Socialist views. How is socialism different from communism? Description, history, prospects

6. The term “enemy of the people” Khrushchev: “Stalin introduced the concept of “enemy of the people.” This term immediately freed you from the need for any proof of the ideological wrongness of the person or people with whom you are debating: it gave the opportunity to anyone who disagrees with something

Socialism (French socialisme, from Latin socialis - public)- designation of teachings in which the implementation of the principles of social justice, freedom and equality is put forward as a goal and ideal. Socialism is also understood as a social system that embodies these principles as follows: it sets itself the global goal of overthrowing capitalism and building in the foreseeable future a perfect society (communism), completing the prehistory of humanity and being the beginning of its true history, mobilizing to achieve this goal all available in its resources at disposal. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica definition, socialism is a socio-economic doctrine that calls for public ownership or public control over property and natural resources; the socialization of property is generally regarded as one of the most essential, “constitutive” features of socialism.

The term "socialism" was first used in Pierre Leroux's work Individualism and Socialism (1834).

Encyclopedic YouTube

• 1 / 5

  Based on the philosophical ideas of socialism, it was also created political ideology, which 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.
  • there is respect for the working person, the working class is recognized as the advanced class of society.
  • open ample opportunities to promote people from socially weaker sections of the population into the country's elite: political, military, scientific, cultural.
  • the dominance of collectivist values ​​over individualistic ones is asserted.
  • the equality of nations and their cultures is guaranteed on the basis of proletarian internationalism.

  History of ideas

  Main article: History of the ideology of socialism

  Ideas of social order based on the rejection of private property and equal distribution have existed throughout human history. According to some researchers, all such teachings have one common core - they are based on a complete denial of the modern system of life, call for its destruction, paint a picture of a more just social order, in which all the main problems of our time will be resolved, and concrete ways to achieve this system will be proposed.

  Antiquity

  I affirm: everything must become common in everything
  let everyone participate.
  <...>
  We will make the land public
  Everything for everyone, all the fruits that grow on the earth, everything
  the owner each owns.

  Utopians

  The ideas of socialism are contained in the works of early communist utopians Thomas More (1478-1535) and Tommaso Campanella (1568-1639). On the island of Utopia, which T. More speaks of, there is no private property, no money circulation, and complete equality reigns. The basis of society is the family and work collective. Work is obligatory for everyone. To avoid promoting possessiveness, families regularly exchange houses.

  New time

  A surge of socialist projects occurred in Western Europe during early XIX century, and it is associated with the names of Saint-Simon, Fourier and Owen.

  Socialism according to Karl Marx

  Relations at the first stage of communist society (that is, at the stage that in the Marxist tradition was called socialist) were presented to Marx as the implementation of the principle: “from each according to his ability, to each according to his work.” The worker, upon completion of work, “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 public reserves such a quantity of consumer goods for which the same amount was spent labor." With the full development of communism, labor turns from an obligation into a necessity and the need to take it into account to regulate consumption disappears: the principle “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” wins.

  Paths of transition to socialism

  Disputes between revolutionary anarchists and Marxists on the issue of participation in the parliamentary struggle, as well as on the seizure state power led to the demarcation of these two movements (finally - in 1893 after long disputes within the Second International, where disputes migrated from the First International).

  • 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.

  State socialism

  Socialism, based on complete state control over the economy (planned economy, command-administrative system). The most common form of practical implementation of the theories of socialism.

  Market socialism

  Communism

  The philosophical encyclopedia edited by A. A. Ivin understands communism as a radical, highest form of socialism, standing on the positions of internationalism, which set the goal of the foreseeable future as the violent overthrow of capitalism and the construction of an “ideal society”, the end of the prehistory of mankind and the beginning of its true history. Communist teaching promised to provide a wonderful future for all humanity. To achieve this goal it was supposed to rely on proletarian solidarity, scientific and technical progress and a centralized organization of the economy, which, according to the founders of this theory, was more efficient than the capitalist one. This type of socialism existed, covering up to a third of humanity, throughout almost the entire 20th century, but in the end it collapsed due to an ineffective planned economy and unbridled expansionism.

  The leading ideologist and practitioner of this trend was V.I. Ulyanov (Lenin), whose doctrine is commonly called Marxism-Leninism. Lenin emphasized the differences between his ideology and practice from moderate socialism (social democracy) and for practical demarcation with the latter, he created an international structure - the Communist International, in contrast to the already existing Socialist International. "If we ask ourselves, what is communism as opposed to socialism, then we will have to say that socialism is the society that grows directly from capitalism, is the first type of new society. Communism is a higher type of society and can develop only when socialism is fully consolidated. Socialism presupposes work without the help of capitalists, social labor with the strictest accounting, control and supervision by the organized vanguard, the advanced part of the working people; Moreover, both the measure of labor and its remuneration must be determined. This definition is necessary because capitalist society has left us such traces and habits as fragmented work, distrust of public economy, the old habits of the small owner, which prevail in all peasant countries. All this goes against a truly communist economy. We call communism such an order when people get used to performing public duties without special coercive apparatus, when free work for the common benefit becomes a universal phenomenon.” Lenin V.I. Report on subbotniks at the Moscow citywide conference of the RCP (b) December 20, 1919 - Complete. collection cit., vol. 40, p. 33-34.

