190

p The call for political and ideological pluralism, for replacement of the ’Soviet model’ of socialism by ’pluralist socialism’ is aimed at replacing real socialist democracy of the working people with formal bourgeois democracy, i.e. at restoring capitalism. The task of do ing away with the leading role of the communist party in public life and of establishing ’free, competition of the political forces’ is brought to the fore here.

p This is revealed even by the revisionist Garaudy. He proposes, side by side with the adoption of his ’new model of socialism’, that we should ’agree with all consequences of pluralism’ (115, p. 287).

p First of all the leading role of the Communist Party in social life under socialism has to be done away with. The necessity of accepting these ‘consequences’ is expressed by Garaudy in the following way: ’To allow pluralism means above all to admit that the other participants in socialist construction are enlisted not for the purpose of disguising the dictatorship of a party or for transforming them into "transmission belts" . . . (284). The reduction of the leading role of the party to ‘dictatorship’ of the party is, of course, tendentious. At another place Garaudy continues in the same spirit, reducing the leading role of the party to the role of the party apparatus only, and in the final count to that of the party leadership (p. 105).

p Another important ‘consequence’ of pluralism, according to Garaudy, with which we have to agree, is the rejection of the Leninist teaching concerning the party as a vanguard, which should not be built up on the principles of democratic centralism and make use of the revolutionary Marxist ideology.

p Without adducing any serious arguments, Garaudy maintains that parties of the Leninist type are already outdated, because they were created in conditions quite different from those nowadays. In his opinion the CPSU and the other Marxist-Leninist parties have not developed and are ossified, and that is why he appeals for the setting up of ’a party of a new type’. In this way 191 Garaudy with one sweep of the hand obliterates the tremendous achievements of the CPSU and the whole international communist movement from the October Revolution down to our own days achievements gained precisely because they were parties of a Leninist type.

p we nave seen already tnat without the Marxist philosophy, without the unified scientific and revolutionary ideology of the proletariat, it is impossible even to’ explain its scientific revolutionary strategy. Garaudy does not seem to be disturbed by this. He maintains that the communist party ’cannot have "an official philosophy" ’. The party is unable in principle to be ’either idealistic, or materialistic, or religious or atheistic’. (115, 284).

p True, Garaudy also declares that in spite of this the party has to rely on the laws discovered by MarxismLeninism. But how will this take place, if the party, in accordance with Garaudy’s advice, does not recognize dialectical materialism and the whole Marxist-Leninist theory as an objectively true social science’, and if this science is not defended as a party ideology?

p Garaudy also rejects democratic centralism as a fundamental organizational principle in the building up and functioning of the communist party, because it assumes a bureaucratic character, is ‘mechanical’ and is identical with ’bureaucratic centralism’ (p. 276).

p In the work of the party there is no doubt a danger of exaggerating the rolC of centralism, and of falling into bureaucracy. A greater or lesser number of mistakes of a bureaucratic character are often made in the course of the work, especially in the work of the ruling communist parties. However, it is one thing to criticise bureaucracy and look for well-suited mechanisms to provide every new setup with a correct dialectical combination of centralism and democracy in the organization and methods of party leadership , and it is quite another thing to make an outright rejection of democratic centralism as a principle.

p After going so far as to reject the leading role of the communist party, Garaudy, together with Brzezinski and other outspoken anti-communists upholds the 192 view that in the socialist society all parties, including those of the opposition, should have the ’unlimited right of independent initiative’ (115, p. 284).

p Bourgeois authors often openly declare that ‘pluralization’ of political life under socialism is aimed at doing away with the leadership of the communist party. W.Leonhard, for instance, says without beating about the bush what R.Garaudy, S.Stoyanovich, etc. try to present in a veiled way: The adoption of pluralist socialism means a rejection of the Soviet (i.e. MarxistLeninist, author’s note, A.K.) conception concerning the leading role of the party’ (137, S. 400).

p The thesis concerning the need for legal forces opposed to socialism to exist, which will have the possibility of contesting the leadership of the communist party in social life, runs like a red thread through all thetheorizings of the bourgeois ideologists and revisionists on the pluralization of political life under socialism. As to the form in which this demand is to be implemented, there are differing opinions.

