Socialism. Basic socialist ideas

In those countries that were once part of the Soviet Union, they know first-hand about all the advantages and disadvantages of socialism. However, in theory it is a combination of different movements and parties. Which ones will be briefly outlined below. What is socialism? Is it really a peace movement as its followers claim? Do the principles of socialism confirm this?

In contact with

Main concepts

What is socialism? This designation was first used in the early 30s of the 19th century. At that time, this concept included various left-wing movements, the goal of which was to reform society so that it would create better conditions for the improvement of society itself and its participants. This idea dates back to the 16th century, when the first world utopias were written.

In the real world, written theories began to be embodied in the 19th century as a reaction of the proletarians to the increase in social contradictions as a result of the dominance of relationships in society. Socialist views (power to the people; from each according to his ability, to each according to his work) began to appear and eventually resulted in revolutions, which is quite understandable.

This is a doctrine that aims achieving social justice and equality. In politics, this is a social course that embodies doctrinal principles, and its adherents are called socialists.

However, there is such a thing as moderate socialists - the so-called Social Revolutionaries, an influential party in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, who adhered to socialist views and advocated the overthrow of the autocracy and the creation of a democratic republic. The moderate socialists were unable to retain power and were soon crushed by the Bolsheviks.

Many people confuse socialism with communism, but this is not true. Socialists are followers of the economic and socio-political situation in the state, when issues of distribution of production and income are decided by the entire population. And communist views are a social system in which public property should be built at the expense of the means of production.

Attention! Marx considered socialist theory a transitional stage between communism and capitalism.

This type of political and social structure has several varieties:

1. State is a movement based on unconditional control of the economy by the state, including planned economy and command-administrative system. The most common flow and form of tuning, still found today.
2. Market is an unofficial term that denotes the presence in the state of enterprises with a collective form of ownership under the prevailing market economy in the country. Followers of this movement argue that self-government in production is fundamentally different from the usual one characteristic of.
3. Self-government is an internal movement that denies the need for a strong state, as well as the monopoly of its property. The main features of such a movement are the participation of all citizens in the decision-making process in a decentralized management system. At the same time, the state is preserved for foreign policy, and its internal functions are performed by self-government bodies.
4. Communism is a social system that is based on complete equality in society and public property, which is created by the means of production.
5. Social democracy is an ideological and political movement that exists within the framework of the general system, but which has been transformed from socialism to the position of establishing capitalism legally, but at the same time preserving the principles of socialism - the elimination of injustice in society, the establishment of freedom and equality.
6. Nationalist - better known as, which adopted all the features of socialism, except for public ownership. For the Nazis, property is not state property, but production working towards common goals. The Nazis considered the communists their main political competitors and physically exterminated them in the 20-40s of the 20th century in Germany.
7. Communal socialism is a movement that arose in Russia in the 19th century. at the suggestion of A. Herzen, who called for attention to the order of peasant society. Herzen argued that it was the peasants who would become the beginning of such a system in the empire, since at that time the peasantry actually had some rudiments of such a policy.

Thus, the types of socialism are varied and sometimes significantly different from each other. Many researchers claim that this system reigned on the territory of the USSR, but this is not so. To be convinced of this, you should study the principles of socialism and the ideology of the country, and then compare them with those that existed in the Union.

The theory of order promotes and affirms a society in which all people are equal. Despite the similarity of the concept with liberalism, they are fundamentally different.

Equality is perceived as a real and protected position between people, when each member of society has equal social economic rights, in contrast to where equality is a single formal starting position. Based on this, another idea is different - about the priority of collectivism over individualism.

For the ideology of building, the collective good is the highest good, for the sake of which any sacrifice can be made, including individual interests. Freedom here is the ability to obey public opinion.

The ideology of socialism idealizes the proletariat; it considers it a special class whose mission is the overthrow of capitalism. But at the same time, it is believed that the revolution is the last violence in the history of the state, and after it only a short dictatorship, leading people to the era of free self-government of the working class.

The state must be modified into a social institution in order to maintain the power of government. At the same time, the system stands for humanism and a harmoniously developed personality, although this contradicts its main principle - the absence of individual freedom.

This political system is based on four basic principles that define its entire ideology. They can be formulated as follows:

1. The absence of private property - this principle was also formulated by Engels in their “Communist Manifesto”. Any socialist doctrine uses this provision; it characterizes the entire system without specifying other details.
2. The absence of a family as a customary unit of society - this point is present in most teachings, but this position is not as radical as it sounds. This principle aims reducing the role of the family and connections between its members in order to transfer some of these functions to other public institutions. Examples include wives' circles or hobby groups in which parents and children participate and strengthen bonds with all people, not just family members. Thus, the family turns into a bureaucratic component of the state.
3. The destruction of religious movements - today this statement has become part of all modern teachings and doctrines in many states. This principle works to gradually expel religion from the life of society, and not such a radical solution as was used by the Bolsheviks led by Trotsky. A good example of this principle at work would be the Scandinavian countries, where the standard of living is high and religiosity is low, and the Scandinavians believe that the first condition is met only if the second is met.
4. Equality - this demand is essentially the basis of the entire socialist system and all its derivatives and accompanying movements. By this, equality refers to both the desire to destroy the already established hierarchy of society, and the provision of equal rights and opportunities to all members of society, regardless of their former position in society. Due to inequality in the state, one can often observe intellectual and spiritual gap between segments of the population. And it is precisely this that must be destroyed in order to achieve equality. Today this principle forms the basis of many left-wing movements, for example, it underlies the model of Swedish politics.

Attention! Despite his active position and denial of individual property, Karl Marx lived at the expense of Engels, who was the owner of several industries.

Despite the fact that many of the principles of this system were formed back in the 16th century, today there are a huge number of states in which the model and principles of this movement can be traced in one way or another.

Modern states

Despite the initially understood failed idea (using the example of the USSR), today the features of this theory exist in some states in which the ideology or some of its characteristic features continue to operate. Among the countries that adhere to it are:

• Vietnam;
• People's Republic of China;
• Nepal;
• People's Republic of Korea;
• Cuba.

Some characteristic features are observed in politics:

• Sweden;
• Norway;
• India;
• Portugal;
• Bolivia;
• Venezuela.

Political ideologies

Socialism and capitalism. What is equality?

Conclusion

Thus, this theory contains both negative and positive features and can take the state to a new level, but, unfortunately, many of the provisions and aspirations of such a movement are utopian and can never be achieved. An example of this would be the USSR, in which incredible heights were achieved (overcoming illiteracy, better education), but at the same time politics and power were unable to achieve equality, freedoms and other fundamental goals of the movement.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Ural Institute of Economics, Management and Law

ControlJob

Bydiscipline: "Political science"

Topic No. 1 “Socialism”

Artemovsky 2016

socialism state ideology socialist

The concept of "socialism"

Democratic socialism

Paths of transition to socialism

Socialist countries

Models of socialism

Hitler and Mussolini

Bibliography

The concept of "socialism"

Socialism is an economic, socio-political system characterized by the fact that the process of production and distribution of income is under the control of society. The most important category that unites various directions of socialist thought is public ownership of the means of production, which replaces private property.

