Laws of development of society. “Patterns” of social development
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 features of certain hypotheses, but from the position of under the influence of which the most general laws 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 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, living cell, how 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 begins to reflect the community as a whole, as an organism of a higher order. As a result, with changing external conditions First of all, similar individuals that are not united into communities die. 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 and increases 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 either transform or die. 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 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 communist party in raising 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. In this fundamental difference Marx from 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 limited 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 the 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, that a person cannot think outside of society without absorbing a certain part 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 in the part in which people have general 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 related as social status, the environment that formed the individual, and with 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 development of man (while he remains a man) in particular and society in general.
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, there is a qualitative leap, 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 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 production method will be specifically, only one requirement is important for it - the ability to provide further development 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. Concentration of surplus product of many people in separate hands provided the opportunity for wider specialization, the ability to ensure, through these funds, 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, it arose special system or, if we take it within the framework of the entire society, a subsystem is the ruling class, which has 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) of their functioning, transforming 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 the majority of the economic power of society is, imposes its will on the rest of the ruling class. specific issues, and through it 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 the 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 October Revolution 1917 happened precisely as a socialist year, 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 pamphlet (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 public 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 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 formed, only with 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 who realized their common interests, are already becoming an independent system with its 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 increasing and complicating 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 other 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 one’s 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, how transition period from capitalism to communism, this 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 last ruling class dies out (self-destruction). 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 the creation of directly broad organizations of workers capable of transforming in their development into new system 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 (more at a fast 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 the development of society to create the maximum 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.
He devoted his works to the study of patterns of social development based on the use of achievements of science and technology in the 20s. XX century Russian scientist N.D. Kondratiev, and in the 30s. - Austrian economist J. Schumpeter. The latter is recognized as the founder of the theory of innovation, although his works are a logical continuation of earlier achievements of economic thought.
The economy develops according to its inherent laws, which express objectively existing, necessary, stable connections between economic phenomena. Laws are the objective principle that gives order to economic development and characterizes them as regulators of the economy. The laws inherent in social production do not remain unchanged. The replacement of one method of production by another means the emergence of new laws regulating the economy. For example, if the economy of socialism was regulated by the laws of planned and proportional development national economy, distribution according to labor, socialist accumulation, etc., then market economy, based on the dominance of capital and the plurality of forms of ownership, is regulated by the laws of value, profit, competition, supply and demand, etc.
Regularity, in our opinion, is a consequence of the action of laws in relation to any logically justified sequence or regularity of something.
On the patterns of the flow of innovation processes, all the basic laws of economics apply to this process, but its specificity determines the presence of patterns that are not inherent in other phenomena.
The innovation process can be characterized by the following system of laws (Fig. 2):
Rice. 2. System of laws of the innovation process
For a long time In our country, a stable economic illusion was widespread that scientific and technological progress develops according to its own special laws, independent of the laws of economics. However, the formation of a market for means of production and consumer goods forces us to give up such views: when deciding on any innovation, the manager is forced to monitor the profitability of its implementation with the condition that the additional income will subsequently exceed the costs of acquiring the innovation or its creation and production. Thus, the laws of scientific and technological progress, which determine the specifics of its course, operate within the framework of the general laws of economics, and are not divorced from them. Moreover, the progress of science and technology is the result of the action of objective economic laws, the ignorance of which in the socialist economic system has created the immunity of socio-economic systems to innovations.
In developed countries, technical innovations are being created and implemented on a massive scale because the joint action of objective economic laws creates a special environment in which scientific and technological progress is generated hourly. Opportunities associated with scientific and technical progress allow participants in the competition to bypass rivals in terms of production costs and increase the speed of adaptation to changing demand. In modern markets, oversaturated with goods and services, being late with innovation means dooming production to ruin. The more intense the competition, the fewer scientific ideas or technical solutions the manufacturer has put aside in reserve, and the shorter the “science - production - sales” path.
