a method of progressive transformation of society, meaning a break in the gradualness in its development, a natural leap from one qualitative state to a new one, prepared by the previous evolution of a given society. S. p. there are two kinds of interformational and intraformational. Interformational S. p. represents a way of transition from a lower socio-economic formation to a higher one and the grandiose process of this transition itself, which takes an entire epoch. History knows four main types of such revolutions: slave, feudal, bourgeois and socialist. Intraformational S. p. there is a way and a process of society's transition from one qualitative state to another within the same formation, an abrupt change of stages in its development, a periodic ascent to a higher level. Capitalism has gone through at least two intraformational revolutions: the pre-monopoly one has grown into a monopoly one, and the last one into a state-monopoly one and is in the process of another deep transformation. To the category of intraformational S. p. the radical restructuring that socialism is undergoing. Any S. p. has an economic, social, political, spiritual and ideological basis. The deepest economic foundation of any S. r. there is a conflict between the grown productive forces and outdated social (primarily production) relations, when the existing order in society ceases to stimulate people to efficiently use and further develop the existing productive forces. The social basis of the revolution is those classes and social groups that, according to their objective position in society, are interested in it, strive and are able to implement it. They are her driving forces. The political basis of S. r. is the inability of the current system of state power and management to constructively solve objectively pressing problems. Spiritual and ideological basis of S. r. consists in the understanding by the masses of the incompatibility of their interests with the existing state of affairs. The totality of these phenomena serves as an unmistakable syndrome of the need for a radical revolutionary reorganization of society. The revolutionary character of perestroika is evidenced by the scale and depth of the reforms that have begun in all spheres of public life. State property, which to a large extent acted as anonymous, "ownerless", is "denationalized." To the extent that state property remains objectively necessary, it undergoes significant transformations. Differentiating into all-Union, republican and municipal, state property finally acquires concrete and, therefore, responsible and zealous owners. Previously disenfranchised manufacturing enterprises are now turning into self-governing work collectives that own property. Along with this, revolutionary restructuring gives rise to fundamentally new types and forms of property that are inconceivable under the conditions of the undivided domination of the administrative-command system. On their basis, the socio-economic strata of cooperators, tenants, shareholders, family and individual owners, all kinds of their associations are formed, which unrecognizably transforms the social structure of society. Diverse social organizations and movements are growing. Under the influence of all these new formations, cardinal changes are taking place in the political system of society: it turns into a system of real democracy. In the spiritual and ideological sphere, the changes are so dramatic that they led to new thinking. The correspondence of a subjective factor to objective conditions is the basic law of S. p. The role of the subjective factor consists both in the fact that, on the basis of the most adequate knowledge of the objective conditions, not to miss the chance of realizing self-education, when the objective prerequisites for it are fully ripe, and in warning the masses against revolution, if such prerequisites do not yet exist. Before their ripening S. p. adventurous, destructive, catastrophic. Stalinism completely ignored the question of the price of the revolution. Meanwhile, this is the main issue that predetermines its success or failure. Price S. p. there must always be immeasurably less deprivation from which it relieves the masses of the people. Otherwise, the revolution will inevitably run into their own resistance and drown in blood. The optimal course is the course of S. r., When the maturation of objective conditions for qualitative changes in society, the awareness of these conditions and the very implementation of the urgent changes proceed in a single rhythm. Synchronization is provided by revolutionary reforms. Revolutionary reforms differ from ordinary reforms as partial, insignificant transformations of certain aspects of public life on the initiative and in the interests of the predominantly ruling circles in that they affect society as a whole, in its foundations, are carried out in the form of a package of major measures of a fundamental nature and are implemented under the influence of decisive and organized, purposeful movement of the masses. Similar reforms, being according to the content of S. r., exclude armed forms of resolving social contradictions. Moreover, reformation revolutions do not imply compulsory violence on a massive scale, even in peaceful forms. Understanding of the general perniciousness of rampant violence in any form serves as a deterrent. When resolving the most acute conflicts "top" and "bottom", various social groups do not resort to violence, but to social compromise. Real experience of this kind, although by no means consistent and perfect in everything, has been accumulated by the Social-Democratic workers' movement. K. Marx foresaw the coming of the time when "social evolution will cease to be political revolutions" (K. Marx, F. Engels // Works. 2nd ed. T. 4. P. 185), referring it to the communist society. This time has come earlier. However, S. p. through radical reforms are possible not in all modern societies, but only in democratically organized ones. In the conditions of totalitarian societies S. r. are still doomed to occur in the form of explosions, cataclysms. S. p. K. Marx called the locomotives of history. The acceleration of social development in the process of revolutions occurs for two main reasons. First, revolutions solve not ordinary, but major, historically urgent tasks of a turning character. Secondly, in the solution of these epoch-making problems, the direct actor is the masses, whose creative activity is incomparable with any other force both in crushing outdated social orders and in creating new ones. On Wednesday. there is a coincidence of a radical change in life circumstances with a radical change in the people themselves. Therefore, a revolution creates people in the same way that people create a revolution.
