THIS article looks at the Bolsheviks struggle for Peaceful Coexistence in the aftermath of the first world war and the Russian revolution. While criticising Trotskyism's opposition to this Leninist policy, we also show how the revisionists came to use this policy in an opportunist fashion as a means of renouncing revolution.

THE view that there would be a period of coexistence between capitalism and emergent socialism was always implicit in Leninist theory, although no Marxists could say, a priori, how long a duration this period would be. Ideas relating to peaceful coexistence either came to the fore, or remained in the background, depending on the state of the class struggle and debates over policy.

HOWEVER, an editorial in Sotsial Demokrat No. 44, on 23 August 1915, dealt with the slogan of the 'United States of Europe' which, at the time, Lenin argued against, while criticising a possible alternative slogan of the 'united states of the world'. Lenin pointed out that these slogans merged with socialism, and were inappropriate, "because it may wrongly be interpreted to mean that the victory of socialism in a single country is impossible, and it may also create misconceptions as to the relations of such a country to the others".

(See Lenin CW. Vol. 21)

WHAT relations did Lenin have in mind? Soon after the Communists came to power in Russia this became clearer, as the outline of Lenin's foreign policy began to take shape.

THE first world war of 1914-18, led to the collapse of the Tsar's regime. The Russian Monarchy was overthrown, and a new government of capitalists was formed, led first by Lvov and then Kerensky. This government continued with pursuing the imperialist war. Lenin summed up its character in the following way:

"In the field of foreign policy, which has been brought to the forefront by objective circumstances, the new government is a government for the continuation of the imperialist war, a war that is being waged in alliance with the imperialist powers- Britain, France, and others-for division of capitalist spoils and for subjugating small and weak nations..." (April Thesis)

THE Bolsheviks opposed this policy of continuing the war. Lenin called for an immediate cessation of hostilities, and indeed urged the workers to overthrow their war-mongering governments arguing that it was impossible to slip out of the war and achieve a democratic, non-coercive peace without overthrowing the power of capital and transferring power to another class.

"This will be the beginning of a "break-through" on a world-wide scale, a break-through in the front of capitalist interests; and only by breaking through this front can the proletariat save mankind from the horrors of war and endow it with the blessings of peace." (op. cit)

FROM the outbreak of the war, which was fought only between imperialist powers, unlike the second world war, which involved a workers' state, the Bolsheviks stood for revolutionary defeatism. This meant it was the duty of socialists to work for the defeat of their own ruling classes. In Russia, the Bolsheviks rallied the workers and peasants with the slogans, Peace, Bread, Land, against the provisional government, which was determined to pursue the war to the bitter end. The war weary masses and soldiery, sick of the war and bloodshed pursued by their government, began to desert the bourgeoisie and the Menshevik opportunists in droves, and transferred support to the most determined opponents of the war, the Bolsheviks, who were soon in a firm enough position to topple the Kerensky government.

Kerensky's new, feeble, bourgeois regime, unable to reverse the steady loss of support, due to the pursuing of unpopular policies, was easily removed from power by the Bolsheviks. On coming to power the Bolsheviks were now in a position to put their peace pledges into action, but the leadership was divided over what policy to pursue. Lenin's position was opposed at first by two factions, one led by Bukharin and the other by Trotsky. Lenin's views, which entailed signing over a large amount of territory to the Germans, in order to buy time, eventually prevailed against the Left-Communists. In a jaundiced biography on Stalin, Trotsky gloated that:

"Had it not been for the withdrawal of the Trotsky faction from the contest, Lenin would have gone down in defeat at the hands of Bukharin in the central committee debates on the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk".

BUKHARIN had argued for a 'revolutionary war', unrealistically based, in the first stages, on hit-and-run guerilla warfare. Trotsky, on the other hand, had no policy and declared to the Germans, "we wage no war; we conclude no degrading peace". The German general staff were not impressed, and ordered further advances into Soviet territory. The result was that the Bolsheviks had to accept a far more degrading peace than the one Trotsky had previously turned down, in addition to which the position of the Communists were weakened in the civil war which developed soon after.

