Journal of Peace Research

http://jpr.sagepub.com/

On the Marxist Theory of War and Peace: A Study

Karel Kára
Journal of Peace Research 1968 5: 1
DOI: 10.1177/002234336800500101

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jpr.sagepub.com/content/5/1/1

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:
Peace Research Institute Oslo

Journal of Peace Research Replication Data

Additional services and information for Journal of Peace Research can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jpr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jpr.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> Version of Record - Jan 1, 1968

What is This?

Downloaded from jpr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WINNIPEG on September 2, 2014

ON THE MARXIST THEORY OF WAR AND PEACE*
A Study
By
KAREL
Institute of Sociology, Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences, Praha, and International Peace Research Institute, Oslo
1. Introduction
The present article is an attempt to
outline the Marxist view on war and
peace. I also deal with some categories
such as social revolution, since these, even
if examined only in brief, are essential to
proper understanding of the Marxist con-
ception of war and peace. My purpose is not
to give a comprehensive interpretation of all
the problems of war and peace, but rather
to concentrate on some salient points.
The selection of the problems is in-
tended to cover those aspects that are
most characteristic of the whole complex
of issues, with a special regard to those of
them which are acquiring increasing im-
portance in our times. This approach has
the disadvantage of eliminating some
problems from our consideration, but also
some advantages in view of the scope of
the present study. Nor is it my intention
to demonstrate the well-foundedness of all
the views and judgments I present, since
this is a task that cannot be accomplished
in an article of this type. My aim is a far
more modest one: to contribute to a
Marxist solution of the problems under
consideration and to acquaint the reader
with the Marxist views on the issue of war
and peace. This project does not seem a
superfluous one to me, inter alia, both
because so far there exists no Marxist
study giving a comprehensive survey of
the Marxist theory of war and peace, and
because only a few authors - irrespective
of their subjective approach - deal with
these problems with such a degree of
objectivity as to give any valid idea of the
essence of the Marxist concepts of war and
Downloaded from jpr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WINNIPEG on September 2, 2014
KÁRA
peace; where the Marxist concepts coin-
cide with the non-Marxist ones and where
they differ.
Although I do not intend to deal here
with the methodological aspect, I would
at this point emphasize that Marxism is an
open system that develops in the context
of the further development of objective
reality and the process of cognition of the
world. If no effort was made to develop
Marxist theory further, its sense and content
would be negated. This then is also the
essential approach to the Marxist theory
of war and peace. A genuine Marxist
theory of war and peace cannot be re-
duced or confined to a summary of quo-
tations from the classics of Marxism on
these issues, but must above all proceed
from scientific cognition of reality; and this
process must be one of constant develop-
ment within the context of the advance
of human society and of science.
Nor can the method of interpretation
here act as a substitute for the method of
research, even though it is evident that
there exists not only contradiction, but
also a degree of unity between these two
methods. While the method of research
must proceed in such a way as to produce
knowledge of the subject we are examin-
ing, the method of interpretation strives to
explain the findings arrived at, and the
approach is determined by the aim and
mission the author has set himself. It is in
this light that the reader should under-
stand the use of frequent quotations in the
present article. They are not intended to
demonstrate the truth of my statements,
but to give a comprehensive survey of the
2
ideas of Marx, Engels and Lenin on the
issues of war and peace, as well as of some
contemporary views in this respect.
2. A def anition of the concepts of war and peace
War and peace are complex and contra-
dictory phenomena of social development
and since ancient times have been the
subject of the studies of anmy thinkers.
They represent different forms of rela-
tionships between specific social phen-
omena - they are the two sides of one coin.
Marxism has so far not given any ade-
quate definition of war and peace, and this
follows, inter alia, from the circumstance
that Marxist literature uses the term ’war’
in a narrower sense than that of ’peace’.
This vagueness is perhaps due to the fact
that most Marxist studies on this problem
were oriented primarily to examining the
issue of war and did not attempt to resolve
the problem of war and peace in dialectic
unity. At the present time different aspects
of the problem of peaceful coexistence are
receiving considerable attention, but even
here the issue is not examined or dealt
with in the context of any comprehensive
theory of war and peace. The conceptual
vagueness of war and peace is probably
also due to the fact that there does not
exist, to my knowledge at any rate, any
study treating the Marxist theory of war
and peace in all its versatility.
The concept of war is now and then
used in a metaphorical sense. In this respect
conflicts which in fact are not war are
sometimes taken for war; this applies for
instance to ’war’ conducted by ants, to
the fights of animals, as for instance of the
tiger and the elephant, to duels, fights, etc.
These are not wars in the Marxist concept.
Marxism as a rule conceives of war as a
special form of political violence occurring
between states, nations or classes. Besides
this definition, based on Lenin’s concept
of war (notably on his notes on Clause-
witz’ book On War), there also exists
Engels’ definition, which is a wider one.
I hold that both these views have their
Downloaded from jpr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WINNIPEG on September 2, 2014
justification as they both reflect a specific
aspect of the problem.
War in the broader sense of the term is,
as Engels conceives it/ an armed struggle
between global societies (clans, tribes and
states); further armed struggle between
social classes2 (civil war) and the armed
struggle waged by a subjected nation
(nations) against a state that is striving to
impede its independent development. The
origin of war in this sense goes back to the
very beginnings of mankind. The pre-
condition to war at that time was the
contact or even the existence of one or
more clans or tribes and a clash of interests
that drove them to a conflict situation and
was finally resolved by armed struggle.3
The low productivity of labour in those
times, hardly sufficient to cover man’s
essential needs, gave wars the nature of
armed clashes that could result in some
material advantage for the victor, but
could not set the goal of subjection and the
resulting exploitation of the defeated clans
or tribes. The victor could eat, murder or
rob the defeated, but the defeated clans
or tribes had - if they survived - to be
given a chance of independent develop-
ment, so that war did not and could not
have any political aims. The society was a
classless one that did not know exploiters
or exploited, nor was there any ruling
class in whose class interests wars would
be waged. The low productivity of labour
and the resultant poverty, which were the
main factors causing the non-existence of
classes within the clan or tribe, also in-
fluenced the clan’s or tribe’s relations to
the outside, preventing the victor from
maintaining, and feeding for that matter,
a special group of people that would keep
the subjected clan or tribe in a state of
subjection. Hence prisoners of war were
first eaten and later killed, but only much
later turned into slaves.4 The very nature
of the socio-economic system of the time
implies that economic interests did not
assume the same role in the origin of wars
as they did later in class societies.

Yet these economic aspects and causes
of war acquired increasing significance in
the later phases of the primeval societies
as productivity of labour gained momen-
tum. These new aspects of war acquired
especial import in the period of the dis-
integration of the primeval society, when
raids to loot and spoil could bring con-
siderable profit to the victor. This is,
however, a transitional phase within the
process of the formation of a class society,
where war has a different scope and
content.
The development towards a class society
did not evolve as a homogeneous pattern
for all clans and tribes, and consequently
there were for a certain period wars both
between clans and tribes and between
global societies of a class nature, i.e. states.
Wars in a class society, that are wars in
the proper sense of the word, are an ele-
ment of the concept of war in its widest
sense.
War in the more narrow (proper) sense
of the term is bound up with the existence
of classes and states. In this sense war and
peace form two aspects of policy5 pursued
by states towards each other. In essence
this is a problem of international relations,
but Marxism considers it false to analyse
foreign policy mechanically, in isolation
from domestic policy. It approaches these
two phenomena as being in organic unity
with the policy of the state itself.6 Dome-
stic and foreign policy are parts of the
overall policy pursued by the ruling class
of the state.7
War in this sense is a special form of
political violence. It is an act of armed
violence on the part of a state or states,
designed to subject another state (or
states) to its will. In its essence war is an
armed struggle waged for specific political
goals and is thereby a continuation of
policy by other, i.e. extremely violent
means.8 ’War is a component of the whole
and that whole is policy’;9 it is not an end
in itself, but a means of policy. Only policy
can ’classify and judge ideas, and war is
Downloaded from jpr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WINNIPEG on September 2, 2014
3
but a means and not vice versa. Hence
the military view must perforce cede to
the political view’.i° Policy must, of course,
adapt itself to the military means and
resources available to it. If a policy is
correct, i.e. if it approaches the ends it has
set itself, then in its own way it can only
have a positive influence on war. ‘Wher-
ever this influence is not geared to the
ends, the cause must be sought only in
erroneous policy.’ll
The ’war’, in its narrower (proper)
term
sense may, even though with some limi-
tations, be applied also to national liber-
ation wars (provided they are waged
within the framework of a specific state)
and civil wars. In this event we are not,
of course, dealing with an armed conflict
between states in the classic sense of the
term, and we must be aware that these
wars differ to a certain degree from wars
that fall entirely within the category of
wars in the proper sense. Of these, only
wars waged by countries or nations that
have retained some of the more significant
elements of state sovereignty are close to
the mentioned category. It follows that
wars in unitary states, i.e. states that do
not consist of specific units having the
characteristic traits of statehood, least
correspond to the notion of war in the
proper sense. Internal wars in this type of
state are characterized by a process in
which a global society disintegrates - as
a rule only for a specific span of time -
into two (and in some cases into more
parts), and a new state power is in the
process of forming while the old state
power still exists. The originating state
power already contains, even if in an as
yet undeveloped or embryonic form, the
essential traits of the structure of state
power and of the new state. But even these
wars comprise some (more or less) un-
developed forms by the aspects of inter-
state relations, irrespective of whether the
new state power has been internationally
recognized or not. (The new state power
in its process of formation pursues from
4
the very first a policy based on armed
struggle vis-a-vis the old state power, and
at a specific stage of this process assumes
to this or that degree the exercise of other
activities too, aimed towards the outside,
whether this takes the form of seeking
foreign aid or of preventing support being
accorded to the old state power, etc.)
Within these limits it is possible to classify
this type of war also as war in the proper
sense of the word.
War in the proper sense of the term is
an historical phenomenon that originated
in a specific phase of human development
and whose existence is bound up with the
existence of classes. With the dying away
of a class society, (i.e. in Communism) the
conditions for the origin of war as an
instrument of policy, (i.e. war in the proper
sense of the term) will themselves dis-
appear.
No detailed Marxist study has been
made of the question of the possibility of
wars breaking out in Communism. It is
generally held that the formation of a
world Communist society will be a phase
where wars will no longer exist, but these
are only assertions of a general nature.
What stands in the way of any more
profound insight into this problem is
primarily the fact that so far no Commu-
nist society exists, the scientific study of
which would provide a comprehensive
theory of the Communist socio-economic
system and adequate criteria to judge its
practice. However, if we proceed from the
existing reasonings on Communist society,
it would follow that this will be a type of
society that will not be an antagonistic
one, where there will exist no class-eco-
nomic or political contradictions and whose
social system - provided it operates as it
should - and the degree of social conscious-
ness will be such as to preclude the solution
of conflicts of interest between the world
Communist society and the individual
groups by armed struggle, and these will
then be solved by peaceful means. What is
more, not only would the existence of wars
Downloaded from jpr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WINNIPEG on September 2, 2014
be contrary to the inner mechanism and
structure of the world Communist society,
but another factor that might arrest the out-
break of war would be the destructive char-
acter inherent in the immense development
of science and technology. On the other
hand, one would not be justified in as-
suming that in the world Communist
society, whose mainspring will lie in an
unity of interests, there will exist no
contradictions of interests. It is not pos-
sible to exclude the eventuality that the
contradiction of interests between specific
macro-elements of the world Communist
society may become acute (for instance as
a result of programmes adopted to resolve
the problem of over-population in specific
areas of the globe, etc). Contradictions of
interest will imply also the possibility of
the origination of conflict situations which,
under specific conditions, might turn into
an armed conflict between the macro-
units referred to. The existence of such a
possibility does not, however, imply that
it will or must become reality. The
system of the world Communist society will
comprise adequate regulators which, as
long as this system functions properly, will
make it possible to resolve contradictions
among groups, or between groups and the
whole, by peaceful means.
War is, admittedly, a tool of policy, but
it has its own laws and its own instruments
that stand in a dialectic correlation with
the end, i.e. with policy. The study of the
military aspects of war is the subject-
matter of military science, and we shall
not deal with it here.
Marxism does not view violence as
something that is a priori negative or
positive. Violence can play a dual role: a
reactionary or progressive one. It is in these
terms that Marxism also assesses the role
of wars or revolutions. That is why Marx-
ism rejects all theories or views that cate-
gorically repudiate violence. Marxism
recognizes the justification of the use of
violence provided such use in relevant to
historical progress. At the same time,

