G.Glezerman
__TITLE__ SOCIALIST SOCIETY: SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES OF DEVELOPMENT __TEXTFILE_BORN__ 2007-06-11T08:38:37-0700 __TRANSMARKUP__ "Y. Sverdlov"PROGRESS PUBLISHERS
MOSCOW
[1]Translated from the Russian by Leo Lempert
Designed by Dmitry Anikeyev
P. PJIE3EPMAH
HAyqHblE OCHOBbI PA3BHTHH COUHAJlMCTimECKOI'O OBLUECTBA
Ha OHSAUUCKOM nsbine
__COPYRIGHT__ First printing 1971We live in the age of the greatest turning-point in history marked by the transition from antagonistic class societies to a society free from social and national oppression and ensuring the full development of the human personality.
The birth of the new, socialist society is the basic factor of the present epoch. History placed socialism on the agenda of mankind. At the beginning of the 19th century socialism was merely the dream of a few lofty minds; in the mid-19th century its feasibility was demonstrated scientifically and it became the goal of the working-class movement; the 20th century has brought the period of translating this dream into reality.
More than half a century ago socialism scored a decisive political victory when the revolution of October 1917 by the workers and peasants of Russia initiated the building of a socialist society in a vast country occupying one-sixth of the earth's land surface. A little more than a quarter of a century ago socialism emerged beyond the bounds of a single country, when the liberation of a number of European and Asian countries from German nazism and Japanese militarism unfettered their revolutionary forces and opened the way for democratic and socialist changes.
Nowadays, for the peoples of the socialist countries, the new society is no longer a dream or a mere scientific prediction, but a reality. It has been, or is being, built in countries inhabited by more than one-third of mankind, producing about 39 per cent of the world's industrial output. The birth of socialism, which its enemies sought to picture as some kind of an ``accident'', now manifests itself as a natural result of mankind's historical development.
5Socialism has struck root in the world because it is the only society which is able~
to resolve the sharpening economic, political and social contradictions of capitalism;~
to put an end to the exploitation of man by man, class and national oppression, to end wars and the mutual annihilation of peoples;~
to open the road to the entire population to free creative development, to make available to the people all the treasures of world culture and utilise the achievements of science and technology in their interests.
Thus, the 20th century is marked by the birth of a new, socialist society which radically differs in its structure, laws and driving forces from all earlier societies. This new social organism requires close scientific study.
The founders of Marxism elaborated a scientific theory of social development, chiefly by analysing the history of class societies, capitalism in particular. The application of this theory to a detailed study of the capitalist socio-- economic formation enabled them to foresee the main features of the communist socio-economic formation which was to take the place of capitalism. Now that the forecasts of Marxism-Leninism are being realised, it is necessary to apply the Marxist theory of society to a study of the communist formation, above all its first phase, socialist society, and further to develop this theory, taking into account the new experience furnished by history.
A scientific analysis of the laws and driving forces of socialist society is not only of cognitive interest. For a socialist country it is also a problem of practical importance, the solution of which is needed for properly guiding the building and development of the new society.
This book was published in Russian in 1967 under the title Historical Materialism and the Development of Socialist Society. In it the general propositions of the Marxist theory of society were applied to an analysis of socialism. It should be borne in mind, however, that the book does not give a concrete characterisation of all the sides of the socialist system, for example, its economy, ways of eliminating class distinctions, stages of development, forms and functions of the socialist state, and so on.
The general aim of the author is to present socialist 6 society as an integral social organism whose development is governed by certain laws. It is only within the bounds of this concept that the book examines the place of classes in the structure of socialist society, the connections between class relations and the political superstructure, and other questions.
__*_*_*__For a scientific understanding of socialist society's development one must first examine it as a natural historical process, requiring above all a study of society in a historical perspective. Socialism is the first, or lower, stage of the new, communist socio-economic formation, the transition to which is made as a result of the overthrow of capitalism. In many respects socialism differs from the more mature, communist society which emerges as a result of the prolonged development of socialism. It is this historical approach to the new, incipient communist society that is the basic feature distinguishing scientific socialism from Utopian socialism.
It will be recalled that the pre-Marxian socialist theories set out to devise a plan for the most perfect organisation of society. In elaborating this plan, most Utopian socialists proceeded not from the level of development actually reached by society but from abstract considerations of reason and justice. That is why in solving, for example, the question of distribution, some writers put forward the principle of distribution according to work as the ideal, while others suggested the principle of distribution according to needs and still others proclaimed the need for egalitarian distribution, and so on and so forth. Despite these distinctions most of these thinkers regarded communist society as something which, when finally achieved, would require no further development.
Marxism approached this question in a basically different way. To begin with, Marx conceived communist society not as a static state but as a social organism in constant motion and change. Furthermore, Marxism rejected the notion that the main problems of socialism can be reduced to the question of distribution of the social product. Marx demonstrated that the basis of communist society is a definite mode of production on which the form of distribution depends. It is this approach that enabled him to establish that in its 7 development communist society must pass through two phases: socialism, the first phase originating from the midst of capitalism, and communism, the higher phase developing on the basis created by socialism. Generalising Marx's idea about the two phases of communism Lenin wrote: `` Socialism is the society that grows directly out of capitalism, it is the first form of the new society. Communism is a higher form of society, and can only develop when socialism has become firmly established."^^1^^
This also determines the general features which link the two phases of communism and the specific features which set them apart.
Both phases are based on the one mode of production, characterised by the domination of social ownership of the means of production, subordination of production to the fullest satisfaction of society's material and cultural needs and the planned organisation of all production.
The degree of development of this mode of production greatly differs at the first and second phases of communism. At first socialism has to proceed on the basis of the productive forces created by capitalism. But communism presupposes incomparably more developed productive forces which, as Marx put it, will make all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly. It will only be possible when it is provided with a new, higher material and technological basis.
Distinctions in the system of economic relations are determined by the level of the productive forces. Relations of comradely co-operation and mutual assistance, based on socialisation of production and social property, link together both phases of communism. But behind this uniformity in type there are profound differences in the system of production, exchange and distribution, differences which are connected with the existence of two forms of social property under socialism---state and co-operative---reflecting the unequal degree of socialisation of production in town and country, in industry and agriculture.
Uniting the entire economy into a single whole, social ownership of the means of production exists in the form of a system of state enterprises which possess certain economic _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 30, p. 284.
8 independence and of co-operatives which represent the property of individual collectives, making the commodity form of ties between them objectively necessary. While excluding the land, enterprises, and also labour power, from the sphere of commodity exchange, socialism utilises the commodity form to stimulate the development of production.The level of development of the productive forces and relations of production also determines socialism's intrinsic mechanisms for regulating work and distribution.
Socialism proclaims the universality of labour, puts an end to the division of society into those who work and those who do not, and converts work into the honourable duty of all able-bodied people. At the same time socialism, representing only the first phase of communism, does not yet turn labour into life's prime requirement for all members of society, as will be the case under communism. The principle of socialism is: ``From each according to his ability, to each according to his work.'' This principle presupposes economic incentives for the producers depending on their labour contribution to social production, strict account and control of the measure of labour and the measure of consumption of each worker. Only at the higher stage in the development of production and of people themselves, characteristic of the higher phase of communism, can this principle be replaced by the principle: ``From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.''
As regards the stimulus to work and the forms of distribution, Marxism takes the historically concrete approach, which distinguishes it from the preceding, Utopian socialism.
Two ideas about changing man's attitude to labour were voiced in different variants in pre-Marxian social theories. The first was to convert labour into a duty for all ablebodied members of society. In reply to the assertion by defenders of the exploiting system that people would not work unless they were compelled to, many Utopian socialists said: ``A society in which labour is free need not be afraid of idlers.'' They held that society, by abolishing the division into exploiters and exploited, would recognise labour as the duty of all citizens and this duty would be discharged by virtue of their lofty consciousness. The other idea expressed by some Utopian socialists was that labour must be made 9 attractive and turned into their prime requirement which people would perform not simply as a duty but because of inner conviction. William Morris, one of the later Utopian socialists, arguing with Edward Bellamy, author of the wellknown book Looking Backward (1887--2000), emphasised that Bellamy was vainly searching for a stimulus to labour to take the place of the old fear of starvation. In Morris's opinion, the real stimulus to useful labour must be the joy emanating from labour itself. In Morris's Utopian novel News from Nowhere, the main character on finding himself in the new world asks: ``~`How you get people to work when there is no reward of labour, and especially how you get them to work strenuously?'
``He is told: ``~`No reward of labour? . . . The reward of labour is life. Is that not enough?'
`` 'But no reward for especially good work?'. ..
`` 'Plenty of reward,' said he---'the reward of creation. The wages which God gets, as people might have said times agone. If you are going to ask to_ be paid for the pleasure of creation, which is what excellence in work means, the next thing we shall hear of will be a bill sent in for the begetting of children.'~"^^1^^
Having advanced many bold surmises about the future, the Utopians, however, remained Utopians as regards a stimulus to work. The main thing was that they lacked a sense of the historic view of things. The idea that communist society itself would undergo changes, that it must pass through different stages in its development, that it could not come into the world readymade from the womb of capitalism, was alien to them. Some of them (including William Morris) based their dreams of the future on primitive handicraft techniques and did not associate the birth of the new society with the creation of a new material and technical basis which had to alter the content of labour itself.
The approach to the development of the new society as a natural historical process enabled Marxism to solve this problem in a fundamentally different way. The two phases of communist society---socialism and communism---are pictured by Marxism-Leninism as necessary stages for the _-_-_
~^^1^^ William Morris, News from Nowhere, London, 1928, p. 106.
10 maturing of communism. At the first stage, under socialism which has just emerged from capitalism, there are as yet neither social nor material, nor technical prerequisites for converting labour into life's prime requirement for all members of society.A sober materialist approach to the development of socialist society implies recognition of the fact that although under socialism labour has been freed from exploitation and in this sense is free, there still remains the need for certain compulsion, inasmuch as the survivals of capitalism exist and people are not accustomed yet to work for society without legal compulsion. At this stage distribution must inevitably be made according to work. It is only from socialist labour paid in strict conformity with its quantity and quality that communist labour arises. The latter, as Lenin defined it, ``is labour performed gratis for the benefit of society, labour performed not as a definite duty, not for the purpose of obtaining a right to certain products, not according to previously established and legally fixed quotas, but voluntary labour, irrespective of quotas; it is labour performed without expectation of reward, without reward as a condition, labour performed because it has become a habit to work for the common good, and because of a conscious realisation (that has become a habit) of the necessity of working for the common good---labour as the requirement of a healthy organism."^^1^^
Marxism-Leninism in this way reveals the dialectics of development of stimuli to work during the transition from capitalism to socialism and from socialism to communism.
