p To make it clear that neither rightist nor ‘leftist’ revisionism can be examined as ‘variants’ of Marxism, as is being done by the pluralists, let us follow up the genesis of these ideological trends and point out their negative role in the struggles of the working people.

p Marx and Engels hammered out the scientific and revolutionary ideology of the proletariat in a fierce 132 struggle, not only against the unscientific bourgeois ideology which had already become reactionary, but also against the illusory character and one-sidedness of the various petty-bourgeois teachings about society and the ways of progressively reconstructing it. Unscientific ideological trends for the reconstruction of society, however, continued to exist and be spread among the working people even after the main organized detachments of the international workers’ movement had adopted Marxism as their ideology. The significance of the petty-bourgeois social teachings, which represent an intermediary trend in ideology and exist side by side with the two basic ideologies in contemporary society, increases during periods of rapid social change like the present period. It is a question here of all those social theories which in principle recognize that capitalism is historically doomed and are in favour of doing away with it, but which, failing to understand the essence of Marxism-Leninism, recommend unscientific and Utopian, and sometimes also reactionary—i.e. reformist, or adventurist ways for the development of society. Such is the character of social democracy, a number of religious social teachings, anarchism, Trotskyism, etc.

p The influence of bourgeois ideology penetrates among the champions of Marxism-Leninism mainly through the reformist social theories. It takes the form of an effort to ’develop further’, ‘interpret’ or ’bring upto-date’ the revolutionary proletarian ideology, so as to turn it into its opposite. From a weapon for toppling capitalism, revised ‘Marxism’ thus becomes a means through which the bourgeoisie, while directing the workers’ movement towards small reforms of the system, removes the threat of this movement to its domination.

p On the other hand, the influence of the petty- bourgeois extremist ideological trends in the ranks of the adherents of Marxism and the communist parties leads to the appearance of leftist deviations.

p Even at the beginning of our century in his work ’Materialism and Empiriocriticism’ V.I.Lenin wrote: ’Ever subtler falsifications of Marxism, ever more 133 refined forgeries of the anti-Marxist teachings to make them look like Marxism—this is what characterizes modern revisionism’ (13, p. 349). And in his work ’ Marxism and Revisionism’ Lenin completes this description in the following manner: ’Pre-Marxian socialism is defeated. It now continues the struggle not on soil of its own, but on the general terrain of Marxism, as revisionism’ (12, p. 21).

p Even at the time when they were creating the scientific ideology of the proletariat, Marx and Engels were forced to fight against the reformism of F.Lassalle and against the conspiracy and anarchism of O.Blanqui, P.Proudhon and M.Bakunin. The theorizings of E.Bernstein in the German Social Democratic Party immediately after Engels’ death were the most vivid attempt at turning Marxism from a revolutionary theory of the proletariat into a doctrine of the gradual reformation of capitalism. Bernsteinianism was ideologically defeated. In spite of this, rightist revisionism gradually succeeded in getting the upper hand in the leadership of the majority of social democratic parties in the conditions of a comparatively peaceful development of capitalism in Europe at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century. It was thus that the political collapse of the Second International was arrived at during the First World War.

p Anarchism was the main champion of petty bourgeois pseudo-revolutionism in the ranks of the workers’ movement at the end of the 19th century and up until the First World War. Thus it is not surprising that, at the beginning of the 20th century, Lenin should write: ’This leftist revisionism, too, which has now taken the form of ’revolutionary syndicalism’ in the romanesque countries, also adapts itself to Marxism by trying to ‘correct’ it (12, c. 23, 24).

p The scientific and revolutionary character of Marxism during that period was defended by the left wing in the Second International to which the Marxist Leftwing Social Democratic Party in Bulgaria, headed by D.Blagoev, also belonged. However, the Bolshevik Party headed by V.I.Lenin was the only one that 134 succeeded in developing Marxism in accordance with the requirements of the new historical period into which mankind was entering—the period of imperialism.

p The main champions of rightist revisionism in the international workers’ movement during the years between the two world wars were still the social democrats, who had great influence on the theory and practice of a great number of parties that entered the Third (Communist) International founded in 1919 and had begun to accept the Leninist theory and strategy.

