Model of the future

Interested in the theory of modern socialism , I try to carefully monitor the arguments of his supporters and opponents, with new approaches and views of discussion, from time to time appearing in the media and on the Internet sites. The discussion on the topic “ Has the Future of the Socialist Idea in Russia ” in the CSKP - one of the intellectual headquarters of the United Russia party could not pass by my attention.

Do I need to criticize socialism?

Do I need to critically comprehend the Soviet experience?

Rhetoric questions. Of course, it is necessary and should. Especially if you are going to not repeat the mistakes of the past, it is better to solve problems more efficiently, more humane than your ancestors.

Did it succeed in ideologists of United Russia?

They themselves did not hide delight from their own intellectual achievements and the level of discussion:

F. Klintsevich: “The intellectual potential of our today's discussion goes scoops up, today all the performances were brilliant ... such a highly intellectual substantive level, as we have a conversation today ...”

A. Posadsky: "Today we heard, of course, brilliant reports ..."

V. Medinsky : “I probably have the first time that I did not get to the party debate, but at the scientific conference, and the academic level, judging by the depths and interest of reports ...”

L. Polyakov : “I join the idea that such wealth is not necessary. I can honestly say that a rare scientific seminar of this level of discussion, and most importantly, not some abstract categories of science, but the most living problems that relate not only to those present, but also all citizens of the country, but in the potential of the whole world ... "

S. MARKOV: "I, too ... I state that a brilliant analysis with a magnificent knowledge of the history of socialist ideas ..".

A. MAKAROV: “A completely brilliant analysis ...” , etc.

I involuntarily remembered: not all the gold that shines ...

And one more thing: "Why, not afraid of sin, the cuckoo praises a rooster?"

Socialism and social capital.

Today, world sociology, following D. Coleman, in the analysis of the development of the economy and society, pays more and more attention to human capital and social capital, which consist, among other things, in the ability of people to compose a certain community with each other. In the formulation of today's questions about social capital, you can easily see the contours of a very old problem, outlined by Karl Marx. After all, let's not forget that its model of communism is an attempt to theoretical, and then (after 1917) and a practical answer to a very clumsy question: how to harmoniously combine the interests of man and society?

Socialism and communism are not the construction of paradise on Earth, not the demagogy of leaders on the topic “I know how”, and not even the abolition of private property, but an eternal task for any (!) Society is the task of optimizing these interests. Socialism as a task is the search for mechanisms, institutions and practices of the implementation of a model in which “the free development of everyone is a condition for the free development of all” - which, in fact, is a formula for communism, so that the ideologists of any of the parties would not say about it.

Actually, the success of solving this strategic problem is a key criterion for evaluating and comparing different models of a social structure, no matter what “lumber” this or that model is indicated. Completely in Deng Siaopinovsky (which was not worried about the color of the cat, if it successfully catches mice) the concept of “socialism” is used instrumentally - i.e. To designate the practices and principles that would be horrified by the ideologists of the CPSU from the department of Mikhail Suslov, and, it seems, also plunge into the horror of modern ideologists of “United Russia”.

Who should whom and what?

I risk saying that the task of building a model of society, in which “the free development of everyone is a condition for the free development of all” and the linking of the interests of the individual and society, part and the whole, increasing social trust and social capital, are still acutely on the agenda today and far from a successful decision in the Russian Federation. This problem is everywhere, but no one considers these tasks unrealistic and utopian. Thinkers with a world name do not consider these tasks to be solved in other countries. Criticizing the modern USA, Francis Fukuyama, for example, writes that America “ lives at the expense of social capital accumulated in the past, providing it with rich and dynamic public life, and on the other hand, suffers from the extreme manifestations of distrust and individualism leading to the mutual isolation of its members ” [2].

It is no coincidence that these thinkers without a shudder quote Marx, correlating his insight with the modern logic of development (although there are still many “thinkers” in Russia, who believe that it is only Gennady Zyuganov, Sergey Mironov and their followers): “the death of the state”, which Marx spoke, is conceivable only in society with an extremely high level of socialization, “the death of the state” . Where behavior limited by certain norms would have an internal source, and not imposed from outside ”[3], the American author has never thought as a socialist and a communist.

“ Social capital cannot become the result of the actions of an individual, he grows out of the priority of public virtues over individual ” [4]. “ In the course of history, society can both accumulate public capital and lose it ” [5]. “ A society with a low level of social trust may never benefit from the prospects discovered by information technologies ” [6]. If people “ discover the inability to organize and maintain corporate structures, they do not have access to the modern economy ” [7].

Of these quotes, a modern problem field is drawn, related to the question of the possibilities of socialist and non -socialist models of social structure.

