People are social beings, but we can have different social interests. You need to explore this foundation as well. Is your partner a sports fan? How many hours a week does he spend in front of the TV screen? (Don't think that after the wedding he will change!) What are your musical preferences? Do you like opera, ballet, spiritual songs? I remember how one young wife was indignant: "He constantly listens to this primitive" country and western ". I can not stand this kind of music!" Before marriage, they did not find out this issue.
I wonder why? Maybe love played an important role in this?
What kind public events you love? Do you know such a situation when the husband spends all his free time with friends, and the wife sits at home alone? Do you like going to parties? If so, which ones? These are questions that cannot simply be dismissed.
"Should we have the same social interests?" - you ask. No, but you must have a basis for unity. Do you have enough in common to grow together? Social development must begin even before marriage. If it is not, then after the wedding it is unlikely to appear. Expand your horizons. Try something you haven't enjoyed before. See if you both enjoy the same things. If you are moving in different directions socially, remember that the purpose of marriage is unity. Ask yourself: "If his social interests never change, will I be happy with him for the rest of my life?"
What about your personality? Can you describe in one paragraph what you are as a person? Why don't you do it? Ask your potential spouse to do the same. Show these notes to each other. Is your idea of yourself different from the other person's idea of you?
They say that opposites attract. However, opposites are not always compatible. Do you understand each other well enough to become a team? I do not argue, your individual characteristics can complement the features of your partner, but the whole question is whether he wants this.
What kind of friction do you have while dating? Do you see any potential problems when you think about living together with this person? Discuss them openly? Can you overcome these difficulties before marriage? If you don’t succeed, then later they will intensify even more.
This does not mean at all that only twin individuals achieve happiness in marriage. So it won't take long to die of boredom! However, you need mutual understanding and confidence that you can get along with each other - after all, the clash of characters will not disappear after the wedding.
Interregional public organizationUniversal Social Unity not even born yet: it is still an embryo, a clot of protoplasm. Nevertheless, it can be assumed that regardless of the outcome, even in case of a miscarriage, this social initiative will already go down in the political history of Russia as the first attempt to implement in the public space the ideas of the great Russian thinker, our contemporary Andrei Georgievich Kuptsov, a seer and prophet, a man of fantastic erudition and intellectual culture.
Concept: the economic, social, humanitarian agony of statehood that is taking place today in the Russian Federation is natural and determined by objective and subjective circumstances. Subjective are fundamental errors of a strategic nature, a consequence of the theoretical imperfection of the accepted socio-economic paradigm. The foundation of the failed attempt to replace the civilizational model was the bastard belief in the viability of the Euro-Atlantic model and the failure of the Soviet project.
The works of "bourgeois" philosophers-critics of the system were "studied" and commented on from the positions of vulgar archaic, conserved "materialism", emasculated mummified Marxism, and the role of communist "social science" in the ensuing catastrophe should become the basis for understanding: without a full-fledged theory, we are doomed to mistakes, and for this, Time and History have not left us the opportunity.
The death of Russian civilization is predictable and quite likely in the near future.
The essence of Kuptsov's theory: on the territory of Russia, in principle, it is impossible to develop commodity-money relations, i.e., capitalism of the classical type that creates and exploits industrial capital: due to objective restrictions that also make it impossible to develop agricultural production. These resource restrictions are permanent and irremovable, since these are the geoclimatic conditions of the territory of Russia.
Due to these conditions, the most unfavorable on the planet, profitable agricultural production in the conditions of the world market is impossible in any way, there is no technological solution, the level of costs is so high that the product is illiquid at a price that includes cost recovery, with no profit, even in the domestic market. For example, according to the Ministry of Agriculture, in 2016, grain was sold at a price $ 2 higher than the cost, and this was in the most favorable conditions for using the remaining fixed assets created in the USSR, that is, without capital investments and with subsidizing by the “state” of an insignificant imitation Agriculture. That is, in order to imitate life and well-being in the territory, it was necessary to pay extra from the raw material rent.
Degradation commodity production is also natural and has no options for resolving within the framework of the prevailing “economic” paradigm, or rather, the animal egoism of subjects who have seized raw material rent as the only source of cash income available to primitive grabbers, brought up by doorways and criminal groups. High prices on energy carriers, climatic and operational costs, stagnating fantastically inefficient logistics, superimposed on distances and off-road, secondary effects of the intellectual and professional degradation of the population - this is a sentence for something that still somehow functions in a semi-conscious state.
Those industries that "work" provide cover for theft of the budget. For example, it would be much cheaper for workers in factories fulfilling military orders to pay benefits so that they no longer spend material resources and resources of surviving equipment on the production of technologically backward and functionally meaningless " military equipment”, such as monstrously wretched “Kalashnikovs”, anti-aircraft trash, joking and funny Iskanders, self-propelled ships without a motor and airplanes without electronics. The space for Homeric theft would disappear: however, this is a polemical device, I understand that theft is the foundation of the vertical, which ensures the filling of the cavernous body and an erection.
Spontaneous unstructured protests are even desirable for caudles. Let the people yell, relieve tension, utilize the accumulated aggression and go home to die satisfied. If only the basics were not touched, they did not encroach on the sacred. It will be necessary, they will give several functionaries to be torn to pieces, it will become necessary, they will announce the restoration of the USSR-2, they will hang red flags, they will canonize Stalin and dry the relics of the communists for the "Orthodox". If only some Sechin or Rotenberg with Shmukler received money - a million a day, even in the form of a salary, it would be even more convenient and safer. Methods of social mimicry and manipulation of consciousness have been mastered.
Revolutionary transformations of reality are taking place in people's minds. For example, after the collapse of the Republic of Ingushetia and a period of anarchy, the delegates of the Soviets of all Russia gathered at the initiative of the Petrosoviet, discussed the situation, procedural issues, created legal documents to substantiate the legislative power, adopted resolutions, appointed an authority competent between the Congresses - the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars - an analogue of the Council Ministers.
This bureaucratic measure, the execution of procedural formalities, was prepared in the minds of the delegates of the 2nd Congress and the members of the Soviets who authorized them. This was called the “October Revolution”, and the fables about the “Aurora”, the overthrow of the “Provisional Government”, which, by the way, did not exist since August, and the storming of the Winter Palace are theatrical fairy tales for underdeveloped illiterate peasants. Like a comic book for the mentally retarded.
It is necessary to study and understand the true history of Russia, to understand the greatness and cosmic significance of building a society of equality and social justice. It is necessary to learn and understand that socialism was like a system vital organization the next, progressive stage in the development of mankind, a system of the highest level, and the restoration of purulent, insane "capitalism" was a regression, a reduction into the archaic, that we, without comprehending the past, stepped on the same rake hardened from pus and blood.
It is necessary to adopt a new ethics, realizing the infernal horror of what is happening to us, a new logic and a hard and unambiguous, uncompromising and ruthless look. For example, if you see trash on a Maybach, it’s not a “businessman”, and not a “golden youth”, not an “elite” in front of you, but a predatory ruthless creature that robbed you and takes away the future and life of your children, and the creature is to be destroyed, even if not today, but inevitably.
Change yourself, help your neighbor, unite in social networks. Their weapons are lies and mental abuse. Our weapon is truth, our method of resistance is to destroy their bastions of lies and the bullshit empire they have created. Consistently, constantly, everywhere - break the shackles of falsehood. Their world is doomed, our duty is that they fall into the underworld without dragging our children with them.
