Laws of development of society. “Patterns” of social development

Patterns of socialism Conversation 1 The other day I was traveling on a private matter to see Anatoly Pavlovich Fedoseev. He lives in London, like me, in a house that he has stuffed with various technical improvements, and it is extremely interesting to visit him, especially for a person who

Sociological patterns of the mass movement The history of the “Swamp Movement” revealed several fundamental patterns and equally fundamental alternatives, between which there was a rather intense struggle. Summing up, it is impossible not to say about them. Three

The struggle of development technologies. Development codes

Page 1

The patterns of social development indicate a gradual change from imperfect forms of community life to more developed, democratic ones. The role of the supreme power in highly developed states is increasingly reduced to the role of a justice of the peace, who only intervenes in the course of socio-economic relations when the participants in these relations themselves cannot reach agreement on solving the most important problems.  

Afraid of an objective study of the laws of social development that doom capitalism to death, the bourgeoisie demands from its clerks the falsification of its conclusions, proof of the eternity and inviolability of the capitalist system. That is why bourgeois partisanship is hostile to objectivity and science. However, the proletariat, called upon to free humanity from exploitation and being the legal successor of the entire cultural heritage of humanity, including that created by bourgeois society, cannot do without assimilating the culture of the past. The task of the Marxists, wrote V.I. Lenin, is to be able to assimilate and process the gains that are being made by these clerks... The fulfillment of this dual task set by Lenin plays an important role in the struggle for building a communist society. In the process of building communism, since it is carried out in the conditions of the coexistence of two opposing social systems: socialism and capitalism, the second side of this task acquires special importance - the fight against bourgeois ideology, a struggle in which the principle of revolutionary proletarian partyism developed by V. I. Lenin plays a crucial role .  

Gradually, in the course of understanding the laws of social development, the concepts of production and household infrastructure were introduced into scientific circulation, the use of which was associated with the need to create conditions for the functioning of production and non-production spheres. This division of infrastructure was consolidated in practice, which had not only positive, but also negative consequences.  

Lenin's brilliant statements about the laws of social development are an invaluable source of correct understanding of many modern phenomena. No, without Lenin one cannot understand them, without Lenin one cannot understand the current state of the world, the patterns of development of decaying capitalism in the era of imperialism, the fate of the proletarian revolution and its victory, the ways of building socialism and communism.  

This kind of reasoning is fair, since the patterns of social development indicate the progressive movement of all states towards progressive forms of coexistence and economic cooperation, despite all the shocks that they encounter along the way.  

The task of science is to study the patterns of social development and, on their basis, to build real economic, socio-political concepts and programs that allow the stable development of all participants in reproductive processes.  

Nevertheless, upholding history as a science about the laws of social development distinguished K.  

SOCIOLOGY is a science that studies society, social relations, patterns of social development, social groups and their interaction.  

There is a fundamental difference that underlies the approach to understanding the patterns of social development in French and English sociology: English sociology, associated with traditional ideas of the principles of life, was distinctly individualistic. Society for her is, first of all, a collection of individuals, and only an understanding of the nature of the individual himself provides the key to the study of the social whole. This is an important difference, since the research methodology was based on it. Thus, if Comte begins the study of society as a system, then Mill, on the contrary, seeks to reduce the social, that is, the general, to the individual. Society for him is just a simple association of individuals, and social laws are completely reduced to the laws of individual human nature. According to Mill, when people unite into a society, they do not turn into something else with different properties.  

Mastering the revolutionary theory of the working class and all working people - Marxism-Leninism - makes it possible to understand the laws of social development, party policy, the path to communism, and to be an active and conscious creator of a new life.  

The current Party Program, as stated in the resolution of the congress, on the whole correctly characterizes the laws of world social development, the goals and main tasks of the struggle of the party and the Soviet people for communism. Its fundamental provisions have been confirmed by life. Much of what is written in the Program has already been accomplished. At the same time, some of its provisions - it must be said frankly - have not fully stood the test of time, since they contained elements of separation from reality, getting ahead of themselves, and unjustified detail. And, of course, over two decades, many important changes appeared in the life of Soviet society, in the life of other socialist countries, and in world development in general. All this requires deep theoretical understanding and must be taken into account when developing the party’s long-term strategy in the field of domestic and foreign policy.  

The constant strengthening of the Armed Forces is an objective necessity for the successful construction of socialism and communism, arising from the laws of social development and the characteristics of the class struggle between capitalism and socialism.  

It goes without saying that the prophets did not have the slightest idea about the driving forces and patterns of social development.  

Sociology as a science about society in general, based on certain positions, strives to establish the laws of social development, one way or another understanding of society as a product of mutual activity and connections between people. But in this endeavor, she cannot help but be interested in man himself as the main element of society. In other words, sociological laws that explain social phenomena based on the material basis, the production process, must be considered in their connection with the laws that relate to man as a special being in the world. Man is a product of society and its laws, but society is what it is precisely because it is a society of people, because it unites people, and not other beings... This does not mean that society is entirely determined by man or even primarily human.  

In fact, on this basis it is easy to distinguish, for example, historians who comprehend the general laws of social development from people who have received scattered information about historical facts.  

S. Bobrov

The origin of life on earth

The origin of life on earth in the context of the topic under consideration is interesting not in the specifics of certain hypotheses, but from the position of under the influence of which most general laws of nature this process took place. The most popular scientific hypothesis for the origin of life is its emergence in the initial “broth” (ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, etc. compounds). And it is not so important (in the context of the topic) that under the influence of hard ultraviolet radiation (when there was no atmosphere) or volcanic eruptions, certain formations occurred (deoxyribonucleic acid - DNA, ribonucleic acid - RNA, etc.). It is important that the processes took place within the framework of the most general laws of nature. The desire for balance, for a stable state, is one of the main laws of development of the world around us. That is, from the countless formation of certain structures (systems), those that turned out to be stable in this particular environment were preserved. The unstable ones disintegrated in this particular environment, the stable ones remained. The environment changed, conditions changed, stable formations, interacting, formed even more stable ones, already in a certain way changing environment, etc. Perhaps the diversity of the environment for the emergence of living cells determined such a diversity of living nature.

The emergence of living nature began with the synthesis of a living cell as a stable open (in the thermodynamic sense) organic system. And, as is known from thermodynamics, open systems, unlike closed ones, ensure their stability (at least in the process of development) not by increasing entropy (chaos), but on the contrary, by ordering the system, which, in turn, is carried out by due to the exchange of energy between the system and the external environment. That is, a living cell, as an open system, can exist and develop only due to the external environment, i.e. satisfying their needs (the needs of their existence and development) at the expense of the external environment.

Subsequently, organisms began to form from living cells, which provided living cells with a certain relatively stable environment within which these cells could exist and develop, and the functions of adaptation to the environment were performed by the organism as a whole. But once an organism arose, as a higher form of living nature, it itself changed under the influence of the external environment, including changes in its components from which it originally arose.

At least two conclusions can be drawn from this as a basis for further reasoning.

1. Any more complex organisms are formed from conditions of increasing stability in a changing external environment. Any development follows the path of increasing sustainability.

2. A living organism (from a cell to a society), as a thermodynamic system, lives and develops only through the exchange of energy and matter with the external environment. That is, the condition for the development (increasing stability) of any living organism is the satisfaction of its needs at the expense of the external environment.

Human society as an open thermodynamic system, objectivity of origin and tasks.