ALTHOUGH the Bolsheviks had called for the transformation of the imperialist war into a civil war against the bourgeoisie, as the only way to guarantee a permanent and genuine peace, such calls were drowned out by the social-chauvinism of the opportunist led workers' parties. In the majority of such parties the right-wing gained the ascendancy over the revolutionary left, in addition to which they were supported by the centrist vacillators. The post 1918 revolutionary offensive of the European working class came up against the insurmountable barrier of opportunist Social-Democracy, except, of course, in Russia where the Bolsheviks had succeeded in weakening and discrediting these political traitors.

THE defeat of the German alliance, however, did not lead to communist rule in Germany, and, the overthrow of the short-lived Bavarian and Hungarian Soviet regimes threw the Bolsheviks back on relying on their own resources. For a period in 1920, the war with Poland, resulting from Pilsudsky's attempts to seize Soviet territory, held out some hopes of reviving revolutionary fortunes, if only the Polish armies could be defeated. These hopes were soon to be dashed, to some extent by the strength of Polish nationalism, which proved stronger than the class consciousness of Polish workers, and the failure of Soviet military leadership. By 1923, the revolutionary tide in Europe had passed, after defeats in Germany, Italy and Bulgaria, and as early as the 20th July Lenin published an article in Pravda, in which he wrote that:

"The capitalists, the bourgeoisie, can at 'best' put off the victory of socialism in one country or another at the cost of slaughtering further hundreds of thousands of workers and peasants. But they cannot save capitalism..." (Lenin, CW. Vol. 29, pp. 515-19)

IT was during this period, beginning from about september 1919, that we see Lenin's policy of peaceful coexistence taking shape amidst the upheavals in international relations wrought by the first world war. Now the weltpolitik of the Soviet state came to mean the fight for peace. Reflecting on the international situation Lenin wistfully suggested that:

"A durable peace would be such a relief to the working people of Russia that they would undoubtedly agree to certain concessions being granted. The granting of concessions under reasonable terms is desirable also for us, as one of the means of attracting into Russia, during the period of coexistence side by side of socialist and capitalist states, the technical aid of countries which are more advanced in this respect".

(Lenin, CW. Vol. 30, pp. 38-39)

HERE we see that Lenin envisages a period of coexistence between socialist and capitalist states. On the other hand, the antagonism between the two systems will finally lead to the victory of one over the other. For Lenin Peaceful Coexistence is a policy aimed at reducing the risk of military confrontation between a socialist state and imperialism.

SINCE no one can deny that a socialist state needs a foreign policy, the main question which needs to be addressed here, is whether such a policy should be aimed at reducing or increasing tensions between countries. On the 5 December 1917, Lenin wrote that, "...to kill war is to defeat capital, and Soviet power has started the struggle to that end..." The fight against war was fundamental to Bolshevik policy, and we know how the fight for peace led to the overthrow of the Kerensky government. Soviet power, ie, workers' power, put peace at the top of agenda.

THE aim of Lenin's policy of peaceful coexistence was to reduce the possibility of military confrontation between the Soviet Union and the imperialist camp, to make it harder for war-mongering capitalist governments to start wars against the soviet state. In so far as capitalism exists, such a policy would be imposed on any rational socialist government. Lenin sought to find a way to deal with the contradiction between the two systems, in response not only to the failure of the revolution to successfully fight for state power in the other countries, but also to the inevitability of a period of coexistence.

