What kind of socialism was in the Soviet Union and was it? There was never real socialism in the USSR What kind of socialism was in the USSR

Socialism is a doctrine in which the noble goal is set to put into practice the principles of social justice, freedom and equality. Socialism is a social system in which these principles are implemented through the overthrow of capitalism. The fundamental difference between socialism and capitalism is the public ownership of the means of production. The philosophy of socialism formed the basis of the corresponding political ideology. Socialism did not begin in Russia and not in 1917, as some people think. Socialist ideas have existed almost throughout human history. Even Plato considered social justice to be the main advantage of any state. The ideas of socialism are contained in the writings of the early utopian communists Thomas More (1478-1535) and Tommaso Campanella (1568-1639). In the ideal society that Thomas More speaks of, there is no private property, money circulation, and complete equality reigns. The basis of society is the family and labor collective. Work is a must for everyone. A surge of socialist projects occurred in Western Europe at the beginning of the 19th century and is associated with the names of Saint-Simon, Fourier and Owen.

Some people think that the doctrine of socialism was most fully developed in the works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. But it's not. The founders of Marxism viewed socialism as a transitional stage from capitalism to communism. According to their ideas, socialism is not yet a society of social justice, but only a preparatory stage on the way to such a society. The result of labor is distributed in accordance with how much each individual producer invests. The principle “From each according to his ability, to each according to his work” applies (it remained unclear who and how should establish this, which became the cause of many absurdities and abuses under Soviet socialism). Nothing can pass into the ownership of persons, except for individual consumer goods. Unlike capitalism, private enterprise is forbidden. The state is the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. For the revolutionary transition from capitalism to socialism, Marx proposed measures such as the abolition of private ownership of land, a high progressive tax on the income of owners, the centralization of credit in the hands of the state bank, a state monopoly on all transport, an increase in the number of state enterprises and state planning of their work, the unification agriculture with industry, promoting the gradual elimination of the distinction between town and country, public and free education of all children, etc.

Russia became the country where the extreme aggravation of social contradictions led in 1917 to a revolution aimed at building socialism. The brutal capitalist exploitation of the workers and peasants merged with the hardships and hardships of the First World War. The active revolutionary work of the Russian Bolsheviks under the leadership of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin fell on fertile ground. To do this, they had to work hard during the first two decades of the twentieth century. They were arrested, rotted in prisons and exile, but they courageously did their revolutionary work. And they managed to lead millions of Russians with them, who at that time had no idea what they would have to go through. Further events in Russia were determined by the difficult socio-economic situation in the conditions of a hostile capitalist encirclement with the constant threat of external aggression. And this - in the post-revolutionary and post-war devastation. There was practically nothing: no industry, no developed agriculture, no science and technology, no qualified personnel. All this had to be created anew, practically from scratch. Of course, this could not but affect the political decisions of Lenin, and after him - Stalin.

Stalin's policy of repression is being criticized a lot and rightly. However, our entire history must be carefully preserved and respected. We must also impartially assess our Soviet past. It had everything. There was the enthusiasm of the builders of the new world. There were hardships and hardships. There was a sincere desire of the authorities to lead the country to a happy future. There was the cruelty of the authorities, often unjustified and associated with violation of the law. There were miscalculations in politics. There was a heroic victory in the Great Patriotic war achieved at an incredibly high price. There was a restoration in an unprecedentedly short time of the destroyed national economy, and this is no less a feat than victory in the war. There were impressive achievements in the development of science, in the creation of new technology, in culture and art, which glorified the working man and revealed his creative possibilities. There was a spacewalk, carried out for the first time in the world. It was the creation of a great world power, the second after the United States in general level economic development. But there was also a period of stagnation, which eventually led the country to infamous events.

The history of Soviet socialism has revealed both the undeniable historical possibilities of this social system and its systemic shortcomings. Among the shortcomings, first of all, is the exploitation of man by a totalitarian state, which actually replaced the former capitalist exploitation. The lack of economic freedom and the impossibility of entrepreneurial activity suppress economic and creative activity, and do not contribute to widespread innovation. There is no doubt that central planning contributed to the all-round, balanced development of the branches of the national economy. At the same time, under conditions of an inflexible, overly rigid planned system, state-owned enterprises may not pay attention to whether their goods are in demand among consumers. This leads to a shortage of necessary goods and an overproduction of unnecessary ones. It would seem that the absence of unemployment is an obvious blessing. But, on the other hand, guaranteed employment gives rise to dependency and disinterest in the results of one's work. “Equalization” in income (the same salary for different jobs) suppresses the incentive to increase the efficiency of labor among workers. The complete absence of competition leads to a steady deterioration in the quality of goods.

The main contradiction of Soviet socialism lay in the objective impossibility (under the conditions of confrontation with the economically efficient system of modern capitalism) to satisfy the growing needs of people while maintaining predominantly coercive motivation for their work, with a shortage of material and creative interest in work, with imperfect planning for the development of the national economy, with clearly insufficient using the achievements of science and technology. Many Soviet people experienced a feeling of deep disappointment and mistrust towards the totalitarian-bureaucratic system. The gap between slogans and real life. The workers were dissatisfied with low wages and difficult working conditions. Among the collective farmers, the unsettled rural life was added to this. The intelligentsia constantly felt total control by arrogant and ignorant party officials. The heads of the enterprises were twitched by endless directives, circulars, requests and obviously unrealistic plans. This discontent was driven deep into the mass repressions, but when they weakened, it began to break out.

One can only regret that the objectively necessary restructuring of the former Soviet socialism resulted in a historical drama. At this historical turning point in Russia, there was no Deng Xiaoping at the helm, who managed to implement Chinese reforms without catastrophic consequences for the country and its national economy. Perestroika "genie" escaped from the hands of Russian reformers. In the political sphere, this led to the largest geopolitical catastrophe - the collapse of the USSR. In the economic sphere, this resulted in the collapse of the national economy and the impoverishment of millions of people. Wild social stratification. Hard-to-repair damage to science, technology, education, culture. Splash of theft, fraud, scam. Replacing productive work with clever imitation. Unrestrained egoism and indifference, previously uncharacteristic of Russians. All this and much more are the by-products of a hasty, thoughtless and irresponsible "reform". There is no doubt that the situation in the country has noticeably improved over the past decades. But not enough to overcome the pessimism and disbelief in the prosperous future of the country among many citizens. And it is not surprising that a large part of the population is nostalgic about the former Soviet times. This is clearly manifested in the political platform of the current Russian communists.