however, Marxism rejects all theories that
overestimate the role of violence in history,
notably its sharpest form - war.
Marxism does not view, therefore, vio-
lence as a self-expedient tool but as a
means for achieving an aim. The aim must
not be conceived apart from man, for a
human being and mankind is the substance
of the aim. That is why Marxism makes
it a rule if we can reach the same goal in
different ways we must give preference to
non-violent means to violent ones and to
less violent means to those more violent.
Clausewitz’ conception of war is ac-
cepted also by R. Aron. In his study
Paix et Guerre entre les Nations Aron’s
conception of war proceeds from Clause-
witz’s On War.12 In their definitions of the
concept of war the Marxist and Aron’s
conception are very close to each other,
even though they differ considerably in
their conception of the theory of war and
peace, as they proceed from contrary
social and class positions.
An entirely different definition of the
concept of war is given by Quincy Wright
in his book A Study of War (which, beside
Clausewitz’ book On War and Aron’s book
Paix et Guerre entre les Nations, I consider
to be one of the most important contri-
butions to the study of war). Quincy
Wright defines the concept of war as
follows: ’In the broadest sense war is a
violent contact of distinct, but similar
entities. In this sense a collision of the
stars, a fight between a lion and tiger, a
battle between two primitive tribes and
hostilities between two modern nations
would all be war.’13 ’In the analytic section
dealing with contemporary war, a nar-
rower definition is needed. For this purpose
war will be considered the legal condition
which equally permits two or more hostile
groups to carry on a conflict by armed
force’.14 In terms of the Marxist concep-
tion, this definition of the concept of war
constitutes one of the weakest points in
Wright’s monograph, since he does not
conceive of war as a social phenomenon.
Downloaded from jpr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WINNIPEG on September 2, 2014
5
We distinguish between just and unjust
wars. ’Just’ wars are wars by means of
which states, nations, national groups or
social classes defend themselves against
national or class subjection. If the purpose
of war is among other things the liqui-
dation of national oppression or of the
threat thereof, the just war waged by the
nation so threatened is at the same time
a national liberation war. The term ’unjust
war’ denotes war waged by the ruling
groups of a specific country with a view to
subjecting another country. Another dis-
tinction is that of revolutionary and counter-
revolutionary wars. A revolutionary war is
a war waged to defend, achieve or develop
a progressive socio-economic system. Any
war that does not pursue progressive ends,
or is aimed against a progressive social
order is a counter-revolutionary, reactio-
nary war. We may further classify wars into
local and world wars. In our times, in the
age of nuclear weapons, it is possible to
distinguish between wars waged with
conventional weapons and wars waged with
nuclear weapons. It is further possible to
draw a line of distinction between wars
waged by global societies of a classless
character and wars waged by states, etc.
In the same way as war, peace too has a
different range, scope, content, form and
nature.
In Marxist literature we find a far wider
definition of peace than of war. Thus for
instance in the Czech Prirucni slovnik
naucny dictionary the term ’peace’ is defined
as follows:
A state in relations between people,
nations and states characterized by
peaceful and friendly coexistence and
by the settlement of outstanding issues
by negotiations and agreement. Lasting
peace is one of the goals of the inter-
national working class movement and
of the foreign policies of the socialist
countries.15
And we will find a similar definition in
the Great Soviet Encyclopaedia.ig
I hold that this definition of the concept
of peace is too wide, the more so if we
6
consider that its polar opposite is the con-
cept of war that is given, as indicated, a
much narrower definition in Marxist
literature. In my opinion the concept of
peace must be defined in a similar way to
concept of war, and both in the proper
(the narrower) as well as in the broader
sense of the term. The concept of peace
in the metaphorical sense is not a scientific
one.
In the metaphorical sense peace means
relations between people or groups (with
the exception of the relations between
states, and, in the period of the primeval
society, the relations between the clans
and tribes) that are characterized by
peaceful or even friendly coexistence.
In terms of the historical aspect, a
distinction should be made between the
concept of peace in the broader and nar-
rower sense of the term.
In the broader sense it is possible to speak
of peace since the very beginnings of
mankind (i.e. that peace existed even
before statehood). In this period we can
speak of peace in relations between the
clans and tribes, insofar as these relations
evolved in a climate of peaceful or friendly
coexistence. Peace in this sense, i.e. the
broader sense, existed and exists even at
a time when classes and states have come
into being (in the form of peaceful rela-
tions among states), and will continue to
exist even at a time when classes and the
state have died away, i.e. when according
to Marxism the conditions for the origin
of wars will have disappeared and there
will be a lasting peace.
In the narrower or proper sense of the
term, peace is a specific form of relation-
ships among states, when collisions be-
tween them are not resolved by armed
struggle and when states settle their rela-
tionships and strive to achieve their goals
by peaceful political means, i.e. by means
that do not have the nature of armed
violence, but the nature of a less sharp
and a more or less concealed violence or
persuasion: in other words by means of
Downloaded from jpr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WINNIPEG on September 2, 2014
diplomacy. Peace is also a part of the whole,
i.e. of the politics that govern it, and it is a
means and not an end in itself.&dquo; The
purpose of politics is to further the class
interests of the ruling classes in the state,
and if a policy of peace does not coincide
with their class interests and if these can
be achieved by means of war, the ruling
groups will strive to replace the state of
peace by the state of war. Correct policy
must know the means by which it can
achieve its ends. This applies in time of
peace as in time of war. Correct policy
must, therefore, as R. Aron has noted
with such insight,18 even in the turmoil of
battle think of peace, and in times of
peace never forget war. War and peace -
and their tools, military means and
diplomacy - are mutually complemen-
tary and mutually substitutive modalities,
neither of which - in the conditions of a
class society - entirely cedes way to the
other. These aspects, then, form the con-
tent of the concept of peace in the proper
sense of the term.
In the age of thermonuclear war, where
peace can be prerequisite to the existence
of politics, the means (peace) to some
degree becomes congruent with the ends
(politics). The concept of peace, in the
same way as that of war, contains a social
class aspect, since the policy of all states
at all times has a specific social class
content (e.g. slavery, feudal, capitalist or
socialist). The relations of states that are
not based on war may be of a different
kind. These may be relations between
states that are at some point midway
between war and peace. Peace among
states may be based on brinkmanship, or
it can emanate from the circumstance that
certain countries do not have any common
points of contact and that the relations
between them are purely formal ones, or it
can be peace founded on relations of trust
and confidence among states, and so on. All
this implies that peace can assume different
forms, and that in addition to the less com-
plex forms, there exist very complex ones.

Peace can also differ in nature, since
there can be peace rooted in slavery and
peace rooted in freedom. Hence peace
can be just or unjust. Marxism holds that
just peace is not founded on aggression,
and respects the independent development
and interests of the countries concerned.
Like war, peace also has its specific
laws and tools. As R. Aron has noted:
The difference between diplomacy and
strategy is
a purely relative one. These
two terms are complementary aspects
of the one art of policy, the art of
maintaining relations with other states
in such a way as best to serve the
’national interest’. While strategy,
military operational planning, may
not be put into use, while operations
may not take place, the military
means nevertheless constitute an inte-
gral element of the arsenal of Diplo-
macy. What is more the given promise,
the diplomatic notes, the commit-
ments undertaken and thegu arantees
made belong to the arsenal of the Chief
of State both in respect of his allies,
the neutrals, and even the momentary
enemy, i.e. the allies of yesterday or
tomorrow.19
3. War and peace in tlce structure of social
phenomena
The purpose of this article is not to go
into too much detail on the points indi-
cated in the present topic-heading, but
rather to give some indication of some of
the fundamental aspects of the problem,
with special emphasis on the changes that
have taken place in this respect. Since the
issue is an extremely complex one, full of
inner contradictions, the present article
cannot grasp it in all its complexity and
cannot therefore avoid a certain simplifi-
cation.
Society and its life encompasses a multi-
tude of social phenomena operating in
correlations. When studying them it is
necessary to know how to discern their
correlations and how to abstract the es-
sential from the non-essential.
If we examine the relationship of the
productive forces and war, then the former
Downloaded from jpr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WINNIPEG on September 2, 2014
7
are pre-eminent in this relationship. War
is no mere of will (as Engels has
act
pointed out in his analysis of the relation
between political violence and mode of
production) of any state with a view to
compelling another state into subjection,
’but requires the existence of very real
preliminary conditions before it can come
into operation, namely instruments’ and
’these instruments have to be produced’;
’in a word, the triumph of force is based
on the production of arms, and this in
turn on production in general - therefore,
on &dquo;economic power,&dquo; on the &dquo;economic
situation,&dquo; on the material means which
force has at its disposal’20; ’and so once
more force is conditioned by the economic
situation, which furnishes the means for
the equipment and maintenance of the
instruments of force.’21 ’Armament, com-
position, organization, tactics and strategy
depend above all on the stage reached at
the time in production, and on communi-
cations. ’22
In the atomic age production of the
most effective weapons depends more than
at any other time in the past on the re-
quisite standard of technology and science
and economic wealth, since profound
scientific knowledge, a high degree of
technological development, and great
material investments, are necessary to
produce these weapons. Thus the requisite
level of productive forces is an essential
prerequisite for the production of thermo-
nuclear weapons and thereby also for the
possibility of waging a thermonuclear war.
Evidently, for as long as the productive
forces have not reached this level, such a
phenomenon cannot come into being and
exist.
Yet the existence of nuclear weapons has
brought about many changes in this rela-
tionship. In the past wars spelled the vast
destruction of productive forces, but did
not threaten to destroy them completely.
At the same time wars did to some degree
contribute to the advance of technology
and thereby also of productive forces.
8
The victor was in general able to accelerate
economic growth and development at the
expense of the defeated, and by annexa-
tions and contributions increase his eco-
nomic position. In global nuclear war any
possibility that war could in the final
analysis have a positive effect on the
productive forces disappears; this applies
even to the ’victor’. Hence the conclusion
that the requisite level of the productive
forces is an essential prerequisite to the
existence of a thermonuclear war, but
that its existence or non-existence has to a
greater or lesser degree also become the
prerequisite for the existence or non-
existence of the productive forces.
War and peace are specific components
of the socio-economic superstructure. In
the proper sense of the term both these
phenomena are parts of politics, which is
part of the superstructure. What applies
to the relationship of the socio-economic
base (i.e. of the productive relations or
the economy) applies also to the relation-
ship of the base and war and peace, with
the proviso that war and peace are merely
specific components of policy.
.
When studying the relationship be-
tween the productive relations and war
and peace and affirming that the economy
plays a determining role in this relation-
ship, we do not intend to claim that the
character of the production relations is
decisive for victory or defeat in war.
The determinant position of the rela-
tions of production stems from the fact
that they represent the basic component of
socio-economic life, that they determine
the social class content of all the super-
structure components, such as politics,
state and law, morals, ideology, war and
peace, and that these superstructure com-
ponents play a role in the service of the
base.
In the final analysis the major causes of
war are determined by the nature of the
economy, although the immediate causes
may lie or may appear to lie in another
sphere, since economic causes very often
Downloaded from jpr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WINNIPEG on September 2, 2014
enter the
picture in a mediated form. In
class antagonistic societies, where the
structure of interests has a class antagonist
character, the conflict of these interests
that is intertwined with all the other spheres
of socio-economic life is one of the major
causes of war, and war here is a natural
law phenomenon. In the conditions of a
world socialist system and world Com-
munist society, which are based on a
qualitatively different nature of the pro-
duction relations and the corresponding
superstructure and character of interests
arising from these systems, the question of
the origin of wars is quite a different one.
The causes that produce or limit the
outbreak of wars cannot, however, be re-
duced only to the nature of the production
relations. Thus, for instance, the destruc-
tive power of the weapons of our time,
even with the present character of pro-
duction relations in the world and the
corresponding superstructure, is such that
it might prove possible to eliminate the
danger of a thermonuclear war and even
to limit the danger of ’conventional’ wars
to a minimum. Here again we see a modi-
fication in the relationship between war
and the nature of production relations.
Yet in spite of the profound changes in
the standing of war and peace in our time,
war - for as long as it does not imply
thermonuclear war - has in essence
maintained its original standing and signi-
ficance. Even in our times, war can be a
continuation of policy by violent means
and be a special form of resolving conflicts
among states, as it was in the past. But
these aspects, typical of the wars of the
past, are irrevocably intertwined with the
new aspects brought about by the inven-
tion of thermonuclear weapons, which in
one way or another change the content
and scope of these wars. The ’conventional’
wars are being waged in a world which,
its divisions notwithstanding, forms a
closely-bound entity, and which reacts
with an extreme sensitivity to each tremor
of tension and the more so to war, ir-

