MARXIST CLASS APPROACH:
UPDATE PROBLEMS AND DEVELOPMENT POINTS
S. Krapivensky, F. Kositsina
In the last decade, we are faced with another attempt to separate the class approach to the analysis of social phenomena from the achievements of world social science, an approach that, as is known, was born before Marxism by progressive bourgeois scientists, but was brought to relative conceptual completion precisely by K. Marx and F. Engels. The class approach (not to the selection of personnel, not to the distribution of benefits, etc., but to the analysis of historical situations and phenomena) is not a simple invention of the “great sorting machine” - the human head trying to systematize everything, it adequately reflects the historical past and present , helping to predict the future. Moreover, the class approach cannot be considered as a simple invention of Marxists. As already noted in the literature, the Marxist concept of class struggle, social revolutions and dictatorship as a way to solve social problems arose in the general context of the values of technogenic culture (1).
And yet, in the criticism of the class approach on the part of its opponents, there is obviously a certain rational grain, which we must objectively understand if we want to determine the ways and possibilities for the further development of the methodological foundations of social science.
Disadvantages of the traditional concept
The concept of the class approach, proposed by Marxism and which has become traditional for our social science, along with undeniable advantages, actually contains significant disadvantages. And pre-
____________________
S. Krapivensky - Doctor of Philosophy, Professor (Volgograd)
Faina Kositsina - Doctor of Philosophy, Professor (Volgograd)
Above all, Marxism, as G. Marcuse noted in his time, is characterized by hypertrophied attention to the forces that disintegrate society, while simultaneously seriously underestimating the forces of integration.
In the concept of the social-class approach to the analysis of society under consideration, the attitude towards strata has also received insufficient expression. It cannot be said that in the Marxist tradition layers were completely ignored, but it was either about layers inside of one class or another (for example, the poor, middle peasants and kulaks in the peasantry), or about “survival” social groups inherited from pre-capitalist eras and doomed, ultimately, to merge with one of the two main classes of bourgeois society. Meanwhile, many strata either are not directly related to the class division of society, or are of an interclass nature. This does not negate the fact that all strata, with deep knowledge of them, still turn out to be a product of the macrosocial structure of society. It is noteworthy that one of the first (Weberian) attempts to approach society from the angle of its stratification structure proceeded from the Marxian concept of classes, but sought to expand the range of class differences, considering as such those that are not directly related to property - professional skill and qualifications , social prestige (status), party affiliation.
The disadvantages of the traditional concept also include the underestimation of the individual in the historical process and social movements (which I.D. Kovalchenko recently wrote quite cogently about (2)), as well as in the structure and behavior of the individual. In a condensed, concentrated form, the conclusion about the social essence of man was first formulated by K. Marx in the sixth of his “Theses on Feuerbach”: “... the essence of man is not an abstract inherent in an individual. In its reality it is, the totality of all social relations " (3). It is quite clear that the core of “all social relations” in a class society is class relations. The perception of this Marxian conclusion in modern philosophy allows us to clearly differentiate its rational aspects from the errors it contains. In particular, the section of the XVIII World Philosophical Congress (Brighton, 1988) was devoted to this differentiation, during which a fundamental coincidence of the views of our researchers from the then existing USSR and the views of our Western colleagues was revealed. None of the participants in the congress tried to deny the great merit of Marx in reducing the individual to the social: in this way, for the first time, the antinomy “individual and society” and metaphysics, which tormented thinkers of the past, and metaphysics, due to which man was considered as an absolutely autonomous unit, and society was presented as a mechanical sum, were overcome for the first time. an aggregate of individuals.
At the same time, as was rightly noted at the Congress, the “Sixth Thesis” cannot be absolutized, because in this case a rollback to vulgar sociologism, to ignoring that non-social that also characterizes human nature is inevitable. It is impossible, in particular, to consider the “Sixth Thesis” outside the context of the “Theses” as a whole, in isolation from the “German Ideology” and the “Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844.” And then it becomes clear that, reflecting the totality of social relations, the essence of man is by no means reduced to this reflection. One cannot ignore the anthropological (biological and mental) in this essence, including the ethnopsychic.
On the other hand, the analyzed concept is characterized by an underestimation of the general social, supra-class and extra-class aspects in the functioning of society and its institutions (for example, an underestimation of the civilizational, integrating functions of the state).
Let us note that the errors inherent in the design of the class approach were subsequently noticeably strengthened by the theoretical activities of the “followers” of Marx and Engels and were fully manifested in political practice. Thus, one can agree with V.F. Anurin when he notes that “the orthodoxly simplified Marxist tradition of opposing strata to classes is associated primarily with inauthentic Marxism. Let us recall at least the famous postulate of the times of “developed socialism” about the inexorable “movement towards social homogeneity” ( By the way, we had to speak against this inexorability in connection with the real processes of increasing property heterogeneity that were already noticeable then at the Tallinn Conference on the social structure of Soviet society (5).
