The ideology of socialism: essence, basic principles and historical facts. Socialism is: briefly and clearly about socialist ideology

Socialism is a broad socio-political movement that includes numerous groups, movements and parties. It is positioned as a means of resolving social conflicts. Is it so? What are the main principles of socialism that promote this goal?

general information

The term “socialism” itself was first used somewhere in the early 1830s. By it is meant a combination of various left-wing movements that strive to reform the human community in such a way that the most favorable conditions are provided for the comprehensive improvement of both individuals and the entire society. Although it is generally accepted that this idea dates back to the sixteenth century. After all, it was then that the first social utopias were written by Tomaso Companella and Thomas More. Although in practice they began to become a reality only at the beginning of the nineteenth century. Then socialism was a unique reaction to the growth of social contradictions as a result of the establishment of bourgeois social relations. It then reflected the dissatisfaction expressed by the proletarian class regarding the results of industrial development.

Historical development

How were the main principles of socialism formed? Under what conditions? A characteristic feature of early capitalism is the chaos and ruin of millions of people, as a result of which there was a surge in mass poverty and increased polarization of society. In the nineteenth century, it was unable to offer a real way to eliminate or at least mitigate existing contradictions. Initially, the concept of socialism was built not on a specific constructive ideal and its description, but on exposing the existing state of affairs. The then representatives of this trend reflected the views of that part of society that believed that the interests of the individual and society should be harmonized. The resulting requirement was to create conditions under which they could exist and develop with dignity. It was then that the main principles of socialism were formed.

Peculiarities

Socialism acts as an alternative to the development of civilization. Most supporters of this trend are adherents of peaceful and non-violent methods of improving society, who place their main hopes on educating and persuading the broad masses. The basic principles of socialism are based precisely on the fact that people will make decisions in favor of this path of development consciously, based on their everyday experience. Education can greatly help with this. Despite the presence of characteristic features, the social trends of the 19th century are easy to bring to a common denominator, highlighting the main ideas and principles that bring them together. So, then attention was focused on the connection between the individual and society. Considerable attention was paid to where the line of influence of society on a person lies. As well as the problem of oppression of the majority of people by a narrow elite. Therefore, demands were made that there should be no superiority of a certain class. This principle of socialism and communism is one of the most popular in the modern world.

Forward movement

Some principles of the existence of the world system of socialism and overcoming class divisions can only be overcome through the elimination of the state as an organ of violence. Thus, people professing this point of view believe that a person initially needs freedom from exploitation. And the economic and political aspects, as well as the right to choose, are all secondary provisions that flow from it. This is where they mainly disagree with adherents of the liberal vector of development.

Creating an Ideal Society

You've already received quite a lot of information. And the 4 principles of the existence of the world socialist system can already be interpreted without distortion. But for a better understanding, we will dwell on them in more detail later. So, the main principles of socialism:

1. Destruction of private property.
2. Liquidation of the family.
3. Destruction of religion.
4. Equality.

No matter how strange it may sound, these are the basic principles of the Swedish socialist model. Looking at the current state of affairs in Sweden, one can try to argue with this statement. But here the implementation features come to the fore. Let's look at this in more detail.

Destruction of private property

The most famous proponents of this principle are Marx and Engels. Thus, in the “Communist Manifesto” the statement was expressed that this alone is enough to express the essence of the whole theoretical basis. This provision is present in all socialist doctrines and states that use them (to one degree or another). But for completeness of understanding, let us inform you that it is viewed not only from a negative point of view (as many people think), but also from a positive one. Thus, you can often find a declaration of community of property. Examples include lakes, schools, kindergartens, and so on. It should be noted once again that the principles of socialism were developed in the 19th century, so one should not be surprised at certain features of this type of state organization. This is especially true for the next section of the article.

Destruction of a family

This point is present in most socialist teachings. True, the radicality of this statement is still not extreme. Essentially speaking, this principle is aimed at reducing the role of the family and connections between its members, as well as transferring some functions to other institutions of society. Examples include the community of wives, the destruction of the connection between children and parents, or simply the transformation of a social unit into a bureaucratic component of the state. In order not to be surprised, one should understand that the principles of the existence of the world system of socialism were developed by “fanatics”, and in practice their implementation is now not possible.

Destruction of religion

This principle can be observed, with few exceptions, in all modern teachings and doctrines of states. Moreover, the destruction of religion does not imply the implementation of a set of actions in the style of the Bolsheviks of the time of Trotsky, but the gradual displacement of religion from all. Alternatively, you can turn to the countries of the Scandinavian group. They have low religiosity and a high standard of living. Moreover, the latter is considered as one of the most important tools for achieving the goal. Existing models provide for the gradual and peaceful displacement of religion from public life as an unnecessary component. This principle of methodological socialism began to take shape in the seventeenth century, and its improvement continues in our time.

Equality (commonality)

The requirement for the presence of such a phenomenon in social life can be found in almost any socialist teaching. It can be expressed as a desire and desire to destroy the existing hierarchy of society and abolish all existing privileges. Often, along with this, one can also observe hostility towards culture due to the fact that it causes intellectual and spiritual inequality. Moreover, in this case, the doctrines demand its destruction due to the fact that it creates such unevenness in society. It should be noted that this principle was developed quite a long time ago - for example, Plato adhered to a similar point of view. It is now used by various modern leftist movements that consider the culture stifling and repressive.

Conclusion

This is not the entire theoretical basis on which the corresponding teachings are built. So, many have probably heard about this principle of socialism: This postulate can be found in many teachings and doctrines that do not provide for radical changes and have a rationalistic approach to changing society. But this point of view has one drawback: according to it, people will act consciously and voluntarily. That is, everyone will work as much as they can for the benefit of the whole society, and therefore for themselves. The same can be said about the considered basic principles of socialism. Even Scandinavian countries, which are considered the most advanced in this direction, cannot boast of the full implementation of at least one provision. Although earlier, in the section on religion, it was mentioned that the Swedes were able to achieve very good results. But they are still far from the final implementation of such ideals.

Played and play an important role in social and state development. Each of these areas has its own distinctive features, advantages and disadvantages. This article takes a closer look at the ideology of socialism.

For many years it flourished in Europe, Russia and Asian countries. For some countries, this phenomenon remains relevant today.

Definition of Socialism

If you turn to various scientific and non-scientific sources, you can find an incredible number of definitions of this concept. Not all of them are understandable to the common reader and, unfortunately, not all convey the essence of the ideology of socialism.

Socialism is a political and socio-economic system, the main features of which are the desire to eradicate social inequality, the transfer of control over production and distribution of income to the people, the complete gradual eradication of the phenomenon of private property and the fight against capitalism.

History of the development of socialism in Europe

It is generally accepted that the history of the development of the ideology of socialism dates back to the nineteenth century. However, the first descriptions were described long before this in the works of T. More (1478-1535), which described the idea of ​​​​the development of a society in which elements of social inequality were completely absent. All material goods and production capacity belonged to the community, not to the individual. Profits were distributed equally among all residents, and work was assigned “to each according to his abilities.” Citizens themselves elected managers and “strictly asked them” for the work done or not done. The code of laws in such a society had to be short and understandable to every citizen.

Later, these ideas were refined and presented in their works by K. Marx and F. Engels.

In the second quarter of the ninth century, the ideas of socialism began to gain popularity in Europe: England, France and Germany. Publicists, politicians and fashionable writers of that time actively introduced socialist ideas to the masses.

It is worth noting that socialism in different countries had a different character. England and France talked about eliminating certain social inequalities, while Germany's socialist ideas were based on nationalism long before Hitler came to power.

Features of the development of socialism in Germany

The ideology of German National Socialism, although somewhat similar to the Soviet version, had quite serious differences.

The prototype of National Socialism in Germany was the anti-Semitic movement (1870-1880). It promoted blind obedience to authority and advocated restrictions. Members of the movement regularly organized “Jewish pogroms.” This is how the idea of ​​the superiority of one nation over another began to emerge in Germany.

Numerous parties, circles and organizations promoting the ideas of National Socialism in Germany grew like mushrooms after rain, uniting Germans with a single idea. After defeat in the First World War, this idea made it possible for Hitler and his party to enter the political arena and take power into their own hands. She was guided by the following principles:

1. Total and unconditional submission to authority.
2. The superiority of the German nation over all others.

The ideology of socialism in Russia

The Russian elite, which has always been distinguished by its love of borrowing Western ideas, quickly intercepted these trends. At first, the matter was limited to conversations in close friendly companies, then circles began to be created in which they discussed the fate of Russia. After some time, these circles were dispersed by these authorities, members of such organizations were sent into exile or were shot.

Belinsky played a serious role in promoting the ideology of socialism. His magazine "Debut" in the thirties of the nineteenth century was popular among the literate population of Russia. And his ideas that it was time to overthrow “autocratic tyranny” and get rid of serfdom found a positive response in the hearts of readers.

Marxist direction of socialism in Russia

In the eighties, the Marxist direction of the ideology of socialism began its formation. The Liberation of Labor group was born under the leadership of Plekhanov. And in 1898, the first congress of the RSDLP took place. Distinctive feature This movement was that its followers believed that the full formation of socialism was possible only after the capitalist system was destroyed. Only in this case will the proletarian majority easily overthrow the bourgeoisie.

Marxists were not united and interpreted this idea in different ways. They divided into two wings:

For some time, these two wings tried to act together in the fight against a common enemy. But gradually the Bolshevik Party is gaining authority and taking a leading position. This gives it the opportunity to gradually eliminate all competitors and become the sole governing body in Russia. However, it wasn't that difficult. Russia by this time had fallen into a deep political and economic crisis. The people, exhausted by revolutions, famine and changes incomprehensible to them, were glad to unite under the idea of ​​​​building a new, perfect Soviet society, where everyone would be equal and happy.

Basic principles of socialism

Today, the following fundamental principles of socialism are distinguished:

1. The first principle is that the socialist view of human nature denies all human flaws and individual characteristics. In the light of this ideology, it was generally accepted that all human vices are the result of social inequality - nothing more.
2. The primacy of general interests over private ones. The interests of society are more important than the interests and problems of an individual or family.
3. Eliminating elements of exploitation of one person by another and helping those in need.
4. Social justice. This principle is implemented in the elimination of the concepts of private property and the redistribution of resources to the needs of the common people.

Ideology of developed socialism

The concept of developed socialism and its concept were formulated already in the twentieth century. The creators of the concept of developed socialism relied on the fact that the USSR had by that time achieved a sufficient material base so that citizens had the opportunity to fully satisfy all pressing needs.

In addition, it was argued that Soviet society is homogeneous, there are no national or ideological conflicts in it. Thus, the USSR has the opportunity to develop quickly and without internal problems. Was this really so? No. But the theory of developed socialism at that time was actively promoted by the authorities and subsequently received the name “Ideology of Stagnation.”

Conclusion

Socialism as a political ideology seems very attractive. In its ideal form, it promotes things that humanity has been striving for for centuries: equality, justice, eradication of the shortcomings of the capitalist system. But history has shown that these ideas only work well on paper and do not take into account many of the nuances of human nature.

If you are not able to get through a short article, then how can you get through Karl Marx’s “Capital”?

Socialism - (Latin socialis - social) - a concept that was formed as a doctrine about the creation of a socially just society, the socio-economic structure of which does not allow exploitation, oppression and forced labor to enrich someone, where everyone works freely for the good of society and have from society all the necessary means for life on the basis of an internal social law, which guarantees everyone not so much the right to work, but the right of EVERYONE to a worthy person and the basic social benefits necessary for everyone for a life worthy of work. This doctrine insists that in a fairly organized society, a mechanism must be built to ensure not only the organization of the labor of citizens to produce what is necessary for the development of society, but also the guaranteed provision of citizens of this society with everything necessary for a prosperous life worthy of the quantity and results of the qualifications of their labor. .