Theory of cyclicality of innovation fluctuations arose as an interpretation of the theory of large cycles of market conditions by N.D. Kondratiev, who describes long-term (several decades) cycles of upward (with acceleration) or downward (with attenuation) economic development. The process of real economic dynamics, according to the scientist, is not straightforward, does not represent a straight ascending line; it occurs unevenly, with fluctuations. At the same time, along with the industrial cycle, repeating every 7-11 years, the scientist also identified shorter cycles of the environment, repeating every 3-3.5 years, and large cycles of the environment, large waves in economic dynamics.
Conducted by N.D. Kondratiev processing of statistical data on changes over approximately 140 years in the main development indicators of England, France, Germany and America using methods mathematical statistics made it possible to calculate the duration of the large cycle at 48-55 years. The scientist considered large cycles as a disruption or restoration of economic equilibrium over a long period, the main reason for which lies in the mechanism of accumulation, accumulation and dispersion of capital sufficient to create new basic productive forces. The essence of the great cycle was reduced to the following: the beginning of economic recovery coincides with the moment when the accumulation and accumulation of capital reaches such a level of tension at which it becomes possible to profitably invest capital to create new basic productive forces and radically transform technology. The beginning of an increase in the pace of economic life, complicated by industrial-capitalist cycles of medium duration, causes an aggravation of social struggle, struggles for markets and even external conflicts. During this process, the rate of capital accumulation slows down and the process of dispersion of free capital intensifies. The intensification of these factors causes a change in the pace of economic development and its slowdown. Since the effect of these factors is stronger in industry, the turning point usually coincides with the beginning of a long agricultural depression.
The decrease in the pace of economic life determines the intensification of searches in the field of improvement of technology and at the same time the restoration of the process of capital accumulation through agriculture. The basis for the transition of productive forces to a new stage of development is, first of all, the improvement of technology. At the same time N.D. Kondratiev concluded that the following empirical correctness exists: for about two decades before the start of the upward wave of a major cycle, there is a revival in the field of technical inventions. Before and at the very beginning of an upward wave there is wide application these inventions in the field of industrial practice and, as a consequence, industrial relations.
J. Schumpeter studied in detail economic cycles of different durations and combined three types of cycles in his model of multicyclical development: long Kondratieff cycles with an average duration of 57 years; average cycles studied by Juglar, with a duration of about 9.5 years; short cycles studied by J. Kitchin, with an average duration of 3.2 years. Each of the cycles is associated with innovation: the first Kondratieff cycle (from the 70s of the 18th century to 1842) - with new technologies in the textile industry that used the capabilities of coal and steam energy; second (1842-1897) - with development railway transport and mechanization of production; the third (1898-1949) - with electrical energy and the automobile. Subsequently, scientists continued this description, linking the fourth zone (from the late 40s of the 20th century to the beginning of the 21st century) with achievements in electronics, and the fifth, which had already begun, with biotechnology, advances in mathematics and physics that underlie achievements of advanced computer technology. Thus, Schumpeter for the first time tried to connect all the types of cyclical fluctuations discovered before him into a single interconnected process.
Studying the essence of the theory of cyclical social development allows us to identify the following patterns of cyclical innovation fluctuations: clusters (groups, bundles) of radical innovations ensure a revolution in technology and technology and entail the emergence of qualitatively new products, changes in the cost structure, conditions of production and consumption. Cycles are understood not as a vicious circle of innovations of the same technical level, but as the progressive development of science and technology in a spiral. Emphasizing this feature of the cyclical nature of innovative fluctuations, some scientists formulate its dynamism and progression as an independent pattern of scientific and technological progress.
In our opinion, a progressive nature is an indispensable condition for cyclicality, otherwise social development turns into marking time. The content of cycles of innovative fluctuations is the presence of revolutionary and evolutionary periods in the development of science and technology, the quantitative accumulation of improvements, periodically leading to qualitative changes, leaps in the materialization of human knowledge.
In the unfolding of an innovation wave over time, researchers identify several typical periods (phases) that are repeated in each cycle, differing significantly in the level of novelty of technology, the rate and mass of the effect that a given generation of machines brings to producers and consumers, the volume of production and the range of products. And although there is no unity among scientists in the definition and number of these phases (Fig. 3), they are approximately unanimous in their views on the shape of the innovation wave curve with slight differences in the content of the phases. The first phase, which should be called "birth", is characterized by radical innovations in technology and technology based on discoveries and inventions in science and technology. In developed countries, at the very beginning of the cycle, these innovations are carried out by small young organizations, which, due to their flexibility and adaptability, contribute to the diffusion of one or more major inventions into a cluster of innovations that leads to significant and constant economic progress.
