p Ideology reflects the conditions of the material life of the different classes and strata in society. In the final count, it rests on an economic basis. However, ideology has a relative independence of its own. That is why it has its own inner laws, on the basis of which each new ideological trend can and must be elucidated as a new stage or new step in the development, or as an antithesis of one or another, or of several ideological trends of the preceding periods. The determination of the different ideological trends by the material conditions of life is usually indirect, manifold, broken up by the impact of many factors from the sphere of the superstructure and from inside ideology itself. Any attempt to explain the content of every ideological trend directly and immediately by economic reasons is a vulgarization of the scientific Marxist-Leninist approach.

p The new balance between the forces of socialism and the forces of capitalism on a world scale has placed its visible seal on bourgeois ideology. The various bourgeois schools and trends today are openly or covertly, and to an ever greater extent covertly, levelled against Marxism-Leninism and the socialist system. And, secondly, instead of justifying and supporting the ‘justice’ and ‘eternity’ of capitalism, they prefer to present it as having a changed or changing social character, and are even ready to deny the concept of ‘capitalism’.

p Against this general background we can understand why ideological life in modern capitalist society envelops itself in the veil of such diversity, or, following 53 the expression of the majority of bourgeois authors, why there is such a ‘wealth’ of bourgeois ideological trends.

p Irrespective of the great diversity in the names of the bourgeois schools, in our times there are two ideologies warring against each other on a world scale. The one is Marxism-Leninism, which is an integrated, unified, and at the same time consistently monistic ideology, in the precise sense of the concep* of ‘monism’. Its philosophical basis is dialectical materialism. This ideology in capitalist society expresses the interests of the proletariat above all but at the same time the lasting, radical interests of all other working people, too. Under socialism MarxismLeninism expresses the interests of all classes and strata in the new society: workers, cooperative farmers and the intelligentsia, because there are no antagonistic contradictions between them and they are united on the platform of socialism.

p Opposed to Marxism there is bourgeois ideology, which, although it represents a variegated picture of heterogenious ideological trends vying with each other, as a whole expresses and defends the interests of the capitalist class. The various bourgeois ideological trends either reflect the interests and aspirations of various strata of the bourgeoisie, or are unsuccessful attempts at solving the question of the basic world view and social problems which are insoluble from bourgeois class positions. Most often they are combinations between the one and the other.

p The general picture of ideological life in contemporary capitalist society (on a world scale) cannot be characterised as ’ideological pluralism’ for the following main reasons.

p Firstly, as regards their content and from the viewpoint of their historical perspectives, the two ideologies are not and cannot be of equal status and value. Marxism-Leninism is a scientific ideology, which illuminates the laws of the development of mankind and serves as a revolutionary methodology for overthrowing capitalism and setting up communism. Bourgeois ideology, which played a progressive role in the 54 struggle against feudalism, on the whole possesses a reactionary character under the present conditions. The individual rational elements in it are subordinated to the anti-scientific goals which the imperialist bourgeoisie sets itself. That is why, from a cognitive, gnoseological viewpoint, the struggle between the two ideologies is not and cannot be ‘pluralistic’, i.e. a struggle with fair competition and compromise. It is a struggle, the objective content and goal of which can only be the complete victory of Marxism-Leninism and the disappearance, the dying out of bourgeois ideology.

p Secondly, the struggle between Marxism-Leninism and bourgeois ideology is not ‘pluralistic’ as regards equality of conditions and rights between the competing ‘partners’, as required by the pluralistic conception. There is no such equality either in bourgeois society or under socialism. Bourgeois democracy claims to be bringing about ’equal conditions’ for competition between different ideological and political trends. This is in fact the meaning of the ’sacred and inviolable’ principles of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of association and organization! As we all know, in capitalist society the working class and the other working people enjoy these democratic rights and freedoms only insofar as they have managed to win them in a hard struggle. Nevertheless, however broad the bourgeois democracy thus won may be, it always remains essentially formal and very limited for the working people. However, the pluralistic label tries to disguise this reality and create the illusion that unequal conditions either do not exist, or that, insofar as this inequality is acknowledged, it can be overcome without changing the system.

p In socialist society the conditions for the dissemination of the two ideologies are also unequal. However, unlike capitalism, Marxism-Leninism here holds a predominant position. In the socialist society Marxist ideology receives open social and state support, and the restrictions set on the specific arrangements for disseminating the historically doomed bourgeois ideology are also applied openly.

p This is why Marxists reject as scientifically inconsistent and as an ideological and political mystification the name of ’ideological pluralism’, given to the struggle which is being waged today between the two ideologies, both under capitalism and on a world scale.

p Bourgeois ideology itself, taken as a relatively isolated independent whole, may with a certain justification be called ‘pluralistic’, insofar as it represents a collection of trends claiming to be more or less independent, and which are in a position of reciprocal confrontation with one another in spite of their close kinship—their common social and class basis and unity in the struggle against Marxism-Leninism. In this connection, we should dwell on the causes and character of the ideological diversity reigning in the bourgeois camp.

