Socialist and communist ideas for the development of society have been known for quite some time. Even in the schools of the former Soviet Union, their basic principles were taught earlier in social studies. But far from everyone can figure out thoroughly what the difference between socialism and communism consists of. Here, first of all, it is worth paying attention to the economic works of many thinkers of the past, not to mention society and people's minds.
The difference between socialism and communism: the basic concepts of society
In general, initially that socialism, that communism are based on the concept of society, or, as it is also called, society. The absolute similarity of these two concepts is immediately evident: socialism is formed from society, and communism from the concept of commune. In both the first and second cases, a group of people united by certain interests is considered. We will talk about them a little later.
In fact, relations between individual members of a public group do not play a special role. Everything rests on the justification of economic concepts. Let's see what principles human interaction is based on.
The principles of socialism and communism in terms of economic relations in society
The basis of both teachings is the complete equality of people, that is, the idea is put forward that in such a society there are neither poor nor rich. But this, if anyone has already noticed, is purely the economic side, because we are not talking about the qualitative development of a person and comparing one person with another in terms of his spiritual development or creative possibilities. Thus, it is necessary to consider the question itself, related to what is the difference between socialism and communism, from the point of view of economic, and not moral relations between people.
The basic principle of socialist society is as follows: the means of production of material goods belong precisely to those who produce them, nothing more. In the concept there is not a word about the distribution of money. Moreover, socialism as such cannot refuse the concept of money.
The principles of communism are somewhat different. Not to mention the idea of universal equality and fraternity, a purely economic approach to the justification of such an idea suggests that when the means of production belong to the members of society and the wealth they produce are distributed equally among all (or depending on needs).
Based on this, it is easy to formulate the basic principles of each doctrine, which today are considered generally accepted:
- socialism: to each according to work;
- communism: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
In simple terms, under socialism, a person receives benefits depending on how well he works, and under communism, a single member of society shows his abilities as much as possible, while the result is enjoyed by all people, regardless of their development or contribution to production.
With all this, the general concept suggests that socialism is a kind of transitional phase in building communist relations. In addition, if you carefully look at the economic principles of communism, you can see that the need for money as a means of economic relations disappears by itself. Alas, history proves that the application of such teachings in practice does not lead to the desired result.Apparently, the inherent idealism was originally laid down, although all the followers of such ideas reject this from it, as well as the impossibility of changing the identity of the person and lead only to the fact that society receives a perverted ideology.
A bit of history
In general, today, when it is already possible to openly discuss issues related to the essence of communism or socialism, many historians or experts in the field of economics claim that all this is utopianism.
Indeed, after all, Thomas More was one of the first to set forth the concepts in his work Utopia about a non-existent country. Since then, even the concept itself has become a household name denoting something that exists only in the imagination, and not in reality. Nevertheless, these ideas were widely developed, and the main role here was assigned to the theorists of Marxism-Leninism.
Marx, Engels, Lenin
If we talk about what, in the opinion of the economic geniuses of the past era, is the building of communism through the transitional stage of socialism, Karl Marx with his fundamental work “Capital”, written with the participation of Friedrich Engels and Vladimir Lenin, who developed the basic concept for to a single country.
What came of this, we know.
However, few of us today think particularly about what Marx set forth in his work. But in vain. It describes the principles of capitalism, which, alas, today work much more efficiently. But, as he considered, it was necessary to refuse it, and Lenin in that plan went even further. Who does not know the justification of the socialist revolution and the revolution in society in general when it is divided into classes: “The tops cannot, the lower classes do not want”?
In other words, the top authorities cannot cope with the management of the social system, and people in this situation do not want to put up with the existing state of things and demand changes.
Again, all this is due to purely economic considerations, since inequality in the social situation plays a much greater role here than the relations between members of society in terms of morality. Roughly speaking, this is a common confrontation between those in power and the money of those who have it and those who have neither one nor the other.
Separately, it is worth saying that, for reasons that are still incomprehensible, the ideas of socialism and communism include the so-called scientific atheism, which consists in denying God. Karl Marx’s catch phrase that religion is opium for the people, and in our time causes a lot of controversy. In the USSR, this principle was maximally developed, because after the 1917 revolution, churches were demolished, ministers were persecuted, people disagreeable with the regime were serving their sentences in hard labor, and many chose to leave the country. What has this led to? To the complete degradation of society.
However, not everything is so bad. Note that even during the period of Moscow’s defense during World War II, Stalin himself allowed church services to be held in the remaining churches and monasteries. Maybe this is what helped defend the capital?
Stage of developed socialism
Now let's look at developed socialism, the concept of which was invented in the former Soviet Union. Initially, it was assumed that a step towards building a communist society would be taken immediately after the socialist revolution.
This was stated by Lenin, considering communism the highest stage of manifestation of socialism. The same Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev promised to build communism in the USSR by 1980. What did you learn from this? Nothing good.
But when it became impossible to build communism in the USSR on the basis of the initially accepted socialist model, then the ideologists introduced the concept of developed socialism. In their opinion, this should have become a kind of transitional stage from socialism as such to communism. As is known from history, developed socialism also did not take root.
Former USSR
Of course, the former Soviet Union at one time played one of the key roles in world development, which cannot be underestimated now. Recall at least the years of the Cold War. Then, in fact, they were not guided by the principles even of Lenin, but of Marx, who maintained that capitalist society would inevitably come to the stage of economic imperialism. In this, unfortunately, he was right.
But in the Union, where there were also imperial ambitions, everything turned out a little differently. The development of socialism turned out exactly the opposite. If anyone remembers the times of Khrushchev and Brezhnev, here you have an emphasis on corn, and the development of the Non-Chernozem region agriculture, and an increase in the number of products with a decrease in quality, and a constant shortage of a particular product, etc. The construction of communism, as it turned out, with a bang failed. But the doctor’s sausage in the 80s cost 1.80-2.20 rubles per kilo for a salary of 120-180 rubles, and people determine the degree of well-being exclusively through the stomach or the ability to buy something or go to relax at sea. In general, there are obviously poles here.
Modern countries and their development trends
As for the difference between socialism and communism in the current situation, attention should be paid to those countries that have taken a similar path. The European Union, once controlled by the USSR, collapsed, but Cuba, North Korea, China, Venezuela, etc., are still trying to follow a beaten track. So what?
Look at least at the same Cuba, whose unchallenged leader until recently was Fidel Castro, who promised to shave his beard only after communism was built in the country. Where is he? The people of beggars, in Havana, even housing has become so dilapidated that it cannot be restored, $ 100 for the average Cuban is an exorbitant amount.
North Korea generally looks like it’s just incomprehensible to the mind. What can I say, at the funeral of the former leader of the state officially had to cry. If a person cried poorly, they could easily have been convicted of the fact that he does not express condolences or does not support the existing system. So much for the perverted ideology. What is the construction of communism?
Conclusion
Actually, one can argue for a very long time on the question of the socialist or communist structure of society. For the concept of differences, you should first pay attention to the business case, and not to something else. In general, in general terms, both ideas are similar.