In the second phase (growth), radical innovations are replicated, improved, their production volumes increase, their scope of application expands, they are differentiated in relation to the requirements of different market segments, and are technologically standardized. Production costs are reduced, which makes it possible to reduce prices and contributes to the expansion of the sphere effective application innovations.
Then comes the third phase of the innovation wave (slowdown), when the technology of this generation slowly develops and improves qualitatively. New models are appearing, based on already known and proven technological principles, and the parametric ranges of machines, equipment, and instruments are expanding. Standardization gives rise to the phenomenon of pseudo-innovation, when consumer demand is aimed at something new, but on the market it meets only a modification of the old.
The economic and technical potential of this technical idea and the generation of machines that embodies it has largely been exhausted; it is being replaced by a new, more progressive and efficient system of machines. Further modernization of machines based on outdated technical idea, is associated with large costs that are not compensated by the additional effect on the consumer. New modifications of outdated machines are becoming more expensive. The damage from the production and operation of outdated equipment is growing. A feature of the cyclical nature of innovation fluctuations is that new generations of machines begin to master themselves when the previous one has not yet completely exhausted itself. This ensures the continuity of scientific and technological progress. This pattern can be schematically depicted as follows (Fig. 4):
The entire cycle covers one direction in engineering and technology, based on radical innovation. As part of this direction, there is a change in generations of machines, the basic version of which, in turn, entails a large number of improvements. Thus, within one wave one can observe a large number of smaller waves that obey the same laws of development and go through the same phases.
“Patterns” of social development
The authors of statements about the regularity and recurrence of historical events tried to find some common characteristics in realities of different times (Hegel, Marx, Spengler, Toynbee), meaning the repetition of basically the same phases, periods, etc., and trying to basis for predicting future events. The differences between the authors are more of a terminological nature and do not fundamentally change the point of view on the existence of repeatability of historical periods.
Others come to the conclusion made by Bertrand Russell: ... Those generalizations (of the historical process) that have been proposed, excluding the sphere of economics,for the most part so unfounded that they are not even worth refuting. And further Russell writes: I value history for the knowledge it provides about people in circumstances very different from our own, (it is) mainly non-analytical scientific knowledge, but the kind of knowledge that a dog lover has in relation to his dog.
A similar view of the “philosophy of history” is expressed in the anniversary publication dedicated to the 50th anniversary of the Bakhmetyev Foundation. Discussing patterns and accidents in history, Bakhmetyev cited his conversation with the famous historian of antiquity M.I. Rostovtsev. Rostovtsev spoke based on his 50 years of experience studying history: ... There is nothing inevitable about it. Most events are completely random.
Many understood sociocultural cyclicity as simply alternating stages of ups and downs, flourishing and fading, acceleration and deceleration. In this case, the process is considered as a two-phase one. However, the cycle is often divided into a larger number of phases - from three to one and a half dozen. The duration of the studied cycles ranges from several years to several centuries. In his main work, “The Decline of Europe,” Oswald Spengler (1880-1936) identifies eight cultures in world history: Egyptian, Indian, Babylonian, Chinese, Greco-Roman, Byzantine-Arab, Mayan and Western European. Each culture is treated as an organism isolated from other cultures. The lifespan of a culture is about a thousand years. Dying, culture is reborn into a “civilization”, which no longer needs artistic creativity.