§ 3. Causes of the social revolution
The Marxist theory of social revolution argues that the main reason for the social revolution is the deepening conflict between the growth of the productive forces of society and the outdated, conservative system of production relations, which manifests itself in the exacerbation of social antagonisms, the intensification of the struggle between the ruling class, interested in preserving the existing system, and the oppressed class. ... Classes and social strata, which, by their objective position in the system of production relations, are interested in overthrowing the existing system and are capable of participating in the struggle for the victory of a more progressive system, act as the driving forces of the social revolution. A revolution is never the product of a conspiracy of individuals or the arbitrary actions of a minority isolated from the masses. It can arise only as a result of objective changes that set in motion mass forces and create a revolutionary situation. Thus, social revolutions are not just random outbursts of discontent, riots, or coups. They "are not made to order, do not coincide with this or that moment, but mature in the process of historical development and burst out at a moment conditioned by a complex of a number of internal and external reasons."
From non-Marxist points of view on the causes of social revolutions, we single out the following. First. P. Sorokin, understanding by the causes of uprisings and wars "a complex of conditions, a connection of events framed in a causal chain, the beginning of which is lost in the eternity of the past, and the end - in the infinity of the future," and emphasizing that the immediate prerequisite for any "revolutionary deviation in human behavior "there has always been" an increase in the suppressed basic instincts of the majority of the population, as well as the impossibility of even minimal satisfaction ", singled out the following reasons: 1)" suppression by hunger "of the digestive reflex" of a large part of the population; 2) "suppression" of the instinct of self-preservation by despotic executions, mass murders, bloody atrocities; 3) "suppression" of the reflex of collective self-preservation (family, religious sect, party), desecration of their shrines, abuse of their members in the form of arrests, etc .; 4) failure to meet people's needs for housing,
7 Lenin V.I. Poly. collection op. T. 36.S. 531.
8 Sorokin P.A. Person. Civilization. Society. M, Politizdat, 1992.S. 272.
clothes, etc. even in a minimal amount; 5) "suppression" of the sexual reflex of the majority of the population in all its manifestations (in the form of jealousy or desire to possess an object of love) and the absence of conditions for its satisfaction, the presence of abductions, violence of wives and daughters, forced marriage or divorce, etc .; 6) "suppression" of the proprietary instinct of the masses, the domination of poverty and deprivation, and especially if this occurs against the background of the well-being of others; 7) "suppression" of the instinct of self-expression or individuality, when people are faced, on the one hand, with insults, neglect, permanent and unfair disregard of their merits and achievements, and on the other, with exaggeration of the merits of people who do not deserve it; 8) "suppression" in most people of their impulse to struggle and competition, creative work, the acquisition of varied experience, the need for freedom (in the sense of freedom of speech and action or other undetectable manifestations of their innate inclinations), generated by "too peaceful life", monotonous environment and work that does not give anything to the brain or heart, constant restrictions in the freedom of communication, speech and action. This, according to Sorokin, is an incomplete list of reasons. At the same time, he emphasizes that both the strength of the "suppression" of the most significant instincts, and their total number, affect the nature of the "produced revolutionary explosion."
Second. From the point of view of A. Toynbee, social revolutions are genetically related to the pre-disintegration transition of the development of civilization and are caused by the very nature of social development. Since the development of an individual civilization goes in a circle, the social revolution occurs at the moment when the wheel of history begins to move downward, and therefore the social revolution serves as a starting point from which the process of dying of civilization begins. Essentially, Toynbee's social revolution is a symptom of the decline of civilization and acts as a brake on the development of history.