The population, organized to achieve these goals, elects the government, which assumes the function of a body to exercise executive power and forms judicial and legal authorities to ensure the rule of law. So that the social benefits received as a result of the economic activities of society are distributed among citizens in relatively even quantities according to the relative equality of working hours as a relatively equal amount of labor, and the quality of home improvement, food preparation and clothing production based on the results of labor qualifications in the workplace in the country’s economy, as was customary in the life of old Russian communities. In the process of establishing such a society, economically weak and low-income citizens are given priority support, forming their rapid integration into the process of economic activity of society to improve their socio-economic situation.

With the development of parliamentarism, the later concept of socialism (and left-wing political ideologies in general) was defined as the formation of social justice, when society is understood as something integral, as a single big fraternal family, where all benefits can be enjoyed in one way or another by all members of society, they are distributed relatively evenly and fair, and the government is conceived as an instrument for ensuring such social justice with partial changes in issues of private property, money and commodity-money relations in the distribution of the amount of social benefits necessary for everyone. The basis of the economic essence of such a socially oriented or socialist society is the LAW ON SOCIAL GUARANTEES OF THE POPULATION, in which not only money is distributed based on the quantity and quality of labor, but also the SOCIAL benefits NECESSARY for normal development and life.

It is on the basis of the relationship between equality and fairness with the quantity and quality of labor in relation to the relative equality of working time and qualifications in labor that laws on social guarantees will be formed in the future. Naturally, provided that we know both the size of the population and the amount of social goods produced per capita. It is under these conditions that the quantitative and qualitative characteristics of the social benefits necessary for life will correspond to the quantity and quality of labor, which will develop social justice and equality. Socialism in its basic economic features is close to the ideals of social democracy, social liberalism and national socialism, the only differences are in the political structure. But can such a society emerge and develop without the formation of a government of supporters of such a social system???

Socialism is a doctrine that puts forward as the initial goal the creation of a society in which there is no exploitation and social oppression, legal equality and social justice are asserted an order of magnitude higher than was achieved after feudalism, when only wage labor became allowed and the free market completely spread between classes under monopoly of capital, both circulating (money) and fixed capital (in the form of private property), and commodity capital in the form of a product produced for sale. Note, for SALE, because you can basically consume or use a product of labor only after you BUY it, if you did not produce it! This is the monopoly and power of money after the formation of the market. Naturally, this was not the case under the communal structure of society. Until the moment when the people themselves became a commodity for the tribal leaders and feudalism developed.

This is a doctrine about the need to redistribute for the normal life of people not so much monetary income as the SOCIAL BENEFIT necessary for everyone from equality of working time and qualifications in work to create the necessary social conditions for everyone for normal development, about the collective responsibility of all citizens for the well-being of everyone, so that the right to work ensured to a greater extent everyone the right to a life worthy of work. The idea of ​​a society of social justice was based on the collective work and life of the population, was born and became a companion of any society, which was based on coercion, exploitation and oppression of man by man, dependence on the money and capital of the exploiters. Having appeared in antiquity and noticeably making itself known already in early Christianity, the idea of ​​social justice has developed and improved over many centuries, turning into a concept, a doctrine of liberation from oppression, exploitation and any dependence other than on one’s needs. The teaching, the essence of which is expressed in the “Golden Rule” known to mankind for many centuries: - do not do to others what you do not like, live yourself and do not interfere with others’ lives!

It is difficult to imagine the freedom of an unemployed person who goes hungry and finds no use for his skillful hands, or the freedom of workers whose salary does not allow them to live worthy of their work and who are still afraid of losing such a job, and with it their shelter. That they will have nothing to eat if, while honestly performing their duties at their workplace, the owner can kick them out onto the street. Real freedom can only exist in a society where the entire economy is built for the well-being of EVERY person, where exploitation is destroyed and there is no oppression, where there is no unemployment and poverty, where the right to work guarantees the right to a life worthy of work. Only in such a society can there be real freedom, where a person, working freely and honestly according to his abilities, can live freely and honestly worthy of his work!

The term "Socialism" first appeared in the political lexicon in the 1930s. XIX century in France to designate a society with a social structure in which the general good can only exist when all the wealth of society becomes public property. With the advent of Marxism, the concept of socialism acquired a content hostile to the content of such concepts as the capitalist or bourgeois economic order. Many scientists find a kind of sketch of a model of a socialist society in Plato’s books “Politics” and “State”. The ideas of socialism were developed in their works by T. More, T. Campanella, A. I. Herzen, N. G. Chernyshevsky and others, they were tried to be put into practice by peaceful means by R. Owen, C. Fourier, and by armed means by G. Babeuf , M.A. Bakunin, K. Marx, V.I. Lenin, etc. In the process of human development, the struggle for justice step by step acquired an increasingly multifaceted and reasoned character.

In the middle of the 19th century. K. Marx (1818-1883) and F. Engels (1820-1895) wrote the “Manifesto of the Communist Party,” where they formulated their communist credo based on the revolutionary struggle and dictatorship of the proletariat, and then devoted almost their entire lives to developing the concept of liberation of the working class and of all workers from oppression by capital, which many revolutionaries subsequently began to view as the theory of scientific communism. In the second half of the 19th century. Almost the entire revolutionary movement of continental Europe stood under the banner of Marxism; it became the banner of Russian social democracy, and then of the entire socialist and communist movement in Russia, which was led first by G. Plekhanov, and then by V.I. Lenin and I.V. Stalin.
After the split of the Second International (due to different attitude to the war of 1914, internal organizational and theoretical disagreements), the Marxist “revolutionary” (Bolshevik) and Bakuninist “reformist” movements appeared, and there was a turn towards the practical implementation of Lenin’s theoretical concept. The first was given a start in life by the October Revolution of 1917, the second by the long-begun party and parliamentary struggle with those in power. The formation and development of “socialism,” which began in October 1917, left its mark on the entire 20th century, splitting the world into two parts - the old, capitalist, and the new, striving for socialism. This revolution marked the beginning of a period of practical experimentation, attempts to implement in practice the right and wrong, well-founded and utopian ideas of “scientific communism.” More than 70 years of movement along this path ended in the 80s and 90s. XX century the fall of the system that in the USSR and other countries was called “developed socialism.” What is the reason for what happened?

To understand what happened, you need to know that the adherents of the so-called scientific socialism and communism, who built socialism in the USSR and other countries, did not seem to know that part of the works of K. Marx and F. Engels on the problems of building a new society that were set out in their " Economic manuscripts". According to these records, socialism becomes possible only when it is no longer so much productive LABOR in its direct form, how much SCIENCE about the development of society and everything connected with it becomes the main source of social wealth, and the development of this science allows one to free oneself from POVERTY and all the ABONYS of the old world associated with the monopoly of capital and the capitalist exploitation emanating from it. Only after becoming familiar with all the nuances of the political economy of bourgeois society and having developed a new, socially oriented political economy can one begin to reform the bourgeois, capitalist system into a socialist one, when almost the entire population acquires the knowledge that it needs to free itself from oppression by capital and from any exploitation.

It is with the development of this science and the education of the population developing on its basis that society reaches a point when it itself is able to find a way out of any oppressive situation, when in the very immediate process of material production it becomes possible to cope with poverty and antagonism. Today, the most economically developed countries are already approaching this milestone. And if this is so, then everything that happened in the 20th century. with the world-historical attempt of the working people to create a society of SOCIAL JUSTICE was nothing more than a huge HISTORICAL FORWARD, if you like, a GENERAL REHEARSAL for the transition to socialism, the failure of which we are now experiencing. From these positions, Lenin and the Bolsheviks, having won in October and established the power of the Soviets, won the civil war and, turning economically undeveloped Russia from the failures of “war communism” to the successes of the “new economic policy", believed that through the NEP Russia would come to socialism.

But back in 1918, Lenin wrote: “We cannot give a description of socialism; what socialism will be like when it reaches ready-made forms, – we don’t know that, we can’t say that. To say that the era of social revolution has begun, that we have done this and want to do this - we know this, we will say it, and this will show the European workers that we, so to speak, are not exaggerating our strength at all: that’s what we we started doing what we were going to do. But so that we now know what complete socialism will look like, we don’t know it" (Works, vol. 27, p. 122). But how can you build something that you don’t know what it looks like??? Without preliminary calculations and project???And it turned out that everyone who came to power built his own communism, for himself and people like himself, and not for the whole people. But it was the LAW on the abolition of slavery that turned the ENTIRE slaveholding state into a feudal state, and in some places immediately into capitalist. And the abolition of serfdom with the development of wage labor and the market for labor and labor products transformed feudalism into capitalism. Therefore, it is the abolition of the monopoly of capital and the reduction of the market with the introduction of the LAW on social guarantees for equality of working time and qualifications in labor that will transform capitalist society into a socially oriented one , or into a socialist society. The turn of the economy from profitability and profit to the planned provision of the population with vital social benefits, namely in required quantity and the corresponding qualities that everyone needs for normal development was and will be the basis of a socialist economy, but when did we have this??? How can this be achieved without preliminary calculations and design??? The impression is that our government never knew either about the size of the population, or about the amount of social goods produced, or about how much of it is needed to provide everyone with everything they need. But she always knew what they personally needed! To ensure your power and prosperity.

And only legal guarantees that have clear procedural and legal norms for their implementation serve as the basis for reliability when an individual uses his rights. It is guarantees as social and legal measures of a material, organizational and other nature that show the level of economic and political development democratic society, social and legal consciousness of the population. The French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen (1789) states: “Every society in which rights are not guaranteed and the separation of powers is not established actually has no constitution” (Article 16). In the field of individual rights, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen became the foundation for the construction of constitutions of democratic states in the West, but not in Russia. Although the term “guarantees” is used in the Basic Law of Russia in no less than 18 articles!

After the death of V. Lenin in 1924, I. Stalin came to the leadership of the party and the country, who, acting on the principle of “the end justifies the means,” carried out industrialization, collectivization and modernization of the country by violent, barbaric means, which, of course, contributed to the victory in the Great Patriotic War. Patriotic War. But having identified formal socialization with socialization, when millions of Soviet citizens did not have basic social conditions, and were shot for theft in order to survive, sat in prisons and camps, in the second half of the 30s. he announced that basically socialism had been built in the USSR!? But socialism without a formed law on social guarantees, at least for social and living conditions, is worthy of work for the population; this is deception and hypocrisy, because a state-capitalist monopoly can be no better than the monopoly of capital without private ownership of the means of production! Many people today already understand this.

The revealed internal inconsistency of the created social system, which many called barracks communism, led after the death of Stalin (1953) to attempts to reform the created system (first during Khrushchev’s “thaw”, and then with the help of Gorbachev’s “perestroika”), but this gave little positive results . Contrary to the broad statements of the ruling nomenklatura, socialism was never built either in the Soviet Union or in other countries of “real socialism”. Why? The reasons lie in the project of socialism and in the actions of experimenters. The very implementation of socialism was reduced to the destruction of private property; it was mistakenly believed that living without private property and capitalist exploiters meant living under socialism. For many decades, on the basis of official “Marxism-Leninism,” it has been argued that the essence of socialism is public ownership of the means of production, and that the replacement of private property with national and cooperative property is the most important indicator or key criterion of “socialism.”
In accordance with this approach, it was considered: the larger the volume or specific gravity nationalized and cooperative means of production in the country, the closer it came to socialism. With this approach, it turned out that Mongolian peasants living in yurts in the 70s. lived under more mature “socialist” conditions than the workers of the GDR, where the share of socialized means of production was then significantly lower than in Mongolia. Where did such absurdity come from? After all, in fact, there is more socialism where the population has more opportunities for the right to work, to have the right to all the necessary SOCIAL benefits for a life worthy of their work. Otherwise, what kind of socialism is this???
From Stalin's version of "Marxism-Leninism", which widely quoted the Manifesto's provision that communists can express their position in one position - "the destruction of private property." But there he expressed a completely different idea, that the transformation of private property into public property does not make the means of life belonging to the whole society, only the nature of the ownership of the means of production changes, and the method of distributing the means of life remains the same - for money. And since the market is the sphere of transformation of goods into money, and money into goods, then talking about equality and justice for everyone under the market is the same as talking about freedom for all under slavery! And this clearly needs to be understood that only the socialization of the means of consumption through the introduction into the life of society of the LAW ON SOCIAL GUARANTEES can lead to the victory of socialism!

