals that remain in 190the
thinking of politically immature people. During the building of a developed socialist society the existence of these survivals becomes particularly intolerable. They hold up the development of socialist society and impede the communist internationalist education of the working people. Nationalism, as events in Hungary in 1956 and in Czechoslovakia in 1968 have shown, remains a powerful weapon in the hands of the forces of counter-revolution. At the International Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties in 1969 J. Kadar said: “There is no doubt that nationalism is the most dangerous of bourgeois views, particularly that form of nationalism which is expressed in anti-Sovietism." [190•1 The formation and proliferation of an internationalist consciousness in the socialist countries can be achieved only through a systematic struggle with all forms and survivals of nationalism.

p
A successful struggle with nationalism requires knowledge of the factors which cause national prejudices to arise or remain. These can be classified as either objective or subjective.

p
The historical development of the modern socialist countries from the point of view of their national relations was very complex. Most of the peoples in the socialist countries engaged in national liberation struggle against foreign domination which lasted for centuries. This encouraged the development of 191powerful national feeling on which bourgeois nationalism fed like a parasite. It was under conditions of bourgeois domination that the ruling class pursued a
policy of national division and, in a number of cases, encouraged national enmity. For example, the various nationalities in the Balkans were largely isolated and hostile to one another, while national contradictions and territorial problems existed between Czechoslovakia, Germany, Hungary, and Poland. And under capitalism economic relations between what are now the socialist countries were very weakly developed.

p
As a result of the policies pursued by the ruling bourgeoisie even relations between the nationalities within individual states were not normal. This was particularly true of tsarist Russia, which Lenin described as “the prison of peoples”. Numerous problems were caused by relations between the Czechs and the Slovaks, and between the German, Hungarian, Polish and Ukrainian minorities and the main population in Czechoslovakia, the Polish, Ukrainian and Byelorussian population in Poland and the Romanians and Hungarians in Romania, etc. These national contradictions also concealed traces of mutual distrust of neighbouring peoples.

p
The Second World War and the fascist expansion led to a sharp aggravation of national relations in Europe. At the same time, when many peoples were enslaved and some threatened with the real danger of national genocide, the national liberation movement grew to a hitherto unheard of size under slogans of patriotism and national regeneration. And in the countries of Central and South-Eastern Europe it 192was the proletariat that became the leader of this
national liberation struggle, which was a fight not only for national liberation, but, in the final analysis, for social liberation.

p
After the Second World War there was a strengthening of national elements in the policies and ideologies of many countries. In the first place this was the result of the collapse of the imperialist colonial system and the rise of dozens of new national states. Tliis growth of national feeling was in many countries increased by the ’threat that they would become more and more dependent on the leading imperialist powers. The national factor also made itself felt in connection with the rapid and all-round development of national life and the increased independence and might of the socialist countries. Thus the growth of national self-awareness among those peoples that entered the path of socialism could in certain circumstances become fertile soil for the parasitic vestiges of nationalism. It is a well-known fact that the revolution in the people’s democracies went peacefully. The members of the former exploiter classes, though relinquishing their political and economic positions, not only retain their former ideological beliefs for long, but even strive to extend their own influence at the first signs of weakness in the ideological influence of the ruling Marxist-Leninist parties. In a number of cases this section of the population acts as a vehicle of bourgeois nationalist ideology, which is characterized by distrust of and enmity towards other peoples. And whenever the possibility presents itself they do what they can to infect society 193with their views and exploit the vestiges of national distrust and mutual resentment that still exist among the working people.

p
In some cases, even after the foundations of socialism are laid, there still exists the social environment for petty-bourgeois nationalism. And this is not only the stratum of the small-scale proprietors, which in most of the socialist countries is rather weak. Petty-bourgeois ideology can also affect the socialist classes. The cooperative peasantry is formed from former farm owners and for this reason only gradually rids itself of its former views. The working class, which during the period of socialist industrialization grew considerably, was formed chiefly from the peasantry, i.e. the petty bourgeoisie, and these also introduce, if only temporarily, their own views. After the victory of the socialist revolution in the overwhelming majority of socialist countries a considerable proportion of the population was made up from the petty-bourgeois strata. And the danger of a revival of petty-bourgeois nationalism was the greater, the more backward the country was when its transition to socialism occurred.

