p The bourgeois pluralists in principle do not examine the problem of the development of Marxism. At every new moment in its development or even in its application, irrespective of whether in the given case it is a question of a real enrichment of its theory, of a distortion of scientific socialism or simply of a mistake, they are ready to see in it a special ‘variant’, and they connect this with the name of one or another functionary, usually the leader of one or another communist party.

p The development of Marxism-Leninism, like every development, means above all the appearance of something new. However, the appearance of something new, even when it takes place in a given theory, does not always mean its further development. If tl’e new runs counter to the basic conception of the theory, then it is the bearer of its negation. Here development means a step towards overcoming an outdated (or simply unscientific) theory and towards the creation of a new theory. The appearance of something new means a moment or a stage (when it is a question of bigger issues) in the development of an existing theory, in one or another part or phase of it, when it does not enter into contradiction with and does not deny the basic conception or the basic principles of the theory.

p Let us be specific. Dialectical and historical materialism emerged from the left-wing young-Hegelian philosophical trend, after having passed through the influence of the materialist philosophy of Feuerbach. But dialectical materialism does not mean a further development of Hegelianism or of Feuerbach’s philosophy, nor aneclectic‘fusion’ of the two. The appearance of dialectical materialism meant the appearance of a scientific philosophy which was qualitatively new 104 and, for the first time, consistent. As such a philosophy, dialectical materialism denied and rejected Hegelianism and Feuerbach’s philosophy,while faithfully retaining their positive features (the dialectical method of Hegel, the materialism of Feuerbach).

p From the appearance of Marxism down to our own days there has been a further creative development and enrichment of the scientific ideology of the working class, but not a creation in it of other ‘variants’, schools and trends. All new ideas and standpoints put forward by Lenin and other prominent Marxists, or by Marxist forums such as international conferences and congresses of the communist parties—all such new ideas and positions are either scientific contributions to Marxist-Leninist theory, revealing new aspects, features, etc. of the general laws of objective reality, and more particularly of society, or else they specify and creatively apply the general principles of MarxismLeninism to a new setup, to new specific conditions.

p Apart from bringing something new, the development of knowledge has yet another aspect. In the process of the development of knowledge or of a given scientific theory, the validity of which, as a whole, has been confirmed by practice, certain aspects of it become obsolete or prove incomplete, one-sided or even false.

p The obsolescence of individual aspects of a scientific theory depends upon the fact that objective reality itself, which the theory reflects, changes and develops. That is why every new stage in the development of society as a whole, of individual aspects of social life, and of the various states sets new tasks to the respective social science and to Marxism-Leninism as a whole.

p As to the necessity for a further specification, supplementation and pointing out of the details and development of already established scientific principles, standpoints, etc., this is an elementary requirement, valid for all sciences, and essential for Marxism-Leninism also. This necessity arises from the inexhaustible character of objective reality and the historical limitation of all scientific knowledge, and in 105 the concrete case, when it is a question of MarxismLeninism, also from the fact that human society is a most comprehensive, many-sided, dynamic system.

p Marxism, naturally, was not created once and for all by its founders. During all their creative activity, in observing the development of social life and science, and in generalizing the experience in the class struggle in particular, Marx and Engels were elaborating one or another of its aspects, building the streamlined edifice of the revolutionary ideology of the proletariat. Every new work by Marx and Engels or of both of them was a new contribution or a new step towards the construction of the theory.

p After the death of Marx and Engels, by virtue of the objective development of society at the beginning of the 20th century, the centre of the world revolutionary movement was shifted to Russia, in which a bourgeoisdemocratic revolution was to take place under riper social and economic conditions and under a much greater piling up of contradictions than in England, France and Germany in the past centuries, when in those countries the bourgeois revolutions had come to a head. It was under these conditions that the greatest contribution toward the further development of Marxism was made by the Bolshevik Party, headed by its leader Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.

p On the basis of his discovery of the important specific law in the imperialist stage of capitalist society— the increased irregularity of its development, Lenin explained the appearance of a new possibility for the proletarian parties in the individual countries: making use of this law, they could take advantage of crises and break the imperialist chain in the countries where this chain might prove the weakest, even though these countries might not be among the most developed capitalist states. In forecasting on this basis the real possibilityof the victory of the revolution in Russia, V.I.Lenin explained the necessity and himself guided practical activities in connection with the forging of a new kind of revolutionary vanguard of the proletariat, capable of guiding the working class and other working people in 106 an attack on capitalism, as well as in the construction of the new society.