Man, as a highly organized thermodynamic system, in the quest for a more stable state, forms a thermodynamic system of an even higher level - family, clan, tribe, society. This is a natural process of unconscious development of the system. In a similar way, many species, both insects and animals, increase their resistance to changes in the external environment. That is, the very unification of individuals into a community is not only unconscious, but not even instinctive. Unconditional instinct arises later, in the process of repeated reproduction of the social individual. A community, as an organism (thermodynamic system) of a higher order, provides greater stability for the organisms that created it, an environment in which they are more resistant to external influences. Negative external influences in many ways begin to be reflected by the community as a whole, as an organism of a higher order. As a result, under changing external conditions, similar individuals that are not united into communities die first. Over time, for organisms preserved in a community, living in communities becomes an unconditional instinct.

A community as an organism, as a thermodynamic system of a higher order, arises as the realization of the natural desire of the individuals of its components, as well as everything in living and non-living nature, to a more stable state. That is, a community arises, on the one hand, as a result of a universal pattern - the desire of everything in nature to achieve a stable state, and on the other, as the realization of the needs of the individuals of its components. Ultimately, any higher organism arises as the desire of lower ones to ensure their stable state.

A superior organism always arises from the needs of lower ones, realizing their requests for a stable state in a changing external environment. But as it develops, increasing its resistance to changes in the external environment, the superior organism also changes its internal environment, thus increasing the stability of some of its components (the majority, since it is the basis of the internal content of the organism itself, as a system) and reducing the stability of others, which As a result, they either transform or die off. That is, in the process of development, increasing its resistance to changes in the external environment, the organism also changes its content.

Man, as a thermodynamic system, strives for a more stable state at an unconscious level. And it, like any open thermodynamic system, can ensure its stable state only through the exchange of energy and matter with the environment, i.e. satisfying your needs. The natural, natural, unconscious desire of a person as a system for a more stable state, with a lack of opportunities, is expressed in his desire to more fully satisfy his needs. That is, a person’s desire for more complete satisfaction of his needs is not a matter of his conscious choice, it is his objective need laid down by nature, the basic law of man as an open thermodynamic system, as a force beyond his control and steadily pushing him towards development, as an increase in his stability in relation to to the external environment. A person’s conscious desire to more fully satisfy his needs resolves the issue only of methods for satisfying them, and the need itself is inherent in nature and does not depend on the will of man. That is, consciousness is secondary and only expands the possibilities for a person to realize his needs.

But society, as an open thermodynamic system of a higher level, also strives to increase the degree of its stability. This occurs both due to changes in the members of society themselves, as elements of its components, and due to its organizational structure and operating principles. This manifests itself in the form of increased knowledge, skills, etc. members of society and in the form of changes in the organization of social life. But society itself is a product of the realization of the interests of its members. That is, society is for its members, and not vice versa.

The relationship between the ideal and the real from the perspective of epistemology.

Oddly enough, many who consider themselves materialists often reason from the position of idealists, seemingly without even realizing it. This is sometimes especially evident in discussions about the role of the Communist Party in educating a new person.

In the context of this discussion, it is important to determine how independent a person is in his judgments and how these judgments are formed in general. Are we all such independent thinkers and are there objective laws within the framework of which our consciousness is formed? Therefore, it makes sense to determine what the mechanism of thinking itself is and the relationship between the ideal and the real in this process.

This issue is well covered by E.V. Ilyenkov in “The Question of the Identity of Thinking and Being in Pre-Marxist Philosophy” http://caute.ru/ilyenkov/texts/idemb.html. Although pre-Marxist philosophy appears in the title, the Marxist position on this issue is also presented.

I will give some excerpts from the mentioned article.

“Feuerbach sees this “immediate unity” (identity) of subject and object, thinking and being, concept and object - in contemplation.

K Marx and F. Engels see this “immediate unity” (i.e. identity) of subject and object, thinking and being, concept and object - in practice, in objective-practical activity.

This weak point is the anthropological interpretation of the “identity of thinking and being,” thinking and matter of the individual’s brain; the thesis according to which thinking is a material process occurring in the cerebral cortex, i.e. anatomical and physiological reality.

Taken by itself, outside the context of philosophical theory, this thesis does not contain anything erroneous. From a “medical point of view”, it is absolutely fair: under the skull of an individual, there really is nothing but a set of neuro-physiological structures and processes. And as long as human thinking is considered from a medical point of view, this thesis cannot be denied without ceasing to be a materialist.

But as soon as this anthropological-medical interpretation of the “identity of thinking and matter” is accepted as a philosophical understanding and solution to the problem of the “identity of thinking and being,” materialism immediately ends.

And the insidiousness of this turn of thought is that this point of view continues to seem “materialistic”.

“It is not “I”, not “Mind” that thinks. But it is not the “brain” that thinks either. A person thinks with the help of the brain, while being in unity with nature and in contact with it. Removed from this unity, he no longer thinks. This is where Feuerbach stops.

But it is also not man who thinks in direct unity with nature, continues K. Marx. And this is not enough. Only a person who is in unity with society, with the socio-historical collective that socially produces its material and spiritual life, thinks. This is the fundamental difference between Marx and Feuerbach.

A person, removed from the web of social relations, within and through which he carries out his human contact with nature (i.e., is in human unity with it), thinks as little as a “brain” removed from the human body.

Between “man in general” (as contemplating and thinking) and nature itself, “nature in general,” there is another important “mediating link” missed by Feuerbach. This mediating link through which nature turns into thought, and thought into the body of nature, is practice, labor, production.”

“In direct contemplation, which constitutes the starting point of Feuerbach’s materialism (and all previous materialism), the objective features of “nature in itself” are intertwined with those features and forms that are imposed on nature by the transformative activity of man. And moreover, all purely objective characteristics (forms and laws) of natural material are given to contemplation through the image that natural material acquired in the course and as a result of the subjective activity of social man.”

“Error, therefore, begins only where a limitedly correct method of action is given universal significance, where the relative is taken for the absolute.

Therefore, the narrower the sphere of the natural whole with which man dealt, the greater the measure of error, the less the measure of truth.”

“Between a thing (object) and a representation (concept, theory, etc.) there is a real bridge, a real transition - the sensory-objective activity of a socio-historical person. It is through this transition that a thing turns into a representation, and a representation into a thing. Moreover, what is most important, the idea arises only in the process of a person’s action with a thing created by a person for a person, i.e. on the basis of an object created by labor or at least only involved in this labor as a means, object or material. On the basis of things created by man, the ability further arises to form ideas about things not yet mediated by labor - about natural things. But in no case is it the other way around.”

“If I transform “my” idea of ​​a thing, i.e. a verbally or visually recorded image of a thing, into a real thing, into an action with this thing outside of me, and through this thing - into the form of an external thing, i.e. into the objectively recorded result of an action, then I ultimately have in front of me (outside myself) two “things” that are quite comparable to each other in real space.

But of these two things, one is simply a thing, and the other is a thing created according to the plan of representation, or a materialized (through action) representation. When comparing these two things, I compare them with each other as two “external” objects - an idea and a thing - by which I check the fidelity (correctness) of the idea.

The same is true with the truth of a concept (theory). If I, relying on a concept, create a thing outside of myself that corresponds to it, then this means that my concept is true, i.e. corresponds to the essence of the thing, coincides, agrees with it.”

“Identification (i.e., identity as an act, as an action, as a process, and not as a dead state) of thought and reality, accomplished in practice and through practice, is the essence, the essence of the Marxist-Leninist theory of reflection.”