respective of the area of the world in
which tension is accumulating or war is
being waged. Such ’conventional’ wars,
waged with conventional weapons, in all
cases affect the interests of the nuclear
powers in some way, and at all times carry
the threat of being transformed into total,
nuclear war. While it is not certain whether
it would prove possible as yet to attain the
total annihilation of mankind on earth
by a total, global, thermonuclear war, it
is certain that unless an agreement is
reached on a complete and universal ban
of the production of nuclear weapons,
science and technology are sure to
produce the means to do this within the
next few years.
A monograph entitled Military Strategy,
written by a group of authors headed by
Marshall Sokolovsky of the USSR, notes
that ’global thermonuclear war would be
a war of annihilation,’ that ’whole states
would be swept off the surface of the
earth,’ and that ’the use of mass missile
strikes aimed at targets such as all instal-
lations of nuclear aggression and objects
of vital importance that form the military,
political and economic potential of the
aggressor, the destruction of which might
suppress his will to resist, will be the chief
method of waging war.123 Since both the
belligerents would presumably do the
same, it is evident that even today the
consequences would be catastrophic for
both sides and that, even if mankind was
not wiped out completely, it would be
thrown back in its development for many
decades or even centuries. Under these
circumstances, thermonuclear war cannot
evidently be continuation of policy, in the
proper sense of the term. Such a war
would, admittedly, be the result of policy,
but, taking into account the present bal-
ance of power in the world, it could in no
way result in accomplishing the ends orig-
inally pursued, as the points at issue that
were the causes of war would, once war
had taken place, lose all purpose for the
belligerents; they would at best, as H.
Downloaded from jpr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WINNIPEG on September 2, 2014
9
Kahn has pointed out, be faced by the
problem of warding off complete break-up,
of survival and making the first minute
steps towards life. And not only this -
for
many of the participants, if we can term
it so, and even the non-participants, such
a war of attrition would signify the end of
policy; for the rest it might be a continu-
ation of ’policy’, at least to the extent to
which their population survived the war
and to which the states that originally
pursued this policy were not destroyed.
Thus thermonuclear war would be the
outcome of policy, but could not be the
continuation of policy in the proper sense
of the term, since it would to a substantial
degree have lost its essential characteristic
of being a specific political means for re-
solving conflicts between states.24
The present standing of war and peace
in the structure of social phenomena thus
impinges upon the very prerequisites for
the existence or non-existence of mankind.
Since only a brief period of time, in terms
of history, separates us from the moment
when further developments in thermo-
nuclear technology (or the invention of
other, even more effective, means of anni-
hilation) will lead to a situation where in
the event of a nuclear war (or of war
waged by even more destructive means)
it will prove possible to exterminate
mankind, we shall, in the next few para-
graphs, examine this issue in these terms,
i.e. taking this possibility into account.
The means of destruction are man-made
and the same would apply to the anni-
hilation of mankind, since this would also
be accomplished by the activity of people.
All this signifies that a new, qualitatively
different phenomenon, so far unknown to
man, has entered the picture. So far the
extinction of mankind could be brought
about by outside factors (e.g. our planet
colliding with another), but it could not
result from the inner conditions of human
society and its activities. Wars of the past
attempted genocide with respect to some
parts of the population, but even German
10
Nazism, that had started the genocide of
some nations, could not, even had it been
victorious, have wiped out mankind. This
new aspect in the standing of war and
peace indicates that the struggle of internal
contradictions that is the inner source of
the dynamics of any phenomenon may
lead to the extinction of this phenomenon,
a process in which the causes and means
leading to such extinction were not due
to the operation of external conditions,
but only to those of the conditions inherent
in the phenomenon itself.
This new aspect in the development of
mankind applies also to the Marxist thesis
on the unavoidability of the transition to
Communism for all of mankind. Until
recently Marx’s and Engels’ thesis of the
historical unavoidability of this phase
applied not only to the socialist countries
but to mankind as a whole. (This law was
formulated in the light of the laws inherent
in the development of society, and is ab-
stracted from the unforeseeable influence
of specific phenomena, which if they
should materialize - and there is a mini-
mum possibility that this might happen -
would only assume the role of external
factors vis-a-vis human society.) Yet the
possibility of self-destruction modifies even
this key thesis of Marxism. Mankind
stands at an historical cross-roads, one
road leading to world Communism and the
other to the extinction of mankind. The
historical need for the creation of world
Communism can materialize only in the
event of there being no war of mass anni-
hilation that would destroy mankind. Be-
side these two main possibilities, of course,
there exist many others (e.g. a smaller or
larger group of people, or perhaps only a
few individuals, surviving thermonuclear
war; regression of human development by
a longer or shorter historical period; or the
possibility of the degeneration of the
human species, with the possibility or
impossibility of overcoming this. Nor can
one exclude - in case of survival - the
eventuality of further wars of general
Downloaded from jpr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WINNIPEG on September 2, 2014
destruction to follow the first, etc.), but
even so all these would, in the final anal-
ysis, most probably result in one of the
two key alternatives mentioned. All this
means, however, that the transition of
mankind to Communism is not an in-
escapable need, but merely one of the pos-
sibilities of development one of the histori-
-
cal alternatives of human development.
Hence the conclusion that in our time
the standing of war and peace in the
structure of social phenomena differs con-
siderably from its standing in past epochs.
In the past, war and peace were social
phenomena whose role, significance, and
possible consequences did not transcend
the frame of the structure of human
society, and which were a factor inherent
in the internal development of class society.
War could accelerate or hamper social
progress, but it could not threaten the
further development of mankind and cause
its destruction. The use of war and peace
then had a different content and impact,
and the social forces faced by the option
of war or peace did not have to envisage
in their calculations the possibility of con-
ventional war turning into a total ther-
monuclear war that would not know
either victors or defeated and that could
end in the suicide of the human species.
The objective standing of war and
peace in the structure of social phenomena
should not be confused with the value
system of people. The value system that
people evolve is not as a rule a scientific
reflection of reality, but is primarily of an
ethical, ideological and psychological na-
ture. This in turn implies that people do
not have the same system of values and
that different people, different social
groups and different social systems, re-
cognize different hierarchies of values,
and in these terms too a different evalua-
tion of the possible consequences of war
and peace.
From the Marxist point of view it is not
possible to confuse the question of what
people think about things, and what value