Distinctions between socialism and communism are consequently reduced to the degree of economic and cultural maturity of the new society. This degree of maturity is expressed, first, in the extent to which the features inherited by socialism from preceding societies are eliminated and, second, in the degree to which the intrinsic features of the communist formation are developed. Neither is determined solely by the wishes, will and revolutionary determination of the builders of the new society but by the objectively attained development of society.
The first phase of communism, socialism, as Marx put it, _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 30, p. 517.
11 still bears the ``birthmarks'' of capitalism in all respects--- economically, morally and intellectually. These birthmarks are not mere survivals of capitalism in the minds and behaviour of people. The features inherited by socialism are not only the remnants of the old mores, but also the remnants of the old division of labour expressed in more or less deep distinctions between the working people of town and country, of workers by hand and by brain, certain remnants of social inequality, above all in the material security of people, their working and living conditions, and so on. It is simply impossible to get rid of all these features at once because the material and cultural requisites are lacking. Lenin stressed that socialism changes the relations of people ``only in part, only in proportion to the economic revolution so far attained".^^1^^In other words, socialism, representing basically an entirely new society, cannot as yet fully eliminate all the features inherited from the old class society.
Economic and other social - relations existing under socialism inevitably bear the imprint of society's level of maturity. Society cannot change these relations without considering the level of development of the productive forces. For example, by eliminating the foundations of social inequality---the antitheses between those who own and those who do not own the means of production---socialism puts an end to the unjust capitalist order. But socialism does not bring yet full equality and justice. A certain inequality in distribution, connected with payment according to work, is still inevitable and it cannot be simply abolished by decree under socialism. Although it is a manifestation of socialism's historical limitations, of a certain ``injustice'', this inequality, if kept within reasonable bounds, is needed to stimulate an advance of the productive forces. Its abolition by decree would not promote social progress; on the contrary it would slow it down. It can be eliminated only through a rise in labour productivity and skill, by levelling out the very nature of the labour of all members of society. Therefore it is clear that abstract justice is unsuitable as a criterion for solving concrete problems of building socialism and communism. Any phenomenon must be assessed with an eye to _-_-_
^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Ciillactnl Works, Vol. 25, p. 467.
12 the actually achieved historical stage of society's development, its conformity and non-conformity to this stage.Experience also shows that not everything inherited from preceding societies runs counter to the requirements of socialist society. Alongside such phenomena which socialism eliminates there are also those which it transforms, utilises and places at its service, including, for example, the mechanism of commodity-money relations. The need for commodity-money relations under socialism follows from the actually achieved development of socialist property itself, which presupposes a certain economic independence of state enterprises and co-operatives linked by commodity exchange. That is why the commodity form of exchange and the attendant money relations are the major instruments for expanding the socialist economy.
Consequently, socialism, while resolutely rejecting the Establishment and its coercive machinery, cannot flatly reject the economic and social mechanisms created in the course of the preceding development of society; it transforms them, places them at its service and includes them in the new management machinery it creates. That is why in analysing socialist society, it is necessary soberly to consider the degree of its economic maturity, to ascertain to what extent socialism has transformed the old social relations and institutions and created new ones.
The founders of Marxism gave a description of socialism, based on scientific prevision and, therefore, still of a relatively abstract nature, and outlined merely the main features of the new society. They foresaw that under socialism social ownership of the means of production would prevail, but co-operative property would be a necessary link in the socialist transformation of the economy; they did not indicate directly, however, that social property would exist in two forms---state and co-operative. They foresaw that under socialism the same principle would prevail as during the exchange of commodity equivalents, namely, the exchange of a certain quantity of labour in one form for an equal quantity of labour in another form, but they did not consider commodity exchange and money necessary in socialist conditions. They also established that the absence of exploiting classes and the conversion of all able-bodied members of society into working people would be a characteristic 13 feature of socialism, but they did not mention that some class distinctions between workers and peasants would remain, and so on.
We now have a full-fledged socialist society in the U.S.S.R. and socialism is being successfully built in a number of other countries. Naturally, this society appears before us in a more concrete shape because the general theoretical ideas of socialism have been enriched by practical experience, in the course of which concrete forms of its economic and political organisation have been found. But it would be wrong to regard all the concrete features of this society as the features inherent in socialism in general.
The experience of building socialism in the U.S.S.R. and other countries shows that the first phase of the communist socio-economic formation has fundamental common features and laws, inherent in all socialist countries, but at the same time these laws manifest themselves specifically in each country. In the political sphere, for example, we have the power exercised by the working class not only in the form of Soviets, as is the case in the U.'S.S.R., but also in the form of People's Democracy; the transition from the democratic stage of the revolution to the socialist (or from one revolution to another) takes various forms, both non-peaceful and peaceful, without an armed insurrection and civil war. Some socialist countries have utilised parliament and a multi-party system 'for building socialism. In the economic sphere we have diversity in the forms of industrialisation and collectivisation of agriculture; compared with the Soviet Union and the Mongolian People's Republic land reforms were carried out in other socialist countries without nationalisation of the land, and so on. All these specific factors and circumstances must be taken into account in pursuing an internationalist policy which demands, as Lenin put it, that we should not eliminate diversity, not abolish the national distinctions, but ably apply the main principles of communism, properly adapt them in particulars to national and state distinctions.
At the same time, in elaborating the general theory of socialist society it is important to separate the general from the particular, the recurrent from the non-recurrent. The Marxist-Leninist theory of socio-economic formations offers the criterion for such differentiation. For example, when 14 capitalism is considered as a formation, the features common to all capitalist countries are singled out through scientific abstraction. The concept of the socio-economic formation, Lenin explained, makes it possible to apply to social relations the general scientific criterion of recurrence, the possibility of which in sociology is denied by subjectivists. At the same time it offers a criterion for assessing the specific features inherent in separate countries, within the bounds of each formation.
Such an approach should also be applied to socialism. We must take into account that socialism won at first not in the most developed countries, that the majority of socialist countries were countries with an average and even a low level of development of capitalism. This naturally left its imprint on the features of socialist society.
Apparently a number of features inherent in this society (for example, commodity circulation) will be found in each society when it has reached the first phase of communism, including the socialist society which will arise in future in the economically most developed countries. This can be partly judged by the nature of the economic reforms now being implemented in some socialist countries. These reforms carried out in countries at different levels---at the stage of completing the construction of socialism and of building communism---and the common features of the reforms reveal essential distinctions of the economic mechanism of any socialist society.
But can the same be said with regard to such a feature of the social structure of socialist countries as the presence of class or social distinctions? Is this an intrinsic feature of socialist society in general or only of the now existing socialist countries? For an answer to this question, as we shall subsequently show, it is also extremely important to consider the degree of economic and social maturity of socialist society.
A theoretical analysis of socialist society aims to reflect the existing connections between different sides of its life--- growth of production, economic relations, social structure, and the degree of social consciousness. An historic approach, consideration of the actual stage of development attained by society is necessary for the study of socialist society to an even greater extent than in the case of any other society.
15 __*_*_*__To understand the development of socialist society as a natural historical process it is also necessary to ascertain how the operation of the laws of social development changes in it.
As in the history of preceding societies, the birth and development of socialist society is a natural process subject to objective laws which do not depend on the will and consciousness of people. At the same time it is no longer a spontaneous process but conscious building of the new society.
Of course, neither was the birth of the preceding formations fully spontaneous. A new political system, a new social order has always been created through conscious struggle of one or more classes seeking to establish their rule. But for all that, these formations were not built according to a single, all-embracing plan and the economic relations underlying them were shaped in the course of development of the productive forces which proceeded primarily in a spontaneous way. Communism is the first society in history which is being built consciously. ``Let us build a new society!"^^1^^---this call of Lenin's, which resounded after the victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution set a task of social transformation without precedent in history.
It is very important both theoretically and practically to consider this distinction in the rise and development of socialist society. This, in the first place, enables us to see the untenability of the theory of the automatic transformation of capitalism into socialism, the theory of spontaneity in socialist construction, which Marxism-Leninism still has to combat. Behind this distinction also stands a practical task of tremendous significance---to mobilise the energy of millions of people for building the new society, to draw them into purposeful constructive work, to stimulate their initiative and, lastly, to organise their efforts and concentrate them on a single aim. This task was put forward by Lenin in his speeches and articles in the first months after the October Revolution. Among the subjects Lenin designated for elaboration at the end of December 1917 was: ``to elevate the lowest depths for the making of history.'' In the _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 124.
16 original version of his article ``The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government" Lenin characterised those days as a transition from historic slumber to the making of new history. He stressed that without enrolling new sections of the people for building socialist society, without arousing the masses to action, any revolutionary transformation was out of the question. The task of the entire period of building socialism presupposes the energetic participation of ever broader sections of the people in constructive work. To stimulate the initiative, energies, discipline and responsibility of every workingman means to accelerate socialist society's advance.In the first socialist country in the world the stages of advance to communism have been marked out by the fiveyear plans. In one of his articles written at the beginning of socialist construction Lenin spoke about the possibility of setting the periods necessary for radical social changes as a very rare case in history. He further stressed: ``We now see clearly what can be done in five years, and what requires much more time."^^1^^
Practical experience has confirmed the possibility and necessity of planning social changes for definite periods. The point of departure for scientific planning is to establish the scale of production growth. Depending on this, the social consequences of changing the productive forces are determined, although naturally not with the same precision. The very first Soviet five-year plan contained not only assignments for the development of the productive forces but it also characterised the prospects of change in social relations and set the task of laying the foundation of the socialist economy. Unity of economic and social planning has remained a distinctive feature of all subsequent national economic plans of the Soviet Union. Moreover, each new five-year plan rests on the fulfilment of preceding plans and correspondingly the scale of its tasks is extended.
The conscious element in building the new society, embodied in the economic development plans, is based on scientific prognosis of the main direction, the main tendencies of socialist society's development. The better a plan is formulated, the more precisely it sets really feasible _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 33, p. 483.
__PRINTERS_P_17_COMMENT__ 2---2732 17 assignments and optimal proportions of growth in different sectors of the economy. But even the most perfect plan, naturally, cannot provide for everything. In the course of plan fulfilment new potentialities are always brought to light or, on the contrary, difficulties and problems arise which could not be foreseen in advance. The point is that under socialism, too, social consciousness is unable to encompass fully, to the end, social being in all its connections, relations, and details. Discussing changes in the capitalist world economy, Lenin noted that it was impossible to encompass their sum total in all ramifications; the most important thing was that the laws governing these changes had been discovered, the objective logic of these changes and their historical development had been revealed in the main.This proposition, formulated by Lenin in the case of the capitalist formation, remains true for socialism as well. The new element under socialism is that social consciousness, reflecting ever more correctly the objective tendencies of the development of social being, promotes its planned transformation. Guidance of society based on scientific cognition of social processes becomes possible. In this connection particular significance attaches to the development of the social sciences and the practical application of their recommendations. The latter, as the 23rd G.P.S.U. Congress stressed^ is no less important than the use of the achievements of the natural sciences in material production and the development of the people's spiritual life.
