The
Marxist
Volume:
3,
No.
3-4
July
–
December
1985
Karl Marx on the
Individual
and
the
Conditions
for
His
Freedom
and
Development
THE
STUDY
OF
THE
INDIVIDUAL
IS
NOT
JUST
ONE
of
the
aspects
of
Marxism-
Leninism,
but
something
much
more
than
this.
Marxist
theory
relating
to
the
revolutionary
reconstruction
of
society,
and
based
on
the
objective
laws
of
history,
is
nothing
other
than
a
scientifically
based
programme
for
the
workingman’s
freedom
and
the
all-round
development
of
the
individual.
Precisely
for
this
reason,
Marxist-
Leninist
studies
on
the
individual
are
constantly
under
attack
by
bourgeois
ideologists.
Again
and
again
the
critics
of
communism
take
the
stance
that
Marxists,
on
the
whole,
have
not
paid
enough
attention
to
the
problem
of
the
individual,
his
freedom
and
creative
activity.
But
there
is
little
need
for
apology
on
this
score
since
from
the
outset,
a
deep
scientific
conception
of
the
individual
was
worked
out
by
the
founders
of
Marxism.
Karl
Marx
considers
the
individual,
his
nature,
freedom
and
development
as
inseparably
connected
with
society.
The
starting
point
of
his
analysis
is
not
the
individual,
but
society.
According
to
Marxism
the
fundamental
and
motivating
reasons
for
the
actions
of
the
masses
of
nations,
and
the
classes
within
them,
are
their
economic
interests.
These
two
moments
---
economic
interests
and
belonging
to
a
class,
a
social
group
---
finally
determine
the
characteristic
and
behaviour
of
the
masses
and
form
the
various
social
types
of
the
individual.
Based
on
the
relations
so
formed,
arise
the
different
ideological
motivations
of
people’s
behaviour.
From
this
follows
Marx’s
significant
conclusions
on
man’s
nature,
a
conclusion,
which
is
of
cardinal
importance
for
historical
materialism
on
the
whole,
as
well
as
for
the
theory
of
the
individual.
“Man
‘s
nature
is
not
abstract;
a
characteristic
of
a
certain
individual.
Actually
it
is
the
totally
of
all
the
social
relations”.
And
also
“…the
real
spiritual
richness
of
the
individual
entirely
depends
on
the
richness
of
his
real
relations.”
With
this
understanding
of
man’s
nature,
is
connected
the
idea
of
the
revolutionary
reconstruction
of
the
world
and
the
role
of
the
educational
factor.
“If
man’s
character
was
formed
by
circumstances
than
it
would
be
necessary
to
make
the
circumstances
human.”
In
the
process
of
reconstructing
circumstances,
i.e.,
the
practical,
revolutionary
reorganisation
of
reality,
a
new
individual
is
formed
and
more
favourable
condition
for
his
existence
and
development
created.
Reorganisation
of
reality
is
in
practices
carried
out
by
the
masses,
who
having
risen
to
the
active
and
conscious
creative
work
of
history,
form
a
definite
type
of
individual.
Thus
Marxism-Leninism
assesses
the
individual’s
fate,
his
freedom
and
development,
in
close
connection
with
the
fate
of
the
masses,
classes,
their
economic,
and
social
–
political,
and
spiritual
development.
Precisely
for
this
reason
Marx
was
able
to
substitute
the
cult
of
abstract
man,
which
prevailed
in
all
the
previous
philosophies,
with
the
sciences
of
real
people
and
their
historical
development.
From
Marx’s
theory
of
the
individual
we
take
three
moments
which
give
visual
and
convincing
proof
of
the
scientific,
revolutionary
and
deeply
human
nature
of
Marx’s
study
---
the
problems
of
alienation,
of
freedom,
and
of
the
complete
development
of
the
individual.
II
It
is
incorrect
to
equate
alienation
with
the
process
of
conversion
of
labour
into
products.
As
long
as
there
is
production,
there
will
be
objectivisation
of
man’s
abilities
by
himself,
but
labour’s
alienation
is
an
historical
transient
phenomenon:
It
appears
together
with
the
surplus
product
which
is
appropriated
by
the
exploiting
classes;
the
slave
owners,
the
feudal
lords
and
the
capitalists,
i.e.,
with
the
emergence
of
private
property.
Under
conditions
of
property,
the
wealth
formed
and
accumulated
through
the
worker’s
labour,
becomes
the
tool
of
his
exploitation,
the
material
force
which
brings
upon
him
all
means
of
economic
compulsion,
political
coercion,
spiritual
oppression
and
deception.
Naturally
“the
worker
approaches
the
product
of
his
labour
as
someone
else’s
….as
he
approaches
the
world
as
the
enemy
standing
against
him.”
But
not
only
is
the
product
of
labour
alienated.
Production
itself
is
an
active
alienation
of
man.
