Military Review

Communism - inevitable? What next?

72
I want to say in advance that I see some contradictions in my judgments. I also want to say that I am not a specialist in any of the areas I have touched. I decided to write this article after discussing the problem with some of my comrades.
Communism - inevitable? What next?


Marx spoke of the inevitability of communism. Let's try to prove it without taking advantage of the arguments of Marx himself (I think that it will not be very difficult for me personally to ignore Marxist arguments, because I did not read Marx’s works, which I publicly repent of) and assuming that communism will provide society with full equality, well or with a minimal degree of differentiation.

All probably heard that society in its development moves in a spiral, going through similar stages. That is, society stands at some position, then goes up to the antithesis, and then from this antithesis to antithesis of antithesis, which is similar to the initial thesis, but still differs from it (I remind you, this is not a circle, but a spiral). And now let's imagine this process in the form of a sine wave.

The blue dot is the communal-tribal system, the so-called “cave communism”.
The green dot is the slave system.
Yellow dot - feudalism (with the placement of feudalism and slavery, I personally still have questions so far, but suppose it is).
The orange dot is capitalism.
The red dot is communism.

That is, the first social formation of humanity carried equality in itself. Everyone lived in the same cave, ate equally well-prepared food, and so on. This was followed by the slave system in which the slave owner forced the slave to work, wild inequality, the need for a constant increase in the number of slaves (mainly by waging wars). Then came feudalism, in which peasants who had their own households with the means of production, albeit modest, worked for the feudal lord, giving him most of their output. Then came capitalism. Workers who do not have their own means of production (in this sense, the analogy with slavery), work for the owner of the enterprise, company. And they do not receive the manufactured products (again, the analogy with slavery). And one more analogy. Capitalism needs more and more new markets (probably, the slave system was doomed at the moment when the ancient civilization had the opportunity to expand, seizing new slaves, so it is possible that capitalism expects the same with the end of space for market expansion). Well, after capitalism, following logic, equality comes again. This time in the form of communism. In my opinion, we have already passed the point of capitalism and today we are moving up to communism (even if social processes do not speak about this, the technological base is quite well suited for this).
Separately, I would like to say about the relationship between communism and the primitive communal system. With the first, the general standard of living will be clearly higher than with the second. And since the sinusoid does not end with communism, in such a situation there will be the third, the fourth, and the fifth formation of equality ... And on each person will live better than on the previous one.

What will happen after communism?

It seems to me that if, before the advent of communism, we do not conquer a single planet, then during its time this will definitely happen. Human civilization needs more and more new resources, raw materials, energy sources, no matter how supporters of resource-saving technologies scream that economy is a “new resource”. For this we need new spaces. Even if we settle on the seabed and ocean surface, we still sooner or later occupy the entire space of this planet, so we will need to expand into space (and it is better to do this even before settling everything that is possible on Earth). And with any system we will come to the necessity of settling new planets, if we want to continue our real development. What was this ranting, I will tell later. It is still useful for further judgments.

I can’t imagine exactly what will happen after communism, so I’ll just assume. Suppose the next form of extreme injustice is biological inequality. Maybe it will be introduced by the “intermediate system” between communism and this inequality, or maybe it will appear as a result of the exploration of distant spaces and the natural evolution of human organisms in new conditions.

Let's think about what could be in the gap between communism and biological inequality. Consider a variant of meritocracy, noocracy (this is by no means a criticism of these forms of government). As technology becomes more complex, more and more qualified specialists will be required, who are likely to grow into a new elite, distinguishing themselves in a separate class and leading us to a new form of inequality. Based on this, we draw our sinusoid.

Purple dot - meritocracy \ noocracy.
The white dot is biological slavery.

Once again I want to note that this is only an assumption, and not an attempt to unequivocally approve something.

Biological inequality is at a more fundamental level than the inequality of the slave and slave owner (in this case, you can allow the situation when the first one would become the second and the second the first, for example, seized the slave population from some country, she held a response the war and the former slave-owners gave slave to their former slaves). Perhaps the following form of inequality will be fixed at the molecular or even atomic level. After the onset of biological inequality, society will hardly accept this and will strive to overcome it. To me, overcoming this inequality is seen in the development of technologies that make it possible to bring conditions on various cosmic bodies closer to those on earth (the body can relatively quickly adapt to the conditions in which it originally appeared). But in this case, we get a different schedule for the change of social formations.

Although the graph displays only two indicators, I cannot fail to include a third one here. The passage of time, the level of stratification of society and the standard of living. It can be seen that each formation of inequality will be increasingly unfair, fundamental. In this case, with each system that ensures equality, we will receive an ever higher standard of living. But again, this is just my reasoning.

Factors of movement from one formation to another.

Even in the slaveholding system, we noticed that he rested on the growth in the number of slaves, for which it was necessary to wage wars, develop new spaces. Successful wars required the growth of technology. A technically backward army will not defeat a technically advanced adversary, as if they did not shout about the opposite. The same is traced in capitalism. The current developed countries have sucked resources from their colonies (land development), on which the industrial revolution (technology development) was based. As we have traced, the transition to biological inequality will be caused by the development of new spaces already in space. The transition from biological inequality will be further caused by the development of technology (again: these are all just assumptions). In turn, the arrival of communism seems to me in the development of technology. Let's talk about its technological base, which is being formed today.

Communism involves the development of self-government, decentralization of political power, cooperation. This is where modern Internet and blockchain come into play, providing communication, data processing without a central server, data transfers, and so on. To meet the needs of people, following the slogan “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” an increase in labor productivity is required. And to such values, which are not reached until now. And again we see the formation of a base for this now and throughout the entire time since the beginning of the industrial revolution and even before it: raising the level of qualification and division of labor, automating production processes, introducing robots (which is popular now).