p
The existence of petty-bourgeois views and morality can also lead to the appearance of new forms of manifestation of nationalism. And this is partly encouraged by the close proximity of the capitalist world. Furthermore, the improvement in living standards sometimes gives rise to phenomena that are incompatible with socialist principles and morality such as a consumer attitude to life, dreams of pettybourgeois affluence, individualism, and careerism, 194which
are characteristic of certain strata in the new society. Social egoism of this kind contributes to the retention of national, egoistic prejudices. Lenin laid particular stress on their tenacity when he wrote: “These prejudices are bound to die out very slowly, for they can disappear only after imperialism and capitalism have disappeared in the advanced countries, and after the entire foundation of the backward countries’ economic life has radically changed." [194•1

p
The particular danger of petty-bourgeois nationalism consists in the fact that in certain circumstances it can become a weapon in the hands of anti-socialist forces as they try to increase their influence on the masses and inflame nationalistic passions.

p
The objective cause for the retention of nationalist vestiges in the human consciousness and psychology is the lag that exists between the consciousness of the individual and socio-economic development, which is itself a consequence of the uneven development of the different aspects of social life.

p
In certain social conditions, particularly those that are critical, an intensification of nationalistic views and an increase in nationalistic feelings are possible.

p
External ideological influence has a considerable effect on the retention of nationalist vestiges. And first and foremost among such external influence is the ideological subversion practised by imperialism. As L. I. Breznev pointed out at the 24th CPSU Congress, “It is precisely the nationalistic tendencies, 195especially those which assume the form of anti–Sovietism, that bourgeois ideologists and bourgeois propaganda have placed most reliance on in their fight against
socialism and the communist movement." [195•1

p
Imperialist propaganda concentrates on inflaming nationalist feelings in an attempt to destabilize socialist society and break the unity of the socialist countries. By means of the thesis of national pluralism in the socialist countries it tries to show that their unity is impossible. Imperialist propaganda absolutizes the differences that exist between the socialist countries. It tries to show that Marxism–Leninism is incompatible with free national development and presents the struggle against nationalism as if it were the liquidation of all national characteristics.

p
In the first place imperialism tries to weaken the ties between the socialist countries and their main support, the Soviet Union. Therefore, anti-Sovietism holds the most important place in imperialist propaganda. It falsifies the foundations on which Soviet foreign policy is built, claiming that it is hegemonistic and full of great-power chauvinism. Bourgeois propaganda distorts the integration of socialist society as nothing more than increasing the dependence of the socialist countries on the Soviet Union. The United States conducts its ideological warfare through a powerful apparatus consisting of tens of thousands of specialists in ideology, politics and 196psychological warfare, an apparatus
where political information on thousands and thousands of Communists is collected.

p
Under the consistent process of detente and with the development of cooperation between states with different social systems the direct confrontation between opposing ideologies on the national question—proletarian internationalism and bourgeois nationalism—will continue to increase. The expansion of cultural and scientific exchange and tourism is used by the reactionary forces of imperialism to further their ideological subversion which they try to conceal under the guise of the “free and unlimited exchange of people and information”.

p
Nationalism is also helped to survive by its close links with other vestiges of the past such as religious prejudices and regionalism. L. I. Brezhnev noted that “It should also be borne in mind that nationalistic tendencies are often interwoven with parochial attitudes, which are akin to nationalism." [196•1 This close kinship is based on exclusive concern with local, regional and national interests and underestimation of the interests of society as a whole.

p
Nationalist vestiges also make their appearance in cultural life. This is expressed in the idealization of and in an uncritical attitude towards the past, in glossing over the class contradictions in the history of a nation and in not taking a class approach to the evaluation of a nation’s cultural heritage. An 197uncritical attitude to the historical past is one of the most widespread forms of national parochialism.

p
Even in the sphere of international relations there are a number of factors which may give rise to national prejudice. In particular there are the differences in the level of economic development among the socialist countries, which apart from other historical reasons could cause the appearance of national prejudices there. It is precisely as a result of these differences that certain strata in the more developed socialist countries may begin to feel superior to their less developed socialist neighbours.

p
There are also objective difficulties which accompany the formation of the historically new relation* between the socialist countries that are based on proletarian internationalism. Some of these are exploited for propaganda purposes by imperialist circles in an attempt to disrupt the unity and cooperation between the socialist countries.

