Political ideas of communism. Political party Communist Party of the Russian Federation - report. Various definitions of communism

Political consciousness is the reaction of subjectspolitical life on its events. It includes the systemtized (ideology) and ordinary (mass psychology) forms. Political ideology is a set of views expressinginterests and goals of subjects of political life in the form of values ​​andpractical programs. Sometimes it is called theoretical consciousness, but this is not so, since theory deals with the search for truth, and ideology deals with the justification of interests and values. Ideologia is formed by representatives of the elite for distribution amongpopulation. It includes judgments that justify the predominancesome political interests and values ​​over others. Masspolitical psychology arises among broad sections of the population inbased on the experience of political life and consists of moods, expectationstions, attitudes and stereotypes.

Chapter 10. Political consciousness

10.1. Political ideology

Any ideology (from the Greek idea - idea, image, concept, and logos - teaching) is aimed at justifying a certain set of values. Values ​​(freedom, human rights, equality, justice, order, etc.) express aspects of their political life that are important to people.

One of the most widespread ideologies is Liberaism. The central value of liberal ideology (from the Latin liber - alis - free) is individual rights and freedoms. Classical liberalism arose in the 18th century. He understood freedom as a limitation of state control over the individual, which was natural for the period of struggle against absolute monarchy. The core values ​​of liberalism were the autonomous individual, human rights, market economy, free competition, and non-interference of the state in private life. Liberals believed that the state should play an exclusively protective role (the role of a “night watchman”). Democracy from the point of view of liberalism means the political equality of people, the election of authorities and the control of citizens over the state apparatus. New or social liberalism (neoliberalism), which appeared in the 20th century, included justice and equality of opportunity among its liberal values. He substantiated the need for state regulation of a market economy and a “social state” that provides support for private life and the well-being of broad sections of the population through the redistribution of income from the most affluent to the least affluent. Despite external differences, both traditional and modern liberalism defend the priority of private life over public life, the citizen over the state.

Conservatism(from Latin conservare - to preserve) arose in the 18th century. as a reaction to revolutionary events and an alternative to liberalism. The main values ​​of conservative political ideology were stability, private property and a strong state. Conservatives justified the need to preserve the existing order, social inequality and the subordination of private interests to general ones. Classical conservatism defends such social and political priorities as loyalty to traditions, strict adherence to legal and moral norms, a strong family, and the indisputability of the power of the ruling elite. Originated in the second half of the 20th century. new conservatism (neoconservatism) supplemented old values ​​with new ones: private initiative, a regulated market economy and democracy. Neoconservatives advocate for civil liberties within the framework of the rule of law and for reforms within the existing order (without destroying its foundations). Both old and new conservatism proceed from the priority of public life over private life, the state over the citizen.

In reality, conservative liberals and liberal conservatives are more common, depending on the relative predominance of certain views among specific individuals and groups. Both ideologies have extreme and moderate forms. Moderate conservatism is moving closer to moderate liberalism, extreme conservatism is moving closer to traditionalism. Extreme liberalism is moving closer to radicalism (see Chapter 9).

Communism(from Latin communis - common) as a political ideology arose in the middle of the 19th century. It became an alternative to both liberalism and conservatism. Its main difference from them is its radicalism. The communists declared their goal to be the destruction of all versions of the old social order based on inequality and the creation of a new order based on social equality. This is the anti-conservatism of communist ideology. The founders of this ideology, K. Marx and F. Engels, formulated its basic principles in the work “Manifesto of the Communist Party” (1848), which became a guide to action for the radical part of the European labor movement of the 19th - early 20th centuries. The radicalism of this ideology and the corresponding political movement consisted of an orientation towards the implementation of a social revolution with the aim of establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat (the poor class), using it to destroy private property, social inequality and build a classless society that ensures the free and comprehensive development of each individual.

In this respect, communism is opposed to liberalism, which asserts that individual freedom is based on private property. The old state, based on the dominance of some classes over others, according to communist ideology, must be replaced by public self-government. Democracy for communists means the subordination of the minority (entrepreneurs) to the majority (workers). Currently, there are various modifications of communist ideology that differ from classical communism. These include “Eurocommunism,” which emerged in the second half of the 20th century. in industrial European countries. It is based on the denial of traditional communist values ​​and criticism of the experience of the USSR and former socialist countries where communism was the official state ideology.

Adherents of this ideology occupied key positions in a number of the largest communist parties in Europe (French, Italian, Spanish). They denied the need to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat and the socialist revolution, promoted the reformist (parliamentary) path of transition to socialism (“the ingrowth of socialism into capitalism”), political and ideological pluralism, and a mixed (public-private) economy. This contributed to the convergence of their positions with the positions of the socialists and even the creation of a “union of left forces” during election campaigns (for example, the Communist and Socialist parties of France in 1981).

Until the collapse of the USSR, the CPSU waged an active ideological struggle against this trend. The ideological platform of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, the most influential of the communist parties in modern Russia, also differs from traditional communism (see Chapter 9).

In all variants, communist ideology is based on the priority of social equality over individual freedom.

Socialist ideology arose in the 19th century. Socialism(from Latin socialis - social) proclaims the main value is not freedom, not stability and not equality, but justice. Justice means the combination of individual freedom and social equality, order and reform. Socialists understand democracy as a means of ensuring social justice and extend it not only to the political, but also to the economic and social sphere. Socialists believe that social inequality can be overcome through gradual reforms without revolutionary replacement of the old society with a new one. They also believe that even if private property is preserved, social and political conflicts can be overcome through the development of a system of class partnership and social guarantees. Currently, parties oriented towards socialist values ​​(social democratic, socialist, labor) are united into the Socialist International (Socialist International). Installation on social cooperation in the name of the common good is the most important feature of socialist ideology.

Political ideologies include fascism(from Italian fascio - bundle, ligament). This ideology arose under the influence of the global economic crisis of the first half of the 20th century, during which tens of millions lost their property, jobs and means of subsistence. To overcome the crisis, the fascists proposed the ideology of total (complete) state control over all aspects of people’s public and personal lives. Through such an organization they promised to establish a “new order” that would ensure class harmony and general well-being. Such social demagoguery (deception) in conditions of crisis and mass impoverishment provided the fascists with the support of a significant part of the population. The main features of fascism are the cult of violence and the leader, propaganda of the need for unlimited state control over society, the superiority and domination of some races and nations over others, and the use of war as the main means of solving national problems. Fascist views were most widespread among small and medium-sized entrepreneurs (the “old middle class”), as well as the declassed (those who had lost their position in society) strata. Currently, this ideology exists in the form of neo-fascism. Neo-fascists operate legally or illegally in many countries around the world. Examples of neo-fascist organizations are the National Democratic Party in Germany and the National Front in France. Modern fascists, like the fascists of the 20s and 30s, are trying to provoke nationalist, racist, revanchist and militaristic sentiments among the population. They are activated during cyclical production crises, accompanied by the bankruptcy of many enterprises, mass unemployment and mass protests against government policies.