p The victorious October Revolution brilliantly confirmed that Lenin was ri&ht in his defence of Marxism and its further development against Kautsky, Plekhanov and other former prominent Marxists, who failed to understand the new epoch; they displayed dogmatism and in the final count, together with the parties and movements under their influence, passed over to the camp of revisionism.

p Under the new conditions, leading the new Soviet state in very complicated circumstance, V.I.Lenin, displaying the perspicacity of a man of genius, systematized, enriched and developed into an integrated and streamlined theory the ideas of Marx and Engels regarding the main factors and mechanisms in the construction of the new society. He did this by taking the means of production away from the bourgeoisie, and by centralized planning, priority development for industry and voluntary cooperation of petty farming.

p Summarizing the new valuable experience of the Russian and international working class and of social and scientific developments in the world, V.I.Lenin and numerous other Soviet Marxists elaborated on a much larger scale than their predecessors the Marxist principles of the active role of consciousness and more specifically of the growing role of the main progressive subjective factor of social development—the proletariat and its political vanguard, the Communist party. Lenin’s doctrine of the party, concerning its vanguard role and its organizational principles was of very great importance for the development of the international communist movement during the period between the two world wars.

p After the Second World War, the contradiction between socialism and capitalism became the main contradiction of our times. A new mutual relationship arose between the progressive and revolutionary forces in the world and world imperialism. This new setup was favourable to and at the same time called for a further development of Marxism-Leninism. The 20th Congress 107 of the CPSU in 1956 and the Moscow Conference of Communist and Workers’ Parties in 1957 gave a generalized creative Marxist-Leninist evaluation of the new setup and of the tasks stemming from it. The decisions of these two forums, as well as the overcoming of the harmful consequences of Stalin’s personality cult, created a favourable atmosphere for a still more sweeping development and creative application of Marxist-Leninist theory in the new situation.

p i’he main contribution of Lenin and the Bolshevik Party to the development of Marxism at the beginning of the imperialist epoch was that they did not allow Marxism to be turned into a dogma. They revealed the laws of imperialism and on this basis elaborated a corresponding strategy and general political line for the communist movement under the new conditions. After the Second World War the congresses of the CPSU and the international conferences of workers’ and communist parties revealed the new features which cha racterised the postwar period, and gave a creative solution to the ripe problems concerning social development under the new conditions.

p The following are some of the most important principles, which constitute a contribution to the development of Marxism-Leninism at the present stage, formulated by the 20th and the 24th congresses of the CPSU, the three Moscow conferences of communist and workers’ parties (1957, 1960 and 1969) and by other national and international Marxist forums:

p 1. It has been revealed that the main content of the present period is the contradiction between the two world systems—the capitalist and the socialist. The contradiction between socialism and capitalism is a continuation on a higher level of the main social and class contradiction of the capitalist system—the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.

p 2. A scientific evaluation has been made of the new correlation of forces on a world scale, which is of decisive significance for the elaboration of a correct strategical and political line by the international communist movement and its various detachments. 108 Imperialism has already lost its predominant position on a world scale. The revolutionary, democratic and peaceful forces in the world and above all, the three main streams in the worjd revolutionary process (the world socialist system, the revolutionary workers’ and democratic movement in the advanced capitalist countries, and the national liberation movement in Asia, Africa and Latin America) have already become more powerful, and when acting in unison can foil the aggressive schemings and actions of imperialism.

p 3. The Leninist principle of peaceful coexistence between the two social systems, the capitalist and the so cialist, has been raised to the fore.

p 4. It has been found that in the present setup there is a new possibility of averting war, especially nuclear world war. This creates favourable conditions for rallying a wide range of social strata in defence of peace.

p 5. It has been found that under the present conditions, there is the possibility of choosing a wider range of roads, including the application of peaceful ways, for the triumph of the socialist revolution, as well as for increasing the range of socialist construction.

p 6. The necessity has been pointed out and the main principles have been adopted for the establishment and consolidation of equality and fraternal cooperation between the states from the World socialist system. The setting up of the political association of the Warsaw Pact member-states and the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance are the main steps that have been taken in this direction.

p 7. The general laws have been formulated to characterize the process of the construction of a socialist society, including the law-governed necessity for the further development and improvement of socialist democracy.

p 8. The danger, brought about by certain objective circumstances, of a temporary strengthening of the influence of rightist and ‘leftist’ deviations in the ranks of the international communist movement has been established and the necessity has been pointed out of strengthening the ideological struggle both against 109 bourgeois ideology, whose most aggressive manifestation is anti-communism, and against any form of revisionism, opportunism and dogmatism.