Study the works of Andrei Georgievich Kuptsov, watch videos on Youtube, do not pay attention to his shocking appearance and nervous reactions. This is a truly great man on the scale of Kant, Hegel, Marx, and if humanity survives, breaking free from the noose of "civilization", he will take his place in the pantheon of great people as one of the saviors of the biological species homo sapiens.
P.S. By the way, Kant was small, round-shouldered, narrow-chested, with poor diction, quick-tempered, not without oddities. But the absolute nonentities in science simply masterfully build the image of "great scientists": rehearsed manners, thoughtful appearance, staged facial expressions, intonations and reactions ... Look, think, academician! And the truth is "academician" ...
The existence of closed estates and warring classes fighting among themselves violates the unity of the nation and inevitably leads society to exhaustion and death.
Russia must come to a social system in which the natural, historically formed main strata of the Russian nation - the peasants, workers and intelligentsia, who never in themselves aspired to class isolation, can merge into one whole, in a single service to the common people, national goals.
The restructuring of society should not be led by any class. A social revolution carried out by some one class, in the name of the interests of this class and under the sign of its dictatorship, leads to new social injustices. The dominance, for example, of the working class, the subordination of the interests of other classes to its interests, is just as unjust as the domination of the capitalists and landowners that has gone into the past in Russia.
A class revolution cannot lead to a just society.
It is possible to create a social system that is not corroded by internal contradictions and is based on genuine social justice only by rising above narrow class and party aspirations, taking into account the interests of all social groups, subordinating these interests and linking them to the common people's, national interests and goals.
Russian peasantry, disenfranchised and oppressed for centuries, must not only be freed from the newest kind serfdom - a forced system of collectivization, but also, for the first time in Russian history, should receive in practice all the rights of citizenship. It must become an independent strong owner of the land and the fruits of its labor.
Russian workers should not be exploited proletarians without rights, but they cannot be the ruling class (which in fact they are not even now). The harmonious development of society requires the overcoming of any narrow class psychology. The workers must become secure, free and equal citizens of the country.
Russian intelligentsia, which has never been a closed caste, must continue to be replenished with advanced people from all walks of life and be closely connected with the people. It must preserve the best traditions of selfless service to the people and carry out this service in cultural and social creativity.
In a national labor society, as in any other, there must be a distribution of social duties. The presence of different social groups due to this distribution, as well as the inevitable differences in the social, domestic and other status of citizens, must be based on the principles of social justice and justified by social expediency. In other words, various social groups should not represent castes, separated by property, professional or other characteristics.
Most natural for the national labor system public associations based on the reasonable organization of joint labor and creativity, - labor groups.
A labor group is a creative community of people united by a common service to one cause, solidarized by this very thing into one common “we”.
To feel in a team not as “I”, but as “we” means to be imbued with the commonality of goals and interests of this team. In such a community, professional, property, domestic and other differences are easily overcome and recede into the background.
Representatives of the labor group cooperate different types physical and mental labor; it unites the head of an enterprise and a worker, an engineer and an apprentice, an agronomist and a milkmaid. Each member of the labor group, contributing his share of labor in his field, performs part of the common cause. On this basis, the labor group represents a solid public association.
Organized labor groups constitute the living basis of the social fabric of a national labor society.
THE NATIONAL LABOR SOCIETY IS A SINGLE LABOR ASSOCIATION, A SINGLE NATIONAL ORGANISM.
NOT CLASSES AND NOT STATES, BUT LABOR GROUPS ARE THE SOCIAL BASIS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR SOCIETY.
Sets the Common Task for Russia =
Restore Socialism as a System
of the nationwide unified economy
General Inalienable Budget
All-Russian Social Unity- Gives Russia the Only and Objectively Last Software
Definition of such a system as Socialism
Freed from Multifaceted or False Political Terms and Images about
The consignment "ALL" = As a Coordinating Collective Guarantor of Goal-Setting Liberated this Great Histori-
Definition Created in Faktura in Russia in January 1918 as the Republic of ResSovDep
This Definition and in fact the Unified Program
YOU EXPRESS THE PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL FEATURES OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF RUSSIA IN WHICH IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DEVELOP AND SURVIVE UNDER EQUAL CONDITIONS FOR ALL - WITHOUT UNITED WILL
INTO A UNIFIED LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEM
Party RFE-
Summing Up the Development of Civilization
Summarizes the experience of the Development of Russia 1918-1988
Summarizes the Experience of the Catastrophe - 1988-1991-1993
Restoring Capitalism
ALL. = Proven Convinced - For Russia
Best Scheme Public Device
This is the System - United National Economy
This is the Structure - the Unified Inalienable Budget
This Idea is Social Immutable Equality
According to the Single Vertical of the Elected Authorities of the Law -
This is the Power - the Energy of the Infinite Development of Everyone
This Feeling of the People = Ordered Happiness of Life
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SOCIALISM IS THE INEVITABILITY OF RUSSIA
Due to geoclimatic features
For a clear understanding of the Objective Power and Right of this National thesis, everyone needs to read and understand 3 articles by A.G. Kuptsov about the Earth and the National Food of Russia posted in Maxpark, in the PROZA.RU system or on Yandex disk-
1st part - https://yadi.sk/d/YAEunGEVbmJRw
2nd part - https://yadi.sk/d/dz0qHj2Bbse2E
3rd part - https://yadi.sk/d/Rclwm_DYcUrmv
SOCIALISM AS A PUBLIC SYSTEM
Created on the basis of the Idea of a Natural Equal
Rights of Each Member of the Society
This Right is expressed in the 1st Constitution of the Republic
RESSOVDEP 1918
"The whole Earth, its Subsoil and All Material values is in the public domain and cannot be owned by anyone"
************************************************
SOCIALISM Expresses the Biological Essence of Human Life itself on Planet Earth - This is an Equal Right to a Common Resource for the Planet's Life Support. This is the Equal Right to the Survival of the Species. These are equal Rights to consume the Means and Survival Items Necessary for the Organism. These are Equal rights to a Share in the Total FOOD and Equal Rights to Items and Means of protection from Environment. This is an equal Right to choose the social sphere of being, and to participate in the General Process of Transformation and Improvement of the World……….
**************************************************
SOCIALISM IN GOAL-SETTING=
ACHIEVING THE PHYSICAL PARAMETERS OF LIFE
This is the Physical Optimum of Biological Life
Which provides a fulfilling life
Citizen of Russia as a Priority Bio-Species of the Nation
Basis of Life =FOOD= Foodstuffs
In the Priority form as Protein =
I- Fish + Meat-Dairy and
II- Fruit and Vegetable Products
Which should gradually displace Krupo Flour and
Fatty Sugar Food Products that over hundreds of years of eating have led to the degradation of the People of Russia when the average male (15-45 years old) citizen of Russia is less handsome, physically weaker and less hardy than the average representative of Asia, the Caucasus, Europe and America.
A citizen of Russia must be a Reference View
Food Under Socialism Transforms The Nation
According to these food consumption parameters, Russia and Man of Russia should always be among the 5 leading countries in consumption.
FISH - 30 kg
(Fish for 1987 - in kg- Japan - 34, Denmark - 20, Finland - 19, USSR - 19, Cuba - 15,)
MEAT-112 kg
(Meat for 1987 in kg- USA - 119, France - 105, SSR - 62 (No. 12),
(Eggs for 1987 - Czechoslovakia - 338, Hungary - 320 ... USSR - 268)
MILK - 425 kg
(And dairy products in terms of milk)
In 1987 - Poland - 426, France - 421. USSR - 338.