Typically, political ideologies and their corresponding political movements are divided into left and right. This division arose during the French Revolution. In the French National Assembly, supporters of social equality and justice were located on the left, and supporters of individual freedom and private property on the right. Of the ideologies we have considered, communism and socialism can be classified as left, and liberalism, conservatism and fascism as right. In life, there are often people who hold mixed views and fall between the left and the right. Such people are called left- or right-wing centrists, depending on the predominance of one orientation or another. In the programs and activities of political parties and movements, the above values ​​are combined in various proportions. For example, among moderate communists and socialists one can find supporters of political freedoms, rights and private property. Likewise, among moderate liberals and conservatives one can find supporters of social equality and justice. The combination of different ideological platforms is especially characteristic for those parties that are closely associated with trade union, youth, women's, environmental and anti-militarist social movements. At the level of everyday life needs and political psychology, alternative value systems represented by political ideologies are not as isolated from each other as in the minds of elites and party programs. To solve the problems of their social life, people use views developed by different ideological trends.

10.2. Mass political psychology

Mass political psychology represents a practical consciousness that arises in the process of perception, comprehension and evaluation of the phenomena of political life. Its most important elements are political guidelines. The study of attitudes allows us to identify the motivation for the behavior of various subjects of political life. The concept of “attitude” originally arose in experimental psychology, and then it began to be used in social psychology and sociology (social attitude). In English, this concept is denoted by the word attitude (position, attitude). In Russian sociology installation interpreted mainly as an attitude and use this term to characterize “a stable predisposition, readiness of an individual or group to act, oriented towards a socially significant object” [Modern Western Sociology.., 362]. Three components of the attitude can be distinguished: 1 - emotional, 2 - rational, 3 - evaluative [Diligensky, 181-183]. These components correspond to the three types of orientation - affective, cognitive and evaluative, which Almond and Verba considered in their comparative study of the political culture of five countries [Almond and Verba, 1963, 22].

Attitudes are associated with stereotypes. In a positive sense, a social stereotype is “a habitual canon of thought, perception and behavior” [Modern Western Sociology..., 332]. Stereotypes are stable structures of consciousness and behavior that arise on the basis of repeated repetition of the same action in accordance with the attitudes of the subjects of the action. Therefore, sometimes a stereotype is interpreted as one of the components of an attitude that accumulates a person’s previous experience. However, despite the connection between attitudes and stereotypes, they cannot be identified. By definition, an attitude is precisely a subjective attitude towards the objects of action, and a stereotype is a standardized scheme of action. The attitude expresses the character, the principle of the upcoming action, and the stereotype fixes the scheme of the already completed action. From Greek this word is translated as “hard imprint”, i.e. a fixed order (sequence and structure) of action, not only practical, but also cognitive. From this point of view, we can talk about stereotypes of perception, comprehension and evaluation. A stereotype captures only what is objectively necessary for the implementation of an action; an attitude captures what has subjective meaning for a person at all stages of the action (during its preparation, implementation and after completion). Not only a person’s actions, but also a person’s judgments that arise under the influence of his social environment and function automatically can be stereotypical. Political attitudes, on the contrary, contribute to a person’s self-realization and are more or less conscious in nature (taking into account the unity of the emotional, rational and evaluative components of the attitude). Attitudes are acquired by a person from public consciousness in a ready-made form in the process of socialization and communication [Diligensky, 159], but he always has the opportunity to make a meaningful choice between their various options. Personality type is revealed in attitudes.

Taking into account the above concept of political attitudes, three types can be distinguished:

• political dispositions (emotional attitudes);
• political preferences (rational attitudes);
• political orientations (values).

Dispositions are expressions of a political position. Each position is defined in relation to other positions through dispositions. As already noted, disposition is an emotional predisposition to perceive the phenomena of political life (institutions, persons, decisions, actions, slogans), their approval or disapproval, support or condemnation.

Political preferences - these are weighted dispositions. They are based on rational choice, a meaningful attitude to political reality. The emotional components of the attitude are present here, but they are differentiated on a scale: more - less, stronger - weaker. At this level, a person understands his position in the field of politics, its difference from other positions, as well as the degree of proximity or distance of these positions from his own.

Political orientation represent a justification of preferences from the point of view of a person’s internalized value system. They are associated with people's beliefs about the goals and means of action of authorities, political parties and leaders. Based on these beliefs, people make decisions about supporting or opposing a political course, about participating or not participating in elections, about supporting a certain party and candidate in elections. The following types of orientation can be distinguished:

• ideological (on a certain system of views);
• party (for a certain position in the field of politics);
• personal (on leaders who embody certain patterns of political behavior).

A person’s emotional and value attitudes are interconnected by rational attitudes, and together they form different aspects of people’s attitude towards politics. Without an emotional attitude towards politics, it is generally impossible to form political attitudes, since people do not think about what they are indifferent to. Without a rational attitude, people cannot properly plan their political actions and achieve success. Without a value-based attitude, it is impossible to determine the significance of what has been done from the point of view of what is most important and significant for their life. “Value orientations are the most important component of the personality structure; they, as it were, summarize the entire life experience accumulated by a person in his individual development. This is that component of the personality structure that represents a certain axis of consciousness around which all a person’s thoughts and feelings revolve and from the point of view of which many life issues are resolved.” [Zdravomyslov A.G., Yadov V.A. Attitude to work and value orientations of the individual // Sociology in the USSR. T. 2. M., 1965. P. 199].

Political orientations are the central elements of people's political consciousness, shaping their readiness for political participation. In the scientific literature, affective (emotional), cognitive (cognitive) and conative (behavioral) components of a social attitude are usually distinguished [Diligensky, 174, 181]. According to the previously proposed concept of social attitudes, the behavioral aspect is taken beyond the boundaries of their classification itself, since the attitude is considered as an attitude towards an action, which is not always realized in the action itself. “A behavioral act... is a possible, but not obligatory component of many attitudes” [Ibid., 199]. This discrepancy between attitudes and actual behavior of people is explained not only by the contradictory influence of social conditions, but also by the contradictory nature of the system of attitudes itself, which are learned and changed during a person’s life.

Let's consider the political attitudes of the population of different countries. In the previously mentioned article by S. Lipset, it is noted that Americans, despite the increasing distrust of individual government institutions (see § 8.2), the overwhelming majority have a very positive assessment of the capabilities of the US political system as a whole. For example, in 1994, 72% of respondents believed that “as citizens of America, they can always find a way to solve their problems and achieve what they want,” 67% hoped “for some or significant improvement in their financial situation” [ Comparative Sociology. Selected translations. M., 1995. P. 170]. These data suggest that most American citizens feel that their government is structured in a way that is acceptable to them because it creates the conditions for their personal success, despite the inevitable shortcomings of individual officials and the administration as a whole. They are convinced from their everyday experience that the state does not interfere, but helps them solve the problems of their private life. Hence the feeling of national pride [The civic culture revesited, 230] and social optimism.

On the basis of stable attitudes, political identification of people is carried out, the formation of their commitment (emotional, rational and value) to the state, parties and leaders. Identification simultaneously differentiates and integrates people. Thus, US citizens are divided approximately equally into supporters of the Democratic and Republican parties (as evidenced by the election results). In turn, supporters of both parties are divided into consistent and wavering. Undecided partisans may vote for Democrats or Republicans depending on who they believe better represents their interests in a given socioeconomic and political situation. The results of national monitoring surveys of the US population give some idea of ​​its party identification (Figure 32).

Rice. 32. Party identification in the USA (Top of the graph - Republicans, bottom of the graph - Democrats)

Source: Ranney A. Governing. An Introduction to Political Science. Englewood Clifs, 1990. P.207.