But, as we have already noted, the transition between formations requires the acquisition of new spaces. Maybe this is the key to answering the question of slowing down the development of the space industry? Although this is a departure to the side, I can not continue. Notice how quickly space technologies evolved in the sixties of the last century. These years began with the first suborbital flight, and ended with the landing of a man on the moon. Giant leap, huge. And then the flights to the moon stopped ... Honestly, if you follow this, I don’t understand why the Soviet leadership also covered the lunar program, but as an option you can attract the fact that there were no true communists in the top of the CPSU I personally do not really agree, but as an option come down.
Now the maskophiles (how can they not do PR) will probably start talking about the Mask-capitalist, who is about to make a colony on Mars. There are four options for how to explain this situation: a) The mask, secretly from everyone, is a communist; b) he does not understand that he is killing the system in which he exists; c) simply declares plans, not intending to execute them (such stories the American space program has already been at least once); d) all these arguments are wrong. At the same time I would like to say that in the end you still have to land on other celestial bodies. Whatever system is established on Earth.

Already, we are witnessing an acceleration in the development of scientific and technological progress, despite various constraints (such as, for example, as advocates of “intellectual property”). In the epoch of future conquests of outer space, it will be natural to observe more and more rapid exploration of spaces. It is logical to assume that we will move from the formation to the formation faster and faster (although, given that it will be necessary to overcome more and more distance on the schedule, the transition time may remain the same).

Although communism may be inevitable, it is clearly not the final formation, as his theorists said.

Again, these are just my assumptions. I do not claim the truth or the uniqueness of views.
Author:
72 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. The black
    The black 9 January 2018 11: 57
    +9
    Communism is a good thing, but only it is UTOPIA! (it’s like a perpetual motion machine - you will never create it, but you need to strive for it)
    1. iouris
      iouris 10 January 2018 12: 09
      0
      Quote: Black
      Communism is a good thing, but only it is UTOPIA!

      Three sources of scientific communism: English utopian socialism, classical English political economy, German philosophy.
    2. stas
      stas 11 January 2018 11: 48
      +3
      China is developing along the socialist path. Black you think that China is also a utopia.
      Utopia is Putin's capitalist thieves flea market, which is built by the Tsar in Russia.
      1. Lycan
        Lycan 11 January 2018 15: 27
        +2
        Quote: stas
        China is developing along the socialist path

        Well, not really. In one of the interviews with Semin, it became clear that the Chinese model (which has been developing wildly for the last ~ 15-20 years) is approaching a very unstable phase - and this: the consequence of the connection is capitalist. and socialist. of models.
        The conclusion is that the capitalist will survive from these two because of greater profitability, the active dissemination of selfish interests (including power) for individual communities and the "declaration of the inviolability of private property in China" (about the latest https: //www.svoboda. org / a / 384000.html).
        It’s difficult to judge about fluctuations in China’s GDP, but the fact that it is gradually but surely “falling into” the capitalist paradigm is a fact that has a lot of evidence in the network.
        Therein lies the problem of "retaining the socialist model of society", which the ideology of the communist path for later generations takes root much worse than a tangible chance to get hold of material wealth and the possibility of transferring to the heirs (if we abandon collectivism, socialist justice of access to the benefits of the state for all, etc.).
        > Communism is difficult and not everyone believes in it - here you have to constantly convince yourself without reason and work at a state-owned enterprise for a very average salary. And in the meantime, mediocre dictators, voluntarists, good-natured stagnators and outright traitors on the wages of third-party states can operate in power.
        > Capitalism - everything is real here, there are well-known millionaires who will confirm everything, the main thing is to probe the "pulse" of demand and promote the goods on the unoccupied market in time (+ currency speculation and affiliation with the authorities). And then - live in your penthouse with your harem in an ecological, beautiful and warm area.
        PS: Alas, for a society of justice it is required to maintain an unnatural, but guaranteeing equal access to benefits social model.
        1. stas
          stas 11 January 2018 15: 31
          +3
          In China, a mixed economy with a socialist system of government. If Humpback, EBN and Putin would have done it, then we would not have taken the place in the world in terms of GDP 67 now.
          But Putin did what he did and is no longer capable of anything, he is devoted to his dear friends, the oligarchs, and what he was taught by Sobchak and EBN.
          1. Lycan
            Lycan 11 January 2018 17: 22
            0
            Quote: stas
            In China, a mixed economy with a socialist system of government.

            I would like to believe in it, but such a system is not a credible decision ... Let's see, time will tell - what they have and how.
            Quote: stas
            If Humpback, EBN and Putin would have done that, we would not have taken 67th place in the world in terms of GDP now.

            There is an open question about Putin, but Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Yakovlev ... As we know, there are still so many “bright” personalities in history - Judah, Efialt, Brut, commander of the ROA Vlasov, head of the GlavUpKazVoysk of the Imperial Ministry of Germany, Krasnov.
      2. Svist
        Svist 14 January 2018 14: 32
        0
        "Utopia is Putin's capitalist thieves flea market, which is built by the Tsar in Russia" (C)
        Utopia is a pipe dream, a beautiful dream of the future. And now we have a terrible reality, oligarchism, lawlessness in one word. Gangster capitalism. IMHO.
    3. stas
      stas 11 January 2018 14: 22
      +5
      On March 18 the future of Russia is being decided, either the Thieves Capitalist Flea Market with a royal face or the Just Social Socialist Russia, we vote for the future of our children and grandchildren. Who does not want to continue to live with the thief-oligarchs whom DAMA creates all the legal cover for think - is this a bright future for Russia.
      1. freddyk
        freddyk 11 January 2018 18: 07
        +1
        Quote: stas
        On March 18, the future of Russia, or the Thieves Capitalist Flea Market with a royal face or the Just Social Socialist Russia, is decided.

