He described the theory of socio-economic formation. Theory of socio-economic formation

Socio-economic formation- the central concept of the Marxist theory of society or historical materialism: “... a society at a certain stage of historical development, a society with a unique, distinctive character.” Through the concept of O.E.F. ideas about society as a specific system were recorded and at the same time the main periods of its historical development were identified.

It was believed that any social phenomenon can be correctly understood only in connection with a certain O.E.F., an element or product of which it is. The term “formation” itself was borrowed by Marx from geology.

Completed theory of O.E.F. not formulated by Marx, however, if we summarize his various statements, we can conclude that Marx distinguished three eras or formations of world history according to the criterion of dominant production relations (forms of property): 1) primary formation (archaic pre-class societies); 2) secondary, or “economic” social formation, based on private property and commodity exchange and including Asian, ancient, feudal and capitalist modes of production; 3) communist formation.

Marx paid main attention to the “economic” formation, and within its framework, to the bourgeois system. At the same time, social relations were reduced to economic ones (“base”), and world history was viewed as a movement through social revolutions to a predetermined phase - communism.

The term O.E.F. introduced by Plekhanov and Lenin. Lenin, generally following the logic of Marx’s concept, significantly simplified and narrowed it, identifying O.E.F. with the mode of production and reducing it to a system of production relations. Canonization of the O.E.F. concept in the form of the so-called “five-member structure” was implemented by Stalin in the “Short Course on the History of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks)”. Representatives of historical materialism believed that the concept of O.E.F. allows us to notice repetition in history and thereby give it a strictly scientific analysis. The change of formations forms the main line of progress; formations die due to internal antagonisms, but with the advent of communism, the law of change of formations ceases to operate.

As a result of the transformation of Marx's hypothesis into an infallible dogma, formational reductionism was established in Soviet social science, i.e. reduction of the entire diversity of the human world only to formational characteristics, which was expressed in the absolutization of the role of the common in history, the analysis of all social connections along the basis - superstructure line, ignoring the human beginning of history and the free choice of people. In its established form, the concept of O.E.F. together with the idea of ​​linear progress that gave birth to it, already belongs to the history of social thought.

However, overcoming formational dogma does not mean abandoning the formulation and solution of questions of social typology. Types of society and its nature, depending on the tasks being solved, can be distinguished according to various criteria, including socio-economic ones.

It is important to remember the high degree of abstraction of such theoretical constructs, their schematic nature, the inadmissibility of their ontologization, direct identification with reality, and also their use for constructing social forecasts and developing specific political tactics. If this is not taken into account, then the result, as experience shows, is social deformation and disaster.

Types of socio-economic formations:

1. Primitive communal system (primitive communism) . The level of economic development is extremely low, the tools used are primitive, so there is no possibility of producing a surplus product. There is no class division. The means of production are publicly owned. Labor is universal, property is only collective.

2. Asian production method (other names - political society, state-communal system). In the later stages of the existence of primitive society, the level of production made it possible to create a surplus product. Communities united into large entities with centralized management.

Of these, a class of people gradually emerged, exclusively occupied with management. This class gradually became isolated, accumulated privileges and material wealth in its hands, which led to the emergence of private property, property inequality and led to the transition to slavery. The administrative apparatus acquired an increasingly complex character, gradually transforming into a state.

The existence of the Asian mode of production as a separate formation is not generally accepted and has been a topic of discussion throughout the existence of historical mathematics; it is also not mentioned everywhere in the works of Marx and Engels.

3.Slavery . There is private ownership of the means of production. Direct labor is occupied by a separate class of slaves - people deprived of freedom, owned by slave owners and regarded as “talking tools.” Slaves work but do not own the means of production. Slave owners organize production and appropriate the results of slaves' labor.

4.Feudalism . In society, there are classes of feudal lords - land owners - and dependent peasants who are personally dependent on the feudal lords. Production (mainly agricultural) is carried out by the labor of dependent peasants exploited by feudal lords. Feudal society is characterized by a monarchical type of government and class social structure.

5. Capitalism . There is a universal right of private ownership of the means of production. There are classes of capitalists - owners of the means of production - and workers (proletarians) who do not own the means of production and work for the capitalists for hire. Capitalists organize production and appropriate the surplus produced by workers. A capitalist society can have various forms of government, but the most typical for it are various variations of democracy, when power belongs to elected representatives of society (parliament, president).

The main mechanism that motivates people to work is economic coercion - the worker does not have the opportunity to ensure his life in any other way than by receiving wages for the work he performs.

6. Communism . A theoretical (never existed in practice) structure of society that should replace capitalism. Under communism, all means of production are publicly owned, and private ownership of means of production is completely eliminated. Labor is universal, there is no class division. It is assumed that a person works consciously, striving to bring the greatest benefit to society and without the need for external incentives such as economic coercion.

At the same time, society provides any available benefits to every person. Thus, the principle “To each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs!” is implemented. Commodity-money relations are abolished. The ideology of communism encourages collectivism and presupposes the voluntary recognition by each member of society of the priority of public interests over personal ones. Power is exercised by society as a whole, on the basis of self-government.

As a socio-economic formation, transitional from capitalism to communism, it is considered socialism, in which the means of production are socialized, but commodity-money relations, economic compulsion to work and a number of other features characteristic of a capitalist society are preserved. Under socialism, the principle is implemented: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his work.”

Development of Karl Marx's views on historical formations

Marx himself, in his later works, considered three new “modes of production”: “Asiatic”, “ancient” and “Germanic”. However, this development of Marx’s views was later ignored in the USSR, where only one orthodox version of historical materialism was officially recognized, according to which “history knows five socio-economic formations: primitive communal, slaveholding, feudal, capitalist and communist.”

To this we must add that in the preface to one of his main early works on this topic: “On the Critique of Political Economy,” Marx mentioned the “ancient” (as well as “Asiatic”) mode of production, while in other works he (as well as Engels) wrote about the existence in antiquity of a “slave-owning mode of production.”

The historian of antiquity M. Finley pointed to this fact as one of the evidence of the weak study by Marx and Engels of the issues of the functioning of ancient and other ancient societies. Another example: Marx himself discovered that the community appeared among the Germans only in the 1st century, and by the end of the 4th century it had completely disappeared from them, but despite this he continued to assert that the community had been preserved everywhere in Europe since primitive times.

It is generally accepted that Marx and Engels identified five socio-economic formations (SEF): primitive communal, slaveholding, feudal, capitalist and socialist-communist. For the first time, such a typology of the OEF appeared in the “Short Course on the History of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks)” (1938), which included Stalin’s work “On Dialectical and Historical Materialism.” In the work, the history of human society was divided into 5 OEFs, which are based on the recognition of special relations of production and class antagonisms. The historical process was presented as an ascent from one OEF to another. Their change is through revolutions. However, a more accurate adherence to the thoughts of the classics of Marxism allows us to significantly correct this classification.

(Pletnikov): The term “formation” was adopted by K. Marx from geological science, where it denoted the stratification of geological deposits of a certain period, which was a formation that had developed over time in the earth’s crust.

For the first time in the context of the philosophy of history, the term “formation” in its categorical meaning was used by K. Marx in the book “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte”.

Analyzing the political processes of formation and development of bourgeois society, K. Marx drew attention to the peculiarity of the formation of ideas reflecting the fundamental interests of the rising bourgeoisie. At first, these ideas were dressed up by bourgeois ideologists in a form characteristic of the social consciousness of slavery and feudalism. But this was only before the establishment of bourgeois relations. As soon as “the new social formation took shape, the antediluvian giants disappeared and with them all the Roman antiquity that had risen from the dead...” 1.

Generic in relation to the category of social formation is the concept of human society as the life activity of people isolated from nature and historically developing. In any case, a social formation represents a historically specific stage in the development of human society, a historical process. M. Weber considered Marxist categories, including, of course, the category of social formation, as “mental constructions” 2. Of course, the category of social formation is “mental construction”. But this is not an arbitrary “mental construction”, but a construction that reflects the logic of the historical process, its essential characteristics: a historically determined social mode of production, a system of social relations, social structure, including classes and class struggle, etc. At the same time, the development of individual countries and regions richer in formational development. It represents all the variety of forms of manifestation of the essence of the historical process, the specification and addition of formational characteristics with the features of economic structures, political institutions, culture, religious beliefs, morality, laws, customs, mores, etc. In this regard, problems of civilization and the civilizational approach arise, which I will specifically address below. Now I would like to draw attention to a number of issues of the formational approach to the historical process.

Human society in the past has never been a unified system. It acted and continues to act as a set of independent social units, more or less isolated from each other. The term “society” is also used to designate these units, and in this case a proper name is added to the word “society”: ancient Roman society, German society, Russian society, etc. Such a name for a society can also have a regional meaning - European society, Asian society, etc. etc. When the question is raised about such entities in general, they often say simply “society” or in a figurative sense, especially in historical research, use the concepts “country”, “people”, “state”, “nation”. With this approach, the concept of “social formation” denotes not only a historically specific stage of development of human society, but also historical type a separate, specific society, otherwise - society.

The basic links of formational development are the “formational triad” 3 – three large social formations. In the final version (1881), the formation triad was presented by K. Marx in the form of a primary social formation (common property), a secondary social formation (private property) and, probably, one can say so, although K. Marx did not have such a phrase , – tertiary social formation (public property) 4.