Marxism defines socialism as a socio-economic formation with a predominance of public ownership of the means of production. Marxism-Leninism views socialism as the first phase of communism.

Socialism can be viewed as a political ideology that puts forward as its goal and ideal the establishment of a society in which:

there is no exploitation of man by man and social oppression,

social equality and justice are affirmed. And the destruction of private property is only a way to achieve goals.

Ludwig von Mises characterizes socialism as follows:

The goal of socialism is to transfer the means of production from private ownership to the ownership of an organized society, the state. The transfer of ownership of the means of production from private hands to public control is carried out to eliminate the exploitation of man by man, reduce the alienation of man from the results of his labor, reduce income differentiation, and ensure the free and harmonious development of each individual. At the same time, elements of economic inequality remain, but they should not be an obstacle to achieving the above goals.

Sometimes socialism is also called an ideology that provides for the construction of a socialist society.

At the moment, there are two main directions in socialism: anarchism and Marxism.

According to anarchists, under state socialism, which Marxists strive for, exploitation, the alienation of man from the results of his labor, and most of the other problems for which socialists criticize capitalism remain, and therefore true socialism is possible only in the absence of a state.

The main features that define socialism among various thinkers:

Restriction of private property.

Universal equality.

As ways to achieve justice, various thinkers have proposed, for example:

abolition of private property while maintaining personal property,

replacing capitalist enterprises with cooperatives,

creation of communes within which everything will be common (utopian socialists),

creation of a state social security system.

In the theory of Marxism, socialism was the name given to a society on the path of development from capitalism to communism, that is, no longer a society of social justice, but only a preparatory step towards it.

Socialist society emerges from capitalist society and therefore “in all respects, economic, moral and mental, still retains the birthmarks of the old society from the depths of which it emerged.” Criticism of the Gotha Program K. Marx.

The result of labor is distributed according to how much each individual producer invests (labor share), workdays. He receives a receipt indicating how much he has contributed, and receives the quantity of consumer goods from the public supply for which the given amount of labor has been expended. The principle of equivalence prevails: an equal amount of labor is exchanged for an equal amount. But, since different individuals have different abilities, they receive an unequal share of consumer goods. Principle: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his work.”

Nothing except individual consumer goods can become the property of individuals. Unlike capitalism, private enterprise is prohibited (a criminal offense).

The state represents the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

The Communist Party Manifesto defines the following features of socialism:

Expropriation of land property and conversion of land rent to cover government expenses.

High progressive tax.

Cancellation of the right of inheritance.

Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

Centralization of credit in the hands of the state through a national bank with state capital and a state monopoly.

Centralization, monopoly of all transport in the hands of the state.

Increasing the number of state factories, production tools, clearing for arable land and improving land according to a general plan.

Equal compulsory labor for everyone, the establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

Connecting agriculture with industry, promoting the gradual elimination of the distinction between city and countryside. Public and free education of all children. Elimination of factory labor of children in its modern form. Connecting education with material production.

Historical development of the idea of ​​socialism

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 (1478-1535), author of the book “Utopia,” and the Italian Tommaso Campanella (1568-1639), who wrote “The 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 (1760-1825), Charles Fourier (1772-1837) and the Englishman Robert Owen (1771-1858). 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 a wonderful future for 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 the main path is reform, 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.

Democratic socialism

The ideology of modern social democracy has its roots in the reformist movement in the Second International (1889-1914), represented by E. Bernstein, Vandervelde, Vollmar, Jaurès and others, to the views of the theoreticians of the Workers' Socialist International, which existed in the interwar period; concepts of liberal reformism, among which Keynesianism has a special place.

A feature of the ideology of the Social Democrats is reformism, the rationale for the policy of regulation and redistribution of income in an effectively functioning market economy. One of the leading theoreticians of the Second International, E. Bernstein, denied the inevitability of the collapse of capitalism and any connection between the onset of socialism and this collapse. Socialism does not boil down to replacing private property with public property, Bernstein believed. The path to socialism is the search for new “comradely forms of production” in the conditions of the peaceful development of a capitalist economy and political democracy. “The ultimate goal is nothing, the movement is everything” - this became the slogan of reformist socialism.

The modern concept of “democratic socialism” in its main features was created in the 50s as a result of the adoption of the Declaration of Principles of the Socialist International at the international conference of socialist parties in Frankfurt am Main in 1951. “Democratic socialism,” according to the program documents of social democracy, is a path that differs from both capitalism and “real socialism.” Capitalism, according to social democrats, has developed enormous productive forces, but has placed property rights above human rights. The communists, where they came to power, destroyed freedom, created a new class society and an inefficient economy based on forced labor.

Social Democrats attach equal importance to both the principle of personal freedom and the principles of solidarity and justice. The traditional formula: “Socialism = socialization + planned economy,” according to theorists of social democracy, should be completely discarded. The criterion for the difference between capitalism and socialism lies not in the principles of economic organization, but in the position that a person occupies in society, in his freedom, the right to participate in decision-making that is significant for the state, and the opportunity to realize himself in various spheres of public life.

The components of the concept of “democratic socialism” are political, economic and social democracy.

The idea of ​​political democracy is based on the principles of freedom and equality. Social democrats recognize the possibility of the existence of various forms of democracy, but in any case, the fundamental requirements of political democracy must be: the existence of free elections, providing citizens with a real choice between various political alternatives, the possibility of changing the government by peaceful means, the guarantee of individual and minority rights, the existence of an independent judiciary based on the rule of law. Democracy, in the interpretation of social democrats, is presented as an absolute value that has a supra-class character. Advocating for “pure” democracy, social democrats understand the state as the supreme social institution within which opposing social interests are regulated and reconciled. The state acts as the main body of social change and progressive development.

Providing a rationale for economic democracy, the Social Democrats emphasized in their official documents that they advocated public ownership, but within the framework of a mixed economy. Private ownership is available in certain sectors of the economy. The variety of forms of ownership should work for production efficiency. Collective property is not just an end in itself, but should serve as a tool for improving the well-being of society.

Social Democrats give priority to market relations in their economic strategy. The state, in turn, must regulate the market: not allow only big business to dominate it, and ensure that technologies are used for the benefit of the whole society. In other words, international social democracy has recognized the principle: “Compete as much as possible, plan as much as necessary.”

The achievements of economic democracy are also linked to the development of “participation” of workers’ representatives in the management of capitalist firms, as well as the development of “self-government”. In general, the economic sphere should have a clearly defined social orientation and be controlled by society, but without losing the efficiency inherent in a market economy.

The term “social democracy” denotes the qualitative side of people’s lifestyle, which comprehensively characterizes the degree of a person’s social freedom, the conditions and content of his work activity, the accessibility of the education system and spiritual values, the state of the environment, and living conditions. The struggle for social democracy is, first of all, a struggle for a higher quality of life.

Social democrats in Western countries, being in power or influencing the government, largely contributed to the democratization of society, the expansion and consolidation of the rights and freedoms of workers. Their real policy was close to the practice of liberal reformism, but was distinguished by a greater social orientation and the struggle for social justice.