  In Russia

  National Socialism

  Socialist tendencies were strong [ ] at the initial stage of development of German National Socialism (1922-1934). In particular, the socialist platform was occupied by [ ] one of the founders of the NSDAP, Gregor Strasser.

  National Socialism (Nazism) differed from communism in its attitude to property. The Nazis did not expropriate private property, but only subordinated it to the goals and objectives of the state. Hitler, in particular, more than once pointed out that socialism in his understanding is primarily the socialization of souls, not property: property can be left to some extent in private hands if the owner who manages it is made dependent on the state. Other differences include: denial of democracy, reliance on segments of the population other than those that support the communists, support from the ruling classes of the old society, revanchism, the concept of “class harmony” (the theory of popular community, people's state, corporatism), hatred of communism and proletarian internationalism (anti-communism, Anti-Comintern Pact), anti-materialism, irrationalism and mysticism, racist ideology, social Darwinism, chauvinism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism.

  In the Marxist tradition, the definition of fascism given by G. Dimitrov at the VII Congress of the Comintern is generally accepted:

  Fascism is an open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, the most chauvinistic, the most imperialist elements of finance capital...Fascism is not a supra-class power and not the power of the petty bourgeoisie or the lumpen proletariat over finance capital. Fascism is the power of financial capital itself.
  

  This is an organization of terrorist reprisals against the working class and the revolutionary part of the peasantry and intelligentsia. Fascism in foreign policy is chauvinism in its crudest form, cultivating zoological hatred against other peoples.

  The Nazis viewed the Communists as their main political enemies: only their mass physical destruction allowed the Nazis to finally seize power in Germany.

  There is an opinion that Nazism and communism were united by the denial of liberal democracy and the replacement of a market economy with state planning.

  Socialist countries

  "Socialist countries" is a term used in the USSR in accordance with the terminology of the CPSU to designate countries adhering to the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, with fairly stable regimes - regardless of friendly or hostile relations with the Soviet Union. In the USSR, developing countries with Marxist-Leninist regimes were not classified as socialist.

  In the West, socialist countries and “countries of socialist orientation” were usually called the term “Communist countries” (English: Communist states).

  There are the following points of view on socialism in the USSR:

  Despite the problems associated with this, it is often noted that Soviet “socialism” significantly increased industry, culture and quality of life in Russia/USSR, carried out modernization, mass industrialization, thereby ensuring the creation of sufficiently powerful productive forces capitalist type under the control of the state, but subsequently due to the authoritarian system of government, autarkic and isolationist tendencies, numerous errors in state management, separatism of the outskirts and ossification of ideology, which not only ceased to be a reflection of the conclusions of science (like the classics), but also began to dictate its own the will of the latter, could not withstand direct competition with the system of market capitalism, or, according to another version, with the socio-economic system that replaced it in most developed countries after the Second World War, characterized by the replacement of private, in the original sense of the word, ownership with corporate (“elitism ", the power of the international financial and corporate elite), and containing truly capitalist elements (capital, market, competition, private ownership of part of the means of production) only in the form of separate inclusions. However, mechanisms of state subsidies and subsidies operated in it, unnoticed by ordinary citizens, which contributed to the establishment of social justice. For example, the production of essential food products was subsidized by the state by half or more, with a corresponding reduction in retail selling prices, which were often lower than the prices at which the state purchased from producers. This was done by simultaneously inflating government retail prices for non-essential items (for example, cars), as well as government revenues from exports, primarily petroleum products.

  There is an opinion (an example is the same “early” S. Platonov) that apologetics Soviet Union and the attempt to hide the real situation led, among other things, to the oblivion of the spirit Marxist-Leninist teaching, which always emphasized the absolute importance of relying on science and scientific ideology (ideology not based on science in Marx is equated with idealism), which was expressed in the “scholastic” adherence to specific, particular provisions of Marxist and Leninist teachings about socialism, communism, capitalism and so on, and the replication of ideological ideas about them, contrary to the real course of events in the developing world - despite the fact that the classics wrote their works in mid-19th- the beginning of the 20th century, in accordance with the situation at that time, and physically could not predict with detailed accuracy the further course of world history.

  For example, the terms “imperialism” and “state-monopoly capitalism”, widely used in official Soviet ideology, actually initially characterized very specific stages in the development of socio-economic relations in individual countries during the time of Lenin, but were subsequently stereotypically and uncritically spread by “communist” ideologists throughout the Western world, although their relevance had long since disappeared by that time. From this point of view, in the USSR there was a negative reverse influence of ideology on science, although according to the same Marx, ideology should, on the contrary, be based on the conclusions of science, conveying its conclusions to the masses in a “popularized” form that is understandable to them.

  According to "S. Platonov",

  ... our theoretical thought has been effectively blocked for decades, which condemns us to the need to move “empirically, in a very irrational way of trial and error”"

  /author of the quoted statement - Yu. Andropov/.

  Modern "scientific communism", which is mistakenly viewed by many as communist theory, in fact (in its part concerning the activities of the already victorious proletariat) entirely belongs to the sphere ideology, and the word “scientific” in its title should not be misleading.

  Ideology, which operates in the role of theory that is unusual for it, that is, it undertakes to explain and predict, inevitably gives rise to fantastic ideas about the modern world - and what is most dangerous and sad - it creates ideological myths about ourselves.

  An outwardly similar, but essentially opposite point of view is that for the same purposes Marxist and Leninist ideas were deliberately distorted, which in this case are often interpreted as something obviously true and not requiring adjustments, both in general and in particular.