The Communist Party of the Russian Federation sees the path of Russia in the restoration of Soviet power and many other attributes of the former Soviet system. In essence, perhaps not wanting it, she is calling for a new socialist revolution in Russia. Nationalization is the first step natural resources and strategic sectors of the economy, the recovery of strategic planning. An intention is announced to take control of the pricing of fuels and lubricants, passenger transportation, communications services, as well as bread, medicines and other essentials. The nationalization of the leading industries is planned to be combined with measures to develop small and medium-sized businesses. It is supposed to revise or repeal laws that threaten national security and social rights of citizens. An increase in the subsistence minimum and a return to state pensions are announced. An intention is announced to regulate the housing and communal services sector, gas and electricity tariffs. It is planned to restore the social benefits of the Soviet era. The implementation of measures to increase the birth rate is planned. It was stated that it is necessary to change the regional policy, provide the regions with funds for development and solve accumulated problems, and redistribute tax revenues in favor of the regions. They consider it necessary to exempt citizens whose income is less than 10 thousand rubles a month per family member from paying taxes, to raise the tax on the rich to 30 percent or more, and to introduce taxes on luxury goods and elite real estate. Plans were announced to modernize industry, agriculture and the transport system with funds received from nationalized property. A number of measures for the development of science have been outlined.

At the next stage, "the dismantling of the system of economic and social inequality" will begin. This includes ensuring the transparency of elections, introducing a procedure for recalling deputies, restoring the election of judges, reducing the number of officials, providing firm guarantees for respect for individual rights and freedom of opposition activity, taking large-scale measures to suppress crime and corruption, restoring the death penalty for especially serious crimes, returning to the Criminal code of confiscation of property for economic crimes. The intention to "restore the voluntary union of the fraternal peoples that were part of the USSR" is also announced. At the final stage, it is planned to adopt a new constitution for Russia, which "will ensure the transfer of power to the Workers' Councils, secure the main sectors of the economy in the hands of the people's state, guarantee their use for public purposes ". It is noteworthy that the construction of communism in Russia is modestly kept silent or mentioned only in passing.

How real is this program? Will the communists be able to enforce it if they are in power? One thing can be said with certainty: gigantic efforts will be made to this end, and they will certainly lead to the destruction of the political and economic system that has developed in Russia. About the real consequences of this destruction, one can say about the same as about the well-known promise of N.S. Khrushchev at the XXII Congress of the CPSU in 1961 "The current generation Soviet people will live under communism!". Moreover, there is no doubt that the next revolutionary restructuring proposed by the Communist Party of the Russian Federation as a whole can only produce a devastating effect. Some of the provisions of the Communist Party program are correct, and they will gradually be implemented by the current government. But in general, the program of the current Russian communists will certainly lead to more deepening the socio-economic contradictions of the current Russian society, will further worsen the financial situation of ordinary Russians. Beautiful populist intentions only at first glance seem correct. A careful analysis shows the groundlessness and internal inconsistency of this program.

Do not the current Russian communists think that the people will accept with great enthusiasm their new revolutionary undertakings, a new perestroika after everything they have experienced? Yes, the Gorbachev-Yeltsin perestroika was an extremely painful shock for the majority of Russians. Yes, a lot of absurd, ugly, unfair things have appeared. But it happened, and people gradually got used to this new state. They live, raise children and grandchildren, make plans for the future. And the last thing they want is for another cardinal restructuring to burst into their difficult life, adjusted with such difficulty. Is Russia really going to rush from one perestroika to another? Do the communists really believe that their measures of nationalization, dismantling of the existing system and "voluntary" re-establishment of the USSR will be carried out peacefully and without conflict? The people have not lost their memory. People remember the devastation after October revolution and civil war after the Great Patriotic War. They are aware of the full measure of heroic efforts and innumerable disasters on the path of restoration and development of the national economy. Well, the communists will come to power, well, they will carry out their fateful program, well, they will take away the property from the rich. But at what cost? In the name of what? What will we come to? To Stalinist lawlessness? To Khrushchev's chatter about the imminent building of communism? To the Brezhnev stagnation? All this is not the worst options.

The most probable and the worst scenario is already seen at a cursory glance at the current socio-economic situation in the country. The current nouveaux riches will not give up property peacefully and without conflict. The new redistribution is capable of leading to a civil war in the conditions of the renewed international isolation of Russia. Today, when the country is dangerously dependent on imports of even the most essential goods, such a development is like death. We don't even know how to make our own computers and mobile phones. But today the army, industry, the banking system, our entire everyday life! Not to mention food, clothing and footwear, household appliances, cars, medicines and much more. The destruction of the banking system, the loss of deposits by citizens, the shutdown of enterprises, the return of deficits and queues, the surge in inflation and unemployment - these are the immediate consequences of the new communist revolution. Not to mention the sharp deterioration in the international situation and the growing threat to the country's national security. The country will go through a new circle of its long-suffering history. And what's ahead? Again "a bright communist future"?

The return to capitalism took place in absolutely all former socialist countries. This needs to be acknowledged and understood.
Photo from the site foto-expo.ru

In the year of the centenary of the Great Russian Revolution, it is not superfluous to reflect on why the transition to real ("true", "correct", and so on) socialism did not take place in the Soviet Union during Perestroika. For some reason, no one seriously asks this question, although, it seems to me, it cries out. After all, there was a chance, as it seemed then.

Indeed, by the time Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in the USSR in 1985, the material conditions for such a transition were in full. 99% of the means of production in the Soviet Union were state-owned. By itself, this fact did not mean truly socialist relations in the economy, but could serve as a material basis for their creation.

The absence in the country of large private property, and indeed of any more or less broad stratum of owners of the means of production, theoretically assumed a painless transition to a new phase of socialist construction, during which wage workers would have to become the true owners of their enterprises and institutions, and with them the masters of their own lives.

I deliberately emphasize that we are talking here about the means of production, that is, "factories, newspapers, steamboats", since private ownership of the means of consumption existed in the form of millions of cars, summer cottages, small plots of land under these summer cottages, private houses in the countryside, cooperative apartments in the city, this property of Soviet citizens, shamefully called then "personal", has always been in the USSR.

During this new phase of socialist construction, hypothetically, something could and should finally happen, about which the founders of scientific communism wrote so much in their time, but which did not happen in the practice of socialist construction. Namely, "overcoming the alienation of the direct producer from the means of production."

As we remember, this goal could not be achieved by stateization of most of the property in any country in the world where such attempts were made. On the contrary, everywhere in the world in the 20th century, where socialism was built according to the Soviet model, in spite of any national specifics, the hired worker remained a hired worker. Only his owner and employer have changed. The place of the private owner was taken by the state manager.

If we talk about the Stalinist times, which are now customary to remember nostalgically, then the position of the absolute majority of wage workers then worsened even compared to traditional capitalism. If anyone has forgotten, the vast majority of the population of the Soviet Union at that time - the peasants - were deprived not only of elementary labor rights, in particular, they did not receive payment for their work in money (after the war, the peasants worked not for money, but for "workdays", for "sticks ” in the ledgers), but also equally elementary human rights. Let me remind you that collective farmers received passports and with them the right to free movement around the country much later - only in 1974. In fact, and legally, from 1933 to 1974, the peasants in the USSR were serfs of the state.

