Olga Nagornyuk

Socialism is a utopia realized in practice

People of the older generation experienced first-hand what socialism is. The social system, presented by the classics of Marxism-Leninism as the only possible way to realize equal rights and freedoms of citizens, turned out to be unviable in practice. We decided to find out why this happened in our article.

What is socialism and how does it differ from other teachings?

Socialism was the name given to the doctrine, and subsequently to the social system, which was based on the principles of freedom, equality and social justice. It would seem that by proclaiming freedom, socialism duplicates liberalism. However, these two trends differ in the main thing - in relation to private property, which the socialist doctrine completely denies, or rather, considers the cause of social inequality.

Among the main features of socialism are the following:

• lack of private ownership of the means of production. Land, factories and factories belong to the state, and for socialists it is the embodiment of people's power;

• no human exploitation. There is no division between the poor and the rich, and accordingly, there is no social oppression and confrontation;

• The proletariat is the advanced class of society. The existence of the intelligentsia is recognized, but its importance is greatly inferior to the working class;

• collectivist values ​​prevail over individual ones. Public life comes first, and personal comes second;

• proclamation of the equality of all cultures and nations on the basis of friendship of peoples, which, according to socialists, is a manifestation of proletarian internationalism.

Socialism arose in opposition to capitalism, and denied almost everything on which capitalism was based: free trade, private property and the principle of capital accumulation.

Utopian socialism

Despite the fact that some scientists find the beginnings of socialist ideas in the works of the ancient Greek philosopher Plato, most researchers believe that the first to describe socialism were Thomas More and Tommaso Campanella. The English humanist writer Thomas More, who lived in the 16th century, described in his novel “Utopia” a fictional island state with an ideal system of social structure.

All its citizens are equal in their rights and are obliged to work. Revenues go to the state, which distributes products to each member of society depending on their needs. All positions in Mora's utopian country are elected, and women have equal rights with men.

Such a teaching was progressive for Europe at that time. In fact, More made the first attempt to depict a democratic structure with socialist foundations.

Socialism according to Karl Marx

Karl Marx, who became the first to provide a scientific basis for the ideas of socialism, abandoned utopian ideas about this social system. For him, socialism was a transition period from capitalism to communism. Marx believed: socialism and private property are incompatible. A person can only own items of personal use, and the means of production must be in the hands of the state, otherwise the emergence of private property, and with it social inequality, cannot be avoided.

In other words, clothes, furniture, and household items can belong to a citizen of a socialist society, but enterprises and land do not.

Marx, who explained in his writings what socialism is, insisted on the need to expropriate in favor of the state the property of those who emigrated, opposed the power of the proletariat and engaged in speculation among citizens. He argued: under socialism, the right of inheritance should be abolished, the state should be made a monopolist in all areas - from transport to trade, as well as child labor in production should be eliminated and free school education should be introduced.

Criticism of the ideas of socialism

Socialism, based on the principles of freedom and equality, in fact turned out to be unviable. The clearest example of this is the collapse of the USSR and the disappearance of the countries of the socialist camp from the world map. Why did it happen?

1. Socialism, indeed, does not accept the exploitation of man by man, but at the same time it replaces it with the exploitation of man by the state. True, capitalism also has this component.
2. Inability to exercise commercial activities suppresses people’s desire to work more, because the size of their salary does not change.
3. The planned economy turned out to be clumsy: it did not take into account the rapidly changing needs of members of society and could not quickly respond to them, reducing the production of low-demand goods and increasing the production of those that were in high demand. Hence the shortage.
4. Enterprises financed from the state budget were not interested in marketing their products, so their quality left much to be desired, and quantity often exceeded demand.
5. Financing factories and plants at the expense of the state eliminates competition, as a result of which the strongest survive, and therefore those who produce higher quality goods. The economy does not self-clean; ballast enterprises, whose products are not in demand, continue to exist, consuming resources and weakening the state’s economy.
6. Since the state received a complete monopoly in all spheres, totalitarianism intensified, giving rise to a hierarchy in society based on the principle of belonging to those in power.