The graph, built on the basis of the principle of mirroring data, shows that a decrease in the share of strong Republican supporters is accompanied by an increase in the share of strong Democratic supporters and vice versa, i.e. there is a redistribution of voters between parties. Analysis of these data shows that each party has strong supporters (in the 80s, approximately the same share among Democrats and Republicans), weak supporters (Democrats have 1.5-2 times more than Republicans) and approximately equal numbers of temporary fellow travelers (independent supporters). In addition, among the voters there are also “completely independent” ones who do not consider themselves supporters of any of the parties operating in the country. This structure of self-identification with one of the two parties largely explains their alternating dominance in Congress. True, the current US parties themselves have not changed significantly since 1854, which gives American sociologists the opportunity to ask voters the question, unthinkable in the conditions of modern Russia, about which party they support usuallyfeel. More detailed information on this matter is provided by materials from a 1986 study, which asked an additional question about adherence to a particular party (Fig. 33).

We see that about half of the surveyed supporters of both Democrats and Republicans “choose between parties,” i.e. their rational attitudes largely depend on the situation in the country at the time of the elections.

What factors determine the above-mentioned transitions of voters from party to party? Many sociologists believe that the basis for such inter-party fluctuations is the coincidence (or proximity) of voters’ positions with the positions of parties on the main issues of the country’s life. As the socio-economic and political situation in the country changes, the positions of voters change accordingly, but parties cannot always quickly revise their positions, since they are forced to maintain their image of liberals or conservatives, left or right. Of course, during the period of universal parties, these classical oppositions are largely destroyed and elements of various ideologies can be found in the platform of each party, but still, for the most part, they have to adhere to a certain system of views in order to develop an appropriate political course within the framework of their political niche. Uncertainty about the platform and strategy leads to the loss of strong supporters, not to mention wavering ones. Even universal parties have to make unambiguous statements on issues discussed by the population of the country, but these statements must be somehow different from the statements of other parties, otherwise the voter will be indifferent to whom to vote for.

Question: Would you characterize yourself as a dedicated (staunch) Republican who votes exclusively for Republican candidates, as a dedicated Democrat who votes exclusively for Democratic candidates, or as swinging between the two parties?

Source: Ranney A. Governing. An Itroduction to Political Scene. Engelwood Cliffs, 1990. P.213.

Preference is always a matter of reasoning, not mere like or dislike, so parties must develop policy programs that voters can understand, and those programs must clearly set out a strategy for defending the values ​​that matter most to voters in a particular country at a particular stage of its development. American “public opinion research shows that since the mid-60s, voters have become aware (my italics - G.A.) of significant differences between the positions of the Democratic and Republican parties and candidates; these differences play a significant role in the choice of voters.” The difference between these positions was discussed in Chap. 9, here we will try to find out the nature of the value systems (political orientations) of American voters and correlate it with their political preferences.

Long-term research by Harris' service has revealed the structure of ideological self-identification of the US population. Below are data from national Harris Service polls from 1968-1985. (average values ​​for 200 surveys for the entire period). When asked how you would characterize your political views, the following responses were received from %:

Far left................................... 2

Liberal........................... 19

Middle (middle - of - the - road). . 40

Conservative............... 36

Far right...................... 1

Source: Batalov E.V. Political culture of modern American society. M., 1990. P. 146.

These data indicate that the majority of respondents consistently characterize their views as “middle-of-the-road”. Between 1968 and 1985, more respondents were conservative than liberal. These data greatly help to understand the ideological basis of fluctuations between the Democratic and Republican parties, recorded by US electoral statistics. True, the ideological and party self-identifications of the US population in the period from 1968 to 1986 did not coincide: there were fewer adherents of the Republican (conservative) party than adherents of conservative political views, and there were more adherents of the Democratic (liberal) party than adherents of liberal political views. This discrepancy between the two identifications can be explained by the presence of about 50% of "choosers between parties" in the electorates of both parties.

There are many political parties in the countries of the European Union, but the bulk of the votes are usually distributed between conservatives, liberals and social democrats (see Figure 31). Despite greater opportunities for political choice than in the United States, about 40% of voters are not consistent supporters of a particular party, but prefer to “choose between parties.” This gives rise to contradictions within the very political consciousness of people, who are forced to alternately focus on groups adhering to opposing political courses. Research by French political scientists allows us, to a certain extent, to identify the reasons for this duality. In table 18 presents data on the results of answers to the question: “Who is more capable of protecting the following values?”

Table 18
The image of political parties in the minds of the French population (National polls 1981-1986, %)

Source: Working Class And modern world, 1990. No. 6. P. 70.

Analysis of these data allows us to conclude that voters in France (the birthplace of the division of political forces into right and left) increasingly think that the right and left are “equally” capable of defending such values ​​as “freedom”, “full employment” , "standard of living". For such a traditional value of the left as “equality,” there is an increase in the share of respondents who believe that they are capable of being protected by the right and the right and the left equally. Only the protection of property is still associated with the right, which is quite consistent with practice: the left, after coming to power, nationalizes a certain number of private enterprises, and the right privatizes a certain number of state-owned enterprises. Regarding other values, in the minds of French voters there is a gradual convergence of the images of both types of parties.

A similar situation is observed in Germany. Dahrendorf notes that in relation to the main parties of this country: the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD), the Christian Democratic Union/Christian Social Union (CDU/CSU) and the Free Democratic Party (FDP), currently the concept of “left” " and "right" have become largely relative. In each of these parties there are groups that can be classified as right and left (“old” and “new”). Dahrendorf also points to significant shifts in the attitudes of broad sections of the population of Western European countries [Current problems of modern foreign political science. Vol. 1. M., 1990. P. 18]. Based on changes in preferences and orientation of the population, a new stereotype behavior, the essence of which is political pluralism, a free transition from one party to another, from support for a liberal or social democratic political course to support for a conservative course.

A similar picture is observed in Great Britain, where voters also “begin to choose between parties,” adhering to the position of a party on one issue and rejecting its position on another [Ibid., 96].

Mass political consciousness is heterogeneous in nature. It coexists seemingly incompatible moods that express people's reactions to events in political life, their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the activities of political institutions and leaders, the conditions and results of their own political participation. The same decisions and actions of the authorities can cause opposite reactions from population groups occupying different positions in society: approval and condemnation, support and indignation, solidarity and protest. This reaction is determined mainly by the specific interests and values ​​of social groups existing in a particular country.

In Russia, a stable attitude towards both the political system as a whole and individual political institutions, leaders and views has not yet been formed. During the 90s of the XX century. Most citizens retained a feeling of the authorities’ indifference to their needs and the impossibility of their influence on what was happening in the country. This conclusion can be made on the basis of data from the All-Russian monitoring of the ISPI RAS (Fig. 34).

These feelings underlie the predominantly negative attitude of Russians towards the country's political system, which was discussed in Chapter. 5. This attitude reduces the effectiveness of the system, since it blocks normal communication between government officials and ordinary citizens and prevents their cooperation in solving public problems. If citizens have the impression that government officials do not care about their problems, then they lose the desire to participate in what government officials are doing. Meanwhile, “the political system functions effectively only when citizens positively perceive the government and provide it with psychological assistance and identify themselves with this government” [Shestopal 1996, 86].

