-*!
FOURTH INTERNATIONAL
ENGLISH - LANGUAGE EDITION OF THE THEORETICAL ORGAN OF THE
COMMITTEE OF THE FOURTH INTERNATIONAL
THE POST - SUMMIT SITUATION
From the failure of the summit conference to clusion of the whole operation that he had so
INTERNATIONAL EXECUTIVE Number 10
Editorial the tremendous movements of the Japanese masses, a whole series of events have marked new developments in the international situation.
Those of our readers who recall the previous editorials in this magazine are aware that we never had any illusions about the outcome of the Paris conference. in the Spring issue:
Thus in the best of cases the summit conference might end without an abrupt break, by keeping up the dialogue even without any real agreement on any essential question.
In drawing up a balance sheet a posteriori, we have almost nothing to add. Fundamentally, the conference failed because no real agreement was possible on any important problem. The only exception might have been disarmament - on this level also negotiations ended — but absolutely not in the sense that total or even a quite advanced degree of disarmament could have been achieved, for this was and continues to be impossible. a completely limited basis was not and is not excluded, for the joint purpose of bringing about, not disarmament, but a rationalization, so to speak, in armaments, with a possible elimination of henceforth useless or excessive costs.
The impossibility of reaching any agreement whatever at the May conference obviously explains Khrushchev's attitude — all the more so in that on the very eve of the conference the imperialists had clearly manifested their decision to make no serious concession, and had even organized the spectacular provocation of the U-2.
Long-time apostle of "peaceful coexistence" and of "summit" diplomacy, reach the end of the conference — viz, the con- Khrushchev could not
Summer 1960 patiently prepared and so animatedly defended against every sort of adversary — with empty hands. That would have meant for him accept a confirmation of the bankruptcy of his policy, which would unquestionably have brought about a very serious weakening of his position, if not indeed his fall from power. It must not be forgotten that, in the camp of the workers' quite roughly attacked by the Chinese, whose theses very likely have a serious audience, among other places, in the circles of the cadres and leaders of the Soviet Communist Party.
There has been a lot of discussion in the worker's movement about the formal attitude adopted by Khrushcher in Paris. This, however, is a secondary question. The essential point is that an objective basis for agreement did not exist, that the imperialists were not ready for any concessions, and that, under these conditions, Khrushchev would have seen his line publicly compromised, with no offsetting advantage. Furthermore, if anyone is to form a judgment about the repercussions of the attitude of the head of the Soviet government and of certain declarations of Malinovsky, he must not limit himself to the rather negative reactions of certain worker or petty-bourgeois sectors in Western Europe (the PSI in Italy, the PSU in France, etc; he must consider the problem from all points of view, including that of the alarm which even the leading strata of certain countries have not con. cealed about the use made of American bases on their territory. One may be sure that henceforth countries like Pakistan will be much more prudent before offering their hospitality to airplanes of the U-2 type and similar devices.
2
But the fundamental characteristic of the current international situation consists of the new aggravation of the class struggle on the world scale and of the new revolutionary crises that have opened up, especially in Asia. The events in Korea, Turkey, and Japan show, without any possible ambiguity, that a new revolutionary wave has begun and that new earthquakes must be expected. The Japanese movement in particular has demonstrated how intrinsically fragile are certain pillars of the world imperialist system even when, in certain aspects, their relative stability might have been believed.
The recent revolutionary movements - where generally the masses mobilized themselves to an extent far beyond what their traditional leaderships desired, and where there was even to be observed the visibly vanguard role played by forces outside the control of these leaderships — have marked in general the irruption of new gene. rations into the political arena. What we have here are young people born during or even after the war, who have not known disappointments, who have not been worn out, who do not want to accept a gangrened society in which their pros. pects seem to be pretty sombre, who have something to say and to put forward, and who are de. termined to fight with extreme energy. So far, this experience has not yet become generalized; but advance signs exist that in old Europe too the new generation will not be willing to rub along in a "prosperity" that is after all pretty limited and precarious, but will know how to follow the example of the youth of Turkey, Ko. rea, and Japan.
*
That all the events of these last months, from the U-2 affair to the struggle in Tokyo, have meant new and quite severe blows to the prestige and even the strength of American imperialism, nobody could question. The problem which now arises, and which is of capital importance in all its future implications, is the following: how are the rulers of the United States going to act in face of the increasing deterioration of the relationship of forces in their disfavor?
A situation of disarray and genuine crisis obviously reigns in Washington, the confusion and uncertainty being increased by the fact it is now almost the eve of the elections, with the paralysis that an outdated political system normally involves on this occasion. But there is no doubt that imperialism's most responsible men realize pertectly that the game from now on will be very closely fought, and that deadlines lie not far ahead.
FOURTH INTERNATIONAL reality, the imperialist rulers more ever find themselves faced by a dramatic dilem. ma: on the one hand, they know that time is irreversibly working against them, but also, the other, they are not unaware that a possible war unleashed today would begin under political conditions unfavorable to them and from a position of visible inferiority concerning the most homicidal weapons.
It is therefore true that very serious obstacles stand in the way of imperialism's march toward
But it is also true that, just because of the later increased deterioration in its position, imperialism might be driven to war by despair or by panie (quite apart from the always existent risk of a conflict "by accident"). With all the more reason, it might be tempted to try, by new partial wars, to dyke any new advances of the revolution in Asia or Latin America.
This is why the international workers' movement must more than ever condemn the lamentable illusions about a "coexistence" that could be described as "peaceful" only by a misuse of words. In particular, the idea that a basic agreement could be found between the imperialists on the one hand, and the workers' states and the revolution in all its forms on the other, and that the so-called "spirit of Camp David" could finally become a reality and force itself to be recognized is an untenable utopia. In other terms, if propaganda is spread about a possible conciliation with imperialism and, as a result, a "peaceful" transition to socialism, the workers' movement is disarmed for the most important tasks that it must accomplish in the period into which we have entered.
Even at the risk of being accused of "dogmatism" by open or camouflaged revisionists, must constantly repeat this primary truth, that as long as imperialism exists, the danger of war is not absolutely removed. And we must forcefully emphasize that a war, under the present conditions of nuclear armament, would have the most terrifyingly murderous consequences for all the inhabitants of our planet.
It must not be feared that such a constant reminder of reality may demoralize the masses. On the contrary, they will be all the more spurred on to a resolute fight against an enemy who, although condemned to inevitable defeat, still has redoubtable means at his disposal. In the last analysis, it is only by such a struggle— in which the problem of the destruction of the capitalist system itself will be posed - that it is possible to check the danger of war, which no summit meeting or spirit of Camp David could in any way exorcize.