Socialism, unlike the formations that preceded it, was created artificially. At first it was described in detail in their works by Marx, Engels and Lenin, and then using the example Russian Empire and its closest neighbors, an attempt was made to put this experiment into practice. But the human brain, no matter how brilliant it is, cannot calculate all the consequences. Everything artificial takes root poorly; the system invented by the three great thinkers was no exception.

Now, answering the question of what socialism is, we can say: it is a utopia, the unreality of which has been confirmed in practice.

Take it for yourself and tell your friends!

Read also on our website:

Many people even have no idea what to do if they fall on the subway rails: is it possible to try to climb back onto the platform, which side of the tunnel to go, where is the current supplied to the train cars... Therefore, we have prepared for you detailed instructions about how to behave correctly if you fall in the subway.

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 strong family, where everyone gets what they want, giving to others for free 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 benefit 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 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 distributed fairly. Everyone has the right to a certain share, which is equivalent to his contribution to the total labor. Remnants of the previous, capitalist system are money as a measure of public goods.

What is communism

It is believed that this highest form 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 perspective 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 what larger population planet, the more difficult it is to control it and interfere with natural processes.

(socialism) A political and economic theory or system of social organization based on collective or government ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange. Like capitalism, it has many various forms and is an ever-evolving concept. The term "socialism" was first used in the 1830s. followers of Owen in England and Saint-Simon in France. TO mid-19th century V. The world community was already freely operating with a variety of reformist and revolutionary ideas born in Great Britain, Europe and the USA. These ideas were united by the desire to transform capitalist industrial society into a more egalitarian system in which shared prosperity would become a reality and the pursuit of personal gain would be subordinated to the values ​​of association, community and cooperation. Thus, there was a clear emphasis on solidarity, interdependence and the possibility of achieving true harmony to replace conflict, instability and social upheaval. Criticism of the social class basis of capitalism was accompanied by the declaration of the priority of the interests of the working class or the proletariat; Sometimes the principle of direct socialist workers' control was proposed as an alternative to the rule of the ruling classes and elite. As a symbol of the complete abolition of socio-economic differences in the future, the idea of ​​a classless society was proclaimed, to which Marxists attached exclusively important. However, socialists rarely agreed on a strategy for achieving this goal, so differences and contradictions between thinkers, movements and parties, especially in the context of the activities of the 1st and 2nd Internationals (founded respectively in 1864 and 1889), constantly grew. As the new century approached, theories increasingly depicted a socialist society as nation state(despite rhetoric about socialism as an international and even global force) and increasingly talked about the need to put modern science, technology and industry at the service of socialism. But alongside this main trend, there have always been other visions of a socialist future, emphasizing, for example, the potential importance of small communities and the development of the agrarian complex as opposed to general industrialization. In addition, doctrines such as anarchism, communism and social democracy were based on the core values ​​of socialism, and often distinguish different directions and movement was difficult. Thus, Marx and Engels considered themselves “scientific socialists” (as opposed to earlier utopian socialists), but viewed socialism as transition period from capitalism to communism. As socialist movements and parties began to come to power in many countries, interest in socialism inevitably moved from a theoretical plane to a practical one. The main disagreements between socialists concerned the role of the state in the control of property and the organization of the economy ( cm.: state socialism - state socialism), the relationship between socialism and democratic politics, as well as the contradictions between evolutionary (parliamentary) and revolutionary strategies for achieving change. By the 1930s two very different from each other were formed socialist systems, representing opposite extremes (but both doctrinaire) in the interpretation of socialism: socialism in the USSR under the leadership of Stalin and Hitler's National Socialism in Germany. Liberal, conservative, and even anarchist-leaning critics have emphasized the totalitarian tendency of socialist thinking as such. The split of Europe after World War II into a Western pluralist liberal democratic bloc and an Eastern bloc dominated by Marxist ideology further sharpened the differences between the many concepts of socialism. In Western Europe, the Social Democratic and Labor parties used Keynes' ideas to develop a different approach to the regulation and control of capitalism than the Marxist one, emphasizing that social justice and equality would be achieved through effective economic management, including partial, but certainly not complete, nationalization (nationalization) of industry and redistribution of social benefits ( cm.: welfare state - General Welfare State). Social Democrats adopted the realities of a “mixed economy”, rejecting the Marxist analysis of capitalism, as well as the idea of ​​socialization of the basic means of production, distribution and exchange. In the 1980s and 90s, as the welfare state came under increasing economic pressure and the social democratic methods of Keynesian economic management were challenged by alternative theories of neoliberalism and "new right" socialism in Western countries entered a new phase of the crisis. The collapse of Marxist socialism in the USSR and Eastern Europe in the late 1980s and the failures of many socialist regimes in the Third World confirmed that the socialist doctrine is currently looking for new forms. Attempts to modernize, rethink and adapt socialism to new historical conditions have led over the past 25 years to the emergence of a number of ideas and theories of the “new left”. Some of them still exist in socialist movements and parties, while others mobilize and seek support in doctrines such as " new policy", post-materialism, feminism and environmentalism. There is also worthy of attention awakening interest in radical democracy, including a new relationship between the state and civil society(civil society), new assessments of social pluralism, increasing opportunities for political participation(participation) and the question of citizenship rights (citizenship). As always, socialists find plenty to debate, not least with each other.