p Everything new that was introduced by Lenin into the treasury of Marxism, is in full concord with the basic standpoints which constitute the essence of Marxism. Leninism is Marxism further developed in accordance with the new imperialistic epoch and the new achievements of science and everyday life. And precisely because Leninism does not reject a single key principle of Marxism, and does not introduce any new principle which is incompatible with the essence of Marx’s teaching, Marxists consider MarxismLeninism as one doctrine. That is why any attempt to counterpose Leninism to Marxism in any way, and on this basis to put forward the view thatLeninismis a special brand of Marxism, entering into contradiction in at least certain points with Marx’s teaching is antiscientific.

p Even at the present stage in the development of Marxism-Leninism, not one of the number of basic principles which we have just enumerated enters into any contradiction with the essence of Marxism-Leninism. That is why the attempt to formulate different ‘variants’ of Marxism, which are contradictory to one another, by proceeding from one or several of these principles (which moreover are frequently interpreted in a distorted manner), is also anti-scientific; it pursues nothing but diversionist goals, unless it stems from a confused understanding.

p The champions of the conception of pluralistic Marxism draw out yet another false trump-card. They maintain that whoever defends monism, in the sense of the homogeneity and monolithic character of MarxismLeninism as a science and ideology, denies and rejects variety, the creative approach to a concrete application of Marxist ideology to different conditions, and rejects the possibility of a creative diversity of forms under two identical sets of conditions.

p This accusation, however, rests on a misunderstanding, unless it is an attempt to set up a trap. Marxists 110 maintain that there is one scientific theory for explaining phenomena, which is at the same time also a scientific guide to action. How many different ways of solving one question there may be, and which of these forms is the best for given conditions—that is another question. There is a field here, where man’s creative spirit can be displayd, and diversity is possible. However, such diversity is not pluralistic. A rejection of the theory of the existence of different, and more or less mutually contradictory variants of Marxism-Leninism, has nothing in common with a rejection of the possible different ways of carrying out the socialist revolution or with the different forms of proletarian dictatorship and socialist construction. Indeed, the fact that there is diversity in the concrete forms in which the general laws of the class struggle, and of the socialist revolution and socialist construction, as discovered and analyzed by the integrated Marxist-Leninist theory, manifest themselves, is law-governed and inevitable. However it is a question in this case of such a variety and diversity, i.e. of such a manifestation of the particular and individual in every kindred group of countries, in every individual instance of socialist revolution and a socialist society under construction, in which the general laws manifest themselves; a diversity which may by no means be accurately termed ‘pluralistic’, if one wishes to avoid confusing the meaning of the different concepts.

p There has also been an attempt to put the sign of equality between the theory of the necessity of a ‘pluralization’ of Marxism and the question of freedom of discussion, and the struggle of opinions inside the party, among Marxists. We have already dwelt on the attempts of bourgeois ideologists to speculate on the struggle of opinions to the advantage of the pluralistic conception. We shall in this connection only add the following:

p In the process of the development of MarxismLeninism lively discussions have been conducted and are still continuing, both on basic and on secondary issues. Thus, for instance, among Marxists today a 111 discussion is being conducted on the structure of dialectical logic and its relation with formal classical and mathematical logic. Discussions are also going on among Marxists on certain aspects of the problem of reflection as a universal property of matter. There are also unanswered questions in connection with the problem of the further splitting up of the social sciences, to what extent the formation of sociology, Marxist ethics and aesthetics as separate theoretical sciences closely connected with historical materialism, but at the same time not identical with it, is justified and how this is to be brought about. There are points of controversy between Marxists also on the question of the differentiation between Marxist sociology and scientific communism. There are also controversies between Marxist-Leninists on the creative application of Marxist theory in one or another concrete instance, with a view to finding an optimum form or model for the solution of various concrete questions under certain conditions.

p The complexity in this instance lies in the fact that sometimes it is indeed very difficult to tell whether it is a matter of a discussion between Marxists, or of an ideological struggle between Marxists and revisionists. Or, more precisely, it is not always easy to say at what stage the discussion between Marxists can turn into an ideological struggle between Marxists and revisionists.

An analysis of the well-known cases concerning K.Kautsky and G.Plekhanov in the more remote past and R.Garaudy and E.Fischer in the last few years shows that in this case, too, practice, i.e. the attitude towards the struggle between the classes andpartiesproves to be of decisive significance. Even when individual Marxists make gross errors on one or another question in the field of theory, as long as they take up class and internationalist stand-points the controversies between them remain within the framework of Marxism. Mistakes in the field of theory may not at first be so obvious, but when their champions insist on them and deviate from the correct class and internationalist standpoints, the differences take the form of a dissident activity, and the theoretical mistakes that of revisionism.