Socialist society, based on social property and a high degree of socialisation of the productive forces, cannot develop spontaneously; it demands the planned administration of social affairs. That is why the role of consciousness, of the subjective factor as a whole rises under socialism. Social relations, which formerly were shaped spontaneously, are placed here under society's rational control.
This, however, does not abolish their objective determination by the level of development of the productive forces.
The conscious nature of social development under socialism at times engenders the illusion that the subjective factor is omnipotent. The proponents of such views allege that under socialism the relationship of social being and social 18 consciousness, the objective conditions and the subjective factor, the basis and .superstructure, economics and politics, undergo such a radical transformation that these categories change places: social consciousness becomes a determinant of being, the subjective factor determines the objective conditions, and so on. But such a notion is merely an illusion.
However high the role of consciousness, the subjective factor and the superstructure as a whole under socialism, it remains within the bounds of their general determinant dependence on social being, the objective conditions and the economic basis. Under socialism, too, social consciousness reflects social being, and its possibility of exerting influence on being depends above all on how correctly it mirrors the objective tendencies of development and takes into consideration the real possibilities and the existing situation. General laws governing the historical process preserve their force in socialist society, too, although their operation has certain distinctions. Ignoring these distinctions makes it impossible to understand the specific features of socialist society's development. But their exaggeration and elevation to an absolute prevent the application of the materialist understanding of history to an analysis of socialism and ultimately lead to subjectivist misinterpretation of the laws of its development.
The scientific understanding of socialism combines an objective approach to social development as a natural historical process, subordinated to laws that are independent of man's will and consciousness, with recognition of the fact that socialist society is being built consciously, in a planned way, that it can neither arise nor be improved without the conscious, purposeful activity of people.
__*_*_*__To appreciate how the understanding of the natural historical process of socialist society's development is combined with recognition of the conscious nature of building this society, it is necessary to consider the mechanism of social development under socialism.
The laws of social development, as distinct from the laws of nature, are laws governing the practical activity of __PRINTERS_P_20_COMMENT__ 2* 19 people. Opponents of Marxism, seeking to discredit the idea of the law-governed nature of social life, have repeatedly tried to impute to Marxists the absurd view that society's laws operate without people. But such a view is alien to Marxism. The objective nature of the social development laws consists not in that they supposedly are manifested apart from the practical activity of people, but in that they are independent of man's consciousness and will. The mechanism of social laws must include the practical activity of men, because nothing is done in society without the participation of people.
The laws of social development are laws realised through the actions of the people. Lenin pointed out that the method of reducing the individual to the social was the prerequisite for creating a scientific sociology. This means that the laws of social life could be discovered only when we discerned behind the countless diverse actions of individuals, which therefore seemed accidental, the actions of the masses naturally determined by their position in society. The position of men in society shapes their interests which are reflected in their minds and impel them to act. An account of these interests makes it possible to explain the motives of people's actions in a materialist way.
At the same time the problem of men's interests represents a junction in which not only the application of materialism, but also of dialectics to society is intertwined. Understanding of contradictions in historical development is most intimately linked with this problem. The interests and actions of men must not be considered in isolation from the dialectics of social development. Every social event, big or small, is a result of numerous individual actions which are interlocked, go partly in one direction and partly in other directions. The results of men's actions might differ greatly from their intentions and aims, the more so since they are ultimately determined by the objective economic conditions, and not simply by their desires. Engels compared this process with the addition of forces of different directions in mechanics which form a parallelogram of forces ultimately in the form of a resultant force which does not coincide fully with the direction of any one of them.
The question arises, does this proposition of Engels hold good not only for pre-socialist society where people, as he 20 put it, made history not guided by a common will and not according to one common plan, but also to socialism?
Under socialism, too, the laws of social development remain the laws of the mass action of people, because such is their nature. Here, too, the strivings and actions of people are intertwined and make up a common result. But the new element under socialism is that not only separate individuals, but society as a whole sets itself a definite aim and undertakes to achieve it. This is not a temporary and relative coincidence of the aims of different classes or social groups, which was also possible in previous societies, for example, in periods of struggle for national tasks, in national liberation wars, and so on. This is a new type of social development which becomes feasible after private ownership of the means of production which disunites people and engenders conflicts between their wishes was abolished, after the division of society into antagonistic classes with their opposite interests was eliminated.
Socio-political and moral unity of society is a new phenomenon characterising the qualitative state of socialist society where social ownership of the means of production prevails, uniting all people by common basic interests, where the class antithesis has been eliminated and only non-basic class distinctions remain. In these conditions the laws of social development are realised not through disunited actions of individuals, not through a struggle of antagonistic classes (there are none in socialist society), but through the organised actions of all of society, through co-operation of its social groups. Unity of action of the overwhelming majority of society's members and the scientifically based tasks set by the Party which they work to accomplish create the objective possibility for the coincidence of the aims and intentions of people with the results obtained. That is why the results of actions of men no longer turn into a force which is alienated from them and begins to dominate them. Society is freed from spontaneous forces and begins to guide the processes of its life and development in a conscious way.
This fundamentally new feature, as compared with preceding societies, however, must not be turned into an absolute. Socialist society, too, still has class distinctions between workers and peasants united in co-operatives, between town and country, between workers by hand and by brain, 21 between skilled and unskilled labour. All these and similar social distinctions will disappear only in the course of socialism's development into communism, which will be a society of complete social homogeneity. From the correct proposition about the coincidence of the basic interests of people in socialist society it does not at all follow that specific interests are absent and consequently there are no contradictions between them.
The nature of socialist society creates the objective basis for rationally combining the diverse interests, but this is not achieved automatically. This demands correct consideration for interests in formulating a policy, in devising the most rational forms of organising production, planning and guiding the economy and culture. The intricacy of this task can be seen from the new system of economic management introduced in the Soviet Union. It was elaborated in the course of a long discussion needed to find the most efficient criteria for assessing the activity of enterprises, ensuring the proper combination of the interests of the entire economy, the enterprise and the worker.
Interests as the motive to action remain the most important element in the mechanism of laws under socialism too. But these are interests which arose on the basis of socialist economic relations, socialist commodity exchange and socialist principles of distribution according to work. Conscious use of socialism's economic laws presupposes such an organisation of social relations in which interests could act in the direction society needs. People cannot be made to act contrary to their interests, social or personal; this would be Utopian and would run counter to the nature of socialist society which is being built for the good of the people. But actions motivated by diverse interests can be directed into a channel conforming to the main direction of socialist society's development, promoting its advance to communism. This is done by devising the most expedient forms of organising production, exchange and distribution and also of managing the economy.
Thus, we arrive at another prime prerequisite for the scientific understanding of socialist society's development: the need to examine it from the aspect of the objective mechanism of its intrinsic laws and above all the role of interests as the motive force of this mechanism.
22These theoretical premises dictate the composition of the present book.
The methodological principles are formulated in the first chapters: ``Relationship Between the Objective Conditions and the Subjective Factor in Building Communism" and ``Economic Relations and Interests of People in Socialist Society''. The general propositions outlined here are further developed in the next chapters (for example, in examining the role of the objective conditions and the subjective factor in transforming social consciousness, the role of interests in relations between classes and between nations, in the moulding of the new man, and so on).
The examination of all these questions is summed up in a chapter on historical progress and the change in its nature under socialism. The reader will notice that this problem, too (specifically the understanding of the criterion of historical progress) is linked with the problem of interests.
The author is fully aware that he has merely raised a considerable number of problems, each of which could be the subject of a special study. He only wants to remark in justification that the concept of the book requires a discussion of these problems in their interconnection, because otherwise it is impossible to picture socialist society as an integral social organism.
[23] ~ [24] __NUMERIC_LVL1__ Chapter I __ALPHA_LVL1__ RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE OBJECTIVEThe starting point in the materialist understanding of society is the solution of the question of the correlation between the objective conditions and the subjective factor in social development. The development of socialist society, to no smaller extent than that of any other, is a natural historical process whose laws are not determined by the will and consciousness of man. On the contrary, it is these laws that determine man's will and consciousness. At the same time this is a process of conscious, systematic building of the new society, carried on, moreover, on such a huge scale, as, for example, is seen in the Soviet Union.
To establish the relationship between the objective conditions and the subjective factor in building communism, it is necessary first to examine the general propositions of historical materialism which hold good for all social formations and then to show the specific features of their application to the development of socialist and communist society.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 1. The Categories of the Objective ConditionsThe concepts of the objective conditions and the subjective factor belong to the most general categories of historical materialism and may in a certain sense be considered in the same order as such categories as social being and social consciousness, material and ideological relations and basis and superstructure. All these categories reflect, in one way or another, the relationship between these two 25 interconnected sides of social life, of which the first is the primary, determining side and the second is the derivative, the determined side.
But the content and functions of these categories do not fully coincide; otherwise there would be no need to employ all of them in explaining social phenomena. Taken together, these categories can, even if merely in general outline, encompass the wealth of social phenomena and relations.
By differentiating between social being and social consciousness, we solve the fundamental question of philosophy as applied to society, namely, what is primary and what is secondary. Just as materialism in general recognises being as primary and consciousness as secondary, so does historical materialism regard as primary the material life of society and as secondary its spiritual life which reflects material life, i.e., social being.
The categories of society's basis and superstructure characterise more concretely the structure of society, the relationship between its economic system or, to put it differently, the sum total of production and economic relations, which form the basis, and the entire huge superstructure which grows up on this basis. The concept of superstructure covers not only social consciousness, not only the views and ideas of people, but also the numerous institutions and organisations created in conformity with these ideas; the superstructure is made up of the ideological, political and legal forms of the economic system of society.
The categories of objective conditions and of subjective factor also have their specific content; they do not fully coincide with any of the categories mentioned earlier. Their very designations, their functions differ. As distinct from such categories as basis and superstructure, the categories of objective conditions and subjective factor explain not so much the structure of society as the process of its change by man. They reveal the relationship between the conscious activity of man and the conditions in which he acts. That is why they are especially important in studying the processes of the revolutionary remaking of social life, building of the new society, and so on.
What are the objective conditions and the subjective factor?