“Labour
for
the
worker
is
something
external
not
belonging
to
his
nature…in
his
labour
he
does
not
affirm
himself,
but
denies
himself,
feels
not
happy,
but
unhappy,
does
not
develop
freely
his
physical
and
spiritual
energy
but
wears
out
his
physical
nature
and
destroys
his
spiritual
force.
This
is
why
the
worker
feels
that
he
is
himself
only
outside
of
working
hours
in
the
process
of
labour
he
feels
he
is
estranged
from
himself.
He
is
himself
when
he
is
not
working,
and
when
he
works
he
is
already
not
himself.
So
the
workers
labour
appears
as
his
loss
of
himself.
A
worker
approaches
his
own
work
as
something
not
belonging
to
him.
Alienation
of
the
product
and
labour
itself
predetermines
alienation
of
man
from
man.
As
man
is
alienated
from
the
product
of
his
labour,
from
his
life’s
activity,
from
his
inherent
social
nature
and
therefore
resists
himself,
so
is
this
manifested
in
the
mutual
alienation
of
people.
In
the
conditions
of
bourgeois
society
the
worker’s
labour
and
his
product
present
themselves
not
as
belonging
to
him
but
to
the
capitalist.
This
is
why
the
relationship
established
between
them
is
one
of
domination
and
submission
with
hostility
and
class
struggle
as
the
natural
state
of
such
relationship.
According
to
Marx
these
are
the
main
characteristics,
which
sum
up
the
proletariat’s
position
under
capitalism
---
alienation
of
the
product
of
labour,
labour
itself,
and
man.
Of
course
since
Marx’s
time
a
lot
has
changed,
but
the
essence
of
exploitation
has
not
changed,
the
fact
of
alienation
in
bourgeois
society
remains.
Moreover,
according
to
the
calculation
of
specialists,
the
portion
of
time
for
which
an
American
labourer,
for
example
works
for
the
capitalist
has
increased
from
40
to
66
per
cent.
In
our
time
the
object
of
exploitation
is
not
only
the
worker’s
physical
ability,
but
also
his
mental
ability.
The
most
dangerous
means
of
social
alienation
are
the
formation
and
accumulation
of
thermonuclear
arms
intended
for
the
mass
destruction
of
people,
in
the
name
of
defending
the
capitalist’s
necessary
interests.
Marx
related
the
overcoming
of
alienation
to
the
liquidation
of
private
ownership
of
the
means
of
production,
replacing
it
with
social
property,
by
means
of
revolution.
Everything
that
has
been
achieved
to
date
as
a
result
of
building
a
socialist
society,
convincingly
confirms
Marx’s
theoretical
foresight.
However
it
is
important
to
underline
that
the
transformation
of
the
means
of
production
from
private
to
social
property
does
not
automatically
lead
to
a
revolution
in
all
production,
social
and
political
relations
in
people’s
consciousness,
leading
to
the
immediate
establishment
of
an
all-round
collective
psychology.
This
takes
place
only
gradually,
in
the
complex
and
contradictory
process
of
society’s
reconstruction,
in
struggle
and
search.
At
the
same
time,
as
the
example
of
the
USSR
and
other
socialist
countries
has
shown,
the
strength
of
socialist
property
and
the
power
of
the
people,
are
the
firm
basis
for
successful
economic
growth,
and
the
development
of
a
socialist
type
of
life,
culture
and
a
high
consciousness
of
the
people.
It
is
no
longer
possible
to
refute
the
fact
that
due
to
the
assertion
of
social
property,
society
has
changed
into
an
association
of
free
workers
in
which
all
the
social
wealth
---
material
and
spiritual
---
is
used
in
the
interests
of
all
workers
for
the
development
of
their
abilities.
Of
course
changing
social
needs,
the
conditions
at
the
different
stage
of
society’s
development,
bring
about
different
changes
in
the
distribution
of
national
income
in
the
interests
of
the
economy’s
progress
between
the
strengthening
of
defence,
the
growth
of
culture,
the
satisfaction
of
social
necessities
and
personal
needs.
But
this
distribution
is
always
predetermined
objectively
by
the
people’s
interests,
the
strengthening
of
their
security,
the
defence
of
peace.
Naturally
this
distribution
can
be
carried
out
for
the
better
or
worse;
there
may
be
serious
mistakes
and
miscalculations.
However
it
is
important
to
underline
that
in
the
prevailing
conditions,
and
the
given
distributional
relations,
there
is
no
contradiction
of
interests
of
antagonistic
classes,
as
when
the
exploiting
classes
appropriate
the
labour
of
the
exploited.
Problems
and
complications
move
to
the
plane
of
searching
for
the
best
methods
of
stimulation
and
distribution
of
production,
better
calculation
of
the
quantity
and
quality
of
the
labour
performed,
the
variety
of
interests
of
the
groups
and
the
different
members
of
the
society.
It
is
today
impossible
not
to
acknowledge
that
in
socialist
conditions,
for
the
workingman,
labour
is
not
only
a
means
of
life
and
a
source
of
personal
welfare,
but
also
work
for
the
good
of
society
and
service
to
the
people.