Of course, I. Stalin and his entourage, who put into practice the slogan of universal socialization, did not care that Marx and Engels had nothing like this, that this was a translation error, that they always spoke not about destruction, but about gradual withering away private property, and this is a big difference! The condition for such extinction should have been the socialization of the means of consumption, so that it would be unprofitable to have the means of production in private use, because with premature attempts at socialization, society would be threatened with “barracks communism.” And so it happened: almost one hundred percent “socialization” of the means of production in the Soviet Union and other countries did not bring the expected prosperity to the working man! He did not live in prosperity, did not become happier, because the “barracks communism” created on the basis of state capitalism was never the ideal of the working class and all working people, but was the ideal of the party and state nomenklatura, the state bureaucratic apparatus Soviet Union for the exploitation of his people and personal well-being.

The negative experience of the Soviet Union and all countries of the “socialist camp” led to new ideas about socialism: socialism, like any social system, includes a whole range of relations - economic, scientific-technical, socio-political, moral, ideological, which determine the new position of all here workers and each person individually. The most important criterion for the “socialism” of a particular society is its attitude not to an abstract person, but the priority of the interests and needs of each individual, according to the LAW ON SOCIAL GUARANTEES AND PROTECTION from any arbitrariness. And the government must be the GUARANTEE of this security. Only in this view is socialism a social system that frees the working person from exploitation and oppression, makes him a full-fledged citizen of his country and the master of his life, creates conditions under which the full and worthy development of everyone becomes a condition for the socio-economic development of the entire society! Freedom is the opportunity to enjoy your rights according to the laws of society. But if the law cannot provide a person with decent working conditions of life, then why does he need such a law??? “I can only be free among people who enjoy the same freedom as me. The assertion of my right at the expense of another, less free than me, can and should instill in me the consciousness of my privilege, and not the consciousness of my freedom, and nothing contradicts freedom more than privilege,” wrote M.A. Bakunin.
If laws oppress honest, hardworking and decent people, when at the same time the deceitful, greedy, criminal elements of this society flourish, then are the laws in this society fair???

From this position, the more socialist country will not be the country that abolished private property, replacing it with state or cooperative property and calls itself socialist, without satisfying the urgent needs of the working people and without making them masters of their lives. And that country, even if it does not call itself socialist, but where, as a result of limiting exploitation and oppression, the working man not only more and more fully satisfies his needs and interests, but also, using the law on social guarantees, gains more and more freedom and weight in defining as his own fate, as well as the fate of one’s country, determines the prospects for the development of the entire society.
It is known that Marx, defining the essence of the social revolution of the working class, expressed it with the formula “the liberation of the working man from exploitation by capital.” Without understanding its essence or deliberately distorting its meaning, I. Stalin and the “Marxists-Leninists,” pointing to the liberation of working people from exploitation by capital, began to limit this liberation to the elimination of the economic exploitation of man by man, keeping silent and saying nothing about exploitation and oppression by the state apparatus through your capital. After all, it is known that the private property of a bureaucrat is the state. Is this an accident for Stalinism and the Soviet bureaucracy???

But even more than 150 years ago, Engels (1820 - 1895) quite definitely pointed out that “just as Charles Darwin discovered the law of development of the organic world, Karl Marx discovered the law of the development of human history: that, until recently, hidden under ideological layers, a simple fact that people must first eat, drink, have shelter and clothing before they can engage in the arts, sciences, politics, religion, etc. For this purpose, therefore, every society forms its own organization of production and distribution of direct material means of life to satisfy its basic needs. Thus, each given stage of economic development of a people or era forms the basis from which they develop government agencies, legal views, culture and so on...” Marx K., Engels F. Soch. T. 19, p. 350–351.

The issue of social production and fair distribution of the means of life turned out to be so important that Marx identified, in contrast to the monopoly of capital, in the distribution of the means of life, the monopoly of the LAW on social guarantees for the basic means of life in terms of the quantity and qualifications of labor as the main feature of socialism: “Finally, let us imagine, for variety, a union of people with equal rights and free from oppression by other people, systematically producing through common efforts the means for their happy life and together systematically spending them, as well as their individual forces as one common labor force, which is necessary for the daily and prosperous continuation of life of the entire society. The entire labor product of the union of these free people first represents a social product. Part of this product serves again as means of production and it remains social. And the other part is consumed as the basic means of life necessary for all members of the union and should become the individual property of each member of society to restore their strength and to satisfy their other personal needs. That is why the total mass of means for living should be distributed among them according to the needs of each relatively evenly based on the relative equality of the total working time as the amount of labor, and the quality of consumption of means for living for everyone will be based on the results of the level or degree of skill in preparing these means for their prosperous life. The forms of such distribution will change according to the nature of economic development and the level of socio-political development of society.

Just to draw a parallel with commodity production, we will assume that the quantitative share of each producer in the necessary means of subsistence is determined by the relatively equal amount of necessary social labor for everyone according to the relative equality of working time. In these conditions, working time will play a dual role, and one of its roles determines the socially planned attitude of everyone to various labor functions when participating in the socio-economic relationships of able-bodied citizens of the country to meet their needs. In another role, relatively equal working time serves at the same time as a measure not so much of the individual participation of the population in aggregate social labor, but rather of a relatively equal amount of individually consumed part of the produced labor products in the form of the basic means of life necessary for everyone, but according to consumer qualities from the results of labor qualifications in the workplace in the country's economy, with some preservation of the market outside the social sphere and for products in excess of what everyone needs for a prosperous life. That is why the socio-economic relationships of people in work and in the consumption of the basic means of life necessary for everyone become transparently clear and interconnected under socialism, both in terms of participation in labor relations, and in distribution. It is in this case that socially useful labor and the distribution of basic means of life, which are necessary for the continuation of life for everyone, are brought into more social and fair conformity with the social nature of production for the development of the whole society! " (Marx K., Engels F. Works 2 ed., vol. 23, pp. 88-89)

Now imagine that in one publishing house the late Marx is translated by a person with a bourgeois worldview, when everything in the economy should be decided only by money, albeit in proportion to labor, and in another publishing house it is translated by a person with a socialist worldview, who believes that everything in the economy of society should decide a socially oriented LAW on the basis of humanism, equality and social justice, that is, everyone should live materially from the results of their qualifications and the amount of their labor, and not from the amount of unknown money they have earned in their pocket. And how will they translate Marx? In one society, such a translator will provide material assistance in money without any guarantees for real help, and in another translator, with specific material resources needed at the moment to provide truly necessary assistance for a happy continuation of life! And what is fairer? The choice is yours, gentlemen Russians...

Thus, the solution to the problems of socially fair distribution of the means of life necessary for everyone produced by society for normal and prosperous social and living conditions is simple to the point of genius!

From each according to his abilities to each according to his need from the total amount of means of life produced in society according to the standards for the normal physiological state of the body, physical and moral health and for the intellectual and spiritual development of everyone! So that everyone has from their justly organized society everything necessary for creative and productive labor during working hours and rest after righteous labor for the benefit of society, from the total amount of basic means of life produced in the form of housing, food and clothing materials is relatively equal, according to the relative equality of working time as a relatively equal amount of necessary labor for the well-being of society, and the improvement of housing , cooking and making clothes is possible and according to the salary from the rank, class or category from the results of labor qualifications in the workplace in the country's economy for the well-being of everyone, maintaining wages and the market to meet the needs in excess of the necessary basic needs of everyone for normal development and for the means of living produced in excess of required consumption standards! It is in these conditions that the socio-economic system of society becomes self-developing, because everyone is interested in the production of quality products and the high quality of their work in any workplace of the country’s social economy in order to improve the quality of their life and the life of society. Children should have everything they need for their normal development through obedience and good studies, and old people who have already earned a dignified old age through their work! And why don’t you like this kind of socialism???

It is only necessary to take into account that the per capita expenses required for the development and maintenance of the military, energy, intellectual, scientific, technical, cultural, production, transport, educational, and medical potential of the country are significantly greater than what is required to satisfy the daily and natural essential needs of individual healthy members of society for normal physical, moral and ethical health and intellectual and spiritual development of all citizens of the country for productive work and a prosperous life of the entire society. But shouldn’t all this work reliably for their well-being? And shouldn’t workers ensure the reliable operation of the entire country’s economy? Therefore, it is necessary to manage not people, but production and machines in accordance with the socio-economic laws of society with a well-organized education of members of society!

Where such a system is established, society will develop steadily! And under communism, this order should apply to all means of communication, and this is energy, water supply, sanitary sewerage, communications, information and transport in the development of education for advanced training, for the development of medicine and sports to preserve health! Therefore, under communism, everyone should have sanitary sewerage, and plumbing should be based on the results of the qualifications of socially necessary labor! And only with this principle can the system be self-developing! This only means that either the leaders of the CPSU Central Committee did not read Marx, or simply deceived the Soviet people, that Marx did not give them any recommendations on how to build a society of humanism, equality and social justice...

But today Putin says that he does not know how to organize the people of Russia for the development of a more prosperous and happy life for Russians, having a diploma of a candidate of economic sciences...

Exploitation and oppression are not the same thing! When exploiting wage workers, we are talking about the appropriation of surplus value created by some and appropriated by others, which in a commodity-money economy underlies the legalized robbery of the population. But with oppression we are talking about something else - about the physical and moral suppression of the individual, his will. Therefore, such a truncation of the slogan of liberation of labor has very real implications. Its meaning is to substantiate “barracks communism”, implanted first by I. Stalin, and then by the entire party-state bureaucratic bourgeoisie, for it is “barracks communism” that ensures the omnipotence and privileges of the nomenklatura. The bureaucracy, without compromising its principles, is quite capable of engaging in hidden exploitation, and by its very social essence, such a bureaucracy is not obliged to provide workers with freedom from the exploitation and oppression that flourish under “barracks communism” with its state means of production and relatively free commodity-money relations.

So what is socialism, what does this term mean? The fact is that before this period (1918), the European socialist movement, despite its venerable hundred years of age, had never come to a clear development of a program of what socialism, strictly speaking, means. Socialism and capitalism as concepts require their justification. Capitalism is a term that was created to describe a whole complex of social and economic institutions that emerged gradually, in a very empirical way, from the 16th to the 20th centuries. Capitalism actually existed and was a more or less coherent system. The very concept of “capitalism” arose in 1830-1840. (the period when most modern economic concepts arose).
However, the economic system that has functioned since the 16th century. in the 19th century, and the one that exists today, which continues to be called capitalist, in fact differ greatly from each other, but the essence remains the same - the oppression of workers by capital, i.e. complete dependence of a person on money. Thus, we can say that the concept of "capitalism" comes from capital and its monopoly in society. The concept of “socialism” was created around the same era to define the antithesis of capitalism. The concept of “capitalism” was used by socialists to highlight the society opposite to it in terms of monopoly, which did not yet exist, but it can be assumed that the new society should have another monopoly, namely the monopoly of the LAW ON SOCIAL GUARANTEES FOR THE POPULATION, which will no longer allow capital to mercilessly exploit people wage labor, makes him a full partner in labor, frees him from oppression and makes him an equal citizen.

