ASSEN KOJAROV
MONISM AND PLURALISM IN IDEOLOGY AND IN POLITICS
[1] ~ [2] __AUTHOR__ ASSEN KOJAROVmonum ACID
PIURMIfm
IDEOIOGV
POUTKf
__TITLE__ monism and pluralism in ideology and in politics __TEXTFILE_BORN__ 2007-11-23T04:32:35-0800 __TRANSMARKUP__ "Y. Sverdlov"Sofia Press
[3] ~ __NOTE__ No year! No publication information until BACK of book! [4] CONTENTS Introduction 7 PART ONE. PLURALISM IN BOURGEOIS SOCIETY CHAPTER I. PLURALISM IN BOURGEOIS PHILOSOPHY AND SOCIOLOGY 1. Intermediate Trend in Philosophy 11 2. Nature and Varieties of Philosophical Pluralism 16 3. Gnoseological and Social Roots 21 4. Major Representatives 26 5. Pluralism in Bourgeois Social Philosophy and Spciology 38 CHAPTER II. PLURALISM IN SOCIAL LIFE UNDER CAPITALISM 1. Is Ideology in Bourgeois Society Pluralistic? 52 2. Struggle between Ideologies and Discussions in Science 61 3. The Two Aspects of Socio-Political Pluralism 65 4. Social Structure of State Monopoly Capitalism 68 5. Rejection or Distortion of the Marxist Teaching on Classes 75 6 An Attempt at Overcoming the Crisis in Bourgeois Ideology84 7. Pluralism and the State 91 PART TWO. THE MONOLITHIC CHARACTER OF MARXISM-LENINISM AND OF SOCIALIST SOCIETY AND THE ANTI-SCIENTIFIC CONCEPTIONS OF THEIR PLURALIZATION 99 CHAPTER I. MARXISM, REVISIONISM AND THE BOURGEOIS PLURALISMS 1. A Revolutionary Class with a Scientific Ideology 2. Development and Diversity, but Not Pluralism 103 3. On the Causes that Give Rise to Revisionism 112 4. Is Leninism'Voluntaristic Marxism'? 119 5. Pluralized Marxism According to the Bourgeois Ideologists 124 6. Ideological Content of the `Variants' and the Practice of their Supporters 131 CHAPTER II. THE REVISIONISTS AND PLURALISM 1. Is It Necessary for Marxism to be Pluralistic? 137 [5] 2. At the Tail of the Bourgeois Theoreticians 142 3. Mao Tse-tung and the Pluralist Idea 146 4. The Main Criterion 151 5. Pluralism and Factionalism CHAPTER III. SOCIALISM AND PLURALISM 1. On the Term 'Models of Socialism' 2. Revisionist 'Models of Socialism'---A Sample of AntiMarxist Forgery 3. Is Socialist Society Monolithic or `Pluralistic'? 4. `Pluralization' or Bourgeois Restoration (In Lieu of a Conclusion) Bibliography [6] __ALPHA_LVL1__ INTRODUCTIONThe rise and success of the world socialist system and the almost complete disintegration of the colonial system of imperialism have brought about a radical change in balance between the forces of progress and the forces of reaction in the world. This new international state of affairs compels imperialism to display particularly great activity and aggressiveness in the ideological field. But here again the historical initiative belongs to the scientific and consistently progressive Marxist-Leninist ideology. Its impetuous character is the result of the development of society itself, because the future belongs to Marxism-Leninism and to communism.
The scientific and revolutionary essence of MarxismLeninism and its innovating nature are not manifested spontaneously, by themselves. Their effectiveness depends upon the successful operation of progressive subjective factors and above all of the Marxist-Leninist ideological organizations and institutions in the socialist countries, as well as of the entire communist movement, which does not underestimate the possibilities of the reactionary forces speculating on the ideological front.
In the Programme of the Bulgarian Communist Party, adopted at the Tenth Congress, we read: 'The great principle of our Party remains immutable: no underestimation or playing down of the ideological struggle, no compromises in the ideological sphere, struggle 7 against bourgeois ideology until the complete triumpli of communist ideology' - (70, c. 79--80)^^*^^.
There is a wide spectrum of theories, conceptions, ideas and approaches used by the ideologists of imperialism today in their struggle against Marxism-Leninism, against the forces of peace, democracy and socialism, and in defence of capitalism. The ideological champions of the old world are particularly insistent in disseminating a few theories which, with certain modifications, can be popularized in the three kinds of countries--- capitalist, socialist and developing.
One of these is the theory of `convergence'. According to this theory, as a result of the scientific and technological revolution in the socialist and capitalist countries, a process of evening out the differences between the two opposite social systems is said to have already been set in motion. In this way, gradually, a complete unification and merging between socialism and capitalism is expected to be arrived at.
Such is also the theory of `de-ideologization', most often connected with the concept of `scientism'. Under the false slogan that each and every ideology should be rejected and replaced by a `scientific' approach to social phenomena, its champions are in fact only fighting against Marxism-Leninism.
Tho theory of pluralism also belongs in this category. It is used, on the one hand, as an argument to justify the ideological chaos in capitalist society, to prove the `eternal' nature of capitalism and to embellish formal bourgeois democracy. On the other hand, it is an expression of the endeavour to graft pluralistic con ceptions on to Marxism-Leninism and the socialist society. The temporary enlivenment of revisionism after the Second World War, which made its appearance under the conditions of a far-flung dissemination of the ideas of scientific socialism over every continent, is _-_-_
^^*^^The first figure refers to the number of the book in the List of Bibliography in the appendix. The pages are indicated as follows: the letter `c' stands for literature printed in the Cyrillic alphabet; the letter `p' for literature in English and in French and the letter `S'---for literature in German and Serbo-Croatian in the Latin alphabet
8 also taken advantage of to step up propaganda for the idea of the `pluralization' of Marxism and of the socialist social system.In this work we shall try to reveal the anti-scientific and reactionary nature of pluralistic conceptions in all ideological fields and in political life.
Against the background of the scientific, monistic and materialistic explanation which Marxism-Leninism gives of social development as a law-governed process, and relying on what has already been accomplished in this direction by other Marxists in the USSR, Bulgaria and other countries, we propose to show the anti-- scientific, eclectic character of the pluralistic conceptions in bourgeois philosophical and sociological thought, and to prove the inconsistency of the attempts, by means of pluralistic theorizing, to justify the social conflicts and flaws of the capitalist system.
Attempts to apply pluralistic conceptions to Marxism-Leninism and socialist society are profoundly reactionary in their class and political tendencies, and are hostile to the revolutionary and progressive forces in the world. `Pluralization' of Marxism subjectivizes proletarian ideology, reducing it to various ' interpretations' of the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin. ' Pluralized' Marxism ceases to be the theoretical foundation of a science-based international strategy and tactical plan of the working class in the struggle for the overthrow of capitalist domination and the construction of socialism and communism. The unity of the international workers' and communist movement is thus expected to be shattered, and the movement to be contaminated with the poison of bourgeois nationalism. With the ' pluralization' of the socialist system the aim is to bring socialist society back to a social structure in which antagonisms will exist between different social strata and in which there will be power conflicts between different political parties, i.e. to a restoration of capitalism.
Contrary to the assertions of the pluralists, Marxism-Leninism develops creatively as a unified complex scientific theory, illuminating the path of mankind and leading to the overthrow of the exploiter 9 capitalist system and the construction of communism. In spite of the counteraction of bourgeois ideologists and revisionists, and in spite of their predictions of an `erosion' and `pluralization' of socialism, the socialist society in the individual countries and the world socialist system as a whole are with increasing success overcoming the centrifugal forces which drag them back.
The social, political and ideological unity of socialist society is becoming ever more firmly consolidated, and the solidarity of the international communist movement is growing. The attraction of Marxism-Leninism and of communism will irresistibly continue to grow, because they alone offer a correct solution to the complex problems posed by the objective needs of social development in our times.
[10] __NUMERIC_LVL1__ PART ONE __ALPHA_LVL1__ PLURALISM IN BOURGEOIS SOCIETY __NUMERIC_LVL2__ Chapter I. __ALPHA_LVL2__ PLURALISM IN BOURGEOISWhen Friedrich Engels wrote that the 'great fundamental question of every philosophy, and especially of more recent philosophy, is the question of the relation of thought to being', Marxism made an epoch-making discovery in philosophy (6, c. 282). It was only on the basis of this discovery that the scientific classification of the various philosophical schools, trends and systems became possible.
Proceeding precisely from the fundamental question of philosophy---the relations of matter to consciousness ---Engels showed that materialism and idealism constitute the two main trends in philosophy (7, c. 281). The scientific, materialistic solution of this question consists, as V.I. Lenin wrote, in the recognition that 'the existence of matter does not depend upon perception. Matter is primary. Perception, thought and consciousness are higher products of matter organized in a specific way. Such are the views of materialists in general and of Marx and Engels in particular'. (13, c. 48). And since, as G.V. Plekhanov said, 'the most consistent and most profound thinkers have always tended towards monism, towards explaining phenomena with the aid of one basic principle (monos in Greek meaning one,) (67, c. 510)---and only matter 11 and spirit, consciousness and ideas can be such basic principles, the history of philosophical thought in its profound essence has been above all a history of the struggle between the two fundamental philosophical trends---materialism and idealism.
The rise of dialectical and historical materialism meant the creation of a consistent scientific philosophy. Thereby, in the main, all former schools and trends in philosophy were theoretically refuted. Only Marxist philosophy was in fact capable of any real further development.
However, the decline and decay of the already refuted bourgeois philosophy, which was playing a reactionary ideological role, does not take place quickly and automatically. Neither does it -mean that to this day there still do not exist certain relatively progressive spontaneous materialistic and spontaneous dialectical concepts, especially among philosophically thinking natural scientists in the West.
In the historical development of human knowledge, the theories, ideas and views which are overthrown in principle by science do not disappear at once, automatically. Even when there are no social or class reasons for their maintenance, the ideas, theories and views rejected by theoretical thought put up a certain resistance. This resistance is put up in point of fact by the champions of these views and theories. Force of habit or inertia is the most active factor. The process itself of realizing the erroneousness of views shared in the past and the adoption of other views, different from the former, is very complicated. The situation becomes much more complicated when it is a question of ideas and views which directly or indirectly affect the interests of broad social strata, i.e. which have a social or class character.
Dialectical materialism^^*^^ as a new philosophical teaching is an inseparable, very general world view _-_-_
^^*^^For the sake of brevity, in most cases we shall use 'dialectical materialism' instead of 'dialectical and historical materialism' in referring to Marxist philosophy.
12 and methodological part of Marxism as a complex social theory illuminating all basic spheres of social life: economics, politics, morals, science and culture. Marxism as a consistently scientific and integrated theory of the development of society is at the same time a new ideology, the theoretical champion of the interests of the class which is most ruthlessly exploited, oppressed and deprived of rights in capitalist society--- the proletariat; an ideology, which is called upon to be a theoretical weapon in the hands of this class in the struggle for the historically inevitable overthrow of capitalism and the setting up of a classless communist society. This indissoluble unity between the two sides of Marxism---it is at the same time both a science and an ideology---is scientifically explained, historically true, socially based and progressive. However, it is unacceptable to bourgeois ideologists, mainly because of their class bias.In our times there are plenty of social and class factors to nurture the non-scientific and theoretically outdated bourgeois philosophy, which is in basic outline idealistic and anti-dialectical. Interest in the preservation of the non-scientific trends in philosophy stems from the ruling classes in the capitalist countries, and above all from those in the imperialist states. Support for anti-scientific bourgeois philosophy also comes from the remnants of the exploiter classes in the socialist countries.
Proceeding from what has been said thus far, we can draw the following conclusions. Dialectical and historical materialism is a philosophy of the revolutionary proletariat and of communist society in the process of construction.^^*^^ Idealism in all its varieties is today the philosophy of the bourgeoisie and moribund capitalism.
The above law-governed social and class polarization of philosophy in modern society reflects the actual state of affairs in broadest outline only. Besides _-_-_
^^*^^We have in mind the communist socio-economic formation, the first stage of which Ls socialism.
13 the two basic and opposing monistic trends--- materialism and idealism, there exist also intermediate, non-fundamental, less significant philosophical trends. Here we must first point out the views of philosophers trying to evade the question of the relation between matter and consciousness and most often taking up agnostic positions, i.e. who declare the nature of the world incognizable in principle. Akin to theirs in character is also the position of philosophers who consider the problem of whether the world is material or ideal in its essence as a `pseudo-problem', i.e. as a problem to which it is impossible and unnecessary to give an answer. Such in general outline is the position of positivism.There are also philosophical teachings which proclaim monism in its two forms---materialism and idealism---as false and one-sided, and maintain the view that more than one essence or substance lies at the bottom of being. These philosophical teachings are called pluralistic (from the Latin piiis, pluris, meaning more.)
In the past the most widespread form of philosophical pluralism was dualism, which proclaims matter and spirit as equally primary, mutually irreducible principles or substances. However, as Plekhanov very aptly pointed out, 'dualism has never been able to give a satisfactory answer to the inevitable question: in what way can the two separate substances which have nothing in common influence each other (67, c. 510).
The development of scientific knowledge in our times, especially of neurophysiology, psychology and psychiatry, offers ample and convincing proof of the constant interaction between physiological processes in the organism and man's spiritual life, or more precisely, of the material dependence of consciousness, as well as of the reverse effect of the psychic upon the vital functions of the organism. Under these circumstances, the positions of dualism become still more untenable. For this reason, among the philosophical 14 schools of our time, one increasingly rarely encounters supporters of dualism in.its pure form.
In the history of philosophical thought one comes across attempts at setting up pluralistic philosophical teachings in the strict sense of the word, such as put more than two essences or substances at the basis of the creation of the world.
Gradually, however, and mainly during the twentieth century, the term `pluralism' has acquired a broader meaning in bourgeois literature, as well as in the socio-political sphere in general. Writers began to use the term `pluralism' also for the presence of many theories, conceptions or ideological trends competing with one another, as well as for many classes, strata, groups and organizations with contradictory interests in bourgeois society. Thus, 'pluralism in philosophy' in this broader sense has come to mean not only the-pluralistic trend, but also the existence of a great number of philosophical trends, movements and schools---the materialistic trend, the various idealistic trends, positivism and other forms of eclecticism, including pluralistic philosophical trends in the narrow sense of the word.
It should be underlined straightway that not every diversity can be called pluralism. It is justifiable to define as pluralism in the broadest sense of the word those views of diversity in which the members or elements of a given plurality are examined as being essentially independent of each other, as being equal and not in a relation of subordination to each other, but as members' between which there is above all contradiction and competition. Marxism-Leninism, for instance, recognizes both the diversity in bourgeois society and the class struggle in its various forms, but it proves that bourgeois society is not pluralistic, because the capitalist class is predominant in it.
In many instances, however, the term `pluralism' is misused, being taken to designate variety in general. Thus, for instance V.Frank! writes that pluralism in the field of science consists in the fact that there exist many sciences, and not one single science (111, S. 374). 15 The existence of many sciences is not a pluralistic diversity, because the independence of the individual sciences is relative; among them there is a certain `hierarchy' as well as reciprocal dependence and transitions from one science into another. In this case we cannot speak either of complete independence of the individual sciences, or of a competitive struggle and confrontation between them.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 2. Nature and Varieties of Philosophical PluralismIn Marxist literature very little has been written on philosophical pluralism. Neither has any great attention been devoted in Marxist history to studies of the pluralistic trend or aspect in the works of a number of philosophers, including whole philosophical schools, such as pragmatism and personalism.
A scientific, Marxist description of philosophical pluralism was given by the Soviet philosopher I.Narskiy in a special article published in Vol. 4 of 'Filosophskaya Entsiklopedia' (Philosophical Encyclopedia): 'Pluralism is a view, according to which there are several or a multitude of substantial principles or kinds of being independent of each other. Pluralism is opposed to monism. In its nature it is an idealistic trend, which made its appearance in history as a modification of dualism, or as an attempt at an eclectic resolution of the contradictions of idealistic monism,' (60, c. 278).
The content of pluralism is revealed in a similar way also by Manfred Buhr (GDR): 'Designation of a kind of idealistic world views, which reject the unity of the world and instead of it proclaim diversity as a fundamental principle of reality. This diversity is conceived by pluralism as a multitude of independent essences or layers (components) of being, without, an inner link and not subordinated to any laws of mutual transformation' (96,8.854).
If we examine the above quotations, we might at first sight get the impression that there is some logical 16 contradiction in them. On the one hand, it is asserted that 'pluralism is counterposed to monism', i.e. to materialism and to idealism (because materialism and idealism are monistic philosophies). On the other hand, in both articles the link'between pluralism and idealism is stressed, with the respective nuances, I.Narskiy declares that in its essence pluralism is an idealistic trend. And M. Buhr simply characterizes pluralism as 'a kind of idealistic world views'.
In order to understand this apparent contradiction, one should take into consideration the following. There is no doubt that all adherents of pluralism reject monism, i.e. the view that there exists a uniform and single beginning or an original basis of the world. But subsequently there are substantial differences. Some pluralists think that their conception of a multitude of substances means a rejection at the same time of both materialism and idealism. But in the final count, they usually remain captured by idealism, or allowan eclectic combination of elements of idealism and materialism. Other adherents of pluralism think that the pluralistic: form offers them the possibility, while preserving the idealistic initial position, of overcoming certain fundamental difficulties of idealistic monism. They, therefore, openly preserve idealism, but reject its monistic form, the monistic interpretation of the diversity in the world.
From what has been said so far it can be seen that pluralism is an unfundamental, intermediate and eclectic trend in philosophy, which rejects the monistic, mainly materialistic, and in certain cases also the idealistic solution of the first, ontological aspect of the fundamental question of philosophy---the question of which is primary, matter or consciousness.
A pluralistic approach is also used by some bourgeois philosophers in the solution of the second, gnoseological side of the fundamental question of philosophy, the problem of knowledge of the world, of cognition. In this instance pluralism manifests itself mainly in the concept of the existence of 'many truths' for one and the same question.
__PRINTERS_P_17_COMMENT__ 2.---0518 17An attempt at a systematic analysis of the content of the terms `monism' and pluralism^^1^^ and at classifying the kinds of pluralism has been made by Marvin Farber. He rightly indicates that there are two basic kinds of monism, materialistic and idealistic (the writer calls the latter spiritualism---Author's Note) (108, p. 149). Farber even manifests a certain inclination towards materialistic monism, admitting that 'physical reality' is the basis of objective reality. But at once he hastens to point out that 'monism in this sense should be conceived as a programme, not claimed as a finished solution'. (108, p. 156). In most cases, however, we notice in Farber an inclination towards positivism and, on this basis, towards `moderate' pluralism.
Farber does not adopt the monistic approach mainly because he cannot understand the dialectics between possibility and reality, between the formal (for instance, mathematical and logical truth) and the real. This can be seen in his statement that 'It is the idea of formal possibility that separates the formal from the real and which prevents their reduction to a common basis'. (108, p. 164).
Dialectical materialistic monism has correctly solved the problem of possibility and reality, as well as that of the formal truths of mathematics and logic and reality. The formal truths (mathematical, logical, etc.) are a manifestation of the universal. The universal (together with the particular, which is less universal) is a facet, an aspect of unique material objects, phenomena, processes. As V.I.Lenin pointed out, the common logical `figures' are a reflection, an abstraction of the most general, common relations between things. (14, c.168). There is no general (and particular) without the unique, just as there is no unique without the particular and general. That is why, contrary to Farber's assertion, 'the formal and the real' have a common basis, which is matter, or material reality.
Farber categorizes ontological (substantial) and logical (postulational) pluralism as major kinds of pluralism. Closely interwoven with them is causal pluralism.
18Ontological or substantial pluralism is that in connection with which we speak of more than one kind of substance. As an example Farber gives Descartes' view on the differentiation between matter, mind and God as different kinds of substance. Causal pluralism on the other hand recognizes the 'existence of more than one causal system, unrelated to one another causally.' (108, p. 165). If we proceed only from what has been said so far, we might think that Farber manifests no more than a certain inaccuracy in calling only substantial pluralism ontological, whereas in fact 'causal pluralism' is a further variety of ontological pluralism, while in this instance it is a question mainly of different `structures' or causal systems. The picture becomes more complex, however, when he examines the two basic kinds of pluralism: ontological and logical. He writes: 'A distinction should be drawn between ontological and logical pluralism, the latter meaning that there are distinct and irreducible systems of knowledge' (108, p. 155). But by 'distinct systems of knowledge' Farber understands the knowledge of qualitatively different fields of reality. Thus, he speaks of formal (mathematical and logical), physical, biological and social knowledge. Farber sees the difference between themin the 'diversity of types of organization', i.e. on the different basic forms of the motion of matter (108, p. 155, 156). But then, what Farber calls 'logical' pluralism affects not only the structure of knowledge but above all the structure of the cognitive, i.e. it is essentially identical with causal pluralism, which is in fact a form of ontological pluralism.
Farber goes on to speak of a relative autonomy of the four fields indicated as separate 'causal systems' which allegedly constitute the basis of ontological pluralism (108, p. 161, 162). But as a matter of fact, Farber finds it difficult to delimit the four basic causal systems as fields of reality: the formal, physical, biological and social, from their corresponding, as he says, logical systems or systems of knowledge. The confusion and difficulty in this instance are due to the fact that Farber rejects the theory of reflection. Thus for him at 19 one stage objective reality or `existence' is the correlate of our knowledge (108, p. 161) and at another stage the different fields or aspects of reality (causal systems) and their reflection in the human head (logical systems) prove to be identical.
In the field of knowledge, Farber also speaks of pluralism regarding the question of truth. 'Agnosticism, skepticism and pragmatic relativism have been pluralistic forms of denial of this view of truth' (of objective knowledge---Author's Note), Farber declares (108, p. 167). In fact it is here that he manifests pluralism with respect to the second, gnoseological side of the fundamental question of philosophy.
In analyzing certain stages in Farber's interesting, though internally contradictory attempt at systematizing the different kinds of pluralism, we have in part expounded our views on the question. There are two main kinds of pluralism: ontological and gnoseological, which are attempts at a non-monistic, i.e. pluralistic solution of the two main aspects of the fundamental question in philosophy. Ontological pluralism is an attempt at an `intermediate' or `third' solution to the question of which is primary: matter or consciousness; it is above all directed against the scientific, dialectical and materialistic solution to this question. Gnoseological pluralism, on the other hand, is one of the unscientific attempts to obtain a relativistic and subjectivistic answer to the problem of the cognizability of the world.
Within the framework of ontological pluralism, we distinguish first of all two main varieties: atomistic pluralism and structural pluralism. Under atomistic pluralism we include all philosophical teachings' which seek the 'ultimate basis' of reality in certain very simple, indivisible, etc. elements, particles and units. For some pluralists it is the endless variety of things and phenomena that constitute the 'neutral substance' and which in the process of practical and cognitive activity are differentiated as objective facts or subjective experiences (James), whereas for others they are monads (Leibniz), persons (personalism )or fact-atoms (Russell and Wittgenstein).
20Structural pluralism includes such philosophical teachings, which maintain the view that there exist several substances or independent foundations of being, which above all differ from each other in their structure. Among these are the different `strata' of 'realities (realms) of being' (N.Hartmann, G.Santayana) or separate `worlds' (K.Popper).
Within the system of gnoseological pluralism the pragmatic concept of 'many truths' is of the greatest significance. This is in fact the main methodological basis of the different forms of ideological pluralism.
The rejection of the thesis of the objectivity of truth and the maintenance of the view that on every question, depending upon the interests of individual groups and persons, there may be a great multitude of`truths', serves precisely as a theoretical and methodological basis for recognizing the right of existence of a countless number of schools, trends and `isms' in philosophy and in all other fields of ideology.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 3. Gnoseological and Social RootsIn the historical development of philosophical thought pluralism has not taken the form of a separate philosophical school. It usually represents an aspect, a facet of the work of individual philosophers and of the respective schools and trends.
The possibility of using pluralism as an ideological weapon against Marxism-Leninism and communism explains the great attention devoted to the pluralistic trend in the history of philosophy in modern bourgeois literature. In many cases this trend is exaggerated because of the wish of the representatives of bourgeois philosophy under the present conditions to make more active use of pluralism against dialectical materialism.
The increased influence and significance of pluralism in the development of philosophical thought was already pointed out more than half a century ago by Julius Goldstein, who in an introductory article to the German edition of William James' work A Pluralistic Universe wrote: 'Pluralism is the concluding stage 21 of the development which began in the 16th century with a tendency of philosophical thought towards experimentation' (118, S. XVI). This evaluation of the development of philosophical thought in the last few centuries is exaggerated. The main result of the direction of philosophy in the last few centuries towards ' experimentation' is the appearance of dialectical and historical materialism, and not of pluralism.
The significance of pluralism in bourgeois philosophy in the first half of our century is pointed out by the well-known champion of capitalism and opponent of Marxism, Josef M.Bochenski. He writes: 'Contemporary philosophers are usually pluralists in revolt against the idealistic or materialistic monism of the 19th century.Thereare some even here, both Alexander among the metaphysicians and Croce among the idealists being monists. But they are a minority whose influence is obviously diminishing'. (92, p.37). Bochenski has in this connection intentionally `omitted' the most important and widespread kind of monistic philosophy---dialectical materialism. Later, there are some ten pages in which he recognizes and stresses the monism and determinism in Marxist philosophy, but presents them in a simplistic and caricaturistic manner, as he does dialectical materialism in general. But even if we take into consideration only bourgeois European philosophy, we find that Bochenski exaggerates the pluralistic influence in it.
The increased impact of philosophical pluralism on contemporary bourgeois philosophy was also noted in an exaggerated manner in the Philosophical Dictionary of the West-German Kroner Publishing House, in 1965. 'Contemporary (bourgeois, added by the author, A.K.) philosophy, in rejecting monism, is pluralistic in its basic features. It recognizes a plurality of independent, often personified essences'. (150, S. 468).
It is not true that in contemporary, or even only in bourgeois philosophy, all `monism' is rejected. It is true, however, that pluralistic tendencies in open of disguised form can be found in the works of many representatives of almost all main trends of contemporary 22 bourgeois philosophical thought: pragmatism, phenomenology, neo-Thomism, personalism, existentialism, neo-realism, neo-positivism.
Pluralism, being one of the non-fundamental trends in philosophy has not only social, but also gnoseological roots. As a starting point in proceeding to reveal them, we shall use Lenin's profound analysis of the gnoseological roots of idealism. In Lenin's 'Philosophical Copybooks' we read: 'Human knowledge is not (or does not follow) a straight line, but a curved line, very similar to a number of circles, to a spiral. Every segment, part, or section of this curve can be transformed (unilaterally transformed) into an independent, whole, straight line, which (if the forest cannot be seen for the trees) leads to the swamp, the priesthood (where the class interests of the ruling classes fasten it). Straightforwardness and one-sidedness, stagnancy and ossification, subjectivism and subjective blindness ---voila (there you have) the gnoseological roots of idealism'. (14, c. 361). One-sidedness, ossification and subjectivism in the cognitive process lie at the basis not only of idealism, but also of all false and anti-scientific attempts to find a`third'eclectic or agnostic answer to the fundamental question of philosophy, as well as to pluralism. For us in this instance the most important thing is to indicate which moment, which part of the complex curve, representing knowledge, is turned into a straight line by pluralism.
The main fact, the one-sided and exaggerated reflection on the cognitive process of which lies at the basis of idealism, is the relative independence and active role of man's consciousness, its capacity to exert (as a property of the human brain) a reverse impact on material existence. If we approach the question in the same way, wecome'tothe conclusion that at the basis of the pluralistic conception of the world lies the genuine diversity in reality---the presence of qualitatively different fields or spheres of objective reality, in which specific laws are in action that cannot be reduced to one another, as well as the existence of an endless diversity of objects, processes and phenomena, with 23 their specific distinguishing features. Exaggeration, swelling, treating diversity and the qualitative differences in objective reality as absolute, denying, or at least failing properly to evaluate the law-governed relation and the transitions between qualitatively different and relatively autonomous fields of reality---herein, above all, lies the gnoseological basis of philosophical pluralism. A metaphysical disruption between absolute and relative truth, etc. also takes place in this case.
As to the social roots of pluralism, the main question is that of the social interests which can be satisfied by the pluralistic philosophical teachings in a class society.
We have already pointed out that in the present-day setup, the struggle between dialectical materialism and idealism in all its varieties is in the final count a philosophical manifestation of the ideological struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, between socialism and capitalism. As G.A.Kursanov justly points out, 'modern bourgeois philosophy and the modern bourgeois worldview are characterized by idealism and metaphysics with a negative attitude towards the cognition of objective truth.' (46, c.138). This is true, but it is not the whole truth. That is why Kursanov rightly points out that in a setup where the traditional bourgeois philosophical schools and systems are going through a crisis, there arises a tendency to look for 'third ways', i.e. of `convergence', of an eclectic mixing up of different and even contradictory ideas and conceptions (46, c. 139). He enumerates positivism, personalism, existentialism, and the 'humanized Marxism' of E.Fischer,R.Garaudy and A.Lefevre as different forms of manifestation of 'philosophical convergence'. In his work, however, G.Kursanov fails to underline that, under the conditions prevailing now, pluralism has also become one of the characteristic forms of looking for a third way in bourgeois ideology and in philosophy in particular.
We can in general say that the non-fundamental trends in philosophy roughly express the interests and moods of the non-fundamental classes and strata of 24 society. Under capitalism these strata* are the peasants, the petty bourgeoisie and the other middle urban strata, among whom.the intelligentsia plays an ever more important role. Insofar as the non-fundamental philosophical trends try to `conciliate' or to overcome the contradictions between the two main parties in the modern philosophicalstruggle---dialectical materialism and idealism, they can reflect tendencies of individual conciliatory, reformist sectors in the main classes in capitalist society---the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Under the present conditions, dialectical materialism is becoming an ever more dangerous opponent to all bourgeois ideology and to its idealistic philosophical basis, and its impact is growing irrepressibly. In this situation every non-Marxist trend in philosophy can be and is used in the struggle against Marxism-Leninism.
Pluralism, which recognizes the presence of a smaller or larger number of independent (while competing in the social sphere!) substances, truths, social strata, etc. under the present conditions assumes tremendous importance for the bourgeoisie. Precisely because the materialistic-monistic view of the world and social life in particular is a basic, theoretical and methodological principle in Marxism, pluralism as a 'middle path' in philosophy proves a very convenient form for combating dialectical and historical materialism. In the socio-political sphere of Marxist-Leninist theory concerning classes and the class struggle, the bourgeois ideologists today come forward with their own concep-. tion of the 'disappearance of the classes', an 'incomes revolution', and the like. In a similar manner in the field of philosophy, side by side with the defence of idealism and the outspoken rejection of dialectical and historical materialism, 'increasing significance is attached to various philosophical hybrids, in which pluralism, in a visible or invisible form assumes an ever greater place.
Some of the representatives of the reactionary forces are most inclined to turn to the 'middle path', or 'third way' in philosophy and in ideology in general, to preserve the supremacy of the dying class, when the 25 reactionary system is going through a profound crisis and the forces which are the bearers of progress and of the new social system, are exerting ever greater pressure. Such is precisely the case with the utilization of pluralism and a number of other conformist or convergent theories by the ideologists of imperialism today.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 4. Major RepresentativesLet us briefly mention a few of the major representatives of pluralism'in bourgeois philosophy in the imperialist phase of the development of capitalism.
Philosophical pluralism in its two basic aspects--- ontological and gnoseological---sprang up at the end of the last and the beginning of the present century in the form of American pragmatic philosophy. In its essence pragmatism is a subjective idealistic philosophical trend. William James (1842--1910), one of the founders of pragmatism, attempted, through his pluralistic conceptions, as far as possible to round off the rough edges of subjective idealism, and formally to rise `above' materialism and idealism.
The pluralistic conceptions of James are most thoroughly developed in his book A Pluralistic Universe. Although James claims to be an adherent of empiricism, which he counterposes to 'speculative metaphysics' his method of investigation is mechanistic and metaphysical. It is this limited method that faces James with the dilemma: he must choose between the general, totality, 'the absolute', the integrated, i.e. monism, and the single, the diverse, the individual, i.e. `pluralism'. James is unable to understand the dialectical link between the general and the individual, between unity and diversity, etc. That is why tie finds himself compelled to reject the totality, i.e. monism in the world, in order to accept and uphold the unitary and individual things and processes, i.e. `pluralism'.
The style and terminology of James are not very familiar to the contemporary reader, but nevertheless, let us take a quotation: 'While the philosophy of the 26 absolute agrees that substance attains its complete divinity only in the form of totality, . . . the pluralistic view, to which I give precedence, is inclined to accept. . . that the substance of reality can never be perceived as a complete unity. . . and that a distributive form of reality---the unitary form, is also logically admissible and empirically acceptable'. (126, S. 17--18).
If we set aside the question of divinity, which James recognizes, the author here seems to be warring only against the extreme philosophy of the absolute, against the concept of the substance of reality as 'complete, absolute unity'. And the pluralistic view is represented only as a view for which James displays an ' inclination'. This, however, only seems to be so.
A strict logical analysis of the views of James leads to the following conclusions. Firstly, that the monistic view of the world is presented and stigmatized as a 'philosophy of the absolute'. Materialistic monism is placed here in the same boat as absolute idealism. Secondly, the objective existence of real things and processes is denied and is reduced to the level of the 'logically permissible' and the 'empirically admissible', i.e. it is questioned.
On this basis James carries on his further pluralistic operations in the following way: Everything which is polarized in the process of cognition and in the practical activity as object and subject is proclaimed by James to be a 'neutral substance', which is neither material nor ideal. This 'neutral substance', the object of experience and practice, which is in fact the sum total of things, phenomena and processes in the entire objective reality and the subjective experiences of every man, constitutes for James `plurality' and diversity. By their `neutrality', according to the author, both idealism and materialism are rejected. It is on this anti-scientific, subjective basis that James proposes a purely practical deal: in view of the advantages offered, we should look for reality where it promises most favourable results: among the individual things of what is directly given to us. (126, S. 82). Thus, James in a peculiar way gives support to subjectivist arbitrariness.
27Dialectical materialism, being completely opposed to pluralism, is a monistic philosophical teaching which maintains that the unity of the world consists' in its material character (F. Engels). But at the same time dialectical materialism recognizes the tremendous variety of things and phenomena in objective reality, as well as in subjective, spiritual human experiences. Dialectical materialism moreover shows that a lawgoverned reciprocal link exists between qualitatively differing things, that all of them are different structural forms of the single moving matter, that qualitative transitions take place between them and that mental phenomena are secondary to material phenomena. In James' pluralistic structure things and phenomena, including all material and mental processes, are arranged side by side, and are not related in a reciprocally dependent whole.
In pragmatism (mainly in James) ontological pluralism develops, though in a not very clearly expressed, `atomistic' form. `Atoms' are `neutral', i.e. they' are neither material nor ideal individual things and phenomena.
Methodologically, the most important and most thoroughly elaborated aspect of pluralism among pragmatists is its gnoseological aspect---the conception of the `plurality' of truths, on the basis of reducing truth to utility. We shall return to this a little later.
The atomistic form of pluralism is also a feature of the theories of the champions of personalism. Contrary to Hegel's idealistic monism, according to which the essence of the world is the 'absolute idea'.thepersonalists consider the person---the active, will-powered person ---as the basic manifestation of existence and the main ontological category. The person and his experience is the only reality, according to personalism. Subjective idealism is avoided by proclaiming the world and all persons as a manifestation of the creative activity of God. I. Balakina and K. Dolgov rightly point out the influence of Leibniz's philosophy on the pluralism of the personalists. The person as a basic ontological category 28 in the latter in many respects recalls Leibniz's monads. (17, c. 243).
T. A. Sakharova and I.I. Kravchenko single out Edgar Brightman and Ralph Flewelling (1871--1960) as representatives of `pluralistic' personalism. Physical reality, according to Flewelling, is something derivative from the person, and 'the atom, insofar as we may know it, is a construction of the mind'. (73, c. 77). The pluralistic trend in an atomistic form is also manifested in existentialism, and most clearly in the conception of the person as an ontological reality. Society and subsequently all objective reality are examined only as conditions for the realization of the person.
The structural form of ontological pluralism also has its representatives among the bourgeois philosophers of the 20th century.
The structural approach in the pluralistic conception of the German philosopher Nicolai Hartmann (1882-- 1950) is particularly pronounced. Hartmann stands up against the strong influence of subjectivism and irrationalism in modern bourgeois philosophy, a fact, which in itself is a positive phenomenon. However, his struggle is not effective, because it is waged from unscientific and ultimately idealistic standpoints---from standpoints at first akin to neo-Kantian rationalism, and later to critical realism.
Proceeding from such a basis, Hartmann wrongly thinks that not only idealism, but also materialism, is one-sided. As A. Myslivchenko points out, according to Hartmann, philosophical monism leads to an oversimplified picture of the world (58, c. 326).
The main features in N. Hartmann's ontological teaching, which characterize his pluralism, are the conceptions concerning the basic spheres of existence and the schistous structure of actual reality. According to Hartmann, being includes in the first place two primary `spheres' or fields, independent of man's consciousness---the spheres of ideal being and of real being or actual reality (27, c. 35). Although Hartmann changed his views on ideal being---considering it at 29 first as having 'equal independence' with actual reality, then maintaining towards the end of his life that ideal being was 'incomplete, and its independence very limited', this dualism weighs heavily upon all his philosophy (27. c. 53).
The explanation given by Hartmann of the relation between ideal and real being, reveals the objective and idealistic,! Platonistic and Hegelian tendency of his dualism. Ideal being functions, according to Hartmann, as a kind of basic structure in actual reality: those are the most general laws and forms of objective reality and of society, hypostatized as ideal essences existing outside them.