  So, from this point of view, the thesis that under socialism the operation of the law of value and the presence of profit are normal phenomena that do not contradict the Marxist concept gradually became more and more generally accepted. This situation was called the creative development of Marxist-Leninist theory (the postulate of the existence of the law of value under socialism was put forward by J.V. Stalin in his work “Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR”, 1952), although in fact it contradicted the original Marxian understanding:

  • profit as an exclusively capitalist category (a transformed form of surplus value, and surplus value exists only in capitalism);
  • value as a category that, along with the commodity, disappears under socialism.

  Thus, from one point of view, ideas about socialism, when faced with realities, gradually moved away to a certain extent from the original Marxist-Leninist concept.

  From another point of view, since Soviet society was essentially capitalist, then it was clearly premature to apply the ideas of socialism to it, since the laws of the capitalist economy continued to operate in full, which were its nationalization (only the “abolition” of private property, and not its destruction) did not “deceive” or cancel, but only made their influence hidden, barely noticeable in appearance, but no less effective.

  In general and in general, we can say that to a certain extent and from its own position, each of the above points of view on this problem is correct in its own way.

  "Swedish model"

  Functional socialism

  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”.

  The Swedish model (in original terms - “House for the People”) is based on the premise that market economy the most effective, therefore the state adheres to non-interference in the actual production activities of enterprises and companies; and the negative social costs of the market - in particular unemployment and severe inequality - can be overcome with active work state in the labor market, redistribution of part of the profit through taxation and the use of the public sector, mainly including infrastructural elements and collective cash funds(not enterprises).

  This concept of reformist ideology was called “functional socialism”; the term was introduced into political circulation in the late 60s by the prominent SDLP theorist G. Adler-Karlsson.

  Criticism

  A number of researchers indeed see in a developed “welfare state” signs of the implementation of the socialist idea of ​​public ownership, carried out through the redistribution of income through the taxation system and special funds. However, this model is constantly subject to harsh criticism from both the “right” and the “left”.

  Less radical critics on the left note that, unlike the states of the former Eastern Bloc, including the USSR, in Sweden the public sector does not at all consist of enterprises that create surplus product. At the same time, social security expenditures account for more than 40% of Sweden's GDP. The funds necessary for this are obtained through taxation, and its main object is not large corporate business, but wage workers and small entrepreneurs. Thus, it turns out that in the form of “social payments” they are given back part of the value they themselves created, which was previously taken from them. The maximum tax rate on the average income of a worker is 50-65%, for an employee - up to 80%. The conclusion is the following:

  Social, or as social democrats call them, “moderate socialist” reforms that affect only the sphere of distribution, always turn out to be half-hearted and in the long term - certainly unprofitable. Any attempt to improve such “distributive (transfer) socialism” from within will aggravate the systemic contradictions hidden in the depths of this socio-political order. AND most of the future material costs associated with the restoration or modernization of this model of the “welfare state” will again fall on the shoulders of the wage-earning class.

  The American sociologist and economist J. Buchanan quite rightly calls this type of socio-political structure a “transfer state”:

  The "transfer state" merely collects taxes from individuals and groups under its jurisdiction, and translates(English transfers) these funds in the form of cash payments to other individuals and groups of a given political community.

  Deprived of such “redistribution” social system, standing on a market-capitalist basis focused on making profit at any cost (that is, having strictly opposite goals with it), and most of the advantages characteristic (both practically and potentially) of a planned economy - in particular, rational, planned and scientifically based development of the productive forces of society as a single national economic organism.

  Critics on the right, in turn, also note such problems inherent to this system as a huge increase in bureaucratization, strong ideologization and even a gradual drift towards “neo-totalitarianism”, long queues characteristic of free medicine, and so on.

  "Socialism of the 21st century"

  Fabian socialism

  The concept of Fabian socialism, currently the strategy of the British Labor Party, has significant influence among the intellectual elite and ruling circles many countries of the world, including Canada, New Zealand and the USA - and is focused on the recognition and implementation of socialist ideals: social justice, equality, a high level of social protection of workers, equality of opportunity and economic democracy, political internationalism, emancipation of land and industrial production from personal and private property, economic planning, development of the cooperative movement, but, unlike the Marxist interpretation of socialism, is aimed at the slow “natural” evolution of society based on education and propaganda of socialist ideas, slow local gradual reforms, class peace and consensus between social groups and classes ; The Marxist concept is considered authoritative, but not indisputable, as one of many models of social reconstruction and movement towards socialism. In theories

  Practice

  From the dictionary of A. A. Ivin

  Socialism as a social system arose according to a previously developed plan, and not spontaneously, and sets as its task the achievement of a clearly defined goal; the individual and his will are not the final value in any of the spheres within the framework of this teaching; the basic principle of a socialist society is monopoly, relating to economic development plans, dominant ideology, a single ruling party, means of communication, and so on; the aspiration of socialism towards a certain common goal requires the introduction of centralized planning, replacing competition in the economic sphere; socialism identifies the state and society, which leads to the destruction of civil society and the transformation of enemies of the state into enemies of the people; The terror and cruelty of socialist regimes directly follow from the sublime desire to rebuild the life of society in accordance with a predetermined, uniform and non-negotiable goal. Since the foundation of all individual rights and freedoms is economic freedom, following the destruction of the individual’s economic freedom, socialism eliminates all other rights and freedoms. Different forms of socialism can fight fiercely with each other, but the main opponent for them, as varieties of collectivism, is the industrial individualistic (capitalist) society. Socialism creates a special collectivist lifestyle, when ordinary members of society enthusiastically sacrifice the present for the sake of a “beautiful future,” and fear permeates all aspects of life.

