The following glossary is a collection of concepts and terms related to internationalism and anti-imperialism. They reflect the leading Marxist-Leninist analyses of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany (SED) during the latter half of the 20th century. We have selected and quoted them here without critical commentary in order to provide an important resource for those studying anti-imperialism of the past and present. Analyses of the strategies and practice of the socialist states can be found on the “Friendship!” research platform.
The following definitions are largely quoted from the political dictionary series of the Dietz Verlag, a publishing house linked to the SED. These dictionaries were authored by collectives of socialist scholars who have been named in the bibliography below. Where necessary, the glossary also draws on political textbooks or the work of individual scholars published by the Academy of Sciences of the German Democratic Republic (DDR). All sources are noted accordingly and cited in the bibliography in full.
If you are interested in specific terms not listed here, please write us: firstname.lastname@example.org
The Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism (1963):
“Not patriotism, but cosmopolitanism is the ideology of the imperialist bourgeoisie. […] This is not referring to the old notion of cosmopolitanism, which was widespread in the 19th century and was often understood as a comprehensive conception of the world, freed from national narrowness. What is meant here is the ideology promoted by the imperialists, which asserts that the principle of sovereignty is ‘obsolete’. This ideology claims that the restriction of state independence is a law-governed process (gesetzmäßig), propagates indifference to national traditions and disregard for national culture, and asserts that in today’s conditions the concept of the homeland [see fatherland] no longer has any meaning. […]
Modern cosmopolitanism manifests itself in various ways. The intense propaganda, for instance, which is carried out to glorify the existing European monopoly agreements and to call for the conclusion of further such agreements, is a manifestation of cosmopolitanism. The monopoly associations are presented as the embodiment of the idea of the “unity of the European peoples”, as the way to overcome “national narrowness.” It is therefore not surprising that such propaganda is openly supported by the big monopolies. A popular thesis of the ideologists of cosmopolitanism, especially from the camp of right-wing socialists, is that the principle of sovereignty has become an obstacle to the development of the productive forces.
But how can favourable conditions for the development of the productive forces be created on a broad international basis? This, of course, cannot be done by curtailing the sovereign rights and interests of one or another state, but only in mutual coordination of these interests on the basis of equal and beneficial cooperation for all partners. In this context, an important role could be played by the greatest possible development and expansion of international trade. The development of cooperation in the field of science and technology (the exchange of specialists and scientific and technical information, the implementation of joint production projects, etc.) is also very important in this regard.
Of course, all this does not guarantee free and unhindered development of productive forces on an international scale. For this, various basic measures of an intergovernmental character are needed: the coordination of economic plans, industrial cooperation between the various countries, the coordination of the training of skilled workers, etc. But such measures can be realized only in a planned economy in which there is no anarchy of production and no competition, in an economic system built on trust between the various peoples and states. Such a system is socialism.
The enemies of Marxism claim that the communists, in advocating the principles of independence and sovereignty of states, oppose the tendencies of social development and wish to preserve the dismemberment of states and the isolation of nations on an international scale. But already Lenin refuted such fantasies in his time. He wrote: “We demand the right of self-determination, i.e., independence, i.e., freedom of separation of the oppressed nations, not because we dream of economic dismemberment or of the ideal of small states, but, on the contrary, because we desire large states and the rapprochement, indeed the fusion, of nations, but on a truly democratic, truly internationalist basis, which is unthinkable without freedom of separation.” (Lenin Works, Vol. 21, p.420)
The communists also today consistently advocate the economic and political cooperation and the all-round rapprochement of the European and the other peoples. But they are decisively against such “integration”, which is enforced by the capitalist monopolies to achieve their profit-seeking interests. A “Europe of trusts” is not a confederation of equal peoples. And if the communists reject such a “European unity”, they do not oppose the idea of the rapprochement of peoples at all, but the exploitation of the “Common Market” for the deepening of the division of Europe, for the formation of closed economic blocs and their transformation into bases of aggression. […]”
Epoch of the transition from capitalism to socialism
“A longer period in human history, the main content of which is the replacement of the capitalist social formation by the communist social formation on a world scale. During the meeting of the communist and workers’ parties in Moscow in 1960, the scientific definition of the epoch was worked out collectively:
‘Our epoch, whose main content is the transition from capitalism to socialism as initiated by the 1917 October Revolution, is the epoch of the struggle of the two opposing social systems, the epoch of the socialist revolution and the national liberation revolutions, the epoch of the collapse of imperialism and the liquidation of the colonial system, the epoch of the transition of more and more peoples to the path of socialism, the epoch of the triumph of socialism and communism on a world scale. The defining feature of our time is that the world socialist system becomes the decisive factor of human society.’
The character of our epoch is shaped to an ever-increasing degree by the main social force of the present epoch, the working class. … The working class and the world socialist system it has created, with its interests and its struggle for peace, democracy. and socialism, most consistently express all the progressive aspirations of our time.
The transition from capitalism to socialism is taking place internationally and is being led by the three main revolutionary currents, through which essential changes have already been achieved. […] The basic contradiction between capitalism and socialism forms the fundamental antagonism of our epoch. […] The all-round strengthening of socialism, the unity of action of the three main revolutionary currents and the alliance of all forces fighting for the most elementary conditions of humanity’s existence, all this is decisive for the further progressive change of the international balance of forces, for the outcome of the struggle between war and peace, which for a long time stands in the centre of humanity’s interests in our epoch. The present epoch is characterized by a fierce international class struggle, in the course of which the class relation will continue to shift in favour of socialism and the policy of peaceful coexistence, as the only alternative to the policy of imperialist confrontation and arms race, can be imposed more and more comprehensively with a tremendous effort against imperialism. The falsification of the character of the present epoch by bourgeois and anti-communist ideologists is part of their ideological struggle against the revolutionary workers’ movement.”
“The given political, cultural, and social milieu, the totality of social conditions and institutions on a given territory within which a people live. The term fatherland has a class character.
In antagonistic class society, the position of the ruling class toward the fatherland is fundamentally different from the position of the exploited and oppressed classes toward the fatherland. The ruling class identifies with the fatherland its existing order of exploitation, which seeks to exclude the oppressed classes from the enjoyment of the riches of the fatherland and the shaping of social relations. In this sense, K. Marx and F. Engels coined the well-known thesis in the “Manifesto of the Communist Party”: “The workers have no fatherland. One cannot take from them what they do not have.” (Marx-Engels-Werke, vol. 4, p. 479.) Under the demagogic slogan ‘defend the fatherland’, the imperialist bourgeoisie wages its wars of aggression to expand its political and economic sphere of power, to conquer foreign territories.