Is the class approach outdated?
The shortcomings noted above do not at all negate the truth of the Marxist concept of the class approach, its methodological and practically political significance. Indeed, has not history for the past millennia been the history of classes and class struggle? Has today's Western society ceased to be class-based, despite obvious trends towards socialization? Let's take the UK as an example, a fairly typical Western country. According to data at the very end of the 80s, the “top” of society, constituting 1% of the population, owned 21% of all personal wealth, while 80% of the population controlled only a third of the national wealth (6).
The very objective process of movement of modern Western society in the direction of greater social justice and the growth of democratic tendencies is largely the result of the previous class struggle. The latter, today taking on an increasingly civilized character, is gradually losing its destructive side and, on the contrary, the creative, constructive side is strengthening. Partnership is also a form of class struggle, but struggle in a civilized form. It is quite natural that when analyzing all these extremely specific socio-economic and political processes, it is very important not to dogmatize the concept of class, because in a modern developed class society there is a “erosion” of class-forming characteristics in the relations between labor and capital (in relation to the means of production, in relation to to the distribution of labor results, in relation to their place in the production system, etc.).
And, finally, is it possible, discarding the class approach, to understand Soviet and now post-Soviet reality, in particular, the nature of the force that today claims a dominant position in the system of economic and political relations? In fact, in Russian literature there is no dispute about the class or non-class nature of this large social group. There are only nuances. In this regard, let us recall the analytical articles of the late eighties, when M.A. Cheshkov spoke about bureaucracy as a class-like formation, T.I. Zaslavskaya - about the confident movement of a layer of nomenklatura workers towards the final transformation into a class, and S. Andreev was even more is categorical in stating its final formation (7). Let us note that in all three positions we were talking only about the bureaucratic component of the new class; businessmen of the shadow economy, representatives of the military-industrial complex, etc. remained outside the object of analysis, although in the Political Report of the CPSU Central Committee to the 27th Party Congress a broader and clearer view was given formulation of the socio-economic nature of these forces (in our society, “groups of people with clearly expressed proprietary aspirations, with a disdainful attitude towards public interests” have emerged (8). We only have to regret that soon after the congress this clear statement was forgotten, and we all found themselves, as we were hypocritically assured, “on the same side of the barricades.”
It seems that the attempt to reject the class approach from scientific methodology has a specific goal: to mask the emerging and already making itself felt class contradictions here, in Russian post-Soviet society. “This,” as R.I. Kosolapov wrote about such attempts, “is the actual defense of the rising criminal bourgeoisie” (9). Meanwhile, the denial of class struggle in our newly emerging society can only slow down the movement towards a civilized society with its inherent civilized forms of struggle. Sometimes they think that they should “disengage themselves” from the class approach, and then conflict in society will disappear. On the contrary: it is necessary to borrow the best practices of new forms of organizing relations between classes in order to prevent acute conflict situations: not to let the development of capitalism take its course, but to form civilized class relations on the basis of the class approach. Moreover, in Russia the advanced experience of developed countries (participation of workers in production management, etc.) will take root more quickly than “wild” capitalism.
Opportunities for further development
If it is true that the tendency towards synthesis and unity today characterizes sociological knowledge, socio-philosophical knowledge, as well as social science as a whole, then such a tendency, undoubtedly, should be inherent in such an element of this knowledge as the class approach. More specifically, this means that the class approach, based on the formational division of the history of society, with all its importance and methodological necessity, is not sufficient in itself and should be used in combination and unity with other approaches - civilizational, sociocultural, socio-psychological.
The fruitfulness of the combination of formational-class and civilizational approaches can be seen in the analysis of the nature and functions of the state. In this case, it is obviously advisable to start from the Marxist concept of its origin, since the absolutization of the formational paradigm allowed Marxism to express, better than any other socio-philosophical school, the undoubtedly inherent function of the state. Everyone knows the quintessence of this concept, set out by F. Engels in “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State” (10). It is very important to note that the Marxist concept is by no means in antagonistic contradiction with other approaches, in particular with the Hobbesian version of the origin of the state, as well as with the concept of all supporters of the “social contract”, which is clearly psychological in nature. Without denying the psychological component of history, adherents of the formaldehyde paradigm went further and tried to get to the bottom of their deep foundations and stimulants and irritants. It was economic development, the establishment of private property and the sustainable reproduction of surplus product, which polarized society into classes, actualized these psychological characteristics, made their manifestation massive and brought socio-psychological tension in society to such a level at which the emergence of a state becomes inevitable. However, attempts to take into account the psychological component of the historical process, which were found among Marxists of the older generation (up to Plekhanov), disappear in the literature of the thirties and fifties, which subsequently required the rehabilitation of social psychology as a science and its revival.