Objective conditions are the conditions in which men 26 make history, but which do not depend on their will and consciousness. The subjective factor in society's development is the conscious activity of people, classes and parties which make history, it is their organisation, will and energy necessary for coping with definite historical tasks.
At times the subjective factor is defined too broadly so that the specific nature of this category is lost. It is claimed, for example, that people are always a subjective factor, that all people should be considered the subject of history, although they are not always aware of this. Of course, all social life is a product of the activity of people and in this sense it may be said that people are the subject of history.
Generally, the subject is the carrier of an action in which a definite aim is achieved. What distinguishes human history from the history of animals, by the way, is that animals are a passive object of their history, while man is the active maker of history. Labour and production constitute the starting point and basis of mankind's history. That is why people are the subject, whose practical activity determines historical development. In this sense the population ``is the basis and subject of the entire social process of production".^^1^^ But Marx noting that in history taken as a whole ``the subject, mankind, and the object, nature, are one and the same thing'', warns that this unity should not make one forget ``the essential difference between epochs".^^2^^ In all epochs man is the subject of history. People, the masses, have always in one way or another, consciously or unconsciously, made history. Nothing in history is done without people, all of it is the result oif their practical activity. Not only the spiritual life of society, but also its material life is a product* of people's activity (naturally, under definite natural and historical conditions which each generation inherits). But no matter how important the recognition of this fact is for ascertaining the specific features of human history in general (as distinct from the history of nature) it is not yet sufficient for establishing who is the subject of concrete historical transformations in various epochs. Here it is also necessary to establish what social forces, owing to their _-_-_
~^^1^^ K. Marx, Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Ukonomie (Rohenttaurf), 1857--1858, Berlin, 1953, S. 21.
~^^2^^ Ibid., S. 7.
27 objective position in society, organisation, consciousness and other properties, can practically effect, and do effect, the given historical transformations. The question of who makes history in general cannot be identified with the question of what social forces consciously accomplish definite historical changes.The role of the people and the subjective factor in history also must not be regarded as identical. Let us note first of all that in a class society the subjective factor should include the conscious activity not only of the masses, the classes and social forces which work for social progress. Pitted here against each other are diametrically opposed social forces. whose will, energy and organisation affect the course of the struggle and the general outcome of historical development. On the other hand, it would be wrong to put all the activity of the people who act as the main force of social progress into the sphere of the subjective factor. The daily activity of people, designed to satisfy their needs, is itself part of the objective conditions of society's development. It appears as the objective making of history by people; moreover, people, as usually has been the case in history, may not even be aware that they are its makers. But as the subjective factor people act only to the extent that they consciously accomplish definite social tasks. Otherwise there would be no point in speaking of enlarging the size of the masses that make history, because even without it historical materialfsm considers them the makers of history. But when Marx and Engels say that, together with the thoroughness of the historical action, there will grow the size of the masses whose cause it is, they refer not simply to the objective process of making history, but to the process of drawing them into active conscious struggle for effecting timely changes. Only in this case does the question arise of waking the masses, gripped by long historical slumber, and extending the range of people taking part in the struggle to change social relation's. This is especially true of the socialist revolution, which is the deepest-going of all and, therefore, involves the greatest social changes, a revolution which rouses to a new life the lower depths of society oppressed by capitalism. They become the makers of the socialist revolution in the real sense of the word.
Lenin said about the people in the colonies and 28 semi-colonies that in the past they were regarded ``merely as the objects and not as the subjects of history".^^1^^ The present epoch has awakened them to an independent life, to struggle for their national and social emancipation, which has greatly broadened the size of the masses who are consciously making history and has accelerated its development.
In the course of society's progress the unconscious activity of people making history is thus converted into conscious activity. This, of course, must not be understood in an oversimple way, as if the objective ceases to exist and is replaced by the subjective. This is not the case at all. The life of mankind always proceeds in definite objective conditions and under corresponding laws which do not depend on the will and consciousness of people and ultimately determine the nature and trend of their activity. The laws of social development are realised only through the practical activity of people. But the nature of their activity differs, depending on the historical conditions. People, for example, can act without considering the social results of their activity and the laws are displayed spontaneously, behind their back, so to say. Under other historical conditions people can act consciously, seeking to achieve definite aims which follow from the interests of society's development, the interests of a class, and so on. In such cases they act as the makers of history not only objectively but also subjectively. When ever larger masses who work for progress become the subject of history this accelerates mankind's development.
We must further qualify what we understand as conscious activity. In a certain sense all activity of people who pursue a definite aim may be regarded as conscious. Men differ from animals by acting consciously, setting themselves a definite aim in advance. The labour process is a purposeful activity in which a result is attained that originated in the mind of the worker as his conscious aim, i.e., as an idea. But whereas the production process for each labourer is a conscious action, for society as a whole production carried on by thousands and millions of producers operating on the lines of private property, is an uncontrollable process.
Consequently, the indisputable fact that people in social life act as conscious beings, endowed with will and mind, _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 32, p. 478.
29 does not at all mean thai their entire activity in history is conscious. Material goods are always produced by people who, pursuing their aims, act as conscious beings. But for society productive activity becomes conscious only when society as a whole and not only a separate individual consciously subordinates production to a definite aim. It is clear, therefore, that in social development consciousness must be regarded from the angle of social and not individual consciousness. Conscious activity in history is one which meets not only the individual aims of the people participating in it, but also the common aims of the members of the given class or society. It goes without saying that the degree of consciousness of people who make history may be quite diverse. Not only the movement of various classes, but also the actions of a single class at different stages of its history differ considerably in terms of consciousness.Conscious activity does not necessarily imply scientific understanding of the laws and processes of social development. Otherwise it would be necessary to hold that before the birth of Marxism and Marxist parties there was no conscious activity in history in general. Yet, although the laws of social development had not been cognised, radical changes in the relations of production, prepared by the spontaneous development of the productive forces, were consciously effected in the past, too. The new state system introduced by revolution exerted great influence on the development of the economy.
Nikolai Mikhailovsky, an ideologist of Narodism in Russia, stated that European life was shaped as spontaneously as the flow of a river which ``washes away everything it can, be it a diamond field, skirts everything it cannot wash away, even a dunghill. Locks, dams, by-pass and derivative channels are arranged by the human mind and emotions. This reason and this sentiment, it may be said, were not present when, the contemporary economic system arose in Europe. They were in the embryonic stage and their influence on the natural, spontaneous course of events was negligible."^^1^^
Lenin criticised Mikhailovsky's allegation that the _-_-_
~^^1^^ N. Mikhailovsky, Works, Russ. ed., Vol. II, p. 90.
30 conscious influence of people on the ``course of events" was negligible. ``People in sound mind and judgement,'' Lenin wrote, ``then erected extremely well-made sluices and dams, which forced the refractory peasant into the mainstream of capitalist exploitation; they created extremely artful by-pass channels of political and financial measures through which swept capitalist accumulation and capitalist expropriation that were not content with the action of economic laws alone."^^1^^ This conscious activity of people did not, however, eliminate the spontaneity of capitalism's economic laws. Political, financial and other measures merely facilitated, extended the scope of these laws which inexorably ruined the mass of small peasants and artisans and deepened the abyss between the poverty of the majority and the wealth of the minority.The trend, nature and forms of conscious activity can be quite diverse: they depend above all on who carries it on and in whose interests. But it always includes action by men who pursue definite social aims. This does not necessarily presuppose the knowledge of laws of social development. People can confine themselves to empirical understanding of the connection between social processes. Scientific understanding of the conditions and ways of transforming society implies a higher level of consciousness and is a prerequisite for the higher development of the subjective factor, which ultimately becomes an instrument for the systematic remaking of all social life in the interest of human progress.
Moreover, the subjective factor is not reduced to an understanding of definite historical tasks; this is not only consciousness. It also includes the organisation of people, needed for achieving these tasks. That is why the subjective factor includes, for example, all class organisations created to fight for the interests of the given class, first of all political parties, and all the weapons utilised by them in this struggle.
The boundaries between the objective conditions and the subjective factor are fluid. What in one context or in some historical circumstances may be put among the objective conditions, in another context or in different circumstances may come within the sphere of operation of the subjective factor.
_-_-_~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 1, p. 399
31The objective conditions are at times identified with social being, with society's material life. But such identification cannot be regarded as correct if one examines the development of society not as a whole, but its specific processes, for example, the maturing of a social revolution. The objective conditions of revolution are not only definite material prerequisites, i.e., an appropriate development of the productive forces which come into conflict with obsolete relations of production. For revolution to mature a whole set of objective conditions is needed, which Lenin called a revolutionary situation, namely, the ruling classes are unable to preserve their domination in an unchanged form, there is a crisis ``at the top''; the oppressed classes refuse to live in the old way, and so on.
By far not all the elements of a revolutionary situation relate to social being, to society's economic life. An important place among the elements of a revolutionary situation is held by changes in society's political life---a crisis of power and even changes in the consciousness of the masses expressed in that ``the lower depths" do not want to live in the old way. Why should all these elements be put among the objective conditions of revolution? Because, as Lenin put it, their advent is ``independent of the will, not only of individual groups and parties, but even of individual classes".^^1^^
Consequently, the concept of objective conditions in the given case is broader than the concept of social being. It would be even broader if we were to study, for example, the process of moulding the personality. It is clear that the mind of man is moulded under the influence not only of economic relations but also of all other social relations he finds in life. The socio-political system, political and legal relations, for example, make up a very important part of the social environment in which man is moulded. This also includes a definite state of social consciousness and also the organisations which spread social ideas and views. In capitalist society, for example, the state machine, the ruling political parties, the press, radio, cinema, TV and the church exert great influence on the minds of people. And this influence (coupled with some other factors which retard the _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 214.
32 development of class consciousness, such as bribing by the bourgeoisie of the upper crust of the working class in a number of countries, and an increase in the labour bureaucracy) is so strong that to this day considerable sections of the working class in some capitalist countries are held captive by bourgeois ideology and lack of class consciousness.And so, as regards an individual or even social sections the entire social environment in which they live and work acts as the objective conditions moulding their consciousness.
These examples show that the concepts of objective conditions and the subjective factor are correlated, that they must be-examined in each case specifically and that their content is not something immutable. But regardless of how the content of these concepts changes, the objective conditions are always those which do not depend on the will and consciousness of the acting subject, whether that subject is all mankind or a separate nation, a certain class, party or, lastly, an individual.
Both the objective conditions and the subjective factor are shaped historically, in the course of society's development.