In 1985, the hopes of those who considered themselves a democratic (true and so on) socialist, communist, flared up with renewed vigor. It seemed that little had to be done - to democratize the political superstructure, to hold normal elections and to transfer the means of production into the hands of the working people (in control or ownership - this was a topic for discussions, which, by the way, have not yet been completed) - and, voila - we get true socialism. But that's in theory. In practice, everything turned out to be much more complicated ...

By and large, Gorbachev cannot be reproached for not trying to carry out precisely the reform of socialism. Tried, and even very much. In his brief reign there were, for example, two very important laws appeared: on the state enterprise and on cooperation.

The essence of the first law, adopted on June 30, 1987, was that self-financing was officially introduced at a Soviet enterprise, but, most importantly, the position of director became elective. At the same time, the elections were alternative, each candidate proposed his own program, the labor collective for the first time elected the director from several candidates by secret or open voting (at the discretion of the labor collective) for a period of 5 years. The term, however, was clearly too long - american president elected for 4 years. For five years, the director could "grow" into his chair, but more on that below.

The second law - on cooperation, adopted in May 1988, seemed to revive the ideas of the late Lenin, who after the civil war proclaimed "a change in our entire point of view on socialism" and emphasized the widest possible development of cooperation.

Why didn't these reforms work? In my opinion, there are three explanations for this historical failure.

First, among the supporters of socialist development themselves, there were diametrically opposed views on what “correct” socialism should be. The problem was that for most of them, who at that time constituted the "main political force of Soviet society" - the CPSU, "correct" socialism was associated exclusively with strict directive planning of the national economy, state property, which is managed by state officials and managers, and one-party political system. The direct producer in this system, as he was a nobody, so he remained a nobody.

Those who meant by “correct” socialism the transfer of enterprises to the management of their labor collectives were always perceived by representatives of “Soviet” “communism” as a suspicious petty-bourgeois element and as such were resolutely rejected.

The second reason for the failure of the socialist reformers was that by the end of the 1980s, a fairly wide proto-bourgeois and simply bourgeois layer of people had formed in the USSR. It included a significant part of the Soviet nomenklatura bureaucracy, managers and shadow workers. This layer began to form almost from the beginning of the 1920s, that is, immediately after the victory of the Bolsheviks in the Civil War, strengthened after the "collectivization" of agriculture in the early 1930s and reached its apogee in the 1950s-80s.

In other words, this broad and influential proto-bourgeois stratum in the Soviet Union was generated not by secret enemies of the Soviet regime, not by “traitors”, about whom the current heirs of the CPSU are so fond of ranting, but by its own economic system.

What, exactly, are we talking about? The fact is that the system of state ownership implies building a powerful bureaucratic apparatus. Such an apparatus at all times and in all countries has always been built according to a strictly hierarchical principle - from the bottom up. Otherwise, it cannot function, because otherwise the principle of centralized control will be violated and the entire system will collapse (which happened in the USSR in the late 1980s and early 90s). In the Soviet Union, this system, as is known, was called the principle of "democratic centralism", in tsarist Russia, it was also called autocracy, but the point is not in the name, but in the essence. Here, as they say, at least call a pot ...

In the USSR, the only source of both material wealth and advancement along the bureaucratic ladder was a career in a state enterprise or in the state (party) service. Moreover, in a system where private property was abolished, the career of a state bureaucrat for the vast majority of the population was, in fact, the only legalized type of business.

The word "careerist" in the Soviet Union was a dirty word, because it meant, then, and now, the desire for personal, and not for the common good. That is, for purely selfish purposes. Careerists were scolded and ridiculed by Soviet propaganda and Soviet art for this, however, no one really knew how to deal with this evil. Because fighting him meant fighting the system itself.

Lenin, called the careerists "scoundrels and rogues", worthy only of execution. He rightly feared (and wrote about it more than once) that after its victory in the Civil War, these very “scoundrels and rogues” would pour into the only ruling party in a wide stream. However, he proposed completely utopian and ineffective measures to combat them - either close the admission to the party for new people in general, or “dilute” professional managers with unspoiled workers “from the machine”.

Both measures could only be temporary and did not solve the problem of careerism in principle. The closure of the party to accept new members was violated by Stalin, who immediately after the death of Lenin in 1924 proclaimed the so-called "Lenin call", as a result of which hundreds of thousands of virgins poured into it (including from any theoretical knowledge and even from secondary education), but ambitious workers and peasants. They greatly diluted the thin layer of the old party intelligentsia, who still remembered "why it all began."

It was this mass, constantly replenished with new recruits, that became the basis of the Soviet party and state nomenklatura. It was this mass of millions of Soviet bureaucracy that became the basis for the maturation of the new bourgeoisie, since it was initially guided by a purely personal, selfish, and therefore, in essence, bourgeois interest. This was also facilitated by the shortcomings of the purely centralized national economy of the USSR.

The ultra-high level of centralization and the rigidity of the planning system did not allow a quick response to the "increasing demands of Soviet citizens" and led to an endless shortage of elementary products and goods, a lack of retail space and long queues in stores.

This inevitably led to the emergence of a "black market" and to an increase in the role of both producers of scarce goods (more precisely, directors of the corresponding industries) and those who "sat" in their distribution - directors of stores and warehouses. There were at least tens of thousands of such people in the country, and they acted, albeit still in illegal, but already in quite market conditions.

That is, unlike the party nomenklatura, whose source of income was mainly the state salary, for the new "black entrepreneurs", many of whom, we repeat, were quite the official directors of Soviet enterprises and shops, all greater value acquired real income from their "business". There is nothing to say about petty "fartsovschik", those who illegally worked as a taxi driver in their car, millions of peasants who quite officially traded their own and other people's products on the "collective farm" markets, and there is nothing to say - in the 1950s-80s, all these types of illegal, semi-legal and legal entrepreneurial activity in the USSR were highly developed.

Therefore, cooperation, which was allowed in 1988, almost immediately became an official cover and a way to legalize all types of private business, both new and already existing in fact. In reality, all the social strata listed above were no longer even the proto-bourgeoisie, but the real bourgeoisie, which was louder and louder declaring its not only economic, but also political rights.

The third reason for the failure of socialist reforms in the USSR under Gorbachev was, shall we say, the unimportant background of Soviet socialism. He was too bloody and merciless, he cost too many victims. Yes, in the late 1980s, he was already quite a vegetarian, but any indulgence after such mass victims as in Stalinist USSR, is always used as an opportunity to talk about them openly. With all the ensuing circumstances, expressed, first of all, in the rejection of everything (including the positive) that was associated with the establishment of this system.

It must be stated that the historical initiative at the end of the 1980s was by no means behind socialism, which was followed by a heavy trail of many mistakes and mass crimes. Everything that was connected with socialism in the mass consciousness, and especially in the consciousness of the majority of the intelligentsia, caused strong rejection. That is why all attempts at socialist reforms in the USSR in the late 1980s and early 1990s were rejected and ridiculed before they even started.

