Volume #23 - 536.|
EASTERN EUROPE AND THE SOVIET UNION
TWENTIETH PARTY CONGRESS
Memorandum from Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs|
to Secretary of State for External Affairs
TWENTIETH CONGRESS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE SOVIET UNION|
I am attaching for your information a departmental memorandum analyzing the main features of the 20th Party Congress. I am sure you will want to read it in its entirety, but I would draw your attention in particular to the opening paragraphs and to the conclusions.
Although it has not been prepared specifically for these purposes, I think it should serve you well for your discussions with Mr. Dulles at White Sulphur Springs, and also for your meetings with the External Affairs Committee.75 It has been prepared on the basis of the texts of speeches given at the Congress and of the analysis provided by our Embassy in Moscow.
Note de la Direction européenne
Memorandum by European Division
THE TWENTIETH CONGRESS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE SOVIET UNION
The main purpose in calling the 20th Congress of the C.P.S.U. was to lay down in unequivocal terms for the sake of Party and Government officials the new direction of Soviet policy, both internally and externally, under the present leadership. It must have been apparent to all within the Soviet Union that a new direction had been given to Soviet policy since Stalin's death and since the last Party Congress in October 1952, but to make clear what that new direction was and how it affected all aspects of internal and external policy, to remove possible doubts and ambiguities, a definitive and comprehensive statement was necessary. The fact that the 19th Congress was called in October 1952, thirteen years after the previous Congress, and the 20th Congress only 3 1/2 years later, is a clear indication that it was to serve the purposes of the new leaders in providing the platform for a clarification of their policies, and a shifting of blame for past failures onto the shoulders of Stalin and Beria.
The first impression from reading the reports of the Congress is that Stalin - and Stalinism - are indeed dead. With great frankness and with great self-confidence, the present leaders have rejected the isolation, the rigidity of thought and action, and publicly at least the terrorism which characterized Stalin's era. They have rejected one-man rule and have established firmly the principle of collective leadership, a leadership which promises a mellower rule and exhibits at least some concern for public opinion. Making virtue out of the necessity of avoiding all-out thermo nuclear war, they have rejected the inevitability of war and committed themselves to a period of peaceful co-existence and economic competition with the non-communist world.
The leaders have not abandoned their ultimate aims for the socialization of the world. There is to be no peaceful co-existence between ideologies, and they remain convinced of the ultimate triumph of communism. New flexibility is to be permitted in the method of arriving at socialism and the possibility of different forms of socialism in different countries is recognized.
Heavy industry and the defence of the Soviet Union retain their priority over consumer goods. Although comparatively little was said about defence at the Congress, there was no indication there or elsewhere that the Soviet Union has any other intention than to maintain and even increase its defensive capabilities, despite pronouncements on peaceful co-existence between states and the non-inevitability of war.
The determination to catch up with the West industrially as quickly as possible and to use part of the product for economic penetration will continue to have precedence over the satisfaction of consumer wants within the Soviet Union. Basic to this determination is the necessity of raising the efficiency of the Soviet economic system, with more regard for pragmatism than for doctrine.
It would be agreeable to be able to lay claim in the West for the credit in forcing a change in Soviet methods. But, without minimizing the role played by Western unity in defence preparations in the face of the Communist threat, it seems more likely that it was primarily the ineffectiveness of Stalinism which caused the change. There is every reason to believe that most of Stalin's closest associates were beginning to question the validity of his methods even before his death, and some of these methods were scrapped within weeks of his demise. In the light of the developments since then it is apparent that this dissatisfaction with Stalinism has increased apace, and has little essentially to do with Western policy.