They (primarily Marx) distinguished three OEFs: archaic (traditional societies), economic and communist.

The secondary social formation, in turn, was designated by the term “economic social formation” (in correspondence, K. Marx also used the abbreviated term “economic formation”). Asian, ancient, feudal and bourgeois modes of production 5 were named as progressive eras of economic social formation. In an earlier text, in a similar situation, K. Marx spoke about ancient, feudal and bourgeois societies 6 . Based on the progressive eras of economic social formation, the listed methods of production can also be considered formational modes of production, representing small social formations (formations in the narrow sense of the word). In the same paragraph where the question of the bourgeois era of economic social formation is raised, the term “bourgeois social formation” is used. K. Marx considered it inconvenient to designate two or more concepts with the same term, at the same time he noted that it is not possible to completely avoid this in any science 7 .

In 1914, in the article “Karl Marx” Lenin (vol. 26, p. 57): Asian, ancient, feudal and bourgeois modes of production as eras of economic formation.

The primary social formation is characterized by archaic syncretism (unity, indivisibility) of social relations, in which the relations of common property and, therefore, production relations do not have a separate form of existence, they do not manifest themselves, but through tribal ties - family, marriage and consanguineous relations. This problem was first posed by F. Engels in the preface to the first edition of the book “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State.” Considering the concept of the production of immediate life (formulated back in the “German Ideology”), he noted that the production of immediate life includes the production of the means of subsistence and the production of man himself, procreation. Social orders are determined by both types of production: the degree of development, on the one hand, of labor, on the other, of family, marriage and consanguinity relations. The less developed labor is, “the more pronounced is the dependence of the social system on tribal ties” 8 .

In the conditions of the primary social formation, tribal relations represented a specific means of expressing production relations. Hence the peculiarity of social life in which the economic and clan systems coincide with each other, as is still the case in the patriarchal system. Only the emergence and development of private property draws the line between them. Industrial relations are gaining independent form being. Accordingly, the Marxist theory of the economic structure of society, the economic base and superstructure reflects the historical realities of the secondary social formation. This explains its dual designation: economic social formation.

There are no sufficient grounds to extend the characteristics of a secondary social formation to a tertiary social formation, no matter what term is used to denote future development. The essence of the problem is that K. Marx grasped the emerging trend in his time of increasing the role of universal labor in the system of social production. Under the concept of universal labor he brought everyone treatise, every discovery, every invention 9 , and if we expand the subject of abstraction, then we can say - every truly creative intellectual work. The uniqueness of universal labor, which correlates with spiritual production in its Marxist understanding, means the fundamental impossibility of measuring the results obtained by the expenditure of socially necessary labor. It is hardly permissible to talk about their ultimate usefulness, since the possibilities of practical use of fundamental scientific discoveries can arise only many years later. The concept of universal labor becomes not an economic, but a sociocultural category.

In conditions of the predominance of universal labor, the transformation of economic, i.e. social production relations. They will apparently be woven into the totality of socio-cultural relations that develop on the basis of universal labor, and will manifest themselves through these relations. From a historical perspective, based on the trend under consideration, a new type of now sociocultural syncretism of social relations will emerge. Therefore, the tertiary social formation (as well as the primary one) will not have signs of an economic social formation. It is no coincidence that Russian science The term “post-economic social formation” has already become widely known 10.

The results of universal labor can influence social life not in themselves, but only through the practical activities of people. Therefore, universal labor does not at all exclude socially necessary labor. No matter what level of development the “unmanned” technology based on the achievements of science rises to, it will always involve the direct labor of technologists, programmers, adjusters, operators, etc. And although their labor becomes close to the production process, it will still be measured by the costs of the worker time, i.e. bear the stamp of socially necessary labor. Its economy, as a universal requirement for social progress, cannot but influence the state of universal labor, and the relations of social property, represented in the social form of universal labor, cannot but influence the development trends of sociocultural syncretism of social relations in general. Although cause and effect constantly change places in the process of interaction, we must not forget about the presence of the main cause - the basis and justification.

Historical heterogeneity of the development of a secondary social formation

K. Marx used the concepts of “slavery”, “slave-owning mode of production”, “society based on slavery”, etc. However, listing the formational stages of historical development, he uses a different term - “ancient society”. Is this a coincidence? I think not. Indeed, slavery existed in ancient times. But, strictly speaking, the slave-owning mode of production arose only at the final stage of history Ancient Rome, when the plebeians - once free community members - lost their land plots and large latifundia based on slave labor arose. Ancient society covered a long era, the main productive force until the final stage of which were free community members. Ancient society, although it was spread to the Middle East and North Africa, is a specifically Western European phenomenon. Feudalism has the same Western European origin. Compared to Western Europe, the uniqueness of the historical process makes itself felt not only in Asia, but also in Eastern Europe. Let us refer to the history of Russia.

Until the introduction of serfdom, the way of economic life here was “free arable farming.” Peasants (smerds) rented land plots from landowners (boyars, church, sovereign) and after fulfilling the lease agreement - duties that were feudal in nature - they had the right to freely move from one landowner to another. There are conditions for the development of feudal relations of the Western European type. However, already in “Russkaya Pravda” (XI-XII centuries), along with stinkers, they also talk about slaves. In Upper Volga Rus' (XIII - mid-XV centuries), the servile (slave) way of life was most widespread. Slave labor was used as a productive force on an incomparably larger scale than, for example, in ancient Athens. Exploring the classes of the Novgorod land, the famous Russian historian V.O. Klyuchevsky wrote: “In the depths of rural, as well as urban, society in the Novgorod land we see serfs. This class was very numerous there. Its development was facilitated especially by boyar and terrible land ownership. Large estates were populated and exploited mainly by serfs” 11.

If we superimpose the formational scheme of Western European historical development on Russian history period under consideration, then it is necessary to state the simultaneous equivalent existence and interaction of two formational modes of production that are different in their social nature - slave and feudal, and characterize this state from the same Western European positions as an interformational stage of the historical process. But you can approach it differently: to single out a special Eastern European formational stage. In any case, it is clear to say that Eastern Europe has bypassed the slave-owning mode of production is not possible.

It is possible that it is in the modification of ideas about the economic basis of the secondary social formation that one must look for the key to understanding the problems associated with the Asian mode of production. It is worth recalling the famous words of K. Marx, who categorically rejected the attempt to transform his “historical outline of the emergence of capitalism in Western Europe into a historical and philosophical theory about the universal path along which all peoples are fatally doomed to go, whatever the historical conditions in which they find themselves ..." 12 .

What is a society based on the Asian mode of production? Emphasizing the universality of the Asian mode of production, some authors come to the conclusion that it is possible to identify in the historical process a small social formation corresponding to it. Others consider it a transitional era from a primary to a secondary social formation. There is also a hypothesis that identifies a society based on the Asian mode of production as a model, along with slavery and feudalism, of a large “feudal” (pre-capitalist) formation 13 .

These interpretations of the Asian mode of production deserve attention simply because they stimulate scientific research. At the same time, the very Eurocentric concept of the approaches under consideration raises serious doubts. It is known that for Hegel, world history is a one-dimensional and linear movement of the world mind: the East, the ancient world, Christian-Germanic Europe. K. Marx also borrowed Hegel’s ideas about world history in a new interpretation. Hence his initial desire to place the Asian mode of production on a par with the ancient, feudal and bourgeois.

Yes, indeed the Asian mode of production (Crito-Mycenaean society) preceded the ancient and feudal modes. But the history of the Asian mode of production was not limited to this. Over the vast expanse of Asia, pre-Columbian America and pre-colonial Africa, it continued its development parallel to Western European history. The uniqueness of the Asian mode of production is the combination of relations that are very different by European standards: tributary, tax-rent, service-labor, bonded, slave, etc. Therefore, when studying it, a change in the Western European research paradigm is necessary. History is truly multi-dimensional and non-linear.

Compared with European history the history of society based on the Asian mode of production does not have such a clearly defined line of historical progress. What is striking is the era of social stagnation, retrograde movement (up to the return under the influence of natural disasters and wars of conquest from the state-communal to the communal system), cyclicality. Apparently, the concept of the Asian mode of production is a collective concept. It designates both its special historical eras and its special formational stages. In any case, the ancient and medieval East are not the same thing. Only capitalism, with its predatory expansion, began the process of merging European, Asian, American and African history into a single stream of universal history.

As we see, the Marxist formational triad is far from coinciding with the so-called formational “five-fold”, which until recently was widespread in Marxist literature. Contrary to the warnings of K. Marx, this “five-fold structure”, constituted mainly on Western European historical material, was presented as universal, the only possible stages of the historical process. Faced with historical facts, the understanding of which did not fit into such a formational scheme, orientalists and other researchers of non-European countries and regions declared the failure of Marxism. However, such “criticism” of Marxism actually means only criticism of a surrogate of Marxism. The formation triad puts everything in its place. Marxism does not provide ready-made dogmas, but rather starting points for further research and a method for such research.

Civilizational stages and civilizational paradigms

The formational approach to the historical process can be defined as substantial. It is associated with finding a single basis for social life and identifying stages of the historical process depending on the modification of this basis. But K. Marx discovered not only a formational, but also a civilizational triad, which in its fundamental characteristics does not coincide with the formational triad. This already indicates the difference between formational and civilizational approaches to history. Moreover, the approaches under consideration do not exclude, but complement each other.

