p Monism and unity of Marxist-Leninist theory are dialectically connected with the political and organizational unity of the international communist movement and the individual parties. Marxist-Leninist science is the theoretical and methodological basis of this unity.

p The character of the political organization of the proletariat on a national and international scale is determined by the role of the working class as the only consistently revolutionary force in society. On the basis of its historical tasks, this class has to have a single and monolithic political vanguard—the communist party. This party must take up Marxist-Leninist positions, because it is only by relying on science as regards the laws of social development that it can 157 correctly elaborate the goals, the strategy and the tactics of the complex and many-sided activities aimed at the overthrow of capitalism and the construction of communism.

p Pluralistic attitudes in the ranks of Marxism lead to strategies and policies in the individual communist parties which differ in principle and contradict each other, give rise to centrifugal, polycentrist and dissident trends, and create an atmosphere of factionalism and disintegration in the individual parties, as well as in the international communist movement.

p The rightist revisionists openly and insistently strive to break down and weaken the unity between Marxism-Leninism and the communist movement. They label as ‘institutional’ Marxism-Leninism which demonstrates and defends its indissoluble link with the communist movement, and they pit against it a creation called ’intellectual Marxism’. L.Kolakovsky tries at great length to explain the difference between these ’two kinds’ of Marxism as formulated by him. He defines the ‘institutional’ content of the concept ‘Marxist’ as follows: a man with a mentality characterized by the readiness to agree with opinions approved by the institution (i.e. by the Party or the socialist government; author’s note A.K.). A Marxist in the ’intellectual sense’ means a ’man who believes in a specific world view with a definite content’. (132, c. 124).

p The attempt of Kolakovsky and those like him to detach Marxism-Leninism as a theory and ideology from the communist movement as an organized force, is both anti-scientific and politically harmful, because it is aimed at cutting the Party off from its scientific compass. This goal is served by Kolakovsky’s efforts to pit the ‘intellectual’ attitude of a communist towards Marxism against his organizational and political attitude of confidence and attachment to the Party and its leading bodies, i.e. towards the ‘institutions’.

p Precisely because the conception of a division of Marxism into ‘institutionalized’ (‘institutional’) and ’ intellectual’ is directed against the unity of the 158 communist movement, it has been taken up and widely ‘elaborated’ by the American anti-communist Zbignev Brzezinski. In his book ’Between Two Ages’ Brzezinsto refers to the indissoluble unity between Marxism, the communist party and the socialist state as ‘institutionalization’. Moreover, Brzezinski tries to ‘prove’ that the connection between Marx’s teaching and the proletarian vanguard—the communist party, has led to its ‘ossification’.

p The truth, of course, is diametrically opposite to what the American anti-communist asserts. Precisely because Marx’s teaching is most closely connected with the destinies of the proletariat and its political vanguard, (and because the practical and constructive activities of the international communist movement and the world socialist system have proved its Tightness), in the 120-130 years which have passed since its foundation this teaching has won such influence and prestige in the world as no other philosophical and sociological theory has ever enjoyed.

p Brzezinski tries to influence his readers with the methods of an experienced ijuggler and illusionist. He takes certain phenomena which are of secondary importance, gives them a false interpretation in a selfconfident tone and in this way thinks to hide the fundamental facts from the eyes of his readers. However, these facts are in outright contradiction with his distorted interpretations.

p Brzezinski first of all intentionally skirts round the fact that in the fifty years following Lenin’s death Marxist-Leninist teaching has made tremendous strides forward, synthesizing what science has found out about society and nature, not to mention the ample practice of the international communist movement, and above all the triumph of the socialist revolution and socialist and communist construction over vast territories in three continents. Here he relies on his readers’ failure to remember these facts.

p It is through such an acrobatic ‘operation’ that Brzezinski hopes to turn white into black, i.e. to convince the reader that genuine, creative Marxism, whose 159 great transfer mating force manifests itself precisely in the revolutionary deeds of the CPSU and the other fraternal parties and socialist states, is ossified. And conversely, that the pseudo-Marxist exercises of individualists who have become derailed from the ranks of the revolutionary workers’ movement, and part of whom have already openly passed over into the service of imperialism, are a real manifestation of creative Marxism.