Stalin's foreign and internal policies certainly served their purpose but his fault was his unwillingness to recognize that they had to be changed to meet a new Western reaction. The new régime has shown remarkable ability in developing policies suitable for the present circumstances. It is an indication of stability in the Soviet political system that they were able to accomplish this change with a minimum (by Soviet standards) of upsets and bloodshed. This may not prove the strength of the régime, but it could scarcely have been accomplished by a group of men who felt weak or uncertain. And it must be admitted that the new policy is having considerable success and that, as the basic Soviet aims remain the same, the challenge from the USSR, while changed in character, remains strong and in some respects more dangerous than the nakedly aggressive policy of Stalin.
Two themes dominated the statements on foreign policy, and nowhere is the self-confidence of the present leadership more apparent than in this field. The first is that socialism has emerged from the confines of one country, beleaguered by hostile forces, and has transformed itself into a world system which is confident, growing and strong. The second is that peaceful co-existence between states of differing social system is not only desirable but necessary. There are only two ways, either peaceful co-existence or the most devastating war in history. There is no third alternative. (Khrushchev). The two themes are closely intertwined.
Khrushchev has revised the Marxist-Leninist premise that while imperialism exists, wars are inevitable. He said: The premise was worked out at a time when, firstly, imperialism was an all-embracing world system, and, secondly, the social and political forces not interested in war were weak and not sufficiently well organized, and by virtue of this could not force the imperialists to eschew wars ... as long as imperialism exists the economic basis for the outbreak of war persists ... The reactionary forces may try to let loose war. But there is no fatal inevitability of war ... There are (now) powerful social and political forces commanding serious means capable of preventing the unleashing of war by the imperialists, and - should they try to start it - of delivering a smashing rebuff to the aggressors and thwarting their adventuristic plans. Mikoyan put it more explicitly this way: They (the Americans) are restrained - apart from public opinion, apart from the great military strength of the countries of socialism - by another new important circumstance. It is the appearance of atomic and hydrogen bombs not only in America but also in the Soviet Union, as well as the means to carry these bombs to any point on earth by aircraft or rockets. Zhukov added that the Soviet Union has diverse atomic and nuclear weapons, mighty guided missiles, among them long-range missiles, and a first-class jet air force. The Soviet Union is now able to wreck any plans of the West to confine hostilities to the continent of Europe.
This, clearly, is the policy of the deterrent, turned to Soviet advantage. The leaders are saying in effect, that because of near-parity in the field of thermo nuclear capacities, the deterrent is now two-edged. Zhukov, in his remark about Europe, may also be expressing the Soviet version of massive retaliation. If this is the case, we should certainly be taking a new look at our basic strategic planning, and at the possibility that the traffic will bear a considerable amount more Soviet mischief short of war, without risking the general war which both sides by tacit agreement appear to regard as unthinkable.
The world outside the U.S.S.R. is arranged in a Soviet order of merit which is quite revealing of the Soviet position. First come Communist China and the people's democracies of Europe and Asia with which closer economic relations are to be developed, closely followed by Yugoslavia. Next come the countries which have liberated themselves from the colonial system but have not permitted themselves to be drawn into military blocs - India, Burma, Afghanistan, Egypt, Syria and other states upholding positions of peace - followed by Finland, Austria and other neutral countries. Thirdly come the countries with which relations are to be improved - United States, United Kingdom, France, Western Germany, Japan, Italy, Turkey, Iran and other countries - amongst which Iran, Turkey and Pakistan will realize that normal relations with the U.S.S.R. are in their vital interest. The desire for better relations with the U.S.A. was re-emphasized.
It is significant that many of the countries along the periphery of the Sino-Soviet bloc which the Soviet Union is trying to woo by diplomacy, propaganda and economic measures are precisely those countries in whose territory are the United States Strategic Air Command medium range bomber bases. As a rough parity in thermo nuclear weapons and means of delivering them is reached between the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A., the major advantage of the West becomes what Paul Nitze has recently called the geographical factor. The United States can only be bombed from bases on the Eurasian land mass; the U.S.S.R. is vulnerable to attack not only from North American but also from the ring of bases on the periphery of the bloc, from Norway to Pakistan. In taking the diplomatic, propaganda and economic offensive against these countries, the Soviet Union is doing so not only because many of them are under-developed and therefore offer good possibilities for an extension of Soviet influence. It is doing so also, and perhaps primarily, because of the existence of American bases on their territory. The Soviet offensive against some of the neutral and under-developed countries on its periphery can be at least in part explained by the desire to deny the use of their territory to the bomber and possible missile bases of the United States.
