Низовцев Юрий Михайлович : другие произведения.

The evaluation of the effectiveness of socialism at different stages of the social development

Самиздат: [Регистрация] [Найти] [Рейтинги] [Обсуждения] [Новинки] [Обзоры] [Помощь|Техвопросы]
Ссылки:
Школа кожевенного мастерства: сумки, ремни своими руками Юридические услуги. Круглосуточно
 Ваша оценка:
  • Аннотация:
    As the practice has shown, the overwhelming majority of the planet's population still believes in the advent of socialism as a panacea for all troubles. And, indeed, socialism in certain forms is capable of being such before the emergence of civilization and after its collapse, but is a passive element in the course of civilization's development due to its archaism and tendency to stagnation.
  
  
  Keywords: consciousness, self-consciousness, information, socialism, stagnation, development, property.
  
  Socialism, according to its well-known definition (socialis - public), rejects the private property and assumes the social equality.
  There is a great deal of speculation around this concept, since socialism provides for the equalization of all members of society without the exclusion or allocation of special groups, which naturally inclines the majority of the population towards it, who want this kind of justice.
  Socialism came to the fore only in the 20th century after the victory of the Bolsheviks in Russia in 1917, which led to the establishment of this system in almost half the world.
  However, in essence, socialism as a necessity existed in the form of the primitive communal system long before the emergence of civilization for about 40 thousand years, since the purely adaptive nature of the activity of individual human herds required an equal distribution of prey for the sake of the survival of the community as a whole, rejecting competition within the community, but opposing its community to others.
  Such harsh conditions of survival brought to the forefront not the egocentrism of the natural consciousness of each individual, but the egocentrism of the collectivist natural consciousness of the entire community, leaving the self-consciousness of each member of the community within the framework of his specific labor activity, which distinguished him from animals by relying not only on adaptation to the environment, but also on the adaptation of the environment to the interests and goals of the entire community.
  That is, for this primitive socialism, the most characteristic is not individual, but the collectivist consciousness and in this respect does not differ from subsequent forms of socialism.
  Thus, the primeval socialism is the most ancient and primitive form of socialization of everything, including a person oneself, in order for the community to achieve, first of all, survival in the wild, leaving development in the background, or rather, not thinking about it at all, since development requires freedom, and under primeval socialism necessity reigns.
  Therefore, it took several tens of thousands of years to transform the aggregate of primeval communities into the civilization based on the private property.
  Nevertheless, the memory that once there was the true fairness, and not the permanent civilizational deception, has survived to this day, but the conditions under which this fairness was realized were forgotten.
  These conditions involved primarily the establishment of a balance between community and nature, and not the mastery of it, but this is nothing more than stagnation.
  A number of tribes in Africa, South America, Asia and Australia are still in this equilibrium state.
  Only the tribes located in the territory of the modern Middle East managed to emerge from this state of primitive socialism about six thousand years ago, thanks to favorable climatic and geographical circumstances at the junction of three continents, which contributed to the most intensive exchange of information between the communities of this region and, accordingly, the increase in the level of self-consciousness of the population, expressed in a more effective development of their own environment, and therefore, own creativity, which resulted not only in the development of crop production and livestock farming, but also in the exchange of goods.
  Further improvement of trade determined an opportunity of creating surpluses, which brought traders to the forefront, that required the protection of these surpluses both physically and legislatively. All this led to the gradual transformation of primitive tribes into states with corresponding institutions.
  Thus, the competition of tribes within the framework of survival was transformed locally into the competition of states for sources of resources and profits of any kind, and the states themselves acquired a hierarchical form with the allocation of power structures that exploited their own population and were always ready for the expansion depending on the circumstances.
  Thus, socialism in its archaic form of collectivization of everything came to an end with the victory of private property.
  Be that as it may, the overwhelming majority of the population, subjected to merciless exploitation in any state, did not forget about the possibility of the collective labor for everyone, equally distributing the products of their labor.
  These aspirations were reflected in the works of Plato in ancient times, who discussed the possibility of creating a fair people's state.
  Plato imagined happiness and justice within the framework of the state-polis as follows: "Until philosophers reign in the state, or the so-called current kings and lords will not nobly and thoroughly philosophize and this will not merge into one - the state power and philosophy, and until those people are obligatorily removed - and there are many of them - who are now striving separately or for power, or to philosophy, until then, dear Glaucon, states will not get rid of evils, and it will not become possible for the human race and will not see the sunlight that state structure which we have only described verbally" [1. Book 5]. "... the best men should mostly unite with the best women, and the worst, on the contrary, with the worst, and that the progeny of the best men and women should be educated, and the offspring of the worst should not, since our small herd should be the most selective. But that this is how it is done, no one should know, except the rulers themselves, so as not to bring the slightest discord into the squad of guards" [ibid.].
  In addition to the selection of the progeny, Plato proposed to completely eliminate private property, up to the possession of wives, bringing the diversity of citizens of the state in this respect to one denominator for the sake of their equalization, and thereby free them, as he believed, from enmity and envy caused by uneven ownership of property: "... no one should have any private property, unless it is absolutely necessary ... ... no one should have such a dwelling or storeroom, where everyone who wishes would not have access" [1. Book 3].
