p In the present conditions of the ideological battles which have gained in acerbity and complexity especial importance attaches to Lenin’s principles of struggle against the ideology which is hostile to Marxism-Leninism.

p It is not enough to understand that socialist and bourgeois ideologies are incompatible. There is also need to be able to fight against the ideological adversaries. The working class and all the other working people are confronted by imperialism, with its mammoth machinery of government and propaganda, and the struggle against it requires not only an awareness of the class antithesis, but also sound organisation, knowledge and skill.

p In our efforts to master this science, we repeatedly turn to Lenin’s legacy. Without making any claim to give full treatment to this most important subject, I shall here deal with some of the principles of ideological struggle which are suggested by Lenin’s works.

p 1. The first and most important one of these principles is undoubtedly the class approach to the struggle of ideas. Lenin urged the need to learn to go beyond the fashionable and gaudy mask of bourgeois ideology to its essence, to learn to expose the social, class content of its ideas, and to break through the smokescreen of demagogic talk, trickery, falsehood, loud catchwords and subtle hypocrisy. He wrote: “ People always have been the foolish victims of deception and self-deception in politics, and they always will be until they have learnt to seek out the interests of some class or other behind all moral, religious, political and social phrases, declarations and promises.”  [33•2 

p This principle is also important because bourgeois ideology, standing up as it does for the interests of the class which has historically outlived itself, always seeks to cover up its class substance and to present itself as objective, “ impartial” knowledge.

p In contrast to the bourgeois claim of rising above party, the working class declares that its ideology is permeated with the party spirit, and expresses not only its own class interests, but also the basic interests of all working people, the interests of social progress. Lenin stressed: “The nonparty idea is a bourgeois idea. The party idea is a socialist idea.”  [34•1 

p The bourgeois claim to rise above party, a claim being made behind the screen of “objectivism”, has nothing in common with scientific objectivity. Lenin exposed the meaning of this camouflage in his work “The Economic Content of Narodism and the Criticism of It in Mr. Struve’s Book”, where he showed that bourgeois objectivism, confining itself to a statement of “facts”, skims along the surface of social life and does not go to the substance of this or that process or phenomenon, thereby covering up their class roots and objective laws and so distorting reality.

p But to bring out the class content of ideas does not mean to engage in vulgar sociologising, by trying to establish a class or party affiliation for the ideologist himself. It is not so important who it is precisely that takes a stand for a set of definite views, but who stands to gain from these views. Great importance now attaches to the meaning of the Latin saying, “Cui prodest?” (who stands to gain?), which Lenin strongly emphasised. In effect, just recently we witnessed how, behind a screen of loud talk about “democratisation”, those who claim to be champions of social progress sought to minimise and weaken the leading role of the Communist Party in society, to create favourable conditions for the political activity of class forces alien and hostile to socialism, and to reject the general laws of the revolution and socialist construction which have been tested and confirmed by the experience of millions. Behind the cover of talk about “ democratisation” they slandered those who were loyal to the cause of the Party and the working class, and tried to compromise and intimidate them. The Leninist approach to 35 ideological struggle inexorably strips from the men who spread such ideas their democratic mantle and shows up their real class substance.

p 2. While the class approach to the battle of ideas is unquestionably the main starting principle, it should not be regarded as the only one. In order to carry on a successful ideological struggle one needs to be able to expose the class roots of the various views, theories and conceptions, and to bring out their epistemological origins. One thing to remember is that for all their hostility to the cause of social progress, for all their reactionary nature, bourgeois theories do reflect reality, even if they do so in a distorted manner. In order to prove that this reflection is wrong, it is necessary to show what precisely, which processes and phenomena in reality are being wrongly interpreted in bourgeois conceptions, and to give these phenomena and processes the correct scientific interpretation. At the turn of the century Lenin wrote: “It would be a departure from the materialist method were I, when criticising the views of the ’friends of the people’, to confine myself to contrasting their ideas with the Marxist ideas. One must in addition explain the ’Narodniks’ ideas, demonstrate their MATERIAL basis in our present socialeconomic relations.”  [35•1 

p No criticism of present-day bourgeois theories can be considered adequate unless it includes a scientific analysis of the real phenomena on which bourgeois thought speculates and whose reflection it distorts. Let us look, in this context, at the theory of convergence. Is it possible, after all, to give a sufficiently convincing expose of this theory without combining an analysis of the material prerequisites of socialism within the capitalist system, and an analysis of the nature of modern capitalism, together with the social consequences of the scientific and technical revolution both under capitalism and under socialism? Only a deep-going scientific study of reality allows a well-grounded and serious criticism of bourgeois ideology, which is why such criticism is closely bound up with positive, creative efforts to analyse and sum up the socio-historical practice of all mankind, and further to develop Marxism-Leninism. A great stride along this creative path was made by the 1969 Moscow Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties.

p Lenin’s writings offer an excellent example of how constantly to combine the development of Marxist theory with vigorous criticism of ideological adversaries.