  Communism and National Socialism convincingly showed that the dominance of the ideas of collectivism in industrial society inevitably turns out to be totalitarianism Socialism on Wikimedia Commons

  Living in a capitalist society, people feel that something is missing in it. Therefore, they involuntarily look back to that power where everything was built on a different ideology, and involuntarily get confused in concepts, wanting to return to the idea of ​​social justice. They do not understand the difference between socialism and communism. In their calls they operate with both concepts. But these are two different principles of the structure of society. Let's figure out how communism differs from socialism.

  Utopian principles for building society

  Let's understand the terms. To find out how socialism differs from communism, it is necessary to determine the conceptual basis. We will talk about a social system, which is based on certain principles. Any country chooses its own development path. Sometimes this happens through evolutionary means, in other cases through revolutionary methods. That's not the point. People constantly strive to improve the social order. Relationships seem ideal in a strong family, where everyone gets what they want, giving freely to others what they consider valuable and necessary. Such dreams have been present in society at all times. They found their expression in an as yet unattainable state structure: communism. This is a system where material wealth belongs to all people. Everyone has the right to use them at their own discretion, working to the best of their ability for the good of society. In real life things are not like that at all. The highest society in terms of achieving social justice, which they managed to create in one country, is called socialism. His features are far from dreamy.

  

  How is socialism different from communism? What is the difference?

  The structure of society is the distribution of functions and rights of its participants from the citizen to the state. The socialist system was considered in science to be transitional from capitalism to communism. That is why he is characterized by half-hearted principles. Property already belongs to the people, but it is impossible to use it at their own discretion. Each citizen has the right only to earned, that is, strictly defined benefits. When considering how socialism differs from communism, one should pay attention specifically to property. After all, the idea of ​​universal equality was born in the capitalist world. People were then worried about the injustice of life in general. Some work hard, while others rejoice in the results, fully appropriating them. The creator of the theory of communism, Karl Marx, proceeded from the point of view of who should own the means of production. In his opinion, all members of society should have this right. But it will not be possible to immediately change the structure of society. Therefore, a theory arose, which was later embodied in practice - socialism. This is a structure of the state where citizens are prepared and educated for the principles of communism. It was impossible to imagine that people would immediately agree to share everything they had acquired. But the voluntariness of giving up what one has accumulated is precisely how communism differs from socialism and capitalism. A mature, developed personality is considered paramount in this arrangement.

  

  Fundamental differences

  It is necessary to understand that the social structure is not a stationary system. It is developing. This is exactly what K. Marx hoped for. In order to understand how socialism differs from communism, we need to examine the ownership of the means of production, the results of labor and other fundamental aspects. Any society lives at the expense of natural resources and technology. Theorists believed that both should belong to the people if there is socialism or communism in the country. The differences lie in the appropriation of the results of labor. Under socialism, everyone receives as much as they earn and no more. Communism includes the principle of “to each according to his needs.” That is, every person has the right to use the results of universal labor. This is the fundamental difference. Communism and socialism, described below, are considered almost identical structures of society. However, it should be understood that this is not the case. And first of all we're talking about about personality development. It was planned that in a socialist state people would understand that it is better to take care of their neighbors than to live for themselves. Gradually the society will become communist. This had to happen in an evolutionary way, without shocks and turmoil.

  

  What is socialism

  A social system in which all people are considered equal is called socialism. The means of production are nationalized, but there is minimal personal property. The company works to develop the country's industrial potential and is engaged in the development of new technologies. Public goods are distributed fairly. Everyone has the right to certain part, which is equivalent to its contribution to common labor. Remnants of the previous, capitalist system are money as a measure of public goods.

  What is communism

  It is believed that this is the highest form of social order, more just than socialism. Communism has the following characteristics:

  • The means of production belong to the whole society, as do the results of labor.
  • There is no division of people into classes, people are equal.
  • Money will be a thing of the past.

  These ideas were never implemented. They are sometimes considered utopian, since it is difficult from a modern position to imagine a new person capable of putting such principles into practice. The theorists of communism believed that its onset was possible only as a result of a world revolution.

  

  About Marxism

  Let's introduce one more concept into our review. People often get confused about the terms. They do not understand the differences between Marxism, socialism and communism. If we have already considered the last two structures of society, then we have not yet talked about the first term. Marxism is the theory of communism. It has an indirect relation to practice. This is a teaching about how communism can be built on the entire planet. To do this, enterprises should be nationalized and commodity-money relations should be abolished. Marxism is the doctrine on which the practice of socialism is built. From some point of view, it is not as dangerous as the ideas of communism. The theory can be developed in the right direction. Therefore, in capitalist countries, the ideas of Marxism live and find supporters with whom the state does not even think of fighting. And even now they are trying to present the ideas of communism as utopian and unattainable. Property owners do not want to share, to put it simply. Therefore, they spare no expense to distract people from the dream of a just society.