The entire industry and the entire profit of the foreign trade of Russia will work to ensure this nationwide protein food, as it worked in the system of the USSR, since the entire export of the USSR and future Russia will ensure the purchase of fodder grain, and most importantly, vegetables and fruits of the European and Tropical belt. which Russia can never grow due to its climate
This area will be 150-180 kg per person per year and will consist of the best samples of Fruits, Vegetables, Berries from Europe, Asia and South and North America so that the Citizen of Russia, as a curse of a past life, would forget about Krupa and Khlebushki, about fodder beets and cabbage and about "Russian Apples" - a terrible damned kosorylovka
The Life Support System in Socialism is:-
Personally free Housing (and housing and communal services) in the calculation of 16 sq.m. (min) sleeping area for 1 person
In person Free route from Work to Home
Personally Free World's Best Medicine
Personally Free World's Best Education System
Personally Free system of the best rest houses in the world, sanatoriums, medical-resort dispensaries, recreation centers and tourism
Personally Free the best in the world nursery and kindergarten system
Complete Social Security single mothers
The world's best provision for Orphans and the Disabled
The world's best system of Mass National Physical Training from childhood to old age, which will create a perfect Nation of Intellectual Athletes
This system will include all the experience of Superdevelopment including European Methods, the best of the schools of Ha-Tha-Yoga, Okinawa Karate and Chinese schools of development and combat in which (H-Sin and Pa-Kua) the 5 Elements of Space are used.
*************************************************
Social and economic structure of Russia
SOCIALISM- A single indivisible system of the all-people Common Economy not singled out by anyone personally.
The essence and physical content of which is
A SINGLE BUDGET NOT ALIENABLE TO ANYONE
which is formed from
Single Inalienable Income by Nobody (from the Total Profit) =
Which is created by the Common Result of Joint Labor for the Common Unified System of the National Economy
Socialism is a system of management and distribution of the general national income which includes
Inseparable Parts of the Unified General Budget:
I-Total Gross National Product expressed in the created Total Capital: A)-Created Real Estate,
B) - Industrial product and Consumables
B) - National Food Products
II-Free Shared Social sphere life support
III-All Non-Alienable General Cash Income
The whole structure of Socialism in the form of the USSR was like this =
I- SINGLE BANK = Where ALL Total Profit was transferred = Single Inalienable Budget
II- State Pricing Committee = The body that destroyed the Market mechanism and determined PRICES in unified system distribution. This institution excludes the Owner with his right to his Price, since the right of anyone to his own object is excluded.
III-State Committee of Labor and Wages which determines the Wage of Everyone and the volume and conditions of Labor, adjusted for Coefficients, Difficult working conditions, social status and staffing
IV- Gosplan and Gosstat + Gossnab and Rossnab - System of Coordination and Centralized Supply
A) - Initial p / fabricated products
B) - Components C) Finished items for use and consumption
And the country's supreme manager of the economy
structure
V- PLANNED
BUDGET COMMISSION
THE HIGHEST BODY OF POWER AND MANAGEMENT
THE NATIONAL ECONOMY
Which distributed the general income, and is the Primary body of the Communist System, since in fact it denies
State as Apparatus Separated from Society
Alienation from the People of Income and its Distribution
In the Socialist System, the Government is
Council of (Sectoral and Structural) Ministries
Only the Coordinating Authority for the Management of the Functioning and Development of Separate and General Spheres of Production and Non-Production Being
This Unified State multi-planning structure is the main difference and characteristic of the Socialist Unified National Economic System
***********************************************
Socialism in Russia is the only rational system that can ensure the promising Equal General Development of the entire Society due to the fact that Russia is the only country in the world that has a constant regressive factor. This is Geoclimatic insecurity in which the country objectively cannot provide the entire population with good nutrition and its Agrarian Sector is Objectively unprofitable and does not produce an Excess of the "Surplus Product of the Field" which, as an inferior "Absolute Capital", does not provide the required volume for commodity-money relations.
Everyone who participates in the Russian agro-industrial complex is not a seller
Food products and therefore not buyers of an industrial product. And the fact that the agro-industrial complex grows and is produced cannot provide, even with free distribution, the necessary volume of Meat (Protein), Fats, Carbohydrates, Vitamins, and the whole complex of macro and micro elements necessary for the survival of a Person living in a vast region to the West from the Carpathian Mountains to the East
The peculiarity of Socialism in the form of the USSR (1918 - 1987) is that the entire country, the entire industrial potential worked on one biological and socio-strategic task - to provide the people of Russia with food products and
Environmental protection
Which does not fully correspond to the task of Human Survival in a natural evolutionary way, characteristic of the rest of the countries of Europe and America.
Russia has never been, is not and cannot be
Profitable Agricultural Sector and Profitable
industry, that is, in Russia
Biologically impossible capitalism.
*************************************************
The main Value Equivalent of the Price of Money in Russia has been and will be Plant and Animal Food as a Means of Life, necessary for the Whole people, but which objectively cannot be produced and grown on the territory of Russia without the socialization of All Fixed Capitals, production funds, and all working capital in the unified management and distribution of these forces and means in targeted areas.
For the survival of the People in the territory to the West of the Carpathians, it is necessary to exclude non-target production and the allocation of funds from the General Budget for personal volumetric use, as well as the appropriation of Profit and Income from any type of activity into personal property, in addition to what the State Committee determines to the Citizen Labor and Wages and the State Pricing Committee..
*************************************************
Socialism is not an armchair fiction or a theoretical Construction in which structural changes of the system are possible in the process of development. It is the only system of survival and development. This is the system
UNIFIED BUDGET
This scheme undeniably proved its effectiveness when, from 1918 to 1988, the Gross National Product grew 61 times, and Russia, starting from the Neolithic poverty system, developed into an industrial Giant of the Planet.
SOCIALISM IS THE ONLY EFFECTIVE
LIVING SYSTEM
4. Dialectical contradictions and social unity of Soviet society
With the end of the transitional period and the victory of socialism in the USSR, internal class antagonisms were eliminated. The economic basis for the political revolution has disappeared due to the widespread establishment of the socialist basis, public ownership of the means of production; Thus, the “inevitability” of a change in formations in further development, the “necessity” of replacing social property with its “negation”, i.e. private property. In the course of the implementation of the Leninist plan for building socialism, a new historical community arose, unprecedented in the history of human society - the Soviet people, a new quality - the social unity of Soviet society. This is the unity of the fundamental interests of all working classes and social groups, with the leading role of the working class on the basis of social ownership of the means of production and the commonality of the ultimate goal - the building of communism. This is the unity of the fundamental interests of the socialist nations and nationalities, the great friendship of the peoples, the unity of the fundamental interests and thoughts of the older and younger generations of the builders of communism. This, finally, is the indestructible unity of the Party and the people.
Marx and Engels scientifically foresaw the development of society towards a future social unity of this kind. Even in The Communist Manifesto, they wrote that the peasantry becomes revolutionary only as it goes over to the position of the proletariat, that the best representatives of the ruling classes, representatives of the bourgeois intelligentsia, who have risen to an understanding of the general course of historical development, also go over to the side of the proletariat and give it banner of struggle. Thus, already under capitalism, certain prerequisites for the unity of all progressive democratic forces are taking shape. But only under the conditions of completely and finally victorious socialism, a developed socialist society, do the socialist interests and communist ideals of the working class practically become the ultimate goals of both the collective farm peasantry and the people's intelligentsia.
