Socialism and International Economic Order

In this concluding part we will examine the reality of collectivist international economic intercourse. It would, of course, far exceed the scope of this study to deal exhaustively with the by now very numerous instances of (more or less) centrally planned economies conducting foreign trade relations. Thus, we shall set aside the international economic consequences of western war and postwar planning as well as the day-to-day problems faced by underdeveloped countries that are organized along socialist lines. Also enough literature exists on the nature of German external economic relations during the period of National Socialism—although no more illuminative example can be found for studying the intimate connection between collectivism and bilateralism.

We shall focus our attention on the diverse aspects of economic cooperation among those countries which claim to have realized, within their borders, a truly socialist (that is, Marxist/Leninist) economic order and thereby to have laid the foundation for universal peace, brotherhood, and proletarian internationalism. It is recalled that Stalin spoke rejoicingly of the emergence of two parallel world markets as the most significant postwar result. Since, up to 1917, there had only been one international economic order—that based on individual enterprise—Stalin’s statement clearly implies that the “two separate world markets” are governed by different and obviously not intercommunicating principles. What, then, is the basis on which are founded the economic relationships between the socialist countries east of the Elbe? What criteria determine the activities of their organized expression, the Council of Mutual Economic Aid (abbreviated by its initials C.M.E.A. or referred to as “Comecon”)?