p 3. Lenin’s principle of continuity of ideological struggle is equally important. He wrote: “To belittle the socialist ideology in any way, to turn aside from it in the slightest degree means to strengthen bourgeois ideology.”  [36•1  The practice of the last few years has provided many serious lessons which are highly important and instructive and which give a reminder about the vital importance of Lenin’s conclusion. It is well-known, for instance, that in some socialist countries the Communists have succeeded in uniting all the socialist forces, overcoming the division of the working class and in banding Communists and socialists together in united parties. This is a great victory for the communist movement, but it makes imperative ceaseless and intensified attention to fostering and re-educating new party cadres, and carrying on serious ideological work and making uninterrupted effort towards the practical achievement of the parties’ organisational and ideological unity. In fact, that these MarxistLeninist traditions in party construction were underestimated for some time is evident, for instance, from the unquestionable fact that the efforts by the leading forces in fraternal Czechoslovakia aimed at cutting short the anti-socialist moves of the reactionaries were largely hampered by the existence within the party of men who advocated opportunist views.

p There must be no complacency or hope of spontaneous development in ideological work, because this always creates conditions for a revival of opportunist trends. Any relaxation of ideological work is used by our class enemies to translate their hopes of winning back the positions they have lost into practical action so as to regain these positions and use them once again to undermine socialism.

p In this context, the keen concern of the ideological adversaries of socialism in the ideological differences and splits within the working-class and communist movement is strikingly evident.

p 4. It is not surprising that in the general strategy of ideological struggle, Lenin attached the greatest importance to exposing those who brought the bourgeois ideology into the 37 working-class movement—the ideologists of Right socialist reformism, and those who brought bourgeois ideology into the ranks of the communist movement—the Right and the “Left” revisionists. Lenin warned: “The most dangerous of all in this respect are those who do not wish to understand that the fight against imperialism is a sham and humbug unless it is inseparably bound up with the fight against opportunism.”  [37•1 

p The concept of opportunism is known to be a broad one, including such concrete manifestations as social-reformism and revisionism. Consequently, alongside the principles of the class approach and continuity in the fight against bourgeois ideology, Lenin substantiated the fundamental need of fighting against anyone who helps this ideology to exert an influence on the working class.

p The principle that the struggle against bourgeois ideology and against reformism and revisionism of every stripe is indivisible is just as objectively rooted in life as are all the other Leninist principles of ideological struggle. The objective necessity of this connection is determined above all by the class roots of reformism and revisionism. For all their specifics, the roots of any manifestations of opportunism lie in the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois influence on the working class, on the Communist Parties, which are not shielded by any impenetrable wall from alien class influences. The extension of the front of revolutionary struggle throughout the world, the involvement of petty-bourgeois elements in it, the growth of the communist movement and its successes may in some conditions (loss of political vigilance, underestimation of the Leninist principles of party construction) have a negative outcome and result in a weakening of the party, of its Marxist-Leninist militant stand and firmness.

p Furthermore, for all their claims to originality and innovation, the reformist and revisionist views always ultimately turn out to be a rehash of the main motifs of the bourgeois theorists and to be centred on the key problems of the day, inevitably—objectively—coalescing with the main class aspirations of the ideologists and politicians of imperialism.

p Finally, the struggle against such a formidable adversary as imperialism requires growing cohesion and unity of the working class and consolidation of the communist 38 movement, and this cannot be achieved without a struggle against reformism and revisionism.

p 5. Lenin’s theoretical and practical activity was an embodiment of the creative principle, and in matters of ideological struggle he himself was a great materialist dialectician, who displayed tactical flexibility and took all-round consideration of the contradictions in the enemy camp, and was relentlessly consistent in standing up for the interests of the working class and the cause of socialism.

p Lenin always took into consideration the complexities of the dialectics of living reality, and consistently applied the principle of the dialectico-materialist approach to the struggle of ideas. In its most profound essentials, the methodology of this approach consists in always bearing in mind the contradictions in the enemy camp, and in one’s own ranks, without however forgetting about the movement and dynamics of ideological phenomena, and never regarding them as being static, all the while invariably pursuing the class line, adhering to the fundamental principles of the scientific doctrine, and looking to the decisive strategic, political and class tasks in the revolutionary transformation of the world. Consideration of the contradictions in the enemy camp, and the ability to bring out the dialectics of living reality are inalienable features of Lenin’s dialectical analysis.

p Even today, bourgeois ideology, whose class essence is alien and hostile to socialism, assumes a diversity of nuances —from fascist to liberal and bourgeois-democratic—and this is in no sense immaterial. The sharpening ideological struggle intensifies the internal contradictions in the camp of the bourgeois intelligentsia, in whose midst progressive tendencies arise. You will now often find bourgeois scientists who simultaneously condemn (often resolutely and sincerely) such extremely reactionary manifestations of bourgeois policy as racism, aggressive wars, militarism and colonialism, and the corresponding reactionary ideological conceptions, while maintaining an idealist, unscientific view of the world. This should be taken into account.