they ascribe to them, with the question of
the real nature of these things. Hence for
any judgment of the objective standing of
war and peace it is not the values specific
social groups, social systems or individual
scholars ascribe to them that matter, but
what their standing really is. On the other
hand such subjective evaluation is also of
great practical significance, since in fact
it is tantamount to the political attitude
adopted towards war and peace, and may
well determine the fate of mankind. The
value system of Marxism can not be
confused with the individual value system
of individual Marxists, or of individuals
living in a socialist society. The value
system of Marxism is the product of the
Marxist method of cognition and is in-
tended to be adequate for objective reality;
it is based on the historic role of the
working class and the historical prospects
of human development. Even the value
system of individuals plays a significant
role in social development. The more
important, then, is the role of sociology
and other special sciences in analysing and
comparing these systems of value, however
difficult this may be.
The existence of mankind is the essential
precondition to the existence of all other
phenomena such as capitalism, socialism,
democracy, religion, family, love, and
others, since these can only exist in the
human context. From the Marxist view-
point, the existence of mankind is also the
essential precondition for the existence of
all other values. The loss of this value
signifies the loss of all other values and
there is no option between the existence
of mankind and other values.
In the period prior to the invention of
nuclear weapons the Marxist system of
values had a somewhat different structure.
Then the annihilation of mankind or of its
greater part was not possible, and the
Marxist system of values was built on
somewhat different assumtions and on a
somewhat different structure of social
phenomena.
Downloaded from jpr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WINNIPEG on September 2, 2014
11
The new standing of war and peace and
the possible consequences of war challenges
all scholars, social groups and social
systems to find an answer to the question
of the preservation of the human species
and of the relationship between the con-
tinued existence of mankind and other
values. Different currents of thought have
produced different solutions to this prob-
lem. Thus for instance K. Jaspers in his
book Atombombe und die Zukunft des Menschen
assesses individual freedom and Western
civilisation as the most important values,
and in the event of any threat to these
values considers the use of nuclear weapons
justified, even if such war should lead to
the suicide of mankind. Hence K. Jaspers
gives priority to individual freedom and
Western civilisation over the existence of
mankind. World nuclear self-destruction
would be acceptable to him in the event
of an option between it and the loss of the
aforesaid values, in view of the unfathoma-
bility of God and since reason is but a
transitory phenomenon. 25
Jaspers, who has rightly understood the
qualitative difference between nuclear
war and previous wars, in no way desires
global suicide, which he considers a ter-
rible disaster for mankind, and he explores
the means and possibilities of preventing
this. But since he considers peaceful
coexistence an illusion and does not be-
lieve it to be viable, and envisages a solu-
tion in the form of a world state, he does
not, in terms of Marxism, present any real
way out of the present impasse.
Bertrand Russell - who in the past had
a different opinion on the problem of the
justifiable use of nuclear weapons - has
achieved a profound insight into the inter-
relation of the continued existence of
mankind and of other values.26 Russell,
in a similar way to the Marxists, considers
the existence of mankind as pre-eminently
above all other values. From the Marxist
point of view there exists no value that
would justify the sacrifice of mankind.
Even if Russell’s approach (and there are
12
many non-Marxists who think like him)
does not signify that Russell is a Marxist, it
is important that on this -
perhaps the
essential question of today, that has an
existential, all-human import - there is
consensus among both Marxists and
many non-Marxists. Nor does such con-
sensus imply that the systems of thought
that have produced it are identical; on
the contrary, these are diametrically op-
posite systems of thought emanating from
contrary social class and ideological posi-
tions.
4. Social revolution and the question of war
and peace
The purpose of the present article is not
to give any detailed expose of the Marxist
theory of social revolution, but only of
those aspects that have an intrinsic signi-
ficance for the question of war and peace.
Here two aspects are of particular interest:
1) The Marxist approach to the spreading
of revolution by means of aggressive wars;
2) The question of violent (i.e. armed)
and peaceful forms of revolution as forms
(means) for the transition to socialism.
Social revolution is a progressive quali-
tative change of a specific social order. In
the more narrow sense social revolution
signifies a progressive qualitative change
of political power. The transition from
feudalism to capitalism was achieved by
revolution of the bourgeois type. The
transition from capitalism to socialism is
achieved by revolution of the socialist type.
The social revolution is achieved in phases.
The central thrust of all social revolutions
is the solution of the respective social class
contradiction. Social revolution of the
respective type in individual countries
forms in its sum total the process of world
social revolution of the respective type.
With the October Socialist Revolution
the process of world bourgeois revolution
ceased to be the main revolutionary pro-
cess on a world scale, and world socialist
revolution became the major revolutionary
process in the world. In the period of the
Downloaded from jpr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WINNIPEG on September 2, 2014
process of world socialist revolution, de-
mocratic revolutions, the national libera-
tion movement, the peasant question etc.,
have become the background to and, to
different degrees, part of the world social-
ist revolution. On the other hand we can-
not fail to see that while this is so, these are,
in terms of their socio-economic content,
revolutions or movements of the bourgeois
type. It may hence be said that the process
of the world bourgeois revolution is not as
yet completed, even if it evolves as a
secondary process to the main-stream pro-
cess of the world socialist revolution, and
since it strengthens the forces of socialism
and weakens imperialism may be con-
sidered its reserve and component.
One of the questions often raised by
non-Marxists is whether the idea that the
socialist states should - with a view to
advancing world socialist revolution -
try to impose socialism by means of war,
is in compliance with Marxism. This
question is one that Marxism has ex-
amined so thoroughly, and the views of the
classics on this issue are so clear and
unambiguous, that it should not in any
way be a moot point.
The essential thrust of the dynamics of
any society is the development of the
productive forces. In a class society the
development of the productive forces is
intrinsically related to class struggle,
shich, in a class-based society, is the chief
motive factor of social development. The
generally valid law of development con-
cerning the influence of external condi-
tions on the acceleration or slowing down
of development applies also to society. If
social development of individual countries
is to advance more speedily, then outer
influences must not act as a check on
internal development. Any armed inter-
vention from the outside in the socio-
economic life of another country, with a
view to imposing a ’higher social system’,
for which the conditions have not as yet
matured, may in the final analysis have
the opposite effect and not act as a stimu-

lus to progress, but frustrate social devel-
opment.
This is the more true of socialist revolu-
tion. Marxism holds that the armed inter-
vention of a socialist state into the life of
another country, where conditions have
not as yet matured for socialism, will not
serve to advance its social development
but will hamper it, and will moreover have
a adverse effect on the attitudes towards
socialism in other non-socialist countries.
In the event of socialist countries resorting
to war to impose the socialist system on
other nations, such ’socialism’ would not
be based on the support of the majority of
the working population, but on that of a
small group of people, who would have
to rely on the armed support of a foreign
state (albeit a ’socialist’ one) against the
overwhelming mass of the population.
Such a social system could not fail to be a
distortion of socialism and have little in
common with genuine socialism. What
is more, such a policy would most prob-
ably lead to distortion of the socialist
society of the country that adopted this
orientation.27
Welche sozialen und politischen
Phasen aber diese Lander dann durch-
zumachen haben, bis sie ebenfalls zur
sozialistischen Organization kommen,
dariiber, glaube ich, k6nnen wir heute
nur ziemlich mussige Hypothesen auf-
stellen. Nur das eine ist sicher: das
siegreiche Proletariat kann keinem
fremden Volk irgendwelche Beglück-
ung aufzwingen, ohne damit seinen
eigenen Sieg zu untergraben. Womit
natfrlich Verteidigungskriege ver-
schiedener Art keineswegs ausgeschlos-
sen sind.28
Let us now deal with the issue of the
violent and peaceful forms of revolution,
which is one of the most important issues
that is now the subject of controversy in
the international working class movement.
This problem is again bound up with the
question to what a degree Marxism makes
civil wars or national liberation wars a
Downloaded from jpr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WINNIPEG on September 2, 2014
13
sine qua non for the accomplishment of a
higher social order, of social revolution.
In essence there are two major forms of
revolution, i.e. the violent (armed) form
of revolution and the peaceful form. These
forms in have several sub-forms; in
turn
practice often see an intertwining of
we
these two main forms, and in some cases
revolution starts in one form and culmina-
tes in the other.
Violent revolution denotes a revolution
that uses the sharpest means of struggle
and that therefore assumes the form of an
armed struggle for power. The sub-forms
here may be an armed uprising, a rela-
tively long civil war or national liberation
war.
The peaceful form of revolution denotes
one that does not involve armed struggle
and that resorts to other means (parlia-
mentary forms, strikes, demonstrations)
are used as forms of struggle. Its
subforms are, for instance, the peaceful
transition of democratic revolution into
socialist revolution (i.e. the peaceful ad-
vance of socialist revolution, preceded by
a violent democratic revolution), or peace-
ful transition from capitalism to socialism
accomplished, for example, within the
context of structural changes.
Marxist literature as a rule classifies
revolutions as violent and peaceful ones,
although even the peaceful form contains
elements of violence. The purpose of such
distinction is to grasp the characteristic
traits as they apply to forms of revolutions,
and in this sense, while this distinction may
not be an exactly one, it is nevertheless
justified. On the other hand we cannot
disregard the fact that both the forms of
revolution are violent and both also in-
volve traits of non-violence.
The dissimilarity between the two resi-
des only in the degree, extent and forms
of violence and non-violence they imply.
Even the peaceful form implies traits of
violence, among other reasons because the
new class (or classes) that in the course of
the revolution assume the state power,
14
must avail themselves of this new state
power (in the event of the co-participation
of progressive classes in the exercise of
state power, such classes must make use of
their influence on state power) with a
view to the further development of the
revolution. Even violent revolution has
some traits of non-violence (e.g., the main
forms used to establish union of revolution-
ary forces cannot be those of violence, but
only of persuasion).
I hold that this distinction of the forms
of revolution should be replaced by a
more precise one, more apt to grasp and
define the characteristic features of both
forms. Given that the specificity of violent
revolution is not violence, but a specific
form of violence, i.e. armed struggle, I
believe that the more correct term would
then be violent revolution involving armed
struggle. As to the peaceful form, I would
say that this qualification in essence grasps
the specific traits of this form of revolution
correctly. This lack of precision as to
terminology should not, however, lead the
reader to deduce that the differences of
opinion within the international working
class movement on the forms of revolution
are in the line of terminology. All elements
within the movement generally resort to
this by now traditional distinction of vio-
lent and peaceful revolution, the first
signifying revolution involving armed
struggle. With a view to clarity, I myself
shall in the present article use these two
distinctive terms as they are normally used
by Marxists.
The possibility of carrying through this
or that form of revolution is not a matter
to be examined in the abstract. The ques-
tion whether a victorious revolution will
be achieved by this or that form is deter-
mined above all by the objective conditions
of the revolution (both internal and ex-
ternal).
Nor did the classics of Marxism ap-
proach the question of the use of this or
that form in the abstract. It is in terms of
an analysis of the reality of their time that
Downloaded from jpr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WINNIPEG on September 2, 2014
Marx and Engels deduced that the violent
form of revolution, involving armed strug-
gle for state power, was for their time the
fundamental form of socialist revolution,
while for the United States of America
and England they conceded the possibility
of a peaceful transition from capitalism to
socialism. As Karl Marx said at the Hague
Congress in 1870:
Die Arbeiter werden eines sch6nen
Tages unabwendbar die politische
Macht in ihre Hiinde nehmen miissen,
um der alten Politik, die veraltete
Institutionen schiitzt, ein Ende zu
machen, Aber wir haben niemals
...
behauptet, dass dieses Ziel unaus-
weichlich mit den gleichen Mitteln
erzielt wird.
Wir wissen, dass die Einrichtungen,
Charaktere und Traditionen der ein-
zelnen Linder berfcksichtigt werden
mussen; und wir leugnen nicht dass es
Linder gibt - wie Amerika und
England, und wenn ich eure Ein-
richtung besser kennen wfrde, dann
fiigte ich hier vielleicht auch Holland
hinzu -, in denen die Arbeiter ihre
Ziele mit friedlichen Mitteln erreichen
k6nnen. Wenn dem aber so ist, dann
mussen wir auch zugeben, dass als
Hebel unserer Revolution in der
Mehrzahl der Linder des Kontinents
die Gewalt dienen muss; und gerade
die Gewalt ist es, zu der wir m be-
stimmten Augenblicken unsere Zu-
flucht nehmen mussen, um die Herr-
schaft der Arbeit entgultig zu er-
richter.&dquo;
The transition of free competition capi-
talism to the stage of imperialism has
fundamentally affected the conditions for
revolution. It is at this point in history that
capitalism entered the imperialist stage
and that the conditions for socialist revolu-
tion matured. The new conditions that
evolved in the world at the time required
that the Marxist theory of socialist revolu-
tion be adjusted to these new facts. This
was done by Lenin. One of the questions
to which Lenin gave much thought was
also that of the possibility of using the
peaceful form of revolution at the time.
The conclusion Lenin drew from his anal-

