“Some Soviet science fiction writer has a heartbreaking scene: the main character, a star pilot, is standing in a space buffet in line for tea and sandwiches. Everyone takes sandwiches with synthetic caviar. In a special vase there is a single sandwich with real black caviar. And he takes it - because According to local standards, he is worthy of taking it, because he is a cool cosmist and a victim of radiation. And no one complains, because they understand: yes, this is possible."
How elegantly the accents are changed. Just bravo. I'll add a little "missing".
1. Actually, more than one sandwich. Separate display case with natural products. By the way, there is no queue. Buffet. It’s just hard to imagine “sausage democracy”, com. a queue-free society. And so, even in the retelling of what they read, they “deliver.”
2. The astronaut just doesn’t take it. Although, like any, Maybe. It’s just that although they won’t say a bad word to others, it’s not like others, they themselves won’t understand such an action. He can, but he doesn’t need it. The note that the seams with fish due to ecology are scattered throughout the book. It is also the case that while they are cleaning, while the livestock is being restored, natural products go to the sick, children, and the weak.
3. And then this cosmonaut, right here in the cafe, has thoughts. About conspicuous consumption. It is directly stated that synthetic caviar is no worse either in taste or in substances (after all, we are not talking about current synthetics). So the astronaut is perplexed - why would anyone take this natural stuff? Not out of necessity, but just to brag to himself, saying he consumed this? "smallly Khobotov" (c)
And now, based on a somewhat distorted retelling, the author comes to a conclusion. “It is quite possible to nightmare society on the topic of shame and conscience, and some religious congregations succeed in this... But again, it turns out to be a deception: communism promised the satisfaction of needs, and not the suppression of them, even if the suppression turns out to be successful.”
Let’s leave alone the fact that on the basis of one, and even extremely carelessly retold, hypothetical case, it’s somehow not stupid to draw conclusions. Let's take sociologist Bauman. In his "individualized society", there is an interesting remark. True, it relates to a slightly different discussion, but it fits perfectly here too.
“Where there is use, there is opportunity for abuse. And the line separating use from abuse as a tool of transcendence has been and remains the most hotly (perhaps even the most hotly) contested line ever drawn by human society; most likely , it will remain so for a long time, since the fruits from the Tree of Life have not yet been seen on properly licensed retail shelves.
The job of any economy is to manage scarce resources, and the destiny of the economy of transcendence is to provide and distribute substitutes for apparently missing resources: to manage the movement of surrogates who should only represent the “real product” and make life bearable even in its absence.”
That is, there will always be a rare resource. The question is how society will use it. And what, as surrogates of this rare resource, will offer. There are several options for how to consume and distribute this rare resource. I personally don’t see the bad thing that in such a situation he is weak. What does the author suggest? Oh yes, the standard one:
“Need is sacred, it is, in fact, an expression of your deepest essence. Late capitalist society generally understands a person as the sum of needs.”
Please note. "Holy." And at the same time, there are no boundary conditions imposed on the needs. “Whoever puts him in prison - he’s a monument.” To degrade the sacred by setting boundaries for it... No way! That is, we get that the essence of society is need without boundaries. This is some kind of spherical horse in a vacuum. This doesn't happen.
So much has been said and discussed about this that it would be pointless to repeat it.
So, as always, when describing consumption as they would like to see it, anti-communists show simply amazing helplessness. It’s just that the author has quietly already stated the conclusion he would like to reach. And now quietly
“And it’s still unknown where it’s better. In bourgeois Asia, at least someone - well, a “handful of millionaires” - are happy, but here no one at all, not even radiation victims.”
Therefore, all the author’s mockery, with his creation of fantasies on a topic where needs are considered shameful or in general “consumer communism,” look simply ridiculous. He undertakes to criticize what he did not understand. It’s not for nothing that he so gracefully skips the first part of the phrase “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” Silently “inviting” the reader to imagine that “in terms of ability” it is like it is now. Nowadays the office mold works, it wipes the pants, so they say it’s because of their abilities. But in communist terminology, especially related to the 2nd phase of communism, it has a special meaning. It's not even work ability. It's more. Speaking on fingers. Partly personal self-realization, partly creative activity and much more.