Lenin repeatedly wrote about the significance of unity of will, unity of activity, unity of aspirations for the development of socialist society.
In a speech on III All-Russian At the Congress of Trade Unions on April 7, 1920, Lenin said: “... a united will is needed, on every practical issue it is necessary that everyone act as one. A single will cannot be a phrase, a symbol. We demand that this be done in practice... Now the task is to try to apply this unity of will to industry and agriculture” (2, vol. 40, pp. 307-308). He further noted that the very material and technical basis of socialism presupposes and requires "unconditional and strict unity of will guiding the collaboration of hundreds, thousands, and tens of thousands of people. Technically, economically, and historically, this necessity is obvious; everyone who thought about socialism has always recognized it as its condition” (2, vol. 40, p. 271).
But only the complete and final victory of socialism in the USSR for the first time in history led to the realization of the possibility of social unity, opened the way for a gradual movement towards communism without a political revolution.
Is the social unity of Soviet society compatible with the operation of the law of unity and struggle of opposites, which affirms the relativity of unity and the absoluteness of the struggle of opposites?
At one time, one of the patriarchs of the revisionism of the Second International, E. Bernstein, denied the universality of the dialectical laws of development precisely because, as he argued, only such laws are universal that will operate under the conditions of future socialism. In itself, this last statement is true, but it is not true that social harmony under socialism (as Bernstein believed) should exclude all contradictions, all dialectics.
In response to K. Kautsky's article "Bernstein and Dialectics", Bernstein wrote: "The driving force behind all development is the struggle of contradictions," declares Kautsky and asks me whether I consider this doctrine erroneous or only its special forms in the doctrines of Hegel, Marx and Engels. To this I will answer with the question: if Kautsky’s assertion is correct, then what will become of „ ultimate goal“socialism, with a social system based on the harmonious common life of its members? Will all development cease in it? I do not adhere to the view that the struggle of contradictions is the driving force of any development. The joint action of kindred forces is also(our italics. - Red.) great engine of development"(43, p. 329). It was written at the end of the 19th century. and in 1902 it was published in Russian.
Thus, even then Bernstein absolutely opposed the future social unity of society to the contradictions of its development and therefore denied the operation of the basic law of materialist dialectics under socialism. Kautsky's polemic with Bernstein ended in the final analysis with the capitulation of Kautsky, who sank into the revisionist positions of Bernstein.
As we see, long before the victory of socialism, the question of the relationship between unity and contradictions in the development of future socialism was solved by reformism and revisionism on the basis of the rejection of dialectics, the denial of vital contradictions within the framework of this future unity. Already at that time, antagonistic contradictions were absolutized as allegedly the only type of contradictions, and the absence of social antagonisms in the future was interpreted as the absence of a dialectic of socialist development, as a denial of the universal character of dialectical development, as a rejection of materialist dialectics itself.
The ideologists of modern anti-communism are trying to ascribe to modern Soviet philosophical science the concepts of the theoreticians of the Second International, long exposed by Leninism and life itself. These concepts of Bernstein and Kautsky were subjected to fundamental criticism in our philosophical and historical literature as early as the 1930s. Let us refer to the journal Proletarian Revolution, which published an article by Y. Bronin (then a student at the Institute of Red Professors), specifically devoted to these problems. In his criticism of the leaders of revisionism of the Second International, the author relied on the IX, X, XI Lenin collections published by that time and wrote: “With the complacency so characteristic of him, the petty bourgeois Bernstein, as we see, with the learned air of an expert, confuses antagonism with contradiction. Meanwhile, capitalism is the last antagonistic social system, while development through contradiction is a universal law of motion, which is preserved, of course, in relation to social development under socialism and communism” (57, p. 96).
Modern anti-communists have found allies in the person of "left" revisionists, Maoists, who slanderously interpret the successes of communist construction in the USSR as the restoration of capitalism, and the social unity of Soviet society as "forgetting" the demands of dialectics about the irreconcilability of contradictions. Falsifying dialectics, they put forward (with reference to the requirements of the law of unity and the struggle of opposites) "theses" that only a split is the path to unity, that it is necessary to proceed from the "dialectical" position "the worse, the better", "the more the poorer, the more revolutionary” and from the thesis about the supposed inevitability of an alleged exacerbation of the class struggle within a socialist country even after the liquidation of the exploiting classes.
In the light of the tasks of the struggle against the metaphysical positions of the leaders of the Second International, modern anti-communists, right and "left" revisionists, Lenin's conclusions about the dialectic of the development of the socialist sector of the young Soviet state became especially important. They are even more important for the further positive development of the problems of the dialectics of the development of socialism and its development into communism.
The further development of Marxist-Leninist dialectics as a philosophical science under the conditions of developed socialism was connected with the creative elaboration, above all, of the fundamental problems of the internal dialectics of this process itself. It was necessary to show the specifics of the operation of the laws of dialectics, the enrichment of its categories in the context of the growing social unity of society, the strengthening of public ownership of the means of production, and the strengthening of the common interests of all social groups.
It was necessary to reveal the significance of the decisions of party congresses, plenums of the Central Committee of the CPSU, program documents of the international communist and workers' movement for the further creative development of materialist dialectics in this period. The development of Marxist-Leninist dialectics was necessarily associated with a philosophical generalization of the most practical experience of socialist and communist construction, combining the maximum use of the internal capabilities and reserves of socialism with the ripening shoots of communism, with the development of the dialectic of objective and subjective factors, the combination of material and moral incentives with the dialectic of processes in the field of economic and social relations, with the disclosure of the dialectical nature of the gradual transition to communism, which includes jumps, "breaks in gradualism" (especially in the conditions of the modern scientific and technological revolution), the disclosure and resolution of contradictions, spirality in development.
The responsibility of Soviet philosophers, as well as of all scientists, in solving these complex problems in the situation of a socialist society scientifically managed on the basis of Marxism-Leninism, has also increased immeasurably.
Mistakes in solving methodological problems relevant to practice here no longer acquire the abstract-theoretical nature of the costs of only scientific discussion, they could incorrectly orient the practice of socialist and communist construction.
Since the emergence of the world socialist community, the responsibility for the correct solution of the problem has increased even more. Indeed, not only internal relations, but also interstate relations of fraternal socialist countries turned out to be included in the sphere of building socialism.
The history and practice of socialist and communist construction have set before philosophers to an even greater extent the task of studying the dialectics of socialist society, concretizing, further creative development of Lenin's thought about the features of the dialectics of socialism, and above all about the core of dialectics - about the specifics of contradictions in the absence of internal social antagonisms, t .e. elaboration of the question of non-antagonistic contradictions in the situation of the achieved social unity of a developed socialist society. In 1940, N. Vlasov's article "On the question of the driving contradiction of socialist society", published in the journal "Under the Banner of Marxism" (see 73), opened a discussion on these issues, which at that time did not lead to a positive result, since I. Stalin's thesis in his work "On Dialectical and Historical Materialism" about "full compliance" under socialism of production relations with the productive forces was interpreted by many as the absence of any, even non-antagonistic, contradictions in the socialist economy.
After the Great Patriotic War The interest of Soviet philosophers in this problem increased even more. An important stimulus was the decision of the Central Committee of the CPSU on the errors of the third volume of the History of Philosophy prepared by the Institute of Philosophy of the USSR Academy of Sciences, published back in 1944.