ysis of the existing world conditions was
that socialist revolution could be achieved
he considered the possibility of victory
of then almost only by violent means,30
and the socialist revolution by peaceful
evolution, as he wrote after the February
Revolution in Russia, ’as an extremely
rare possibility in the history of revolu-
tions’.31
Lenin’s sceptical view of the possibility
of socialist revolution achieving victory by
peaceful means, arrived at in terms of the
conditions of his time, in no way meant
that he failed to understand its import.
Lenin’s attitude on peaceful revolution is
also significant for us in the sense that
whenever there was any chance of adop-
ting the peaceful way in Russia, he always
preferred it to violent revolution involving
an armed struggle for state power, and he
made the greatest efforts to achieve the
peaceful form.s2
The Leninist conception of the possi-
bility of achieving socialist revolution by
peaceful means is important also because
Lenin has elaborated one of its forms.
Lenin’s conception of peaceful socialist
revolution is markedly different from
Marx’s and Engels’ thinking about peace-
ful revolution, not only in that it is worked
out much more concretely and that it
forms a part of a coherent theory of social-
ist revolution (coherent without being a
closed system), but in that it differs also as
to form. While Marx and Engels only
considered the possibility of a peaceful
transition from capitalism to socialism in
general (this form is one of the sub-forms
of peaceful socialist revolution), and con-
sidered it in interaction with the degree
of democracy attained in this or that
country, Lenin elaborated a different sub-
form of the revolution by peaceful means,
i.e. that of the democratic revolution
peacefully progressing to socialist revolu-
tion, provided that the democratic revo-
lution preceding it is a completed, vic-
torious one. As to achieving a peaceful
transition from capitalism to socialism in
Downloaded from jpr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WINNIPEG on September 2, 2014
15
conditions of imperialism (without such
transition being preceded by violent dem-
ocratic revolution), Lenin held that this
was not possible. It should be noted at
this point that Lenin’s teachings on the
different forms and different pace of tran-
sition to socialism in different countries,
and his ideas on the need of seeking and
finding the forms for transition to or
approaching socialist revolution, are the
foundation-stones for the elaboration of
any coherent theory of the forms of transi-
tion, in the light of present-day conditions
in the world.
In our time, in view of the changes in
the conditions for revolution, the question
of achieving revolution by peaceful means
has acquired a new context, both in the
theory and in the practice of socialist
revolution. The main point in analysing
the possibilities of using this or that form
and means of class struggle at the present
stage is that conditions in the world today
are considerably different from the situa-
tion in which Lenin formulated his theses
on the forms of revolution. In the first
place the forces of progress today, i.e. the
forces of socialism, anticolonialism, democ-
racy, and peace, have come to a phase
where it is they that essentially determine
the way in which the world of our time
will go. In addition the colonial system
has fallen apart, and marked structural
changes have evolved into a pattern that
encompasses the world. This process of the
growth of the forces of progress is not,
however, a linear one, and it is attended
by some negative traits that tend to
weaken their further development. The
fact that specific structural changes not
only make possible, but what is more
make the orientation towards peaceful
transition to socialism the fundamental
form in the advanced capitalist countries,
is of special significance. This does not,
however, preclude revolution by violent
form in some cases. The possibility of
achieving revolution by violent means
is a real one, even today, given the circum-
16
stance that the question whether it will be
achieved by peaceful or violent means is
not a matter that will be decided by the
working-class alone, but also by the ruling
classes and their reactionary segments, as
experience has shown (e.g. Spain in 1936
and more recently Brazil, Greece, etc.)
that these may provoke an armed con-
flict.
At this juncture the Communist Parties
of many capitalist countries (and perhaps
of all the industrially advanced ones)
project at present an orientation aimed at
structural reforms that may for specific
phases of the struggle create the optimum
conditions for developing the class struggle
and for the possible development of the
society of the country concerned towards
socialism by peaceful means, i.e. by the
peaceful transition from capitalism to
socialism. The ideas formulated by the
leaders of the Communist Parties on the
problem of structural reforms, as well as
the documents adopted by these parties,
permit the conclusion that these structural
changes are intended to accelerate the
structural processes that are evolving more
or less spontaneously in these countries, to
channel them towards definite goals, to
win the majority of the population’s sup-
port, to gain and extend positions held in
the organs of state power and thereby to
achieve peaceful transition.33
The possibility of a peaceful transition
to socialism has also become a very real
one for many of the former colonial
countries, which have made major ad-
vances along the road towards complete
political independence, and which can
through the development of the national
democratic state achieve socialism.
Nevertheless, the violent form still re-
mains a real possibility especially in the
countries of the third world, where im-
perialism has still maintained its key posi-
tions, and where together with the domes-
tic reactionary forces it stands in the way
of the national, democratic, and economic
development of these countries.34
Downloaded from jpr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WINNIPEG on September 2, 2014
5. On the aaoidability and unavoidability of
war in our epoch
From the Marxist point of view the
causes of war, that reside in the social-
economic system, were different in the dif-
ferent socio-economic formations.
Hence the question of the unavoid-
ability of war stands differently in the
different phases of development of capi-
talism.
Any explanation of the laws that apply
to the nature of war in the imperialist
epoch must be sought in the features in-
trinsic to imperialism. In his work on
imperialism Lenin, proceeding from the
work of other authors, notably of Hilferd-
ing, demonstrated that the unevenness
of economic and political development
that is the law inherent in capitalism in
the phase of imperialism is still in a process
of change. In the period of imperialism
the law of the uneven economic and
political development of the individual
countries is characterized by the circum-
stance that the uneven development of a
number of countries proceeds in leaps, and
that some rapidly push others out of the
world markets. This in turn leads to a
sharpening of the conflicts in the imper-
ialist camp, and leads to a process where
from time to time the already divided
world is newly divided by means of an
armed conflict, i.e. by means of imperialist
wars. It is from this law that Lenin then
deduced that wars were unavoidable in
imperialism, and he called this period the
epoch of wars and revolutions.35
Lenin’s thesis as to the unavoidability
of war in view of the law of the sharply
uneven development of the individual
countries was elaborated to apply to the
structure of the imperialist system. It
would therefore be false to extend the
operation of this law mechanically to the
structure of relations between the world
socialist and imperialist system as well.
The source of conflict between these two
global social-economic systems is not the
competitive fight of different imperialist

powers culminating in war with a view to
a new division of the world, but the class
antagonism of two opposing social-eco-
nomic systems, based both on more
profound contradictions, and on different
laws. The antagonistic relation and the
class struggle between these systems is, of
course, the source of many situations of
conflict, and is fraught with the possibility
of war. This was particularly true of the
period when the socialist system was
represented only by the Soviet Union,
which at the time was still relatively weak,
so that war waged against it by several
imperialist powers offered real hopes of
victory. At the present time, however,
when the balance of power has undergone
such vast changes and fundamental struc-
tural changes are taking place, in condi-
tions where the standing of war has
changed, the contradictions and conflicts
between the two systems need not lead to
war. Thus war between the two systems is
possible, but not unavoidable.
The new balance of power in the world
today is also reflected in the processes of
the present capitalist system. This is so in
the sense that the forces of socialism and
peace can not only in large measure con-
tribute to preventing the conflict situations
within the world capitalist system from
leading to large-scale wars, but also to a
considerable degree lead to a situation
where the conflicts between the capitalist
countries are pushed into the background
by the conflict between socialism and
imperialism. This of course reinforces the
tendencies that blunt many contradictions
between the capitalist countries and under
these conditions makes war between them
extremely improbable.
The tendencies seeking to overcome the
contradictions within the imperialist sys-
tem do not, of course, imply that these are
absent at the present stage of its develop-
ment. These exist and even assume sharp
forms, and, as the statistics indicate, the
last decade has also been one of great
uneveness in the economic development
Downloaded from jpr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WINNIPEG on September 2, 2014
17
of the individual capitalist countries. The
causes of this uneveness, however, require
a profound and new analysis on the part
of Marxist economistt, to show how this is
relevant to Lenin’s law on the develop-
ment of the individual imperialist coun-
tries in leaps, and to what extent this law
applies even today. The more so since the
conditions with which the existence and
operation of this law was bound up have
changed to such a degree that they affect
considerably the intensity of its operation
and its possible consequences. The exis-
tence of this law - as Lenin formulated
it -
emanates from the exceptional in-
tensification of two contrary tendencies,
that of the delay and on the other hand of
the rapid growth of the imperialist econ-
omy.
Yet at the present stage the tendency of
delay is undergoing profound changes. It
seems evident that state monopoly capi-
talism is overcoming technical stagnation
and is orienting itself to an intensified
technological progress. The new develop-
ment of the productive forces within the
framework of the existing capitalist pro-
duction relations makes specific inter-
ventions and measures essential. These are
designed to blunt the contradictions be-
tween the social character of production
and the capitalist form of the production
relations. State intervention is aimed at
reducing anarchy and spontaneity in the
economy and at overcoming cyclic crises.
Another factor in the picture is the circum-
stance that the colonial system, whose
existence contributed to economic delay
of colonial empires, is now undergoing an
intensive process of advance towards
complete political and economic inde-
pendence. The change of conditions
within the context of which Lenin formu-
lated this law must of necessity also affect
the consequences it may have. In his study
of imperialism Lenin shows that this law
unavoidably culminates in war conflicts,
since the world has already been divided,
and war becomes the means to secure the
18
new division of an already divided world
as the balance of power between the im-
perialist powers changes.
At the present time, however, the
colonial system has disintegrated and can
therefore no longer be the object of war
for a redivision, as it was in the past.
Since at the present time there is little
probability in the world of any renewal of
the colonial system, the capitalist powers
have adopted a policy of neocolonialism
which, however, has its specific forms and
means of struggle. The main feature of
these new forms is that though the govern-
mental circles of the capitalist powers do
not hesistate to resort to open violence in
relation to the progressive forces of the
former colonial countries, their main
orientation is one to more concealed forms
of domination. The struggle between the
capitalist powers or the individual mono-
poly-groups has primarily assumed the
forms of economic competition, notably
for new markets and the export of capital,
and of political and diplomatic activity.
Although the conditions that formerly led
unavoidably to wars between the imperial-
ist countries have essentially changed and
make war between them improbable, it
would be false to claim that they have
changed to such a degree, as to preclude
the possibility of such wars.
One of the causes of war in the present
epoch is the apparant incapability of a
section of the ruling circles of the capitalist
countries of accepting the dissolution of the
colonial system. Although they cannot
halt this process as far as the complex
process of disintegration of the colonial
system is concerned, they do manage to
attain temporary success in some cases.
Such aggressive interference by the im-
perialists into the life of the economically
backward countries results again and
again in national liberation anti-imperial-
ist wars. Such actions of reactionary
groupings, that produce wars of a seem-
ingly local significance, are a dangerous
threat to peace, as experience has shown,
Downloaded from jpr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WINNIPEG on September 2, 2014
and are fraught with the danger of
escalating into conflicts with far-reaching
consequences.
As indicated previously, the operation
of the laws of the world imperialist system
cannot in any mechanical way be applied
to the world socialist system, since the
latter qualitatively differs from the first.
The main attribute of the socialist system,
that is founded on the social ownership of
the means of production and on a social
class structure adequate thereto, as well
as to its social superstructure, is the pre-
ference for the interest of the social whole
to that of the social groups. Such preference
does not, however, operate in a mechanical
way, but dialectically. The unity of in-
terests is full of contradictions, and ma-
terializes in a process of overcoming the
contradictions between the specific group
interests, as well as the contradictions be-
tween the interests of individuals and the
whole; a process which, in some cases,
may assume the nature of a conflict. This
applies primarily in regard to the contra-
diction between the whole-society interests
and those of individuals, whose conduct is
an asocial one.
Insofar as the mechanism of socialism
operates as it should, it is capable of re-
solving such conflicts in accord with the
interests of the whole and in a way that is
proper to this system. In the event of
distortions of the socialist system, its
mechanism breaks down (as recent events
in China have shown) and the interests of
a specific power elite (that may in the
final analysis to this or that degree
coincide with those of the whole) are
passed off as the interests of the whole.
Relationships within the society are dis-
torted and the process of overcoming
contradictions becomes an extremely com-
plex one, where inadequate methods and
means are resorted to. What applies to
the internal system of the individual soci-
alist countries also applies to the relations
among the individual socialist states
within the world socialist system, with the