"when people are so accustomed to observing the basic rules of community life and when their work is so productive that they will voluntarily work according to their abilities. The “narrow horizon of bourgeois law”, which forces one to calculate, with the callousness of Shylock, not to work an extra half hour against another, not to get would pay less than the other - this narrow horizon will then be crossed. The distribution of products will not then require rationing on the part of society of the amount of products received by each; everyone will freely take “according to need.”(Lenin "State and Revolution")
Let's see what Krylov is talking about. About such people? Absolutely not. That is, in terms of abilities, I don’t have it yet, but in terms of needs, I really want to. Oh well. But needs also change. The question of this is sufficiently worked out in Marxist literature.
“we are talking about the complete satisfaction of rational, reasonable needs that have an objective basis. They are related to what society is able to give to the individual. Subjective needs, divorced from reality, may be, from the point of view of the individual, reasonable, but in principle unsatisfiable in their own right character. The reasonableness of personal needs consists not only in not demanding from society what it cannot provide, but also in the fact that personal consumption items and the consumption process itself will not be an expression of social status and social inequality."(Milonov)
So Krylov doesn’t dance around with his accusation "It turns out to be a deception: communism promised the satisfaction of needs, and not the suppression of them, even if the suppression turns out to be successful.". This is exactly what Lenin was talking about.
“From a bourgeois point of view, it is easy to declare such a social system a “pure utopia” and scoff at the fact that socialists promise everyone the right to receive from society, without any control over the work of an individual citizen, any number of truffles, cars, pianos, etc. Thus To this day, the majority of bourgeois “scientists” get off with scoffing, who thereby reveal both their ignorance and their selfish defense of capitalism.
Ignorance - for it never occurred to any socialist to “promise” that the highest phase of the development of communism would come, and the prediction of the great socialists that it would come does not presuppose the current productivity of labor and not the current average person who is capable of “in vain” - it seems like Pomyalovsky's students are to spoil the warehouses of public wealth and demand the impossible." (Lenin)
Well, to complete the picture, here are a few remarks from Krylov, in which he is so heavily substituted...
"Communism, as we remember, presupposes the absence of property, both private and personal"
Indeed, Proudhon called for something similar. But he immediately received it from Marx, and then also from Bakunin (the early Bakunin called for limiting personal property, but had no intention of abolishing it. Proudhon’s views did not take hold; by the 1870s they were nothing but memories. How is it possible, after one and a half years hundreds of years to say “as we remember,” etc.?
"Since communism is a materialistic doctrine for us"
With you, Mr. Krylov, anything can happen. And black is white and white is black. Anything. And if you remember that communism is not only Marxism, it’s really fun. Anarcho-communists Gandhi and Leo Tolstoy are atheists. Laughing out loud.
"A separate topic is the need for power."
I am having fun trying to imagine power in a powerless society.
"Under communism, a person is treated like a beast who does not know what he wants"
You, Mr. Krylov, would meditate on the very name communism. What does the word commune mean in this understanding? And can it consist of controlled cattle?
(according to which distribution should take place under socialism).
Encyclopedic YouTube
1 / 3
Lecture by Doctor of Political Sciences Pavlenko V.B. on the topic: "Ecopolitical science: science or ideology"
Intelligence interrogation: Alexander Tairov about Hieronymus Bosch
THE CHOICE IS OUR 2016 | FULL MOVIE | Official version of the Venus Project
Subtitles
Story
June 11, 1936 - The Central Executive Committee approved the draft of a new Soviet constitution. The first section (“Social structure”) ends like this: “In the USSR the principle of socialism is implemented: from each according to his ability, to each according to his work.”