  

  Socialism and communism in Russia: history and prospects

  The Russian Federation is one of the states in which a non-capitalist system actually existed. Its creation began as a desire to build a communist society. But Russia returned to capitalism again. We will keep silent about the reasons for the collapse of the USSR; this is a long conversation. However, all that remains of socialism in the country is the constitutionally subject social orientation of the state. It cannot be assumed that the capitalist system will remain in the country forever. It depends on the citizens and their political maturity. It is clear that the majority of people who still remember the experience of life in the USSR are dissatisfied with the principle of distribution of benefits that takes place at the present time. It must be added that few people support the revolutionary path either. The dream of communism lives in society. And this is due to the fact that the principles of such a structure go back to the times of the ancient Slavs, when a different relationship between people actually existed.

  

  Is the creation of a communist society realistic?

  Scientists constantly argue on this topic. We will not give all the arguments, there are many of them. Let's think better, what does this depend on? Who should create communism? Will you say that capitalists first give up their property, then the people who receive it will change and become so kind that the desired prosperity will come? But this is a utopia. In fact, everything depends on the maturity and wisdom of people in general, and each member of society specifically. History shows that nothing is impossible, there are forces that control man. It is clear that they are richer than others, therefore, they do not want change. However, they cannot decide for all people. Having experienced and rejected socialism, society still dreams of communism, understanding in its heart the difference between the two systems. Whether it will work out or not, time will tell.

  Conclusion

  Socialism and communism are two different systems of society. They are united only by theory. According to the developers, socialism is the initial, transitional stage of communism. There is, however, another opinion. It is believed that socialism and capitalism are Siamese twins. The two systems could only exist together, drawing strength for development from constant antagonism. Unfortunately, in this theory, communism acts as a carrot dangled in the noses of citizens so that they endure hardships justified by the struggle. That is, this is just an unattainable dream. We or our descendants will see whether communism becomes a reality. One thing is for sure, society is constantly evolving, striving for a dream. And the larger the planet’s population, the more difficult it is to control it and interfere with natural processes.

  
  

  The concept of “socialism”…………………………………………………………….. 3

  Historical development of the idea of ​​socialism…………………………….. 5

  Marxism as an ideology of the proletariat……………………………... 7

  Democratic socialism………………………………………….. 8

  Paths of transition to socialism………………………………………….. 11

  Models of state socialism…………………………….. 11

  Socialist countries………………………………………………………...12

  The Soviet Union and socialism…………………………………………………………….

  13

  Models of socialism…………………………………………………….

  14

  Hitler and Mussolini…………………………………………………… 15

  Criticism and defense of the ideas of socialism…………………………………... 15

  Basic principles manifested in the activities of socialist states and in the ideology of socialist teachings………………………………………………………………………………….. 18

  History of socialist teachings……………………………………21

  References……………………………………………………………………..... 26

  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.

  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, 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

  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.

  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.”

  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.

  The 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.

  Marxism as the ideology of the proletariat.

  In the 40s of the 19th century, Marxism emerged as a theoretical expression of the proletarian movement. K. Marx (1818-1883) and F. Engels (1820-1895) created a philosophical, economic and socio-political theory that had a huge impact on the history of mankind in the second half of the 19th and 20th centuries. Marxism and communist ideology have become synonymous.

  Communist society in the Marxist understanding is not an open ideal model of a happy system, but a natural result of the progress of civilization. Capitalism itself creates the preconditions for social revolution, the abolition of private property and the transition to socialism. The main contradiction that explodes capitalism from within is the contradiction between the social nature of labor, formed by industry and the market, and private ownership of the means of production. Capitalism, as Marxists believed, also creates its own social gravedigger - the proletariat. The liberation of the proletariat is the leitmotif of the social revolution. But by liberating itself, the proletariat liberates all working people from all forms of exploitation. The achievement of socialism is possible only as a result of the historical creativity of the proletariat, the accomplishment of the proletarian revolution and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The slogan "Workers of all countries, unite!" became a mobilizing call in the fight against exploiters. Marxism as an ideology turned socialism into the struggle of millions; for many decades this ideology became the spiritual weapon of the exploited and oppressed.

  Marx and Engels believed that the development of the communist formation goes through a number of stages: the transition period, socialism and communism itself. This is a long process of re-creating the life of society on truly humanistic principles, when a person becomes the highest being for man. Communism in its highest development is a society of free, conscious workers, where public self-government will be established, and the state will wither away, where there will be no classes, and social equality will be embodied in the principle “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” In the Marxist interpretation of communism, there is a movement towards the unlimited flourishing of the individual in conditions of freedom from exploitation; this is the beginning of the true history of mankind.

  The revolutionary pathos of Marxism was embodied in the theory and practice of Leninism, which became theoretical basis proletarian revolution in Russia and socialist construction in the USSR.

  Despite the serious defeats caused by the collapse of the Soviet Union and the liquidation of the Eastern Bloc of socialist states, orthodox Marxism retains significant influence on certain social groups in post-Soviet society. This is due to the attractiveness of the ideas of social equality, justice and social guarantees from the state for labor, free education, medical care, and housing.

  Simultaneously with the revolutionary direction in socialist thought, another direction was being formed, which was also based on Marxism, but tried to adapt to new historical realities not through forced revolutionism, but through social reforms. In the 20th century, this direction began to be called social democratic as opposed to communist.

  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, Jaures and others, to the views of the theorists of the Workers' Socialist International, which existed in the interwar period; concepts of liberal reformism, including special place belongs to Keynesianism.