difference that here we have sovereign and
independent units, that have the nature
of global societies.
This of course makes the efforts
achieving a unity of interest, and at over-
coming contradictions between the social-
ist countries, in some respects more diffi-
cult, the more so if we take into account
the differences in social and economic
development, traditions, culture, and so
on, as well as the relatively few experiences
it has been possible to gain from mutual
relations in view of the historically as yet
short duration of the world socialist system.
Therefore, although it is considered one of
the elementary attributes of the relations
among socialist countries that these will
be based on equality and are incompatible
with hegemonism or national egoism, the
possibility of the distortion of these rela-
tions is not one that can be disregarded.
Such distortion could lead to the solution
of contradictions between them by inade-
quate means, and this in specific circum-
stances could result in war. War among
the socialist countries is possible, but is
not adequate to the socialist system and
would not result from its socialist nature;
on the contrary, it would be distortions
thereof, i.e. the non-socialist traits of the
’socialist’ state (or states), that would
cause the war and unleash it.
In the world today wars can also break
out between the former colonial countries,
where the frontiers between the new states
have often been established fortuitously,
as traces of the past, when the imperialist
powers were carving up the world. The
question of the frontiers between these
states is often an outstanding issue resulting
sometimes in war. The purpose of the
forces of peace is to strive for a just and
peaceful settlement of these conflicts.
Another factor that should be taken into
account in examining the question of the
avoidability or unavoidability of world
thermonuclear war is that the terrible
consequences of any such war would not
cause vast suffering and death in the
Downloaded from jpr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WINNIPEG on September 2, 2014
19
socialist countries also, nor would it
merely affect the working population of
the non-socialist countries, but on the
at contrary all social classes and strata,
irrespective of whether they are the ex-
ploiters or the exploited. It is evident that
in our time the question of the avoidability
or unavoidability of war, and here I mean
world thermonuclear war, has not only a
class foundation, but also a human ex-
istential aspect. The possible consequences
of a thermonuclear war lead to a contra-
diction between the natural inclination of
people irrespective of class to keep alive
and the threat of their complete annihila-
tion.36 Although one should not overesti-
mate the importance of this contradiction,
one should also not underestimate it,
since it plays its role and reduces the
actual threat of thermonuclear war break-
ing out.
The attitude of the different social clas-
ses and groups is, however, not determined
only by the aspect of self-preservation, but
also influenced by the class and political
interests and ideological attitudes, which
with some social groups come into con-
tradiction with their existential interests
and in some cases play a dominant role.
It is the unity and contrariety of the social
class and political interests and ideological
attitudes of the different classes and
groups on theone hand, and of the general
tendency toself-preservation of mankind
on the other, that produce the main
contradiction of the world in our time, i.e.
the contradiction between the most re-
actionary parts of the monopoly groups
and military groups, those who serve
them, and all those engaged in nuclear
brinkmanship, or who oppose all the
measures designed to eliminate this threat,
on the one hand; and the objective in-
terests of the nations of the world on the
other. The efforts of the USSR, the
majority of the socialist countries, and of
that section of the international Commu-
nist movement that support them, to
resolve this main contradiction of the
20
present phase of world development does
not stand in any mechanical isolation
from the resolution of the chief contra-
diction inherent in the process of the
development of capitalism (and the same
applies to the other important contra-
dictions of the world of today).
The Soviet Union and the great ma-
jority of the socialist countries, and of the
international working-class movement,
hold the view that, due to the changed
conditions in the world of today, world
war is not inevitable.
A final point to be made in this analysis
of the question whether war in the atomic
age is avoidable or unavoidable, is that
this problem has a different aspect in the
event of a war among states, from that in
civil or national liberation war. In the
event of wars waged ’within’ states, i.e.
internal wars, what has been said on the
forms of social revolution will still hold true.
6. On coexistence
The concept of ’peaceful coexistence’
among states is a historical category bound
up with the origin of class society and
with the origin of states, and has assumed
a different scope, content, and form in
different periods of history.
We can explore this concept from dif-
ferent aspects. For instance, to what de-
gree its quality in specific cases is complete,
or to what degree it is qualitatively or
quantitatively disrupted, or to what de-
gree it is replaced by a new state the
state of war. We may further examine it
in terms of the forms, i.e. the specific
means that make coexistence viable. An-
other aspect that must be taken into
account is whether we are speaking of
peaceful coexistence among two or more
states or between two social-economic
systems, or whether what we have in mind
is peaceful coexistence between states of the
same or of different social-economic types.
The question of peaceful coexistence
assumed major significance for the inter-
national working class after the victory of
Downloaded from jpr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WINNIPEG on September 2, 2014
revolution in Russia and the birth of the
first socialist state. The question whether
peaceful coexistence between a socialist
state and the imperialist system was a
viable alternative acquired new urgency
for revolutionary practice. Lenin’s con-
ception of socialist revolution, which re-
jected Trotsky’s conception of the ’export
of revolution’ as the means of securing the
victory of world socialist revolution, also
embodied the idea of the possibility of
peaceful coexistence between socialism and
the imperialist states.
Lenin’s idea of coexistence, formulated
within the context of the existing situation
in the world, did not approach coexis-
tence in the sense that we now do, but
rather as a period of respite, that could
and might soon give way to the state of
war. Lenin proceeded from the premise
that socialism could best be developed in
conditions of peace, and orientated the
USSR towards a policy of peace, that
could avert this or that eventuality of war,
but that was incapable of eliminating the
unavoidability of wars, since these arise
from the essential nature of the imperialist
system. An analogous viewpoint, which in
the inter-war period was a justified one,
was held also by Stalin. The policy of
coexistence with imperialism, which the
Soviet Union was able to assume in 1920
after the repulsion of intervention, came
to an end as early as 1941, and the Soviet
Union had to defend its existence in a war
-
waged against the most aggressive forces
of world imperialism.
After the Second World War there was
again a period of peaceful coexistence be-
tween socialism and imperialism, and, due
to the formation of the world socialist
system, the question arose whether there
could be coexistence between states of two
antagonistic world systems, i.e. the socialist
and the imperialist systems. Unlike the
period of the first post-war years, when
tension between these two systems was at
an ebb and a certain cooperation still
existed, the fifties saw a period of sharp

tension in international relations. In the
world socialist system this tension found
its ideological reflection in Stalin’s con-
cept of the ’struggle for peace’ that was
formulated most pregnantly in the speeches
of Zhdanov, Molotov, and Vyshinsky, and
in the world capitalist system in the con-
cept of ’cold war’, which was the ideologi-
cal expression of the class political in-
terests of the reactionary groups of this
system, and whose chief advocates were
John Foster Dulles, McCarthy and Kon-
rad Adenauer. According to John Foster
Dulles, the US should go to the brink of
war, but it was to be a right war, started
at the right time and in the right place.37
In what respect such a war could, in the
atomic age, be a ’right war’ is in my
-
opinion - difficult to imagine.
Stalin’s concept of the ’struggle for
peace’, predicated on the assumption of
the unavoidability of wars between the
imperialist states3a (although this was an
assumption that was losing its justification
at the time) while admitting realistically
that it might prove possible to avoid wars
between the world socialist and the world
imperialist systems,39 failed to appreciate
the new situation as it had evolved in the
post-war period, especially due to the in-
vention of thermonuclear weapons and
the changing situation in the world. This
concept underestimated the forces of
peace40 and wrongly narrowed down the
task of the struggle for peace.41 Stalin’s
inadequate understanding of the new ele-
ments of the situation and his under-
estimation of their significance in the long
run made it impossible to solve the prob-
lems of the time with foresight, taking into
account new prospects that could be dis-
cerned even then, and left the future
burdened with the legacy of a number of
extremely complex problems. What is
more, this concept was grist to the mill of
bellicose groups in the West and served
to reinforce their position.
The milestone in terms both of the
overall policy of the majority of the Com-
Downloaded from jpr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WINNIPEG on September 2, 2014
21
munist Parties and the Socialist Countries,
and of the foreign policy of the socialist
states, was the Twentieth Congress of the
Communist Party of the Soviet Union,
which first formulated the question of the
possibilityof avoiding wars in our epoch
and outlined some of the elements of the
policy of peaceful coexistence, to be further
developed at a later stage. Present coex-
istence differs from that of the past in
many ways, and its birth-pangs were both
painful and extended.
The concept of peaceful coexistence can
be understood in the metaphorical sense,
in the broader sense, and in the proper
sense of the term. In the proper sense of
the term, the Marxist concept of peaceful
coexistence signifies a process wherein
states base their relations on a policy of
peace, reflected and projected also to the
other spheres of socio-economic life. Yet
coexistence in its present connotation also
signifies that coexistence has become an
objective necessity in view of the destruc-
tive consequences of war and hence re-
quires that international relations be
fashioned into a peaceful pattern built on
a basis adequate to the present reality.
Hence peaceful coexistence in the modern
age must be based on such principles as
the rejection of war as a means for the
settlement of disputes among states and
the settlement of disputes by negotiation;
the relations between states must further
rest on trust, on economic and cultural
cooperation, and on the principles of
mutual respect for interests, territorial
integrity, and sovereignty. Another im-
portant principle of peaceful coexistence
is the requirement of non-interference in
the domestic affairs of states and recogni-
tion of the right of each nation to settle
independently its own affairs.
Each conception of coexistence em-
bodies on the one hand specific political
and ideological goals and conceptions of
social reality, and, on the other hand -
to different degrees - also a general con-
ception of history. This is also true of the
22
Marxist conception of coexistence, which
should be understood within the context
of and in unity with the Marxist con-
ception of historical development. Marx-
ism proceeds from a historico-materialistic
conception of history, conceiving it
objective process of laws that that
to the historical sequence of social-econo-
mic systems from lower to higher socio-
economic formations. In this sense the
Marxist concept of coexistence implies the
idea that coexistence is a specific historical
period that is to culminate in world social-
ist and later in world communist society.
In the Marxist conception this phenom-
enon must be viewed as a relatively
permanent state, where the abolition of
capitalism would come about not as a
result of war with the socialist countries
but as a result of the maturing of changes
that are an objective necessity within the
capitalist countries. These changes would
be made as and when they were freely
decided by the peoples of the countries
concerned, and would be carried through
as an in conditions of world security, where the
apply principle of non-interference would be
recognized and respected by all states.
Peaceful coexistence is an extremely
complicated process that is now only in
the initial stage of its development, and
that, however urgent the calls of history,
is advancing at something of a snail’s
pace; its present content and form are still
only in an embryonic stage. The objective
need for peaceful coexistence confronts the
socialist countries with the necessity of de-
voting maximum efforts to this question and
of making the policy of peaceful coexistence
the cornerstone of their foreign policies.42

