p In the past two decades there has been a growing interest on the part of bourgeois sociologists in issues related to social revolution. There has even 254 appeared a special branch of bourgeois sociology "sociology of revolution" or " revolutionology”, which specialises in theoretical and political aspects of social revolution and in “refuting” the Marxist-Leninist doctrine of socialist revolution.

p Bourgeois “revolutionologists” seek to portray social revolution as fortuitous and brought about not by objective causes but by purely subjective factors. To them, revolution is a negative phenomenon : sheer destruction and an obstacle to the progress of society. Many sociologists identify it with coups d’etat and mutinies. Some go so far as to identify it with war. Of late, many of them substitute the problem of scientific and technological revolution for social revolution.

p “Refutation” of the theory of socialist revolution and denial of the historic role of the proletariat as the grave-digger of capitalism and the creator of a new society occupy a most conspicuous place in the reasoning of bourgeois ideologists. Critics of Marxism-Leninism resort to both overt and covert distortions of the theory of revolution. They assert, among other things, that there is no theory of revolution but only a series of contradictory ideas put forward by Marx and Engels on the one hand and Lenin on the other. Anti-Communists consider that Marx saw revolution as a natural historical process that could only take place in countries with a highly developed 255 economy and advanced socio-political relations. Lenin’s idea allegedly ignores this premise of Marx’s approach to revolution, and maintains that c^.cial revolution is independent of any economic and .^ocial conditions and can occur in any country even a backward one. Hence, they assert, social revolution is not a law of contemporary social development but the result of conspiracy.

p In bourgeois theoreticians’ opinion, socialist revolution is not justified in terms of the efforts applied, for the sacrifice is great and the result little.

p Likewise, bourgeois sociologists deny the international relevance of Marxist-Leninist theory of socialist revolution and maintain that it does not apply to developed capitalist countries.

p The Marxist-Leninist theory of socialist revolution is also attacked by right-wing Socialists, who have declared so-called democratic socialism as their ultimate goal and are planning to reach it without class struggle and revolution- by reform and spontaneous change of capitalism into socialism. Right-wing socialist theoreticians and politicians deny the leading role of the working class in present-day history and ascribe it to intellectuals.

p The attitudes of revisionists are essentially similar to social-reformism. They call themselves Marxists but in fact reject the fundamentals of the theory of revolution. They also deny the necessity 256 of radical revolutionary change in capitalist society. This is manifested first and foremost in their view of the bourgeois machinery of state, which, they say, should not be destroyed-it should be applied, together with bourgeois democracy, to the changed conditions. They are not daunted by the fact that no right-wing Socialist government or Socialist party has yet achieved this in a capitalist country.

p Although “reformers” of Marxism-Leninism write about revolution and socialism, they in fact ignore the experience of revolutions and existing socialism in the USSR and in a number of other countries. They say there is a "third way" to socialism. Actually, this way is the way of reform, presupposing gradual evolution of bourgeois society into a socialist society. They question the leading role of Marxist-Leninist parties and reject the necessity of revolutionary theory for a revolutionary movement.

p While believing that they have made a new contribution to Marxism, theoreticians and politicians of this sort declare that present-day Communist parties have ceased to be "parties of ideology”. They defend "ideological pluralism”, that is, the idea of Communist parties without an ideology, i, e. without a system of views expressing the fundamental interests of the working class.

p Here the question is one of whether the practice of the world communist movement and the 257 living experience of the triumphant socialist revolutions give grounds for conclusions of this sort. The answer is no. The real historical experience of struggle for socialism is being counterweighed by spurious hypotheses based on abstract negative reasoning. By this logic anything that is propounded by Marxism-Leninism and borne out by the practice of existing socialism should be rejected. Yet history has shown that sooner or later the rejection of revolutionary theory leads to the loss of orientation in politics and is thus fraught with grave dangers for the working class and all the people of a given country.

17—1143