The strengthening of the position of the Social Democrats is also due to the fact that authoritarian communism turned out to be a path strewn with enormous sacrifices and paved with economic and social failures. Social democracy continues to seek a balance between freedom and social justice and strives for a social state in which the danger of unruly bureaucracy is eliminated, long-term planning does not tie up society hand and foot, and the personal responsibility of all members of society is placed in the foreground.

Socialist ideology, in both its revolutionary and reformist modifications, has had and continues to have a serious influence on working people, especially those who are hired. The influence of this ideology is due to the fact that it is aimed at a fair society, without exploitation, with equal social status for citizens. Socialism for the first time connected the possibility of realizing high humanistic ideals with the need to abolish private property and destroy the exploitative state.

Ideologically, the main confrontation of the 20th century is the struggle between liberal and socialist ideas. The collapse of the Eastern Bloc of socialist states put socialist ideology on the defensive. But socialism, understood as a humane, democratic society, still remains an “open question,” an intellectual and practical task for which supporters of socialist ideology do not yet have a solution.

The general trend in the development of socialist ideology at the end of the 20th century is the liberalization of socialism, although radical forms - communism and Neo-Bolshevism - also retain influence.

A significant place in history is occupied by the projects of Russian “populist” socialists of the 19th and early 20th centuries represented by A. I. Herzen (1812-1870), V. G. Belinsky (1811-1848), N. G. Chernyshevsky (1828 --1889), N. A. Dobrolyubova (1836--1861). The ideas of A.I. Herzen were based on the proposition that the peasant community, with its traditional forms of land ownership and self-government, is the bearer of socialist relations in the socio-economic life of Russia, that is, the foundations of the socialist system are laid in the Russian village. Herzen's socialist ideas were developed from the standpoint of revolutionary democracy in the works of V. G. Belinsky. Belinsky considered the revolutionary peasantry to be the main social force capable of creating a democratic republic. He acts as an open supporter of the peasant revolution. Also, the teaching of N. G. Chernyshevsky plays a significant role in this direction. The basis of his views on sociology, like Herzen's, is communal land ownership. Based on this, Chernyshevsky believes that the specific features of Russia, namely the traditional peasant community, facilitate the transition to socialism. These theories were subsequently developed and supplemented by the Narodniks, and then by the Socialist Revolutionaries. A huge contribution to the further development of Marxism was made by V. Lenin.

Paths of transition to socialism

Utopian socialists believed that it was enough to come up with the correct structure of society, and people themselves would accept it when they understood its advantages.

Marxists and anarchists, on the contrary, believed that the exploiting classes would not want to give up their privileges, and, therefore, the transition to socialism was only possible through revolution.

Social Democrats considered it possible for a socialist party to come to power through parliamentary elections, followed by the implementation of socialist reforms in a legal way, without violence, without blood.

Models of state socialism

There are two main models of socialism:

Socialism, based on complete state control over the economy (planned economy, command-administrative system).

Market socialism is an economic system in which the state form of ownership dominates, but the laws of a market economy apply. Market socialism often involves self-management in manufacturing enterprises. In this case, the thesis is defended that self-government both in production and in society is the first attribute of socialism. A. Buzgalin points out that for this, first of all, it is necessary “the development of forms of free self-organization of citizens - starting from national accounting and control and ending with self-government and democratic planning” (Alternatives Magazine 1994, No. 2, p. 25). The negative side of the market socialism is that it reproduces many of the "diseases" of capitalism, including social inequality, macro-instability, environmental destruction, although these negative aspects are supposed to be eliminated through active government intervention and planning.

Socialism is sometimes referred to as a combination of a welfare state and a capitalist economy. So, for example, they talk about the “Swedish model of socialism”.

Socialist countries

By the mid-1980s, 15 countries were considered socialist states:

People's Socialist Republic of Albania (PSRA),

People's Republic of Bulgaria (PRB),

Hungarian People's Republic (HPR)

Socialist Republic of Vietnam (SRV),

German Democratic Republic (GDR),

People's Republic of China (PRC),

Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK),

Republic of Cuba

Lao People's Democratic Republic (Lao PDR),

Mongolian People's Republic (MPR),

Polish People's Republic (PPR),

Socialist Republic of Romania (SRR),

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR),

Czechoslovak Socialist Republic (CSSR),

Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY).

In the USSR, developing countries with Marxist-Leninist regimes were not considered socialist: Afghanistan, the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen, Kampuchea, Angola, the People's Republic of Congo, Mozambique, Somalia (until 1977), Ethiopia, Nicaragua. They were called “countries of socialist orientation.” In the West, socialist countries and the above-mentioned “countries of socialist orientation” were usually called the term “Communist states”. The term “countries of socialist orientation” was also applied to countries that adhered to non-Marxist theories of socialism in the USSR (provided there were good relations with the USSR) ", which caused discontent among a number of third world communist parties, which proposed calling them "countries following the path of social progress." Among these countries are Burma (Myanmar), Libya, Syria, Iraq, Guinea, Egypt (under Nasser and early Sadat), Benin, Algeria, Burkina Faso, Guinea-Bissau, Tanzania, Sao Tome and Principe, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Seychelles .

Countries such as the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, Israel or Tunisia, which proclaimed national models of socialism but were oriented toward the West, were never considered socialist-oriented countries in the USSR.

Currently, only the DPRK and Cuba can be classified as socialist countries (from a Marxist point of view). Also, with reservations, Venezuela and Bolivia can be considered “countries of socialist orientation”

In the PRC, Vietnam and Laos, communist parties continue to be in power, but the economy is dominated by private ownership of the means of production. In all other countries listed above, including “socialist-oriented countries,” a transition to capitalism occurred in the early 1990s

Models of socialism

Chinese socialism

Mao Zedong's Socialism (Maoism)

Israeli Socialism (Labor)

Muslim socialism

Gaddafi's socialism (Libyan socialism)

Persian Soviet Socialist Republic

Cuban socialism, Fidel Castro

Korean Socialism of Kim Il Sung

Yugoslav Socialism Broz Tito

Venezuelan socialism of Hugo Chavez

Socialism-communism of the Khmer Rouge (Cambodia)

Hitler and Mussolini

Mussolini's father, the blacksmith Alessandro, was a member of the Second (Socialist) International; Benito Mussolini, like his father, also became a socialist.

In 1902 he emigrated to Switzerland. There he took part in the socialist movement, for which he was deported to Italy. The next attempt to deport him was suspended due to the fact that the Swiss socialists urgently brought the question of his treatment to parliament.

In February 1909, Mussolini began editing the local socialist newspaper L "Avvenire del Lavoratore (The Future of the Worker). There he met the socialist politician and journalist Cesare Battisti and began editing his newspaper Il Popolo (The People). Later, Mussolini returned to Italy and began working in editorial office of the central organ of the Socialist Party of Italy, in the newspaper Avanti! (“Forward!”)

Hitler was also keen on socialist ideas and called for “freeing the people from the dictates of global financial capital, and fully supported small and handicraft production, and the creativity of liberal professions.”

Criticism and defense of the ideas of socialism

Already in the 20th century. an example of criticism of the ideas of socialism was provided by L. F. Mises in his work “Socialism” by Lieb. Socialism.