THERE was nothing 'intrinsically' ultra-left about Bukharin's position, calling for a revolutionary war during the Brest-Litovsk debates. Lenin himself, during 1915 had held similar positions. Then, he had argued that if the proletariat should come to power as a result of the war, peace would be proposed to all the belligerent countries, providing they agreed to liberate the colonies. However, they would never agree to such terms, therefore, he thought, the Bolsheviks would have to prepare to wage a revolutionary war, which would incite the proletariat and the colonies to rebellion. (Lenin, CW. Vol. 21, p. 403)

THIS was essentially the position Bukharin was arguing for in 1918, but by then such a policy had become ultra-left; that is, the actual development of circumstances had turned the idea of a revolutionary war into revolutionary phrase-mongering, that is, pursuing a policy without due consideration to the actual realities, and indifferent to whether such realities are favourable or not, or to what degree. It was during the Polish invasion of soviet territory in 1920 that Lenin returned to the position of a 'revolutionary war' in an attempt, perhaps desperately, to seize whatever opportunities there were to break out of isolation and fan the flames of revolution into Germany, through Poland. There is some reason to believe that were the Polish armies defeated, Lenin may have reached his objectives, or at least come close to doing so.

WHEN the last revolutionary waves receded in Europe, the revolutionaries in Russia found themselves isolated in a hostile world, and with an economy which had collapsed. To the strains imposed on the economy by the imperialist war, were added that of the civil war of 1918-21, also known as the period of 'War Communism', which meant placing economic resources at the disposal of the new state in the fight against the enemies of the revolution. Since this involved not only the nationalisation of industry, but also the forced requisitioning of grain from the peasantry, which eventually set them against the regime, a danger which expressed itself in the Kronstadt and Tambov uprising, Lenin decided on a 'U' turn to save soviet power. At the 10th Party Congress in march 1921, war communism was abandoned and Lenin announced the New Economic Policy to the bewildered delegates, who saw this as a step backwards for the party.

THE party leadership had turned to NEP, which legalised a certain revival of capitalism within limits determined by the state, in order to alleviate the desperate economic and political domestic situation. Lenin recognised that the fight to secure peaceful coexistence would also bring much needed relief, not only to the regime but also to the working people. In particular there was the recognition that the soviet state was cut off from much needed capital and technology from the advanced countries, this was a problem, it was hoped, that peaceful coexistence would soon redress.

THE Trotskyist Left-Deviationists claim, falsely, that the policy of 'Peaceful Coexistence' was promulgated not by Lenin, but by Stalin as a corollary to the theory of socialism in one country. We have already shown that both these ideas originated with Lenin, not Stalin. Even the more informed bourgeois historians are aware of these facts, while many on the left are ideologically misled to reach the opposite conclusions. Fundamental to Trotskyism is the view that in the struggle against the theory of socialism in one country, Trotsky represented the continuity of Bolshevism. The view that Trotsky represented the continuity of Bolshevism by struggling against Lenin's ideas, is so logically absurd, that there is no need for further commentary from us here. We can therefore pass on to another issue.

TROTSKYISTS claim that:

"Starting with the 1923 defeat of the German revolution, followed by the defeat of the 1926 British General Strike and the crushing of the Chinese revolution, 1927, a series of defeats for the international revolution considerably strengthened the hand of Stalinism within the Communist International. These defeats were the first consequences of Stalin's political line of 'socialism in one country' and its corollary 'peaceful coexistence' with imperialism. It was only as a result of these objective circumstances that Stalin was able to defeat his opponents".

(Peter Jeffries, Foreword to the Documents of the 1923 Opposition.)

WE can ignore the last sentence, since it only reflects the intellectual conceit of the petit-bourgeois. In the same foreword, Peter Jeffries claims that socialism in one country represented, "...the complete revision of Marxism which Stalin first announced in 1924". In addition to which he argues that,"...In political terms this meant the abandonment of working class internationalism". Stalin is here accused of 'revisionism', and to show that this is not a slip of the pen, but rather a consistent petit-bourgeois ideological outlook, we can stress this point by referring to another author who claimed that:

"While Stalin hastened to proclaim himself a loyal Leninist and the true successor, he abandoned everything for which Lenin had stood. Before the end of the year he introduce 'socialism in one country' and began to revise every principle of Marx and Lenin while paying the most vociferous lip-service to their teachings".