Moreover, the maturing of the objective conditions and the subjective factor needed for achieving definite historical tasks may proceed unevenly. Here there is no pre-set harmony. For example, the maturing of a revolutionary situation does not lead automatically to the shaping of the subjective factor and, therefore, not every revolutionary situation leads to a revolution and even less to its victory. ``It would be a mistake to think,'' Lenin said, ``that the revolutionary classes are invariably strong enough to effect a revolution whenever such a revolution has fully matured by virtue of the conditions of social and economic development. No, human society is not constituted so rationally or so `conveniently' for progressive elements. A revolution may be ripe, and yet the forces of its revolutionary creators may prove insufficient to carry it out....''^^1^^
What role in realising social changes is played by the objective conditions and the subjective factor? Generally speaking, the objective conditions play the determining role, inasmuch as they determine, first, the very necessity of accomplishing some historical tasks, and consequently, also _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 9, p. 368.
__PRINTERS_P_33_COMMENT__ 3---2732 33 the trend of men's activity and, second, the real possibility for accomplishing these tasks.Marx formulated the profound idea that mankind always sets itself only such tasks which it is able to accomplish because, on closer scrutiny, it always turns out that the task itself arises only when the material conditions for coping with it already exist or at least are in the making. It goes without saying that we refer here not to problems which may be suggested to a man by his imagination, but to the tasks objectively set before mankind by the course of historical development. People become aware of such tasks only when the objective conditions for realising them have appeared or are emerging in life itself; without this they simply could not arise.
Consequently, in the final count the objective conditions also determine the development of the subjective factor needed for achieving historical tasks because the latter is shaped as a reflection of the ripe requirements of society's development. But the subjective factor possesses relative independence and hence a non-conformity between the development of the objective conditions and the subjective side is possible.
If the objective conditions for a revolution are lacking, no efforts by revolutionaries can bring it about and no revolutionary energy can remake society. But if the objective conditions are available, the fate of a revolution depends on the subjective factor, i.e., on the energy of the fighting classes, the exertion of their energies and their ability to wage the struggle. Thus, the subjective factor can play the decisive part, not in general and not under any historical conditions, but only when the objective conditions for the transformation of society have already matured. In such a case victory or defeat may decisively depend on how united and organised the masses are, how ably and with what determination the revolutionary party acts, how capable it is of leading the masses and uniting them in a political army.
The opponents of Marxism-Leninism often perceive a contradiction between recognition of the determining significance of the objective conditions in society's development and the assertion that the subjective factor can be decisive. But, recognising the decisive role of the subjective factor 34 when the necessary objective conditions are available, Marxism-Leninism does not deny its own materialist principles; on the contrary, it fully relies on them.
The subjective factor is important in history because realisation of the possibilities created by the objective conditions depends upon it. These possibilities are not realised automatically, but only through the struggle of people for their aims. That is why the conscious activity of people exerts tremendous influence on the acceleration or slowing down of progress, and influences the periods required for solving historical problems. In a class society, the carrying out of -mature social changes depends on the struggle of classes in which a big part is played by correct understanding by the advanced classes and parties of their tasks, the degree of their organisation and their revolutionary energy.
It is also necessary to bear in mind that the results of the activity of people---whether it is conscious or not---always become one of the objective conditions of society's further development. On reading Hegel's Science of Logic, Lenin noted that ``the thought of the ideal passing into the real is profound: very important for history".^^1^^
The building of socialism furnishes an example of the ideal passing into the real: socialism which formerly was an idea, the aim of the proletariat's struggle, is achieved and in consequence becomes an objective condition for the further development of society, for its advance to communism.
The thought of the ideal passing into the real, as Lenin pointed out, is directed against vulgar materialism which belittles the significance of the subjective factor and its effective role in society's progress. Vulgar materialism underlies various theories of ``spontaneity'' which picture the development of society as an automatic, predetermined process. Lenin vigorously attacked such theories. The great importance he attached to a precise definition of the role of the subjective factor is indicated by his correction to an article written by V. Vorovsky in 1905. This article stated: ''. .. This 'organisation in a class' is not something arbitrary, divorced from life; no, Social Democracy here, as in its entire activity can merely [adapt itself to the spontaneous historical process] . . . thus illumining and shortening the _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 38, p. 114.
__PRINTERS_P_35_COMMENT__ 3* 35 road the proletariat has to traverse."^^1^^ Instead of the words in brackets ``adapt itself to the spontaneous historical process" Lenin wrote: ``guide the spontaneous historical process'', which defines much more precisely the role of the subjective factor.The ``spontaneity'' theory was preached in different variants by ideologists of the Second International, Russian Economists and Mensheviks, Right opportunists, and others. At present it is also advocated by people who picture the transition from capitalism to socialism as a spontaneous process of ``transforming'' society. The spontaneous maturing of material prerequisites for socialism within the bounds of capitalism is identified by them with the transformation of capitalist into socialist society. In contrast to the former it cannot occur spontaneously, but demands the conscious revolutionary struggle of society's progressive forces, headed by the working class.
While vulgar materialist views which belittle the role of the conscious activity and organisation of classes form the methodological basis of Right opportunism, subjectivism, which ignores the determining role of the objective conditions in society's development represents the methodological basis of ``Left'' opportunism. Subjectivism ascribes a decisive role in history to the revolutionary will and to the subjective factor regardless of the objective conditions. Such is the position of petty-bourgeois revolutionaries--- anarchists, Blanquists, Bakuninists, and also ultra-``Left'' elements in the communist movement. This position leads to adventurism in politics, to attempts, for example, to rouse the masses for revolution in the absence of a revolutionary situation, attempts which doom the revolutionaries to defeat. ``Left'' opportunism pushes a Communist Party onto the road of sectarianism, divorces it from the masses and time and again substitutes actions by a group of conspirators for struggle by the masses.
A policy is scientifically based only when it relies on a proper understanding of the relationship between the objective conditions and the subjective factor, recognises the determining significance of the objective conditions, and at the same time takes into consideration the tremendous role _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin Miscellany XXVI, Russ. ed., p. 342.
36 of the subjective factor which is capable, given the objective conditions, to play the decisive part in effecting historically ripe changes. A divorce of the objective conditions from the subjective factor, a gap between these two sides of the historical process, inevitably leads either to Right or to ``Left'' opportunism. __ALPHA_LVL2__ 2. Relationship Between the Objective ConditionsThe general propositions about the relationship of the objective conditions and the subjective factor also fully apply to socialist society. But under socialism this relationship is marked by a number of distinctions, above all, the enhanced role of the subjective factor.
In socialist conditions, the subjective factor is formed from the conscious and constructive endeavour of the masses, the leadership of Party, governmental and other organisations called upon to head the masses and organise their efforts in building communism. Under socialism, the enhanced role of the subjective factor is expressed in the fact that the activity of the masses rises tremendously, the number of active participants in the building of the new society grows considerably and at the same time conscious leadership of the masses by the Party and the state acquires still greater significance.
The role of the subjective factor under socialism is raised above all by the change in the nature of economic development and in the relationship between spontaneity and conscious activity.
The development of the economy was spontaneous in presocialist societies. Naturally, in those socio-economic formations, too, each individual producer pursued definite aims in his daily productive activity and in this sense he acted consciously. But the progress of the economy as a whole, resulting from the activity of many producers, proceeded spontaneously and was not subordinated to the conscious control of society. This is above all explained by the fact that in all modes of production before socialism, the development of the productive forces was subordinated to 37 immediate aims and interests. Because of the objective conditions of their life people could not ponder over the more remote social consequences of their actions and take them into consideration; their calculations and aims were confined to their immediate interests. Moreover, in societies founded on private property, the interests and actions of people clashed, ran counter to each other and the result of their actions was frequently unexpected for the people themselves. Although in critical periods of history the break-up of old production relations and the introduction of new ones came as a result of conscious struggle of advanced classes, the economic development of society as a whole remained subordinate to spontaneous forces uncontrolled by people. ``If ... we apply this measure to human history, to that of even the most developed peoples of the present day,'' Engels wrote, ``we find that there still exists here a colossal disproportion between the proposed aims and the results arrived at, that unforeseen effects predominate and that the uncontrolled forces are far more powerful than those set into motion according to plan."^^1^^ This cannot be otherwise, Engels stressed, as long as social production is subordinate to the blind play of spontaneous forces, as long as capitalist relations of production are preserved, which make the anarchy of production, crises, and the domination of the product over the producer inevitable.
Life naturally also impels capitalism forward, forces it to adapt itself to the tremendous growth of the productive forces. In present-day conditions state-monopoly capitalism introduces some elements of conscious regulation into the economy. Even Engels, in the last years of his life, noted, in connection with the appearance of trusts, that capitalism must not be regarded in the old way, that one could not continue to define capitalism as a system of production lacking planning. ``This is now out of date; once there are trusts, there can no longer be lack of planning.'' Expressing in these words Engels's idea, Lenin stressed that in the 20th century the development of capitalism went even farther, that a transition was under way from monopoly in general to state monopoly.^^2^^ In conditions of state-monopoly _-_-_
~^^1^^ F. Engels, Dialectics of Nature, Moscow, 1966, pp. 34--35.
~^^2^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 24, p. 240. See also Marx/Engels, Werkc, Berlin, 1963, S. 231--32.
38 capitalism, the tremendous growth of the productive forces dictates a certain regulation of production. Not only particular measures for regulating economic growth, but entire economic programmes designed for more or less long periods are being applied in certain West European capitalist countries and in Japan. It cannot be denied that with the help of ``economic programming" the bourgeois state succeeds in influencing the economy and its trends. Although the state redistributes through the budget a considerable part of the national income (about one-third in most imperialist countries) and makes substantial investments, no `` economic programming" can eliminate the spontaneous nature of the capitalist economy as a whole, abolish crises and uneven economic growth. State programming is effected on the basis of agreements by the government and the biggest monopolies but is not binding on the latter: it is of an indicative (i.e., recommendatory) nature. The monopolies accept the recommendations, in so far as they meet their interests. The situation cannot be different as long as production remains capitalist and its aim is to extract profit. Capitalist programming, effected in the interest of the monopolies, ultimately further aggravates the antagonism between the social nature of production and the private capitalist form of appropriation; it cannot save doomed capitalism.The founders of Marxism foresaw the need for abolishing capitalist relations and replacing them by socialist relations requiring the planned, balanced organisation of all social production. They scientifically outlined the main features of future society: abolition of private property and the establishment of social property in the means of production, abolition of the exploitation of man by man and subordination of social production to satisfying the needs of the whole society. In these new social conditions, people for the first time gain the opportunity to subjugate the spontaneous forces which up to now have predominated. Subordination of production to society's interests enables people to consider not only the immediate but also the more remote social consequences of their productive activity. Social ownership of the means of production unites people and prevents antagonistic clashes of their interests. All this turns economic development into a purposeful process in which the results needed by people are increasingly attained.