  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.

  Idea political democracy 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 should be: the presence of free elections; providing citizens with genuine choice between different political alternatives; the possibility of changing the government through peaceful means; guarantee of individual and minority rights; the existence of an independent judicial system 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.

  Giving rationale 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: “Competition as far as possible, planning as far 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 social freedom of a person, the conditions and content of it labor activity, accessibility of the education system and spiritual values, state of the environment, living conditions. The struggle for social democracy is, first of all, a struggle for more high quality 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 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 aims at a just society, without exploitation, with equal social status 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 this requires, first of all, “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 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),

  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 countries” (English). Communist states).

  In the USSR, the term “countries of socialist orientation” was also applied to countries that adhered to non-Marxist theories of socialism (subject to 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

  Main groups of views on the Soviet system

  In the Soviet Union there was socialism, built in full accordance with dogmas. At the same time, it is indicated that socialism was a “bad” system. The reasons seem to be that Marxism is either “bad” or beautiful, but utopian, and the experience of Soviet socialism showed all its utopianism and led to the natural collapse of this entire system.

  There was socialism in the USSR, but in its original, undeveloped form (deformed socialism, mutant socialism, feudal socialism, etc.). This also includes concepts about the transitional stage from capitalism to socialism, “hybridity” as the most important feature of the Soviet social structure.

  The socialism that existed in the USSR was generally good social order, with some exceptions (such as unjustified or excessive repression). This socialism, almost completely consistent with the classical teachings of Marxism-Leninism, met the vital interests of the nation and state and at the same time preserved and developed historical Russian traditions.

  Socialist society allowed the people to live generally comfortably, and the state to become powerful.

  The system built in the USSR had nothing in common with the Marxist understanding of socialism, since under it there was neither self-government of workers, nor the “withering away” of the state, nor public (and not state) ownership of the means of production; the alienation that, according to Marx, must be overcome under socialism has reached proportions that surpass capitalist societies.

  The Soviet system was state-monopoly capitalism (most of the means of production belong to one monopoly owner - the state), which was the result of a fairly accurate embodiment of the erroneous idea of ​​​​classical Marxism about socialism as a society existing on the same material foundations (means of production) as capitalism, but with different production relations.

  Apologetics for the Soviet Union and an attempt to hide the real situation were expressed, among other things, in the distortion of Marxist ideas about socialism. Thus, the thesis gradually became more and more generally accepted that under socialism the operation of the law of value, the presence of profit, etc. are normal phenomena that do not contradict the Marxist concept. This situation was called the creative development of Marxist-Leninist theory (the postulate of the existence of the law of value under socialism was put forward by J.V. Stalin in his work “Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR” (1952)), although in fact it contradicted Marx’s understanding:

  profit as an exclusively capitalist category (a transformed form of surplus value, and surplus value exists only in capitalism)

  Moreover, before this, in 1943, an article appeared in the magazine “Under the Banner of Marxism” in which it was stated that

  The value of a product in a socialist society is determined not by the number of units of labor actually spent on production, but by the amount of labor socially necessary for its production and reproduction.

  Thus, it can be said that the ideas of socialism, when faced with realities, gradually moved away from the Marxist-Leninist concept.

  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 Worker's Future). There he met the socialist politician and journalist Cesare Battisti and began editing his newspaper Il Popolo (The People). Mussolini later returned to Italy and began working in the 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 Laureate 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 individual 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 changes buyer needs. 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).

  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 my positive form, as a statement about the specific nature of property in a socialist society, it is less universal and manifests itself already in two different types: 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 doctrines. 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 that specific religion, which was 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, become especially great importance. This is the case with any other phenomenon of the same historical scale.

  History of socialist teachings.

  Even in ancient times, individual representatives of advanced socio-political thought tried to look into the society of the future, based on the principles of equality. However, the first socialist teachings appeared in the era of primitive accumulation of capital. They were closely connected with the movement of the oppressed masses for their social liberation.

  Utopian socialism is the ideological basis of these movements. But not all teachings about the future society relate to utopian socialism, because There are certain signs that allow one or another doctrine to be classified as a socialist utopia. Among these features, one can highlight the presence of the idea of ​​eliminating exploitation, achieving not only political but also social equality, the universal obligation to work, targeted education, public ownership, etc.

  The history of utopian socialism is divided into three large stages: early utopian socialism of the era of primitive accumulation of capital ( XVI beginning XVII century); utopian socialism of the era of bourgeois revolutions and the formation of capitalism (XVII-XVIII centuries); utopian socialism of the era of the establishment of capitalism (late 18th - early 19th centuries).

  The criterion for such a division is the class conditionality of the emergence of socialist theories, justified by the classics of Marxism-Leninism.

  MAIN FEATURES OF EARLY UTOPIAN SOCIALISM:

  In the 16th and 17th centuries, significant changes occurred in the economic and socio-political life of Western European countries, which were characterized by the process of initial accumulation of capital, the decomposition of feudal relations, the depreciation of peasants, the emergence of industrial monofactories and the appearance of hired workers. A progressive social movement - humanism - also appears. Humanists opposed religious asceticism, for individual freedom, and for man’s satisfaction of earthly needs. However, they had a negative attitude towards the revolutionary movement of the masses and were far from them. And only a few representatives of humanism openly sided with the oppressed. These include the founder of utopian socialism, Thomas More (1478-1535), who was one of the first to understand that the basis for the exploitation of man is private ownership of tools and means of production. In his work “ golden book, as useful as it is funny, about the best structure of the state and about the new island of Utopia” (1576), he not only criticizes contemporary socio-economic relations, but also gives an image of a society where public property reigns. T. More was one of the first to solve the problem of organizing public consumption on a rationalistic basis by creating a democratic centralized state through the introduction of social production. Along with outstanding guesses about the structure of the future social system, the organization of socio-political life, More's teachings are characterized by features of naivety and primitivism, we idealize the patriarchal family, allow slave labor, tolerate religion, egalitarianism in distribution.

