K's dogma disarms the workers

threat of nuclear destruction. To oppose it gives the impression of favouring war or, at least, to believe in the inevitability of a war of mutual annihilation between the two contending camps.

Of course, unmasking talk of co-existence as part of the Soviet conspiracy for world domination is a favourite exercise of professional anti-communists of one kind or another. The question for us, however, is does this dogma disarm the working class or prepare it for struggle, does it contribute to the overthrow of capitalism or serve to prolong its life?

The fact that the question of peaceful co-existence is now being pushed by the Khrushchevite propagandists in a big way is attributable to a number of factors.

A big build up for renewed summit talks is now under way. At the same time, the split with China consummated at the 22nd Congress makes it imperative to meet criticism in the world communist movement and within the USSR.

Peaceful co-existence has, therefore, to be decked out as a basic principle of Leninism and shown to be an instrument of class struggle-though not in such a way as to justify the bourgeois critics who all along have considered it a tactical weapon to spread 'communism'!

To square this circle and serve up these insipid ingredients in some palatable dish taxes the ingenuity of the best theoreticians of the Khrushchev school.

For example, Inozentsev, in a Pravda' article, has to begin with Stalin's basic principle of "socialism in one country', give it a dressing of Leninism and show how really world socialism will come about through the decomposition of imperialism and the force of the USSR's example.

According to this 'theorist'. 'peace' and revolution' are practically synonymous terms. Strong doses of the former will more or less quickly despatch 'It was not accidental that for tecades we had 10 works volitical economy history of any what Is thou philosophy worthwhile significance.' The g b i com 3963 Ilyichov, at 22nd Congress Revolution 24,1961 CPSU Betrayed Read Trotsky's classic analysis of Soviet Union, its origins, betrayal, its future.

Available from:

New Park Publications Ltd.

186a Clapham High St., S.W.4 Price 11s. 6d. (soft cover), l6s. (hard cover), postage paid of history. He proclaims that 'the struggle for peace is the most important practical task.

This means that the world Communist parties are to harness themselves to this 'practical task'— finding allies among the 'peace-loving' bourgeoisie to assist in curbing the war-like tendencies of imperialism.

The insistence with which Inozentsev asserts that this does not mean the rejection of the class struggle indicates a sensitivity to criticism not only from China, but also from within the USSR and the general theoretical weakness of Khrushchev's position.

The main point which emerges from such articles is the fact that the present rulers of the USSR are under pressure to do a deal with the Western leaders.

They are in no mood for adventures and they have enough to do at home in coping with pressing practical problems. They seriously desire to reduce the terrific burden of arms expenditure on the economy in order that resources can be released for other purposes.

To achieve this aim they are quite ready for compromises, but they have to impose them on the Communist movement and provide them with a theoretical justification.

The fear of nuclear war is cynically used in this manoeuvre.

The principal theoretical flaw lies in what is claimed as 'a very exact assessment . . . of the correlation of class forces' The acceptance of the dogma of peaceful co-existence actually prevents it from getting rid of the cause of war by struggle against imperialism. It disarms the workers by telling them that imperialism is automatically becoming weaker, that union of 'peace-loving' forces is more important than independeat class action and that whatever they do is less important than international economic competition between 'socialism' and capitalism.

The term "class struggle' is positively degraded in this context. It has become a bureaucrat's ritual word; it represents either self-delusion or a transparent attempt to deceive honest workers under the cover of Leninism.

It leads to double-talk worthy of an anthology in such sentences as: 'Peaceful co-existence is a dialectical process organically combining the most acute class struggle between socialism and capitalism with co-operation between the states of the two opposing systems in order to preserve peace?

In fact, whenever the slightest concrete step to 'preserve peace' is taken the conflict of interest rises up to confound the ideologist: Korea, Berlin, Laos, Formosa, Cuba, the Congo-all the unresolved questions of recent years show the hollowness of the case.

The answer to the 'peaceful co-existence' slogan is not to be found in the acceptance of the inevitability of war, nor in illusions about 'positive neutralism' and a third camp. By its nature the bureaucracy cannot carry forward the struggle for socialism, whether it speaks Russian or Chinese.

Nor can peace be won by hopes and good intentions, but only by the action of the international working class.