From the moment the monopoly of capital is abolished and the monopoly is established, the LAW on social guarantees makes every citizen SOCIALLY protected and the era of socialism begins! Regardless of the form of ownership. The law is strong, but it's law! And he will be harsh, first of all, towards violators of such a law! Of course, provided that the law is respected by the executive branch and there are strict procedural and legal standards for violators of the law! But without the unification and struggle of workers for the introduction of such a law into the life of society, socialism is an absolute utopia!

What was the meaning of socialism before 1917? Since such a society never existed, and only a few read Marx and everyone understood him due to their worldview and beliefs, the concept of socialism of that time presupposed the socialization of the means of production and a change in the distribution system. But at the global level, at least at the European level, this socialization was not completely clear and understandable. Did it involve the destruction of the market economy and the introduction of a planned economic system? Before 1917, there was no talk of planned management based on population size. Lenin's writings do not mention this concept at all. In short, even to this day in Russia few people clearly understand what socialism is. In practical terms, the word “socialism” has two significant features - what the Social Democratic parties called the minimum program and the maximum program, but even in these concepts of socialism there is little specificity of the economic plan, although issues of social protection are in many program documents of various parties, and in the legal documents of many states have long had their place.

Nevertheless, despite all the ambiguity of the concept of socialism, in our time it is already possible to isolate its main element - this is SOCIALIZATION and, first of all, means of consumption through the LAW ON SOCIAL PROTECTION AND SOCIAL GUARANTEES FOR SOCIAL MEANS NECESSARY FOR LIFE IN THE NUMBER AND QUALIFICATION OF LABOR. Based on this understanding, the monopoly of capital dies off first on the means of the social and everyday sphere, and then on the means of communication. Under these conditions, law enforcement services will carry out the will of the people through the SOCIAL SECURITY LAW and will more fully implement social guarantees for working people. This is what is observed today in countries with a high social standard of living.

Otherwise, how can we ensure the development of each individual and the entire society??? Only such socialism will allow the emergence of a society of solidarity, mutual assistance, good neighborliness, brotherhood and other aspects of a society of justice! But is this possible without the organized struggle of workers for their rights to live in human conditions for their conscientious work, without uniting in parties and trade unions? Water will not run under a lying stone, and whoever does not knock will not be opened.

Socialists believed that the moral character of the builder of communism would be a consequence of social change. But what changes??? Until 1917, only Robert Owen attempted to create a socialist settlement, and no socialist regimes on a state scale actually existed anywhere. Of course, everyone knew about the existence of the Paris Commune, but it was not socialist and lasted so short that it cannot be spoken of as a regime. This is the situation in which Lenin and the Bolsheviks find themselves, who seized power in October 1917. For eight months they did not dare to begin the establishment of their “socialism”; they believed that it would be possible only when the countries Western Europe, and especially Germany, will also make a socialist revolution, i.e. the working class, organized into a powerful party, will also come to power there. Then it will be time to build socialism. But while state capitalism existed in Russia, and then, during the summer crisis of 1918, the Bolsheviks created what would later be called “war communism,” there was no specific program for the development of social justice in Russia!

The stages of this war communism are widely known. Overall, this communism represented state nationalization undertaken by Lenin. And the Bolsheviks suddenly realize that this is socialism. Thanks to the measures taken by Lenin (general nationalization in April-May 1918 and December of the same year), socialism finally takes on its Soviet form, which, of course, is not the only correct one - many Trotskyists, Maoists, Swedish socialists and others will say that the Soviet the government never created real socialism, that real socialism is something else. But the “Bolsheviks” in Russia understood socialism as socialism in the sense of nationalization of the entire economy and, therefore, all social relations are subordinate to a single central authority - the party personifying the state. This is what Lenin created - by nationalizing the entire economy, and then declaring that “war communism” was necessary to defend the revolution.

In this case, socialism means a planned economy, and the plan itself arose during the civil war and “war communism”, as a result of a series of measures that lasted from June to December 1918. Absolutely everything is nationalized. But in order for the entire system to function smoothly, the Bolsheviks create the VSNKh (Supreme Council of the National Economy).

This is such a central social mechanism with many chapters for managing a completely nationalized, state-run economy, curtailing commodity-money relations by introducing a card system. The Bolsheviks reason approximately like this: “Until now, the entire world economy operated on the irrational principle of private benefit: now we have destroyed this principle of private benefit.” The destruction of this benefit ultimately means the destruction of the competition of the market economy and the development of planned management. It is no longer the market, but the plan that determines capital investments. In reality, the system of war communism ends in complete failure, which will soon lead the country to an economic crisis, so Lenin and his comrades conceived the NEP as quickly as they conceived “war communism.” The first decision was made at the 10th Party Congress regarding the creation of a free market for the sale of surplus grain: as soon as the peasants managed to supply the state, they had the right to sell the surplus. But Lenin quickly realized and was forced to admit that even the nationalized sector, which remained significant, began to function in accordance with the laws of the free market.

Thus, in less than a year (between March and December 1921) Lenin built the second economic system. After the construction of the first, which was called War Communism, this is a mixed economy system in which there is a huge public sector, but everything operates under the market economy system. The state uses loans and taxes for its own needs in the market sphere, without taking its economic program to the extreme. This situation was something like simplest form Keynesianism with nationalization in addition, which is not part of Keynes’s system. Such a system did not exist until then. In the beginning, when all the restrictions of the War Communist period were lifted in order to restore agriculture as quickly as possible, a market economy was a vital necessity. Only in 1924 was agriculture able to feed the country; three years had to be spent on its restoration. And at the end of 1924, this new market economy begins to function normally: finally, more or less, the country is supplied with grain, meat and other food products. Then follow three years of NEP, relatively normal - from 1924 to 1927. In 1927, industry and agriculture barely reached the gross output indicators of 1913 (taking into account territorial losses, 90% of the industrial indicators of 1913 and almost 100% were achieved Agriculture). It must be admitted that achieved result, after ten years of revolution equal to the level of 1913, was far from brilliant.

Socialism in the form of state capitalism is an economic type of society in which the economic basis is an integral system and has nothing to do with socialism if in such a society there is NO LAW DETERMINING SOCIAL GUARANTEES FOR THE POPULATION. A law that defines a person’s right to a life worthy of work in relation to the social benefits necessary for normal physical, spiritual and intellectual development. Where during working hours there is socially useful labor with state ownership of the means of production and relatively equal wages for everyone, and after work the market with all its ulcers, then what kind of socialism can we talk about in such conditions??? And everyone’s social conditions are different! Some have their own housing, others do not, some have a garden where they can grow some food, others do not. Some people are constantly given and bought different clothes by wealthy relatives and friends, others have nothing decent to wear, etc., etc. And no social guarantees for social sector funds! What kind of equality and justice can we talk about under such socialism under these conditions??? Similar to previous formations, the economic basis of such a society contains the same contradictions - between the social nature of production and the private nature of the appropriation of means of consumption through money and the market. This discrepancy is due to the social form of production and the non-socialized form of consumption due to the private nature of the appropriation of means of consumption for wages using commodity-money relations, since money in a free market has always determined and will determine the private nature of the appropriation of social benefits by those who have enough money for such appropriation to the detriment of those who do not have enough money for this or these benefits are not enough on the market.
And under socialism, a person should not stand in line both for the means of subsistence and for the workplace: at the drawing board, at the machine tool, at the operating table, at managing subordinates or military equipment, although the gendarmes, at the very least, were always provided with everything necessary, otherwise they will not pacify the dissatisfied population at the right time! And in what society did EVERY worker have the right to social benefits depending on the quantity and qualifications of his labor??? And let the market remain for goods not in the social sphere or for surpluses from guaranteed norms.

By the mid-30s, Lenin’s provisions on socialism were implemented to some extent in our country, but was it socialism? Since socialism is the last class-antagonistic formation, then under communism, due to the complete socialization of production and the resolution of all socio-economic contradictions, security and guarantees are also determined for the means of communication and there should no longer be any class differences, and therefore class antagonism. But under socialism, social security and protection of workers must be an order of magnitude higher than under capitalism, and this must necessarily be determined by guarantees for SOCIAL means of consumption for the normal physical, spiritual and intellectual development of everyone. But was it like this in the USSR?

One gets the impression that the leaders were completely unaware of the size of the population in cities, towns and villages, and that in order to work well, everyone must eat well, have a comfortable home and good clothing. That everyone needs to have decent human conditions for work and rest, and for their work to have the necessary living conditions, so that their children are placed in kindergartens and schools, have all the necessary conditions for study and are employed after receiving a profession. The rich can organize production for themselves expensive cars down to the smallest screw so that it leaves the assembly line on time, but those working in this production are not able to organize the production of the most necessary things for life, is that not surprising? Or do they not know the housing standards for a person’s full life and recreation? Don't know what foods you need for good nutrition? Don’t they know that good quality clothing is needed for work and recreation, to escape the cold?

The law on social guarantees of the population should not only protect the working person from exploitation and unemployment, but also provide him with social guarantees in the public sphere of consumption in the form of providing affordable housing, food, clothing items that he needs for work and a decent working life, provide affordable education and healthcare. A worker should be free to choose a profession and field of activity, but must comply with the laws of the socialist way of life and should not live at the expense of society if he does not work for the benefit of society. Greater social security and social justice lead to the fact that the labor productivity of a worker under socialism is higher than that of a worker under capitalism, because than better person will work, the better his living conditions will be, and this is what should determine the victory of the socialist way of life over the capitalist one.
But the preservation of a free market for all consumer goods and the development of commodity-money relations over time necessarily leads to an uneven distribution of social benefits and the emergence of a new class of bourgeoisie due to the specifics of commodity-money relations in the market, which are again capable of exploiting and oppressing workers through appropriation as surplus value , and by appropriating more and more goods through the accumulation of property and money. This leads to an aggravation of all capitalist contradictions and to a crisis. The crisis can be temporarily muffled by a set of social and economic measures, which over time will lead to inflation and even greater discontent among the population; or a revolutionary change through the introduction of a law on social security of the population and the strictest implementation of this law through the executive branch! But this must be the will of both the people, ORGANIZED TO FIGHT FOR JUSTICE, and the representatives of the authorities, for whom such a struggle is like a knife to the throat, and both of them must be ripe for this!

According to the theory of “scientific communism,” socialism is necessary to gradually overcome exploitation and build a communist society. The real content of socialist relations was not theoretically developed. The common place of ideas about socialism is only public ownership of the means of production and the dictatorship of the proletariat. All other points arise from the specific situation. As a result of the victory of the proletarian revolution in Russia, due to the convictions of the Bolsheviks who came to power, their ideology was realized. An attempt to build socialism with the help of commodity-money relations with state ownership of the means of production on the basis of unsystematic state distribution of social benefits, which were handed over to thieving officials, revealed the complete utopia of such “socialism.”
Such “socialism” in reality reproduced almost all forms of capitalist relations on the foundation of state ownership of the means of production, profitability and commodity-money relations, and not the urgent needs of the working people. And there can be no talk of the dictatorship of the proletariat in such conditions, because the DICTATOR cannot be a beggar! The reluctance to organize the population to produce the most necessary for EVERY member of society, directing all forces to increase the power of the STATE, determined the need to exploit the labor force in to a greater extent than under capitalism, which led to the development of political totalitarianism and the super-exploitation of the “undesirable” in the “sharashkas” and camps. It was possible to lead society and implement such an economy only as a result of the penetration of strict political relations into all social processes, including the personal lives of citizens and their way of thinking, as well as a high level of militarization of all public spheres. All these deformation moments led to a certain degradation of the labor force - a drop in the return on labor and the distortion of many production, distribution and cultural relations. The growth of militarization and destructive moments in the sphere of labor, politics and the way of life of the people led to the dominance of spontaneous processes in an attempt to reform stagnant socio-economic relations. The inability of the authorities to control the situation led to the destruction of all systems of society, a drop in production and many other serious consequences.