The dualism between ideal and real being is supplemented with a more developed pluralism in the teaching about the schistous structure of actual reality. Under the influence of the achievements of the natural sciences and dialectical materialism, Hartmann considers inorganic nature, living matter, the psyche (in animals and man) and man's consciousness as four main `layers' or `strata' of actual reality. He justly points out that there exists on the one hand a dependence of the higher stratum upon the lower and, on the other hand, irreducibility of the higher stratum to the lower (for example, irreducibility of life to physicochemical processes, etc.). However, Hartmann proclaims the transitions between layers or strata to be 'incognizable, irrational'. Moreover, in pointing out that the higher stratum cannot be reduced to the lower, he does not show that the higher stratum arises from the lower in the process of its development (27, c. 49).
The organic world, however, arises and develops from the inorganic world. The psyche, i.e. the soul, also comes into being as a specific property of a certain part of living matter---the nervous system, and at a certain stage in the development of living organisms. Man's consciousness also comes into being in the process of the gradual evolution of one species in the animal kingdom, the anthropoid ape, into a social being, into man. Yet Hartmann, as we have pointed out, says nothing on the question of the emergence of 30 the higher from the lower, and considers the transitions between them as incognizable and irrational.
The transitions from one kind of structure to a different, higher kind of structure of matter, from one form of motion to a different, higher form of motion of matter, are very complicated. These transitions are accompanied by the coming into being of entirely new properties of matter: life, psyche, consciousness. All details, all `secrets' of these profound qualitative leaps in nature have not yet been discovered by science. But that such qualitative transitions do take place, that in this case it is a question of the emergence of new properties of matter which is organized in a new way, and that there is nothing irrational and incognizable in these transitions, has long ago been established by science. For its proper philosophical interpretation, however, dialectical-materialistic thinking is necessary, and this is seen to be lacking in Hartmann.
The conception of being of George Santayana (1863-- 1952) must also be categorized as structural pluralism.
A Spaniard by birth, Santayana spent the first half of his creative life in the USA, as a result of which he is considered one of the classical figures in modern American philosophy. Santayana elaborated his pluralistic ontological conception during the second half of his creative life, after he left the USA. In a four-volume work entitledRealms of Being, published between 1927 and 1940 he developed the thought that existence contained four fields, which he calls `realms': the realms of essence, matter, truth and the mind. It is these four `fields' or `realms' of being that Santayana proclaimed as primary, ontological realities (21, c. 115, 116). Two of the basic realms of being in Santayana's philosophy---essence and truth---are logical abstractions. In their definition as individual realities the influence of Platonism and Hegelianism makes itself felt.
According to Santayana, matter alone is substance and gives rise to the whole diversity of the outer world. As a consequence of this formulation, Santayana is considered a materialist. But the fundamental, highest 31 reality, in his opinion is the 'realm of essence' which realm is ideal and immaterial. That is why, although Santayana calls one of the 'realms of being' matter, substance, in the structure of his ontological system it is only one of the four foundations of being or `realities'. Moreover, matter is such a `reality' whose qualitative features are in the final count determined by the remaining three, the `non-substantial' realities.
Among the representatives of structural pluralism we must also include the modern English philosopher Karl Raymond Popper (born 1902), one of the most prominent champions of logical positivism.
In his paper 'On the Theory of the Objective Mind', read at the 14th International Congress of Philosophy in Vienna in 1968, Popper switched from subjective idealism towards objective idealism of a Platonic type. From these new, objective-idealistic positions Popper stood up against the different 'variations on the theme of body-mind dualism' in Western philosophy and against the 'main deviations' from this dualism, which were expressed in efforts to have it replaced by 'some kind of monism' (151, p. 25) and passed on to pluralist positions.
Popper in this instance turns the actual relations between the various trends in philosophy upside down. He presents dualism as the basic content of Western philosophy, and monism, i.e. materialism and idealism, is considered by him as `deviations' from dualism. One essential fact makes itself felt in these reasonings of Popper---the former neo-positivist has arrived at the conclusion that the fundamental question which philosophy has to decide is the question of `substance', of the relation between 'body and mind', i.e. between matter and consciousness. Thereby he in fact gives up the general positiyist thesis that the fundamental question of philosophy, the question of the reciprocal relation between matter and consciousness is a ' pseudoproblem' .
Indeed, how is Popper's switch towards pluralism expressed?
32Popper proceeds from a peculiar pluralistic interpretation of Platonic objective idealism. He majces a preliminary reservation that for him there is no difference whether Plato is correctly interpreted in this case---he takes the idea itself as a starting point for his conception. According to this interpretation, three ontological principles are recognized as existing independently, which Popper also calls 'three worlds': the physical world or the world of physical things; the mental world, i.e. the world of people's personal mental experiences; and the world of ideas, considered as, 'the objective content of thinking'; i.e. the mathematical and scientific theories, the logical content of assertions, of language. (151, p. 25--27).
Popper proclaims the 'third world' which according to Plato and others is supernatural and divine, to be a 'human affair', i.e. the result of thought. But this world of ideas according to Popper is also objectively real and autonomous. The peculiar character of the relation between the 'three worlds' is expressed in the fact that the first (the physical world) and the third (the world of ideas) interact with each other only through the second world---through subjective human experience, through what occurs in man's consciousness.
If we compare the 'three worlds' of Popper with the four `strata' of Hartmann and the four `realms' of Santayana, we shall see that in fact Popper's construction is a combination of the two. Like Santayana, Popper hypostatizes the general in objective reality as a separate ideal world. On the other hand, like Hartmann, he separates nature (living and non-living) and subjective human experiences into different `worlds'.
In Popper again, pluralism proves to be an attempt at overcoming the impasse of subjective idealism. But the single correct solution to this impasse has already been found . It is dialectical materialism. Popper, however, is far removed from both materialism and dialectics. His attempt to combine objective idealism with a recognition of the reality of the material world _and man's psyche in the form of pluralism collapses. __PRINTERS_P_33_COMMENT__ 3.---0518 33 His efforts to resurrect in a peculiar way the Platonic and scholastic conceptions of an independent real existence of the general in things and phenomena, apart from them, outside of them and parallel with them, are futile and reactionary, because they repeat old deceptions, which have long since been refuted by scientific philosophical thought.
Theneo-Thomistic teaching of a plurality of substances is also akin to structural pluralism. For the neoThomists the conception of a multitude of substances is directed both against the monism of materialism and against pantheism (the latter recognizes a single, essentially spiritual substance), and against dualism. In fact, the neo-Thomists accept the existence of a single absolute substance, which is God. However, according to them, there also exist other substances, created by God, which only God can destroy. On this basis the neoThomist natural philosophy examines nature as a hierarchy of many existences, which have their substance: water, bread, man, etc. Relations between kinds are, therefore, raised to the position of substantiality (61, c. 50--51).
Our brief analysis of the two basic forms---atomistic and structural---in which ontological pluralism manifests itself, has shown its main weaknesses as an attempt to create such a picture of the world as would avoid the monistic and above all the materialistic solution of the question concerning the primary relation of priority between matter and consciousness. To a greater or lesser extent all ontological pluralistic conceptions prove to be artificial constructions, revealing a non-scientific, eclectic and subjectivistic character. They are all in outright contradiction with reality. Indeed, the basic position of pluralism, postulating many essences, substances or `structures', independent of one another and not found in hierarchical subordination is untenable.
The relative independence of the second, gnoseological aspect, of the fundamental question in philosophy, that of the cognizability of the world and the essence of knowledge, is also manifested in 34 pluralism. Let us stress, moreover, that ontological pluralism is not always combined with gnoseological pluralism, and vice versa.
A starting point in pragmatism for formulating a pluralistic conception with respect to knowledge is the mixing up and in essence the identification of truth with usefulness, which was maintained already by its founder, Charles Sanders Peirce (1839--1914). The same thesis is also defended by John Dewey (1859--1952) one of the most prominent representatives of pragmatic philosophy, who also gave it a new name---that of instrumentalism, mainly through his subjectivistic interpretation of knowledge. In a most pronounced form, however, gnoseological pluralism manifests itself in James and Schiller, and that is why we shall restrict ourselves to examining them.
Proceeding from the identification of truth with usefulness, which is characteristic of pragmatism, and failing to understand the dialectical relation between absolute and relative truth, as well as between truth and deception, James draws a crude subjective conclusion on the existence of many truths for one and the same question, depending upon the viewpoint, and more precisely upon usefulness and advantage.
This is how Thomas Hill summarizes, with quotations from James, his subjectivistic and on this basis `pluralistic' view of identifying truth with usefulness: 'The pragmatist recognizes thaF"our duty to look for the truth is part of our general duty to do what is advantageous'', that "the aspiration for truth does not impose any other obligations except those imposed by the aspiration for good health and prosperity" and that this duty is fulfilled in 'concrete advantages obtained by us'. (81, c. 294).
James explains this above-mentioned anti-scientific view of truth in the following statement pn theology: 'If theological ideas prove to be of value for real life, for pragmatism they are truths' (82, c. 47). Of course, theological ideas are of value, and of great value, for the domination and `business' of the exploiter classes 35 in all class societies. But the fact that they are useful for a given class does not turn these ideas into truths.
James realized to a great extent the untenability of his position, and that is why in his lectures he declared: 'I realize how strange some of you may find it when I say that an idea is ``true''insofar as it is believed to'be useful for our life. Is this not an abuse of the word `truth'? (82, c. 49). The whole development of science, together with the social practice of mankind reaffirms the fact that when truth is identified with usefulness and advantage, there is an abuse of the concept of ``truth''.
The progressive forces in society, and especially the working class are interested in a thorough discovery of the laws of all natural and social phenomena and processes. That is why it can be said that truth---in the sense of correct knowledge---is always useful to them, without treating the two concepts as identical. However this is not so in the case of the reactionary forces. For them in many instances, especially in social life, flagrant untruths are advantageous, and that is why they stubbornly support them. It is this aspect of the question that James and pragmatists in general fail to take into consideration when they identify truth with usefulness.
As we have already mentioned, the pluralistic view of truth is also championed by another prominent representative of pragmatism, F.C.S. Schiller (1864--1937). U. Melville has made a very brief and exact analysis of the views of Schiller on this question and that is why we permit ourselves to reproduce it almost word for word. According to Schiller, as Melville explains it, truth is an answer to a question concerning a concrete, cognizing man and, namely, 'the best answer for the time being'. That is why, according to F.C.S. Schiller, truth cannot be one. It must be referred to one or another time and place, to people and their intentions (158, p. 51, 52). Every man, according to Schiller, has a truth of his own, which is such as long as it satisfies him (49, c. 353-- 354).
36As can be seen, Schiller has failed to understand the concreteness of truth, as a reflection of the correctness of the same objectively real things and processes which are reflected in knowledge. But as soon as these things and processes change (depending upon a change in the conditions determining them), our knowledge ( = the truth) about them must also of necessity change. But the truth about a concrete thing under certain conditions is and can be only one. It can be attained in a more profound or else in a one-sided, partial way. This is a different question. Our knowledge of one and the same thing deepens incessantly, but it does not follow from this that as a result 'many truths' are obtained. Truth, being the true knowledge of a given thing, is one, although it may be incessantly developing, expanding, becoming richer and more exact.
The study of the forms and manifestations of pluralism in the gnoseological teachings of the different trends in modern bourgeois philosophy is an important task, deserving of special attention. Every philosophical trend which denies objective truth, i.e. the cognizability of the world in principle, unless it stands on the positions of complete agnosticism, stands to a greater or lesser extent close to the pluralistic interpretation of truth.
As the Soviet philosopher M.B. Mitin points out, the teaching of the conventional or conditional character of the prerequisites (postulates, axioms, etc.) of the different scientific theories, which is upheld by most of the trends in modern neo-positivism, is a starting point for a pluralistic interpretation of knowledge, in the spirit of the well-known conclusion of James: 'As many as are the starting points, so many are also the truths'. (52, c. 337). Conventionalism, for instance, leads to pluralistic conclusions in the philosophy of its founder Henri Poincare (1860--1934) and to linguistic conventionalism in that of Rudolf Carnap (1891--1971), the last outstanding representative of neo-positivism from the Vienna circle.
Both the pragmatic identification of truth with usefulness and positivistic conventionalism---and in 37 general all forms of gnoseological pluralism---are above all directed against the theory of reflection, which lies at the basis of the dialectical and materialistic teaching of the cognizability of the world and objective truth.
The pluralistic conception of truth among the pragmatists, based on identifying truth with usefulness, and advantage, can be called gnoseological utilitarianism. Proceeding from this term and from our analysis of gnoseological pluralism among the pragmatists and certain neopositivists, -we may conclude that gnoseological utilitarianism (James) and gnoseological conventionalism (Carnap) represent two varieties or forms of gnoseological pluralism.
It can be seen from the above that philosophical pluralism in its two main varieties---ontological and gnoseological---is in the final count above all directed against materialism. In all pluralistic conceptions examined by us we have found that their stand against monism does not in fact mean a rejection of idealism and is usually connected with open or disguised support for it.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 5. Pluralism in Bourgeois Social Philosophy andIf materialism in the field of general philosophical theory is as old as philosophy itself, this is not so in the field of social phenomena. It is a well-known fact that even the most outstanding materialist philosophers up to Marx, including Ludwig Feuerbach, continued in the main to uphold idealistic positions in the field of social phenomena. 'No one contests the great importance of the means of labour. . . but the means of labour are invented and used by man. . . The efforts of the mind are the cause, the development of the productive forces ---the effect. Hence, mind is the prime mover of historical progress, and those are therefore right who assert that opinions rule the world, i.e. that the world is ruled by man's reason'. This was how G.V. Plekhanov 38 formulated the salient feature of the idealistic conceptions of the development of society, which predominated throughout philosophical and socio-political literature up to the appearance of Marxism (67, c. 611).
It is not our task here to examine the way in which those prerequisites were formed, which enabled Marx and Engels to bring to a conclusion the revolutionary change in philosophy by creating dialectical materialism and giving a dialectical materialistic explanation of society and of social life. In this connection it is important to underline that the appearance of historical materialism as part of scientific philosophy meant at the same time the creation of a radical turning point in the development of all social sciences, especially of sociology, political economy and history.
The disciplines of history and political economy had been given their form, though on inconsistent scientific foundations, far before the appearance of Marxism. Dialectical and historical materialism created the solid basis for their definite transformation into consistent sciences which reveal the structure, mechanisms and laws of phenomena in the respective fields of social life. However, this was not the case with sociology.
The most general theoretical problems of social life and society in the past were dealt with first of all by philosophy, and more particularly by a part of philosophy called philosophy of history. In second place these problems were studied by historical science. General theoretical problems of society had also been treated to a certain extent in works devoted to the political and state structure of society. The French philosopher Auguste Comte (1793--1857), one of the founders of the positivist trend in philosophy, was the first to use the term sociology, and is considered as one of the founders of bourgeois sociology. Credit is due to Comte for having upheld the idea that a separate theoretical science of society was necessary. However, his positivistic philosophical starting point did not allow him to get a firm foothold on solid methodological ground in formulating the new discipline.
39Comte came forward with a theoretical conception according to which human society in its development had passed through three stages: the theological stage, which was characterized by the fact that people explained all phenomena by the action of supernatural, divine causes; the metaphysical stage, during which people explained processes and phenomena by the action of different `essences' and `causes' and a positive stage, when under the influence of the developing sciences people began to explain social phenomena scientifically. The idea of the three stages of social development was not originally Comte's, but was borrowed from his teacher, Saint Simon. Essentially, this conception is idealistic. The new stages in the development of society, according to this conception, were brought about by idealistic causes---by changes in the method of thinking and of explaining the various phenomena.
Even during Comte's lifetime, the dialectical materialistic and monistic theory of the character of human society, its motive forces and the laws of its development was created by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. As V.I. Lenin points out, Karl Marx 'was the first to place sociology on scientific foundations, by establishing the concept of a socio-economic formation ---as a sum total of given production relations, and establishing that the development of such formations is a natural and historical process' (10, c. 124--125). However, Comte's sociological theory remained to the end idealistic and metaphysical, and was not in the least influenced by the revolution effected by Marxism in social science.
Scientific Marxist sociological theory developed for nearly a whole century mainly within the framework of dialectical and historical materialism, and partly within the third component part of Marxism---- scientific communism. The problem of the development of Marxist sociology as a separate theoretical science dealing with the general laws of the functioning and development of human society is closely linked with the question of the place of ethics and aesthetics in the 40 integrated system of Marxism-Leninism. Among Marxist philosophers and sociologists, in Bulgaria in particular, over the last two decades the view has gained ground that sociology can with good reason be separated from dialectical and historical materialism and assume the form of a separate theoretical science dealing with the structure and the most general laws of human society. A pioneer of this view is Todor Pavlov, who, proceeding from general Marxist-Leninist principles in establishing the objects and purposes of the various sciences, defended the view as early as the thirties in the first edition of his major work The Theory of Reflection (65, c. 394--395). Pavlov also defended and developed this view in his later worke. The same view is maintained and supported in the works of Zh. Oshavkov, N. Iribadjakov, V. Dobriyanov and other Bulgarian writers. This is also the view of the author, and we shall be guided by it in our further discussions.
Irrespective of whether they accept the view of delimiting sociology as a very general separate science concerned with society, distinct from historical materialism, or whether they consider historical materialism and sociology as identical, all MarxistLeninists are unanimous on the point that Marxist philosophical and sociological theory is the only scientific: theory dealing with human society and the laws of its development which has a consistent monistic character. From among the most important features or elements which characterize Marxist-Leninist monistic philosophical and sociological theory, let us point out the following: social consciousness is the result of social life, i.e. the material life of society, whose most salient feature is the mode of production; parallel with the development of society, the reverse impact of social consciousness on social life increases; the role of the implements of labour is decisive in changing socioeconomic formations; another decisive factor is the role of the economic basis with respect to the political, ideological and cultural superstructure, and the growing reverse impact of the superstructure on the economic basis; the various organized subjective 41 factors of social development in class societies, and above all the state and the political parties, are dependent upon the socio-economic system; the fact that the active role of the progressive subjective factors in the development of society is constantly increasing.
The basic principle of historical materialism, that social life gives rise to social consciousness, is a logical inference from the dialectical-materialistic solution of the fundamental question in philosophy. In the same way, the main thesis of idealism in the social sphere--- that ideas are the main motive force in social life, is a logical inference from the idealistic solution to the fundamental question in philosophy, which, moreover, is a inference equally acceptable to both objective and subjective idealists. What is more, the thesis of the determining role of ideas in social life is also fully acceptable to philosophical dualism, in which matter is usually the passive principle and mind the active principle.
We have seen, however, that idealism as a philosophical weapon of the bourgeoisie is losing its attraction at present, both under the influence of the successes achieved by the world socialist system, and because of the positive impact of certain law-governed processes in capitalist society itself, connected with the development of the scientific and technical revolution. A number of major changes which have set in and are gaining ground first in practice and then also in social theory in the countries of state monopoly capitalism, increasingly undermine any open-hearted defence of the thesis that 'ideas rule the world'. In particular, there is the ever more intensive forecasting, programming and planning in economics and other new fields, and the powerful impact of electronic and cybernetic technology on social life.
In the states of the imperialist camp, the predominant ideology continues to be idealism in its different variants. Not one of the bourgeois idealistic social theories, however, is in a position to give a reasonable and convincing explanation of the central fact in our epoch: the rapid upswing of communism 42 and the steady decline of capitalism. The practical activity of the leading bodies of the imperialist states, however, is hardly based on idealistic social theories, which have mainly a propaganda value. On the contrary, this activity itself could rather serve to refute the idealistic maxim that 'ideas rule the world', and it indirectly also proves the Tightness of MarxismLeninism.
These circumstances lead us to ask ourselves the question: In what way are the pluralistic philosophical teachings which we examined in the preceding paragraph refracted in the field of social philosophy? Or, more precisely, what pluralistic theories of society are put forward by the contemporary bourgeois philosophers and sociologists, which in most cases only formally, in words, oppose the idealistic line in bourgeois philosophical and social thought that is losing influence, and are in effect directed mainly against Marxi sm-Leninism.?
Idealistic inferences can also be drawn from pluralistic ontological conceptions in the field of social philosophy. This explains why quite a few bourgeois philosophers, who under the pressure of developing natural-scientific thought are pluralists when examining the question of the reciprocal relation between matter and consciousness, very often take up openly idealistic positions as soon as they pass on to social phenomena. This takes place under the impact of the reactionary bourgeois political ideology which is permeated with anti-communism.
The ideologists of the more liberal and democratic part of the capitalist class in the imperialist countries, towards whom some of the most far-sighted strategists of big state-monopoly capitalism direct themselves, find methodological support in ontological pluralistic philosophical conceptions for the elaboration of pluralistic socio-philosophical theories for counterposing them as an alternative to MarxismLeninism. A further concrete manifestation of these theories is the pluralistic interpretation of modern bourgeois democracy, in an attempt to present it in a new, 43 more humanistic form and as the only possible social structure of society.
In this connection let us also point out the following. Usually one and the same author does not elaborate the three levels of pluralism: the general philosophical (and above all ontological), the socio-philosophical or sociological and the political, although there is an inner logical link between these levels. However this is mainly an eloquent proof of the fact that bourgeois philosophers, sociologists and political scientists are very seldom consistent in their theoretical conceptions, from the most general philosophical problems to the political structure of society.
As to pluralism in gnoseology and especially as to its main form, the theory of the plurality of truths and of the replacement of truth by success and usefulness, the latter theory has the widest application in the social field as an argument used to justify the ideological chaos in present-day bourgeois society.
The main form of pluralism, which is defended by the bourgeois philosophers in connection with social development is the eclectic ' multi-f actor theory'. At its core is the view that the development of society is the result of many factors, which are independent of one another, not subordinated in any way to one another, and are equal: geographical environment, biological laws, technology, economics, politics, culture, ideology, etc.
Let us at once point out that in rejecting the pluralistic `multi-factor' theory, Marxist monism can in no case be reduced to a `single-factor' theory. `Single-factor' theories are only the various caricatures of Marxism, such as 'economic materialism' against which F. Engels fought in his notable work 'Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy,' or its Russian variant of the single-factor theory--- `economism' against which Lenin had to wage a long struggle.
In this connection we must stress that in the 'many factors' theory there is a grain of truth. Each one of the factors enumerated above does in fact exercise a certain influence upon social development. Historical 44 materialism and Marxist sociology, however, reveal and explain scientifically that the mode of production is the factor which plays the determining role in the development of society. The influence of all other factors over and above all else, depends upon the mode of production. It is only on this scientific basis that we can understand why, for instance, one and the same geographical environment (climate, natural resources, water resources, etc.) has not played the same role in the development of society in the various historical periods.
Marxist sociology, taking into account the influence of all the different factors on the life of society, establishes the important law that in the course of the upward development of human society, the role of people's conscious and purposeful activity and above all the role of the progressive subjective factor, and hence of science, scientific ideas and consciousness, is growing stronger all. the time. Nevertheless, Marxist sociology retains its standpoint of dialecticalmaterialistic monism, because it realizes that the very appearance and development of ideas, before they can exercise a reverse impact on material production and other spheres of life, depends in the final count upon the requirements of the economic basis of society.
Production relations, for their part, depend upon the degree of development of the productive forces and, above all, upon their most mobile and most revolutionary part---the implements of labour, instruments and machinery. When in a given social system the character of the implements of labour gradually changes, there arises the need to replace the already outdated production relations with new production relations, which correspond to the changed productive forces. The progressive strata of society gradually become aware of this necessity in one ideological form or another, and begin to fight for the respective change. In this way social existence determines social consciousness, and the latter---through the operation of the respective subjective factors---exercises a reverse influence on social existence (4, c. 6,7).
45The pluralistic theory of the 'many factors' is to a greater or lesser extent and in one form or another shared by two prominent contemporary representatives of bourgeois philosophical and sociological thought: the British philosopher Karl Popper and the French sociologist Raymond Aron (born in 1905).
The ontological philosophical pluralism of Popper, which we examined in the preceding paragraph, is an entirely new phenomenon in his philosophical development. Here we find ourselves faced with a fundamental feature of the sociological views of Popper, developed as early as the nineteen fifties and expounded in his book The Open Society and Its Enemies (152).
\
In this book Popper calls his view that social laws, i.e. the laws of social life, differ radically from the natural laws 'critical dualism'. Popper counterposes this view to the view that there is no difference between the natural laws and the laws of society, which view he refers to as 'naive monism'.
Marxists also maintain that there is a certain qualitative difference between natural laws and social laws. This is expressed mainly in the fact that social laws are laws of social life, in which people take part as conscious beings guided by certain definite goals. However, in their basic character social laws are equal to natural laws, insofar as both the ones and the others are objectively real, manifest themselves regardless of whether people know them or not, and hence exist independent of man's will.
Popper, however, denies the existence of objective laws in social life. As social laws, he proclaims the norms of conduct formulated as juridical laws, moral rules, customs, etc. These social laws, according to him, are not objective, because people create them at their own discretion. As distinct from the natural laws, he calls them normative laws.
The existence of social norms by no means refutes the existence of objective social laws. On the contrary, social norms can be understood only on the basis of a knowledge of social laws. Social norms are a subjective 46 reflection of the requirements of the objective social laws upon the consciousness of society. And since in a class society the economic and social situation of the different classes differs sharply, this finds its expression in the formation among them of different social norms or in a different attitude towards the social norms of the dominating class transformed into juridical laws.
Proceeding from his anti-scientific, subjectivistic assimilation of social laws with normative laws, Popper also develops a second aspect of his 'critical dualism' which deals with the nature of social processes. 'Critical dualism', according to Popper, also manifests itself in the fact that social life is a unity of `facts' and `decisions'. `Facts' are, above all, the manifestations of the 'economic factor' in social life. `Decisions' are manifestations of another factor---the people's 'free choice'. Decisions, for their part, depend upon the normative laws, which we have mentioned above.
In his book 'The Poverty of Antihistoricism', while analyzing the second aspect of Popper's 'critical dualism', the Bulgarian author V. Dobriyanov points out this thought of Popper: 'The economic factor has to be taken into consideration as one of the factors of social life, but it must in no case be overestimated. Marx'shistorical materialism must be respected, but need not be taken too seriously, because in such a case it would lead us to a denial or underestimation of our decisions, regarding the role which man plays in the historical process'. (31, c. 70).
Thus Popper reduces the basic factors in social life to two: `facts', from among which he points out above all the 'economic factor', and `decisions' which, as we have seen, are determined by and depend upon the normative social laws. And, as Popper specifies, 'norms are human creations in the sense that we can blame no one but ourselves for them, neither nature, nor god. It is our duty to perfect them, as much as we can, if we find that they are inacceptable.' (The Open Society and its Enemies', Vol. 1, p. 59; 31, c. 44). According to Popper, therefore, it is not the objective social laws but 'social norms' that lie at the basis of 47 social life. And the social norms themselves, according to him, are not the objective result of the social situation of the classes. They are simply a conscious creation of the people. It turns out that Popper's critical dualism is in fact nothing more than a fig leaf, covering the nakedness of the very old monistic thesis of idealism that ideas rule the world!
Raymond Aron develops his pluralistic views on the factors which bring about the development of society in a direct polemic with the monism of the MarxistLeninist theory of society. He writes: 'The societies referred to as capitalist do not obey either a determinism or a dialectics, in which the contradictions of the economic system are a sufficient cause. A society and an epoch are not a unity which is determined as a whole by one cause or one value. Sociological and historical pluralism is not the acknowledgement of a lack of knowledge, but is an acknowledgement of the structure of the socio-historical world' (88, p. 54, 55). We shall not dwell here on the unfounded and anti-scientific rejection by Aron of determinism and dialectics in the development of capitalist society, because this is not our task. As to sociological pluralism, about which it is the question, Aron tries to define it by opposing it to the view that every social system, i.e. every society, is called forth by one cause, by one factor. Aron speaks here about the system being called forth by only one factor and thus distorts Marxism. As we have seen, Marxism also recognizes the action of many factors, but.graduates them and examines them in a unified system. We repeat, Marxist monism consists not in a rejection of the presence of many factors which influences social development, but in establishing the determinative role of the mode of production, and more particularly of the economic basis---production relations.
Methodologically akin to the theory of the 'many factors' are other pluralistic conceptions in bourgeois ideology---that of social stratification and that of the group structure of society. These are particularly widespread among bourgeois political scientists. Since the 48 pluralistic theories of bourgeois political scientists are entirely based on the conceptions of social stratification and of groups, we shall examine these conceptions in the following chapter.
The multi-factor theory of the structure and development of society in its different variants from a methodological viewpoint recalls that diversity of ontological pluralism which we have named 'structural pluralism'. We can also discover a similar methodological link between the atomistic diversity of general philosophical pluralism and certain pluralistic conceptions in modern bourgeois sociology.
The atomistic pluralistic approach to the problems of sociology is manifested in the works of the French positivist sociologist from the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, Emil Durkheim (1858-- 1917). He thinks that sociology has to investigate 'social facts' to begin with. 'Social facts', according to him, are the social collectives and institutions, and what he has in mind in this connection are their actions, laws, moral norms, collective ideals, etc. Durkheim considers 'social facts' as objectively existing outside the individuals who take part in them or share them.
Durkheim does not reduce a 'social fact' to the individual person, because 'the group feels, thinks and acts differently from what its members would to if they were separated from it' (78, c. 99). On this basis he thinks that collective ideas and other manifestations of consciousness as a social product have a definite coercive force with respect to the individual.
What is valuable in Durkhein is his understanding that social consciousness is not equal to the simple sum total of the consciousnesses of the individual persons, and that the activity of the social group is not equal to the simple sum total of the activities of its members, taken in isolation from the group. However, in detaching the conscious activity of the collectives ('social facts') from the material life of these collectives, Durkheim falls into objective idealism and abstract schematism---he fails to see that the basic and determinative feature of 'social facts' is the sphere __PRINTERS_P_49_COMMENT__ 4.---0518 49 of material production, and that in this sphere the fundamental feature is production relations. That is why his theory of social facts is unable to explain the change in the social behaviour of individuals and collectives, or, alongside this, to explain social development in general.
The founder of sociometry Jacob Moreno (born 1892) in his sociological theory puts forward a conception akin to atomistic pluralism.
Moreno examines the separate man, the individual, as a 'social atom', considered not in isolation from the social community, but in conjunction with the complex network of psychological ties of an emotional character which connect him with other men in communities represented in the main by small social groups. In the spirit of Bergson's 'elan vital', Moreno considers that `spontaneity', based mainly on an emotional charge, is the main social quality of people, and that the relations which unite people into groups are essentially psychological. It is here that the non-scientific, idealistic and metaphysical nature of Moreno's whole sociological structure manifests itself. His `microsociology' does not help to explain the social structure and the laws of social development.
A number of representatives of personalism and behaviourism also have an `atomistic' approach to social life. As T. Sakharova and I. Kravchenko point out, the personalists deny the class structure of society and consider it as an `aggregate', similar to a physical conglomerate, whose basic cell is the person (73, c. 77). The representatives of 'pluralistic behaviourism' (P. Lazarsfeld, M. Rosenberg, T. Adorno and others) consider the social behaviour of people as a simple sum total of the behaviour of the individual persons (62, c. 153).
In this brief analysis of philosophical and sociological pluralism and its major varieties and forms, we have proceeded from the viewpoint that the setting up of sociology as a separate theoretical science of society is correct. Sociology, in our opinion, differs from historical materialism above all in its object. Historical 50 materialism has as its object the study of society as a sphere of interaction between material and spiritual components; in other words, the question of the mutual relation between social consciousness and social being holds a central place in it. Marxist sociology, on the other hand, in studying society and its unity from both its aspects, material and spiritual, examines mainly its social structure and its corresponding laws of development. In this connection, a fundamental question in sociology concerns the reciprocal relations between basis and superstructure, in each of which there enter both material and spiritual (ideal) components.
If we apply the same methodological approach of delimiting philosophy from sociology to the bourgeois pluralistic conceptions of society, we come to the following conclusion. The multi-factor social theory, in which the material and ideal factors of social development are examined as independent from each other and as equal in one or another degree, is a philosophical pluralistic theory, because it solves the question of the reciprocal relations between social being and social consciousness in a pluralistic spirit. Unlike this, the theory of social stratification and the personalistic theory of society as a 'conglomerate of persons' are pluralistic theories of a sociological character, or on a sociological level.
The heightened pluralistic trends in bourgeois philosophical and sociological thought under statemonopoly capitalism is one of the major manifestations of the deepening crisis in bourgeois ideology. The increased significance of philosophical and sociological pluralism in modern bourgeois social science is a symptom of the weakness of open idealism and to a greater or lesser degree means, although formally and in words, a reatreat from idealism to the standpoint of a `third' line, an intermediate line in philosophy and sociology. At the same time, however, the growth of the pluralistic trend in bourgeois philosophy and sociology is also a manifestation of aggressiveness by contemporary bourgeois ideology, an attempt to defend 51 capitalism with new, more flexible methods under the present-day balance of forces which is unfavourable for imperialism.
__NUMERIC_LVL2__ Chapter II. __ALPHA_LVL2__ PLURALISM IN SOCIAL LIFEIdeology reflects the conditions of the material life of the different classes and strata in society. In the final count, it rests on an economic basis. However, ideology has a relative independence of its own. That is why it has its own inner laws, on the basis of which each new ideological trend can and must be elucidated as a new stage or new step in the development, or as an antithesis of one or another, or of several ideological trends of the preceding periods. The determination of the different ideological trends by the material conditions of life is usually indirect, manifold, broken up by the impact of many factors from the sphere of the superstructure and from inside ideology itself. Any attempt to explain the content of every ideological trend directly and immediately by economic reasons is a vulgarization of the scientific Marxist-Leninist approach.
The new balance between the forces of socialism and the forces of capitalism on a world scale has placed its visible seal on bourgeois ideology. The various bourgeois schools and trends today are openly or covertly, and to an ever greater extent covertly, levelled against Marxism-Leninism and the socialist system. And, secondly, instead of justifying and supporting the `justice' and `eternity' of capitalism, they prefer to present it as having a changed or changing social character, and are even ready to deny the concept of `capitalism'.
Against this general background we can understand why ideological life in modern capitalist society envelops itself in the veil of such diversity, or, following 52 the expression of the majority of bourgeois authors, why there is such a `wealth' of bourgeois ideological trends.
Irrespective of the great diversity in the names of the bourgeois schools, in our times there are two ideologies warring against each other on a world scale. The one is Marxism-Leninism, which is an integrated, unified, and at the same time consistently monistic ideology, in the precise sense of the concep* of `monism'. Its philosophical basis is dialectical materialism. This ideology in capitalist society expresses the interests of the proletariat above all but at the same time the lasting, radical interests of all other working people, too. Under socialism MarxismLeninism expresses the interests of all classes and strata in the new society: workers, cooperative farmers and the intelligentsia, because there are no antagonistic contradictions between them and they are united on the platform of socialism.
Opposed to Marxism there is bourgeois ideology, which, although it represents a variegated picture of heterogenious ideological trends vying with each other, as a whole expresses and defends the interests of the capitalist class. The various bourgeois ideological trends either reflect the interests and aspirations of various strata of the bourgeoisie, or are unsuccessful attempts at solving the question of the basic world view and social problems which are insoluble from bourgeois class positions. Most often they are combinations between the one and the other.
The general picture of ideological life in contemporary capitalist society (on a world scale) cannot be characterised as 'ideological pluralism' for the following main reasons.
Firstly, as regards their content and from the viewpoint of their historical perspectives, the two ideologies are not and cannot be of equal status and value. Marxism-Leninism is a scientific ideology, which illuminates the laws of the development of mankind and serves as a revolutionary methodology for overthrowing capitalism and setting up communism. Bourgeois ideology, which played a progressive role in the 53 struggle against feudalism, on the whole possesses a reactionary character under the present conditions. The individual rational elements in it are subordinated to the anti-scientific goals which the imperialist bourgeoisie sets itself. That is why, from a cognitive, gnoseological viewpoint, the struggle between the two ideologies is not and cannot be `pluralistic', i.e. a struggle with fair competition and compromise. It is a struggle, the objective content and goal of which can only be the complete victory of Marxism-Leninism and the disappearance, the dying out of bourgeois ideology.
Secondly, the struggle between Marxism-Leninism and bourgeois ideology is not `pluralistic' as regards equality of conditions and rights between the competing `partners', as required by the pluralistic conception. There is no such equality either in bourgeois society or under socialism. Bourgeois democracy claims to be bringing about 'equal conditions' for competition between different ideological and political trends. This is in fact the meaning of the 'sacred and inviolable' principles of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of association and organization! As we all know, in capitalist society the working class and the other working people enjoy these democratic rights and freedoms only insofar as they have managed to win them in a hard struggle. Nevertheless, however broad the bourgeois democracy thus won may be, it always remains essentially formal and very limited for the working people. However, the pluralistic label tries to disguise this reality and create the illusion that unequal conditions either do not exist, or that, insofar as this inequality is acknowledged, it can be overcome without changing the system.
In socialist society the conditions for the dissemination of the two ideologies are also unequal. However, unlike capitalism, Marxism-Leninism here holds a predominant position. In the socialist society Marxist ideology receives open social and state support, and the restrictions set on the specific arrangements for disseminating the historically doomed bourgeois ideology are also applied openly.
54This is why Marxists reject as scientifically inconsistent and as an ideological and political mystification the name of 'ideological pluralism', given to the struggle which is being waged today between the two ideologies, both under capitalism and on a world scale.
Bourgeois ideology itself, taken as a relatively isolated independent whole, may with a certain justification be called `pluralistic', insofar as it represents a collection of trends claiming to be more or less independent, and which are in a position of reciprocal confrontation with one another in spite of their close kinship---their common social and class basis and unity in the struggle against Marxism-Leninism. In this connection, we should dwell on the causes and character of the ideological diversity reigning in the bourgeois camp.
The main reason for the existence of many schools and trends in bourgeois ideology is the contradictory character of the capitalist system and of the bourgeoisie itself as a ruling class. The profound contradiction between the interests of the handful of exploiters, on the one hand, and the working people headed by the working class on the other, cannot but give rise to f different opinions among the bourgeois ideologists, to different evaluations and to a search for ways and means of achieving a partial removal or at least a screening of this contradiction.
