Theory of Quality of Life, a bourgeoisreformist conception -claiming that it is possible, under capitalism, to attain qualitatively new living standards for all strata of society as well as to satisfy their social and cultural requirements. Among the most outspoken advocates of this theory are Jay Forrester, Angus Campbell, Philip Converse and Willard Rodgers (USA), Wolfgang Bockeforde (West Germany), and Hans Reithofer (Austria). The appearance of this theory was objectively determined by the further aggravation of the general crisis of capitalism in the late 1960s and early 1970s, as well as by the consolidation of the world socialist economic system and the demonstration of the advantages offered by real socialism in all spheres of social life. The "quality of life" concept has become a standard feature of all the policy and election documents of many bourgeois and Social-Democratic parties, and an instrument for attaining their class objectives. Many theorists still offer different interpretations of the " quality of life" concept, both in content and volume. Some of them link the theory to the issue of environmental protection, others to the specific conditions and life styles of certain individuals, groups and social strata as a result of the current revolution in science and technology, while a third group treats it as state-sponsored social security measures, etc. Social-Democratic ideologists lump into this concept issues like environmental protection, better town planning and management, state policy in transport, public health and cultural policies, public involvement in management, etc. On the whole, the "quality of life" concept is treated as an integrated feature of the economic, political, social and ideological factors determining man’s position in modern bourgeois society, with special emphasis being made on cultural life. The ideological advocates of monopoly capital try to capitalise on the working people’s growing discontent with the existent situation, and, at the same time, try to prove that they can change their life under capitalism for the better, can gain access to production management, cultural wealth, etc. However, all the bourgeois and reformist theorists can be characterised by a narrow-class and non-scientific approach to attaining proclaimed goals, as well as the desire to perpetuate monopoly domination. In their writing they do not touch private property, which forms the foundation of bourgeois society. Moreover, they deem it necessary to undertake measures that will swell the number of propertyowners, thus encouraging the "productive property to be concentrated in the hands of hired workers”. This, in their opinion, would guarantee each worker genuine 370 participation in managing the affairs of his respective enterprise. Projects for establishing a society governed by the new " quality of life" concept are distinguished by their Utopian and non-scientific approach. Capitalism is said to possess the possibility of turning into a "society of high moral principles and culture" and of being oriented onto a high "quality of life”. The advocates of this theory insist that the value of non-material benefits (leisure time, sports, entertainment, etc.) will grow in importance, that people will be satisfied with "their own labour activities”, etc. None of its proponents, however, has yet been able to give a precise answer to how to attain the conditions of life and work worthy of human beings. Capitalist reality itself refutes the "quality of life" concept. Within bourgeois society there is a growing gap in living standards between the exploiter classes and the working people, the conditions of worK of hired workers continue to deteriorate, and genuine culture becomes increasingly out of reach for most of the people. Marxist theorists convincingly reveal the apologetic, class character of the "quality of life" concept and the real objectives of its proponents. While rejecting the bourgeois-reformist content of the theory of quality of life, they give an anti-monopoly thrust to the demand for qualitatively better living conditions for the working people. Besides, they link this demand with the revolutionary transformation of capitalist society and the establishment of the domination of socialist production relations. On the basis of public ownership of the means of production, a new quality of life for the working masses is created. It is different in principle from anything imaginable under capitalism, for there is no exploitation, and man is working for himself and his own society. The product belongs to the producer and his society and is distributed in their interest. Conditions, which ensure each man the right to work, have been created, and conscious and honest work for the benefit of society is recognised as the highest criterion of man’s worth and prestige. The development of social production is aimed at providing optimal material conditions and at moulding harmonious personality.