The USSR stands for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It is logical to assume that everyone who has even lived a little in this country is well aware of what socialism is. The definition in the textbook is, of course, a useful thing, but it is a theory. But life in the USSR is a practice! Is there so much in common?
Socialism theory
Socialism as a philosophical concept has existed for more than one millennium. It was not Karl Marx who invented it at all. Plato wrote about socialism, it was a very popular concept in ancient Greece. Campanella and Thomas More highly appreciated the ideas of socialism. And only then Karl Marx expressed his opinion on this issue.
What are the main ideas of socialism? Denial of the idea of private property and centralized redistribution of goods. According to socialist theorists, it is precisely such an organization of society that will create the most fair, free society in which all citizens will be equal. True, the question arises: who will distribute the accumulated benefits between equal citizens? Even more equal citizens? And will not power be concentrated in their hands much more significant than that of any monopolist-bourgeois or absolute monarch?
Theory flaws
This question is far from the only one. There are many such logical inconsistencies in the theory of socialism. That is why it always existed only as a philosophical concept, and the authors of the works devoted to it were called idealists and utopians. The definition of “non-viable” most characterizes the classic, refined socialism.
Karl Marx himself, a staunch supporter of this philosophical trend, believed that for the introduction of this theory into life, mankind must make an evolutionary leap. But in the existing reality, the basic ideas of socialism in their pure, pristine form are not applicable. Because they come into direct conflict with the basics of the human psyche. Alas, people are not perfect, they have no place in utopia.
Countries trying to build socialism
The idealistic philosophical concept is the definition that most accurately characterizes socialism. From the history of this trend, we can conclude that attempts to put it into practice are a very risky business. Very few countries that have chosen this path have achieved success.
More precisely, only one - Sweden. The countries of South America and Africa can serve rather as anti-advertising of practical socialism, and the USSR, although it has achieved certain successes, is too far removed from the basic principles of teaching.
Sometimes China is called as an example of a country that has achieved success in this area. But Maoism can hardly be considered one of the branches of socialism. The Chinese themselves have always considered themselves communists and nationalists. And the ideas of humanism, on which classical socialism is based, are alien to Maoism.
Therefore, considering the experience of the practical implementation of the theory of universal equality in life, it is better to rely on the experience of two countries: Sweden and the USSR. They followed different paths and interpreted the doctrine of socialism in different ways. Yes, and the results have achieved exactly the opposite. But the more interesting to compare them.
Economics and government regulation
Any political theory is always based on economics. It is the blood and flesh of the system, the roof and walls. The role of the economy in society is decisive. And if at first political opinion can form economic and financial relations, then the situation changes to the exact opposite. The economy plays a leading role in the life of society, and the sooner the country's leadership understands this, the better. A classic example of such a situation is Russia of the 1920s. Political will destroyed the previous economic system and tried to artificially create a new one that is consistent with ideology. And indeed, for some time this cadaver existed. But the crisis struck, and the government was forced to correct the ideology and take measures to revive the economy. The NEP directly contradicted all the dogma proclaimed. But it had to be introduced. Necessary. This was the only way to stabilize the situation. So in the battle “money-idea” the idea lost. Marx was right, matter is still primary.
The planned economy as a monopoly of the state
But the means of production must be in collective ownership. And the goods produced are distributed, and, obviously, centrally. This, in fact, is socialism. The role of the state in the economy, therefore, should be decisive.
In the USSR, things were exactly like that. After the collapse of the NEP policy, a planned economy was introduced, based on the direct control of the state over the country's economic life. The market in the Western sense of the word was absent in the USSR as a phenomenon. No self-regulation of supply and demand, no competition. All this replaced central planning and artificial regulation. Such was the role of the state in economic life. Socialism in the Soviet Union was understood as "accounting and control." And that expression had a literal meaning. Any demand, any need was carefully calculated, and production facilities received a clear order. We need so much steel, so many tractors and so many pairs of children's sandals.
Problems of state regulation
The production time of the ordered norm took five years, then the cycle was repeated. The economy of socialism of this type did not exist by itself. She was in the role of performer in the state machine.
Usually the economy is compared with the body. Healthy or not, strong or weak. But - to the living, who did not need instructions: “Heart, beat, blood — thes!” The functions of the state in the economy of the Soviet Union were so vast that there could be no talk of any kind of organism. Except that this is not a living organism, connected to a dialysis apparatus, an artificial lung and a pacemaker at the same time. And, continuing the analogy, instead of blood he has some kind of sterile plasma. Because the Soviet ruble was not just non-convertible. It existed off course, in an economic vacuum.