“Practice as an act of “identifying an object with a concept and a concept with an object” therefore acts as a criterion of truth, reality of thinking, objectivity of a concept. ... practice also proves the identity of logic with dialectics, i.e. the identity of the forms and patterns of our thinking with the forms and patterns of development of nature and society. Logical patterns are nothing more than universal forms and patterns of development of objective reality realized and transformed into active forms and principles of our subjective activity.

The only difference between “logical” laws and the objective universal laws of the development of the universe through contradictions is, as F. Engels beautifully formulated, that “the human head can apply them consciously, whereas in nature - until now, for the most part, in human history “They make their way unconsciously, in the form of external necessity, among an endless series of apparent accidents.”

The only difference between “logical” laws and the laws of the external world lies in the fact that in the “head” universal dialectical laws are carried out deliberately, with consciousness, expediently – and in nothing else.

Therefore, “logic” is nothing more than “dialectics” consciously and consciously applied in science and in life. It's absolutely the same thing. This is Lenin’s position, according to which “dialectics, logic and the theory of knowledge of Marxism” are one and the same science, and not three different, even if “connected” sciences.

It is true that thinking and being are not the same thing. Only this is not the whole truth, but only half of it. The other half of the truth is the opposite statement: thinking and being are one and the same.

And any of these two halves of genuine concrete truth, taken without the other, is indeed nonsense, absurdity, a typical delusion of the metaphysical way of thinking.

The materialist solution to the problem of the identity of the opposites of thinking and reality is that reality is considered as the leading, determining side within this identity. Hegelian dialectics attributes this role to thinking.

This - and not the fact that Hegel recognizes the very identity of opposites, and Marx rejects it - is the real, and not the imaginary, opposition of materialism and mysticism. Both Hegel and Marx recognize this identity of thinking and reality as the identity of opposites. Only one interprets it idealistically, and the other materialistically. That's the point.

There is only one conclusion from everything considered. The principle of “identity of thinking and being” (or, in other words, in the affirmative answer to the question whether such an identity exists) consists, first of all, of the recognition of the fact of transformation, the transition of reality into thought, the real into the ideal, an object into a concept and vice versa. And this is precisely the fact that philosophy as a science has always specifically studied and is exploring. The laws of this “identification” of thinking with reality are logical laws, the laws of dialectical logic. Therefore, we can say that the principle of the dialectical identity of thinking and being is a kind of password for the right to enter scientific philosophy, into the boundaries of its subject. Anyone who does not accept this principle will engage either in pure “ontology” or pure “logic”, or alternately with both, but will never find a real entrance into dialectics as logic and theory of knowledge, into Marxist-Leninist philosophy.”

I would like to especially draw attention to two points. The first is that thinking is a process of transforming the real into the ideal and back, mediated by human practical activity. And secondly, a person cannot think outside of society without absorbing a certain part of the knowledge, skills and ideas accumulated by society over the entire period of its existence.

A person, in principle, can only think with what has already been given to him, what he has already perceived from the real world and transformed in his head into the ideal (consciousness). By combining what is already given, using already given laws and patterns, a person forms new ideas and concepts, discovers new laws and patterns. Dialectics of thinking: thesis – antithesis – synthesis. Thesis and antithesis are formed on the basis of existing knowledge, synthesis - new knowledge. At the next stage, the synthesis becomes a thesis, and the continuation of thinking itself is possible only with the appearance of an antithesis.

Based on this, it can be argued that to the extent that people have common knowledge and ideas, they think at least alike. Differences begin where people have different internal (ideal) worlds, formed on the basis of different knowledge and ideas. This may be due to both social status, the environment that shaped the individual, and professional activity. That is, a person thinks in combination with society, with the achieved level of its development, and cannot be free from it in his thought process. But a person thinks not in combination with society in general, at least not only, but also in combination, in particular, with that part of society that has formed a certain part of his ideas, which can be both true and false. This is who and where false ideas were formed, we need to understand by considering the laws of development of society, starting from the origin of living organisms on the basis of the most general laws of nature, with which everyone agrees, and ending with human society. Because false initial ideas lead to false actions (the embodiment of the ideal into the real), which are fundamentally unable to transform the real world in the desired direction.

Fundamentals of the development of human society, laws of development, Marx’s formation theory.

Since being determines consciousness, consciousness fundamentally cannot precede being. Of course, not in the sense that consciousness cannot construct a new being, but in the fact that consciousness can do this only on the basis of being already given into sensation. That is, turning the accumulated real experience into an ideal (consciousness), a person (society), operating with this ideal, creates a new ideal and in the process of labor transforms, in accordance with it, the real world, creating a new being. And so on. That is, although consciousness develops ahead of schedule, in principle it cannot break away from the already achieved existence.

Despite man's ability to think, society itself, as an element of living nature, has been developing spontaneously for a long time, and in general practically to this day, on the basis of the most general laws of its development. From the position of thermodynamics, society, as a system, objectively strives to increase its stability in relation to the external environment. But this is the most general law of nature, which does not reveal the very mechanism for increasing this stability, and for conscious management of the development of society it is necessary to understand this mechanism.

A person can ensure his stability, like any open thermodynamic one, only through the exchange of energy and matter with the external environment, i.e. satisfying their needs to ensure this sustainability. And the more fully these needs are satisfied, the higher the level of resistance to environmental conditions is ensured. This is an objective law of nature inherent in man as a thermodynamic system. Man cannot exist otherwise, and it is this real existence, the objective law of nature, that underlies the development of his consciousness. The desire to more fully satisfy one’s needs is not a conscious choice of a person, but a law of nature, the natural conditions of one’s existence. This is what was, is and will be the main driving force for the development of man (as long as he remains a man) in particular and society as a whole.

It is the desire for more complete satisfaction of one’s needs that pushes a person to develop the productive forces of society. Productive forces, developing, require at each stage of their development certain social relations, quantitative changes in which cannot accumulate indefinitely within the framework of specific property relations (method of production, e.g. formation). At a certain stage, the limit of possibilities for changing production relations within the framework of these property relations is reached, which entails a slowdown in the development of the productive forces of society. At this moment, a qualitative leap occurs, changes in property relations, which creates the opportunity for further development of production relations in accordance with the requirements of the achieved level of development of the productive forces.

To summarize:

1. The development of society is based on man’s natural desire to more fully satisfy his needs.

2. The desire for more complete satisfaction of one's needs encourages a person to develop the productive forces of society.

3. The productive forces of society, developing, require constant changes in production relations to suit the achieved level of their development.

4. Changes in production relations cannot be endless within the framework of a specific mode of production (legally established property relations). There comes a time when further changes in production relations, in order to ensure the further development of productive forces, require a change in the method of production.

These are the laws of social development that act inexorably and do not depend on human will. And it makes no difference what specific method of production all this results in. Whether it is the classical formational system of Marx or with deviations in the form of the Asian mode of production, or the peculiarities of the formation of feudalism in Europe, the essence is always the same - a new mode of production arises when and only when the old one becomes unable to ensure further changes in production relations to meet the requirements of the development of productive strength And it doesn’t matter what the new method of production specifically will be, only one requirement is important for it - the ability to ensure the further development of production relations in accordance with the requirements of the development of the productive forces of society, as a condition for further increasing the sustainability of society as a system that ensures sustainable human development.

Class society. Fundamentals of class domination and forms of its implementation.