Influenced by Spengler, the English historian and sociologist A.J. Toynbee (1889-1975) developed his concept of world history, talking about thirteen relatively closed civilizations. Every civilization goes through four stages in its development: emergence, growth, breakdown and decay. Toynbee tried to derive empirical laws of recurrence of social development phenomena, remaining extremely subjective in his assessments. Marx also spoke about the natural change of socio-economic formations, the highest stage of which should be communism. William Strauss and Neil Howe, the authors of the popular bestsellers “Generations” and “The Fourth Revolution”, published at the beginning of the 21st century, also devoted their books to the cyclical nature of history. According to their idea, history can be divided into 4 turns, which are constantly repeated one after another. In 2005, the next round ends, which the authors called the “unraveling era” - it lasted 21 years, which is always marked by the death of established traditions and values, as well as changes leading to a crisis. Society will reap the fruits of these changes in the next 22-year cycle, which is called the “era of crisis.” It's time the most brutal wars and radical changes in politics, after which peoples accept a more traditional lifestyle and establish common values that they will adhere to until the next “unraveling era”.
All this is nothing more than “adjustment” to the desired result, and not a word is said about the reasons for the “cyclical nature of history”, except for discussions about some kind of mystical “passionarity” of Lev Gumilyov.
Everything is simpler. Under the “patterns” of the historical process they adjust the same, constantly noted contradictions between the expediency of humane socialization of humanity and the real development of civilization, the stimulus of which is human egoism. The behavior of humanity is similar to the behavior of a child walking along a road that comes to a dead end, but the next time he tries, the child chooses not a roundabout path, but the same road again and, naturally, again comes to a dead end. Therefore, the idea of “laws of social development” can be explained by the fact that humanity is at the childhood stage of development and is not able to realize that natural egoism cannot be the basis for the progressive development of society.
Just as an adult is not entirely capable of understanding the reasons and motives of a child’s behavior, voluntarily or involuntarily endowing him with his own experience, so we, who live on the crest of human history continuously moving into the future, do not always understand that the behavior, actions and interpretation of events by our ancestors corresponded to children’s period of humanity. A child does not yet have the wisdom and knowledge of an adult, and therefore, driven by the instinct of recognition and his imperfect understanding of the world around him, he repeats the same mistakes without realizing it. But these are only stages of recognition of the environment in which the “child” will live, as well as those real reasons that determined life in the prehistoric period. One religious figure, who spent his entire life listening to the confessions of parishioners, when asked what he thought about people in general, answered very briefly: no adults. We must be guided by similar considerations - the “immaturity” of our ancestors and many contemporaries - when assessing numerous phenomena, events and views on history (prehistory) characteristic of the childhood of humanity.
Sometimes “historical laws” are even credited with the meaning of laws in the natural scientific sense, which are objective, i.e. independent of human will. Under the same initial conditions, natural scientific laws determine the same behavior and state of the system. The laws of nature - whether we are talking about dynamic or statistical laws - have been fulfilled, are fulfilled and will always be fulfilled, regardless of whether a person exists at all. It is obvious that when analyzing the behavior of a community of thinking beings, it is fundamentally impossible to talk about the “same” conditions - objects of living nature endowed with consciousness have memory and content, determined by previous experience of existence, and not simply “ state" Therefore, in the history of mankind, i.e. in the history of the “system-society”, there can be no analogues of reproducible and repeatable physicochemical characteristics.
The illogicality was also manifested in the fact that the assumption of the “laws of social development” is equivalent to the assumption of the existence of a development program: only those types of behavior that are either programmed or are the result of the same motives or mistakes can be repeated. Motives and errors are a trivial case, hence programming. But then someone must be a “programmer” of the emergence of civilization and its future. This is already obvious religiosity, which has nothing to do with science.
Some historians are inclined to explain their models of patterns by the fact that they appear only on average, as a result, due to the immutability of human natural instincts, which remain the same when different levels technological development. The instincts, indeed, remain the same, but this has never prevented their awareness and the development of ever new rules of behavior and moral standards, i.e. progress of society. There are no natural prohibitions for continuation this process - the development of new rules of behavior. The statement about the existence of “historical patterns” is equivalent to the statement that humanity suddenly loses the ability to change the rules of behavior! A “regularity” is good if it rests on such an assumption!
From the above it follows that the regularity of the historical process is a myth that does not really correspond to any regularities. And it’s good that this is a myth! If this were not so, then it would be pointless to think about a consciously constructed future. After all, humanity would then be doomed to follow a path determined by obscure laws, no matter what speculative pictures of the future we build. Letting go of this myth should demonstrate another lesson learned in humanity's journey of maturation.