The Central Committee of the Party then drew the serious attention of Soviet philosophers to the fallacy of erasing the fundamental opposition between Hegel's idealist dialectic and Marx's materialist dialectic. The Central Committee of the party showed in its decision that such mistakes signify a departure from the Leninist party spirit of philosophy, a tendency to reconcile bourgeois and socialist ideologies.
Without underestimating the outstanding services of Hegel in the development of the dialectical method and dialectical logic, the decision of the Central Committee drew attention to the need for a critical approach to the idealistic basis and metaphysical nature of the system of Hegelian philosophy.
One of the manifestations of the conservative side of Hegel's teaching was, as is known, his conclusion about the reconciliation of contradictions. A kind of repetition in the new conditions of this Hegelian thesis was the attempts of individual Soviet philosophers to consider the development of Soviet society as a process of erasing, reconciling contradictions, denying the role of contradictions as a driving force in the development of socialism.
The discussion held on the initiative of the CPSU Central Committee on G. Aleksandrov's book "History of Western European Philosophy" (1947) helped to overcome such erroneous views.
Speaking at this discussion, A. Zhdanov, Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU, drew attention to the fact that our Soviet philosophy must show how the law of unity and struggle of opposites operates in a socialist society and what is the peculiarity of its application. A. Zhdanov noted as one of the essential shortcomings of our philosophical science that it is precisely "this widest field for scientific research ... none of our philosophers has been processed." Highlighting the importance of criticism and self-criticism as a form of revealing and overcoming the contradictions of socialism, Zhdanov said at the discussion that "these contradictions exist and philosophers do not want to write about them out of cowardice" (77, No. 1, p. 270). During the discussion on G. Alexandrov's book, the question of the relationship between the social unity of Soviet society and the contradictions of its development was sharply raised. Here we should note a number of speeches by Ts. Stepanyan, who was one of the first among Soviet philosophers to study the problem of the dialectics of the contradictions of socialism. In the text of his speech at the discussion, he wrote: “There are comrades who assert that under socialism all contradictions supposedly disappear altogether. True, there is another kind of metaphysical thinking people who do not see the qualitatively new that has developed with the victory of socialism in our country. And the new thing is that for the first time in history, on the basis of the victories of socialism and the disappearance of antagonistic contradictions, not the class struggle, but the unity and community of interests of all sections of Soviet society acts as a powerful driving force of social development ... But do these new driving forces remove the presence of contradictions under socialism ? No, they don’t… A correct understanding of the relationship between the new driving forces in the development of Soviet society and the contradictions under socialism is directly related to the elucidation of the laws governing the transition from socialism to communism” (77, No. 1, p. 438). Then, in 1947, in an article in No. 2 of the journal "Problems of Philosophy", in an article in the newspaper "Pravda" "On Contradictions under Socialism" (dated August 20, 1947), in the collection "Soviet Socialist Society" (1948 d.) Ts. Stepanyan singled out, along with other non-antagonistic contradictions of socialism, the contradiction between the growing needs of the working people and the achieved level of development of material production as the main contradiction of socialism.
After the discussion on G. Alexandrov's book, the flow of works on the dialectics of the contradictions of socialism began to grow rapidly. Beginning in 1947, several such works were published annually, candidate and doctoral dissertations were submitted for defense, and articles and monographs were systematically published. Since 1947, after the discussion, more than 70 works have been published, devoted specifically to the analysis of the dialectics of the contradictions of socialism under the conditions of the social unity of Soviet society.
In the 1930s, I. Stalin's philosophical and political statements correctly noted the role of the moral and political unity of Soviet society as a new driving force in our development, which arose as a result of a change in the economic basis, the class structure of Soviet society, the presence of friendly classes instead of antagonist classes. Stalin also analyzed the general direction of development from the former class opposition through essential to non-essential differences, the movement towards a classless society.
However, in the works of Stalin, especially during the cult of his personality, two erroneous extremes were already clearly manifested: one of them took place in the work “On Dialectical and Historical Materialism” (1938), where the correspondence of production relations to the productive forces under socialism and in fact, any contradictions between them were denied under the conditions of victorious socialism. This was expressed in the thesis of the so-called complete correspondence of the two sides of the socialist mode of production.
Stalin himself was essentially forced to correct this mistake later, in 1952, in his work “Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR”, characterizing a similar formulation of the question as metaphysical. But in the course of a special discussion held on the pages of the journal “Under the banner of Marxism” on the issue of contradictions between the productive forces and production relations in connection with the above-mentioned article by N. Vlasov, the editors of the journal, in an article summing up this discussion, recognized in 1940 It is precisely this erroneous concept that there are no contradictions in the development of the two sides of the mode of production under socialism that is true.
On the other hand, at the end of the 1930s, Stalin erroneously predicted the supposedly inevitable intensification of the internal class struggle after the liquidation of the exploiting classes in our country, as we advanced towards socialism and its successes grew. In fact, the proposition about the aggravation of the class struggle was true only for certain stages of the transition period, when the question "who - whom?" and there was a stubborn class struggle to build the foundations of socialism.
Only in the course of overcoming the cult of personality, restoring the Leninist norms of party life, socialist legality, and the steady expansion of socialist democracy, did it become possible to move forward a philosophical solution to the question of the relationship between the social unity of Soviet society and the contradictions of its development.
Already a year after the 20th Congress of the CPSU, during the celebration of the 40th anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution, the party documents emphasized the importance of the non-antagonistic contradictions of socialism as contradictions of growth, indicated the possibility of their timely resolution on the basis of improving public ownership of the means of production, on the basis of further strengthening the social unity of society.
In an atmosphere of creative discussions, overcoming the consequences of Stalin's personality cult and subjectivist perversions, generalizing the practice of socialist and communist construction, Soviet philosophers achieved significant results in developing the problem of the relationship between social unity and dialectical contradictions in the development of Soviet society.
A significant role in such a collective development of the problem was played by special discussions and discussions. In 1955, the discussion on the contradictions of socialism again unfolded in connection with the publication in Voprosy Philosophy (1955, No. 2) of Ts. Stepanyan's article "Contradictions in the Development of Socialist Society and Ways to Overcome Them". This article formulated the author's point of view on the main contradiction of socialism as a contradiction between the growing needs of the working people and the achieved level of development of material production.
Some authors then argued that the very formulation of the question of the main contradiction of the communist formation was unjustified, since the existence of such a contradiction supposedly raises the question of the inevitability of replacing the communist formation with some new one as a result of the resolution of this basic contradiction.
Other formulations of the main contradiction of socialism and communism were also proposed: between the productive forces and production relations, between equal treatment of the means of production and elements of social inequality in connection with the operation of the basic principle of the distribution of socialism - according to work.
These questions did not receive proper resolution at that time, and later Soviet philosophical thought returned to them more than once.
In 1958, the Institute of Philosophy of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR organized a broad discussion on scientific conference on the topic "The problem of contradiction in the light of modern science and practice."
Particularly important and fruitful was the discussion that unfolded in 1965 at the All-Union Scientific Conference on Topical Problems of Materialist Dialectics. This discussion was preceded by a meeting of the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR on September 18, 1963, which was specially devoted to the methodological problems of science, in which the leading representatives of the natural and human sciences took part in the discussion of methodological problems. The proceedings of the 1965 meeting and discussion were published in four volumes. A broad review of the discussion was given in the journal Questions of Philosophy (1965, no. 10).