(From former WRP pamphlet, Trotskyism, The Marxism of Today, p. 23)

BEFORE we go any further, it is necessary to explain what Marxism-Leninism means by the term revisionism, a term which is carelessly bandied about, particularly by the Trotskyists, without due consideration to its actual meaning. When Marxist-Leninists speak of revisionism, they mean the revision of the central principles on which the proletarian revolutionary party is founded. Lenin summed this up in his well known statement that, only he is a Marxist who recognises that the class struggle leads to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. So the first principle of Marxism is the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the recognition of its necessity in the transition to communist society. This is followed by the principle of proletarian internationalism, and finally by the leading role of the vanguard party. These are the political principles upon which Marxism-Leninism was founded.

FROM the Marxist-Leninist standpoint, revisionism does not refer to changes of strategy or tactics nor to changes of programme or perspectives, unless changes of principles are involved. In the Communist Movement 'revisionists' are those who revise the above principles, either to the right or to the left. Therefore, when the Trotskyist Left-deviationists claim that, for instance, J.V. Stalin was a 'revisionist', and, indeed, began to revise every principle of Marx and Lenin, when such claims are made, without any evidence to support it, then we know that we have entered the theatre of the absurd. The only 'evidence' that the Trotskyists hold up proves to be no evidence, from the standpoint of Marxism-Leninism, since they involve no revisions of principles. The Trotskyists try to use 'socialism in one country' and 'peaceful coexistence' as examples of Stalin's 'revisionism', but these latter ideas are not matters of principles; rather they fall wholly within the domain of strategy and perspectives, first utilised by Lenin himself. To accuse Stalin of revisionism here would be to accuse Lenin as well. And, of course, this is quite impossible...that is for anyone who claims to defend the Leninist tradition.

BUT Jeffries, in the manner of all Trotskyist Left-deviationists, goes further. In a sloppy attitude to theoretical issues, he declares that Stalin abandoned 'working class internationalism'. Perhaps Lenin's definition of true internationalism would not be amiss here. For Lenin the only true internationalism was fighting to overthrow the bourgeoisie in one's own country.

JEFFRIES repeats the typical Trotskyist line which argues that the defeats suffered by the revolution, starting from 1923, "...were the first consequences of Stalin's political line of 'socialism in one country' and 'peaceful coexistence' with imperialism".

IT is strange that Trotskyists usually pick 1923 as the starting point to demonstrate the 'baneful' influence of socialism in one country, since this policy was only adopted as official policy in December 1925. As for the struggle for peace this had played a central role in the Bolsheviks rise to power, and the overthrow of the Kerensky government.

THE Trotskyists have developed their own explanation of the causes of the defeats of the revolution in the post-Lenin period, which they attribute to socialism in one country and peaceful coexistence, an attribution, which because of its ultra-left presumption stands in the way of an all-sided examination of why these defeats occurred in the first place.

TROTSKYISTS argue that until 1933, Trotsky still held out the possibility that the Stalin faction within the Communist International could still be defeated. As Jeffries states,"...he still hoped that experience would lead the party back to the principles of Leninism".

HERE we see the tendency of Trotskyists to confuse matters of principles with matters of strategy and tactics. This convenient confusion means that they can put Stalin in the revisionist camp for applying Lenin's policy of socialism in one country and peaceful coexistence.

WE have argued that Lenin developed the policy of peaceful coexistence in response to the international situation which the first communist run state found itself in. The central goal of peaceful coexistence was to avoid, if possible, a military confrontation between imperialism and the first workers' state. This was basic Leninism.

PEACEFUL coexistence took account of the unequal balance of power, massively in favour of imperialism. It was this balance of power which guided Lenin's foreign policy. On the other hand this diplomatic policy was the logical outcome of uneven economic and political development, which Lenin had argued made the victory of socialism possible even in one country alone, although the final victory required the extension of the world revolution. Again, this was basic Leninism.

