p Bourgeois-liberal theories, having divested themselves of the “vagueness of expectations" and hopes for an age of reason and happiness, sought to prove that the highroad of progress lay in a gradual improvement and change of the bourgeois system of power and property through reform and improvement. Spencer had visions of a happy time when a “mobile equilibrium" would be established, that is, when tranquillity would reign with some movement that did not change the structure or upset the equilibrium. All of this was presented as the latest word in science, as a “positive” and progressive theory that did away with the romantic “exaggerations” of the old theory of progress.

p In 1906, Lenin said that “progressives” of this stripe sought to substitute the bourgeois theory of “harmony” in “social” progress for the theory of the class struggle as the only real driving force of history. They 319 refused to recognise that progress in the social life of capitalism resulted from the development of highly acute contradictions. They held the motive force of progress in bourgeois society to be “harmony” and “solidarity” between classes. That was a key dogma of positivism and the whole of the bourgeois-liberal theory.

p “According to the theory of socialism, i.e., of Marxism (non-Marxist socialism is not worth serious discussion nowadays), the real driving force of history is the revolutionary class struggle; reforms are a subsidiary product of this struggle, subsidiary because they express unsuccessful attempts to weaken, to blunt this struggle, etc. According to the theory of bourgeois philosophers, the driving force of progress is the unity of all elements in society who realise the ‘imperfections’ of certain of its institutions. The first theory is materialist; the second is idealist. The first is revolutionary; the second is reformist. The first serves as the basis for the tactics of the proletariat in modern capitalist countries. The second serves as the basis of the tactics of the bourgeoisie."   [319•12 

p The idea of solidarity is especially characteristic of Comte and his followers. Comte saw the embryos of solidarity in the animal world and then went on to depict such solidarity as a key factor in social development. The bourgeois liberals held that the proletariat’s struggle tended to undermine this “unity”, to introduce no more than “division” into society, while the class struggle did not promote the cause of progress. Positivism provided the theoretical substantiation for this thesis. The substance of progress was reduced to attempts to reform and “improve” the various institutions and aspects of capitalism.

p Continuing his analysis of this bourgeois theory, Lenin wrote: “A logical deduction from the second theory is the tactics of ordinary bourgeois progressives: always and everywhere support ’what is better’; choose between reaction and the extreme Right of the forces that are opposed to reaction. A logical deduction from the first theory is that the advanced class must pursue independent revolutionary tactics. We shall never reduce our tasks to that of supporting the slogans of the reformist bourgeoisie that are most in vogue. We pursue an independent policy and put forward only such reforms as are undoubtedly favourable to the interests of the revolutionary struggle, that undoubtedly enhance the independence, class-consciousness and fighting efficiency of the proletariat."   [319•13 

p Consequently, the struggle against bourgeois-liberal, positivist schemes of progress—evolution—was closely bound up with the proletariat’s class struggle and its transformation into an independent force guided by revolutionary tactics. That is what provided a powerful 320 impetus for the further development of Marxism-Leninism, the scientific theory of social development. Lenin stressed: “Reformist tactics are the least likely to secure real reforms. The most effective way to secure real reforms is to pursue the tactics of the revolutionary class struggle."  [320•14  Without the right perspective for social development it is impossible to assess the importance of reforms or to decide whether they serve the cause of social progress or amount to a movement in circles.

p Lenin thus gives the only right criterion to judge about the progressive nature of a reform, gradual changes in bourgeois society and their need for social development.

One can have a criterion to judge the progressiveness of changes in every aspect of social life, including any particular changes, only by showing the real prospects and trends in social development. The theory of social development must consider the question of society’s future and show how the present paves the way to that future. Bourgeois liberalism was incapable of taking such an approach to the problem, which is why its theory of social progress was an apology for marking time, instead of advancing. Its notions of what is “better” or “worse” for social progress do not rest on any scientific analysis of the prospects of social development, but result either from abstract reasoning about “social good and evil" and “absolute social ideals”, meaning the principles of the exploitative society enshrined as an absolute, or are shot through with downright subjectivism. As the theory of social development increasingly became a theory of the working-class struggle for a better future, bourgeois theorists increasingly abandoned the theory of progress and the very idea of uniformity in the history of society.