Unlike the formational theory, civilizational theory, in relation to each historical stage it identifies, deals not with one, but with several foundations. Therefore, the civilizational approach to the historical process is comprehensive.

The civilizational triad represents the stage-by-stage development of human sociality. The clarification of its essential characteristics is associated with the cognitive model of reducing the social to the individual. Civilization stages are 1) personal dependence; 2) personal independence in the presence of proprietary dependence; 3) free individuality, universal human development. Civilizational development acts as a movement towards real freedom, where the free development of everyone is a condition for the free development of all.

Civilization is a special type of a separate, specific society (society) or their community 15. In accordance with the etymology of the term, the signs of civilization are statehood, civil status (the rule of law, state-legal regulation of social relations), and urban-type settlements. In the history of social thought, civilization is contrasted with savagery and barbarism. The historical foundation of civilization is inseparable from the producing (as opposed to gathering and hunting) economy, the spread of agriculture, crafts, trade, writing, the separation of mental labor from physical labor, the emergence of private property and classes, the formation of hierarchical (vertical) and partnership (horizontal) connections, etc. .

Characterizing civilization as a stage of social development, K. Marx and F. Engels also paid attention to the “barbarism of civilization” or, one might say, “civilized barbarism” 16. It finds its expression in wars of conquest, armed suppression of popular protest, terrorism and other forms of organized violence, including the destruction of civilians, and the implementation of a policy of genocide.

The formational approach is based on a cognitive model of reducing the individual to the social, because this is the only way to understand the historical type of a particular society. A special feature of the formational approach is the study of social structures and their subordination in the system of society. The civilizational approach is based on the opposite model - the reduction of the social to the individual, the expression of which becomes human sociality. Civilization itself reveals itself here as the vital activity of society, depending on the state of this sociality. Therefore, the requirement of the civilizational approach is an orientation towards the study of man and the human world. Thus, during the transition of Western European countries from a feudal system to a capitalist one, the formational approach focuses on changes in property relations, the development of manufacturing and wage labor. The civilizational approach interprets the transition under consideration as a revival on a new basis of the ideas of ancient anthropology and cyclicality. It was precisely this mindset of European social science that later brought to life the very concept of civilization and the associated concepts of enlightenment, humanism, civil society, etc.

The considerations expressed by K. Marx can be represented in the form of the development and change of three historical stages of human sociality. The first step is personal dependence. The second stage is personal independence based on material dependence. The third stage is the universal development of man, free individuality 18.

In the formational aspect, the first stage of civilization in Western European history covers antiquity and feudalism, the second - capitalism, the third - in the Marxist understanding, future communism. However, the essence of the problem is not limited to the discrepancy between the historical boundaries of the first stage of the formational and civilizational triads. Something else is more significant. The formational triad emphasizes the discontinuity of the historical process, expressed primarily in a radical transformation of the system of social relations, while the civilizational triad emphasizes continuity. The societies it represents can go through a number of formational and civilizational stages. Hence the continuity in the development of civilization, especially sociocultural values, of previous historical eras. Russian civilization, for example, has a history of more than a thousand years in this regard, going back to pagan times.

The formational approach represents the logic of the historical process, its essential features (social mode of production, system of social relations, social structure, including classes and class struggle, etc.), the civilizational approach represents the whole variety of forms of manifestation of these essential features in individual, specific societies ( societies) and their communities. But K. Marx discovered not only formational, but also civilizational triads. Accordingly, the formational approach can be defined as a substantial one. It is associated with finding a single basis for social life and identifying stages (formations) of the historical process depending on this basis and its modification. Civilization - as complex. We are talking here not about one, but about several basics. The concept of a civilizational approach is a collective concept. It denotes a number of interconnected paradigms, i.e. conceptual settings of the study. The author identifies general historical, philosophical-anthropological, sociocultural and technological paradigms of the civilizational approach.

The relationship between the formational triad (three large formations) and the progressive eras (small formations - formations in the narrow sense) of the economic social formation has been clarified. It can be argued that small social formations were identified by K. Marx mainly on Western European historical material. Therefore, the ancient and feudal stages of development cannot simply be transferred to the history of the East. Already in Russia, features have emerged that do not correspond to the Western European model of development. What K. Marx called the Asian mode of production is a collective concept. Indeed, the Asian mode of production (Crito-Mycenaean society) predates antiquity. But later it existed in parallel with antiquity and feudalism. This development cannot be adjusted to the Western European scheme. At least the Ancient and Medieval East are not the same thing. The rapprochement of the western and eastern branches of the historical process emerged as a result of the predatory expansion of the West, which marked the beginning of the formation of the world market. It continues in our time.

The civilizational triad represents the stage-by-stage development of human sociality. The clarification of its essential characteristics is associated with the cognitive model of reducing the social to the individual. Civilization stages are 1) personal dependence; 2) personal independence in the presence of proprietary dependence; 3) free individuality, universal human development. Civilizational development acts as a movement towards real freedom, where the free development of everyone is a condition for the free development of all. Formational and civilizational approaches are not mutually exclusive, but complement each other. In this regard, the prospects for Russia's development should be guided not only by the formational, but also by the civilizational features of Russian history.

1 Marx K., Engels F. Soch. T. 8. P. 120.

2 Weber M. Fav. works. M., 1990. P. 404.

3 See: Popov V.G. The idea of ​​a social formation (the formation of the concept of a social formation). Kyiv, 1992. Book. 1.

4 See: Marx K., Engels F. Soch. T. 19. P. 419.

5 See: Ibid. T. 13. P. 7.

6 See: Ibid. T. 6. P. 442.

7 See: Ibid. T. 23. P. 228. Note.

8 Ibid. T. 21. P. 26.

9 See: Ibid. T. 25. Part I. P. 116.

10 See: Inozemtsev V. To the theory of post-economic social formation. M., 1995.

11 Klyuchevsky V.O. Works: In 9 volumes. M., 1988. T. 2. P. 76.

12 Marx K., Engels F. Soch. T. 19. P. 120.

13 See: Marxist-Leninist theory of the historical process. Historical process: integrity, unity and diversity, formational stages. M., 1983. pp. 348-362.

14 Fukuyama F. The end of history? // Question philosophy. 1990. No. 3. P. 148.

15 See: Toynbee A.J. Civilization before the court of history. M.; St. Petersburg, 1996. P. 99, 102, 130, 133, etc.

16 See: Marx K., Engels F. Soch. T 9. P. 229; T. 13. P. 464, etc.

17 See: Kovalchenko I. Multidimensionality of historical development // Free Thought. 1995. No. 10. P. 81.

18 See: Marx K., Engels F. Soch. T. 46. Part I. pp. 100-101.

19 See: Klyagin N.V. The origin of civilization (socio-philosophical aspect). M., 1966. P. 87.

20 Spengler O. Decline of Europe. M., 1993. T. I. P. 163.

21 Braudel F. The structure of everyday life: the possible and the impossible. M., 1986. P. 116.

22 See: Huntington S. Clash of Civilizations // Polis. 1994. No. 1. P. 34.

23 Marx K., Engels F. Soch. T. 23. P. 383. Note.

24 See: Toynbee A.J. Civilization before the court of history. P. 159.

Throughout the 20th century. world historical science, in essence, adhered to the Hegelian view of the historical process as a progressive development in an ascending line, from lower forms organization of society to the highest, a process based on the struggle of opposites. Economists sought to provide an economic basis for this concept, identifying for each major stage of world history the corresponding stage of economic development. Yes, for ancient history it was mainly a household economy, for the Middle Ages it was a city economy and a system of commodity exchange, mainly within the city, in modern times the national economy becomes such an economic form.

Hegel's formula in its fundamental basis was also accepted by Marx, who concretized it, putting forward as the main criterion the division of world history into socio-economic formations, each of which acted as a step on the path of the progressive evolution of mankind. The driving force behind the change of these historical eras was the struggle of opposites. The difference in approaches was only that Hegel gave preference to evolutionary development, while Marx brought to the fore the revolutionary path, which was based on the struggle of antagonistic classes.

In the 90s, when the formational approach was sharply criticized, not only the foundations of the theory of formations were questioned, but also the concept of the linear development of world history ( integral part which is the formational approach), postulates about common path the development of humanity, its common origin, about social progress, about the existence of any patterns of social development. The book “The Poverty of Historicism” by K. Popper is popular: knowledge exists only in the form of assumptions, and a person cannot establish the laws of social development, denial of objective laws of social development, criticism of historicism. In fact, the discussion was no longer about “Marxist dogmas,” but about discarding the concept of the linear development of world civilization, which was professed not only by Soviet, but also by 90% of pre-revolutionary Russian historians. Not only M.N. was subject to “exposure.” Pokrovsky, B.D. Grekov or I.I. Mints, but also, for example, S.M. Soloviev, who also believed in the laws of history, in social progress, in the fact that humanity ultimately develops in one direction.