Communism (lat.) literally means general . This is one of the largest ideological doctrines of the 19-20 centuries, which had no less influence on the course of world, especially Russian history, than liberalism. The basis of communist ideology is an outwardly very simple and obvious idea for the working majority - idea of ​​social equality and justice. The essence of this idea: those who produce them should dispose of material goods, i.e. workers, and not those who own the means of production, i.e. owners. But for this, ownership of the means of production must become public, not private. Following this, the state will begin to express not private, but public, popular interests, i.e. will become truly (and not imaginary) democratic - the power of the people themselves and thereby wither away as unnecessary. Its place will be taken by public self-government, guided not by formal law, not by legally binding laws, but by the principles of a new, communist morality and morality.

When, why and by whom was this ideology developed, which considers itself the only scientific theory of social development? How did it develop and what is its condition today?

It would probably be correct to characterize communist ideology in its own language, and not in the language of its critics.

Formed in the 40s of the 19th century. The founders are German theorists: philosopher and economist K. Marx (1818-1883) (hence “Marxism”) and hereditary entrepreneur, manufacturer F. Engels (1820-1895). His main works are “Capital”, “German Ideology”, “Communist Manifesto”, “On the Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State” and many others. etc.

Social preconditions of Marxism- the emergence on the historical arena (together with the bourgeoisie) of a qualitatively new class - working proletarians (proletariat, literally, - deprived of property) . Like the bourgeoisie, the proletariat in the initial stages of its history was under the rule of the feudal monarchy - both were classes oppressed by it, both longed for freedom and equality, although they understood them differently. Nevertheless, they carried out bourgeois revolutions together (remember the barricades in Paris and the Paris Commune). Both (proletarian) communism and (bourgeois) liberalism have similar basic demands and political slogans - Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood. Hence the provisions of Marxism, which any liberal will subscribe to: “The free development of everyone is a condition for the free development of all”; “Freedom consists in transforming the state from a body standing above society into a body completely subordinate to this society.”

But in fact, according to Marxism, these were opposite and irreconcilable classes and ideologies. If before the 18th century. the oppressors were the feudal lords, from whom both the nascent bourgeoisie and the proletariat suffered, then the place of the oppressors was taken by the bourgeoisie, which took away economic and political power from the feudal lords. In addition, liberalism defended capitalism (private property), and Marxism fought against capitalism and justified its inevitable death along with the elimination of private ownership of the means of production.

Focus communist ideology - against the bourgeoisie, as well as liberalism, conservatism and religion as ideologies that justify, from a Marxist point of view, the economic, political and spiritual domination of the exploiting classes.

Class character- the only ideology that openly proclaimed itself the ideology of the working classes, and, above all, the proletariat - a new class that does not have ownership of the tools and means of production, detached, “alienated” from them.

In the second half of the 19th century. supporters of Marxism were divided into two main movements or wings:

Reformist, social democratic direction, which broke away from Marxism at the end of the 19th century. The founder is Eduard Bernstein. It is currently one of the most influential left-wing ideologies in the world. (It will be discussed in question 4 of this lecture).

Radical, revolutionary, consistently communist. It was headed and developed by V.I. Lenin (1870-1924). Hence the concept of “Marxism-Leninism”. The most significant book for political science by Lenin is “State and Revolution”.

In the 20th century this branch of communism, represented by Marxist-Leninist ideology, was implemented in the political practice of a number of the largest countries in the world: from October 1917 - in the former Russian Empire, and after World War II - in the GDR, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia , in Mongolia and a number of other countries. Today it is preserved in modified forms in modern China, Vietnam, North Korea, and Cuba. In recent years, the ideas of socialism have become “fashionable” in Latin America (Venezuela, etc.).

However, in general, already at the end of the 20th century. The world communist system (“the system of socialism”) crashed and collapsed. Most former socialist countries, including Russia, abandoned the Marxist-Leninist communist ideology and adopted a predominantly liberal ideology.

We will divide the main ideas of communist (Marxist-Leninist) ideology into two groups . First group– philosophical and economic ideas or – “materialistic understanding of history”, representing the development of society as an objective, natural-historical process, independent of the consciousness and will of people. Second group– actually political ideas that reveal the content of people’s conscious activity.

Basic provisions of the materialistic understanding of history

1. Society, from the point of view of Marxism, goes through several stages of growth in its development. At the basis of each stage is a method of production, which represents the unity of productive forces (actually workers, tools and means of production) and production relations (relations of ownership, distribution and consumption of material goods between participants in production). Production relations (the main question of which is “Who owns the property”?) are the “basis of society”, its foundation, figuratively speaking. Above it rises and is determined by the “political superstructure” - the rest of the social and state structure, the consciousness and morality of people.

2. At a certain stage of development, the productive forces become “crowded” within the framework of the old production relations. A social explosion occurs. Old, outdated ones are being replaced by new, more progressive production relations, and society is moving to a new stage of development, called a socio-economic formation (SEF).

3. Each OEF (type of production relations) corresponds to its own type of social and government structure, its own political consciousness and moral values ​​(superstructure).

Human history, as production relations develop, goes through five such stages, five OEFs. Primitive communal, It is based on an undeveloped form of public property, corresponding public self-government and community morality in the absence of a state. Slave-owning, feudal and capitalist OEF. All three are based on private property and the corresponding types of state, serving the interests of the economically dominant classes, respectively – slave owners, feudal lords and capitalists. At every historical stage, private property, being a powerful incentive for the development of material production, brings with it economic, social and political inequality, injustice, hostility, wars, crises, double standards and other problems for society and the individual. Future communist OEF will be based on developed (as opposed to primitive) social ownership of the means of production. On its basis, genuine, and not imaginary, social equality of people, cooperation and mutual assistance, and not hostility and envy, social justice and genuine universal morality will be formed (as opposed to two moralities: one for the poor and the other for the rich). There will be no classes, states, political parties, social differences between mental and physical labor, men and women, city and countryside. The communist OEF in its development will go through two phases of growth: socialism and communism, differing in the degree of maturity of productive forces, socialization of property, level of social unity, consciousness and culture of society and the individual.

Political ideas of communist ideology

The second group of communist ideas reveals the role of people’s conscious activity, that is, politics itself, in the process of society’s transition from capitalism to socialism, and then to communism. Among them:

1. The idea of ​​class struggle and revolution as the only possible way of transition from capitalism to socialism. The transition from capitalist to socialist society is possible only through a socialist revolution. No one will ever give up property and power voluntarily. In general, revolution in Marxism is the “locomotive of history,” “the midwife of every old society when it is pregnant with a new one.” However, revolutions do not happen by order or anyone’s desire. In the depths of the old system, economic and political prerequisites must mature for them. And for the socialist revolution, as the most radical in all of human history, there are also favorable international conditions: such a revolution can only be successful if it occurs simultaneously in all or at least the majority of the most developed countries in the world. A socialist revolution in one country will inevitably be suppressed by the united bourgeoisie of other states.

2. Here's another idea - obligatory world socialist revolution.

3. The idea of ​​the proletariat as the “gravedigger of the bourgeoisie,” the builder of socialism and its political party. Only the proletariat, led by its political party, can carry out a socialist revolution. This is the only class that, unlike other classes, “has nothing to lose but its chains; he will gain the whole world,” since the position of the proletariat in all countries is the same - it is deprived of property.

4. The idea of ​​the dictatorship of the proletariat. The new, socialist state will initially be a state of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which will gradually develop into a state of the whole people, and with full communism it will wither away. The withering away of the state will occur as the remnants of the bourgeoisie are destroyed, property is socialized and the differences between the working class and the working peasantry, city and countryside, mental and physical labor are overcome, as a “new man” is formed, for whom moral norms will have the force of law.