Collective security in Europe, collective security in Asia, and disarmament are singled out as the cardinal problems. Nothing new emerged on the first of these, except warnings that a Washington-Bonn axis is increasing the war danger and that the re-armament of Germany will reduce France to a third-rate power. There was no elaboration on collective security in Asia, merely a handsome tribute to India's Five Principles and China's proposal for a collective peace pact in Asia. On disarmament, Khrushchev re-iterated adherence to the Soviet proposals of May 10, 195576 and then said: Pending agreement on the major questions of disarmament we express readiness to agree to certain partial measures in this sphere, such as the cessation of tests of thermo-nuclear weapons; not to permit the troops on the territory of Germany to have atomic weapons; reduction of military budgets. The first proposal is designed to embarrass the United States and the United Kingdom, which intend to have further tests this spring; the second would frustrate NATO plans for the use of tactical atomic weapons in Europe, which are essential for the defence of Western Europe; and the third would give tremendous advantage to the USSR which can, and does, hide military expenditures in other parts of its budget in a manner not possible in democratic countries.
As to the manner of dealing with these and other problems of foreign policy, Mikoyan, in an obvious attack on Stalinist foreign policy (and presumably on Molotov's method of implementing it) said that - certain ossified forms of Soviet diplomacy and foreign trade had now been discarded. The Central Committee was now pursuing an active, flexible foreign policy high in principle, restrained, calm in tone and without sharp words. The Soviet Government had freely acknowledged mistakes and shortcomings in foreign policy and had rectified them.
Communism Abroad and the Transition to Socialism
Khrushchev had some particularly interesting things to say about the transition to socialism in other countries, both those which have already achieved it and those which have not. With respect to the former, he accepted as a point of doctrine what was implicit in the Soviet leaders' pilgrimage to Belgrade in May, 1955 and the rapprochement with Yugoslavia. He recognized that the re-organization of society along socialist lines may take different forms in different countries. As examples he cited the U.S.S.R., the people's democracies of Europe, Communist China and Yugoslavia. By so doing, he developed a much safer and more flexible theory than the Stalinist precept that all socialist countries must be modelled on the Soviet Union, a position which had become completely untenable in the light of developments in Yugoslavia and China in particular. There is little doubt that this is directed primarily at bringing Yugoslavia back into the fold, and secondarily at Communist China, where the theoreticians may have found a little bit galling the Soviet monopoly on the orthodox interpretation of the Marxist-Leninist scriptures. It does not imply, however, any relaxation of Sovietization in those countries of eastern Europe whose governments are directly subject to Soviet pressure and advice.
Of even greater interest is the departure from the traditional stand that the transition to socialism must be accompanied by violence. Khrushchev said: It is quite likely that the forms of the transition to socialism will become more and more variegated ... Civil war [is not obligatory] in all circumstances ... The winning of a stable parliamentary majority based on the mass revolutionary movement of the proletariat, would bring about for the working class of a number of capitalist and former colonial countries [the transition to socialism]. Of course, in countries where capitalism is still strong, and where it controls an enormous military and police machine, the serious resistance of the reactionary forces is inevitable. There the transition to socialism will proceed amidst conditions of an acute class revolutionary struggle. The political leadership of the working class, headed by its advance detachment [by which is meant the Communist Party] is the indispensable and decisive factor for all the forms of transition to socialism.
