As people possess reason and will, they are expected, among other things, to plan their activities before acting, and their activity is aimed at achieving a certain goal which is, in turn, ideologically motivated. Ideas, therefore, play a fundamental and decisive role pervading every aspect of an individual’s life, private as well as public. It is true not only for individuals but also, if not more, for various social entities, from small groups to the whole of mankind. As far as grand ideas are concerned, referring, for instance, to the search for a better life for everyone, several ones were advanced. Two of them gained popularity: humanism and communism, with the former focusing on people’s personal traits and the latter paying attention to the social context. Humanism suggests that mankind will eventually develop human virtue to its fullest extent and gain complete fulfillment on condition that people pursue the goal of unlocking and fulfilling their potential and of developing creativity which is intrinsic to them throughout their whole life. The underlying assumption of communism is that mankind will not reach the stage when the grandest human potentialities are encouraged, unless there is true equality between individuals especially in the socio-economic sphere.

Humanism as a developed ideological creed is known to have emerged in the Renaissance, first in Italy in the 14^th-15^th century and then spread throughout Europe and Russia as well. It replaced medieval religious views on the meaning of life, according to which people are mortal and their life is targeted at the preparation for life after death, which is achievable only on condition that throughout their entire life people serve God and obey God’s Will. Humanism argues that people must assume God’s role, they must live for themselves and others, enjoy their worldly comfort and derive satisfaction and pleasure, mostly spiritual. It can be secured only through creativity. To achieve it people must strive for spiritual perfection, develop their creativity, seek to become a fully-accomplished personality and the closer they get to their goal, the more of a Man they become. Those ideas were of immense significance in the development of European civilization. Among other things they laid the groundwork for the transition of many states from feudalism to capitalism. Still humanistic ideas were not realized to the extent anticipated by great humanists of the past. I presume that abstractedness of the idea could account for this as philosophers failed to take into consideration the context and, what is most important, they disregarded the underlying socio-economic principles. It is apparent that European civilization started the transition from feudalism to capitalism already from the Renaissance and Europe was the first region to successfully complete it, with the rest of the world following. Nevertheless, one should not underestimate the importance of humanism and its role in the development of civilization; it seriously influenced arts and culture of all European and some other states. It is safe to say that but for humanism humankind would not possess artistic treasures it has.

What makes communism important is that it looks at people’s welfare and the ways of promoting it from a different perspective, dealing with the existing social context and mainly its socio-economic aspects. Plato, the Greek philosopher and the real harbinger of communism, tried to address the problem in his work on the ideal state.  It was Plato who originally expressed the idea that an ideal society cannot be built unless prosperity is shared by all through common ownership, which is the cornerstone of communism. A new strand of socialism, called utopian socialism, came into existence in the 16^th—17^th century and its principles were championed by the English humanist Sir Thomas More, the Italian philosopher Tommaso Campanella and other scholars, who fiercely criticized private property. Instead, utopian socialism suggested a purely academic model of society based on common ownership. It gained ground and was further developed in the 18^th century and revisited by such prominent scholars as Ch. Fourier, H.de Saint-Simon, and R. Owen who espoused reforming capitalism and building a new, socialist, state. However, there is no scientific or philosophical rationale behind this ideology and it is underpinned largely by the common sense and intuition. Another crucial step in the development of communism was made in the 19^th century by K. Marx and Fr. Engels. They committed themselves to an undeniably challenging task of providing the philosophical and theoretical fundamentals for socialism. What emerged as a result was a coherent philosophy, a socio-economic and political doctrine rather than a mere set of ideas. It was aimed at accomplishing a range of goals: to stage a socialist revolution, to build a socialist state and ultimately to build a communist state.