p
There is a growing number of complex problems which the socialist countries can solve only on the basis of a joint, coordinated approach. And at the same time in the course of cooperation between the fraternal states there may be different points of view on how to handle this cooperation. In this situation national distinctions could give rise to contradictions between the national state interests of individual countries and between their international and national interests. Understanding the whole complexity of national and international interests requires a high degree of class consciousness and mastery of the principles of Marxism-Leninism. An insufficiently 198developed socialist consciousness in
a certain part of the population could lead to false fears that the sovereignty of the fraternal states in conditions of their mutual cooperation might be limited or that their national interests might be “subordinated” to international interests. This could prove fertile ground for nationalist feeling.

p
Historical experience shows that the communist parties that are opportune in their condemnation of all manifestations of nationalism and combat them systematically and consistently preclude the possibility of these phenomena becoming a serious danger. Socialism by its very nature creates the objective conditions for the scientific control of national processes in their conjunction with international processes. The realization of this potential in practice depends on the policy of the ruling communist parties and on their ability to solve these problems in all their complexity. Therefore even here mistakes are not excluded in theory and practice or a subjectivist approach to national and international objectives and interests.

p
In particular, violation of the Leninist principles of national policy and subjective political mistakes can be the cause of nationalism, nationalist leanings and deviations from the solution of international tasks. The most serious consequences result from violation of the principle of equality. In Czechoslovakia, for example, violation of the principle of equality between the Czech and the Slovak nations led to grudges, distrust and alienation between them. Distrust between the peoples in a multi-national 199socialist state can lead to violation of the Leninist principles of personnel selection, with the various nations and nationalities not being given proportional representation in the different
political and economic bodies. Similarly insufficient ideological work, particularly underestimation of the importance of the internationalist education of the working people can also cause the spread of nationalism.

p
A subjective shortcoming in patriotic and internationalist education is the one-sided overemphasis on patriotism which leads to the formation of a national consciousness without regard for international obligations.

p
Any deviation from the correct combination of the national and the international in the politics of each ruling Marxist-Leninist party can not only complicate relations between the socialist countries but also engender nationalistic prejudices. The General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, Gustav Husak, emphasized this when he said at the Moscow International Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties in 1969 that “our own experience and the experience of the other fraternal parties affirms that serious harm can be done to the combination of national and international interests by deformations of a dogmatic or revisionist character. The dogmatic ‘leftist’ approach absolutizes the force of international views and does not give sufficient attention to the force of specifically national characteristics in the development of socialist society. Revisionist, right-opportunist concepts, on the other hand, give a one-sided preference for so-called 200‘national positions’ and tend to weaken the joint struggle of the socialist countries." [200•1

p
Certain socialist countries allow the publication of works that distort the dialectics of the national and the international in relations between the fraternal countries. Absolutizing the independence of a country is frequently the cause of its indifference to the situation in the other socialist countries and its lack of willingness to help them or learn from their experience. Any criticism of the activities of communist parties is interpreted by the adherents of such an attitude as “interference in internal affairs”. This kind of concept of independence creates the conditions for national isolation.

p
A policy of trying to build socialism in isolation from the world socialist system runs counter to the objective laws of the development of socialist society and particularly to the law that governs the internationalization of economic and social life under socialism. In the economic sphere such a policy leads to a waste of social labour, a slowing down of economic development rates and dependence on the capitalist world. Its political harmfulness consists in the fact that it upsets the unity of the socialist countries in their struggle against world imperialism. Attempts to build socialism in isolation lead to considerable difficulties, which cannot be overcome without reliance on the economic and political forces of the whole of socialist society.
201

p
Specifically national elements are made much of in the so-called theory of “polycentrist” proletarian and socialist internationalism. This concept stresses differentiation, which is explained not only by the increasing variety of forms in which the world revolutionary process appears, but also by the manifestations of nationalism in this process. The concept, as it were, sanctions national disagreements and instead of trying to overcome them suggests that they will become even stronger in the future. The “polycentrist" concept of internationalism does not help to strengthen unity within the world socialist system. On the contrary, it gives rise to centrifugal tendencies.