From
a
source
of
alienation
of
man,
labour
changes
into
a
factor
of
confirmation
of
the
worker’s
dignity,
becomes
a
criterion
of
his
social
position
and
his
prestige.
Socialist
workers
drawn
into
the
management
of
social
work,
which
provides
for
their
participation
in
state
politics,
are
educated
in
the
spirit
of
high
civic
responsibility.
This
removes
man
from
the
narrow
circle
of
personal
anxiety,
to
a
wide
world
of
social
worries,
gives
rise
to
new
forces
and
talents
in
him.
Participation
in
common
work
are
the
strong
wings
which
lift
man.
In
this
way
alienation
as
a
social
phenomenon,
connected
with
the
appropriation
of
the
product
of
the
hired
worker’s
labour
by
the
capitalist,
is
eliminated
under
socialism.
Of
course,
for
the
present,
the
consequences
of
an
alienation
which
has
been
dominant
for
centuries,
persist
in
the
form
of
people
not
always
regarding
social
property
as
their
own
collective
property,
but
trying
to
illegally
to
use
it
with
the
aim
of
personal
enrichment.
This
evil,
which
remains,
is
due
to
causes
not
yet
eliminated,
such
as
insufficient
education,
contact,
etc.
However
critics
of
Marxism
or
of
the
real
socialism
are
found
who
affirm
that
as
long
as,
under
socialism
a
government
exists
which
distributes
the
national
income,
inclusive
of
distribution
of
social
necessities,
appropriation
of
part
of
the
worker’s
product
occurs
and
this,
they
say,
is
alienation.
That
is,
the
fact
of
a
part
of
the
common
product
being
used
for
the
satisfaction
of
common
necessities
(management,
education,
defence,
etc.),
is
taken
as
alienation.
The
aim
of
similar
affirmations
is
to
blur
the
main
differences
between
capitalism
and
socialism.
To
arrive
at
the
correct
position
it
is
necessary
to
remember
that
alienation
is
an
historical
phenomenon
connected
with
the
private
ownership
of
the
means
of
production.
It
is
also
necessary
to
see
the
new,
which
appears
under
socialism.
The
main
difference
lies
in
the
fact
that
here
the
expenditure
for
common
necessities
takes
place
in
the
interests
of
the
people
and
not
in
the
interests
of
the
monopolies,
especially
the
military
industrial
complex.
In
capitalist
society
there
are
no
exploiters
who
can
exclusively
appropriate
the
fruits
of
everyone’s
labour.
Under
socialism
the
principle
from
each
according
to
his
ability,
to
each
according
to
his
work,
dominates.
Different
violations
of
this
principle
(misappropriate,
parasitism,
misuse,
etc.),
which
are
committed
for
various
reasons,
are
social
evils
punishable
by
law.
Common
needs
will
always
be
there
and
if
expenditure
for
their
satisfaction
is
acknowledged
as
alienation,
then
we
return
to
the
old
theme-the
ever
–
lasting
nature
of
alienation.
At
other
times
it
is
said
that
under
socialism
the
worker
does
not
always
know
what
happens
to
the
product
of
his
labour.
But
the
fact
of
alienation
does
not
lie
in
this
knowledge
or
ignorance.
Under
capitalism
the
worker
may
in
fact
know
what
happens
to
his
product,
and
often
knows
that
the
product
goes
for
the
enrichment
of
the
capitalist
and
continuation
of
the
exploitation
of
his
labour.
We
have
said
above
that
Marx
interrelated
the
fate
of
the
individual
with
the
fate
of
the
freedom
of
the
masses.
This
in
fact
is
why
it
is
important
to
enumerate
those
changes,
which
have
taken
place
in
the
individual’s
character
under
socialism.
The
individual
as
an
individual
carrier
of
social
virtues
is
always
the
unity
of
the
individual’s
specific
and
common
virtues.
Naturally
every
individual
cannot
be
characterised
without
disclosing
his
individual
characteristic.
But
there
is
no
individual
without
virtues.
Therefore
he
cannot
be
understood
without
also
understanding
his
common
typical
virtues.
In
other
words,
it
is
a
question
of
two
different
ideas
–
the
nation
of
the
separate
individual,
and
the
notion
of
the
social
type
of
individual.
Only
the
study
of
common
for
joining
the
common
and
the
individual
brings
us
to
the
sphere
of
objective
laws,
and
the
uncovering
of
laws
is
the
essence
and
aim
of
scientific
knowledge.
If
we
want,
with
scientific
accuracy
to
discern
what
happens
to
the
individual
under
socialism
it
is
necessary
first
of
all
to
characterise
the
common
changes
in
the
people’s
consciousness,
their
virtues,
and
only
on
this
basis
judge
the
possibilities
arising
for
individual
development.
Individual
virtues
are
first
and
foremost
realised
in
the
limits
of
personal
freedom,
in
the
all-round
development
of
the
individual’s
abilities
and
needs,
and
mainly
in
his
creative
work.
