A Soviet view

Why capitalism

must accept coexistence

The author of this article is the director of the U.S.
Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences. The text pre-
sented here is a section of a larger article published in
Kommunist (No. 3, 1973) the theoretical organ of the
Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

By Georgi Arbatov

S iw question of what caused the changes in Soviet-
American relations is in itself quite important and
complex. For it concerns relations between states which
have for a long time been, in the eyes of the world public,
embodiments of the two opposing social systems, social-
ism and capitalism.

Taking into account the profundity and the character
of the contradictions existing between these two systems
and hence between the USSR and the USA, we are en-
titled to ask: what has brought about the shifts in rela-
tions between them, which for more than a quarter of a
century were characterized by sharp conflicts?

In answering this question it is important to see, in
the first place, that the changes in Soviet-American rela-
tions are the natural outcome of the major objective
changes which have taken shape in the world.

It is stressed in the documents of our Party and of
the international communist movement that the corre-
lation of forces in the world arena continues to change in
favor. of socialism. These changes affect all aspects of
social life and influence the policies of all states, the
main imperialist powers included. Speaking at the Inter-
national Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties in
Moscow in June 1969, L. I. Brezhnev stressed: ‘‘The
growth of socialism’s might, the abolition of colonial re-
gimes, and pressure by the working-class movement
increasingly influence the inner processes and policies
of imperialism. Many important features of modern
imperialism can be explained by the fact that it is com-
pelled to adapt itself to new conditions, to the conditions
of struggle between the two systems.”

Herein lies, as a matter of fact, one of the main
peculiarities of the present world situation. The latest
international events, including those that bear on Soviet-
American relations, suggest these conclusions, and show
that the change in the correlation of forces is not some
abstract formula, but a tangible reality which makes it
possible to secure major positive changes in the inter-
national situation. The important shift in the balance of
world forces and the new favorable opportunities it
opens up have been brought about in large measure by
the Soviet Union itself and by the entire socialist com-
munity, by the world working-class and liberation move-
ment, through their stubborn struggle and selfless
effort.

In this respect the possibility of successful talks
with the United States, of normalization of Soviet-Amer-
] 904 ed by the meeting of Gis and Soviet
troops at the Elbe River in Germany.

World War Il alliance was highlight-

eaaieee “

4 elk a =e , A : :
x é ee. A, 4 .
a ¥ ae see  *
¥ ie ¢ “S a, ee ae

_ e* se ee | hey
PACIFIC TRIBUNE—FRIDAY, AUGUST 24, 1973—PAGE 4

ican relations is an important result of the activity of
the Communist Party, the Soviet state, the entire Soviet
people to strengthen the economic and defense might of
the country, further to consolidate the unity of Soviet
society, and of the socialist community.

The latest international events have again forcefully
shed light on the fundamental distinction between social-
ism and imperialism in the political application of great-
er might. There can be no doubt that any change in the
correlation of forces in favor of imperialism would lead
to a growth and not relaxation of tension, would encour-
age imperialism in its aggressive aspirations. Contrari-
wise, the change in the correlation of forces in favor of
socialism has served the cause of peace and international
security. This is evidenced by the improvement of the
situation in Europe, by the normalization of Soviet-
American relations.

Thus, the positive changes in the international situ-
ation constitute a natural outcome not only of the
changed correlation of world forces, but also of the con-
sistent foreign policy line of the Soviet Union, the line of
the 24th Congress of the CPSU, which combines firm
rebuff to imperialism’s aggressive moves with a con-
structive policy of strengthening peace and promoting
international cooperation. The force, the Leninist wis-
dom of this line, lies in the fact that while expressing the
vital class interests of socialism, its humanist ideals, it
realistically takes into consideration not only the dan-
gers, but also the great new possibilities inherent in the
present political situation in the world. The tenor of the
foreign policy of the Soviet Union, from Lenin’s Decree
on Peace to the Peace Program put forward by-the 24th
Congress of the-Party, has always been determined by a
sincere striving to put an end to war and aggression, to
ensure peace and security for the peoples, to provide
the Soviet people and the peoples of the other socialist
countries with the most favorable conditions for building
a new society. However, the good-will of the Soviet Union