Communism, especially in Marx and Engels’ theory of scientific communism, has a significant advantage over humanism. It encourages people to seek a specific socio-economic and political solution to the problem of creating a better society, where people can live in acceptable conditions. However, the darker side is directly linked to what humanism extolled as the main value. Communism basically seeks to improve the material welfare of people and disregards, if not totally ignores, another important aspect of the matter: the role of the spiritual in people’s life. Dwelling on the ultimate aim of communism, ideologists tend to put particular emphasis on optimum conditions for everyone and equal opportunities rather than on meeting people’s spiritual needs. It, by no means, implies that the two ideas are incompatible. On the contrary, they can be reconciled and they even complement each other. The question is which of the two is the end and which one is the means of achieving it. If we confine ourselves to creating the conditions needed, with the spiritual being a by-product, people will be assigned a secondary role instead of being the target proper. To put it differently, in this approach the means (securing people’s welfare) and the aim (people’s unique potentialities) unintentionally swap their places. Primo facie it can be assumed that any precision in determining the aim and the means is irrelevant. In fact, the failure to see their relations can and has already brought about negative consequences, which can be vividly illustrated by dramatic examples in the history of the communist movement. In Russia’s recent history, for instance, no effort was spared to develop a solid manufacturing and scientific base, with man being regarded as a cog, a living supplement to the production process.

Communism and humanism, aiming to help man to lead a happy life, fail to achieve the aspired goal when considered separately. Therefore, they must be mused about together, as parts of one approach. This integrative approach is represented by the notion of “social humanism” advanced in this text. The term which consists of two parts – “social”, derived from the Latin “public” and “humanism” from the Latin “human” - gives an insight into the approach. The two parts – “social” and “humanism” - are so tightly intertwined that it is impossible to consider them separately. These two words are not to be regarded as “humanism” and “social” per se, but rather in their relation to each other. It is of crucial importance to realize it in order to understand the true essence of social humanism and not to be misled by the approach of proponents of communism who tend to use the notion of “social” to refer to the term “socialism”. They tend to regard socialism, as well as communism, as a society constructed on the principle of common ownership of the means of production which would be operated for the benefit of all. Nowadays socialism has come to always denote the way of realizing distributive justice in a state and it has, thus, been equated with social democracy. Both interpretations differ fundamentally from the way the notion “social” is understood in social humanism. The term denotes that a strong link connects humanism and society viewed as a cohesive entity and in this case humanism as a social doctrine goes beyond a traditional approach focused on the individual to study how society itself functions and develops. The term “humanism” in “social humanism” indicates that the social process and principles of humanism are inseparable.

Social humanism just like communism is to achieve two goals. Firstly, it must provide a model of a desired future, a vision of the Good Society. Secondly, it must serve as an ideology which outlines how political change should be brought about to attain the ideal. It must be mentioned that the vision of the Good Society embraced by social humanism overlaps with the one endorsed by communism at a number of points but still differs a lot. The foundations for the communist ideal are provided by the communist notion of a social system, constructed on the principle of common ownership where the primacy of the social and the communal is defended.

From my perspective property will be abolished altogether in a society promoted by social humanism and that is why musing over any socio-economic system is irrelevant. Social humanism transcends the notion “socio-economic order” and advocates instead a system of associations consisting of people unrestrained spiritually and socially. This will be the transition from a society characterized by social alienation to a society typified by freedom and enlightened conscience. This means a transition from the stage in the development of civilization when a person is alienated to a stage when people will obtain maximum creative freedom, when they will not be inhibited from exploiting their full potential in all areas, rather than a mere replacement of one system with another one. This is the ultimate aim of social humanism. However, humanity is bound to pass through a transitional stage, termed “socialism” here. Socialism can and must be viewed from Marx’s perspective and his perception of the socio-economic system.