Arguments against the Marxist concept (Iskenderov): 1) The inconsistency of the theory of socio-economic formations is quite clearly manifested in the fact that the very principle of the struggle of opposites as the driving force of the historical process applies only to three of the five formations, namely those in which antagonistic classes exist , and the mechanism of social development within non-antagonistic formations (primitive communal and communist societies) is practically not revealed. One cannot but agree with those researchers who believe that if a social movement is the result of a struggle of opposites, then this law must be universal in nature, and therefore apply to all formations.

2) According to Marxist theory, the transition from one formation to another is nothing more than a revolution. It is unclear, however, what kind of revolution we can talk about if a formation in which there were no classes or antagonistic relations, as in the primitive communal system, is replaced by a formation with more or less pronounced social stratification and class antagonisms. In general, the question of the mechanism of change of socio-economic formations has not been developed clearly enough, therefore many important problems, in particular, the place and significance of transitional eras in the history of mankind, including large inter-formation periods, have not received proper coverage in Marxist historiography. These issues seemed to be excluded during the formation of a general model of historical development, which impoverished and to a certain extent simplified the unified scheme of social development.

3) Theories and concepts based on the recognition of the postulate about the movement of history along a progressively ascending line have a significant defect: they are inevitably associated with fixing not only the beginning of this movement, but also its end, although each of these theories has its own understanding of the “end of history” " According to Hegel, it is connected with the fact that the “absolute spirit” recognizes itself in “high society,” which he considered the Christian-German world represented by the Prussian state, where, in fact, the movement of history ends for him. Marx saw the end point of the development of all humanity in a communist society. As for some modern Hegelians, they associate the end of history with the formation post-industrial society, a triumph of “liberal democracy and technologically advanced capitalism.” So, the German world, communist society, modern Western consumer society with a market economy and liberal democracy - these, if you believe the representatives of the basic concepts of the world-historical development of mankind, are the three final stages on this path and three higher goals historical progress. In all these constructions, the political engagement of their authors is clearly evident.

4) With this formulation of the question, the very idea of ​​historical progress appears in an extremely impoverished form.

Meanwhile, the idea of ​​historical progress as the basis of the entire course of world history should be identified with at least three most important components. Firstly, with a change in the nature of man himself as the main object and subject of history, his constant improvement. Deriving his formula for progress in the study of history, the prominent Russian historian N.I. Kareev believed that “the history of progress has, in the end, its object is man, but not as a zoological creature - this is a matter of anthropology - but as hominem sapientem.” Therefore, the main thing in historical progress is the embodiment of what he called humanity, which consists in rationality and publicity, in other words, in the improvement of “the human race in mental, moral and social relations.” Kareev identified three types of progress: mental, moral and social. For the 20th century this formula could be expanded to include scientific and technological progress.

Secondly, the idea of ​​historical progress also includes such a direction as the evolution of social thought, the formation of various ideas, political views, ideals, spiritual and moral principles and values, a free and independent personality.

Thirdly, historical progress can be judged on the basis of what ideas and principles developed by humanity over quite a long time were actually embodied and how they influenced the change in the character of society, its political and governmental structure and the lives of people.

4) The following claims have been made against the concept of linear development (of course, mainly the formation theory): a) cannot explain all the facts known to science, especially with regard to the so-called Eastern mode of production; b) is at odds with practice, which became quite obvious in connection with the collapse of socialism in the USSR and other countries. The arguments are serious, but they are directed more against the theory of formations than against the concept of linear development in general. After all, not all of its supporters considered the system that existed in the USSR to be socialist, and many did not believe in socialism at all. As for the impossibility of explaining absolutely all the facts known to science, what theory can do this today?

We should not forget that the postulates of the linear development of mankind were criticized, first of all, for political and ideological reasons, i.e. for “connection with Marxism.”

However, contrary to numerous forecasts, the concept of linear development of world civilization and even the formational approach retain a serious position in historical science. Why? First of all, it should be noted that this is the most developed scientific concept in Russia by historians, which has deep roots in world historical science.

Let us recall in this regard that one of its main postulates - the idea of ​​progress, linear development from lower to higher and ultimately to a certain kingdom of goodness, truth and justice (no matter what you call it - communism or the “golden age”) is embedded in the Christian tradition . All Western philosophy from Augustine to Hegel and Marx is based on this postulate. Of course, as rightly noted in the literature (L.B. Alaev), this postulate in itself can hardly be proven scientifically. But it is even more difficult to refute it from a scientific point of view. In addition, the postulates of all other scientific concepts, in particular, the civilizational approach, are also equally unprovable from a purely scientific point of view.

Of course, the crisis of the ideas of the formational approach and the linear development of humanity is obvious. But it is also obvious that the supporters of these concepts have done a lot to overcome this crisis. Having abandoned the classical five-member concept of the formational vision of the world-historical process, which has not been justified in practice, they are actively looking for ways to modernize the theory, and not only within the framework of Marxism. In this sense, the works of Ya.G. deserve the greatest interest. Shemyakina, Yu.G. Ershova, A.S. Akhiezera, K.M. Cantora. Despite the very significant differences, there is a common denominator: the rejection of economic determinism, the desire to take into account objective and subjective factors in the development of history, to put the person at the forefront, to show the role of the individual. In general, this undoubtedly strengthens the position of this direction in Russian historical science.

Let us note one more factor that contributed to strengthening the position of supporters of the linear approach: the expansion of connections between Russian historians and foreign, especially Western, science, where the prestige of non-Marxist concepts of the linear development of world civilization is traditionally high. For example, the publication of the work of K. Jaspers, who defended the ideas of the unity of the world historical process in polemics with O. Spengler, has an increasing impact on Russian historians. An important role was played by F. Fukuyama’s article “The End of History?”, based on the ideas of the unity of development paths of world civilization.

Why is Marx's theory criticized? Let us note some provisions.

I. Criticism of Marxism as a kind of universal (global) theory of social development.

Thus, a number of Russian historians of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. noted the following features of Marxism, which prompted them to take a critical position in relation to the then newfangled teaching. (Iskenderov)

Firstly, Russian historians, including those who were quite loyal to Marxism, did not agree to recognize the materialist understanding of history as the only, universal and all-encompassing method of historical knowledge. But they were ready to consider it as one of the many trends that then existed in world historiography.

Secondly, few Russian historians at the end of the last and beginning of this century did not speak out (albeit with varying degrees of severity) against the idea of ​​​​introducing the laws of materialist dialectics into the sphere of historical knowledge, considering such efforts to be unfruitful. For this reason alone, they believed, the Marxist approach could not be carried out sufficiently “consistently and convincingly.” They considered the Marxists’ desire to elevate their approach to the level of methodology and even worldview extremely dangerous, having nothing in common with genuine science and fraught with a serious threat to the free and creative development of historical thought. Some of them called this approach a “surrogate for social science”; this schematism, they argued, would inevitably lead to stagnation of historical thought. The very isolation of any single factor (in this case socio-economic) as the main and decisive factor in social development (both in general and in its individual spheres), as well as in the process of cognition of history, does not allow us to correctly determine the content, mechanism and direction of social evolution, which is, as noted, in particular, Petrushevsky , a consequence of “the interaction of economic, political and cultural processes.” An exclusively materialistic solution - in relation to history - to the main question of philosophy was considered by many Russian historians as oblivion and belittlement of the spiritual and moral aspects of public life. As noted by M.M. Khvostov, one can share the ideas of philosophical idealism and at the same time remain a materialist in understanding social life and, conversely, defend “philosophical materialism”, but believe that “it is thought and ideas that create the evolution of society.”

Thirdly, it should be noted that an important circumstance is that many Russian historians considered Marxism as a Western European teaching, formed on the basis of a generalization of European historical experience. The main provisions and formulas of this theory reflected socio-economic, political and ideological conditions that were significantly different from Russian ones. Therefore, the mechanical imposition of these formulas and schemes on Russian historical reality did not always lead to the desired results. A thoughtful Russian historian could not help but see and feel the contradictions that inevitably arose between the theory of the historical process, developed in different conditions and intended for other countries, and the historical life of Russia, which did not fit into the Procrustean bed of Marxist dogmas and schemes. This concerned many aspects of the historical and cultural development of Russia. Already during the post-war discussions, this circumstance again attracted the attention of Academician. N.M. Druzhinin, who called for “decisively dissociating ourselves from the theory of mechanical borrowing, which ignores the internal laws of movement of every nation.”

The very essence of the materialist understanding of history contained a fundamental methodological flaw, since this approach actually excluded the possibility of a comprehensive and objective study of the historical process in all its integrity, versatility, complexity and inconsistency. The data obtained in this way and the conclusions and patterns formulated on such a methodological basis not only squeezed real historical life into pre-prepared schemes and stereotypes, but also transformed historical science and historical knowledge as part of a certain worldview. This was the reason why many prominent Russian and Western European historians rejected such an understanding of history. They believed that the combination of materialism with dialectics and the extension of this approach to the study of history is not at all a blessing, but a disaster for historical science.

The development of historical thought in the 20th century, including the evolution of Marxist historiography itself, shows that in many ways Russian historians were right in their assessments of Marxism and its possible consequences for the development of historical science. These assessments still sound very relevant today, serving as a kind of reproach for those who did not listen to them at that time and continue to ignore them today, blindly believing that the materialistic understanding of history was and remains the main and only correct method of knowing historical truth .