The working class is not indifferent to the political, social, and cultural conditions under which it struggles to fulfil its historical mission. It struggles together with the other working people for democratic rights and freedoms, for such conditions that make it possible to transform the fatherland of the bourgeoisie into a fatherland of the entire people. It is national, but not nationalist. Its patriotism is opposed to bourgeois nationalism.
By eliminating its own exploitation and oppression by the bourgeoisie, the working class, in alliance with the toiling peasantry and the other labouring masses, eliminates the exploitation and oppression of man by man in general. In doing so, it destroys the root of imperialist wars in its own country and fights for a secure peaceful future for the nation. The fulfilment of this task means the transformation of the bourgeois fatherland into a socialist fatherland of the entire people. Only now can the national cultural and natural riches, beauties, and traditions become fully accessible to all working people.
The struggle of the working class, however, is not only national but at the same time international; the proletariat leads its struggle in solidarity with the international working class, with which it is inseparably bound by the same interests and aims (proletarian internationalism). […]”
The Hallstein Doctrine
A foreign policy principle of the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG, “West Germany”) intended to prevent the diplomatic recognition of the German Democratic Republic (DDR, “East Germany”) by third countries. The doctrine – named after Walter Hallstein, then State Secretary at the FRG’s Foreign Office – threatened any country that recognized the DDR’s sovereignty with comprehensive diplomatic and economic sanctions. It thus led to the diplomatic isolation of the DDR until the early 1970s.
The doctrine was related to the West German claim to sole representation, with which the FRG claimed to be the only German state existing under international law and solely entitled to represent “all German people”. It constituted a direct and open invitation to disregard and violate the territorial integrity of the DDR, since the FRG claimed legal sovereignty over the territory of the former German Reich. All East Germany, parts of Poland as well as parts of the Soviet Union were, according to the claim of sole representation, “illegally withheld territory” where “foreign despotism” reigned. The West German government demanded the restoration of the 1937 borders of the Third Reich and refused to accept the post-war transfer of territory to Poland. Another aspect of this policy was the refusal to recognize DDR citizenship, which meant that emigrants from the DDR could immediately obtain a West German passport and claim pension rights for years worked in the DDR. It was a further tool to encourage the brain drain from the East.
The Hallstein Doctrine was developed primarily as a deterrent, but it was implemented rigorously against Yugoslavia (1957) and Cuba (1963) and at times against other states such as Guinea, Ghana, Iraq, and Egypt. Breaking this diplomatic isolation and West Germany’s claim to sole representation became a central foreign policy goal for the DDR, since it not only posed a direct threat to national security but also massively impeded the DDR’s international cooperation in the economic, diplomatic, medical, and cultural fields.
The DDR was able to undermine the Hallstein Doctrine by initially establishing trade missions in several countries, such as Egypt, India, Syria, and Finland, beginning in the mid-1950s. The DDR’s Solidarity Committee also succeeded in building relationships with national liberation movements and governments to support their struggles and counter Western influence on the tricontinent. Toward the end of the 1960s, numerous newly liberated states began to defy West Germany and officially recognize the DDR (e.g., Iraq, Syria, Egypt, the PR Congo, and Algeria). The FRG finally abandoned the Hallstein Doctrine in 1972 in favour of a “Wandel durch Annäherung” (English: change through rapprochement) approach toward the DDR.
Hegemony of the working class (within broader alliances)
“(or the ‘leading role of the working class’) is an objective law of the socialist revolution and socialist construction and results from the objective position of the working class in the system of social production, from its historical mission as the gravedigger of capitalism and as the creator of the new, socialist society. […] The hegemony of the working class was formulated for the first time by Marx and Engels in the “Manifesto of the Communist Party”. Under the historical conditions of imperialism, Lenin developed the theory further in accordance with the struggle for peace, democracy, and national liberation, in the struggle for the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the construction of socialist society.
Lenin, in combatting opportunism, proved that under the conditions of imperialism the hegemony of the working class is the only guarantee that the bourgeois-democratic revolution can be carried through to the end and that it is the necessary condition for its transition into the socialist revolution. […]
The hegemony of the working class includes the firm alliance of the working class with the toiling peasants as well as with all other anti-imperialist, democratic forces. Although the hegemony of the working class is an objective law, it does not realize itself automatically and must be constantly won anew in the class struggle against imperialism and in the building of socialist society. “It is not enough to merely label oneself as the ‘vanguard’ – one must also act in such a way that all the other groups recognize and are forced to recognize that we are leading the march.” (Lenin) The hegemony of the working class is realized by the revolutionary party working out a scientific program consistent with the laws of social development, and at the same time it develops the ability to mobilize and unite all social forces for its realization and to place itself at the head of the revolutionary struggle. […]
In the capitalist countries, the hegemony of the working class is becoming one of the most important conditions for the success of the anti-imperialist struggle, the struggle to maintain and secure peace, and the struggle to secure and expand democratic rights and freedoms. An essential condition for this is the united action of the working class under the leadership of a revolutionary party and its ability to rally working people around it and win their confidence through the resolute defence of their interests. The heterogeneity of the working class, its growing differentiation, the increasing breadth of the alliance and imperialism’s sophisticated strategy of responding to the changed conditions of struggle complicate these tasks and place greater demands on the hegemony of the working class and its revolutionary party. […]
The hegemony of the working class is realized under socialism under qualitatively new conditions. The working class realizes its leading role primarily in the form of state and political leadership of society. ‘When shaping the developed socialist society, the leading role of the working class and its Marxist-Leninist party continues to grow … The more far-reaching and complicated the tasks of management and planning become, the more the role of the political leadership of society by the Marxist-Leninist party increases. It is the most important factor in the successful shaping of the society built by the revolutionary working class.’ (Program of the SED)
In the countries of the national liberation movement, too, the working class, despite its current numerical weakness, is the most progressive and revolutionary force because of its objective position in the production process and its qualitative characteristics. The working class in these states must realize its leading role in the struggle for national independence and for democracy, peace, and social progress. As it continues to grow quantitatively and qualitatively, as it becomes more organized and ideologically mature, as it forms and develops a revolutionary vanguard party that assumes the leading role, the hegemony of the working class will become increasingly clear. ‘Ultimately, it is precisely the workers’ movement that will play a determining role in this area of the world as well.’ (Moscow Consultation 1969)”
“A democratic revolution growing out of the struggle against national oppression. It is characterized by the deepening of the social content of the national liberation revolution. Its tasks are the elimination of economic dependence on imperialism, the consolidation of state-political sovereignty, and the solution to social development issues in the interests of the working classes. The solution of these tasks, due to a variety of external and internal factors, is taking place in a complicated, contradictory, and uneven historical process of prolonged duration, which bears the character of class struggle. In the course of profound economic, social, political, and intellectual-cultural transformations of an anti-imperialist, democratic, and increasingly anti-capitalist character, the objective and subjective conditions for approaching the socialist revolution are created.