The phrase of the 1936 USSR Constitution in the text of the 1977 Constitution was slightly changed: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his work.”
Variations
Our Soviet society has achieved that it has already realized basically socialism, created a socialist system, that is, it has realized what Marxists otherwise call the first, or lower, phase of communism. This means that we have already achieved basically the first phase of communism, socialism. The main principle of this phase of communism is, as is known, the formula: “ from each - according to his abilities, to each - according to his work" Should our Constitution reflect this fact, the fact of the achievement of socialism? Should it be based on this conquest? It certainly should. It must, since socialism for the USSR is something that has already been obtained and conquered. But Soviet society has not yet achieved the implementation of the highest phase of communism, where the dominant principle will be the formula: “ from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs»
Marxism says only one thing: until classes are completely destroyed, and until labor has become from a means of subsistence the first need of people, voluntary labor for society, people will be paid for their work by labor. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his work” - this is the Marxist formula of socialism, that is, the formula of the first stage of communism, the first stage of communist society. Only at the highest stage of communism, only at the highest phase of communism will everyone, working in accordance with their abilities, receive for their work in accordance with their needs. “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” (Stalin).
Bringing back capitalism means instead of the socialist principle now proclaimed in the USSR “ from each according to his ability, to each according to his work" and the principle " who does not work shall not eat“return to the capitalist principle “he who works does not eat”, revive the class of parasites and exploiters and at the same time turn labor again from a matter of honor, valor, heroism into hard labor, forcibly carried out under the threat of hunger and the cane of capital.
According to Lenin - equality in labor, equality in pay:
... Accounting and control are the main things that are required for the “establishment”, for the proper functioning of the first phase of communist society. All citizens are transformed here into employees of the state, which are armed workers. All citizens become employees and workers of one national, state “syndicate”. The whole point is that they work equally, correctly observing the measure of work, and receive equally. Accounting for this, control over this is simplified by capitalism to the extreme, to unusually simple operations of observation and recording, knowledge of the four operations of arithmetic and issuance of corresponding receipts accessible to any literate person.
When the majority of the people begin independently and everywhere to carry out such accounting, such control over the capitalists (now turned into employees) and over the gentlemen intellectuals who have retained capitalist habits, then this control will become truly universal, universal, nationwide, then it will be impossible to evade it in any way, “ there will be nowhere to go.”
The whole society will be one office and one factory with equality of labor and equality of pay.
Each according to his abilities, each according to his needs
According to the classics of Marxism, in a communist society the principle “To each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs!” is implemented!
...In the highest phase of communist society, after the subordination of man to the division of labor that enslaves him has disappeared; when the opposition between mental and physical labor disappears along with it; when work will cease to be only a means of living, but will itself become the first need of life; when, along with the all-round development of individuals, the productive forces also grow and all sources of social wealth flow in full flow, only then will it be possible to completely overcome the narrow horizon of bourgeois law, and society will be able to write on its banner: “ Each according to his abilities, each according to his needs»
Often the difference between socialism and communism was illustrated by the difference in their basic slogans.
They say that the difference between socialism and communism is that the slogan of socialism is: “from each according to his ability, to each according to his work,” while the slogan of communism is: “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
Literature
- Presentation of the teachings of Saint-Simon // Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Predecessors of scientific socialism, under the general editorship of Academician V.P. Volgin, M.: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. MCMLXI, Doctrine de Saint-Simon, Exposition premiere année. 1828-1829. This edition of the Russian translation of “Exposition of the Teachings of Saint-Simon” has been reviewed and corrected again by E. A. Zhelubovskaya. The previous translation was made by I. A. Shapiro. To the bicentenary of the birth of Henri de Saint-Simon. 1760-1960. Web publication: Vive Liberta Library and the Age of Enlightenment, 2010
Our Soviet society has achieved that it has already realized basically socialism, created a socialist system, that is, it has realized what Marxists otherwise call the first, or lower, phase of communism. This means that we have already achieved basically the first phase of communism, socialism. The main principle of this phase of communism is, as is known, the formula: “ from each - according to his abilities, to each - according to his work" Should our Constitution reflect this fact, the fact of the conquest of socialism? Should it be based on this conquest? It certainly should. It must, since socialism for the USSR is something that has already been obtained and conquered. But Soviet society has not yet achieved the implementation of the highest phase of communism, where the dominant principle will be the formula: “ from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs»
Marxism says only one thing: until classes are completely destroyed, and until labor has become from a means of subsistence the first need of people, voluntary labor for society, people will be paid for their work by labor. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his work” - this is the Marxist formula of socialism, that is, the formula of the first stage of communism, the first stage of communist society. Only at the highest stage of communism, only at the highest phase of communism will everyone, working in accordance with their abilities, receive for their work in accordance with their needs. “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” (Stalin).