p The Italian professor of philosophy Cesare Luporini, for instance, declares that the ’model of socialism must. be a pluralistic society with actual groups thatcan also be set up ideologically’, without specifying the character of the groups (144, S. 232). A number of authors make categorical statements in favour of resorting to the bourgeois multi-party system, or in favour of setting up a two-party system. In favour of the multiparty system, for instance, we find S. Vracar (170, S. 1053), and in favour of the two-party the Czechoslovak revisionists and renegades I.Svitak and Vaclav Havel (137, S. 432), etc.

p As we all knowjMarxists-Leninists stress that the dictatorship of the ’proletariat can be implemented in various political forms. Let us recall the well-known quotation from Lenin on this question: ’All nations will come to socialism, this is inevitable, but not all will come in quite the same way; each one will introduce a special feature into one or another form of democracy, into one or another variety of proletarian dictatorship, into one 193 or another rate of socialist transformation of various phases of social life’. (9, c. 66).

p Historical experience has so far pointed out two kindred forms of proletarian dictatorship: Soviet rule and people’s democracy. The bourgeois ideologists and revisionists, however, ignore the differences between them precisely because they are two forms of one type of rule—proletarian dictatorship! The people’s democratic form also manifests itself in different modifications: in some countries it is single-party, (Hungary, Yugoslavia, Romania), in others—- multiparty (GDR, Pbland, CSSR), in Bulgaria it is two-party. However, these differences are also neglected by the revisionists and anti-Marxists for the same reasons. They are ready to recognize only such a multi-party system in which there will be a confrontation, i.e. objections to the leading role of the communist party.

p The two-party system in the People’s Republic of Bulgaria and the multi-party system in the aboveenumerated socialist states represent forms for a further consolidation of the economic and ideological unity of the socialist society. This is because the historically shaped progressive parties in these countries work in conjunction with the communist parties for the construction of socialism, and the uniform line is secured by the leading role which has been gained naturally by the communist party.

p Democracy means people’s rule, i.e. participation of the people in government. Whether a given political structure is more of less democratic is a question that should be determined only by whether or not it secures real participation in government of the widest possible layers of society, if not of all its members.

p The existence of competing political parties is a form of bourgeois democracy. But even bourgeois society, besides multi-party—and in this sense ‘pluralist’ democracy—in the early period of its development also knew another form of democracy, which was monistic or unitary. Such, for instance, was the Jacobin democracy, which recognized only one political organization of society. Such also was the character of 194 J.J. Rouseau’s concept of ’volonté générale’. The Austrian social democrat Maria Szecsi, in her controversy with K.Czernetz on the question of the attitude of social democracy towards pluralism, also calls attention to this (165, S. 25, 26), and that is why M.Szecsi rightly notes that democracy is not always pluralistic, and as to the democratic traditions inside the workers’ movement itself, they are not pluralistic at all but are linked with the Jacobin unitary system.

p The main problem posed by those wishing to ‘pluralize’ the socialist society: that of setting up parties opposed to socialism in the countries where through the process of socialist construction the existence of such parties has already been overcome, runs absolutely counter to the basic law-governed tendency, already examined by us, leading to a gradual implementation of the socio-political ideological unity of the socialist society.

p In the initial period after the seizure of political power by the proletariat in alliance with the other working people, before the socialist reconstruction of society has been effected, when exploiter classes still exist and there are layers of the people who are still not convinced of the advantages of socialism and of the correctness of the policy of the communist party, the question of whether or not to have political parties opposed to socialism during this period depends solely upon the specific correlation of the class forces in the country, upon the acuteness of the class struggle and upon the influence of the international situation. Reallife experience has conformed this!

p When, with the October Revolution, Soviet rule was" set up in Russia the Menshevik Party and the Social Revolutionary Party were not banned, and the left-wing Social Revolutionaries took part, side by side with the bolsheviks, in the first Soviet government. The disbanding of the parties opposed to Soviet government took place later, in reply to a fierce struggle which they commenced, using all means, including sabotage, riots and individual terror.