Marx,
while
giving
the
prognosis
of
man’s
development
in
the
condition
of
the
new
society,
in
fact
mostly
paid
attention
to
the
problems
of
freedom
and
the
all
round
development
of
the
human
force,
looking
at
the
latter
as
the
end
in
itself
of
the
communist
society.
Summing
up
all
the
changes
in
the
objective
position
of
the
workers
which
take
place
under
socialism,
we
can
say
that
for
the
first
time
in
history,
the
social
characteristics
common
to
all
members
of
society
assume
paramount
importance
and
not
the
state,
national,
religious
or
some
other
group
features.
This
is
manifested
in
the
development
of
the
feeling
of
collective
and
an
international
psychology,
the
striving
to
participate
in
the
strengthening
of
the
country
with
one’s
labour
and
in
the
management
of
social
work
on
a
large
scale
among
the
people.
In
the
typological
structure
of
society
besides
the
specific
and
group
features
of
people,
and
side
by
side
with
them,
appear
the
common
features
of
the
common
social
type
of
individual,
the
new
man.
The
socialist
individual
is
the
ideal
individual,
who
grasps
the
aims
and
principles
of
communist
ideology,
which
puts
common
interests
above
the
individual
interest.
In
the
process
of
socialist
transformation,
the
difficulties
in
educating
and
re-educating
people
in
collectivism
is
clearly
seen.
The
individual,
private
–
ownership
psychology
is
more
alive
in
the
consciousness
of
some
people
than
was
thought
to
be
the
case
earlier.
To
overcome
this,
more
time
and
stronger
measures
are
necessary.
The
society
could
not
allocate
more
resources
for
the
development
of
education
and
the
growth
of
material
welfare
and
culture,
then
the
international
and
internal
circumstances
permitted.
Some
errors
in
family
and
school
education,
in
the
application
of
social
sanctions
and
encouragement,
played
a
role
in
this.
It
is
also
necessary
to
take
into
account
the
fact
of
the
capitalist
world,
which
with
out
the
help
of
different
means,
strives
to
support
anti-social
elements.
Anti-communists,
with
malicious
joy,
use
the
difficulties,
which
we
face
to
prove
that
the
presence
of
some
problems
refutes
the
fact
of
educating
the
new
individual
under
socialism.
For
this
they
focus
on
the
defects,
while
ignoring
the
very
significant
fact
of
the
successful
education
of
the
overwhelming
majority
of
the
population
in
the
spirit
of
socialism.
III
Marxism-Leninism
states
that
the
freedom
of
the
individual
worker
is
directly
dependent
on
the
liquidation
of
capitalist
exploitation
and
private
ownership
of
the
means
of
production.
Answering
the
critics’
reproach
that
communists
want
to
destroy
all
property
as
the
basis
of
personal
freedom,
Marx
and
Engels
show
that
these
accusations
are
in
fact
used
to
hide
attempts
to
present
a
certain
‘freedom’
---
the
freedom
to
exploit
hired
labour,
freedom
to
develop
the
minority
by
suppressing
the
majority
---
as
the
individual’s
freedom
in
general.
In
their
first
programmatic
document,
the
communists
declare
it
is
necessary
to
destroy
the
oppression
of
man
by
man.
In
place
of
the
old
society
with
classes
and
class
antagonisms,
will
be
a
society,
which
is
an
association
of
workers,
where
the
free
development
of
each
is
the
condition
for
the
free
development
of
all.
Two
points
need
to
be
underlined
in
connection
with
what
is
stated
above.
The
first
one
concerns
Marx
and
Engels’
formulations.
Sometimes
it
is
misconstrued
in
this
sense
that
society
cannot
be
free
until
every
person
is
granted
freedom
without
restriction.
However,
to
reason
thus
means
to
learn
towards
anarchy.
Every
society
has
its
prohibitions,
its
restrictions;
in
other
words,
defines
its
limits
of
freedom.
Any
attempt
to
hasten
the
realisation
of
the
idea
of
freedom,
in
reality
advocates
tyranny
and
thus
questions
the
very
idea
itself.
From
the
content
of
the
Manifesto
of
the
Communist
Party
it
is
seen
that
Marx
and
Engels
are
not
talking
of
any
freedom
but
freedom
from
exploitation,
freedom
from
class
oppression,
from
class
conflicts.
In
this
sense
society
cannot
be
considered
free
till
it
replace
capitalist
exploitation
with
the
free
collaboration
of
all
members
of
society.
Secondly,
if
the
welfare
and
freedom
of
the
capitalist
individual
is
based
on
his
property,
and
if
for
him
freedom
is
equivalent
to
the
freedom
of
possession
of
this
property,
freedom
for
exploitation
of
hired
labour,
then
the
welfare
and
freedom
of
the
proletarian
individual
is
freedom
from
exploitation
collective
possession
of
means
of
production,
free
creative
self-assertion,
development
of
his
strength
and
ability.
Naturally,
for
the
proletariat
the
bourgeois
formulation
is
not
acceptable
for
it
means
for
him
no
freedom.
