Rus Articles Journal

Capitalism and Marxism. Antagonists or...?

Among sociologists occur confidence that the sociological science realizes not only scientific, but also very important public, civil function, function prosveshchenchesky which implementation helps society better and more stoutly to understand itself and on the basis of this understanding of to improve. Being science about society, the sociology in the high-quality and public expression becomes science for society.

As they say, “these words of da Bogu in ears“. However to educate society whether always sociologists entirely understand what happens in society? It is no secret, that scientists cannot still give definition to either an Asian way of production, or a social system in the USSR.

Practically how many sociologists, are so much also opinions. I offer one more opinion on your court, following logic of which it is possible to come also for definition of a social system in the USSR. Perhaps, it will seem to you interesting.

By the end of the 19th century many scientists shared opinion that the Marxism and its major component, the formational theory, are that knowledge which revealed true sense of historical process before mankind, having convincingly explained the mechanism of its realization.

It seemed that each subsequent formation logically follows from previous. It seemed that at last the social philosophy found the unshakable base in the form of the changing relations of production for finding of more and more progressive means of production by society.

The theory based on the analysis which is carried out by Marx modern to it capitalism seemed so fundamental that when in Russia October revolution came true at anybody in the world did not raise doubts that crash of capitalism approaches. That this celebration of the true theory specifying to mankind a way to the future.

And even when to the middle of the XX century the relation to the formational theory was replaced on opposite, only the type of the Soviet social system was called in question. Before scientists, along with an Asian way of production, there was one more white spot in the form of the Soviet socialism.

Scientists could not decide in any way how to characterize what was established in the USSR and still this question is a source that doctoral dissertations. However the fact that the historical period preceding capitalism is reflected formational theories truly still still does not raise doubts. And whether so it?

Whether it is covered behind the fact of inability of scientists to give definition to neither an Asian way of production, nor the Soviet socialism falsehood of some postulates of Marxism? Whether so, for example, it is possible to put the European feudalism and the capitalism which replaced it in one row?

Obratyas to a formational row (it is primitive - a communal system, slavery, feudalism, capitalism, socialism), it is necessary to notice a deep community of a slaveholding and capitalist formation. The most important that unites them, is the uniform scheme of the organization of production.

Both the slaveholder, and the capitalist are organizers of workplaces. Both the slave, and the proletarian come to all ready. They need only to give the work. Both the slaveholder, and the capitalist are interested in continuous increase in workplaces, on the one hand, and labor productivity, with another. Than more workplaces, the labor productivity is higher, the big both that, and another gets profit.

Really, slaves in slavery and workers in capitalism relations of production unite. Other members of society, being fed at the expense of slaves or workers, too are indirectly the integrated relations of production.

But unless at feudalism of people in society unite feudal relations of production? Unless not the Christianity on fragments of the Roman Empire created a uniform European community of people?

Why Marx did not notice this literally the sticking-out fact? Because then it should recognize that the Christianity is one of necessary stages of the further movement of society. No, the Christianity did not disturb Marx in his creativity over “Capital“, it only did not allow to create Marxism, more precisely, Marxist ethics.

If ethics of all times and the people were based on the concept “God“, then the Marxism connected moral ideas with historically developing ways of production. And, as soon as the pedestal of God was released, on it the person of capitalist relations of production, the person - the consumer right there got.

To the capitalist God system it was not just not necessary, it disturbed. It is possible to tell that the Marxism is the skillfully executed order of capitalist system for the moral right of injurious operation, including natural resources of Earth.

Capitalism as system ordered ideology, the Marxism skillfully executed the order. The Marxism which is generation of capitalist system just by the nature could not consist in the antagonistic relations with capitalism.

Possibly, very many consider that Gaidar`s team cast Russia into a capitalism bosom. It is delusion. In the USSR the capitalist system was always. Stalin, as well as the whole world deceived by Lenin ideology thought too that it builds socialism, and actually diligent continued to build up capitalist relations of production, however, a little other than those that took place in all capitalist world.

Other world knew exclusively democratic form of capitalism. Stalin built and constructed capitalism with the totalitarian form of government society and dominating ideologies of a class of the proletariat. The similar system slightly was created later in Germany: capitalism with the totalitarian form of government society, however with the dominating ideology of a class of the bourgeoisie.

For this reason between fascist Germany and the USSR the strong union could not turn out, they were ideological enemies, though capitalist systems in fact.