195

p The situation in Bulgaria also developed in a peculiar way. After the Ninth of September Revolution in 1944 there was at first no opposition in Bulgaria. However, at a somewhat later stage, when the class struggle was aggravated, and under the imapct of external, imperialist forces, the right wings of the Agrarian Union and the Social Democratic Party which participated in the Fatherland Front formed separate opposition parties. In the first Fatherland Front National Assembly the opposition which thuscame into being was represented by about one quarter of the national representatives. Later, however, when the economic foundationas of the bourgeoisie were done away with through the nationalization of capitalist private ownership and when the opposition crudely abused the people’s democratic freedoms, the opposition parties were disbanded.

p When today a foreigner asks the Bulgarian Marxists: Why are there no opposition parties in Bulgaria?, they answer: for the same reason as there are also no strikes. In socialist Bulgaria there, are no special classes or strata with interests hostile to socialism, and that is why there are no objective conditions for either strikes or opposition, anti-socialist activity.

p The socialist system is a democracy of the broad strata of the people, the working people. The same democratic rights and freedoms are also enjoyed by the survivals of the former exploiter classes, insofar as they do not abuse them to harm the people and socialism.

p In a country where even under bourgeois rule there existed democratic rights and liberties fought for and gained by the working people, and where the working people, headed by the proletariat, could succeed in seizing power by peaceful means, in such a country it is most probable that the political organizations of the overthrown bourgeoisie will continue to exist for a longer time, provided they do not harm socialism. However, this existence cannot continue indefinitely. In the process of socialist construction triey will inevitably disappear, as being forces opposed to socialism. Some 196 will disintegrate and disband themselves, because life will in an obvious way invalidate their disagreement with socialism, others will reconstruct themselves and start working with conviction for socialism. Those opposition bourgeois parties, however, which stubbornly continue to fight with all means, permissible and otherwise, against socialist construction will be disbanded.

p In conclusion we may say that when the foundations of socialism have already been built in a country and the stage of the existence of political organizations opposed to socialism has in one or another way been passed; when in such a country the rallying together of the broad masses of the working people from town and country has been achieved in the name of socialist construction under the leadership of the Marxist vanguard—the communist party in a single- or multiparty form, in such a country to raise a demand for a ‘pluralizing’ of political life, i.e. for resurrecting political forces opposed to socialism, is socially unfounded and politically reactionary.

p The socialist system may contain elements of ‘pluralism’, i.e. the existence of opposition parties, only in the early stage of its existence. When the opposition parties that existed at the beginning desappear in one way or another, but the multi-party system remains, this multi-party system no longer has a ‘pluralistic’ character. It is a specific political form through which the political, moral and ideological unity of the socialist society is gradually implemented.

The more monolithic the socialist society becomes in a social and class respect, the more unified and monolithic its political superstructure, and the stronger its ideological unity will be.

p Let us make a brief survey of the main conclusions which we have reached in the process of our investigations.

p As a theoretical and methodological basis of Marxism-Leninism, dialectical and historical 197 materialism is a monistic philosophy. It explains the complex phenomena in living and non-living nature, in society and in man’s culture, proceeding from one basic principle—the materialistic character of the world. Dialectical and materialist monism also penetrates the other component parts of Marxism-Leninism—- political economy and scientific communism. According to Marxism, the basis of social life is the manner of production. The character of the social structure and of the culture of society depends in the final analysis upon economics, while the latter depends upon the level of the productive forces.

p Marxism-Leninism alone discloses the role of the proletariat as the vanguard of the working people in the overthrow of the exploiter capitalist system, explains the need for the construction of a classless communist society and points out ways of solving this great historical task. That is why Marxism-Leninism is a revolutionary ideology of the proletariat under the conditions of capitalism and, after the construction of the new system, the revolutionary ideology of the whole socialist society.

p Philosophical pluralism, one of the unscientific attempts to solve the fundamental question of philosophy, tries to take an ‘intermediary’ position in the struggle between materialism and idealism. In most cases it actually serves as a guise for idealism in its struggle against materialism. The application of pluralism in the field of the theory of knowledge, socalled ’gnoseological pluralism’, is an unscientific concept, according to which for one and the same question there can be many truths, depending upon the viewpoint. Most often it reduces truth to usefulness ’That which is useful is true’.