NOTES AND REFERENCES

* Work on this article was initiated while the author was a research fellow at the International
Peace Research Institute, Oslo, and can be recognized as PRIO-publication no. 25-7 from the
institute.
1 ’... war was as old as the simultaneous existence of several groups of tribal communities next
to each other.’ (F. Engels: Anti-Dühring, publ. Svoboda 1949, Praha, p. 155).
2 Lenin formulated the Marxist definition of a social class as follows:
’Classes are large groups
of people, that differ from each other by their position in a historically specific system of social
production, by their relationship (generally secured and specified in law) to the means of pro-
duction, their role in the social organisation of labour and thereby by the manner in which they
acquire and in the amount of that share of social wealth that they dispose of.’ (V. I. Lenin,
Works 29, Praha 1955, p. 415).
3 The Soviet ten-volume History of the World writes: ’In the earlier paleolithic period
human life acquired a much more complex pattern, the first primeval communities were formed.
The individual groups of Neanderthal Man probably did not know each other and were even
hostile to each other’. (History of the World, Vol. I, SNPL, Praha, p. 74).
4
’Prisoners taken in wars between the tribes were either accepted as members of the tribe (as
free members - note of the author) or killed. In the neolithic period the tribes engaged in primi-
tive farming would occassionally set them to work, but could not at this stage feed or control a
larger number of slaves. That is why even these tribes used most frequently to kill their prisoners,
with a few exceptions.’ (Ibid., p. 159).
5
’Politics are the arena of class struggle for the right to rule, for state power, to dominate the
society, as well as for participation in the activities of the state and the administration of public
affairs. The main task of politics is the problem of achieving, maintaining and using state power
by6 the given social class.’ (Bolshaja Sovietskaja Encyclopedia, 2nd edition, Vol. 33).
’Such unity (the unity within which in "practical life" contradictory elements combine) is
the term that war is only a part of political relations, that therefore it is certainly not anything
independent.’ (V. I. Lenin, Clausewitz’ book On War, Nase vojsko, Praha, 1959, p. 556).
7
’War is thus an act of violence designed to compel an opponent to submit to our will.’
(C. von Clausewitz, On War, publ. Nase vojsko, Praha, 1959, p. 23).
8 The explanation of war as a continuation of policy by other, i.e. extremely violent means, was
of cardinal importance for the study of the problem of war. This idea was first thus formulated-

Downloaded from jpr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WINNIPEG on September 2, 2014

 23
prior to the origin of Marxism - by the outstanding theoretician of
Carl von Clausewitz, in
war
his significant book On War. Clausewitz, whom Engels qualified as one of the greatest in the field
of military science, did not, however, fully understand the essence of the concept of policy. He
understood policy as the objective idealist Hegel did ’as the intelligence of the personified state.’
9
V. I. Lenin, Clausewitz’ book On War, publ. Nase vojsko, Praha, 1959, p. 25.
10 Ibid.
p. 27; further see C. von Clausewitz On War, Nase vojsko, Praha, 1959, p. 558. In the
atomic age this relationship has changed to some extent and it is not possible categorically to
subordinate strategic assessments to political ones, and it is also necessary to subordinate political
views to strategic ones.
11 C. von
Clausewitz, On War publ. Nase vojsko, Praha, 1959, p. 558.
12 R.
Aron, Frieden und Krieg, publ. Fischer Verlag, Frankfurt a M., 1963, see especially Volume
I., Chapter I.
13
Q. Wright, A Study of War, vol. I., publ. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1942, p. 8.
14 Ibid.
15 Prirucni Slovnik
Naucny, Volume 3, publ. Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences, Praha, 1966, p. 164.
16
Bolshaja Sovietskaja Encyclopedia, 2nd edition, Vol. 27.
17 The
relationship between ends and means is a dialectical one. A specific object or goal that
is the means in one case, may, viewed from another angle, be the end in another. Thus for
instance politics are the means of economics, which from this point of view is the end. In the
relationship of war and peace, politics are the end and war and peace are the means of politics, etc.
18 R.
Aron, Frieden und Krieg, Fischer Verlag, Frankfurt a/M, 1963, p. 56.
19
Ibid., p. 37.
20 B.
Engels, Anti-Dühring, publ. F. L. P. H. Moscow, 1962, p. 229.
21 Ibid.
p. 230.
22 Ibid.
p. 230.
23
Vojenska Strategie, Nase Vojsko, Praha, 1963, p. 241-242. There are different assessments of
the possible consequences of thermonuclear war today. While some scientists consider it possible
that nuclear war might even today lead to the annihilation of all mankind, others consider these
views as wrong or improbable. Thus for instance H. Kahn, the US physicist and theoretician of
atomic war, in his study The Nature and Feasibility of War and Deterrence (New York, 1962) notes
that the group of experts of the Rand Corporation who studied the possible effects of thermonuclear
war concluded that, for the next decade (until 1970), the claims of possible complete destruction
of the world as a result of thermonuclear war could not be considered as trustworthy, irrespective
of the military results of such a war. The evaluation of Chinese representatives in this respect
reflects a rather peculiar optimism. ’... imperialist war would cause many victims among the
peoples of all countries (including the people of the United States and the other imperialist
countries). If the imperialists were nevertheless determined to impose such sacrifices on the people
of all countries, we believe that, as the experience of the Russian and Chinese revolutions have
shown, these sacrifices will not be in vain. On the ruins of dead imperialism the victorious people
would speedily create a civilization a thousand times higher than the capitalist system and would
thus create a wonderful future! Long live Leninism!’ Editorial from the theoretical paper of the
Central Committee of the Communist Party of China The Red Flag 16 April 1960).
24 The
English strategic theoretician Kingston-McCloughry, writing on the relationship of
nuclear war and politics, said that if we take Clausewitz’ statement that ’war is a continuation of
politics by other means’ (violent means), and examine it in the light of today’s conditions, in the
event of a nuclear war nothing could be as far removed from the truth as this statement. Such war,
once it was unleashed, would signal the end of any politics and complete mutual annihilation.

(E. J. Kingston-McCloughry, Global Strategy, Moscow, 1959, p. 290).

25 K.
Jaspers, Atombombe und die Zukunft des Menschen, München, 1961, p. 354. Further see K.
Jaspers, Kleine Schule des Philosophischen Denkens, publ. R. Piper, Miinchen, 1965, p. 173-175.
26 ’The
present situation is one involving immanent and daily peril, not only to the nations of
NATO and Warsaw Pact, but to all mankind. Of all the risks that are involved in this risk of
nuclear war. I should like every negotiator from the West to state: ’I am firmly convinced that a
nuclear war would be worse than the world-wide victory of Communism.’ I should like every
negotiator from the East to declare: ’I am firmly convinced that a nuclear war would be worse
than the world-wide victory of Capitalism.’ Those on either side who refused to make such de-
claration would brand themselves as enemies of mankind and advocates of the extinction of the
human race.’ (Bertrand Russell, Unarmed Victory, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, Middlesex,
1963, p. 7).

Downloaded from jpr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WINNIPEG on September 2, 2014

24
27 The
question of spreading the revolution by means of aggressive war, that has come to be
known under the term ’export of revolution’, became a topical issue after the victory of socialist
revolution in Russia. At the time a part of leadership of the Communist Party of Russia tried to
impose the view that a solution of the difficulties attending the birth and growth of the first socialist
state could be found in the ’export of revolution’ to the capitalist countries. Trotsky, who was the
chief spokesman of this group, believed that socialism could be established in Russia only in the
event of socialist revolution being victorious in the capitalist advanced part of Europe too.
Socialist revolution in economically backward Russia, encircled by world capitalism, should - as
Trotsky held — fight its way out of such encirclement or die a heroic death. What Trotsky’s
conception in fact meant was that the revolutionary proletariat of Russia was to take the path
of permanent wars against the capitalist countries and in this way secure the victory of world
socialist revolution (See L. D. Trotsky, The Third International after Lenin; Pioneer Publisher,
New York, 1936, p. 172, 211). These views were rejected by Lenin and by the majority of the
Party leadership as non-Marxist and harmful to revolutionary practice.
28 K. Marx u. F.
Engels, Ausgewählte Briefe, p. 327.
29 K. Marx — F.
Engels — Volume 12, p. 154, Moscow. Engels reaffirmed the view expressed
here on the forms of socialist revolution again in 1891 (See Marx-Engels, Kritiky Programu, publ.
Svoboda, Praha, 1949, p. 149).
30
’The supersession of the bourgeois state by the proletarian state is impossible without a
violent revolution.’ ’The latter (i.e. the bourgeois state note of the author) cannot be superseded
—

by the proletarian state (the dictatorship of the proletariat) through the process of "withering
away", but, as a general rule, only through a violent revolution.’ (V. I. Lenin, The State and Revolution,
FLPH, Moscow, p. 37, 36. Further see Ibid, p. 65-67).
31
V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, II., SNPL, Praha, 1955, p. 115.
32
Ibid., p. 115-116.
33 The
question of structural reforms and of the orientation towards them has been studied
and elaborated primarily by the Italian Communist Party, notably at its VIIIth, IXth and Xth
Congress.
34 Different views are held on the
question of the forms of revolutions in the international
communist movement, although the ’Declaration’ of the Communist Parties was adopted, and
the Statement later in 1960. These documents were signed by all the Communist Parties with the
exception of the Union of Communists of Yugoslavia. The Statement formulated this question
in the following way: ’The working class with its vanguard has the possibility under present
conditions in a number of capitalist countries... of assuming state power without civil war and
of ensuring the transition of the basic means of production into the hands of the people.’ ’In the
situation where the exploiting classes might resort to violence against the people, another form of
transition to socialism and that not by peaceful means must be borne in mind.’ (Statement of the
Consultation of the Representatives of the Communist and Workers’ Parties, Rude Pravo, De-
cember 6, 1960). This view is held by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the majority
of the Communist Parties.
A similar view is held also by the Union of Communists of Yugoslavia. ’In certain countries a
situation might evolve in which the Communist parties as political and historical factors may be
pushed into isolation and into the background if they prove incapable of making use of peaceful
means of struggle. In other countries, on the other hand, the Communist Parties may suffer the
same fate if they prove incapable of making use of the revolutionary situation and of overthrowing
the violence of reaction by violence’. (E. Kardelj, Vermeindbarkeit oder Unvermeindbarkeit des Krieges;
publ. E. Grassi, München, 1961, p. 70).
The solution advanced by the Communist Party of China on this issue is an entirely different
one. It should, however, be borne in mind that the views of the CP of China have undergone a
certain development before reaching the stand held now. At the present time the CP of China
categorically rejects the idea of peaceful forms of revolution. In an extensive document devoted
to this question it says: ’The whole history of the working-class movement teaches us that the
recognition or non-recognition of violent revolution as the universal law of proletarian revolution,
the need to destroy the old state apparatus and to replace the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie by
the dictatorship of the proletariat, has always been the demarcation line between Marxism and
all kinds of opportunism and revisionism, among revolutionaries and all the renegades of the
proletarian cause.’ ’Marxism has always openly enounced the unavoidability of violent revolu-
tion.’ (The Proletarian Revolution and Kruishchevite Revisionism, Zhenmin-zhpao, 31.3. 1964).
35 V. I.
Lenin, Imperialism as the Highest Stage of Capitalism, publ. Svoboda, Praha, 1951.

