This page is an essay, and probably doesn't meet the Common Point of View standards for articles. Some leftists may disagree with the statements expressed here (which do not necessarily reflect the views of Communpedia).
If communism will come

For a long time I did not write anything about communism, because it, anyway, - the society of a very far future. Of course, if the development of society will not stop, and humanity itself will survive. This society, which will only be possible after the change of the average human psychology, and therefore less understandable to us than the socialist society that does not require a radical change in psychology. Socialism-2.0 is much easier to describe. This is the society of the future too, but the nearest future. Constructed for all of us by ourselves, not our children. Socialism-2.0 is based on existing technology, existing relationships and existing methods of organization and all its innovation lies in the combination of these methods, technologies and relationships.

Communism, as opposed to it - just a vague dream. The image, which wants to try, but that is visible only in its outlines, not details. When we talk about it, we are forced to extrapolate the best of the day today after a day-after-and-so-below-morrow. We imagine, even if it's better now exists only as a barely visible manifestations.

Of course, this imagination's error can be a huge, and real communism will be equally beautiful and equally difficult of our ideas about it, how complicated the real starry sky and beautiful representations of the blind mole on the starry sky. But we can not deter us for this reason. However, this beautiful future are based on our dreams. If we will't plan this, this will never happen. The aliens will not build our future, but our own descendants.

Many people mistakenly assume that communism was been in USSR. However, even socialism in the USSR was not in full (although to a much greater than in all other countries). Socialism, according to the Marxist tradition – is a transitional stage of communism, and not herself. I really don't agree with the tradition - in my opinion, socialism and of itself is a formation, not merely a transitional stage - but in my opinion, too, socialism and communism - two different things.

Therefore incorrect to imagine communism as "what was in the Soviet Union." Yes, Khrushchev promised a speedy coming of communism, but he did't dare to announce his modernity like realization of the communist system. Nobody ever gave a detailed description of communism. Was known only to a certain set of properties that communism should the need or at least very likely to possess.

Initially, however, the property was only one thing: the absence of private ownership of the means of production, including land. But then gradually it became the property in the definition of socialism, to which were added a number of mandatory social benefits - free medical care, education, housing, lack of unemployment, equality and fraternity - and communism was a set of additional features under socialism or not implemented at all or implemented only partially.

  1. There are no money in communism
  2. There are no government in communism.
  3. In communism public and private merge together.
  4. There are no a struggle man against man in communism.
  5. stocks of materials and capital equipment will lose their significance in communism.
  6. Each person will be fully in terms of their outlook, knowledge, skills and aspirations in communism.

At first you might think that these properties are fantastic. But if we will muse about it and will understand the meaning behind them, then you will no longer doubt that this is possible. Indeed, we need change in psychology to realize this. But I'm not talking about the impossible changes. In contrast, almost everyone has all these qualities, unfortunately they do not have all developed well enough yet.

Moreover, the communist laws already are taking place in our relationship. But they have not spread at all yet, but only on the immediate environment of man. That is, for communism it is necessary that "inner circle" has grown to the scale of humankind. Yes, it is not easy to do, but possible.

Look: in the company of friends you may well do anything without money. Of course, in a joint expedition to the store may contain some mutual funds calculations, but in this case because the relationship with the third party. The party is outside the "inner circle". Outside is a third party cash transactions are not available. There is no analogue of even money - no records, how many times someone who has helped and to what extent. No one is trying to iff needs to shake some friends in exchange for the execution of his song, or sliced ​​tomatoes for a salad. No one waved under the nose of inquiries in which it is written that the last time he was in the apartment of a friend banged on the wall of ten nails, so now let him something one returns.

If you trust people you do not need any promises on their part. You don't need an equivalent that would encourage John to help his friend Bill at the same rate, in which Bill helped their mutual friend Michael to Michael one day later helped John.

And at the same time helping friends, most people do not feel cheated. Even if the response will help them through an indefinite time, or not come at all. Because behind all this is a principle that should help a friend who needs help. Everything. This principle does not contain any hint of an equivalent exchange. Exchange as such does not exist. There is a tacit agreement to help the needy. More precisely, even, not needy, and to whom perhaps you want to help. And this man, oddly enough, helping to even get pleasure from it. Thus, if each member of the society will see all the other friends - even those with whom he did not know - that there will be no need for money. No longer even need any logging done. All well and all will help. Including - in absentia. After all, people often help their friends, even when friends are not aware that their friends helped them. Is this possible? Can people see your friends of those with whom he did not know? Well, we're helping to get the fallen passer. We assist the wounded. They have everything for us - strangers, but it does not stop us. Some tacit agreement already in place. In some ways we behave toward strangers as their friends. And there is no fundamental hindrance to the expansion of the list.