Why dictatorship of the proletariat? Because in any class society, from the point of view of Marxism, the state is the state of the dictatorship of the economically dominant class: in a slave society - the slave owners, in a feudal society - the feudal lords, in a bourgeois society - the bourgeoisie, and in a socialist society - the proletariat.

Logically coherent and attractive ideas for working people. It is no coincidence that in the 20th century. a good half, if not most, of humanity “fell ill” with them. But what happened in practice?

Neither Marx nor Engels left behind a description of either public property or the proletarian state: how it should be structured, how to “work,” how to distribute power vertically and horizontally. Yes, they could not do this - like Lenin, they were pure theorists. And the proletarians, on whom the stake was placed, had no idea of ​​either the theory or practice of state building, and had no experience in managing the economy. In other words, neither the theoretical nor the organizational and professional basis for solving this grandiose, but, as critics of Marxism believe, utopian task existed.

However, V. Lenin and the Bolsheviks, having won the revolution of 1917, socialized, as best they could, the means of production, taking them by force from the bourgeoisie and landowners. Plants, factories, land, and the banking system became state (and not public!) property. Under the leadership of the Communist Party, which had merged with the state apparatus, they began to build and built from scratch, using the method of trial, error and repression, a state unprecedented in history. As a result, a powerful but authoritarian state was created, which, in terms of freedom, human rights, democracy and human well-being, lagged behind Western standards, and over time increasingly lost in the competition with capitalism. A good idea, formalized in a strict theory, turned into Hobbes's Leviathan, into a monster state.

Of course, there were also positive moments, especially against the backdrop of what Russia experienced in the 90s. This is the friendship of the peoples of a multinational state, and the industrialization of the country, and the grandiose victory over fascism, and world leadership in space, and patriotism, and opposition to world capitalism for more than 70 years. But by and large, if everything had been good, there would have been neither 1991 nor the subsequent years, during which the model of socialism, implemented in the USSR on the basis of communist Marxist-Leninist ideology, as well as in most other countries of the world, collapsed.

People will argue about the reasons for the collapse of “real socialism” for a long time. But what role did communist ideology play in the collapse of socialism? WITH There are three points of view (to think about):

1. Communist ideology is false and therefore unviable, flawed at its very core. Objecting to supporters of this point of view, modern defenders of Marxism point to the positive historical experience of social democratic ideology, which is related in a number of ways to communist ideology.

2. The necessary economic, political and international conditions and prerequisites have not matured for the practical implementation of communist ideas. Capitalism, as the founders of Marxism would say, has not yet completely exhausted its development possibilities.

3. Communist ideology was interpreted and applied by communists dogmatically, straightforwardly, and inflexibly. Not in the same way as liberals and conservatives do when implementing their ideas in practical politics. Moving towards a theoretically formulated goal, they constantly improve, adjust and modify the content of their socio-political doctrines, adapting them to specific historical conditions and circumstances.

What is the state of communist ideology today? It is in a deep crisis, trying to learn lessons from historical experience, and has abandoned a number of principles that have not confirmed their viability. But she remained quite influential and continues to be in demand in society, including in Russia. This is evidenced by the results of elections at different levels, in which the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, one of the largest mass parties in Russia, firmly holds second place, receiving up to 20 percent or more of the vote in elections to the State Duma, as well as to representative bodies of power in regions and municipalities. There are also smaller parties and associations in modern Russia that in one form or another adhere to communist principles and ideas in their socio-political activities.

Individual countries of the former socialist community have not abandoned communist ideology and political practice. The People's Republic of China, already mentioned at the beginning of this lecture, is very indicative in this regard. Chinese communists managed to combine communist ideology and a one-party political system with the best achievements of a liberal market economy. And while ideological opponents of communism predict the fragility of such an “unnatural union,” China is literally transforming before our eyes from a third-rate country into a powerful world power with rates of growth in production and well-being of the population that are enviable for modern liberal democracies.

Thus, it is apparently not worthwhile to indiscriminately and completely write off and resign the communist ideology as such. Moreover, close and akin to it in spirit (and not in essence) is the social democratic ideology that is flourishing today in many, including developed countries of the world.

Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation

Gubkin Institute (branch)

Moscow State Open University

ABSTRACT

POLITICAL SCIENCE

The Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF) in the modern political life of the country

Student ________3________ course

correspondence department

specialty "Mining machines and equipment"

Sharova A.A.

Head: Ph.D., Associate Professor

Bogdanov S.V.

Gubkin - 2007

P L A N

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . With. 3

Communist Party of the Russian Federation: from ban to political activation

activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . With. 5

Socio-economic and political platform

modern Russian communism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p.11

3. Social support of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . With. 19

Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p.23

List of used literature and sources. . . . . . . . . . . p.24

Introduction

Understanding some of the results of the formation of a multi-party system in our country, we can generally state that the current stage of development of the Russian multi-party system is still very far from what is called a multi-party system, within the framework of which various subjects of political action are ready to cooperate in order to achieve public harmony or at least, at a minimum, adhere to general constitutional and legal principles of behavior. In our case, we rather have to talk about a non-systemic plurality of parties with often radically opposite positions with a significant influence among them of forces of totalitarian orientation. At the same time, on the well-fortified left flank of the political spectrum they do not hide their hostile attitude towards the current Constitution and attitudes toward non-legal methods of solving the problem.

The Communist Party of the Russian Federation, which emerged as the legal successor and ideological heir of the CPSU during the turbulent decade from the late 80s to the late 90s, went through a very difficult path of development, internal conflicts and was forced to adapt to changes in socio-economic, political and spiritual realities in the country. Which of the orthodox communists even one and a half to two decades ago could have imagined V.I. Lenin in an Orthodox church during a service, I.V. Stalin at some world economic forum in quiet and prosperous Switzerland at the same table with the bigwigs of world business, etc.

Indeed, the modern doctrine of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation very vaguely resembles the former communist legacy. In the works of the leader of modern Russian communists G. A. Zyuganov, many key moments of the twentieth century were voiced in a new way. Indeed, in none of Lenin’s works will we find any mention of the fact that in February 1917 “legitimate state power collapsed” 1 . We are talking about the tsarist regime...

Of course, the realities of the 90s. force the main ideologist of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation to either clothe the postulates of the former Bolshevik doctrine in new forms, or actually abandon the anachronisms of the past.

Although in the brochure of G. Zyuganov already cited above, we can find a lot of cliches that seem to have migrated to the political journalism of Doctor of Philosophy G.A. Zyuganov from historical and socio-political literature of the 60-70s.

The study of the socio-economic and political concept of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and the determination of the electoral field of the Communists make it possible, to a certain extent, to predict the processes of either attenuation or growth of interest in communist ideology and the Communist Party of the Russian Federation as its bearer.

1. Communist Party of the Russian Federation: from ban to political activation

activities.

Liberalization of the political climate in the late 80s. accelerated and brought to a new level the processes of development and unification of tens of thousands of informal groups. Although not all of them became involved in political activities, the number of groups that considered themselves “political” continued to grow. Many of them united into unions, associations or popular fronts - prototypes of political parties. The creation of informal associations was not always based on a clear political program; sometimes they arose in the process of solving practical problems associated with everyday life.