Downloaded from jpr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WINNIPEG on September 2, 2014

 25
36
In the views of the CP of China this contradiction does not exist; it holds that ’the leadership
of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union reduced all the contradictions of the world of today
to one, existing only in its imagination, the contradiction between the so-called general tendency
of the imperialists, the oppressed classes and oppressed nations, to survive and the alleged threat of
their complete destruction.’ (Information Bulletin of Hsinhua, 20.11. 1963, p. 10, No. 1398, in Russian).
37
See J. Lukacs, The Theory of Cold War, New York, 1962, p. 11.
38J. V. Stalin, Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR, Part 6; XIXth Congress of the Com-
munist Party of the Soviet Union, Speeches and Documents, publ. CC of the Communist Party
of Czechoslovakia, Praha, 1952, p. 22-24.
39
Ibid.
40 ’The
purpose of the peace movement at the present time is to mobilise the masses of the
people to avert a new world war.’ ’What is most probable is that the present peace movement,
as well as the movement to preserve the peace, if it proves successful, will avert the given war,
postpone it temporarily, temporarily preserve the given peace, remove the warmongering govern-
ment and replace it by another government, ready for a time to preserve the peace. This is of
course good, even very good. But this will not suffice to remove the unavoidability of war between
the capitalist countries.’ ’To eliminate the unavoidability of war, it is necessary to destroy im-
perialism.’ J. V. Stalin loc. cit.
41
Ibid.
42
Different views are held on the issue of coexistence in the world of today by the socialist
countries and the Communist parties. With some degree of simplification we can classify the
socialist conception of coexistence into three main trends: the Chinese conception (shared for
instance also by Albania), the one held by the Yugoslav, Soviet and other Communist parties,
and the socialist states that to a greater or lesser degree identify themselves with the Soviet
conception. The differences from the Soviet conception advanced by states and communist
parties that in the essence share the Soviet conception are as a rule very close either to the Chinese
or to the Yugoslav conceptions, since these two conceptions, if we take them in the phenomenal

context, represent the two extreme politics of the conception of coexistence held by socialist states.
What characterizes the Chinese conception is that it sees no essential difference between the
previous phases of coexistence between socialism and imperialism. This conception of coexistence
in our time follows from the Chinese conception of the avoidability and non-avoidability of wars
and their possible consequences for the world in our time, and their conception of Marxist method
and theory (and their application to social phenomena), that in my view are in many respects
deprived of their original content and meaning. In the letter of the Communist Party of China of
6 June 1963, addressed to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union,
peaceful coexistence is formulated as follows: ’It is false to make peaceful coexistence the general
line of the foreign policy of the socialist countries. In our view the general line of foreign policy
must have the following content: 1. Develop relations of friendship, mutual assistance and co-
operation with the countries of the socialist camp, in accordance with the principle of proletarian
internationalism; 2. strive for peaceful coexistence with the countries with different social systems
on the basis of the Five Principles and combat the imperialist policy of aggression and war;
3. support the revolutionary struggles of all the oppressed peoples and nations. These aspects are
inseparable and stand in correlation with each other, and it is not possible to omit any of them.’
(Rude Pravo, 15.7. 1963). The essential difference between the Chinese conception on the one hand
and the Soviet and Yugoslav on the other resides primarily in that the Chinese representatives
do not see peaceful coexistence as an objective necessity and do not believe it is viable, and even
less capable of developing its highest forms; they moreover consider it would constitute an
obstacle to the development of the revolutionary struggle of the oppressed peoples and nations.
’Can peaceful coexistence’ — the ’Sixth Answer’ notes — ’remove the contradiction between
socialism and imperialism and remove the struggle between them.’ The authors of the said
article ask and at the same time give the answer! ’Throughout the post — war period the imperia-
lists if they are not waging hot war - have constantly waged cold war and the imperialist and
—

socialist countries in fact coexist in conditions of a cold war.’ (Information Bulletin of the Hsinhua
Agency of 13.12. 1963, No. 1418, in Russian). It is evident that the Chinese representatives confuse
wrongly in my opinion - the question of the impossibility of class antagonism disappearing
—

between the two systems under conditions of peaceful coexitsence, and that of the possibility of
eliminating cold war and creating more highly developed coexistence.
The Soviet Union and the states and Communist parties that to a greater or lesser degree
share the Soviet conception of peaceful coexistence view this issue in quite a different way.

Downloaded from jpr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WINNIPEG on September 2, 2014

26
The Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union defines peaceful coexistence as
follows: ’Peaceful coexistence of the socialist and capitalist states is an objective need of social
development.’ (Programme of the CP of the USSR, XXII Congress, p. 445, Nova Mysl, October,
1961). ’Peaceful coexistence presupposes: the rejection of war as a means for the settlement of
disputes among states, their settlement by negotiations; equality, mutual understanding and trust
among states, respect for each others’ interests; non-interference in internal affairs, recognition
of the right of each nation to resolve independently all matters within its domestic jurisdiction;
strict respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries; development of economic
and cultural cooperation on the basis of absolute equality and mutual advantage.
Peaceful coexistence is the basic prerequisite for peaceful competition between socialism and
capitalism on the international scale and is a specific form of class struggle between them’. ) Ibid.
(
The Soviet Union, and the considerable majority of the socialist countries and the international
working-class movement, proceed from the possibility and the objective need of peaceful co-
existence and consider it essential to strive for such forms of relations and such forms of the settle-
ment of disputes among states that would make it possible to avert nuclear war and would lead
to a new structure of international relations. This new conception and practice in international
relations would make it possible to prevent war breaking out among states even while two diffe-
rent global systems still existed. The orientation of this part of the global Communist movement
towards the policy of peaceful coexistence does not, however, signify that it holds an entirely
negative view in relation to all wars. Even at the present juncture, this section of the world
communist movement recognizes that there are just national liberation and civil wars, since it
views peaceful coexistence in dialectical unity with the other problems of the world of our time
and in correlation with the progressive development of mankind on a global scale.
This conception coincides — except in some points — also with the Yugoslav conception.
’Coexistence’ — said Josip Brozh Tito — ’must not be conceived as a process where nations and
states vegetate next to each other, but as international relations proceeding from entirely new
principles in accord with our times, that permit of lively peaceful intercourse and activities
between states of different social systems. The precondition to such coexistence is the solution of
all outstanding issues by peaceful means, rejection of war. This does not signify any transitory
armistice or a manoeuvre, in the sense that it should provide an opportunity for one side to gain
victory over the other in the course of such an armistice. It implies the establishment of lasting
norms and principles that should dominate international relations in our time and age. Coexi-
stence precludes all interference in the internal affairs of other nations. We must not confuse the
principles underlying peaceful coexistence in international relations with the internal development
of the individual countries and with the social changes, with the development of society and the
relations among the classes. It is up to the people of the respective countries to determine in which
way they desire their social development to go, what social system they wish to adopt. And it is
precisely this strict observance of the principle of coexistence among peoples and states and of the
non-interference in the internal affairs of others that can make for a peaceful and painless process
of social change in the individual countries.’ (J. B. Tito, Report at the 5th T.U. Congress, 18.4.1960).
It is evident that these two conceptions — both the Soviet and the Yugoslav — are very close
to each other as to the essential criteria of the conception of coexistence, and their dissimilarity
resides if we leave aside some of the theoretical points of departure relating to some aspects
—

of the character of the present epoch — primarily in the conception of some of the aspects of their
practical realization. Yugoslav foreign policy too proceeds from the viability and objective neces-
sity of coexistence in our time, and views its realization and promotion as one of the basic tasks
of the foreign policy of the socialist countries. Both Soviet and Yugoslav foreign policy is aimed
at eliminating tension in the world, and strives for general and complete disarmament and the
elimination of the military groupings of the ’West’ and the ’East’. But, unlike Yugoslavia, the
Soviet Union and other socialist countries hold that it is not possible to annul the military grouping
of the socialist states, unless the same happens in the West. This view is a realistic one and, as a
whole, proceeds from an appraisal that is more adequate to the situation. Yugoslavia, which of
all the socialist states first elaborated the essential aspects of the Marxist conception of coexistence
in our time, is not a member of any military bloc, although the question of the dissolution of
military blocs has not as yet matured in the West — and from this position pursues a policy of
active neutrality. In spite of some dissimilarities in this respect between Yugoslavia and the
USSR, and those socialist contries whose stand to a greater or lesser degree coincides with that
of the Soviet Union on foreign policy, the trend at present is towards greater cooperation between
these two currents including the endeavour for coexistence.

Downloaded from jpr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WINNIPEG on September 2, 2014

 27
SUMMARY
This study strives to elucidate some fundamental problems of war and peace from the
Marxist viewpoint. War and peace are understood exclusively as social phenomena,
not manifestations of any super-natural power outside human society. The study

emphasizes the explication of concepts used, and points out confusions on some terms in
Marxist literature.
The author examines the problems of war and peace, both in terms of relations
among states and of national liberation and civil wars. Here he attempts to elucidate
the relationship of war and revolution, notably the Marxist attitude to the so-called
’export of revolution’ and the Marxist conception of peaceful and non-violent forms of
revolution. He further deals with the avoidability and unavoidability of wars in our
times and the problems relating to peaceful coexistence.
The author points out that the tremendous changes in today’s world make impossible
any solution of these problems in terms of timeworn attitudes. The study also emphasizes
the role of thermonuclear weapons in the structure of social phenomena. The emergence
of nuclear missile war techniques has changed the social function of wars. Only non-
nuclear wars have in essence retained their original social function; but even these
involves new elements, and can easily grow into nuclear missile wars.
The author concludes that peace and peaceful co-existence among states is not only
possible, but a historical necessity. He outlines the views held by various groups in the
international Communist movement on some basic issues and also confronts the Marxist
conception of war and peace with the views of some non-Marxist scholars.

Downloaded from jpr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WINNIPEG on September 2, 2014