Private ownership over the means of production, profit as the main stimulus for economic activity, and competition, in their turn give rise to contradictions between the interests of the different bourgeois strata' and even between the individual capitalist groups. The cult of private ownership and profit, and the transformation of each profession into `business' introduces elements of competition and strengthens the manifestations of subjectivism and voluntarism in the actions of ideological workers and in their theoretical systems. All this cannot help but influence the appearance of many ideological trends and schools.
An important cause for the increase in the number of competing ideological trends is the fact that neither the bourgeoisie as a whole, nor any stratum of the 55 capitalist class is interested in revealing the actual laws of social development. Thus the class interests of the bourgeoisie hinder its theoreticians from supporting a struggle for objective truth in their social investigations. The class limitations of the bourgeoisie, its interest in the preservation of capitalism and hence in hiding the truth about social life is the insurmountable obstacle which prevents bourgeois ideology from finding a consistent scientific approach to social phenomena. And the failure of each successive ideological trend gives rise to the need to come forward with others which are equally far from the objective truth or from understanding the laws of society.
The socially-based plurality of trends partially warring against one another in bourgeois ideology takes place within the limits of the capacity of theoretical thought to err, to draw wrong inferences and generalizations. Here we come to the gnoseological roots of pluralism in bourgeois ideology.
The gnoseological roots of idealism, about which we have already spoken, are in their nature gnoseological grounds for every flight of man's thought away from reality, i.e. for every theoretical deception. On this basis, we have already indicated those elements which are the gnoseological roots of philosophical pluralism. In this connection let us point out that a possible source of misjudgements is also opened up by the most active and most creative feature of human thought---its capacity to manifest inventiveness, to combine properties and elements of objective reality in the human head. This takes place in a manner which is not a simple repetition of what has been found as objectively existing, but represents a logical inference concerning reality, a necessary or possible combination. On this general foundation, creative thinking can present as something real, necessary or at least possible even such a `relation'between objective things and properties as is neither existent, nor objectively feasible, i.e. which is untrue and impossible (83, c. 135--151).
The above-indicated peculiarity of theoretical thinking renders possible and indeed more or less 56 inevitable the making of mistakes in the course of any investigative activity, including the creation of some hypothetical, abstractly `possible' conceptions to explain a given phenomenon, which are basically false. These false conceptions, which contain a `possible' explanation of events, can exist on an equal footing with those which more or less correctly reflect the studied object, until a complete scientific theory is set up for the given phenomenon.
How do matters stand after a scientific theory has been put forward in a given field, the validity of which has been proved by long, comprehensive practice? Can attempts, already rejected and refuted by science, at the solution of a given problem continue to be supported, and more and more new `variants' for the same purpose be created and counterposed to the scientific solution of the problem? This is not only possible, but is even usual, when the scientific solution to the problem runs counter to the interests of wide social strata, and especially those of the ruling class in a given society.
In order to underline the class attitude towards truth, V.I.Lenin points out that 'if the geometrical axioms affected the interests of people, they would be disputed' (12, c. 17). The attitude of the great majority of bourgeois teachings in our times towards Marxism is reminiscent of Lenin's above statement.
The bourgeois ideologists themselves usually present the existing `pluralistic' chaos in their camp as something positive and desirable, as a manifestation of a creative spirit and blossoming of bourgeois culture. A.Reck, for instance, in the epilogue to a study in which he examines the work of 12 American bourgeois philosophers who made their appearance after the Second World War, writes: 'The views of the new American philosophers are as diverse as the forces and factors in American culture. The pluralism of American philosophy is a most valuable asset, not only because it affords the American thinker the freedom to develop and express his ideas, but also because it endows him with an intellectual flexibility:. . . (153, p. 348). Karl Bosl, who in fact has a critical attitude towards 57 contemporary political pluralism, writes that 'pluralism in world-views and religious convictions, pluralism in economy, politics, science, art, culture. . . is a natural form of manifestation of human existence and activity'. (93, S. 131).
In a number of writings by bourgeois ideologists we also find pessimistic tones in connection with the same phenomenon. Thus, for instance, elsewhere Bosl declares that he does not know whether dynamism and pluralism in our times are the symptoms of crisis and decay, or the initial stage of a new culture and a new social system. (93, S. 65). In fact, both the one and the other are true. The capitalist system today is in a state of crisis and decay, as a result of which bourgeois ideology is also going through a profound crisis. The socialist system and Marxist-Leninist ideology and culture, however, are on the upsurge, despite the difficulties of growing.
However, regardless of whether or not they extol ideological pluralism, bourgeois theoreticians are basically unanimous in their negative attitude towards Marxis m-Lenini sm.
In our time the number of bourgeois ideologists who have set out openly to refute, or else to `correct', `rectify' and `supplement' Marxism is growing constantly. Among those who have particularly specialized in this field are Josef Bochenski, Gustav Wetter, John Plamenats, Sydney Hook, Raymond Aron, Karl Popper, Daniel Bell.ZbignevBrzezinski and many others. In fact, though, their criticism of MarxismLeninism in the best of cases affects isolated, fragmentary situations, whereby they present the criticised theory as a whole in a distorted, untrue form. On the other hand, that little of value which contemporary bourgeois ideologists do try to counterpose to Marxism-Leninism is in fact not only not a contradiction, but on the contrary, it only reaffirms the truth of Marxism-Leninism. Such are the attempts at speculating with some success in astronomy (the theory of the 'expanding universe'), physics (the principles of 58 complementarity and uncertainty), molecular biology, cybernetics, the active role of consciousness, ideas in social development, etc.
Contemporary bourgeois ideology cannot set up against Marxism an integrated, internally incontroversial theory of its own, which gives a scientific explanation of the profound social processes taking place in our time: the scientific and technological revolution and its social consequences, the struggle between the two world social systems, the real trends of development in the three types of countries---socialist, capitalist and newly-liberated, the powerful world movement for peace, democracy and progress. Of course, there have been certain attempts in this direction: W. Rostow's theory of the 'stages of economic growth'; the theory of the 'industrial society' and more particularly its newest variants, including the G.Galbraith's 'industrial state', the futurological conceptions of the 'postindustrial society' of Daniel Bell, Herman Kahn and Anthony Wiener; Zbignev Brzezinski's 'technotronic era', or, for instance, Julian Huxely's 'evolutionary humanism'.
So far we have been speaking only about the two main classes in capitalist society and about their ideologies.
In the non-socialist countries there are still other classes and strata, which do not belong either to the capitalist class or to the proletariat. Setting aside the exploiter class of feudal landowners, which still exists and represents a considerable force mainly in the. developing countries, it is a matter here mainly of the working peasantry and the various strata of urban petty and middle bourgeoisie, and the intelligentsia.
Various ideological trends have formed through the ages and are now in existence, which strive to be direct champions of the interests and moods of various intermediary strata in society. This can be seen most clearly in the field of political ideologies and movements. The ideological content of similar theoretical conceptions and political movements is either in a 59 reformist spirit---in the direction of a gradual `removal' of the flaws of capitalism, or is of an extremist, radical character, containing a non-- scientific, rebellious refutation of capitalism combined with Utopian ideas for the rapid construction of a new, just social system.
Consistent Marxist-Leninist revolutionary movements, irrespective ot the fact that they criticise the non-scientific, reformist or Utopian leftist features m the ideologies of these movements, persistently seek political cooperation with the organizations of the nonproletarian strata of the working people in town and country, in the name of certain closer or more distant positive goals. Marxists enlist the progressive representations of the middle layers as their allies in the joint struggle against the anti-human ideology of imperialism and reaction, without, however, making any compromise over theory. Marxism-Leninism is a science, a scientific ideology. It can develop and grow richer on the basis of new data from science and social practice, but it cannot be `combined' with other ideologies, for instance, for considerations that it would win over to its side the adherents of these ideologies.
Certain authors, however, who consider themselves as Marxists, succumb to bourgeois pressure to transfer the principle of peaceful coexistence even to the ideological field and are inclined on this basis to adopt the bourgeois thesis of ideological or worldview `pluralism'. These include L. Lombardo-Radice. He invites us directly 'to recognize that more worldviews can generalize and express the "objective "aspirations of human society for progress'. He points out Christianity, pacifism, Gandhiism, etc. as such world views (142, S. 258).
Our whole analysis reveals the unscientific character of such a proposition. It is true that in past epochs the progressive aspirations of certain social strata and of whole nations were expressed through unscientific ideologies, very often in a religious form. It is true that even today in certain countries there are progressive social movements of the working people, which are also 60 guided by non-scientific and above all religious ideologies (Christianity, Mohammedanism, etc.). However, Marxists set up their cooperation with these social movements with a view to concrete, truly progressive economic, social, political and cultural tasks, without making any compromise with their nonscientific ideologies.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 2. Struggle between Ideologies and Discussions inThe irreconcilable contradiction of class interests, which gives rise to antagonistic ideologies in capitalist society, excludes the possibility of peaceful coexistence between these ideologies. Thus there are no grounds for the assertions of bourgeois theoreticians that the capitalist system secures conditions for 'ideological pluralism', i.e. for a manifestation on an equal footing and in competition of contradictory ideologies. The well-known neo-Thomist Gustav Wetter, who has specialized in combating Marxism-Leninism, bases his speculations precisely upon these assertions.
The hierarchy of the Catholic Church, including the Jesuit Order to which G. Wetter belongs, was in the past the most forceful opponent of all spiritual freedom and an enemy to any struggle of views in ideology. However, neither the anathemas against those thinking differently nor the physical persecutions and the burnings at the stake of `heretics' like Giordano Bruno has helped the Catholic Church to preserve its monopoly ideological influence on the hearts and minds of the people in the Western European countries.
In the present setup, the working people who are catholic in the West welcome with ever greater understanding and sympathy the peaceful and constructive policy of the USSR and the other socialist states, as well as the efforts of the communist parties to rally together all working people and all democratic, antimonopolist, anti-imperialist and peaceful forces in the name of the defence of peace and democracy, and in 61 favour of social progress. Some leading figures in the Catholic Church and the Christian democratic political parties in the Western European countries become mouthpieces for these feelings among the Catholic masses, and manifest an inclination to cooperate with communists and other democratic and progressive forces in their countries. Some of the most reactionary ideologists of Catholicism, including Gustav Wetter, when taking due account of the progressive feelings of the Catholic masses, seemingly retreat from their former standpoints and declare themselves in favour of a `dialogue' with the communists. However, it is under the banner of pluralism that they strive to turn this forced retreat into a new weapon for an attack on Marxism and communism.
Gustav Wetter at first assumes an attitude of agreement with the Soviet Union's policy of peaceful coexistence between states with different social systems. (174, S. 292). He even declares that he understands the Soviet view that in the ideological field peaceful coexistence is impossible.
With these statements he only prepares himself to attack the realistic proposal put forward by the Marxists: since the contradictions in worldviews can never be solved as long as there are classes, the main dialogue between Marxists and Catholics has to be held not on questions of world views but on the ways of uniting the efforts of the widest social strata for a joint struggle for peace, democracy and social progress. G. Wetter condemns this reasonable line, stigmatizing it as 'worthless pluralism'. (174, S. 300). Instead of this 'worthless pluralism',i.e.instead of joint activity aimed at protecting the interests of the working people, Wetter puts forward another 'dynamic pluralism'. According to him, efforts must be made 'to resolve the contradiction that worries us today, knowing full well that after overcoming it other contradictions will crop up, and also remembering very well that progressive development takes place precisely by way of the constant solution of some contradictions and the cropping up of others'. (174, S. 303).
62The quotation given above sounds almost as if it were Marxist. Marxists no doubt are in favour of looking for the most effective ways 'to resolve the contradiction worrying us today'. They also know very well that after overcoming one contradiction, new contradictions crop up, etc.
However, Marxists are armed with a scientific worldview, and that is why they have a different approach to the various contradictions, depending upon the character of the contradictions and the objective conditions. In the present epoch the solution of the contradiction between private-capitalist ownership and the social character of the productive forces has historically come to a head. It is a contradiction which has already been solved or is in the process of being solved in a considerable part of the globe. And the contradiction between the scientific Marxist worldview and the non-scientific worldviews, (including religious worldviews), is now being solved only in individual countries, where socialism has triumphed. This contradiction will be fully solved after the elimination of the capitalist system on a world scale, in the process of the construction of a communist society. In the name of the struggle for democracy and social progress, the broad people's masses can be rallied together today irrespective of their worldviews. Putting differences in world views into the foreground, as Wetter does, means recommending a policy of disuniting the people's masses and in actual fact helping reaction.
Proceeding from the inevitable existence of contradictions in any development, and from the inevitable clash of opinions as a means of reaching the truth when seeking a way to resolve contradictions, though without having any grounds for this, G. Wetter draws the wrong conclusion that eternal 'ideological pluralism' is inevitable.
Clashes of opinion in the development of sciences, including social science, have nothing in common with the view of 'ideological pluralism'. They are a method for attaining the truth, leading to the solution of the problem and putting an end to the controversy. It is 63 quite another matter that in science there always arise new problems and that clashes of views constitute a constant method of developing it. However, the occurrence of new contradictions does not usually lead to the same division into different opinions, as in the preceding instance. All those participants in the controversy who truly work for the development of science are actively interested in the correct solution of every contradiction in science. That is precisely why clashes of views in science have nothing in common with the bourgeois conception of pluralism, i.e. the achievement of temporary, partial compromises between groups with contradictory interests.
The struggle between different opinions in the course of the development of the social sciences while seeking the best possible ways to solve practical social problems will always go on. However, the ideological struggle, the struggle between proletarian and bourgeois ideology is not `pluralistic', i.e. on an equal footing as regards the conditions in which it is waged, nor will it go on forever. It will gradually die out after the disappearance of the capitalist system on a world scale.
Gustav Wetter, however, falsely and tendentiously describes the ideological struggle under capitalism as `pluralistic', and as a struggle in which the two ideologies---the bourgeois and the proletarian---are placed on an equal footing. At the same time, he puts the ideological struggle interpreted by him as `pluralistic' under the common denominator of a clash of opinions over the resolution of every contradiction. What is more, these `operations' are carried out by G. Wetter with strictly defined diversionist aims: to be able to put forward a claim for 'exactly the same pluralism', i.e. to create a possibility for the widest possible propagation of bourgeois, including religious, ideology under socialism.
Wetter stakes on the fact that bourgeois democracy is in words almost always unlimited. The bourgeoisie tries in every way to disguise the class, exploiting and limited character of its democracy. Bourgeois 64 ideologists usually do not dareto declare openly to the workers that they are deprived of one right or another, or that there are great limitations on their opportunities to take advantage of them. The bourgeoisie, however, does in fact limit them in a thousand ways. In the socialist society the class character of democracy is openly manifested---that power is in the hands of the working people, headed by the working class; that, therefore, democratic rights and freedoms may not be used to the detriment of socialism, or for an activity aimed at the restoration of capitalism.
Gustav Wetter, however, fights for precisely such `freedom' and such a `pluralism': to open the gates of the socialist society to unlimited preaching of any ideological trend. However, for the socialst society this is already a stage which has been passed. In socialist society the struggle of opinions develops mainly on another plane---in favour of the further development of science, the discovery of the most efficient way to overcome difficulties and errors, and solve the new problems that crop up every day. The working people in the socialist society do not wish to go back, they do not wish to have their heads muddled with reactionary, outdated ideas long since refuted by science and the development of society.
In the socialist society the communist party and the government manifest understanding and tolerance for the traditions and beliefs of the various strata of society, including their religious convictions. However, freedom of conscience, including that of religion, is guaranteed without making it possible to speculate for political ends with the religious beliefs of part of the population.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 3. The Two Aspects of Socio-Political PluralismThe 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 __PRINTERS_P_65_COMMENT__ 5.---0518 65 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'.
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.
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.
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 66 capitalist society is strongly defended in Peter Drucker's book 'The Age of Discontinuity' (105).
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).
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).
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 67 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.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 4. Social Structure of State Monopoly CapitalismThe pluralists manifest their class bias very distinctly when analyzing the social and class structure of bourgeois society. They strive to circumvent or play down the main division of bourgeois society into two antagonistic classes---workers and capitalists. Insofar as they find themselves forced to speak about this, they examine it as one of the many eternal and immutable contradictions inherent in the `nature' of human society. Like all other contradictions, the contradiction between proletariat and bourgeoisie can also be solved only temporarily and partially, by way of competitive struggle and compromises between the two sides.
What are the spheres of life, organizations or groups which are taken as a basis in the pluralistic interpretation of the social structure of modern capitalist society? Pluralists and bourgeois theoreticians in general give different answers to this question. Moreover, they do not usually adduce theoretical or methodological considerations, but put first some, then other groups, strata, etc. into the foreground. This is a manifestation of subjectivism, which characterizes the theoretical impotence of the authors and schools they represent. The American sociologist M. Dimok, for instance, enumerates six basic categories of organizations or pressure groups. The first is made up of the 'big three'---the organizations of capitalists (business corporations), those of the workers (the trade unions) and those of the farmers. The second category covers the trade union organizations of working people such as doctors and teachers; the third consists of the churches and religious organizations; the fourth, the women's 68 organizations; the fifth, the patriotic and pacifist organizations; and the sixth, the organizations fighting for civil rights. The state administration, central and local state institutions are grouped by Dimok into a separate, seventh category of organizations in the pluralistic structure of society (103, p. 23, 24). The views of W. Kornhauser and R. Dahl are similar.
C. Feiner and the British pluralists in general usually enumerate: the organizations of capitalists; the trade unions, i.e. the organizations of the proletariat; the cooperative movement; the organizations of the liberal professions; the unions of state officials and, lastly, the organizations of pensioners and invalids, church and cultural organizations etc. (29, c. 89)^^*^^.
What are the stimuli on the basis of which people rally together into organizations, and which set these organizations in operation; what is the mechanism through which these heterogeneous and independent organizations are united into a whole, into a society? Bourgeois sociologists and political scientists cannot bypass the people's material, economic interests. Firstly, however, they do not recognize the determining role of material interests, and simply enumerate them as one kind of interests. The role played by material needs is greatly underestimated, for instance, by Kornhauser. Charles Perrow extols the pluralistic picture of society given by Kornhauser as a genuine model for a sociological theory, because in it the role of material needs and power is reduced to a minimum. A central part in the conception is occupied by the group (organization), as well as by the norms and values derived from it (148, p. 411). G. Briefs, side by side with the pluralists, thinks that the spectrum of people's interests is almost boundless and that economic interests are an important but private matter (94, S. 7).
Both the pluralists and their opponents from the bourgeois camp pay no heed to the link between _-_-_
^^*^^Similar is also the pluralistic structure of contemporary bourgeois society according to Julien Freund (112, p. 2H), 211), Johannes Messner, FViedrich, Baerwald (89, S. 494--496); Pierre van den Berghe (169, p. 67, 68), etc.
69 material interests and production relations. However, it is precisely a scientific analysis of capitalist production relations that shows that the opposition between the interests of the different social categories is not something 'natural and eternal', but is a historically transitory phenomenon. The historical experience of all socialist countries has categorically borne out this scientific inference of Marxism.The mechanism which, according to the pluralists, sets in motion the complex organism of independent organizations, communities and groups in society, is expressed in competition, in the course of which rules for 'conducting the game' are gradually elaborated.
Competition, side by side with private ownership over the means of production, is one of the basic principles upon which capitalism rests. However, even the most unscrupulous contemporary champions of capitalism among the bourgeois ideologists cannot deny that competition is one of the sources of many social evils and deformations in bourgeois society. Moreover, the monopolist trends in the present advanced stage in the development of the capitalist social system are in growing contradiction with the principle of free competition. Nevertheless, side by side with the pluralists, their rightist critics from the bourgeois camp seek to defend competition by hook and by crook. This trend is particularly clearly expressed by K. Bosl. According to him, competition will cease to be dangerous and harmful or to disturb social peace, 'if common sense establishes the rules of the game, which no one should dare violate unpunished' (93, S. 123).
The Utopian and unscientific character of this proposition is obvious. Whose common sense is it a question of when, for instance, workers and capitalists have opposite views on the question as to what is just and what not in the class relations between them? Moreover, even if we assume that such `rules' could be elaborated, who will observe their application when the bourgeois state in all class conflicts in the final analysis takes the side of the exploiters against the working people, irrespective of the efforts of the bourgeois 70 ideologists, pluralists and non-pluralists, to present it as `above-class', 'all-people`s', or as a `mediator'.
In William Kornhauser's above-mentioned book 'The Politics of Mass Society' the author strives to build up an integral conception of the pluralistic structure of contemporary capitalist society. The starting point in his theoretical constructions is not the classes but the concept of 'mass society'. According to Kornhauser mass society is not identical with industrial society. He also wants it to be distinguished from `totalitarian' society.
Two other concepts---`elite' and `non-elite' lie at the basis of Kornhauser's pluralistic conception. The `elite' are the ruling strata in the various fields of life, and the rest of the population forms the `non-elite', i.e. the `mass'---according to the terminology of most of the adherents of the elitist theory. Kornhauser, however, attaches great importance to the difference between the concepts `non-elite' and `mass'. The `non-elite', i.e. the common citizens, are transformed into a `mass', according to him, if they are not organized into different independent groups and organizations (134, p. 32).
The negative trends which, according to Kornhauser, characterize the 'mass society' are expressed in the loss of autonomy by one part of the elite and at the same time---in the `atomization' of society, i.e. in a weakening of the independent social organizations of which the citizens are members. All this, according to him, favours the setting up and strengthening of `totalitarian' movements. Totalitarian' movements, according to the author, are the centrally organized movements, mainly the political parties. The main difference between the mass and the pluralistic society, according to him, is that in the mass society the individuals are not directly connected with one another through a multitude of independent groups or organizations. That is why 'mass society' proves highly susceptible to totalitarian movements and regimes (134, p. 33).
To avoid strengthening the negative trends in mass society, Kornhauser recommends observance of the 71 established procedures and rules of government, together with preservation of the constitutional order.
The author proceeds from the premise that these procedures and rules have been established by society as a whole or at least by the overwhelming majority of the citizens. But what is to be done, when enough eloquent evidence is availble that the procedures, rules and 'constitutional order' are undemocratic, and that they express the will and defend the interests not of the majority, but of the exploiter minority? The only course of action which the author recommends for all cases is negotiation and balancing out between the `elite' and the `non-elite'. The struggle of the workingclassand the other working people against the anti-democratic and reactionary 'procedures and rules' of government, in favour of true democracy, is labelled as anti-- democratic by Kornhauser.
Kornhauser accepts as self-evident the thesis that liberal, i.e. bourgeois democracy is the most suitable social system for contemporary industrial society.However, a science-based comparison of the two systems shows and proves that only socialism creates favourable conditions for the development of society, and above all for overcoming the social inequality typical of capitalism and for raising the living and cultural standards of the working people--- problems which bourgeois democracy for centuries has failed to solve. That is why both the question asked by Kornhauser: what kind of social structure corresponds to liberal democracy?---and the answer which he gives to it: social pluralism---fall wide of the mark as concerns the crying need of the day, which is evoked by the crisis in capitalist .society: a change in the system.
Kornhauser indulges in detailed reflections regarding the mechanisms of liberal democracy, which are already at hand and have only to function well: free and open competition between the different `elites' for leadership; widespread participation in the selection of leaders; restraint in the application of pressures on le& "ers (i.e. freedom of leaders to act at their own 72 discretion); self-government in wide areas of social life, etc. (134, p. 230, etc.).
These and other similar mechanisms do indeed have a certain practical significance for the better functioning of the social system. However, the fundamental question posed by the condition of the capitalist system, which is going through an organic crisis, is not one of partially improving the individual mechanisms of the system, but one of removing it from its foundations and replacing it with a new system established on new principles corresponding to the social character of the powerful productive forces nowadays.
Facts show that Kornhauser's whole conception of 'mass society' is a false construction. His fear of 'mass society' is in fact fear of the organized, centralized force of the working people, fear of their political parties and trade unions organized on a nation-wide scale and centrally guided.
P. Drucker to a certain extent takes into account the impact of the integrating processes under statemonopoly capitalism on the social structure of society. The old, traditional pluralism was characterized by the fact, Drucker says, that the duke, count, bishop and even petty landowner differed from one another mainly in their titles and incomes. To this he counterposes the new, modern pluralism, where each one of the groups or organizations is specialized (105, p. 175, 176). Moreover, Drucker points out the increasingly complex intermingling of the functions of the different organizations in present-day developed capitalist society (p. 178). In this connection, certain suspicions slip into his work regarding the expediency of the pluralistic structure, which have found expression in his statement that the legislative organs (in the imperialist countries--- author's note, A.K.) are disturbed by the symbiotic relations in a society made up of organizations (105, p. 185).
A number of contemporary bourgeois economists, sociologists and political scientists draw special attention to the new phenomena in the social structure of modern capitalism, connected with the scientific and 73 technological revolution and the new stage in the development of the concentration of capital, the integration of production processes and centralization in management.
In his book 'The New Industrial State', which appeared in 1968, G. K. Galbraith examines in detail the processes of increased capitalist integration and the growing role of centralization in the management of economic life connected with this. Proceeding from similar evaluations, Kariel maintains that the gigantic economic corporation is the highest organizational form in which industrialism manifests itself in the USA. (129, P. 27).
However, the gigantic economic corporation is a capitalist enterprise, whose activity is guided by the egoistic interests of a handful of millionaires and multimillionaires who own the control package of shares, and not by the interests of society. The same egoistical interests are also served by the 'symbiotic relationship' between the capitalist corporations themselves and between them and the state organs, which worries Drucker.
The elements of planning, forecasting and centralized economic management under statemonopoly capitalism are therefore aimed at a more rational defence of the interests of monopoly capitalism. On this basis the contradictions between the working people and the monopoly top crust become still further aggravated. The contradictions between the monopoly associations and the smaller capitalist enterprises also become still further aggravated. The contradictions between the individual monopoly supercorporations are preserved and often become sharper, because each corporation of this kind strives to achieve the highest possible profits, even at the expense of its partners. Owing to all this, the contradictions between labour and capital, which are so typical of capitalist society, remain and become still deeper. Competition is also preserved, irrespective of any temporary compromise agreements between the big monpoly associations.
74The theoretical champions of the interests of statemonopoly capital try to dress up as a positive phenomenon the trend towards a further restriction of bourgeois democracy and towards stepping up the regulating function of the capitalist states and the monopolies.The characteristic conception here is that of the 'formed society', which was put forward by certain ideologists of state-monopoly capitalism in the Federal German Republic during the midsixties (63, c. 104, 105).
The theoreticians of the 'formed society' openly confess that a restriction on the democratic rights and freedoms of the working people is being exercised, and try to explain it as a manifestation of the weakened class struggle. The policy aimed at subordinating the interests of the working people to the interests of the monopoly bourgeoisie was represented as a policy aimed at the 'common weal' of society as a whole.
The development of the scientific and technological revolution, the automation and cybernetization of production processes and management lead to further integration and centralization in the economy of the socialist countries, too. However, the lack of" an exploiter capitalist class and the existence of socialist production relations brings about the extension and improvement, and not the limitation, of socialist democracy, as we shall see later.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 5. Rejection or Distortion of the Marxist Teaching onIf it is simply impossible to say on what grounds the different authors find certain organizations or groups, and not others, to be basic in the social structure of bourgeois society, it is not difficult at all to indicate the most general standpoint from which all pluralists proceed in their constructions.
A general starting point for all conceptions of social pluralism, which is also typical of the critics of pluralism from the standpoint of state-monopoly capitalism whom we have enumerated, is that they 75 reject outright, or pass by as if non-existent, the Marxist-Leninist teaching on classes, or, more particularly, on the social and class structure of modern capitalist society.
The champions of social pluralism base themselves first of all on the non-scientific theory of 'social stratification', which replaces the category of `classes' with the concept of `strata' or `layers'. Moreover, they choose in an absolutely arbitrary manner those features by which they divide society into `strata' or `layers'.Thus, for instance, at the Third International Congress of Sociology the modern American sociologist S. M. Lipset put forward (together with Zeterberg) a variant of the theory of social stratification, according to which people belong to different `strata' depending upon the following features: profession or occupation; amount of consumption or standard of living; community of social interests; participation in government. Others add to these features: religion, education, race, etc. (68, C. 58--61). Among the features on which the differences between `strata' are based, only production relations are missing, i.e. the relations between people in connection with the ownership of the means of production and the ways of obtaining incomes connected with this (profits, rent, salary, etc.). Yet it is the character of production relations that determines the basic social stratification in the three class socioeconomic formations: slave ownership, feudalism and capitalism.
Individual bourgeois sociologists, guided by various considerations, use the term `class' devoid of its scientific content Ralf Dahrendorf, for instance, adopts the division of people into two, and only two, `classes': the class of rulers or leaders, and the class of the ruled or subordinated. According to him people are divided into classes depending upon the position which they occupy in any organization or union, because every organization or union represents a 'system of authority or power'. And according to him the relationship of authority is much more far-reaching than the property relationships among people.
76Whoever tries, therefore, to define authority by property defines the general by the particular---an obvious logical fallacy. Wherever there is property there is authority, but not every form of authority implies property. Authority is the more general social relation. (100, p. 137). On this basis he places on an equal level, i.e. considers as equal in their essence, the social conflicts between the basic classes in capitalist society and the contradictions which may arise between the leadership and the members of any cultural or sports organization.
It is obvious, however, that the relations of domination or subjection, based on the differing positions occupied by people in the social system of production under capitalism, which constitute the basis for the exploitation of man by man, can in no case be indentified with the relations of leadership and obedience in social processes where there does nottexista different relation of ownership between the participants. A vivid example of this fundamental difference is provided by the new relationship between the working class and the managements of the enterprises in the socialist society, as compared with the corresponding relations under capitalism.
From what has been said above it does not follow that differences and contradictions or conflicts cannot arise between leaders and executives in any kind of organization, including the socialist enterprises. What matters is that the character of the differences, contradictions or even conflicts arising under socialism is different, and the possibilities for their solution are different in principle from the class struggle between the proleratiat and the bourgeoisie under capitalism. Differences and contradictions arising from one or another cause under socialism can be resolved and usually are resolved through the exercise of open criticism, and the taking of binding decisions by the relevant organs which eliminate the contradiction or conflict. This includes replacing bureaucratic, corrupt or simply incompetent backward leaders who are out of step with the needs of present day life by others, 77 without it being necessary for this purpose to resort to such means as strikes, let alone changing the character of the system of government.
If the theory of social stratification gives a `pluralistic' interpretation of the social structure of capitalist society which is non-scientific, but acceptable to the bourgeoisie, another theory---the theory of ' social mobility'---is aimed at opening up some prospects before the working people of changing their social situation under capitalism. According to this theory, there exists in capitalist society the possibility of 'vertical mobility', meaning that in principle every citizen can pass from the lowest layers and `strata' to the highest and vice-versa.
`Everybody can make a career and rise to the uppermost rungs of the social ladder'---this is what the supporters of the theory of social mobility try to propagate. For this purpose, it is necessary only to step on to one of the social `escalators' and be able to hold on tight to it^^*^^.
By means of this theory bourgeois ideologists wish to create in the working people the conviction that the way to improve their living standards is that of those who play roulette or take part in a lottery. Anyone can hope that he, and no one else, will be among the lucky few which the escalators of happiness will take and carry upward.
Unlike this `chance' prospect of the eventual attainment of `happiness' by. a select few, under the preservation of exploitation, oppression and want for the overwhelming majority of working people in the `pluralistic' bourgeois society, Marxism-Leninism _-_-_
^^*^^ S.I.Popov writes that bourgeois sociologists usually speak of six different lifts or escalators for social rise: 1) the economy ---anybody can grow rich and become a millionaire and even a multi-millionaire; 2) politics---anybody can make a political career; 3) the army--- every soldier carries a marshal's baton in his rucksack; 4) the church--- this offers possibilities of rising to the highest church hierarchy; 5) science--- even in this difficult walk of life one can rise to the front ranks and 6) marriage--- the easiest way of rising to the top of the social pyramid (68, c. 59--64).
78 reveals not only the real possibility but also the historical necessity of the elimination of all forms of exploitation and oppression. In spite of the very short period since the triumph of the first socialist revolution, and in spite of the great number of unfavourable factors which have hitherto hindered the more rapid development of the socialist society, the living experience of the USSR and the other socialist nations has visually demonstrated the science-based ways and means for a rapid rise in the living and cultural standards of the working people under socialism, where there is no `pluralistic' chaos but a purposeful development of society on the basis of an integrated science-based plan.Until not long ago, the majority of bourgeois ideologists maintained that the division of society into rich and poor, and hence into masters and subordinates, was eternal like the natural laws. The escalators of happiness may raise individual persons to the summits, but the majority of the people have always been, and will continue to be, poor and subordinated.
In his book 'Introduction to the Philosophy of History', i.e. in the early years of his working life (1938), R.Aron quotes a 'statistical law' formulated by the Italian bourgeois sociologist and economist V. Pareto (1848--1923), according to which 'always and everywhere there exists a pyramid of riches'. The great majority of the people, the propertyless and the poor, form, according to this law, the wide base of the pyramid, while the handful of rich people form its pointed top. Aron finds that this was so in the past and is so now, but that it was still unknowto wkether this would be so in the future.
In the thirties, which for the Soviet Union were years of rapid economic upswing, that was the only country which offered a practical refutation of this `law' concocted in favour of the rich. After the coming into being of the world socialist system, the peoples of the one third of the globe shattered the foundations of this `pyramid'. The pointed top of rich men was cut off 79 in all countries which were building socialism, and a rapid upswing set in in the wellbeing of the broad masses. Certain measures in this direction are also being taken in the developing countries that have embarked upon a non-capitalist way of development.
Under these circumstances and in the presence of mass movements against exploitation, and in favour of improving the material situation of the working people in the countries under capitalism, it is no longer possible officially to maintain the law of the `pyramid'. That is why many contemporary bourgeois ideologists, including R.Aron, have now embarked upon a new road. They have begun to say that what is going on in the socialist countries: the nationalization of great wealth, and above all the elimination of private ownership over the decisive means of production and the elimination of the tremendous differences in incomes between the different categories of citizens---was also being accomplished in the capitalist society, only in a different way.
This is how conceptions of the `democratization' or `depersonalization' of capital, `dispersion', `equalizing' and even 'peaceful revolution in incomes' arose in the developed capitalist countries. On this basis, a process of `deproletarization', or an assumption of bourgeois features by the working class is said to be under way, the latter becoming increasingly `integrated' with the contemporary 'industrial society'. As a result of all these processes, modern capitalism allegedly ceases to be capitalism in the old, Marxist sense of the word.
In this connection, we shall adduce certain facts, which will refute these legends whose sole purpose is to make the working people in the capitalist countries believe that the precipice between poverty and ease can be bridged even without the socialist revolution.
As a token of the tremendous concentration of the productive forces and wealth, and on this basis also of the centralization of management in the USA, Kariel points out that only 150 corporation account for about 50 per cent of the total industrial output. Moreover, as the author points out. the decisions in the Corporations are 80 taken by only a few people,as a result of which he concludes that the trend for oligarchic management is in general a natural result of the historical development of the industrial and economic enterprises (129, p. 30, 31). According to investigations made by the American professor R.Lempman, one per cent of the mature population in the USA owned the following percentage of the total shareholders' capital: in 1922---61.5 per cent, in 1945--61.7 per cent, and in 1957---76 per cent. The super-rich in the USA who represent only 0.01 per cent of the American corporations, have concentrated in their hands almost one third of all their financial funds. (79, c. 150). The continuing process of accumulating wealth is revealed by the fact that in the period from 1948--1965 the number of millionaires in the USA increased sevenfold (19, c. 57).
However, at the end of the sixties there were 45 million poor citizens in the USA, 30 million of whom were categorized by the government as living in want (68, c. 46). The distrubution of wealth in Britain is not much different. According to 1960 data, one per cent of the country's population over the age of 25 possessed 42 per cent of the country's total personal wealth. (33, c. 7). The situation is similar in the Federal German Republic: 1.7 per cent of the population, i.e. the multimillionaires and millionaires from the big trusts owned in 1970 more than 70 per cent of the means of production (122, S. 6).
There is a sufficiency of convincing facts to refute the assertion of A.Berle and many other bourgeois ideologists that the shareholding form of capital means a disappearance of private ownership, because the rich no longer rule in those corporations. It is not all, but only a few, the biggest shareholders, who actually rule the shareholding companies. Moreover, as M.Ryndina points out 'actually to manage a shareholding enterprise, it is enough for you to own the control package of shares, which is about 20 per cent of the total amount of shares and sometimes even less' (72, c. 304). In other words, the shareholding companies help to increase the concentration of capital and power of the biggest
__PRINTERS_P_81_COMMENT__ 6.---0518 81 capitalists and do not eliminate it, nor do they diminish it. Thus, from about 19 million people who own shares in the USA, about 2,000 are among the biggest shareholders (i.e. 0.01 per cent of the total number) and play an active and decisive role in management, i.e. they are the men who manage the corporations (19, c. 84).Zbignev Brzezinski is one of those bourgeois ideologists and political scientists who strives, with the arguments of pluralism, to reject the Marxist way of doing away with private ownership over the means of production, by counterposing to it another `evolutionary' way of change. In recognizing indirectly the outdatedness of capitalist private ownership and the sharpness of the conflict between the productive forces and production relations in the USA and the other imperialist countries, Brzezinski calls an 'extreme solution' the only possible solution of this conflict---the socialization of production, which has been effected in the socialist countries. He counterposes to this the changes brought about by present-day state-monopoly capitalism in the Western countries, presenting them as a 'depersonalization of ownership' and a 'limited sharing of power by the capitalists with the organized work force'. To disguise still further the unchanged exploiting nature of capitalism, Brzezinski says: 'The question of ownership was thus redefined into one of control and regulation, while the issue of exploitation associated with ownership was replaced by new problems concerning the economic participation and psychological wellbeing of the employed' (95, p. 261). Brzezinski calls all these measures taken together 'pluralismof participation' in modern capitalist society (p. 262).