p
Violation of the dialectics of the national and the international is also found in the process of solving the problem of the correlation between national and international interests. It is a great mistake to adopt an opportunist approach to national interests which gives preference to immediate, partial and more often than not imaginary advantages instead of the fulfilment of long-term objectives and interests.

p
Nationalist tendencies are particularly dangerous for the development of socialism when right or left opportunists overwhelm the leadership of the ruling communist party. The connection between opportunism and nationalism was pointed out by Lenin long ago when he said: “The ideological and political affinity, connection, and even identity between opportunism and social-nationalism are beyond doubt." [201•1
202

p
Today nationalism is a characteristic feature of both right- and left-wing opportunism. The inner connection between opportunism and nationalism consists in the fact that both these phenomena are the product of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideas in the working-class movement. “Under the dictatorship of the proletariat, " L. I. Brezhnev noted, “revisionists and opportunists reflect the pressure of nonproletarian, bourgeois and petty-bourgeois strata, the pressure that results from the force of habit, from the views and vestiges of the past, particularly those that are nationalistic." [202•1

p
Both opportunism and nationalism exaggerate the specifically national characteristics and deny the importance of the international. And this provides the ideological kinship between right and “left” revisionism. In rejecting the class approach, the revisionists understand national unity as a supra-class entity, whereas in fact national interests can only be correctly understood from a socialist position in their organic link with internationalism.

p
As it has been pointed out in the Programme of the Bulgarian Communist Party, nationalism that results from opportunism in the leadership of the ruling party, “may become state policy, corrupting the masses, impeding the building of socialism and the development of socialist education and undermining the unity and might of the world socialist system 203and the international communist and working-class movement". [203•1

p
Serious damage has been done to world socialism and the communist movement by the anti-Marxist policy and subversive activities of Maoism, which in its concentrated form expresses great-power chauvinism and anti-Sovietism. The vast breadth and depth of nationalism in China have a historical and socioeconomic basis. It is rooted in the traditional concept of Chinese ethnocentrism, which sees China as isolated from the rest of the world and at the same time the centre of world civilization. It is a concept which propounds the superiority of the Han nation and continues to pursue the great-power chauvinist policy that for centuries characterized the emperors, militarists and followers of Chiang Kaishek. Nationalism in China has grown deep through centuries of backwardness, through the low level of development of the productive forces and through the small size and influence of the working class on political life.

p
But the main cause of the unrestrained nationalism in China today is the fact that the anti-Marxist ideas of Mao Zedong have been persistently forced on to the Communist Party of China and raised to the level of party and state policy under conditions of military-bureaucratic dictatorship, the virtual liquidation of the party, and the carrying out of mass repressions, including the systematic persecution of communists-internationalists.
204

p
Maoism is a reactionary nationalist ideology veiled in Marxist terminology. As L. I. Brezhnev noted at the 25th Congress of the CPSU, “it is far too little to say that Maoist ideology and policy are incompatible with Marxist-Leninist teaching; they are directly hostile to it". [204•1 The essence of Maoist policy in the field of international relations consists in greatpower hegemonistic aspirations, which have been shown clearly over the last two decades by the expansionist claims of the Chinese leadership on the territories of neighbouring sovereign states, by their desire to establish Chinese domination over the Third World, by the increased militarization of the country and the fanning of military psychosis, and by the attempts to foist Maoist ideology and politics on the various contingents of the world revolutionary movement by means of open intervention in internal affairs and subversion.

p
The Maoists see the might and unity of the Soviet Union and the world socialist community as the main obstacle on the path of their perfidious aims. Hence their blatant anti-Sovietism and readiness to form a bloc with the most reactionary imperialist circles against the Soviet Union and the socialist community.

p
Great-power chauvinism and nationalism weaken the world socialist system and harm the international communist and working-class movement and the national liberation struggle.
205

In the socialist countries there are no classes or social groups with an interest in preserving nationalist prejudices. Nationalist manifestations in socialist society are from the historical point of view transitory and connected first and foremost with the heritage of the past and the influence of the capitalist world on the socialist countries. These negative phenomena can only be completely got rid of by means of a purposeful, active and energetic struggle against all forms of nationalism.
http://leninist.biz/en/1982/SI507/4.2-Nationalism.in.the.Socialist.Countries

[Dros]

Wow.

The USSR didn't like China after the split. Bravo.