Bringing back capitalism means instead of the socialist principle now proclaimed in our USSR “ from each according to his ability, to each according to his work" and the principle " who does not work shall not eat“return to the capitalist principle “he who works does not eat”, revive the class of parasites and exploiters and at the same time turn labor again from a matter of honor, valor, heroism into hard labor, forcibly carried out under the threat of hunger and the cane of capital.
According to Marx,
...In the highest phase of communist society, after the subordination to the division of labor that enslaves man has disappeared; when the opposition between mental and physical labor disappears along with it; when work will cease to be only a means of living, but will itself become the first need of life; When, along with the all-round development of individuals, the productive forces grow and all sources of social wealth flow in full flow, only then will it be possible to completely overcome the narrow horizon of bourgeois law, and society will be able to write on its banner: “ Each according to his abilities, each according to his needs».
Reviews
Vyacheslav, so you yourself refute your objection to me (your response to the review of the article on interformations). A buffet is not everyone's need. These are the needs within what is on the table. And everything else rests on the limits of the possible. No, you approach the question not as a Marxist, but as a dialectical Marxist. Needs can evolve indefinitely, but availability is always limited. But Marx didn’t know my GTR, and haven’t you read it (excuse my arrogance)?
And you can read about Lenin’s humorous attitude in my “We and Lenin...”, at the end, under the subtitle “But if we’re serious.”
It's interesting to talk with you.
I already understood that you have a holistic concept called GTR. You need to find time and read thoughtfully.
Formally, you are right about infinite needs and finite possibilities.
I said myself that maybe the wording is not accurate.
But, first of all, it doesn’t matter. What is important is the principle of the organization of society, the distribution system, and the decoupling from labor merit. No matter how it is phrased.
Secondly, even with these reservations, it will be a system focused on needs and specifically at them.
But that's not the point. This is not a consumer society. In fact, endless needs are nonsense.
For example, we have a need for food and certain taste preferences. Maybe very unusual. Whatever they are, they can be satisfied without any problems for free. You will eat the physiological norm, well, if you are very hungry, one and a half, well, 2-2.5.... but certainly not 10.
You can have one room with a double bed, and sleep there with your wife, and have 2 more bedrooms with single beds, so that you each have privacy and sleep separately. But you definitely don’t need 10 loaves of bread a day and 10 rooms for each family member.
You can be very thermophilic and turn on the air conditioner, which will raise the air temperature in your room. Well, up to 20-25 degrees, well, up to 30. But certainly not up to 50. And don’t say that you need a room that heats up like a blast furnace, up to a thousand degrees. If there are such needs, it means that they are satisfied in another way, or there is a need to eliminate the causes of such unhealthy needs.
Thirdly, according to the idea, which is not set out in the article you are reviewing, but is set out in another, in addition to industrial enterprises carrying out the plan, there are also circles of technical creativity. And if vital needs are met, then material resources and equipment are allocated to them. And they can do whatever they want. It is obligatory to post photos of your products on the mug’s website. Plus, the consumer can make an individual order.