Brzezinski refers to the shareholding form of capital as `depersonalization', i.e. ,`effacement' of ownership. However, the joint-stock form of capital only in part hides the names of the biggest capitalists who continue to exploit the labour of the working class and to manage production.Moreover, as we have just seen, the joint-stock form even makes it easier for the big capitalists to impose their will on the smaller 82 shareholders in the monopolies or individual joint stock companies. Hence the `depersonalization' of capital is only a form through which the power and manoeuvrability of big capital is enhanced, without in the least changing its exploiting nature.
As to the `participation' of workers and employees in profits (through the purchase of a few shares) and in the `management' of the capitalist enterprises (through their representatives in the various advisory bodies), these measures are mostly of a demagogical character and are aimed to deceive the workers.
Norbert Leser is one of the pluralists who formally accepts the class structure of modern capitalist society. He even tries to flirt with the name Karl Marx. However, this does not hinder him, in outright contradiction with Marxism and with the facts of life, from asserting that both sides at the front in the class struggle, had realized that the 'other side' could not be expelled from society. The fact is that the replacement of capitalist production relations by socialist production relations has led to the disappearance of the 'one side', the bourgeoisie, in a great number of states, including states neighbouring on Austria, Leser's homeland. Hand in hand with all his fellow-pluralists, Leser also suggests 'acceptance and recognition of a society with a conflicting structure'. On this basis he recommends the pursuit of a policy of blunting and in part softening the irreconcilable social contradictions. In turning his attention more particularly to the 'middle strata' which must be used as buffers, he maintains that 'pluralism gave precedence to the group life of the middle strata' (138, S. 91, 92).
Leser is right in saying that the middle social strata, owing to their objective intermediary position between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, can be used by the bourgeoisie as `buffers' to blunt the class struggle, and this has repeatedly happened. However, as V.I.Lenin very convincingly pointed out and the triumphant socialist revolutions have confirmed it, the middle strata can with even greater justification be won over as 83 lasting allies of the proletariat in the struggle against capitalism. Under state-momopoly capitalism, ihis possibility becomes still greater.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 6. An Attempt at Overcoming the Crisis in BourgeoisThe pluralistic views of the political structure of bourgeois society and of the mechanisms of its function* Ing are naturally based on the conception of the social structure of modern capitalism as an aggregate of freely competing heterogeneous communities, groups or organizations---economic, professional, political, cultural, religious, etc. However, the champions of political pluralism focus their attention mainly on politics as a sphere of competitive struggle, not only between political parties but also between all social organizations and groups.
It is with good reason that V.E. Guliev points out that the theory of pluralist democracy made its appearance at the transition of capitalism to its imperialist stage and constitutes a liberal-democratic attempt to find a way out of the crisis into which classical bourgeois democracy has fallen.
With the development of state* monopoly capitalism, in accordance with monopolism in the economic sphere, the reactionary trends in politics also become stronger: the authoritarian, fascist features in government increase, and the already limited bourgeois democracy is still further curtailed. The state apparatus joins up with the biggest monopolies, and the regulative functions of the modern bourgeois state are widened in favour of monopoly capital. AIL this still further reduces the rights and liberties of the working people, subordinating them to the interests and diktat of big monopoly.
On the other hand, however, the revolutionary impact of the world socialist system and the scientific and technological revolution---two exceedingly important factors---act in the reverse direction, towards the preservation and further expansion of the 84 democratic rights and liberties of the working people ir the capitalist countries.
The impact of the world socialist system on capitalist society in this direction is easy to understand. In the socialist countries, parallel with the rise in material well-being and in the cultural level of the working class and the other working people, their social gains also keep increasing, as well as their participation in the management of production, and in the local and central bodies of power and government. The ruling monopoly top crusts in the capitalist countries cannot disregard this fact, especially as the working people carry on a stubborn fight in defence of the democratic rights they have already won, and strive to expand them still further.
The scientific and technological revolution also creates certain objective prerequisites for a further widening of the rights and-liberties of the working people. The application of its achievements to production, transport, communications, etc., i.e. the use of automation, chemicals and cybernetics in the labour processes calls for a qualitatively new technical and cultural level in the working people who manipulate the machines. The personal responsibility of each worker in the programming, elaboration, control and repair of the new machines also increases severalfold. The situation of the highly specialized worker who has attained a high technical and cultural level also increases his selfesteem. This renders necessary a new attitude of the owner of the means of production, or of the managment representing his interests, towards the worker.
In fact, the new machinery still more urgently demands the replacement of private ownership production relations by socialist ones, under which alone the worker's increased self-esteem as an actual owner and manager of the new complex machinery is able fully to manifest itself. However, as the capitalist class does all within its power to avoid being expropriated, it looks for palliative measures which will enable it to take the new conditions into account while at the same time preserving its domination.
85Through the conception of political pluralism, bourgeois political scientists also in practice wish to answer the new contradictory demands made upon them as defenders of the social system by monopoly capitalism. Under the general trends of increased bureaucratization, integration and centralization, they also strive to develop certain elements of bourgeois democracy.
In his voluminous work 'Plutalist Democracy in the United States: Conflict and Consent', Robert A.Dahl sets himself the task of defending formal bourgeois democracy in the USA from the standpoint of pluralism. In the very first pages of his book he formulates as `self-evident' a premise which MarxistLeninist science has long since refuted, and puts forward as insoluble a problem which has already in the main found its scientific solution in Marxist-Leninist theory and in the practice of socialist construction.
Dahl say that''. . . however strongly human beings are driven to seek the company of one another, and despite millennia of practice, they have never discovered a way in which they can live without conflict. . .'' ''. . . Conflict seems to be an inescapable aspect of community and hence of being human.'' (99, p. 5). If here the word `seems' may give rise to the thought that the author is nevertheless not fully convinced of the truth of his assertion, he later formulates it in a categorical form: man 'is unable to live with others without conflict', (p. 7). Elsewhere Dahl agrees with Madison's assertion that conflict 'is sown in the nature of man' (p. 14).
After the categorical statement that social conflicts are eternal, R.Dahl asks: 'Who ought to govern?' And hastens to declare this question insoluble, "as long as men continue to ask questions" (p. 7).
The assertion that 'people cannot live without conflicts' is in fact a premise for the whole social and political conception of pluralism and above all of 'pluralist democracy'.
People unite in organizations, parties or unions, in order to defend their interests. Since the interests and aspirations of the different social groups and their 86 exponents, the organizations, are contradictory, the only possibleland reasonableoutcome of the situation is, according to the pluralists, to look constantly for temporary, partial compromises, in order partially and temporarily to conciliate the contradictory interests. This is precisely what pluralistic bourgeois democracy is doing. The multi-party, or at least the two-party system of government is considered as its natural form. And this system is proclaimed as `eternal', because the contradictory interests and conflicts among people are also eternal.
All this logical construction collapses, because, contrary to Dahl's assertion, people have already discovered 'a way of communal life without conflicts'. It has been discovered by Marxist-Leninist science. Its name is communism.
Robert Dahl and his followers are ready to object: Well, do you assert that in the Soviet Union and in the other socialist countries all social, international and inter-state conflicts have already been overcome? Are there no people there, too, who are dissatisfied and opposed to the regime? What about the developments in Hungary (1956) and Czechoslovakia (1968)? Or the conflicts with Yugoslavia in 1948/49, and with China after 1956? And does not the dialectics which you acknowledge maintain that contradiction is the source of all development? Etc.
As in most cases so also in this case, the false thesis is built on the foundation of a number of more or less valid facts and standpoints.
Let us begin with dialectics. Dialectical and historical materialism does indeed show that both in nature and in society there are and always will be contradictions of one kind or another. However, there are no immutable contradictions. Social and class contradictions are not immutable either.
Marxism distinguishes two kinds of social contradictions: antagonistic and non-antagonistic. Antagonistic contradictions are typical only of the class societies, and they are connected with the private ownership of the means of production, with the 87 exploitation and enslavement of man.by man. The socialist revolution does away with their foundation. In the construction of the communist society, all national, racial and social conflicts gradually die dut. It is true, on the other hand, that this is a long, complex and difficult process, in the course of whose implementation deviations and mistakes will inevitably occur.
And how do matters stand with the non-antagonistic contradictions? At the present stage of development these include, in particular, the contradictions between workers and peasants, between town and country, between intellectual and manual workers in socialist society. The resolution of the non-antagonistic contradictions in the new society takes place not by way of competition and conflicts, and not by temporary, partial compromises, as is recommended by the theoreticians of pluralism, but by way of cooperation and mutual assistance, in the name of the interests of society as a whole and in the name of the individual groups and persons. Favourable conditions for this are created by the new social structure of society.
Marxism-Leninism has also given a scientific answer in principle to the `insoluble', according to Dahl, question as to who is to rule? This question is truly insoluble in class societies, as long as there are exploiters and exploited, because power is in the hands of the handful of exploiters, a fact which cannot be officially acknowledged. However, the situation is not the same after the overthrow of the domination of the capitalist top crust and the setting up of the government of the working class and the remaining working people, headed by their conscious political vanguard---the MarxistLeninist Party. A new type of democracy is established then---socialist democracy, real and not formal democracy, which actually secures for the people the possibility to take part in the government, a democracy which is subject to constant improvement. It does not find itself faced with the insoluble problems which torment the sincere champions of democracy in bourgeois society, because under socialism there are no classes or strata with contradictory interests. Its development is 88 connected with a continued rise in the material political and cultural standards of the working people and with their increasingly active participation in the government of society at all levels---beginning from the enterprise, institution or municipality and rising up to the state as a whole, to science, art and culture.
The science of social management, which develops in the socialist countries on the general basis of Marxism-Leninism and is linked with the achievements of the scientific and technological revolution, elaborates the mechanisms for the optimum solution of the specific problems arising at every step of socialist construction. It is on this basis that the process of ironing out the differences between the governing and the governed will also be speeded up. Then, with the final triumph of social self-management, all divisions of people into governing and governed will disappear.
Thoughts concerning the necessity of a peaceful settlement of conflicts run like a red thread through the whole work of Dahl. In principle, Marxists are also in favour of peaceful ways of settling all social conflicts. They are also in favour of a peaceful form for carrying out the socialist revolution. Marxist theory even admits the purchasing and not confiscation of the enterprises of the capitalists, if this is possible in the general course of the revolution. Non-peaceful forms for solving the basic social conflicts in the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie are made necessary by the exploiting ruling class, which pits forces against the will of the working people, against their endeavour to replace the outdated and unjust capitalist system by the socialist system by peaceful means.
The limitedness, from which the pluralistic defence of bourgeois democracy suffers, has also been pointed out by a number of theoreticians of state monopoly capitalism. The authors of the collective work 'The Bias of Pluralism', published under the editorship of William E.Connolly in New York in 1969, think that 'democratic pluralism' is the predominant conception in the political theory of the contemporary capitalist states with 89 competing party systems. But according to their own confession, pluralism is a theory, which is one-- dimensional and not so much wrong as it is systematically misleading'. (97, p. 1, 2). This is a confession that political pluralism is only a form of bourgeois democracy. J.Freund writes in the same spirit:'liberal democracy is a social system which favours pluralism and the institutionalization of parties, unlike the Jacobinic democracy which strives to achieve unanimity. . . ' (112, p. 385).
Some bourgeois authors go so far as to equate political pluralism with bourgeois democracy. Thus, Manfred Welan writes: 'According to pluralist democracy, the party and unions are not an inevitable evil, but prerequisites and consequences of a democracy in action. Pluralism in the sense of coordination, of a parallel organizing of contradictory interests inside the state community, is typical of a democracy, resting on human dignity, personal freedom, equal possibilities, freedom of association and competition.' (173, S. 22).
What is true here is that bourgeois democracy is based on one of the most important principles of the capitalist social system---competition. It cannot be otherwise. What is false, though, is the assertions of Welan and all other champions of bourgeois democracy that it rests on 'human dignity, personal freedom, equal possibilities and freedom of association'. These great ideas were sincerely espoused by'progressive bourgeois ideologists in the epoch when the capitalist system itself was still a progressive social system and the bourgeoisie was fighting against the obscurantism of the Middle Ages. In actual fact, however, especially under late capitalism, they have taken on a mainly formal character.
Let us make a summary. The political superstructure in capitalist society in one or another form reflects the heterogeneous and diverse, not pluralistic but hierarchical socio-economic structure, based on domination and subordination, because the different classes are by no means equal and do not enjoy equal opportunities to defend their interests. The dominating 90 class, the bourgeoisie, also secures its dominating position in the superstructure, first of all through the organization of the state, and then through its political, cultural, educational, information and propaganda institutions and organizations for which it safeguards a leading position under all circumstances.
The working people and above all the working class, in spite of the overt and covert resistance of the bourgeoisie, also sets up its own political parties, trade unions and other mass organizations to defend its interests. However, there is no capitalist country in which the organizations of the working people enjoy truly equal conditions with the organizations of the dominating class, as pluralism maintains.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 7. Pluralism and the StateThe question of the character of the state as organized force, and more specifically of its role and place in political life, is one of the central questions of all bourgeois theories of democracy, including pluralism.
The theoreticians of pluralism, like almost all bourgeois sociologists and political scientists, neglect, completely disregard or reject without making a serious effort to refute, the Marxist-Leninist theory of the class origin, character and role of the state in general and of the bourgeois state in particular. As a rule, it is the modest role of the observer of the 'rules of the game' by the competing organizations that is assigned to the state, and to central state power. In other words, the state is considered as a 'service public corporation' which, moreover, is or should be equally in the service of all organizations or groups (129, p. 144). Nevertheless, two nuances can be noticed among the pluralists in their attitude to the state. According to the first view, no class or `group', `stratum', etc. of the population has a monopoly over state power, and the government itself plays the part of an umpire. According to the other conception, it is acknowledged that at a given moment one or another social stratum, layer, or 91 group possesses the levers of state power throught the respective organizations. However, these layers and organizations change places at the helm of power. Thus no stratum or group is permanently in power (29, c. 118, 119).
The differences between the above two views refer, therefore, only to the way in which attempts are made to disguise the class character of the bourgeois state and of the political superstructure in capitalist society in general.
H.Laski and G.Cole are among those pluralists who under the impact of facts, but in part also under the influence of Marxism, see in the bourgeois state an instrument of the ruling class and therefore appeal for its neutralization. That is why in their pluralistic scheme of democratic society they challenge the theories that bind individuals and groups to the state (130, p. 165). Maitland (Great Britain) and Leon Duguit (France) on the other hand are among those pluralists who deny the state 'that primacy that idealist theory had postulated' considering it as a federation of self-governing groups existing together harmoniously. The one group and the other, however, find sovereignty divisible and allegiance to the state contingent and qualified. (130 p. 166, 167).
The following fact, to which Kariel calls attention, also speaks of the greatly diminished role which the pluralists ascribe to the state in the political life of society. In the theoretical reasonings of many of the pluralists, such as Laski, Cole, Gierke, etc., the question remains unsolved as to what side the citizen is to take in case of a conflict between the organization of which he is a member and the state (129, p. 212).
An objective scientific analysis of political life in the capitalist countries both in the past and at present gives ample and convincing proof that the political struggles in bourgeois society are not at all like sports competitions between equal partners, nor is the bourgeois state an umpire whose task is to maintain general order and keep the collectively worked out 'rules of the game' in the reciprocal relations between 92 them. On the contrary, in the severe, multilateral class struggle the bourgeoisie makes use of the state apparatus and of all levers which are at its disposal--- from the police and the army to art, the radio, television and the press, in order to preserve its domination.
R.Dahl tries to speculate with the fact that in the USA, the most powerful capitalist country, with a numerous and to a considerable degree professionally organized working class, there is no strong party with a Marxist ideology, such as there is, for instance, in France and Italy. In trying to find an explanation for this fact, Dahl finds himself compelled to confess that in the USA 'the political institutions also offer a powerful and quite possibly a decisive resistance to the creation of a successful labour-socialist party or even a labourfarmer coalition'. (99, p. 442).
We have to agree with Dahl that the very cruel and systematic persecution of the communist movement in the USA is one of the main reasons for the comparatively | poor organizational and political influence of the Communist Party in the country. The author makes no mention of the fact that even now all really progressive anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist organizations and movements in the USA are persecuted and stifled in all possible ways---from overt police terror, from the dispersion of peaceful demonstrations and individual murders to trumped up provocations and the infiltration of spies into the ranks of these organizations, helping the dissident trends in them, etc. Let us enumerate only some of the most outstanding manifestations of this type. Only in the USA is there a law which forces communists to register, and as agents of a foreign country at that; the leader of the Negro democratic movement Martin Luther King was killed bu mercenaries; many peaceful demonstrations against the war in Vietnam have been forcibly dispersed; a trial was trumped up against the daring Communist philosopher Angela Davis.
The real face of American `pluralistic' democracy and the spirit predominant in it, which have nothing in 93 common with the policy of cpnformism and compromises propagated by Dahl and the other pluralists, is characterized by the assassination even of presidents and other very prominent statesmen, who have been inconvenient for one or another group, such as the brothers John and Robert Kennedy!
The false view of the pluralists, which does nol correspond to the real state of affairs regarding the le of the state as 'umpire and guardian of the peace', is also criticized by a number of bourgeois writers. Thus, for instance, Julien Freund, when answering the pluralists, points out that political power cannot be neutral and act as a mediator (112, p. 212). But when the state is not and cannot be a `mediator', whose interests will it defend? Freund tries to avoid a direct answer to the question, but the practice of each capitalist state offers daily proof of this: the bourgeois state defends the interests of the capitalist class, especially those of the monopoly top crust.
Freund admits the necessity of freedom to compare ideas critically, and in this sense of 'ideological pluralism'. However, regarding how much politics is the realisation of a given world view, or a given ideology, Freund comes to the following conclusion: power in its structure cannot and must not be pluralized, it is `monarchic', which means monistic. In its activity the government should protect ideological pluralism, but without being a 'common denominator' of this pluralism---hence, it should protect it only insofar as the pluralist activity does not threaten the destiny of the regime (112, p. 314, 315). Here Freund again sincerely points out the class and limited character of bourgeois, pluralist democracy without drawing the necessary logical conclusions.
According to Galbraith, Kariel, etc., under the present conditions in countries like the USA giant organizations, such as General Motors, the association of farm owners and the teamsters' union are no longer the highest points of organizational centralized power. There is a network of organizational blocs above them, and these have tremendous power and contradictory 94 interests. Business demands further economic centralization and monopoly `contracts' instead of competition. Agrarian capital fights for advantageous prices and subsidies. And the trade unions, even under the present reactionary leadership, demand an improvement in the material situation of workers and security in their living conditions. Kariel sees a real `danger' in the desire of every one of the gigantic associations to set up a 'non-liberal political social system' to its own advantage. That is why, according to him, contrary to pluralistic policy, which is aimed at weakening and fragmenting the power of the state, it is necessary for central power to be strengthened, which is in unison with the requirements of technical and economic development (129, p. 2-3, 23). J. Galbraith's above-- mentioned work is also penetrated by the same thought.
The growing together of the bourgeois state with monopoly capitalism in our times is so marked that a number of bourgeois ideologists like Galbraith, Kariel, Briefs and Bosl are compelled to confess it. Kariel points out that although on the surface a struggle is often visibly taking place between the bureaucracy of business and the organs of the state, in fact cooperation between them is on an increasing degree. In support, he quotes data from C.Wright Mills on the penetration into government bodies of the USA of representatives of the most powerful business corporations (129, p. 102). Since the death of Mills this process has developed on a still larger scale and still more openly.
Kariel at the same time criticises the theoreticians of pluralism for idealizing and simplifying the complex life of society, examining it as a simple confederation of organizations and groups and a manifestation of the free play of the political forces. (129, p. 180--182). Technology, according to Kariel tends to integrate not only economic enterprises, but also the forms of social life. It brings to light hitherto hidden paradoxes of American society. If a belief in technology leads to integration, faith in American constitutionalism leads to decentralization and hence, in the final count, to a stalemate (129, p. 25).
95Kariel points out that under the influence of the same technico-economic factors (and under the impact of the example of the socialist planned economy in tha Soviet Union, which Kariel and the other bourgeois ideologists prefer to make no mention of) in the last few decades in many countries in Europe, and in the USA, a number of state centralized economic bodies have been set up, a fact which has still further intensified the trend towards economic centralization, implemented by the private organizations (130, p. 167-- 168). Proceeding from these facts, Kariel reproaches certain modern pluralists that in spite of the radical changes in the structure of capitalist society, they have unjustifiably attemped to apply the model, well-suited for analyzing the activity of the small groups in the past, to the big, present-day organizations, which are oligarchic in character (130, p. 168; 129, p. 113).
On the basis of similar reasoning, Kariel arrives at the conclusion that 'political pluralism as an ideology has lost most of its explicit apologists and only lingers quietly as a submerged, inarticulate ingredient of Western liberalism' (130, p. 168). In fact, political pluralism has always been a component part, and more precisely one of the forms, of Western liberalism. And the decline of pluralism is a component part of the decline of bourgeois liberalism and formal democracy, and is an important aspect of the deepening chronic crisis into which bourgeois ideology fell after the October Socialist Revolution in Russia in 1917, a crisis which became still deeper after the emergence of the world socialist system.
Karl Bosl also addresses some justified critical notes against pluralism. Unlike the idyllic picture of gentlemanly competition between the different organizations and groups depicted by the pluralists, Bosl points out that under tne present conditions the big monopolies or corporations act like narrowly egoistic pressure groups', not taking into consideration any obligatory general moral principles, and thus undermining the foundations of society (93, S. 28).
96The erroneousness of the basic thesis of political pluralism has also been correctly noted by Charles Perrow. Pluralism, as Perrow indicates, can be an excellent explanation for the conduct of part of the middle and higher strata of society---it is a question of their inclination to moderation and compromises. The choir under the pluralistic sky, says Perrow, echoing a witty expression of Schatschneider's, sings only with the voices of the higher strata. However, political pluralism is not a theory which explains the conduct of those outside the system---the lower classes, the unemployed, the minorities, deprived of rights, etc. Extremist conduct is the only conduct in which those groups can engage. . . (148, p. 420, 422). Different meanings can be applied to the expression 'extremist conduct'. But insofar as in its general aspect this extremist conduct is set up against the policy of 'moderation and compromises', Perrow in fact expresses the obvious truth, unfavourable as it may be to the bourgeoisie, that pluralism is a means for `integrating' the masses into the bourgeois system, but that the majority of the working people are fighting against this system and for its replacement by another.
The great majority of rightist social democratic parties also avail themselves of political pluralism in defining their political standpoint. Pluralism is usually used by these parties to defend formal bourgeois democracy against authoritarian and anti-democratic trends in the policy of the most reactionary circles of state-monopoly capitalism, and in favour of a more moderate line in foreign policy, or against an agressive foreign policy. This democratic political trend is a positive phenomenon, and is welcomed with understanding by anti-imperialist and peaceful forces, including the Marxists in first place. However, pluralism is also used by the rightist social democratic parties for reactionary purposes, mainly to collect evidence for accusations against the socialist countries and communist parties of being anti-democratic and totalitarian.
__PRINTERS_P_97_COMMENT__ 7.---0518 97In present-day conditions, the Social Democratic Party in the Federal German Republic has been using the pluralistic conception as a component part of its ideological armoury. In the plan for educating party and trade-union members in 1971--72, issued by the Friedrich Ebert foundation of the German Social Democratic Party, West German social democrats are instructed to propagate the ideas of democratic socialism and to defend the pluralistic social system in the Federal German Republic.
A discussion is in progress among the Austrian social democrats on the question of pluralism. However even those authors who declare themselves its opponents do so from special positions. A typical example is Karl Czernetz. After declaring that with theexceptionbf the initial, primitive social forms, every social system is based on a division of labour and social dismemberment. . . and is therefore `pluralistic', and that 'every democracy must be pluralistic', Czernetz comes to the conclusion that consequently 'pluralism is an empty formula. . . a concept, embracing everying and therefore expressing nothing.' (98, S. 3,4). Czernetz's opponent, Maria Szecsi objects to the excessively broad meaning which he lends to the concept of `pluralism' and explains: 'It is not the dismemberment of society into strata in itself that makes a society pluralistic, but the public recognition of the existence of equal and equally placed social groups (especially as regards their interests) and the institutionalization of the equality of interests of these groups' (165, S. 25). According to Maria Sczecsi the modern capitalist countries with formal bourgeois democracy, to which Austria also belongs, are precisely such pluralist communities. However, this means that in them the 'social groups', and, in other words, also the classes, and hence also the proletariat, are 'equal and equally placed' in society. The apologetic character of such writings as far as modern capitalism is concerned is more than obvious.
The main function of social and political pluralism, as we have seen, is to look for a remedy for the capitalist system, which is going through a profound crisis, or is simply to cover up its worthlessness.
98 __NUMERIC_LVL1__ PART TWO __ALPHA_LVL1__ THE MONOLITHIC CHARACTER OFAt the basis of the pluralization of MarxismLeninism and of the socialist society lies the assertion that there does not and cannot exist a uniform, objectively true scientific theory of the laws of social development, including the laws of the class struggle and of socialist construction. Hence, there is not and cannot be any strategy for struggle and socialist construction, which is uniform, science-based, and therefore binding on all revolutionary proletarian parties. True, some of the pluralist revisionists do not reject formally the general laws of the class struggle, revolution and socialist construction. In fact, however, they underestimate them and play them down to such a degree that they bring to the fore that which is a peculiarity of a given region or even that which is specific in individual countries.
The overwhelming majority of bourgeois ideologists, including the theoreticians of pluralism, reject the very existence of objective laws in society. On this basis they deny in principle any possibility for the construction of a scientific theory on materialist foundations in order to explain and consciously to regulate social development 99 Emacs-File-stamp: "/home/ysverdlov/leninist.biz/en/0000/MPIP223/20071123/199.tx" __EMAIL__ webmaster@leninist.biz __OCR__ ABBYY 6 Professional (2007.11.23) __WHERE_PAGE_NUMBERS__ bottom __FOOTNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [*]+ __ENDNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [0-9]+ based on objective laws. Such is the view of Karl Popper, already subjected to our criticism, according to whom there are no objective social laws, but there are only social and legal laws---norms created by people'swill. Gnoseological pluralism, together with the adherents of pragmatism, and indeed all the ramifications of neopositivism, in principle also reject the possibility of creating a uniform theory of social development.
Marxism-Leninism as a science and ideology is based on two premises: first, that the development of human society is a natural historical, law-governed process; and, second, that the proletariat is the only class that has made its appearance in the historical development of mankind, which is interested in the elimination of all forms of exploitation and oppression and at the same time in the scientific elucidation of the laws of social development.
In the process of the creation of dialectical and historical materialism, Marx and Engels proved that the development of human society takes place in accordance with objective laws---cognizable and susceptible to conscious regulation. They achieved this first of all by revealing the basic unit of the entire complex structure of society in the mode of production of material goods and in the economic system resulting from it.
Marx's economic theory and the main link in it--- the theory of surplus value---supplied the basis for the study of the laws and mechanisms governing the economic system of capitalism. The exploiting character of capitalism was proved, as well as the necessity for and possibility of overthrowing it and replacing it by a new, higher social system, free of exploitation and oppression of man by man. On this basis Marxism revealed the historical role of the proletariat.
Socialist production relations cannot come into being spontaneously in the old system, as is the case with all preceding production relations.
Under feudalism, in spite of the difficulties created by feudal practice, thousands upon thousands of craftsmen, petty traders and other citizens gradually 100 became capitalists. Under capitalism, however, it is impossible for the workers in the individual capitalist enterprises, in the different branches or inhabited localities, in the same spontaneous way and isolated from one another, to liberate themselves from exploitation. As we all know, the Utopians tried to create under the capitalist political superstructure socialist enterprises in the form of producer cooperatives. These attempts, however, were invariably doomed to failure. The failure of the Utopians as well as the failure of the kindred attempts of the social-democrats to change capitalism by means of reforms also showed that Marxism was right in maintaining that the proletariat cannot liberate itself from exploitation until it overthrows the domination of the bourgeoisie and seizes the state power into its own hands.
But this is not all. The interests and influence of capital, especially in .the advanced capitalist society in the epoch of imperialism, go far beyond the national boundaries. That is why the capitalists from the different countries unite into international unions for joint action against the working people. The union of the French reactionries with the German militarists to stifle the Paris Commune in 1871 and the united imperialist intervention of 14 states against Soviet Russia in 1918--21 are only the most vivid examples of this. The gendarme role which American imperialism plays all over the world in the struggle against the progressive and revolutionary movements; the aggressionof the USA in Indochina; the great number of aggressive military blocs against the peaceful and progressive forces in the world---these are a visual illustration of the fact that the imperialists today, to a still greater degree than before, are uniting on an international scale to fight against revolutionary movements.
The struggle of the working class for socialism is, therefore, in its essence, not only an all-national and all-state cause, but also and international cause. That is why, side by side with the principle of proletarian class solidarity for the overthrow of the domination of the capitalists on an all-state scale, the principle of 101 proletarian internationalism is the theoretical and practical inference which reflects the necessity for constant cooperation between the national detachments of the proletariat in the struggle for socialism.
Class solidarity and internationalism are making headway in spite of the necessity for applying specific tactical forms, methods and ways of conducting the struggle, which depend upon the particular conditions in the different countries and continents, regions; and districts. Or, as Marx and Engels wrote in the Communist Manifesto: 'The communists differ from the other proletarian parties only in that, on the one hand, in the struggle of the proletarians of all countries they point out the interests of the proletariat as a whole, which are common, and not dependent upon nationality, and on the other hand, in that at the different stages of development through which the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie passes, they always defend the interests of the whole movement.' (5, c. 437).
The thoroughly consistent revolutionary role of the proletariat in capitalist society, which no other class or social stratum is playing or has ever played, has not changed in the present conditions in the highly developed capitalist countries, when the relative number of engineers, technicians, scientists and employees among the population has greatly increased and when, as regards its qualifications and place in production, part of the working class is very similar in position to the engineering and technical personnel.
Marxism has also explained that all working people and exploited strata in capitalist society are interested in the construction of the new social system. Thus, it demonstrated the objective possibility and the necessity of rallying the other exploited and oppressed classes and social strata under the leadership of the proletariat in the struggle for the overthrow of the old system. That is why Marxism-Leninism is consciously adopted even under the conditions of capitalism and becomes the ideology even of the most progressive part of the non-proletarian strata of working people, including the most radically thinking progressive elements among 102 the bourgeois intelligentsia, who are ready to sustain all the sacrifices and risks of the revolutionary struggle in the name of scientific truth and social progress.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 2. Development and Diversity, but not PluralismThe 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.
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.
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 103 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).
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.
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.
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.
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 104 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.
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.
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.
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 105 an attack on capitalism, as well as in the construction of the new society.
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.
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.
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.
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 106 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.
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.
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:
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.
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. 107 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.
3. The Leninist principle of peaceful coexistence between the two social systems, the capitalist and the so cialist, has been raised to the fore.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 108 bourgeois ideology, whose most aggressive manifestation is anti-communism, and against any form of revisionism, opportunism and dogmatism.
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.
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.
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.
This accusation, however, rests on a misunderstanding, unless it is an attempt to set up a trap. Marxists 109 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.
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:
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 110 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.
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.
111 __ALPHA_LVL3__ 3. On the Causes that Give Rise to RevisionismThe champions of the idea of the pluralization of Marxism-Leninism avoid discussing the theoretical arguments in support of the thesis that MarxismLeninism is integrated and monistic, and that the community of interests of the whole working class calls for unity of action on the part of the world working class and its national detachments, as well as of its revolutionary vanguard---the communist parties. The bourgeois ideologists have another approach. Passing over in silence all Marxist science-based theoretical considerations, they come forward with `facts'---but facts unfairly selected and interpreted in a distorted way.
Against the Marxist thesis that the working class throughout the world, by virtue of its objective situation, is a revolutionary class, interested in the consolidation of its national and international unity, and that any chauvinism or national narrow-mindedness is alien to it, the bourgeois ideologists put forward individual facts--- that in some countries large detachments of the working class to this day support reactionary political parties and are infected by nationalism and racism, that a number of national and international trade union organizations take up reformist positions.
Against the theoretical principle that MarxismLeninism is a uniform revolutionary ideology of the working class and of the communist parties, the bourgeois ideologists declare that there exist differences and a struggle among Marxists, and in the first place that there are rightist and `leftist' revisionist trends in the ranks of the international workers' and communist movement.
In the same way, against the Marxist thesis that in order to fulfil its vanguard role, the communist movement must be unified and monolithic, which it now is to a considerable degree, the bourgeois ideologists put forward the existence of centrifugal forces in the international communist movement, pointing to the situation that even inside a number of individual communist 112 parties, both ideological and organizational unity have failed to be achieved, that there are manifestations of revisionism, opportunism and dogmatism in them, and in some places even open factional struggles.
Perfidious methods, gross unfairness and subjectivism are the means to which the pluralists resort in this instance. First of all, they exaggerate the dimensions and significance of the disintegrating and dissident phenomena in the ranks of the communist movement and among the supporters of Marxist ideology. In the second place, they quietly bypass or play down the significance of the facts which reveal a trend opposite to that which they desire to see: the strengthening of proletarian revolutionary solidarity on a national and on a worldwide scale; the strengthening of the ideological influence of creative, effective MarxismLeninism in the workers' movement and other strata of the working people; the increasing numbers and strengthened cohesion in the ranks of the majority of communist parties.In the third place.they slur »ver the question of the causes that give rise to negative tendencies among the working class and the communist movement, and the fact that these causes will not exist forever.
The falseness of the `arguments' of the bourgeois ideologists in support of the thesis that a process of disintegration and pluralization of Marxism is afoot will become clearer when we disclose the causes bringing about the penetration of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois influences into the working class, as a result of which revisionist deviations from Marxist-Leninist ideology come into being and periodically flourish hand in hand with opportunist and dissident trends in the ranks of the communist movement.
Marxism-Leninism has never maintained that the working class as a whole, or even its majority, is in a position spontaneously to become conscious of its class standpoint and its common interests, and to attain the level of its scientific, Marxist ideology. Marxism is a science and it is introduced into the consciousness of the working class from the outside, by the __PRINTERS_P_113_COMMENT__ 8.---0518 113 revolutionary vanguard, which has come into being in history through unity between the radical intelligentsia, the creator of a radical revolutionary theory, and the most progressive and conscious elements of the" working class, as Lenin elucidated this question in his controversy with the narodniks as far back as 1894 (10, c. 301, 302, etc.).
Let us point out in this connection that the emergence of a new ideology does not take place by chance. It comes in answer to a public necessity---that the interests and aspirations of a new social stratum or class should be formulated in a systematic way , or that these interests and aspirations should be formulated in a new manner, if their former formulation no longer meets the needs or has become outdated because of subsequent developments, etc.
If the consciousness of the classes and the basic strata of society depends in the final count upon their social life, we may not by any means conclude that it is impossible for a number of strata of working people in various countries to continue for a long time to be under the influence of certain petty-bourgeois and even bourgeois ideological trends. Moreover, there are objective reasons that make individual detachments of the working class more susceptible to alien class influences.
Above all the so-called 'workers aristocracy' is susceptible to bourgeois ideological influence; that is to say, the stratum of the working class whom the capitalists place in a privileged position in comparison with the basic mass of workers, in order to bribe it and turn it into a tool in their own hands in the exploitation and oppression of the whole class. As has repeatedly been noted in Marxist literature, the `workers' aristocracy' (whom some also call `bureaucracy') easily succumbs to a rightist revisionist ideological processing and to common petty-bourgeois reformism. The most corrupted part of it is also susceptible to overtly bourgeois, even anti-communist social movements, as Lenin pointed out (11, c. 35).
114On the other hand, certain very poorly paid and underprivileged strata of the working class, especially when their exploitation is accompanied by national oppression or racial discrimination, as is at present the situation with the Negroes in the USA, are susceptible to left-wing sectarianism and to pseudo-revolutionary ideological trends like anarchism and Trotskyism.
And that is not all.
The ranks of the working class are constantly being supplemented with representatives of the other classes, mainly the peasants and the petty urban bourgeoisie. The new additions to the working class are not a 'blank sheet of paper' as some people like Mao Tse-tung naively imagine. These new additions steadily introduce into the ranks of the working class their own pettybourgeois and bourgeois attitudes,- their prejudices, illusions and wrong conceptions, which it is a difficult job to overcome.
To all this we should add the ever more refined activity of the tremendous apparatus of the bourgeois propaganda institutions, the task of which is to poison the consciousness of the working people with a reactionary ideology, and especially with nationalism and racism, very often served up under most diverse and even `revolutionary' labels.
The unscientific views of social life which spontaneously arise in the consciousness of part of the working class, the elements of petty-bourgeois and bourgeois ideology introduced through the new recruits to the proletariat from the other classes and social strata, and the anti-Marcist views, ideas and theories consciously propagated by the bourgeoisie---all this cannot help influencing, to a greater or lesser extent, the organized vanguards of the proletariat---its Marxist-Leninist parties. The penetration of an alien class consciousness into the ranks of the Marxists and the communist movement, manifests itself in the form of opportunist or revisionist deviations from MarxismLeninism.
Under the present conditions there exist certain specific reasons for the temporary enlivenment of rightist 115 and `leftist' revisionist and opportunist deviations in the ranks of the international communist movement, including the socialist countries.
It would be useful to recall in this connection the remarkable forecast made by V.I.Lenin even before the First World War. Lenin's words were: 'What we are now experiencing only ideologically: the controversies about theoretical corrections of Marx. . . such as tactical differences of opinion with the revisionists and splits caused by them---will necessarily have to be experienced by the working class in incomparably greater dimensions, when the proletarian revolution aggravates all controversial questions. . .' (12, c. ,25). We are now living in a historical period of development of the proletarian revolution on a world scale, such as inevitably leads to an aggravation of the controversial issues, and hence to an intensification of the manifestations of revisionism and opportunism. However, this does not exhaust the question.