A seemingly slight disparity in the vision of the Good Society between social humanism and communism, in practice, gives rise to two rival approaches to formulating and supporting the key principle which underpins the transition to the ideal order. As according to Marxists a communist system is the eventual aim of the socio-political process, the ideology is aimed at addressing socio-economic problems. First, they call for abolishing private property and only then for developing a solid manufacturing and scientific base. It is very unwise to flatly reject this stance. However, when one confines oneself to this approach and views it as the end in itself (which was the case in historically realized examples of the communist movement) individuals with all their creative, intellectual and physical abilities are not involved in the process. If they still are, they become only a part of the production process, its productive force. Social humanism places a premium on the human, namely on their personal characteristics and spiritual experience as the aim at all stages of the establishment of the Good Society rather than on the conditions of people’s life. It is obvious that optimum conditions for life must be central to the process, otherwise it will just be a good intention and not a proper solution to the problem. Nevertheless, in contrast to communism, in social humanism dealing with a range of problems arising throughout the process as it unravels should not be viewed as an end in itself. It must be regarded as a means through which a humanistic goal of molding and developing man’s inner traits can be pursued consistently and incessantly. All social institutions must be subordinated to the goal, as well as the production, social life, education, upbringing and even various forms of entertainment and leisure activities.

The significant ideological disparity between communism and social humanism in understanding the ultimate aim of development provokes fundamental divisions over the means of achieving it. Communism as an ideology is bound to see the change in ownership from private to collective as its principal task. It is apparent that proprietors will not abandon their property of their own free will, which will unavoidably provoke an outbreak of violence, the political struggle for power being the surest and most efficient way. This gives rise to two questions central to Marx and Engels’s ideology: who will wage the struggle and how one can come to power.  As regards the first question the thinkers argue that these are the propertyless masses which are engaged in the fight as they represent the working class, the only class, which takes a genuine lively interest in abolishing private property. It is also referred to as the proletariat, or the “grave-diggers” of capitalism, as Marx can be quoted as saying. But proponents of communism assume that the proletariat can only come to power through a socialist revolution. If they succeed, they will establish the dictatorship of the proletariat instead of the bourgeois one.

There are good reasons to claim that this political task was fully accomplished by the Bolsheviks headed by Vl. Lenin in Russia in October 1917. In the wake of the revolution, however, they faced the major challenge. That was to find the right way of building a communist state and foremost of forming its solid socio-economic basis – collective ownership. As is quite well-known, they failed, which automatically raises a rather difficult question - how can the failure to create a socialist as well as a communist society be accounted for? The answers offered by advocates of communism have been unconvincing and superficial, while their ideological rivals have been spiteful and even less convincing. I am not committed to giving a full answer to the question in my report, which would just distract our attention from the main topic. It will just be mentioned that the process resulted in the failure predominantly because of the communist idea itself. It is believed here that the emphasis in the matter should not be placed on changing the type of ownership, which is quite important, but not crucial. A premium instead should be put on the dramatic change of the value system, which needs to be aimed at shaping an individual’s personality and developing personal traits rather than at the acquisition of wealth, the aim pursued at all times. As far changing the form of ownership is concerned, this issue must undoubtedly be addressed, but the aim is not mythical collective ownership which communists insist upon. It is in principle non-existent as “common ownership” is nothing but a metaphor. To have common ownership together with state property is achievable. Secondly, one must reject the notion “the dictatorship of the proletariat” and seek joint ownership through socio-economic reforms rather than through socialist revolution. Democratic levers must be used and all political and social institutions must be directly involved in the process.

Even though communism is subject to criticism, its importance in keeping alive and realizing the Great vision of appropriate conditions for people’s existence should, by no means, be diminished. As for Marx and Engels and their contribution to the realization of the vision one can be certain that there has hardly been a thinker on a par with them. Those two great humanists with exceptional scientific talents made a historic breakthrough in understanding the essence of the world, the man and cognition while tackling this monumental task. It is no exaggeration to say that their philosophical and scientific works are unparalleled and their ideas should not be eschewed. On the contrary, one must follow them as closely and fully as possible and taking into account the level of the development of social practice make their critical evaluation and if possible develop them further. They are not to blame for having confined themselves to the communist idea in their work as they could not neglect historical facts and their ideas were rooted in conventional philosophical ideas. However, if the very history clearly points to the decisive role of class struggle to achieve economic and political ends the thinkers were bound to consider it, as well as the socialist revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat when speaking about the means of the transition to a new type of society. And they could not have thought about any other type of society in the future but the communist one as all philosophers of the past from Plato to social-utopists whose ideas laid the groundwork for Marx and Engels’s theory had all shared belief that man can fulfill their true potential only in a society based on common ownership. To deprecate them for their ideas would be like criticizing Democritus for considering atom indivisible only because science now believes otherwise. But critics of Democritus would have to entirely overlook the incontrovertible fact that his views on atom have provided the foundations for classical natural philosophy from Galileo and Newton up till now. To my mind, the communist idea played a similar role in the development of philosophical ideas to the one the theory of atom has played in the development of natural sciences. Therefore it must be evaluated along the same lines. I believe this idea must be replaced by a new one, namely with social humanism, which requires elaboration by philosophers, as well as other social scientists. In it one must rely on the humanistic ideas of the past to an even greater extent, especially on classical works of K. Marx and Fr. Engels, two great thinkers and scientists.