“Humanity, laughing, says goodbye to its past,” Marx once said. That is exactly what happened in the USSR. Socialism was parted with laughter here. The famous satirist about the perestroika slogan “More socialism ...!” publicly asked the audience: “What? Much more?! Yes, much more!” Or an anecdote from the 1980s about building socialism in the Sahara: “first there will be shortages of sand, and then it will completely disappear” ...

The old Soviet socialism was fading into the past, and nothing could be done about it. New layers of society, generated by its own strengths and weaknesses, blew up this society from within. That is why the new directors of enterprises elected by general meetings of labor collectives, who are increasingly fitting into the market, became active lobbyists for the abolition of the law by which they were elected, and the “cooperators” demanded that they legalize themselves as the main shareholders of new companies and banks ...

Yes, as is usually the case with any reforms, the child was thrown out with dirty water. These words, by the way, were not told to me by some communist, but by a well-known human rights activist, liberal, head of the Civic Assistance Committee, Svetlana Gannushkina. But ... there's nothing to be done about it. Having lost your head, you don't cry for your hair.

The failure of the "socialist reforms" in the Soviet Union in the late 1980s is important for understanding that any society moves forward not only due to the desires and beliefs of individuals, but also due to the objective laws of its development. The return to capitalism took place in absolutely all former socialist countries, regardless of how the party that is now in power calls itself. This needs to be acknowledged and understood.

Undoubtedly, this different types capitalism. But, although somewhere, as in China or Turkmenistan, there is no political democracy at all, somewhere, as in Russia or Kazakhstan, it is imitated, and somewhere a normal democratic republic has been established, the economy is dominated by private property and the market. .

I found several articles, for lovers of controversy there is an opportunity for discussion. The issue with the USSR has remained painful to this day.

Was there socialism in the USSR?

I. Statement of the Question.

Was there socialism in the USSR?

A question on which there is still no consensus among adherents of Marxism. This is due to the lack of a Unified Classification Nominal Scale that determines the state of the Social Organism on formal grounds and the oblivion of the main Postulates of Marxism-Leninism.
So, for example, on the Question: What was the social structure of the USSR? Available large spectrum Opinions. In this article "Political Formations" we will not touch on whether it was " Soviet authority”, “Democracy of the Working People”, or “The power of the parties ... Nomenklatura”, “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” or covered with a “fig leaf of Democracy” - “Monarchy” ??? Let us dwell on the Economic Formations, which are within the scope of the Marxist Discipline.
According to Marxism, the "Social Organism" in its development goes through Six main Phase transitions in the field of Economics, which received the traditional name - "Economic Formations". Each of the Formations has its own strictly defined Sequence, its own Features and its own specific Functional Tasks.
I don’t know what exactly the researchers at the Institute of Marxism-Leninism were doing, but I didn’t come across any work on identifying and classifying the features of economic formations. If the Classification work would have been brought to its logical conclusion, then, probably, “so many copies would not have been broken” about the question: Was there Socialism in the USSR or Not?
- Stalin announced the construction of Socialism in 1936.
- Khrushchev planned in the 1980s to make the transition from Socialism to Communism.
- Brezhnev, claiming that we are "keeping pace with the times", - announced the construction in the USSR, in the 80s, of "Developed" Socialism.
And, suddenly, after such dizzying successes, Russia in the 90s found itself in "Wild" Capitalism. The transfer of State Property into Personal Property began, for the accumulation of initial Capital. And, at an accelerated pace, the Private Sector of the Economy began to form.
Among the modern Theorists of Social Science, standing on the Methodology of Marxism - Leninism, there is still no Single Opinion: What Economic Formation was in the USSR from 1936 to 1991?
Some argue that there was Socialism in the USSR, but then there is complete discord with its name: who calls it “Barracks”, who is “State”, who is “Mutant”. This allows some contemporary "Ghosts" to work on the Concept of "Market" Socialism, which attracts favorable attention among the ruling Bourgeois "Elite".
The author of the article adheres to the Opinion that the Economic Formation in the USSR is the deepest delusion, especially on the part of researchers who call themselves Marxists, to identify in Economics with the Socialist Formation.
It is called socialist either by succumbing to the Propaganda of anti-Marxist declarative statements of the former leaders of the country, or out of Ignorance, or deliberately, with the aim of discrediting this term, and with it the Marxist-Leninist Methodology itself.

II. Classification of Names of Economic Formations,
and Fundamental Postulates of Marxism.

Economic Formations
Sequence Name Phase Type
1 PrimitiveCommunal? SOS
2 Slave? AOC
3 Feudalistic? AOC
4 Capitalist
- Industrial AOC
- Financial AOC
- Information AOC
5 Socialist? CBT
6 Communist? CBT

What happened to the USSR is quite logically explained by the Marxist-Leninist Methodology.

IV. Addendum.
1. The generation of the sixties had the opportunity to experience all the delights of the three Economic Phase Formations of Capitalism: "Industrial", built under the control of the State, and lasted from 1936 to 1991, "Financial" - 1991 - 1993 and since 1993 - " Informational". If the maturation of the Social Organism in Russia proceeds at such a pace, then there is a high probability that the current generation will experience all the delights of the True Socialist Formation.
2. Question: Why did the USSR collapse so easily and with little bloodshed?
Answer: Because State Capitalism has exhausted all possibilities for further improvement of its own National Productive Forces of the Country. In its collapse, both external Social Organisms that have reached more advanced Economic Formations, and their own Productive Forces were interested. After all, the USSR was defeated not in Industrial Power, just in the 80s it had no equal, but in Financial and Information War. That is, the Social Organism, standing on a lower Form in terms of the level of development, was defeated by the Social Organisms with more developed Economic Formations.
3. To prepare the Socialist Formation - Each of the previous Economic Formations contributes. Primitive Communal System - Tribal Community. Slavery - National Self-Consciousness. Feudalism - Territory. "Industrial" Capitalism - "Material-Technical" Power. "Financial" - "Control and Accounting" Technologies, for the implementation of the principle "To each according to Labor". “Informational” - prepares, through Telephonization and Computerization, the conditions for the elimination of Cash Impersonal Money Carriers (Mineral - Metal - Paper) in order to switch to Computer Personal - Electronic Money - Corresponding to the level of the Socialist Formation.
Until the previous Formations create a Tribal, National, Territorial, Material and Technical, Accounting, Control and Information Base for the Functioning of the Socialist Formation, there can be no talk of any transition.
4. Within Capitalism itself, between its Phase steps, the Law operates: "Negation of Negation". Explanation: Its Higher Phase steps during their development begin to Inhibit the development of the lower ones.