Socialism is also called an ideology that ensures the construction of a socialist society. Divided:

state socialism - in socialist countries - a type of social structure characterized by state ownership of the means of production and centralized political power exercised by the party-state apparatus;

democratic socialism - the concept of combining the socialist structure of society with democratic forms political life. Democratic socialism proclaims freedom, equality, social justice and solidarity;

kateder-socialism - interpretation of socialism as the implementation of the idea of ​​reason, justice through education and social legislation without class struggle;

utopian socialism - a concept of social structure based on the utopia of an ideal classless society;

Christian (clerical) socialism is a direction of social thought that seeks to combine the principles of Christianity with the ideas of socialism. Christian socialism derives socialist ideas from the worldview of early Christians;

ethical socialism is a theory that substantiates the socialist ideal based on moral principles, and asserting that the transition to socialism can be carried out through the moral evolution of humanity, achieved as a result of identifying the “idea of ​​socialism” inherent in people, regardless of their social affiliation.

The terms “socialism” and “socialist” were first used by Robert Owen (1771–1858), an enlightened industrialist from Wales who created exemplary working conditions in his factories in New Lanark and sought to unite all British workers in a single trade union that could paralyze the country's economy a general strike, and then peacefully take power to transform society on the basis of shared work and prosperity.

Almost at the same time (1830–40) this terminology appeared in France. At the origins of French socialism were Count Henri de Saint-Simon (1776–1825), who believed in a peaceful and rational political system, in which, taking into account the influence of technological progress, the people will be led by highly educated managers, and Charles Fourier (1772–1837), who preached, in the spirit of Robert Owen, life in “phalansteries” - communities based on self-government.

In the subsequent history of socialism, such fundamental differences in views appeared more than once, leading to sharp disputes and clashes between supporters of the idea that workers should decide for themselves how to live, and adherents of the doctrine of the benefits of professional leadership. At the moment, there are 2 main directions in socialism: Marxism and anarchism.

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.

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

The future of socialist teaching was significantly influenced by the work of the German philosophers Karl Marx (1818–83) and Friedrich Engels (1820–95) “Manifesto Communist Party"(1848), which proclaimed the inevitability of a revolution that would change the social and economic system, and the transfer of power to the proletariat.

According to Marx, the transfer of power to the proletariat is possible only as a result of a violent revolution. The victorious workers will have to temporarily establish the dictatorship of the proletariat until the final victory of world socialism. All means of production and distribution material goods will be under the control of the workers. Then, when socialism brings universal abundance, society will enter a new, higher stage of development - communism.

In 1864, Karl Marx created the First International of Working People to coordinate the labor movement. The First International collapsed in 1872 after bitter debates between Marx and the Russian revolutionary Mikhail Bakunin (1814–76), one of the founders of anarchism.