- and the other socialist countries was not enough to

achieve these aims. What was also needed was definite
objective prerequisites, and such prerequisites present-
ed themselves in our days. Only on this basis could there
appear that which is indispensable to a substantial im-
provement in the international situation: the willingness,

194

PRES. TRUMAN
pepuorare

CHURGHILES
WAR-MONGERING

Churchill's infamous “Iron Curtain”
speech in Fulton, Mo., provoked
demonstrations like this one in New
York.

agreement also of the other side, of the capitalist world,
to base its relations with the socialist world on the prin-
ciples of peaceful coexistence.

And if many of the imperialist powers are becoming
acceptable partners in the efforts to lessen the war
threat and normalize the international situation, this is
not at all because the class nature of their policy has
changed, which could not happen. What has changed is
the world in which the imperialist powers have to live
and act and it is to these, changes, to the objective reali-
ties of the present situation, that they have to adapt
their internal and foreign policies.

The U.S. ruling class is no exception in this respect.
Back in the late fifties and early sixties its more sober-

ve

minded part realizeu that reliance on military ¥! i t
over the socialist community was without fount he
and that a nuclear war would, in fact, be suicid Di
America. The course and outcome of U.S. aggresst a
Vietnam have shown that in the present condition
United States cannot hope for success in “‘lim! ita
“local” wars either, on which the American m! ‘rth
political doctrine of ‘flexible retaliation” relied 4
the end of the 1950s. In general, the entire COU’)
events at the end of the 1960s and beginning of the
called in question many foundations of U.S. foreig”
cy as shaped in the cold-war years.

Among these foundations was reliance on ne
arms as the main foreign-policy instrument. on fot
United States failed to retain its monopoly over U™"
and there appeared the countervailing, contait ‘th
fense might of the Soviet Union, a highly pecull@!
ation took shape in-which the buildup of military Fe
was not accompanied by any increase in political fe
In the words of the present National Security ®
to the U.S. President, Henry Kissinger, ‘“‘powe! no™
translates automatically into influence.”’ :

The point, however, is not only that under ©
correlation of forces in the world military pee
comes less and less applicable for the attainmen ‘i
political aims pursued by U.S. imperialism. wi a
connected only one, although very important, 21
the crisis of the traditional foundations of

Among the first Cold War smith 6
T 948 tims were Eugene Dennis, 4 Jol
Foster, Benjamin J. Davis 2" V6
liamson, Henry Winston andJé

wing 04)
olicy 3

foreign policy. The realization was gro
aspect, namely, that American foreign P
in the’ postwar years simply did not mee™ x,
spects, the challenge of the real problems ®
United States. This-policy was based on t
premise that communism .as representet jy {rly
place by the Soviet Union was the source oe stale’
and ‘difficulties, and that therefore Unit aly,
terests would be guaranteed the more secur”
effectively American policy and military "y
able to stand up to this adversary, conta :
minimum, and in the long run crushing it OP jit
However, the course of events increas ’
ed the untenability of .this primitive 2”
stereotype. Not only was it becoming eve? pro
to blame: “‘communist conspiracy” for © ‘ 4
cio-political changes taking place 10 As! of th i
Latin America and leading to the erosive sing! vit)
the apf" C

ance of American capital there. An ine
shape was being taken by new dangers
of American imperialism connected W!" 1 ate5 his!
tion of its contradictions with the Unit an

pal allies — Japan and the West Europe ne WO gh
with the intensification of competition 0° Evel ey |)
kets and in the monetary-financial SP err aise
thick-headed spokesmen for U.S. imper
longer see the ‘‘hand of Moscow” if
regard a military buildup and arm:

to them. tter
The new situation brought out the U by rab 4
of the concepts of the world dictat™ a