The present period poses a number of new problems to be resolved by the revolutionary movement as a whole, and also in the various countries and regions. And, as Lenin rightly pointed out '. . . every more or less "new problem'', every more or less unexpected and unforeseen turning point of events, even when this turning point changes the basic trend of development negligibly and over a very short period---will inevitably give rise to one variety of revisionism or another.' (12, c. 23).
Each one of the socialist countries in the world socialist system, taken as a whole, has had to and still must solve complex and diverse economic, political and cultural problems, and in the first place must overcome the disproportions in its development, territorial and other controversies and contradictions inherited from the past, and set up new forms of cooperation and integration. In looking for ways and means to solve all these complicated problems, there is a danger that the leaders of the individual parties and socialist states may, to a greater or lesser degree, manifest narrowmindedness, nationalism, or insufficient flexibility. 116 Deviations may thus creep in as regards unjustified compromises with capitalism at the expense of the socialist community, or conversely deviations causing an equally unjustified aggravation of relations, the adoption of a policy of kindling conflicts with the imperialist camp, as well as rightist and `leftist' deviations in home policy.
The great economic and cultural backwardness of the countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America, which until not long ago suffered under the colonial oppression of imperialism, creates objective conditions for displays of revolutionary workers, a desire for an artificial acceleration of the triumph of the socialist revolution all over the world, i.e. a resurrection of certain salient features of Trotskyism.
The rapid development of the scientific and technological revolution in the highly developed capitalist countries, for its part, gives rise to processes, the one-sided and unscientific interpretation of which strengthens the old rightist revisionist illusions concerning a gradual `transformation' of capitalism into socialism.
The reasons for the existence of, and a certain increase in, the revisionist trends under a given setup are one thing, but the degree to which a certain revisionist influence will penetrate a given communist party and what damage it will cause to its development is quite another thing.
In the first few extremely difficult years after the Great October Socialist Revolution in the USSR, the objective setup was also favourable for a stepping up even for a `blossoming' of leftist and rightist revisionist trends, and for all manner of ramblings in ideology and in politics. Among the ideological trends which made their appearance then, the most significant and dangerous trend was Trotskyism. However, the dominant Leninist nucleus in the CPSU succeeded in unmasking ideologically all revisionist and opportunist trends and groups among the working class and the working people, and managed to secure the triumph of MarxistLeninist theory, strategy and politics.
117In the conditions after the Second World War when, as a consequence of the reasons enumerated above, the danger of a temporary stepping up of revisionism was enhanced, there were also factors such as revealed and continue to reveal better possibilities for waging a successful struggle against the revisionist wave. Such a factor is above all, the much greater ideological and theoretical maturity and the accumulated experience of the international communist movement in the struggle against revisionsim, opportunism and dogmatism. More particularly in this connection, however, it is a question of the ability of the fraternal parties to take advantage of the experience and wisdom of the most severely tested detachment of the international communist movement, which also has the most eventful revolutionary history---the CPSU, which was organized and educated by Lenin. The facts show that there is a clear possibility for the experience of the CPSU and the international assistance which it provides to be of use not only to the communist and workers' parties, but also to all other revolutionary and progressive trends and organizations.
If we take a look at the development of the workers' and communist parties and at the socialist states, we shall become convinced that the skilful and creative use made of the ideological and theoretical wealth of the present day international communist movement, and, above all, that of the CPSU---as a whole, and especially in the struggle against `leftist' and rightist revisionism, has been of great benefit to the fraternal parties. The difficulties and deviations, which individual communist and workers' parties have lived through as a whole, and more particularly difficulties in the struggle against revisionism, have always been connected with a reluctant careless or unwilling attitude toward making creative use of the great treasurestore of Marxism-Leninism, represented by the experience accumulated by the CPSU in all fields of the revolutionary struggle and peaceful construction.
118 __ALPHA_LVL3__ 4. Is Leninism `Voluntaristic Marxism' ?Revisionism is the main material used by the bourgeois ideologists for the creation of pluralistic versions of Marxism, but not revisionism alone. Looking at it more closely, the pluralistic panorama of Marxism which the bourgeois critics depict is obtained in the following manner. On the one hand, they include in Marxism all revisionist deviations from it, usually also adding to them those of all their colleagues who flirt with Marxism. At the same time, they wilfully and diligently break up the living, integrated and indivisible, and creatively developing Marxism-Leninism into different, independent and, in many respects, mutually inimical `isms'.
There is in fact nothing new in the endeavour of the pluralists to examine Leninism as a separate `variant' of Marxism, as'voluntaristic Marxism' and to set it up against 'original Marxism'. Such have been and still are the futile efforts of hundreds of bourgeois theoreticians aimed at `defeating' Marxism-Leninism chiefly by counter posing Lenin to Marx, and by at the same time distorting the views of both Marx and Lenin. The speculations of the bourgeois ideologists in this field have many times been conclusively unmasked by Marxists both in the USSR and in the other socialist states, as well as in the capitalist countries. Among the Bulgarian works in this field, we must above all point out the works of Todor Pavlov (64), N.Iribadjakov (38, 39), D.Pavlov and N.Trendafilov (63), D.Pavlov (63b) , V.Dobriyanov (31).
The attempts to distort Leninism and to detach it from Marxism, which is a natural continuation and a new stage in its development, and to set it up against it as a special `variant' are of great theoretical and methodological significance for the bourgeois ideologists, in their efforts to `combine' MarxismLeninism, along with the various revisionist and pseudo-Marxist bourgeois ideological trends, in a common pluralistic company under the name of `Marxism'. Once the wrongness and artificiality of this 119 `construction' is proved, it leads to the collapse of many other arguments which are used in support of the pluralization of Marxism. This makes it necessary for us, also, to touch upon this question, though only in brief.
Let us take one of the most typical attempts at counterposing Lenin and Leninism to Marx and Marxism in the evaluation given of Marxism and Leninism as two variants contradicting each other, in the introduction to the collective work of eight prominent modern anticommunists, including Raymond Aron and Richard Lowenthal, published to mark the 100th anniversary of the foundation of the First International, under the title: Marxism and the Contemporary World (the original American edition) and From Marx to Mao Tse-tung (in its French translation, which we quote (101).
In the introduction to the book which is unsigned and may be considered as being the work of the whole group of authors, Leninism is described as ' voluntaristic Marxism' which is counterposed to the 'deterministic social physics of Marx in his mature period and of Engels' (101, p.9). These assertions are in full disagreement with the truth. There are no real reasons why the profoundly grounded social theory of Marx and Engels, in which the actual role of the subjective factor in the development of society was for the first time scientifically elucidated, should be called ' social physics'. On the other hand, in Lenin's work there are no elements which might give us any grounds for accusing him of voluntarism and subjectivism.
The authors of the `introduction' try to adduce an important `argument' in support of their accusing Leninism of `voluntarism', an argument which is also repeated by many other authors. It is an attempt at a strange, anti-scientific `interpretation' of the October Revolution and of socialist construction in the USSR.
The historic achievements of the Bolshevik Party, which started with the victorious socialist revolution in Russia in 1917, and have led up to the triumph of socialism and the construction of communism in the Soviet Union, as well as the decisive role of the victories 120 and assistance of the USSR in setting up the world socialist system after the Second World War, are a brilliant and convincing confirmation of the theory of Marxism-Leninism and of the Leninist revolutionary strategy, which is based on it. However, the pluralist Marxologists are trying to pass off white as black. According to them, the practice of the bolsheviks in 1917 was in utter contradiction with 'the very spirit of scientific Marxism and its impersonal laws of history' (101, p. 9). Here is how this absurd assertion is explained : 'Having stifled the emergent parliamentarism in Russia and having denied capitalism any chances of developing within the framework of a bourgeois democracy, Lenin rejected Marx's maxim according to which 'no social system disappears before all the productive forces have developed for which there is scope under it' (101, p. 10).
The term 'impersonal laws of history' is aimed at creating the impression that Marxism and Marx personally consider the laws of history, i.e. of social development, as laws, the action of which is manifested irrespective of the activities of the people. This is absolutely untrue. In their works Marx and Engels repeatedly pointed out that the people themselves make their own history (6, c. 102). Alongside with this, Marxism underlines, however, that the laws of society are objective in the sense that they do not depend upon the vdll of the people, but, conversely, influence the formation of their will. The fact is that the bourgeois critics either forget the first statement, or insofar as they mention it, do so to assert that there is an irreconcilable contradiction between these two statements in Marx and Engels.
Marx and Engels gave us the key through which these two only at first sight contradictory statements are united : 'social laws are objective' and 'people themselves make their own history'. They proved that objective social relations and laws bring about the social structure of society, and on this basis there arises the contradiction between the interests of the different classes and strata in antagonistic class societies. Those 121 classes and strata in society may be termed progressive whose interests coincide with the development of society, i.e. with the action of the objective social laws. Gradually, the progressive class and stratum, and more precisely its most active detachments, become conscious, in one or another ideological form, of the objective trends in social development and begin to act consciously and purposefully to bring about the implementation of these trends. It is in this way that the will of the progressive social forces is formed. In principle, the same holds true for the reactionary classes and social strata. Their interests demand that the outdated social relations should be preserved. It is on this basis that their conservative role (and ideology) is formed---they resist the revolutionary reconstruction of society.
The main trend of social development is therefore laid by the requirements of the objective social laws. However, the rate at which this development takes place depends first of all upon the conscious activity of the subjective factors. It is the consciousness and the will of the people that the concrete developments in each individual country depend on, as well as the question of whether the revolution in it will triumph sooner or later.
The bourgeois opponents of Marxism also draw false conclusions from Marx's quoted thought that no system disappears, before the productive forces for which it has scope have developed.
This thought put forward by Marx was mainly aimed against the Utopian socialists who dreamed of ' introducing' socialism into capitalist society before the working class---the subjective factor---had developed, without whose maturity and activity the overthrow of capitalism and the construction of socialism was impossible. However, in the middle of the 19th century, when Marx and Engels wrote their famous Communist Manifesto, they thought that capitalist conditions had sufficiently matured to enable them to call on the proletariat to make an attack and seize power.
122What is more, in the middle of the 19th century Marx and Engels also put forward the question of the transformation of the bourgeois-democratic revolution into a socialist revolution. But let us come back to the Manifesto. In it we read: 'The communists focus their attention mainly on Germany, because Germany finds herself on the eve of a bourgeois revolution and because she will effect this transformation under more advanced conditions of European civilization in general, and with a more highly developed proletariat, than England in the 17th century and France in the 18th century. Thus, the German bourgeois revolution can only be the immediate prologue of a proletarian revolution' (5, c. 459).
What happened in Russia in 1917 was precisely what Marx and Engels had wanted to happen in Germany in 1848--49: the transformation of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, into a socialist revolution. Moreover, on a world scale in general, and in Russia in particular, conditions in 1917 were much more favourable than they had been in Germany in 1848--49. Capitalism had already entered the imperialist stage of its development, and its basic contradictions had become very deep. Russia herself was a focal point of all the basic contradictions of capitalism. These favourable conditions were skilfully put to advantage by the Bolshevik Party and thus it was that the victory in October 1917 was won. Consequently, in connection with this issue again, Marx cannot be opposed to Lenin, or Marxism to Leninism.
Let us note that the opinion that Russia was an extremely backward country, at an almost precapitalist stage of development, which is circulated by the bourgeois Marxologists, is utterly incorrect. Although she was a backward country, with feudal agriculture and with great predominance of the rural population over the urban, and of agriculture over industry, tsarist Russia at the same time was also one of the countries with the highest concentration of capital and of the working class. More than half of the factory workers in Russia on the eve of the First World War were employed at big enterprises with more than 500 123 workers (25, c. 463). That is why in 1907 V.I.Lenin underlined that in tsarist Russia there was a ' contradiction' between comparatively developed capitalism in industry and monstrous backwardness in the countryside (8, c. 293, 294).
Thus it is absolutely anti-scientific and wrong to attempt to counterpose the scientific and revolutionary works of V.I.Lenin to the teaching and works of K.Marx, and to examine Leninism as a separate social teaching or a `variant' to be in any way opposed to Marxism. In all such attempts one discerns the class bias of the bourgeois ideologists, which has nothing in common with a search for scientific truth.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 5. `Pluralized Marxism' According to the BourgeoisEncyclopaedias and dictionaries published in the West are among those which most vividly reveal the main trends in the socio-political thought of the capitalist world. Such is, for instance, the `pluralistic' picture of Marxism-Leninism according to the authors of the International Relations Dictionary, published in the USA in 1969, the work of scientists from the Western Michigan University.
Under the common heading of Communist Doctrine the following `variants' of Marxism are enumerated, given in alphabetical order, according to the transcription of the respective terms in the English language. For greater clarity, we shall give them in their historical or chronological order.
Marxism. This embraces, according to the authors, the economic, political and social theories of K.Marx and F.Engels. Note: in Marxism there is no development---it is the frozen sum total of the ideas of its founders. Moreover, the philosophy of Marx and Engels, dialectical materialism, is in effect missing, because it is by no means exhaustively covered by 'social theories'.
Leninism. This is presented as a 'theoretical interpretation and practical application of Marxism by 124 Lenin'. Consequently, nothing is said about a further development of Marxism by Lenin, but only about its interpretation and application! Lenin's theoretical conclusion on the possibility of the socialist revolution succeeding at first in a few, or even in one, and not one of the most advanced countries at that, is incorrectly presented as a conception of the 'possibility of the socialist revolution triumphing in countries in a pre-capitalist stage of development!.
Stalinism. This is presented as a theoretical interpretation and practical application of the Marxist doctrine by Stalin from the mid twenties to 1953.
Trotskyism. In full contradiction with the actual dissident and provocative role which Trotskyism plays in the international communist and workers' movement, in the dictionary we read that Trotskyism was an 'ideology, calling upon the proletariat from all countries to unite and join efforts for the world triumph of communism'.
Titoism. According to the authors, this is the 'theory and practice of national communism', maintained by Tito, which made its appearance in 1948 when Tito rejected the 'monopoly approach to world communism'.
Khrushchevism. This consisted pf the 'contributions of Khrushchev to communist doctrine and its application in the USSR during the period of 1956--1963'.
Maoism. This is presented as a 'theory of civil war in backward peasant colonial and semi-colonial countries' It is also pointed out that Maoism rejects peaceful coexistence in favour of the Trotskyite thesis of `permanent' revolution.
A similar 'pluralistic structure' of Marxism is also given in the collection 'From Marx to Mao Tse-tung' (101). As in his other works, so also in the article printed in this collection, R.Aron stubbornly defends the view that Marxism-Leninism does not represent an integrated teaching. According to Aron, the term `Marxism' means either the 'ideas of Marx, such as the historian can restore them', or the 'ideas of Marx, such as the different schools, declaring themselves Marxist, 125 interpret them, with respect to their own epoch, problems and goals'. (88, p. 15, author's italics---A.K.). Let us note in passing that R.Aron in his article serves us yet another `variant' of Marxism, which is not mentioned in the contents of the book: so-called 'Hegelianized Marxism'. As its representatives Aron mentions M. Merlo-Ponti and Jean Paul Sartre, in France, K.Korsch, M.Horkheimer, Wiesengrund-Adorno, H.Markuse, E.Bloch, etc. in Germany (88, p. 35, 36). The reader will understand that it is a matter here of bourgeois ideologists who flirt with Marxism, but belong to different philosophical and sociological trends.
Somewhat different names are given to the different `variants' of modern Marxism by Herbert Schack in his book 'Marx, Mao, and Neomarxism' (157). According to him in our times we should be speaking mainly of ' Soviet Marxism', 'democratic Marxism', 'revolutionary Marxism' and `neo-Marxism'.
Under the heading 'Soviet Marxism' he examines Lenin, Stalin and the development of Leninism in the Soviet Union after Stalin's death. The very fact that Leninism is examined as Soviet Marxism speaks of the metaphysical, subjectivist approach of the author, which is typical, by the way, of almost all pluralizers of Marxism: their endeavour being to reduce Leninism to a variant of Marxism. In this connection let us recall the fact that as early as 1928 Sidney Hook tried to present Leninism as a 'Slav variant' of Marxism (66, c. 68).
Under the name of 'democratic Marxism' the author examines the theory and practice of socialist construction in the Federal Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia, and what he calls the 'communist liberation movement', which includes all the major rightist revisionist manifestations in the European socialist states, which 'rose up against totalitarian communism' (to use Schack's expression). Of course, the organizers of the Hungarian counter-revolution in 1956, headed by Imre Nagy and the revisionists in Czechoslovakia, who 126 revealed themselves in particular in 1968--69 (Ota Sick, etc.) have not been neglected.
H.Schack gives the honourable name of ' revolutionary Marxism' to Maoism. Under the same ' variant' of Marxism the author lists Che Guevara and the guerrilla movements, i.e. the leftist partisan movement in Latin America. Finally, under the heading 'neo-- Marxism' Schack includes an 'open complex of ideas' within whose framework the ideological wealth of the early works of Marx and Engels has been elucidated, criticised, supplemented and deepened. Schack's ' neoMarxism' is in many respects identical with the 'Hegelianized Marxism' of R.Aron.
Wolfgang Leonhard also comes forward with a claim to analyze and support with arguments the ' pluralization' of Marxism, in a voluminous work, entitled 'Die Dreispaltung des Marxism us. Ur sprung undEntwicklung des Sowjetmarxismus, Maoismus und Reformkommunismus'. (The Threefold Split of Marxism. Origin and Development of Soviet Marxism, Maoism and Reform Communism, 137).
In his youth, Leonhard lived and studied in the USSR. Later he worked as functionary of the German Socialist Unity Party, but then crossed over to rightist revisionist standpoints. In 1949 he left the GDR and passed over into, the ranks of the active anticommunists. That is why we cannot but accept with great suspicion the strongly underlined endeavour on the part of Leonhard to present himself at all costs as impartial and objective in his analysis of the historical development and contemporary state of MarxismLeninism.
A study of the content of the book shows that the tendentiously selected, though abundant, facts which the author uses do not lend an impression of objectiveness and win the confidence of the reader. The very title of the book 'The Threefold Split of Marxism' shows that Leonhard has set himself the task of upholding a thesis which is untrue in its essence and diversionist in its purpose---his object is to give a negative answer to the 127 question asked in the advertising text on the cover of the book: 'Is there, in fact, any integrated Marxism?'
The main conclusion drawn by Leonhard is that Marxism from its inception to the present day has constantly fragmented, with different `variants' branching out from it, until we come to its total fragmentation in the last two decades into three mutually inimical trends.
To lend greater conviction and visual presentation to this anti-scientific and wrong conclusion, the alleged 'process of the disintegration of Marxism' is graphically drawn as a thick trunk representing Marxism, from which several branches spread out.
One of the most important anti-scientific and falsifying factors in the approach of all `pluralizers' of Marxism, as in the case of Leonhard, is that he hides the main source of all ideological deviations from Marxism, beginning from Bernstein and ending with Mao Tse-tung, whom he presents as taking over and continuing the ideas of Marx and Engels. Leonhard and all his fraternity simply pass by in silence, and do not even try to refute the crucial, decisive fact, which has been proved by scientific Marxist-Leninist analysis and confirmed by the real socio-political role played by all revisionist deviations from Marxism in the class struggle: that they are either an eclectic combination of Marxism with a bourgeois or petty-bourgeois ideology or simply bourgeois and petty bourgeois ideological trends dressed up in Marxist phraseology.
In the above-mentioned 'family tree' of pluralized Marxismi devised by Leonhard, one of the sources of all revisionist deviations from Marxism---the Marxist source, is indicated as their sole source. Nothing is said, however, about the other sources, which determine their main content: the various bourgeois and petty-bourgeois schools and teachings in the field of philosophy, sociology, ethics, political science, etc., of which the authors of the revisionist trends in question have made ample use. This is often openly acknowledged by the revisionists with the explanation that in this 128 way they have `supplemented' and 'further developed' Marxism.
To be exact, we have to note that in a great many instances the bourgeois `pluralizers' of MarxismLeninism point to many non-Marxist sources for the various ideological trends which they pass off as 'variants of Marxism'. Nevertheless, when it is a question of the character of those ideological trends, a character which most clearly reveals that they are not branches of, or trends in Marxism, but are non-Marxist trends, of which Marxism is at best one of the sources--- then Leonhard, Lo'wenthal, Schack, Aron, etc. do not say anything about their most important theoretical sources, and simply stamp them `Marxist'.
Among the representatives of outright anticommunism of the old type let us point out Francois Fejto, the author of the 'Dictionary of the Communist Parties and Revolutionary Movement' published in 1971 in France. As an `introduction' to the dictionary we find an article entitled The Crisis in Marxist Internationalism'. Communism as an ideology, according to the author, is in a jprocess of disintegration (109, p. 11, 13). This disintegration is precisely the `pluralization' of Marxist-Leninist ideology, the appearance of trends warring against each other---`Moscow', Maoist, Castroist, etc. (p. 16).
In Fejto the imagined crisis of communism performs another, more special function. He is among the pessimistically inclined bourgeois ideologists as regards the present and future of capitalism. According to him modern civilization in general is in a crisis. The crisis embraces the 'church, political, cultural and social institutions' in all countries (c. 38). Thus, the assertion that communism too is in a crisis serves him to a certain extent as consolation. The fire is not only in our own home, but also in that of our enemy!
We might continue to enumerate the works in which the thesis of Marxist pluralism is not so much founded as propagated, but we shall not find there anything new in principle.
__PRINTERS_P_129_COMMENT__ 9.---0518 129One of the important common features, which shows the same starting point of all `pluralizers' of Marxism is that they all display almost the same biased attitude ---negative towards modern Marxism-Leninism, and favourable toward rightist and `leftist' revisionism.
The ideologists of imperialism usually present rightist revisionism in the most favourable light, as `creative', `humane', and `democratic' Marxism. Today rightist revisionism is advertised by the most reactionary bourgeois ideologists like Lowenthal as ' authentic' and `creative' Marxism. Only one who can believe that the time has come when the bourgeois ideologists have themselves begun to propagate the death of capitalism could take such an assertion at all seriously.
An obvious testimony to the favourable attitude of modern anti-communism towards the rightist revisionists is the endeavour of certain authors to give a more attractive collective name to all rightist trends in Marxism and the communist movement. The wellknown `Marxologist'Heinz Lippman displays particular diligence in the matter. In the May-June 1970 issue of 'Problems of Communism', H.Lippman insistently advises his colleagues to cease calling the rightist revisionist champions of bourgeois ideology in the workers' movement by the derogatory term `revisionists', and suggests the name 'reform communists' (140, p. 15, 16). The reader has perhaps noticed that the above-mentioned W.Leonhard has taken note of this instruction, because in the subtitle of Leonhard's book, quoted above, rightist revisionism is called'reform communism' (137).
The general attitude of bourgeois ideologists towards the leftist revisionist deviations, towards Trotskyism, Maoism and Marcusianism is also favourable. And precisely those ultraleftist, adventurist positions and their anti-Sovietism, which are not only farthest removed from Marxism but are also the falsest and most harmful for the working people and for their struggle, are pointed out by the bourgeois pluralizers of Marxism in great detail and are presented as being most positive and revolutionary. This is done for the obvious purpose 130 of diverting the working people who have embraced the revolutionary idea, who reject capitalism, do not accept rightist revisionism and are ready to fight for socialism, from genuine Marxism-Leninism, and pushing them along the road of `leftist' revisionism, which at first sight looks rapid and `revolutionary' but is in fact adventurist and condemns those who follow it to inevitable failures and disillusionment.
The attitude of modern ' Marxologists' toward what they call 'Soviet Marxism' is openly hostile and inimical, accompanied by many efforts to distort the meaning of its principles and to empty it of any content. They describe it as ossified, dogmatic, outdated , `etatist', anti-humane, bureaucratic, etc. The bourgeois ideologists do this, because they understand that precisely `Soviet', i.e. genuine Marxism-Leninism is really a threat to their master-imperialism.
One of the major tasks of all theorizings of the bourgeois ideologists about the many kinds of Marxism is to sow distrust and a negative attitude above all toward the CPSU and the Soviet Union, toward the socialist system which has already been set up there, and toward the construction of communism, toward the 'domestic and foreign policy of the USSR. This is so, because the CPSU is the founder of Leninism, the most experienced bearer of genuine Marxism-Leninism and because while the Soviet Union is the mightiest detachment and mainstay of the world revolutionary movement, and therefore the main enemy of imperialism.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 6. Ideological Content of the `Variants' and the PracticeTo 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.
Marx and Engels hammered out the scientific and revolutionary ideology of the proletariat in a fierce 131 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.
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.
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.
Even at the beginning of our century in his work 'Materialism and Empiriocriticism' V.I.Lenin wrote: 'Ever subtler falsifications of Marxism, ever more 132 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).
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.
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).
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 133 succeeded in developing Marxism in accordance with the requirements of the new historical period into which mankind was entering---the period of imperialism.
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.
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.
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.
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 134 construction of socialism was started under the guidance of the communist parties.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 135 forward with the idea of `supplementing' Marxism with various fashionable contemporary bourgeois philosophical trends---structuralism,, existentialism, Freudianism, etc.
`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.
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 136 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.
__NUMERIC_LVL2__ CHAPTER II. __ALPHA_LVL2__ THE REVISIONISTS ANDWe have seen that true, creative Marxism-Leninism is alien to the idea of pluralism of any kind---either in the direction of a retreat from the monistic and materialistic interpretation of social development, or in the direction of recognizing the existence of many equally good theories concerning the development of society.
It is logical in this connection to ask ourselves the question: what is the attitude of the representatives of revisionist deviations from Marxism-Leninism towards the bourgeois idea about its pluralization?
In this connection the efforts of the Zagreb philosopher Predrag Vranicki, one of the editors of the revisionist philosophical magazine `Praxis' should be pointed out first of all. Vranicki expounds his views on the question in his `theses', published in the materials of the 14th International Congress on Philosophy, which was held in September 1968 in Vienna. The title of these `Theses' is self-explanatory: 'On the necessity of different variants in Marxist philosophy' (172, S. 139-- 141).
Let us note that in his book 'history of Marxism' published in Zagreb in 1961, Vranicki was still championing an `integral', i.e. monolithic Marxism. However, even then the idea of `variants' was not alien to him. Thus, for instance, in the above-mentioned book he proclaimed Leninism as a variant of Marxism, which had not 'justified itself (52, c. 333). Starting out from such a false basis, he has come to the conclusion of the necessity of many variants.
137In their form, Vranicki's `theses' strive to imitate K. Marx's famous theses on Ludwig Feuerbach. In the first thesis, though in not a very clear form, Vranicki expresses a correct thought---that the level of philosophy depends upon the level of human and social practice.
Correct conclusions could be drawn from this thought along two lines: first, that, in its development, philosophy may arrive at a scientific stage and become a consistent science only when social practice, or more precisely society itself, arrives at a certain stage of development. And, secondly, that while in society there exist classes with antagonistic interests, philosophy will of necessity have a class character.
Vranicki, however, takes another road. After indicating in his second thesis that the many-sidedness of social practice gives rise to many-sidedness in the theoretical approach to this practice, Vranicki enters a field in which the unscientific character of his approach begins to manifest itself clearly. In his third thesis he explains that precisely for the reasons indicated in the first two theses---and to avoid misunderstandings adding in parentheses 'without taking into consideration other changing historical conditions such as class reasons'---'philosophy so far has had of necessity to be diverse'.
It is here that clarity should be introduced: the many-sidedness of social practice calls for manysidedness in the theoretical approach, but not for manysidedness only. The many-sided approach K in the study of social practice is needed, because social life is a very complicated social field, in which an interwining of different laws takes place, for the study of which mankind has created different sciences: philosophy, sociology, political economy, etc. Hower, the manysided social phenomena of one and the same kind are studied by one science which brings these many-sided phenomena under the common denominators of the respective laws. Or, to put it in a more general way, every science analyzes and expresses one or another complex and many-sided field of objective reality, but 138 in every more or less delineated field of objective reality the respective science reveals its laws and on this basis strives and builds up an integrated scientific theory.
The same is true of scientific Marxist-Leninist philosophy, political economy, sociology, etc. Dialectical and historical materialism and MarxismLeninism as a whole is an integrated scientific theory, precisely because it reveals the general laws of complex and many-sided reality and, above all, of society and social practice. .And like the other sciences Marxism also develops and enriches itself, but this further development of Marxism-Leninism, as we have already pointed out, does not destroy, but consolidates its monolithic character.
But can we explain the diversity in philosophy hitherto, i.e. the presence in it of many schools and trends, by the many-sidedness of social practice precisely outside the class structure, i.e. outside the contradictory interests of the different classes? In order to avoid being accused of one-sidedness let us once again underline that there are gnoseological reasons for the formation of the different trends in the historical development of philosophy. However, social and class considerations have been decisive and of paramount importance for the existence of the main trends and schools in the whole history of mankind up to now. In other words, Vranicki abandons the main, social and class aspect of the Marxist approach to social phenomena.
The erroneous courseof Vranicki's thoughts becomes clearer in the following thesis, where he tries to explain `pluralism' in Marxist philosophy.
Being the most sensitive social barometer, Marxist philosophy, according to Vranicki, needs to be first of all diverse and then it must change so as to react to the changes taking place in social life.
As to changing, Marxist philosophy no doubt does not remain immutable, although this term in this instance is not sufficiently clearly defined, because there can be all manner of changes. The law-governed changes in 139 Marxist philosophy take the form of its further development and enrichment. The attempts at a revisionist distortion of Marxism also constitute a certain change, but, as we have seen, they go beyond the general quality of Marxism, and are essentially a manifestation of bourgeois or petty-bourgeois ideology.
But how does Vranicki proceed further? He comes forward with the statement that 'man's creative work never abides within a prescribed framework'. In this statement, however, the basic Marxist principle is neglected or at least bypassed in silence, that man's creative activity is developed in the field, i.e. within the framework, of the possibilities created by the objective laws. That is why the quoted thesis opens up the way to subject!vist arbitrariness and voluntarism.
However, Vranicki also puts forward another incorrect thesis---that it was wrong to consider Marxist philosophy as a theoretical basis of the political vanguard of the proletariat. At this point he definitely breaks with both the fundamental Marxist principle of the class and Party character of every philosophy, and in fact with the principle, initially proclaimed by himself, of the dialectical unity between theory and practice. This is' because Marxism-Leninism, including its philosophical basis, is a theoretical expression first of all of the interests and struggles of the proletariat, headed by its political vanguard.
Now we can more easily understand how Vranicki comes to the following wrong conclusions: that the approaches to historical problems and to human problems in general were so diverse that they allowed for most diverse conceptions in Marxist philosophy, including 'extreme differences' between them; that 'the view of a single Marxist philosophy, or of a uniform structure of this philosophy had to be decisively rejected, and the necessity of different variants had to be admitted'.
Vranicki does not make an attempt to elucidate the objective reasons (within the framework of the general phrase 'diversity of practice') that make it necessary for Marxist philosophy not to be an integrated, 140 monolithic science. He does not go on to explain either what, more specifically, in his opinion, should be understood by 'different variants of Marxism'. Does he consider the historically formed and recognized revisionist deviations from Marxism as such `variants'? In fact Vranicki's theorizings are an attempt to proclaim as necessary that which the bourgeois pluralizers accept as a fact, without trying to explain it theoretically.
Leszek Kolakovski also tries to make a `contribution' to the efforts of adducing arguments in support of the necessity of pluralizing Marxism. As starting point he chooses the erroneous and reactionary view of the predominant part of bourgeois philosophers and sociologists that in the field of the social sciences authentic, objective knowledge is impossible. Proceeding from this anti-scientific standpoint, the refers to the confidence of Marxists that objective knowledge can be obtained as `primitive'. As evidence he quotes the assertion that almost every generation reshuffles human history in its own way (132, p. 182). Hence, it follows that Marxism, too. cannot claim to be giving authentic knowledge.
The assertion that every generation elaborates, i.e. makes its own contribution to, the study of the historical past contains a grain of truth. This is also true of Marxist, scientific historiography. The latter also continues to deepen our knowledge of the past. But with what science is this not the case? Which science has established 'truths of the last instance', not needing any further development?
That is why, due to the fact that our social knowledge is limited and incomplete, no relativistic and pluralistic inferences can in any event be made about social science, as Kolakovski does.
Kolakovski also takes up alien, non-Marxist positions when he denies the necessity of `standards', i.e. criteria for the purity of Marxist doctrine. This recreant from Marxism, without any doubt, is afraid of the criteria of its purity. However, there are such criteria and the chief one among them is social practice, and in this 141 instance the practice of the class struggle and socialist construction. Marxists-Leninists in general can make good use of this criterion. On the basis of it they are in a position to determine Kolakovski's place in the ideological duel of the times: in the mire of revisionism.
As we can see, both Vranicki and Kolakovski strive to contribute, as best they can, to the justification of the bourgeois conception of pluralizing Marxism, the aim of which is diversionist.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 2. At the Tail of the Bourgeois TheoreticiansThere are not many attempts among the rightist revisionists to explain openly and widely the necessity of pluralizing Marxism. The majority of them get entwined in the tail of the bourgeois pluralists. The difference between them is in their approach. The bourgeois pluralists usually pretend to take up the position of an `impartial' researcher who allegedly objectively compares the different `variants' of Marxism. Unlike them, the rightist revisionists defend pluralism from the position of 'one of the variants', usually claiming that they have put forward the best variant: 'authentic Marxism', 'humane Marxism', etc.
Lombardo-Radice sets out towards pluralism from the assertion that the question as to whether there is an integrated Marxist philosophy is still unsolved. As we have seen, this is an entirely arbitrary assertion, which has nothing in common with the truth. Having placed under unjustified suspicion the existence of a single philosophical foundation of Marxism, Lombardo-Radice hastens to utter another untruth, rejecting the indissoluble link and reciprocal dependence between the basic component parts of Marxism. He says that the recognition of the social teaching of Marxism and above all of scientific socialism is not necessarily linked up with the recognition of dialectical materialism (142a, S. 254--255). The revisionist Gajo Petrovic goes still further. According to him the fundamental principle that dialectical materialism is a 142 philosophical foundation of Marxism, and as such is the worldview of the proletarian vanguard, is a 'Stalinist conception'. That is why he has a negative attitude towards it (149, S. 14).
Petrovic is hardly so ignorant as not to know that Marx and Engels created the three components of Marxism, the methodological basis of which is dialectical materialism. The important thing is that this assertion of his is in outright contradiction with both the spirit and the letter of Marxism.
Let us point out that on this question again the pluralist revisionists of Marxism are not original. They repeat or `rediscover' principles given them by the bourgeois `Marxologists'. Thus, for instance, according to the British professor of political economy, the wellknown `Marxologist' and anti-communist John Plamenats, dialectical materialism is not an indivisible part of Marxism and is not of essential significance for it. Marxism in general according to Plamenats, has no philosophy of its own (38, c. 30, 31). And Sidney Hook straightforwardly declares that it is a `dogma' to think that a communist has to be a dialectical materialist, i.e. that the social doctrine of Marxism is necessarily connected with a dialectical materialistic world view(153, p. 187). What is more, the modern revisionists and bourgeois ideologists repeat their predecessors on this question, beginning with E.Duhring and E.Bernstein.
Let us only note in passing that this very old and repeatedly unmasked bourgeois revisionist attempt to deprive scientific socialism of its theoretical, methodological and philosophical basis manifested itself in the past in Bulgaria too. As early as the beginning of the 20th century, the founder of the Bulgarian Communist Party and outstanding Marxist Dimiter Blagoev refuted these views which were championed at that time by D. Mihalchev and other anti-Marxists in the country, and declared them to be groundless. (20, c. 163).
The bourgeois revisionist conception of the pluralization of Marxism is also upheld by a number of 143 Yugoslav authors, side by side with the above-- mentioned Predrag Vranicki and Gajo Petrovic: Zdravko Munishic, (147, S. 534, 535), Mihailo Markovich (146, S. 6), Veliko Korac (133, p. 77) etc. Some Czechoslovak philosophers who during the period between 1965--68 became forthright exponents of rightist revisionism also upheld the view of a pluralization of Marxism. The pluralistic positions of the Czechoslovak revisionist philosophers were particularly forthrightly upheld by Josef Kosek and Julius Strinka at the international symposium held in June 1968 in Varna on a critique of modern bourgeois philosophy^^*^^.
The `pluralism' of modern Marxism is in fact also championed by another prominent representative of rightist revisionism, Ernst Fischer. He maintains that at present there are 'four variants of Marxist ideology' (110, c. 158).
Certain rightist revisionists also use as an argument in support of the conception of 'Marxist pluralism' "the bourgeois thesis of an 'absolute freedom of criticism'. The consideration is more specifically expressed that in the ranks of the Marxists different trends and directions are bound to appear, if the'freedom to criticise' or the 'right to an opinion' within the Marxist camp is strictly observed.
We have already examined the question of the conflict of opinions as a natural form of development of science of general and of Marxism-Leninism in particular. Here, however, the real issue is different--- that of taking advantage of the formal situation of 'freedom of opinion' for the purpose of defending antiMarxist views inside the Marxist organizations, the `right' to carry on a struggle for the purpose of imposing these views instead of Marxism.
In this spirit the rightist revisionists of the kind of L.Kolakovski, E.Fischer and R.Garaudy proclaim the situation of ideological and theoretical confusion and babel as natural and necessary for the Marxists. In _-_-_
^^*^^ See Filosofska Missal (Philosophical Thought) magazine, issue 10, 1968, p. 95. 96 and 100.
144 support of their attempt to transfer these flaws of bourgeois ideology into the ranks of Marxism, the rightist revisionists quote certain statements by Marx and Engels, especially from their earlier writings, on the critical character of revolutionary theory. This theory according to them should subject to criticism everything that exists.When Marx and Engels wrote their works, their environment and social reality was a reality of exploitation. It was necessary to reveal its essence through and through. That is why, in view of the epoch in which they lived, they had good reason to raise the question of the necessity to criticise 'everything that exists'.