The anarchist theory rejected the Marxist view of the state as an instrument of oppression, which the proletariat must conquer from the exploiters and turn against them. Anarchists wanted to eliminate all forms government controlled, believing that subjects of political and economic processes can exercise control without mediation from the state.

The teachings of the anarchists did not gain such influence as the socialists had, but supporters of one of its directions took the path of violence and terror, loudly declaring themselves in last decade XIX century assassinations of a number of prominent politicians, including US President McKinley.

The Second International, created in 1889, also did not escape internal strife: in the 1890s. Some German Marxists came up with the idea of ​​revising Marx's teachings. German Social Democrats believed that socialism could prevail through peaceful, parliamentary means. The Second International collapsed in 1914.

The further development of the socialist idea was ensured by the victory in the armed uprising in October 1917 of the proletariat in Russia under the leadership of the Russian Social Democratic Party (see October Revolution). The result of the revolution was the formation of the USSR with the official state socialist ideology, the elimination of the opposition and the establishment of a one-party political system, which existed until the 1990s.

In 1919, an international congress of communists took place in Moscow. This congress founded the Third Communist International- Union of workers around the world striving for the establishment of Soviet power in all countries. The expansion of Soviet ideology was extended to a number of countries in Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa, Central and Latin America, forming a camp of socialist countries and socialist-oriented countries, which has now practically disintegrated. Today, China, North Korea, and Cuba can be classified as socialist states.

Socialist-oriented parties are represented in almost all countries where a democratic political regime has been established. In Russia, socialist parties that influence political processes, currently can be attributed to the Communist Party of the Russian Federation - the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (party leader Gennady Zyuganov) and the A Just Russia party (party leader Sergei Mironov).

Excellent definition

Incomplete definition ↓

Socialism (socialism) is an economic system and social system where the idea of ​​universal equality and justice comes to the fore, there is no class division of society, and where the main features are public property, collective labor and planning.

The history of mankind is not only a history of victories and achievements, but it is also a history of disasters, suffering, cruelty, savagery, hunger, etc. Thus, according to A. Maddison, in Europe for a thousand years from 500 to 1500 there was practically no increase in per capita consumption. The nutritional well-being of the nobility presupposed a half-starved existence for the mob. Therefore, still in ancient times a dream arose of an ideal, perfect society where justice, equality, happiness, and freedom would reign. Scientific socialism and communism were thought of as antipodes to the market and capitalism. The market system “encourages” hard work, frugality, initiative, honesty, knowledge and “punishes” laziness, passivity, illiteracy, carelessness, that is, it involves economic coercion through competition. F. Hayek, one of the greatest economists of the 20th century, wrote: " One of the most important reasons hostility to competition, of course, lies in the fact that competition not only shows how goods can be produced efficiently, but also confronts those economic agents whose income depends on market conditions with a choice: either imitate those who have achieved great success, or lose part or all of your income". Such an economic system is fair for society as a whole, since it ensures an increase in the efficiency of the economy and the welfare of the majority, but is perceived as unfair by those who lost in competition. The seller considers it unfair to reduce prices, and the buyer considers them to increase; those whose incomes are small are considered unfair and suspicious high incomes. Much less often people envy intelligence, talent, hard work, knowledge, and experience. But the market system is characterized by another kind of injustice: one inherits wealth, intelligence, and beauty from his parents, while others inherit poverty and illness. It is impossible to completely eliminate such injustice, but it is possible to reduce it and help everyone develop and realize their abilities. But this is not the task of the market, but of the state.

The main features of a socialist society were formulated by the creators of utopian socialism of the late 18th - early 19th centuries A. Saint-Simon, C. Fourier, R. Owen. Their views had a pronounced anti-capitalist, anti-market orientation. The society that, in their opinion, will replace capitalism will have such features as public ownership, collective labor, and planning. This is a classless society, where science and art will be encouraged, philanthropy will prevail, work will become a natural human need, a pleasure. Fourier encountered the idea of ​​competition between people in the labor process. The product will be distributed, according to Fourier, according to labor, capital and talent. R. Owen put forward the principle: from each according to his ability, to each according to his work. They developed a doctrine about socio-economic formations, about the role of class struggle in the development of society, etc.