  About two thousand years later, a similar theory of creating a fair state based on the societal property was proposed by Thomas More and Tommaso Campanella.
  Thomas More describes what he considers to be the ideal state structure so: "...there, where no man has any property, all men zealously pursue the good of the public, and, indeed, it is no wonder to see men act so differently, for in other commonwealths every man knows that, unless he provides for himself, how flourishing soever the commonwealth may be, he must die of hunger, so that he sees the necessity of preferring his own concerns to the public; but in Utopia, where every man has a right to everything, they all know that if care is taken to keep the public stores full no private man can want anything; for among them there is no unequal distribution, so that no man is poor, none in necessity, and though no man has anything, yet they are all rich..." [2. The second book. Conclusion].
  Campanella, like Plato, holds the view that the private property is harmful to the existence of a just state, bringing this consideration, like Plato, to the point of absurdity - the community of wives: "...the community of wives ... is accepted by them on the basis that they have everything in common. The distribution of everything is in the hands of officials, but since knowledge, honors and pleasures are common property, no one can appropriate anything for himself. They claim that property is formed with us and is supported by the fact that we each have our own separate dwelling and our own wives and children. Hence selfishness arises, because in order to achieve wealth and an honorable position for his son and leave him by the heir to a large fortune, each of us either begins to plunder the state if he is not afraid of anything, being rich and noble, or becomes a miser, a traitor and a hypocrite when he lacks power, wealth and nobility. But when we renounce selfishness, we will only have love for the community" [3].
  However, Karl Marx was the most thorough theorist of socialist ideas. But these ideas, again, essentially duplicate the basic tenets of Plato, Mohr, and Campanella.
  In the leading place from all citizens, Marx puts assistants of the main sages, like himself, imbued with the ideas of these sages: "...the Communists, in practice, are the most decisive, always striving forward part of the workers' parties of all countries, and in theoretical terms they have the advantage over the rest of the mass of the proletariat that they understand the conditions, progress and general results of the labor motion" [4, p. 17].
  Like Plato in relation to private property, Marx states: "Communists can express their theory in words: the destruction of the private property" [ibid, p. 17].
  True, to console the public, Marx declares: "... this will not be the transformation of the private property into the public property. Only the social character of property will change. It will lose its class character" [ibid, p. 18].
  Developing the idea of the destruction of private property in the future, Marx admits that in this way the personality is also destroyed, but, apparently, the impersonality does not frighten him, just as it did not frighten Plato, who on this basis introduced true, in his opinion, equality, against which Marx does not object: "In bourgeois society, capital has independence and individuality, while the worker is dependent and impersonal. And the bourgeoisie calls the destruction of these relations the destruction of the human personality and freedom. And she's right. It is really about the destruction of the bourgeois personality, bourgeois independence and bourgeois freedom. Under modern bourgeois conditions of production, freedom is understood as freedom of trade, freedom of purchase and sale" [ibid, p. 19].
  All this sounds loud and convincing as a true struggle for fair for the majority of working people, but, alas, Lenin has faced similar idealism in Russia in his time, when communes, the abolition of trade, buying and selling led to the practical collapse of the state and famine, forcing the main sage Lenin to re-introduce these bourgeois prejudices, as Marx estimated them, in the form of the NEP (New Economic Policy), which was in fact a salutary return to the old methods of management.
  Quite in accordance with Plato's ideas about the ideal state, Marx believes that the destruction of the family will solve the problem of raising offspring in the spirit of collectivism, exposing the pretext for this measure that the family is the basis of the bourgeois system, also offering, in accordance with Plato's ideas, to raise children not at home, but in a public way: "On what does the modern bourgeois family rest? On the capital, on the private profit. In its fully developed form, it exists only for the bourgeoisie, but it finds its complement in the forced celibacy of the proletariat and in open prostitution. The bourgeois family will naturally have to fall with the fall of this addition, and both of them will disappear together with the disappearance of capital ... Bourgeois rhetoric about the family and upbringing, about the tender relationship of parents to children, inspires all the more disgust, the more family ties are destroyed among the proletariat thanks to large-scale industry, and the more children of workers are turned into mere commodities and working tools ... Communists could be reproached except in the fact that they want to put the official community of wives in the place of the hypocritically concealed one. But it goes without saying that with the destruction of modern conditions of production, the community of wives created by them, that is, official and unofficial prostitution, will also disappear" [ibid 3, p. 21-22].
  Marx also uses Plato's idea of the compulsory attachment of a citizen to the workplace in the following formulation: "The same obligation of labor for all, the establishment of armies of labor, especially for agriculture ... The combination of agricultural labor with factory labor, the gradual elimination of the difference between town and country" [ibid, p. 26].
  As for the Platonic selection of citizens, Marx believes that capitalism itself has selected the most determined citizens, who will overthrow it. These are hired workers in factories and factories - the proletariat: "The proletariat will take advantage of its political dominance in order to take away all capital from the bourgeoisie in a series of attacks, in order to centralize all the tools of labor in the hands of the state, that is, the proletariat organized as the ruling class ..." [ibid, p. 25].
  Lenin was the most detached from reality at first, that is, not realizing that, in essence, socialism in a developing society is nothing more than a refuge for conservatives in a state of stagnation. He believed that only a socialist system would be able to use violent measures to quickly remove capitalists from the set, have made it all-people and, therefore, fair: "...socialism is nothing other than a state-capitalist monopoly, directed to the benefit of the people and, to that extent, having ceased to be a capitalist monopoly" [5].
