- Email: [email protected]
International relations among communists
/
Book Review: International
Relations
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AMONG COMMUNISTS, edited by Robert H. McNeal (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1967. 181 pp.) IDEOLOGIES IN WORLD AFFAIRS, by Andrew Gyorgy and George D. Blackwood (Waltham, Mass.: Blaidsell, 1967. 262 pp.) These two books, each dealing with the role of ideology in world affairs, treat the subject in two differing areas and at two different levels. Yet, each in its own way emphasizes the importance the study of ideology has attained since 1917. The Gyorgy-Blackwood book is a good undergraduate-level text on the subject, full of definitions of terms and general considerations describing the historical backgrounds and present status of today’s major isms. These the authors classify into such free world ideologies as capitalism, democracy and socialism; and into such authoritarian ideologies as the various forms of fascism, national socialism and communism. Four chapters (by Gyorgy) treat the communism of Marx, Lenin and Stalin and of “Khruschchev vs. Mao,” pointing out such worthwhile distinctions as those between “national” and ‘?nternational” communism, and stating that “What used to be a monolith and then a twopower arrangement now seemed to be falling apart into a new and many-centered pattern of world communism.” One controversial aspect of the book, although in keeping with its focus, is the emphasis on ideology as “the most important aspect of the Sino-Soviet dispute.” This thesis is buttressed on page 125 by a diagram of the “escalation” aspect of the dispute, a pyramid with consecutive sections rising from economic aspects of the dispute through the military, political and propaganda (can these two be separated from the ideological?) to a peak labeled “Ideological Dispute.” In International Relations Among Communists, McNeal emphasizes three features: ideological, institutional and historical. Ideology has an important status in these relations generally as well as in the peculiarly critical Sino-Soviet relationship, McNeal points out in an analysis emphasizing the Communist point of view. In a most informative 46-page introduction, he writes: The degree to which ideology is considered the foundation of international harmony is unique among Communists, as is the degree to which they regard differences of opinion as ideological betrayal. And no previous form of international relations saw ideology incarnate in special institutions that carry on international relations of their own, as do the Communist parties.
McNeal helps clarify further the dispute over roles of ideology and power politics-national interest Communist international relations by pointing out relationship of the two factors to Communists. writes: There is no need for a Marxist-Leninist power. For him, that theory is most contributes most to the acquisition and munist power. . In short, it is misleading ideology as an alternative tional interest. Ideology VI
2
MARCH-APRIL
the in the He
to choose theory or truly Marxist which maintenance of Com-
to attempt to perceive the role of to considerations of power or nais neither an external, dominating
Among
Communists
force nor a mere cloak for the “real” issues. It is more like a set of assumptions about the nature of the world and its problems, which is inextricably involved in Communist international issues as a conceptual framework or, more simply, as the language used to discuss these issues.