10 Sorokin P.A. Person. Civilization. Society S. 272-273.
11 See: A. Toynbee Comprehension of history. M., Progress, 1991.S. 578-579.
Third. A. Tocqueville in his work "The Old Order and Revolution" tried to reveal the continuity between the past and the "new order" and argued that the elimination of the feudal regime was possible without social revolutions. At the same time, he came to the conclusion that the causes of the social revolution can be both the impoverishment of society and its prosperity.
Fourth. In modern Western literature, there is an approach, the supporters of which reduce all the causes of the social revolution to three large groups: 1) long-term, 2) medium-term and 3) short-term factors. Long-term factors include: economic growth, technical innovations, scientific achievements, democratization of the system, secularization, modernization of the state, and the growth of nationalism. Medium-term factors include: economic depressions, alienation of the intelligentsia, disintegration of the ruling group of society, wars, collapse or failure of government policies. Finally, the third group includes various unregulated subjective factors that are given special importance. From our point of view, this approach does not provide a scientific explanation of the causes of social revolutions, replacing it with descriptive schemes. At the same time, the main (decisive) factors and secondary factors are not singled out.
R. Dahrendorf casts doubt on the Marxist concept of the presence of antagonistic contradictions in an exploiting society, denies class antagonism as the decisive cause of social conflicts. He claims to create a theory of classes and class conflict, which he opposes not only to Marxism, but also to theories of class harmony.
Dahrendorf's typology of conflicts is noteworthy. First, he identifies the basis of the classification when the ranks of the elements and groups involved in the conflict differ, referring here: 1) the conflict between equals, 2) the conflict between the subordinates and the dominant, 3) the conflict between the whole society and its part. Second, based on the amount of social unity involved in the conflict, Dahrendorf also distinguishes the following conflicts: 1) conflict within and between social roles, 2) conflict within individual social groups, and 3) conflict between interest groups or pseudo-groups.
Without going into a detailed analysis of Dahrendorf's typology of conflicts, we note that he reduces the class struggle to a conflict between social groups and classes. This is a conflict over the legitimacy of the existing division of power, that is, in the interests of the ruling class to express confidence in the legitimacy of the existing domination, and in the interests of the non-ruling class to express doubts about the legality of this domination. He further emphasizes that the theory of classes, based on the division of society into owners and non-owners of the means of production, loses its value as soon as formal ownership and actual control over it are separated from each other, cease to be in the same hands. Finally, Dahrendorf puts forward the ideal of "liberal" and "co-
a temporary "society in which social conflicts are recognized and regulated, there is equal initial chances for all, individual competition and high mobility.
12 See: Dahrendorf R. Sociale Klassen und Kiassenkonflikt in der industriellen Geselleschaft Stuttgart, 1952, pp. 12-13.
Recognizing the certain value of Dahrendorf's concept of conflicts, especially when analyzing modern society, we emphasize that the class approach is a great achievement of scientific social science. After all, the origins of the class approach are in the political ideology of N. Machiavelli, in the historical teachings of O. Thierry, F. Guizot and others, in the political economy of D. Ricardo. They discovered the existence of classes and class struggle even before Marx. Therefore, abandoning the class approach means taking a step back in social science.
Although a social revolution is an objectively occurring process, objective laws alone are not enough for its implementation. Therefore, there is some controversy in the interpretation of the problem of the objective and subjective in the revolution. This is also connected with discussions on the topic: do there exist objective laws of the development of society at all, since people endowed with consciousness act in it. Accordingly, there is a Marxist approach that recognizes the regularity of socio-historical development, and various options for non-Marxist approaches.
Socio-philosophical analysis of this issue shows that the basic categories here are the concepts of "object" and "subject". With their help, the activity of concrete historical creators and bearers of social actions in all spheres of social life - economic, social, political, spiritual, is comprehended and expressed. Further development of these categories is carried out with the help of the categories "objective", "objective conditions", "objective factor" and "subjective", "subjective conditions", "subjective factor".
As you know, the concept of "conditions" means a set of objects, phenomena, processes that are necessary for the emergence and existence of an object. This concept characterizes the causal relationship between the phenomena of nature and society. The concept of "factor" reflects the active, acting nature of certain phenomena and processes, their driving forces. Objective conditions include the results of human activity, which materialize in productive forces, production relations, the social structure of society, political organization, etc., that is, not only economic relations, but also the entire system of ideological relations, in which consciousness is one of the conditions formation. Subjective conditions characterize those prerequisites and circumstances that depend on the specific historical subject of action. Here, the most important role is played by the degree
the development and state of consciousness of a social subject, guiding his activity, as well as the totality of his spiritual forces - the subjective qualities of the subject of activity.