In
the
same
way
the
bourgeois
does
not
accept
the
formulation
of
the
Manifesto
because
it
means
liquidation
of
the
monopoly
of
bourgeois
property
and
rights,
and
the
freedom
and
the
possibilities
with
it.
Even
such
theorising
on
the
striving
of
each
person
to
conserve
his
elementary
rights
ands
freedoms
even
in
the
conditions
of
bourgeois
society,
frightens
the
imperialist
bourgeois
who
fear
losing
their
riches
and
privileges.
Thus
they
to
defend
their
interests
deny
the
conditions
of
freedom
for
everyone
else.
In
this
lies
the
reason
for
the
special
attention
of
the
bourgeoisie
to
the
problem
of
the
freedom
of
the
individual,
the
reason
for
the
partial
criticism
of
Marxist
theory
and
practices,
the
reason
for
the
acute
ideological-theoretical
conflict
between
communist
and
bourgeois
ideologies.
But
freedom
as
deliverance
of
the
worker
from
capitalist
exploitation,
is
only
one,
though
the
most
important
aspect
of
his
freedom.
It
cannot
be
restricted
by
negative
characteristics-
freedom
from
something.
Freedom
makes
sense
only
when
man
is
free
not
due
to
negative
forces,
to
deliver
him
from
something
or
the
other,
but
due
to
positive
forces,
to
show
his
real
individuality.
The
results
of
socialist
transformation
are
affirmed
by
the
common
radical
interests
of
the
social
groups.
Only
when
there
is
equality
between
people,
mainly
in
their
relation
to
the
means
of
production,
when
they
are
united
by
common
aims,
thoughts,
when
their
relationships
are
characterised
by
social,
political
and
ideological
unity-
only
then
do
the
class
barriers
which
restrict
the
individual’s
freedom
disappear,
only
then
are
formed
favourable
opportunities
for
the
free
expression
of
his
strivings,
and
everyone’s
participation
in
the
management
of
social
work.
The
alien
forces,
dominating
over
people
till
then,
now
come
under
their
control.
As
Engels
wrote,
this
is
a
leap
in
humanity
from
the
realm
of
necessity
to
the
realm
of
freedom.
Certainly
this
character
of
freedom,
this
organisation
of
freedom
does
not
suit
the
capitalist,
and
they
naturally
fight
against
it
for
the
freedom
of
the
owners,
the
freedom
of
exploitation,
for
conserving
their
economic
and
political
domination.
But
this
is
always
done
in
the
name
of
all
the
members
of
society.
Anti-communists
try
to
present
Sovietology
in
the
light
that
the
sovereignty
of
Marxist-Leninist
ideology
and
the
communist
system
of
education,
leads
to
the
loss
of
the
freedom
of
the
individual
and
its
inimitable
individual
features,
to
changing
it
into
a
collective
unit.
Regardless
of
these
assertions,
Soviet
reality
reveals
itself
differently
in
the
spiritual
life
in
the
cities
and
villages,
which
already
for
the
past
ten
years
has
been
intensively
and
diversely
developing
on
the
basis
of
collection.
This
is
accepted
by
many
foreign
observers.
Socialism
forms
wide
and
ever
increasing
possibilities
for
the
development
of
the
worker’s
creative
activities,
the
initiative
of
millions
of
people,
the
development
of
their
interests,
abilities
and
needs.
The
critics
of
real
socialism,
in
the
past
few
years,
especially
have
ben
persistently
contrasting
real
socialism
with
social
democracy,
a
conception
of
ideological
and
political
pluralism.
Pluralism
as
it
arose
in
bourgeois
society
is
a
complex
and
contradictory
phenomenon.
At
first
sight
it
appears
to
be
a
free
interplay,
a
fight
between
political
forces
in
which
the
one,
which
shows
greater
viability
and
activity
wins.
However,
is
it
possible
to
remove
from
this
account
the
fact
that
all
economic
strength,
the
punitive
organs,
armed
forces,
all
means
of
mass
information
and
propaganda
are
in
the
hands
of
the
capitalists?
Clearly
it
is
impossible,
although
the
propagandists
of
bourgeois
pluralism
cavalierly
bypass
this
situation.
In
condition
of
the
growing
political
activity
of
the
working
class,
the
monopolist
proclaims
the
pressure
of
the
masses
on
political
parties
to
be
political
pluralism,
an
attribute
of
contemporary
democracy.
It
sees
it,
under
the
present
correlation
of
class
forces,
as
an
effective
means
of
retaining
power
in
its
own
hands
by,
from
time
to
time,
allowing
power
to
pas
from
one
bourgeois
party
to
another.
Ideological
and
political
pluralism
is
presented
in
bourgeois
propaganda
as
the
possibility
for
the
expression
of
free
desire
by
all
thereby
using
it
to
cover
up
the
political
sovereignty
of
monopoly
capital.
It
is
known
that
certain
rights
and
freedoms,
the
possibilities
of
defending
the
interests
of
the
workers
through
parliamentary
forms
included,
were
gained
by
the
working
class
through
its
political
parties.
