In connection with the events in Czechoslovakia the question of the correlation and interdependence of the national interests of the socialist countries and their international duties acquire particular topical and acute importance.
The measures taken by the Soviet Union, jointly with other socialist countries, in defending the socialist gains of the Czechoslovak people are of great significance for strengthening the socialist community, which is the main achievement of the international working class.
We cannot ignore the assertions, held in some places, that the actions of the five socialist countries run counter to the Marxist-Leninist principle of sovereignty and the rights of nations to self determination. The groundlessness of such reasoning consists primarily in that it is based on an abstract, nonclass approach to the question of sovereignty and the rights of nations to self-determination.
The peoples of the socialist countries and Communist parties certainly do have and should have freedom for determining the ways of advance of their respective countries.
However, none of their decisions should damage either socialism in their country or the fundamental interests of other socialist countries, and the whole working class movement, which is working for socialism.
This means that each Communist Party is responsible not only to its own people, but also to all the socialist countries, to the entire Communist movement. Whoever forget this, in stressing only the independence of the Communist Party, becomes one-sided. He deviates from his international duty.
Marxist dialectics are opposed to one-sidedness. They demand that each phenomenon be examined concretely, in general connection with other phenomena, with other processes.
Just as, in Lenin’s words, a man living in a society cannot be free from the society, one or another socialist state, staying in a system of other states composing the socialist community, cannot be free from the common interests of that community.
The sovereignty of each socialist country cannot be opposed to the interests of the world of socialism, of the world revolutionary movement. Lenin demanded that all Communists fight against small nation narrow-mindedness, seclusion and isolation, consider the whole and the general, subordinate the particular to the general interest.
The socialist states respect the democratic norms of international law. They have proved this more than once in practice, by coming out resolutely against the attempts of imperialism to violate the sovereignty and independence of nations.
It is from these same positions that they reject the leftist, adventurist conception of “exporting revolution,” of “bringing happiness” to other peoples.
However, from a Marxist point of view, the norms of law, including the norms of mutual relations of the socialist countries, cannot be interpreted narrowly, formally, and in isolation from the general context of class struggle in the modern world. The socialist countries resolutely come out against the exporting and importing of counterrevolution.
Each Communist Party is free to apply the basic principles of Marxism, Leninism and of socialism in its country, but it cannot depart from these principles (assuming, naturally, that it remains a Communist Party).
Concretely this means, first of all, that in its activity, each Communist Party cannot but take into account such a decisive fact of our time as the struggle between two opposing social systems â€” capitalism and socialism.
This is an objective struggle, a fact not depending on the will of the people, and stipulated by the world’s being split into two opposite social systems. Lenin said: “Each man must choose between joining our side or the other side. Any attempt to avoid taking sides in this issue must end in fiasco.”
It has got to be emphasized that when a socialist country seems to adopt a “non-affiliated” stand, it retains its national independence, in effect, precisely because of the might of the socialist community, and above all the Soviet Union as a central force, which also includes the might of its armed forces. The weakening of any of the links in the world system of socialism directly affects all the socialist countries, which cannot look indifferently upon this.
The antisocialist elements in Czechoslovakia actually covered up the demand for so-called neutrality and Czechoslovakia’s withdrawal from the socialist community with talking about the right of nations to self-determination.
However, the implementation of such “self-determination,” in other words, Czechoslovakia’s detachment from the socialist community, would have come into conflict with its own vital interests and would have been detrimental to the other socialist states.
Such “self-determination,” as a result of which NATO troops would have been able to come up to the Soviet border, while the community of European socialist countries would have been split, in effect encroaches upon the vital interests of the peoples of these countries and conflicts, as the very root of it, with the right of these people to socialist self-determination.
Discharging their internationalist duty toward the fraternal peoples of Czechoslovakia and defending their own socialist gains, the U.S.S.R. and the other socialist states had to act decisively and they did act against the antisocialist forces in Czechoslovakia.