The new element in doctrine is the possibility that parliamentary action can lead to socialist transformation in the communist sense. This can only come about under the leadership of the Communist Party, by converting parliament from an organ of bourgeois democracy into an instrument of genuinely popular will. Although it is not spelled out, it is quite clear that, once having achieved the socialist transformation of society, there would be no turning back by parliamentary processes. Reformism as such is just as firmly rejected as ever, even though the possibility of cooperating with the social democrats is envisaged in order to effect the transformation presumably on the Czech model. There is a clear call for renewed efforts on the part of the communists to form popular fronts particularly in France and Italy, as a means of gaining power. Of these countries, Khrushchev said: The French and Italian working class, the French Communist Party and the Communists and Socialists of Italy have won signal successes in the parliamentary elections. No doubt the passages on parliamentary action are also directed at the uncommitted and former colonial countries, such as Indonesia, where, although there is respect for parliamentary forms, there is less understanding than in the West of how these forms could be twisted to communist ends.
The effect on the class struggle abroad is difficult entirely to foresee. In Italy we have already had an indication that the militants are not happy with the prospect of awaiting the Revolution by peaceful parliamentary means. Thus while giving to foreign Communists the means of co-operating with the Socialists, and appeasing the latter's fears of Soviet Communism, the Soviet Communist leaders may be weakening the élan which is needed to keep communism a driving force.
In spite of the stand on peaceful co-existence between countries with different political and social systems and economic competition with capitalism, there can in the Soviet view be no peaceful co-existence on matters of ideology. The passages on the transition to socialism made clear the transitory nature of peaceful co-existence, or rather that peaceful co-existence applies only to the avoidance of thermo nuclear war. They merely mean that Communist power in a foreign country may be obtained by parliamentary methods; after that the Government falls automatically into the Soviet pattern of government, or something closely akin to it. And behind the policy of peaceful co-existence stands Soviet armed strength as a powerful instrument of blackmail when required. The C.P.S.U. and Communist Parties abroad are re-assured that faith in the ultimate triumph of communism throughout the world is as firm as ever.
If the Soviet leaders wanted to impress one thing on the Party Congress and on the people of the Soviet Union it was that one-man dictatorship, with all it implied, is gone and that a collective leadership now governs the U.S.S.R. No single aspect of the Stalinist era came in for such widespread and thorough-going castigation as the cult of personality, the deification of the individual, and specifically the supreme dictator who guided the destinies of the USSR with an iron hand for almost thirty years. The complete deference to Stalin was dropped within a very short time of his death. Attacks on the cult of personality have increased in the past year though as late as December 1955 Stalin was still referred to as the true disciple and continuer of Lenin. The 20th Congress has given the coup de grace to the cult of personal leadership. One-man rule and Stalin's ideological contributions are to be completely dropped and discredited. Stripped of his ideological honours and of the mantle of omniscience, he may remain as the leader during the Great Patriotic War, perhaps flanked by a pantheon of the generals, but he no longer ranks with Lenin in communist mythology. He will, of course, provide the perfect scapegoat for any admission of errors in internal or external policy, from which the present leaders will be able to dissociate themselves.
Two of Stalin's major works came in for severe criticism, both of them most fully by Mikoyan. The first was the Short History of the C.P.S.U.(B) which has been the bible of the party since it appeared in 1939. Khrushchev said that a new party text-book was called for based on historical facts. Mikoyan more explicitly condemned the Short History for its distorted version of the civil war of 1918-20 and the purges of the `thirties, referring to the alleged treacherous activity of individual party leaders of that time, who were unjustly declared enemies of the people many years after the events described. It is ironical that the present leaders survived the purges by aligning themselves with Stalin or at least by avoiding association with the purged leaders, and also were instrumental in effecting the purges. It is fascinating to conjecture which victims of the purges may now be re-instated in grace. The most important thing, however, is that the present régime is very anxious to dissociate itself from Stalinist terrorism and illegality, a fact borne out by the current emphasis on due regard for law, the large-scale releases of prisoners from forced labour camps and the diminished role of the secret police. This is not to say that the old methods of internal control could not become operative again tomorrow if the leaders felt it necessary because of a threat from abroad, a danger to the economy, or a threat to their positions. But the longer the liberalism persists and the further it extends, the more difficult will it be to revert to old methods.