Mises is one of the most prominent representatives of neoliberalism - a supporter of state non-interference in the economy. In 1922, the book “Socialism” was published, in which the author criticized the ideas of socialism and for the first time tried to prove the impossibility of the existence of socialism for many reasons - in particular, due to the impossibility of correct economic calculations.

“Socialism”, when it first appeared in 1922, made a strong impression. This book gradually changed the essence of the views of many young idealists who returned to their university studies after the First World War. I know this because I was one of them. We felt that the civilization in which we grew up had collapsed. We were dedicated to building a better world, and it was this desire to recreate society that led many of us to study economics. Socialism promised what we wanted - a more rational, more just world. And then this book appeared. She discouraged us. This book told us that we were looking in the wrong place for a better future.

Nobel Prize winner Friedrich Hayek.

Hayek was a continuator of the ideas of L. Mises and throughout his life he criticized the idea of ​​socialism, meaning by it the introduction of planning into the economy as opposed to the “market”, as well as the primacy of society over the individual. Thus, the leitmotif of his work entitled “The Road to Serfdom” is the assertion that planning directly entails the slavish subordination of individuals to the state machine. One way or another, almost all the main criticism comes down to criticism of state planning.

Among the elements of criticism of socialism are the following:

external suppression of personal freedom, coercion to a certain type of activity, certain goods that must be purchased;

Inflexibility, ineffective planning, inability to effectively allocate limited resources and meet the needs of society;

Conformism generated by the stifling of initiative;

Discrimination (the state decides how to distribute resources, independently putting forward criteria of justice), which gives rise to a system of privileges.

In addition, the attempt to consciously create a social system, its “design”, in contrast to evolutionism, the path along which all types of social order arose, is criticized.

For their part, the ideas of L. F. Mises and F. Hayek have met and are constantly met with a large amount of criticism.

In response to criticism of socialism, its supporters put forward the following interpretation of its elements:

Planned development ensures the possibility of the most efficient distribution of resources, while capitalism wastes resources (this ensures the self-expansion of capital - the thesis of I. Meszaros), in addition, the famous economist P. Samuelson points out that producers on the market are not always able to accurately determine how customer needs change. The negative aspects of the planning process are compensated by counter-planning mechanisms. Ernest Mandel comments on one of Mises's fundamental theses about the impossibility of correct planning as follows:

All economic calculations, with the exception of the calculation of the equivalent of working hours ex officio (by position (lat.)) in conditions of general abundance, are imperfect and inaccurate.

The function of the market is precisely to give signals to business, to provide it with information so that it can modify its calculations and projects accordingly. and further:

Both systems, based on the impossibility of making accurate calculations and designs, in practice use a flexible method of successive approximation.

Ernest Mandel, Belgian economist, representative of neo-Marxism.

The opportunity to rise above production is created due to the disappearance of the market; a person gets the opportunity to get rid of constant preoccupation with the material side of life. The “disease” of capitalism—commodity fetishism—disappears;

The opportunity to actively participate in production for the entire society, participation in the distribution of the products of one’s labor is opposed to “impersonal” consumption;

Elimination of inequality by eliminating the hierarchization of capitalist society (I. Meszáros).

The ability to consciously create your own history is opposed to blind submission to circumstances. People create their history together, and individuality does not suffer at all, but on the contrary, it benefits when people move together towards some goal.

Thus, there is currently a very heated debate around the concept of “socialism”, and the range of beliefs is extremely wide: from complete denial of the possibility of a transition to such a society to complete confidence in the inevitability of the victory of socialism.

Basic principles manifested in the activities of socialist states and in the ideology of socialist teachings

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 forms: the overwhelming majority of socialist teachings proclaim a community of property, more or less radically implemented, and socialist states (and some teachings) are based on state property.

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: the destruction of religion and only external difficulties so far prevent its full implementation. The same principle has been repeatedly proclaimed by socialist teachings since the end of the 17th century. Teachings of the 16th and 17th centuries. imbued with a cold, skeptical and ironic attitude towards religion.

If not subjectively, then objectively, they prepared humanity for the merger of socialist ideology with militant atheism that occurred at the end of the 17th and 18th centuries. The heretical movements of the Middle Ages had the character of religious movements, but it was precisely those of them in which socialist tendencies were especially clearly manifested that were irreconcilably hostile to the specific religion professed by the humanity around them. Calls for the murder of the pope and the extermination of all monks and priests run like a red thread through their history. The hatred of these movements towards the main symbols of Christianity: the cross, the temple is amazing. We have seen the burning of crosses and the desecration of churches since the first centuries of Christianity and can trace them back to the present day.

Finally, in antiquity, in Plato’s socialist system, religion was seen as an element of state ideology. Its role comes down to educating citizens, shaping their views in the direction necessary for the state: for this purpose, new religious ideas and myths are invented and old ones are abolished. Apparently, in many states of the Ancient East, official religion played a similar role; its center was the deification of the king, who personified the omnipotent state.

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.”

We see that a small number of clear principles have inspired socialist teachings and guided the life of socialist states for many millennia. This unity and interconnectedness of different socialist teachings was also recognized by their representatives: Thomas Munzer refers to Plato, John of Leiden studies Munzer, Campanella cites the Anabaptists as an example of the implementation of his system. Morelli and the unknown author of the Encyclopedia article cite the Inca state as an example confirming their social views, and in another Encyclopedia article, “The Moravians,” written by Fege, the Moravian brothers are cited as an example of ideal communal order. Among the later socialists, Saint-Simon, in his last work, The New Christianity, declares that "the new Christianity will consist of separate trends that mainly coincide with the ideas of the heretical sects of Europe and America." There are extremely many such examples of the feeling of internal kinship between socialist movements of different eras. We will only point out numerous works with titles like “The Predecessors of Scientific Socialism”, compiled by representatives of socialist ideology, where as “predecessors” one can find Plato, Dolcino, Münzer, More, Campanella...

Of course, in different eras the central core of socialist ideology manifests itself in different forms: we have seen socialism taking the form of a mystical prophecy, a rationalistic plan for a happy society, or a scientific doctrine. In every era, socialism absorbs some of the ideas of its time and uses contemporary language. Some of its elements fall out, others, on the contrary, acquire especially great importance. This is the case with any other phenomenon of the same historical scale.

Bibliography

1. http://www.wikipedia.org.

2. E. S. Rakhematulin “History of socialist teachings.”

3. http://www.economicportal.ru/ponyatiya.

4. http://www.encyclopaedia-russia.ru.