p Moreover, Brzezinski tries to contest and wholly to distort the dialectical link between Marxism-Leninism as a scientific theory and the practical activities of the Party and of the socialist state. (95, p. 80-84). Close links between the scientific proletarian ideology and a certain organization would be dangerous only if this organization were to start acting against social progress, and the ideology, instead of helping to find the mistakes and correct the policy, were to start adapting itself to the wrong policy in order to justify it. But theni this ideology would also become deformed. Therefore here too the dialectical unity between theory and practice, between ideology and Party, is preserved. A deformed ‘Marxism’, i.e. revisionism, corresponds to a party which has deviated from the revolutionary road. This is what happened with the ’Chinese style’ Marxism of Mao Tse-tung. However Brzezinski is not concerned with these cases which still more vividly demonstrate the necessity of indissoluble unity between revolutionary theory—Marxism-Leninism—and the revolutionary government, or more precisely—the revolutionary subjective factor, the communist party and the socialist state. He finds the link between Marxism, and the consistent revolutionary transforming activities of the CPSU and the other MarxistLeninist parties to be harmful to theory.

p Brzezinski’s view of ‘emancipation’, of ’ independence’ of ideas, and of theory and theoreticians from ‘institutions’ is thoroughly illusory and false. His own anti-communist ideas and bourgeois ideology, no matter how much he poses as an ’independent thinker’, are also ‘institutionalized’—this is part, indeed an 160 important part, of the ideological armament of American imperialism.

p The difference between ideologists like Brzezinski and the Marxist-Leninists in this respect is the following: the Marxists openly point out, not only as an inevitable phenomenon but also as a decisive positive feature, the indissoluble link between MarxismLeninism and the communist party. Brzezinski, for his part, serves imperialism with his ideas. Imperialist centres and foundations remunerate him lavishly for this and give him their social instructions, but both sides try to cover up their links. In general, it is a principle among those bourgeois ideologists who play the role of being comparatively ‘progressive’ and ‘critically’ inclined towards certain aspects of imperialist policy, that they should underscore their ‘independence’ from all institutions. However, this independence is illusory, or even a conscious deception.

p It cannot be denied that a number of radically inclined bourgeois ideologists do see many of the flaws of imperialism, do criticise it and do not wish to serve it. They, however, gradually become convinced that they cannot achieve much with their individualistic criticism. If they really wish to be useful in the struggle against the monopolies, they sooner or later get in touch with organized progressive forces, i.e. again with ‘institutions’—not in order to ‘ossify’ their scientific and progressive ideas, but in order to serve progressive practice, and, thus tested and enlivened, to assert themselves and develop. Such is the character of the indissoluble link between Marxist scientific ideology and the revolutionary activity of the communist parties. The thesis of detaching Marxism-Leninism from the communist party is aimed, therefore, at depriving the communist party of its ideological basis.

p The organizational principles of the Marxist-Leninist Party are indeed subjected to the same spirit of sharp criticism, and are rejected by the rightist revisionists. In an article written in defence of Ernst Fischer after his expulsion from the Austrian Communist Party for his revisionist, dissident and anti-Soviet activities, 161 Lombardo-Radice declared himself opposed to the basic principle of the Marxist-Leninist parties—the principle of democratic centralism. Lombardo-Radice fights openly for freedom of factions and freedom of factional activity. ’Free confrontation of different, even opposite hypotheses inside the Party’, ’minimum centralism and maximum democracy’—this is how Radice formulates his anti-Marxist conception of the Party, in common with E.Fischer and R.Garaudy. Moreover, the anti-Marxist platform on questions of party organization and inner party life, a platform which aims at transforming the communist parties into ordinary liberal bourgeois coteries, is served to us by Lombardo-Radice under a pluralist veil. In fact he calls his conception ’inner-Party pluralism’ (141, S. 76, 78).

Let us recall that as early as 1965 Lombardo-Radice was struggling for a pluralist ideological worldview, both in bourgeois society and under socialism (142, S. 258). Even then he declared himself also opposed to the idea of the monolithic unity of the communist party and socialist society. The picture of his deviation from Marxist-Leninist monism and its scientific approach is completed by his thesis of ’inner party pluralism’.