The second major work of Stalin to come under fire has been his Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R., a development foreshadowed by the establishment of an Institute for the Study of the Capitalist Economy and the partial re-appearance of Varga, the prominent Soviet economist who was discredited because of his disagreement with Stalin's interpretation of capitalist economics. Mikoyan referred to Stalin's analysis of the economy of the Soviet Union and the peoples' democracies as superficial, and also said that it did not explain the growth of capitalist production in many countries since the war. Khrushchev stated that only a timely confluence of circumstances of a favourable nature in capitalism retarded the growth of economic crises but Mikoyan, the acknowledged economic expert in the party praesidium, warned that we are seriously lagging behind in the study of the contemporary phase of capitalism, particularly the character and periodicity of the cyclical crises. The two themes of rejection of the major works were neatly blended in a final movement which was little more than a coda; Varga, the economist, has written an article in Pravda which re-instates Bela Kun, the Hungarian communist leader who was a contemporary of Lenin and who was purged by Stalin in the `thirties.
The vehemence of the attacks on Stalin and Stalinism suggests that the present leaders, the successful survivors of his immediate entourage, not only lived in terror of him and of the suspicion and intrigue which surrounded him, but also disagreed strongly with many of his policies without daring to voice their disagreement. They realized the blind alley into which Stalinist isolation and inflexibility had led Soviet policy, and now have had three years which seem to vindicate thoroughly their decision to break with that policy. Three years of increasing contact with the outside world, of flexibility and imagination in foreign policy, of comparative relaxation of methods internally, have done even more than the leaders might have expected. They have regained the initiative abroad, though at the expense of a retreat from Austria, Porkkala and Port Arthur, and they have increased the popularity of the régime at home. Collective leadership is working, and there is probably a tacit understanding among the leaders that no one of them will try to break the winning combination in the immediate future.
There has been no change in the Praesidium of the Party itself, though the number of candidate members has increased from two to six. New appointments are Marshal Zhukov, Minister of Defence; D.T. Shepilov, editor of Pravda and a foreign policy expert; two protegés of Khrushchev connected with the régime's drive to increase agricultural output, L.I. Brezhnev and N.A. Mukhitdinov, of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan respectively; and one woman, E.A. Furtseva, First Secretary of the Moscow Town Party Committee, the post once held by Khrushchev. Zhukov is the first professional military man to reach as high as candidate member in the Party hierarchy (he is still not a deputy chairman of the Council of Ministers), but it is not surprising that as important a person as the Minister of Defence should form part of the Party inner circle, first among the candidate members. No undue significance should be attached to the increase in army representation on the Central Committee. Khrushchev continues, of course, to head the Secretariat of the Party, to which have been added Furtseva and Brezhnev. The impression gained is that, while Khrushchev has strengthened his position by the addition of some of his protegés to the Central Committee, the Secretariat and the candidate membership of the Praesidium, he has not yet achieved anything like the pre-eminence of Stalin even within the Party. The Party Secretariat and Praesidium rule the USSR but no one man dominates the Party structure completely. We can expect that, for a few years at least, collective leadership by more or less the present group will continue and that the changes which occur will be relatively unostentatious.
At least through the sixth five-year plan the emphasis will continue to be laid on heavy industry to enable the Soviet Union to catch up with the West industrially, though not to the neglect of the defence potential. The strides made in this field are full justification in the eyes of the leaders for the continuance of this policy. Emphasis is also laid on the further development of the resources of the eastern regions, where the principal centres of industries consuming a great deal of fuel and power will be concentrated. Malenkov, who thought the time was ripe for greater emphasis on consumer goods, has again been rebuked. But while his theories have been rejected, the leadership sees the desirability of offering some material incentives to the people, and has announced that there will be increased production of consumer goods, a reduction in working hours, an improvement in the pension system and an amelioration of housing conditions, including a larger scale of private house-building from personal savings. (Price cuts are to be smaller than originally intended so that these measures can be carried out). It is significant that these popular measures should be announced during the Party Congress and not at the time of the announcement of the sixth five-year plan, a fact which is surely designed to enhance the prestige of party leadership. An improvement in living standards remains the constant objective.