5. Ludwig Von Mises “Socialism. Economic and sociological analysis.”

Posted on Allbest.ru

Similar documents

Concept, basic principles and varieties of socialist ideology (socialism). The main directions of socialism, the history of the formation of socialist ideas. The concept of communist ideology (communism), stages of the formation of communist ideas.

course work, added 09/18/2016


Historical background for the emergence of National Socialist ideas in Germany in 1920-1930. Political factors in the formation of National Socialism. Political doctrine and racial theory. Religious issues in the ideology of National Socialism.

thesis, added 01/06/2015


Humanistic content of Lenin's concept of socialism. Scientific socialism is the theory of real humanism. Socialism is the living creativity of the masses themselves. Towards a variety of ways to include personal interests in the construction of socialism. Cooperation and socialism.

abstract, added 11/18/2004


The concept of utopian socialism as a doctrine of the possibility of transforming society on socialist principles, its just structure. Famous utopians of France during the Enlightenment and their socialist utopias. Views of utopian revolutionaries.

presentation, added 04/11/2014


The emergence and evolution of the ideas of utopian socialism. Biographies of T. Mora and T. Campanella, the ideals of equality in their works. Freedom of the individual and its comprehensive development in “Utopia” and “City of the Sun”. The search for true democracy by T. More and T. Campanella.

course work, added 12/18/2016


The emergence, concept and essence of socialism. The Soviet Union as a totalitarian state with a social orientation. The main goal of socialism. Totalitarianism from the point of view of political science. The concept and genesis of totalitarianism. Absolute concentration of power.

abstract, added 06/29/2012


The general concept is the main features of socialism. Utopian ideas of R. Owen, A. Saint-Simon. Criticism of the existing social system in the works of S. Fourier. The use of the ideas of Owen and his contemporaries by K. Marx in creating his revolutionary doctrine of society.

abstract, added 03/30/2014


The concept of political ideology. The main ideological trends in the modern world. Ideological discourse from a theoretical point of view. Ideas of socialism in post-war China. The German version of fascism. National ideologies at the end of the 19th century - the first third of the 20th century.

abstract, added 11/12/2010


Long history of socialist ideology. Concept, basic principles and varieties of socialism. Socialism and communist doctrine. The ideology of international social democracy. The role of socialist ideology in the political history of Belarus.

test, added 09/12/2010


Distinctive features of the three largest modern political ideologies: conservatism, liberalism and socialism (communism). Analysis of D.S.’s reasoning Mill and L. von Mises. The essence of the ideology of neoconservatism and the concept of pluralistic democracy.

Socialism is the slogan and hallmark of our time. The socialist idea is the dominant spirit of modernity. The masses like her. She expresses the thoughts and feelings of everyone; she has put her stamp on our time. When the future historian comes to our time, he will call this chapter “The Age of Socialism.”

And that's how it is. Socialism did not create a society in which its ideal would be embodied. But for more than a generation, the policy of civilized peoples was directed towards the gradual realization of socialism. [ "It may now be virtually asserted that modern socialist philosophy is the conscious and explicit expression of principles of social organization which have largely been unconsciously already accepted. The economic history of this century is a postal continuous record of the successes of socialism" (Sidney Webb, Fabian Essays, 1889, R. 30). ] In recent years the movement has noticeably strengthened and become bolder. Some nations tried to implement the socialist program in full - literally at one blow. Before our eyes, Russian Bolshevism has already accomplished something that, regardless of our assessment of its significance, by virtue of the very grandeur of the plan, should be considered one of the most amazing achievements in world history. No one has ever achieved so much. Among other peoples, the advancement of socialism is hampered only by the internal contradictions of socialism itself and the fact that it cannot be fully realized. They also walked as far as they could under the circumstances. There is no principled opposition to socialism.

Not a single influential party today will risk openly defending private ownership of the means of production. The word "capitalism" expresses the totality of evil in our time. Even opponents of socialism are subordinated to socialist ideas. Parties opposing socialism, especially the so-called “bourgeois” or “peasant” ones, who try to oppose it with their own special class interests, indirectly recognize the essentiality of all basic socialist ideas. After all, if the socialist program can only be opposed to the fact that it threatens the interests of part of humanity, then socialism has already been recognized. If someone condemns the system of social and economic organization based on private ownership of the means of production for the fact that it serves the interests of a single layer and restrains the growth of labor productivity, and therefore demands (together with supporters of various “socio-political” and “social -reformist" movements) of state intervention in the economy, thereby recognizing the principles of the socialist program.

On the other hand, if all that can be said against socialism is that it is unrealizable due to the imperfection of human nature or that, under the given economic conditions, complete socialization should not be carried out, then this is capitulation to socialism. The nationalist also recognizes socialism, but only denies its internationalism. He wants to combine socialism with the ideas of imperialism in order to fight against other peoples. He is a national, not an international, socialist, but he also affirms the basic principles of socialism. [ Förster {Förster Friedrich Wilhelm(1869--1966) - German theorist of political ethics, pacifist by conviction) notes in particular that the labor movement achieved real victory “in the hearts of the property-owning classes”; thanks to this, “the moral forces of resistance of these classes were undermined” (Foerster, Christentum und Klassenkampf, Zurich, 1908, S. 111 ff.). In 1869 Prince-Smith {Prince-Smith John-- more correctly Smith John Prince, Jr. (1809--1874) - English political economist) noted that socialist ideas find supporters among entrepreneurs. He points out that among business people, “as strange as it may sound, there are those who understand their own role in the national economy with such little clarity that for them socialist ideas look like more or less solid. Hence they have a feeling of a bad conscience , as if they recognized that the source of their profit is the income of hired workers. This makes them timid and lacks insight. This is very bad. Our economic civilization will be in serious danger if its active workers cannot draw courage from the feeling of complete righteousness resolute defense of its foundations" (Prince-Smith's, Gesammelte Schriften, Berlin, 1877, I Bd., S. 362). Prince-Smith, however, would not be able to conduct a critical discussion on issues of socialist theory. ]

Among the supporters of socialism are not only the Bolsheviks and their friends in various countries, and not only members of numerous socialist parties. Socialists are anyone who believes in the economic and moral superiority of the socialist system over a system based on private ownership of the means of production, even if for one reason or another they strive for a permanent or temporary compromise between their socialist ideals and their private interests.

If we define socialism so broadly, we see that the vast majority of people today are on the side of socialism. There are very few people who profess the principles of liberalism and consider private ownership of the means of production to be the only possible form of economic organization of society. (Mises has the term "liberalism" stands "in the sense as it was used everywhere in the 19th century and as it is still used in the countries of continental Europe. Such use is necessary because there is simply no other term for the great political and intellectual movement that replaced pre-capitalist methods of production with free enterprise and market economy; replaced the absolutism of monarchs or oligarchies with constitutional representative government; established the freedom of the individual instead of slavery, serfdom and other forms of unfreedom" (Mises, Human Action: A Treatise on Economics, 3rd ed., Chicago: Regnery, 1966, P. V). )

Here is a striking fact illustrating the success of the socialist idea: we are accustomed to call socialist only those types of policies that strive for the immediate and complete victory of socialist programs, and we designate movements that strive for the same goals, but by more moderate and gradual methods, differently, even We sometimes consider them enemies of socialism. This can only be a result of the fact that the number of true opponents of socialism is extremely small. Even in the birthplace of liberalism, England, a country that became rich and powerful thanks to liberal policies, people no longer understand the true meaning of liberalism.

Today's English "liberals" are more or less moderate socialists. [This is clearly seen from the program of modern English liberals ( Britain's Industrial Future, being the Report of the Liberal Industrial Inquiry, London, 1928). ] In Germany, which has never known true liberalism and which has been weakened and impoverished as a result of illiberal policies, people hardly have the slightest idea of ​​what liberalism really is.