The driving force of the national-democratic revolution are those classes interested in the consolidation of national independence and in profound social transformations: the working class, the toiling peasantry, the progressive sections of the petty-bourgeois middle classes including the patriotic intelligentsia. Leadership within this alliance is in the hands of non-proletarian class forces in the form of revolutionary democracy. Their progressiveness is decisively determined by the extent to which they turn to a democratic alliance with the toiling masses, develop friendly relations with socialist states, and orient themselves toward scientific socialism. If the influence of pro-imperialist forces intensifies, a temporary stagnation or setback of the national-democratic revolution can occur, which finds its expression in the formation of a capitalism dependent on the imperialist world system. For the consistent development of the national-democratic revolution in the sense of historical progress, it is necessary for the working class to take over hegemony in alliance with the other toiling classes and strata.”
The National and the International (the dialectical relation in strategy and tactics)
“The National and the International in scientific communism reflect objectively conditioned sides of the realization of the historical mission of the working class, socialist and communist construction, which are in a dialectical interrelation. In this process, the International embodies the universal essence of the working class – its fundamental and common tasks and main goals in all countries and on a world scale, which are also expressed in the universal laws of the class struggle of the working class and of socialist and communist construction. The National presents itself as the concrete conditions of struggle – the tasks, forms, methods, and experiences that arise during the implementation of the universal principles in each country.
Scientific communism, like Marxism-Leninism as a whole, is an international doctrine. This is objectively conditioned and results from the character of the historical mission of the working class. The main content of scientific communism is – on the basis of the generalization of the experiences of the entire international workers’ and anti-imperialist liberation movement – the universal laws of the revolutionary process, of socialist and communist construction. This relates to the basis and essence, the universally applicable principles, necessary for the realisation of the historical mission of the working class of all countries.
At the same time, scientific communism takes into account the dialectical interrelation of the National and the International expressed in the dialectical relationship of proletarian internationalism and socialist patriotism. It considers the specific conditions and experiences of each country and teaches the need to creatively apply the principles of scientific communism to the concrete conditions and tasks of the working class’s struggle.
Scientific communism is incompatible with any form of national nihilism. The falsification of the international character of scientific communism and the dialectics of the National and the International is one of the main methods of bourgeois and revisionist attacks on the theory and policy of the Marxist-Leninist parties. Any attempt to artificially divide the theory of scientific communism into national or regional “variants” or “models” leads to the revision of the basic principles of this theory and harms the practical struggle of the workers’ movement for peace, democracy, and social progress.”
National liberation movement
“All-national, anti-imperialist and democratic movement of colonially oppressed and dependent (and newly liberated) peoples and states of Asia, Africa and Latin America for national independence from imperialism and social progress. In our current epoch, the national liberation movement is one of the main currents of the revolutionary world process. In the long run, it can be successful only in alliance with the other two revolutionary currents (the socialist world system and the workers’ movement in the capitalist countries).
The advance of the national liberation movement is closely linked to the successes of socialism in the struggle for peace and détente, for economic upswing and social security, which limit the scope of imperialist policy on a world scale and create ever more favorable conditions for the struggle of the newly liberated states for political and economic independence from imperialism. Position and role of the national liberation movement in the revolutionary world process result from the character of our epoch as an epoch of transition from capitalism to socialism. Its historical task consists in the national liberation from imperialist domination and in the creation of conditions for the social liberation of the working masses.
Bearers of the national liberation movement are the popular masses: The working class, the peasantry, parts of the middle classes and the national bourgeoisie. This broad alliance of progressive national forces is opposed by imperialism and internal reactionary class forces (feudal aristocracy, comprador bourgeoisie, etc.) which are in alliance with it. […]”
National liberation revolution and its two stages
“Anti-imperialist, democratic revolution, whose essence is determined by the character of our epoch of worldwide transition from capitalism to socialism. Its universal democratic and anti-imperialist character results from the main contradiction that exists between imperialism and the peoples of the national liberation movement.
The interests of the various classes and strata within the national liberation revolution are differentiated, but their internal contradictions are covered for a long time by the main antagonism with imperialism.
The national liberation revolution is a component of the revolutionary world process. Under the conditions of our epoch, the national liberation revolutions are characterized by the fact that, like the bourgeois revolutions in Europe and America, they have the task of achieving national independence and eliminating feudal conditions, and at the same time a revolutionary-democratic, anti-imperialist and partly anti-capitalist tendency emerges in them, which goes beyond the framework of bourgeois revolutions. The main content of these revolutions is to achieve national independence from imperialism and to create the fundamental conditions for the social liberation of the working classes and strata. The concrete course of the national liberation revolution and its forms as well as its speed and depth in the respective country are determined by the totality of manifold factors – the concrete-historically existing conditions, the balance of power of the classes at home and on a world scale.
The national liberation revolution consists of two stages, which are fundamentally different in terms of their duration and tasks. The first stage is anti-colonial: it entails the struggle for the realization of the right of self-determination of colonially oppressed peoples through the elimination of imperialist foreign rule. The anti-colonial stage is completed with the achievement of state independence. The revolution enters its second, qualitatively new stage. The national liberation movement is faced with tasks of an anti-imperialist and general democratic character: securing and consolidating independence through fundamental social transformations in the base and superstructure; achieving economic independence from imperialism; nationalization of the monopolies; agrarian reform; overcoming the backwardness inherited from colonialism; anti-imperialist foreign policy oriented toward an alliance with the socialist world system and other democratic forces.