In theoretical and applied studies of Marxists, starting with the classics, the civilizational approach to clarifying the meaning of the state, and, consequently, its functions, turned out to be clearly underestimated. At the same time, it would seem that it was sometimes taken into account latently (for example, by V.I. Lenin, who especially singled out that part of the bourgeois state apparatus that performs the function of managing the state and other historically determined social needs and which in the revolution “cannot and should not be broken” (11) But in general, there was an underestimation, as evidenced by the attitude of Marxists to the theory of the “social contract,” which was considered as the most complete expression of the erroneous ideas of pre-Marxian philosophical and political thought on the issue of the state, as the theoretical basis of opportunism and revisionism in the labor movement. Meanwhile, the concept of a “social contract” reveals a fair grain of rationality - the integration idea underlying it. It would seem that the state in its formational perspective also integrates, but this is integration of a special kind, it is forced in its essence and is imposed by one. from classes to other social groups of society. Secondly, due to its coercive nature, integration carried out by the state as a formational class institution remains superficial and relatively easily destroyed. Whether the “negotiators” wanted it or not, their works developed the idea of civilizational integration, cementing the deep foundations of the existence of society. Without such integration, civilization could not have taken place from the very beginning. Thus, the state arose simultaneously both as a formation-class and as a civilizational institution, performing functions that were extremely important for society as a whole.
One of the possible points of fruitful development of the class approach is the problem of alienation, which in our literature for many decades has been considered exclusively from the point of view of the formational (usually reduced to class) approach. This point of view was focused primarily on understanding the origins of alienation: the emergence and establishment of private property was considered as them, and a similar understanding was attributed to Marx. However, an analysis of the “Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844” shows the true nature of Marx’s reasoning - private property itself is seen by him as a product of alienated labor generated by the social division, acting at the same time as a means of further alienation and its implementation (12). Consequently, alienation in its original origin is of a civilizational nature, because the social division of labor, paradoxical as it may seem on the surface, is aimed at the true integration of society, at the establishment of a universal connection between individuals. Another thing is that the formational appearance of society each time makes significant adjustments to the phenomenon of alienation. Thus, the formational-class (directly related to property relations) and civilizational (related to the integration of society) are quite visibly combined in this phenomenon.
Moreover, the degree of severity of alienation as a social relationship depends not only on these two objective reasons that determine it, but also on the sociocultural and psychological background against which it is realized. An important practical and political conclusion follows from this - since this is so, then the optimization of alienation can be carried out by a skillful combination of socio-economic reforms with a corresponding impact on public consciousness, which in this case is called upon to fully demonstrate its compensatory function and soften the individual’s sense of alienation. It is in this vein that the search for opportunities to mitigate alienation in developed countries is taking place today. We must also search in this vein if we do not want reform to turn into extreme forms of social insecurity, and therefore human alienation.
Liberation from the shortcomings identified above and a better understanding of the integration abilities of even a class society should also be facilitated by the combination of a formational class approach with a sociocultural approach. Chronic neglect of the latter is associated with a general underestimation of culture as a determinant of the development of society. Thus, for a long time, our social science ignored (or rather truncated) Marx’s extremely important conclusion from “Critique of the Gotha Program”. Marx wrote: “Right can never be higher than the economic system and the cultural development of society conditioned by it” (13). And although culture in this statement is in a certain way “economized” in its origin, Marx puts it on a par with economics among the determinants of social development. We find a sociocultural approach in Lenin’s works, both in those devoted to the analysis of internal Russian processes (let us recall his difficult thoughts about a possible Thermidor (14)), and in those devoted to the international revolutionary movement. Taking notes, for example, on the “Civil War in France,” Lenin especially highlighted Marx’s reasoning about the bourgeoisie’s desire to integrate the proletariat into its system, into its democracy, including through culture (15). Unfortunately, subsequently our taste for a sociocultural approach turned out to atrophy for many years, and this atrophy today must be overcome most decisively and quickly, since the determinant status of culture is especially visibly felt in eras of revolutionary reformist changes in society. Today, too, we are forced to seriously think not only about what we must give up in the name of the success of reforms, but also about what we are not able to give up due to the level of our culture and, in particular, due to the specifics of our mentality.
It is the combination (and to a certain extent, synthesis) of formational-class, civilizational, sociocultural, psychological approaches that will allow us to better understand the past and present of society, theoretically clarify and offer political practice answers to the far from simple challenges of the time.