  The Italian monk Tosmano Companella (1568-1639) is rightfully considered another founder of utopian socialism. In the works of T. Companella, feudal relations and accompanying phenomena such as idleness, laziness, parasitism are criticized; he rejects private property and contrasts it with public property. Despite all the naivety and utopianism of Companello's judgments, some of his provisions deserve serious attention. These include instilling love and respect for work; choosing a field of work in accordance with inclinations and abilities; strengthening the role of public and government bodies in the education of the younger generation; emancipation of women. “Utopia” by T. More and “City of the Sun” by T. Companello are united by the fact that they were created in the appropriate conditions of the period of primitive accumulation of capital and the decomposition of feudal relations; their authors are the most prominent representatives of early utopian socialism. Their views reflected the ideology of the liberation anti-feudal movement of the most oppressed part of the people - the peasantry and the pre-prolitariat.

  II UTOPIAN SOCIALISM OF THE ERA OF BOURGEOIS REVOLUTIONS AND THE FORMATION OF CAPITALISM (XVII-XVIII CENTURIES).

  The second stage of the development of utopian socialism unfolds in the conditions of preparation and conduct of bourgeois revolutions. One of the founders of this stage is the English socialist-utopian Gerard Winstany (1609-1652). The main provisions of his pamphlet “The Law of Liberty” (1652) are closely connected with the English bourgeois revolution. That is why “The Law of Freedom” is attributed to the second stage of development of the theory of utopian socialism and they see in it a new page in the development of the latter. An important distinguishing feature of D. Winstany's utopian socialism is that his ideas are revolutionary in nature and are closely related to the practical struggle of the masses for their social liberation. The historical significance of Winstanney's "Laws of Liberty" lies in the fact that it was the first to express the demand for the creation of a state based on a social form of ownership and an equal distribution of land among those who cultivate it. Based on the surrounding reality, the actually developed socio-economic relations as a result of the English bourgeois revolution. D. Winstany creates a qualitatively new social utopia, because he develops it not rationalistically, but as the end result of the social revolution that occurred in the 40s of the 17th century in England. In “The Law of Freedom” for the first time we encounter constructive criticism of capitalist social relations from the perspective of the emerging proletariat.

  Previously, the revolutionary direction of utopian socialism was most clearly reflected in the ideas of the French priest Jean Meslier (1664-1729). The historical significance of Meslier’s utopian socialism (“Testament”) lies in the fact that he was the first to combine the idea of ​​​​creating a new social system based on equality with the ideas of the revolutionary struggle of the working masses for their liberation.

  During the period under review, a prominent place belongs to Moriani and his work “The Code of Nature or the True Spirit of Its Laws” (1754). Moriani stands for the complete destruction of private property in the interests of the proletariat and peasantry, for the dominance of private property, in his opinion, is the main cause of social evil. Moriani is a typical representative of that direction of utopian socialism, which advocated ascetic communism. A characteristic feature of his teaching is crude egalitarianism, which, according to K. Marx and F. Engels, was inherent in all movements of the pre-prolitariat. The naivety and utopianism of Moriani’s theory reflected the level of development of the productive forces and public relations, which was characteristic of France mid-18th century century. During this period, the communist ideas of Gabriel Bonneau de Mailly (1709-1785) became noticeably widespread in France. His socio-political views are most fully reflected in the following works: “On the Rights and Duties of Citizens” (1758); “On Legislation or the Principles of Laws” (1776). The basis of Miley's worldview is that people are equal by nature, that wealth inequality appears with the emergence of private property. The latter gives rise to various vices, including oppression, wars, and class struggle.

  A special place in the history of socio-political ideas of the late 18th century belongs to Francois Goel Babeuf (1760-1797), who is the first utopian who tried to practically combine the idea of ​​communism with the idea of ​​revolution. The development of a specific program for practical revolutionary transformations of social life distinguishes Babeuf's teachings from all previous ones and is a significant step forward in the formation and development of utopian socialism. In his theoretical discussions about the establishment of equality, Babeuf came to understand the need not only for a transition period, but also for the establishment of a dictatorship of workers in order to solve the assigned tasks, the creation of an alliance of workers with small owners.

  So, the social basis for the development of utopian socialism in the era of bourgeois revolutions and the formation of capitalism is the struggle of the pre-proletariat and peasantry against feudalism, against emerging bourgeois relations. Rationalism, ideas of equality of people by nature, the development of social thought, natural scientific discoveries created favorable conditions for the further development of utopian socialism, for raising new problems that were not put forward by the founders of utopian socialism, for drawing conclusions about the need for a social revolution, about ways and methods of creating a just society, for development of directly communist theories.

  III CRITICAL UTOPIAN SOCIALISM.

