a) The Individual as a Product of Social Development

p Pre-Marxian sociologists failed to resolve the problem of the inter-relationships between society and the individual correctly: they either opposed one to the other or equated them. Modern subjective-idealist philosophy proclaims the individual to be the only social reality. As far as society is concerned, it is asserted to be a mechanical aggregate of separate individuals. Thus, for example, the modern US philosopher and sociologist Warner Fite asserts that only individuals are real and that only they have any importance, meaning that the individual denotes the type and direction of what is real, and that the only cognisable thing-in-itself is the individual.

The idealist interpretation of society’s life makes it impossible to define man’s essence. All pre-Marxian and modern idealist philosophers 494 tried to resolve it on the basis of the abstract “ideal man" devoid of any class identity and provided by nature with certain eternal and unchanging humanitarian qualities. There is no such thing, however, as the “ideal man" in isolation from society. The individual cannot be separated from society, for he grows, develops and is moulded within society which cannot but leave its imprint on him. “One cannot live in society and be free from society,” Lenin wrote.  [494•1  Society exerts a definite influence on the formation of the individual, but the type of society changes, of course, from one epoch to another, which means that the individual also changes and is characterised by the specific features of each epoch.

b) The Dialectics of the Interrelationship
Between Society and the Individual

p People in primitive society had their own specific features. The domination of collective labour on the basis of common ownership of the instruments of production brought about a situation when the objective and the intention of each member of the collective coincided with the interests of society as a whole. This unity of society and the individual is, however, primitive in nature, a result of the low level of development of the productive forces. This unity conditions the domination of the principle of collectivism in the consciousness of people in primitive society .These specific features bring about specific relations among 495 people that are typical of this society, as well as a definite organisation of the family and definite moral, religious and aesthetic views, together with other aspects characterising the individual in the society concerned.

p The emergence of antagonistic society with its division into irreconcilable classes contradicting each other in their relationship to the means of production and in their interests, leads to a situation where the interests of J:he individual clash with those of society as a whole. The opposing of the individual to society, whichis typical of all ^antagonistic social systems, cannot however be presented-as some bourgeois scholars do-in the form of the individual’s freedom from society’s influence. It is conditioned by the specific features of a class society, which gives rise to a growth of individualism to replace the collectivism of the primitive communal system.

p The influence of a class society on the formation and development of the individual manifests itself above all in the form of the influence exerted by the class to which he belongs, for since the economic and political position of the antagonistic classes is directly opposite, these influences are different.

p “Every individual,” Plekhanov wrote, “walks his own gait along the road of protest. However, where this road leads depends on the social environment of the protesting individual.”  [495•1 

p Due to the difference in the position of 496 antagonistic classes, the influence of society on members of different classes differs too. Nevertheless, people from the same socio-economic system have certain common features associated with their culture, customs and traditions. This is because people of one socio-economic system and epoch are united by the existing production relations; they mutually influence each other in one way or another, live in one society, in the same country with definite geographical and national features-a fact that cannot but affect the formation and development of the individual.

p The emergence of the new socialist order with socialist ownership of the means of production, the order characterised by relations of comradely cooperation and mutual assistance, leads to fundamentally different conditions for the formation of the individual and to new interrelationships between society and the individual. Socialist ownership of the means of production abolishes all grounds for social enmity, unifies the economic interests of people and consolidates their sociopolitical and ideological unity. The common goal of each individual and society—as a whole-the building of communism-leads to a genuine unity of the individual and society.

p This interrelationship between society and the individual differs radically not only from the relations of enmity typical of antagonistic systems, but also from the unity of social and personal interests that is a characteristic feature of the primitive-communal system. The latter, as we have seen, is an inevitable result of the extremely low 497 level of development of the productive forces, whereas the unity of society and the individual attained by socialism becomes a reality only as a result of a very high level of development of the productive forces.

p Socialism also signifies a new stage in the development of the individual himself. For the first time, society becomes interested monious ana ail-round development of all its members and seeks to create all the conditions required tor this.^ Naturally, this could not happen under the primitive-communal system, where the level of development of the productive forces was so low that it left no chance for the other sides of the individual besides his physique to develop. Neither can they develop under antagonistic systems where the opportunities for the individual to develop culturally, mentally and in other ways, exist only for a small privileged part of society, acquired through exploitation of the overwhelming majority of the population.

The unity of society and the individual under socialism does not, however, exclude contradictions between them. Ihese are brought aboutJbv jhe difficulties arising during the building of sojialism and communism, and hv fhp larr nf neople’s consciousness behind social being. This ex-

p only a few members of socialist society and, secz. ond, are successfully overcome i tho trnnrnf- of building communismT

p No matter how great the socialist gains are in the field of social equality, socialism cannot yet eradicate elements of inequality in different spheres of society’s life. Class distinctions still survive, of course, and they are revealed in the differences existing in socio-economic and cultural conditions, as well as in the disparate life-styles of town and country. Socialism, as Marx and Lenin pointed out, does not create complete equality in the distribution of consumer goods, and this results in the unequal material condition of members of socialist society and unequal opportunities for the cultural development of the individual.

Communism overcomes this deficiency of the socialist stage of development. A true social equality between people will be established in society as a result of the fusion of the two forms of socialist ownership into a single communist one, when the essential differences between the working class, the peasantry and the intelligentsia are overcome, and the communist principle of distribution in accordance with individual needs is put into effect. “Under communism,” the CPSU Programme says, “all people will have equal status in society, will stand in the same relation to the means of production, will enjoy equal conditions of work and distribution, and will actively participate in the management of public affairs. Harmonious relations will be established between the individual and society on the basis of the unity of public and personal interests.”  [498•1