example: by the presence of crime, by the comfort of staying in the country, by the level of education and upbringing, by the level of development of other moral qualities, by the purity of the information field.

It is not difficult to assume here the emergence of such a doubt: “But why then is this communism needed? Could it be much better to live without communism?” No, theoretically, under communism the quality of life is much higher and the potential of society as a civilization is also much higher. Simply put, under communism, a country automatically overtakes all other countries at an incredible speed, including in economic terms, if such a need suddenly arises.

The initial building of communism is possible only in a single country

The smaller the country, the easier it is in that particular country for communism to emerge. Insofar as communist relations follow from the presence of trust between fellow citizens. And the presence of trust follows from a fairly good acquaintance with neighbors-fellow citizens. The first communist country should be so small that everyone in this country knew each other by sight. Like in the village. It is no coincidence that in the recent past in the villages it was common not to lock the doors. Because all the neighbors trusted each other.

The formula for the distribution of material wealth under communism should be different. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is an erroneous, naive formula. This is erroneous, given the fact that needs, if they are not limited, can grow indefinitely. A more correct formula, if exaggerated, could be: "From each according to his ability, forget about needs." Or, taking into account the high consciousness of people, if it is most clearly formulated:

From each according to his ability, to each as much as he sees fit

At the heart of such an amendment lies primarily the educational aspect. You can't tell a child, "Do what you want." You should always say: "Do what you think is right." First, there is always a big difference between what the child does in the first option and what the child does in the second. In the first case, the child will have sex, and in the second case, not. And secondly, in the second case, you can always ask the child why he considers it necessary to do this or that, and discuss it with him. In the first case, the choice is automatically non-negotiable. Not subject because he just wants to. And what questions can be here?

Under socialism, you cannot artificially turn off the free market

Socialism is a transitional formation between capitalism and communism. The vast majority of experts in this field mistakenly believe that the fundamental difference between capitalism and socialism lies precisely in the presence or absence of a free market. But it's not. In fact, the prohibition of the free market, the prohibition of private property – this is exactly the way to drive socialism into a dead end, lead the whole thing to collapse, and at the same time to the complete discredit of the idea. Based on this, the following reasonable question arises. What then is the fundamental difference between socialism and capitalism? Formally, socialism may not differ from capitalism.

That is, socialism must outperform capitalism in the socialist competition. However, how can you compete with what is not? How can one compete with capitalist relations if they do not exist, if they were turned off not by natural, but by administrative means? The question of the advantage of one or another system can be solved only when both formations are given equal conditions. Vladimir Lenin himself insisted on this point, and among modern politicians, Mikhail Gorbachev insisted on the same, who should also be attributed to highly literate theorists of scientific communism, or rather, he should be attributed to highly literate practitioners of socialism.

Religion and communism are compatible

As a rule, any religion asks, first of all, the question: "How should a correct society be arranged?" And, as a rule, almost all religions answer this question in the same way. That people should be brothers to each other. That the principles of justice must be respected in society. That all people should be equal. That one cannot deprive a person of free will. That people should improve morally and morally. All these principles are valid both for religions and for the theory of communism.

The hegemon of building communism should not be the working class, but monasticism

● Proletariat means dispossessed. However, in reality the worker has property. Some very little, and some not so much. And whenever possible, the worker will strive for more and more accumulation.

● Karl Marx suggested that deprivation of property should lead to consciousness, to the desire for justice. However, a much more important factor of consciousness is the condition that whether the renunciation of property was voluntary or whether the loss of property was against the will of the person.

● The monk is a proletariat in the full sense of the word, since he himself voluntarily renounced property. That is why property does not stick to a monk.

● The government in its entirety, including the first person, should be formed from monks, that is, from those who have chosen a way of life for themselves without owning any property.

● It is clear that among the monks there are many negligent ones, to whose hands money can also begin to stick. And this will also have to be fought. However, for the most part, monks are the most trustworthy people.

● In order not to be limited to the Orthodox or any other religious communities, one can think about creating a special non-confessional (secular) system of monasticism, focused on the training of senior leadership personnel.

● From Christians, it would be logical to recruit those monks who are after the second tonsure as ministers, and not invite them voluntarily,