Notes
1. See: Stepin V.S. Philosophical anthropology and philosophy of science. - M., 1992., p. 53.
2. See: Kovalchenko I.D. Historical knowledge: individual, social and universal // Free Thought, 1995, No. 2.
3. Marx K., Engels F. Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 3, p. 3.
4. Arin V.F. Economic stratification: attitudes and stereotypes of consciousness // Sociological Research, No. 1, p. 105.
5. See: Krapivensky S.E. 0 shortcomings in the study of the social structure of society // Methodological issues in the study of the social structure of Soviet society. Materials of the All-Union Scientific Conference. - Tallinn. Issue 2. M., 1981.
6. Yidens, Anthony. Sociology. Cambridge, 1989, p. 217.
7. See: Cheshkov M.A. The concept of bureaucracy: the need and the possibility of its reformulation // Working class and the modern world, 1988, No. 5, p. 188; Zaslavskaya T. Perestroika as a social revolution // Izvestia, 1988, December 24; Andreev S. Structure of power and tasks of society // Neva, 1989, No. 1, p. 151-152.
8. XXVII Congress of the CPSU. Verbatim report. - M., 1986, vol. 1, p. 69.
9. Kosolapov R. Leninism: a requiem will not be needed. // Economic Sciences. 1990, no. 8, p.56.
10. See: Marx K., Engels F. Works, vol. 21., p. 169-170.
11. Lenin V.I. Full collection cit., vol. 34, p. 307.
12. See: Marx K., Engels F. Soch., vol. 42, p. 96.
13. Marx K., Engels F. Soch., vol. 19, p. 19.
14. See: Lenin V.I. Complete collected works, vol. 36, p. 298; vol. 43, p. 403; v.36, p.130-131; v.45, p. 94, etc.
15. See: Lenin V.I. Complete collected works, vol. 33, p. 133.
T. Yu. Trukhanovich
On the application of the “class approach” in the Soviet education system in the second half of the 1920s:
(according to documents from the Cherepovets Document Storage Center)
// Historical local history and archives: – Vologda, 2002. – Issue 8. – P.74-78.
One of the most important events of the 20th century in Russia was the October Socialist Revolution. You can treat it differently, consider it as a blessing or a disaster, but, of course, the revolution radically influenced the development of our country. Soon after October 1917, the destruction of the pre-existing education system began. The appeal of the People's Commissar of Education dated October 29, 1917 spoke about the essence of the changes: “Any truly democratic authority in the field of education in a country where illiteracy and ignorance reign must set as its first goal the fight against this darkness. It must achieve universal literacy in the shortest possible time by organizing a network of schools that meet the requirements of modern pedagogy and introducing universal, compulsory and free education.” The previous school management structures were destroyed, private educational institutions were closed, and the teaching of ancient languages and the Law of God was prohibited. In 1918, a number of legislative and regulatory documents were issued that were supposed to become the basis of school reform and establish the democratic principle of a single, free school, accessible to the entire young generation, regardless of social, property status and nationality.
Documents stored in the archives indicate that, despite the proclamation of democratic principles, in particular the principle of “universality,” education was still not accessible to everyone. If before the revolution poverty was an obstacle to obtaining an education, then after the revolution, on the contrary, belonging to the wealthy strata of society could prevent entry into educational institutions.
The existence of a class approach to the selection of students into Soviet educational institutions in the second half of the 1920s is evidenced by documents from the funds of the Cherepovets regional executive committee, district and regional departments of public education, stored in the Cherepovets Document Storage Center.
In July 1928, the Cherepovets district department of public education sent out instructions to the chairmen of district executive committees, heads of schools for peasant youth and seven-year schools: “When admitting students to seven-year schools for the 1928/1929 academic year... we suggest paying special attention to the class selection of applicants, as much as possible by increasing the farmer-poor group of peasant youth in schools.” For this purpose, it was proposed: to ensure that the selection committees are composed of appropriate candidates; demand absolutely clear documents about the social origin of students and the property status of their parents; launch a campaign together with public organizations to involve children of farm laborers and the poor in school; when entering school, poor farm laborer youth should be given all sorts of benefits during testing. Children of farm laborers and poor peasants, exempt from agricultural tax, who had completed the 1st level of school, were recommended to be accepted without testing, with the exception of children with obvious mental retardation. At the same time, it was proposed to create conditions for their normal work “by organizing a dormitory at each seven-year school and creating a special monetary fund at the school.” The directive ordered that children of kulaks and clergy should be denied enrollment in school and that the enrollment of children of farm laborers and poor people should be increased as much as possible compared to the previous year.