p Lenin required a consideration of the concrete historical situation in every instance.  [38•1  This Leninist principle of concrete analysis is of exceptional practical importance in the struggle of ideas. It is also of some importance, in the light 39 of the concrete dialectical approach to various aspects of the ideological struggle, to consider the direction in which this or that ideological proposition or ideological stand develops, or to be more precise, to establish two points between which these develop. We find a brilliant example of this approach in Lenin’s article, “The Attitude of the Workers’ Party to Religion” in which he wrote that for some “the statement ’socialism is a religion’ (containing an obvious departure from Marxism—Author) is a form of transition from religion to socialism; for others, it is a form of transition from socialism to religion”.  [39•1  It is highly important to bear this in mind now that we are frequently faced with the juggling of slogans and propositions which, in definite concrete conditions, at a given historically concrete phase of development, represent great gains along the way of social progress, and the same slogans and propositions in other concrete historical situations, being filled with totally different, frequently even reactionary, class content. These phenomena can be explained only if we take a dialectico- materialist view of ideological struggle, which never loses sight of the class nature of phenomena, and of the concrete historical approach to them, and never allows itself to be led away into formal scholastics.

p Is it possible, for instance, to assess the slogan of “ nonalignment”, the policy of “neutralism”, if they are taken as a static abstraction, without any concrete historical, dialectical analysis? No, it is not. For the emergent country, just escaped from the fetters of overt colonialism and still labouring in the toils of economic dependence on imperialism, a policy of “non-alignment” may be and frequently is a great advance along the way of progress, and an important step towards complete political independence and genuine popular sovereignty. But if this slogan of “non-alignment” and “neutralism” is issued by a leader of a socialist country, which has already established the working people’s sovereignty in the course of a socialist revolution and which has already secured its independence from imperialism through the united might of the socialist community, what other meaning can this slogan have except a departure from the cause of socialism, a weakening of the socialist camp, a neglect of the class line of the international front, which 40 now runs as the principal divide between the forces of progress and reaction?

p To promote the success of the present-day political and ideological struggle of the working class and the whole international communist movement it is highly important to learn to take the concrete Leninist approach in bringing out the ideological-political trends which are hostile to the cause of communism, and which it is most important to fight at the given historical stage. We have some highly important considerations of a fundamental character in Lenin’s works on this question. He established a direct connection between the need to assess the ideological-political trends hostile to socialism and the Party’s programme and tactics.

p Lenin gave a specimen of concrete historical analysis in application to the Party’s electoral platform, which was an inevitable result of “the way the work is organised, and of its whole trend in the given historical period”.  [40•1  Lenin saw the platform as resulting from the Party’s principles and tactics, and wrote: “The three main items that make up this total are: (1) the programme of the Party; (2) its tactics; (3) its appraisal of the dominant ideological and political trends of the given period, or the most widespread of them, or those which are most harmful for democracy and socialism. Without a programme a party cannot be an integral political organism capable of pursuing its line whatever turn events may take. Without a tactical line based on an appraisal of the current political situation and providing explicit answers to the ’vexed problems’ of our times, we might have a circle of theoreticians, but not a functioning political entity. Without an appraisal of the ’active’, current or ’ fashionable’ ideological and political trends, the programme and tactics may degenerate into dead ’clauses’ which can by no stretch of the imagination be put into effect or applied to the thousands of detailed, particular, and highly specific questions of practical activity with the necessary understanding of essentials, with an understanding of ‘wha is what’.”  [40•2 

p Lenin then went on to analyse the concrete situation and asked which ideological-political trends were of especial importance for an understanding of Social-Democracy’s 41 tasks in the period being dealt with.  [41•1  He drew the conclusion that these were “the Vekhi trend, which is the ideology of the counter-revolutionary liberal bourgeoisie... and liquidationism, which is the expression of the same decadent and bourgeois influences in a group which has contact with the working-class movement. Away from democracy, as far away as possible from the movement of the masses, as far away as possible from the revolution, that is the theme of the trends of political thought that hold sway in ‘society’.”  [41•2 

p The logic of the revolutionary leader, his thought dialectically encompassing the objective political situation and bringing together into a single whole the programme and tactical tasks with the tasks of the ideological struggle offer an excellent example of the dialectical analysis of the historical situation in the light of the revolution’s interests.

p The present epoch has enlarged the scale of revolutionary action. The International Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties held in Moscow said in its Main Document of June 17, 1969: “Powerful revolutionary processes are gathering momentum throughout the world. Three mighty forces of our time—the world socialist system, the international working-class and the national liberation movement —are coming together in the struggle against imperialism.”  [41•3  These are the three powerful forces of social progress that are the targets of the attacks by the ideologists of imperialism, and the reactionary ideological-political theories which do the greatest harm are shaped in this very fight against the three main streams of the world revolutionary process.

p What then are the ideological-political trends that are most harmful for democracy and socialism today? On the strength of the programme documents of the CPSU and the international communist movement and in the light of the present-day objective reality, there is good ground to designate these trends as anti-communism, reformism and revisionism, nationalism and the ideology of neo-colonialism.

p Anti-communism is the principal ideological-political 42 weapon of imperialism. Reformism and revisionism, which seek to split and undermine the working-class and international communist movement from inside, are the ideological accomplices of anti-communism and the vehicles through which reactionary bourgeois ideology exerts an influence on the working people.

Before analysing the specific features of these trends, let us consider the state of present-day bourgeois ideology as a whole.