Thus, “Soviet socialism” is a social system in which there is no private ownership of the means of production while maintaining commodity-money relations and the goods market, state ownership of the means of production, one-party power, organization of planned development of all production processes and strict regulation in the interests of the state in all matters of economics, politics and culture, almost completely forgetting about the vital interests of the people themselves, although they fully declared their concern for them in the press.
The basic principles of such “socialism”: the distribution of monetary income “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his work” was carried out very relatively. The development of free education and healthcare developed mainly to provide an educated and healthy workforce for Soviet construction in departmental hospitals and clinics. Soviet “socialism” arose as a result of the “socialist revolution” with the overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie and the establishment of the “dictatorship of the proletariat”. After the victory in 1917 of the “Great October Socialist Revolution” on the territory of the former Russian Empire The world's first "state of workers and peasants" under the leadership of the "communist" party launched "socialist construction". The results of such construction of socialism are known throughout the world.

“Swedish socialism” is a system of political and economic relationships between citizens in society, based on which social production and the social life of the entire society are subject to laws, according to which high social security is formed for citizens in society and the procedural and legal norms of these laws determine social guarantees for everyone in matters providing the necessary social benefits for life, when everyone has not so much the right to work, but the right to a decent life for work.
This social security is based on a balanced organization of the national economy while reducing commodity-money relations to the necessary means for a full life, and the decisive role here is played by the socially oriented redistribution of social benefits NECESSARY FOR A FULL LIFE between ALL ITS CITIZENS who in one way or another participate in the public economy.
Such measures formed by the government allow them to fully develop, have a solid state budget to finance high standards of social security for THEIR CITIZENS, develop healthcare, and finance the development of education, science and art. These measures contribute to a healthy state of the environment, ensure a reliable level of security for citizens, guaranteed equality of women with men, and low crime rates. At the same time, such measures almost do not affect the rich people of these countries, since many of the social laws adopted hardly affect them and they do not care about them, but the law does not allow them to exploit people with impunity and create conditions that will deprive people of their livelihood. The creation of a Social Fund to care for future generations and develop society allows them to steadily improve the social status of THEIR CITIZENS and the stable development of the entire society.

Thus, we can conclude that SOCIALISM is a social system where, at a certain level of development of the population and the production of SOCIAL GOODS, a MONOPOLY OF THE LAW ON SOCIAL PROTECTION of citizens from any arbitrariness is formed in society and in which SOCIAL guarantees are defined to meet the SOCIAL needs of the country's population in the benefits of the SOCIAL sphere for normal physical, intellectual and spiritual development from the relative equality of working time as the quantity of labor, and the quality according to the qualifications of each person’s work. When the right to work ensures the right to a decent life at work and the government, on the basis of this LAW, guarantees such provision. This improves industrial and social discipline, minimizes the exploitation of hired workers, equating their work with the work of equal partnership and cooperation, developing brotherhood and good neighborliness, solidarity and mutual assistance, forming a NATION OF CIVIL MUTUAL AID.

NECESSARY TRANSFORMATIONS IN THE ECONOMY OF SOCIETY TO PROVIDE SOCIAL GUARANTEES FOR THE POPULATION.

1. On the issue of providing HOUSING.

To provide for the population in each economic region, housing, as well as the skill categories of workers, must be divided into 6-10 quality categories for distribution by qualification, and by square footage no more than the regional average. This will force government officials to expand housing construction, and workers to improve their skills, responsibility, production and social discipline.
Determine by LAW the distribution of housing above the permissible limit or its appearance on the market only after exceeding 20 square meters. m. RESIDENTIAL SPACE per person in the region after providing for all those in need according to social standards.

Set the lower limit of the number of meters of RESIDENTIAL AREA guaranteed for each member of society to be 15-20% less than the regional average. Take all necessary measures of government, public and prosecutorial control and supervision for the redistribution of existing housing stock and bring them into line with the goals of ensuring social guarantees for every LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN of the COUNTRY without violating the rule of law and the principles of social justice. Abolish the right to inherit housing until all those in need are provided with social standards and in cases of infringement of the rights of citizens to social housing standards.
Ensure timely repairs or demolition of buildings that have fallen into disrepair and construction of new comfortable housing to meet the needs of the population.

2. On the issue of food supply.

Determine the population's needs for necessary products for complete healthy nutrition and norms of their consumption in accordance with the capabilities of the country, coordinate them with the number of inhabitants in the regions and arrange supplies in accordance with these norms. Take all necessary measures of government, public and prosecutorial control and supervision over the production, procurement and distribution of a variety of food products necessary for everyone’s health, to eliminate abuses by producers and public catering enterprises in meeting the needs of the population. To promote in every possible way the development of agriculture and food industry enterprises, to organize the production and purchase of basic food products necessary for the normal development and full-fledged life of the country's population, ensuring timely delivery of food to the consumer's table, up to the guaranteed supply of everyone through food warehouses, stores or public catering establishments. To do this, whenever possible, use reusable containers, which will reduce the spread of landfills.

Take measures to eliminate any abuses aimed at the production of low-quality food products in agriculture, at their processing enterprises, improper storage at bases, public catering establishments and trade, which can lead to food spoilage, using existing experience in the civilized world. Coordinate the level of responsibility of workers in these areas and remuneration for their work with the conditions for the development of social justice.
Introduce comprehensive and nutritious food in industrial buffets, canteens and other public catering establishments similar to sanatorium-resort ones at the place of study, work or residence of members of society, preserving the market for the quality of preparation, service services and for those food products that are not included in the required range and for surplus from the assortment, the selection and quantity of which is notified through means mass media publicly and regularly.
Implement all necessary control measures during the production, storage and distribution of food products, guaranteeing their delivery to the population of high quality and without delay.

3. On the issue of providing clothing and textiles.

To balance the country’s production and financial capabilities for the production and purchase of materials and fabrics necessary for the population, the required accessories and raw materials for the production of clothing and seasonal footwear, hosiery products with the needs of the population to meet them in the conditions necessary for specific climatic conditions and according to standards worthy of human labor. To restore order in weaving, clothing, and shoe factories, to facilitate their supply of raw materials, equipment, and specialists, and to strengthen control in the production, procurement and distribution of fabrics, clothing and footwear, eliminating all abuses. Paying special attention to modernizing the production of those products that have been popular among the population for decades is bed sheets, fabrics for the furniture industry, for sewing coats, jackets, suits, light dresses, children's clothing, shoes, etc., and ensure timely delivery to the population at minimal costs and without violating the principles of social justice.
To promote the development of the market for dyeing, sewing, repair services and for clothing items not included in the required range to meet the necessary needs of the population.

For the physical, intellectual and spiritual development of Russian citizens, pay special attention to healthcare, preschool education, education, sports, issues of social security for old age and the disabled, as well as public means of communication, information and transport necessary for the full life of the country's population, providing in this direction maximum favored nation regime. Economic development is based on mandatory scheduled maintenance and replacement of fixed assets with more advanced and productive ones after the resource has been exhausted, since the life and work of people in aging and collapsing main residential and production assets can lead to serious social consequences. And untimely replacement and updating of equipment in the energy and transport sectors simply leads to tragedies, so special attention should be paid to the issues of improving the skills and living conditions of workers in these areas, taking into account their professionalism and responsibility.

Proudhon said at one time that “property is theft,” expropriation of the results of labor in the form of a monetary equivalent, when it is often impossible for workers to live on the remaining pennies with dignity from their work. And the destruction or abolition of private property, according to Marx, consists of “expropriation of the expropriators.” Historically, private property has a longer life than the monopoly of capital, so is it worth completely destroying such an institution of social capital as private property? Wouldn’t it be more correct at a certain level of development of society and its economy to destroy not private property, but to abolish the right of the owner of private property to exploit such expropriation by legislating human rights to the necessary social benefits, worthy of labor depending on its quantity and qualifications. So that not only money determines people’s living conditions, but also that everyone’s natural right is realized not so much to work, but rather the human right to a life worthy of work! After all, in the end, everyone, to one degree or another, works in order to live in human conditions, works for the good of society according to his abilities, participating with everyone else in social labor, spending on this his physical and spiritual strength, his working time and skills, which means he has the right to receive from society everything necessary for his physical, intellectual and spiritual development, and not for free, but deservedly, as is already done in socially developed countries!!! Imagine that the majority, like the Crimeans, will vote for this position in the economy, what will prevent everyone from living according to the new laws if the rule of law is ensured in the country??? But so far no party in Russia offers this...

There cannot be universal happiness, because everyone has their own idea of ​​happiness and justice, but people can be given the opportunity not to feel deceived and disadvantaged if they unite to achieve this goal. And the fact that such an association is called a political party has been known for a long time and the red line of the program documents of all parties that strive to develop justice, there must be a desire to establish a LAW ON SOCIAL PROTECTION OF THE POPULATION FROM ANY ARBITRARY, ways to achieve this goal must be outlined. Indeed, in order to form SOCIAL GUARANTEES, in which the right to work will guarantee the right to a life worthy of work, to create the necessary SOCIAL CONDITIONS that ensure the well-being of the population, this population must be trained to work on high-performance equipment with advanced technologies, learn healthy ways of working and living, learn advanced management methods to establish a society of social justice. Learn from the examples of the life of those communities where the factors determining a fair society are necessarily: social security, high level of health care, life expectancy, education, well-being of the population, good ecology, low crime rate, all standards for the observance of human rights and other norms are ensured and rules that ensure friendliness, mutual assistance and solidarity in society.

Do you know other examples and ways of organizing a society of social justice???

Moscow. Alexander Anikeev.T.89265243205.

More details in the article “Socialism and communism. Dialectics of the development of justice".

SOCIALISM is one of the forms of political structure of society, in which the implementation of the principles of social justice and equality on the basis of freedom, equality and fraternity, as well as the social system that embodies these principles, is put forward as a goal and ideal. The term "socialism" appeared in the 2nd half. 19th century, however, ideas about the system of social justice go back to ancient ideas about the “Golden Age”; they develop in various religions, and then in many varieties of utopian socialism.
In the “theory of scientific communism”, socialism was considered as the lowest phase (stage) of communism, and it replaces capitalism as a result of the proletarian revolution and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. However, after the October Revolution of 1917, which declared its goal to put into practice the ideas of “scientific communism,” the incarnations of socialism developed in two directions, into which the international communist movement split, violent and democratic. In the democratic trend, an orientation towards the party and parliamentary struggle of the working people for equality and social justice on the basis of labor solidarity, mutual assistance and national unity in the struggle for more equitable social relations has been established.

However, without having clear positions of socialism and having undergone significant evolution while abandoning revolutionary Marxism as the only ideological basis, social democracy developed its own concept social development on a democratic basis, according to which socialism can be realized through a long process of parliamentary struggle. The establishment of the role of social democracy in the political, economic and social life of society greatly influenced the development of the values ​​of freedom, justice, labor solidarity and equality among the population. The development of the policy of social democracy and the unification of the population under its banner influenced the democratization of relations of power and property, the role of money and the market, the growth of the level and quality of life of workers and, together with other factors, led to a significant transformation of capitalist society, which was later called convergence, the growth of socialism into capitalism.

And in the minds of the population of Russia and many countries of the world, perverted ideas about socialism, associated with the totalitarian system in the USSR, and after the 2nd World War in other countries of the “world socialist system”, where the characteristic features were the monopoly of state property, directive centralized economic management, the dictatorship of the party-state apparatus, which relied on an apparatus of violence that instilled arbitrariness, lawlessness, and intolerance of dissent through mass repression. The dominance of the totalitarian system led to an economic, political and spiritual crisis, a significant lag behind the developed countries of the world in many social and economic parameters, and isolation from world culture. Transformations that began in the late 80s - early 90s. in the USSR, Russia and other countries, led to the restoration of pre-monopoly capitalism and all the ills of a free market economy.