On the narrow framework of private property, inadequate to the overwhelmed social productive forces, global development tasks, humanity stumbles constantly, whether it is climate change or the design of the “knowledge societies”. The authors of the UNESCO UNESCO in 2005 “to the societies of knowledge”, among which global luminaries in the field of economics, sociology, social philosophy (Manuel Castels, Jacques Derrida, Julia Kristeva, Paul Ricker, Alena Turen, etc.) write: “There should not be such a phenomenon as a social reply in societies, since knowledge is a social property that should be accessible for each ". In other words, So far, Russian non -Beeral ministers introduce the legislation on the rights of intellectual property, the leaders of world science are concerned about the search for the balance of rights assigned to Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. For the right of each person “ to protect his moral and material interests, which are the result of scientific, literary or artistic works ” conflicts with the right in the same declaration of the right to “ freely participate in the cultural life of society, enjoy art, participate in scientific progress and use its benefits ”. The solution of this double problem requires a refusal to represent scientific, intellectual and cultural capital only as a variable value of economic capital, the authors of the report, since it contradicts the interests of the free development of science and ethics. The authors of the report unequivocally warn about the risk of accepting the only model of human development based on the development of the market, private property and competition, as this will make problematic freedom of access to knowledge due to the privatization of innovative processes and scientific discoveries.

The question of increasing and strengthening social capital is already on a global scale, but the small -town provincial greed and redneck, hiding behind antisocialist rhetoric, it seems that it will continue to block, crush and depreciate this capital in Russia.

If you simplify the dispute and comparison of public models to the limit, then two polar types of society are loomed. We tried to realize one thing in the past. His slogan was: "Everyone should everyone!" You cannot live in society and be independent of society, etc.

Both Soviet society, in general, and its leaders suffered in search of specific formulas, embodied in socialist collectivism the optimal combination of individual and social interests. Pedagogical experiments of Makarenko or the Republic of Shkik, socialist competition, communist labor brigades, landscaping subbotniks, youth housing and communal services and NTTM, all kinds of communal forms, DND, brigade and Ipatievsky method - all this can be considered successful or unsuccessful experiments and laboratories to build up various forms of social capital, forming the formation new optimal social relations in different areas of society, finding a balance of moral and material incentives ...

And you can just take this unique material for thought, declare utopia and nonsense! And start solving all the same in essence of the problem from scratch, the method of trial, errors and stuffing cones.

The alternative social model is built on a different principle, which with disarming simplicity was voiced by the biathlete Svetlana Sleptsova at the Olympics in Vancouver: “We owe nothing to anyone!” And before that, one of the prominent Russian oligarchs voiced the same thoughts: “Our business is to make money for shareholders and customers within the law. We have no other responsibilities. We pay taxes and owe nothing more than God and conscience. ”

Nobody owes anything to anyone? A business at all costs earns money on us, now and then confusing the legal and legitimate ways of leaving money with immoral and illegal, teachers are not so much taught as they are oriented towards issuing rich parents, doctors are more interested in your wallet, artists, without straining, buy popularity and prime time, even when they sing under the plywood. Even the goal of athletes is fees and bonuses, and not goals-oks-secrets. Well, the deputies also do not owe anything to anyone, they solve their personal problems, slightly, but not very, distracting only to not very convincingly depict our representatives with you in power.

By the way, criticism of socialism and the USSR F. Fukuyama is paradoxical. He sees the most important drawback of the USSR in his following features: “ According to the irony of fate, the embodiment of a doctrine, which declared its goal the eradication of human egoism, led to the fact that people became more selfish. It has been noted more than once that the Soviet Jews who emigrated to Israel were much more materialistic and much less concerned about the problems of society than the Jews who came from the bourgeois countries ”[8]. And he also criticizes modern Russian society for excessive asocial ... Individualism “ truly individualistic societies, whose members do not know how to unite with each other, really exist. In such societies, both family and voluntary associations are weak, and criminal groups are sometimes the strongest communities. An examples can be called Russia and some other former communist countries ... ”[9].

Isn't it early we are in a hurry to declare socialism a relic of the past? Will he not be a rescue circle to overcome the anomia [10] in the future?

The logic of even innovative decisions in the framework of conservative modernization preached by United Russia is illustrated by the creation of the Sapsan high -speed train. The media note that the inhabitants of the Tver and Leningrad regions declared war on them: the cars are thrown with stones, iron rods and pieces of ice, and also intend to block the October railway.

Savages?

Luddites?

Envious cattle?