        Analyzing many videos with the new president of Russia, I got the impression that he is Putin’s undeclared open successor. Putin is a patriot, whatever one may say, but he realized that he was at a dead end. And what a cunning he is, we know everything. I think Grudinin’s victory in the elections is Putin’s game.
        1. Svist
          Svist 14 January 2018 14: 39
          +1
          Oh, and the cunning fellow Putin! lol So, we will help the president in his multi-pathway and we’ll vote for his successor! wink
    4. zenion
      zenion 11 January 2018 18: 07
      0
      But he already was. Read the ancient philosophers of Greece.
  2. bober1982
    bober1982 9 January 2018 12: 00
    +7
    From the article I made only one conclusion - it was necessary at the time, of Marx, to send to the bottom of the sea, and the entire top of the CPSU, also at one time - to the moon.
    1. Bashibuzuk
      Bashibuzuk 9 January 2018 12: 34
      10
      But I didn’t make any conclusions.
      Of the three sinusoids with colored dots affixed, and the third is so unfolding in general - what conclusions can be drawn?
      Here, the unfolding sinusoid - at least it is clear that the stages between one formation and the other all become longer and longer.
      Although in real life - the stages are REDUCING. THOSE. the sine wave collapses. Directly! And the author does not even consider this option.
      Moreover, a sine wave is a primitive from a spinning spiral. And who proved that she was unfolding? It can also be collapsing. Or it behaves like this same sausage superimposed on a spiral.
      In general, one thing is clear - the author was happy to study trigonometry. And, probably, analytical geometry.
      In fact, ..... we will not survive. Before communism. Now we have grown to TransNacCorporations, the next step is a single Transmission. And then a stone's throw to neorabism, in the form of androids, zombies.
      In short, I advise the author to read R. Heinlein's "Friday (Freydy), which kills." Everything is very well painted there.
      1. bober1982
        bober1982 9 January 2018 12: 45
        +4
        Quote: Bashibuzuk
        In short, I advise the author to read R. Heinlein's "Friday (Freydy), which kills." Everything is very well painted there.

        Or you can recommend the author of the article to read O. Huxley's "Oh Brave New World", also competently and well-painted.
      2. CONTROL
        CONTROL 9 January 2018 12: 59
        +4
        Quote: Bashibuzuk
        Of the three sinusoids with colored dots affixed, and the third is so unfolding in general - what conclusions can be drawn?
        Here, the unfolding sinusoid - at least it is clear that the stages between one formation and the other all become longer and longer.
        Although in real life - the stages are REDUCING. THOSE. the sine wave collapses. Directly! And the author does not even consider this option.
        Moreover, a sine wave is a primitive from a spinning spiral. And who proved that she was unfolding?

        In terms of "quality of life and consumption" - an expanding sinusoid, in time - tapering to "collapse" ...
        In general - too speculative and simplistic! One should reckon with such an abundance of those who enter - and those who are brought in! - factors of influence, what - what a sinusoid!
        Example: - the extreme degree of "cyborgization" of mankind (a variant of the "matrix" of the Wachowski brothers ...), or the same thing - but with biogenetic modernizations of organisms that give different needs and different abilities, and do not level the population of "people-people" - but introducing non-competitive diversity into it, which does not exclude evolution and ... uh-uh ... hybridization? ...
        ... Or a variant of artificially created, "evolving" within itself in a closed cycle of pseudo-stability - according to "Everything is permitted" by A. and S. Abramovs ...
        ----------------------------
        ... or rolling into the Stone Age with nuclear batons in the hairy paws of neurogloditis ... and temples with synthesizers of grub, alcohol and drugs ... in general - ideal!
        1. groks
          groks 9 January 2018 14: 05
          +4
          Wachowski brothers
          Sisters.
          In the real version, we can assume that there will be two matrices. In the second, a golden billion will be foolish.
          1. CONTROL
            CONTROL 9 January 2018 14: 11
            +3
            Quote: groks
            Wachowski brothers
            Sisters.

            Now yes! (but the "sister" of them is only one?)
            In the real version, we can assume that there will be two matrices. In the second, a golden billion will be foolish.
            even three - the third "matrix" will serve the second and drain resources from the first! The classic pyramid - everything is as it should ...
          2. CONTROL
            CONTROL 9 January 2018 14: 17
            +1
            Quote: groks
            Wachowski brothers
            Sisters.

            ...Oh!
            Already - both? !!!
    2. Des10
      Des10 9 January 2018 12: 39
      +7
      Quote: bober1982
      From the article I made only one conclusion - it was necessary at the time, of Marx, to send to the bottom of the sea, and the entire top of the CPSU, also at one time - to the moon.

      Well, where would you be then? smile
      1. bober1982
        bober1982 9 January 2018 12: 58
        +6
        Quote: Des10
        Well, where would you be then?

        “Afonya, if you were offered a planet with any life, which one would you choose?”
        - Yes, where is the beer for free.
    3. iouris
      iouris 10 January 2018 12: 10
      +3
      Quote: bober1982
      had in due time

      Stay in your time and send ... Let us recall for clarity.
    4. stas
      stas 11 January 2018 14: 27
      +3
      beaver, this is where the hell are we, And China over the years under socialism has become a superpower. It is better to send our liberals in the economy beyond the boundaries of the solar galaxy.
      1. bober1982
        bober1982 11 January 2018 14: 38
        0
        There is a strong opinion that China is the leader of the liberal economy, that is, that Western economic model (predatory), and which is now experiencing great difficulties, it has exhausted itself and cannot continue this way - it will collapse.
        1. stas
          stas 11 January 2018 14: 46
          +2
          beaver, they told you in China that they would soon collapse. In China, a mixed economy with the political system of socialism. Over the past 20 years, China has been proving the advantage of the socialist system and its justice and sociality.