Can our contemporary reality, however, be viewed in the same way, when in a number of countries in three continents a new socialist reality is under construction, in which exploitation and oppression of man have been done away with? According to the rightist revisionists, who empty Marxism of its class (and materialistic) content, there should be no difference in principle between capitalism and socialism in this respect. That is why both in the capitalist and in the socialist countries the 'philosophy of practice', as they name their own philosophy which is devoid of class and materialist content, finds itself faced with the same fundamental task: 'mercilessly to criticise everything that exists'!
The absurdity, the non-scientific character and the dogmatic spirit of this approach are obvious. Dialectical and historical materialism is a theoretical and methodological basis for all the conscious, planned activity of the communist party and the socialist state, of socialist and communist construction. That is why it is quite natural that Marxist philosophy under socialism should first of all fulfil a positive, constructive and guiding role. It does not follow from this, however, that it becomes a groundless defence, an 'instrument for justifying the actions of the leaders', as the anti-communists and revisionists 'wrongly maintain. In affirming the progressive socialist social system, Marxist philosophy at the same time helps to reveal---and overcome---the __PRINTERS_P_145_COMMENT__ 10.---0518 145 shortcomings and mistakes which occur in the process of construction. However just as the affirmative role of Marxist philosophy is no groundless defence, so also its critical role is not and cannot be a negation of the system. On the contrary, it helps it precisely by criticising its weaknesses, and by contributing to overcome them.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 3. Mao Tse-~tung and the Pluralist IdeaFor the `leftist' revisionists, for the Trotskyites as well as the Maoists,' genuine contemporary MarxismLeninism boils down to their own theorizings, which are in fact a subjectivist and adventurist caricature of Marxism-Leninism. That is why among Marxists the prevailing opinion is that the main representatives of contemporary `leftist' revisionism do not formally admit the pluralization of Marxism; and that they reject the idea of the existence of different variants of Marxism-Leninism and defend the view of its unity.
With their hostile attitude towards modern MarxismLeninism and with their slanders against the realistic domestic and foreign policy of the Soviet Union and most of the other socialist countries, the representatives of `leftist' revisionism nowadays supply the greatest number of `arguments' to the anti-communists in support of their assertions that there are many kinds of Marxism; that the different `variants' of Marxism are hostile to each other and that every 'national variant' of Marxism in the socialist countries is only a way to disguise the 'national egoism' of the individual countries. This, for instance, is what Paul Lendvai, whom we have already quoted once, maintains(136).
The view that the leftist revisionists and more specifically the Maoists do not admit the pluralization of Marxism, was until not long ago shared by us (42, c. 46-- 47, 44, c. 30). However, this assertion must be modified and specified, especially with respect to Maoism and Mao 'Tse-tung; himself.
In Mao Tse-tung and in his followers we indeed come across a considerable number of categorical 146 statements in the generally accepted Marxist spirit, in which every idea concerning the pluralization of Marxism-Leninism is denied.What is more, in connection with the claimsof the Mao Tse-tung group to a leading role in the international communist movement, the Maoists have even come forward with the principle that 'the ideas of Chairman Mao' are the peak of contemporary Marxist-Leninist thought, i.e. that Maoism represents the highest contemporary stage in the development of Marxism-Leninism. These claims are without any doubt absurd. Nevertheless they still do not harmonize with the conception of the pluralization of Marxism-Leninism. The slandering of the CPSU and the tremendous majority of other communist parties as `revisionists', 'social imperialists' and the like, connected with the claims to leadership and the pan-Chinese policy of the Maoist group, enhances this impression.
However, as on many questions, here again in Maoism and in the statements of Mao himself, we can find contradictory views and principles. One antiMarxist principle of Mao Tse-tung on this question is well-known; it is not only in consonance with, but simply paraphrases the most extreme, overtly nationalistic formulation of the conception of the pluralization of Marxism-Leninism: that 'national variants' of Marxism do exist.
This is what we read in the report of Mao Tse-tung to the Sixth Plenum of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party in October 1938: There is no abstract Marxism, there is only concrete Marxism. What is concrete Marxism? It is Marxism which has assumed a national form. That is why Marxismshould be given a Chinese essence and should display a Chinese character in each one of its manifestations' (41, c. 94--95, author's italics, A.K.).
It is true that in the above quotation Mao Tse-tung speaks mainly of the national form of Marxism, and not of a national'variant'. Let u§ assume that the 'Chinese essence of Marxism' is identical with the 'Chinese form of Marxism'. Any attempt, however, to make a substantial distinction in this connection between the meaning 147 of the terms form and va.ria.flt is futile. In fact 'national form of Marxism' is identical with the term 'national variant of Marxism' as well as with the shorter term 'national (Chinese, Yugoslav, etc.) Marxism'. But let us for a moment assume that the terms `form' and `variant'are not used here with an identical meaning. What is decisive in this instance is the question: Can we agree with Mao Tse-tung that there exist natiorfal forms of Marxism? And even if we do not speak at all about national forms, let us pose the question in a more general form: L can we speak in general of different forms, N.B.---not different historical stages in its development, not different aspects or parts of Marxism, but precisely of different forms of Marxism?
We do speak of national forms of culture, including socialist culture. Marxists also speak of different forms of proletarian dictatorship (Soviet, people's democratic, etc.), as well as of different forms of socialist agriculture---state and cooperative.
Indeed, we do speak of diversity of forms, as well as of the presence of national forms---we do speak of them in many fields. We can speak of a diversity of forms---and, we may also add, of variants, ways, manners or methods---everywhere in connection with the application of the laws, principles, and theories to human activities.
The question of the variety of forms, ways, etc. is in fact a question of the existence of more than one way--- of several in some cases, and of an unlimited number of variants in other cases---of solving the various tasks and attaining the goals which people set themselves.
The objective laws, from which people proceed when solving their tasks and pursuing their goals---natural, mathematical or social laws---are unique and invariable. With the exception of certain extreme cases, the use of these invariable natural and social laws makes possible many variants of solutions, from which one strives to choose the best.
Every science represents above all an accumulation of knowledge about the structure and structural laws of a certain field or aspect of objective reality, of society, 148 and of man's consciousness. Every science, at the level at which it finds itself, gives knowledge through which as many forms and ways as possible are sought of solving the tasks which people set themselves in the respective field. However, the science itself remains what it is, and does not assume different`forms' in its application---either `national', or any other.
We repeat, it is not a question here of different stages in the development of a science or of different parts or aspects of it (which sometimes are not very accurately called forms). Thus, for instance, mathematics, physics, biology or psychology, as well as the technical and other practical sciences do not need to change their `form', in order to be applied in one country or another, in one continent or another, under one set of conditions or'another.
This is how it is with Marxism-Leninism, too. Marxism-Leninism is a science, and as such, like the other sciences, it does not have and cannot have either national, or regional, or any other forms.
It is quite another matter that in the practical, creative application of Marxism-Leninism to different countries and regions, or in general to various social conditions, the concrete solution of the problems is incarnated in various forms and is often implemented not in completely identical, but by various ways and means. There are no and there cannot be any cut-and-dried patterns or models for the application of MarxismLeninism. However, the application of MarxismLeninism to the various conditions does not require that Marxist-Leninist theory itself change its `form', or that it should acquire a national, regional or racial colour.
Just as it is unreasonable to talk about a national, regional, racial or any other similar `form' of mathematics, physics or any other science, so it is also unreasonable to talk about a national, etc. form of Marxism-Leninismas a whole, or about each one of its components: dialectical and historical materialism, political economy, scientific communism.
The theory of different, including also national `forms' of Marxism and the identical theory of different 149 `variants' of Marxism invariably---even when it is formulated with the explicit reservation that it should not mean a negation of the general truths, the general laws of Marxism-Leninism, lays stress on the particular or on the specific the single (national). However, t!-^ particular and single refer not to the theory itself, but to its application under the different (specific, i.e. group and individual) conditions. That is why in all cases this theory is incorrect and non-Marxist.
It follows from what has been said that the theory of different and especially of national forms of Marxism potentially conceals the danger of lending a regional (for instance racial), or nationally limited, nationalistic shade to the theory made `concrete' in this way. If such a `nationalized' Marxism is applied in practice, what is obtained is not an internationalist policy which also takes into account the specific conditions, but a nationally limited, pan-nationalist policy. It is thus that in fact the 'national form' of Marxism developed in the revisionist, nationalistic views of Mao Tse-tung, in the so-called 'Chinese Marxism'.
Consequently the theory of Mao Tse-tung that Marxism had to assume a 'national form' in order to be applied to a given country is anti-Marxist and nationalistic. It is identical with the extreme variant of the diversionist bourgeois conception of the pluralization of Marxism, with the thesis that there exist or that there 'should exist' (Vranicki) 'national Marxisms'.
Even the bourgeois propagandists of the conception of the pluralization of Marxism rarely arrive at this extreme, nationalistic form, the theory of `national' variants or forms of Marxism-Leninism, which is in fact championed by Maoism. Even when the bourgeois theoreticians extol the many philosophical sociologial, etc., schools and trends in their ideology, they do not always put the national framework and the national form to the fore.
It turns out that the leader in this field is Mao Tsetung. And if in the more remote past it was difficult to make out what lay hidden behind the `innocent' theory which was supposed to lend Marxism a concrete 150 character for the national conditions, it has now become clear: 'the Chinese form of Marxism' is nothing less than a distortion of Marxism, the opening up of a road to the anti-Marxist, chauvinist policy of Maoism nowadays.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 4. The Main CriterionIn waging the ideological war against rightist and `leftist' revisionism, the Marxist-Leninists and the communist parties in general also always take into consideration the practical political activities, the political attitudes and the conduct of the persons championing revisionist views, and still more those of organizations and movements that have adopted an ideology influenced by revisionism. When taking into account both their words, i.e. ideas, and their deeds, Marxists give precedence to deeds.
The international communist movement is working for the establishment of a world front of all forces which can be mobilized for a struggle for peace, democracy, national liberation and socialism, and every Marxist Party is working for the setting up of national fronts in each country for the struggle to defend the interests of the working people against reaction and capitalism. In pursuing such a revolutionary policy, the Marxist-Leninist parties also work in cooperation with movements and organizations that are under revisionist ideological influence, irrespective of their ideological and theoretical differences with them.
It is of great importance to see in this light the attitude of the modern rightist and `leftist' revisionist trends towards the public forces which are guided by creative Marxism, and the attitude of these revisionist trends towards each other.
The accusations addressed by the rightist and `leftist' revisionists against modern Marxism-Leninism and its creative application by the CPSU, the USSR and the other Marxist-Leninist parties and socialist states 151 are often diametrically opposed to and in large measure refute and negate each other.
Thus, according to the `praxists', L.Kolakovski, R.Garaudy and E.Fischer, i.e. according to the leading rightist revisionists, the main flaw of modern 'Soviet Marxism' lies in the fact that itcontinuesto pursue the dogmatic, bureaucratic, etc., policy of Stalin and Stalinism. According to the Maoists, on the other hand, the main flaw of the 'Soviet revisionists' consists in the opposite---that they have deviated from the revolutionary and internationalist line of the CPSU of the time of Stalin and Stalinism.
However, although they criticise Marxism-Leninism and the strategy of the international communist movement worked out by it from different and at first sight contradictory starting points, the rightist and `leftist' revisionists on certain basic questions make a united front against Marxism-Leninism, the world socialist community and the international communist movement. This clearly reveals the class nature of the revisionist `criticism' of genuine Marxism-Leninism and real socialism.
The socio-economic system in the Soviet Union and the other socialist member-countries of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance is called non-socialist, exploiter and capitalistic by the rightist and `leftist' revisionists, and S.Stoyanovich, R.Garaudy, etc., maintain, side by side with the Maoists and Trotskyites, that a new dominating and exploiter stratum or class is being formed in those countries.
At some crucial moments in the modern struggle between the forces of progress and revolution and the forces of imperialism and reaction, when a position has definitely to be taken on one or other side of the barricades, the positions of the theoreticians and propagandists of modern rightist and `leftist' revisionism come still closer to each other. And this is not all. In such cases they very often findithemselves in the same camp with the most reactionary and aggressive forces in the world, against the international communist movement and the world socialist 152 systern, headed by the USSR. A very clear demonstration of such unanimity of opinion between the rightist and `leftist' revisionists and the imperialist aggressors was their attitude towards the conspiracy of the rightist revisionist and reactionary forces in Czechoslovakia and its frustration with the help of the Warsaw Pact states in 1968.
It is easy to understand why the standpoint of the rightist revisionists may often coincide with those of the imperialists, when we take into consideration the scientific Marxist-Leninist assessment of rightist revisionism as an instrument of bourgeois influence, and in a certain sense as an agency of imperialism within the ranks of the workers' movement.
At first sight it seems difficult to explain how the `leftist' revisionists can take the same side as the imperialists. In this connection the question has to be clarified of the attitude of the two kinds of revisionism towards each other with a fuller revelation of their social and class character.
So far we have pointed out, in particular, those things which distinguish rightist from `leftist' revisionism---both with respect to their main social support, and with respect to the main content of their ideological platforms, also pointing out their final goals: the rightists, who desire to reform capitalism gradually, the `leftists' whose aim is to call the people ruthlessly to armed uprisings and revolutionary wars.
On this basis there no doubt exist contradictions between them, and they reject each other. But this is only part of the truth.
There are a number of reasons acting in favour of an attenuation and ironing out of the differences between them and bringing them closer together.
In the first place, both rightist and `leftist' revisionists roughly speaking have a common, i.e. petty-bourgeois, social and class basis. Hence the vacillations, contradictions and inconsistency which are typical of both the rightist and the leftist revisionist and opportunist trends. Let us recall that Lenin repeatedly called attention to this community of basis. When 153 examining the petty-bourgeois vacillations of tne two revisionist trends, he wrote: 'Petty-bourgeois reformism. . . and petty-bourgeois revolutionism. . . are the two `currents' of these vacillations.' (15, c. 1).
A common feature of rightist and `leftist' revisionism, closely connected with their common pettybourgeois social basis, is nationalism. In very rare cases some `leftist' extremist movements manifest in their policy the reverse side of nationalism--- cosmopolitanism. Anti-Sovietism also develops on the basis of nationalism.
In the third place, both the rightist and the `leftist' revisionist trends have a common scientific theoretical and methodological basis---a deviation from materialist dialectics and from the class approach, manifestations of subjectivism, dogmatism and eclecticism. On such a basis both a moving apart and a moving closer together of the positions of the two kinds of revisionism is possible.
Of decisive significance for the rallying together of the rightist and leftist revisionist trends is the political factor, which is not always properly assessed. It is not bourgeois ideology nor the reverse form of revisionism, but Marxism-Leninism that is in fact the main opponent to those ideologists championing both rightist and `leftist' revisionism. That is why, especially in an atmosphere of strongly aggravated ideological and political struggle, a convergence of views is obtained both between the champions of rightist and `leftist' revisionsim, and between them and the representatives of bourgeois ideology. A united front is thus set up against their main enemy---Marxism-Leninism.
Let us also note the following. Purely rightist, and especially purely leftist revisionist deviations are rarely encountered. Both in Trotskyism and in Maoism the leftist features and elements are also mixed with rightist-opportunist features and elements. It would be still more exact to say that in the course of development, as a manifestation of precisely petty-bourgeois inconsistency and vacillation, there is often a passing over from `leftist' to rightist positions, and vice-versa. 154 It was no accident that during the struggle against Trotskyism in the USSR the following phrase, typical of Trotskyite vacillation was wide-spread: 'you set out to the left, but end up on the right'.
This is in still larger measure true of the ideological and political development of Maoism. Extreme antiSovietism, the obvious volte-face to bring about a rapprochement with American imperialism in foreign policy, combined with the setting up of a military bureaucratic dictatorship in the country and with a preponderance of the elements of Confucianism, panChinese chauvinism and racism in the ideology of Maoism; these are symptoms of a sharp turning point to the right, which threatens the basic revolutionary gains of the Chinese people. The joint support which the Maoists rendered to the reactionary military regime in Pakistan against the liberation movement of the 75 million people of Bangladesh in 1971--1972 is an event in which the Maoist government once again, as in 1968, took the side of reaction, against the forces of peace and progress.
To sum up: For the Marxist-Leninists and for the international communist movement the main enemy is imperialism and the reactionary bourgeois ideology, Marxists consider rightist and `leftist' revisionism as a champion of bourgeois and petty bourgeois ideology among the working people and the working class. However, to the social movements which are under the influence of a reformist and revisionist ideology, the Marxists extend a hand for joint struggle in the name of peace, democracy, national liberation and socialism.
For the bourgeois ideologists and imperialists the main enemy is Marxism-Leninism, the world socialist system and the international communist movement. The imperialists are trying with considerable success to use the rightist revisionists as their direct agency, and support the `leftist' extremists for diversionist purposes, because in them they see an instrument for introducing dissension among the revolutionary forces.
As to the rightist and `leftist' revisionists, in their ideological equipment the most effective part is usually 155 that which divides them from, and not that which brings them closer to Marxism-Leninism. Insofar, however, as there are elements and parts of Marxist ideology in rightist and 'leftist* revisionism, and what is more important, when substantial strata of the working people are under the influence of these ideological trends, it is possible, mainly under the pressure of these working people, to achieve united action between such public organizations and the Marxist revolutionary movements, in the name of certain revolutionary goals The uncompromising, highly principled struggle against all non-scientific and Utopian aspects of their ideology, however, is a condition sine qua. non, if we do not wish to obtain a negative result for the Marxist movements from their united action with organized forces which are under revisionist influence.
The main criterion---practice---confirms, therefore, that both rightist and `leftist' revisionism by virtue of their main ideological content belong to pettybourgeois and not to proletarian and socialist ideology. They are not, and it is not correct to consider them to be, `variants' of Marxism-Leninism, although thev do contain some elements of it.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 5. Pluralism and FactionalismMonism 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.
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 156 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.
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.
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).
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'.
Precisely because the conception of a division of Marxism into `institutionalized' (`institutional') and ' intellectual' is directed against the unity of the 157 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'.
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.
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.
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.
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 158 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.
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.
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 159 important part, of the ideological armament of American imperialism.
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.
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.
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, 160 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'.
__NUMERIC_LVL2__ CHAPTER III. __ALPHA_LVL2__ SOCIALISM AND PLURALISM __ALPHA_LVL3__ 1. On the Term 'Models of Socialism'In Marxist-Leninist literature there is a generally accepted terminology for designating the original and peculiar features in the manifestation of the general laws Jboth of the socialist revolution and of socialist construction. In the first instance Marxists speak about the diversity of ways to socialism. As to socialist construction under the different concrete conditions, Marxists most often speak about differences in forms and methods. A lot has been written in Marxist literature about the diversity of forms of proletarian dictatorship, about different methods of socialist industrialization, about different methods or ways of socialist reconstruction of petty agriculture, as well as __PRINTERS_P_161_COMMENT__ 11.---0518 161 about the various forms of socialist agricultural enterprise---Sovkhoz. kolkhoz, cooperative farm etc.
Under the impact Of the ever wider use of modelling as a method in the social sciences, the question has arisen of late whether it would not be correct to use the term 'model of socialism' to designate the sum total of general laws and specific features which characterize the structure and functioning of the socialist society in different groups of countries and even in individual countries.
Many of the revisionists, however, aided by the bourgeois pluralizers of Marxism, also use the term 'model of socialism', lending it an anti-scientific and indeed diversionist meaning. The same anti-scientific content that we find in the pluralist term 'variants of Marxism', is also given by the revisionists to the term 'different models of socialism'. On the one hand, the character of the real socialism set up in the USSR and under construction in other states is presented distortedly as a 'worthless model'. On the other hand, different deformations and even caricatures of socialist society are extolled as genuine, humane, democratic, etc. 'models of socialism'. Moreover, it is in a spirit of pluralism that the `Marxologists'and revisionsits seek and find profound differences and contradictions in principle between the different 'models of of socialism'.
Such 'pluralist models of socialism', which differ fundamentally and are mutually contradictory, do not exist either in reality or in Marxist theory, nor are they at all possible. They are an anti-scientific concoction brewed by the bourgeois `Marxologists' and revisionists.
Irrespective of this, however, many Marxists have good reason to use the term 'model of socialism' in a positive sense, and point out that it is a necessary term. A.P.Butenko writes, for instance: 'In connection with the tremendous part played by the subjective factor, the problem of models of socialism assumes great importance, i.e. the problem of the logical constructions of the socialist society, created on the basis of the general principles of socialism, taking due account of 162 the real conditions and potentialities of a given country (or group of countries)'. (23, c. 14), After rejecting, with good reason, the attempts of the bourgeois, reformist and revisionist theoreticians to replace the integrated scientific theory of socialism with 'different models of socialism', Y. Kronrod stresses: 'There can be no doubt that every truly scientific model of one or another objective phenomenon or process, including the economic phenomena or processes, is an important means of attaining scientific knowledge' (45, c. 22). Mitryu Yankov also thinks that the terms `models' and `modelling', though in their 'non-specific sense' ( according to the author), may be applied in an analysis of the problems of socialism, provided this takes place from the standpoint of Marxism-Leninism. We have also given certain reasons why it would be expedient to use the term `model' and to apply the method of modelling in the social field and, more specifically, why the concept of `models' is justified (43, c. 33--37).
We think that we can accept as satisfactory the following definition of a model by V.A.Stoff: 'a mentally presented or materialized system which, in reflecting and reproducing the object, is capable of replacing it in such a way that its study may give us new information about the said object' (84, c. 19).
Y.Kronrod rightly objects to any attempt to equate the model with the theory. Taking into account the role of the model as an important means of attaining scientific knowledge, he underlines that 'the model in itself never replaces and cannot replace theory'. (45, c. 22). Agreeing fully with this view, we think that one more step should be taken to point out that the place of the category `model' is between the categories `theory' and `concept'.
The concept contains the most essential features of each one of a. multitude of homogeneous objects under study. Theory gives us an integrated knowledge of the origin, the laws of functioning and devlopment, the structure, etc. of many objects. And the model gives us the average, typical object as an integrated system of 163 its subsystems and components and reveals the structure and mechanisms of its functioning.
Proceeding from the place of the model in the system of categories, which has been thus defined, we think that on the basis of a given theory ideat models can be created on three levels:
a) a general theoretical model, representing as a system what is central to the structure, the principles and mechanisms of the whole class or the whole multitude of objects reflected by the theory;~
b) a model on the level of the particular, for greater or smaller groups of objects, which besides the features common to the whole multitude also have certain additional features, which are typical of the individual groups, and~
c) in case of need, models of individual objects can also be created, each one of which should contain: the general structure and mechanisms which are typical of the whole class or multitude; the features specific of a given group (submultitude) to which the object belongs; those specific individual features which are typical only of the single object being modelled, without which features the model could not be a substitute or prototype for this specific object.
Let us now apply these general reasonings specifically to the problem in which we are interested: the socialist society, socialism as a social system. How many and what models of socialism can exist or be created?
The general theoretic al model of socialism and socialist society does exist. This model was forecast by Marx and Engels as a first phase of the communist society, on the basis of tne theory of scientific communism created by them.
There also exists the Soviet model of socialism. This contains without exception all principles and features which characterize the theoretical model of socialism created by Marx and Engels. This is a fact of tremendous theoretical and practical significance, on the one hand, because the truth of the entire Marxist-Leninist theory, a deduction from which the theoretical model of 164 the socialist society was, has thereby been brilliantly reaffirmed. On the other hand, because the socialist society built up in the first country, which embodies all the basic principles and laws contained in the theoretical model,has now obtained an advantage over the original model---the advantage of being a concrete reality. Now it is not solely---not mainly---the theoretical forecast made 120 years ago by Marx and Engels that is a standard for what constitutes socialism but above all it is the basic content of Soviet reality.
The Soviet model of socialism contains certain special features, besides the general laws, which will be typical of all other countries with conditions similar to those obtaining in it: a multi-national character, predominantly agricultural, etc. However, the Soviet model of socialism also has some unique features, typical only of the October Revolution and of socialist construction in the USSR, which most probably will nowhere else be repeated in the same form. These unique, individual features are connected with the fact that Russia was the first country to blaze the trail to socialism, and her special situation placed her for a long time in Hostile capitalist encirclement.
Side by side with the Soviet model, there also exists a people's democratic model of socialism. This also contains all the laws and features typical of Marx' and Engels' theoretical model, implemented in the Soviet Union. In this model of socialism we have all those special features---reflecting the different conditions as compared with the time of the Great October Socialist Revolution---under which the people's democratic revolutions triumphed after the Second World War and which were reflected mostly in the people's democratic form given to the superstructure in those countries.
Among the group of countries in which the socialist revolution triumphed in a people's democratic form, there are differences of one kind or another, resulting from the degree of their economic and social development, their historical traditions, as well as the degree of maturity of the main subjective factor---the Communist Party Insofar as in some "of these countries 165 certain specific national elements assume majoi significance, without eclipsing or negating the general laws and features typical of socialism as such, i.e. of the theoretical model (which also means the Soviet model) or the general features of people's democracy (in the first place---the presence of fatherland, people's united, etc., fronts)---the sum total of the general features and laws of socialism, plus the special features of people's democracy, plus the specific national features, all taken together, may be called national forms or national models of a socialist society.
In a further development, after the triumph of the socialist revolution in still more countries, we may expect the appearance of other forms and models of a socialist system.
When we put the question in this way---and in our opinion only putting it in this way is justified by the objective character of socialism as a non-antagonistic social system---there can be no question of any counterposing or of`pluralism' in the relations between the individual socialist countries, or between the different forms and models of socialism. Because not only the general laws, but also the differences between them, properly understood, dictate cooperation and fraternal assistance, and do not lead to antagonism.
Proceeding from the above theoretical a,nd methodological considerations, we think that the concept 'model of socialism' can be adopted and can assume the place which it deserves in Marxist terminology and in scientific research, after the anti-scientific meaning which the revisionists and the bourgeois pluralists have tried to attach to it has been rejected.
It is necessary in this connection to specify one more point. When the bourgeois `Marxologists' and revisionists spread the conception of a `pluralization' of Marxism with respect also to socialist society, the term `pluralism' is used by them in its two main meanings. First, the thesis is put forward that there exist, or ought to exist, radically different kinds or variants of socialism, i.e. models and forms of socialist society differing in principle from one another. Moreover, there is a 166 logical connection between 'variants of Marxism' and 'models of socialism': a certain `variant' or `model' of socialist society ought to correspond to each different 'variant of Marxism'.
Secondly, the pluralist idea is applied to socialist society to designate the `pluralist' structure of the socialist system in general. The non-scientific bourgeois idea, 'which we have examined, that capitalist society has a pluralistic structure, is also transferred to socialist society.
The view of the pluralist structure of socialist society itself appears as one of the `variants' or `models' of socialist society. In other words, in this instance again, as in philosophy, there is ambiguity in the use of the term `pluralism'. The `model' or `variant' of socialist society which is adjudged 'the best' by the majority of pluralists, and which is recommended by them to all socialist countries and workers' movements, is a `variant' or `model' with a `pluralist' structure of the socialist society, irrespective of whether this is stressed by its individual champions.
We have seen that the `pluralizers' of Marxism are in the first place the bourgeois ideologists from the ranks of the so-called `Marxologists', i.e. the specialists in the struggle against Marxism-Leninism and communism. The representatives of revisionism, with but small exceptions, are to a greater or lesser degree propagandists and champions of the bourgeois idea of the pluralization of Marxism, but part of the `leftist' revisionists are formally opposed to it. As to the pluralization of socialist society, however, and more particularly as to the defence of the view that there exist radically different and contradictory 'models of socialism', it is the revisionists who work up the greatest `creative' activity. The bourgeois `Marxologists' in this connection mainly play second fiddle to them---making use of the theories of the revisionists for their own anticommunist aims and purposes. That is why we shall focus our attention above all on the contemporary revisionist theorizings concerning the pluralization of socialism.
167 __ALPHA_LVL3__ 2. Revisionist `Models of Socialism'---A Sample ofRoger Garaudy is one of the authors who has lent to the term 'model of socialism' a revisionist and in fact an anti-Marxist meaning. He is one of the creators of the rightist revisionist 'new model of socialism' which has been widely publicized in the West in the last few years. Only the authors of the notorious document signed by seventy six Czechoslovak philosophers and sociologists (many of whom later withdrew their signatures), published under the thunderous title 'For a New Czechoslovak Model of Socialism' in 'Rude Pravo', the organ of the CSCP, on July 10, 11 and 12, 1968, could vie in this respect for the first place with Garaudy. There is no difference in principle between the conceptions of the Czechoslovak revisionists and those of Garaudy. In Garaudy there is only an attempt at greater theoretical argumentation. That is why we shall first of all discuss the views developed by Garaudy.
In 1966 Garaudy's book 'Le Marxisme du XX siecle' appeared. At that time he had not yet conclusively deviated from Marxism-Leninism and from proletarian internationalism, although he was distorting the nature of the socialist system built up in the Soviet Union. In this book Garaudy writes that 'the development of socialism under different geographical and historical conditions and in more continents has led to the idea of a plurality of `models' (116, p. 39). He does not explain in detail what he means by different models of socialism, but it can be understood from the context that it is a question of the appearance of social models differing in principle from what he presents to us as 'a Soviet model of socialism'.
Garaudy completes his deviation from MarxismLeninism in his book 'Le grand tournant du socialisme' in which his anti-Marxist ideas about the models of socialism manifest themselves in a perfected form. At a number of places Garaudy speaks in general about 'different models', and about many models ot socialism. He enumerates a 'Soviet, a Chinese, a 168 Yugoslav, as well as Czechoslovak model of socialism from the time of the Prague spring' (115, p. 282). In fact, however, in his book he examines two models of socialism in greater detail. One is the 'Soviet model' which he, now in unison with the outspoken rightist revisionists from the Zagreb magazine `Praxis' and in unison with the anti-communists from 'Problems of Communism', calls 'an etatist, centralized model'; and the other is the 'new model' which Garaudy counterposes to the Soviet model, calling it 'a model based on self-government', (p. 180).
While in his earlier works Garaudy had still paid attention to the general features and laws typical of the socialist society, this time he seeks and finds only profound differences in principle between the two basic `models' of the socialist society presented by him. This becomes most obvious in the manner in which he defines the socio-economic structure and political superstructure of these two `models'.
'In the Soviet model of socialism a typical feature is the identical treatment of public ownership of the means of production and state ownership', Garaudy declares (115, p. 173). In this 'etatist, centralized model' the needs of society are determined from `above', with centralized directives of the Party and state (p. 178).
This statement contains obvious untruths. Here Garaudy `forgets' and distorts elementary, well-known facts, to lend an acceptable appearance to the false scheme of his 'Soviet model of socialism'.
In the Soviet Union and in all other socialist countries there exist two main types of public ownership: all-people's (state) and group (cooperative) ownership. The determining and more important type is all-- people's, i.e. state ownership. However, the law-governed predominance of all-people's ownership under socialism does not mean that the centralized state power governs all state enterprises directly and distributes the newly created (surplus) value. A substantial portion of the means of production and of the public services, such as local industries, retail trade, public catering, health services, etc. are managed by the local bodies of state 169 power. Moreover, some managerial rights over the enterprises which are owned by all the people, including the right to transfer part of the newly-created value, are given over to the work forces in the enterprises.
In the Soviet Union and in the other socialist countries, side by side with all-people's ownership, group cooperative ownership of the means of production has also become wide-spread. The kolkhozes in the USSR, the cooperative farms in Bulgaria and cooperative farms in general under the conditions of socialism are based precisely on group ownership and on a corresponding form of distributing the newly createcfvalue among the members of the cooperatives.
Garaudy makes another untrue assertion that the needs of society in the Soviet Union (and the other socialist countries with an economic structure of the same type) are determined only from `above', i.e. oy the state and the Party. When applying the principle of democratic centralism in the USSR and the other socialist countries with central planning of their economy, the initiatives and opinions of the working people are summed up and the decisions on questions of economic management are taken at all levels---beginning from the labour forces and going up to the central bodies of state power (the parliaments) the government ( councils of ministers) and the central managements of the various public organizations, the most important role among which is assigned to the Party and the trade unions.
Garaudy's distorted interpretation of the socio-- economic reality in the USSR and the other socialist countries reaches its zenith when he declares that government in those countries has turned into a monopoly profession, the special occupation of a special social group. The `monopoly' of this social group was expressed in the fact that it and it alone took the political decisions---it being understood from the context that this takes place without the consent and against the interests of the working people, and that this group had the 'monopoly of using the surplus value' (115, p. 174, 175).
170In this instance, Garaudy in fact repeats in somewhat attenuated form the old slanders of the Trotskyites from the 20s and 30s and those of the contemporary Maoists that capitalism was being restored in the USSR and that the 'ruling bureaucracy' was an exploiter and oppressor of the working people. Having become aware, perhaps, of going too far, he tries to attenuate the impression and makes the reservation that the ' ruling bureaucracy' in the Soviet Union and the socialist countries standing close to it, was not a special class, because it did not own the means of production and its privileged position in society was not hereditary. In spite of this nuance, the main accusation of the Trotskyites, Maoists and Garaudy is the same: that in the Soviet Union and in the other CMEA member-states there exists oppression and exploitation of the working people by a limited social stratum, by the 'ruling bureaucracy'. And to make the slander complete, imitating the name which Marxists give to the most reactionary top crust of the capitalist class in the imperialist countries---the military and industrial complex---Garaudy calls the leadership of the USSR 'a military and bureaucratic complex', which leads to 'reactionary Bonapartism and dictatorship of the army'. (115, p. 105, 171).
Then it comes out that what Garaudy presents to us as an 'etatist model of socialism' cannot in fact be a model of a socialist society, because socialism is quite as incompatible with exploitation as it is with the oppression of the working people. These are all slanderous concoctions brewed by Garaudy, and nothing more.
Let us also note here the following. Before finally taking his 'great turn' from Marxism to revisionism, Garaudy also maintained that the Soviet structure and the people's democratic structure were two similar forms or two kindred models of a socialist society, in which the basic laws and features of scientific socialism were incarnated. Now we see that for him the people's democratic form or model has completely 171 disappeared and the social system ot people's democracy is thoroughly identified with the Soviet system.
Garaudy has done this quite consciously. Because now he criticises and rejects the basic features and laws of socialism in general, and those of the theoretical model of socialism which Marx, Engels and Lenin based on science. And in this respect it is true that the Soviet model and the people's democratic model are identical and there is no difference between them.
What has been said above will become still clearer when we see what is represented by the 'new model of socialism' which Garaudy counterposes to the society actually built in the USSR, or that which is under construction in the other countries from the socialist community.
In his theorizings about 'new models', Garaudy breaks entirely with the Marxist-Leninist teaching concerning the dictatorship of the proletariat. In fact he denies the role of the socialist state in the overall government of society and, above all, the most important economic and organizing function of the socialist state.
'It does not follow at all from the revolutionary role of the proletarian state that this state should become a ruling state', Garaudy declares and then proceeds to elucidate his thought further. The revolutionary role of proletarian dictatorship as regards ownership consists, firstly, in abolishing private ownership and establishing public ownership over the means of production and, secondly, in elaborating the 'rules of the game', which will prevent the restoration of private ownership over the means of production in one form or another. However, the socialist state ought not to assume the management of the economy, except in the initial period after the seizure of power (115, p. 173).
According to Garaudy, the main role in economic management in the socialist society should be played by the work forces in the enterprises. That is why he also calls his 'new model' a 'model based on self-- government (115, p. 180). And unlike the `etatist' model, in the 'new model' of a socialist society Garaudy maintains 172 that the needs of society should be determined not from `above', by centralized directives of the Party and the state, but by the mechanisms of the market and the demand which manifests itself on it (115, p. 178).
The main features, therefore, which distinguish Garaudy's 'new model' from the Soviet 'etatist model' of socialism which he rejects, are revealed in the following two elements:
Firstly, although Garaudy says that he recognizes state ownership as one of the forms of public ownership over the means of production (p. 175, 176), in fact in his model this form is emptied of all content. The management of production is taken from the hands of the state and is vested mainly in the hands of the working people in the enterprises.
Secondly, in Garaudy's 'new model', that which constitutes the very essence of the management of a socialist economy,is rejected: conscious planned development, implemented on the basis of an integrated state plan. Instead of this, he.recommends that the economy should be managed by the 'mechanisms of the market and the demand which manifests itself on it'. In this way, as we have already said, Garaudy wishes to reduce the role of the socialist state in the national economy more or less to an organ watching over the observance of the 'rules of the game' by the rival enterprises on the market, an organ to prevent the restoration of private ownership over the means of production.
Garaudy himself feels that the management of the enterprises by the work forces, with the market as regulator, upon which he in fact mainly relies in his `model' of a socialist society, is far from a sufficient mechanism of economic management in an economically, scientifically and technologically highly developed socialist country. And he tries to find a way out of the difficult situation. Making a virtue of necessity, Garaudy recognizes a certain economic role to the socialist state, but restricts it to policies of taxation and economic stimulation through credits (115, p. 220).
173`Market socialism' has proved to be a `model' which has united therightist revisionists with the pluralizers of Marxism from the anti-communist camp. It is indicative in this respect that the theoretical model itself of 'market socialism' is in fact the creation of the bourgeois ideologists. As Schumpeter points out, the originators of the conception of 'market socialism' were the bourgeois economists A.Lerner, A.Bergson and others (160, p. 986--987).
The hopes which the bourgeois ideologists pin on the part played by the market in pluralizing socialist society has been very well expressed by Riidiger Altmann: 'Even the bolshevik society, if it develops and its economy becomes increasingly a market economy, will assume a pluralist character', he writes (86, S. 19). It is important to bear in mind that Altmann himself belongs to the `anti-pluralistis' when it is a question of modern capitalist society. He recommends, however, that socialist society should develop towards a market economy and `pluralism'. Why this is so, we can learn from another modern bourgeois anti-pluralist, Goets Briefs. He warns the bourgeois ideologists that 'pluralism proves a threat to the unity of society, and to the stability of the state'. (119, c. 613). It turns out that this is precisely the reason why the bourgeois ideologists recommend it for the socialist state!
