Марк Бойков: Почему не состоялся коммунизм? (Кто виноват? Что делать? Куда идти?) / Why has the communism still not turned out? (Who is guilty? What should be done? Where to go?)

© Mark Boykov, 2020

© International Union of writers, 2020

Mark Boykov was born on September 12, 1938. During the war he was raised in the orphanage of the village Pistsovo of Komsomolsky district, Ivanovo region. Mark Boykov started his studies in Ivanovo in 1947. He was taken to the family of his father, who was a disabled war veteran of the first group in vision, and his wife, a nurse, and his stepmother. In 1950 entered the Gorky Suvorov military school, which he graduated from in 1958 in connection with his transfer to Moscow, and was sent to the Odessa higher combined arms command school, from which he was discharged in 1960 for health reasons.

Received his professional education at the faculty of philosophy of the Moscow State University. M. V. Lomonosov in 1961 –66, taking up and defending for the first time on the “Problem of partisanship in the conditions of socialism” on the Troika. Later worked as a teacher of philosophy at universities in Volgograd and Moscow.

Raised a son. Was awarded a medal for the 850th anniversary of Moscow for the excellent work as a janitor.

Родился 12 сентября 1938 года. В войну воспитывался в детдоме села Писцово Комсомольского района Ивановской области. Учебу начал в г. Иваново в 1947 г., будучи взят в семью отца, инвалида войны I группы по зрению, и его жены, медсестры, мачехи для меня. В 1950-м поступил в Горьковское суворовское военное училище, которое в связи с переводом в Москву окончил в 1958 г., и был направлен в Одесское высшее общевойсковое командное училище, из которого в 1960-м был демобилизован по состоянию здоровья.

Профессиональное образование получил на философском факультете Московского государственного университета им. М. В. Ломоносова в 1961 –66 годах, взявшись и впервые защитившись по «Проблеме партийности в условиях социализма» на тройку. Работал в последующем преподавателем философских дисциплин в вузах Волгограда и Москвы.

Воспитал сына. За безупречную работу дворником был награжден медалью к 850-летию Москвы.

The communism is neither Marx’s fantasy, nor the dream of poor men and beggars. Pressed down by need they can’t simply imagine what it is. The communism also not is a project of communists’ sect that have suddenly believed in their emancipating mission and in the least it is the final deadlock as many think nowadays after liberal-reformers. The Communism is the cause of History, the common cause of its all participants, it is the History itself. Having begun in far days of tribe communism, it proceeds until now as continuous progress to more perfect, civilized forms. Exactly the history is the progress of communism.

Judge by yourself: the production grows and every new epoch makes the number of the people who are quite content with their lives become greater and greater.

Owing to co-production we find surplus of a product appeared already in days of the tribe communism, and a leisure time following it. The surplus increases resulting in exchange of surpluses’ appearing. Afterwards however we could observe the people’s stratification on rich and pooras the result of control ́ loss over a product instead of the growth of leisure time for everybody. The surplus of a product, disappearing in one place arises in another one – now not as a part as common welfare but as appropriated, personified riches. As a matter of fact the communism is product’s constant increasing and this increasing product is alienated by some representatives of a society to their best advantage. So we could say the communism is the movement from public ownership to communism for the few (certainly an opposite side of the process appeared as simultaneous aspiring communism for everybody). The times of slave-owing, feudalism, capitalism are only steps of this constant movement connected with the further growth of the public product. That’s why in the certain sense the communism was an invention of richmen. It was them who lived within the limits of a principle “Everybody works according to its abilities, everybody gets according to its needs”. In terms of insufficient production it surely means living for the another’s account. Why has the things gone that way?

Every person is born having inside one basic contradiction, the contradiction between abilities and needs. The abilities represent a creative part of person, the needs – the consumer one. While implementing abilities, the person spends his energy, spends himself, on the contrary while satisfying needs, everybody receives energy, recover himself. In a primitive tribe society these processes were more or less counterbalanced as it was in Nature.

The struggle, sharp or moderate, was, is and will be going between those two poles. The result of that struggle is the victory of one or another side. Creative or consumer part of human nature has been constantly dominated first as psychological and then as social dominant of behavior.

The person appears as creator and consumer simultaneously but acts much more definitely in one or another of these roles. Hence, all human community was primary shared and now it shares on creators and consumers. Marx did not manage to propose the complete and comprehensive picture of materialistic understanding of person, but had formulated the basic regulating principle of the future communistic society. It’s familiar to you as “Everybody works according to its abilities, everybody gets according to its needs” or “From everyone – in accordance with person’s ability, to everybody – in accordance with person ́s labour”and it was a real key to understanding. Nowadays we have quite realized, that it were the very consumers who had been allocated and risen upward to become exploiters and oppressors while creators gradually were felling downwards and had joined the suppressed crowd of humiliated persons.

The consumer grasped everything while the worker worked, and eventually the consumer turned to become a Big Lord. The spare time that had been pulled out from paws of Nature by common efforts of mankind, has became the private property of a few persons. Afterwards crystallized time brought one person to domination, another – to submission and enthrallment. It is also true for intrafamily relations.