p In sociology pluralism manifests itself mainly as a ’ multi-factor theory’, according to which the development of society is determined by a number of factors which are independent of each other. It performs a reactionary ideological role, because it hides the real social levers for the development of society and conceals the necessity of doing away with class 198 contradictions and social antagonisms, which are typical of capitalism.

p According to the conception of the pluralists, modern capitalist society consists of separate ’strata* or ‘groups’ with equal rights, which wage a competitive struggle with each other in defence of their contradictory interests in accordance with collectively elaborated ’rules of the game’. Moreover, all partners wage the struggle on an equal footing, and the state must secure the observance of the ’rules of the game’ by all. A rejection of the pluralist explanation of the contradictions and diversity in bourgeois society does not mean a negation of the contradictions and diversity themselves, nor of the main axis of the pluralistic conception—competition, which is one of the basic social laws in capitalist society. Marxists deny only the immutability and eternity of the antagonistic contradictions in society.

p Efforts to interpret in a ‘pluralistic’ spirit the existence of different world views and ideologies in capitalist society are also unscientific. These different world views and ideologies are not ’equal partners’ as regards their scientific or progressive value, nor do they enjoy equal opportunities for propagation in bourgeois society. In the capitalist countries bourgeois ideology always enjoys a privileged position, while the working class and the other working people wage stubborn struggles, to win, together with their other rights, also the right to propagate their MarxistLeninist ideology.

p The ‘pluralizers’ of Marxism-Leninism maintain that there does not exist any unified, developing MarxismLeninism, but that there are various profoundly contradictory, mutually hostile ideological trends which, each in its own way, interpret Marx’s teaching. The extreme form of this conception is the Maoist theory of ’national variants’ of Marxism.

p The fact that there are revisionist deviations from Marxism serves as the main support for the view that Marxism-Leninism is not a unified teaching. However, the rightist and ‘leftist’ revisionist deviations are the 199 result of the penetration of foreign—bourgeois and petty-bourgeois—ideological influences into the ranks of the working class and the international communist movement, and they are ‘variants’ of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideology, but not of Marxism.

p Another anti-scientific idea is that of the ’ pluralization’ of socialist society. This has two aspects: that there exist radically different and mutually hostile forms or models of the socialist society, and that in general socialist society has to be ‘pluralized’ like capitalist society, i.e. that the setting up of parties in opposition to socialiam should be allowed, with unrestricted freedom to propagate bourgeois ideology.

p On the basis of socialist production relations, consisting of cooperation and mutual assistance, in the new society a continuous unity of the three basic social groups —workers, cooperative farmers and intelligentsia—is achieved and the difference in the material standards and cultural level between town and country, between those doing mental and those doing physical work is becoming increasingly insignificant.

p After taking the power into their own hands and becoming the masters of their own labour and of their country, the workers in the socialist society have put an end to strikes, because their interests are in unison with the interests of society as a whole, and because they have other effective ways of expressing their will. In the new society conditions conducive to the existence of political parties opposed to socialism gradually disappear.

p With its science-based leadership of social development in the interest of all social strata, the communist party becomes an increasingly widely acknowledged vanguard of the whole people.The socialist state also becomes a state of all the people.

p In the conditions of the upward development of the socialist social system, the non-scientific, reactionary or Utopian character of the various bourgeois and pettybourgeois world views and social theories becomes ever more obvious. That is why they gradually lose all influence over the builders of the new society. Marxism- 200 Leninism, for its part, becomes more and more an ideology of all society, a theoretical foundation of its further planned development. The survivals of bourgeois nationalism and the contradictions inherited from the past will gradually be outlived and will inevitably disappear.

The communist society is being built up as a society in which there will be neither social not international and interstate antagonisms and wars. It will be a society that is socially homogeneous, rallied together in close unity by common goals and a unified world view, a society which is moving rapidly and confidently onward.