39The new element, consequently, is that social ownership of the means of production enables socialist society to act as a single entity. It has neither private owners whose interests clash, nor opposing classes. The conflicting aspirations of people resulting in a fundamental divergence between the aims and consequences of their actions, which is characteristic of preceding societies, under socialism are replaced by a new type of relationship between class and personal interests, between the actions of people and their consequences. The aspirations and actions of men coincide in the main and the entire people are united around a common goal in a society where there is socio-political and ideological unity.
This naturally rules out neither contradictions between the particular, non-basic interests of various groups of people nor aspirations which run counter to the general advance of society towards communism. They cannot be avoided, because some social distinctions inherited from class society are preserved in the first phase of communism: because the carriers of survivals of capitalism exist and, lastly, because there are conservative people who, owing to their allegiance to the old or interest in preserving it, hamper society's development. We must also bear in mind that not all members of society are at once drawn into the conscious endeavour of tackling the common tasks of building communism.
But the main characteristic of socialism is that social progress is achieved not as a result of the clash of contending classes, but as a result of the co-operation of all social groups and the pooling of their efforts. This means that the entire people become the subject of history, inasmuch as they consciously accomplish historical tasks facing society. It is this stage of society's development that is ``the beginning of a rapid, genuine, truly mass forward movement, embracing first the majority and then the whole of the population, in all spheres of public and private life".^^1^^
Consequently, the sphere of the subjective factor is extended in socialist socidty. It encompasses not only the leading forces of society, first of all the Party and the _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 25, p. 472.
40 socialist state, but also the entire mass of the people who act as the conscious builders of the new society.Under socialism, the role of the subjective factor also rises because of the distinctions of its political system. Before the victory of the socialist revolution state power was held by the classes hostile to the proletariat and state activity that affected the proletariat was a factor that did not depend on its will. But with the winning of political power by the proletariat, the activity of the state and the employment of instruments of power becomes an important subjective factor in coping with the tasks of the socialist revolution. The majority of the working people headed by the working class are the subject of socialist transformations. They acquire in the socialist state an instrument of unprecedented force for influencing the course of historical development.
Thanks to all this, the subjective factor gains a new function, without parallel in history, namely, to direct society's development consciously, in conformity with the available objective conditions and objective laws operating under socialism.
Political relations, culture and the very foundation of society's life, the economy, become the object of conscious endeavour. Under socialism, too, the productive activity of people remains a sphere of the objective making of history, inasmuch as the production of material goods is, as before, an economic necessity. But in this sphere, too, the subjective factor acquires a special role, because the results of economic construction largely depend on the consciousness of the masses, on guidance of the economy.
The building of socialism is from the very beginning of the socialist revolution a process of conscious and organised work by the masses to develop the productive forces and to remake economic relations through the socialisation of the means of production (nationalisation of industry, transport and the banks, organisation of co-operatives in agriculture and the crafts, and so on).
The building of socialism is at the same time a process of subordinating the spontaneous elements and tendencies of economic growth to single state guidance. This task was accomplished in the Soviet Union in bitter struggle between the forces of the organised working class and the classes 41 opposing it, between the socialist sector of the economy which developed according to plan and the capitalist sector of the economy which tried to foil socialist construction, utilising for this purpose petty-bourgeois elements.
Economic development, which under the domination of private property was spontaneous, becomes a consciously directed, planned process when social property gains dominance.
Does this mean that under socialism the relationship of the objective conditions and the subjective factor radically changes so that the determining role is played by the subjective factor and not by the objective conditions? No, such a view would be wrong. What changes radically is not the relationship between the objective and the subjective, but the relationship between the spontaneous and the conscious elements. Society is becoming a consciously directed whole which subjugates the spontaneous forces that dominated people in preceding societies.
The objective is not tantamount to the spontaneous. Under socialism, the concept of the objective preserves the same meaning as before: it denotes that which exists outside, and is independent of, the consciousness of men and is not determined by their will and mind. The spontaneous denotes that which is not controlled by people, is not subordinate to their will, but on the contrary dominates them.
History shows that the confusion of these concepts leads to class mistakes in understanding the development of socialist society. Some men, recognising the objective determination of socialist society's development, regarded this as a spontaneous process and thus arrived at the ``automatic flow" theory, which is profoundly inimical to socialism. Other men, regarding socialist society's development as a consciously directed process, denied on these grounds the objective nature of its laws and thus slipped into the position of subjectivism, which leads to adventurism in economic policy. Both these views have nothing in common with the scientific understanding of socialist society's progress.
The transition to socialism widely extends the bounds of men's conscious activity and changes the nature of operation of economic laws. Socialism's intrinsic economic laws fundamentally differ from the laws of capitalism both in their content and nature, because these laws express new 42 relations of production, relations of comradely mutual cooperation and socialist mutual assistance of people free from exploitation. Socialism's economic laws, which are just as objective and independent of men's will and consciousness as the economic laws of capitalism, are no longer spontaneous laws. Whereas under capitalism the means of production and labour are distributed between sectors of the economy spontaneously, through the mechanism of the laws of competition and anarchy of production, the average rate of profit, and so on, under socialism the means of production and labour are distributed among sectors by society consciously, in accordance with the requirements of the law of planned, proportional development of the economy, the basic economic law and other economic laws of socialism.
That under socialism economic laws operate differently is explained not only by the fact that men comprehend these laws and utilise them in their economic activity. Of course, knowledge of objective laws and their practical application are a prerequisite for curbing the spontaneous forces and subjugating them to man's control. But the possibilities of the planned use of laws and the mechanism of their operation are themselves determined by the objective conditions of the life of the people. Even the most exhaustive knowledge of capitalism's economic laws cannot eliminate the spontaneity of their operation. The development of the national economy ceases to be a spontaneous process only with the abolition of private property, when the economic laws of capitalism, which express the relations of private commodity producers, are replaced by new economic laws, the laws of socialism, which express the relations of producers united by social ownership of the means of production. Consequently, the objective conditions for subjugating the spontaneous forces of economic development by society are the establishment of social property in the means of production.
The triumph of the planning principle, naturally, does not mean that under socialism the spontaneous forces and tendencies in the economy have been fully abolished. They still make themselves felt. Some sectors of the economy (especially agriculture) are to a certain extent affected by the spontaneous forces of nature which society at the attained level of the productive forces is as yet unable to 43 subjugate fully to its control. Spontaneous elements also exist in economic relations owing to the presence of an unorganised market in which prices fluctuate. Privateownership tendencies, displayed in the actions of some people, the survivals of capitalism in men's minds, mores and way of life hinder the conscious, purposeful advance of socialist society towards communism.
Spontaneity, however, is engendered not only by objective but also by subjective reasons. It can also be caused by the activity of the subjective factor, if people inadequately consider the objective conditions in which they live, and do not reckon with the demands of economic laws. Their planned, conscious use by society is a form of their operation under socialism and communism. But when people disregard their demands, the operation of these laws results in spontaneous, undesirable consequences. Moreover, the results of their activity do not conform to the aims people set themselves. For example, subjectivism, displayed at one time in guiding Soviet agriculture, gave rise to numerous consequences which adversely affected its development.
By and large, spontaneity of social development is eliminated under socialism, but its objective determination naturally remains. The concept of the objective embraces here also such connections and relations which are established consciously. For example, in determining the concrete tasks of socialist and communist construction it is necessary to proceed from the objectively existing level of development of the productive forces. In contrast to the earlier formations, under socialism this level is not merely a result of spontaneous economic growth; it embodies not only what has been inherited from preceding societies, but also the results of the conscious effort of the people to develop the socialist economy. But all this does not alter the fact that each successive stage in the development of socialist society is objectively determined by the preceding one. This determination does not depend on man's will.
Socialist society is arranging and changing its economic relations consciously, which, however, does not deprive them of their objective nature, just as, let us say, the development by chemists of synthetic materials with pre-determined properties does not abolish the laws of chemical compounds. Socialist relations of production are established not 44 arbitrarily, but in conformity with the existing productive forces. The connection between the level of the productive forces and the state of the production relations is an objectively necessary connection which exists outside men's minds and independently of their will. That is why under socialism, too, the difference between material relations (which above all include economic relations) and ideological relations is not eliminated.
Material social relations are established by men who act individually as conscious beings and at the same time ``independent of the social consciousness of people".^^1^^ In Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, from which this quotation is taken, Lenin demonstrates that the criterion of the materiality of social relations is their lack of dependence on social consciousness. Relations of production are shaped independently of social consciousness as a form of the material productive forces used for maintaining the life of people, and they exist objectively, regardless of whether people are aware of it or not.
The criterion of the materiality of social relations is also fully applicable to socialist relations of production. Under socialism, too, these relations, just as social being as a whole, exist objectively, independent of social consciousness and the will and wishes of men. Whether men want it or not, they face definite living conditions which are the result of society's preceding development. Before changing these conditions they are forced to adapt themselves to them.
In the period of building socialism, spontaneous market forces are replaced by the conscious, constructive work ``of setting up an extremely intricate and delicate system of new organisational relationships extending to the planned production and distribution of the goods required for the existence of tens of millions of people".^^2^^ But people do not establish these relations ``from scratch'', so to say. They find definite productive forces and relations of production which have arisen on their basis. These relations can be consciously changed in the direction suggested by the development of the productive forces, but they cannot be established arbitrarily or organised anew at will, disregarding _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 14, p. 325.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 27, p. 241.
45 the objective conditions. Attempts to do so inevitably bring on serious failures and miscalculations which harm society.More than that, although society foresees the main trend of the change in relations of production and acts accordingly, it cannot foresee all social consequences of its productive activity: life will always produce something new. People do not become at once aware of the need to make some change in the relations of production. They become aware of this only when in their practical activity they encounter sufficiently ripe contradictions in life. But the latter arise, without passing through the minds of men. ``Life proceeds by contradictions,'' Lenin pointed out, ``and living contradictions are so much richer, more varied and deeper in content than they may seem at first sight to a man's mind."^^1^^ This dialectical proposition preserves its full force in socialist society, too.
Hence, the need to study life carefully so as to discern the birth of contradictions and take measures for resolving them in good time.