The will to emancipate social life that emerged among the masses, the abundance of committees, organizations, groups, and popular fronts increasingly clearly pointed to the limitations and contradictions of partial, distorted democratization. The disadvantages of the latter were most clearly expressed in the desire to preserve the one-party political system, the monopoly of the CPSU on the analysis of general political problems and the development of strategic concepts.

At a time when the flywheel of historical events in Russia was just beginning to unwind, the chances of the democratic movement for noticeable success in its confrontation with the CPSU seemed small. The Communists were clearly well prepared for the changes. While one part of the party, with an enterprise unexpected for society, became involved in the processes of denationalization of socialist property initiated by it (even managing to convince certain circles in the West and part of the domestic democratic public that the transformation of property in the USSR is possible only through nomenklatura privatization), the other part of it took a position of criticism of all privatization and was preparing to, using the inevitable dissatisfaction of the broad masses with the injustices of privatization, to once again act as a defender of the disadvantaged and create a powerful social base for the revival of the communist movement. Despite the fact that since the fall of 1998, sociologists have recorded a sharp decline in the authority of the CPSU (according to VTsIOM data for 1990, only 6% of citizens expressed full trust in the CPSU), the real and potential positions of the Communist Party still seemed very strong, right up to the August coup of 1991 2.

was suspended, and its property was taken under the control of the Councils of People's Deputies. Soon after this M.S. Gorbachev resigned as General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee and called on the Central Committee to decide on self-dissolution. The final point at that stage was set by the Decree of the President of the RSFSR of November 6, 1991 “On the activities of the CPSU and the Communist Party of the RSFSR,” which ordered the cessation of activities and the dissolution of the organizational structures of the CPSU and the Communist Party of the RSFSR on the territory of the RSFSR. The collapse of the USSR that followed in December 1991 and the formation of an independent state - the Russian Federation - further strengthened the position of anti-communist forces in the Russian political spectrum and in power structures.

However, in the mass consciousness, the defeat of the Communist Party was by no means so obvious at that time. And although, according to ISPI RAS, more than half of the population completely agreed with the decisions to suspend the activities of the CPSU and believed that this party should not resume its activities, 28% of respondents, on the contrary, were convinced that the Communist Party should be revived, and almost half of the surveyed communists (46%) were ready to renew their party membership.

At the same time, only every fourth respondent was confident that after the ban on the CPSU the country would follow the path of democratic development, and at the same time, the same number believed that in this case the country would face a dictatorship of the new government. It is significant that half of the respondents were unable to give a definitive opinion on this issue.

Thus, in society, in contrast to the highest echelons of power, there was clearly no euphoria of victory. It, according to observers, split and hid 3.

After the collapse of the CPSU, the process of establishing a multi-party system in Russia entered a qualitatively new stage. If earlier the political activity of parties and movements of very different orientations was primarily directed against the CPSU and the union center identified with it, now they were forced to look for a new basis for self-expression and self-identification (this, first of all, concerned the democratic

movement, which in essence has always been only an association “against” and not “for”). At the same time, the heterogeneity of the democratic movement and its lack of unity regarding the goals and means of change were exposed. As for the left forces, they very quickly recovered from the blow and began to gradually recapture their lost positions.

The decisive role in this was played by the beginning of shock reforms in 1992, with their characteristic processes of rapid social stratification and impoverishment of the broad masses. A noticeable contribution to the process of strengthening the positions of the communists was made by the decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation adopted on November 30, 1992 on the matter of verifying the constitutionality of a number of Presidential decrees concerning the Communist Party. Russian communists managed to preserve not only part of their property, but, perhaps more importantly, their territorial party cells. Largely thanks to the Communists retaining a well-established branched system of territorial party links over the years of Soviet power, we now have a situation in which more than half of the mass grassroots activists of Russian political associations are oriented towards left-wing political structures and mainly towards those belonging to the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. All this contributed to the rapid resuscitation of communist forces and their active inclusion in the political struggle, both as participants in the 1993 election campaign for the election of a new supreme legislative body, and under the banners of the extreme opposition, which boycotted these elections.

By the end of 1993, in the complex palette of political orientations of the Russian population, three main centers of political and ideological gravity were already clearly distinguished, around which supporters of all any noticeable political ideas, movements and associations are still grouped today. They can be conditionally designated as “pro-capitalist reformism”, “pro-socialist anti-reformism” and national-power ideology. It was precisely this alignment of political orientations of Russian society that was generally recorded following the results of the elections to the State Duma in 1993. However, the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of October 1993, which followed the tragic events of September-October 1993, established a fundamentally new proportional relationship for our country. majoritarian electoral system. The new electoral system helped reduce the rate of radicalization of political relations and, above all, by reducing the activity of the extra-parliamentary opposition. In particular, participation in the elections of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and the subsequent activities of the communist faction in the State Duma noticeably reoriented the communist opposition towards developing legitimate methods of struggle for power and gave the basic structure of the communist movement a certain social democratic flavor. Communists and farmers failed to become the main spokesmen for opposition sentiments in society.

These statistics allow us to conclude that it is premature and unfounded to write off the Communist Party of the Russian Federation from the political arena. The communist movement has potential and it is quite serious.

1. Socio-economic and political platform of modern Russian communism.

In fact, it has been ten years since the Communist Party of the Russian Federation continues to be on the political horizon of the country. Has the political platform and socio-economic views of the leaders of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation on the key problems of Russian reality changed? The answer is clear - they have changed. Of course, you will see less of the fiery political pathos that was so characteristic of the first years of market reform; there are more scientific explanations and multivariate approaches, the next recipes for leading the country out of the crisis.

In connection with this, many not only opponents, but also comrades-in-arms rushed to accuse the leader of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation G. Zyuganov of maneuvering and opportunism (the situation paradoxically resembles V. Lenin’s painful search for options to lead the country out of the crisis of 1921 and approbate a new economic model). Although this is hardly true.

Today's communist leaders are not the orthodox ones who measure their words and actions by the spirit of Marxism-Leninism. The changed socio-economic realities in the state, the generation of Russians who grew up in a completely different country, and the huge information space that has opened up are forcing modern ideologists of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation to significantly adjust their program settings, which they offer to both their actual and potential electorate.

Thus, in the Election Platform of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation “For our Soviet Motherland!”, approved by the All-Russian Conference of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation on August 26, 1995, defining modern communists, it is said: “We are from the party of Alexei Stakhanov and Yuri Gagarin, Mikhail Sholokhov and Alexander Tvardovsky, Ivan Pamfilov and Georgiy Zhukov, Musa Jalil and Vasily Sukhomlinsky, Pasha Angelina and Terenty Maltsev, Sergei Korolev and Igor Kurchatov, millions of communists and non-party patriots of the socialist Fatherland" 5 .

You may note that in this list, which is quite understandable and familiar to many from school, there are no names of Lenin, Stalin, Beria, Abakumov, Yezhov, Kaganovich, Molotov, Brezhnev, etc. Of course, modern communist ideologists have to reckon with what glasnost did in the mid-80s, when the indisputable authorities of the theory and practice of building a socialist society in our country appeared in a completely different form. A real revolution took place in the public consciousness - former idols could no longer serve as reference points; their charisma was destroyed.