The struggle to solve these tasks is extremely protracted, complicated, and at the same time contradictory. There is a polarization and differentiation of class forces. When the main contradiction to imperialism dominates, the inner class contradictions – depending on the state and maturity of the relationship of class forces – become more prominent. The class struggle between the progressive national forces (the working class, the peasantry, the urban middle classes and parts of the national bourgeoisie) on the one hand, and imperialism and the internal reaction (the feudal aristocracy, the comprador bourgeoisie) on the other hand, intensifies.
The solution of the basic tasks of the second stage of the national liberation revolution is closely linked with the question of the country’s further perspective. The choice of the path of development – capitalist or socialist oriented – is determined by the relationship of class forces within the country. In the countries where the bourgeoisie is strong enough to maintain hegemony even in this stage, the solution of the tasks of the revolution is tackled within the framework of a capitalist orientation. Historical experience proves that this path cannot lead to a solution of basic tasks of this stage, and the internal class contradictions inevitably intensify.
Within the socialist orientation (setbacks are not excluded) – initially under the hegemony of petty-bourgeois revolutionary class forces – general democratic and anti-capitalist transformations are carried out. This process is indispensably linked to the working class gaining hegemony in the national liberation revolution in order to drive it further into a socialist revolution.”
“Bourgeois ideology, politics, and psychology in the field of national and international relations, which includes the national class interests of the bourgeoisie, its aspiration for a national market, its own nation-state, and for oppression of its own as well as other nations. […] Nationalism serves the monopoly bourgeoisie to keep the masses of the people away from the struggle for revolutionary changes and to support the aggressive aspirations against other peoples. In the national liberation movement, nationalism can temporarily play a progressive role as an expression of anti-imperialist and anti-colonialist aspirations, particularly of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois forces.
The socio-economic roots of nationalism are the capitalist private ownership of the means of production and the exploitation of weaker by stronger capitalist nations; the social bearer of nationalism is the bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeoisie. Today’s nationalism differs essentially from the national consciousness of the rising bourgeoisie in the struggle against feudalistic fragmentation and for a capitalist nation-state.
Characteristic of reactionary bourgeois nationalism is the one-sided overemphasis on national characteristics, the glorification of one’s own capitalist nation over others, the kindling of national strife and racial hatred, and the ignoring of social, class contradictions. Nationalism places the interests of the ruling class of the capitalist nation above both the interests of its own nation and the requirements of international cooperation among nations, states, and peoples. […]
As an element of the politics and ideology of the national liberation struggle of oppressed and dependent peoples, nationalism can temporarily play a positive role in awakening national consciousness and mobilizing the masses to fight against imperialist oppression and exploitation. “The bourgeois nationalism of any oppressed nation has a general democratic content that is directed against oppression, and it is this content that we unconditionally support, At the same time we strictly distinguish it from the tendency towards national exclusiveness.” (Lenin, The Right of Nations to Self-Determination, 1914)
The socialist revolution eliminates the social roots of nationalism and chauvinism between the socialist countries, which are characterized by friendship, equality, mutual respect, and fraternal cooperation. The communist and workers’ parties educate the working people in the spirit of socialist patriotism and proletarian internationalism, uncompromisingly fighting all attempts by the class enemy to revive nationalism.”
“International imperialist system of colonial exploitation and political domination over the developing countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. Stemming from the colonialism of the monopolistic stage of capitalism, neocolonialism is historically linked to the second and third stages of the general crisis of capitalism, in which it fully develops. With modified economic, political, ideological, and military methods, it serves to uphold colonial exploitation under the conditions of a shift in the international balance of power in favour of socialism. It is an expression of the imperialist endavour to adapt to these new conditions of class struggle (those conditions being: the advance of socialism; the disintegration of the imperialist colonial system, the upsurge of the national liberation movement, and the narrowing of the scope of imperialist policy on a wide scale).
The main strategic goal of neocolonialist policy is to recapture the lost spheres of influence, to push back the influence of socialism (which is most prominent in developing countries with a socialist orientation), and to ensure the retention of the newly independent states in the capitalist world economic system in order to obstruct the deepening of the revolutionary world process. Imperialism tries to prevent the newly liberated states struggling for consolidation, state sovereignty, and economic liberation from embracing a socialist-oriented path of development. It seeks to develop relations of dependency in the capitalist world economic system.
Neocolonialism is part of the imperialist global strategy, but it is also influenced by the contradictions among the imperialist powers themselves (e.g., competition, striving for hegemony). It is a constant source of danger both for the sovereignty and social progress in the newly independent states and for the preservation of world peace.
Under the guise of ‘development aid’, imperialism uses a variety of interrelated methods and forms to achieve its goals. In the economic sphere, it uses the supremacy of imperialist monopolies on the world market, various forms of capital export, technology transfer, neocolonialist industrial development, and inflation. In the political sphere, it influences internal processes by propagating reformism, supporting pro-imperialist regimes comprehensively, cooperating with reactionary domestic forces, and even conspiring and carrying out military interventions. It also assists separatist movements and divides anti-imperialist forces with the help of anti-communism and reactionary nationalism. Imperialist military pacts and bases are a central instrument of neocolonial rule. In the ideological field, neocolonialism uses anti-communism, Maoism, left-wing radicalism, reformist and revisionist theories, and foments reactionary nationalism as well as ethnic and religious conflicts. Through ‘educational aid’, it is also able to cultivate imperialist ideologies […]”
The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM)
“Collective of about one hundred states that follow the principle of non-alignment and make the same or similar demands as socialist states for the conduct of international relations.”