  The first decades of the 19th century are characterized by the further development and dissemination of theories of utopian socialism, which was primarily due to the further development of capitalism, industrial revolutions, the aggravation of the contradictions of the new social system, the increased exploitation of wage labor and, as a consequence, social movement of the people against exploitation. Numerous socio-political theories reflected the struggle of the masses for their socio-economic liberation.

  A special place in the system of socialist utopianism belongs to the theories of Saint-Simon (“Geneva Letters” - 1802); Charles Fourier (“World Harmony” - 1803, etc.), Robert Owen, for they were one of the theoretical sources of Marxism. When analyzing the teachings of Saint-Simon, Fourier and Owen, attention is drawn to their merciless criticism of capitalist relations. At the same time, we must not forget that capitalism at that time was in the ascendant stage, and its many contradictions had not yet emerged. Despite this, the view of capitalist society as a historically limited society, which will be replaced by socialism, shows the genius and breadth of thinking of the representatives of critical utopian socialism.

  Critical utopian socialism wanted to alleviate the situation and liberate all of humanity at once through the discovery and propagation of absolute truth. The main historical significance of utopian socialism, the founders of scientific communism in the Manifesto of the Communist Party wrote: “These writings attack all the foundations of existing society.... Their positive conclusions about the future society, for example, the destruction of the opposition between city and countryside, the destruction of the family, private profit, wage labor, the proclamation of social harmony, the transformation of the state into a simple management of production - all these provisions express only the need to eliminate the class antagonism, which was just beginning to develop and was known to them only in its primary formless uncertainty. Therefore, these provisions still have a completely utopian character.” (Marx K., Engels V. Soch. vol. 4 p. 456).

  IV UTOPIAN SOCIALISM IN RUSSIA

  Russia, later than Western European countries, embarked on the path of capitalist development. Only by the middle of the 19th century in Russia were there signs characterizing the crisis of the feudal-serf system. For these reasons, the decline of Western European utopian socialism coincides in time with its rise in Russia.

  The social structure of Russian society was mainly represented by the peasantry. It was his interests that were represented by the advanced Russian socio-political thought of that time, in the person of A. I. Herzen (1812-1870), V. G. Belinsky (1811-1848), N. G. Chernyshevsky (1828-1889), K. A. Dobrolyubova (1836-1861), whose teaching was closest to scientific communism, was the highest stage in the development of utopian socialism. The utopian socialism of Russian revolutionary democrats as a whole found its expression in the so-called Russian communal socialism of A. I. Herzen. At the heart of his teaching was the idealistic position 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, i.e. The foundations of the socialist system were laid in the Russian village. Instead of capitalism, Herzen proposes socialism, which is based on the peasant community and craft artel under democratic people's power. Wherein a necessary condition is the destruction of serfdom and autocracy. Thus, two lines are clearly visible in Herzen’s work - theoretical and practical, aimed at developing a revolutionary theory and its implementation in the specific conditions of Russia. 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. Belinsky’s historical merit in the development of advanced Russian social thought lies in the fact that he closely linked the idea of ​​a people’s revolution with the idea of ​​socialism, which fundamentally distinguishes his worldview from the critical utopian socialism of Western Europe.

  A special place in the history of utopian socialism is occupied by the teachings of N. G. Chernyshevsky. 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, reduce the grip of private property relations and facilitate the transition to socialism.

  So, the ideals of socialism in the activities of Russian utopian socialists were inextricably linked with the idea of ​​the peasant revolution. The fact that such a revolution would lead to the development of bourgeois relations remained beyond the understanding of revolutionary democrats, including Chernyshevsky, although he foresaw that the process of formation of socialist social relations was quite long.

  The objective situation of that time did not yet allow the utopian socialists of Russia to draw truly scientific conclusions about the possibilities of the victory of socialism, the ways, methods, and forms of its conquest. Despite this, the idea of ​​​​creating socialism through the revolutionary creativity of the masses was the pinnacle in the development of socio-political thought of the pre-Markov period.

  After the emergence and victory of scientific communism in the world revolutionary movement, utopian socialism did not cease to exist, for there remained classes and social strata among which it found support and support. However, modern theories of utopian socialism do not play a revolutionary role, because oppose scientific communism, contribute false ideas into a mass revolutionary movement directed against all forms of exploitation. But this circumstance was pointed out by K. Marx and F. Engels in the “Manifesto of the Communist Party”.

  Bibliography:

  Mor T. “Utopia” M, 1953, Companello T. “City of the Sun” M,. 1954

  Meslier J. “Testament” M, 1964 Marx K., Engschedls F., Op. v. 4

  E. S. Rakhematulin “History of socialist teachings” Kazan State University, 1989

  It took on a socialist tint. Germ socialism Herzen saw in the peasant community... a social force for the implementation socialism". Chernyshevsky gave a description of the capitalist...; "We are Russian socialism we call that one socialism which comes from...

• Russian socialism about politics and state

  Abstract >> Political Science

  They contrasted the ideal of a free, unruly, self-governing socialism, in which individuals will be united in... a step towards “denationalization.” Analyzing political issues socialism, domestic scientists I. A. Isaev and N. M. Zolotukhina...

• Notes on Chinese socialism

  Scientific article >> Public International Law

  The need for creative refraction of ideas socialism in accordance with the real... will build Confucian socialism, formally called " socialism with Chinese characteristics" ... – stimulating the business of building socialism with Chinese characteristics with party...