The enormous power of the Russian Bolsheviks rests on the complete victory of socialist ideas in recent decades. The strength of Bolshevism does not lie in Soviet cannons and machine guns, but in the fact that most of the world accepts their ideas with sympathy.

Many socialists consider the Bolshevik enterprise premature and see the triumph of socialism only in the future. But not a single socialist remains indifferent to the words with which the Third International calls on the peoples of the world to war against capitalism. { Third International(Communist International) is an international, strictly centralized association of communist parties. Established in Moscow in March 1919, dissolved for tactical reasons during the Second World War - in May 1943) Throughout the land one can feel the pull towards Bolshevism. In sluggish and weak people, sympathy for Bolshevism is mixed with feelings of horror and admiration, which brave fanatics always arouse in timid opportunists. More courageous and consistent people welcome the advent of a new era without any hesitation.

The starting point of socialist teaching is criticism of the bourgeois structure of society. We realize that socialist authors were not very successful in this matter. We know that they had no idea of ​​the workings of the economic mechanism and that they did not understand the function of the various institutions of social order based on the division of labor and on private ownership of the means of production. It is not difficult to show the mistakes of socialist theorists in analyzing economic processes: critics have succeeded in exposing their economic doctrines as gross errors. But the question whether capitalist society is more or less unsatisfactory does not determine the question whether socialism can offer something better. It is not enough to prove that a social order based on private ownership of the means of production is flawed and that it has not created the best of all possible worlds; it is also necessary to show that the socialist system is better. Only a few socialists tried to prove this, and those who tried, mostly did it in an extremely unscientific, sometimes even clownish, style. The science of socialism is in an embryonic state, and not least of all the blame for this is due to the branch of socialism that calls itself scientific. It was not enough for Marxism that it presented the transition to socialism as a necessary stage in the evolution of society. If he had not gone further, he would not have had such a detrimental influence on the scientific study of the problems of social life. If he had limited himself to describing the socialist social order as the best conceivable order of social life, he could not have done so much harm. But with his sophistry he interfered with the scientific study of sociological problems and poisoned the intellectual atmosphere of the era.

In accordance with the Marxist concept, social existence determines consciousness. The author's class affiliation determines the views he expresses. He is unable to go beyond the boundaries of his class or free his thinking from the pressure of class interests. ["The fact is that every scientist involuntarily succumbs to the way of thinking of the class among which he lives, and everyone brings something from this way of thinking into his scientific views" (Kautsky, Die social revolution, 3 Aufl., Berlin, 1911, II, S. 39) <Каутский К., Social revolution, Geneva, 1904, p. 13>. ] Thus the very possibility of the existence of universal scientific knowledge, valid for all people regardless of their class origin, was rejected, and Dietzgen { Dietzgen Joseph(1828--1888) - German philosopher - having become acquainted with the ideas of Marxism, he fell under their influence) was completely consistent when he went to create a special proletarian logic. [Dietzgen, Briefe fiber Logik, speziell demokratisch-proletarische Logjk, Internationale Bibliotek, 22 Bd., 2 Aufl., Stuttgart, 1903, S. 112: “Finally, proletarian logic alone deserves the name that its understanding requires overcoming all the prejudices in which the bourgeois world is mired” <Дицген И., Acquisition of philosophy and writing on logic, 3rd ed., M., 1913, p. 114>] Only proletarian science can be true: “The ideas of proletarian logic are not only party ideas, but also the conclusions of logic in general” [ Ibid., S. 112<там же, С. 114>]. Thus Marxism protected itself from any unwanted criticism. There is no need to refute the enemy: it is enough to expose him as an agent of the bourgeoisie. [The irony of history is that Marx himself became a victim of this approach. Unterman {Untermann Ernst- German and then American philosopher, follower of Dietzgen; criticized a number of provisions of Marxism from a socialist position) believes that “the mental life of even typical proletarian thinkers of the Marxist school” contains “remnants of past eras of thinking, albeit in a rudimentary form. These rudiments are felt all the more strongly the more the majority of the thinker’s life passed in a bourgeois or feudal circle until the moment when he joined Marxism. Such are the sad facts in the case of Marx, Engels, Plekhanov, Kautsky, Mehring and other prominent Marxists" (Untermann, Die Logischen Mangel des engeren Marxismus Munchen, 1910, S. 125). {Plekhanov Georgy Valentinovich(1856--1918) - Russian Marxist philosopher, figure in the international and Russian socialist movement. Kautsky Karl(1854--1938) - German economist and philosopher, propagandist of Marxism, figure in the German socialist movement and the Second International. Mering Franz(1846--1919) - German philosopher and historian, follower of Marxism, figure in the German labor movement. Marx, Engels, Kautsky and Mehring came from wealthy bourgeois families; Plekhanov is a nobleman by birth.) So does De Man. {De Man Hendrik(1885--1953) - Belgian sociologist and political figure, one of the leaders of the Belgian socialists; broke with Marxism at the end of the 20s) believes that in order to understand the “peculiarities and differences of theories” it is necessary to take into account not only the social origin of the thinker, but also the style of his economic and social life - “bourgeois life ... in the case of university-educated Marx” (De Man, Zur Psychologie des Sozialismus, Neue Aufl., Jena, 1927, S. 17). ] Marxism criticizes all dissenters, presenting them as corrupt servants of the bourgeoisie. Marx and Engels never tried to confront their opponents with any arguments. They insulted, ridiculed, spat on, slandered and defamed them. Followers of Marxism no less skillfully use all these methods. Their polemics are never aimed at the opponent’s arguments, but always at his personality. Few could withstand this style of polemic. Few, very few, have had the courage to critically confront socialism, although this is the duty of the scientist when approaching any object of study. Only this can explain the fact that both supporters and opponents of socialism submitted without controversy to the prohibition that Marxism imposed on detailed discussion of the economic and social conditions of a socialist society. On the one hand, Marxism proclaims that the socialization of the means of production is the goal to which all economic development inevitably leads to the laws of nature; on the other hand, he presents this same socialization as the goal of the entire political struggle. Thus the first principle of socialist organization was demonstrated. The ban on studying how a socialist society works, which was justified by a bunch of banal arguments, was in fact intended to hide the weaknesses of Marxist teaching and save it from the danger of exposure that is inevitable when discussing the question of how to create a viable socialist society. Covering the essence of a socialist society could extinguish the enthusiasm of the masses who were looking for salvation from all earthly troubles in socialism. The successful suppression of dangerous research, which was the reason for the failure of all previous socialist theories, was a masterful tactical move by Marx. It was only because people could not talk or think about the nature of a socialist society that socialism managed to become the dominant political movement in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