The reasons for hatred are quite rational and prosaic. For the organization of high -speed traffic, it was necessary to cancel the electric trains connecting local small cities and villages, and for most people in the Tver and Leningrad, as well as the Novgorod region, this is the only way to get from home to work and back. Schoolchildren who are returning from their studies cannot get home - they have to wait for evening electric trains for several hours. In many areas, it is impossible to organize bus traffic due to the low quality of roads and swampy areas. Budget daytime trains Moscow-Petersburg, which were popular with residents of the regions, were also canceled. You can now come or leave these regions only at night and in the early morning, or for a very long electric train with uncomfortable transfers, or very expensive on Sapsan.

Nobody should design decisions taking into account social relations and social costs of such conservative modernization?

Sociologam is a sign of such a term "underwear" of the country (Belgium+India), or Afro-Americanization. The essence of the policy picked in such models was expressed by Vladimir Mayakovsky unconferential and sharp in the language: “One is a bagel, the other is a hole from the bagel. This is the Democratic Republic! " . One of the convenience of "Sapsana" - the other is all the costs of these amenities. In this regard, we can recall how many planning and reducing flights to the hinterland collapsed in the 1990s, the number of trains was reduced, bus routes were canceled, which turned out to be “commercially ineffective” for carriers. Amenities for passengers? And who asks their opinion? Nobody owes them anything!

Conclusions?

They say that the USSR was a country of total deficiency. When social capital is in deficiency, the consequences may be much more deplorable. But even a hint of understanding this strategic problem could not be found after a thorough study of the brain attack of the intellectuals of the ruling party. And it is alarming and scaring.

If for world scientific thought, socialism is a completely respectable public model, tool and a certain type of solution to practical problems associated with the increase and strengthening of social capital of specific societies, then in the heads of a certain part of the “EP”, socialism acts as a kind of symbolic “scarecrow” both for itself and for the electorate. Thus, showing the frightening provincialism of the Russian “party science”.

At the same time, part of the party intellectuals continues to insist at the same time that "our party is not only social, but it is also patriotic and liberal, and we are all conservatives." It remains to add, in the spirit of the cat Matroskin, that the party members are also able to embroider with a cross ...

If the ideology of the party dialectically “denied” socialism, with the retention of a historically accumulated experience, then such a comprehensive synthesis could contain constructive elements. But a significant part of the party asset sincerely and emotionally sees in socialism (and even in the idea of ​​social justice) an unambiguous negative.

The subordination of theoretical approaches to the goals and objectives of political competition, which clearly demonstrated the discussion, is fraught with eclecticism in goal -setting, the loss of strategic guidelines, inappropriately placed politics priorities, incorrect political positioning with fraught political and electoral losses that cannot be fully compensated by PR and propaganda. And the substitution of scientific analysis by propaganda is a very dangerous political disease.

The attribution of socialism, as such, utopicity, is the focus on specific historical experience, out of understanding the situational limitations of this experience with the level of development, international and internal conditions does not allow to extract its constructive part from this experience. A teleological understanding of socialism is not as a means, institutions, practices, relationships, but as a fundamentally unrealizable “blue dream”, religion, conspiracy, etc. Automatically condemns the party to the logic of not dialogue, but political confrontation with socialism (to shield constructive design of state and party decisions, institutions and practices oriented towards the formation of social capital, managing and regulating innovative production and social relations that have justified and justifying themselves in a global context, effective for the integral system development of society, and not only for the elite). F. Fukuyama was not accidentally warned: “Social capital is like a ratchet who easily goes in one direction and does not go to the other: it can be easily wasted by the actions of the government, but it will no longer be able to collect it back” [11].

The eclecticism in ideology is fraught with transformation sooner or later a “party of power” into a political semblance of swan of cancer and pike.

“Socialism will not win because it is right , but because its opponents are wrong,” P.Ya. wrote at the beginning of the 19th century. Chaadaev. It seems that, reading the transcript of the discussion of the current nonsense of socialism, he would again repeat this paradoxical, but from this no less deep aphorism.

Notes:

1. Томас Мор, автор утопии и ревностный католик выступал против короля реформатора Генриха VIII, не одобряя введения им англиканства в стране, и отказавшись принять присягу по англиканскому канону был обезглавлен в 1525 году. В 1935 году был канонизирован Римским Папой Пием XI. Согласитесь, что Папе, совершенно не сочувствующему социализму и в голову бы не пришло канонизировать казнённого за социалистические идеи бунтаря.

2. Фукуяма Ф. Доверие. М.: АСТ,2004. S. 84.

3. Там же, C. 582.

4. Там же, C. 54.

5. Там же, C. 56.

6. Там же, C. 52.

7. Там же, C. 165.

8. Там же, C. 100-101.

9. Там же, C. 57.

10. Отсутствие норм и правил, связывающих человека с себе подобными, с подачи классика мировой социологии Эмиля Дюркгейма именуется аномией.

11. Там же, C. 589.