Class society arose when, as a result of the development of the productive forces of society, a person became able to produce significantly more than was necessary for his own reproduction. That is, when he could already produce significantly more than was necessary to support his life and the life of his family - preserving him as a labor force in an unchanged state over time. If we use cost estimates (the costs of socially useful labor), then this is when a person has become able to produce a value significantly greater than the cost of his labor power.

This surplus product, produced in excess of what was necessary for the simple reproduction of labor power, began to be seized by the stronger members of society from the weaker. Thus, one part of society began to provide more complete satisfaction of its needs at the expense of the other. But these are only external manifestations, which in themselves do not reveal the patterns of development, why such a system ensured the further development of society, a further increase in its resistance to changes in the external environment.

While a person could produce only such an amount of products that could only ensure his simple reproduction, or slightly exceeding this limit, when even such survival was ensured largely thanks to their collective activity, those societies should have developed most actively, or even simply survived, in which individual members of society did not provide more complete satisfaction of their needs at the expense of other members of society. If such attempts were made, then those from whom the product necessary for their survival was confiscated simply died, thereby weakening society as a whole, which could lead to the death of society itself. That is, natural selection, a natural pattern, left and gave the opportunity to develop only to those societies in which there was no exploitation of some members of society by others.

When the surplus product created by an individual member of society became tangible in order to be withdrawn without leading to the death of this member of society, then the situation changed dramatically. The concentration of the surplus product of many people in individual hands made it possible for wider specialization, the ability to ensure, through these means, the development of science, culture, technology and technology. Now, such a system has proven to be more viable. And not because someone was simply stronger and was able to regularly take away the surplus from others, but because such a system made it possible to more effectively develop the productive forces of society and increase its stability. And the greater the concentration of resources, the more opportunities a society has for its development, the greater its ability to survive compared to other societies, including in competition.

But the unorganized withdrawal of surplus product by one member of society from others not only did not provide the opportunity for a large concentration of surplus product, but also did not ensure such concentration on an ongoing basis. For example, with the death of the subject providing this, the entire system could collapse. As a result, it was not individual exploiters who turned out to be more stable, but their associations. And the larger these associations are, the more objectively they should be stable and capable of absorbing smaller ones. Gradually, the forced seizure of surplus product turned into a system of organized violence with a branched hierarchical structure - the state. That is, the formation of a state is an objectively natural process that does not depend on the will and desire of people. And it was formed as a natural result of the development of society as a system that preserves the most stable forms in the process of its development. At the same time, the state arose and exists precisely as an instrument of violence of the ruling class over the oppressed class.

From the moment the ruling class emerged in society, the development of society began to be determined by the desire for more complete satisfaction of its needs by this particular class. The oppressed classes have turned, in essence, into an instrument for more fully satisfying the needs of the ruling class. That is, a special system arose or, if we take it within the framework of the entire society, a subsystem - the ruling class, which created another system subordinate to it, designed to ensure its dominance in society - the state. But if the state is a system subordinate to the class, then there must be a mechanism for using this system in the interests of the class.

The origin of the exploitation of some members of society by others could not be based on anything other than brute physical force; there were simply no other tools. But with the increasing concentration in one hand of a significant part of the surplus product in society, the exploiters have the opportunity to support special people with these funds and for these purposes. To control the actions of a large number of such people, certain rules (laws) for their functioning are created, which are transformed over time into state legislation. That is, the dominance of a class (as a class) was initially based on the economic capabilities of its members; it was the concentration in their hands of the labor of a significant number of people, a significant part of the surplus product of society (and by the class as a whole - the main part of the surplus product) that made it possible for members of the ruling class to collectively support the state ensuring their dominance in society.

The mechanism of such control by the class of the state and its management may be different, but the basis is always the same, the state always implements the will of those in whose hands (private or coalition) the main part of the surplus product is concentrated, which corresponds to the ownership of the main part of the economic power of society, the main part of property for the means of production. In the ancient and Middle Ages, this was realized through intrastate wars and the physical elimination of monarchs, and in some societies through the election of leaders. In societies with a developed democratic system, this is carried out, as a rule, without bloodshed, but this does not change the essence. Democracy is simply a way of identifying the will of people who own the majority of the economic power of society and legitimizing this will as instructions for its execution by the state. With the help of democracy, that part of society, in whose hands most of the economic power of society is, imposes its will on specific issues on the rest of the ruling class, and through it on the state and the rest of society. Each member of the ruling class has the opportunity to direct part of the product of the labor of other people concentrated in his hands to support or counteract certain areas of activity of the state system. That is, each member of the ruling class, regardless of what specific socio-economic formation we are talking about, directly participates in the formation of the will of the class in proportion to their economic capabilities, no one is granted such a right. This determines the dominance in society of the class, and not of kings, kings, pharaohs, governments, parliaments or parties. Power cannot be exercised indirectly at all; power is a property of a subject that can be acquired, had, lost, but cannot be transferred to someone without losing it.

The reasons for the restoration of capitalism in the USSR from the position of objective laws of social development.

If we proceed from the objective laws of social development discussed in previous topics, then Russia at the beginning of the last century was still completely unprepared for the transition to the next socio-economic formation. And not only as a country that has independently already exhausted all development possibilities within the framework of bourgeois property relations, but also as the weakest link in the world capitalist system. As is now completely obvious, the most developed countries of the world capitalist system at that time had even greater opportunities for development within the framework of bourgeois property relations. But the October Revolution of 1917 took place precisely as a socialist revolution, if we understand socialism as the first phase of the communist formation, the period of transition from capitalism to communism. In July 1918, the Constitution of the RSFSR was adopted, precisely as the Constitution of a socialist state. But this is where everything socialist (as the first phase of communism) ends. The Constitution of the Russian Federation of 1918 was never implemented, since it quickly became clear that the implementation of such a constitution in Russia at that time was a direct path to restoring the dominance of the bourgeoisie in society with all the ensuing consequences not only for revolutionaries, but also for all Russian workers .

In previous topics it was argued that the dictatorship of a class is always carried out at the will of that part of the class that controls most of the economic potential of society. And also that the future ruling class must mature and become capable of exercising its dominance in the system of new property relations. And this can only happen when the productive forces of society develop so much that they require changes in production relations that are incompatible with existing property relations. Only then will the demands for both new production relations and new property relations become visible and understandable to the future ruling class, as a class.

At the beginning of the last century, none of this existed not only in Russia, but nowhere else in the world. Russia at that time still largely retained semi-feudal relations, at least in the system of social governance. In a situation where in a country not only that there was no developed dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and bourgeois democracy, not only that it had not yet exhausted itself, in a country in which it had not even yet been formed, there could be no talk of any dictatorship of the proletariat. And this, judging by the debates at the third congress of the Comintern, was well understood by many leaders of the communist movement of that time. And the replacement of the dictatorship of the class with the dictatorship of the party (the dictatorship of a clan devoted to the interests of the working masses) was at that time the only possibility of forming a state and the corresponding political system in the country in the interests of the overwhelming majority of the country's population. The overestimation of society's readiness to transition to a new socio-economic formation cost the German Communist Party, which was quite strong at that time, dearly. Their main ideologist in his brochure (pronounced at the third congress of the Comintern), recognizing that Russian communists have no other way than replacing the dictatorship of the class with the dictatorship of the party, wrote that if the communists of capitalistically developed countries follow the same path, it will not be a mistake, it would be a betrayal of the revolution.