The example of Russian Industry shows that with the development of Financial Capitalism, which manifested itself in a sharp Growth of Banks, Stock Exchanges, Financial Pyramids ... - accordingly, Industrial Enterprises began to go bankrupt and go bankrupt. And, after 1993, when the Imperialist Revolution took place in Russia, the Financial Pyramids and Banks began to burst, along with the continued reduction of Industrial Enterprises, especially the Agricultural Profile.
Telephonization and Computerization have led Humanity away from the Real Worlds into the Virtual Worlds, which is characterized by the reduction of the Country's own Material and Technical Base and the weakening of its Financial Currency. These processes cause an increase in Tension in the country, which awakens active Elements to action, which will become those Driving Forces capable of making the transition from the Imperialist Formation to the Socialist Formation.
5. Under Imperialism, the Role of Trans...National Corporations increases. Borders and Nation States become an obstacle to their development. Therefore, they are interested in the destruction of the National Self-Consciousness of the Peoples of the Earth and the weakening of the Power State formations. The national-Patriotic milieu is the Bosom from which one should expect the "Gravediggers of Capitalism". The future Vanguard capable of carrying out the Socialist Revolution, of making the transition from the Imperialist Formation to the Socialist Formation, cannot appear without the growth of the National Self-Consciousness of each Nation.
6. Question: What is the difference between Private Capitalism and State Capitalism?
Answer: Under Private Capitalism, along with the State, the Exploiting Classes continue to exist. While State Capitalism, after the liquidation of the first, acquires the Monopoly Right to Single-handedly Exploit the Population of its Country.
7. Question: What has “State Capitalism” given to Russia?
Answer: "State Capitalism" allowed Russia to Develop Productive Forces and Acquire Industrial Power. The preservation of the Private Sector along with the State, would not allow Russia to achieve Industrial Power, in view of the International Division of Labor among countries with a Private Sector. Since Russia is located in the cold climate zone, the cost of production produced here cannot compete with similar enterprises in warm countries. Therefore, what we are seeing now would happen - the collapse and ruin of the Industrial Sector, and the export of Capitals abroad. When Russia joins the World Trade Organization, it will play the role of a Raw Material Appendage in the international process of Labor integration. So, the "Great Industrial Capitalist Revolution" under the control of the State (party ... nomenklatura), delayed the transformation of Russia into a "Raw Materials Appendage" for 73 years, and allowed to defend its National Independence in 1945. And, to form the Self-Consciousness of the Great People. This is the key to the Revival of Russia, thanks to the nourishment of the Patriots of the Spirit of Revanchism, through the Memory of the former Greatness of their Motherland.
8. Question: The difference between Phase and Formation?
Answer: Formation in its development goes through certain internal phase changes. Phases are Quantitative Changes in Parameters associated with a step-by-step sequence of performing certain Tasks for the normal Functioning of a Social Organism within a particular Formation. Formations are a Qualitative change in the Organism, occurring as some internal parametric changes accumulate.
Inside the Organism (Biological or Social) Phases and Formations represent respectively Quantitative and Qualitative Changes.
Quantitative - these are the processes of Growth and Accumulation ...
Qualitative - processes of Change and Transformation.
9. Question: Is Socialism a Formation or the first Phase of Communism (according to Marx)?
Answer: It is more competent, in my opinion, to give Socialism the status of an independent Formation. The way it manifests its own Principles and Laws, Qualitatively different from the Communist Formation. It is advisable to engage in the identification of its logical Phases and the determination of their sequence. To do this, it is necessary to clarify the Functional Tasks of the Socialist Formation as a Whole, necessary for preparing the transition to the Communist Formation.
However, if one does not contradict Marx's statement, one can consider Socialism as the First Phase of the Communist Formation. But, this approach will not remove the problem, but only complicate it. We'll have to come up with some other Names for the Second, Third, etc. phase of communism. Therefore, both methodologically and logically, I consider it more justified to consider Socialism as an independent Economic Formation.

V. Summary.
Question: Was there socialism in the USSR?
Answer: No!
Rationale: According to the given Postulates of Marxism and the Nominal Table of Economic Formations, the Objective prerequisites for Socialism have not yet been created in the USSR.
The Economic Formation, according to the Marxist Methodology, should be Named:

industrial capitalism.
-http://maxpark.com/community/2583/content/794282
(Addendum)
"Socialisms"

Was socialism built in the USSR? So many pens have been broken and so much ink spilled over this question that it simply irritates many. But perhaps the question should be put differently: what kind of socialism was built in the USSR?

Only in the famous Marxist "Manifesto of the Communist Party" do we find several different socialisms. Feudal socialism, petty-bourgeois, German or "true" - all this, according to the authors of the Manifesto, is a variety of "reactionary socialism". And then there are “conservative or bourgeois” and “critical-utopian” socialisms. Today, all this is not just an abstract theory. Almost each of these concepts is represented in Russia in one way or another. The most common case is reactionary socialism, with all its varieties up to “feudal”. Here is what the classics write about him: “The aristocracy waved the beggarly bag of the proletariat as a banner to lead the people. But whenever he followed her, he noticed the old feudal coats of arms on her backside and ran away with a loud and irreverent laugh.

There is also the so-called syndical socialism (“collectivism”). It's about on the scheme by which enterprises are transferred to the ownership of labor collectives. The latter enter into commodity-money relations with each other. In a word, the capitalist is replaced by a group of workers-owners. Otherwise, everything is the same as before. True, one of the theorists of "collectivism", a French socialist of the 19th century, Louis Blanc believed that the state would rise above all this. It should control the most important branches of the economy and help develop workers' associations-syndicates. An explanation is needed here. This social scheme is often called syndicalism. But syndicalism is not so much a blueprint for a new society as a method of action for workers through trade unions (syndicates). A society in which the ownership of enterprises by labor collectives is more correctly called not syndical socialism or "collectivism", but cooperative socialism.

Critics of "collectivism" argue that this scheme implies a surge of group selfishness, competition between commodity producers and the elements of the market. “Collectivism” leads to inequality between labor collectives. And over time, inequality decomposes the collectives themselves. The history was able to verify the correctness of these forecasts in two cases. At least they are the most famous. This is Spain in the 30s and post-war Yugoslavia. In Spain during the civil war, syndicalist structures covered entire regions: Aragon, Castile, Catalonia. The number of cooperative enterprises numbered in the hundreds. Syndicates controlled entire industries. And the main labor syndicate, the Independent Confederation of Labor, united 2 million people and had its own armed forces. But this lasted only until the victory of General Franco in 1939. The experiment was forcibly interrupted, and it did not last long. Therefore, the "collectivist" scheme did not have time to show all its inclinations here. True, the very fact of the defeat of the syndicalists does not speak in their favour.

Much longer "collectivism" existed in Yugoslavia. Moreover, here the cooperative property was supplemented by a powerful state influence on the economy - everything is like Louis Blanc. However, the Yugoslav scheme, as is known, collapsed under the pressure of commodity-money relations that had developed in society.

One variation on the theme of "collectivism" is guild socialism. His homeland is England, the time of birth is the eve of the First World War. The main idea of ​​the project is to combine the economic autonomy of work collectives (guilds) with state ownership of plants and factories. All this must be complemented by economic and political democracy. In this way, the guilders wanted to get away both from the vices of the market element and from the domination of the state bureaucracy. The traditionally strong trade unions in England were considered the basis of guild socialism.