If we return to general biological laws, then in all eras the primary biological instincts: reproduction, care for offspring, self-defense, hunger, were of an enduring and objective nature. But as soon as the presence of reason is included in the consideration, human behavior becomes unpredictable, arrhythmic and irregular. Thus, it is obvious that if a person is considered only from the point of view of instincts, i.e. biological nature, then its behavior is indeed, to a certain extent, predictable and will obey general biological laws. However, these will not be “historical patterns”, but a rhythmic reproduction of the same stages of an animal’s life, determined by innate instincts.
From the book Society: Statehood and Family author USSR Internal Predictor From the book About the Current Moment No. 2(38) author USSR Internal Predictor4.3. The concept of public safety in the aspect of social development Let's start this subsection by examining possible algorithms social development, i.e. such algorithms, in line with which the activities of people personally and the activities of heterogeneous people take place
From the book “About the Current Moment”, No. 5 (53), 2006. author USSR Internal Predictor3.1. Demographic policy, means of control, the immediate goal of social development Demographic policy does involve family planning. However, family planning is at odds with “family planning” as an ideological support for policy
From the book War After War: The Information Occupation Continues author Lisichkin Vladimir AlexandrovichChapter 1 REGULARITIES OF INFORMATION WAR
From the book “About the Current Moment” No. 10(70), 2007. author USSR Internal Predictor3. Objectivity of the goals of social development and bureaucracy The fact is that: It is necessary to see the totality of phenomena in the life of society and adequately understand the cause-and-effect relationships in this totality in order to have a beneficial effect on these phenomena in their totality
From the book Features of the National Court author Cherkasov Dmitry From the book Mysteries of the Bermuda Triangle and Anomalous Zones author Voitsekhovsky Alim IvanovichChapter VI FEATURES AND REGULARITIES OF THE EARTH
From the book Long Live Stagnation! author Burovsky Andrey MikhailovichCareer patterns In 1941, Leonid Ilyich took part in the mobilization of the population into the Red Army and was involved in the evacuation of industry. Then he worked in political positions in the active army: deputy head of the political department of the Southern Front. Being
From the book On the Iron Land author Kublitsky Georgy IvanovichPatterns and oddities of politics Contemporaries and participants in the events deliciously described the intrigue to overthrow N.S. Khrushchev from the post of First Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee... How the telephone wires at his dacha were cut so that the First could not raise the army and state security, as were carried out
From the book Fantasy. General course author Mzareulov KonstantinAnomalies and patterns of CMA. Even people of the older generation are familiar with these three letters from their school years. From time to time they appeared in headlines on the front pages of newspapers. Mayakovsky’s lines, which the announcer recalled at the demonstration in Gubkin, are still 1923. And some
From the book The Path of Russia at the beginning of the third millennium (my worldview) author Prize Nikolay Vasilievich§ 4. Patterns of development of fantastic ideas Being one of the most important components of fantasticness and an important compositional block, a fantastic idea directly shapes the plot of the work and to a large extent influences the construction of the system inherent in the genre
From the book On Freedom. Conversations at the microphone. 1972-1979 author Kuznetsov Anatoly Vasilievich1. A look at the history of human development through the prism of overcoming the contradictions of historical development The history of human development is the history of wars between states and the struggle of the poor class to improve their situation.1. If we consider the first aspect
From the book Swamp Revolution author Sakhnin Alexey Viktorovich4. Prospect for the development of a cooperative social system The cooperative movement has been known in the world for more than 180 years. During this time, cooperatives successfully developed and competed with purely capitalist enterprises in Western Europe. In Russia, the cooperative form in
From the book National Liberation Movement of Russia. Russian development code author Fedorov Evgeniy AlekseevichPatterns 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
From the author's bookSociological 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
From the author's bookThe struggle of development technologies. Development codes
Subject: social studies
Class, profile: 8th grade, social studies
Full name teacher, No. OU: Grigorkina G.S., Municipal Educational Institution Gymnasium No. 19 named after Popovicheva N.Z.