Consciously or instinctively, the Russian Bolsheviks chose the only possible path at that time to radically change the structure of society in the interests of the overwhelming majority of its members. But the German communists, trying to immediately establish in society the dictatorship of a new class, which at that time was not yet ready for this, which still existed simply as an oppressed class fighting for its rights, but not as a mature new ruling class, a class feeling the need It was precisely in the new relations of property and those who were actually capable of organizing production in these relations of property that they suffered defeat.

Under socialism, as the first stage of the communist formation, as a transition period from capitalism to communism, as a period of qualitative changes in social relations, in any case, bourgeois law remains, which must die out as the productive forces and production relations develop, gradually creating the conditions for the transition from state management of society to its self-government (withering away of the state). But this bourgeois right under socialism already operates in a new system of power, in a system of power that ensures in society the dictatorship of the working masses, the overwhelming majority of the population, the dictatorship of not just the proletariat, but a proletariat that has already matured in order to organize itself and take power into its own hands and organize production on the basis of new property relations. But, as explained in previous topics, the dictatorship of a class is carried out on the basis of the democratic determination of the will of the majority of representatives of a given class. Not the will of any structures representing the interests of the class, but the will of the direct majority of the representatives of the class themselves. True, there is a point here that requires separate consideration. If in all previous formations the will of the class was the will of those who control the majority of the country's economy on the basis of ownership of private property in the means of production, and precisely through its ownership, they own the state as an instrument of violence and maintaining their dominance, then in a state where the dictatorship is exercised For the vast majority of workers, the situation is somewhat different. In such a state, the will of the ruling class is revealed without relying on ownership of the means of production. On the contrary, the state, which is in their hands and organized in such a way that it carries out the will of the majority of members of the class, is at the same time the manager of all the property of this class.

But since the class was not yet ready to independently organize production, this was done by those who could actually do it - the party, or rather its leadership. That is, a closed association of people, which itself established internal laws (Charter) and goals and ways to achieve them (Program), selected members for itself based on the requirements it established, received into its hands the state as an instrument of violence, and through it and ownership of the means of production. That is, in essence, a new specific ruling stratum of society has formed, a ruling class that collectively owns property in the means of production. Something similar to the Asian method of production has emerged, only at a modern level. And the problem, it seems, was not that it was impossible to give power into the hands of the party; at that time, there was, perhaps, no other acceptable solution for the majority of workers. The problem is that all the theoretical developments that existed at that time provided for a transition from capitalism, in its classical form, to socialism, as the first phase of communism. In reality, we got such an organization of society, the transition from which to socialism was never worked out.

Any community of people united by common interests sooner or later realizes them and begins to defend them. This happened with the party too. It must be borne in mind that mass consciousness is not the sum of the consciousnesses of individual members of this mass. The masses, having realized their common interests, are already becoming an independent system with their own specific consciousness. People can work honestly in a system that struggles to remain sustainable without realizing its depravity. But in any case, all this can continue only until the productive forces of society develop to such an extent that they require production relations incompatible with existing property relations.

The state cannot be the owner of the means of production; it is only an instrument in the hands of the ruling class (a clan with class characteristics). State property is the collective property of the ruling class. In whose hands is the state, in those hands is state property.

From this we can conclude that the dictatorship of the proletariat, the dictatorship of the overwhelming majority of the working masses, has not yet existed anywhere in the world. And while the dictatorship of the party could provide scope for the development of production relations to meet the requirements of the productive forces, they developed rapidly. But as soon as the productive forces developed so much that they began to require changes in production relations incompatible with existing property relations, a slowdown in the development of productive forces occurred, a crisis, a change in property relations. In which direction the pendulum swung, why and for how long, this is a separate topic, but the basis of the crisis of the former socialist system lies precisely in this.

Conclusions, forecasts.

The purpose of all of the above is simple - to go (from a materialistic position) from the origin of life on earth to modern human society, as a product of the development of nature, and to evaluate to what extent this development was determined by the objective laws of nature, and to what extent the development of modern human society continues to be determined by these laws. That is, the ultimate goal is to understand whether a reasonable person is so omnipotent that he can plan the development of society based on his interests (including moral ones) without looking at any objective laws of social development (if they do not exist). Or our mind, our consciousness, is also a product of the development of nature, depends on being and is formed by the objective laws of the development of society, and we can plan the further development of society only taking these laws into account.

Consistently, from topic to topic, an approach to understanding the process of development of nature from the origin of life to human society was proposed. This approach does not represent anything new; in general, it is a Marxist position, only it is presented in a somewhat unique way, taking into account the modern knowledge of the majority of members of society.

All this allows us to draw conclusions that in analyzing recent historical events and forecasts for the future, it makes sense to rely on the following postulates.

1. Human society is a product of the development of nature. And since it can exist (function) only as a certain integral system, ensuring its stable state and development only by its specific internal organization, and the exchange of matter and energy with the external environment, then in its essence, from the position of the most general laws of nature, it is open thermodynamic system and, accordingly, obeys all the laws of operation of such systems.

2. The development of society, increasing its resistance to environmental influences, like any thermodynamic system, is ensured by an increase and complication of its internal organization, which is ensured by the development of the productive forces of society.

3. The basis for the development of the productive forces of society, which is its initial incentive for development, is the natural need of both man and society as a whole, like any developing thermodynamic system, to ensure its stable state and development through the exchange of matter and energy with the external environment , i.e. the desire of both an individual and society as a whole to more fully satisfy their needs.

4. The development of the productive forces of society is determined by the desire for more complete satisfaction of their needs not of all members of society, but only of members of the ruling class. Increasing the satisfaction of the needs of the remaining members of society occurs only to the extent necessary to maximize the satisfaction of the needs of members of the ruling class.

5. Continuity of development of the productive forces of society requires continuity of development of production relations (relations in the production process and everything that is connected with it in one way or another). Slowing down or stopping the development of production relations leads to slowing down or stopping the development of the productive forces of society (crisis).

6. Specific (existing) property relations, determined by the dominance of certain classes in society, impose certain restrictions on the possibilities for the development of the productive forces of society within their framework. Further development of the productive forces is possible only if these limits are removed, i.e. with a corresponding change in property relations.

7. The dominance of certain classes in society (socio-economic formations, legally expressed in existing property relations) is naturally determined not by their struggle, but by the level of development of the productive forces. A change of ruling classes (socio-economic formations) occurs if and only if all possibilities for the development of production relations, and as a consequence of productive forces, within the framework of existing property relations have been exhausted.

8. The struggle of classes for their interests is a natural struggle of large social groups for more complete satisfaction of their needs, which occurs constantly with an increase or decrease, depending on the circumstances. But it leads to a change in socio-economic formations only when improving the position of the oppressed class is no longer possible within the framework of these property relations due to the general inhibition of the development of the productive forces of society.

9. Under the state structure of society, the ruling class exercises its dictatorship in society through the state, as an instrument of violence in its hands, created and maintained by it on the basis of its economic capabilities, ensured by their right of ownership of the means of production. That is, the ruling class always exercises its dictatorship directly, not transferring its power to anyone, but only using the state as an instrument of its domination.

10. Democracy in a class society is only a way of identifying the will of the ruling class as a controlling influence on the state that ensures its implementation, no matter what kind of nationality it is disguised as.

Based on this, some practical conclusions can be drawn.

1. In order to correctly determine the goals in the struggle of workers for their rights, it is necessary to determine how ready or not society is for the transition to a new socio-economic formation. Since, if society, in terms of the level of development of productive forces and production relations, is not yet ready for the transition to a new socio-economic formation, then the maximum that can be strived for is the creation within the framework of a given socio-economic formation of a political regime that ensures the maximum possible satisfaction of the interests of workers. That is, to the dominance in society of a certain organized force that ensures these interests, approximately to what was in the USSR, to power in the interests of the working people, but not to the power of the working people themselves.