D. Weidemann in Basic Questions of the Anti-Imperialist Struggle of the Peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America in the Present Day (1974):
“In its basic conception, non-alignment cannot be equated with passivity, with traditional civic military neutrality [e.g., Switzerland’s approach], but was formulated as a nationally and internationally active policy. This claim is most clearly expressed in the term ‘positive neutrality’. If one analyses the criteria, it becomes clear that, on the one hand, a basic anti-colonial and anti-imperialist tendency is inevitably inherent in non-alignment. … On the other hand, the policy of non-alignment in some fundamental questions – e.g., the attitude toward the socialist states, recognition of the fundamental differences between socialism and imperialism […] – visibly and in the foreign policy practice of several states falls short of what is historically and politically necessary. […]
First of all, it must be emphasized that non-alignment is a foreign policy conception that is based on the class interests of the bourgeois forces and whose ideological basis is nationalism. A non-alignment that stands above the classes does not exist. […] Non-alignment is therefore a characteristically bourgeois or petty-bourgeois, often superficially nationalist approach to the basic questions of international politics and to the foreign policy requirements of the national liberation revolution. The fluctuations and inconsistencies in the foreign policy of the non-aligned states result from this bourgeois character. […]
Despite its great international importance and its dominant role in Asia and Africa, non-alignment can thus by no means be described as a consistently anti-imperialist foreign policy, nor can it be equated with the foreign policy of the states of Asia and Africa regardless of time and space. The inevitable socio-economic and political-ideological differentiation of these states will lead just as inevitably to a differentiation of their foreign policy. […]
Yet the basic foreign policy stance of the non-aligned states – despite their many fluctuations and inconsistencies, and regardless of the will of the bourgeois leaders of some countries – has produced objective anti-imperialist effects. The policy has impeded imperialist strategies and weakened the position of imperialism in international relations.”
Non-capitalist development (or socialist orientation)
“Social transition process of formerly colonially oppressed, economically backward countries to socialism, bypassing capitalism or breaking off a capitalist development that has already begun. It is one of the possible ways for newly liberated states to approach the socialist revolution. Its main historical task is to create the objective and subjective preconditions for the transition to socialism in the course of anti-imperialist and general democratic transformations.
The classics of Marxism-Leninism developed the concept of the non-capitalist path of development for countries in which capitalist relations of production had not yet fully developed – where pre-capitalist relations predominate, and the productive forces are at a low level. They tied the possibility of bypassing the capitalist social formation to the existence of one or more socialist countries. Lenin, in confrontation with right-wing and left-wing opportunist conceptions (at the 2nd Congress of the Communist International in 1920), concretized this conception and substantiated the possibility of the non-capitalist path of development under the condition of a close alliance between the international working class and the national liberation movement, which today finds its confirmation in the growing unity of the three main revolutionary currents of our epoch. For the first time this conception was practically realized in the Central Asian territories of the Soviet Union as well as in the Mongolian People’s Republic, and in the years after the Second World War it was enriched by other examples, especially on the African continent.
The socialist-oriented development path is a transformation process of longer duration, a historical period of several transitional stages in social development. Its form, pace, and concrete course are determined by the economic, political, and social conditions of each country and by the international balance of power. The content of the revolutionary transformations results from the main contradiction between imperialism and the peoples struggling for national independence and social progress, as well as the intensifying internal class contradictions that are initially overshadowed by this main contradiction. Their solution requires anti-imperialist, anti-feudal, and anti-capitalist transformations of all areas of society as part of a socialist perspective.
The following basic features characterize the non-capitalist path of development: gradual elimination of the economic domination of imperialism through nationalization of the monopolies; construction of a national economy with a strong state sector as the economic basis of revolutionary-democratic power; restriction and control of the private capitalist sector; introduction of methods of management and planning of the national economy; consistent implementation of agrarian reform in the interests of the working peasantry and development of the cooperative system; ousting of conservative and reactionary forces from political power and construction of revolutionary-democratic organs of power; formation of a firm anti-imperialist alliance with the countries of socialism and with the international workers’ movement; development and consolidation of the alliance of all progressive and patriotic forces (the working class, the toiling peasantry, the middle classes) by uniting them in an anti-imperialist united front; mobilization and involvement of the working classes and strata in social transformation as an expression of broad democratism; creation of revolutionary vanguard parties oriented toward scientific socialism; raising the standard of living, including building a national health and education system; development of national culture.
At the centre of the struggle for the implementation of anti-imperialist and general democratic transformations is the question of political power. The specificity of this question is expressed under the conditions of a socialist-oriented development in the fact that the bourgeoisie proves incapable of leading the national liberation struggle in this stage, and the working class is not yet able to take the leading role at first. Hegemon of the anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist transformations are often revolutionary-democratic forces from the ranks of the middle classes (e.g., the patriotic intelligentsia). The historical possibility of the hegemony of non-proletarian class forces results from the fact that within the national liberation movement the laws of our epoch prevail and the working class in these countries is initially not yet capable of defending its political interests as a class in struggle. On a historical scale, the hegemony of petty-bourgeois class forces is a transitional phenomenon. The resolute realization of the non-capitalist path of development depends on the extent to which the working class succeeds in achieving hegemony.”
E. Dummer, and E. Lange in The International Workers’ Movement and the Revolutionary Struggle (1973):
In 1973, the DDR scholars E. Dummer and E. Langer named as a basic political precondition for the non-capitalist path of development: “A decisive criterion for these countries, where the power relations are not yet clearly defined in class terms, where not only social but also political relations are in transition, is that the domestic bourgeoisie has lost [or never gained in the first place] the monopoly of political power.”
Non-proletarian (and national) conceptions of socialism
“Totality of ideas about socialist society produced by the bourgeoisie and non-proletarian strata. They are currently emerging in great diversity in response to the growing influence of Marxism-Leninism and real socialism, due to the deepening of the general crisis of capitalism, and as a result of the popular masses’ search for alternative conceptions of society to capitalism. […] The major sources of the non-Marxist conception of socialism in our time, even in the non-socialist world, are the involvement of new political and social forces in the anti-imperialist struggle, the effect of the unevenness and contradictoriness of capitalist development, and changes in the strategy and tactics of the monopoly bourgeoisie.
A basic feature of non-proletarian views of socialism is their heterogeneity. The differences and distinctions, the contradictory tendencies, and the currents of non-proletarian socialist conceptions result from their different sources, social bearers, and political representatives. Essentially, a distinction must be made as to whether the representatives of such conceptions are potential allies of the working class or enemies of socialism and the international working-class movement. When analysing non-proletarian conceptions of socialism, it is imperative to identify the origins, bearers, and social functions are inherent to them. Significant non-proletarian conceptions of socialism are “democratic socialism,” Trotskyism, religious socialism, and petty-bourgeois socialism.
Conceptions of socialism within national liberation movements in Asia, Africa and Latin America play a distinctive role. Where the working class is still undeveloped, these conceptions of society can contribute to the formation of liberation movements, to the orientation towards an alliance with the countries of the socialist world system, and to the polarization of class forces. At times they play a progressive role. Social bearers of these theories are mostly peasant classes, artisans, small commodity producers, and parts of the intelligentsia. The communist and workers’ parties develop a constructive relationship with these non-proletarian conceptions of socialism and their representatives. [Communists] combine, first, the offensive propagation of scientific socialism and the support and utilisation of the progressive aspects of non-proletarian conceptions of socialism in the unification of all anti-imperialist, democratic forces with, second, the consistent struggle against all pro-imperialist, anti-communist ‘conceptions of socialism’ and for the principled confrontation with unscientific conceptions of society.”