The concept of 'market socialism' found a very vivid formulation in the above-mentioned collective article in 'Rude Pravo' in 1968, which was imbued with revisionism. The nucleus of its content is to give free rein to `contractors', with a view to 'freeing the economy from the tutelage of the state' and achieving 'a full development of commodity relations, unrestricted by the state and the state plan'. As we can see, this theory is a little further developed, but in its essence it is identical to Garaudy's.
Conscious, purposeful planning and management of the national economy on a nation-wide scale, a decisive element of which is the elaboration of the national economic plan based on a scientific forecasting of the real needs and taking into account the potentialities of 174 the society at a given stage, is the essential feature of the national economy in a socialist society. The market still plays an important but subordinate role in the socialist economy.
In their attempt to reject centralized planning and management of the nation's economy under socialism, the pluralists very often refer to the statements made by Karl Marx on the self-government of the working people. That is why we, too, shall quote an extremely important statement by Marx on the question. When forecasting the inevitable progressive consequences which will set in as a result of the nationalization of the means of production, he writes: 'Class differences and privileges will then disappear together with the economic base on which they rest. To live at the expense of another man's labour will be a thing of the past. There will no longer be a government or a state, apart from society. Agriculture, mining and industry---in a word all branches of production---will gradually be organized in a most expedient way. The national centralization of the means of production will become the natural foundation of society, consisting of associations of free and equal producers, performing work for society under a common and rational plan' (1 c. 57).
A national centralization of the means of production and production on the basis of a common and rational plan---this is what Marx prognosticated 100 years ago for the future socialist society.
Modern cybernetics and automation create great technical possibilities for the implementation of forecasting, planning and management of the national economy on a nation-wide scale on a still more solid scientific foundation, taking ever fuller account both of the real needs and of the objective possibilities in all fields of the economy and of social life. Instead of such a conscious and planned assessment of the real needs and potentialities of society within the framework of the whole state, the model of 'market socialism' put forward by Garaudy and Sick proposes that the striving of the individual enterprise for profits and the 175 spontaneous demands of the market should become the main regulators of the economy. Moreover, this proposal is made at a time when even in modern capitalism free competition and the market are making ever wider room for the monopoly dictat of the gigantic capitalist associations, and when the regulative functions even of the bourgeois state have been increased.
The 'market socialism' of Garaudy and Sick is the `model' which summarizes in a general way the rightist revisionist ideas concerning a socialist society. The 'Chinese model', on the other hand---and it is a question here not of a sober analysis of the vacillations in the actual development of the Chinese People's Republic,but mainly of the anti-Marxist positions contained in the writings of Mao Tse-tung and the Maoists ---can be taken as an incarnation of the conceptions of the contemporary `leftist' revisionists of the socialist system.
In a collective work bearing the pretentious title ' Introduction to Political Science', declared to be the work of associates of the sociological institute and the Institute of Political Science at Marburg University in the Federal German Republic, in an article 'The Communist Model of Domination' Hanno Drechsler upholds the view that today there are three models or systems of socialist construction: Soviet, Yugoslav and Chinese (106, S. 153--154). This work is full of slanders against the CPSU and the USSR in a spirit of primitive anti-communism.There it is said, for instance, that the CPSU not only did not 'avail itself of, but even sabotaged the revolutionary situations arising in different parts of the world during the period between the two world wars! As to the `models', while the Yugoslav model is characterized by Drechsler as 'decentralized planning and economic management', the 'Chinese model' is presented as a 'defence of Stalinist theory and practice in home policy, at a time when the industrially developed Soviet Union has started to overcome it'.
176Mao Tse-tung himself and the Maoists in general do not formally support the conception of pluralization of socialism. However, Mao's revisionist conception that Marxism-Leninism has to assume a 'national form' before it is applied in a given country---which is an extreme, nationalistic variety of pluralism---logically leads to the thesis of `models' of socialism in a pluralist sense, which are radically different from each other. This cannot but be reflected in the camp of `leftist' extremism. And indeed, the pluralist thesis of fundamentally differing `models' of socialism, has of late been making headway among certain pro-Maoist representatives of leftist extremism.
The efforts made in this direction by Rossana Rossanda, an active worker ot the anti-Soviet, proMaoist II Manifesto group, which was expelled from the ranks of the Italian Communist Party, deserve to be pointed out. In the French `leftist' extremist magazine 'Les temps nouveaux' R. Rossanda wrote a long article 'The Marxism of Mao' in which she tried to explain that the conflict between the leading group in the Chinese Communist Party, headed by Mao Tse-tung and the International communist movement, headed by the CPSU, was the result of 'a difference in choice of models for socialist construction' (154, p. 1202--12304).
Rossanda tries to cover up the fact that the main reason for the dissident activity of the Maoist group in the international communist movement after 1956 was their resistance to the Leninist spirit of the 20th Congress of the CPSU and Mao Tse-tung's fear that the criticism of subjectivism and of the personality cult might also spread to the ranks of the Chinese Communist Party. As a reason for this dissident activity Rossanda gives the concocted consideration that Mao and his supporters had already realized that the main malady if the international communist movement was the 'Stalinist system of government' and had declared themselves against it. On this basis they started elaborating a 'Chinese model' of socialism.
The 'Maoist model' of socialism, according to Rossanda's interpretation, combines the features of __PRINTERS_P_177_COMMENT__ 12.---0518 177 rightist revisionist slander of socialism in the USSR as 'degenerated Stalinism' with the main anti-Marxist leftist and reactionary-Utopian features of Maoism. Here again we see, as in the rightist revisionist ' market model', that what is presented to us as 'one of the models' of socialist society, is in fact only a parody of the scientific theoretical model of socialism.
Rossanda points out the following main distinguishing features of the 'Chinese model' of socialism, which reveal its inimical attitude towards a number of basic laws of socialist society, as explained by Marx, Engels and Lenin, and which have proved their validity in the practice of all socialist countries: No coordination between rates of development and the level of the forces of material production; rejection of the principle of personal material incentives, for workers and other working people, based on the results of their labour; exaggeration of the role of moral incentives for work for the welfare of society. Voluntaristic disregard is thus displayed, for the objective laws of social development, and the role of the subjective factor, which is considered to be able to act even contrary to the 'natural trends of development', is held to be absolute.
In the Maoist 'model of socialism' thus outlined by Rossanda, the most essential standpoints are reflected from the Maoist writings which are full of contradictions on what the socialist social system should represent.
The constant convulsions of the Chinese People's Republic since 1957, when Mao Tse-tung's group deviated sharply from the unified line of the international communist movement, are an eloquent proof of the inconsistency of Maoist conceptions concerning socialist construction. Insofar as the crises which the Chinese People's Republic has experienced since then have alternated with periods of relative progress, this has been due to the fact that during these periods the anti-- scientific and voluntaristic `principles' of the Maoist `model' here enumerated have been abandoned in practice, and the fundamental principles of socialism have been 178 applied, especially the principle of personal incentives for the working people based on the results of their labour, and the principle of payment according to work done---a principle stigmatized by the Maoists as 'capitalistic'
Rossanda presents the Utopian, idealistic and subjectivistic features of the Maoist 'model of socialism' not as a deviation from Marxism, which they in fact are, but surrounded with a halo of romantic revolutionism and moral attractiveness. Thus, for instance, the unattained and unattainable principle of egalitarianism in the communes, which brought about a long and painful stagnation in the national economy of the Chinese People's Republic, is presented by Rossanda as an 'endeavour to remove the material foundations of inequality'.
As we can see, both revisionist `models' which are in principle counterposed to the 'Soviet model' of socialist society by the rightist and `leftist' revisionists, with the support of contemporary anti-communists---as well as the 'new model' of Garaudy and 0. Sick and the 'Chinese model' described by Rossanda---are in their content hostile to socialism.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 3. Is Socialist Society Monolithic or `Pluralistic'~?While the pluralist revisionists lay stress on the thesis that there are radically different and contradicto-. ry kinds, forms and models of socialism, the bourgeois pluralists above all stubbornly deny the basic Marxist thesis that socialism, as the first phase of the formation of communism, overcomes the social and class conflicts of the exploiter society and is gradually moving towards ever greater social and political homogeneity. They strive to convince the people that socialist society, very much like bourgeois society, consists of strata and groups with contradictory interests, and that is why it also has to have a `pluralistic' structure.
An elementary truth in Marxism as a social science is that the division of the exploiter societies into classes with antagonistic interests, into exploiters and 179 exploited, lies at the basis of the class struggle and of all other social conflicts and evils which typify contemporary capitalism. The existence of classes with antagonistic interests is also the main reason for international and interstate enmities and wars. At the same time Marxism indicates that the division of society into exploiters and exploited depends upon production relations in which the means of production are privately owned.
Proceeding from the law of correspondence between production relations and productive forces and the degree of development and socialization which production forces had already attained under capitalism, the classics of Marxism-Leninism forecast the theoretical model of the future communist society. In it there will be neither exploitation nor oppression of man by man; it will be socially homogeneous and will develop on the basis of an ever fuller knowledge and mastery of the natural and social laws. The appearance of the socialist society was forecast as a first, lower stage of the communist society, as a period for doing away with all exploitation and a gradual transition period from a class to a classless structure of society.
In the theoretical model of socialism, the classics predicted that after the elimination of the exploiter qlasses and the oppression of man by man, for a certain period the essential differences between workers' peasants and intelligentsia, town and country, manual and intellectual workers would be preserved, although they would be gradually ironed out. A certain economic inequality between people, although steadily diminishing, would also be preserved because under socialism the distribution t)f goods is of necessity affected mainly by the quantity and quality of work done, and people's forces and capacities are not equal. On this basis, the theoretical model characterizes the socialist society as a society in which social homogeneityis steadily growing side by side with its monolithic political and ideological character.
A sober scientific analysis of the last short historical period traversed by mankind, in which part of it has 180 made successful steps in socialist construction, confirms the scientific forecasts of Marxism-Leninism. In the Soviet Union which has passed on to the construction of communism and in those countries which have embarked on the socialist road and which are in the stage of the construction of a mature socialist society, the theoretical model of socialism has already been implemented in broad outline. The socialist society already constructed, and that which is under construction, gives sufficient proof in support of the predicted theoretical model that socialism is a system which developes towards ever greater economic homogeneity, political and ideological unity in society. Although there are certain differences in the relative percentages between the basic classes and strata as well as in their inner structure---in education, main professions, average salary, etc., in its basic outline the social structure is homogeneous in the Soviet Union, where communism is under construction, and in the other member countries of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, which have entered the stage of the construction of a mature or developed socialist society.
In all these countries the working class now represents more than half of the active population and continues to increase in number. Its educational level, professional qualifications, active and conscious participation in material production and all levels of government continues to increase rapidly. The class of cooperative farmers, who have replaced the petty private owners, as well as that part of society in general, which is employed in agriculture, diminishes relatively, as a result of greater mechanization and use of chemical means in farming and stockbrceding. In their qualifications, method of labour payment, supply of machinery, living and cultural standards and social activity, the cooperative farmers gradually come closer and closer to the level of the working class. The third basic stratum in the socialist society is the people's intelligentsia, the main detachments of which are the research workers, engineering and technical specialists, the administrative and governing 181 apparatus, the workers in art, culture, education and the health services. Quantitatively, and as regards their qualifications,) the intelligentsia also continues to increase in number. Its development depends upon the needs of socialist and communist construction, and on this basis their interests coincide with the interests of the working class and the cooperative farmers.
Small commodity economy---rural, artisan or in the sphere of services in the socialist countries of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, with the exception of Poland, plays an insignificant role. In general, in the socialist society there is no significant social stratum which is not interested in the successful and rapid construction of socialism and communism. That is why under socialism there are no. social groups whose interests enter into irreconcilable contradiction with the interests of the other social groups and of the system itself.
The bourgeois ideologists, however, are trying most passionately and energetically to deny this great historical process of overcoming social and class antagonisms in society under socialism Talcott Parsons, for instance, declared at the Sixth World Congress of Sociology that the social structure of the Soviet Union was the same as the social structure or 'social stratification' in the USA and the other developed capitalist countries. The place of the bourgeoisie in the socialist society was occupied by the intelligentsia, but the difference between them was only in their names (36, c. 84). In fact, this is another way of formulating the same accusation as was launched against the Soviet Union and the other CMEA member states by the Trots kyites, Maoists and part of the rightist revisionists like Garaudy---that there, too, there is a 'bureaucratic top crust' or class exploiting the working people and dominating them.
There is an intelligentsia in the USA also, but no reasonable man confuses it with the capitalists. However, let us leave aside the name. The difference between the ruling stratum in the socialist society (from the leading cadres in the factory, the cooperative farm and 182 the municipal people's council to the central state, Party and scientific institutions) and the highest layer of the capitalist class in modern bourgeois society (the multi-millionaires and millionaires) is profound in principle, and if is well-known to T. Parsons, Garaudy and all their colleagues.
The big capitalist top crust owns the basic sections of the means of production, through which it exploits the working class and obtains big profits, which constitute the unpaid labour of workers. The owners of capital directly or indirectly manage the enterprises, motivated, if not solely, at least mostly, by their endeavour to pocket greater profits.
The leading cadres (or the `intelligentsia', according to T.Parsons) in socialist society do not own any capital. They receive remuneration for their management on the same principle as do the workers. Insofar as the leading cadres receive greater remuneration than do common workers, this is within the framework of the principle of payment according to the quantity and quality of work done. However, highly qualified workers, inventors, rationalizers and initiators of new methods very often get higher remunerations than their managers.
In the socialist society there are indeed certain differences in the property, incomes and levels of wellbeing of the different categories of citizens, but the general tendency of development is gradually to diminish the differences in the amounts of remunerations received for work done and in the possibilities for cultural advancement and application of one's capacities. The planned upward development of society leads to ever closer social and cultural convergence of the different social groups.
The profound changes in the social structure of the Bulgarian people during the period of 1948--69, i.e. the period of socialist construction, is revealed by the following table (47, c. 127).
183 1948 1957 1969 Active population 4,099,141 4,265,621 4,112,817 Workers 380,872 827,185 1,869,460 Employees 250.303 484,020 830,299 Cooperative farmers 116,382 2,035,955 1,228,751 Other social groups: a) Persons employed in auxiliary enterprises for workers, employees and cooperative farmers 150,291 123,051 116,000 b) Private farmers 2,975,122 690,089 14,000 c) Craftsmen, tradesmen, servants of religion 216,921 76,655 54,307This table shows that workers, who in 1948 constituted merely 9 per cent, in 1969 were already the most numerous group of the active population of country---43 per cent. Employees during the same period grew from a mere 6 per cent to nearly 22.5 per cent. Taken together, workers and employees have grown from 15 per cent in 1948 to nearly 66 per cent of the entire active population in 1969. Cooperative farmers, who in 1948 constituted less than 3 per cent of the active population, in 1969 were 30 per cent. In other words, the three basic categories of working people in Bulgaria: workers, peasants and employees (including the intelligentsia) in 1969 embraced 95.5 per cent of the entire active population of the country. The remaining social groups, which in 1948 had represented nearly 82 per cent of the active population, (most of them being private landowners: 72 per cent), in 1969 formed only about 4.5 per cent. Among them the small landowners constituted only 0.3 per cent.
An important symptom of the progress in the building up of the social homogeneity of the socialist society in Bulgaria is the fact that a levelling off of the incomes of peasants with those of workers and employees has already virtually been achieved. Thus, in 1970 the average annual pay of workers and employees in the country was 1,460 leva, whereas the 184 incomes of the cooperative farmers in the public and individual farms was 1,450 leva (47, c. 128). There are no great differences in the labour payment of workers engineering and technical staff and employees. Thus, against an average annual pay in industry of 1,470 leva for 1969 the amounts of the remuneration for the respective categories were: workers---1,392 leva, engineering and technical workers---2,036 leva, employees---1,469 leva, manual workers (cleaners, etc.) - 983 leva (36, c. 90)
The new tasks in the construction of a mature socialist society, which were formulated in the Programme of the Bulgarian Communist Party adopted at its Tenth Congress in 1971, map out a specific path towards the further implementation of social and class homogeneity and towards ever greater political and ideological unity of the Bulgarian people. It is pointed out in the programme: 'In the further construction of the socialist society, there are increased prerequisites for a gradual ironing out of intra-class and inter-class differences and for the creation of social homogeneity in society' (70, c. 63).
As the First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party, Todor Zhivkov, pointed out in his report to the Tenth Congress of the Party, the processes of the gradual transformation of the people's democratic state from a political form of proletarian dictatorship into a state of all the people and the development of the Bulgarian Communist Party which while 'remaining a party of the working class, is gradually becoming a vanguard of the people, a party of the whole people' will be among the most important laws in the building up of the developed socialist society. Parallel with these two laws, the process of transforming Marxism-Leninism from an ideology of the Party and class into an ideology of the whole people and the whole socialist society will develop still further.
Inasmuch as there arise temporary and partial incompatibilities and even contradictions between the interests of individual social categories or social units in the socialist society, they are the result of insufficient 185 perspicacity or flexibility of the mechanisms, or of subjective mistakes. Such phenomena, however, are not only untypical of the socialist social system, but its normal functioning also demands that they should be eliminated.
Precisely for these reasons the socialist society knows no strikes on the part of the working people--- one of the major forms through which the antagonism between the working class and the other working people on the one hand, and the capitalist class and its state on the other hand, finds expression in bourgeois society.
The anti-communist ' Marxologists' often try to present the tremendous advantages of the socialist society as its flaws. Thus they try particularly to distort the fact which impresses the uninformed working citizen in the Western countries that in the socialist countries the working class no longer go on strike. The gross falsification perpetrated in this matter by the bourgeois ideologists begins with the lie that in the socialist countries strikes are forbidden, which is absolutely untrue.
Under socialism the enterprises are owned by all the people and the work^^1^^ forces, as part of the people, have the feeling of being their owners.As such, in one or another form they take part in the management of the enterprise and control the administration; the workers effect this through their two organizations---the trade unions and the Party. Moreover, the administration of the enterprise has the same interests as those of the work force, since it does not appropriate theprofitmade by the enterprise for itself, nor is it acting on behalf of a particular class which is interested in the exploitation of the workers.
Because of all this, when they are dissatisfied with certain practices, the workers do not see any sense in a strike but rather realize the harm that will be inflicted on society by it. They avail themselves of other channels when the trade union and Party organizations prove insufficient to solve questions which crop up. These channels are: the higher organs in the hierarchy of the Party and trade unions, including their central 186 managements; the leading state bodies which, by virtue of their composition, their education and the tasks with which they are charged are representatives of the working class and the other working people; the special control organs, such as the state control bodies; the information media---radio, television and the press, through which the working people ask for solutions to all economic, social, cultural, day-to-day and general problems that have come to a head.
The law-governed and lasting trends which characterize the economic, social and political development of the USSR and the other CMEA member states are: steady high development rates of the economy, science and culture, and a steady rise in the living and cultural standards of the three main groups of working people--- workers, peasant farmers and people's intelligentsia. These basic and predominant trends cannot be eclipsed by any secondary, isolated manifestations of bureaucratic distortions by the Party and state apparatus in one or another socialist country, the fact of a greater or lesser loss of confidence in the Party and the socialist state by part of the working people, etc.
However, if the mechanisms in the socialist society fail to work properly, then what? The situation becomes most difficult when the main leading force, the Party, disrupts its normal links with the working class or fails to fulfil its obligation to persuade it of the correctness of its policy, while listening at the same time to the voice of the working class and to its critical comments. If the Party leadership in a given socialist country disrupts its relations with the working class, or with some of its detachments,manifestations of dissatisfaction may be expected on their part, and in certain instances we may even come to demonstrations and strikes. There were strikes in Hungary in 1956, and in Czechoslovakia in 1968--69. Part of the working class also resorted to demonstrations and strikes in some Baltic towns in the Polish People's Republic in December 1970. However, these instances are the exceptions which prove the rule that the working class in the 187 socialist society does not generally resort to strikes, because it is itself in power.
In the capitalist society the working class won the right to strike with bloody battles. Although the bourgeois ideologists proclaim far and wide that in the modern imperialist countries headed by the USA an 'era of general prosperity' and 'social partnership among all strata has set in, data concerning the development of strike struggles during the period after the Second World War show quite a different picture. In 1958 the number of strikes in the capitalist countries was 26 million, in 1966---44 million and in 1970---over 63 million (34, c. 15). The stronger the strike wave in the capitalist world, the more pathetically the bourgeois propagandists cry about the 'deprivation of rights of the workers' and the 'ban on strikes' in the socialist states, always in order to cover up the tremendous difference in the situation of .the workers under the two systems.
The endeavour of the rightist Czechoslovak revisionists---the authors of the unscientific 'market model' of socialism---to seek contradictions between the different branches of the economy and social life, and on this basis to justify the necessity of a ' pluralistic' structure of the socialist society has been well appreciated by the anti-communist Michael Gamarnikov. As he says, the Czechoslovak revisionists strove for official recognition of the fact 'that there exist groups with contradictory interests, who have to be given a voice in the government' (114, c. 14).
The socialist social system not only recognizes but also guarantees the right to a voice in the government of all social groups and individual citizens. But the fact is that the different social groups do not have contradictory interests and that is why their participation in the government is implemented by other mechanisms and not through a competitive struggle. These mechanisms guarantee the initiative of the working people and their control over the leading bodies, but in them there is no struggle for power.
188--- Let us repeat once more: Marxists do not deny the existence of certain social and economic differences--- both between workers, cooperative farmers and intelligentsia and between different sectors of the economy and social life, and even between different labour forces from the same branch. However, they do deny two things: firstly, that between the different social strata and groups there exist antagonistic, irreconcilable contradictions, and! secondly that the means of solving the temporary and partial contradictions which do crop up is that of competitive struggle, and that the arena for their solution is the market when the contradictions are in the economic field, and confrontation and political struggle when they are in the general social sphere.
These simple but very important truths, which the rightist revisionists and pluralizers of the socialist society do not want to-see, have even been seen by the bourgeois ideologist Martin Janicke, who writes: 'The communist teaching does not deny the existence of different social groups. . . what it does deny is the existence of antagonistic contradictions between the groups themselves and between them and the political government' (128, S. 154, 155).
Yes, Marxism-Leninism acknowledges and takes into account the existence of different social groups and strata, and their specific interests, but it denies the existence of antagonistic contradictions between the groups and strata themselves, as well as between them and the socialist state---because in fact there are no such contradictions under socialism.
Thus, under socialism there is a trend towards ever greater social homogeneity of society. Marxist monism in this case means, firstly, that common interests predominate over specific interests, and, secondly, that the road to satisfying the specific needs and interests of the different social strata and groups is not the spontaneous demands of the market or the competitive struggle, but, rather, a science-based, planned and regulated cooperation between them.
189 __ALPHA_LVL3__ 4. `Pluralization', or Bourgeois RestorationThe 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.
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).
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).
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.
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 190 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.
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).
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?
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).
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.
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 191 view that in the socialist society all parties, including those of the opposition, should have the 'unlimited right of independent initiative' (115, p. 284).
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).
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.
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.
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 192 or another rate of socialist transformation of various phases of social life'. (9, c. 66).
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.
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.
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.
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 __PRINTERS_P_193_COMMENT__ 13.---0518 193 J.J. Rouseau's concept of 'volont\'e g\'en\'erale'. 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.
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.
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!
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.
194The 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.
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.
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.
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 195 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.
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.
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.
__*_*_*__Let us make a brief survey of the main conclusions which we have reached in the process of our investigations.
As a theoretical and methodological basis of Marxism-Leninism, dialectical and historical 196 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.
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.
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'.
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 197 contradictions and social antagonisms, which are typical of capitalism.
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.
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.
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.
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 198 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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-- 199 Emacs-File-stamp: "/home/ysverdlov/leninist.biz/en/0000/MPIP223/20071123/223.tx" __EMAIL__ webmaster@leninist.biz __OCR__ ABBYY 6 Professional (2007.11.23) __WHERE_PAGE_NUMBERS__ bottom __FOOTNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [*]+ __ENDNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [0-9]+ 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.
[200] __ALPHA_LVL1__ Bibliography used and quoted1. Mapkc K., Hau.uoHaAU3au.ufl SBMAU. - B: K.Mapkc u O.OHaeAbc, COM., U3g.2-e, M., IloAumusgam, 1955--1965, m.18.
2. Mapkc K., KanumaA, m. I - B: K. Mapkc u O.3 Hbc, COM., m: 23.
3. Mapkc K., KanumaA, m.III. - B,; K.Mapkc u O.3 nbc, COM., m. 25, M.H.
4. Mapkc K., K kpumuke noAumuMeckou akonoMUU, B: K.Mapkc u O.SHeeAbc, COM., m. 13.
5. Mapkc K. u 0. 9meA.bc, MaHu<J>ecm KoMMymicmuMeckou napmuu, COM., m. 4.
6. Mapkc K. u 0. 9meA.bc, C6nmoe ceMeucm6o, COM., m. 2.
7. 9nseA.bc 0., JIiog6u8 <I>euep6ax u koHeu. kAaccuMeckou H6Meu,kou <j>UAOco(J>uu, B: K.Mapkc u <J>.3HeeAbc, COM., m. 21.
8. Jlenun B. M. AepapHan npoepawwa cou,uaA-ge/ wokpamuu 8 nep6ou pycckou pe6oAK>u.uu 1905--1907 eogoB, B: B.M.neHUH, COMUHCHUH, usg. 4-e, M., FocnoAumuagam, 1941--1962, m. 13.
9. Jlenun B. M. O kapukamype Ha Mapkcu3M u 06 ,, UMnepuaAucmuMeckoM 3koHOMU3Me'', COM., U3g. 4-e, m. 23.
10. Jlenun B. M., Hmo makoe ,,gpy3ba napoga" u kak OHU 6oK)iom npomuB conuaA-geMokpamo8? COM., m. 1.
11. Henun B. M. J^emckaa 6oA63Hb ,,Ae6u3Hbi" 6 koMMyHU3Me, COM., m. 31.
12. TlenuH B. M., Mapkcus/w u peSuauoHusM, COM., m. 15.
13. Jlenun B. M., MamepuaAU3M u 3 Mnupuokpumu, COM., m. 14.
20114. JJeHUH B. M., OuAoco(J>ckue mempagu, COM., m. 38.
15. JJenuH B. M., Ho6bie Spe/wena, cmapbie ouiuSku 6 HoBow 6uge, COM., m. 33.
16. JJenuH B. M., MwnepuaAUSM, kak Bbiciuaa cmagua kanumaAU3Ma, COM., m. 22.
II
17. BaAokuna, M. u K. JJoAeod. IlepcoHaAusM - B: < puAoco<J>ckaH 3Hu.ukAonegufl, m. 4, M., 1967 s.
18. BamaAoB, 9.H. u gp. IToxog Mapkyae npomu6 Mapkcu3M3. M., ,,MbicAb'', 1969.
19. Bee/io6, 1/1. M. CIIIA: Co6cm6eHHOcmb u BAacmb. M., ,,Hayka'', 1971.
20. BAasoe6, ffuMumzp. HuaAekmuMecku wamepuaAU3"bM u meopufl Ha nosHaHuemo. -B : MaSpanu npousBegemifl, m. II, C., EKn, 1951.
21. BoeoMUAod, A. C. ,,PeaAucmuMeckue" meMeHUH 6ypjkya3HOU 4>UAOco<|>uu 6 coBpeweHHyK) snoxy. - B: Mcmopua (J>UAOco4)uu, m. VI. kn. 2, M., ,,Hayka'', 1965.
22. EpeikneB, JJ. M. OmMemeH gokAag Ha UK Ha KI1CC npeg XXIV konepec na napmuama. C., Ilapmusgam, 1971.
23. Bymenko, A. 77. SakoHOMepHocmu u (JxipMbi pasBumua k couuaAUswy. - ,,Bonpocbi <})UAOCO({)UU'', M., 1967, M2.
24. Bymenko, A. 77. 06uiee u enema4>uMeckoe 6 meopuu u npakmuke couuaAU3wa. - ,,Bonpocbi (j>UAoco<t>uu'', M., 1971, KQ!.
25. BceMupnan ucmopun, m. VII. M., AH CCCP, 1960. 26.rupeuHo6, F. u M. HnkoB. ,,MexaHUM6H" UAU ,,ku-
6epHemuM6H" wogeA Ha ynpaBAenue npu couuaAusMa. -- ,,IloAumuMecka npocBema'', C., 1971, NblO.
27. FopHiumeuH, T. V. <I>UAOco(J)UH HukoAan FaprnMana. JL, 1969.
28. Fpueopod, K. M. EguHHomo uHgycmpuaAHo 06-- mecmBo. Macka u geucmBumeAHocm. /Kpumuka Ha 6 ypjkoasHume meopuu 33 ,,eguHHomo UHgycmpuaAHo 06-- mecmBo"/ C., BKH, 1970.
20229. Fy/iueB, B. E. HeMokpamun u coBpeMeHHbiD uiwnepuaAUSM. OMepku meopuu kanumaAUcmuMeckoeo eocygapcmBa u noAumuMeckou opeaHusauuu 6ypjkya3Hoeo 06-- u;ecm6a. M., MejkgyHapogHbie oniHouieHUH, 1970.
30. JJeAospaMMamuk, M. H. MemogoAoeua Ma u kpusuc 6ypjkya3Hou couuaAbHou meopuu. - ,, cofckue nayku'', M., 1963, M2.
31. flo6puaHo6, B. Huu^ema na anmuucmopusMa. C., BKR, 1969.
32. ffokynuH, B. M. Kpumuka coBpejvieHHbix anmuMapkcucmckux akoHowuMeckux meopuu. M., ,,BbiciuaH uikoAa'', 1969.
33. 2K.eMa.Ho6, O. H. Kpumuka konuermuu ,,o6yp^ya^ 3u6aHun" pa6oMeeo kAacca. - ,,Bonpocbi <}>UAOCO<J>UU'', M., 1970. M12.
34. )Ku6ko6, T. OmMemen gokAag Ha LlenrnpaAHUfl koMumem Ha BKI1 npeg J^ecemuH konepec Ha napmuwma. C., Ilapmusgam, 1971.
35. 3u6c, C. JJ. u B. E. FyAue6. AnoAoeufl coBpeMCHHoso uwnepuaAUcmuMeckoeo eocygapcmBa u 6ypdiya3Hou ge/viokpamuu ugeoAoeaMu pe<J>opMU3Ma. - B: MgeoAoeua coBpeMeHHoso peBusuoHusMa. Kpumuka koHuennuu npaBbix couuaAucmoB. M., ,,Hayka'', 1970.
36. H6aHo6, B. KAacoBa cmpykmypa u cou,uaAHo eguHcmBo., C., ITapmusgam, 1971.
37. M/ibune6, JJ. 0. O6mecm6eHHbie Hayku u koMwyHUSM., M., AH. ACCCP, 1963.
38. Mpu6ag^kako6, H. JleHunus'bM, 4>UAOCO(J)UH, ugeoAoeuMecka 6op6a. C., Hayka u uakycmBo, 1970.
39. Mpu6ag}kako6, H. KAUO npeg CT»ga Ha 6ypd<oa3 Hama 4>UAOco4>uH. C., BKI1, 1970.
40. Mpu6ag}fcako6, H. ,,KoHeu ugeoAoeuu" UAU ugeoAoeuMeckaH guBepcun? - B: ,,3apy6ejkHbie Mapkcucmbi 6 6opb6e npomuB 6yp>kya3Hou ugeoAoeuu'', M., ,, npospecc'', 1971.
41. Karmenko, H. M. ITekun: IloAumuka, Mydcga
co-
UuaAUSMy. M., 1967.
42. Ko>kapo6, Ac. AnmuHayMHama crbmHocm Ha eAegume sa ,,noAuBapuaHmHocm" na wapkcus/via. - B: IloAumuka, ugeoAoeun, ugeoAoauMecka guBepcua, C., Mag. BKn, 1970.
20343. KoSkapoB, Ac. 3a c^g^pdcaHuemo u <Jx>pMama Ha geBemocenmeMBpuuckama peBoAiouua - B: c6. IIpo6 AeMU Ha coiuiaAUcmuHeckomo pasBumue na Bi>AeapuH, C., BKH, 1969.
44. KoikapoB, Ac. Kpumuka na HeHayMHume meopuu na aHmukoMyHU3/wa u peBusuoHuaiwa sa riAypaAusauua na Mapkcu3Ma-A6HUHU3Ma u na noAumuHeckua jkuBom npu couuaAusMa. C., BKI1, 1971.
45. KpoHpog, H. O6 akoHOMuneckux npunuunax u sakoHOMepHocmax cou.uaAU3Ma. - ..KoMMynucm'', M., 1969,
Mil.
46. KypcanoB, F. A. JleHUHus/vi u kpusuc 6ypjkya3Hou
<J>UAOCO<t>ckoU MblCAU. M., ,,MblCAb'', 1971.
47. MapkoB, M. Ilpeg npaea na couuaAHama egnopogHocm. - ,,Ho6o Spe/we'', C., 1971, kn. 5.
48. Me^kgynapogHO CT>8eu;aHue Ha koMyHucmuMeckume u pa6omHUHecku napmuu. MockBa, 1969, C., BKIT, 1969.
49. Meqb6iiA.b, K). K. Ilpo6AeMa ucmuHbi 6 npaeMamuswe. - B: CoBpeMeHHaa ugeaAucmuHeckaa eHoceoAoeua. F. A. I^ypcaHoB/peg./ M., ,,MbicAb'', 1968.
50. MunkoB, T. C^BpeMCHHu 6ypAoa3Hu meopuu Ha ukoHOMUMeckuH pacmejk. C., Hayka u uakycmBo, 1971 g.
51. Mume6,ff. ,,MogeA na couuaAUSMa" UAU peBuauoHU3-bM?C., BKH, 1971.
52. MumuH, M. E. B. M. Jlenun u akmyaAbHbie npo6-
A6Mbl 4>UAOC04>UU, M., ,,MblCAb'', 1971.
53. MogpikuHckasi, E. ff. JleHUHU3M u coBpe/vieHHan ugeoAoeuHeckaa 6opb6a. M., ,,MbiCAb''', 1970.
54. Moap&UHckaH, E. ff. u B. A. Hukumun. AHHIUkoMMyHUSM npaBbix AugepoB u meopemukoB couuaA-- geMokpamuMeckoeo pe<t>opMU3AAa. - B: MgeoAoeuH coBpeMeHHoao pe4x>pMU3Ma. M., ,,Hayka''. 1970.
55. MoM-giknH, X. O peBuauonucmckoO konuenuuu ,,MogeAeO couuaAUSMa" - ,,KoMMyHucm'', M., 1970, Ka2.
56. Mopoaod, C. M. O peBusuonucmckou koHuenuuu ,,noAu6apuaHmHocmu MapkcuaMa''. - ,,OuAoco<Jx;kue Hayku'', M., 1971,'' N&4.
57. MiuBenuepagae, B. B. KpumuMeckuO 3H3AU3 ugeoAOguMeckou cmpameeuu UMnepuaAusiwa u meopemuHeckux koHuennud coBpeMeHHoeo aHmukoM/wyHusMa. - B: 204 JleHUHUSM u <J)UAOCO^x;kue npoSAe/vibi coBpeMeHHOcmu. M., ,,MbicAb'', 1970.
58. MbicAuBHenko, A., Hukona.ii FaprnMan. - B: OUAOco4>ckafl sHuukAonegua, m.I, M., 1960.
59. Hapckuu, 14. HeonosumuBusM. - B: McmopUH <j> uAoco4>uu, m. VI, knusa 2, M., ,,Hayka'', 1965.
60. Hapckuu, M. IlAK>paAU3M - B; OuAoco4>ckan 3 HUukAonegua, m. 4, M., 1967.
61. OusepMdH, T. M. HeomoMUSM - B: Mcmopua <|) UAOco<l>uu, m. VI, kH. 2, M., ,,Hayka'', 1965.
62. OcunoBa, E. M. EypjkyasnaH couuoAoeua - B: Mcmopua <J)UAOco<})uu, m. VI, kH. 2, M., ,,Hayka'', 1965.
63. UadAod, J3. u H. Tpanga<puAo6. MgeQnama nuu; ema na aHmukoMyHU3Ma. C., BKII, 1967.
63.a FlaB/ioB, ff. KoHuenuuH ,,OopMupo6aHHoeo 06-- " - HoBbiu coi;uaAbHbiu MU<J>
/wapkcucmbi 6 6opb6e npomuB ugeoAoeuu. M., ,,IIpoepecc'', 1971.
63,6. TlaBAoB, ff. C-bBpeMeHHuam gecen peBuauonusijM B'bB <J)UAoco<J)Uflma 6 cBemAUHama Ha AenunusMa. -- B: JTenuH u nauiama c-bBpeMeHHocm, C., Ilapmusgam, 1970.
64. FfaBAoB, T. JTenuHusMTim 6 6umka sa noBeka C., BKH, 1970.
65. UaBAoB, T. Teopua Ha ompaJieHuemo. OcHoBnu Bi^npocu Ha guaAekmuko-MamepuaAucmuMeckama meoPUH Ha no3H3Huemo. 2 usg. C., Ilapmusgam, 1945.
66. IJapcoHc, F. H. JleHUHckan MbiCAb u <t>uAoco<J)bi CIIIA. - ,,Bonpocbi <J>UAOco<J)uu'', M., 1970, M3.
67. flAexanoB, F. B. K Bonpocy o paaBumuu MOHucmuMeckoeo BseAaga Ha ucmopuio. - B: Ms6paHHbie 4>UAOCO(J)-- ckue npouaBegeHUH, m. I, M., 1956.
68. UonoB, C. M. Kpumuka coBpe/weHHou 6ypjkya3Hou couuoAoeuu. Msg. Bmopoe, M., 1970.
69. Cn. ,,IIpo6AeMbi Mupa u cou.uaAU3Ma'', Flpasa, 1971, M6,
69,a. Cn. ,,IIpo6AeMbi Mupa u coiuiaAus/wa'', Ilpaea, 1971, JVb9.