If society is already ready for the transition to a new socio-economic formation, then such a goal cannot solve its problems, since while maintaining, in essence, the previous property relations, it will be impossible to ensure the development of production relations in accordance with the requirements of the development of productive forces. And this, in turn, will not provide the opportunity for further development of the productive forces of society themselves, i.e. that is why all these changes are required. In this case, a real change in the dominant class in society is required, i.e. not power in the interests of the working masses, but the power of the working people themselves, which will really change property relations and open up space for the further development of production relations to meet the demands of the productive forces.

2. Socialism, as a transition period from capitalism to communism, is not just a transition period from one socio-economic formation to another, it is a transition from the state (class) system of managing society to its self-government. That is, this is the end of an entire era of state (class) structure of society dating back thousands of years. During this period, the dying out (self-destruction) of the last ruling class occurs. This changes the very paradigm of organizing the functioning of society. If previously all classes exercised their dominance by creating and maintaining the state as an instrument of domination, relying on their economic capabilities, which, in turn, were determined by their right of ownership of the means of production, then under socialism the working people directly, relying on their organization and mass character, own state, and only through it, as an instrument of domination and control, do they own ownership of the means of production. That is, there is a transition from state ownership through ownership of the means of production to ownership of the means of production through state ownership. Therefore, the broadest democracy, the identification and implementation of the will of the working masses, and not any governing structures, is an indispensable condition for the existence of socialism, as a transition period from capitalism to communism (direct class power, the power of the working masses, and not the power of any whatever the structure is in their interests). Otherwise, through the state and ownership of the means of production, real power in society will be in the hands of the governing structure (party, clan, junta, etc.), but not in the hands of the working masses. Which is exactly what happened in the USSR.

3. Based on the previous, participants in the struggle for the development of society in the communist direction need to unambiguously determine the degree of readiness for the transition of society to a new socio-economic formation. Determine whether society (the world community) has developed all its resources for the development of productive forces within the framework of the capitalist socio-economic formation. If it has worked out, then show where and how the development of production relations, necessary for the further development of productive forces, are constrained by existing property relations. And this is a key point in determining the immediate goals of the struggle.

If a conclusion is made that society is not ready to transition to a new socio-economic formation, then the immediate goal should be the coming to power of a certain political force (party) capable of establishing a political regime in society in the interests of the broad working masses.

If society is ready for the transition to a new socio-economic formation, then the struggle for the party to come to power is not only devoid of any meaning, but is also a deliberately impossible task, directing the efforts of the politically active population to fight for obviously unattainable goals. In this case, the activities of communists should be focused on creating directly broad organizations of workers capable of transforming in their development into a new system of power, the dictatorship of the working people, the modern proletariat, with the formation of a socialist state as the first initial phase of a new (communist) socio-economic formation. And this is a normal, logical path of development of society, a path that society will go through with the active help of communists (at a faster pace) or without them (with direct self-organization of the masses).

And if society is not yet ready for the transition to a new socio-economic formation, then bringing the Communist Party to power and organizing, on the basis of its dominance in society, a political regime in the interests of the overwhelming majority of the country’s population, is a conscious overcoming of the objective law of social development to create the most favorable conditions for its development and for the maximum possible satisfaction of the needs of the majority of its members at a given level of development of the productive forces. But this must be carried out consciously, with long-term planning for the development of society, taking into account the operation of the objective laws of its development. Otherwise, society, under the influence of these objective laws, will inevitably return to the natural path of development, which is what happened to the socialist countries.

Materialists argue that the study of the causes of social development should begin with a study of the process of production of immediate life, with an explanation practices from ideas, not ideological formations from practice.

Then it turns out that the source of social development is the contradiction (struggle) between people's needs and opportunities to meet them. The possibilities of satisfying needs depend on the development and struggle of two factors: productive forces and production relations, which constitute the method of production of material life, which determines the social, political and spiritual processes of life in general. Historical types of production relations are determined by the formational stages of development of productive forces.

At a certain stage of their development, the productive forces of society come into conflict with existing production relations. From forms of development of productive forces, these relations turn into their fetters. Then comes the era of social revolution. With a change in the economic basis, a revolution occurs more or less quickly in the superstructure. When considering such revolutions, it is always necessary to distinguish the revolution in the economic conditions of production from the legal, political, religious, artistic and philosophical forms in which people are aware of this conflict and struggle with it.

The essence idealistic understanding of history lies in the fact that the study of society begins not with an analysis of the results of practical activity, but with a consideration of its ideological motives. The main factor of development is seen in the political, religious, theoretical struggle, and material production is seen as a secondary factor. And then, consequently, the history of mankind appears not as the history of social relations, but as the history of morality, law, philosophy, etc.

Ways to develop society:

Evolution (from Latin evolutio - deployment, changes). In a broad sense, this is any development. In a narrow sense, it is a process of gradual accumulation of quantitative changes in society that prepare for qualitative changes.

Revolution (from Latin revolution - revolution) - qualitative changes, a radical revolution in social life, ensuring progressive progressive development. A revolution can occur throughout society (social revolution) and in its individual spheres (political, scientific, etc.).

Evolution and revolution do not exist without each other. Being two opposites, they are, at the same time, in unity: evolutionary changes sooner or later lead to revolutionary, qualitative transformations, and these, in turn, give scope to the stage of evolution.

Direction of social development:

First group thinkers argues that the historical process is characterized by cyclical orientation (Plato, Aristotle, O. Spengler, N. Danilevsky, P. Sorokin).

Second group insists that the dominant direction of social development is regressive (Hesiod, Seneca, Boisgilbert).

Third group states that progressive the direction of the story prevails. Humanity develops from less perfect to more perfect. (A. Augustine, G. Hegel, K. Marx).

At all progress- this is a movement forward, from lower to higher, from simple to complex, a transition to a higher level of development, change for the better; development of new, advanced; This is a process of upward development of humanity, implying a qualitative renewal of life.

Stages of historical development

Theoretical constructions of the progressive stage development of society were proposed by both idealists and materialists.

An example of an idealistic interpretation of progress can be the concept three-stage development of society, owned by I. Iselen (1728–1802), according to which humanity in its development passes through successive stages: 1) the dominance of feelings and primitive simplicity; 2) the predominance of fantasies over feelings and the softening of morals under the influence of reason and education; 3) the dominance of reason over feelings and imagination.

During the Age of Enlightenment, in the works of such outstanding scientists and thinkers as A. Turgot, A. Smith, A. Barnave, S. Desnitsky and others, a materialistic four-stage concept of progress (hunting-gathering, pastoral, agricultural, and commercial) based on an analysis of technological modes of production, geographic environment, human needs, and other factors.

K. Marx and F. Engels, having systematized and, as it were, summing up all the teachings on social progress, developed theory of social formations.

Theory of social formations by K. Marx

According to K. Marx, humanity in its development goes through two global periods: the “kingdom of necessity,” that is, subordination to some external forces, and the “kingdom of freedom.” The first period, in turn, has its own stages of ascension - social formations.

Social formation, according to K. Marx, this is a stage of development of society, distinguished on the basis of the presence or absence of antagonistic classes, exploitation and private property. K Marx considers three social formations: “primary”, archaic (pre-economic), “secondary” (economic) and “tertiary”, communist (post-economic), the transition between which occurs in the form of long qualitative leaps - social revolutions.