The crisis of Russian historiography is mainly and fundamentally generated by the crisis of Marxism (primarily the method of materialist understanding of history in its extremely deterministic form), that Marxism that Soviet time turned into a state ideology and even a worldview, arrogating to itself the monopoly right to determine within what framework this or that area of ​​​​humanitarian knowledge can develop. Marxism, in essence, took history beyond the boundaries of science and turned it into an integral part of party propaganda.

The apogee was the publication of the “Short Course on the History of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks)”, approved in 1938 by the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) and immediately becoming almost the bible of Bolshevism. From then on, historians were assigned the very unenviable role of commentators and propagandists of the supposedly scientific nature of the primitive provisions of historical materialism contained in this Stalinist work. After the publication of the “Short Course” and its elevation to the rank of the highest achievement of philosophical and historical thought, there is no longer any need to talk about any development of genuine historical science. It is increasingly falling into a state of stagnation and deepest crisis.

Was it possible to seriously think about the development of historical science if the “Short Course” proclaimed its primary task to be “the study and disclosure of the laws of production, the laws of the development of productive forces and production relations, the laws of economic development of society?” This book categorically stated that “throughout Three thousand years ago, three different social systems changed in Europe: the primitive communal system, the slave system, the feudal system, and in the eastern part of Europe, in the USSR, even four social systems changed.” Historians had to either confirm this thesis or take a neutral position, not agreeing with this judgment, but not opposing it. The latter were in an absolute minority.

The discussions that took place in the 30s and 50s, and partly in the 60s, more or less experienced direct pressure from the authorities. Whatever problems were brought up for discussion (be it the nature of ancient Eastern societies, the Asian mode of production, the periodization of domestic and world history, or even the dating of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”), all these discussions did not go beyond what was permitted and essentially boiled down to the following: , in order to once again confirm the correctness and inviolability of the main provisions of the materialist understanding of history. These discussions and discussions had some common features and characteristics.

II. Criticism of a number of ideological and theoretical postulates of Marxism that were utopian in nature:

1) utopianism in assessing the prospects of capitalism.

The founders of Marxism scientifically explained why previous socialist and communist teachings were inevitably utopian in nature. These teachings arose in conditions of an undeveloped capitalist system, when trends pointing to the pattern of socialization of the means of production during the development of capitalism had not yet emerged, when there was no organized labor movement, which later played an outstanding role in the evolution of bourgeois society. The Utopians, says Engels, were forced to construct the elements of the future society from their own heads, since these elements had not yet arisen in bourgeois society. Utopian socialists did not see and did not want to see the already emerging fact that capitalist society still has a long path of development ahead of it before it exhausts its social resources and becomes possible transition to a post-capitalist social order. The sense of social justice that animated the utopians pushed them to the conclusion that the time had come to replace the unjust social system with a just society of social harmony.

Marx resolutely opposed these subjectivist ideas of his predecessors. In the preface to the work “A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy,” he declared with impressive scientific sobriety: “No social formation dies before all the productive forces for which it provides sufficient scope have developed, and new, higher relations of production never appear before , than the material conditions of their existence in the depths of the oldest society will mature” 3. This classic position, expressed in 1859, when the foundations of Marxist economic teaching had already been created, is an edifying response not only to utopian socialists and communists, but also to their own previous views, which were formulated by the founders of Marxism in the late 40s and early 50s years of the 19th century. However, the sober scientific conclusion formulated by Marx was not reflected in the assessment of the capitalist system that we find in their works of subsequent years. It is a paradoxical fact: having recognized the viability of the capitalist mode of production, Marx and Engels continue to express the hope that each new crisis of overproduction will be a harbinger of the collapse of the entire capitalist system. Despite the fact that in Marx’s “Capital” it was explained that crises of overproduction are a normal cycle of the process of reproduction of capital, Engels in “Anti-Dühring” characterizes these crises as a crisis of “the very mode of production” 4 .

Engels explained that the utopians were utopians due to the fact that the capitalist system was not sufficiently developed. However, both Marx and Engels also lived in an era of still underdeveloped capitalism, which had barely entered the era of industrial production. This circumstance was later recognized by Engels when he wrote that, together with Marx, he overestimated the degree of maturity of capitalism. But the point was not only in this overestimation of the maturity of capitalism, but also in those essentially utopian conclusions that were drawn from this false statement.

Let us return again to “Anti-Dühring” - the work in which the socialist teachings of Marxism are most fully and systematically presented. This book was published in 1878. Marx read it in manuscript, agreed with Engels' conclusions and supplemented his study with another chapter, written by himself. Anti-Dühring can be considered one of the final works of Marxism. In it we find a detailed critical analysis of utopian socialism and, along with it... utopian in nature statements about the end of capitalism, the proximity of a new, socialist system. “The new productive forces have already outgrown the bourgeois form of their use,” Engels categorically asserts 5 . The same idea is expressed elsewhere: “The productive forces rebel against the mode of production which they have outgrown” 6 . And further: “The entire mechanism of the capitalist mode of production refuses to serve under the weight of the productive forces it itself created” 7 .

The entire “Anti-Dühring” is replete with such statements, but we do not need to cite other quotes to show the utopian nature of the beliefs of the founders of Marxism regarding the imminent collapse of capitalism. These beliefs were fully accepted and even strengthened by Lenin, who, unlike Marx and Engels, did not connect the expected collapse of the capitalist system with the conflict between highly developed productive forces and bourgeois production relations inappropriate to their level and character.

Thus, the Marxist critique of utopian socialism and communism turns out to be inconsistent. Rejecting the idealistic views of the utopians, who believed that socialism would defeat capitalism just as truth and justice defeat lies and injustice, Marx and Engels also found themselves in the grip of humanistic illusions, predicting the collapse of the capitalist system in the coming years.

2) Like the utopians, they did not see that the contradictions generated by capitalism find their gradual resolution within the framework of the capitalist system, and they unilaterally, pessimistically assessed the prospects of developing capitalism. This found its most striking expression in the law of absolute and relative impoverishment of the working people formulated by Marx. According to this law, the progress of capitalism means the progressive impoverishment of the proletariat. It should be noted that we find the main idea of ​​this law in Fourier and other utopians, who argued that wealth generates poverty, since the source of wealth is the robbery of workers.

The law of absolute and relative impoverishment of the working people was actually refuted already during the lifetime of Marx and Engels thanks to the organized labor movement and the activities of the social democratic parties, which were able to force the capitalists to make serious concessions to the class demands of the proletariat. Thus, historical development itself exposed one of the main utopian ideas, which served for Marxism as perhaps the main theoretical argument in criticizing capitalism and justifying its inevitable collapse within the framework of the nearest, already begun historical period.

3). Marx also sought to substantiate his conviction regarding the approaching collapse of capitalism with the general principles of the historical materialism he created. Ideas according to this doctrine are secondary; they reflect certain material conditions, social existence. Consequently, the appearance of socialist and communist ideas on the historical arena indicates that the conditions that determined their content and the corresponding social demands and tasks already exist. Therefore, Marx wrote: “...Humanity always sets itself only such tasks that it can solve, since upon closer examination it turns out that the task itself arises only when the material conditions for its solution already exist or are at least in the process of becoming " 8 .

The above position is an obvious concession to utopian socialism, which believed that the creation of a socialist doctrine is the main condition for fulfilling its tasks. Meanwhile, the ideas of utopian communism arose, as is known, in the pre-capitalist era. They, of course, reflected historically determined social existence, the interests of the masses of workers enslaved by feudal relations, but did not in any way indicate the approach of the social system whose necessity they proclaimed.

Anti-capitalist utopias arose already in the 17th–18th centuries, but this, contrary to the above thesis of Marx, did not at all indicate that the material conditions of a post-capitalist society were already in the process of formation.

4) Marx and Engels criticized the utopian socialists and communists for describing in meticulous detail the future society that would replace capitalism. Unlike the utopians, the founders of Marxism limited themselves to pointing out those features of the post-capitalist system that are a continuation of the processes already taking place under capitalism. Thus, stating that the development of capitalism is characterized by the socialization of the means of production, the founders of Marxism came to the conclusion that the end result of this process would be the abolition of small and medium-sized production, the absorption of small capitalists by large joint-stock companies, in short, the cessation of the existence of private (owned by individual, private individuals) ownership of the means of production. This conclusion differed from the ideas of those utopian socialists and communists who considered it necessary to prohibit private ownership of the means of production. Nevertheless, this conclusion of Marx and Engels turned out to be erroneous, since the development of capitalism, especially starting from late XIX century, not only did not lead to the abolition of small-scale production, but in every possible way contributed to its development, creating the necessary material and technical base for it. Private ownership of the means of production turned out to be the enduring basis of capitalist production, which, contrary to the beliefs of Marx and Engels, did not create the economic prerequisites for its abolition.

5). Following R. Owen and the utopian communists, the founders of Marxism argued that post-capitalist society would forever end commodity-money relations and move to a system of direct product exchange. And this conclusion of Marx and Engels also turned out to be a clear concession to utopianism.

Commodity exchange arose already in pre-class society; it existed and developed in slave-owning, feudal societies, without giving rise to the economic relations inherent in capitalism. And the current level of social development indicates that commodity-money relations, a market economy, are rational economic relations both within each country and in relations between countries. Commodity-money relations arose long before capitalism, and they, as a civilized form of economic relations, will persist in post-capitalist society. Does this mean that they are not subject to change or development? Of course not.