“Peaceful coexistence and cooperation between states of different social order in the epoch of the transition from capitalism to socialism. […] It requires the use of peaceful means in political, economic, and cultural relations. On the basis of the equality and respect of state sovereignty, it provides mutual benefit and excludes the use of military means of power. Lenin developed the policy of peaceful coexistence as a basic principle of socialist foreign policy, derived from the law of the uneven economic and political development of capitalism and the consequent possibility of the existence of states of different social systems. […]
The policy of peaceful coexistence corresponds to the nature of socialism and its interest in peace. By changing the international balance of forces in favour of socialism and the other anti-imperialist forces, it is possible to force peaceful coexistence upon imperialism, even though, in accordance with its aggressive nature, it always pushes for expansion and war and tries to prevent or reverse the law-governed development toward socialism and the liberation of the peoples, even by military force. Peaceful coexistence is, in accordance with the existing contrasts between the two social systems socialism and capitalism, a form of international class struggle and the associated competition between states of different social order, which, however, excludes the struggle by military means. It creates favourable conditions for the class struggle of the working people against capital, for their social liberation, for the national liberation struggle of the peoples oppressed by imperialism, and thus also the struggle socialism.
It is not possible to apply the principles of peaceful coexistence to the class struggle within the capitalist states or to the anti-colonial struggle or to the ideological class struggle because these spheres constitute wholly different forms of social relations. Peaceful coexistence thus does equate to settling for the social status quo.
Bourgeois ideologists discredit the policy peaceful coexistence by claiming that the coexistence of these states in a peaceful form is dependent on the ideological relations between them. The policy of peaceful coexistence includes the ideological confrontation, because in the field of ideology there can be no compromise, no half measures (Lenin). At present it can be noted that, with the enforcement of the peaceful coexistence, the ideological class struggle is in fact intensifying, because the role of the consciously acting popular masses has grown and imperialism is using more diverse and sophisticated ideological means for its more limited possibilities of influencing world politics.”
Pioneering role of the CPSU and the Soviet state
“The practical and theoretical activity of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) and the Soviet state as the vanguard in the world revolutionary process, the most advanced socialist state power, and the pioneer of social progress. The pioneering role encompasses a complex of objective political, economic, scientific-technical, ideological, intellectual-cultural, and military factors arising from the stage of development of Soviet society, in which the historical mission of the working class is most advanced. In realization of the universal laws of socialist revolution and socialist construction, the Soviet working class, in alliance with all other working people, led by the CPSU, created the foundations of socialism, was the first to establish the developed socialist society, and is thus working to create the foundations of communism. There emerged a historically new community of people: the Soviet people. […]
The following features characterize the pioneering role: 1. the Soviet Union led by the CPSU provides all socialist countries with rich, universally valid experience in building socialism and communism; 2. the CPSU, as the leading party in socialist and communist construction and as the vanguard of the international communist movement, has made a great, creative contribution to the application, enrichment, and defense of Marxism-Leninism, thus working out solutions to important basic theoretical problems of the struggle of the international revolutionary working-class movement; 3. On the basis of the internationalist policy of the CPSU, the Soviet Union makes the most decisive contribution to strengthening the world socialist system, protecting the achievements of the peoples of the socialist community and securing peace throughout the world; 4. The Soviet Union, in the spirit of proletarian internationalism, supports the other socialist countries in all fields of social development and at the same time provides the anti-imperialist forces in the world with comprehensive political, economic and, if necessary, military assistance against imperialism; 5. The Soviet Union possesses the greatest political, economic, scientific-technical, and military potentialities both for the development of the socialist world system and for the international class struggle against imperialism. The unification of the socialist states around the Soviet Union is an objective requirement and expression of the internationalism of the ruling working class in the realization of its historic mission. Fraternal solidarity with the Soviet Union is the pledge for the development of socialism in every country as well as for further victories in the international class struggle between socialism and imperialism. […]
Imperialism reacts to the objective role of the USSR in the world revolutionary process by directing the main thrust of its aggressive policy against it. Historical experience proves that all attempts to dilute the alliance with the USSR can endanger the socialist achievements of the country concerned and at the same time affect the international positions of the world socialist system. In the worldwide class struggle, the recognition of this pioneering role is the most important criterion for the political-ideological maturity of a Marxist-Leninist party or a revolutionary movement. It is an expression of proletarian internationalism.”
“A basic principle of the ideology and policy of the working class and its Marxist-Leninist party, which permeates all sides of the struggle of the working class for the realization of its historical mission, which is international in its nature. Proletarian internationalism is expressed through the active solidarity of each national section of the working class in the struggle against imperialism and for the establishment of the socialist and communist society. […]
The slogan “Workers of all countries, unite!” characterizes the essence of proletarian internationalism. On the objective basis of the unified conditions of reproduction and struggle of the proletariat created by capitalism and the internationalization of economic relations, proletarian internationalism grew out of the convergence of the social interests and political aims of the working class in the struggle against the common enemy: international capital. […]
The role of proletarian internationalism is further increased by the unfolding of the world revolutionary process and the breadth of the forces involved in it in the struggle for peace, democracy, social progress, and socialism. With the victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution began a qualitatively new stage of proletarian internationalism. It became a basic principle of the politics of the first socialist state. Since that time, real socialism has played an essential role in supporting the struggle of the national sections of the working class and the progressive forces in the national liberation movement. Another stage in the development of proletarian internationalism began with the emergence of the socialist world system as a decisive anti-imperialist force and the unfolding of the alliance of the three main revolutionary currents in the epoch of transition from capitalism to socialism. This expanded the social base, sphere of influence, and class content of proletarian internationalism.