Since the release of the seminal “Communist Manifesto” 160 years ago mankind has significantly advanced and many things relevant to the 19^th century have lost their relevance and a number of methodological theoretical and practical planks call for a substantial revision. For instance there is little sense nowadays in insisting that there still exists a class division in modern society, that class struggle still plays a decisive role in the fight for a better future and that the subordinate class must overthrow the dictatorship of the oppressing class and enforce its own. It can be accounted for by the fact that the class division of the previous centuries is virtually non-existent. Classes can be said to have disappeared in the mainstream and yet the infamous term “middle class” is still in use although it is not related to the Marxist understanding of the notion “class” and secondly it is so vague and it just has a semblance of an academic term and is appropriate mostly for the media. It does not imply that modern society is homogeneous and it will never be, even in case of socialism. In the matter it is rather a clear social division into classes mainly according to people’s relation to property than a socially homogeneous society. If this criterion can no longer be used to describe the situation, which is characteristic of contemporary society, then the social division and other ideas related to it are obsolete.

However, negative features typical of a class society are still present in a contemporary “classless” society and, what is more, they have become more deeply entrenched. These features as a rule stem from man’s acquisitiveness. It can be viewed as the major scourge of our times, which is why the transition to a new type of society must be focused on combating this all-powerful evil. But it cannot be eradicated through a socialist revolution or the use of force. The only thing needed is to radically transform the value system for man to predominantly foster spiritual values rather than to acquire something. The most difficult problem to solve will arise at the first stage of the transition from capitalism to socialism. There will be a need to dramatically change the form of ownership, to establish manufacturing and commercial enterprises based on collective ownership. As it has already been pointed out, this matter can be addressed at the state level through socio-economic reforms, which is not that hopeless as it might seem at first. The modern society possesses an important advantage despite all its negative features in comparison with previous epochs: democratic principles of government are the pillars of all developed capitalist states. Democracy serves the main lever for resolving a set of problems during the transition period. Another reassuring, albeit negative, factor which can contribute to a successful transition to a new society is the extreme degree of acquisitiveness in the modern world. It means that without noticing it people are devoid of even more traits, which cannot be replaced by wealth or property. Lacking them and especially failing to establish cordial relations with one other, man will never be fully satisfied, to say nothing about spiritual realization. This concerns middle and upper-middle classes, including billionaires, rather than lower layers. One can recall Socrates’ words that man’s immorality stems from man’s unawareness of how to act otherwise and not his innate predisposition for such. One of the principal tasks while creating a humanistic society must be to assist people in realizing the need for becoming morally upright, in developing their moral character and to do other things required to help people live up to their potential.

The concluding phrase in K.Marx and Fr.Engels’ Manifesto is “Proletarians of all countries, unite!”, which, as we have argued, remains of relevance. However, man’s desire to lead a better life will not cease to exist in the short term and we believe that one must call for “people of the Earth to reconsider their views, not to be wrapped up in a desire to acquire things incessantly as life is more than this. It is the warmth of relations, unrestricted creativity, a fertility of imagination, acuity and lucidity.”