6). Marx and Engels believed that the socialist principle of distribution “from each according to his ability, to each according to his work” could be implemented in a society that had abolished commodity-money relations. And this conclusion is, of course, a concession to utopianism. The absence of commodity-money relations makes it impossible to make economic calculations and remuneration for labor commensurate with its quantity and quality (the latter is especially important). As one of the famous critics of Marxism, L. von Mises, correctly notes, “a socialist society simply will not be able to determine the relationship between the importance of the work performed for society and the reward due for this work. Remuneration will be forcedly arbitrary” 9.

The historical experience of “real socialism,” despite the fact that commodity-money relations were preserved to some extent, fully confirms the correctness of these words.

III. Criticism (denial) of the fundamental methodological principles of the OEF theory.

a) Bolkhovitinov N.N. (VI, 1994. No. 6. p. 49, 50): the main disadvantage of the formational approach is that the main attention is paid to production, the development of productive forces and production relations, wars and revolutions. Meanwhile, a person has always stood at the center of history. It is the position of a person, his rights and freedoms that determine the degree of progress of society. The most technically advanced production, in which a person is reduced to the position of a slave and a cog, cannot be considered progressive.

The role of religion in history turned out to be very significant, and sometimes even predominant. If we are in the most general outline If we try to determine the significance of Christianity and its three main directions in the history of various regions, it is easy to notice that the countries where Protestantism predominated (England, Holland, USA) achieved the most high development. Countries where Catholicism predominated (Spain, Portugal, Latin America, Italy) lagged behind their more successful neighbors, and the East. Europe, including Russia, Serbia and Montenegro, where Orthodoxy dominated with its subservience to the state, found itself in the last rank of developed countries in the Christian world.

Marx, speaking about the so-called PNK has greatly simplified the picture. The history of the formation of capitalism was not limited to robbery and speculation. For primitive accumulation in a number of countries in western Europe and America, Protestantism with its ethics was of great importance. Normal business has brought these countries to the forefront in economic development.

b) In addition to the previously revealed historicist flaw, it is necessary to emphasize the dubious ability of Marxism to give a convincing answer, in particular, to an important question: why, under the same geohistorical conditions, societies of different formational affiliations coexisted and coexist today? Why, given the presence of a similar or very similar basis, are the superstructures of the corresponding societies quite unique?

c) Many researchers have drawn attention to the relative applicability of this model almost exclusively to Western Europe, i.e. to its Eurocentric character, to the desire of Marxism to emphasize the unilinear nature of social processes, underestimating the invariance and alternative nature of their vectoriality.

d) Non-Marxist authors question the Marxist thesis about the constantly inexorable nature of the manifestation of “objective laws” not only, for example, in the sphere of a market economy (with which they agree), but also in society “as a whole.” In this case, they often refer to W. Windelband, who founded a large philosophical school in Baden (Germany) in the second half of the 19th century. He argued that there are no laws in history, and that what is passed off as them are only a few trivial generalities, allowing for countless deviations. Other critics of Marxism rely on the opinion of M. Weber, for whom the concepts of “capitalism” and “socialism” are only more or less convenient theoretical constructs, necessary only for the systematization of empirical social material. These are only “ideal types” that do not have objectively true content. Over time, old “types” are replaced by new ones.

d). Alaev L.B.: (VI, 1994. No. 6, p. 91): Formation theory at one time never became a theory. Discussions about what productive forces are, what is the relationship between production relations and property, about the content of the concept “mode of production” - showed that there are only outlines of this theory. It turned out that all aspects of the human personality and all manifestations of sociality can be considered both as productive forces, and as production relations, and as a basis, and as a superstructure, which provides the analytical capabilities of these categories. Thus, with any understanding of the category “mode of production”, it is not possible to detect the “slave mode of production” in history. However, the very factor of the level of economic development, of course, must be taken into account as one of the serious indicators of overall progress. The now fashionable tendency to replace the economic factor with the factor of spiritual development leads to another dead end. There is no reason to accept one aspect of development as the main one that determines everything. It is necessary to move away not so much from exaggerating the role of the economic factor, but generally from the monistic view of history. Other criteria may be the spiritual state (the level of morality in society, the quality of religious ideas), the degree of individual freedom, the nature of the organization of society (self-government, statehood) and others.

The theory of history or the theory of progress can only be developed and applied at the global level. Real local stories cannot be smaller copies of the global one. They are subject to the influence of many factors: the influence of the natural environment and its changes, a combination of internal and external impulses, the specific correlation of economic, demographic, military and spiritual processes, the ability to stop developing or disappear from the historical map. We can also recall Gumilev’s idea of ​​passionarity (so far inexplicable outbreaks of activity in different regions of the earth are a fact). For world history, a) there is no external factor, b) it is unstoppable, and c) humanity as a whole has not yet allowed itself to disappear.

In Marxism, the question of the relationship between global and local laws is not at all developed. The formation scheme is oriented towards Western Europe. Marx and Engels cannot be blamed for the fact that they practically did not raise the question of the relationship between European and Asian history: such was the level of European science at that time. But Marx professionally dealt with the question of the genesis of capitalism in Western Europe and nevertheless left unclarified the question of the relationship between the general (Western European) and the specific (English) in the genesis of capitalism.

f) Turning points in history do not necessarily need to be associated with political revolutions. History knows no other revolutions besides “bourgeois”: neither “Asian”, nor “slave-owning”, nor “feudal”. The category of “proletarian revolution” was generally introduced into theory contrary to any dialectics, since according to “theory” it first takes place and only then provides a basis for itself. It is very characteristic that none of the “bourgeois revolutions” begins the formation of capitalism and does not complete the formation of this system. Apparently, determining the moment of transition to a new quality is a much more difficult task than finding some kind of political cataclysm, which could be attributed to the role of a “dialectical leap.”

Yanin V.L. (VI, 1992. No. 8-9. p. 160): Marxist science itself gives little to the understanding of Russian feudalism, which none of the researchers has yet been able to give a clear definition. A modern historian will not be able to do without three provisions of Marxism, which have fully justified themselves: the doctrine of the development of mankind in an ascending line; the doctrine of class struggle (of course, not as a general form of development of society); thesis about the primacy of economics over politics.

Thus, a study of Novgorod statehood confirmed that management reforms were carried out here precisely when there was another aggravation of class contradictions or when the self-awareness of one or another class manifested itself with particular force.

Landa R.G. (VI., 1994. No. 6. P. 87): one cannot deny the previous methodology completely. The following postulates of the Marxist methodology of history retain all their significance: the primacy of social existence and the secondary nature of social consciousness (which does not exclude their interaction, and in specific cases and for a certain time, changes in places); economic (in most cases, but not always) and social (less often - group and personal) background of political movements and political interests. The concept of “class struggle” also retains its meaning, although, obviously, it would be worthwhile to understand when it is replaced and supplanted by national-ethnic and religious struggle (especially in our time), and when it is simply veiled by ethno-confessional confrontation. All this does not exclude, of course, under appropriate circumstances, the merging together of all or some of the above types of social struggle. All of these postulates have stood the test of time. Moreover, they have long ceased to be specifically Marxist and are widely used by non-Marxist historians and even anti-Marxists.

In the scientific thought of the past and present, many concepts and theories have developed on the problem of the typology of the state.

The founders of Marxism formulated the position according to which the definition of a particular type of state is possible only in connection with the study and development of class society.

In contrast to bourgeois researchers who consider society “in general,” K. Marx believed that in real history such an abstract society does not exist, but there is a society that is at a certain stage of historical development. He developed the concept of socio-economic formation, which is a prerequisite and basis for theoretical generalizations that make it possible to present individual aspects of social life as moments of the whole - without this concept it is impossible to bring together the variety of empirical facts of human history.

K. Marx put an end to the view of society as a mechanical aggregate of individuals, allowing for any changes at the will of the authorities (or, anyway, at the will of society and the government), arising and changing by chance, and for the first time put sociology on a scientific basis, establishing the concept of social economic formation as a set of data of production relations, establishing that the development of such formations is a natural historical process.

Representatives of the Marxist school never reduced the concept of socio-economic formation only to the system of production relations, as is sometimes noted in modern journalistic literature, but considered them in the unity of all its aspects. The socio-economic formation, being a scientific abstraction, gives an idea of ​​its typical features. This applies both to the characteristics of the entire social system and to the consideration of the elements that form it - production relations, social structure, political superstructure, and serves as a criterion for justifying the corresponding types of the latter.

The concept of a socio-economic formation can be defined as a society at a certain stage of historical development, taken in the unity of all its aspects, with its inherent method of production, economic system and superstructure rising above it.

One of the main features of the Marxist interpretation of the socio-economic formation is that it reflects, in their opinion, the most important, significant phenomena, i.e. only such fundamental features of social orders that are basically repeated uniformly in different countries and which can be generalized .

Developing a definition of a socio-economic formation allows representatives of the Marxist school to distinguish between the economic structure and the formation itself, between different social systems.

It is quite clear that a socio-economic formation in its pure form, that is, as a special social organism, can exist only in theory, but not in historical reality.