With the development of the socialist world system, proletarian internationalism became a core principle of interstate relations between the socialist countries. It functions as socialist internationalism and is an expression of the united efforts for the strengthening of the socialist community. Proletarian internationalism is increasingly appropriated not only by the working class, but also by non-proletarian forces in capitalist countries and in the national liberation movements. This process finds expression in the slogan “Peoples of socialist countries, proletarians, democratic forces in the countries of capital, liberated as well as oppressed peoples — unite in common struggle against imperialism, for peace, national independence, social progress, democracy, and socialism!” (Moscow Meeting 1969) […]
The class duty of every communist and workers’ party is the conquest of political power and the building of socialism and communism in its own country, as well as the defence of the achievements of world socialism. The 10th Party Congress of the SED has emphasized: “The supreme law of our actions is and remains proletarian internationalism, international solidarity with all peoples fighting for their freedom. All peoples fighting for national and social liberation, for independence, democracy, and progress can always count on the solidarity of the German Democratic Republic.”
Proletarian internationalism is irreconcilably opposed to nationalism. Communists fight all attempts to strip proletarian internationalism of its revolutionary class essence and turn it into an abstract humanist phrase of ‘universal solidarity’, to deny the overall interests of the international communist and workers’ movement, and to portray it as a betrayal of national interests.” [See socialist patriotism and fatherland]
Revolutionary world process (and its three main currents)
“Totality of the revolutionary movements in the epoch of transition from capitalism to socialism, inaugurated by the October Socialist Revolution and led by the three main revolutionary currents. These currents are 1) the socialist world system, 2) the working class of the capitalist countries, and 3) the national liberation movements (i.e., the elimination of national and colonial oppression and exploitation). The revolutionary world process is composed of various kinds of revolutions and movements (e.g., national; national-democratic; anti-colonial; anti-feudal; anti-fascist revolutions; anti-monopolistic transformations), of which the socialist revolution is the most consistent and profound social upheaval. It leads to the formation of socialist states and the growing influence of socialism.
The revolutionary world process appears in manifold forms of the international class struggle: As a struggle to overcome imperialist oppression and plunder of economically weaker peoples, and for the enforcement of democratic relations of equal cooperation among peoples; as a struggle against the imperialist-driven tendency toward Cold War and for the enforcement of the policy of peaceful coexistence between states of different social order; as a struggle against imperialist-driven interventions and for the safeguarding of peace, which emanates from socialism and corresponds to the interests of the majority of all people.
The advances in the revolutionary world process have far-reaching implications for international power and the new possibilities for political strategy and tactics in the struggle of the working class that derive from it. The starting point for the fact that the transition of mankind from capitalism to socialism must take place in such a multifaceted class struggle encompassing an entire epoch is to be found: 1) in the uneven economic and political development of capitalism, which has intensified by leaps and bounds with the transition to imperialism (the so-called law of the uneven economic and political development of capitalism), and 2. in the related uneven formation of the economic and political conditions for anti-imperialist upheavals and the transition in the individual countries to socialism.
Irrespective of the unevenness of the development of capitalism and the unevenness with which the objective and subjective conditions of the socialist revolution are maturing in the individual countries, the capitalist world system as a whole is ripe for its replacement by socialism. All actions with which the most diverse circles of the population appear in defence of their interests in an anti-imperialist direction objectively bring humanity closer to the victory of the socialist form of social life, regardless of whether the participants in such actions are aware of this fact.
The unfolding of such actions in the struggle for anti-imperialist transformations ultimately lends them a revolutionary character with which they become part of this world process. The diversity of interests working towards anti-imperialism, their heterogeneity, increases the importance of unifying anti-imperialist movements, proletarian internationalism, and anti-imperialist solidarity in the struggle for peace, democracy, and socialism”.
Socialist economic integration
“Process of international socialist division of labour and cooperation consciously and in a planned manner designed by the Marxist-Leninist parties and governments of the member countries of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA). It pertains to the rapprochement of national economies with the formation of modern, effective economic structures, the development and consolidation of the international market of these countries, as well as the perfection of commodity-money relations, the gradual equalization of the level of economic development and the formation of stable links in the main branches of the economy, science, and technology.
With the achievement of a certain degree of maturity of the socialist mode of production and political-economic and scientific-technical cooperation of the socialist countries, socialist economic integration becomes a law of the development of socialism. It creates the material basis for the constant perfection of the cooperation of the socialist states. The deepening of economic integration is based on socialist internationalism, which includes respect for state sovereignty and national interests and ensures full equality, mutual benefit, and comradely assistance.
Socialist economic integration arises from the objective conditions of the socialization of labour and production, which is currently manifested above all in the increasing internationalization of the development of productive forces. The foundations are the shared socialist relations of production and power and the unified Marxist-Leninist ideology as well as the convergence of fundamental interests in mastering the task of combining the advantages of socialist society with the achievements of the scientific-technical revolution. This task includes increasingly realizing the integration of national economies in line with the international development of the productive forces.
The constant class confrontation with imperialism and the support for national liberation movements are other essential factors that require the socialist economic integration. It is part of the maturation of the developed socialist society and corresponds to the internationalist nature of the communist social formation. Lenin emphasized: “… the entire economic, political, and intellectual life of mankind is already increasingly internationalized under capitalism. Socialism internationalizes it fully.” (Lenin, vol. 19, p. 237)
CMEA represents a historically new quality of economic cooperation compared to capitalist integration efforts. CMEA is a long-term, multi-stage process which contributes to the formation of a unified economic organism to be governed by the proletariat of all countries as a whole and which increasingly brings to bear the advantages of socialism for raising the material and intellectual-cultural standard of living of the working people. The economic, scientific-technical, and socio-political tasks of shaping and perfecting the developed socialist society, which are essentially the same, can ultimately be solved with the highest effectiveness only through the socialist economy. In accordance with its character as a process guided by planning, the cooperation of the CMEA countries in the field of planning, especially the coordination of five-year plans, is the main method for the further development and deepening of the international socialist division of labour.”
“A stable community of classes and strata, free from antagonistic contradictions and bound together in friendship, led by the working class and its Marxist-Leninist party. Its political basis is the socialist state, Marxism-Leninism is its ruling ideology. The economic basis is the socialist relations of production, especially the social ownership of the means of production. The upheaval and renewal of the conditions of human existence and life, which takes place through the socialist revolution and encompasses all areas of societal life, inevitably also encompasses the nation as a law-governed structural and developmental form of society.
