4 SOCIAL SCIENTIST uniting with anti-imperialist or non-aligned countries or forces, socialist countries are bound to go in for a series of compromises while trying to "unite the many and defeat the few". These compromises, fully justifiable in the Leninist practice of combination of forces and peaceful coexistence of different social systems now give rise to what may be described as "economic opportunism", a deviation from the theoretically correct path of proletarian internationalism. Economic opportunism is of two kinds. On the one hand there is economic support, and trade combined with friendly relations, and even unqualified international support to nations which do not stand as symbols of anti-imperialist or democratic traditions, as Pakistan (for China) and Bangladesh (for Russia). On the other hand trade practices common to imperialism are adopted which have led a number of anti-Russian writers to the conclusion that, for example in relation to India, Russia not only behaves as, but really is, a social-imperialist country. These writers obviously forget that imperialism is finance capital, parasitic and militaristic. What Russia usually does is to buy from and to sell to the Third World at the prevailing market prices, which is but normal as long as imperialism is a major force in the market mechanism.4 However, there are exceptions which smack of imperialist trade practices, as shown very forcefully by Fidel Castro some years ago5. Similar practices pay dividends, and for most Marxist-Leninists it is usually no surprise that they are followed by the revisionist communist leadership in power: the benefits accruing from a favourable state-to-state relationship will even induce the communist party of a socialist state to influence the tactics and strategy of the communist party in the capitalist country concerned. Lapses of Foreign Policy The problem, however, is to explain what is commonly described as right opportunism in foreign policy when no revisionist leadership is supposed to be in power, as demonstrated in CCP's relations with India till 1959. Also how can one explain the combination of left opportunism with right opportunism evident, for example, in the attitude of the CCP to Pakistan roughly from 1966 till at least 1973. Different explanations have been given ranging from "great .power chauvinism59 and "adventurism fortified by petty-bourgeois chauvinism" to "administrative mistakes, not in principle" and "left adventurist deviation". It is not the purpose of this article to look for all internal and external causes which are responsible for the sudden and radical changes of the international understanding of the CCP. Before that attempt can be made, the most comprehensive collection o£ data and documents has to be undertaken, and since that stage has not yet been reached one has to satisfy oneself with analyzing the attitude of China towards the Indian communist movement, and vice versa. Neither shall I try to specifically define the concepts and assume that they be understood as they are used in Marxist language. For the broad framework, however, the hypothesis is evolved.