The approach to enrollment issues has not changed a year later. Confirming the need for benefits for the children of workers, farm laborers and the poor peasants when enrolling in advanced schools, the district education department ordered admission tests for other groups of the population and enrollment only for the free places left after the placement of benefit recipients.
Those entering the school had to submit documents certifying their social status: a certificate certified by the district executive committee or city council stating that the applicant’s parents were not deprived of voting rights. Children of peasants had to present a copy of the salary sheet for agricultural tax certified by the RIK, children of employees and workers - a certificate of work experience of parents from institutions and enterprises and a certificate from the house committee on marital status, children of artisans and handicraftsmen and persons of liberal professions - a certificate of income tax, natives from other categories of the population - a certificate from the house committee about employment and source of income and marital status.
Concealing or distorting information about social origin could lead to major troubles for the student. For example, on September 17, 1929, a letter with the following content was sent from the presidium of the Cherepovets district executive committee to the head of the district department of public education: “According to information available in the district executive committee, Lidia Ivanovna Samoilova, who is the daughter of a former merchant who was deprived of electoral rights, is studying at the 1st Soviet school of the second level. rights, living in the Borisovo-Sudsky district. She entered the school on the basis of a certificate from the village council, which stated that she was dependent on her brother, who lived somewhere in Siberia. In fact, Samoilova is dependent on her father and lived with the latter during the summer holidays. The Presidium of the district executive committee invites you to check the above, take appropriate measures and report the results to the Presidium within a week.” On October 25, 1929, the education department responded that Lidiya Ivanovna Samoilova was indeed studying at the 1st school of the 2nd stage, due to the receipt of a certificate from the village council that her father was subject to an individual agricultural tax of 74 rubles. Appropriate action was taken and the school was asked to expel her for hiding her social background.
The situation was similar in secondary specialized educational institutions and technical schools. The fund of the Cherepovets district executive committee preserved a letter to the Nikolo-Torzhsky district executive committee with the following content: “According to the statement of some people who knew Mayorov (a technical school student), it turned out that his social status was a former merchant.” In the next letter to the Cherepovets district executive committee we read the following: “The Maturinsky village council issued a certificate to citizen Gromtsev in Maturino for the admission of his daughter to a pedagogical college. Certificate No. 219 dated July 1, which indicated that citizen Gromtsev was a poor peasant. Meanwhile, according to inquiries made, it turned out that he has a gingerbread workshop and, thus, belongs to the category of not only artisans, but also traders. OKRONO proposes to investigate and bring the chairman to justice.”
A very striking document showing how the “cleansing” of educational institutions from undesirable contingents was carried out is the protocol of the meeting of the Komsomol activists of the Komsomol cell at the Cherepovets Industrial and Economic College dated February 25, 1929. The agenda of the meeting included the issue “On cleaning the technical school from the non-working element of students.” The director of the technical school spoke at the meeting: “In our technical school there are a significant number of students from the non-labor element. The state spends a lot of money on the education of students, but in this situation, some of the disenfranchised students upon graduating from technical school will be not only useless, but even a harmful element for cooperation and Soviet institutions. We need to remove the non-labor element... We need to approach this issue seriously, discussing all the disenfranchised personally, and some of them, who have proven themselves in public work, should be left in the technical school until the end of the course, especially from the senior groups 3 and 4.”
Those who spoke in the debate were more radical. Here are some of the statements made: “The entire non-labor element must be driven out, regardless of the course in which they study,” “The non-labor element must be completely excluded from educational institutions, regardless of the courses. If we look at our alien element of students, we notice that some are very actively involved in social work, but they have a second thought (they are applying for the right to vote),” “We need to cleanse the technical school of all alien elements, otherwise those who remain will interfere with public work." The resolution of the meeting was in the spirit of discussion: “It is recognized as fundamentally necessary to purge the technical school of all non-labor elements, because there are no guarantees that after graduating from the technical school, the children of merchants and kulaks will not carry out subversive work and harm the cause of cooperation in every possible way.”
After a personal discussion, the meeting participants decided to expel 13 people, 9 of whom were in their fourth year of graduation. The following reasons were given: “before the revolution, my father was a large merchant, wholesaler, owner of houses - 2 stone houses on Sovetsky Avenue; the public is weak,” “the son of a former and current merchant, quite large for a county town; he takes an active part in school life with a preconceived goal, copes with his studies freely, but the school did not rehabilitate him, home influence takes its toll.” It is said about another expelled student: “She is dependent on her brother, completely under his influence. Does not participate in public life. My brother has a mill with two internal combustion engines in the village of Lukinskoye, Cherepovets district; in 1928, he broke self-taxation in the village; he pays agricultural tax in 1928/29 - 439 rubles.”