However, not all objective and subjective prerequisites can act as objective and subjective factors. Such will be only those phenomena of the objective and subjective conditions of human activity that direct it, act as an active driving force. Thus, the objective factor is those conditions and circumstances that do not depend on a specific social subject and, when interacting with a subjective factor, direct and determine its activity. The subjective factor is the active driving forces of a particular social subject, depending on him and aimed at changing the objective conditions.
In Russian social science, there is an ambiguous understanding of the relationship between the above concepts. More generally accepted is the approach according to which the process of maturation of a social revolution includes not only certain material prerequisites, but also elements of political life, which together form objective conditions. The latter play a decisive role, since they determine the structure and direction of human activity and real opportunities for solving certain problems. The subjective factor in the development of society is the conscious activity of people, classes, parties making history: it is their organization, will and energy necessary to solve certain historical problems.
At the same time, other authors emphasize that when analyzing social phenomena using the categories "objective conditions" and "subjective factor", the question of their primary and secondary nature is not raised and not resolved. These categories express the functional and causal relationship of social phenomena. "The objective side of the historical process is objective social conditions, and above all economic conditions, from which people proceed in their concrete activities and which are reflected in their consciousness," writes B.A. Chagin, "Nations, classes, parties and individual individuals proceed from their social, political, ideological, etc. activities from specific objective relations and conditions. " In his opinion, not only ideas, but also the activities of people are a subjective factor, moreover, this concept includes the concept of "social action", with the exception of labor, production activity.
13 Chagin B.A. Subjective factor Structure and patterns. M., 1968.S. 31.
Realizing that no one can claim "ultimate truth", especially in such a complex issue, we note that if the concept of "conditions" denotes the preconditions of activity, then the concept of "factor" characterizes the mechanism of movement of social processes. At the same time, in the process of activity, the function of the subjective factor is performed not by all, but only by those elements of subjective conditions that are necessary for the subject for a specific act of activity, and only that part of the objective conditions that acts as an active acting cause in interaction with the subjective factor becomes an objective factor, determines the content activity and its direction within the framework of objective laws in which social revolutions take place.
| " |
SOCIAL REVOLUTION (lat. Revolutio - turn, change) - a radical revolution in the life of society, meaning the overthrow of an obsolete and the establishment of a new, progressive social system; a form of transition from one socio-economic formation to another. The experience of history shows that it would be wrong to consider the social and economic formation. as an accident. R. is a necessary, natural result of the natural-historical development of antagonistic formations. R. s. completes the process of evolution, the gradual ripening in the depths of the old society of the elements or preconditions of the new social order; resolves the contradiction between the new productive forces and the old relations of production, breaks down the obsolete production relations and the political superstructure that consolidates these relations, opens up space for the further development of the productive forces. The old industrial relations are supported by their carriers - the ruling classes, which protect the outmoded order by the force of state power. Therefore, in order to clear the way for social development, the advanced forces must overthrow the existing state system. The main question of any R. of page. is the question of political power. “The transfer of state power from one class to the other is the first, main, basic sign of revolution both in the strictly scientific and in the practical political meaning of this concept” (V.I.T. Lenin, 31, p. 133). R. is the highest form of class struggle. In revolutionary epochs, the broad masses of the people, who previously stood aloof from political life, rise to a conscious struggle. That is why revolutionary epochs mean a tremendous acceleration of social development. R. cannot be confused with the so-called. palace coups, coups, etc. The latter are only a violent change in the government elite, a change in power of individuals or groups that does not change its essence. The question of power does not exhaust the content of R. s. In the broadest sense of the word, it includes all those social transformations carried out by the revolutionary class. R.'s character with. is determined by what tasks they carry out and what social forces are involved in them. In each individual country, the possibilities for the emergence and development of R. depend on a number of objective conditions, as well as on the degree of maturity of the subjective factor. A qualitatively unique type of R. of page. represents the socialist revolution. The exacerbation of the unevenness of the economic and political development of the capitalist countries leads to the difference in timing of socialist R. in various countries. This implies the inevitability of an entire historical era of revolutions, which began with the Great October Socialist R. in Russia. After World War II, socialist revolutions took place in Europe, Asia, and Lat. America. Along with the international workers' movement, national liberation R. and various kinds of mass democratic movements acquired great importance in this era. All these forces, in their unity, constitute the world revolutionary process. Under the conditions of socialism, revolutionary transformations of all aspects of social life are possible in the interests of its qualitative renewal, an example of which is the perestroika taking place in the USSR. Perestroika in our country has the characteristics of a peaceful, non-violent R. It also includes radical reforms, demonstrating their dialectical unity.