CAPITALISM is a socio-economic system in which the entire economy is based on the monopoly of CAPITAL and on the exploitation of wage workers, when the means of production are under the control of private or public CAPITAL to satisfy the whims of owners and managers on the basis of increasing profitability and profits, and only as a last resort to meet the needs of the rest of the population. And the distribution system of material goods is based on a market with commodity-money relations and competition, a salary that does not provide the majority of the population with a life worthy of work, which does not develop equality and social justice in society, but only divides the population, spreading poverty and crime on the one hand , wealth and satiety on the other, developing in people unhealthy envy, selfishness and indifference to the fate of other people.

SOCIALISM is a socio-economic system where, at a certain level of development and organization of the population, regardless of the ownership of the means of production, a MONOPOLY OF THE LAW ON SOCIAL PROTECTION of citizens from any arbitrariness is formed in society and in which SOCIAL guarantees are defined to meet the SOCIAL needs of the country's population in the benefits of SOCIAL spheres, when in society their distribution is formed by quantity from the relative equality of working time as the amount of labor, and by quality according to the qualifications of each person’s labor for his normal physical, intellectual and spiritual development, keeping the market in the non-social sphere.
When the right to work ensures the right of everyone to a decent life at work, regardless of their place in the social economy, and the government, on the basis of this LAW, through its apparatus of power guarantees such provision. This improves production and social discipline, minimizes the exploitation of hired workers, equating their work with the work of equal partnership and cooperation, developing brotherhood and good neighborliness, solidarity and mutual assistance.
It is during the formation of such economic relationships that a NATION OF CIVIL MUTUAL ASSISTANCE is created, where the economy is formed as economic relations to meet the needs of ALL members of such a society in comfortable housing, in a healthy, balanced diet, in good quality and beautiful clothes, in the necessary means of communication, information, transport, military means to protect their interests from any attacks on the freedom to live according to their own laws, in the means necessary for the development of healthcare, education, art, etc. Has there ever been such a society in Russia??? They didn’t even try to create something similar...

Only a society with such principles of life can be considered socially oriented or socialist! Socialism without social guarantees for the population of the country is deception and hypocrisy!!! Communism is the next phase, when such guarantees will apply to all means of communication (energy, water, sewerage, communications, information, transport). Do law-abiding and hardworking citizens have problems with THIS in socially developed countries???

Communism is a social system in which not only was the liberation of all wage workers, all workers of physical and mental labor from exploitation and oppression by capital, but also the opportunity was realized for EVERY person to show their ability to create and be creative in work and in everyday life for a happy and a full life for yourself, your family and your people!!! All necessary social and commutative conditions have been created for EVERY person, so that, depending on the quantity and qualifications of his work for the benefit of society, a person has the opportunity to receive from society all the necessary benefits worthy of his work, so that not only his desire to obtain an education, to develop skills in work and to creativity in technology, science, art, but also the opportunity to obtain such education and skills to improve one’s qualifications and develop creative abilities!!! And reducing working hours, first to six hours, and then to four, will increase the time for development and creativity, or reducing working week, decrease retirement age, after which everything will be saved and you just don’t have to go to work...
Until such conditions exist, no communism is POSSIBLE!!! But what is utopian about this, even with the modern development of science, technology and technology in the production of material goods, if we eliminate the privileges of power and wealth of those who have it???

COMMUNISM is a higher phase of the development of society, based on justice and equality in the use of all benefits that are produced for humans, regardless of the form and method of production, for the organic and diversified development of each member of society. This is, first of all, the socio-economic system of human society, in which the right to the work necessary for society MANDATORYLY GUARANTEES EVERYONE AND THE RIGHT TO A DECENT LIFE OF WORK, not only in social benefits, as under socialism, that is, to the housing, food, and items necessary for a life worthy of Humanity clothing, but also for ALL means of communication (energy, water, sewerage, communications, information, transport), so that society develops so that people live with dignity and do not interfere with each other’s lives!!! But has anything like this ever been fully implemented???

COMMUNISM is a socio-economic system in which EVERY person should have the opportunity to demonstrate their ability to create and be creative in work and in everyday life for a happy and fulfilling life for themselves and their people!!! But this can only be achieved by creating the necessary social and commutative conditions for EVERY citizen of the country, so that, depending on the quantity and qualifications of his work, a person has the opportunity to live in dignity of his work, so that not only his desire to obtain an education and develop skills in work arises, but also the opportunity to obtain such education and skills to improve your qualifications!!! Until such conditions exist, no communism is POSSIBLE!!! But what is utopian about this with the modern development of science, technology and technology in the production of material goods???

It is in these conditions that the free will of everyone to satisfy their social needs is commensurate with the will and freedom of other people to have everything necessary for life, when the right and will of everyone to realize this goal is elevated to the law of society, and the volitional activity, volitional relations of people here ultimately consciously determined by law economically and politically. Under these conditions it is really free man can consciously make decisions of his own free will and his decisions and the free activity of a person are more consistent with the will and activities of both the people around him and with the interests of the whole society.

And communism, under which something will flow in full flow... Moreover, under the dictatorship of the proletariat and for everything with common property... If anything flows, then this is just another demagogy of those who have power and wealth in the ears of the illiterate population for further fooling and robbery of this population through their market and financial terror while expecting any kind of justice!!!
Therefore, progressive and caring people need to convince the population of the need to unite to fight injustice, to fight for a society where the LAW prevails, in which the right to work GUARANTEES EVERYONE the right to a life worthy of work and ensures equality!!! In which the MONOPOLY OF CAPITAL gives way to the MONOPOLY OF THE LAW ON SOCIAL GUARANTEES!!! And those who do not know how to learn on their own, teach methods of struggle and talk about the goals of the struggle.

P.S. I AM NOT A MARXIST, BECAUSE I AM AGAINST THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT! The proletarian CANNOT BE A DICTATOR, since according to Marx it is “the most oppressed, the most illiterate and the poorest part of the working class”! And who needs a dictatorship of the illiterate masses??? Especially if in the party of the proletariat there are only proletarians, and the leaders are descendants of nobles or former bandits... And there is also a working-class intelligentsia, capable of bringing the rational, the good, the eternal in their educational work with young people, and the working aristocracy - the pilots are still on the working grid, and what kind of proletarians are they?!

AGAINST THE LIQUIDATION OF MONEY!!! What needs to be destroyed is not money, but its monopoly in the process of distributing the means necessary for everyone to live at a certain level of economic development, so that everyone has the right to have them with dignity of work not lower than the norms specified in the law for normal development, because MONEY has always determined and will always determine the PRIVATE character the appropriation of material wealth by those who have enough for such appropriation, to the detriment of those who do not have enough money for a decent working life, regardless of whether a person works for the good of society or not, whether he earned money or stole it. But if money can be distributed in proportion to labor, why can’t the most necessary of its total quantity be distributed in equal working hours, and in quality and qualifications worthy of work in the workplace in a public economy??? Lack of intelligence or conscience, spirituality or mercy???
But spirituality in Rus', and in many other countries, is defined and perceived as the ability to sympathize, empathize, sympathize with the deceived, the disadvantaged, the weak, the desire to help them, and it is known that this is even characteristic of animals. And hypocrisy has never been publicly recognized anywhere, and will not be recognized as an example of virtue and a role model; this is the lot of the weak, cunning and unprincipled, for a mind with virtue is wisdom, and a mind without virtue is cunning. And who respects cunning and resourceful people? Only the same as themselves! And don't confuse spirituality with religiosity...

AGAINST THE SOCIALIZATION OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION!!! The transformation of private property into public property does not make the social benefits necessary for life belong to everyone worthy of work, only the nature of the ownership of the means of production changes, and the method of distribution of means of consumption remains the same, through the market through commodity-money relations, and talk about equality and justice for all in the market It’s the same as talking about freedom for everyone under slavery!

AGAINST THE EXISTENCE OF ANY TRANSITION PERIOD. THERE WAS NO transition period between the slave and feudal states, between the feudal and capitalist! The law with the monopoly of the right to slavery was repealed and serfdom was approved by law - there is no slave state! They abolished the monopoly of the law on serfdom and formed the right of wage labor and the monopoly of capital - no feudal, abolished the monopoly of capital and established the monopoly of the LAW ON SOCIAL GUARANTEES - no capitalism!!! And if capital no longer has a monopoly on necessary social goods, what kind of capitalism is this? This is already socialism! And when guarantees extend to ALL means of communication, communism will begin! But this is not a paradise for everyone; there will always be those who are dissatisfied...

WHAT FREE LABOR WERE MARX, LENIN AND OTHERS SPEAKING ABOUT? This person must be free in his choice - to participate in socially necessary labor according to his abilities and aspirations, in order to have from society everything necessary for a life FREE from wage slavery, or not to participate - and receive nothing from society. Or be punished for theft. Everyone chooses their own and should have what they deserve! But human society differs from other hierarchical social systems of the animal world of planet Earth in that it is capable of ensuring the implementation of the laws of its life at a higher level, and if this does not happen, then is it worth talking about any development of the mind and spirituality of such a people, except the desire to live at the expense of others through the accumulation of one’s own capital??? But this is precisely what underlies capitalism - the monopoly of capital!!!

§ 1. Concept, basic principles and varieties of socialism. Socialism and communist doctrine

§ 2. Ideology of international social democracy

§ 3. The role of socialist ideology in political history Belarus

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

Socialist ideology has a long history. However, the term “socialism” first appeared in public literature only in the 30s of the 19th century. Literary authorship is attributed to the French theorist Pierre Leroux, who in 1834 wrote the article “On Individualism and Socialism.”

Ideas that later came to be called socialist appeared in the 16th century. They reflected the spontaneous protest of the exploited strata of the period of primitive accumulation of capital. These theories about an ideal social order that corresponds to human nature, eliminates exploitation, raises the welfare of the lower class and eliminates private property, came to be called utopian socialism. Its founders are the Englishman Thomas More, author of the book “Utopia,” and the Italian Tommaso Campanella, who wrote “City of the Sun.” They believed that it was public property that created the conditions for fair distribution, equality, well-being and social peace. Social equality was seen as the highest good for both the individual and society.

During the XVII-XIX centuries. many theorists tried to discover the formula for an ideal society, since capitalism, having created a world overflowing with wealth, still abounded in poverty. The greatest contribution to the development of socialist concepts of a utopian orientation was made by the French A. Saint-Simon, Charles Fourier and the Englishman Robert Owen. Their views were formed under the influence of the Great French Revolution and the rapid development of industrial capital. The views of the theorists of utopian socialism differed significantly among themselves on many issues, but they all believed that society already had the conditions for immediate reform of the system on fair terms in order to end inequality, poverty and vices. The initiative for change must come from the top, from the haves, who are obliged to help the poor and make everyone happier. Socialist ideology purposefully defended the interests of workers, social progress and believed in the wonderful future of humanity.

During this period, the extreme manifestation of socialism emerged - communist ideology. Communist ideology was more consistent in its desire to transform society on the basis of equality through the establishment of public ownership of the means of production and sometimes also of consumer goods.

Theorists of utopian socialism formulated the basic principles of organizing a future just society: from each according to his abilities, to each ability according to his deeds; comprehensive and harmonious development of personality; eliminating differences between city and countryside; variety and change of physical and spiritual labor; the free development of each as a condition for the free development of all. Utopian socialists believed that either all people should be happy, or no one. The socialist system must provide a real opportunity for everyone to be happy. The ideology of the socialists of the early 19th century was imbued with an emotional and figurative idea of ​​the future and resembled social poetry.

Representatives of utopian socialism and communism had different approaches to the methods of implementing their ideas. Saint-Simon and Fourier believed that Main way- reforms, and the sacred cause of the poor is also the cause of the rich. Others, for example, Mably, Meslier, Babeuf, called on the working people for revolution.

As part of this work, the following goals are set:

Expand the concept, basic principles and varieties of socialism, socialism and communist doctrine;

Consider the ideology of international social democracy;

Analyze the role of socialist ideology in the political history of Belarus.