Software and methodological support:
Program (basic level)
Textbooks used: A.I. Kravchenko
Lesson topic: “Social progress and development of society”
Target:
To acquaint students with the trends in the development of society, including the law of the acceleration of history, the uneven development of different peoples and nations, to explain the essence of social progress and its types.
After studying the topic, students should:
explain the essence of the law of acceleration of history, justify your answer with specific examples;
know that peoples and nations develop at unequal speeds, be able to explain this trend using the example of the development of countries;
explain the essence of social progress, which includes economic, technical and cultural progress;
be able to determine in which cases society develops in a reformist way, and in which – in a revolutionary way;
know the definitions of the following concepts: the law of acceleration of history, progress, regression, reform, revolution, historical era.
Lesson plan:
Basic patterns of development of human society: why is history accelerating?
The law of uneven development of peoples and nations of the world.
Does society always develop progressively? What is social progress?
Reforms and revolutions.
When starting to consider the first question, the teacher needs to emphasize that, by studying the evolution of societies, scientists have come to the conclusion that there are patterns in their development.
Having considered the chronological framework of each historical era, students come to the conclusion about the compaction of historical time.
The figure for the paragraph shows the essence of the law of acceleration of historical time. Looking at the drawing (p. 33 of the textbook), students should explain:
a) How do the level of development of society and historical time relate to each other?
b) Why is this relationship called the law of acceleration of history?
The teacher draws the children’s attention to the additional text of the paragraph “Accelerating History” (p. 34 of the textbook). Have students explain statistics presented in the text.
Having completed such work, students come to the conclusion that each subsequent stage covers a much shorter period of time than the previous one. However, the level of development of society, on the contrary, is becoming higher.
Very impressive are the data of sociologists that each subsequent social formation is 34 times shorter than the previous one. However, tools and technologies are improving much faster.
A certain period of human development is called historical era. Having drawn the students' attention to this concept and explained its meaning, the teacher instructs groups of students to select facts known to them that indicate that technical inventions and scientific discoveries have been improved from era to era. For this purpose, students can be offered books as an assistant - textbooks on the history of the ancient world, the Middle Ages, modern and contemporary times. The level of development of each era can be compared using the following parameters:
a) development of tools, technology and science;
b) development of human intelligence;
V) social organization society.
(It is advisable to perform such work in a prepared class).
In the previous lesson, students, while completing an assignment using cards, learned that the Russian scientist N.N. Miklouho-Maclay studied in the 19th century. relict societies of Papuans living at the level of primitive society. Why does history “slow down” the evolution of individual nations and people? Let the guys express their guesses.
Why does social time not flow the same way everywhere?
Students are asked to think about whether the expansion of capitalistically developed countries into the territory of underdeveloped regions can be considered a progressive phenomenon? (On the one hand, there is an artificial attempt to speed up the process of development of peoples (importation of equipment, etc.), on the other, the destruction of identity).
It is advisable that during the discussion the guys argue their point of view. To track heteropolar judgments, one student should be invited to the board (to a piece of Whatman paper attached to the wall), who should record these positions of the speakers. (Yes, this is progressive, because...; No, this is violence and is dangerous, because...)
Consideration of the third question should center around the concept "social progress". It is explained by our science as the global progress of the development of human society from less perfect to more perfect, from a state of savagery to the heights of civilization.
Explaining the essence of social progress, the teacher involves children in dialogue, who, with the help of specific facts, prove what characterized social progress and its components in certain historical eras.
Studying the issue completes the problem task:
Think about whether society can develop backwards, regressively?
When explaining this problem, the teacher must reinforce in the understanding of students that progress is global in nature, and regression is local and covers individual societies and periods of time.
Students are asked to complete the following task.
“The history of mankind is known for numerous wars. It remained in their state for a much longer period of time than in the state of peace. Think about how wars influenced the development of society? What function did they perform: progressive or regressive?”
You can invite students to divide into two groups with bipolar opinions and try to answer the question posed with a pre-proposed attitude (students try to prove the proposed position by polemicizing with their opponents):
Yes, wars had a progressive influence on the development of society, because:
During the period of hostilities, rapid improvement of equipment, including military equipment, occurs, and the country's military-industrial complex develops.