Philosophical Dictionary. Ed. I.T. Frolov. M., 1991, p. 386-387.
In accordance with the structure and main characteristic of any system, the following can be distinguished types of changes in general and social changes in particular:
In science, content is understood as the totality of the elements of the system, so here we are talking about changing the elements of the system, their appearance, disappearance or their change in their properties. Since social subjects act as elements of the social system, this can be, for example, a change in the personnel composition of an organization, that is, the introduction or abolition of some positions, a change in the qualifications of officials or a change in the motives of their activity, which is reflected in an increase or decrease in labor productivity. ...
Structural changes
These are changes in the set of links of elements or the structure of these links. In a social system, this may look, for example, as the movement of a person in an official hierarchy. At the same time, not all people understand that structural changes have taken place in the team, and may not be able to adequately respond to them, painfully perceive the instructions of the boss, who was an ordinary employee yesterday.
Functional changes
These are changes in the actions performed by the system. Changes in the functions of a system can be caused by a change in both its content or structure and the surrounding social environment, i.e., the external connections of the day system. For example, changes in the functions of state bodies can be caused by both demographic changes within the country and external influences, including military ones, from other countries.
Development
A special type of change - development. It is customary to talk about its presence in a certain respect. In science, development is considered to be directional and irreversible change, leading to the appearance qualitatively new objects. An object that is in development, at first glance, remains itself, but a new set of properties and connections makes one perceive this object in a completely new way. For example, a child and a specialist who grew out of him in any field of activity are, in essence, different people, they are evaluated and perceived by society in different ways, since they occupy completely different positions in the social structure. Therefore, such a person is said to have passed the path of development.
Change and development is one of the main aspects of the consideration of all sciences.
Essence, types of concepts of social change
Changes — these are the differences between what the system represented in the past, and what became of her after a certain period of time.
Changes are inherent in the entire living and inanimate world. They happen every minute: "everything flows, everything changes." A person is born, grows old, dies. His children pass the same path. Old societies disintegrate and new societies arise.
In sociology, under social change understand transformations occurring over time In the organisation., patterns of thinking, culture and social behavior.
Factors, cause social changes are manifold circumstances, such as changes in the habitat, dynamics of the size and social structure of the population, the level of tension and struggle for resources (especially in modern conditions), discoveries and inventions, acculturation (assimilation of elements of other cultures through interaction).
Push, driving forces social changes can act as transformations in the economic, as well as in the political, social and spiritual spheres, but with different speed and strength, the fundamental impact.
The topic of social change was one of the central themes in sociology in the 19th and 20th centuries. This was due to the natural interest of sociology in the problems of social development and social progress, the first attempts at a scientific explanation of which belonged to O. Comte and G. Spencer.
Sociological theories of social change are usually divided into two main branches - theory social evolution and theories of social revolution, which are considered mainly in the framework of the paradigm of social conflict.
Social evolution
Theories social evolution defined social change as transition from some developmental stages to more complex... A. Saint-Simon should be considered the predecessor of evolutionist theories. Widespread in the conservative tradition of the late 18th - early 19th centuries. he supplemented the idea of the life of society as an equilibrium with the provision of an unswerving consistent promoting society To higher levels of development.
O. Comte linked the processes of development of society, human knowledge and culture. All societies pass three stages: primitive, intermediate and scientific that correspond to the forms of the human knowledge (theological, metaphysical and positive). Evolution of society for him, this is an increase in the functional specialization of structures and an improvement in the adaptation of parts to society as an integral organism.
The most prominent representative of evolutionism G. Spencer presented evolution as an upward movement, a transition from simple to complex, not having a linear and unidirectional character.
Any evolution consists from two interconnected processes: differentiation of structures and their integration at a higher level... As a result, societies are divided into divergent and branching groups.
Modern structural functionalism, continuing the Spencer tradition, which rejected the continuity and one-linearity of evolution, supplemented it with the idea of greater functional fitness arising in the course of the differentiation of structures. Social change is seen as the result of the adaptation of the system to its environment. Only those structures that make the social system more adaptable to the environment push evolution forward. Therefore, although society is changing, it remains stable through useful new forms of social integration.