          So, your strong opinion is rejected by modern China.
          1. bober1982
            bober1982 11 January 2018 14: 55
            0
            I said about something else, that the liberal Western economic model is collapsing. And these are not my fantasies, I have read to others, and I agree with that.
            In my opinion, there is no socialism in China, and it didn’t exist. Maybe there was something like war communism under Mao, and now talking about their impending collapse would certainly be stupid, everyone will survive.
            1. stas
              stas 11 January 2018 15: 13
              +1
              beaver, your view of the curve about China's socialism. But if the thieves flea market that Putin is building continues in Russia, we cannot resist for a long time. The choice still has to be made, either capitalism or socialism. The main thing is that it would not be too late when the liver falls off.
              1. bober1982
                bober1982 11 January 2018 19: 35
                0
                There are many heresies of socialism, therefore there is such a crooked look at it, even mystical socialism.
                We speak different languages, we have a different concept of curvature, and therefore do not understand each other.
  3. Same lech
    Same lech 9 January 2018 12: 02
    +3
    Ha ... I believe that human society can slowly turn into a civilization of robots. Androids. Cyborgs ... and where is their place on this sinusoid ??? what
    1. your1970
      your1970 9 January 2018 12: 39
      +2
      Quote: The same LYOKHA
      into the civilization of robots. androids. cyborgs ..
      -and they have no needs (except for fresh firmware) -so they don’t have a place on the sine wave either
      1. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 10 January 2018 09: 31
        0
        How no need? And the new bodies? New deposits of resources, etc.?
  4. vlad007
    vlad007 9 January 2018 12: 44
    12
    It is difficult to comment on such articles - it is not clear what this is about.
    1. CONTROL
      CONTROL 9 January 2018 14: 12
      +3
      Quote: vlad007
      It is difficult to comment on such articles - it is not clear what this is about.

      ... studied!
      Successfully manage !!! and orderlies - not gu-gu ...
  5. sxfRipper
    sxfRipper 9 January 2018 12: 51
    +3
    since I have not read the works of Marx, in which I repent publicly
    Don’t repent - rare tyagomotin. Engels wrote much livelier and more interesting.
    And I recommend that you familiarize yourself with the work of Academician Vernadsky, as well as with Ivan Efremov’s novel “Bull Hour”.
  6. Spook
    Spook 9 January 2018 12: 53
    +5
    The cyclicity of the processes speaks only of the presence of reaction forces in the system, that’s all.
  7. Pushkar
    Pushkar 9 January 2018 14: 06
    0
    Interesting look. I like the article.
  8. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 9 January 2018 14: 27
    +3
    M-d-ah! The history of human civilization is depicted as a sinusoid .... time physics-inductor .. belay .Math historians ?! Mathematicians, historians ?! request Eat their mother! fool
    1. Boris55
      Boris55 9 January 2018 15: 06
      0
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      Eat their mother!

      You don’t know why in the 4 class children are taught natural science, in which all sciences are harmoniously present, and after that they are divided into different subjects and by the end of the educational process, “physicists” absolutely do not understand “lyrics”?
      1. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 10 January 2018 02: 51
        +2
        What interests you more: primary school education or “the specialized division of scientific disciplines aggravated during the development of civilization”?
        Although .... I have no desire to maintain a discussion on the topic of this article ... because this article did not arouse my interest. I have nothing against the author of the article (the pianist plays as he can ...) and he " the first ", who is trying to calculate the development of human civilization, society by" cosine sines "... and my" frivolous "cue concerns, first of all, not the author; but these" first "ones. The development of human civilization is determined by economic factors and arising on their basis, social ... And. generally, it’s stupid to call the primitive communal form of community wa "communism", albeit a "cave" ...
        1. Boris55
          Boris55 10 January 2018 07: 55
          0
          Quote: Nikolaevich I
          or "the specialized division of scientific disciplines aggravated during the development of civilization"?

          There is an answer to this question. What specialization leads to, A. Raikin also said: "Are there any complaints about buttons? No! Buttons are sewn tightly." We all felt this clearly when the vocational schools were liquidated in the 90 — there was nobody to build a house ... Until each of us sees and understands the whole picture of what is happening, we will dig from this pillar until lunchtime. So there will be someone who will tell whom, which specialized group what to do and will do for himself, for his managerial work, to charge an exorbitant price, because only he knows the final result of the work of everyone else ...
          The development of society depends on a culture that can suppress the development of everyone, forming only animal instincts in us, or vice versa - leading to the top, to new stages of progress. Everyone’s education in this matter is one of the most important factors. In the meantime, slaves are being brought up among us, a just society cannot be built. (Justice is not when equally divided, but when both drowned and dug)

          1. Nikolaevich I
            Nikolaevich I 10 January 2018 10: 14
            +1
            In some ways you are right ... but in some ways you are not! Education? But do you see the difference between education and education? You can cite as an example people with 2-3 university degrees, but "possessing" primeval ignorance!
            Culture? And what is culture? If you reread the works of writers of the past, then you can pay attention to paradoxical "things"! You can "meet" "literary heroes" with prosperity, with education, with "position"; but not "cultural" (that is, in fact, rude!) As the opposite ... in the same place I met examples when simple (necessary suppose-uneducated) peasants showed examples of high internal culture! Do you know the 10 commandments of God? Even an uneducated person (universities, technical schools, lyceums, gymnasiums, home tutors ...) can be a very cultured person if he keeps the commandments!
            Quote: Boris55
            So there will be someone who will tell whom, which specialized group what to do and will do for himself, for his managerial work, to charge an exorbitant price, because only he knows the final result of the work of everyone else ...