p The main reason for the existence of many schools and trends in bourgeois ideology is the contradictory character of the capitalist system and of the bourgeoisie itself as a ruling class. The profound contradiction between the interests of the handful of exploiters, on the one hand, and the working people headed by the working class on the other, cannot but give rise to f different opinions among the bourgeois ideologists, to different evaluations and to a search for ways and means of achieving a partial removal or at least a screening of this contradiction.

p Private ownership over the means of production, profit as the main stimulus for economic activity, and competition, in their turn give rise to contradictions between the interests of the different bourgeois strata’ and even between the individual capitalist groups. The cult of private ownership and profit, and the transformation of each profession into ‘business’ introduces elements of competition and strengthens the manifestations of subjectivism and voluntarism in the actions of ideological workers and in their theoretical systems. All this cannot help but influence the appearance of many ideological trends and schools.

p An important cause for the increase in the number of competing ideological trends is the fact that neither the bourgeoisie as a whole, nor any stratum of the 56 capitalist class is interested in revealing the actual laws of social development. Thus the class interests of the bourgeoisie hinder its theoreticians from supporting a struggle for objective truth in their social investigations. The class limitations of the bourgeoisie, its interest in the preservation of capitalism and hence in hiding the truth about social life is the insurmountable obstacle which prevents bourgeois ideology from finding a consistent scientific approach to social phenomena. And the failure of each successive ideological trend gives rise to the need to come forward with others which are equally far from the objective truth or from understanding the laws of society.

p The socially-based plurality of trends partially warring against one another in bourgeois ideology takes place within the limits of the capacity of theoretical thought to err, to draw wrong inferences and generalizations. Here we come to the gnoseological roots of pluralism in bourgeois ideology.

p The gnoseological roots of idealism, about which we have already spoken, are in their nature gnoseological grounds for every flight of man’s thought away from reality, i.e. for every theoretical deception. On this basis, we have already indicated those elements which are the gnoseological roots of philosophical pluralism. In this connection let us point out that a possible source of misjudgements is also opened up by the most active and most creative feature of human thought—its capacity to manifest inventiveness, to combine properties and elements of objective reality in the human head. This takes place in a manner which is not a simple repetition of what has been found as objectively existing, but represents a logical inference concerning reality, a necessary or possible combination. On this general foundation, creative thinking can present as something real, necessary or at least possible even such a ‘relation’between objective things and properties as is neither existent, nor objectively feasible, i.e. which is untrue and impossible (83, c. 135-151).

p The above-indicated peculiarity of theoretical thinking renders possible and indeed more or less 57 inevitable the making of mistakes in the course of any investigative activity, including the creation of some hypothetical, abstractly ‘possible’ conceptions to explain a given phenomenon, which are basically false. These false conceptions, which contain a ‘possible’ explanation of events, can exist on an equal footing with those which more or less correctly reflect the studied object, until a complete scientific theory is set up for the given phenomenon.

p How do matters stand after a scientific theory has been put forward in a given field, the validity of which has been proved by long, comprehensive practice? Can attempts, already rejected and refuted by science, at the solution of a given problem continue to be supported, and more and more new ‘variants’ for the same purpose be created and counterposed to the scientific solution of the problem? This is not only possible, but is even usual, when the scientific solution to the problem runs counter to the interests of wide social strata, and especially those of the ruling class in a given society.

p In order to underline the class attitude towards truth, V.I.Lenin points out that ’if the geometrical axioms affected the interests of people, they would be disputed’ (12, c. 17). The attitude of the great majority of bourgeois teachings in our times towards Marxism is reminiscent of Lenin’s above statement.

p The bourgeois ideologists themselves usually present the existing ‘pluralistic’ chaos in their camp as something positive and desirable, as a manifestation of a creative spirit and blossoming of bourgeois culture. A.Reck, for instance, in the epilogue to a study in which he examines the work of 12 American bourgeois philosophers who made their appearance after the Second World War, writes: ’The views of the new American philosophers are as diverse as the forces and factors in American culture. The pluralism of American philosophy is a most valuable asset, not only because it affords the American thinker the freedom to develop and express his ideas, but also because it endows him with an intellectual flexibility:. . . (153, p. 348). Karl Bosl, who in fact has a critical attitude towards 58 contemporary political pluralism, writes that ’pluralism in world-views and religious convictions, pluralism in economy, politics, science, art, culture. . . is a natural form of manifestation of human existence and activity’. (93, S. 131).

