What is peaceful co-existence...and what isn't

There is already a long historical period in which both capitalist and 
socialist countries have existed in the world. What are the relations 
between countries having different social systems to be? Should they be 
based on endless military confrontations? Is this the only form in which 
the struggle between the two systems is conducted?

It is accepted that it is not possible to export revolution and there are a 
number of experiences which confirm this truth. Furthermore, societies in 
different countries are at different levels of development and the idea of 
one "world revolution" occurring as one "big bang" all in the same year, is 
not a valid proposition. The transition from capitalism to socialism will 
be a long historical process.

Should or could this period be one in which socialist countries provoke 
military confrontations and armed struggle in countries whose people are 
not ready for revolution?

In circumstances where the capitalist and imperialist states are more 
powerful, economically, politically and militarily, military confrontations 
would not lead to the victory of revolutionary movements or the triumph of 
socialism but to its defeat. Time is needed to build up the all-round 
strength of socialism.

It was in answer to such questions that the concept of peaceful co-
existence was developed.

This does not mean that the class struggle or the struggle against 
imperialism are abandoned. Peaceful co-existence means struggle for certain 
principles in relations between states.

The main principles of peaceful co-existence are non-interference in the 
internal affairs of other countries, respect for the sovereignty and 
independence of countries, equality, trade on the basis of mutual benefit, 
the renunciation of the use of force in the settlement of disputes between 
states and disarmament.

None of these principles are accepted by imperialism and to achieve them 
means struggle against the policies of imperialist governments.

Neither does peaceful co-existence mean a renunciation of armed struggle 
when imperialist countries launch military aggression as in the recent case 
of the NATO aggression against Yugoslavia. People also have the right to 
take up arms against colonialism and foreign occupation.

Peaceful co-existence does not exclude class struggle it, presupposes it.

If the class content is taken out of peaceful co-existence it, of course, 
becomes collaboration but then, it would not be what is meant by peaceful 
co-existence. It would become collaboration.

To win the hearts and minds of the people in capitalist countries, 
socialism has to show that it can provide for the people better than 
capitalism — achieve a higher standard of living, bring security, provide 
education and health care, protect the environment, etc.

The competition between the two systems takes place mainly in the economic 
sphere. Furthermore, communists are for peace not war which inevitably 
imposes the greatest tragedies on the people of warring countries.

Peaceful co-existence does not exclude giving support to the people of 
other countries struggling for their independence from colonialism whether 
this struggle is conducted with or without arms.

The struggle for peaceful co-existence is the revolutionary way in the 
present historical period in which capitalist and socialist societies will 
exist side by side for many years yet.

What do the critics of peaceful co-existence offer as an alternative?

David Matters, Brisbane