The
importance
of
these
possibilities
should
neither
be
underestimated
nor
exaggerated.
They
should
not
be
reduced
because
the
working
class
obtained
its
rights
in
bitter
political
struggles,
and
they
make
the
subsequent
struggles
for
its
interests
easier.
They
should
not
be
exaggerated
because
the
bourgeoisie
supported
by
its
economic
and
political
strength,
its
ideological
apparatus,
its
basic
interests
and
constantly
attacks
the
interests
and
rights
of
the
working
class.
However,
history
now
knows
another
experience.
This
is
the
experience
of
the
socialist
countries,
consisting
of
a
union
of
political
parties
which
represent
the
different
strata
of
workers,
with
the
communist,
Marxist
–
Leninist
party
at
its
head,
an
experience
tested
in
practice
already
for
many
years.
Here
the
diverse
interests
of
the
workers
are
really
represented
by
different
political
parties.
But
of
course
this
pluralism
is
not
at
all
what
the
reformists
of
socialism
dream
about.
They
want
something
in
the
spirit
of
bourgeois
democracy.
In
the
Soviet
Union
a
wide
experience
of
the
one-party
system
of
government
has
been
accumulated,
where
the
Communist
Party
is
the
leading
force
of
the
society.
This
experience
shows
that
within
the
limits
of
such
a
political
organisation,
a
wide
representation
and
calculation
of
the
diverse
interests,
points
of
view,
opinions
of
the
workers
is
intensively
carried
out
and
the
development
of
criticism
and
self-criticism
is
stimulated.
Laws
guarantee
freedom
of
conscience
and
religion.
In
other
words,
in
a
socialist
society
wide
diverse
activities,
interests
and
strivings
exist.
But
again
this
is
not
that
pluralism
about
which
our
critics
talk.
They
need
a
pluralism
in
political
and
ideological
relations,
which
would
perpetuate
the
bourgeois
order.
Such
a
pluralism
in
fact
means
suppressing
the
interests
of
the
workers.
“Any
freedom
–
Lenin
had
said,
-
if
it
does
not
submit
to
the
interests
of
the
freedom
of
the
worker
from
the
oppression
of
capital,
is
a
deception.”
Socialist
society
is
not
guaranteed
against
the
encroachment
by
certain
people
on
the
safety
of
the
members
of
the
society,
and
on
the
common
interest
as
a
whole.
But
it
cannot
be
indifferent
to
such
encroachments.
Application
of
compulsion
a
such
cases
is
a
necessary
condition
for
the
freedom
of
the
society,
a
manifestation
of
the
concern
for
the
freedom
of
its
members.
Of
course
the
society
has
a
system
of
social
prohibition,
which
are
directed
to
the
defence
of
the
socialist
already
won.
Anti
–
Soviet
subversive
activity,
changing
one’s
native
and,
anti
–
Socialist
propaganda,
war
propaganda,
etc.,
are
punished
as
serious
crimes.
Supported
by
the
apparatus
of
compulsion
and
law
and
order,
the
socialist
government
ensures
the
protection
of
the
rights
and
freedom
of
the
individual.
Of
course
we
cannot
assert
that
all
our
problems
are
solved
and
we
have
reached
the
highest
development
of
democracy
and
freedom.
Both
develop
according
to
the
increase
in
the
material
and
spiritual
possibilities,
consolidation
of
the
society’s
political
institutions.
The
Constitution
of
the
USSR
adopted
in
1977
took
a
qualitative
new
step
in
the
perfection
of
the
principle
and
norms
pertaining
to
the
condition
of
the
individual
under
socialism,
his
rights
and
freedom.
The
Constitution
guarantees
the
right
to
choose
a
profession,
the
right
to
protect
health,
the
right
to
take
part
in
the
management
of
government
or
social,
work,
the
right
to
introduce
proposals
in
government
organs
and
social
organisations,
to
criticise
shortcomings
in
work,
and
appeal
to
the
court
against
the
acts
of
officials.
The
personal
rights
and
freedoms
of
the
citizens
have
been
considerably
widened.
Respect
for
the
individual,
protection
of
the
rights
and
freedom
of
the
citizens
are
stated
in
the
principal
law,
as
the
duties
of
all
government
organs,
social
organisations
and
officials.
Norms
for
our
morals,
our
rights,
do
not
allow
unceremonious
invasion
of
personal
relationships,
friendship
and
love.
Society
educates
its
members
to
respect
personal
interests,
tastes
and
opinions.
If
violation
of
these
norms
takes
place
they
are,
as
a
rule,
condemned.
Freedom
of
the
individual
is
a
boon
not
only
for
the
individual.
Freedom
is
a
necessary
condition
for
the
subsequent
progress
of
the
socialist
society
and
its
development
into
a
communist
society.
Growth
of
production,
solution
of
social
problems,
rising
standards
of
scientific
and
artistic
creation,
depend
on
the
initiatives,
qualifications,
discussion
of
theoretical
and
practical,
without
criticism
and
self-criticism,
there
can
be
no
successful
movement
forward.