Artificial Forex Market
The functions of the state in the economy of the USSR were so extensive that the official rate of the national currency was in no way connected either with the real purchasing power of the currency or with external quotes. The ratio of 1 ruble to 1 dollar existed only within the country, nowhere outside of it was it possible to exchange rubles at such a price. And in the Soviet Union, this ratio was real only within the framework of official transactions. Black market prices were very different. And as soon as the country abandoned the policy of tight regulation of the foreign exchange market, the ruble exchange rate collapsed - more precisely, took the position that it should have occupied without artificial support.
This is the trouble with artificial regulation of the economy - the existence inside an isolated incubator with a sterile environment makes the body completely unviable. One must either not leave the safe zone, or prepare for the fact that reality will crush the fragile glass world.
Excessive production static
The same problems exist in the economy that exists in the regime of tight regulation. She, of course, is stable - market crises hardly concern her. But sustainability fees are exceptional rigidity. This economy is not capable of responding itself to the inevitable changes in reality. Both production and consumption are regulated manually, and therefore do not correspond to actual requests, but to ideas about these requests, living in the imagination of the governing structure. This is precisely the role of the state in economic life. Soviet-style socialism could provide citizens with free apartments, but could not produce feminine hygiene products. Just because the need for apartments is significant on a national scale, and the need for laying is a trifle that cannot be considered from the height of state administration.
Social guarantees in the USSR
But, along with such obvious shortcomings, the socio-economic system of the USSR was unique in its own way. Yes, there were no gaskets - but there were apartments! The level of social guarantees in the USSR was at an extremely high level.
Free housing, free medicine, free education, guaranteed employment for graduates ... An interesting paradox arose: on the one hand, the average standard of living in the USSR was much lower than in Europe or the USA. On the other hand, he was really average - that is, there were neither luxury villas for millionaires, nor homeless people in cardboard boxes. We can say that the quality of care in an ordinary Soviet hospital for an unprivileged patient was lower than that in France or England. But you can recall that in France or England, a person without insurance practically loses the right to medical care, and in the USSR this was one of the social guarantees for everyone.
Many graduates in the Soviet Union were unhappy with the distribution: distant regions, prestigious enterprises. Now, perhaps, not one student would envy this practice. Guaranteed work, free housing, even in a hostel, the prospect of getting your own apartment.
The socio-economic system existing in the USSR, with all its shortcomings, set extremely high standards in the sphere of state concern for a person. And the ideal is simply unattainable.
Swedish alternative
But the role of socialism in economic life may be different. Sweden did not refuse either private property or a market economy. But it was they who built “socialism with a human face”, achieved the goal towards which the Soviet Union has been going for more than 70 years.
The Swedes took from the philosophical concept the best - caring for a person, attention to his needs and needs. And they abandoned the potentially dangerous because of their impracticability: the abolition of private property and centralized distribution. The Swedish model assumes state control over social and economic life - but only in the field of social guarantees. Indeed, for this it does not at all need to monopolize the means of production and destroy the free market. It is enough to create an effective redistribution system.
Entrepreneurship support
The role of the state in economic life boiled down to this. Socialism in Swedish is a fair tax system and a reasonable, justifiable redistribution of funds.
In contrast to the Soviet Union, this country encourages private production as much as possible, especially small and medium-sized ones. After all, this is an ideal option! A man provides himself with both work and livelihoods, and even pays taxes. And no one needs to dictate how much cabbage to grow, but how many shirts to sew. Consumer demand will do just fine with this. The more earning, wealthy citizens, the more taxes they can pay, and therefore, the more significant will be the infusion into the social sphere. At the same time, the taxation system is designed in such a way that it is beneficial for entrepreneurs to increase production volumes, modernize and expand enterprises.
Swedish socialism
But this does not mean that the Swedes exclude the regulatory role of the state in economic life. Socialism as caring for a person is achieved not by monopolizing production, but by optimizing the legislative framework. The idea of equality found practical implementation in Sweden. Skilled and unskilled workers, men and women — any person performing a certain job receives money for it strictly in accordance with objective factors, such as the complexity of the task and the quality of the result. This is the result of the activity of the Swedish trade unions with which the state works closely.
In addition, the country has an extremely high overall level of tolerance. Discrimination based on gender, racial, religious grounds is practically impossible - the punishment in this case is not only harsh, but also inevitable.
In Sweden there is no system of universal social guarantees, as in the USSR, but there is a system of state social insurance that applies to all residents. Every citizen of the country, regardless of their income level, can count on public support if necessary.
In this way, the Swedes were able to implement the utopian theory of universal equality and security, without abandoning either private property or the ideas of free trade and entrepreneurship.