Social existence and social consciousness

Social existence - this is the practical life of society. Practice(Greek praktikos - active) - this is a feeling-objective, purposeful joint activity of people to develop natural and social objects in accordance with their needs and demands. Only a person is able to relate practically and transformatively to the natural and social world around him, creating the necessary conditions for his life, changing the world around him, social relations, and society as a whole.

The measure of mastery of objects in the surrounding world is expressed in forms of practice that are historical in nature, that is, they change with the development of society.

Forms of practice(according to the means of life of society): material production, social activity, scientific experimentation, technical activity.

Improvement material production, his

productive forces and production relations is the condition, basis and driving force of all social development. Just as society cannot stop consuming, it cannot stop producing. True

Social activities represents the improvement of social forms and relations (class struggle, war, revolutionary changes, various processes of management, service, etc.).

Scientific experimentation is a test for the truth of scientific knowledge before its widespread use.

Technical activities Today they constitute the core of the productive forces of the society in which a person lives, and have a significant impact on all social life and on the person himself.

Social consciousness(according to its content) - This

a set of ideas, theories, views, traditions, feelings, norms and opinions that reflect the social existence of a particular society at a certain stage of its development.

Social consciousness(according to the method of formation and mechanism of functioning) is not a simple sum of individual consciousnesses, but is that which is common in the consciousness of members of society, as well as the result of unification, the synthesis of common ideas.

Social consciousness(by its essence) - this is a reflection of social existence through ideal images in the consciousness of social subjects and in an active reverse impact on social existence.

Laws of interaction between social consciousness and social existence:

1. The law of relative compliance of social consciousness with the structure, logic of functioning and changes in social existence. Its content is revealed in the following main features:

In epistemological terms, social being and social consciousness are two absolute opposites: the first determines the second;

In functional terms, social consciousness can sometimes develop without social being, and social being can, in some cases, develop without the influence of social consciousness.

2. The law of the active influence of social consciousness on social existence. This law manifests itself through the interaction of social consciousnesses of various social groups, with the decisive spiritual influence of the dominant social group.

These laws were substantiated by K. Marx.

Levels of public consciousness:

Ordinary level constitute social views that arise and exist on the basis of people’s direct reflection of social existence, based on their immediate needs and interests. The empirical level is characterized by: spontaneity, not strict systematization, instability, emotional coloring.

Theoretical level social consciousness differs from empirical consciousness in greater completeness, stability, logical harmony, depth and systematic reflection of the world. Knowledge at this level is obtained primarily on the basis of theoretical research. They exist in the form of ideology and natural science theories.

Forms of consciousness (on the subject of reflection): political, moral, religious, scientific, legal, aesthetic, philosophical.

Morality is a type of spiritual and practical activity aimed at regulating social relations and people’s behavior with the help of public opinion. Moral expresses an individual slice of morality, that is, its refraction in the consciousness of an individual subject.

Morality includes moral consciousness, moral behavior and moral attitudes.

Moral (moral) consciousness- this is a set of ideas and views about the nature and forms of behavior of people in society, their relationship to each other, therefore, it plays the role of a regulator of people's behavior. In moral consciousness, the needs and interests of social subjects are expressed in the form of generally accepted ideas and concepts, prescriptions and assessments supported by the power of mass example, habits, public opinion, and traditions.

Moral consciousness includes: values ​​and value orientations, ethical feelings, moral judgments, moral principles, categories of morality and, of course, moral norms.

Features of moral consciousness:

Firstly, moral standards of behavior are supported only by public opinion and therefore moral sanction (approval or condemnation) is of an ideal nature: a person must be aware of how his behavior is assessed public opinion, accept this and adjust your behavior for the future.

Secondly, moral consciousness has specific categories: good, evil, justice, duty, conscience.

Thirdly, moral norms apply to relationships between people that are not regulated by government agencies (friendship, partnership, love).

Fourthly, there are two levels of moral consciousness: ordinary and theoretical. The first reflects the real mores of society, the second forms the ideal predicted by society, the sphere of abstract obligation.

Justice occupies a special place in moral consciousness. The consciousness of justice and attitude towards it have at all times been a stimulus for the moral and social activity of people. Nothing significant in the history of mankind has been accomplished without the awareness and demand for justice. Therefore, the objective measure of justice is historically determined and relative: there is no single justice for all times and for all peoples. The concept and requirements of justice change as society develops. The only absolute criterion of justice remains - the degree of compliance of human actions and relationships with the social and moral requirements achieved at a given level of development of society. The concept of justice is always the implementation of the moral essence of human relations, the specification of what should be, the implementation of relative and subjective ideas about good And evil.

The oldest principle - “Do not do to others what you do not wish for yourself” - is considered the golden rule of morality.

Conscience- this is a person’s ability to moral self-determination, to self-assessment of personal attitude towards the environment, towards the moral norms operating in society.

Political consciousness- is a set of feelings, persistent sentiments, traditions, ideas and theoretical systems that reflect the fundamental interests of large social groups regarding the conquest, retention and use of state power. Political consciousness differs from other forms of social consciousness not only in the specific object of reflection, but also in other features:

More specifically expressed by the subjects of cognition.

The predominance of those ideas, theories and feelings that circulate for a short time and in a more compressed social space.

Legal consciousness

Right- this is a type of spiritual and practical activity aimed at regulating social relations and people's behavior with the help of law. Legal awareness is an element of law (along with legal relations and legal activities).

Legal awareness there is a form of social consciousness in which knowledge and assessment of the legal laws adopted in a given society, the legality or illegality of actions, the rights and responsibilities of members of society are expressed.

Aesthetic consciousness - there is an awareness of social existence in the form of concrete, sensual, artistic images.

The reflection of reality in aesthetic consciousness is carried out through the concept of the beautiful and the ugly, the sublime and the base, the tragic and the comic in the form of an artistic image. At the same time, aesthetic consciousness cannot be identified with art, since it permeates all spheres of human activity, and not just the world of artistic values. Aesthetic consciousness performs a number of functions: cognitive, educational, hedonistic.

Art is a type of spiritual production in the field of aesthetic exploration of the world.

Aestheticism- this is a person’s ability to see beauty in art and in all manifestations of life.

Laws of development of society:

General patterns- this is the conditioning of the real social process by the dialectical laws of development of the objective world, that is, the laws to which all objects, processes, and phenomena are subordinated without exception.

Under general laws understand the laws that govern the emergence, formation, functioning and development of all social objects (systems), regardless of their level of complexity, their subordination to each other, or their hierarchy. Such laws include:

1. The law of the conscious nature of the life activity of social organisms.

2. The law of the primacy of social relations, the secondary nature of social formations (community of people) and the tertiary nature of social institutions (sustainable forms of organizing people’s life activities) and their dialectical relationship.

3. The law of the unity of anthropo-, socio- and cultural genesis, which argues that the origin of man, society and his culture, both from a “phylogenetic” and “ontogenetic” point of view, should be considered as a single, integral process, both in space and in time.

4. The law of the decisive role of human labor activity in the formation and development of social systems. History confirms that the forms of people’s activity, and, above all, labor, determine the essence, content, form and functioning of social relations, organizations and institutions.

5. Laws of the relationship between social existence (people's practices) and social consciousness.

6. Regularities of dialectical-materialistic development of the historical process: dialectics of productive forces and production relations, base and superstructure, revolution and evolution.