Democratic socialism- a concept that appeared in the late 80s of the 19th century. This is, in fact, the official banner of social democracy. Here, as in the previous case, priority is given to economic and political freedom. The method chosen to achieve it is the gradual reform of bourgeois society. The theory of democratic socialism has no clear framework; in different cases it is filled with different content. But all varieties are related by verbal internationalism, pacifism and democracy in everything. Especially when it comes to women's rights. Democratic socialists also talk a lot about ecology. On this basis, even an independent theory has grown - ecological socialism. It appeared at the turn of the 70-80s of the 20th century. The founders are left-wing socialists and the Greens. Sometimes these are “new leftists” - people from the era of student riots of the late 60s. Theorists of ecological socialism are sure that the well-being of nature is more important than the interests of the economy and the state. And if so, the authorities should not spare money for the development of environmentally friendly industries. For example, small crafts and handicrafts. The principle of profitability is relegated to the background.

Another social democratic idea self-governing socialism. We are talking about involving the broad masses of the people in the management of society. Here the method of action is reform, not revolution. Their result should be the development of local self-government, democratic planning and even workers' control. In the long term, the overcoming of capitalism is recognized. But for now, self-government and broad democracy are recommended to be combined with private property, the market and the state.

Shows how to achieve this functional socialism. His idea is to change its functions without changing the forms of ownership. That is, the plant remains with the capitalist, but the enterprise operates, supposedly, already in the interests of society. What these interests are will be decided by the state. It will also control the capitalist through laws, taxes and a system of social partnership. The scheme implies that the interests of the proletarians will not be too great. Otherwise, the state will no longer have to deal with the capitalists, but with the proletarians.

ethical socialism. Here again we see social democracy, again reforms. But the engine of reforms is not naked class egoism, but Christian morality and humanism. This concept, like all varieties of democratic socialism, does not have clear forms. After all, everyone has their own concept of morality and humanism.

The family of socialisms is complemented municipal, market, military socialism, national socialism, as well as African socialism. The latter was seen as the "third way" for the peoples of Africa. This continent, with its remnants of a primitive community, is declared primordially socialist, and all Negroes are brothers. The townspeople are universally recognized as the bourgeoisie, and the peasants as proletarians. The village is considered the main base of the new system. The African socialists are for the cooperation of classes, for democracy. But if democracy interferes, it is possible without it.

It is, of course, exotic. And here state socialism- a concept that needs to be talked about seriously. The first such projects appeared at the beginning of the 19th century among the propertied classes. One of the developers of the theory of "gossots" was the French nobleman Henri Saint-Simon, the other was the German landowner Karl Rodbertus. In general, Germany, its respectable professors, was especially partial to state socialism. She even created her own version of it, katheder-socialism - the socialism of the professorial department.

Different versions of the doctrine were united by the recognition of the state as the core of the entire social structure. Moreover, the only possible core. Tools of labor, volumes and assortment of production, trade and distribution of products, management of public affairs, education of youth - officials should be in charge of all this. They are also entrusted with the development of the dominant ideology. For example, in the doctrine of Saint-Simon, the state even appears as a religious community. It promotes its own religion and jealously oversees the observance of due rites. It is clear that in this case the state should have power over its subjects. He will need power both for the planned organization of production and for the regulation of public consumption.

By the way, various doctrines state socialism The problem of consumption is solved in different ways. At the same Saint-Simon, the worker receives "according to his work." According to the French socialist Constantin Pekker, all workers doing approximately the same work receive the same remuneration.

Pekker does not pay much attention to the division of people into those who give orders and those who carry them out. But for the followers of Saint-Simon, the principle of hierarchy is beyond doubt. “Of course, mistakes are inherent in people,” they admit, but one must agree that people of higher talent, standing on the point of view of common interests, whose eyes are not obscured by trifles, are less likely to fall into error in the choice entrusted to them ... ”. It is obvious that mere mortals are obliged to obey "people of higher talent." However, this idea was developed in more detail already within the framework of National Socialism, in the concept of the Fuhrer.

The theory of state socialism also left its mark on Marxism. In one of his famous works“The development of socialism from utopia to science” Friedrich Engels writes: “The proletariat takes state power and turns the means of production primarily into state property. True, Engels immediately explains: “But in doing so he destroys himself as a proletariat, in doing so he destroys all class distinctions and class opposites, and at the same time the state as a state.” Moreover, the classics of Marxism did not get tired of explaining what a gulf lies between nationalization and socialization. In the first case, everything goes to professional managers-bureaucrats. They dominate production and society. And the higher the degree of nationalization, the tougher this domination. In the second, the management functions are transferred to the “associated proletariat”. If in this case it is possible to speak of a state, then it is the statehood of the dictatorship of the proletariat. That is, it is no longer a state in the usual, bourgeois sense of the word. On the concept of state socialism, the classics brought down a flurry of criticism. In the work of Engels, already familiar to us, it is said: “But recently, since Bismarck rushed to the path of statization, a special kind of false socialism has appeared, degenerating in places into a peculiar kind of voluntary servility, declaring, without circumambulation, any statization, even Bismarck’s, is socialist.”

Criticism of statehood formed the basis of one of Lenin's main works, The State and Revolution. When the book appeared in the autumn of 1917, the author was accused of anarchism. However, it is in the works of Lenin that the rationale for the future Bolshevik practice of state socialism is already visible. In parallel with The State and Revolution, Lenin wrote the pamphlet The Threatening Catastrophe and How to Fight It. Here the leader of the Bolsheviks proves that in order to build a new society, it is enough to erect a revolutionary-democratic state over the state-capitalist system and the job is done. But everything turned out to be much more complicated ...

communist socialism- Marxist concept of socialism. It implies a radical change in all social relations: from production to family. Such socialism will not know private property, commodity production, wage labor, classes and the state. Their place will be taken by public property and self-government. And the worker will receive consumer goods from public warehouses according to a receipt that records the time he has worked. Neither “Leninist” product exchange, nor “Stalinist” commodity exchange should be here.

In fact, everyone who, declaring themselves followers of Marx, came to power in the 20th century, failed to go further than stateization: neither the German Social Democrats during the years of the Weimar Republic, nor the Bolsheviks, nor the Chinese Communists, etc. There was no socialization of the means of production anywhere . And here there is a curious regularity: the less developed the country, the more work on the capitalist modernization of the economy is before it, the stronger and longer the state-socialist order holds in it, the more radical it is. However, as experience has shown, these orders do not lead to communism. Truth and "communism" are different.
http://marxistparty.ru/lp/6/socialism.html
Attached image (Click to enlarge)

Kolomna Kust is a political association of thinking and searching people, not little wooden men walking in step and thinking alike. Naturally, on many issues of political theory and practice, the members of the Kust sometimes flare up the most heated discussions. The note published below by one of the members of the Association is just such an excellent invitation to a discussion on one of the topical theoretical issues.

Thus, we are starting a new section "Controversy" on our resources. After some time, another of our comrades will write an answer to it. In turn, it will be possible to answer the answer, etc.
Of course, anyone can join the controversy. We will only be glad to have an open wide discussion.