  All these theorists, reflecting the desire of the masses, did not take into account two main factors that prevent the implementation of their socialist ideas within the framework of a developing society.
  One of them is the impossibility of establishing either physical (the capabilities of the human brain differ by tens of times and, accordingly, the understanding of reality), or economic (no repression will exclude the possibility of enrichment), or legal (any law can be circumvented) equality by forcibly transforming an antagonistic state structure into a benevolent organization for all.
  The other factor is the inevitable halt in social development (stagnation) in the event of the implementation of their ideas due to the removal of competitive struggle, which I. Kant warned about, having pointed out that an idyllic existence without struggle means complete stagnation and a halt in the development of society: "The means that nature uses to realize the development of all the inclinations of people is their antagonism in society, since it ultimately becomes a cause of its law-consistent order... ...Without these themselves unattractive properties of non-sociability, generating resistance, which everyone must inevitably come across in their selfish claims, all talents in the living conditions of the Arcadian shepherds, that is, in conditions of complete unanimity, moderation and mutual love, would forever remain hidden in the bud; people as meek as the sheep they graze are unlikely to have made their existence more worthy than that of pets... " [6, p. 5].
  The fact that socialism actually denies development, since internal competition between the individuals of the community is suppressed for the prosperity of the community as a whole, is confirmed by the failure of the socialist system in Russia after the 1917 revolution, which lasted only a few decades.
  The abolition of private property itself did not happen in industrialized countries, as all theorists of Marxism assumed, but in backward agricultural Russia precisely because of communal farming by the vast majority of the population - peasants who, as in the archaic communities of antiquity, had a collectivist consciousness. That is, the peasant population of Russia was to a certain extent ready for the transition from the private to the societal property in certain circumstances, which happened during a senseless war for them, the devastation occurring in the course of its and the attractive slogans of the Bolsheviks.
  In Russia, after the October Revolution of 1917, the societal ownership of the means of the production was established, and the distribution of the products of labor was carried out, as it were, according to the abilities of each individual.
  It is curious that archaic socialism was being implemented in exactly the same way under the conditions of the primitive communal system, but the theorists of socialism didn't take into account that this archaic socialism was forced, that is, necessary for the sake of survival, not development.
  As expected, the initial enthusiasm of the working population of Russia was quickly replaced by disappointment due to the low level of consumption and the inability to compete with developed countries. Russia entered a period of stagnation, supporting its potential, in essence, by trading in natural resources.
  This stagnation is explained by the fact that the essence of socialism is the domination of necessity over freedom, and freedom is most manifested in conditions of the competition, limited by little.
  Therefore, the October attempt to change the social relations in favor of workers should be recognized not as the revolution, but as the counterrevolution, from the position of achieving accelerated development of society. That is, socialism in Russia was nothing more than a rollback from free competition to stagnation, so characteristic of archaic communities (see, for example, 7).
  So, the collectivist self-consciousness inherent in socialism is not suitable for the accelerated development, but, nevertheless, it is most effectively manifested in the equilibrium state of the human communities with nature.
  Thus, socialism within the framework of the developing society (capitalism), as later practice has shown, really turned out to be a false semblance of a just society, which was rightly stated in his time by the famous Russian philosopher N. F. Fedorov: "The unification in the name of comfort, for the sake of one"s own pleasure, is the worst thing the use of life both mentally, aesthetically, and especially morally... ...Socialism is a deception; kinship, brotherhood, he calls the partnership of people alien to each other, connected only by external benefits... ...Is it possible, is it natural to limit the "human cause" to protecting only the correct distribution of the products of production, forcing everyone to insensitively, dispassionately observe that no one appropriates more for himself against others or that someone would give up something to others, refusing what is theirs? [8, part 1, paragraph 19].
  Moreover, as current reality shows, over time, local formats in socialism that have not yet collapsed become a refuge for the poor and outcasts - Cuba and North Korea.
  However, the socialist system, which significantly slows down development and even leads society to long-term stagnation, is nevertheless the only effective one at the stage of survival of any community, which is what happened before the emergence of the civilization due to the concentration of the egocentrism of the natural consciousness together with self-consciousness on the collectivist actions of the community, pushing the individual manifestations of a person far into the background.
  This kind of a local socialism is also characteristic of some communities today, with some differences but the same essence - the absence of private property, which are not interested in development, but in the preservation of certain institutions and the established order, that is, in a way, their conservation. In particular, these include almost all Christian sects, whose members renounce property in favor of their community, thereby denying private property and the family as the basic unit of society; to a certain extent, they also include self-governing kibbutzim, which function quite successfully in Israel [see, for example, 9, chapter 3].
  It is precisely the socialist system, due to the prevalence of collectivist consciousness over the consciousness of the individual person, that completes the functioning of civilization, unless, of course, it perishes completely, most effectively guaranteeing the survival of the population remaining from the civilization in local cells such as kibbutzim [ibid., chapter 2].
  
