I sent a letter to the Central Committee from Geneva, where I was on the International Atomic Energy Commission, and wrote that Khrushchev was continuing to repeat the same error Stalin had made when he argued that communism could be achieved under conditions of capitalist encirclement. I was recalled to Moscow and expelled from the party at the meeting of the Council of Ministers party nucleus. Lesechko and some women, whom Khrushchev had brought to the meeting, raged more than anyone else. I was expelled, but I appealed. The party bureau confirmed the expulsion. I appealed again. The Sverdlovsk District Party Committee and then the Moscow City Party Committee approved my expulsion. I appealed again. Demichev was particularly adamant against me. He took my party card . . . . Four times I applied to be reinstated in the party. I wrote to Brezhnev. Not once did I get an answer. Asked about my party membership status at a party conference, Shaposhnikova explained to the communists that "he didn't apply to be reinstated in the party." I am going to send another application to the XXIVth Congress.

**Chuev: "Am I right, the slogan "peaceful coexistence" was not used under Lenin?"

It was never used, and Lenin never used it. And I think the reason is quite understandable. In those days it would have been naive, utterly naive, to talk about peaceful coexistence. As if we would have begged, "Please give us peace! " The imperialists would have given us no kind of peace whatever. They went their way, we ours. Along the revolutionary way, our policy was affirmed and gathered strength. In my view it is a correct slogan today, but we must bear in mind that some people, pacifistically minded people, incorrectly interpret this slogan. The very idea draws people toward a pacifist way of thinking. Under Lenin the old program condemned such views. Pacifist ideas are pernicious. Lenin was very punctilious, most precise in this regard. But today it's another matter.

Khrushchev even included it in the party program . . . .

I personally tried to avoid this expression and still do, while Khrushchev, in contrast, tried to make it the touchstone of party and state policy. Elaborating on it leads to no improvement. Another aspect of it needs to be stressed. In 1921 we made no use of the slogan. We stood for peace, we were for the development of relations with the bourgeois countries. We intended to attack no one. But we were opposed to pacifism. This was stated very sharply, even scathingly, in the party program, that is, the Lenin program. I took the trouble to reexamine the program to check on this. It does not contain this slogan. Even during the struggle over the Brest peace treaty, when Lenin defended the necessity of peace, even then this expression was not employed, at least not by Lenin and his closest associates. Today it is widely and eclectically bandied about. The general line on this has already been fixed. We are, as it were, begging for peace. But to beg for peace means exposing one's weakness. And to show one's weakness to the strong is politically disadvantageous and inexpedient. For Bolsheviks it is unseemly. The expression was widely used by Khrushchev, who did not always speak correctly to questions of theory and questions of a profoundly political, principled character. One finds in him all kinds of similar crude formulations . . . . ... The impression is being given that we have consolidated the peace, when we have done nothing of the kind. We have consolidated nothing. In dealing with imperialism is it possible to say, live and let live? If so, permit me to ask: what are we living for? If it is for the overthrow of imperialism, can we possibly coexist peacefully without overthrowing imperialism? Are we renouncing the overthrow of imperialism? No, we are not. How then is it possible to combine peaceful coexistence with the overthrow of imperialism? According to the Communist Manifesto, "The communists do not conceal their views. They stand for the violent overthrow of the entire existing social order." This is basic to Marx and to Lenin. Everything is reasoned out so as not to contradict this teaching, but now we preach peaceful coexistence. How does one fit in with the other? If they do jibe, then explain how. The real purpose of this expression is to set people's minds at ease.

More than a hundred years ago we were not afraid to speak out openly, and we rallied people into insurrection. But today we who have grown strong talk about peaceful coexistence. There can be only one long-range goal if we are to move forward: only international revolution. There is nothing, no alternative, more reliable than this. It is our duty to preserve peace. But if we believe that without international revolution we can fight for peace and delay war, if we still believe that it's possible to arrive at communism in this way, that is deception from a Marxist viewpoint, both self-deception and deception of the people.

Revolution is on the march, it is growing stronger, everything is moving forward, but not without sacrifices. He who thinks it is possible to advance to communism without sacrifices and without mistakes is naive. The fewer the mistakes the better, but there are bound to be some. Big mistakes that create illusions and spread complacency do not prepare us for decisive battles which are absolutely unavoidable. Thus nothing will be gained, and we shan't move forward. This means that very big battles lie ahead. We are not preparing for them. This is the main danger as I see it. ... We stand for peaceful coexistence in the sense that we stand for peace. We must in every way stand for peace-we are the most peace-loving country-insofar as this does not impede the strengthening of socialism and the growth of the national liberation movement. As to world communism, that goes without saying. If we do not struggle for communism, for world communism, we won't have socialism either. Insofar as this peace does not impair the gradual deepening of the pit under capitalism-we don't speak of this openly-we preserve peace for the purpose of overthrowing imperialism.

In fact, when Khrushchev launched "peaceful coexistence," he did so for the most self-serving of reasons. After all, by playing up fear of atomic war, we help bring it on. Much lies ahead to be done. We proceed from the premise that our positions must be strengthened.

"What struggle? Capitalism has collapsed," said Shota Ivanovich .

Well, well. A formidable struggle lies ahead. And the further we go, the more formidable the struggle. There is no book whatever that will provide a solution to this question. Marx's Capital is the most all encompassing book, but it does not provide an answer to all problems.

How about State and Revolution?

It is based on Marx. Marx said, here is my book. It is a bomb of a kind more powerful than any bomb that bourgeois society ever had or will have. Indeed, this bomb will blow up bourgeois society. No atomic bomb has this power. Nor will any bomb help bourgeois society. Marx's teaching has proved to be a teaching, which, if adhered to---and Lenin undeviatingly adhered to it and very ingeniously applied it to our country's conditions---was capable of blowing up our society. But it has not yet proved capable of this in other countries.

Is the bourgeois system better than the socialist system? Better? In what respects? Better because it is infected through and through with Khrushchevism? But Khrushchevism is the bourgeois spirit.

I told Khrushchev this straight to his face, and I who had always been considered a man of the party was later considered superfluous to the party. I say to you, we must not follow in Khrushchev's footsteps! Khrushchev is not alone. We have very many "Khrushchevs" in our country; indeed, they are the overwhelming majority. We who believe that we must take fundamental positions different from Khrushchevism should have looked into things a bit more deeply . . . . Why do we have such a situation in our country? What is its cause? Is Khrushchev alone to blame? It would have been so easy to kick him out. But we are surrounded by little "Khrushchevs," and they keep mum-but now they have come to understand . . . . Everyone wants to live, it's a legitimate demand. But if we who consider ourselves dedicated communists devote all our attention to this, we will begin to move through bourgeois floodwaters to the aid of Khrushchev. We will cling to him so as not to fall behind.

We just talk about socialism in generalities and refer only in passing to the difficult questions. We deliberately avoid these questions. ... I laugh when I receive New Year's greetings: I wish you a tranquil life, and so forth. They want a tranquil life, but I know it is impossible. I am against the tranquil life! If I craved a tranquil life, it would mean I have been "philistinized."

Take Stalin. I believe that toward the end he suffered a monumental failing: he turned complacent. True, for decades, like no one else, he had overstrained himself. All the same it was a failing, because he was not Lenin — 3/3