Agriculture remains the weakest sector of the economy and emphasis there will be shifted from more extensive to more intensive cultivation. A sharp increase in grain production, especially maize, and a doubling of cereal products, was demanded. There was also reference to more efficient agricultural production and better conditions for the collective farms. It is an indication of the strength of his position that Khrushchev, the originator of the far-from-successful virgin lands project, was able to assert blandly that the party's decision on virgin lands was correct. The failures there came in for virtually no criticism.
There is a thoroughly pragmatic approach to economic problems. Mr. Khrushchev referred to the necessity for cost-accounting, labour incentives and managerial efficiency, methods which make sense in any economic system. He also said that it was not necessary for each of the European satellites to concentrate on all branches of heavy industry; they could better specialize in the production of lines to which they are best suited, especially in agriculture and light industry, to the benefit of the whole Soviet bloc. This shows a recognition of the economic wisdom of specialization within the bloc although it does not necessarily or even probably mean a reversal of the forced industrialization which has characterized all the economic plans of the satellite countries up to date.
Nevertheless, there is no indication that the basic economic problems of the country are likely to be solved in the near future. These problems are primarily the question of labour productivity, and agriculture. Increased automation may be the answer to the first but it is a slow and costly process. And in the countryside, the Congress showed no real awareness of the necessity of improving the lot of the over one hundred million peasants if the food production is ever to be increased substantially.
Although some important modifications of communist doctrine have been put forward at the congress, and although the leaders are propounding a thoroughly realistic and pragmatic approach to both foreign and internal affairs, there is no indication of any abandonment of ideology as such. There is, in fact, considerable emphasis on ideological purity and a refurbishing of Leninist doctrine to lend suitable doctrinal support for the policies of the present leaders.
Khrushchev made a strong point of distinguishing between peaceful co-existence and economic competition on the one hand, and co-existence of ideologies on the other. The former is the touchstone of current foreign policy, but the latter is condemned roundly. Khrushchev's emphasis on this latter point and an article on the same subject which appeared recently in Party Life suggest that all the talk of peaceful co-existence has been having its effect within the Soviet Union and that not all Soviet officials were drawing the clear distinction which Khrushchev has drawn. Such a blurring of distinctions would make more difficult the Party's control of orthodox thinking on the ultimate universal triumph of communism, and also, perhaps, weaken the zeal of the cadres. The Congress was the place to set matters straight, and in order to show how the triumph of communism will come about, Khrushchev has gone into some detail as to the nature of the transition in various countries. The inevitability of civil war in all cases and the one-road-to-socialism approach are modified to bring them into line with present facts, but a new doctrine is propounded to replace the outmoded one.
Molotov's public recantation of his erroneous statement that only the foundations of socialism had been built in the U.S.S.R. was brought up by Khrushchev as a further rebuke to the Foreign Minister. He reiterated that socialist society had been built in the main by 1936 and had continued to develop along socialist lines since then.
We are not left without doctrine. It is quite unrealistic to think that ideology, a powerful weapon in the techniques of control, will be dropped just because the Soviet state seems to be moving into a new stage in its development. It is mildly encouraging, however, to find some evidence that, as we hoped would be the case, the emphasis on peaceful co-existence does not play entirely into the hands of the régime, and that it creates some problems for the Soviet leaders as well as for ourselves.