Some will ask: what about the distribution? How to make someone who does not work, and do not eat too? How to make that someone will not took everything?

I will answer, argues from the same position. All - friends. But you, when your friend is hungry, never eat alone all contents of the refrigerator. Even if one does not see. Even if he does now in another place, but you know that he will come. Some inner voice is telling you because: it is necessary that friend have enough. Caught in a train, you do not occupy the entire bench, although you could have done it. No, you cede, when there is another person who does not have enough space. Sometimes you even get up and give place for someone. And that's all - voluntarily, without any offsets. No fact that this man will return this place to you ever. The most interesting thing: they really will return it to you. When you feel bad - they cede way to you. When you fall - they rouse you. It is not those people that once you have raised. And without universal equivalent by regulating its turnover. Without any equivalent your friends are exactly the same share with you what is in them. Strangers are exactly the same way don't take all seats, they cede it for you. Now extend this idea: the results of your labor - it's the thing which you share with your friends. Unfamiliar to you, but, nevertheless, ready to give you the fruits of his labor, without requiring receipts and everything else. Just under a tacit agreement: take only the right, think of others who also need something happened with others, worked hard to share with others. In a nutshell it is already running. And I'm sure we'll ever learn to live like this to work fully. In this way, under communism, people will live without money. And do well at the same time feel. Лучшее объяснение сути коммунизма: он — общество дружбы всех со всеми. Почти все его характерные черты довольно хорошо понятны, если держать в голове эту концепцию: «все члены общества — друзья». Thus, the atmosphere of friendly confidence makes the government as an apparatus of coercion is not necessary. Police don't coerce to friendship, because police can't do it. And nobody call the police to coerce someone to friendship. In fact, is only that part from the "government" which is responsible for coordinating the effort. Well, as if five people are going to lift a log, then someone must say "Let's do it". Here is this someone in this case is a "communist government". Moreover, he did not vested special powers. He does not have a gun in his hand or stick. There is only delegated by unanimous agreement the authority to say "one, two, come on." Of course, those who supposedly do better coordination will be "called up" more often, but it does not mean that they will converge the light wedge. After all, we should not forget that communism is largely determined by what each person - full. That is, each call of his own heart is engaged in education, the development of themselves and help in the development of others.

It also sounds pretty fantastic, but it should be noted, these people already and now there, and, in quite considerable amounts. Moreover, almost everyone can induce a kind of life - the knowledge is so sweet, so nice to development. Everybody to inspire, so that on the background there is a sandwich with a hundred varieties of sausage - that grain of sand against the backdrop of Mount Everest. Discovered a new physical law, believe me, not exchange this possibility, even the whole world sausage. It only appears in absentia "nothing cool", and is just well to do something like that, immediately comes to understanding what is important.

That is why the wealth under communism will be a sort of decorations to help acting on stage, but not in a position to replace it by yourself. The play can be played without scenery, but the scenery without the play - nothing. Who needs it?