The theory of scientific socialism of K. Marx and F. Engels did not go further than utopias. But they pointed to the force that would lead to socialism - the proletariat, and to the path of restructuring society - the proletarian socialist revolution. At the same time, the solution to the problem posed by T. More was seen in the high consciousness of the proletariat, which as a class was idealized by Marxists. Therefore, we can say that no scientific theory of socialism, that is, a theory of society, the possibility of the existence of which has been scientifically proven, has never existed. On this occasion, Yu. Burtin wrote in 1989 in the magazine "October" that as soon as Marx and Engels brought the critique of capitalism to the idea of ​​a proletarian revolution and attempted to draw the contours of a society that should arise on this basis, they began to speak without the usual clear clarity and firmness in the voice, somehow more fragmentary and contradictory, indistinct. " Instead of the usual sober realists, we suddenly see before us utopians, whose revolutionary romanticism... involuntarily and imperceptibly turns into its reactionary opposite".

The theory of “scientific” socialism appeals to feelings, but not to reason, and therefore was perceived by those segments of the population who are more inclined to rely on a leader, leader, messiah, and not on themselves. In this theory the messianic element dominates. " The idea of ​​socialism- L. Mises wrote seventy years ago, - at the same time, both grandiose and simple. Indeed, it can be said that the idea of ​​socialism is one of the most ambitious creations human spirit... She is so magnificent and daring that she has caused the greatest misconception in society. We do not have the right to casually throw and forget socialism aside, but must refute it if we want to save the world from barbarism.".

From an economic, and therefore from any other point of view, socialism is unfeasible, and therefore utopian and reactionary, because it leads society not to progress, but to chaos, destruction, and regression. Back in the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels formulated the basic condition social progress: the free development of everyone is a condition free development everyone. They believed that under socialism this principle would be realized. On this basis, according to Marxists, a kind of intellectual explosion will occur, the development of the productive forces will accelerate gigantically and the highest, compared to capitalism, labor productivity, the highest level of well-being of the people will be achieved (all wealth will flow in full flow). " People,- wrote F. Engels, - those who have finally become masters of their own social existence become, as a result, masters of nature, masters of themselves—free.”.

It is obvious that not a single country that has taken the socialist path of development has confirmed these forecasts. On the contrary, after some breakthrough they fell further and further behind the capitalist countries. And the point here is neither a lack of time, nor the ineptitude of the leaders, nor the unpreparedness of the people for a new way of life, but the unattainability of the goals set by the classics with the help of the proposed means. This is the main contradiction of socialist theory. The economy of socialism is based on three principles: public ownership, planned economy, distribution according to work.

Public property cannot but be state property. With her, the owner disappears. Everything is common and everything is nobody's. Her trait is nobody's identity. Everything is controlled by an official who is also not the owner. Therefore, bureaucracy, incompetence, wastefulness are features of this property. All this leads not to progress, but to regression. " There is good reason to fear- wrote A. Marshall, - that collective ownership of the means of production will kill the energy of humanity and stop economic development..."

Orderliness- nothing more than an illusion. After all, planning is possible when solving three problems: 1) measurability of needs; 2) accurate knowledge of the future; 3) opportunities in short time link all manufacturers with each other, calculate all connections between them in kind, assortment, in real time. It is not difficult to prove that all three of these problems have no solution. A planned economy kills initiative. This is a barracks economy, an economy of scarcity, this is production for production, not for people.

Distribution by labor is possible only if it is possible to measure not the costs of labor or working time, but the labor contribution, which is impossible in principle, since it is assumed that the labor of everyone from the very beginning to the sale of products is directly universal labor. The classics of Marxism, having formulated the principle, in an attempt to translate it into the language of practice, replaced distribution by labor with egalitarian distribution. Thus, polemicizing with E. Dühring, F. Engels in the sixth chapter of the second section of “Anti-Dühring” comes to the conclusion that the problem of wages will be solved by changing it (that is, the builder will work alternately as an architect, then as a wheelbarrow worker) and by the fact that the costs of education will be borne by society, and therefore the more qualified worker himself “has no right to claim additional payment.”