Account must also be taken of the differing levels of social consciousness in socialist society. The highest level is represented by the consciousness of the Party which scientifically analyses and guides society's development. But there still remains the difference in the level of the consciousness of the Party and the entire mass of the people. In socialist society, too, not every producer, entering into relations of production, is aware of the nature of these relations and their development trends. Many people first enter these relations because they are prompted to do so by vital necessity and only then become more or less aware of their social nature. That is why work at a socialist enterprise becomes for them also a school where they learn to understand social life. The Party gradually elevates the level of the people's daily consciousness to the level of its scientific consciousness. At the same time the Party and its leaders rely on the experience of the masses who, as a rule, are the first to encounter in life the maturing contradictions, look for ways to resolve them, display their initiative and thereby accumulate valuable experience which has to be analysed and summed up by the Party leadership.
_-_-_~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 34, p. 403.
46It is necessary, finally, to differentiate between an understanding of the prospects of social development, which is inherent in the conscious builders of communism, and a scientific analysis of the processes of social development which under socialism, too, requires the summing up of a vast amount of materials and penetration into the essence of phenomena and remains a function of science. This science is mastered by many people, but this does not yet obliterate the boundary between scientific thought and practical activity.
And so, social consciousness is not identical with social being under socialism either. There can be no such identity because, first, social being remains primary and independent of social consciousness and, second, social consciousness, being a reflection of social being, never encompasses it fully.
Socialist consciousness is capable of exerting active influence on social being, but within the bounds determined by being itself and to the extent to which it properly visualises the trends of the former's development. The more precisely the objective conditions are considered and their trends are ascertained, the greater the opportunities people have for purposefully changing the conditions of their being. This also determines the demands socialist society makes on social consciousness and the subjective factor as a whole.
The enhanced role of the subjective factor under socialism is determined by the objective conditions themselves; it follows, as pointed out earlier, above all from the nature of the economic system of socialism which, based on social property, requires the united, collective actions of people and cannot be developed by disunited producers. But to concentrate their efforts on one goal and guide the intricate work of building the new society, the Party has to rely on a scientific analysis of the laws governing social development and of the objective situation.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 3. Scientific GuidanceThe role of the subjective factor in socialist society is above all a matter of utilising the potentialities of socialist relations for developing the productive forces and advancing the economy and culture.
47Under socialism, as in any other society, people have to reckon with the objective conditions. To ignore the objective conditions would mean to take an adventurist stand that would be disastrous. Conscious guidance of social development does not release men from the need to take into account the achieved level of the productive forces; on the contrary, it demands an even more precise consideration. It opens up the possibility for accelerating society's progress, but it does not in any way allow the setting of its rate at will. The possibilities for advance are determined every time by the attained level of society's development which does not depend on men's wishes.
It would be wrong, for example, to think that by pooling all its forces society is capable of carrying out any plan whatever. The plan must reflect the demands of socialism's objective laws, properly express the requirements and real possibilities of the socialist economy. In cases where Soviet plans did not take exact account of these demands life dictated their readjustment.
In drafting plans not only the internal but also the external conditions must be considered. The objective conditions for the development of a country include the productive forces and production relations taken in their entirety, the natural conditions which affect economic growth and the international economic and political conditions in which the country finds itself. For example, the objective factors which the U.S.&.R. had to consider when building socialism included such an unfavourable condition as the fact that it was the only socialist country in the world, surrounded by hostile capitalist states. Among the external conditions in which socialism is being built today in the People's Democracies is the existence of the world capitalist system, which is hostile toward socialism, and also the existence of the world socialist system, which makes it easier for them to build socialism.
The capitalist world, which creates the danger of a military attack, is a factor that does not depend on the Soviet people's will and has affected the development of their state from its very birth. Let us recall that the wars imposed on the Soviet people by the imperialists and the restoration of the war-ravaged economy retarded peaceful construction for many years. The imperialists are also 48 seeking to impede the development of socialism and prevent it from demonstrating its advantages over capitalism by exacerbating the international situation and creating a war danger.
It goes without saying that in this sphere, too, much depends on the policy of the socialist states, for example, their ability to utilise in their own interests the contradictions between the imperialists, to avoid military conflicts, and so on. Moreover, as the forces of the world socialist system grow, it acquires greater possibilities for influencing the international situation and changing it in the interest of the people. But it is clear that not everything depends on the will and desire of the Soviet people and that they have to consider the actions of the aggressive forces of imperialism and to strengthen the country's defence potential so that it will not be caught unawares.
While the objective conditions for the development of socialist society and its potentialities do not depend on the will of men, the subjective factor, the will and energy of people, play a paramount part in translating these possibilities into reality. The potentialities inherent in the socialist economic system are not realised automatically. Their use demands, first of all, a correct policy; it is elaborated by the Communist Party by applying Marxist-Leninist theory in a creative spirit.
The C.P.S.U. considers the gradual development of socialism into communism as an objective law and shapes its policy accordingly. Only such an approach to the tasks of building communism is truly materialistic.
The building of communism in the Soviet Union is a fully feasible task, for which all objective possibilities are available. This, however, does not mean that all material prerequisites for coping with the big and intricate tasks of the transition to communism already exist in the U.S.S.R. They have to be created in the process of laying the material and technical foundation of communism. It is on building this basis that the solution of all other tasks depends, above all the improvement of socialist social relations and the moulding of the new man. In turn, the remoulding of the minds of men in the spirit of communism will help create the material and technical basis and shape communist social relations.
__PRINTERS_P_49_COMMENT__ 4---2732 49It is clear that the only policy that can be considered scientific and correct is that which takes into account the objective connections between the different tasks of communist construction and relies on the objective laws that do not depend on man's will and consciousness.
People infected with subjectivism see the mounting role of the subjective factor, but do not understand its dependence on the objective conditions, do not consider the point that the subjective factor can gain decisive importance not of itself but only on the basis of the existing objective conditions. They also do not see that the influence of the subjective factor can be effective and bring the expected results only if the objective conditions and real possibilities are thoroughly taken into account. Otherwise, the results of the operation of the subjective factor might be directly opposite of those expected and inflict great harm on society.
Under capitalism, economic management of an enterprise is the private affair of its owner: if he miscalculates, he may be ruined, but this cannot and does not affect society directly and at once. Under socialism, however, economic management includes all sectors on a nationwide scale and directly affects the interests of society. If planning agencies miscalculate, this to some extent affects the entire economy. It is clear that in this case centralised guidance of economic life and the planned introduction of management methods, which make up the great advantages of socialism, react against society and result in a waste of its resources. That is why mistakes in economic policy and subjectivism in guiding the national economy are so dangerous.
The untenability of subjectivism is displayed not only theoretically but also practically. Subjectivism in practice, for example, is manifested in attempts to disregard the law of value in fixing prices of goods, in ignoring the personal and collective interest in developing production. All manifestations of subjectivism are ultimately rooted in an unwillingness or inability to consider the objective conditions, in a desire to ``circumvent'' in one way or another the laws of social development, to act independently of these laws and contrary to them. But in such cases the laws always take ``revenge'', dooming subjectivist actions to failure.
Attempts to ignore objective laws do not release people from them and do not subordinate social development to 50 their will; on the contrary, they make men dependent upon spontaneous forces. Thus, attempts to set excessively high growth rates of production arbitrarily, without regard for the real possibilities, can actually slow it down, because they give rise to disproportions in economic life and upset the normal course of reproduction. Similarly, ignoring economic stimuli and unwillingness to consider them in fixing prices and wages lead to a lag of some sectors and can even retard growth. In a word, subjectivist illusions of being able to ``order'' anything at will actually increase the dependence of people on spontaneous forces.
One of these illusions which usually accompany subjectivism is that an extension of the sphere of centralised planning by itself enhances the role of the conscious element in society's development. Actually, however, such enhancement is not at all the same as increased centralism.
Real enhancement of the role of the conscious element in socialist economic development demands not only a sober account of objective possibilities but also the proper organisation of the people's effort aimed at realising these possibilities. Such an organisation is achieved by combining centralised planning and economic management with the broad stimulation of initiative from below. This dual task stems from the very nature of socialism. Based on largescale socialised production, socialism cannot develop without a centralised element and at the same time it is inconceivable without utilising the initiative of the people, and enlisting the masses in the management of production. Life taught the Soviet people, as Lenin noted, to combine these opposites. But they can be blended in different ways, resulting either in a disruption or harmony. This means specifically that at each stage of society's development it is necessary to find the proper measure for blending centralisation with independence and initiative from below.
Such a blending of opposites is also expressed in the very mechanism of social development under socialism: centralised setting of the main plan targets and major national economic proportions must be combined with granting enterprises a measure of definite economic independence, without which the genuine interest of the personnel in improving production and the stimulation of their initiative are impossible.
__PRINTERS_P_51_COMMENT__ 4* 51Excessive centralisation in planning, which aims to provide ``from above" for everything down to the minutest detail, does not signify actual reinforcement of the planned, conscious element in the economy. It fetters initiative from below, often infringes the interests of individual enterprises and links of the economy and thereby retards production. But similarly it would be wrong to think that the socialist economy can be developed by extending the operation of ``spontaneity'', for example, in the form of offering enterprises unlimited freedom on the market or renouncing centralised planning. To follow this path means to lose all the advantages of large-scale centralised production and to undermine the very foundations of the planned socialist economy.
Both mistakes stem from a common methodological basis ---ignoring a reasonable measure of combining centralisation with the independence of separate links in the economic machine. If this measure is neglected, any phenomenon may turn into its opposite.
The measure of combining centralism with independence and initiative from below is different at each stage of society's development and in various spheres of social life. It is clear that the degree of centralisation cannot be the same in guiding the economy or society's spiritual life, for example, art, or the sphere of society's political life as a whole and. in the organisation of its armed forces. Similarly clear is the dependence of this measure in each sphere of society's life on the attained level of development, on the internal and external situation.
The advance to communism does not imply a continuous growth of centralisation. As for the economic sphere, here two tendencies operate: on the one hand, the growing socialisation of production and rise in the importance of specialisation of sectors and their co-operation on a nationwide scale; on the other hand, the rising role of independence and initiative of enterprises in the planned socialist economy.
In this connection let us examine one more important aspect of the relationship between spontaneity and consciousness. We have discussed in the previous section elements of spontaneity which hamper development. From this it does not, however, follow, that all spontaneous phenomena 52 retard development. There are also spontaneous phenomena which express the birth of the new, attesting to its vitality. It would be wrong to assume that conscious leadership of socialist society's development means that everything new and progressive is introduced from above. As far back as the beginning of the October Revolution Lenin stressed that socialism is not created on orders from above, that bureaucratic automatic action is alien to its spirit. Socialism is created by the people themselves, for socialist society opens up the widest scope for initiative from below. The task of the leadership is to utilise in the interest of society all the initiatives and to set them fully into motion.