p In a number of writings by bourgeois ideologists we also find pessimistic tones in connection with the same phenomenon. Thus, for instance, elsewhere Bosl declares that he does not know whether dynamism and pluralism in our times are the symptoms of crisis and decay, or the initial stage of a new culture and a new social system. (93, S. 65). In fact, both the one and the other are true. The capitalist system today is in a state of crisis and decay, as a result of which bourgeois ideology is also going through a profound crisis. The socialist system and Marxist-Leninist ideology and culture, however, are on the upsurge, despite the difficulties of growing.

p However, regardless of whether or not they extol ideological pluralism, bourgeois theoreticians are basically unanimous in their negative attitude towards Marxis m-Lenini sm.

p In our time the number of bourgeois ideologists who have set out openly to refute, or else to ‘correct’, ‘rectify’ and ‘supplement’ Marxism is growing constantly. Among those who have particularly specialized in this field are Josef Bochenski, Gustav Wetter, John Plamenats, Sydney Hook, Raymond Aron, Karl Popper, Daniel Bell.ZbignevBrzezinski and many others. In fact, though, their criticism of MarxismLeninism in the best of cases affects isolated, fragmentary situations, whereby they present the criticised theory as a whole in a distorted, untrue form. On the other hand, that little of value which contemporary bourgeois ideologists do try to counterpose to Marxism-Leninism is in fact not only not a contradiction, but on the contrary, it only reaffirms the truth of Marxism-Leninism. Such are the attempts at speculating with some success in astronomy (the theory of the ’expanding universe’), physics (the principles of 59 complementarity and uncertainty), molecular biology, cybernetics, the active role of consciousness, ideas in social development, etc.

p Contemporary bourgeois ideology cannot set up against Marxism an integrated, internally incontroversial theory of its own, which gives a scientific explanation of the profound social processes taking place in our time: the scientific and technological revolution and its social consequences, the struggle between the two world social systems, the real trends of development in the three types of countries—socialist, capitalist and newly-liberated, the powerful world movement for peace, democracy and progress. Of course, there have been certain attempts in this direction: W. Rostow’s theory of the ’stages of economic growth’; the theory of the ’industrial society’ and more particularly its newest variants, including the G.Galbraith’s ’industrial state’, the futurological conceptions of the ’postindustrial society’ of Daniel Bell, Herman Kahn and Anthony Wiener; Zbignev Brzezinski’s ’technotronic era’, or, for instance, Julian Huxely’s ’evolutionary humanism’.

p So far we have been speaking only about the two main classes in capitalist society and about their ideologies.

p In the non-socialist countries there are still other classes and strata, which do not belong either to the capitalist class or to the proletariat. Setting aside the exploiter class of feudal landowners, which still exists and represents a considerable force mainly in the. developing countries, it is a matter here mainly of the working peasantry and the various strata of urban petty and middle bourgeoisie, and the intelligentsia.

p Various ideological trends have formed through the ages and are now in existence, which strive to be direct champions of the interests and moods of various intermediary strata in society. This can be seen most clearly in the field of political ideologies and movements. The ideological content of similar theoretical conceptions and political movements is either in a 60 reformist spirit—in the direction of a gradual ‘removal’ of the flaws of capitalism, or is of an extremist, radical character, containing a non- scientific, rebellious refutation of capitalism combined with Utopian ideas for the rapid construction of a new, just social system.

p Consistent Marxist-Leninist revolutionary movements, irrespective ot the fact that they criticise the non-scientific, reformist or Utopian leftist features m the ideologies of these movements, persistently seek political cooperation with the organizations of the nonproletarian strata of the working people in town and country, in the name of certain closer or more distant positive goals. Marxists enlist the progressive representations of the middle layers as their allies in the joint struggle against the anti-human ideology of imperialism and reaction, without, however, making any compromise over theory. Marxism-Leninism is a science, a scientific ideology. It can develop and grow richer on the basis of new data from science and social practice, but it cannot be ‘combined’ with other ideologies, for instance, for considerations that it would win over to its side the adherents of these ideologies.

p Certain authors, however, who consider themselves as Marxists, succumb to bourgeois pressure to transfer the principle of peaceful coexistence even to the ideological field and are inclined on this basis to adopt the bourgeois thesis of ideological or worldview ‘pluralism’. These include L. Lombardo-Radice. He invites us directly ’to recognize that more worldviews can generalize and express the "objective "aspirations of human society for progress’. He points out Christianity, pacifism, Gandhiism, etc. as such world views (142, S. 258).

Our whole analysis reveals the unscientific character of such a proposition. It is true that in past epochs the progressive aspirations of certain social strata and of whole nations were expressed through unscientific ideologies, very often in a religious form. It is true that even today in certain countries there are progressive social movements of the working people, which are also 61 guided by non-scientific and above all religious ideologies (Christianity, Mohammedanism, etc.). However, Marxists set up their cooperation with these social movements with a view to concrete, truly progressive economic, social, political and cultural tasks, without making any compromise with their nonscientific ideologies.