The socialist nation generally emerges from the capitalist nation, but it can also develop in countries that have not yet reached this stage (see non-capitalist path of development). In the revolutionary transformation of the capitalist nation, the nationality remains as a relatively constant total complex of ethnic factors, while the social essence changes fundamentally and thus the nation acquires a qualitatively new content. The socialist nation is formed; new relations are created between nations and peoples. “In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another will also be put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.” (Manifest of the Communist Party)
On the basis of the increasing socialization of labour and production and the further internationalization of the productive forces, the Marxist-Leninist party and the socialist state are consciously and in a planned manner directing the objective process of the prosperity and convergence of nations under socialism. […] [see socialist patriotism and fatherland]
Small Political Dictionary (1988)
“Love for the homeland, love for the fatherland; social-historical phenomenon that develops in dependence on the development of the fatherland as the given political, cultural, and social milieu of the life and struggle of a people. “Patriotism is one of the deepest feelings ingrained by centuries and millennia of separate existence of different fatherlands.” (Lenin, vol. 28, p. 182)
The bearers of patriotism in all epochs are the popular masses. They are most interested in the fate of the fatherland. In its revolutionary period, the bourgeoisie is also patriotic. However, as soon as it subjugates the fatherland to its profit interests, it reveals its nationalist attitude. The working class, as the only consistently revolutionary class, is also the most patriotic class in society. Its attitude towards the fatherland is determined by the fundamental interests of its liberation struggle for the elimination of all exploitation. The patriotism of the working class forms an inseparable unity with proletarian internationalism; this prevents patriotism from slipping into nationalism.
Under the conditions of the socialist nation, patriotism is an expression of socialist national consciousness. For the working class and its revolutionary party, the respective fatherland is the fighting ground for the fulfilment of their historical mission. With its struggle to secure peace, eliminate the rule of imperialism, and establish socialist society, it proves at the same time to be the best champion of the nation’s true interests.
Socialist patriotism is the highest form of patriotism. Like proletarian internationalism, it always springs from the overall interests of the working class and is subordinated to the realization of the historical mission of the working class. Socialist patriotism embraces the entire people of the socialist fatherland, preserves within itself the revolutionary patriotic traditions of the country’s past, and raises them to a higher level. […] It is organically connected with the unbreakable friendship and international solidarity with the working people of all countries in the struggle for peace, democracy, and social progress, especially with the mutual fraternal help of the Marxist-Leninist parties and the peoples in the socialist countries. In the GDR, ‘a socialist national consciousness is growing in which socialist patriotism and proletarian internationalism are organically combined’ (Program of the SED, p. 78).”
The Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism (1963):
“The patriotism of the working class expresses itself in defending the freedom of nations, their independence, and national autonomy. It is diametrically opposed to both the chauvinist and the cosmopolitan ideology of the bourgeoisie. The patriotism of the working class arises above all from the feeling of pride in the contribution of one’s own people, one’s own nation, in the struggle of the oppressed and exploited masses for their liberation from exploitation and oppression. The patriotism of the working class is therefore deeply progressive and revolutionary.
Bourgeois propaganda seeks to portray the capitalist class as the bearer of patriotic feelings. It wants to cover up the truth that the patriotism of the bourgeoisie is always subordinated to its selfish, narrow class interests, and thus wants to belittle the patriotism of the working class and the communists. The bourgeois propagandists sometimes refer to the passage in the “Manifesto of the Communist Party” in which it states: “The workers have no fatherland”. But it is clear that the fatherland in itself is not being denied here; it is simply that in a society where the capitalists wield power, the fatherland is in fact usurped by the exploiters. It is, so to speak, not a good father for the workers, but a vicious stepfather. With the overthrow of the ruling exploiting classes, the working class creates the necessary preconditions for patriotism to develop. In our time, the working class is the real bearer of patriotism.
We know that Marx and Engels always supported the struggle of the workers to defend the independence of their country, their struggle against foreign oppression. They never claimed that in the capitalist order the working class could be indifferent to the fate of its fatherland.
Lenin developed this Marxist conception of the fatherland further, writing in 1908: “The fatherland, i.e. the given political, cultural, and social milieu, is the strongest factor in the class struggle of the proletariat … The proletariat cannot be indifferent to the political, social, and cultural conditions of its struggle, consequently it cannot be indifferent to the fate of its country.” Lenin’s well-known remark against the dogmatic attitude to Marxism is also applicable to the relationship of the working class with the fatherland: ‘The whole spirit of Marxism, its whole system, demands that every thesis be considered only a) historically; b) only in connection with others; c) only in connection with the concrete experiences of history.” With regard to patriotism, this means that the proletariat cannot settle for an abstract position on the question of the defence of the fatherland. It is necessary to account for the specific historical situation in which the slogan ‘defend the fatherland’ is proclaimed – by which class and with which aims. […]
The ideologists of the bourgeoisie claim that the Marxists, in their struggle against cosmopolitanism, abandon the international character of their doctrine and become nationalists. The authors of such slanders, however, commit a double falsification: firstly, they identify the cosmopolitanism of the bourgeoisie with the internationalism of the working class; secondly, they ascribe to the Marxists nationalist views which are in reality characteristic precisely of the bourgeois ideologues.”
Dummer, E. und Lange, E. Internationale Arbeiterbewegung und revolutionärer Kampf (The International Workers’ Movement and the Revolutionary Struggle). Berlin: Dietz Verlag, 1973.
Grundlagen des Marxismus-Leninismus, Lehrbuch (The Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism, A textbook). Nach der zweiten, überarbeiteten und ergänzten russischen Ausgabe. Berlin: Dietz Verlag, 1963.
Kleines politisches Wörterbuch, siebte, vollständig überarbeitete Auflage (Small Political Dictionary, Seventh, Completely Revised Edition). Ed.: Böhme, W.; Dominik, S.; Fischer, A.; Klotsch, F.; Polit, R.; von Treskow, H.; Schachtschneider, K.; Scolz, I.; Schütz, G.; Weigt, M. Berlin: Dietz-Verlag, 1988.
Weidemann, D. Zur Evolution der Non-alignment-Politik afro-asiatischer Staaten mit kapitalistischer Entwicklungsrichtungen (On the Evolution of the Non-alignment Policy of Afro-Asian States with Capitalist Development Directions). In: Grundfragen des antiimperialistischen Kampfes der Völker Asiens, Afrikas und Lateinamerika in der Gegenwart (Basic questions of the anti-imperialist struggle of the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America in the present day). Part II. Edited by the Central Council for Asian, African and Latin American Studies in the German Democratic Republic under the leadership of Rathmann, L. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1974.