p In the historical development of philosophical thought pluralism has not taken the form of a separate philosophical school. It usually represents an aspect, a facet of the work of individual philosophers and of the respective schools and trends.

p The possibility of using pluralism as an ideological weapon against Marxism-Leninism and communism explains the great attention devoted to the pluralistic trend in the history of philosophy in modern bourgeois literature. In many cases this trend is exaggerated because of the wish of the representatives of bourgeois philosophy under the present conditions to make more active use of pluralism against dialectical materialism.

p The increased influence and significance of pluralism in the development of philosophical thought was already pointed out more than half a century ago by Julius Goldstein, who in an introductory article to the German edition of William James’ work A Pluralistic Universe wrote: ’Pluralism is the concluding stage 22 of the development which began in the 16th century with a tendency of philosophical thought towards experimentation’ (118, S. XVI). This evaluation of the development of philosophical thought in the last few centuries is exaggerated. The main result of the direction of philosophy in the last few centuries towards ’ experimentation’ is the appearance of dialectical and historical materialism, and not of pluralism.

p The significance of pluralism in bourgeois philosophy in the first half of our century is pointed out by the well-known champion of capitalism and opponent of Marxism, Josef M.Bochenski. He writes: ’Contemporary philosophers are usually pluralists in revolt against the idealistic or materialistic monism of the 19th century.Thereare some even here, both Alexander among the metaphysicians and Croce among the idealists being monists. But they are a minority whose influence is obviously diminishing’. (92, p.37). Bochenski has in this connection intentionally ‘omitted’ the most important and widespread kind of monistic philosophy—dialectical materialism. Later, there are some ten pages in which he recognizes and stresses the monism and determinism in Marxist philosophy, but presents them in a simplistic and caricaturistic manner, as he does dialectical materialism in general. But even if we take into consideration only bourgeois European philosophy, we find that Bochenski exaggerates the pluralistic influence in it.

p The increased impact of philosophical pluralism on contemporary bourgeois philosophy was also noted in an exaggerated manner in the Philosophical Dictionary of the West-German Kroner Publishing House, in 1965. ’Contemporary (bourgeois, added by the author, A.K.) philosophy, in rejecting monism, is pluralistic in its basic features. It recognizes a plurality of independent, often personified essences’. (150, S. 468).

p It is not true that in contemporary, or even only in bourgeois philosophy, all ‘monism’ is rejected. It is true, however, that pluralistic tendencies in open of disguised form can be found in the works of many representatives of almost all main trends of contemporary 23 bourgeois philosophical thought: pragmatism, phenomenology, neo-Thomism, personalism, existentialism, neo-realism, neo-positivism.

p Pluralism, being one of the non-fundamental trends in philosophy has not only social, but also gnoseological roots. As a starting point in proceeding to reveal them, we shall use Lenin’s profound analysis of the gnoseological roots of idealism. In Lenin’s ’Philosophical Copybooks’ we read: ’Human knowledge is not (or does not follow) a straight line, but a curved line, very similar to a number of circles, to a spiral. Every segment, part, or section of this curve can be transformed (unilaterally transformed) into an independent, whole, straight line, which (if the forest cannot be seen for the trees) leads to the swamp, the priesthood (where the class interests of the ruling classes fasten it). Straightforwardness and one-sidedness, stagnancy and ossification, subjectivism and subjective blindness —voila (there you have) the gnoseological roots of idealism’. (14, c. 361). One-sidedness, ossification and subjectivism in the cognitive process lie at the basis not only of idealism, but also of all false and anti-scientific attempts to find a‘third’eclectic or agnostic answer to the fundamental question of philosophy, as well as to pluralism. For us in this instance the most important thing is to indicate which moment, which part of the complex curve, representing knowledge, is turned into a straight line by pluralism.