It must be admitted that the Soviet leaders have some cause for the self-assurance which has permeated the atmosphere of the congress. The Soviet Union is no longer the lone socialist state, backward in industrial development and wracked by purges and terror, surrounded by the hostile forces of the capitalist world. The socialist camp extends territorially from the middle of Europe eastward through China to the Pacific Ocean. Around the borders of this huge area are a number of neutral and uncommitted nations many of which, while not aligned with the Soviet Union, are not actively hostile to it and certainly are not actively aligned with the Western democracies. In the under-developed countries of this area, the Soviet Union has made a disturbingly successful beginning at economic penetration, a much subtler and in many ways more dangerous form of potential domination than the ideological or the cruder military. Beyond this area again, the Soviet Union is seeking means of extending its influence by offers of bilateral agreements, by offers of cooperation with democratic socialist forces, and by removing from communist doctrine some of those features which have helped to rally the opposition of the non-communist world to communism. Internally, they are seeking to make the Soviet system efficient and even to a degree popular; externally, they are seeking to make it appear respectable and genuinely peace-loving. There is some doubt as to how successful they can really be on either count, since the Soviet system is hardly likely to be able to change very fundamentally.
To sum up, the following may be construed from the Twentieth Party Congress:
(a) The present leaders in the Soviet Union are exuding self-confidence because they believe in the correctness, and the success, of their policies, though we can over-emphasize this. It would be natural in such a gathering for the leaders to indulge in considerable self-praise. It may be the Soviet version of the United Kingdom Conservative Party's slogan Invest in Success.
(b) The principle of collective leadership is firmly established, at least for the time being. Khrushchev is the dominant figure, but he gives no indication of trying to set himself up as the successor to Stalin. The cult of the individual is thoroughly discredited.
(c) Stalin has been discredited for his policies and his doctrine. Lenin remains as the interpreter par excellence of Marxism-Leninism but the present leaders are sure enough of themselves to be prepared to modify even some Leninist precepts in the light of current conditions, e.g. the doctrine of inevitable war between socialism and capitalism.
(d) Some slight mellowing of the régime is apparent in both internal and external policy. Internally, the discontent of the intelligentsia with the Stalinist straight-jacket may be one of the causal factors. But the most important reason is that the present leaders feel so sure of themselves and of the system that they find a mild increase in liberalism contains no threat to their position, and indeed strengthens it. Externally, the mellowing springs from a realization that normal relations and a more civil approach are likely to contribute to, and succeed in, a period of détente. Yet this mellowing cannot go far without undermining the very foundations of the régime.
(e) Heavy industry will continue to get priority over consumer goods to enable the Soviet Union to catch up with the West industrially, but some concessions will be made to the people to ensure their support of the régime without recourse to terrorist methods.
(f) Peaceful co-existence between states of differing social systems will continue to be the theme of Soviet foreign policy. The Soviet Union will concentrate its attention on the neutral and uncommitted nations, particularly by economic means, but will try to enter into bilateral negotiations with the Western democracies in an attempt to weaken their unity in opposition to Soviet communism.
(g) In spite of the talk of peaceful co-existence there is every indication that the USSR intends to maintain and even increase its military capabilities. These capabilities will not be jeopardized by the demands of heavy industry, of consumer goods or of economic assistance to underdeveloped countries.
(h) The implications of thermo nuclear warfare are recognized by the Soviet leaders. The inevitability of war between socialist and capitalist powers is rejected because of the supposed deterrent effect of Soviet thermo nuclear warfare capabilities and Soviet economic strength.
(i) Despite co-existence between states, there can be no co-existence between ideologies. The communists will continue to attack capitalism, and are convinced that eventually their version of socialism will triumph.
(j) The transition to socialism is expected to come about in various ways and not necessarily by civil war. In some countries, it may come about by parliamentary means, though the communists will always lead the transition, and once in power will see to it that there is no turning back.
(k) Different forms of socialism are recognized. Not all
countries will achieve it on the pattern of the Soviet Union.
Yugoslavia and Communist China are valid expressions of the