§ 1. Concept, basic principles and varieties of socialism. Socialism and communist doctrine

Socialism is a system of relations in society that has maximum resistance to external unfavorable conditions and characterized by:

The common ownership of all members of all property of the company,

Lack of family

A single faith that existed in its pure form only in the primitive era. All attempts to restore socialism in subsequent eras on a state scale were short-lived and were doomed to die out.

1. Destruction of private property.

The fundamental nature of this principle is emphasized, for example, by Marx and Engels: “... communists can express their theory in one proposition: the destruction of private property” (“Communist Manifesto”). This position in its negative form is inherent in all socialist teachings without exception and is the main feature of all socialist states. But in its positive form, as a statement about the specific nature of property in a socialist society, it is less universal and manifests itself in two different types: The vast majority of socialist teachings proclaim a community of property, more or less radically implemented, and socialist states (and some teachings) are based on state ownership.

2. Destruction of the family.

Proclaimed by the majority of socialist teachings. In other teachings, as well as in some socialist states, this position is not proclaimed so radically, but the same principle manifests itself as a reduction in the role of the family, a weakening of family ties, and the destruction of some family functions. Again the negative form of this principle is more universal.

As a positive statement of a certain type of relationship between the sexes or children with parents, it is presented in several forms: as the complete destruction of the family, the community of wives and the destruction of all connections between children and parents, to the point that they do not know each other; as the loosening and weakening of family ties; as the transformation of the family into a unit of the bureaucratic state, subordinate to its goals and its control.

3. Destruction of religion.

It is especially convenient for us to observe the hostility of socialism to religion, for it is inherent, with few exceptions, in all modern socialist states and teachings. Only rarely is the destruction of religion declared by law - as in Albania. But the actions of other socialist states leave no doubt that all of them are guided by precisely this principle of the destruction of religion and only external difficulties are currently preventing its full implementation. The same principle has been repeatedly proclaimed by socialist teachings since the end of the 17th century.

4. Community or equality.

This requirement is found in almost all socialist teachings. A negative form of the same principle is the desire to destroy the hierarchy of the surrounding society, calls to “humiliate the proud, rich and powerful,” and to abolish privileges. Often this tendency gives rise to hostility towards culture as a factor causing spiritual and intellectual inequality, and as a result leads to calls for the destruction of culture. The first formulation of this view can be found in Plato, the latest in modern Western leftist movements, which recognize culture as “individualistic,” “repressive,” “suffocating,” and call for “ideological guerrilla warfare against culture.”

Let us analyze some points of view on the nature of socialism.

1. The point of view of Marxism: socialism as a state system is a certain phase of the historical development of mankind, inevitably replacing capitalism when it reaches a certain level of development; socialism as a doctrine is the worldview of the proletariat (which itself is generated by capitalism) and at the same time the result of scientific analysis, scientific proof of the historical predetermination of the socialist state structure.

This view is completely contrary to the facts we know. If socialist states arise only in the conditions created by the development of capitalism...then from what did it come, developed and as a result of what? social strength was... in the states of the Ancient East? An appeal to history, however, only reinforces the doubts that modernity gives rise to: socialist states arise in China, North Korea, in Cuba - in countries where the influence of capitalism cannot be considered decisive."

Other objections can be added to what has been said. For example, what did Plato and other socialist theorists of antiquity have to do with capitalism? Why were mass protests back in the Middle Ages inspired by socialist ideas, such as the ideas of the Cathars, which also had nothing to do with capitalism?

2. “Socialism does not exist at all. What is called socialism is one of the lines of development of capitalism - state capitalism.

The obvious defect of this point of view is that it applies only to the socialist states of the 20th century, without even trying to comprehend their place in the millennia-old tradition of socialism. But it is interesting to find out how applicable it is at least in this short period of history.

Wittfogel believes that the concept of state capitalism is not applicable to modern socialist states from an economic point of view: it is impossible to consider a society in which there are no private means of production, an open market for goods and labor, to be considered a type of capitalism."

Under socialism, commodity-money relations were preserved (meaning socialism in the USSR and Eastern European countries), as under capitalism, but the means of production belonged to the state. On the basis of this circumstance, the idea of ​​comparing socialism and state capitalism arose. But the concept of “state capitalism” in its pure form, i.e. in the absence of private property, it contains a contradiction in itself. Capitalism is necessarily characterized by private property, private initiative, free markets, and so on. Therefore, the expression “state capitalism” must be understood as one of the forms of capitalism with a significant share of state ownership. At the same time, state property does not deny private property, but coexists peacefully with it. Examples of state capitalism in this form can be found in any modern capitalist country. Otherwise, if state ownership denies private ownership, the result will not be capitalism, but some other system. In any case, one cannot speak of state capitalism as a special socio-economic formation.

3. “Socialism is a special religion.

S. Bulgakov characterizes socialism even more precisely - as a revival of Judaic messianism. ...If socialism is a religion, then we must recognize it as a completely special religion, qualitatively different from all others, and in many basic issues - the opposite of them... It is hardly possible to do this without arbitrarily expanding the very concept of religion to such an extent that that it will lose all concreteness."

Religion can be one of the elements of both socialist teachings and socialist states. A striking example is the religion that deified the pharaoh in Ancient Egypt. But socialism cannot be reduced only to religion. This phenomenon is much broader; it includes not only spiritual, but also material aspects of social life.

4. “Socialism is a consequence of atheism, the conclusion to which atheism leads in the field social relations. This view was expressed, in particular, by Dostoevsky... Most thinkers of the 19th century completely overlooked the spiritual crisis of their time, which prepared the triumph of socialism in our era. Almost alone, Dostoevsky clearly understood that humanity would not follow the path of liberalism, humanity and progress, that terrible upheavals awaited it in the near future.”

Of course, atheism plays the most negative role in human history. The era of lack of spirituality, which includes the 20th century, has brought and will continue to bring untold suffering to humanity. But socialism cannot be reduced only to atheism, just as it cannot be considered a religion. This phenomenon is broader.

The conclusions to which consideration of socialism has led us:

a) The idea of ​​the death of humanity - not the death of certain people, but precisely the end of the entire human race - resonates in the human psyche. It excites and attracts people, although with varying intensity, depending on the nature of the era and the individuality of the person. The scale of the impact of this idea suggests that every person is susceptible to it to a greater or lesser extent: a universal property is manifested here human psyche.

b) This idea manifests itself not only in the individual experiences of at least a large number of individuals - it is capable of uniting people (unlike, for example, delirium), that is, it is social force. The desire for self-destruction can be considered as an element of the psyche of all humanity.

c) Socialism is one of the aspects of humanity’s desire for self-destruction, for Nothing, namely its manifestation in the field of organization of society.”

Components Communist ideology is collectivism, public ownership of the means of production, solidarity, social equality, justice, the elimination of the class division of society, the absence of exploitation of man by man.

Communist ideology developed and was formed in various socio-historical and national-cultural conditions.

Practical implementation communist ideas associated with the October Revolution in Russia. Many scholars now believe that communism ultimately failed the test of history and was defeated in its dispute with capitalism. But this is too superficial and an opportunistic understanding of the defeat of socialism in the USSR and the collapse of a great power. When it was said that the exploitation of labor, the alienation of man from the means of production and power existed under socialism, then, first of all, one should distinguish the nature of this phenomenon in opposing systems of social order.

Alienation under socialism lies in a completely different sphere than alienation under capitalism. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the social conditions for overcoming this alienation. In a capitalist society, the removal of alienation is impossible without replacing private ownership of the means of production with public property. In a socialist society, where this social injustice has been removed as a result of the political and economic revolution, overcoming the alienation of man from the means of production and power presupposes such cultural development of the individual when the latter is internally capable of self-control of all his life activities on the principle of his own responsibility for the social disorder of human life. The problem of alienation in a socialist society is, first of all, a cultural and moral problem, because it is absurd to talk about the creation of a new social system if the entire responsibility for its creation is placed on communist institutions, and as soon as a person enters this ready-made communist kingdom, he became cultured, master, and free.

§ 2. Ideology of international social democracy

Social democracy emerged in Europe in the second half of the 19th century. Its formation was significantly influenced by the labor movement and the activities of certain circles of the European intelligentsia. The Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) was founded in 1875, the following year similar parties appeared in Denmark, in 1889 in Austria-Hungary, in 1892 in Italy. At the beginning of the twentieth century, social democratic parties emerged in France and Great Britain (the Labor Party). The programmatics of many social democratic parties were initially oriented towards the Marxist doctrine, although not all European social democrats shared it. The organizational infrastructure of the Social Democratic movement developed very intensively and rapidly. In some countries he managed to attract large numbers of activists into his ranks. This was facilitated by cooperation with trade unions. For the first time in the world, Social Democrats headed the government in 1904, when the leader of the Australian socialists, J. Watson, took the post of Prime Minister in Australia. It is worth noting that before the First World War, the development of social democracy was uneven. The greatest successes were achieved in Germany and Denmark, where already at the end of the 19th century the Social Democrats managed to collect about 20 percent of the votes in general elections.

In the 19th century, social democracy experienced significant resistance from parts of the European establishment. An example is the “exceptional laws against socialists” adopted in Germany. This, however, did not prevent Chancellor O. von Bismarck from “borrowing” many social democratic ideas, which gave impetus to the development of social reforms. By that time, the Social Democrats were perceived as far left, but over time, tendencies of political moderation, which coexisted with left radicalism, became increasingly widespread among them.

The First International was created back in 1864 by Marx and is now only occasionally remembered in the documents of social democratic forces. Historically, social democracy is associated primarily with the socialist and social-democratic parties of the Marxist trend, which united in 1889 to form the Second International. Among the participants in the founding congress were Friedrich Engels, August Bebel, Wilhelm Liebknecht (Germany), Georgy Plekhanov (Russia), Jules Guesde (France), Victor Adler (Austria). The Second International lasted for a quarter of a century. His dramatic death is associated with the outbreak of the First World War, when, contrary to their own principles, the social democratic and parliamentary parties supported their governments. From this point of view, modern Social Democratic documents recognize that the history of this movement is not free from tragic errors.

After the end of the war, Social Democrats who identified themselves with the Second International and supporters of the so-called “2 1/2” (“two-and-a-half”) International formed a new general social democratic association - the Workers’ Socialist International. This happened after the hope of reunification with that part of the left social democracy, which announced its break with social democratic roots and transition to communist positions, had faded. The Socialist Workers International took part in political life in the period before the outbreak of World War II. The initiative to restore the organizational center of social democracy in the post-war period belongs to the Labor Party of Great Britain. The first socialist conference took place in 1945 in London. In 1951, in Frankfurt am Main, with the participation of 33 parties (including several Eastern European “parties in exile”), the founding Congress of the Socialist International (Socintern) was held, at which the declaration “Goals and Objectives of Democratic Socialism” was adopted. This declaration, from an ideological point of view, strictly separated the movement of democratic socialism from the Kremlin-controlled “Marxist-Leninist” camp. The Socialist International emerged as the main organizational and ideological force of international social democracy and gradually became one of the largest and most influential international organizations.

Unlike the communist movement, the Social Democrats have always been oriented towards consistent pluralism, therefore in individual parties and in the Socialist International itself there is no shortage of either the extreme left or the moderate ones (from Trotskyists to the very liberal Swedish Social Democrats). The Socialist International was at first an exclusively European phenomenon; but, starting from the 60s and 70s, he set himself the goal of attracting the countries of Asia, Latin America, and Africa to his activities. In the 80s, a transition to the social democratic positions of some communist parties began (the Italian communists announced their affiliation with social democracy even before the collapse of the socialist bloc). In the 90s, the process of expansion of the Socialist International was carried out at the expense of former communist parties and the newly created new social democracies of the CEE region. The 90s were the time of the rise of international social democracy. At the last, XXI Congress of the Socialist International (November 1999), it was announced that it represents 143 parties and political movements from all continents (at the end of the 80s there were about 80 parties and movements in the Socialist International). As already noted, during this period, social democratic parties became ruling in almost all countries of the European Union. In the vast majority of countries called democracies, social democrats are either in power or are a prominent opposition force.