p Trotskyism developed into the most important form of petty bourgeois pseudo-revolutionism in the workers’ movement during that period. Trotsky failed to understand the disparity in the development of the imperialist period, discovered by Lenin, and the possibility that had arisen therefrom for the victory of the socialist revolution—and hence the possibility of setting about building the new social system—first of all in Russia. After the triumph of the revolution, he underestimated the revolutionary potentialities of the proletariat as the vanguard for the many millions of peasants and did not believe that it was possible to build socialism in backward Russia, if the revolution failed to triumph in Western Europe.

p Historical experience has proved the Tightness of Leninism. Soviet Russia, even though in ruins, succeeded in consolidating itself in the conditions of a hostile capitalist encirclement, and in overcoming all difficulties and building socialism, supported by international proletarian solidarity. Trotsky’s theory of ’permanent revolution’ was thus refuted.

p The Second World War put to a still harder test than the First World War all ideologies and movements claiming to be revolutionary. This hard test was successfully passed only by the communist parties which were armed with Marxism-Leninism. In all countries occupied by the fascist invaders, the communists stood at the head of the anti-fascist struggle. And after the war, in a number of new countries in three continents the socialist revolution triumphed and the 135 construction of socialism was started under the guidance of the communist parties.

p On the other hand the whole period after the October Revolution extending over more than 50 years has shown that the ideological and tactical theories of the social democratic parties and the anarchist and Trotskyite groups have not brought about the overthrow of capitalism and the construction of socialism anywhere, but have brought only disillusionment and defeat for the working people.

p Taking into consideration the historical origin and the path traversed by the social movements representing the two main revisionist deviations from Marxism —the rightist and the leftist, as well as the real role which they have played so far in the social and political struggles of the working class, we can expound their mam content in a synthesized form.

p In the capitalist countries, rightist revisionism manifests itself as a tendency to give up the most acute forms of the class struggle, particularly the armed uprising; the role of the bourgeois parliament as an instrument in the struggle for socialism is exaggerated; the role of the working class is underestimated, at the expense of the intelligentsia and the other ‘middle’ str ata.

p In the socialist countries rightist revisionism is especially expressed in the abandonment or strict limitation of central planning of the national economy and in a return mainly, if not exclusively, to the mechanism of the market forces, such as is typical of capitalist economy; in the weakening and removal of the leading role of the Cpmmunist Party and in the replacement of socialist democracy by formal bourgeois democracy with parties opposed to socialism.

p In the most general, philosophical and sociological field, the rightist revisionist deviation from Marxism nowadays develops mainly in two directions. Under the pressure of bourgeois ideology part of the rightist revisionists reject dialectical materialism as a theoretical and methodological basis of the sociopolitical teaching of Marxism, while others come 136 forward with the idea of ‘supplementing’ Marxism with various fashionable contemporary bourgeois philosophical trends—structuralism,, existentialism, Freudianism, etc.

p ‘Leftist’ revisionism in the present setup often underestimates or wholly negates first of all the revolutionizing impact of peaceful socialist and communist construction in the countries of the world socialist system upon the consciousness of the masses, and then the importance of the socialist countries as a main force in the world revolutionary process. Distrust is displayed in the revolutionary potentiality of the proletariat and the communist and workers’ movement in the capitalist countries. The role of the national liberation movements in Asia, Africa and Latin America is overestimated, and the ‘leftist’ revisionists consider them as being the main force behind the world revolutionary process. The peaceful road to the development and victory of the socialist revolution is rejected, and armed uprising and war are considered to be the only way leading to the seizure of power. It is denied that the principle of material incentives for the working people as a reward for their labour is the most important motive force in the development of production, and the role of moral incentives in the construction of socialism is held to be absolute.

p The International Conference of Communist and Workers’ Parties which took place in June 1969 in Moscow pointed out how it was possible to work and how one should work under these circumstances to overcome the difficulties connected with the centrifugal trends, with a view to securing cohesion among the fraternal parties. As a first and most effective step in this direction the Conference recommended a practical unification of all revolutionary and progressive forces for united action in the struggle against imperialism, in defence of the cause of peace, national liberation and so cial progress (48, c. 39-40).

In the final count, practice is the best criterion for every theory. That is why the organization of practical mutual activities with all social forces and movements 137 claiming to uphold militant standpoints, in favour of a struggle against imperialism and capitalism, will make it easier to overcome the deviations from MarxismLeninism or possible misunderstandings.