            Do you have something against Putin? Huh? Do not have? So against E.B.N. And what did we "have"? Or maybe we will cancel the foremen? After all, they also combine the functions of individual brigades into a "single whole"!
            Quote: Boris55
            Justice is not when equally divided, but when both drowned and buried)

            Well, here I, perhaps, agree with you! "Let's divide in fairness! No really ... let's be equally divided!" Do you adhere to the same principle with your “near and dear ones”? wink
            1. Boris55
              Boris55 10 January 2018 11: 48
              0
              Quote: Nikolaevich I
              You can cite as an example people who have 2-3 university diplomas, but "possessing" primeval ignorance!

              I agree.
              Quote: Nikolaevich I
              And what is culture?

              To understand what culture is and how it affects society, it is enough to compare the culture of Russian civilization (Orthodox), the culture of the East (Buddhist), the culture of the West (Christian) and the culture of the Middle East (Muslim). The difference is obvious.
              Quote: Nikolaevich I
              Do you know the 10 commandments of God?

              10 commandments from the Bible, from the Pentateuch of Moses in the book "Exodus", given them on behalf of God to the people of Judah on their turning point in life in order to instruct their on the right path? I know.
              Quote: Nikolaevich I
              Do you have something against Putin? Huh? Do not have? So against E.B.N.

              I support Putin and I voted for EBN when he was elected for the first term.
              Quote: Nikolaevich I
              Or maybe we will cancel the foremen?

              In no case. The lead should be the one who is the best in this matter understands. Bike: When the prince sat in a boat on oars, and the simple helmsman began to shout at him, the overseas guest was surprised - "You are a prince!" to which he received an answer - "I am a prince there, and here he is a prince" I am talking about this.
              Quote: Nikolaevich I
              Do you adhere to the same principle with your “near and dear ones”?

              Yes. No parasites are needed. This does not include children, the elderly and the weak, unable to support themselves. (I myself have been retired since the 1998 year)
              1. Nikolaevich I
                Nikolaevich I 10 January 2018 14: 46
                +2
                I read your answers and “took note”! yes Our positions are "slightly" different, but not "critical" ... hi
        2. demo
          demo 11 January 2018 08: 16
          +2
          Although .... I have no desire to maintain a discussion on the topic of this article ... because this article did not arouse my interest. I have nothing against the author of the article (the pianist plays as he can ...)

          M-yes !!!
          Do not shoot at the taper!
          Although the hand and reached for a holster.
  9. turbris
    turbris 9 January 2018 14: 46
    +5
    An interesting article, of course, controversial, but the author warned that he was not a specialist, so he should not be advised to read other authors. He expresses his opinion and this is very important, and having read other "theorists" he will no longer be free to formulate his opinion. I believe that what he said can be accepted as one of the versions of the further development of society.
  10. Starik72
    Starik72 9 January 2018 14: 58
    +4
    Communism is a bright future for all of humanity! But, in order to achieve this, humanity must get rid of its faults. There was an attempt, as an example of the USSR, that it came out YOU know and see for yourself. So the FAULS are crushing and defeating us, and you should not wait for WE to defeat all the FAIRS OF MANKIND. But ten years will pass, or maybe one hundred or one thousand years, and MANKIND will cope with its FAULTS, and THE LIGHT FUTURE OF ALL MANKIND WILL COME! I believe in this, because MANKIND does not stand still, but is constantly developing and improving.
  11. Boris55
    Boris55 9 January 2018 15: 03
    0
    "All that we see is only one visibility. Far from the surface of the sea to the bottom. Consider inconsequential manifest in the world, For the secret essence of things is not visible"Omar Khayyam.
    The author described the stages of improving the methods of slavery, the basis of which is initially criminal capital, besides which there is capital and social, and these are completely different relationships that coexisted in Russia before the forcible transformation of us into the state of Russia.
  12. iouris
    iouris 9 January 2018 15: 34
    0
    The author does not refer to anyone at all, therefore, such reasoning should be attributed to the genre of "about to fry firewood potatoes." Communism has already been. Therefore, further - slavery.
    1. CT-55_11-9009
      CT-55_11-9009 10 January 2018 09: 24
      +1
      Quote: iouris
      Communism has already been. Therefore, further - slavery.

      Communism in the USSR was the first attempt. How many more will be - who will sort it out?
      1. iouris
        iouris 10 January 2018 12: 00
        0
        We do not know what happened in the USSR and what is now. Let's ask Medinsky, who canceled history as a science. There will be no more attempts to build a just society, because all the resources of the Earth have been explored and included in the economic turnover. For several years there has been a shortage of food. There is a shortage of water. This implies the need to reduce the excess population, i.e. environmental fascism.
  13. Nemesis
    Nemesis 9 January 2018 16: 25
    +2
    The main mistake of the CPSU is due to the fact that it was not a state party, but an anti-state party, which made an erroneous bet on the national minorities, who destroyed the USSR ...
    1. iouris
      iouris 10 January 2018 12: 01
      +1
      At the head of the USSR, during the period of its transformation into a superpower, there were “nationals” (Stalin and Beria).
      1. Nemesis
        Nemesis 10 January 2018 17: 39
        0
        They all ruined. Who gave away Hanko, Port Arthur, Crimea, Donbass, the Northern regions today included in Kazakhstan, Odessa and so on ?! Yes, all of these Khrushchevs and Dzerzhinsky ... Who set Russia up for Germany’s strike refusing to strike a preemptive strike ?! Your Stalin and Beria ... Who ditched more Russian soldiers than Hitler ?! Your Mehlises ... Who made terrorist attacks in the Moscow metro under Brezhnev ?! Armenian nationalists ... Who blew up the metro in St. Petersburg ?! Again Kyrgyz Islamic Russophobe ... Who ruined your USSR ?! Ukraine raised its yellow-black flag even before the signing of the Bialowieza Accords ... The massacre in Karabakh began in the 80s, as well as the massacre in Ossetia, Abkhazia, Gagauzia ... Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia never really hid of their hatred of Russia ... It’s enough to recall how, in Soviet times, saleswomen in Latvian stores (forgot the Russian language) ... I don’t want to live in the same country as those who hate Russians ... and Russian refugees from the former Soviet republics in Russia is full ...
  14. would
    would 9 January 2018 16: 51
    +3
    Marx spoke of the inevitability of communism. Let's try to prove it without using the arguments of Marx himself