THE same Lenin who wrote that, 'While capitalism and socialism exist side by side, they cannot live in peace: one or the other will ultimately triumph the last obsequies will be observed either for the Soviet Republic or for world capitalism'...began to promote the policy of peaceful coexistence. So, how do we explain what appears to be a contradiction between the above observation and Lenin's actual practice?

AS we have pointed out, for Lenin peaceful coexistence refers to a struggle to avoid military confrontation between imperialism and the socialist state. The efforts to ensure military peace, however, did not rule out a different kind of war, as Lenin noted in the debates about trading concessions, "Concessions did not mean peace with capitalism, but war in a new sphere. The war of guns and tanks yields place to economic warfare". (Lenin, Vol. 31)

THAT the first workers' state fought to ensure military peace with the more powerful capitalist states, will be seen to be entirely justified by all but the most dull-witted adherents of Trotskyism. This does not mean that Lenin was a pacifist. Communists uphold the right of oppressed nations and classes to fight their oppressors. This was the meaning of the Bolshevik slogan to turn the imperialist war into a civil war against the bourgeoisie, since only by removing this class from power, and disbanding their economic system can lasting peace be realised.

BY 1923 Lenin was using the term 'Peaceful Coexistence' to describe the diplomatic policy stance of the Soviet state, vis-a-vis the capitalist states, as can be seen in his reply to Michael Farbman, from the Observer and Manchester Guardian in an interview in which Farbman wanted to know the Soviet response to imperialism's attempt to exclude Russia from participating in the settlement of the 'Eastern question', following the defeat of Anglo- Greek intervention in Turkey. Lenin explained to Farbman that:

"...non-participation would involve such difficulties in purely commercial affairs between Eastern Europe on the one hand, and all other states on the other, that either there would remain no grounds whatsoever for peaceful coexistence, or that such existence would be extraordinarily difficult." (CW. Vol. 33 pp. 383-89)

NATURALLY, if the capitalist governments cannot satisfy the demands of the masses for peace, they should face the same fate as Kerensky. In line with Lenin the policy of peaceful coexistence was continued by Stalin in the post-Lenin period, although many on the left, educated by Trotskyism, believe that this policy, like socialism in one country, was another policy concocted by Stalin to avoid revolution. Their non- dialectical method leads them to oppose socialism in one country to world revolution, and they make the same mistake with peaceful coexistence. They think that the revolution must be opposed to peaceful coexistence, and thus they oppose peaceful coexistence. The revisionists, on the other hand, see the revolution as a threat to peaceful coexistence and proceed to elevate the latter over the former. In a speech in which he outlined the major contradiction between capitalism and the socialist state, Stalin explained that:

"Our policy is a policy of peace and of strengthening trade relations with countries. The result of that policy is the improvement of relations with a number of countries and the conclusion of a number of agreements for trade, technical assistance, etc. Its result also is the adherence of the USSR to the Kellog pack, our signature of the well known protocol referring to the Kellog pact with Poland, Roumania, Lithuania, etc., and the signing of the protocol extending the validity of our treaty of friendship and neutrality with Turkey. Lastly, the result of that policy is the fact that we have succeeded in maintaining peace and have not allowed our enemies to draw us into conflict, despite a number of provocative acts and adventurist assault by the war-mongers. We shall continue this policy of peace in the future with all our might and with all our resources. We do not want a single foot of foreign territory; but we will not surrender a single inch of our own territory either...Our task is to continue to pursue this policy in the future, with all the persistence characteristic of the Bolsheviks".

(J.V. Stalin, Political report of the C.C. to the 16th Congress, June 1930)

WE have shown so far that the development by Lenin of the policy of peaceful coexistence arose logically from uneven development, such that a socialist revolution was possible in one country, and that therefore it was necessary to work out the relations of such a country to the others, which still remained capitalist. Leninism recognised that there would be a period of coexistence between capitalist and socialist states, and that it was in the interest of the working class in each country to avoid military confrontation, and that therefore Socialism should pursue a policy based on peaceful coexistence.