The concept of socio-economic formation, on the one hand, is a theoretical abstraction that allows us to detect stages in the development of world history. This concept of socio-economic formation allows us to separate one period from another, to identify qualitatively unique stages in the history of society, each of which has specific laws of its movement.

There is no doubt that the doctrine of socio-economic formations and typification of states deserves close attention and analysis when periodizing the development of human history. But we must not forget the fact that the change in socio-economic formations and types of states occurs synchronously (with the exception of the longest period of existence of the primitive communal system on earth), but already with the advent of the slave-owning type of state, the simultaneous existence of two or more types of states begins. Hence, the concept of socio-economic formation can reveal the essence of the historical process not in all countries, but only in one specific country or group of countries.

The theory of socio-economic formations contains the concept of the unity of the world historical process and assumes a natural change in the types of states. As socio-economic formations change, there is a consistent change in the types of states. The theory of socio-economic formations is aimed at establishing patterns of dependence of the class essence of the state on the system of socio-economic relations that form the basis of a particular formation.

Typification of state legal systems forms the basis for scientific knowledge enormous variety of constantly developing specific political phenomena, is included in the methodology of Marxist-Leninist legal science. It develops certain methods of understanding the state and law, methods of revealing their essence.

The most important feature of the scientific typology of the state, which is based on the Marxist doctrine of socio-economic formations, is that it is based on the nature of the connections of the state and law with other phenomena of social life, i.e. on the identification of social laws. These include, for example, the objective relationship between the state and the law of class society.

The development of the concept of “type of state” in the Marxist school is connected, first of all, with the essential characteristics of the state, and not with the content. In Marxist state-legal literature there is no single definition of the type of state. The difficulty in developing the concept of the type of state is, firstly, that the material of social life is extensive and is constantly increasing, primarily due to new countries embarking on the path of independent statehood building.

Marx's generalized periodization divides historical development into three stages. The first includes primitive society, in which there is no private ownership of the means of production and labor is directly socialized in nature. This type of historical development rests on the immaturity of the individual person, who has not yet been cut off from the umbilical cord of natural family ties with other people.

The second stage is antagonistic societies, the process in which takes the social form of relations of exploitation of man by man. Antagonistic societies are divided into two groups:

• a) ancient and feudal societies in which there are direct relations of dominance and subordination;
• b) capitalist society, where production relations take the form of material dependence of direct producers on the products of labor.

The third stage is the future communist society. The social relations of people to their work remain transparently clear here, both in production and in distribution.

By the historical type of state, he understands a system of essential features of states of the same social economic formation, expressing the commonality of their economic basis, class essence and social purpose.

From this definition it follows that each socio-economic formation needs a certain type of state, while the pre-class and post-class socio-economic formation excludes the presence of a state.

One of the main ideas of the Marxist theory of formations is the correspondence between the invariant systems of each layer of social life - the correspondence of the invariant of the state with the invariant of the economy, the invariant of spiritual life with the invariant of the economy and the invariant of the state.

Formation theory explains certain changes in history and explains the presence of certain types of societies. In this sense, it is a theory of history and even general theory stories. In contrast to the theory of individual formations, for example, the theory of capitalism. The theory of each individual formation presupposes the existence of a theory of formations, and is not reducible to this theory.

The question of the type, which, according to Marxist doctrine, is based on the class-essential moment, is inextricably linked with the question of the form of the state.

History shows that within the framework of one type of state, a variety of forms of state is possible, i.e., the dominance of historically certain classes can take on various political forms, some of which can prevail in a given type of state, in them the laws of a state of a certain social economic formation. Such forms of state can be called typical, more often found in this type of state. Others, not typical for a certain type of state, can be classified as atypical forms of state.

This was the theory of K. Marx, as set out by him, due to objective circumstances (obtaining information about the East through “second hands”, poor scientific elaboration of this problem, due, in particular, to the lack of factual material, fragmentation, and Marx’s lack of study of the Eastern (Asian)) type of production). Which replaced the theory in the 20th century. another, already well-known theory about the unconditional priority of the class nature of state formation within the framework of a five-member scheme of socio-economic formations, which turned out to be very attractive and meets the interests of the intensified political struggle in Europe and Russia, today, as historical practice has shown, is much less preferable and is far from being so universal , as vulgar dogmatists - followers of Marx's teachings - wanted.

The theory of socio-economic formations is the cornerstone of the materialist understanding of history. As secondary basic relations in this theory, material relations are used, and within them, first of all, economic and production ones. All the diversity of societies, despite the obvious differences between them, belong to the same stage of historical development if they have the same type of production relations as their economic basis. As a result, all the diversity and multitude of social systems in history were reduced to several basic types, these types were called “socio-economic formations.” Marx in “Capital” analyzed the laws of formation and development of the capitalist formation, showed its historically coming nature, the inevitability of a new formation - communist. The term “formation” was taken from geology; in geology, “formation” means the stratification of geological deposits of a certain period. In Marx, the terms “formation”, “socio-economic formation”, “economic formation”, “social formation” are used in an identical sense. Lenin characterized the formation as a single, integral social organism. A formation is not an aggregate of individuals, not a mechanical collection of disparate social phenomena, it is an integral social system, each component of which should not be considered in isolation, but in connection with other social phenomena, with society as a whole.

At the foundation of each formation lie certain productive forces (i.e. objects of labor, means of production and labor), their nature and level. As for the basis of the formation, these are relations of production; these are the relationships that develop between people in the process of production, distribution, exchange and consumption of material goods. In a class society, economic relations between classes become the essence and core of production relations. The entire building of the formation grows on this basis.

The following elements of the formation as an integral living organism can be distinguished:

The relations of production determine the superstructure that rises above them. The superstructure is the totality of political, legal, moral, artistic, philosophical, religious views of society and the corresponding relations and institutions. In relation to the superstructure, production relations act as an economic basis; the main law of formational development is the law of interaction between the base and the superstructure. This law determines the role of the entire system of economic relations, the main influence of ownership of the means of production in relation to political and legal ideas, institutions, social relations (ideological, moral, religious, spiritual). There is a total interdependence between the base and the superstructure: the base is always primary, the superstructure is secondary, but in turn it affects the base, it develops relatively independently. According to Marx, the influence of the base on the superstructure is not fatal, not mechanistic, and not unambiguous under different conditions. The superstructure encourages the base to develop it.

The composition of the formation includes ethnic forms of community of people (clan, tribe, nationality, nation). These forms are determined by the method of production, the nature of production relations and the stage of development of the productive forces.

And finally, this is the type and form of family.

They are also predetermined at every stage by both sides of the mode of production.

An important question is the question of patterns, general trends in the development of a specific historical society. Formation theorists believe:

• 1. That formations develop independently.
• 2. There is continuity in their development, continuity based on the technical and technological basis and property relations.
• 3. The pattern is the completeness of the development of the formation. Marx believed that not one formation dies before all the productive forces for which it provides enough scope are destroyed.
• 4. The movement and development of formations is carried out stepwise from a less perfect state to a more perfect one.
• 5. Countries of a high formation level play a leading role in development; they influence less developed ones.

Usually isolated following types socio-economic formations: primitive communal, slaveholding, feudal, capitalist and communist (includes two phases - socialism and communism).

To characterize and compare different types of socio-economic formations, we will analyze them from the point of view of types of production relations. Dovgel E.S. distinguishes two fundamentally different types:

• 1) those in which people are forced to work by force or economically, while the results of labor are alienated from them;
• 2) those in which people work of their own free will, interestedly and reasonably participate in the distribution of the results of labor.

The distribution of the social product under slaveholding, feudal and capitalist relations is carried out according to the first type, under socialist and communist relations - according to the second type. (Under primitive communal public relations distribution is carried out unsystematically and it is difficult to identify any type). At the same time, Dovgel E.S. believes that both “capitalists” and “communists” have to admit: capitalism in economically developed countries today is just traditional words and “tablets in the brains”, as a tribute to an irrevocably past History, in essence, social-production relations of high levels of development (socialist and communist) are already very common in countries with the most high level efficiency of production and people's lives (USA, Finland, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Ireland, Germany, Canada, France, Japan, etc.). In the case of the USSR, the definition of a country as socialist was applied unreasonably. Dovgel E.S. Theory of socio-economic formations and convergence of ideologies in economics. “Organization and Management”, international scientific and practical journal, 2002, No. 3, p. 145. The author of this work agrees with this position.

Among the main disadvantages of the formational approach are the underestimation of the ability of capitalist society to change independently, the underestimation of the “developability” of the capitalist system, this is Marx’s underestimation of the uniqueness of capitalism in a number of socio-economic formations. Marx creates a theory of formations, considering them as stages of social development, and in the preface “To the Critique of Political Economy” he writes “The prehistory of human society ends with the bourgeois economic formation.” Marx established an objective interdependence between the level of development and the state of society, the change in the types of its economic argumentation, he showed world history as a dialectical change of social structures, he sort of streamlined the course of world history. This was a discovery in the history of human civilization. The transition from one formation to another took place through revolution; the disadvantage of the Marxist scheme is the idea of ​​the same type of historical destinies of capitalism and pre-capitalist formations. Both Marx and Engels, fully aware and repeatedly revealing the deepest qualitative differences between capitalism and feudalism, with amazing consistency, emphasize the uniformity, uniformity of the capitalist and feudal formations, their subordination to the same general historical law. They pointed to contradictions of the same type between productive forces and production relations, here and there they recorded the inability to cope with them, here and there they recorded death as a form of society’s transition to another, higher stage of development. Marx’s change of formations resembles the change of human generations; more than one generation is not given the opportunity to live two life spans, so formations come, flourish, and die. This dialectic does not concern communism; it belongs to a different historical era. Marx and Engels did not allow the idea that capitalism could open up fundamentally new ways of resolving its contradictions, could choose completely new uniform historical movement.