70. FIpospaMa. na B-bAeapckama koMynucmuHecka napmua, npuema om X konepec Ha BKII, 24 anpuA 1971, C., ITapmuagam, 1971.
20571. PosenmaAb, M. M. O kAaccoBow nogxoge k 06-- uu,ecm6eHHoCt AUSHU. - ,,Ilpa6ga'', M., 1971, 17.XII.
72. PbinguHa, M. H. MemogoAoeun 6yp?kya3Hou noAumuMeckou akoHomuu, M., ,,MbicAb'', 1969.
73. Caxapoda, T. A. u M. M. Kpadienko. IlepcoHaAU3M. B: Mcmopun <J>uAoco<J>uu, m. VI, M. Bmopan, M., ,, Hayk`a'', 1965.
74. CmenaHHH, Lf. A. Bygymee Bceeo HeAoBeMecmBa koMMyHU3M - B; Bygymee HeAoBeHeckoeo o6mecm6a, M., ,,MbicAb'', 1971.
75. Tpane3Huko6, C. IJ. PasBumue o6mecm6eHHbix Hayk - ,,Bonpocbi <J>UAOco<J>uu'', M., 1967, Mil.
76. Tpenga<pu/w6, T. Kpusu, peeyAupana ukoHOMuka. TeopuH u npakmuka. C., Hayka u uskycmBo, 1971.
77. TpengatpuAod, T. Hau-noBu meopuu sa ,, mpaHc4>opMau.UH" Ha kanumaAusMa. B; ,,rioAumuka, ugeoAoeufl, ugeoAoeuMeckaa guBepcun'', C., BKII, 1970.
78. Typso6ckuu, M. J^ropkaeuM SwuAb. - B: <I>UAoco4>-- ckan 3Hu.ukAoneguH, m. 2, M., 1966.
79. Vc6fmo8, A. E. PetJxjpMucmckaa meopUH ,, cMeiuaHHOU skoHOMuku''. - B: MgeoAoeua coBpeMeHHoeo peBusuoHU3M3. Kpumuka koHuenquu npaBbix couuaAUcmoB, M., ,,Hayka'', 1970.
80. 0egopo6, P. IJ. IlpegnpuHUMameAbckue cotosbi u kpax meopuu ..nAtopaAucmuMeckoeo o6u^ecm6a''. - ,, Bonpocbi 4>UAOCo4>uu'', M., 1970, M2.
81. XUAA, T. M. CoBpeMeHHbie meopuu nosHaHua, M., ,,npoepecc'', 1965.
82. IJeMc, B. rTpae/viamusM u ecejuo pagukaAHow CMnupusMy. Beospag, KOCMOC, 1940.
83. fapaknued /Ko^iapoB/ Ac. HeucmBeHocmma Ha MUCAenemo. AkmuBuama pOAa na MucAeHemo 6 noaHaHuemo u 6 npakmuneckama geflnocm. C., BKIT, 1961.
84. IUmo<p<f>, B. A. MogeAupoBaHue u <J>UAoco4>UH. M.H., 1966.
85. Hnkod, M. Kpumuka Ha HoBua MogeA na couuaAU3Ma., C., BKH, 1969.
86. Altmann, Riidiger. Bergdorrfer Protokole, Bd. 16. Hamburg-Berlin, 1966
87. Aron, Raymond. Democratic et totalitarisme. Paris, Gallimard, 1965
20688. Aron, Raymond. L'impact du marxisme au XXe siecle. B; De Marx a Mao Tse-tung. Un siecle d' internationale marxiste, Paris, Caiman-Levy, 1967
89. Baerwald, Friedrich. Zur Theorie und Praxis der Pluralismus.---"Zeitschrift fur die gesamte Staatwissenschaft''. Tubingen, 1962, Hf 3.
90. Bauer, Illeana und Anita Liepert. Sierenengesang eines Renegaten oder die "Grosse Wende" Roger Garaudy's, Berlin, Akademie Verlag, 1971.
91. Bently, A. The process of Government. Cambr. /Mass/, IJum. no ,,MgeoAO8ua coBpeMeHHoao peBusuoHU3Ma'', M. Hayka, 1970.
92. Bochenski, I.M. Contemporary European Philosophy. Berkeley and Los Angeles, University of California Press, 1966
93. Bosl, Karl. Pluralismus und pluralistische Gesellschaft Bauprinsip, Zerfallerscheinung, Mode. Miinchen und Salzburg, 1967.
94. Briefs, Goets. Staat und Wirtschaft im Zeitalter der Interessenverbande. B: Laissez-faire-Pluralismus. Democratie und Wirtschaft des gegenwartigen Zeitalter. /W/ Berlin, Bunker und Humbolt., 1966
95. Brzezinski, Zb. Between Two Ages. America`s' Role in the Technotronic Era. The Viking Press, 1970
96. Buhr, Manfred. Pluralismus.---B: G.Klaus und M.Buhr, /Herausg./ Philosophisches Worterbuch, Band 2, Leipzig, 1969.
97. Connolly, Willian E. The Challenge to Pluralist Theory. B: The Bias of Pluralism, W.E.Connolly (Edit), New York, Atherton Press, 1969.
98. Czernetz, K. Pluralismus, Democratie, Socialismus - "Die Zukunft'', Wien, 1967, Hf. 5
99. Dahl, Robert A. Pluralist Democracy in the United States: Conflict and Consent. Chicago, 1967.
100. Dahrendorf, Ralf. Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society. London, 1959
101. De Marx a Mao Tse Tung. Un siecle d' internationale marxiste. Paris, Calkan-Levy, 1967.
102. Demaitre, Edmund. The Origins of National Communism-"Studies of Comparative Communism''. Los Angeles, California, 1969, Vol. 2, No. 1
207103. Dimok, M. Business and Government.---New York, 1961
IJum. no B. E. FyAueB. JHewokpamuH u coOpe/weHHbiu UMnepuaAU3M. M., 1970, c. 89.
104. Domhoff, William. Who Rules America? Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, 1967. U,um. no: Connolly W. (Ed.). The Bias of Pluralism. New York, 1969, p. 31
105. Drucker, Peter. The Age of Discontinuity. Guidelines to our Changing Society. New York, 1968. The German edition is entitled: Die Zukunft bewaltigen, 1969
106. Einfuhrung in die politische Wissenschaft. W. Abendrot und K.Lenk (Herausg.). Bern und Miinchen, 1968.
107. Etzioni, Amitai. The Active Society. A Theory of Social and Political Processes. New York, 1968.
108. Farber, Marvin. Basic Issues of Philosophy. Experience, Reality and Human Values. New York, Evanston and London, 1968.
109. Fejto, Francois. Dictionaire des partis communistes et des mouvements revolutionnaireis. Paris, Caster man, 1971.
110. Fischer, E. Was Marx wirklich sagte. WienFrankfurt-Zurich, 1968.
111. Frankl, Viktor, E. Der Pluralismus der Wissenschaften und das Menschliche im Menschen. B: Das neue Menschenbild. Die Revolutionisierung der Wissenschaften vom Leben. Ein internationales Symposium. A.Koestler und I.R.Smyties (Herausg.). Wien-- MiinchenZiirich, 1970.
112. Freund, Jvlien. L'essence du politique. Paris, 1965.
113. Galbraith. John Kenneth. The New Industrial State. New York, 1968.
114. Gamarnikov, Michael. Political Patterns and Economic Reforms---"Problems of Communism'', 1969, No. 3.
115. Garaudy, Roger. Le grand tournant du socialisme. Paris, Gallimard, 1969.
208116. Caraudy, Roger. Marxisme du XX* -sifecle. Paris. La Palatine. 1966
117. Garaudy, Roger, Pour un modele francais du socialisme Paris, Gallimard, 1968.
118. Goldstein, Julius. Einleitung.---B: W.James. Das pluralistische Universum, Leipzig, Alfred Kroner Verlag, 1914.
119. Gotschling, E. Die theorie von der " Pluralistischen Democratic" in heutigem Klassenkampf.--- ,,Neue Justiz'',Berlin. 1968, Hf. 20.
120. Haney, Gerhard. Der Pluralismus---Ideologic der Kontrarevolution. "Staat und Recht', Berlin, 1968, Hf. 10.
121. Henning, Eike. Zur Dialektik von Pluralismus und Totalitarismus.---,,Der Staat'', (W) Berlin, 1968, Hf. 3
122. Heyden, Gunter. Sozialdemocratie und Antikommunismus. ,,Neues Deutschland" Berlin, 4. IV. 1971. s6.
123. ffindels, Josef. Was ist heute links? Wien, 1970.
124. Huisinga, I.H. The End of an Illusion? - " Problems of Communism, 1969, N 4-5
125. The International Relations Dictionary. U.S.A. Western Michigan University, 1969.
126. James, William. Das pluralistische Universum. Leipzig, 1914.
127. James, W. Pragmatism and Four Essays from the Meaning of Truth. Quoted from:
CoBpeMeHHan ugeaAucmuieckaa anoceoAOguH. Kpumimeckue onepku. r.A.KypcaHo6 /peg/. M., ,,MbicAb'', 1968, c.351
128. Jdnicke, Martin. Monpolismus und Pluralismus in kommunistischen Herrschaftsystem.---,,Zeitschrift fur Politik'',K61n-Berlin-Bon-Munchen, 1967, Hf. 2
129. Kariel, Henry S. The Decline of American Pluralism. California, 1961, Repr. 1967
130. Kariel, Henry S. Pluralism.---B: International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Vol. 12, USA, Macmilan, 1968
__PRINTERS_P_209_COMMENT__ 14.---0518 209``131. Kojarov /Tcharaktchiev/, Assen. The Social, Forces behind the Socialist Revolution in Bulgaria, S., Sofia Press, 1968
132. Kolakovski, Leszek. Toward a Marxist Humanism. Essays on the Left Today. New York, 1968.
133. Korac, V. Quelques remarques actuelles sur 1'actualite des idees de Marx.---``Praxis'', Zagreb, 1969, No 1-2.
134. -Kornhauser, William. The Politics of Mass Society. Clencoe, Illinois, 1959.
135. Kuntzil, Arnold. Marxismus im Wandel.--- ,,Forum'', Wien, 1967, Hf. 166.
136. Lendvai, Paul. Eagles in Cobwebs. Nationalism and Communism in the Balkans. London, 1970.
137. Leonhard, Wolfgang. Die Dreispaltung des Marxismus. Ursprung und Entwicklung des Sowjetmarxismus, Maoismus und Reformkommunismus. Diisseldorf-Wien, Ekon, 1970
138. Leser, Norbert. Industriegesellschaft und Pluralismus.---B: Die erschreckende Zivilisation. 0. Schutz /Gerausg/. Wien, Europa Verlag, 1970.
139. Lichtheim, Georg. Marxism. A Historical and Critical Study, 2. Ed. London, 1964.
140. Lippmann, Heinz. The Limits of Reformkommunism, "Problems of Communism'', 1970, No. 3.
141. Lombardo-Radice, Lucio.
Genosse Ausgeschlossener. "Neues Forum'', Wien, 1970, Hf. 194/1.
142. Lombardo-Radice, Lucio. Pluralismus in einer socialistischen Gesellschaft.---B: Christentum und Marxismus heute. Gesprache der Paulus--- Gesellschaft Wien-Frankfurt-Zurich, Europa-Verlag, 1966.
142.0. Lombardo-Radice, Lucio. "Weg und Ziel'', 1967, No. 3.
143. Lowenthal, Richard. Les chances du communis me pluraliste.---B; De Marx a Mao Tse-tung. Paris, Caiman-Levy, 1967.
210144. Luporini, C. Christentum und Marxismus heute, ---B: Gesprache der Paulusgesellschaft. Wien, EuropaVerlag, 1966.
145. Marcuse, Herbert. Der eindimensionale Mensch. Neuwield und /W7 Berlin, Luchterhand, 1967.
146. Markovic, Mihailo. Osnovne karakteristike markisticke filozofije, Gledista, Sarajevo, 1969, Nol
147. Munisic, Zdravko. Marksisticka filozofija u delu Roze Garodija, ``Socijalisam'', 1968, No. 4.
148. Perrow, Charles, The Sociological Perspective and Political Pluralism.---"Social Research''. New York, 1964, No 4.
149. Petrounc, Gajo. Wider- den autoritaren Marxismus. Frankfurt/M., 1969.
150 Philosophisches Worterbuch. Stuttgart. Alfred Kroner Verlag, 1965.
151. Popper, Karl. On the Theory of the Objective Mind.---B: Acten des XIV Internationalen Kongresses fur Philosophie. Wien, 2-9.IX. 1968. Plenarsitzung. 1. Geist, Welt und Geschichte. Wien, Universitat, 1968.
152. Popper, Karl. The Open Society and its Enemies, London, 1945.
153. Reck, A.J. The New American Philosophers. New York, A delta Book, 1970.
154. Rossanda, Rossana. Le marxisme de Mao.--- "Temps modernes'', Paris, 1970--71, N 293--294, p. 1202-- 1234.
155. Rostoif, W.W. The Stages of Economic Growth. A Non-Communist Manifesto. Cambridge Univ. Press., I960
156. Rubinstein, A.Z.Yugoslavia. Reforms, Non-- alignment and Pluralism---"Problems of Communism''. 1968, No 2.
157. Schack, Herbert. Marx, Mao, Neo-Marxismus. Wandlungen einer Ideologie, Frankfurt/M., 1969.
158. Schiller, F.C.S. Our Human Truths. New York, 1939. Quoted from:
CoBpeMeHHaa ugeoAOsimeckaa aHoceoAoaua, KpumuMecku OMepku. T.A.KypcaHoB /peg./ M., ,,MbiCAb'', 1968, c. 354.
211159. Schrciner, Egon. Zur Sozialen Funktion einiger Schlagworte. II. Pluralismus,---"Marxistische Blatter'', Frankfurt/M., 1965, Hf. 1.
160. Schumpeter, I. History of Economic Analysis. New York, 1964, Quoted from:
IIpomu6 6ypjkya3Hoti u pe6u3UOHUcmuHeckou ugeoAoauu 6 akoHOMuneckoti nayke. M., 1970, c. 21.
161. Stoat un Politik. Das Fischer Lexikon, 1964. Zitiert nach "Neue Justiz'. Berlin, 1968, No. 2, S. 610.
162. Stojonouic, Sv. The Statist Myth of Socialism.--- ``Praxis'', Zagreb, 1967, No. 2.
163. Storing H.I.Kleine Weltgeschichte der Philosophic Bd. 2. Hamburg, 1969.
164. Suauet, Thomas. Dictionnaire economique et social. Paris, Editions ouvrieres 1970
165. Szecsi, Maria. Parteiprogramm und Pluralismus. - "Die Zukunft".Wien, 1967, Hf. 8.
166. Tautscher, Anton. Die Leitbilder der pluralistischen Gesellschaft.---"Osterreichische Monatschefte''. Wien, 1965, Hf. 2.
167. Truger, W. Pluralismen.---``Tagebuch'', Wien, 1967, Fevr.---Marz.
168. Toward the Year 2000. Work. In Progress. D.Bell /Ed/ Boston, 1968.
169. Van den Berghe, Pierre L. Pluralisme social et culture!---"Cahiers internationationaux de sociologie''. Paris. 1967, Juillet-Decembre.
170. Vracar, Stcuan. Partijski monopolizam i politicka moc drustvenih grupa.---``Gledista'', Sarajevo, 1967, No. 8-9.
171. Vranicki, Predrag. Staat und Partei im Socialismus. ``Praxis'' Zagreb, 1967, No. 5-6
172. Vranicki, Predrag. Von der Notwendigkeit der verschiedenen Varianten in der marxistischen Philosophie.---B: Akten des XIV internationalen Kongresses fur Philosophie, Wien, 2-9. IX. 1968. Kolloquium I. Marx und die Philosophie der modernen Demokratie. Wien, 1970.
173. Welan, Manfred. Partei en und Verbande in der modernen Demokratie. Wien, 1970.
212174. Wetter, Gustav A. Ideologische Koexistenz---B: Christentum und Marxisfnus heute. Gesprache der Paulus-Gesellschaft. Erich Kellner (Herausg.). WienFrankfurt-Zurich, Europa Verlag, 1966.
175. Worterbuch der Sociologie. Herausg. W. Bernsdorf, Er. Bullow, Stuttgart, 1955.
[213] __ALPHA_LVL1__ SUBJECT INDEX __NOTE__ Rectos seem to be missing page numbers.Anarchism - 115, 132, 133--134
Anticomrnunism - 109; its contemporary representatives - 58, 120,
and rightist revisionism - 142; anti-Sovietism - 154 Bangladesh, its liberation - 155
Base and superstructure - 41--42, political superstructure under capitalism -"90; under socialism - 185 Capitalism, capitalist society - 55--56, 77--83, 100; state monopoly capitalism - 73, 84 Change and development - 139--140 Classes, social strata and groups:
under capitalism - 25, 59, 68, 75--78, 83
in the socialist society - 180--186
Class struggle - 99, 180, 186--188
Pluralism and the class struggle, social conflicts - 86--87,
89, (See also 'working class')
Communism, communist society, system - 87--88, 180, 200; `levelling' communism - 178
Competition, competitive struggle - 55--56, 74, 90 Contradictions in society - 62--63, 87--88, 198; under capitalism -
55--56, 74--75: under socialism and communism - 88, 182--184,
186, 188--189; the main contradiction of our times - 106;
antagonistic contradictions - 63, 87, 189 Convergence - 8, 26; philosophical convergence - 24 Council for Mutual Economic Assistance - CMEA - 108, 152, 171 181--182; trend and rates of its economic and social development -
181--182 Crisis, crisis phenomena in capitalist society and under socialism -
113, 129, 178--179, 177 Cult, of personality -- Czechoslovak events 1968--69 - 87, 126--127, 153, 187
214DeideologizatiOn - $
Democracy - 193
bourgeois - 64, 72, 86, 90, 193
socialist - 88, 188, 190, 195
Pluralist democracy, political pluralism - 43--44, 65--66,
84, 85, 86, 190, 198--199
Democratic centralism in the Party - 191--192
Development and change - 103, 139--140
Dialectical and historical materialism, Marxist philosophy -- 12--13, 28, 87, 103--104, 145, 196--197 and scientific communism - 143 its Party spirit - 191 attempts at its `pluralization' - 139--140
Dialogue between communists and catholics - 61--63
Dictatorship of the proletariat, proletarian dictatorship - 102 its transformation into a 'state of all the people' - 185; different forms - 102, 149--150, 191--193
Discussions, clash of opinions---61--63,
Domination and subordination, leadership and execution - 77
Dualism - 14, 30
Economic inequality: under contemporary capitalism - 78--79; under socialism - 180, 183
Egalitarianism in the Maoist communes - 179
Form: form and variant - 149--152; form and model 165, 167; various forms, variety of forms of: proletarian dictatorship - 102, 149--150, 191--193; socialist construction, of the socialist society - 108, 149--151, 161--168 of a socialist agricultural enterprise - 162
Forecasting, programming and planning: under socialism - 176, 189, 197; under capitalism - 74; forecasts of the classicists of Marxism-Leninism on the basic features and laws of socialism -- 179, 189; on the possibility of the socialist revolution to triumph first in Russia---105; on the inevitable periodical intensification -of revisionism -116
Forms, models of socialism - 102, 161--168; on the necessity of the term 'model of socialism' - 162--163, 168 (See also: model, modelling and `pluralization' of socialism)
Freedoms and rights of working people and their organizations: under capitalism - 64, 90--91, 92--93, 190: freedom to criticize - 144; freedom of religion, conscience, under socialism - 65
General, particular and individual - 18, 26
Gnoseological reasons for errors in thinking - 56
Government, administration of society under socialism and under capitalism - 86--90
[215]Hegelinized Marxism - 126
Historical materialism, its basic issue - 50--51
Hungarian counterrevolution 1956 - 87, 126, 187
Idealism:
its gnoseological roots---, 23--24
a philosophical weapon of the bourgeoisie - 42;
objective idealism - 33, 49;
subjective idealism - 33;
idealistic monism on the question of social development -
39--40
Ideas, their motivation - 45
subjectivistic exaggeration of their role - 178; 'ideas and opinions rule the world' - 38, 43
Ideological struggle - 7, 25, 54--55, 59
the struggle between Marxism and bourgeois ideology is not pluralistic - 64
Ideology - 12, 114--115, 132; class and party character of ideology - 52; `pluralism' in ideology - 52--56, 58--59 132; its penetration among the working people - 133; ideology in the socialist society - 65; petty-bourgeois ideology - rightist reformist and leftist reformist trends - 60, 114--115, 132;
proletarian, communist, socialist ideology (see MarxismLeninism)
Imperialism---disharmony in its development, discovered by Lenin -- 105
Incomes and riches, their concentration and distribution under capitalism - 78--80; under socialism - 184--185
International workers' and communist movement: Moscow conferences in 1957, 1960 and 1969 - 107, 136, reasons for the periodical intensification of revisionism in its ranks - 115-- 118
Internationalism - 101--102, 200 Jacobin democracy---193--194
Knowledge and its development - 104
Laws and law-govened regularities in social development, and their objective character - 46, 99--100. 121--122; their negation by the pluralists - 46--47, 99--100, 197; their voluntaristic disregard by the Maoists - 177--178
Leninism - 109, 119--124, 129, 133 ( See also Marxism)
Maoism - a `leftist' revisionist distortion of Marxism - 125, 146-
151, 152, 176--177
216Marxism, Marxism-Leninism - 7, 12--13, 55, 88, 101--102, 118--124, 139--140,1149--150, 196, 197; its development at the present stage - 109--110; why the bourgeois rejects it - 57--58; attempts at refuting and `correcting' it - 58, 103--104, 119--124, 126, 128,131, 180; 'unclear concept' - 144--145; Marxism-Leninism and the 'criticism of everything that exists' - 145; its link with the Party - 157--161; its transformation into an ideology of all the people - 181 (See also: pluralisation of Marxism)
Marxist ohilosoohv - See dialectical and historical materialism
'Mass society', according to the pluralists - 71--72, 73
Materialism - basic scientific trend in philosophy - 12--14; materialism in the field of social life - 38; materialist dialectics and revisionism - 154 (See also: dialectical and historical materialism, philosophy)
Material interests and pluralism---69; material interests and Maoism - 177
Mechanisms and regulators: of bourgeois democracy - 72; of economic management under capitalism - 186; under socialism -- 186--187, for struggle against the flaws and weaknesses under socialism - 199
Menshevic party in Soviet Russia - 194
Methods, ways and means of overthrowing capitalism and of building socialism and communism - 147--149, 161
Model, modelling - 161--162, 163, 167; three levels of ideal models - 163--164; when is there a `pluralism' of models -- 164--165; model and form - 166; models and `models' of a socialist society - 161--168; (See also: socialism; pluralization of the socialist society)
Monism - 11, 17, 18, 27--28, 41--42; monism and diversity - 109;
Marxist monism in the field of social development-45; 189; 197; Marxist monism and the unity of the international communist movement - 156--157; Monist democracy - 90, 194
Motive forces, incentives for social development - 55--56, 69--70
Multitudes, diversity and pluralism - 15, 109--110;
Nationalism - 147--148, 150, 154
Norms, normative laws of social life - 46--47 Opposition, opposition parties (to socialism) - 192--196; the opposition in the initial period of Soviet rule - 194; in the People's Republic of Bulgaria - 195
Ownership: cult of private ownership under capitalism - 55; forms of social ownership over the means of production under socialism - 169
[217]Party, political - 42--43; Marxist-Leninist, Communist - 105, "156-
157,160,190,199;transformation tithe CommoiiistlParty intoa party of all the people in the developed socialist society -- 185; the rightist revisionists against the leading role of the Communist Party - 190--192; the Bulgarian Communist Party (BCP) - 185; the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU)- 106, 117--118, 131;
Peace, peaceful coexistence between socialism and capitalism - 108; 'peaceful coexistence' in the ideological field - 60--62, peaceful and non-peaceful ways of settling social conflicts -- 89, 108
Pessimism in bourgeois ideology - 58
Pluralism - 8, 15--21, 21--23, 52--53; three levels of plusralismphilosophical, sociological (social), political - 44, 65-- 66, 90, 190; in ideology in general, ideological pluralism -- 53--55, 61--64, 94, 190; in bourgeois ideology - 55; in knowledge - 35 (See also gnoseological pluralism); in social life - 67--68 (See also social and political pluralism); pluralism and the clash of opinions -61; pluralism and diversity (variety) - 15, 110, pluralism and democracy -- 196
Pluralism in philosophy, philosophical pluralism - 14--21, 21--22, 25, 27, 38; gnoseological and social roots - 23--25; onto -- logical pluralism - 19--20, 20 28, 35, 43; atomic pluralism -- 20, 28; atomic-pluralistic approach in sociology - 49, 50, structural pluralism - 20, 29--31, 49; gnoseological pluralism 17, 20, 35, 100; gnoseological utilitarianism - 38; gnoseological conventionalism - 38
Pluralism in social Ijfe, socio-political pluralism -
65; social or sociological pluralism - 44, 47--49, 65, 67;
political pluralism, pluralist democracy - 44. 65, 67
82--86, 190; its decline - 96; the social democrats and the rightist revisionists on pluralism - 97--98.
`Pluralization''of Marxism-Leninism, `pluralism' in Marxism, `variants' of Marxism - 8, 99--100, 109, 118--131, 144--149, 162--163; `democratic' Marxism - 126, `institutional' Marxism and `intellectual' Marxism - 157--158: 'Hegelianized Marxism' - 126,127; `Khrushchevism'- 125; Maoism - 125, 146, 150, 153 -- 154, 176--177; `National' Marxism, national form or variant of Marxism - 146--149, 151; `neo-Marxism' - 127; ' reformist communism' - 168; `Stalinism' - 125, 152; 'Soviet 218 Marxism', called also 'Slav variant' or `voluntaristic' Marxism - 126--127. 129, 131; Titoyism' - 125; Trotskyism -- 115, 125, 132, 133, 1341
`pluralization' of socialism, socialist society, system - 8; `pluralist', antiscientific `models' - caricatures of socialism: 'Chinese, Maoist model' - 176, 179; 'new model', 'model, based on self-government', 'market model' - 174, 176, 179, 191; 'Soviet model', 'etatist model' - 174, 175
Philosophy:
the fundamental question - 11, 35, 142--144;
basic and non-basic (intermediate) trends - 13--14, 22--23;
bourgeois philosophy - 11--13;
class and party character - 13, 180;
`pluralism' in bourgeois philosophy - 22;
trends and schools in modern bourgeois philosophy with the influence of pluralism: behaviourism---50; existentialism -
23, 29; conventionalism - 37, neo-thomism /neotomism/ -
23, 33--35; personalism - 23, 29, 50; pragmatism - 23, 25,
28, 32, 35--36; phenomenology - 23,
Poland, workers' unrest in December 1970 - 187
Possibility and reality - 18
Power, according to the pluralists - 68 (See also State)
Practice - 11, 136; practice and revisionism - 156
Practical unity of action and ideological differences - 151
Production relations: capitalist production relations---their spontaneous appearance and development - 100; socialist production relations - peculiarities in their appearance -- 100--101
Profit - 55--56
Revisionism, revisionist deviations from Marxism-Leninism - 109, 112, 115--118, 119, 128--129; 135--136; together in a camp with reaction against Marxism - 153--156
Rightist revisionism - 131, 133--134, 137, 142, 152; and the Marxist-Leninist teaching about the Party - 157, 190--191
Revolution: revolutionary turning point in philosophy, performed by Marx and Engels - 39; the socialist revolution, armed and peaceful way of its triumph - 102, 108; the Great October Socialist Revolution - An anti-scientific interpretation of it - 121; the Socialist Revolution in Bulgaria - 194
Riches - see Incomes and riches
'Rules of the Game' in the conception of the bourgeois pluralists and the rightist revisionists - 172--173
Scientific and technological revolution - 83--85,
219Social class structure of Bulgaria - 183--185
Social democracy: reformist, intermediary trend in ideology -- 132; main bearer of rightist revisionism - 133, 134
Social Revolutionary Party in Soviet Russia - 194
Socialism, socialist society - 179--185. 187--189: diversity of roads to socialism - 102--103; socialist democracy -
188; contradictions under socialism - 186, 188--189; stage of mature socialist society - 181--185; democracy of the working people - 195
Social sciences - 39, 141--142
Society, anti-scientific theories of social development: ' singlefactor theories' - 44, 'multi-factor theories' - 44, 49, 50; 'social stratification' - 49, 50, 76--77; `group' structure of society - 49, 68; 'social mobility' - 78
Sociology, general theoretical science of society---40--41, 49--51;
the term - 39 State 41--42; its intermediary role according to the pluralists -
92, 96; the bourgeois state - 93--94, the socialist state-
175, its transformation into a state of all the people - 185 Strikes, strike struggles: under capitalism - 187, under socialism -
186, 187
Subjective factor of social development - 41--42, 106, 117, 177 Theory and model - 163--164
Trotskyism - 115, 125, 132, 133--134
Truth; its concreteness - 36, pluralistic views of truth, its identification with use - 34--37; conception about 'many truths on one and the same question' - 35--36; in the field of social science - 56
Unity and diversity - 24, 26, 110, 138--139
`Variants' of Marxism - 109, 119--123 (See also: Pluralization of Marxism)
Voluntarism - 139--140, 178 Warsaw Pact (Treaty) - 108, 153 Will of the people and laws of society - 121--122 Working class - 100--103, its `deproletarization' and becoming
`bourgeois' - 78; workers' detachments susceptible to foreign ideological influence - 114; workers' 'aristocracy'
(`bureaucracy') - 114
World socialist system - 116
[220] __ALPHA_LVL1__ NAME INDEXAdorno, T. 50, 126 Alexander 22 Altmann, R. 174 Aron, R. 46, 48, 58, 66, 79--80, 120. 125--127. 129
Baerwald, F. 69
Bakunin, M. 133
Balakina, I. 28
Beglov, LI. 81, 82
Bell, D. 58
Bergson, H. 174
Berle, A. 81
Bernstein, E. 128, 133, 143
Blagoev, D. 133, 143.
Blanqui, L.A. 133
Bloch, E. 126
Bochenski, I.M. 22, 58
Bosl, K. 57--58, 67,96
Breitman, E. 29
Briefs, G. 67, 69, 174
Bruno, G. 61
Brzezinski, Z. 58, 59, 66. 82,
158--160, 191 Buhr, M. 16--17 Butenko, A. 162--163
Charakchiev (Kojarov), A. 56
Cole, J. 92
Comte, A. 13, 39--40
Connoly, W. E. 89, 90 Croce, B. 22 Czernetz, K. 98, 194
Dahl, R. A. 66, 69, 86--87, 89,
93--94
Dahrendorf, R. 76 Davis, A. 93 Descartes, R. 19 Dewey, J. 35 Dimok, M. 68, 69 Dobrianov, V. 41, 47, 119 Dolgov, K. 28 Drechler, H. 176 Drucker, P. 73--74 Duguit, L. 92 Diihring, E. 143 Durkheim, E. 49
Engels, F. 9, 11,28, 39--40, 49, 100--102, 105, 128, 131, 133, 143, 145, 164, 172, 176, 178
Farber, M, 18--20
Fejto, Fr. 129
Finer, S. 69
Fisher, E. 24, 111, 127, 144,
152, 160--161 Fluelling, R. 29
221Feuerbach, L. 38, 49,
103--104. 138 Frankl, V. 15 Freund, J. 69, 90, 94
Gallbraith, D. C. 59, 74,
94--95
Gamarnikov, M. 188 Garaudy.R. 24, 111, 144, 152,
161, 168--169, 170--173,
174--176, 179, 182--183, 190--192 Gierke, O. 92 Goldstein, E. 21--22 Gornstein, T.U. 29--30 Gotschling, E. 174 Guevara, E. 127 Guliev, V. E. 84, 92
Kennedy, R. 94 Khrushchev. N. S. 125 King, M. 93
Kojarov, A. 56, 146, 163 Kolakovsky, L. 141--142 144,
152, 157, 204 Korac, V. 144 Kornhauser, W. 66, 69 73 Korsh, K. 126 Kossek, J. 144 Kravchenko, I. I. 29, 50 Kronrod, J. 163 Kursanov, G. A. 24
222Marx, K. 9- '1,38--40,83, 100--102, 105--106, 116. 119, 120,121--125, 128, 131;133, 143, 145, 164,'172, 175, 178 19.8
MelviUeTU. 36
Merlo Ponti, M, 126
Messner, J. 69
Mihalchev, D. 143
Mills, C. W. 95
Mitin, M. 37, 137
Moreno, G. 50
Munisic, Z. 144
Myslivchenko, A. 29
Rosenberg, M. 50 Rossanda, R. 177, 179 Rostow, W. W. 59 Rousseau, J. J. 194 Russel, B. 20 Ryndina, M. 81
Saint Simon, C. H. de 40 Sakharova, T. A. 29, 50 Santayana, G. 21, 31--33 Sartre, J. P. 126 Schack, H. 126--127, 129 Schiller, F. C. S. 35, 36 Schumpeter, J. 174 Sick, O. 127, 175--176, 179 Stalin, J.[107, 125--126, 152 Staff, W. 163 Stoyanovich, S. 152, 192 Strinka, U. 144 Svitak, I. 192 Szecsi, M. 98, 194 Tito, J. B. 125 Trendafilov, N. 119 Truger, W. 66 Torovskiy. M. 49
Van den Berghe, P. L. 69
Vracar, S. 192
Vranicki, P. 137--142, 150
Laski, H. 92
Lassalle, F. 133
Lazarsfeld, P. 50
Lefevre, A. 24
Leibnitz, G. W. 20, 28--29
Lempman, R. 81
Lendvai, P. 146
Lenin, V. I. 9, 18, 23, 40, 57, 105--106, 107, 109, 114--116, 118--119, 120, 121--125, 132, 132--133, 153, 158, 165, 172, 178, 192
Leonhard, W. 127--129, 130, 192
Lerner, A. 174
Leser, N. 66, 83
Lippmann, H. 130
Lipset, S. 76
Lombardo-Radice, L. 60, 142, 161
Luporini, S. 192
Lowenthal, R. 120, 129, 130
Naggy, I. 126 Narskiy, I. S. 16--17
Havel, V. 192
Hartmann, N. 21, 29--30
Heyden, G. 81
Hill, T. L 35
Hook, S.,58, 126, 143
Horkheimer, M. 126
Huxley, G. 59
Oizerman, T. 34 Oshavkov, Z. 41 Ossipova E. 50
Pareto, V. 79
Parsons, T. 182--183
Pavlov, D. 75, 119
Pavlov, T. 41, 119
Perrow, C. 66--67, 69, 97
Petrovich. G. 142--144
Pierce, C. 35
Plamenats, D. 58, 143
Plato, 33
Pleknanov, G. V.ll, 38,106, 111
Poincare, H. 37
P6pper, K. 21, 32--33, 46--47, 58,
66, 100
Popov, S. I. 78, 81, 97 Proudhon, P. 133
Ivanov, V. 184--185 Iribadjakov, N. 41, 119, 143
James, W. 20, 21, 26--28, 35--38
Welan, M. 90 Wetter, G. A. 58, 61--65 Winner, A. 59 Wittgenstein, L. 20
Janicke, M. 189
Kahn, H. 59 Kapchenko, N. I. 147 Kariel, H. S. 67, 74, 80, 91,
92, 94--96 Karnap, R. 37 Kautsky, K. 106, 111 Kennedy, J. 94
Yankov, M.J63:
Zeterberg 76 Zhemanov, O. N. 81 Zhivkov, T. 185, 188
Madison 86
Maitland, F.92
Mao Tse-tung 115, 120, 125, 128,
146--148, 150, 159, 176--178 Markov, M 183--184 Markovic, M.'144 Markuse, H. V6
Reck, A. J.V57
223 __ALPHA_LVL0__ The End. [END]ARTIST: KREMEN BENEV ART EDITOR: DIMITER KARTALEV TECHNICAL EDITOR: MARIA PAVLOVA PROOF READER: MARIN MARINOV FORMAT 84/108/32 14 PRINTERS' SHEETS SOFIA PRESS PRODUCTION CENTRE
[224] __BACK_COVER__ASSEN TODOROV KOJAROV^^*^^
Born in 1911 in the town of Gotse Delchev, Bulgaria. In 1935, as a student of philosophy he was expelled from the University of Sofia for anti-fascist activities and was sentenced to 12 1/2 years of imprisonment. In the prison, he illegally studied the classicists of Marxism-Leninism and guided circles in philosophy. Freed in 1940, he again joined the illegal anti-fascist movement. In March 1944 he was imprisoned for a second time. On September 9, 1944, he was liberated by the victorious socialist revolution in Bulgaria.
Under socialism, Assen Kojarov worked as a functionary of the Bulgarian Communist Party in the state apparatus and as a journalist. In 1948 he graduated from the Faculty of Philosophy of the University of Sofia as a correspondent student. In 1949--1951 he was lecturer in philosophy at the Polytechnical School in Sofia. From'1952 to 1972, with a short interruption, he was scientific secretary and deputy editor in chief of the Filosofska Missul magazine. In 1957 he went to specialize in Moscow. In 1962 he was elected as senior research associate^^1^^ in philosophy, and in 1973 became doctor of philosophical sciences.
Major publications: Monism and Pluralism in Ideology and in Politics, Sofia, 1972 (an abbridged variant of which is the present publication). The Social Forces which Performed the Socialist Revolution in Bulgaria (in English and in French), Sofia Press, 1968. Effectiveness of Thinking, Sofia, 1961. Character and Motive Forces of the People's Democratic Revolution in Bulgaria, Sofia, 1956. The Law - A Basic Form rf Thinking, in Science, Philosophy, Ideology, A, demie Verlag, Berlin, 1973.
_-_-_^^*^^Until 1968 he signed his family name as Charak
[225]