p The conception of pluralism in social life has been elaborated by some of the more liberal bourgeois sociologists and political scientists. Firstly it embraces the views that the social structure of capitalist society 66 is pluralistic. For the sake of brevity we shall designate this aspect by the term which is often applied by both Marxists and bourgeois theoreticians—’social pluralism’. The second aspect affects the political sphere directly and is a specific form for explaining bourgeois democracy. Together with some of its supporters and critics, we shall refer to this aspect of the conception of pluralism in social life as ’political pluralism’.

p The political structure is an inseparable and important part of the super structure of society. That is why the social and political aspects of pluralism are indissolubly connected with and to a great extent dependent upon each other. In examining them as a unity, we shall speak about ’pluralism in social life’, and about socio-political pluralism’, or shall merely use the term ‘pluralism’. Political pluralism is also called ’pluralistic democracy’, which term we also propose to use.

p The American sociologists William Kornhauser and Robert Dahl are well-known contemporary theoreticians of socio-political pluralism. According to Charles Perrow, a competent bourgeois critic of pluralism, Kornhauser’s work ’The Politics of Mass Society’ (134) is the best statement of the sociological theory of political pluralism (148, p. 411-412). Robert Dahl’s work ’Pluralist Democracy in the United States: Conflict and Consent’ (99), for its part, is a circumstantial and competent exposition mainly dealing with the problems of political pluralism, as is indicated by its title.

p On the European continent, among the modern theoreticians of social and political pluralism, in addition to Raymond Aron and Karl Popper about whom we have already spoken, a prominent place is occupied by the Austrian sociologist Norbert Leser. As W. Truger points out (167, S. 2), he strives to present pluralism as an alternative to Marxism. One of the most typical representatives of militant anticommunism in the early seventies, Zbignev Brzezinski, also champions pluralistic conceptions, especially in his latest works (95). The pluralistic treatment of modern 67 capitalist society is strongly defended in Peter Drucker’s book ’The Age of Discontinuity’ (105).

p A considerable number of the more voluminous works published in the West in the last decade, which are especially devoted to pluralism, are written mainly in a critical spirit. This is especially so as regards the criticism of pluralism from non-Marxist standpoints even by defenders of state-monopoly capitalism. We have in mind particularly the following books: ’Pluralismus und pluralistische Gesellschaft. Bauprinzip, Zerfallerscheinung, Mode,’ by Karl Bosl, published in the Federal German Republic and in Austria in 1967 (93); ’The Decline of American Pluralism,’ by Henry S. Kariel, published in the USA in 1961, republished in 1967 (129); the collection ’ Laissezfaire Pluralismus’, edited by Goets Briefs, the author of the main work in the collection—’Staat and Wirtschaft im Zeitalter der Interessenverbande,’ published in West Berlin in 1966 (94).

p Charles Perrow’s paper ’The Sociological Perspective and Political Pluralism,’ read at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association in 1964 (148) is also written in a similar critical mood, as is the long article ‘Pluralism’, published in the 12th volume of the American International Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, whose author is also H. Kariel (130).

p What is typical of the above-listed works as well as of all contemporary bourgeois publications on questions’ of social and political pluralism is their positivist, empirical approach. As a rule, the authors do not point out from what general theoretical, philosophical and sociological conception of society they proceed, and how, on this basis, they map out the pluralistic picture of modern capitalist society.

At the core of the theory of social and political pluralism lies the assertion that society consists of autonomous components, which are independent of each other, and are known under various names: fields of life, social groups and organizations, private organizations or associations. In pluralistic works one 68 very often comes upon the terms ’pressure groups’, ’business unions’ and ’interest groups’ ( Interessenverbande). In fact, it is above all a question here of the pluralistic conception of the social structure of contemporary capitalist society. Therefore let us pass on to the elucidation,of this question.