Havirfg discussed in general the role of ideology in international relations among Communists, McNeal then analyzes the issues among Communist parties and states under four categories: territorial issues, economic relations, Communist relations with the non-communist countries, and domestic policies. He discusses each of these in relation to the Sino-Soviet dispute, as well as generally. The Sino-Soviet territorial quarrel he calls the “most portentous” yet between Communist states, and recalls 1962-1963 Chinese statements that the “unequal treaties” with Russia that had set the existing boundaries should be rectified, and that lLwe have not yet presented our account for this list [of lost territories] .” Concerning economic issues, McNeal pithily summarizes that “Especially in the Sino-Soviet relationship, the handling of economic aid has suffered from miserliness, tactlessness, and downright betrayal”; but he adds that since 1956 COMECON has made real strides in settling bloc economic issues (excluding Rumania, of course). Under “Tactical Issues” McNeal rightly points out that determining the proper degree of hostility and militancy toward the leading “imperialist” countries, especially the United States, poses highly sensitive issues. “The most famous case in point is the SinoSoviet divergence concerning the United States,” he writes and adds that heated polemics on the subject have carried over into mutual criticism of the internal character of the two countries: ‘
27
Book Review: International
Relations
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AMONG COMMUNISTS, edited by Robert H. McNeal (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1967. 181 pp.) IDEOLOGIES IN WORLD AFFAIRS, by Andrew Gyorgy and George D. Blackwood (Waltham, Mass.: Blaidsell, 1967. 262 pp.) These two books, each dealing with the role of ideology in world affairs, treat the subject in two differing areas and at two different levels. Yet, each in its own way emphasizes the importance the study of ideology has attained since 1917. The Gyorgy-Blackwood book is a good undergraduate-level text on the subject, full of definitions of terms and general considerations describing the historical backgrounds and present status of today’s major isms. These the authors classify into such free world ideologies as capitalism, democracy and socialism; and into such authoritarian ideologies as the various forms of fascism, national socialism and communism. Four chapters (by Gyorgy) treat the communism of Marx, Lenin and Stalin and of “Khruschchev vs. Mao,” pointing out such worthwhile distinctions as those between “national” and ‘?nternational” communism, and stating that “What used to be a monolith and then a twopower arrangement now seemed to be falling apart into a new and many-centered pattern of world communism.” One controversial aspect of the book, although in keeping with its focus, is the emphasis on ideology as “the most important aspect of the Sino-Soviet dispute.” This thesis is buttressed on page 125 by a diagram of the “escalation” aspect of the dispute, a pyramid with consecutive sections rising from economic aspects of the dispute through the military, political and propaganda (can these two be separated from the ideological?) to a peak labeled “Ideological Dispute.” In International Relations Among Communists, McNeal emphasizes three features: ideological, institutional and historical. Ideology has an important status in these relations generally as well as in the peculiarly critical Sino-Soviet relationship, McNeal points out in an analysis emphasizing the Communist point of view. In a most informative 46-page introduction, he writes: The degree to which ideology is considered the foundation of international harmony is unique among Communists, as is the degree to which they regard differences of opinion as ideological betrayal. And no previous form of international relations saw ideology incarnate in special institutions that carry on international relations of their own, as do the Communist parties.
McNeal helps clarify further the dispute over roles of ideology and power politics-national interest Communist international relations by pointing out relationship of the two factors to Communists. writes: There is no need for a Marxist-Leninist power. For him, that theory is most contributes most to the acquisition and munist power. . In short, it is misleading ideology as an alternative tional interest. Ideology VI
2
MARCH-APRIL
the in the He
to choose theory or truly Marxist which maintenance of Com-
to attempt to perceive the role of to considerations of power or nais neither an external, dominating
Among
Communists
force nor a mere cloak for the “real” issues. It is more like a set of assumptions about the nature of the world and its problems, which is inextricably involved in Communist international issues as a conceptual framework or, more simply, as the language used to discuss these issues.
Havirfg discussed in general the role of ideology in international relations among Communists, McNeal then analyzes the issues among Communist parties and states under four categories: territorial issues, economic relations, Communist relations with the non-communist countries, and domestic policies. He discusses each of these in relation to the Sino-Soviet dispute, as well as generally. The Sino-Soviet territorial quarrel he calls the “most portentous” yet between Communist states, and recalls 1962-1963 Chinese statements that the “unequal treaties” with Russia that had set the existing boundaries should be rectified, and that lLwe have not yet presented our account for this list [of lost territories] .” Concerning economic issues, McNeal pithily summarizes that “Especially in the Sino-Soviet relationship, the handling of economic aid has suffered from miserliness, tactlessness, and downright betrayal”; but he adds that since 1956 COMECON has made real strides in settling bloc economic issues (excluding Rumania, of course). Under “Tactical Issues” McNeal rightly points out that determining the proper degree of hostility and militancy toward the leading “imperialist” countries, especially the United States, poses highly sensitive issues. “The most famous case in point is the SinoSoviet divergence concerning the United States,” he writes and adds that heated polemics on the subject have carried over into mutual criticism of the internal character of the two countries: ‘
27