Communist society will be the most highly organised society in man's history. But this organisation can be attained not through petty regimentation of all the actions of people, not through the subordination of each step to the strictest centralisation. Such a system is unsuitable not only for communism but also, as demonstrated by experience, for socialism. Conscious guidance of social life, elaboration of scientific solutions of major problems of economic development will be combined with the daily customary activity of men who produce and distribute life's necessities and amenities.
Of interest in this respect is the statement of Marx in his notes on the Paris Commune that only the lengthy process of development of new conditions can replace the ``present spontaneous operation of the natural laws of capital and landed property" by the ``spontaneous operation of the laws of the social economics of free and associated labour. . .".^^1^^
What is the meaning of Marx's statement about the ``spontaneous operation of the laws of the social economics of free and associated labour"? Does it mean that the economic laws of communism will operate blindly, spontaneously, like the economic laws of capitalism? Of course not. Marx evidently had in view something else. As communist relations attain definite maturity, they, just as the relations of people in other social formations, are consolidated, become customary and reproduce themselves. Moreover, in contrast to the preceding formations, under communism the `` _-_-_
~^^1^^ Marx-Engels Archives, Russ. ed., Vol. 3 (VIII), Moscow, p. 335.
53 spontaneous operation of the laws of the social economics of free and associated labour" signifies the disappearance of the need for state regimentation of the actions of people, for whom the observance of the rules of communist society will become customary, something taken for granted. The need will be obviated of compelling people to observe the rules of communist society, they will become customary and will be observed without any special coercive means. This signifies that communist society will gradually and increasingly turn into a self-regulating organism in which the operation of economic laws will become customary and will not arouse resistance. The forms of guiding society's development will correspondingly change. Under communism, this guidance will not vanish but will merely lose its political nature and rise to a higher level.Elementary, daily forms of people's activity will no longer be the object of guidance, because they will become a habit and will be performed automatically. But the solution of fundamental problems of society's development, naturally, will remain the object of conscious regulation.
Similarly, the operation of the economic laws of socialism and communism, consolidated in daily practical activity, does not mean that all processes of economic growth can take place automatically. The basic proportions of social reproduction are set by society in advance; without this, planned operation of the economy is inconceivable.
In the first phase of communism, when commodity-money relations exist and distribution according to work prevails, guidance of the economy requires both state control over the measure of labour and consumption and also attentive consideration of the interests of separate collectives of workers in order to combine their interests with the interests of the state as a whole.
If the subjective factor includes not only the guiding activity of the Party and the state but also the activity and initiative of the masses, there follows the need for combining centralisation, indispensable for a society founded on socialised production, with the wide development of local initiative and independence. To achieve this, definite operational independence must be given to enterprises and their personnel and they must effectively participate in planning production.
54The economic development plans of the U.S.S.R. demand the utmost development of the democratic principles of management and the consolidation and improvement of centralised planned guidance of the national economy. The new economic management system plays a big part in accomplishing these tasks. This system creates more favourable conditions for the rational use of the gigantic productive forces, for a swift rise in living standards and fuller scope for the advantages of the socialist system.
__*_*_*__The Soviet Union is now improving the scientific principles of guiding all economic and social affairs. Socialism for the first time in history creates conditions for the scientific guidance of society's development. These conditions are created above all by society's cognising the laws of its development and mastering the necessary instruments for their conscious use. The reciprocal connection between various sides of society's economic life appears here, as Marx put it, not as a blind law which is imposed on the people taking part in production, but as a ``law which, being understood and hence controlled by their common mind, brings the productive process under their joint control".^^1^^
But the clarity of socialist social relations does not mean that guidance of society's development becomes a simple matter. This is a very intricate affair, calling for profound study of the objective processes of society's development, elaboration of the most effective forms of mastering economic and social laws, creation of a flexible and smoothly functioning management system and selection of competent personnel capable of solving, with wisdom and statesmanship, problems raised by life.
Profound study of objective processes is the first requisite for scientific guidance of society's development. This demands objective, unbiased information. To have a correct picture of the state of affairs is the most elementary and at the same time the most essential requisite for taking proper decisions. Social investigations organised on a wide scale also can and should play a vital part in the study of _-_-_
~^^1^^ K. Marx, Capital, Vol. Ill, Moscow, 1966, p. 257.
55 objective processes. Without reliance on data of science, it is impossible to guide society's development in a scientiiic way.Reliable information is the first but certainly not the only requisite for scientific guidance. In socialist society, as in others, the essence of things does not lie on the surface; a deep analysis is needed to penetrate the substance of social processes, to reveal the interconnection of causes and effects. Otherwise it is impossible to find the answer to a single important question.
The scientific guidance of society's development requires both a proper appraisal of the present situation and the forecasting of trends in social development. This task acquires special importance thanks to the scientific and technological revolution. The increasing scale of production and the further socialisation of labour processes dictate the ever growing need for the prognostication of the social results of economic progress. The scientific and technological revolution witnesses the growing ties and interaction between changes in production and in the people's way of life, in their labour conditions and spiritual life. Science is becoming a direct productive force and penetrates all spheres of social life which is changing at an increasing speed. This being the case, the prognostication of social processes becomes the society's direct necessity. This is required by the increasing scale of applying natural resources, the greater population density, the growth of cities, urbanisation, etc. The prognostication of social processes is now in the limelight even in the capitalist countries. Under socialism, it is ever more important, for this system is built and develops on a conscious basis, on the basis of scientific plans. The choice of optimal variants of national economic development acquires special importance at the present stage of the socialist economy, when the people are tackling the tasks of intensification of social production and of maximum increase of its efficiency.
Any large practical task which confronts socialist society developing according to plan, whether it is a matter of growing cities or districts in cities, or the influence of automation on man, demands that account be taken of scientific data in order to make correct forecasts and produce the requisite recommendations for practice.
56After analysing the interconnection of phenomena, the question arises, how to influence their further development. Here different variants of action arc possible, from which the most effective must be chosen.
A scientific solution of problems demands an all-round account of all the circumstances, both advantageous and disadvantageous, while a subjectivist approach is confined to picking from the entire context one or another arbitrarily chosen favourable side. Hastiness and unreasonable decisions always accompany subjectivism.
The building of communism is an undertaking without precedent in history. It would be naive to think that in such a matter it would be possible to get along without exploratory moves, without testing various forms of organisation, without casting aside those that have proved unsuitable and improving the most expedient forms. Here wide scope is opened for social experimentation. Many questions cannot be decided at once, on a nationwide scale, without preliminary trial, experimenting and testing on a narrower scale. What makes social experiments important is that they offer the opportunity to weigh up and to try out different variants of action and thereby avoid unnecessary losses inevitable when decisions are taken hastily, without preliminary trial. Such experimentation, naturally, demands the participation of the working people themselves.
Study of the practical experience of the masses, proper evaluation of local initiative and dissemination of the best know-how make up an important element of scientific guidance of society. Lenin called for a thorough study of the shoots of the new, for testing how communistic they are and giving them every support. He foresaw that with the support of the Party and the socialist state the shoots of communism would not wither but develop and blossom into full communism. This is especially important now when communism is being built in the Soviet Union.
Scientific guidance of society's development also presupposes the proper organisation of administration, the efficient carrying out of adopted decisions and the involvement of the masses in this work. Such an approach is incompatible with spontaneity or with excessive centralism, and it is similarly incompatible with an ossified management system. 57 Application of Lenin's behests about the scientific organisation of management and the employment of the latest devices furnished by modern science and technology can play a significant part in this respect.
Proper organisation of the subjective factor must rule out the very possibility of any unjustified, voluntaristic decisions. Such decisions usually are a result not only of insufficient consideration of the objective conditions. They become possible wherever the principles of collective leadership and socialist democracy are violated and socialist legality is ignored. Scientific guidance of society's development is closely linked with the consistent application of the Leninist rules of Party life, with the further improvement and development of socialist democracy. The further improvement of the scientific principles for guiding society will contribute to the fuller use of the advantages of the socialist system.
The leadership of the Communist Party imparts to the entire work of building communism an organised, planned and scientifically-based character.
[58] __NUMERIC_LVL1__ Chapter II __ALPHA_LVL1__ ECONOMIC RELATIONS AND INTERESTSThe materialist understanding of the development of socialist society, just as of any other, is impossible without ascertaining the role and nature of the interests which prompt people to participate in history-making activity. A solution of this problem furnishes the key to discovering the real driving forces of the historical process.
As for idealists, they regard ideological motives as the decisive driving force of social development. Ideas and their spontaneous development are claimed to be the ultimate force of historical progress. Time and again the idealists counterpose lofty ideas to ``lowly'' interests. Such an antithesis is alien to the materialist understanding of history. In one of their early works Marx and Engels ironically remarked: ``The `idea' always disgraced itself insofar as it differed from the `interest'."^^1^^ Ideas which played a really important part in history and brought into action large masses never differed from interests, they always expressed real interests and needs of social life and were an ideological expression of social, class, national and similar interests. Thus, the materialist conception of history does not deny the significance of ideological motives in society's development, but it does not regard them as the prime cause of historical events; it ascertains the objective conditions which gave rise to them and also the interests created by these conditions and expressed in ideas.
The role of conscious activity of men and the importance of progressive ideas, moral stimuli to work, and so on, rise in socialist society. Communist consciousness which _-_-_
~^^1^^ K. Marx and F. Engels, The Holy Family, Moscow, 1956, p. 109.
59 spreads among the people is a mighty force accelerating the building of the new society. But we shall understand neither the driving forces of socialist society nor the real conditions for the moulding of communist consciousness itself if we ignore the significance of interests---social, collective, and personal---which prompt men actively to participate in building socialism and communism.Many mistakes in theory and in practical activity have stemmed from ignoring the interests of people. For example, attempts have been made to reduce the driving forces of socialist society primarily to those of a moral and political order or to make socialist and communist construction dependent solely on the enthusiasm of the people, to develop chiefly moral stimuli to work. This in fact has resulted in subjectivist neglect of the material interests of the working people. The building of the new society in the Soviet Union and other socialist countries indisputably demonstrates that proper guidance of this construction demands the ability soberly to consider the interests of the people, to find the correct measure of combining private interests with general interests and the degree of subordinating the personal interests to the general interests.
Many other theoretical questions arise in this connection, questions related to understanding the nature of interests, the conditions for their effective combination, and so on. Without solving these problems a scientific understanding of socialist society's development is impossible.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 1. Interest as a Sociological CategoryAppreciation of the role interests play in the development of society was the first step in the history of social thought toward a materialist understanding of history. We find an embryo of the materialist view of society, for example, in the thoughts of philosophers of antiquity (Democritus, Lucretius, and others) about the role of necessity in cognising and mastering the world around man and using the forces of nature in inventions and the creation of objects useful for pe