These statements cannot be better illustrated than by quoting the writings of Hermann Cohen, one of those who, in the decades before the World War, (hereinafter, where this is not specifically stated, under world war L. Mises implies the First World War of 1914-1918. ) had a strong influence on German thought. { Kogen Herman(1842--1918) - German philosopher, head of the Marburg school of neo-Kantianism. Cohen was one of the creators of the theory of “ethical socialism,” which substantiated socialism with Kantian ethics. )“Today,” says Cohen, “it is certainly not a lack of understanding that can prevent us from understanding the essence of the social question, and therefore, even furtively, the need for a policy of social reforms, but only an evil or insufficiently good will. An unreasonable demand to present for everyone to see, the picture of the future state, which aims to confuse the party of socialism, can only be explained by the existence of such vicious natures. In place of the moral requirements of law, they are trying to put a picture of the state, while the concept of the state itself is derived from the concept of law. This is how, as a result of inversion concepts inside out mix the ethics of socialism with the poetry of Utopia. But ethics is not poetry, and the idea does not require figurative embodiment. Its image is reality, which can only arise according to its model. Today one can see in the legal idealism of socialism the universal truth of social consciousness, of course, one that is still a public secret. Only egoism, implicit in the ideals of naked greed, which is true materialism, denies it trust" [Cohen, Einleitung mit kritischem Nachtag zur neunten Auflage der Geschichte des Materialismmus von Friedrich Albert Lange, 3 Aufl., Leipzig, 1914, S. 115; see also Natorp, Sozialpadagogik, 4 Aufl., Leipzig, 1920, S. 201 f. <Наторп П., Social pedagogy: the theory of education of will based on community, St. Petersburg, 1911, pp. 169 et seq.>]. The man who spoke and wrote thus was extolled as the greatest and most courageous German thinker of his time, and even his opponents respected his intelligence. It is precisely for this reason that it is necessary to emphasize that Cohen is not only completely uncritical of the demands of socialism and accepts a ban on research into the mechanisms of a socialist society, but he also brands as moral baseness any attempt to confuse “party socialism” with demands to illuminate the problems of a socialist economy . There are often cases in history when the courage of a thinker, whose critical mind usually spares nothing, freezes before the powerful idol of his time - even the great Kant { Kant Immanuel(1724--1804) - founder of German classical philosophy), before whom Cohen so bowed, is guilty of this sin [Anton Menger, Neue Sittenlehre, Jena, 1905, S. 45, 62]. But for a philosopher to accuse of maliciousness, perversity and open greed not just all those who hold a different opinion, but even those who are just trying to touch on a problem dangerous to the preservation of authority - this, fortunately, is rare in the history of thought.

Anyone who did not unconditionally submit to this violence was subject to condemnation and prohibition. In this way, socialism managed to expand its influence year after year, without anyone attempting to thoroughly examine the question of how it would work. As a result, once Marxist socialism came to power and began to implement its program, it had to admit that it had no clear idea of ​​​​what it had been striving for for decades.

Discussion of the problems of socialist society is therefore a matter of the greatest importance, and not only for understanding the contrast between liberal and socialist policies. Without such a discussion, it is impossible to understand the situations that became common after the start of the movement towards nationalization and municipalization. Until now, economic theory, with an understandable but regrettable one-sidedness, has studied only the mechanism of a society based on private ownership of the means of production. The blank must be filled.

Whether society should be built on the basis of private or public ownership of the means of production is a political question. Science doesn't solve it; it does not decide whether a given form of social organization is valuable or not worth a penny. But only science, by studying the action of social institutions, can create a basis for understanding society. Although the man of action, the politician, may sometimes pay no attention to the results of such analysis, the thinker will never miss an opportunity to study everything that is accessible to the human mind. And ultimately it is thought that must determine action.

There are two approaches to the problems that socialism poses to science. A cultural philosopher may try to find a place for socialism among other cultural phenomena. He finds out its ideological origin, explores its relationship to other forms of social life, looks for its hidden sources in the soul of the individual, and tries to understand it as a mass phenomenon. He explores its influence on religion and philosophy, on art and literature. He tries to show his attitude to the natural and human sciences of his time. He studies it as a lifestyle, as an expression of the psyche, as a manifestation of moral and aesthetic views. This is a historical-cultural-psychological approach. Everyone takes this path again and again, books and articles are created here, the names of which are legion.

We should never pre-judge the scientific method. There is only one touchstone of his fruitfulness - success. It is quite possible that the historical-cultural-psychological method will also make a significant contribution to resolving the problems that socialism poses to science. The unsatisfactoriness of its results so far should be attributed not only to the incompetence and political prejudices of previous researchers, but above all to the fact that sociologist-economic research of problems should precede historical, cultural and psychological research. [In the 1920s Mises still referred to the science of human activity as "sociology". Later he decided to use the term "praxeology" (derived from the Greek praxis, which means action, habit or custom). In the "Preface" to Epistemological Problems of Economics(Princeton, Van Nostrand, I960; N.Y.: NYU Press, 1981) he comments as follows on the use of the term "sociology" in a 1929 article included in this book "... in 1929 I still believed that there was no need for a new term to designate the general theoretical science of human activity, as distinguished from historical research, which studies past actions. I thought that for this purpose the term sociology could be used, which, according to some authors, was created to designate such a general theoretical science. Only later I realized that this was impractical and adopted the term praxeology." -- Note American publisher] After all, socialism is a program for transforming economic life and the structure of society in accordance with a certain ideal. To understand its impact on other areas of mental and cultural life, one must first clearly understand its social and economic significance. Until these questions are clarified, it is unwise to approach historical-cultural-psychological interpretations. It is impossible to talk about the ethics of socialism until its relationship to other ethical systems is clarified. An adequate analysis of its reactions to religious and social life is impossible as long as we have only vague ideas about its essential properties. It is impossible to discuss socialism in general without first studying the structure and workings of a society based on public ownership of the means of production.

This clearly makes itself felt every time at the initial moments of historical, cultural and psychological research. Supporters of these methods see in socialism the ultimate realization of the democratic idea of ​​equality, without first defining what exactly equality and democracy really mean and in what relationship they stand among themselves, without also understanding how essential the idea of ​​equality is for socialism. Sometimes they see in socialism a reaction of the psyche to the spiritual devastation produced by the rationalism inseparable from capitalism; sometimes, on the contrary, they argue that socialism strives for the highest rationalization of economic life, which can never be achieved under capitalism. [ Mukle (Mukle Friedrich (1883--?) - German economist) even expects from socialism that it will bring with it simultaneously “the highest rationalization of economic life” and “liberation from the most monstrous barbarity - capitalist rationalism” (Muckle, Das Kulturideal des Sozialismus, Munchen, 1918). ] We will not discuss here those who load their theoretical and cultural analysis of socialism with a chaos of mysticism and incomprehensible phrases.

This book explores primarily the sociological and economic problems of socialism. We must understand these issues before we can discuss cultural and psychological issues. An analysis of the culture and psychology of socialism can only be based on the results of these studies. Only sociological and economic analysis can provide a solid basis for such a depiction of socialism, so attractive to the general public, which will allow it to be assessed in the light of the general hopes of the human race.

According to V.I. Lenin’s definition, socialism and the highest phase of communism are “... the stages of the economic maturity of communism.” The differences between the two phases are manifested, first of all, in differences in the levels of development of social production and are not limited to the method of distribution. However, these are differences within the framework of a single socio-economic formation - communist. The concept of communism is applicable to the characteristics of socialism, “since the means of production become common property...”. But “... this is not complete communism,” because “... at its first stage, communism cannot yet be economically fully mature...”.

Communism in its highest phase differs from socialism (its lower phase) primarily in the maturity and development of the economic basis of the new socio-economic formation - productive forces and production relations. This is “...socialist society in its expanded form...”, “... the highest level of socialism.” When the new formation is fully mature, socialism will turn into complete communism.