Enterprises and firms producing weapons receive government orders, their profits are growing rapidly. There is an enrichment of many structures.
In wartime, people manifest special feelings of patriotism and unity, which contributes to the unity of the nation and the growth of its intellectual capabilities.
During the war, many unique and talented works of science and art appear (songs, music, paintings...)
War exterminates part of the population, thereby regulating the solution of demographic problems.
War promotes new discoveries in the field of medicine.
No, wars have a negative impact on society, because:
war means numerous human sacrifices, grief and tears.
During the war, numerous cultural values are destroyed, including buildings and structures
War leads to colossal material losses: destruction and devastation of cities and villages.
The stressful state of people leads to mental and health disorders
Society is destabilizing, losing able-bodied citizens and increasing the number of those who need social support.
The world is being redivided and new conflicts are being generated.
Social progress can occur gradually or in leaps and bounds. In the first case, reformative changes occur in society, and in the second, revolutionary changes occur. When considering this issue, you should pay attention to the difference in these concepts.
Students are asked to analyze the events below and group them into 2 columns of the table, explaining orally:
a) Why can this event be attributed to this species social progress?
b) How did the changes take place, who became the initiator and “conductor” of changes in life?
Privatization of housing, legally permitted in Russia.
Introduction tax benefits domestic entrepreneurs.
Legal abolition of serfdom in 1861 in Russia.
changes in the judicial system in the 60s. XIX century, in accordance with which a jury trial, adversarial process, etc. were introduced.
The events of 1917 in Russia, which led to changes in the political system (monarchy - republic), the liquidation of the bourgeoisie, and the destruction of private property.
The technological, industrial rise of the Western European states of the 18th-19th centuries, as a result of which machine production replaced the old manufactory.
Thus, students independently, with the organizing role of the teacher, begin to understand that:
Reform- improvement in a certain area of life, which is gradual in nature and does not affect the foundations of the existing system.
Revolution – a comprehensive change in most aspects of life, bringing society to a qualitatively new level of development.
At the end of the topic, the teacher can work with the concepts covered in the lesson. To do this, you should offer to build a terminological model of their relationship on the board and ask them to explain individual concepts orally.
D/w: paragraph 4, complete the tasks and answer the questions for the paragraph. Separate groups of children can be given individual tasks: select facts from literature and the media. Proving natural trends in the development of society.lesson...
Work program on general history grades 5-9 explanatory note
Work program... story like science, revealing patterns and trends development society ... development human society, and features development individual regions, as well as trace the dynamics of historical development and select it basic... cards. Why new ones beckoned...
Summary of a repeating and generalizing lesson Problem-discussion game
AbstractAlso ideas about patterns development human society from antiquity to... from main and additional... for children. Worldwide story. - M.: Avanta +, ... lesson. Staging problematic issue: Do you think Why ... . Speeded it up development Italy...
Lesson section I. Life of primitive people topic I. Primitive gatherers and hunters
LessonAND human society, the emergence of spiritual culture, social differentiation. Nowhere else on the course material history... East, Greek scientists tried to find basic patterns development nature. The greatest achievement was the teaching...