    And after these lines in the article there is no attempt to prove that communism is inevitable, it is immediately declared its inevitability.

    That is, the author poses the question of whether communism is inevitable in the title of the article, poses it in the text, but he does not understand the article itself. An unambiguous answer is given to him immediately and without any "eyeliner" which is based on nothing.

    In this case, the sinusoid appears in exactly the same way, it seems to the author as an axiom. That is, after each growth there should be a fall to the previous level ... only here the development of mankind to the current level completely denies this sinusoid. Humanity, in its normal development, was incredibly rarely faced with a fall. With new crises? Yes. But never did crises cause humanity to fall significantly below the level of the previous peak, and shortly after the crisis, growth followed. Often a jump like it was after WWII. Exceptions are the death of individual civilizations, but not of humanity, therefore this is an exception.

    The only thing more or less similar to that in the history of mankind is the death of the Roman Empire, which threw all of Europe (and not only) back in development for centuries, threw it into the Dark Ages. However, at the same time, Arabs and Chinese felt much better. But these are again separate nations and parts of the world, and not all of humanity.

    The development of mankind is not a sinusoid, but at least a graph. And at least for now, this graph, going through short-term recessions, is constantly growing.

    What is this article about? I don’t know, I read it and I don’t know. There are sinusoids with colored dots here, but in the article itself there is no adequate explanation of why this sinusoid is such and why there are such points on it. Kuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucha fundamental, basic, root issues are not addressed at all. For example * drum roll * and why after capitalism should come precisely communism? But it’s not even this that kills especially, but this (again, back to the beginning)

    Marx spoke about the inevitability of communism. Let’s try to prove this without using the arguments of Marx himself (I believe that it will not be very difficult for me personally to ignore the Marxist arguments, since I have not read the works of Marxwhat publicly repent)


    That is, the author undertakes to talk about communism ... not knowing what communism is request After all, the works of Marx are fundamental in communism and it is much easier to learn Russian without reading Pushkin than to study communism without reading Marx.

    This is what gives a clear understanding of why this article is. The author simply does not know what he is writing about, but I want to write. And it turns out here is such rubbish.
  15. rc56
    rc56 9 January 2018 17: 41
    +1
    It’s nothing that actually Marx (together with Engels) wrote that "communism is not a state, but the movement itself"?

    "The trouble is, since the pies will start the cobbler oven,
    And the boots stitch the pastry,
    And things won’t work out.
    Yes, and a hundredfold
    What who loves to take someone else’s craft,
    He forever others stubborn and foolish:
    It’s better to ruin everything,
    And glad soon
    The laughing stock of becoming light
    Than honest and knowledgeable people
    Ask il to listen to reasonable advice "
  16. DimanC
    DimanC 9 January 2018 18: 47
    +1
    Hmm, read Efremov. In the Andromeda Nebula, everything is pretty detailed
  17. andrej-shironov
    andrej-shironov 9 January 2018 18: 49
    +3
    Dear author! You have touched on a good topic. Regarding the reasoning you presented, I will not say anything, I have different approaches. I will say only one thing: only communism, but not capitalism, can give development to humanity. Capitalism is a dead end! It does not allow a human being to evolve, but man degrades very quickly.
  18. The Grubby
    The Grubby 9 January 2018 19: 55
    +3
    What will happen after communism?


    Maybe at first the author will wait for the general offensive of COMMUNISM, and only then will he begin to guess what will happen after him ...
  19. Proton
    Proton 9 January 2018 20: 55
    +1
    Communism is not for everyone to have everything and everything as much as you want (this is now even with wild capitalism wassat ) it is not for consumption, but in order that any person, no matter from which layers he had the opportunity, can apply himself and realize himself, society of creation, not consumption. And the phrase “from each according to his ability, each according to his needs” is about this, and not about eating and clothes, and other "values" laughing
  20. Bayun
    Bayun 9 January 2018 22: 10
    0
    I recommend the "ancient" Aristotle. There are 3 forms of power: Unity (Monarchy), Republic (Power of the "best" people) and Democracy (Democracy). In the negative: Tyranny-Oligarchy-Ochlocracy (power of the crowd).

    In your terms: "modulation" of the life-being of any of the 3 higher education institutions is possible. forms of power.

    In many European countries, the institution of the Monarchy harmoniously and consistently combines with the "republican" form of industrial-entrepreneurial unions and democracy.

    Perhaps I’m mistaken, but I’ll suppose that such a tripartite rule is most suitable for Russia: the Tsar - the Prime Minister (with the Council of Ministers and the State Planning Commission) - Democracy with the Chamber (even the Internet Veche), the Duma, the Public Chamber and local government.