The October (1964) Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU, which condemned subjectivist perversions in politics and economics, was of great importance for the further successful positive solution of the problems of the dialectics of the development of socialist society. Already at the end of the 1950s, it became clear that in the interpretation of questions of the dialectic of socialism, elements of subjectivism led to hushing up of the problem, to avoiding an analysis of the real, essential contradictions of socialist development. The manifestations of such contradictions, as soon as they made themselves felt, were often interpreted only as the result of mistakes and miscalculations that did not characterize the essence of socialist development. After the April discussion in 1965 in 1965 - 1966. a discussion was held on the problems of the dialectics of socialism in the lecture group at the Moscow City Committee of the CPSU together with the Academy of Social Sciences at the Central Committee of the CPSU. Several articles and monographs were published, in one way or another covering this issue, doctoral dissertations were defended on the topics of social unity and the contradictions of socialism.
For the 50th anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution, books were prepared that dealt specifically with the dialectics of building communism in the light of the relationship between social unity and the contradictions of development. During the discussion in 1965 and in the subsequent work of Soviet philosophers, the main direction of a positive solution of the most important problems of the dialectics of socialism, and above all the problem of contradictions in the conditions of the social unity of socialist society, was revealed.
During the discussions, statements appeared (including on the pages of the journal Questions of Philosophy) that contradictions in the conditions of socialism and the social unity of Soviet society are allegedly not a driving force, but a brake on development. These statements varied: some authors argued that contradictions as a whole hamper progressive development, impede it, others distinguished between the deployment and resolution of contradictions, recognizing only the last stage (resolution) as a driving role, still others considered an untimely resolved, "overripe" contradiction as a brake on development.
They tried to justify the denial of the driving role of dialectical contradictions under socialism not only by the existence of the growing social unity of Soviet society, but also by the success of the scientific and technological revolution, the development of mathematical logic, and methods of formalization in science. This trend was reflected to a certain extent by the article "Contradiction" in the Philosophical Encyclopedia (see 368, vol. 4). It speaks of the limited function of contradiction as a source of development and argues that dialectical contradiction as a whole does not always, but only “in many cases”, have the function of “the main driving force of development, change in the object to which this contradiction is inherent.” Conclusions of this kind were subjected to fair criticism by the authors, who admit that dialectical contradictions in life are always one way or another the driving force, the impulse of development (of course, this refers to the contradictions of the very essence of the development process, and not artificial, far-fetched contradictions or formal-logical ones) .
Dialectical contradictions as the interpenetration of unequal opposites (for example, the opposites of the new and the old in the social process of development) give rise to that internal tension, the struggle, due to which the going beyond the limits of the old unity to the new, higher unity of new opposites, the resolution of old and the emergence of new contradictions.
In this regard, the literature reasonably noted the incorrectness of identifying one side of the contradiction (the one that plays a conservative, inhibitory role under the given conditions) with the entire contradiction, which includes the relationship of the two sides. In reality, if this is, for example, the relation of the new and the old, then the old slows down, and the new promotes the process of development, which on the whole is realized only in the unity and struggle of the new and the old and ends in the final analysis with the victory of the new.
Therefore, most of the participants in the discussion rightly believed that not the contradiction as a whole, but only one of its sides, can play an inhibitory role in the overall process of dialectical development.
In the course of the scientific dispute, the wrong point of view was criticized, according to which the driving role of the contradiction was denied during the period of its deployment and was recognized only when the contradiction was resolved. In reality, the emergence, deployment (aggravation) and resolution of a contradiction exist as stages of a single process of dialectical development. Without definite forms of development there is not and cannot be a resolution of dialectical contradictions, just as there cannot be a leap without preliminary quantitative changes. Therefore, at different stages, contradiction always plays the role of an impulse for development, although the specifics of these individual stages may be different or different.
In the course of the discussions, in this connection, inaccurate assertions were criticized that the "overripe" contradictions of modern imperialism hamper the process of social development. The matter is more complicated. The basic contradiction of modern capitalism includes not only the forces that stand guard over private property, which are really reactionary in nature, but also the progressive forces waging a struggle against private property, not only private ownership of the means of production, but also the social character of the production process, more more expanding in the course of the modern scientific and technological revolution. To assert that class contradictions hinder development because they have not yet been resolved is to depart from the dialectical concept. Of course, the movement of capitalism "forward" is not a movement along an ascending line, but a movement towards its death (if we take the formation as a whole). But this is the dialectic of the modern era with its main contradiction in the struggle between two systems - dying capitalism and rising communism. The decline of capitalism is not a negation social progress and the driving role of its contradictions, but is an expression of the dialectical nature of modern social development.
Another issue on which disputes unfolded was the question of the relationship between general philosophical and general sociological categories, primarily such as the categories of "unity" and "opposite".
The illegitimacy of two extremes was shown: a) the identification of philosophical and sociological categories, b) their separation from each other. The unity and struggle of opposites as sides of a dialectical contradiction take place wherever development takes place, including under capitalism. And the social unity of society is a sociological category that reflects the achievements of the victorious socialist system. Therefore, the relationship of these categories, their relationship reflect the relationship, the dialectic of the universal and the particular. Lenin's formula about the relativity of unity and the absoluteness of the struggle of opposites, which expresses the essence of the relationship between the sides of any dialectical contradiction, does not at all mean the obligatory relativity of the social unity of Soviet society, its supposedly temporary, transient character, as happens when sociological and general philosophical categories are identified. In the same way, the general philosophical category "opposite" expresses only one of the sides of any dialectical contradiction, or it denotes a certain stage in the development of a dialectical contradiction. Therefore, the application of this category in the general philosophical plane to the contradictions of socialism does not at all mean the obligatory recognition of the existence of internal antagonistic class opposites under the conditions of victorious socialism.
Marx noted that “the use of the same termini technici [technical terms] in a different sense is inconvenient, but this cannot be completely avoided in any science” (1, vol. 23, p. 228).
However, what has been said does not at all imply a gap between general philosophical and general sociological categories. It seems correct to consider their relationship as a relationship between the universal and the particular.
It is precisely such a solution to the question of the relationship between general philosophical and sociological categories that makes it possible to answer correctly the questions of whether, after the complete and final victory of socialism in the USSR, such provisions of Marxist-Leninist dialectics as the “struggle of opposites”, “relativity of unity” with respect to its internal development, have not receded into the past. and the absoluteness of the struggle of opposites”; Are not these propositions formulated by Lenin even before the Great October Revolution merely specific, special forms of dialectical development, which have significance only for an antagonistic society and are inapplicable to socialism?
In the Soviet philosophical literature of the 1960s, sometimes incorrect conclusions were drawn about the inapplicability of the Leninist position on the relativity of unity and the absolute struggle of opposites to the existing social unity of Soviet society, proposals were put forward to reformulate the law of unity and struggle of opposites into the law of contradictory development solely in order not to mention the category "opposite", since this category supposedly means not a side of any dialectical contradiction, but only a social opposite, i.e. class antagonism. In the course of the discussion on topical problems of materialist dialectics, individual philosophers put forward the concept of "two dialectics": the dialectics of antagonisms and the dialectics of socialism. The authors of this concept considered the "two dialectics" as two qualitatively different methodologies and asserted the inapplicability of the laws of the "old" dialectics to the new conditions for building socialism and communism. Supporters of this interpretation rejected the applicability of the law of unity and struggle of opposites to the conditions of socialism, considered the social unity of Soviet society as the absence of "opposites" and proposed to reformulate the law of unity and struggle of opposites into the law of unity and struggle of differences.