Socialist
society
is
pre-occupied
with
the
development
of
the
diverse
abilities,
talents
and
inclinations
of
its
members.
Only
under
these
conditions,
can
the
successful
search
for,
and
effective
solution
of
the
pressing
problem
be
ensured.
IV
Marx’s
theory
of
the
individual
cannot
be
presented
without
considering
the
all
round
development
of
free
man,
of
work.
From
the
Manifesto
of
the
Communist
Party
to
Capital
all
Marx’s
work
is
permeated
with
idea
of
the
harmonic
development
of
the
individual.
In
Marxism
the
all
round
development
of
man’s
abilities
was
first
related
to
a
real
social
need,
not
arbitrarily,
but
strictly
scientifically.
Examining
the
impact
of
the
introduction
of
machinery
in
heavy
industry,
Marx
in
the
first
volume
of
Capital,
came
to
the
conclusion
that
the
development
of
industry
itself,
like
the
question
of
life
and
death,
raised
the
following
situation:
the
high
proportion
of
the
population
making
up
the
reserve
army
of
unemployed
to
be
held
in
reserve
to
meet
the
changing
needs
of
capital
for
purposes
of
exploitation,
is
replaced
by
the
need
of
an
all
round
suitability
of
the
workers
to
meet
the
changing
needs
of
production;
i.e.,
the
partial
worker,
a
simple
carrier
of
known
partial
social
function,
is
replaced
by
an
all
round
developed
individual
for
whom
the
different
social
functions
entail
a
change
from
one
to
another
method
of
vital
activity.
In
order
words,
due
to
the
objective
development
of
production,
the
necessity
arises
of
replacing
the
partial
workers
with
a
worker
capable
of
performing
different
types
of
production
work.
And
if
for
the
partial
worker,
functioning
in
production
is
only
a
means
of
maintaining
his
existence,
for
the
all
round
developed
individual
participation
in
production
is
nothing
other
than
a
form
of
vital
activity,
an
expression,
a
realisation
of
his
human
force,
a
realisation
of
self
as
an
individual.
This
is
the
tendency
of
history.
Full
realisation
of
this
tendency
is
possible
only
after
the
accomplishment
of
the
proletarian
revolution
and
establishment
of
the
social
ownership
of
the
means
of
production,
on
the
basis
of
a
planned
economy,
and
a
wide
spread
of
education.
As
seen
from
what
has
been
said
above
the
Marxist
–
Leninist
statement
of
the
problem
means
that
it
is
a
question
of
the
development
not
only
of
separate
individual
but
also
of
all
workers.
All
round
development
of
the
individual
is
not
simply
a
humane
idea
but
a
real
objective,
historical,
pressing
need
of
society.
To
what
extent
can
the
problem
of
the
all
round
development
of
the
individual
be
counted
as
a
practical
problem
of
the
present
times?
On
this
question
theoreticians
hold
different
opinions.
Some
maintain
that
placing
the
problem
of
all
round
development
of
the
individual
on
the
agenda
is
still
too
early,
as
there
is
yet
a
large
number
of
workers
doing
heavy
non-mechanical
work,
and
many
other
urgent
problems
exist
which
require
a
lot
of
energy
and
time.
Further,
as
the
necessary
conditions
for
solving
this
problem
are
not
present
this
is
the
work
of
the
future.
Others
assert
that
in
the
present
society,
all
the
conditions
for
solving
the
problem
of
all
round
development
of
the
individual
have
been
created.
Of
course
this
question
is
not
a
simple
one.
Thought,
research,
discussions
on
this
topic
are
natural.
In
our
opinion,
it
is
not
possible
to
agree
with
the
abstract,
categoric
assertion
that
all
the
conditions
for
the
all
round
development
of
the
individual
have
been
created
in
Soviet
society,
nor
with
the
denial
of
the
possibility
of
the
practical
handling
of
this
problem
now.
The
point
is
that
the
development
of
modern
production,
its
practical
needs
of
mechanisation
and
automation,
are
exactly
what
call
for
raising
the
standards
of
the
professional
skill,
activity
and
responsibility
of
the
worker,
the
necessity
of
a
combination
of
professions.
All
these
demands
can
be
met
only
be
all
rounded
development
of
the
individual
having
a
rich
culture
and
capable
of
combining
the
functions
of
a
qualifies
labourer
with
those
of
a
social
worker.
This
is
brought
about
by
the
planned
organisations
of
the
socialist
economy
and
the
government
organisation
of
the
work
of
preparing
working
cadres.
Life
in
socialist
society
furnishes
evidence
that
all
round
development
of
the
individual
to
a
certain
extent
is
already
a
reality,
and
not
only
in
one
case.
Many
of
our
contemporaries
–
workers,
farmers,
intelligentsia,
who
have
received
a
good
education,
professional
preparedness
and
a
many
sided
development
in
relation
to
culture
are
the
new
type
of
individual.