Sometimes people mistakenly believe that communism will be associated with the rejection of material goods. They think that all men wi;; become ascetics and be content with a cloth to cover the nakedness and a piece of bread to satisfy hunger. But that is wrong. Communism is just the opposite will give people so much wealth that they will lose any value. The material side of life will be granted. For example, now Citizen don't admires the fact that his house has electricity. He simply does not notice power. Turn on the light - you press the switch. That's all. No piety. That's just under Communism will with everything else. For the material will not have to run, will not have to earn money for him. Having something physical will not have any bonus in the eyes of others. And this thing will kill any desire for the accumulation of wealth. What to save, if you can just go and get where you want? And when you don't need it - just go back and give it to the person whom need this. Many recount horror stories, in which under communism will be shared toothbrushes. Say, here it is - a dream of the Communists. But think about what scares you here? It is not something that someone uses your thing - this just happens in a regular manner. And that would be violated rules of hygiene. That's what you think ugly - and not use your thing. But on the other hand, you absolutely don't mind when your friends are sleeping in your bed linen, you remained away, wiped off with your towel, eat with your spoon and drink from your cup. Simply because then it all goes into the sink and washing, and then it will be purified. That is, in a horror story, specially selected only the most disgusting, biased sample. A toothbrush, which is extremely difficult to wash clean, but you do it every day bustle in his mouth. What, other than the aforesaid general toothbrush could be substituted in this horror story? Yes, almost nothing. Well, razor, well, a comb, and it is no longer a fact. Disposable, for example, it would solve the problem. And there are no more any examples. That's because in the horror story - it is, a toothbrush: scare you just have nothing else. After all, even to "give the shirt" - it is consistently positive associations. Yes, the shirt is your. Yes, someone will wearr it. But for the giver and the recipient is - is correct, decent thing to do. If we eat in restaurants with dishes from which to us were eating thousands of people, if we put in bowling shoes, which we put up thousands of people, then what could ever be wrong in the public domain? A lot of things we don't eat and don't wear them ourself. Therefore for them the issue of purity is even less significant. At the same time, we don't pay attention, even the fact of the dishes from we eat. What's wrong with that, if you will not own the dinner service, and will be a number of general, you can take when you want? After all, they will be so clean, how clean dishes in restaurants, not less. And in your apartment will be more space: in fact there is no need to store a personal collection of anything and still on double reserve - in case if the first thing will be broken. After all, your own inventory only for two reasons: first - hygienic, of whom referred to above, and the second - "suddenly i will need it, but I will not have enough." But if you always have enough, then the second reason would lose all meaning. In your personal use will be only what you use regularly - your computer, a set of clothes, music, and everything else - tables and chairs for guests, dishes to the thirty guests, harvester and washing machine - will no longer take up space in your apartment . But as soon as you need, you take it right in your room special-same entrance. Well, at least, someone will bring it twenty minutes later from another location, if there came a sudden force majeure . Is it scary? In my opinion, no. I can say more, than I'm afraid that every three to four months, I'm throwing cubic meter of unnecessary things, and all of them are not getting smaller. When I go on a trip, I collect a backpack. A small backpack - much less than the standard travel bag. And every time I think that things in the backpack - in fact that all what i need. And if in the place where i go could give underwear and T-shirts, I would have even a third of the backpack. And with a laptop and camera hire, I could make it even with empty hands. After all, even in a small backpack situated that I could hypothetically get straight to the place of my residence. Is this, I ask you, is not a freedom - the ability to go anywhere without any material things , and be sure that wherever I come, I will have everything I might need? Is it the horror, or vice versa - is just a dream what not realized yet? Understanding communism as a society of friendship, we see that it is really public and private merge together. Wealth at the same time do not exist in the form of denial of personal wealth in favor of some abstract public, but in the incarnation, which is a private and public, and at the same time. There is no struggle of contradictions, there is a synthesis of them. Though every thing belongs to someone specific, but each has all the things that he needed at the moment. In addition to those that involve the possession of: no one has a private resort, around which he can build a fence and did not let go, but everyone in this resort is. More precisely, there are tens of thousands of resorts. So many resorts, as he can't detour them

And exactly the same happens with relationship: no personal happiness. Everyone is happy, not when he satisfied himself, but when all his friends are satisfied too. All population. Since the same way at all, no one will be happy until you're starving himself. Therefore you'll be replete too. Whatever happens, someone will help you, because happiness under communism is public. If so, then there is no struggle of man against man. After defeating someone, you yourself are depriving yourself of happiness. Can you beat the man in the cards - because there was a rate of interest, but you can not beat the man to life. You should anyone be happy together or will not be happy at all. That's why you share a shirt or a piece of bread, medicine, or a place in the transport. And exactly why just people will share with you. People do not take away from each other, and share. More precisely, this is not a share, because there are all thing a lot, when nobody rake in heaps of something. People just don't rake in heaps of anything. Now mankind has enough capacity to provide every necessary to all not only in minimal size, but even with all reasonable things luxury - food of restaurant quality, consumer electronics, holiday resorts, cultural leisure and etc. No need to do a lot of personal copies of each and, in addition, the growth in labor productivity due to the communist relations of production, material benefits for each will enough. And then instead of material values ​​will inevitably value of other kind. The possibility of creative and scientific self-realization. More precisely, not "self", realization by self in the team. In team, what lives in the same, what you live, what did not spit on your work, what is also eagerly listening to you, how do you tell about it. What is also eagerly tells about it to you. What learns from you and helps you to learn. You are sure that buying a very new device is not an achievement, but what you have designed a piece of the ship on which mankind will reach the nearest star - the achievement. What have you discovered that a physical law, which designed for a piece of the ship. The fact that you have set up a play that people are watching with interest. As the boys sing your song, gathered in the evening with a guitar in the park before the house where you live. And what exactly you with other peopel made ​​ this park. I assure you that hear their song from the lips of others - a great happiness, in comparison with which there is a freshly bought communicator - nothing at all. You are already not happy about consumption, and an understanding of the world in which you live. The fact that you yourself are building the world. The fact that you enlarged the limits of human possibilities. And what is with you is doing the same thing everyone else.

Communism - this is not the rejection of personal benefit. This transformation of the personal benefits to the general welfare. It is in the sense that I described above. This is not a waiver of personal happiness, but the transformation of personal happiness in general. This is not the grayness of life, but the knowledge and creativity. This is interesting, ambitious projects. This is - a piece of you in other when other pieces in you too.

Autor: Alex Kravetsky

Translator: Ilya Yefimov

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.