p At the basis of the pluralization of MarxismLeninism and of the socialist society lies the assertion that there does not and cannot exist a uniform, objectively true scientific theory of the laws of social development, including the laws of the class struggle and of socialist construction. Hence, there is not and cannot be any strategy for struggle and socialist construction, which is uniform, science-based, and therefore binding on all revolutionary proletarian parties. True, some of the pluralist revisionists do not reject formally the general laws of the class struggle, revolution and socialist construction. In fact, however, they underestimate them and play them down to such a degree that they bring to the fore that which is a peculiarity of a given region or even that which is specific in individual countries.

p The overwhelming majority of bourgeois ideologists, including the theoreticians of pluralism, reject the very existence of objective laws in society. On this basis they deny in principle any possibility for the construction of a scientific theory on materialist foundations in order to explain and consciously to regulate social development 100 Emacs-File-stamp: "/home/ysverdlov/leninist.biz/en/0000/MPIP223/20071123/199.tx" based on objective laws. Such is the view of Karl Popper, already subjected to our criticism, according to whom there are no objective social laws, but there are only social and legal laws—norms created by people’swill. Gnoseological pluralism, together with the adherents of pragmatism, and indeed all the ramifications of neopositivism, in principle also reject the possibility of creating a uniform theory of social development.

p Marxism-Leninism as a science and ideology is based on two premises: first, that the development of human society is a natural historical, law-governed process; and, second, that the proletariat is the only class that has made its appearance in the historical development of mankind, which is interested in the elimination of all forms of exploitation and oppression and at the same time in the scientific elucidation of the laws of social development.

p In the process of the creation of dialectical and historical materialism, Marx and Engels proved that the development of human society takes place in accordance with objective laws—cognizable and susceptible to conscious regulation. They achieved this first of all by revealing the basic unit of the entire complex structure of society in the mode of production of material goods and in the economic system resulting from it.

p Marx’s economic theory and the main link in it— the theory of surplus value—supplied the basis for the study of the laws and mechanisms governing the economic system of capitalism. The exploiting character of capitalism was proved, as well as the necessity for and possibility of overthrowing it and replacing it by a new, higher social system, free of exploitation and oppression of man by man. On this basis Marxism revealed the historical role of the proletariat.

p Socialist production relations cannot come into being spontaneously in the old system, as is the case with all preceding production relations.

p Under feudalism, in spite of the difficulties created by feudal practice, thousands upon thousands of craftsmen, petty traders and other citizens gradually 101 became capitalists. Under capitalism, however, it is impossible for the workers in the individual capitalist enterprises, in the different branches or inhabited localities, in the same spontaneous way and isolated from one another, to liberate themselves from exploitation. As we all know, the Utopians tried to create under the capitalist political superstructure socialist enterprises in the form of producer cooperatives. These attempts, however, were invariably doomed to failure. The failure of the Utopians as well as the failure of the kindred attempts of the social-democrats to change capitalism by means of reforms also showed that Marxism was right in maintaining that the proletariat cannot liberate itself from exploitation until it overthrows the domination of the bourgeoisie and seizes the state power into its own hands.

p But this is not all. The interests and influence of capital, especially in .the advanced capitalist society in the epoch of imperialism, go far beyond the national boundaries. That is why the capitalists from the different countries unite into international unions for joint action against the working people. The union of the French reactionries with the German militarists to stifle the Paris Commune in 1871 and the united imperialist intervention of 14 states against Soviet Russia in 1918–21 are only the most vivid examples of this. The gendarme role which American imperialism plays all over the world in the struggle against the progressive and revolutionary movements; the aggressionof the USA in Indochina; the great number of aggressive military blocs against the peaceful and progressive forces in the world—these are a visual illustration of the fact that the imperialists today, to a still greater degree than before, are uniting on an international scale to fight against revolutionary movements.

p The struggle of the working class for socialism is, therefore, in its essence, not only an all-national and all-state cause, but also and international cause. That is why, side by side with the principle of proletarian class solidarity for the overthrow of the domination of the capitalists on an all-state scale, the principle of 102 proletarian internationalism is the theoretical and practical inference which reflects the necessity for constant cooperation between the national detachments of the proletariat in the struggle for socialism.

p Class solidarity and internationalism are making headway in spite of the necessity for applying specific tactical forms, methods and ways of conducting the struggle, which depend upon the particular conditions in the different countries and continents, regions; and districts. Or, as Marx and Engels wrote in the Communist Manifesto: ’The communists differ from the other proletarian parties only in that, on the one hand, in the struggle of the proletarians of all countries they point out the interests of the proletariat as a whole, which are common, and not dependent upon nationality, and on the other hand, in that at the different stages of development through which the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie passes, they always defend the interests of the whole movement.’ (5, c. 437).

p The thoroughly consistent revolutionary role of the proletariat in capitalist society, which no other class or social stratum is playing or has ever played, has not changed in the present conditions in the highly developed capitalist countries, when the relative number of engineers, technicians, scientists and employees among the population has greatly increased and when, as regards its qualifications and place in production, part of the working class is very similar in position to the engineering and technical personnel.

Marxism has also explained that all working people and exploited strata in capitalist society are interested in the construction of the new social system. Thus, it demonstrated the objective possibility and the necessity of rallying the other exploited and oppressed classes and social strata under the leadership of the proletariat in the struggle for the overthrow of the old system. That is why Marxism-Leninism is consciously adopted even under the conditions of capitalism and becomes the ideology even of the most progressive part of the non-proletarian strata of working people, including the most radically thinking progressive elements among 103 the bourgeois intelligentsia, who are ready to sustain all the sacrifices and risks of the revolutionary struggle in the name of scientific truth and social progress.