  Bibliography
  
  1. Plato. Complete works. Republic. Book VIII. Hackett Publishing Company. 1997.
  2. More, Tomas (1516/1967), "Utopia". The Essential More, New York: New American Library.
  3. 3. Tommaso Kampanella. The City of the Sun. Amazon. ISBN-13. 978-1507823613.
  4. K. Marx. The Communist Manifesto. Geneva. 1882.
  5. В. И. Ленин. Грозящая катастрофа и как с ней бороться. Архивная копия от 16 ноября 2017 на Wayback Machine (1917).
  6. Idea for a Universal History from a Cosmopolitan Point of View (1784). Translation by Lewis White Beck. From Immanuel Kant, "On History", The Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1963.
  7. Nizovtsev Y. M. Monography "On the essence of a people in the frameworks of the state". Chapter 8. Revolution as a consequence of the rise of self-consciousness to a high level. 2024. Litres.ru. Amazon.
  8. Фёдоров Н. Ф. Философия общего дела. 1906. https://predanie.ru
  9. Nizovtsev Y. M. Communes as result of crash of all civilization. 2016. Amazon.
  
  
  
  
 Ваша оценка:
Связаться с программистом сайта.

Новые книги авторов СИ, вышедшие из печати:
О.Болдырева "Крадуш. Чужие души" М.Николаев "Вторжение на Землю"

Как попасть в этoт список

Кожевенное мастерство | Сайт "Художники" | Доска об'явлений "Книги"