The given evolutionist concepts mainly explained the origin of social change by endogenous, i.e. internal reasons... The processes taking place in society were explained by analogy with biological organisms.
Another approach - exogenous - is represented by the theory of diffusion, the seepage of cultural patterns from one society to others. At the center of the analysis are the channels and mechanisms of penetration of external influences. These included conquest, trade, migration, colonization, imitation, etc. Any of the cultures inevitably experiences the influence of other cultures, including the cultures of the conquered peoples. This counter process of mutual influence and interpenetration of cultures is called acculturation in sociology. So, Ralph Linton (1937) drew attention to the fact that the fabric, first made in Asia, watches, which appeared in Europe, etc., have become an integral and familiar part of the life of American society. In the United States, the most important role throughout history has been played by immigrants from all over the world. One can even talk about the strengthening in recent years of the influence of the Hispanic and African American subcultures on the previously practically unchanged English-speaking culture of American society.
Social evolutionary changes, in addition to the fundamental, can occur in the subtypes of reforms, modernization, transformation, crises.
1.Reforms in social systems — transformation, change, reorganization of any aspects of public life or the entire social system... Reforms, as opposed to revolutions, suggest gradual changes certain social institutions, spheres of life or the system as a whole. They are carried out with the help of new legislative acts and are aimed at improving the existing system without qualitative changes.
Under reforms usually understand slow evolutionary changes that do not lead to massive violence, rapid change of political elites, rapid and radical changes in the social structure and value orientations.
2. Social modernization — progressive social change resulting in social system(subsystem) improves the parameters of its functioning... The process of transformation of a traditional society into an industrial one is usually called modernization. Social modernization has two varieties:
- organic- development on own basis;
- inorganic- a response to an external challenge, in order to overcome backwardness (initiated by “ above»).
3. Social transformation- transformations taking place in society as a result of certain social changes, both purposeful and chaotic. The period of historical changes that were established in the countries of Central Europe from the late 80s - early 90s, and then in the former republics of the collapsed USSR, is expressed precisely by this concept, which initially had a purely technical meaning.
Social transformation usually refers to the following changes:
- Change of political and state systems, the rejection of the monopoly of one party, the creation of a parliamentary republic of the Western type, the general democratization of social relations.
- Renewal of the economic foundations social system, a departure from the so-called central planned economy with its distributive functions, an orientation towards a market economy, in the interests of which:
- denationalization of property and a broad privatization program are being carried out;
- a new legal mechanism of economic and financial relations is being created, allowing for a multi-structured form of economic life and creating an infrastructure for the development of private property;
- free prices are introduced.
By now, practically in all countries have created a legal basis for the development of a market economy.
The period of active entry into the market was associated with a breakdown of the financial system, inflation, an increase in unemployment, a weakening of the general cultural background, a surge in crime, drug addiction, a fall in the level of health of the population, and an increase in mortality. In a number of new post-socialist states, military conflicts were unleashed, including civil wars, which brought massive loss of life and large material destruction. These events affected Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Tajikistan, Moldova, Russia and other republics and regions of the former Soviet Union. Lost national unity. The tasks of restructuring the economy facing each new sovereign country, if tackled separately, without taking into account previous cooperative ties, will require a huge overspending of scarce capital investments and will cause fierce competition between economic regions that once complemented each other. As compensation, society received a rejection of the socialist universality of labor, the elimination of the system of social dependency with a simultaneous proclamation of standard liberal-democratic freedoms.
Practical adaptation to the requirements of the global market presupposes new forms of foreign economic activity, restructuring economy, i.e. destruction its established proportions and cooperative connections(in particular, conversion, i.e., a radical weakening of the arms production sector).
This also includes the problem ecological security, which really takes on the character of one of the main factors in the development of national production.
Changes in the field of spiritual values and priorities
This sphere of transformation affects the problems of social and spiritual adaptation to the new conditions of the existence of a large number of people, their consciousness, changes in value criteria... Moreover, the change in mentality is directly related to the process of socialization in the new conditions. Modern development shows that the transformation of political and economic systems can be carried out in a relatively short time, while consciousness and socialization that have been a priority for a long time, cannot undergo rapid change... They continue to influence and can, in the process of adapting to new requirements, cause a crisis of a person and a system.