In March 1929, the Cherepovets District Department of Public Education noted that many school councils began to “cleanse” educational institutions, excluding children of wealthy parents, unemployed people, deprived of voting rights, etc. from the number of students. Expulsion on the basis of class, apparently, was widespread, since the People's Commissariat of Education was forced to issue an explanation on this issue: “On an emergency basis, we can allow the exclusion only of those students from social classes alien to us who, upon admission, hid their social status, or who during their stay at the educational institution, they revealed themselves as an active anti-Soviet element. But it is impossible to exclude students simply because of their social status or because their parents are deprived of the right to vote, unless there are other academic or disciplinary reasons. Indeed, in most cases, the fact that a social composition alien to us ended up in our institutions of a higher type is not his fault, but is the result of our organizational, material, educational shortcomings, the connivance of our governing bodies, heads of institutions, admissions committees, etc. Apparently, there were free places or some other reasons that made it possible for this social group of students to enter educational institutions. They cannot be punished for this. Not only that, the Soviet government and the Soviet school cannot and do not refuse the education and training, the processing of segments of the population that are ideologically alien to the dictatorship of the proletariat. Schools and educational institutions must process this contingent of children, re-educate them, snatch them from the influence of the family, the bourgeois environment, and way of life, and create from them real citizens of the Soviet Union. Therefore, the task of all departments of public education, based on this directive, is to prevent purges and correct the mistakes that have been made.”
Thus, documents from the second half of the 1920s, stored in the archival funds of the ChTsKhD, reflect the complexity, drama and inconsistency of revolutionary changes in the field of education.
NOTES
1 Collection of documents and materials on the history of the USSR during the Soviet period. – M., 1966. P. 53.
2 Dzhurinsky A. N. History of pedagogy. – M., 1999. – P. 370; History of education and pedagogical thought. Textbook-reference book. – M., 1995. – P.74.
3 CCHD. F. 2-r. Op.4. D.Z. L.143-144.
4 Ibid. D.5. L. 165.
5 Ibid. F. 721-r. Op. 1. D. 3. L. 34.
6 Ibid. F. 2-r. Op. 4 D. 7. L. 14, 16.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid. D. 3. L. 184.
9 Ibid. L. 183.
10 Ibid. L. 83 – 84.
11 Ibid.
12 Ibid.
13 Ibid.
14 Ibid. D. 5. L. 92.
The Necessity and Essence of the Class Approach
Since the decomposition of the primitive communal system and the emergence of private property, human society has been divided into classes. But to say this would simply be to reproduce a real state with which everyone would agree. The division into classes is antagonistic in nature. As the German classical philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach said: “People think differently in palaces than in huts.”
In a class-antagonistic society, there are many points of view on the main issues of human life, reflecting the interests of social groups, classes participating in the process of social production, distribution and redistribution of material and spiritual goods. These points of view are objectively the class interests of the main social groups of an exploitative society: workers and exploiters, the oppressed and the oppressed. Therefore, these interests are polar, diametrically opposed, ultimately resulting in class struggle. And it’s not for nothing that the authors of the famous “Manifesto of the Communist Party” began this work with the words:
“The history of all hitherto existing societies has been the history of class struggle.
Free and slave, patrician and plebeian, landowner and serf, master and apprentice, in short, oppressor and oppressed were in eternal antagonism to each other, waged a continuous, sometimes hidden, sometimes open struggle, always ending in a revolutionary reorganization of the entire social edifice or the death of the fighting classes "
This is correct with one significant amendment subsequently made by the authors themselves - the history is not of the whole society, but the history of an exploitative, class-antagonistic society.
So, there is a clear fact of the existence of classes, and therefore their interests, which are diametrically opposed in nature. History shows us a lot of examples when the ruling classes of a given era made their own ideas, expressing fundamental class interests, the dominant ideas of this historical era. The exploited masses, as soon as they began to realize their situation and express protest, opposed them with their ideas. History reasoned their disputes in class battles. But the victory of one class over another, which was at the same time the victory of the ideas of this class, did not mean that the truth lay precisely behind this class, that it was they who objectively reflected the state of society. Their ideology was, at the same time, a product of a given historical era, and therefore carried with it the prejudices of the latter. Thus, Aristotle was a great scientist, but he could not connect cost with labor costs, because he was an ideologist of the slave-owning class. Spartacus rebelled against slavery, but only in order to turn slave owners into slaves. But then which of these classes and their ideologists were right, who reflected the true state of affairs and thus represented science in this eternal dispute? We, of course, could follow Sharikov and say that both were wrong and that means not one of them represented science. But when Sharikov expressed his well-known critical attitude towards the content of the correspondence of the classics and their disputes, we must remember that he had not only a dog’s heart, but also a dog’s mind. “The truth, as always in such cases, is one. She cannot become like the two-faced Janus, looking equally in both directions. If this were possible, then, I think, science would cease to exist,” Prof. rightly notes in this regard. G. M. Grigoryan (“Political economy: principles of renewal and development”).