They
widely
apply
their
knowledge
and
capabilities
in
production,
participate
in
social
work,
and
are
interested
in
literature
and
art.
It
is
hardly
necessary
to
point
out
that
these
people
are
also
infinitely
different
from
each
other,
original,
with
their
own
weak
and
strong
sides,
their
attachments
and
inclinations.
We
have
sufficient
grounds
therefore,
for
further
progress
in
the
all
round
development
of
man.
This
is
brought
about
by
the
technical
level
of
production,
the
qualifications
of
the
working
class
and
collective
farmers,
and
a
strong,
scientific
potential.
In
the
present
conditions,
man’s
working
essence
is
expressed
in
obtaining
high
and
many
sided
qualifications,
ideological
maturity,
moral
–
political
responsibilities
which
allow
the
individual,
in
the
process
of
work
and
social
activity,
to
realise
his
intellectual
and
moral
possibilities,
assert
his
dignity
and
thus
sat
“I”.
Thus
the
formation
of
the
activity
and
responsibilities
of
the
members
of
society
is
not
simply
one
of
the
important
problems,
it
is
the
most
important,
central
problem
of
the
Party
and
Government.
In
its
solution
lies
the
key
to
solving
all
other
problems
–
industrial
economic,
social
and
educational.
This
is
the
pivot
of
all
party
politics.
At
a
meeting
with
the
voters
of
Kuibishevski
region,
Moscow,
the
late
Comrade
K
U
Chernenko
said:
“In
reorganising
the
conditions
of
people’s
life,
it
is
necessary
at
the
same
time
to
do
everything
for
their
ideological
and
moral
growth.
It
is
clear
that
without
a
lot
of
work
for
the
spiritual
development
of
people,
their
socialist
education
cannot
cope
with
the
problems
of
perfecting
mature
socialism.”
The
rise
in
the
welfare
of
the
Soviet
people,
the
intensification
of
the
economy
renewal
of
its
spheres,
perfection
of
its
management,
reconstitution
of
its
economic
mechanisms,
strengthening
the
self
financing
sources,
improvement
in
the
activity
of
the
Soviets,
Party
organisations,
the
realisation
of
these
and
many
other
equally
important
problem
depends
on
the
level
of
development
of
the
initiatives
and
creativity
of
the
working
mass.
As
K
U
Chernenko
states:
The
importance
of
what
we
call
the
human
factor
of
economic
progress
does
not
decrease.
In
other
words
the
importance
of
the
knowledge,
interests
and
moods
of
the
people.”
It
is
from
this
point
of
view
that
the
Party
approaches
the
questions
of
distribution
and
encouragement,
strengthening
discipline
and
law
and
order,
carrying
out
school
reforms,
mastering
Lenin’s
style
of
work
in
all
its
diversity,
increasing
consent
in
the
work
of
management
organs,
developing
criticism
and
self-criticism.
The
nature
of
socialism
as
a
social
formation
is
such
that
it
can
function
and
develop
successfully
only
through
the
activities
of
the
masses,
only
with
a
high
level
of
activity
of
the
masses.
To
whichever
problem
we
turn
–
economic,
law
and
order
its
socialist
solution
demands
the
conscientious
participation
of
the
masses,
for
it
concerns
their
interests,
depends
on
their
unanimity,
competence,
and
diligence.
The
question
of
mass
activity
in
socialism
is
most
important
in
solving
of
the
practical
problems
of
the
new
society.
Lenin
underlined
that
socialism
was
not
built
by
orders
from
above
but
is
the
work
of
the
people
themselves.
Only
the
experience
of
millions
can
give
the
order
for
organising
a
new
life.
That
is
why
the
leader
of
the
revolution,
from
the
very
first
days
of
the
new
social
formation,
searched
for
concrete
ways
of
increasing
this
activity
and
saw
in
it
the
most
important
condition
for
the
functioning
and
developing
of
socialist
society.
Thus
we
have
all
the
grounds
to
assert
that
the
scientific
prognosis
of
Karl
Marx,
a
result
of
the
study
of
the
real
tendencies
of
capitalism,
including
the
problem
of
development
of
the
individual,
is
widely
confirmed
by
life.
Of
course
life
is
always
more
complex,
diverse
and
contradictory
than
is
seen
in
theoretical
works.
However,
the
formation
of
a
truly
socialist
society
convincingly
demonstrates
the
truth
of
what
was
stated
by
Marx,
Engels
and
Lenin.
The
present
experience
of
socialism
thus
permits
us
to
come
to
the
conclusion:
socialism,
and
later
communism,
is
that
necessary
social
formation
which
is
a
stage
that
should
apprehend
and
further
build
on
the
achievements
of
the
material
and
spiritual
culture
of
humanity,
on
the
basis
of
which
society
should
further
develop.
The accumulated experience show that the realisation of the advantages of socialism depends largely on the activity of the subjective factor, the rich culture of the members of the socialist society, on their common education and professional training. Now the efforts of our party and the Soviet Government are directed at the nurturing of these qualities in the individual, and the formation of favourable conditions for their further development.