The Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

Soviet foreign policy has taken a decidedly anti-Leninist turn particularly since the recognition of the Soviet Union by the United States.

In the first place, this recognition was granted only after American capitalism had been fully convinced that the Third International would no longer serve as an instrument of world revolution in general nor as a revolutionary incitement and inspiration to the American laboring masses in particular. Secondly, in order to emphasize their good faith, the Stalinist bureaucracy officially declared that President Roosevelt represented peaceful American capitalism, which was honestly seeking a democratic and pacifistic solution to present-day imperialist contradictions and conflicts.

Recently Alexander A. Troyanovsky, the Soviet ambassador to Washington, stated that the USSR and the United States should be able to find a "common ground" in an endeavor "to secure complete or partial disarmament." "The foreign policy of the Soviet Union," he continued, "shows an increasing activity for peace. … We greeted the resumption of normal relations with the United States from this point of view. Not material gains for our country, but the gain for international peace was regarded in our country as the important thing in friendly relations with the United States."

One can hardly doubt Troyanovsky's love for peace, especially if we take some of his other statements into account. "The cause of peace," he declared, "was so great that it must prevail over all other problems." And among these problems he cited the most important economic contradictions of our epoch. "All secondary [! ?] problems, such as those of debts, of commercial competition, of tariffs, and so on," he explained, "must be settled as soon as possible by mutual agreements and to mutual satisfaction, for these relatively small [! ?] questions spoil the international atmosphere and prevent friendly efforts to consolidate peace."

Can the worthy Stalinist ambassador really mean this? Has he completely forgotten Lenin's teachings regarding the economic causes of war? Troyanovsky should be reminded that in Imperialism: The Last Stage of Capitalism Lenin actually proves that the "secondary" and "small" questions he mentions are at the very root of imperialist war in particular and all war in general. Or is this counterrevolutionary Trotskyism, Monsieur l'Ambassadeur?

In line with this trend, the Stalinists have published abroad a brand new interpretation of capitalism and imperialism. They have divided the capitalist nations into two categories: one the peaceful, democratic and pacifist; the other the warlike, fascist and aggressive. (This is precisely the theory of the Second International.) Under the former category are listed America, France, the Little Entente® and possibly England; under the latter are listed especially Germany and Japan.

Following through this anti-Marxist political philosophy, Litvinov is now engaged in discussions for an "understanding" with imperialist France. Frederick T. Birchall, New York Times correspondent in Berlin, says that "… accompanying and alongside the military agreement, it is understood a thorough understanding has now been arrived at regarding Russia's entry into the League of Nations. It is to take place as soon as possible with the enthusiastic support of France, which, with the disarmament negotiations as an excuse [mark well!], will send to Geneva in the near future an impressive delegation. … The stage is all set in France to hail the Russian understanding … as a further guarantee of European peace and French security. Then France will be ready to talk about disarmament."

This maneuver is made in the name of Marx and Lenin, explain the Stalinists, in order to secure allies (?!) against a probable attack on the USSR from the side of fascist and warlike capitalism, namely, Germany and Japan. Also the entry of the Soviet Union into the capitalist League of Nations, characterized by the Third World Congress of the Communist International as "the international trust of the victorious states for the exploitation of their vanquished competitors and the colonial peoples," has been facilitated.

Today Pravda, the official organ of the Stalinist bureaucracy, explains the politics of the League of Nations as follows: "As a matter of fact, the withdrawal from the League of Japan and Germany — these countries which do not even try to conceal their determination to fulfill their imperialistic ambitions by the means of further armaments, encroachments and wars — has brought up the question whether the League could not to a certain degree [how cautious!] become the center of united forces that are ready to delay the bloody settlement of disputes and bring about at least some strengthening of peace." And Karl Radek adds: "The danger of war against the USSR does not come from the League but from open opponents of the League and English diehards."

The Theses and Resolutions of the Third World Congress of the Communist International support this conclusion: "The new international labor organization is established for the purpose of organizing united action of the world proletariat, aspiring toward the same goal: the overthrow of capitalism, the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and of an International Soviet Republic, for the complete elimination of classes and the realization of socialism, the first step toward the Communist commonwealth."

Stalinism has eliminated all this. It has substituted in its place military alliances with capitalist countries and the insane theory of socialism in one country. The Marxism-Leninism of the Third World Congress is now called counterrevolutionary Trotskyism. And in support of this thesis the French imperialist government is now persecuting Comrade Trotsky as a counterrevolutionist!

This new Stalinist policy will endanger not only the Soviet Union but also the prospects of a world revolution should an imperialist war break out If the USSR is maneuvered into the League of Nations and thereby tied to the imperialist chariot of France and the Little Entente, or if it becomes a member of the permanent peace conference, it will have been demonstrated in either case that the Soviet Union is on the side of the strongest capitalist bandits. Thus, the emancipation of the oppressed by proletarian revolution is renounced, and the Soviet Union becomes a pawn (and ultimately a victim) in the imperialist game.

This policy, now aimed chiefly against Germany, is an inevitable consequence of the dastardly betrayal of the German workers and semi-proletarian masses by the German Communist Party under the direct command of Stalin. At first the German revolution was sabotaged in the interest of peace and credits. Now, with the threat of Hitler before their eyes, Stalin and Co. veer towards imperialist France in order to stay Hitler's hand, that is, to checkmate his Drang nach Osten [eastern expansion] policy.

As usual, the Stalinist bureaucracy does not calculate the effect of this course on the German masses. Having lost faith in the world revolution and, more particularly, disdaining the revolutionary aid of the German masses in case of a fascist attack, Stalin once more plays into Hitler's hands. Goebbels has already broadcast throughout bleeding Germany that the Soviet Union has formed a technical military alliance with the thoroughly hated France against the German people. And thus the last drop of revolutionary blood is drained from the veins of the German workers. This is the final stab in the back.

The impending failure of the disarmament conference opens up a dangerous prospect for the Soviet Union. England cannot afford to have France increase its power on the Continent It will not allow Germany to be further humiliated and crushed. It also supports the German rearmament proposals. It continues on friendly terms with Japan. For England needs both Germany and Japan, at least as potential allies, to maintain its far-flung empire.

The current policy of the Soviet Union, if carried through to the bitter end, leads to imperialist entanglements and aims a deathblow at the world proletarian movement.

It is obvious that such a situation calls for a new party and a new (Fourth) International.