Original taken from masterwaff What kind of socialism was in the Soviet Union and was it?

Many plasma and not so Marxists, as well as a considerable list of people who are far from socialist ideals and communist rhetoric, often enter into fierce polemics on the question: “Was there socialism in the USSR?” Moreover, in this case, “socialism” often means a kind of “desirable socialism”, that is, a socialist system already freed from the key distortions inherent in countries with a market economy.

But here it is worth recalling some properties of socialism declared by the classics or, at least, being direct properties from what was declared. Namely, the next two.

Socialism in a market environment

The first property - produced by a socialist society goes to meet its needs. This removes the inevitable distortions capitalist system, in which a certain product / service is produced not in the amount in which he / she is needed by society, but in the amount that can be sold.
This is a much more serious problem than it might initially seem. In particular, it determines the presence of inevitable crises of overproduction in countries with a capitalist economy, and removes this inevitability (but, of course, does not eliminate the possibility of such) in socialist countries.
It is large enough and serious topic for a separate article, but we will now limit ourselves to this, in the hope that someday this issue will be able to be disclosed in more detail.

So, the USSR did not have the physical ability to direct its production solely to meet the needs of its population. The reason for this was that Soviet Union arose and existed in an alien environment of the global market economy. That is why he was forced to act as a mega-corporation in the foreign market, to act according to the market laws of competition.
I repeat, otherwise its existence on early stage it would be simply impossible.
The Soviet industry produced a gigantic amount of what was competitive and sold well, the focus was quite seriously shifted away from the needs of the Soviet people (however, still far from the way liberal myth-makers describe it). As a result, the USSR captured 40% of the world market civil aviation, built nuclear power plants and hydroelectric power stations in various countries, was the first (by a huge margin) arms exporter in the world. Like any successful corporation, he put forward and saturated the market with what sold well and was competitive (and often had no analogues at all), while at the same time obscuring and allocating fewer resources to the development and distribution of his (to use corporate language) " weak positions. The fact that the Soviet auto industry caused at best a bitter smile in comparison with Western counterparts, and the Soviet aircraft industry aroused pride in us and envy among Western competitors, is largely due to this inevitable paradigm of behavior in a market environment.

Such a contradiction could be removed in only one way - if the surrounding political and economic environment would not be alien to the socialist state. That is, there can be no miracles here. The socialist state must first "terroform" the world economic structure, and only then be able to begin to act in accordance with its own interests, and not imposed laws. A new global economic order cannot descend from the heavens on its own. And this must be taken into account.

As a result, from this point it can be seen that:

1) The Soviet Union did not have a production vector directed exclusively and
directly to meet the needs of citizens of the USSR.
2) This shift in direction is objectively inevitable and cannot be eliminated as long as
while dominant economic system is alien to socialism.
3) The USSR (at least until its last decade) was engaged in
"terraforming" the economic landscape of the planet, as a result of which, in
if successful, this shift could be eliminated.

Alienation under socialism

The second property is that under socialism there is no alienation of labor.
And here I would like to talk in more detail.
Alienation manifests itself in various forms. For example, one of its forms is the alienation of labor.

Marx writes the following about him:
What is the alienation of labor?
First, in the fact that labor is for the worker something external, not belonging to his essence; in the fact that in his work he does not affirm himself, but denies himself, feels himself not happy, but unhappy, does not freely develop his physical and spiritual energy, but exhausts his physical nature and destroys his spiritual powers. Therefore, the worker only feels himself outside of work, but in the process of work he feels himself cut off from himself. He is at home when he is not working; and when he works, he is no longer at home. Because of this, his work is not voluntary, but forced; it is forced labor. This is not the satisfaction of the need for labor, but only a means for satisfying all other needs, but not the need for labor. The alienation of labor is clearly shown in the fact that as soon as physical or other coercion to labor ceases, they flee from labor like from the plague. External labor, labor in the process of which a person alienates himself, is self-sacrifice, self-torture. And, finally, the external character of labor is manifested for the worker in the fact that this labor does not belong to him, but to another, and he himself, in the process of labor, does not belong to himself, but to another. Just as in religion the self-activity of human imagination, the human brain and the human heart affects the individual independently of himself, i.e. as some kind of alien activity, divine or diabolical, so the activity of the worker is not his independent activity. It belongs to another, it is the loss of the workers themselves.
As a result, such a situation is obtained that a person (worker) feels free to act only when performing his animal functions - when eating, drinking, in sexual intercourse, at best, while still in his home, decorating himself, etc. - and in his human functions he feels himself to be only an animal. What is inherent in the animal becomes the lot of man, and what is human turns into what is inherent in the animal?
True, eating, drinking, sexual intercourse, etc. are also truly human functions. But in an abstraction that separates them from the circle of others human activity and transforming them into the last and only final ends, they are animal in nature.

I will not dare to describe this form of alienation of labor and, as a consequence, the alienation of the very personality of a person, so we will limit ourselves to this.
The alienation of personality has already been mentioned in passing by Marx. It essentially grows both from the alienation of labor, on the one hand (man does not belong to himself, he can realize himself only in his animal, and not in his human, creative, where he plays the role of an animal), and, on the other hand, from alienation surplus value, which plunges a person into the Kabbalah of life "from paycheck to paycheck." The wages paid to us are mainly calculated not from how much we have produced, but fromthe cost of goods and services needed to keep us alive and able to work for a month, and the cost of maintaining our status (which is why our bank account rarely looks different at the end of each month than the month before).

The surplus value alienated from the worker is colossal, it is many times greater than the surplus value paid to him. wages for the amount of goods and services it produces. Which is not surprising, because it is she who is one of the main engines of the entire world capitalist economy.

And now let's try to figure out how things were in the USSR with all these forms of alienation.
Alienation of labor in the Soviet Union clearly existed. People also turned nuts in shifts and sweatshops, plowed in the field, carpentry and much, much more, just like in the West. Throughout his work shift, the person did not belong to himself. As they say, we look at the definition of Marx, we draw conclusions.
But is it possible in principle to abolish the alienation of labor given the present character of production? The answer is obvious - no. Until all routine work is mechanized, the whole of humanity simply does not have the opportunity to engage in self-realization in creative work. And the socialist social system is not a time machine capable of suddenly transferring society to another era. It is simply a mechanism to get to the desired era at the fastest pace.
So, just as when considering the problem of the direction of production under socialism, here we see, on the one hand, a deviation from the properties of this very “desired” socialism, on the other hand, we can state the inevitability of such a retreat. Temporary, yes. But inevitability.

With the alienation of surplus value, the situation is much more complicated. It existed and did not exist at the same time. The salary was indeed colossally less than the cost of the product produced. Due to this, in particular, the corporate behavior of the USSR in the external environment was implemented.