Proponents of the opposite position rightly emphasized that Lenin considered the dialectic of capitalism as special case dialectic, i.e. as a specific manifestation of universal dialectical patterns under capitalism. Thus, socialism acted as a specific manifestation of the same general dialectical patterns. “Socialism,” writes P. Fedoseev, “is a new stage in the development public life. But it does not follow from this that two special methods are used in the analysis of the dialectics of bourgeois society and the dialectics of socialism. In fact, this is the concrete historical application of one and the same method to the analysis of qualitatively different social formations” (366, p. 399).
In the course of the discussion on topical problems of materialist dialectics, held in April 1965, the proposition about "two dialectics", as well as the tendency to identify general philosophical and sociological categories, was subjected to scientific criticism and did not find support. However, the importance of criticizing these views should be noted, since their influence can be traced in some subsequent publications.
The collective thought of Soviet philosophers was able to overcome another trend in matters of the dialectics of socialism - the sharp opposition of communism to socialism without taking into account the fact that socialism is a phase of the communist formation.
Such an interpretation of the dialectics of building communism contributed to the haste characteristic of subjectivism, jumping over stages of development that have not become obsolete, and breaking away from the real degree of maturity of the material and technical base of society. The dialectical principle of internal self-development presupposes, as is well known, not simply the negation the highest stage lower communism, and the maximum use of all the potentialities, opportunities, reserves of developed socialism for an organic and gradual transition to a higher level. With regard to the development of socialism into communism, this Leninist methodological directive means the maximum use of the reserves and possibilities of developed socialism for building the material and technical base of communism, shaping communist social relations, and educating the new man.
In the period of a developed socialist society and a gradual transition to communism, the dialectical combination of the principles of socialism and the features of communism maturing in life, the unity of all those levers that comprehensively contribute to the development of material productive forces, is especially important.
The solution of the problem was hampered by the fact that as early as 1952, in Stalin's work "Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR", there was a departure from this important principle. It argued that the collective-farm-cooperative form of ownership, allegedly from the end of the 40s, began to slow down the development towards communism, preventing the coverage of agriculture by central planning. The same book fundamentally rejected the possibility for the means of production to acquire a commodity form under the conditions of the transition to communism.
The expansion of the use of the categories of commodity production under socialism was seen as a departure from communism, not a move towards it. Direct product exchange was metaphysically opposed to Soviet trade. Thus, many of the most important and far from fully used levers of socialist and communist construction, which were still essentially new, i.e. contributed to the development of material production, were prematurely regarded as allegedly already hindering, rather than contributing to, advancement to the highest phase of communism, as obsolete, slowing down, subject to transformation and elimination. Thus, the front of the struggle of opposites was incorrectly defined. Such a formulation of the question focused on jumping over stages of development that had not exhausted themselves, on breaking away from the degree of economic maturity achieved, haste and subjectivism.
From the standpoint of the dialectical-materialist theory of development, what is established, before it becomes a brake on development, is not yet old (in the philosophical sense), and its elimination, before it becomes a brake, actually means the elimination of the new, which still needs to be used for the purposes of progressive development towards communism. .
To overcome all the mistakes and difficulties mentioned above, party decisions were decisive, in which the further creative development by the Communist Party found its expression. Soviet Union materialist dialectics.
The critique of subjectivist errors launched by the Party and the development of problems of the scientific guidance of society created favorable conditions for a more concrete analysis of the dialectics of the development of socialism and the development of socialism into communism, for a philosophical generalization and further development of materialist dialectics in the spirit of applying Lenin's principles to the present stage of building communism.
What are the main positive the results of the discussion of these most important problems for the development of dialectics as a science? New stage of social development in the USSR did not at all simplify the tasks of researchers, but demanded an answer to a complex and new question: how, how does the universal (the relativity of the unity of opposites) manifest itself in the special (the strengthening social unity of Soviet society) and how this special (the strengthening social unity of Soviet society) concretizes, develops the universal principle of development, expressed by Lenin's formula about the relativity of unity and the absoluteness of the struggle of opposites? This was how the problem of the relationship between social unity and contradictions in the development of Soviet society was posed.
Internal non-antagonistic contradictions, as Lenin foresaw, also exist under socialism. They express its essence, are a stimulus for the development of economic, political and cultural life. At the same time, an essential feature of these contradictions is the need and possibility of their timely resolution.
In the article "The Great Fiftieth Anniversary", published in the book "The Great October and the World Revolutionary Process", a member of the Politburo, Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU comrade. M. Suslov criticized the denial of the dialectical contradictions that characterize the essence of the development of socialism, and attempts to deny the universal regularity of the law of development through the emergence and overcoming of contradictions (see 72, p. 27).
This work reveals the sources of the emergence of contradictions under socialism, connected not only with the fact that socialism is not born on its own basis, that socialism is characterized by a lag in the level of consciousness of the masses, the presence of remnants of the past in the minds of the working people, that contradictions also arise in connection with a fierce economic, political and ideological struggle of socialist society against imperialism. The article emphasizes that, regardless of the influence of capitalism, “socialism is a living organism that has its own past and future, obsolete and emerging” and that “what yesterday was progressive, advanced, today may cease to be so”, that under socialism “contradictions capture both the sphere of production relations and their interaction with the productive forces”, that “there are contradictions related to organizational forms administration in a socialist society” (72, pp. 29, 30).
In the article Comrade. M. Suslova emphasizes the Leninist understanding of contradictions as a creative force, an engine of social progress, a source of development. “Primitive logic,” writes M. Suslov, “is not suitable for analyzing and solving complex problems of social development... Non-antagonistic contradictions under socialism are diverse and unequal in nature, forms of manifestation, and means of resolving them” (72, p. 30).
Speaking at the Fifth Congress of the Polish United Workers' Party and describing the internal processes taking place in the socialist countries, the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU Comrade. L. Brezhnev said: “... in a living, developing socialist society, there cannot be such a situation when all issues have been resolved, when there is no need to look for a better one. The construction of socialism and communism has its own dialectic: the very course of development puts forward ever new tasks; than more high level achieved, the higher the demands placed on the party, on the state, on all working people, in order to ensure the well-organized work of the complex mechanism of economic and social life” (14).
In the Report of the Central Committee of the CPSU to the XXIV Congress of the CPSU Comrade. L. Brezhnev emphasized that “the world of socialism is all in motion, it is constantly being improved. Its development, of course, goes through the struggle of the new with the old, through the resolution of internal contradictions” (9, pp. 13-14).
In the theoretical work of our Party, we have collectively developed and are currently developing critical issues dialectics of the development of socialism. The 24th Congress of the CPSU, in its resolution on the Report of the Central Committee of the CPSU, specifically noted that "theoretical forces of the Party should be directed to the further development of urgent problems of modern social development, and above all questions of communist construction" (9, p. 211).
The question of the fundamental differences between non-antagonistic contradictions of growth and social antagonisms has been worked out in detail in the philosophical Marxist literature, primarily in the works of Soviet philosophers. It has been convincingly shown that if the antagonistic contradictions of capitalism are based on the irreconcilable hostility of class interests, then the non-antagonistic contradictions of socialism exist when the interests of friendly classes and social groups are fundamentally common. Marxist-Leninists always proceed from the premise that the social antagonisms of capitalist society cannot be completely resolved without the abolition of private ownership of the means of production. In contrast, the resolution of the non-antagonistic contradictions of socialism does not mean curtailment, but the further improvement of social ownership of the means of production.