    Smart Academics and people should not argue about who is better than “mom or dad”, but should advise harmonious correlation of forms of power. And then everyone in Russia from a believing monarchist to an atheist-communist will find a clear CREATIVE field of activity in accordance with his ideas about the correctness of life-being;)
  21. Thomas the Unbelieving
    Thomas the Unbelieving 9 January 2018 23: 28
    +3
    Another dream of Vera Pavlovna (according to Chernyshevsky). Of course, the question is interesting, generations of scientists and revolutionaries have worked on it. With kondachka answer this question is impossible. One of the options I would like to offer colleagues.
    The development of a society consisting of many people and their groups cannot be uniquely determined. Therefore, inevitably a lot of views on the same issues of the same people at different times. There is a hypothesis of Marx, which was first published in our country in 1980, although formulated in his manuscripts of 1857-1961.
    The attentive reader will certainly ask: why the "hypothesis"? Usually people speak of Marxism as a theory, sometimes as a teaching, and even as a Marxist-Leninist worldview. Therefore, the very statement of the question of a certain hypothesis put forward by K. Marx in the field of social sciences may sound strange. But there is no strangeness in this - the hypothesis has always been an instrument of scientific research, an attempt to identify a pattern on the basis of known facts with insufficient or incomplete information. Another strange thing is that very few hypotheses are known in the social sciences, although social processes are the most complex, confusing, often not deterministic, but probabilistic. So, what should interest us in this manuscript, which not only represents a treasury of ideas, but also reflects the difficult path of knowledge of a brilliant scientist? First of all, five pages, under the heading "General characteristics of bourgeois society as opposed to pre-capitalist social formations and the future communist society."
    K. Marx puts forward his hypothesis based on facts known to him then, which is confirmed by subsequent discoveries. He formulates the possibility of three stages of development of a society of people.
    1. "RELATIONSHIPS OF PERSONAL DEPENDENCE (IN THE BEGINNING THE PERFECTLY EXTRAORDINARY) - THESE ARE THE FIRST FORMS OF SOCIETY, WHICH THE PERFORMANCE OF PEOPLE IS DEVELOPING FURTHER IN A SIGNIFICANT VOLUME IN THE SUMMARY, which is the most generalized. formed as a whole: communities of people still exist in “isolated points.” People’s productivity (productive forces) develops to a small extent, which is why ancient civilizations are extremely unstable: their isolation from other civilizations and the low level of productive labor forces make them dependent on how powerful forces of nature, as well as from clashes with other civilizations. It is obvious that the latter most often come as enemies and relations with them are mainly military. Inside each civilization, production relations in a very specific form prevail as personal relations: blood-related, tribal Wow, national. At later stages of development (with the advent of the exploiting classes) as a relationship of direct domination and submission. According to K. Marx, the development of human society is multivariate. Personal relations as a form of production relations do not die out in the course of further development. In the modern era, they are constantly reproduced on a new technical and economic basis in the cooperation of people working together. Given the modern nature of production, the work of people in most cases is not individual. More often it is a joint work aimed at the performance of the same work or the production of the same
    the same product in the division of labor.
    2. "PERSONAL INDEPENDENCE BASED ON THESE IS SO SECOND LARGE FORM WHICH FOR THE FIRST TIME A SYSTEM FOR GENERAL PUBLIC EXCHANGE OF SUBSTANCES, UNIVERSAL RELATIONS IS PARTICIALLY.” So K. Marx characterizes capitalist society, its place
    in the historical development of mankind. The second form of economic relations is relations of material dependence. Metabolism in society leads to the emergence of a universal form of material relations: commodity-money. Relations of personal dependence are replaced by a person’s dependence on things, on money.
    In our discussions about the degree of development of capitalism and generally about capitalism, we usually reduce the matter to the level of development of the material base and the degree of spread of the specifically capitalist relationship of capital and wage labor. Based on the analysis of K. Marx, the main thing is the formation of human personality
    as a product of historical development. It must be said that this process substantially depends on the nature of the productive forces of labor. Initially, the large machine industry formed the "iron battalions of the proletariat." The modern scientific and technological revolution gives rise to a new type of highly skilled worker, requires the giving of labor a creative character, and the personality - individuality.
    Our socialist development began with the old type of production in industry, which did not require a high level and creative nature of labor, and in agriculture the small producer with underdeveloped commodity production predominated. On this basis, the Narodnik ones were reanimated, and then the “military-communist” illusions about the possibility of creating a society of free individuals without established personalities became widespread.
    Therefore, one of the ideas of V.I. Lenin was to, having gained political power, with its help, ensure the raising of the cultural level of the population, to create a society of civilized cooperators. It is known that he and his successors failed to implement these ideas. The logic of the objective process by the mid-80s led to the explosion of an outdated political system, inevitable in a crisis in the economy. The basis of this crisis was the contradiction between "individual potentials," that is, the creative abilities of people, based not only on the requirements of scientific and technological progress, but also on the conscious social value of the individual in the absence of private property, on the one hand, and the unfair equal distribution of social product - on the other.
    According to the general logic of historical development, K. Marx, the third, considered
    the form of development of human society should arise on the basis of
    second: 3. "FREE INDIVIDUALITY BASED ON THE UNIVERSAL DEVELOPMENT OF INDIVIDUALS AND ON THE TRANSFORMATION OF THEIR COLLECTIVE PUBLIC PRODUCTIVITY IN THEIR PUBLIC DOMAIN, THIS IS THE THIRD STEP" *
    So K. Marx represented the future of a fully formed human society: the main thing is that social productive forces should be turned into the common property of free individuals, universal development, or, according to V.I. Lenin, the free comprehensive development of each member of society is a condition for the development of all. In this connection, we note the Leninist interpretation of socialist society as a system of civilized cooperators, that is, a community of freely unifying people. Obviously, such an interpretation of socialism as a union of individuals is fundamentally different from his early concept of socialism as a huge factory, where all means of production belong to one sovereign, it doesn’t matter to one person or collective leadership, trade unions or the state. From this point of view, a new reading of Lenin's vision of socialism means that socialism should be understood not so much as the concentration of ownership of the means of production in one hand, separated from people, but rather as the transformation of the means of production into the common property of freely unifying people
  22. doka
    doka 10 January 2018 02: 52
    0
    A man is a plasticine if from childhood to hollow out that communism is bright future he will build it. My opinion is that communism in the process of evolution is possible only under the condition that the whole world is approximately aligned economically. And then the goal is space exploration and repair of planet earth and then all work will last for centuries. Without a goal, it is desirable that a good society degrades. Now, what’s the goal, get rich, you’ll have money, you’ll live well, eat well, sleep sweetly, and it’s not important how you got your money at the expense of anyone. There is no money. The hucksters have adapted our model of society for themselves. All this will lead to war more than once in of history. And if someone chews on it and builds another society, another is not given, sadly, It’s not who just will not give up power, Lenin knew about how much blood was shed and everything turned out in vain. The USSR could develop but the goal was lost, society began to turn into a consumer society and all the collapse of the betrayal of the elites.
  23. Fat Penguin
    Fat Penguin 10 January 2018 09: 15
    +1
    Take a look around! We have been living under communism for a long time, since 1980! Comrade Khrushchev would not lie! (long prolonged applause turning into a standing ovation, the audience rises). bully
  24. iouris
    iouris 10 January 2018 12: 03
    0
    Quote: rait
    the article makes no attempt to prove that communism is inevitable