It would, of course, be unhistorical to approach the socio-economic and political realities of Russia at the beginning of the 20th century using modern standards. But it would be equally wrong not to see the ideas rooted in Lenin’s views about the acceleration in the transition of society from capitalism to socialism, which was conceived on a global scale and as a result of the victory of violence “from below” over violence “from above.” However, this is now an indisputable fact: “Lenin lost the historical dispute with the revisionists and reformists. Socialism did not look out from any “windows of imperialism” 6 .

So in his brochure “I am Russian by blood and spirit” G. Zyuganov writes: “Let me clarify - the command-administrative system at one time was an objective need for the life of the country. Threats from the outside, an extremely limited range of available resources, the need to mobilize all forces required a strong-willed approach .Of course, many mistakes and stupidities were made, and sometimes just crimes. Nevertheless, history has proven that that mechanism, that system, that system, that economy, that way of life, that cultural type that were formed then turned out to be the most resilient on the planet" 7.

Of course, it is impossible for the ideologists of modern Russian communism to completely renounce their own historical past, because this is fraught with the loss of a certain, very significant part of the traditionally thinking electorate, nevertheless, significant adjustments have to be made. Although this is not new. It is worth remembering the first perestroika attempts of M.S. Gorbachev to rely on “pure” Leninism without Stalin’s excesses, or even earlier - the famous article 8 of Yu.V. Andropov "Marxism and some issues of socialist construction in the USSR."

The point is apparently not in adherence to traditions, but in the initial conceptual guidelines of communist ideology. But there is one significant “but”. If the theorists of Marxism considered private property (and not without reason) to be the initial prerequisite for the emergence of property and social stratification, then today's Russian communists are already non-communists in the Leninist understanding (since they do not recognize the dictatorship of the proletariat and the need to eliminate private ownership of the means of production).

Thus, the Draft Main Directions of the Economic Program of the People’s Patriotic Forces “By the Way of Creation” (1999) proclaims: “Our program provides for a multi-structured economy in accordance with the objective diversity of forms of economic activity. We are for the rational combination of the state, corporate, collective and private sectors of the economy " 9 .

In general, an analysis of the evolution of the economic platform of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation shows that it is in many ways closer to the economic programs of the Social Democrats: a strong regulatory role of the state, limited role of the Central Bank, very careful privatization, an absolute ban on private turnover of agricultural land.

Indeed, there are many aspects in the programmatic guidelines of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation that echo the conceptual guidelines of modern social democracy. He is one of the most prominent leaders of social democracy, Chairman of the Socialist International Willy Brandt, who voiced the value guidelines of social democracy: “Rational political activity includes the correct determination of priorities... I asked myself: what, besides peace, is most important to me? And he answered: freedom.

I defined this as freedom of conscience and opinion, freedom from want and fear. Without bread and with a secret police there can be no democracy. Without pluralism and with claims to a monopoly - too. I added to this: to prescribe happiness means to stifle freedom” 10.

Thus, in the most general form, we can isolate the most fundamental characteristics of social democracy as a political ideology:

in the social sphere - harmonization of the interests of social groups and classes of society;

in the economic sphere - a socially oriented economy with significant regulatory functions of the state;

in politics - “to the right” of the left “to the left” of the right, in other words: political pluralism with the rejection of extremes, both conservatism and radicalism;

in humanitarian law - the indisputable priority of universal human values ​​with further improvement of legal regulators of civil society.

It cannot be denied that in the election documents of the Communist Party the social bloc has always been quite strong. In the draft economic program (1999) it is stated quite clearly and clearly: “The ultimate goal of our policy is to ensure a high level and quality of life for the population, an increase in the people’s well-being. Our principle, practically worked out in a number of subjects of the Russian Federation: for the healthy - work, for the weak - care" 11.

Communists are doing a good job politically on people's quite serious disappointment with the costs of market reforms. And the point here is not even the completely natural dissatisfaction of people with their social status and financial situation: there is every reason to believe that the most painful point of social well-being is currently

a damaged sense of justice. According to research by the Russian Independent Institute of Social and National Problems, the dominant psycho-emotional mood of Russians at the end of 1995 was a feeling of shame and a sense of injustice of everything that was happening 12 . Moreover, this problem is not only felt by Russians, but is also quite clearly understood by them. Thus, according to a study conducted by the ISPI RAS at the beginning of 1995, respondents, answering the question about ideas that could form the basis of a policy for the revival of Russia, put the idea of ​​justice in first place (44%), followed by human rights - 37%. and order

The main idea of ​​the manifesto was the alienation of private land ownership and the collection of land use fees into the state treasury instead of private ones. In addition, according to Marx's ideas, a tax should have been introduced depending on the level of wealth of the payer, a state monopoly on the banking system - centralization of credit in the hands of the state through a national bank with 100% state capital, and the transfer of the entire transport system into the hands of the state (alienation of private property to transport lines).

Labor obligations in the form of labor detachments were introduced for everyone without exception, especially in the field of agriculture, the principle of transfer of inheritance was abolished and the property of emigrants was alienated in favor of the state. New state factories were to be built, creating, first of all, new means of production. It was planned to introduce centralized agriculture at the expense of the state and under its control. Particular importance was attached to the unification of agriculture with industry, the gradual merging of city and countryside, and the elimination of differences between them. In addition, general free upbringing and education of children and educational activities combined with the production process were to be introduced, and child labor in factories was to be abolished.

On the territory of Russia, these ideas were embodied in Marxist-Leninist philosophy, the ideology of the working class, which called for the overthrow of the capitalist system and the struggle of the proletariat to build a communist society. Marxism-Leninism was officially enshrined as the state ideology of the USSR in the 1977 constitution and existed in this form until the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Related article

Despite the fact that the Soviet Union collapsed, the people's memory did not have time to completely forget the almost century-old era. It is not surprising that some young people ask: “What is communism?” Without understanding your own history, you cannot draw correct conclusions about the future.

Instructions

Communism is a utopian political regime. Its essence is best revealed by the slogan “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” The implication is that each member works conscientiously for the common good, ultimately satisfying the needs of the whole. It is worth noting that this directly contradicts the new economic model, because human needs are considered beyond infinity.

Communism must have a number of characteristic features. First of all, the absence of private property and the rejection of currency in any of its manifestations: each person simply gets everything that he would not want. As a result, there is no division into social classes, and the need for a state as such disappears.

Having introduced a number of reservations, primitive society can be considered communist. Food is obtained through common efforts, not for personal needs, but for everything at once, there are no signs of a state, members of the tribe do not have direct power over each other.

The communist utopia is preceded by socialism. This political regime, according to K. Marx, is a transitional stage of capitalism. The state is beginning to abandon money and private property, but there is no talk of equal distribution of benefits yet. Each person receives a coupon indicating how much work he has invested in the state, on the basis of which he can receive certain benefits. It is important to note that in the Soviet Union, socialism had a distorted form, which gives rise to many points of view about the political system of the state. The most optimistic option: “There was socialism in the USSR, but only in an undeveloped form.”

Political regimes of this kind are criticized, first of all, for the depersonalization of people. Most utopian philosophers agree that building a communist society is possible only with strict control over freedom of speech and an egalitarian policy, which does not provide any opportunity for personal self-realization.

Video on the topic

Sources:

• New Philosophical Encyclopedia
• Great Soviet Encyclopedia

In 1991, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) collapsed, with Russia becoming its legal successor. The ideological basis of the USSR was the goal of building communism - a classless society of free people who renounced private property. Ideas promoting such a society originated in ancient times.