Traditionally, the main organizational force of the Socialist International is the Social Democratic Party of Germany, the Labor Party of Great Britain, the French Socialist Party and other party structures of developed Western European countries (for more information about the organizational structure of the Socialist International, see Appendix “Charter of the Socialist International”).

The program objectives of the Socialist International are formulated in declarations of principles, which are adopted quite rarely, and in documents of less universal significance, used in the event of disagreements between its members. As an example of important resolutions of the Socialist International, we can cite the so-called “Lima Mandate” (adopted in Lima in 1986), the Albufeira Declaration (1983). The main current policy document of this international organization is the Stockholm Declaration of Principles of 1989 (see Appendix “Stockholm Declaration”). It is focused on an ethical, value-based approach to justifying policy (proclamation of freedom, justice, and solidarity as the “core values” of democratic socialism).

At the XXI Congress of the Socialist International in Paris (November 1999), the leader of the Portuguese socialists, Antonio Gutierrez, was elected President of the Socialist International, and Luis Ayela (leader of the Chilean Socialist Party) was re-elected General Secretary.

Over the past 10 years, almost 70 parties have joined the Socialist International. Among those who received full voting membership are the Social Democrats of Albania, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Mongolia, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, etc., with some countries represented by several parties. Among the new members with advisory status are representatives of Armenia. All this proves that the road to this world union of Social Democrats is not closed for Ukraine either. Membership in the Socialist International can certainly be considered one of the most important tasks of our Social Democrats.

Another significant element of the international social democratic movement is the Party of European Socialists (PES). In 1952, the Social Democrats created their own international group in the European Parliament. A new impetus for the movement towards unification was the Agreement on European Union, which involves the creation of pan-European political parties as a form of expanding political cooperation (Article 138). In fact, the reform was started earlier, in the mid-seventies, when intentions were proclaimed to hold direct elections to the European Parliament (at first, members of the European Parliament were delegated by the parliaments of the respective countries).

In 1993, at the founding congress in The Hague, European social democrats formed PES. The III Party Congress took place in 1997. The PES holds about a third of the seats in the European Parliament (in July 1998 - even 214 seats out of 626, that is, 34 percent), and is its largest faction. In 1998, 9 of the 15 members of the European Council were social democrats, they chaired 9 of the 20 committees of the European Parliament: budget (Detlef Salmand, Germany), agriculture (Juan Luis Colino Salamanca, Spain), civil liberties and home affairs (Eddie "Ancona, the Netherlands) and others.

Social Democrats are concerned about the lack of democracy in the pan-European political system. The PES 1994 election manifesto declared: “The future of Europe does not lie in the creation of a centralized superpower. Only a democratic Europe can be strong.” European socialists voted against the candidacy of Jacques Santerre for the post of President of the European Commission (European Government), speaking out not so much against him personally as against “the secret, unaccountable and humiliating system according to which the appointment to the most prestigious European position was made.” By the way, this government was soon forced to resign due to loss of reputation.

Since the Maastricht Accords of 1992, the Western European center left has united around the call for a "social Europe", and in particular for leveling up European conditions, which implies sacrifices on the part of the most developed countries of the Old World.

§ 3. The role of socialist ideology in the political history of Belarus

Belarus lived with communist ideology for almost the entire twentieth century. All events of world historical significance - the liberation of Europe from fascism, the collapse of the colonial system of imperialism and the formation of independent states in Asia, Africa and Latin America, the first artificial satellite of the Earth, the flight of the first man into space - are also marked with the stamp of communist ideology.

Socialist Belarus, in the shortest possible time in history, made a giant leap in its development and became one of the most developed countries in the world with exceptionally high economic, scientific and cultural potential. By index human development our republic was part of the most developed countries in the world.

And for today’s Belarus, such communist principles as collectivism, patriotism, social justice, high prestige of education, socially useful work without counting on material reward, moral encouragement of a person may well be included in the ideology of modern Belarusian society.

Thus, the ideology of the Belarusian people organically includes elements of communist, conservative, liberal and social democratic ideology.

The historical process leads not to separation, but to the unification of peoples. The integration development paradigm requires fair relationships between developed and developing countries. This new integration vision, based on a new ideology, suggests that the time has come to move away from confrontation and form a new partnership between all countries of the world, based on mutual interest, on cooperation, on humane collectivism.

Post-Soviet Belarus, like other post-Soviet republics, is characterized by ideological diversity due to the presence of a multi-party system. Conditionally political ideologies in post-Soviet Belarus can be divided into three types:

1) ideology of socialist and left-patriotic orientation;

2) pro-Western liberal ideologies;

3) national extremist ideologies.

The specificity of the ideological situation in Belarus in the modern period is that the ideological preferences of the Belarusian people were formalized by the initiatives of the President of the Republic of Belarus A.G. Lukashenko at the historical referendums of 1995-1996.

As a result, extremist ideologies have left public policy, the strategic course of development of the Republic of Belarus received adequate state symbols, rational domestic policy, well-structured international priorities, and the historical choice of Belarus received national ideological principles and guidelines.

The national idea is the most important system-forming part of the ideology of the Belarusian state. President A.G. Lukashenko emphasized at a seminar on ideology that “for us the only right decision is to remain on our native Belarusian soil, which has developed over centuries,” because “ own traditions, ideals, values, goals and attitudes constitute the backbone of our people.”

Any national idea that performs a consolidating function within a given nation is characterized by a set of human qualities that form the measure of a given national character, its golden mean. A truly national idea is specified in the historical development of a given people and is enshrined in its national genetic code. In this sense, the national idea of ​​our people is the idea of ​​​​the spiritual leadership of Belarus in the Slavic world. As President A.G. Lukashenko emphasized in his report at a seminar on ideology, “by time, fate, and situation, Belarus has moved to probably the great role of the spiritual leader of Eastern European civilization. A sense of this destiny can lift our people to amazing feats. Many people in Russia, Ukraine and other countries look to Belarus as an example of a consistent and independent policy.”

Conclusion

Based on the results of the analysis, the following conclusions can be drawn:

At the beginning of the 19th century. there are a wide variety of socialist theories, significantly different from each other: this is the immediate global communist (general) reconstruction of society through a revolutionary coup and revolutionary dictatorship and the introduction of a consistent community of property; this is the creation of industrial associations of workers, which should displace the private entrepreneur; these are associations of equivalent exchange, considered as a means of transforming society peacefully on the basis of economic cooperation between classes. The important thing is that almost all socialist theories of that period began to turn towards economic social philosophy. Socialism is distinguished from numerous social egalitarian (equality) theories of the past by its emphasis on the connection between social disasters and relations of ownership of the means of production, and on the need to correlate political changes with transformations in the social sphere. Socialism initially spread in Great Britain and France, but it also had international institutions, most often uniting left-wing political emigrants and writers.

The turning point for the development of socialist ideology was 1848, when, during the revolution, workers and artisans for the first time tried to defend their socio-economic and political interests, and it was in February of this year that the “Manifesto of the Communist Party” by K. Marx and F. Engels was published, which belongs to an attempt to scientifically substantiate socialism (scientific socialism, later Marxism, also known as communism), and to create an international socialist movement to build a communist society.

Ideology is that filter, that protective shell that allows you to communicate more or less fearlessly with external environment. Construction material for the Belarusian state ideology is borrowed from various, and very heterogeneous, sources of both domestic and foreign origin. Intellectual donors are, first of all, liberalism, conservatism and socialism. The first puts into the ideological basket of the Belarusian regime the ideals of human freedom, civil society with equal opportunities for its members, rule of law.

Bibliography

1. History of political and legal doctrines. Textbook / Ed. Doctor of Law, Professor O. E. Leist. - M.: Publishing house "Zertsalo", 2000. - 688 p.

2. Melnik V. A. State ideology: Concept, elements, functions. - Mn.: Theseus, 2002.

3. Mikheev V. M. Ideology: reflections and conclusions. - Mn.: Tonpik, 2004. - 316 p.

4. Fundamentals of the ideology of the Belarusian state: History and theory: educational settlement. for students of institutions providing higher education. Under general ed. S.N. Knyazeva, V.I. Chueshova. - Mn.: IVU Ministry of Finance, 2005. -312 p.

5. Shinkarev V.V., Vartanova L.V. Ideology of statehood and social development Republic of Belarus: Monograph. - Mn.: Academy of Management under the President of the Republic of Belarus, 2003.

6. Economic sociology / I.K. Galko, E.Z. Lomonosov. - Mn.: Bel. Science, 2001. - 717 p.

Tutoring

Need help studying a topic?

Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

Socialism is the third most influential world ideology, which has had a huge impact on the political appearance of the modern world.

The ideology of socialism (from the Latin Socialis - social), in a general sense, is a set of ideas and theories about the transformation of the basis on private property, exploitation and class inequality of capitalist society through the establishment of a rational social order, which should be based on public ownership, social equality, fair distribution of benefits and socially ensured personal freedom.

Ideas-dreams about the destruction of exploitation and social inequality, about a society of justice, where well-being and happiness extend to all people in equally, have existed in humanity for thousands of years. Having its origins in the political teachings of Plato and early Christianity, the ideology of socialism more clearly took shape in the social utopias of T. More (1478-1535), T. Campanella (1568-1639), A. Saint-Simon (1760-1825), C. Fourier (1772-1837), R. Owen (1771-1858), etc. In the middle of the 19th century. The theoretical justification for socialism and the paths to it was developed by K. Marx (1818-1883) and F. Engels (1820-1895). They designated socialism as the first phase of the process of formation of a more distant society - communism, where "all sources of social wealth will flow in full flow... ...and society will be able to write on its banner: “To each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!” The social force capable of leading all of humanity to this state, according to the teachings of K. Marx, is the proletariat - the last oppressed class, which, through revolutionary means and through its dictatorship, will destroy private property, establish the rule of public property and thereby free the world from the abomination of class exploitation and inequality.

In the 20th century in the development of the ideology of socialism and in the corresponding political movement, two main currents emerged: the radical revolutionary one, represented by the communist parties; evolutionary-reformist, represented by social democratic parties.

The first of them is connected mainly with the activities of V.I. Lenin and his “new type” party, the RSDLP (b), later renamed the CPSU.

The second has its roots in the ideological and theoretical heritage of E. Bernstein (1850-1932), K. Kautsky (1854-1938) and in our time is represented by the ideology of democratic socialism, which guides modern social democratic parties.

The revolutionary practice of implementing communist ideology in fact led to the construction of “real socialism”, the main features of which were:

Nationalization of all means of production and, at the same time, all spheres of human life;

Destruction of civil society and its freedoms by the system of “total slavery” in relation to the party-state apparatus – a “collective tyrant” for the entire society;

Complete arbitrariness of state power in relation to the people;

Compulsory, administrative-command methods of labor organization, up to state terror;

Low standard of living and constant shortages in consumption;

Closedness of the country, autocracy in all spheres of life;

These qualities of “real socialism” predetermined the low efficiency and specific inability of the economies of socialist countries, which ultimately was the main reason for the collapse of the communist version of socialism in the USSR and other countries of Eastern Europe.

As for the ideology of democratic socialism, it justifies the path to socialism through gradual reforms carried out by a strong democratic state governed by the rule of law. Theoretically, democratic socialism is a model of social structure, according to which, on the basis of parliamentary democracy and the rule of law, the shortcomings of capitalism are gradually, step by step, eliminated; social security is guaranteed; democracy is implemented in the state, economy and society; legal statehood is ensured, as well as personal and spiritual freedom. And thus the basic values ​​are won and protected: freedom, justice and solidarity.