    It is impossible to prove in the article. This follows from the economic analysis of Marx (study Capital and the author’s references to previous bourgeois economists).
    1. yehat
      yehat 12 January 2018 18: 43
      0
      From the analysis of a spherical horse in a vacuum, too, comes its inevitability am
  25. rc56
    rc56 10 January 2018 12: 46
    0
    Quote: bober1982
    and the entire top of the CPSU, also at one time - to the moon

    And why do you think that the USSR refused the "lunar" program?
    It turns out - from precaution!
  26. brn521
    brn521 10 January 2018 14: 20
    +1
    What kind of communism is this? State property is seen. The planned economy has been seen. Even the features of socialism were observed in some places. They did not see communism. It’s not even clear what it is. Judging by the description of Marx-Engels, people are either zombified or replaced by mechanisms. Most likely the second, zombies are difficult to manufacture and maintain. The features of communism according to Engels are more suitable for a society consisting of any microcontrollers.
  27. looker-on
    looker-on 10 January 2018 14: 51
    +3


    The funny thing is that the author quietly presents it as a fact - communism will come a priori. There are no options, as it were). Good thing it's just a myth)

    I completely do not understand people who want capitalism. We drive polls in beautiful cars (alas, communism couldn’t give us anything more than copies of old cars of the “decaying West.” And this is almost a century! For that, our tanks are cool, yes.). We live in our home. We rest without problems on the seas. We drink and eat whatever we want. If you wish, everything is possible including your own business (if you really don’t want to work for the damned capitalist) All those who want to "back to the USSR" want this for only two reasons: 1- still sit in some sort of research institute "Nothing to do". Follow a plan there and get a bonus. 2- do not be responsible for anything. Someone on the "top" there should suit me. Pah
    1. Doliva63
      Doliva63 10 January 2018 21: 20
      +5
      “We drive polls in beautiful cars (alas, communism couldn’t give us anything more than copies of old cars of the“ decaying West. ”And this is almost a century! For that, our tanks are cool, yes.) ...”
      Somewhere in your brains (if any) you have lost your way. But if you lived under communism, I’m sorry, Chesslov! In the meantime, we had socialism, our cars in the same West were highly appreciated - the same Victory, for example. But the trouble is that socialism in our country ceased to exist in the early 60s. And before that, he raised the country after the Civil War, overtook the entire planet in terms of development, suffered the Great War, defeated it, and then raised the country again. Up to outer space, etc. So that peaceful labor socialism was allowed about 40 years. Compared with capitalism - a real trifle. What do you want from him? Therefore, our tanks are “cool yes,” because the West has not seen any alternative to socialism except war. But now around the greedy faces are flourishing - did our capitalist auto industry, for example, give many beautiful cars? Funny you, right.
      1. yehat
        yehat 12 January 2018 18: 42
        0
        socialism had peaceful labor from the power of 15 years, not 40.
        and during these years, GDP increased at times. True, this did not always come out cheaply and simply - there were hunger, and difficulties, and sacrifices (for example, the development of Siberia).
        Just not to be confused with the Stakhanov movement - this bloated fetish has brought enormous problems and losses.
  28. birs
    birs 10 January 2018 22: 16
    0
    What will happen after communism? According to the spiral of development of society, a new round begins, which begins with anarchy and the primitive communal system, and then all over again, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, the next round. Communism on the spiral is absent due to its utopian nature, as is the final formation due to the theoretical infinity of the spiral. Not enough formations, preferably some better system? What is homo sapiens, such is his social system.
  29. 1536
    1536 11 January 2018 13: 20
    0
    Two points: 1. It is good that the Communists never tried, through genetic selection, to deduce on the planet "true communists", and, 2. God forbid, if humanity in its present state truly enters the Cosmos and begins to explore other worlds.
  30. yehat
    yehat 12 January 2018 18: 38
    0
    the mistake is that they consider communism a kind of social system or structure.
    This is not true. communism is the core to which you can tie anything, even the elements of capitalism.
    the only question is whether society will accept it as a guide or not.
    And talking about communism as a social structure is the same demagogy when one talks about a planned or market economy. Any unification inherent in large states carries elements of communism.
    Well, do not get anywhere without it.