p The main fact, the one-sided and exaggerated reflection on the cognitive process of which lies at the basis of idealism, is the relative independence and active role of man’s consciousness, its capacity to exert (as a property of the human brain) a reverse impact on material existence. If we approach the question in the same way, wecome’tothe conclusion that at the basis of the pluralistic conception of the world lies the genuine diversity in reality—the presence of qualitatively different fields or spheres of objective reality, in which specific laws are in action that cannot be reduced to one another, as well as the existence of an endless diversity of objects, processes and phenomena, with 24 their specific distinguishing features. Exaggeration, swelling, treating diversity and the qualitative differences in objective reality as absolute, denying, or at least failing properly to evaluate the law-governed relation and the transitions between qualitatively different and relatively autonomous fields of reality—herein, above all, lies the gnoseological basis of philosophical pluralism. A metaphysical disruption between absolute and relative truth, etc. also takes place in this case.

p As to the social roots of pluralism, the main question is that of the social interests which can be satisfied by the pluralistic philosophical teachings in a class society.

p We have already pointed out that in the present-day setup, the struggle between dialectical materialism and idealism in all its varieties is in the final count a philosophical manifestation of the ideological struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, between socialism and capitalism. As G.A.Kursanov justly points out, ’modern bourgeois philosophy and the modern bourgeois worldview are characterized by idealism and metaphysics with a negative attitude towards the cognition of objective truth.’ (46, c.138). This is true, but it is not the whole truth. That is why Kursanov rightly points out that in a setup where the traditional bourgeois philosophical schools and systems are going through a crisis, there arises a tendency to look for ’third ways’, i.e. of ‘convergence’, of an eclectic mixing up of different and even contradictory ideas and conceptions (46, c. 139). He enumerates positivism, personalism, existentialism, and the ’humanized Marxism’ of E.Fischer,R.Garaudy and A.Lefevre as different forms of manifestation of ’philosophical convergence’. In his work, however, G.Kursanov fails to underline that, under the conditions prevailing now, pluralism has also become one of the characteristic forms of looking for a third way in bourgeois ideology and in philosophy in particular.

p We can in general say that the non-fundamental trends in philosophy roughly express the interests and moods of the non-fundamental classes and strata of 25 society. Under capitalism these strata* are the peasants, the petty bourgeoisie and the other middle urban strata, among whom.the intelligentsia plays an ever more important role. Insofar as the non-fundamental philosophical trends try to ‘conciliate’ or to overcome the contradictions between the two main parties in the modern philosophicalstruggle—dialectical materialism and idealism, they can reflect tendencies of individual conciliatory, reformist sectors in the main classes in capitalist society—the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Under the present conditions, dialectical materialism is becoming an ever more dangerous opponent to all bourgeois ideology and to its idealistic philosophical basis, and its impact is growing irrepressibly. In this situation every non-Marxist trend in philosophy can be and is used in the struggle against Marxism-Leninism.

p Pluralism, which recognizes the presence of a smaller or larger number of independent (while competing in the social sphere!) substances, truths, social strata, etc. under the present conditions assumes tremendous importance for the bourgeoisie. Precisely because the materialistic-monistic view of the world and social life in particular is a basic, theoretical and methodological principle in Marxism, pluralism as a ’middle path’ in philosophy proves a very convenient form for combating dialectical and historical materialism. In the socio-political sphere of Marxist-Leninist theory concerning classes and the class struggle, the bourgeois ideologists today come forward with their own concep-. tion of the ’disappearance of the classes’, an ’incomes revolution’, and the like. In a similar manner in the field of philosophy, side by side with the defence of idealism and the outspoken rejection of dialectical and historical materialism, ’increasing significance is attached to various philosophical hybrids, in which pluralism, in a visible or invisible form assumes an ever greater place.

Some of the representatives of the reactionary forces are most inclined to turn to the ’middle path’, or ’third way’ in philosophy and in ideology in general, to preserve the supremacy of the dying class, when the 26 reactionary system is going through a profound crisis and the forces which are the bearers of progress and of the new social system, are exerting ever greater pressure. Such is precisely the case with the utilization of pluralism and a number of other conformist or convergent theories by the ideologists of imperialism today.