PEACEFUL CO-EXISTENCE

You do not like Communism. We do not like capitalism. There is only one way out peaceful co-existence. Khrushchev had said this while on a visit to Britain in 1956. The key term in his statement was Peaceful co-existence. What does it mean?

Khrushchev had given us an interesting definition of what he understands by this term. Peaceful coexistence, he said, signifies in essence the repudiation of war as a means of solving controversial issues. It presupposes an obligation to refrain from every form of violation of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of another state. It implies renunciation of interference in the internal affairs of other countries. It means that political and economic relations must be put on a basis of complete equality and mutual benefit. It involves the elimination of the very threat of war. It is something which should develop into peaceful competition for the purpose of satisfying man's needs in the best possible way." Not only did Khrushchev give us this definition but he had made it clear that he considers that the Soviet Union abides by these principles, has abided by them ever since the revolution of the autumn of 1917 and cannot help but abide by them in view of its social foundation; whereas there are still important elements in the Western countries who, in his view, do not abide by these principles, who "believe that war is to their benefit," who want to inflict "capitalism" by violent means on unwilling peoples and whose opposition must be overcome before peaceful coexistence can really be said to prevail. Basically by peaceful co-existence Khrushchev really meant peaceful competition. In 1959 Khrushchev said We may argue. The main thing is to argue without weapons. Khrushchev solidified the concept in Soviet foreign policy in 1956 at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The policy arose as a temptation to reduce hostility between the two superpowers, particularly in light of the possibility of nuclear war. The Soviet theory of peaceful coexistence asserted that the United States and USSR, and their respective political ideologies, could co-exist together rather than fighting one another, and Khrushchev tried to demonstrate his commitment to peaceful coexistence by attending international peace conferences, such as the Geneva Summit, and by traveling internationally, such as his trip to America's Camp David in 1959. The World Peace Council, which was founded in 1949 and largely funded by the Soviet Union, attempted to organize a peace movement in favor of the concept internationally.

Peaceful coexistence was meant to assuage Western, capitalist concerns that the socialist Soviet Union was driven by the concept of world revolution advocated by its founders, Vladimir Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Lenin and the Bolsheviks advocated world revolution through workers' "internal revolutions" within their own nations, but they had never advocated its spread by intra-national warfare, such as invasion by Red Army troops from a neighboring socialist nation into a capitalist one. Indeed, short of such "internal revolutions" by workers themselves, Lenin had spoken about "peaceful cohabitation" with capitalist countries. Khrushchev used this aspect of Lenin's politics to argue that while socialism would eventually triumph over capitalism, this would be done not by force but by example. Implicitly and indirectly, this proclamation basically meant the end of the USSR's advocacy of the spread of communist revolution through unjustified violence, which a few communists around the world saw as a betrayal and disloyalty to the teachings and principles of revolutionary communism itself. There were many who openly disagreed with the policy of peaceful coexistence. One of the most outspoken critics of peaceful coexistence during the early 1960s, was Argentine Marxist revolutionary Che Guevara. On December 11, 1964, in his speech to the United Nations Che Guevara said "As Marxists we have maintained that peaceful coexistence among nations does not encompass coexistence between the exploiters and the exploited, between the oppressors and the oppressed." As a leader in the Cuban government during the October Missile Crisis, Guevara believed that a repeat invasion by the United States (after the Bay of Pigs) would be justifiable grounds for a nuclear war. In Guevara's view, the capitalist block was composed of "hyenas and jackals" that "fed on unarmed peoples." There were other critics of this policy too. Western critics of the idea of peaceful coexistence pointed to the ensuing events of 1956 in Eastern Europe as proof that there was, in reality, no such thing as "peaceful coexistence" and a famous historian once attributed this to his belief that the tiger cannot change his stripes. By criticizing Stalin, Khrushchev had opened both the Russian party and the communist parties in Eastern Europe to further criticism. There were two major events in Eastern Europe in 1956 that the Western critics of this policy used as their argument. The first one was the popular uprising in Poland which began in June 1956. It was carried out by factory workers in Poznan. Wadysaw Gomuka (1905-1982), who had been repressed by Stalin, was re-elected head of the Polish Communist Party. Many believed this to be a sign of ignorance on Khrushchevs part and were proven right when Gomulka said that he would work for a more democratic Poland. Khrushchev did not think that a Soviet military intervention would achieve anything, and when Gomulka pledged to maintain communist control (and stay in the Warsaw Pact), Khrushchev agreed. While that looked like a good sign of peaceful coexistence, most people realized that it wasnt going to last very long.

Then after that there was the Hungarian Revolt in October-November 1956, which started off because the Hungarians wanted to demonstrate in support of the Poles. Imre Nagy (1896-1958), who had been forced out of the party in 1955 because of his moderate politics, formed a new government and tried to negotiate with Khrushchev. Hungarians began to attack the Russian troops stationed in Hungary, and the Russians initially pulled back. For Khrushchev, this was a major problem, especially when Nagy announced that Hungary was going to leave the Warsaw Pact. Khrushchev knew that if he allowed that no one would trust his judgment any longer. Could Khrushchev allow that? When further attacks occurred in Hungary on pro-Russian Hungarian communists, the Soviet army reentered the country and crushed the rebellion. About 5000 Hungarians were killed, and hundreds of thousands fled the country. Nagy was arrested in very duplicitous circumstances and later executed. For many historians, the Soviet repression confirmed the idea that Khrushchev's idea of "peaceful coexistence" was just a smoke screen and that the Soviets just could not be trusted. Peaceful coexistence, in extending itself to all countries and social movements tied to the USSR's interpretation of communism, quickly became modus operandi for many individual communist parties as well, encouraging quite a few, especially those in the developed world, to give up their long-term goal of amassing support for an armed, insurrectionist communist revolution and exchange it for more full participation in electoral politics. However, despite Khrushchevs attempts, it wasnt plausible for the USSR to maintain such a policy since a lot of countries decide to take advantage of it. Many critics believe that it wasnt the right time to come up with such a policy, and the entire thing just backfired in his face.