But, on the other hand (and this strikingly distinguished the USSR from the West), this alienation was indirect and, more importantly, the nature of "investment in the future" for the "contributor" worker. Above the worker there was no exploiter who buys a new yacht for himself with the alienated profit or hires a dozen or two more slaves to expand his production. The alienated profit is returned to the worker through education for his children, medical care, security of the family and external borders, work to create platforms for creative work (such as, for example, the development of the atom, space), in which the children of this worker can realize themselves.

In other words, the state itself decided that a person needs 20 tanks now than 20 sticks of sausage, yes. But, on the other hand, this your 20 tanks, they protect you, unlike obviously not your yacht, private military companies, etc. Feel the difference.
Yes, the USSR took part of the cost for the development of competitive areas (as part of corporate behavior in the foreign market), but, again, here we can see the “investment in the future” of such alienation, because in the end it went to “terraforming” the external environment and removing the shift into "corporatism". Which, in turn, would additionally increase the pace of the state's transition to a new type of production.

Notice that we have not even touched on the fact that this share is orders of magnitude smaller than the one that the capitalist rips off from the worker simply for the sake of buying luxury goods and maintaining his status at the top.
One can try to argue that the engine of the capitalist economy also brought the countries of the West into space, also gave them the opportunity to conquer the atomic nucleus, and also gave the masses of people the opportunity to realize themselves in a creative, rather than routine, field. This is again a topic for a separate discussion, but in a nutshell, it happened for the following reasons:

1) Competition with the USSR forced the "socialistization" of a number of areas on which the very survival of the West depended. Thus, the US space program had directive development plans, the absence of an external “devourer” of profits from it, and a “corporate” rejection of surplus value of an “investment” nature, strictly controlled from above. After the rival “terraformer” left the arena, these mechanisms were quickly curtailed.
2) Unequal access to education leads to social segregation of people in relation to those who are more lucky to be in the creative profession, and who are not.
3) Lack of design and profit as the main stimulus ultimately cannot (and do not set goals) to lead mankind to a new nature of production. That is, behind the visible wrapper of “progress too”, in the end, a stable thousand-year-old “global human life” is rapidly building up with the alienation of the individual forever.

So, let's sum up the second property of "desirable" socialism.

1) In the USSR, as in the West, there was an alienation of labor.
2) Within the current nature of production, such alienation is inevitable.
3) The alienation of surplus value in the USSR was not of an exploitative, but of an investment nature.
The directly alienated surplus value went either to improve living conditions and
self-realization of a person, or to a global restructuring of the world rules of the game under socialist
goals, that is, ultimately, to overcome the imbalance in the direction of production and alienation
labor as such, thanks to the development of the machine character of production.
4) Alienation of the individual as a derivative of the alienation of labor and surplus value, in the USSR
was present, but had a continuously decreasing scale, as an increasing number of
people who had the opportunity to creatively realize their personality, whether in the sport of high
achievements or in space exploration.

Conclusion

To the question: "Was there socialism in the USSR?" (if by such we mean “desirable socialism”, which is mentioned at the beginning of the article), the author is inclined to answer rather in the negative. The very historical objectivity and socio-economic situation of the current historical period did not allow the Soviet Union to get rid of a number of key distortions that prevented it from eventually becoming the “desirable” socialism. However, in the course of our research, it was clearly shown that the USSR used all the available opportunities to break it by means of this very historical objectivity, thus becoming the true, "desirable socialism."

Thus, it is more appropriate to speak not of "socialism in the USSR", but, in a more dialectical formulation, of "the path of building socialism in the USSR." Because it was a really lively process of approaching a bright socialist future.

Nowadays, quite often one hears from adherents of Bolshevik thought how they “built socialism” in the USSR. The question rightly arises: was it really so? And is the socialist system a system that can be taken and built? Naturally, everything here is not as simple as it might seem to a convinced Bolshevik-Leninist or a simple layman.

Let's start with a little theory. The nature of any social system is determined by the mode of production of material goods. The two aspects of the mode of production are the productive forces and the relations of production corresponding to them. It is clear that communist relations of production cannot arise on the basis of the same productive forces on the basis of which capitalist relations of production arose. The question is brewing: how did the Soviet general secretaries try to build socialism on the basis of capitalist productive forces? Story Soviet state clearly demonstrated that it is impossible to build socialism, to plant it artificially by means of decrees. Although the Bolshevik leaders did not think so. In reality, everything was different: state capitalism was built in the USSR, and not. A simple decree (in our case, the Land Decree) forbidding wage labor could by no means abolish the system of wage labor; the party nomenklatura was unable to destroy the capitalist class antagonism by getting rid of the bourgeoisie; it did not destroy the capitalist basis either, having nationalized the entire industry, because it makes no difference who exploits the workers - the private owner or the state. This is because you cannot change the formation through political decisions: the political superstructure of the Soviet state, undoubtedly, could in some way affect the economic basis of Soviet society, but not so much as to change it qualitatively, radically. The basis determines the superstructure, not vice versa. When we talk about the change of production relations from capitalist to communist, we must understand that a corresponding change must also take place in the productive forces.

Socialism in the USSR as in a nation state

This was only one side of the myth about building socialism in the USSR. The point is that it is impossible to build socialism in a single country. Why? One of the progressive missions that it performs is the creation of a single market space, the unification of the economies of all states into a single economic entity based on their mutual dependence. The limits of nation-states for the productive forces have long since become narrow, as evidenced by the crises of overproduction. In fact, industry and trade ceased to be domestic. For example, the Soviet Union, although it produced grain, began to buy it abroad from the mid-1960s. National frontiers are a barrier to the productive forces of capitalism. Again, this is easily confirmed by the example of the USSR, which actively sold its own industrial products and energy resources on the foreign market. The capitalist economic system has long connected all the economies of national states, has become a global system, and therefore the next socio-economic formation - communist - will be a world system. Even the Bolsheviks themselves, who verbally built socialism in the USSR, still cherished the hope of the victory of the world revolution: for this they even broke the tsarist agreements on cooperation with some Third World countries, they also supported the workers' uprising in Hamburg in 1923. It is clear that it didn't end with anything. The world character of the socialist system was also noted by the classics of Marxism themselves, speaking of the need for a socialist revolution in just a few of the most developed capitalist countries. In summary: it was simply impossible to build socialism only in the USSR.

It can be purely hypothetically assumed that socialism was built in the USSR. Plants and factories were being built, industrial production was growing, in a word, the productive forces were developing at full speed, and suddenly there was a collapse of the Soviet "socialist" state, that is, the restoration of capitalism. Really during these 70 years the "socialist" productive forces have degraded to such an extent that there has been a "restoration of capitalism"? It turns out that there is a discrepancy, because the productive forces progressed in the Soviet era - no one will deny this. Obviously, everything was different: the productive forces, like the relations of production, were capitalist. This can put an end to the question of building socialism in the USSR.

Conclusion on the need for an appropriate material base

It will be possible to speak about the construction of socialism only when the material basis of socialism, the socialist productive forces, has matured for this. Soviet leaders could introduce as many decrees, laws as they wanted - anyway, this would not lead to a qualitative change material base society. The change of production relations does not depend on anyone's subjective will.