If Principle of Distribution According to One’s Need Is Bad?

Recently Vladimir Zhirinovsky made the statement that it’s time to forbid communistic ideology, he made it without any special reason. It’s possible, of course, not to act on attacks of this eccentric person who in the last twenty years has become ardent anti-Soviet. Though there are a lot of people who made fortunes literally on spittle in the past of all country and people, for example, beginning politician and businessman Mikhail Prokhorov. Once he asked: "What do slogans with the requirement of social justice mean? Both Prokhorov and Zhirinovsky studied at the Soviet school bringing up in the spirit of communistic ideology and, it seems, they studied there well, but, most likely, categorically didn’t like something…

So? Let's try to understand what was it …

As we know, people built socialism in the USSR, that is the social order which is putting forward implementation of principles of social justice, freedom and equalities; lack of exploitation of one person by other as well absence of social oppression as purpose and ideal.

What from the listed purposes and ideals is offered to delete, forbid?

Social justice? If there are bases for it? Actually already Platon considered justice the main quality of ideal state. Well-known Greek living in the ancient time at slaveholding, probably, put into it own understanding, everyone has own truth. Nevertheless, every society exists on the basis of achievement of certain consensus concerning the main concepts about due, in particular, about correspondence of rights and duties of citizens, work and remuneration, merits and their recognition, crime and punishment and so on. So, the Soviet society was rallied by the principle of justice: "From each according to his ability — to each according to his need" formulated by Charles Marx and Friedrich Engels in "The Communistic Manifesto".

So, Zhirinovsky wants to forbid it? Or search of justice in general? Unless it is impossible even to think of it?

Let’s try to develop this theme while it’s not forbidden. Thus, social parasitizing due to possession of property was considered unfair in the USSR. It was supposed that public property working in interests of all people and general labor employment will allow to eliminate such phenomenon. However, as it became clear later, it is possible to parasitize at the expense of public property and numerous bureaucrats as well as specialists in distribution of all material benefits succeeded in it. The problem of parasitism appeared in new including economic forms and as a result led to administrative crisis.

Whether there was sense to move back to capitalism, it only aggravated the problem, instead of solving it?

After all the problem is solved through elimination of reasons which caused it. In particular, false ideas of "work" is one of them. Simple example, there existed (and, apparently, still exist) so-called “shop classes” where girls are taught different ways of household and boys production of simple joiner's and metalwork products. It turns out that other lessons: mathematics, physics, biology, chemistry, etc have no relation to work. Such things created false ideas, preserved outdated representations. Certainly, there’s nothing bad in training in sewing, cooking and possession of skills of handling of tools - no, moreover, it’s big advantage. But it didn't make sense to bring the word “shop” in the name of only one subject because it is a question of concrete type of work which should be called like housekeeping, metalwork and so on and to be carried out like open classroom or lesson on career guidance …

Certainly, everything’s classified in the theory, there are physical and brainwork as well as creative and not creative. It was supposed that harmonious development of personality is promoted by combination of physical and brainwork with prevalence of creative element in it. However, very little attention was given to the fact that not all physical and intellectual efforts can be useful, often they can be useless, at times even harmful. In practice it created phenomenon as expensive economy. Moreover, return to capitalism squared the Soviet parasitism (it, in particular, is shown in the high cost of works).

The problem was only aggravated, many new were formed. For example, social stratification which destroyed families, friendly relations, unity of people!

What’s social meaning of education of a class of rich people which Mikhail Prokhorov joined?

After all they are not capitalists, as, for example, Henry Ford, means they are not people involved in creation of their fortune. They, by and large, parasites who received wealth and power over people unfairly. Nevertheless, Prokhorov started teaching people how they should behave, work. He decided that he has the right, in particular, to scold our citizens for bad work. In this case the word "work" demands different specification: to work for whom? Our people perfectly know capitalist mechanics where hired workers receive a piece of bread for a part of labor time, the rest of their working time goes to multiply someone's fortunes. Prokhorov won’t avoid a question thanks to what work he has got his fortune.

The question of Prohorov's money was asked to his dear sister Irina Mikhalkova, to which she answered that, say, it’s a shame to peep in other people pockets …

May be it’s actually looks not good and citizens should turn bashful eyes away and not to take it into their mind that her brother’s pocket is very much protruded. The matter is only that many people have got accustomed to consider fair the following principle: "From each according to his ability — to each according to his need" and still consider only labor money to be honest. So, Mikhail Prokhorov, in fact, put part of Norilsk Mining and Smelting Works into his pocket - enterprise created far not by his personal labor, but by the efforts of all people. So, unless it is unfair that other people are indifferent to further destiny of the fortune appeared in such wonderful way?

Let's assume, it is unfair …. The question remained: where’s the truth of the fortune?

In economic freedom, in freedom of enterprise? Well, no one argues it. It’s only interesting to specify, if it is a question of "labour"? Let's assume so. What does "enterprise" work mean then? There is different types of business, for example, socially useful when the person makes efforts for creation of useful product as well as various ways of enrichment at the expense of some public lacks and defects of the society. Besides, it’s necessary to take into consideration that now it is impossible to create the product alone and all modern, high-tech enterprises are not in private property, but in collective one (joint-stock companies). Enterprises with high extent of nationalization of property have more high efficiency of work.

Practical implementation of the theory of socialism in the form of command and administrative planned control system of economy doesn't mean that it is the only form. Opinion that enterprises with collective form of ownership in conditions of market economy solve such social problems as satisfaction of material and spiritual needs has the right to live. Planning and control of economy can be exercised both in pluralistic and decentralized way. Socialism as social order is capable to solve problems facing mankind, unlike capitalism which infects people with passion of enrichment, getting of profit.

Development of the individual, his will, creative opportunities is purpose incompatible with blossoming of parasitism, observed today all round the world.

All critics of socialism were oriented to the defects of the system existing at present. For example, Ludwig Mises, speaking about impossibility of economic calculation at socialism criticized rigid model of planning existing in the USSR in the first years of the Soviet power. The problem of "freedom of trade" is far-fetched because there is only one problem - freedom of person, his choice. In the Soviet period person had many options for choice, first of all in for professional self-determination, but, certainly, in something he was limited, as well as today. Granting freedom of trade is false target because importance of this type of intermediary activity between producers and producers during information era comes to naught.

Mankind faces absolutely other problems, namely, economy of natural resources, both scientists and politicians speak about it from world tribune of the UN. Solution of this task is incompatible with capitalism because the main criterion for adoption of all administrative decisions in this system is aspiration to increase the capital, receiving more profit. Only protégé of the capital can rise to the top of power at capitalism. The international ruling class guards capitalism, it supervises the state systems, enslaving them with certain social relationship. Solution of tasks actual for mankind is possible only at socialism, that is within the system operated according to the competence.

Intellectual life in Russia now is in shelter. Zhirinovsky's initiative about ban of "communistic ideology" in fact means termination of all conversations about prospects of the society, its purposes, such ideals as social justice. Unless it’s already unimportant for human life, for the future of its children? It’s interesting to study capitalist point of view, for example, of Mikhail Prokhorov.