Scientific communism in the USSR was a compulsory subject for all students of higher educational institutions. Teachers who specialize in bringing its postulates to the minds of the younger generation considered it the main discipline, without knowledge of which any young specialist was considered an unenlightened person and not sufficiently educated. In addition, each school graduate was obliged to learn the articles of the Constitution of the USSR, which set out the basic principles of communism, the cherished goal of the entire Soviet society. But it still had to be reached, but for now people lived in conditions of developed socialism.
The role of money
No one canceled money under socialism, everyone tried to earn it. It was assumed that whoever has more of them works better, and, consequently, the benefits rely. Socialism and communism were proclaimed to be the highest phases in the development of social relations. The differences between these formations, however, were very serious. Understanding them in societyranged from primitive (there will be no money, take what you want in the store) to highly scientific (creation of a new person, superstructure-basis, material and technical base, etc.). The task of propagandists was difficult - it was necessary to find a certain middle ground, since the broad masses did not own the majority of the "science of all sciences", namely they were the main object of propaganda. The most simple principle of modern life was affirmed in the "Stalinist" Constitution. It was clearly stated there that everyone is obliged to work according to his abilities, and he will be rewarded according to the labor invested in the common cause. The postulate of Soviet life was formulated in approximately the same way in the main law of 1977.
Sources
Even the most devoted supporters of Marxism were forced to admit that communist ideas did not arise in the brilliant head of the author of the most progressive theory, but were the result of a synthesis of "three components" taken from "three sources", as he told in one of of his works V. I. Lenin. One of the life-giving keys of science was utopian socialism, founded by the French sociologist and philosopher Saint-Simon. It is to him that we owe the wide popularity of the expression that became the motto of the socialist world order: "To each according to his work, from each according to his ability." Earlier, Saint-Simon wrote the same thing and Louis Blanc in an article on the organization of labor (1840). And even earlier, the fair distribution of the product was preached by Morelli ("Code of Nature …", 1755). Karl Marx quoted Saint-Simon in The Critique of the Gothaprograms" in 1875.
The New Testament and the principle of "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability"
. In practice, this is the same as "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability." The difference is only in the wording. Thus, the slogan of a communist society formulates the New Testament Christian love at the expense of social justice.
What to do with property?
The fundamental difference between socialism and capitalism is the social ownership of the means of production inherent in this system. Any private enterprise is considered in this case the exploitation of a person by a person and is punished according to the law in a criminal manner. Public under socialism is what belongs to the state. And idealistic utopians like Thomas More and Henri de Saint-Simon, as well as Marx and Engels, who are closer to us chronologically, believed that any possession in an ideal human society is unacceptable. In addition, the state under communism is doomed to wither away due to its uselessness. Thus, both private and personal, and state, and public property must completely lose their meaning. It remains only to speculate about what structure will bedistribute we alth.
The triune task as a mirror of the revolution
Marxism-Leninism pointed to the fact that for a successful transition to a higher social formation, it is necessary to solve a triune problem. In order to avoid disputes in the division of the social product, absolute abundance is required, in which there will be so many goods that there will be enough for everyone, and there will still be left. Next comes the point, which is not clear to everyone, about the formation of special social relations inherent only in communism. And the no clearer third component of the triune task is to create a new man who is indifferent to all passions, he does not need luxury, he is content with enough, he only thinks about the benefit of society. As soon as all three parts come together, at the same moment the line separating socialism and communism will be crossed. Differences in the approach to solving the triune problem were observed in different countries, from Soviet Russia to Kampuchea. None of the bold experiments were successful.
Theory and practice
Soviet people have been waiting for communism since the early sixties. According to the promise of the First Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU, N. S. Khrushchev, by the year 1980, as a whole, conditions will be created under which society will begin to live according to the principle "to each according to his needs, from each according to his ability." This did not happen immediately for three reasons, corresponding to all three principles of the triune task. If in the eightieth year of the twentieth century in the USSR they would begin to share the social product, then the matter would not end without conflict. This was confirmed somewhat later, during mass privatization in the nineties. Relations somehow didn’t work out either, and about the new person … It turned out to be very tight with him. Hungry for material goods, the citizens of the former great country found themselves in the grip of a directly opposite ideology, which preaches money-grubbing. Not everyone managed to realize the desire for enrichment.
In the end
Communist society entered the history of mankind as one of the grandiose unrealized projects. The scale of the attempt to radically transform all previously established principles of social organization in Soviet Russia was unprecedented. The new authorities broke the centuries-old way of life, and in their place they erected a system alien to human nature, preaching universal equality in words, but in reality immediately dividing the population into “higher” and “lower”. In the very first years after the revolution, the inhabitants of the Kremlin began to seriously think about which of the cars in the royal garage was more befitting of the rank occupied by a party member. Such a situation could not but lead to the collapse of the socialist system in a historically short time.
The principle “to each according to his needs, from each according to his ability” is observed most successfully in kibbutzim, public farms established on the territory of the State of Israel. Any of the inhabitants of such a settlement can ask to allocate any household item to him, justifying this by the need that has arisen. The decision is made by the chairman. A request is being madealways.