The superstructure of capitalist society (state, bourgeois political parties) stands guard over private property and prevents the timely resolution of the antagonistic contradictions of capitalism. The situation is quite different under socialism. The entire superstructure of socialist society (the CPSU, the socialist state, etc.) is a powerful lever of progressive communist development, contributing to the timely resolution of non-antagonistic contradictions.
In a socialist society, with the help of all forms and methods of criticism and self-criticism, by raising the level of scientific leadership of society, there is a real possibility of resolving internal contradictions without the need to bring them to the highest point of exacerbation. This does not, however, exclude the possibility (under certain conditions) of exacerbating individual contradictions while maintaining their non-antagonistic content. It is also known that contradictions that are antagonistic in their content can unfold in the form of peaceful coexistence of states belonging to opposite social systems, and this form is not a form of reconciliation of these contradictions, but a specific form of class struggle in the international arena.
In their writings, Soviet philosophers also drew attention to the need to take into account both the content and the form of deployment of dialectical contradictions, both antagonistic and non-antagonistic.
The struggle of classes against irreconcilably hostile interests has been the law of the movement of mankind for thousands of years. Only twenty years out of more than fifty years of the existence of the Soviet state was spent on the creation of a socialist society in which, instead of the irreconcilably hostile interests of the antagonist classes, a powerful impulse, motivating force guiding the movement of the masses has become the fundamental common interest of all the friendly classes of society—the interest of building a higher phase of communism. “Communist construction raises the cooperation of classes and social groups in our society to a new level. Together they create the material basis of communism, improve social relations, strengthen the moral, political and ideological unity of the people” (11, pp. 37-38). Social unity is now acting as a new driving force not only in the USSR, but also in a number of fraternal socialist countries.
With the emergence of the social unity of society, the vital dialectic of development was enriched, new questions were posed, and practical experience was accumulated to answer them.
Among these questions, one of the main ones is: internal sources development under the conditions of the social unity of society, on the relationship between the social unity of society and the contradictions of its development, on the dialectic of contradictions in the new conditions, when not a clash in the course of the struggle, but indestructible friendship and rapprochement of classes characterize social development Soviet society.
For the scientific solution of the problem of the correlation of contradictions and the social unity of Soviet society, Lenin's analysis of non-antagonistic contradictions within the socialist sector of the young Soviet republic, which were discussed at the beginning of this chapter, is of decisive methodological importance. These internal contradictions of socialist society are being developed and overcome within the framework of a steadily growing social unity.
As Lenin foresaw, what is essential for the lower phase of communist society are the contradictions generated by the remaining "birthmarks" of the old society.
Serious efforts are still needed in the Soviet economy to overcome such "birthmarks", traces of former backwardness. These include, for example, the still existing large amount of manual, often heavy physical labor, when modern enterprise often combine a high level of mechanization in some areas and manual labor on others where auxiliary work is being carried out.
The means of overcoming such contradictions are the all-out development of comprehensive (rather than partial) mechanization and ever more complete automation of production outlined in the Program of the CPSU and in the decisions of the 24th CPSU Congress.
From the book Introduction to Social Philosophy: A Textbook for Universities author Kemerov Vyacheslav Evgenievich§ 2. Social time and social space The social process unfolds in the time of continuous, combined and successive human activities; at the same time, it "contracts" in space, where these activities appear relatively
From the book On Slavery and Human Freedom author Berdyaev Nikolay4. Society and freedom. Social seduction and slavery of man in society Of all the forms of slavery of man, the slavery of man in society is of the greatest importance. Man is a being socialized over long millennia of civilization. and sociological
From the book Reality and Man author Frank Semyon2. REALITY AS A UNITY OF THE OPPOSITE AND AS A CONCRETE UNITY OF DIVERSITY We proceed from the main general difference between reality and any particular specific content outlined by all the preceding. The latter is constituted, as we have seen, by the relation
From the book Freedom, Power and Property author Belotserkovsky VadimChapter II. “Who does this mass perceive itself to be and what does it want?” Analysis of Soviet society “All the people, from top to bottom, we learned something, although we managed to destroy our culture and simply run wild. But what we have learned seems to be very significant.” N. Mandelstam
From the book Philosopher in the World author Maritain JacquesTwo Dialectical Triads At the international congress of supporters of self-government (“Congress 3 Way”, Achberg, Germany, July 75), I had a discussion with Jacob Sher. He believed that one fundamental principle should be formulated for each system, from which
From the book Social Philosophy author Krapivensky Solomon EliazarovichI ROOTS OF SOVIET ATHEISM The "religious" meaning of communism
From the book Chaos and Structure author Losev Alexey FyodorovichChapter Five The Social Existence of Society The Concept of Social Structure In the previous chapters, human society appeared to us not as a mechanical sum of individuals, but as social system, which is based on the mode of production wealth. As part of
From the book Form - Style - Expression author Losev Alexey FyodorovichDIALECTIC FOUNDATIONS OF MATHEMATICS
From the book Adept Bourdieu in the Caucasus: Sketches for a biography in a world-system perspective author Derlugyan Georgy2. NECESSARY DIALECTIC DETAILS IN THE TETRACTID CONSTRUCTION In the tetractid constructed by us, much is outlined too generally and deserves to be detailed.1. First of all, it is necessary to more accurately examine the second law of the tetractys. We just said about it that it is a lot.
From the book Philosophy: lecture notes author Shevchuk Denis AlexandrovichNormalization of the Soviet state A few months after Stalin's death, in the summer of 1953, as a result of a palace coup, one of his most odious, but also capable henchmen, Lavrenty Beria, was arrested and soon shot. This extremely
From the book Understanding Processes the author Tevosyan Mikhail3. Biological and social in man and their unity Ideas about the unity of the biological and social in the development of man did not form immediately. Without delving into distant antiquity, we recall that in the Enlightenment, many thinkers, differentiating the natural and
From the book Marxist Philosophy in the 19th century. Book one (From the emergence of Marxist philosophy to its development in the 50s - 60s of the XIX century) by the authorChapter 17 Distorted social space. Social modeling Human self-consciousness has made a person a stranger in this world, has given rise to a feeling of loneliness and fear. Erich Fromm The following words belong to our remarkable thinker Arkady Davidovich: -
From the book History of Marxist Dialectics (Lenin Stage) by the authorSubject, functions and structure of Marx's method. Dialectical connections In the afterword to the second edition of the first volume of Capital (1873), K. Marx wrote: “My dialectical method is fundamentally not only different from Hegel's, but is its direct opposite. For
From the book Dialectical Materialism author Alexandrov Georgy Fyodorovich5. Dialectical Contradictions and the World Socialist Commonwealth So far, we have shown the course of research into the questions of the dialectic of contradictions in the internal development of the USSR. But life itself set before philosophical science the task of generalizing one more important
From the book Reassembly of the Social. Introduction to actor-network theory author Latour Bruno5. THE NATURE OF CONTRADICTIONS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOVIET SOCIETY During the period of transition from capitalism to socialism in our country, the non-antagonistic contradiction between the most advanced political power in the world and the backward technical and economic base was successfully overcome
From the author's bookConclusion: from society to the collective - is it possible to rebuild the social? The alternative that I have proposed in this book is so simple that it can be summarized briefly on one page: the problem of the social arises when the bonds in which one is entangled begin to
How to disable ads on Android: remove pop-up ads
The Russian received a term and a million fine for "piracy Negative consequences of the law
Identification of key factors
The criteria for classifying organizations and individual entrepreneurs as small and medium-sized businesses have changed
See what "Royalty" is in other dictionaries Pitfalls of legislation