p The irreconcilable contradiction of class interests, which gives rise to antagonistic ideologies in capitalist society, excludes the possibility of peaceful coexistence between these ideologies. Thus there are no grounds for the assertions of bourgeois theoreticians that the capitalist system secures conditions for ’ideological pluralism’, i.e. for a manifestation on an equal footing and in competition of contradictory ideologies. The well-known neo-Thomist Gustav Wetter, who has specialized in combating Marxism-Leninism, bases his speculations precisely upon these assertions.

p The hierarchy of the Catholic Church, including the Jesuit Order to which G. Wetter belongs, was in the past the most forceful opponent of all spiritual freedom and an enemy to any struggle of views in ideology. However, neither the anathemas against those thinking differently nor the physical persecutions and the burnings at the stake of ‘heretics’ like Giordano Bruno has helped the Catholic Church to preserve its monopoly ideological influence on the hearts and minds of the people in the Western European countries.

p In the present setup, the working people who are catholic in the West welcome with ever greater understanding and sympathy the peaceful and constructive policy of the USSR and the other socialist states, as well as the efforts of the communist parties to rally together all working people and all democratic, antimonopolist, anti-imperialist and peaceful forces in the name of the defence of peace and democracy, and in 62 favour of social progress. Some leading figures in the Catholic Church and the Christian democratic political parties in the Western European countries become mouthpieces for these feelings among the Catholic masses, and manifest an inclination to cooperate with communists and other democratic and progressive forces in their countries. Some of the most reactionary ideologists of Catholicism, including Gustav Wetter, when taking due account of the progressive feelings of the Catholic masses, seemingly retreat from their former standpoints and declare themselves in favour of a ‘dialogue’ with the communists. However, it is under the banner of pluralism that they strive to turn this forced retreat into a new weapon for an attack on Marxism and communism.

p Gustav Wetter at first assumes an attitude of agreement with the Soviet Union’s policy of peaceful coexistence between states with different social systems. (174, S. 292). He even declares that he understands the Soviet view that in the ideological field peaceful coexistence is impossible.

p With these statements he only prepares himself to attack the realistic proposal put forward by the Marxists: since the contradictions in worldviews can never be solved as long as there are classes, the main dialogue between Marxists and Catholics has to be held not on questions of world views but on the ways of uniting the efforts of the widest social strata for a joint struggle for peace, democracy and social progress. G. Wetter condemns this reasonable line, stigmatizing it as ’worthless pluralism’. (174, S. 300). Instead of this ’worthless pluralism’,i.e.instead of joint activity aimed at protecting the interests of the working people, Wetter puts forward another ’dynamic pluralism’. According to him, efforts must be made ’to resolve the contradiction that worries us today, knowing full well that after overcoming it other contradictions will crop up, and also remembering very well that progressive development takes place precisely by way of the constant solution of some contradictions and the cropping up of others’. (174, S. 303).

p The quotation given above sounds almost as if it were Marxist. Marxists no doubt are in favour of looking for the most effective ways ’to resolve the contradiction worrying us today’. They also know very well that after overcoming one contradiction, new contradictions crop up, etc.

p However, Marxists are armed with a scientific worldview, and that is why they have a different approach to the various contradictions, depending upon the character of the contradictions and the objective conditions. In the present epoch the solution of the contradiction between private-capitalist ownership and the social character of the productive forces has historically come to a head. It is a contradiction which has already been solved or is in the process of being solved in a considerable part of the globe. And the contradiction between the scientific Marxist worldview and the non-scientific worldviews, (including religious worldviews), is now being solved only in individual countries, where socialism has triumphed. This contradiction will be fully solved after the elimination of the capitalist system on a world scale, in the process of the construction of a communist society. In the name of the struggle for democracy and social progress, the broad people’s masses can be rallied together today irrespective of their worldviews. Putting differences in world views into the foreground, as Wetter does, means recommending a policy of disuniting the people’s masses and in actual fact helping reaction.

p Proceeding from the inevitable existence of contradictions in any development, and from the inevitable clash of opinions as a means of reaching the truth when seeking a way to resolve contradictions, though without having any grounds for this, G. Wetter draws the wrong conclusion that eternal ’ideological pluralism’ is inevitable.

p Clashes of opinion in the development of sciences, including social science, have nothing in common with the view of ’ideological pluralism’. They are a method for attaining the truth, leading to the solution of the problem and putting an end to the controversy. It is 64 quite another matter that in science there always arise new problems and that clashes of views constitute a constant method of developing it. However, the occurrence of new contradictions does not usually lead to the same division into different opinions, as in the preceding instance. All those participants in the controversy who truly work for the development of science are actively interested in the correct solution of every contradiction in science. That is precisely why clashes of views in science have nothing in common with the bourgeois conception of pluralism, i.e. the achievement of temporary, partial compromises between groups with contradictory interests.

p The struggle between different opinions in the course of the development of the social sciences while seeking the best possible ways to solve practical social problems will always go on. However, the ideological struggle, the struggle between proletarian and bourgeois ideology is not ‘pluralistic’, i.e. on an equal footing as regards the conditions in which it is waged, nor will it go on forever. It will gradually die out after the disappearance of the capitalist system on a world scale.

p Gustav Wetter, however, falsely and tendentiously describes the ideological struggle under capitalism as ‘pluralistic’, and as a struggle in which the two ideologies—the bourgeois and the proletarian—are placed on an equal footing. At the same time, he puts the ideological struggle interpreted by him as ‘pluralistic’ under the common denominator of a clash of opinions over the resolution of every contradiction. What is more, these ‘operations’ are carried out by G. Wetter with strictly defined diversionist aims: to be able to put forward a claim for ’exactly the same pluralism’, i.e. to create a possibility for the widest possible propagation of bourgeois, including religious, ideology under socialism.

p Wetter stakes on the fact that bourgeois democracy is in words almost always unlimited. The bourgeoisie tries in every way to disguise the class, exploiting and limited character of its democracy. Bourgeois 65 ideologists usually do not dareto declare openly to the workers that they are deprived of one right or another, or that there are great limitations on their opportunities to take advantage of them. The bourgeoisie, however, does in fact limit them in a thousand ways. In the socialist society the class character of democracy is openly manifested—that power is in the hands of the working people, headed by the working class; that, therefore, democratic rights and freedoms may not be used to the detriment of socialism, or for an activity aimed at the restoration of capitalism.

p Gustav Wetter, however, fights for precisely such ‘freedom’ and such a ‘pluralism’: to open the gates of the socialist society to unlimited preaching of any ideological trend. However, for the socialst society this is already a stage which has been passed. In socialist society the struggle of opinions develops mainly on another plane—in favour of the further development of science, the discovery of the most efficient way to overcome difficulties and errors, and solve the new problems that crop up every day. The working people in the socialist society do not wish to go back, they do not wish to have their heads muddled with reactionary, outdated ideas long since refuted by science and the development of society.

In the socialist society the communist party and the government manifest understanding and tolerance for the traditions and beliefs of the various strata of society, including their religious convictions. However, freedom of conscience, including that of religion, is guaranteed without making it possible to speculate for political ends with the religious beliefs of part of the population.