None of the named main theoretical points underlying the theory of formations is now indisputable. The theory of socio-economic formations is not only based on the theoretical conclusions of the mid-19th century, but because of this cannot explain many of the contradictions that have arisen: the existence, along with zones of progressive (ascending) development, of zones of backwardness, stagnation and dead ends; transformation of the state in one form or another into important factor social industrial relations; modification and modification of classes; the emergence of a new hierarchy of values ​​with the priority of universal values ​​over class ones.

In conclusion of the analysis of the theory of socio-economic formations, it should be noted: Marx did not claim that his theory would be made global, to which the entire development of society on the entire planet is subject. The “globalization” of his views occurred later, thanks to the interpreters of Marxism.

The shortcomings identified in the formational approach are taken into account to some extent by the civilizational approach. It was developed in the works of N. Ya. Danilevsky, O. Spengler, and later A. Toynbee. They put forward the idea of ​​a civilizational structure of social life. According to their ideas, the basis of social life is made up of “cultural-historical types” (Danilevsky) or “civilizations” (Spengler, Toynbee), more or less isolated from each other, going through a number of successive stages in their development: origin, flourishing, aging, decline.

All these concepts are characterized by such features as: rejection of the Eurocentric, unilinear scheme of social progress; conclusion about the existence of many cultures and civilizations, which are characterized by locality and different quality; a statement about the equal importance of all cultures in the historical process. The civilizational approach helps to see history without discarding certain options as not meeting the criteria of any one culture. But the civilizational approach to understanding the historical process is not without some shortcomings. In particular, it does not take into account the connection between different civilizations and does not explain the phenomenon of repetition.

The theoretical teaching of Karl Marx, who put forward and substantiated the formational concept of society, occupies a special place in the ranks of sociological thought. K. Marx was one of the first in the history of sociology to develop a very detailed idea of ​​society as a system.

This idea is embodied primarily in his concept socio-economic formation.

The term "formation" (from Latin formatio - formation) was originally used in geology (mainly) and botany. It was introduced into science in the second half of the 18th century. by the German geologist G. K. Fücksel and then, at the turn of the 18th - 19th centuries, it was widely used by his compatriot, geologist A. G. Berner. The interaction and change of economic formations were considered by K. Marx in the application to pre-capitalist formations in a separate working material, which lay aside from the study of Western capitalism.

A socio-economic formation is a historical type of society, characterized by a certain state of productive forces, production relations and the superstructural forms determined by the latter. A formation is a developing social production organism that has special laws of emergence, functioning, development and transformation into another, more complex social organism. Each of them has a special method of production, its own type of production relations, a special character public organization labor, historically determined, stable forms communities of people and relationships between them, specific forms of public administration, special forms of family organization and family relations, a special ideology and a set of spiritual values.

The concept of social formation by K. Marx is an abstract construction, which can also be called an ideal type. In this regard, M. Weber quite rightly considered Marxist categories, including the category of social formation, as “mental constructions.” He himself skillfully used this powerful cognitive tool. This is a method of theoretical thinking that allows you to create a capacious and generalized image of a phenomenon or group of phenomena at the conceptual level, without resorting to statistics. K. Marx called such constructions a “pure” type, M. Weber - an ideal type. Their essence is one thing - to highlight the main, repeating thing in empirical reality, and then combine this main thing into a consistent logical model.

Socio-economic formation- a society at a certain stage of historical development. The formation is based on a well-known method of production, which represents the unity of the base (economics) and the superstructure (politics, ideology, science, etc.). The history of mankind looks like a sequence of five formations following each other: primitive communal, slaveholding, feudal, capitalist and communist formations.

This definition captures the following structural and dynamic elements:

• 1. No single country, culture or society can constitute a social formation, but only a collection of many countries.
• 2. The type of formation is determined not by religion, art, ideology, or even the political regime, but by its foundation - the economy.
• 3. The superstructure is always secondary, and the base is primary, therefore politics will always be only a continuation of the economic interests of the country (and within it, the economic interests of the ruling class).
• 4. All social formations, arranged in a sequential chain, express the progressive ascent of humanity from lower stages of development to higher ones.

According to the social statics of K. Marx, the basis of society is entirely economic. It represents the dialectical unity of productive forces and production relations. The superstructure includes ideology, culture, art, education, science, politics, religion, family.

Marxism proceeds from the assertion that the character of the superstructure is determined by the character of the base. This means that economic relations largely determine the superstructure, that is, the totality of political, moral, legal, artistic, philosophical, religious views of society and the relationships and institutions corresponding to these views. As the nature of the base changes, the nature of the superstructure also changes.

The basis has absolute autonomy and independence from the superstructure. The superstructure in relation to the base has only relative autonomy. It follows that true reality is possessed primarily by economics, and partly by politics. That is, it is real - from the point of view of influence on the social formation - only secondarily. As for ideology, it is real, as it were, in the third place.

By productive forces Marxism understood:

• 1. People engaged in the production of goods and the provision of services who have certain qualifications and ability to work.
• 2. Land, subsoil and minerals.
• 3. Buildings and premises where the production process is carried out.
• 4. Tools of labor and production from a hand hammer to high-precision machines.
• 5. Technology and equipment.
• 6. Final products and raw materials. All of them are divided into two categories - personal and material factors of production.

The productive forces form, to put it modern language, sociotechnical production system, and production relations - socio-economic. Productive forces are the external environment for production relations, the change of which leads either to their modification (partial change) or to complete destruction (replacement of old ones with new ones, which is always accompanied by a social revolution).

Production relations are relations between people that develop in the process of production, distribution, exchange and consumption of material goods under the influence of the nature and level of development of the productive forces. They arise between large groups of people engaged in social production. The relations of production that form the economic structure of society determine the behavior and actions of people, both peaceful coexistence and conflicts between classes, the emergence of social movements and revolutions.

In Capital, K. Marx proves that relations of production are ultimately determined by the level and nature of the development of the productive forces.

A socio-economic formation is a collection of countries on the planet that are this moment are at the same stage of historical development, have similar mechanisms, institutions and institutions that determine the basis and superstructure of society.

According to the formation theory of K. Marx, in each historical period, if you take a snapshot of humanity, a variety of formations coexist on the planet - some in their classical form, others in their survival form (transitional societies, where the remains of a variety of formations are layered).

The entire history of society can be divided into stages depending on how goods are produced. Marx called them modes of production. There are five historical methods of production (they are also called socio-economic formations).

The story begins with primitive communal formation, in which people worked together, there was no private property, exploitation, inequality and social classes. The second stage is slaveholding formation, or production method.

Slavery was replaced by feudalism- a method of production based on the exploitation of personally and land-dependent direct producers by land owners. It arose at the end of the 5th century. as a result of the decomposition of the slaveholding, and in some countries (including the Eastern Slavs) the primitive communal system

The essence of the basic economic law of feudalism is the production of surplus product in the form of feudal rent in the form of labor, food and money. The main wealth and means of production is land, which is privately owned by the landowner and leased to the peasant for temporary use (rent). He pays the feudal lord rent, food or money, allowing him to live comfortably and in idle luxury.

The peasant is more free than the slave, but less free than the hired worker, who becomes, along with the owner-entrepreneur, the main figure in the following - capitalist- stage of development. The main mode of production is the mining and manufacturing industries. Feudalism seriously undermined the basis of its economic well-being - the peasant population, a significant part of which it ruined and turned into proletarians, people without property and status. They filled the cities where workers enter into a contract with the employer, or an agreement that limits exploitation to certain standards agreed upon with legal laws. The owner of the enterprise does not put money in a chest, and puts his capital into circulation. The amount of profit he receives is determined by the market situation, the art of management and the rationality of labor organization.

Completes the story communist formation, which brings people back to equality on a higher material basis. In a systematically organized communist society there will be no private property, inequality, social classes and the state as a machine of suppression.

The functioning and change of formations is subject to general laws that link them into a single process of forward movement of humanity. At the same time, each formation has its own special laws of emergence and development. The unity of the historical process does not mean that every social organism goes through all formations. Humanity as a whole goes through them, “pulling up” to those countries and regions where the most progressive mode of production in a given historical era has won and the superstructural forms corresponding to it have developed.

The transition from one formation to another, capable of creating higher production capacities, a more perfect system of economic, political and spiritual relations, constitutes the content of historical progress.

K. Marx's theory of history is materialistic because the decisive role in the development of society belongs not to consciousness, but to the existence of people. Being determines consciousness, relationships between people, their behavior and views. The foundation of social existence is social production. It represents both the process and the result of the interaction of production forces (tools and people) and production relations. The totality of production relations that do not depend on the consciousness of people constitutes the economic structure of society. It's called the basis. A legal and political superstructure rises above the base. This includes various forms of social consciousness, including religion and science. The basis is primary, and the superstructure is secondary.