2. The emergence of socialism

Socialism replaces capitalism due to the objective laws of social development through the revolutionary elimination of the capitalist mode of production. The material prerequisites for socialism in the form of the development of productive forces and the gigantic socialization of production take shape under capitalism. The socialist revolution resolves the main contradiction of capitalism - between the social nature of production and the private capitalist form of appropriation - and ensures that production relations correspond to the nature and level of development of the productive forces.

The building of socialism is the result of the creative activity of the working class and all working people under the leadership of the Marxist-Leninist Party - the vanguard of the working class - during the transition period from capitalism to socialism. Unlike all other social systems, socialism arises and is established not as a result of spontaneous processes occurring in the depths of the previous mode of production, but is consciously built by the masses of the people on the basis of knowledge and use of the objective laws of its development. This difference is due to the fact that the communist formation - including socialism as its first phase - for the first time (after the primitive communal system) eliminates the exploitation of man by man (while previous formations only replaced one form of exploitation with another), therefore, within the previous, capitalist formation, the creation of “foci “socialism is impossible (they will inevitably be eroded and destroyed by the capitalism surrounding them, with which they will one way or another have to interact), socialism can only be built within the framework of society as a whole. This is why a transition period is necessary.

3. Economic foundations of socialism

Socialism eliminates private ownership and exploitation of man by man, eliminates antagonisms in social development, and radically changes the nature and purpose of economic progress. Socialism is a society focused on human development. “In place of the old bourgeois society with its classes and class oppositions comes an association in which the free development of each is a condition for the free development of all.”

The economic basis of socialism is public ownership of the means of production, which must have a level adequate to socialism. V.I. Lenin wrote that “the only material basis of socialism can be large-scale machine industry, capable of reorganizing agriculture.”

Socialist relations of production, which completely dominate social production, ensure rapid and systematic growth of the productive forces. The establishment of public ownership radically changes the purpose of development of production and the method of its functioning; the spontaneous forces of anarchy and competition are replaced by the planned organization of economic processes; universal employment of the able-bodied population is ensured, everyone is provided with work in accordance with their abilities, and wide scope is opened for personal development.

Under socialism, economic laws lose their role as spontaneous regulators of social production (the law of value ceases to operate, since the very concept of value disappears along with the market). Economic laws are consciously applied by society in the interests of the steady growth of production and the use of the advantages of the economic system of socialism.

4. Distribution by work

From social ownership of the means of production follows social ownership of the product of production. Under socialism, workers act as collective owners, as co-owners, as a whole, and not as a sum of individual owners. However, the condition for the consumption of each of them is the appropriation by each of a part of this common product, i.e., individual ownership of a share of the social product. And these shares must be distributed among all members of society.

Since socialism is a social system that emerged from capitalism, labor under socialism has not yet become a vital necessity for everyone and is still in the lap of necessity, not freedom; in addition, production under the lowest phase of communism still remains relatively undeveloped and does not provide a complete abundance of material good Therefore, under socialism, the need for material incentives remains, and therefore, taking into account the measure of labor and the measure of consumption. The method of distributing that part of the social product that is intended for personal consumption under socialism is distribution by labor, a measure of individual participation in the consumption of a jointly produced product.

“We are not dealing here with a communist society that developed on its own basis, but, on the contrary, with one that has just comes out precisely from capitalist society and which therefore in all respects, economic, moral and mental, still retains the birthmarks of the old society from the depths of which it emerged. Accordingly, each individual producer receives back from society, after all deductions, exactly as much as he himself gives to him. What he gave to society constitutes his individual labor share. For example, a social working day is the sum of individual working hours; The individual working time of each individual producer is the part of the social working day delivered to him, his share in it. He receives from society a receipt stating that they have delivered such and such a quantity of labor (minus the deduction of his labor for the benefit of public funds), and with this receipt he receives from the public reserves such a quantity of consumer goods for which the same amount of labor was expended. The same quantity of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another form.

Here, obviously, the same principle prevails that regulates the exchange of goods, since the latter is an exchange of equal values. The content and form have changed here, because under changed circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing except individual consumer goods can become the property of individuals. But as for the distribution of the latter among individual producers, the same principle prevails here as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a certain amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another.

But one person is physically or mentally superior to another and, therefore, produces more labor in the same time or is able to work longer; and labor, in order for it to serve as a measure, must be determined by duration or intensity, otherwise it would cease to be a measure. This equal a right is an unequal right for unequal work. It does not recognize any class differences, because everyone is only a worker, like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual talent, and therefore unequal ability to work, as natural privileges. Therefore, in its content it is the right of inequality, like any right. By its nature, right can only consist in the application of equal measures; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) can be measured by the same measure only insofar as they are considered from one angle of view, taken from only one certain parties, as in this case, for example, where they are considered only as workers and they see nothing more in them, they are distracted from everything else. Further: one worker is married, another is not, one has more children, another has fewer, and so on. With equal work and, therefore, with equal participation in the social consumer fund, one will actually receive more than the other, will be richer than the other, and the like. To avoid all this, the right, instead of being equal, should be unequal.

But these shortcomings are inevitable in the first phase of communist society, in the form in which it emerges from capitalist society after long labor pains. Law can never be higher than the economic system and the cultural development of society determined by it.”

However, under socialism only part of the benefits is distributed according to labor, and the other part (for example, education, health care, maintenance of the disabled) is distributed according to need at the expense of public funds, and the share of distribution according to need grows as society moves towards the highest phase of communism.

5. Socialism and the state

Since socialism is, by definition, already communism, it is a classless society, and therefore under socialism there is no suppression of one class by another, therefore, there should be no state - the apparatus of such suppression, which should die out, undergo “fall asleep” even at the transitional stage period from capitalism to socialism, along with the disappearance of classes. This does not mean that under socialism there are no bodies governing society at all - bodies of public self-government exist, but they are not political, they are busy managing production, not people. Due to the inertia of the forms of social relations in relation to their content, the external form of these self-government bodies may resemble old, state government bodies, but their essence is different. One of the important functions of such bodies under socialism is control over the measure of labor and the measure of consumption, the protection of distribution according to work - the remnant of unequal rights, until it is completely replaced by distribution according to needs.

6. Was there socialism in the USSR?

The question of whether socialism was built in the USSR is debatable. Despite the official declarations about the construction of socialism in the USSR, it seems to us a more correct point of view that the transition period from capitalism to socialism was not completed in the USSR, because despite the absence of private ownership of the means of production and a planned economy, state property has not yet become fully public, since it was managed by a narrow layer of managers, and not by the broad masses of the working people themselves (although for the most part in the interests of these masses). On the other hand, we consider incorrect the point of view that in the USSR there was only so-called “state capitalism”, since there was no class, which would appropriate surplus value. Thus, the statement that “there was no socialism in the USSR” is also incorrect. We believe that socialism in the USSR was in the process of formation, “birth”, i.e. in the USSR there was precisely a transition from capitalism to socialism, which, unfortunately, was not completed - “the child died during childbirth.”

They played and are playing 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 facilities 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. A distinctive feature of 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.