This means that these products can be viewed and ordered by someone else. It is clear that if the technical creativity circle itself begins to provide consumers, its members will be sent to the Gulag on charges of creating a cooperative and violating the state monopoly on providing consumers with materials. You can’t even make it for yourself. The technical creativity circle has the right to make only exhibition samples. But if there are orders for products, they will be included in the plan and manufactured by industrial enterprises.
Finally, society is structured by industry, and in each industry, ordinary citizens vote on what the industry plan will look like.
In short, the range offered at the buffet will always be relevant, that is, it will satisfy real needs, which is not achievable by the market
The daily audience of the Proza.ru portal is about 100 thousand visitors, who in total view more than half a million pages according to the traffic counter, which is located to the right of this text. Each column contains two numbers: the number of views and the number of visitors.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his work - the principle of socialism. A person must give all his talents to society, society in return provides him with benefits and assistance proportional to the efforts expended, that is, the better a person works, the more benefits he receives from societyAs Wikipedia points out, the position “from each according to his ability, to each according to his work” was first given by a follower, the French socialist Saint-Amand Bazaar (1791 - 1832) in the book “Exposition of the Doctrine of Saint-Simon” (1829). In Lecture No. 8, “Modern Theories of Property,” Bazaar recalled the speech in 1791 at the National Assembly of the French politician during the French Revolution, Jacques Antoine Marie Casales (1758 - 1805), in the famous dispute over property:
“There is no peasant who would not teach you that he who has not sowed has no right to reap!” “What conclusion does Casales draw from this great principle? - exclaims the Bazaar and continues - from participation in the division of wealth (everyone who is unable to fertilize them with their labor is excluded, wealth (is distributed) among ... workers, no matter who they are by origin, ... exclusively in accordance with their abilities "
However, Saint-Amand Bazaar and his book remained in the memory only of specialist historians of the revolutionary movement and philosophical thought. The slogan “from each according to his ability, to each according to his work” was given “public” life by the French politician and publicist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809 - 1865) in his numerous articles “Qu’est ce que la proprieté?” (“What is Property?” 1840), “Avertissement aux propriétaires” (“A Warning to Owners” 1842), “Théorie de la propriété” (“The Theory of Property” 1866)
“It is impossible... to follow the principle: to each according to his work... because society, no matter how many people it consists of, can only give them all the same reward, since it pays them with their own products... The principle “to each according to his work”, interpreted in the sense of “who works more, gets more”, presupposes two obviously false circumstances - that the shares of individuals in social labor may be unequal and that the number of things that can be produced is unlimited... The first point of the universal regulation reads:... The ability given to everyone perform public, i.e. the same lesson for all and the impossibility of paying a worker anything other than the product of another worker's labor justifies equality of remuneration." "What is property?"
The norm “from each according to his ability, to each according to his work” was not always accepted by the revolutionaries and was subject to discussion. So Marx, reflecting on the “Gotha Program” of the German politician F. Lassalle (1825-1864), in which he assumed that the fruits of labor should belong fully and with equal right to members of society, wrote in “Critique of the Gotha Program”
“What he (the worker) gave to society constitutes his individual labor share... He receives from society a receipt stating that they have delivered such and such a quantity of labor (minus the deduction of his labor for the benefit of public funds), and with this receipt he receives from the public reserves such a quantity of consumer goods for which the same amount of labor was expended. The same quantity of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another form…. Here, obviously, the same principle prevails... as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a certain amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another.”
The maxim “from each according to his ability, to each according to his work” was enshrined in the Constitution of the USSR in 1936. The first section, Article 12: “Work in the USSR is the duty and matter of honor of every citizen capable of working, according to the principle: “he who does not work, neither shall he eat.” In the USSR the principle of socialism is implemented: “from each according to his
abilities, to each according to his work"
The principle of socialism “from each according to his ability, to each according to his work” should not be confused with the communist principle - “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”
- “It’s just a pity to live in this wonderful time
You won’t have to, neither me nor you.”(N. Nekrasov)