Thus, socialist theory is internally contradictory and practically unfeasible. In practice, in all "socialist" countries there was a restoration Asian shape society, but in a socialist verbal shell, implying dictatorship, violence, lack of rights of the masses, stagnation, laziness.

Socialism turned into sociocultural backwardness, poverty, destruction of productive forces for its peoples, environment, the man himself. Community development, as our historian and political scientist Alexei Kiva successfully determined, went a different way, not as Marx, Engels, and Lenin predicted. Not through the proletarian revolution, the dictatorship of the proletariat and socialism, but through the self-development of capitalism, a society based on private property. Not by denying the market and entrepreneurship, but by developing it by transforming an industrial society into a post-industrial one. Of course, this society has a lot of problems: here work has not turned into pleasure, as the classics thought; here everyone did not become equal, rich and happy. But they have significantly surpassed the former socialist countries in the level of development of science and technology, in the level of well-being, health, life expectancy, in the level of freedom, democracy, and in the field of human rights. " Society,- writes M. Friedman, - that puts equality (i.e. equality of outcome) above freedom will ultimately lose both equality and freedom. But if, in order to achieve this equality, society resorts to force, then all this will destroy freedom, and force, which was used for the best purposes, will end up in the hands of those people who use it in their own interests.".

So, the reason for the destruction of socialism is the lack of viability, the ineffectiveness of this economic system. It was an experiment, obviously doomed to failure. " Lenin directs Russian history along the wrong, dead-end path"- wrote G.V. Plekhanov in his political testament, first published on November 30, 1999 by Nezavisimaya Gazeta." Under Leninist socialism, workers from being hired by the capitalist can turn into being hired by the feudal state, and peasants. .. - in his serfs" - this was dictated at the beginning of 1918 " Bolshevism is the ideology of the lumpen“, dictated the dying “pioneer of Marxism” in Russia. Return to the global mainstream economic development It couldn’t have been easy or painless: the drop in production exceeded all forecasts. The scale of inflation is enormous, the problem of employment has become extremely acute, and income differentiation has increased.

Basics economic theory. Lecture course. Edited by Baskin A.S., Botkin O.I., Ishmanova M.S. Izhevsk: Udmurt University Publishing House, 2000.

What is socialism? This term was first published in the work of Pierre Leroux in 1834. However, he never formulated a further definition of the concept, denoting the opposite of “individualism.” Around the same time in England this term began to be used by Owen's followers. At that time, socialism generalized the teachings about the need for social transformation.

Communal socialism, which arose in the mid-19th century in Russia, became a clear example the situation prevailing at that time. It was in his works that he drew attention to the communal orders that dominated the peasant world. In his opinion, they were the ones who should have become the beginning of the establishment of the socialist system. Many years of experience in the communal system led to the emergence of a whole set of measures that supported bankrupt farms. For the peasant community they appeared characteristic features redistribution of land, collective decision-making.

After some time, M. Tugan-Baranovsky wrote that the creators,

Answering the question of what socialism is, they wanted to characterize a new social direction that put forward the importance of cooperation in society. It was supposed to be the opposite of the economic school that dominated at that time and which recognized individual entrepreneurship as the ideal of the economic system.

Based on the philosophical definition of what socialism is, it was formulated political ideology, which put forward as a goal a society where there is no exploitation of people, but justice and social equality are established. Discarding national specifics, this concept for a long time defined as a form public organization, where the main productive means, as well as the land, belong to the state, which organizes the management of the economy. In addition, it deals with the distribution of the products of labor in conjunction with the principle: “from each according to his ability, to each according to his work.”

However, history has made its own adjustments. What is socialism in the modern sense? This is a society where state ownership of the means of production dominates in equality with others, including private ones. In addition, it assumes the following form political power, which aims to satisfy the interests of the entire population.

This definition is closely related to the concept of “democratic socialism”. It is understood as a society that has a multi-structured economy focused on the interests of the people; state and public control also has the same orientation. Fundamental