In order not to be like Sharikov and to be able to correctly express reality, social science has developed a class approach to the analysis of society and economic relations. The purpose of this work is precisely to clarify the essence of the class approach and the problem of its application in the past and now.
The class approach reveals the essence of the state as an expression of the interests of the ruling class, which imposes its own will on the rest of the population of the state. The class approach is characteristic of the Marxist understanding of the state, which interpreted the state as an instrument of suppression of the proletariat.
2. Whole-social approach (interests of the whole society)
The general social approach reveals the essence of the state as an expression of the interests of all social strata. It is based on the ability of the state to act as an arbiter of social relations, to create the possibility of compromise between different social classes and groups. The general social approach is characteristic of most modern democratic states governed by the rule of law.
In addition, there are secondary approaches to interpreting the essence of the state:
1. National approach (interests of the titular nation)
The national approach reveals the essence of the state as an expression of the interests of only one nation. Based on the provision of advantages and privileges to the titular nation. The national approach was characteristic of many empires.
2. Racial approach (interests of one race)
The racial approach reveals the essence of the state as an expression of the interests of only one race. Based on providing advantages and privileges to the so-called superior race and gross disregard for the interests of other racial groups. The racial approach was characteristic of Nazi Germany.
3. Religious approach (interests of a particular religion)
The religious approach reveals the essence of the state as an expression of the interests of the most religious strata of society within the framework of one religion. Based on strict adherence to religious norms and dogmas. The religious approach is characteristic of modern Iran or Saudi Arabia.
The essence of a modern social, democratic, legal state is that it is a tool for achieving social compromise and harmony in a socially heterogeneous society. Thus, depending on different scientific understandings (approaches), two approaches can be distinguished in the essence of the state: 1. the ability to express generally significant interests of the majority (general social essence); 2. the ability to represent the interests of the economically dominant class, or individual social groups (class essence). In addition, speaking about the essence of the state, it should be noted that its internal content also consists of the listed features that distinguish the state from non-state institutions and public organizations.
Typology of the state. Formational and civilizational approaches.
Typology is a theory about the types of certain phenomena. When we talk about the typology of states, this means that we are talking about the “division” of all states that exist in the past and present into groups, classes - types. The division of states into types is intended to help clarify whose interests were expressed and served by the states united in a given type.
State type- a set of states that have similar general features, manifested in the unity of patterns and development trends, based on the same economic (production) relations, on the same combination of general social and narrow group (class) aspects of their essence, a similar level of cultural and spiritual development.
The type of state is characterized by:
The elite (class, social group) that is in power;
The system of production relations and forms of ownership on which this power is based;
A system of methods and methods that this government uses to protect production relations and forms of ownership;
The real (and not declared) general social content of state policy, its true role in society;
The level of cultural and spiritual development of the population of the state in general and individuals in particular.
Approaches to the typology of states:
1) formational approach. This approach was developed within the framework of the Marxist-Leninist theory of state and law. According to it, the type of state is understood as a system of basic features characteristic of states of a certain socio-economic formation, which is manifested in the commonality of their economic base, class structure and social purpose;
2) civilizational approach.
To determine the type of state, the formational approach takes into account:
1) correspondence of the level of the state to a certain socio-economic formation. Socio-economic formation is a historical type of society that is based on a specific mode of production;
2) a class whose instrument of power is the state;
3) social purpose of the state.
The formational approach identifies the following types of states:
1) slave-owning;
2) feudal;
3) bourgeois;
4) socialist
The formational approach has the following advantages:
1) the productivity of dividing states based on socio-economic factors;
2) the possibility of explaining the stage-by-stage development, the natural-historical nature of the formation of the state.
Flaws: 1) one-sidedness; 2) spiritual factors are not taken into account.
Positive features of the civilizational approach: 1) highlighting spiritual, cultural factors; 2) a clearer typology of states.
Flaws: 1) low assessment of the socio-economic factor; 2) the predominance of the typology of society over the typology of the state.
The difference between the civilizational approach and the formational one lies in the possibility of revealing the essence of any historical era through a person, through the totality of the prevailing ideas of each individual in a given period about the nature of social life, about the values and purpose of his own activity. The civilizational approach allows us to see in the state not only an instrument of political domination of the exploiters over the exploited, but also the most important factor in the spiritual and cultural development of society.