7. The law of progressive stage development of society and its refraction in the characteristics of local civilizations, which expresses the dialectical unity of shifts and continuity, discontinuity and continuity.

8. The law of uneven development of different societies.

Special laws. They are subject to the functioning and development of specific social systems: economic, political, spiritual, etc., or individual stages (stages, formations) of social development. Such laws include the law of value, the law of the revolutionary situation, etc.

Private public laws record some stable connections that appear at the level of the simplest social subsystems. As a rule, special and particular social laws are more probabilistic than general ones.

A fatalistic and voluntaristic understanding of the laws of social life should be avoided.

Fatalism - the idea of ​​laws as inevitable forces acting fatally on people, against which they are powerless. Fatalism disarms people, makes them passive and careless.

Voluntarism - this is a worldview that absolutizes the set of human goal-setting and action; a view of the law as the result of arbitrariness, as a consequence of a will that is not limited by anyone. Voluntarism can lead to adventurism and inappropriate behavior according to the principle “I can do what I want.”

Forms of social development:

formation and civilization.

Social formation - This is a specific historical type of society, distinguished by the method of material production, that is, characterized by a certain stage of development of its productive forces and the corresponding type of production relations.

Civilization in the broad sense of the word - this is a developing socio-cultural system that emerged as a result of the decomposition of primitive society (savagery and barbarism), which has the following features: private property and market relations; estate or estate-class structure of society; statehood; urbanization; informatization; producing farm.

Civilization has three type:

Industrial type(Western, bourgeois civilization) involves transformation, disruption, transformation of the surrounding nature and social environment, intensive revolutionary development, change of social structures.

Agricultural type(eastern, traditional, cyclical civilization) presupposes the desire to get used to the natural and social environment, to influence it as if from the inside, while remaining part of it, extensive development, the dominance of tradition and continuity.

Post-industrial type- a society of high mass individualized consumption, development of the service sector, information sector, new motivation and creativity.

Modernization- This is the transition of an agrarian civilization to an industrial one.

Upgrade options:

1. Transfer of all progressive elements in full, taking into account local characteristics (Japan, India, etc.).

2. Transfer of only organizational and technological elements while maintaining old social relations (China).

3. Transfer of only technology while denying the market and bourgeois democracy (North Korea).

Civilization in a narrow sense - it is a stable socio-cultural community of people and countries that have retained their originality and uniqueness over large periods of history.

Signs of local civilization are: one economic and cultural type and level of development; the main peoples of civilization belong to the same or similar racial-anthropological types; duration of existence; the presence of common values, psychological traits, mental attitudes; similarity or sameness of language.

Approaches in the interpretation of the concept of “civilization” in its narrow sense:

1. Cultural approach(M. Weber, A. Toynbee) considers civilization as a special socio-cultural phenomenon, limited by space-time boundaries, the basis of which is religion.

2. Sociological approach(D. Wilkins) rejects the understanding of civilization as a society held together by a homogeneous culture. Cultural homogeneity may be absent, but the main factors for the formation of civilization are: a common space-time area, urban centers and socio-political connections.

3. Ethnopsychological approach(L. Gumilyov) connects the concept of civilization with the characteristics of ethnic history and psychology.

4. Geographical determinism(L. Mechnikov) believed that the geographical environment has a decisive influence on the nature of civilization.

Formational and civilizational concepts of social development:

Formational approach was developed by K. Marx and F. Engels in the second half of the 19th century. He pays his main attention to the consideration of what is common in the history of all peoples, namely, their passage through the same stages in its development; all this is combined with one or another degree of consideration of the characteristics of various peoples and civilizations. The identification of social stages (formations) is based on the ultimately determining role of economic factors (development and interrelation of productive forces and production relations). In formation theory, the class struggle is declared to be the most important driving force of history.

The specific interpretation of formations within this paradigm was constantly changing: Marx’s concept of three social formations in the Soviet period was replaced by the so-called “five-member” (primitive, slave, feudal, bourgeois and communist socio-economic formations), and now the four-formation concept is making its way.

Civilizational approach was developed in the 19th–20th centuries in the works of N. Danilevsky (the theory of local “cultural-historical types”), L. Mechnikov, O. Spengler (the theory of local cultures passing and dying in civilization), A. Toynbee, L. Semennikova. He examines history through the prism of the emergence, development, prospects and characteristics of various local civilizations and their comparison. Staging is taken into account, but remains in second place.

The objective basis of these approaches is the existence in the historical process of three interpenetrating layers, the knowledge of each of which requires the use of a special methodology.

First layer- superficial, eventful; requires only correct fixation. Second layer covers the diversity of the historical process, its features in ethnic, religious, economic, psychological and other respects. Its research is carried out using the methods of a civilizational approach and, first of all, a comparative historical one. Finally, third, the deeply essential layer embodies the unity of the historical process, its basis and the most general patterns of social development. It can be known only by means of the abstract-logical formational methodology developed by K. Marx. The formational approach allows not only to theoretically reproduce the internal logic of the social process. But also to build his mental model facing the future. The correct combination and correct use of the indicated approaches is an important condition for military historical research.

To understand the phenomenon of society, it is necessary to find out the nature of the patterns that unite people into a single whole.

Comparing the evolution of societies, the various stages that human civilization goes through in its development, scientists have identified a number of patterns:

– law of history acceleration. It says that each subsequent stage takes less time than the previous one. Thus, capitalism is shorter than feudalism, which, in turn, is shorter than slavery. Pre-industrial society is more extensive than industrial society. The closer we get to modern times, the more the spiral of historical time contracts, and society develops faster and more dynamically;

– law of compaction of historical time. It means that technological and cultural progress has constantly accelerated as it approaches modern society;

– law of unevenness reflects the fact that peoples and nations develop at different rates. Different societies go through historical stages at different times. Therefore, in the modern world there are societies at different stages of development. And even within the same society (for example, in both America and Russia) there are still coexistent industrially developed regions and areas where the population has retained a pre-industrial (traditional) way of life. When, without going through all the previous stages, they are drawn into the modern stream of life, not only positive, but also negative consequences can consistently appear in their development;

– the law of the conscious nature of the life activity of social organisms.

– the law of the unity of anthropo-, socio- and cultural genesis, which argues that the origin of man, society and his culture, from both “phylogenetic” and “ontogenetic” points of view, should be considered as a single, integral process, both in space and in time;

– the law of the decisive role of human labor activity in the formation and development of social systems. History confirms that the forms of people’s activity, and, above all, labor, determine the essence, content, form and functioning of social relations, organizations and institutions;

– law of increasing role of the subjective factor expresses the cause-and-effect relationship between the level of political consciousness of people and the pace of social progress .

Features of the patterns of development of society:

1) the presence of general patterns presupposes the uniqueness of the development of individual countries and peoples going through similar stages of development;

2) the natural nature of history also means the progressive nature of its development and is associated with the idea of ​​progress;

3) the laws of social development are laws exclusively of human activity, and not something external to it;

4) social patterns are knowable; their knowledge depends on the degree of maturity of social relations and opens up the possibility of their use in the practical activities of people;

5) the objective nature of the laws of social development lies in the fact that laws are not created and cannot be abolished by people, that they act regardless of whether they are desired by people or not, whether people know them or not. These are the objective connections of the system of social relations itself, the objective logic of social development.

The presence of general laws of social development does not mean that the activities of an individual and society as a whole are completely determined by these laws. Neither man nor society can change these laws, but they have the power to understand these laws and use the knowledge gained either for the benefit or harm of humanity.