Where and when did the first communist teachings arise?

Ideas of a fair society without private property appeared in Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece and some other regions. It is known that many elements of communism were, for example, among the Egyptian priests, Jewish prophets, and Greek philosophers.

In their desire for universal equality, the “communists” of that time often went too far. So, for example, the ancient Greek sophists considered it necessary to share not only any property, but even wives and. Plato adhered to exactly the same. Such ideas were caustically ridiculed by the famous playwright Aristophanes in his comedy The Society of Women.

The famous philosopher and mathematician Pythagoras was a supporter of communist ideas. He and his students lived in a large commune, all of whose property was jointly owned.

Communist ideas of the Middle Ages and later times

In the 5th century, the teaching of Pelagius, a Christian, who argued that man is not sinful by nature and that the rich will not gain access to the kingdom of God, became widespread. Pelagius promoted the idea of ​​complete renunciation of property. In the XI–XIII centuries. The Cathar teachings, which contained many signs of communism, spread in many European countries.

At the end of the 15th century, the Czech Boheim gained enormous popularity, demanding the socialization of the entire land and compulsory labor even for the nobility and clergy. And in the 16th century, the English politician and philosopher Thomas More wrote the famous book “Utopia,” where he depicted an ideal (in his opinion) society. Residents of the island state of Utopia received everything they needed from the state in exchange for a mandatory 6-hour daily labor.

At the beginning of the 19th century, the English philanthropist Robert Owen began to organize communist communities, which, however, did not last long. And in 1848, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels released the “Manifesto of the Communist Party,” which declared its goal to be the abolition of large private property and the construction of a proletarian state. Marx argued that the first stage of building a new just society would be socialism, and the second, highest stage would be communism.

On the basis of Marxism, new communist ideas emerged in the 20th century: Leninism, Trotskyism and Maoism, named after the names of their main ideologists.

Video on the topic

Parliamentary activities of the communists

Parliament (French parler - to speak) is the highest legislative body of a bourgeois state, fully or partially elected. Under conditions, it is increasingly becoming an arena in which the interests of representatives of capital and democratic strata of society collide.

The founders of Marxism believed that socialists should use election campaigns to representative institutions of the bourgeois state, as well as work in them, to strengthen ties with, for the political education of the masses, in order to wrest from some concessions that could partially improve the situation of the working people. At the same time, they warned against the danger of a reformist approach to parliamentary activity, which could interfere with the education and organization of the proletariat, preparing the working masses for. Lenin emphasized that parliamentary activity is one of the legal forms of struggle, completely subordinated to the needs of the extra-parliamentary revolutionary movement.

Although the monopoly bourgeoisie, through all kinds of restrictions on voting rights and various political machinations, prevents the participation of workers in elections and their genuine expression of will, the workers of a number of capitalist countries, as a result of a long and persistent struggle, have achieved the opportunity to send their representatives to elected institutions. Communists see parliament as an institution that can be used in the struggle for a democratic domestic policy and a peaceful foreign policy. They oppose the desire of reactionary forces to limit the rights of representative institutions or completely destroy them, and they fight to expand opportunities for the people to influence government policy through these institutions. Communists recognize only revolutionary parliamentarism, that is, parliamentary activity that is based on the mass actions of the working class, all working people. At the same time, they are fighting both the leftist denial of the need to work in the elected institutions of the bourgeois state, and the opportunistic desire to direct this activity along a reformist path (see).

Communist parties in a number of capitalist countries receive a large number of votes in elections and win a significant number of parliamentary seats. The activity of communists in representative institutions of the bourgeois state is one of the forms of party work. Communist parties select people for these positions with great care, ensuring that the party line is defended in elected institutions by politically mature, proactive communists who have experience working among the masses - people who are alien to careerism and the pursuit of warm places. The mandate of a communist deputy belongs to the party, he speaks on its behalf. The party leads its representatives in parliament, helps them develop decisions on certain issues, promotes the passage of progressive bills by organizing extra-parliamentary actions of the masses, and contributes to the implementation of decisions made. Issues related to the P.D.C. are discussed at national congresses and conferences of Communist Parties. The Central Committees of parties systematically hear reports from the chairmen of parliamentary factions and individual deputies. The subordination of a communist deputy to the party is combined with his responsibility to voters. One of the main requirements that the party makes of its representatives is constant communication with voters, study and protection of their daily needs, systematic meetings with them, development of initiative and activity of the masses.

P.D.K. is, first of all, work among the masses. During election campaigns, a wide variety of methods and forms of work with the population are used, and all channels of communication with the masses are used. Candidates and deputies speak to large audiences, address voters with letters, have personal conversations, appear in print, on radio, television, etc. Communists put forward a program for elections, developed on the basis of the general political line of the party, indicating ways to solve problems, facing the country, taking into account the interests of various segments of the population. In an effort to unite all democratic forces, the communists strive for the unity of representatives of left-wing parties in elections and their joint actions in elected institutions.

Communists in parliaments expose the anti-people nature of the policies of the reactionary circles of monopoly capital and contrast them with a positive democratic program. Communist deputies speak before the working people, explaining to them the true meaning of the monopoly policy, calling on the masses to fight for a democratic solution to problems affecting their interests. Written and oral requests, draft laws put forward by communist deputies are discussed in mass organizations, in factories and factories, in residential areas. In support of the proposals of communist deputies, strikes, demonstrations, rallies are organized, petitions are sent, etc. P.D.K. is thus combined with struggle outside parliament, with mass actions.

The communist parties of a number of capitalist countries, based on an analysis of the new balance of forces in the international arena and in their countries, came to the conclusion that it was possible to use the institutions of bourgeois democracy to establish the power of the working class and its allies. These parties attach great importance to winning a majority in parliament at the stage of the struggle for democracy, for carrying out such transformations that will provide the most favorable conditions for the struggle for socialism. However, this struggle can be successful only if the work of communists in representative institutions is based on the mass revolutionary movement of the working class, the broad masses of the working people. Only if a coalition of democratic forces has formed in the country and the masses demand the formation of a revolutionary government can the reactionary classes be deprived of the possibility of armed resistance and will be forced to submit to the will of the people. In this case, the left forces through parliament will be able to legislatively, expanding the democratic rights of the people, move on to the implementation of socialist transformations. In the modern international situation of the growing aggressive aspirations of international, primarily American, imperialism, the Communists set as their goal to unite representatives of left-wing parties in parliament to protect the interests of the working people, the cause of peace, and prevent the threat of nuclear catastrophe.

Scientific communism: Dictionary. - M.: Politizdat. Alexandrov V.V., Amvrosov A.A., Anufriev E.A., etc.; Ed. A. M. Rumyantseva. 1983 .

See what “Parliamentary activity of communists” is in other dictionaries:

Party of Communists of Kyrgyzstan- Kyrgyzstan Communist Party Leader: Iskhak Masaliev Date of foundation: June 22, 1992 ... Wikipedia

One of the forms of the bourgeois state and political system. D. b. began to take shape after the victory of the bourgeois revolutions in England and France. This process continued for several decades, during which the working class, the people... ... Scientific communism: Dictionary

The struggle of the working class and the working masses led by it against the economic and political domination of the bourgeoisie. Marx and Engels showed that the inevitability of this struggle follows from the fundamental opposition between the economic and the political... ... Scientific communism: Dictionary