OF course, with the ebb of the revolution after 1923, the Bolsheviks had to change the emphasis from pursuing peace through revolution to pursuing peace through diplomacy. The choice of approach simply depended on the level of development of the revolutionary struggle in the capitalist countries. On the 4 March 1923, Lenin remarked that:

"...owing to their victory, a number of states, the oldest in the west, are in a position to make some insignificant concessions to their oppressed-classes which, insignificant though they are, nevertheless retard the revolutionary movement in those countries and create some semblance of 'class truce'."

WHILE peaceful coexistence should not be seen in a one-sided way, ie., simply as a pragmatic response of the Bolsheviks to immediate political realities, it is, in essence, the policy outcome of the political realities of the period when socialist states exist side by side with capitalist states. The fact that imperialism was able to make concessions to its lower classes obviously raised the importance of pursuing peace through diplomatic efforts. Certainly in the absence of any successful revolutionary offensive in the advanced countries there would have been no alternative.

SINCE the Trotskyists argue that peaceful coexistence is opposed to the revolution, this can only mean that these Left-deviationists fail to see it as a strategic imperative corresponding to political and military realities. As opposed to the anti-Leninist outlook of those who denounced peaceful-coexistence outright, as the Trotskyists did, the early anti-revisionist movement between 1963 to 1965, correctly upheld Leninist peaceful-coexistence, without undermining support for anti-imperialist revolutions around the world, and thus resisted its transformation into an opportunist policy.

THE post-war period saw the emergence in the international communist movement of what came to be called, modern revisionism, that is the revisionism associated with the Khrushchevite leadership of the CPSU. At the 20th Congress Stalin was denounced for abusing political power. But, this was not all, since the revisionists also broke from Lenin's theory of the state and party, which now became the instruments of the 'whole people', and not the working class. In the process of this ideological assault on the principles of Marxism-Leninism regarding the class nature of the state and party, the revisionists latched on to Lenin's policy of peaceful coexistence.

AS we have said previously, Lenin's policy of peaceful coexistence relates....not to matters of principles. Therefore, 'Communists' are not revisionists because they defend this policy. They are revisionists because they deny Marxism-Leninism on the key questions of the state and the party, and they are opportunist because while promoting peaceful coexistence they fail to promote the revolution. This was precisely what happened. Post-war revisionism appropriated Lenin's peace policy, and integrated it into their overall revisionist outlook. However, after a correct opposition to Khrushchev's misapplication of the Leninist policy of peaceful-coexistence, the anti-revisionist camp made mistakes and often ended up, like the Trotskyists, denouncing peaceful-coexistence altogether, on the other hand the revisionists, where they could, subordinated the struggle of the anti-imperialist masses to making deals with imperialism The extent to which this was done, and not out of tactical, but rather opportunist considerations needs further study.

THE revisionists combine the policy of peaceful coexistence with their theory of reformism, the theory which claims that capitalism can be gradually reformed into socialism without revolution. Marxism-Leninism combines the theory of peaceful coexistence with the theory of revolution. They never lose sight of the idea that this is one of the forms of the struggle for peace, corresponding to reformist stages of the class and anti-imperialist struggle, in any particular country, and reflecting the interest of all the progressive section of the people who oppose war, but that when the masses turn to revolutionary action, the forms of the struggle for peace must change accordingly. In 1919 Lenin spoke of 'our unwavering desire to pursue a policy of peace', but when the masses turn from reformist to revolutionary action, the form of the struggle for peace must reflect this change. Today the anti-revisionist movement should no longer allow the revisionists to use Lenin's policy of peaceful coexistence in a opportunist fashion to discourage revolutions, but this can only be done if they correctly understand the relation of the former to the latter.