Three laws of social development Ilenov V.V. Today, a feeling of anxiety hovers over the world: will there be a second wave of the crisis or will there be an economic recovery? You can foresee the future, understand the present, and know the past when you know the laws of social development. Let us reveal the essence of the 3 laws of sociogenesis. Society structure Members of society are divided into two categories: workers engaged in production, and non-workers (children, the elderly, etc.). In this regard, we divide consumption into necessary– consumption of workers and secondary– consumption of all others. Triad production – distribution – necessary consumption form the material basis. Above the base rises a superstructure consisting of a core (social organization of society) and secondary elements (other relationships). The base and superstructure form a formation. The formation is divided into control and controlled subsystems: the core of the superstructure plays the role of control, subordinate to which are the base and secondary elements of the superstructure. Law 1 Workers create products that contain consumption energy E. To restore strength, they need consumption energy A. If we subtract A from E, then the remainder will be surplus energy. The set of products that contains this energy is a surplus product. The surplus product is the source of existence of the superstructure and the development of the base. Without surplus energy, society is doomed to extinction. So the first law says: the existence of society is unthinkable without surplus energy . Law 2 The development of society can be accomplished in two ways: 1st (intensive) - transformation of the old basis into a new one; 2nd (extensive) - expansion of the basis due to an increase in the number of workers. The intensive path of development provides a sharp increase in the efficiency of production and consumption, as a result of which a significant volume of surplus product is created. Extensive is so ineffective that in itself it does not even ensure the simple survival of society. This implies the content of the second law, the existence of society is possible only through the transformation of the old basis into a new one . Society exists because it changes. Therefore, there are no eternal empires. Law 3 Basic relationships can be of only two types, the nature of which is polar: 1) individual, private 2) general, collective. According to the third law the character of the new basis is opposite to the old one that generates it . So, we have outlined the contents of the 3 laws. Unfolding in time, they determine the inevitability and repeatability of events. Recurrence is revealed in changing forms of social relations. Mechanism for changing molds Human society has existed for almost 5 million years. In its movement in time, there is a correlation between the considered laws and the division of the formation into a control and controlled subsystem. Under the influence of basic laws, a change in the forms of the control and controlled subsystems occurs, and these changes do not coincide in time. This discrepancy leads to the fact that human history is divided into formations, and the formation – by two stage. First stage . At this stage, there are two bases: dominant and dying. On the basis of the dominant one, a control subsystem is formed, under the control of which the following occurs: a) expansion of the sphere of the dominant basis; b) development of the control subsystem; c) development of secondary elements of the superstructure; d) the death of the old basis. At first, the reduction of the old basis is not reflected in the reduction of the surplus product, but over time the compression factor begins to affect: 1. the extensive path begins to dominate, as a result the size of the surplus product significantly decreases 2. there is a lack of means of subsistence 3. the rate of development of production and consumption decreases. The first stage ends when the old basis ceases to exist and further development is possible only through the transformation of the dominant basis into the new one. The dominant basis, having absorbed the old basis, becomes the foundation for the formation of the next basis. Second stage . The appearance of elements of a new basis marks the beginning of the second stage. Note that the control subsystem is not capable of exerting a regulatory influence on controlled subsystems that have polar properties, so the new basis turns out to be without control. Due to the independent and uncontrolled development of a new method of production and consumption, a disproportion arises between them. The growing disproportion causes a decrease in the value of the surplus product. Its reduction to known limits becomes the cause of deterioration of living conditions and social tensions, the extreme aggravation of which is relieved through conflict. During the conflict, the following occurs: a) elimination of imbalances; b) accelerated development of a new basis; c) development of secondary elements of the superstructure; d) narrowing the sphere of existence of the dominant basis; e) reduction of functions of the control subsystem. At the second stage, conflicts are repeated until the newest base takes a dominant position. The final conflict becomes its apotheosis, during which the old control subsystem is demolished and a new control subsystem is formed. In the history of mankind, 8 formations are distinguished: 1,3,5,7 are of a private nature; 2,4,6,8 - general. Future forecast Now we are at the 2nd stage of the 8th formation (see Ilenov, World History - Modernity), which is characterized by crises of overconsumption. The first such crisis hit the socialist countries led by the USSR. The second is approaching developed capitalist countries and their leader, the United States. Then the center of the world economy will move to the developing countries of Asia and South America who will have to survive the third crisis. Then Africa will flourish, becoming the center of economic dominance, but not forever. This is how the future looks like for 100 years. You should not panic about crises, because panic only multiplies losses. We must consciously, taking into account the laws, change ourselves and our society.
Related articles
The best amulets against the evil eye and damage Amulet against the evil eye with hands for children
How to read the Psalter correctly
Delicious dishes with sausages
A glimpse of Bella. Romantic chronicle. A glimpse of genius. Messerer about Akhmadulina Boris Messerer glimpse of Bella romantic chronicle
I dreamed that I was sailing on a boat on the river
How to cook beef entrecote in a frying pan
About the company Foreign language courses at Moscow State University
Which city and why became the main one in Ancient Mesopotamia?
Why Bukhsoft Online is better than a regular accounting program!
Which year is a leap year and how to calculate it