Thus, in accordance with the civilizational approach:
1) the essence of the state is determined both by the relationship of social forces and by the accumulation and continuity of cultural and spiritual patterns of behavior;
2) state policy is not so much a product of the play of social forces as the result of the influence of society’s worldview, its morality, and value orientation;
3) the diversity of national cultures determines the development paths of states and their types.
Types of states according to the level of protection of human rights and freedoms:
legal: states with a regime of constitutional legality;
illegal: either states with a regime of lawlessness, or states with a regime of revolutionary legality.
Types of states by method of acquiring power:
legitimate(the acquisition of power is recognized as legitimate by the population of the country and the international community);
illegitimate, but existing de facto (the acquisition of power was carried out illegally).
marx social ideological class
The class approach to the analysis of social phenomena assumes that nothing in society can be explained outside the context of class interests and relations.
Marx did not consider his doctrine of socio-economic formation as a historical and philosophical theory about the universal path that peoples are fatally doomed to follow. Marx wrote that his theory is not “a universal master key that explains and predicts all processes. He talked about how, in different historical settings, strikingly similar events can lead to completely different results.
Emphasizing the objectivity of the laws of history, Marx and Engels noted that these laws are implemented not by themselves, but through the actions of people, specific subjects of social relations. The driving force of the historical process, the creators of history are social communities, classes, their organizations, individuals, and outstanding personalities. Therefore, the methods and results of the operation of social laws depend not only on the objective conditions of the historical process on the level of consciousness and organization of political subjects.
Representatives of pre-Marxist philosophy, both materialistic and idealistic, considered the spiritual principle in man to be specifically human. They reduced practical life to something hostile to the heights of human reason. Marx rejected this position, interpreting practical activity as one of the most important principles that determine the specificity of the human.
From the point of view of Marxism, practice is “the material activity on which all other activities depend: mental, political, religious, etc.” In a word, practice in all its manifestations, including production activity and people’s transformation of themselves, was conceptualized as the basic, initial basis of the spiritual world, culture, etc. From this follows a conclusion of fundamental importance: any activity, even spiritual, cannot be carried out without regard to practice.
The spread of materialism to the area of social life allowed Marxism to develop a specifically philosophical understanding of practice, which has an exceptionally broad ideological context. In other words, a practice of a social nature, manifested in the sphere of connections between people, was seen in a different dimension than before: as a phenomenon of the world order, as a dominant in the sphere of human activity.
The development of Marxist teaching is associated with the creation of a fundamentally new historical form of dialectics, radically different from Hegel's - materialist dialectics. Hegel's idealistic dialectic is clothed in a mystical form, unconditionally recognizes development only in relation to the past, and changes its principles when considering nature. The “rational grain” contained in it (first of all, the idea of development through contradictions) was accepted by the founders of Marxism, its idealistic provisions were rethought by them from a materialist position.
Solving this problem, Marx created a dialectical method, which he considered as the opposite of Hegel's. He emphasized: “My dialectical method in its basis is not only different from Hegel’s, but is its direct opposite. For Hegel, the process of thinking, which he transforms even under the name of idea into an independent subject, is the demiurge of the real, which is only its external manifestation. For me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing more than the material, transplanted into the human head and transformed in it.
In contrast to Hegelian dialectics, the focus of which is the self-movement of concepts, the founders of Marxism began to consider the objective processes of development in nature and society, reflected by developing thinking.
The concept of development occupies a central place in Marxist materialist dialectics.
From the point of view of the latter, development is a side, a moment of universal movement, which is an attribute, i.e. an integral, universal property of the material world
The basic laws of dialectics discovered by Hegel (the unity and struggle of opposites, the mutual transition of quantitative changes into qualitative ones and the negation of negation) began to be considered in Marxism, respectively, as the laws of nature, society and thinking.
However, the question was not at all about introducing these laws, for example, into nature, but about discovering them there.
Engels wrote about this: “...for me the matter could not be about introducing dialectical laws into nature from the outside, but about finding them in it and deducing them from it.”
In a word, from the point of view of Marxism, materialist dialectics is distinguished by the fact that it is the result of the development of philosophy and natural science, the result of a generalization of objective laws operating in nature, in society and in thinking.
The materialist dialectics created by Marx and Engels acted as a new historical form of dialectics. The implementation within its framework of the synthesis of materialism and dialectics contributed to their mutual enrichment.
On the one hand, the idea of development played a crucial role in deepening the understanding of the essence of matter and the material unity of the world.
Along with this, the development of the doctrine of development on a consistently materialistic basis allowed dialectics to rely on an exceptionally broad factual base and more fully reveal its heuristic (using productive creative thinking) capabilities as a method of scientific knowledge.