In the public consciousness of the population of the transformation countries, generally accepted criteria for property stratification have not yet been developed. The deepening gap between the rich and the poor, the progressive impoverishment of a significant part of the working-age population give rise to a well-known reaction: an increase in crime, depression and other negative psychological consequences that reduce the attractiveness of the new social system. But the course of history is relentless. Objective necessity always turns out to be higher than the subjective factor. Thus, transformation turns out to be a specific development mechanism designed to provide not only guarantees against the restoration of the old system, the return of the old ideology, but also the restoration of a powerful state that could significantly influence geopolitical processes in their economic, trade, financial, military, scientific and technical and other measurements, which are Russian specifics.
In sociology social change exists significant amount concepts, theories and directions. Consider the most researched: evolutionary, neo-evolutionary and cyclical theory.
Evolutionism proceeds from the fact that society is developing along an ascending line- from lower forms to higher ones. This movement is permanent and irreversible. All societies, all cultures go from a less developed state to a more developed one according to a single predetermined model. Representatives of classical evolutionism are such scientists as C. Darwin, O. Comte, G. Spencer, E. Durkheim. For example, Spencer believed that the essence of evolutionary change and progress lies in the complication of society, in the strengthening of its differentiation, in the withering away of unadapted individuals, social institutions, cultures, survival and prosperity of the fit.
Classical evolutionism views change as strictly linear, ascending and developing according to a single scenario. This theory has been repeatedly criticized by its opponents.
The following arguments were put forward as arguments:
- many historical events are of a limited and random nature;
- the growth of the diversity of human populations (tribes, cultures, civilizations) does not give grounds to speak of a single evolutionary process;
- the growing conflict potential of social systems does not correspond to evolutionary views on changes;
- the cases of retreats, failures and deaths of states, ethnic groups, civilizations existing in the history of mankind do not give grounds to speak of a single evolutionary scenario.
Evolutionary postulate(statement) about inevitable the sequence of development is questioned by the historical fact that in the course of development some stages can be missed, and the passage of others is accelerated. For example, most European countries in the course of their development have passed such a stage as slavery.
Some non-Western societies cannot be judged on a single scale of development and maturity. They qualitatively excellent from the western ones.
Evolution cannot be equated with progress, since many societies as a result of social changes find themselves in a state of crisis and / or degrade. For example, Russia as a result of which began in the early 90s. XX century liberal reforms in their main indicators (socio-economic, technological, moral and ethical, etc.) was thrown back in its development for many decades.
Classical evolutionism essentially eliminates the human factor in social change, instilling in people the inevitability of upward development.
Neo-evolutionism... In the 50s. XX century after a period of criticism and disgrace, sociological evolutionism again became the focus of sociologists' attention. Scientists such as G. Lensky, J. Stewart, T. Parsons and others, distancing themselves from classical evolutionism, proposed their theoretical approaches to evolutionary changes.
The main provisions of neo-evolutionism
If classical evolutionism proceeds from the fact that all societies go through the same path of development from lower forms to higher ones, then representatives neo-evolutionism come to the conclusion that every culture, every society, along with general trends, have its logic of evolutionary development. The focus is not on the sequence of necessary stages, but on the causal mechanism of change.
When analyzing change neo-evolutionists try to avoid evaluations and analogies with progress... Basic views are formed in the form of hypotheses and assumptions rather than direct assertions.
Evolutionary processes do not flow evenly in an ascending straight line, but spasmodically and are multi-line. At each new stage of social development, one of the lines that played even a secondary role at the previous stage may become the leading one.
Cyclic theories. Cyclicity various natural, biological and social phenomena was already known in ancient times... For example, ancient Greek philosophers and others developed the doctrine of the cyclical nature of political regimes of power.
In the Middle Ages, the Arab scholar and poet Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406) compared cycles of civilization with the life cycles of living organisms: growth - maturity - old age.
During the Enlightenment, the Italian court historian Giambattista Vico (1668-1744) developed a theory of the cyclical development of history. He believed that a typical historical cycle goes through three stages: anarchy and savagery; order and civilization; decline of civilization and return to new barbarism. Moreover, each new cycle is qualitatively different from the previous one,
that is, the movement is in an upward spiral.
The Russian philosopher and sociologist K. Ya. Danilevsky (1822-1885) in his book "Russia and Europe" presented human history, divided into separate historical and cultural types or civilizations. Each civilization, like a biological organism, goes through the stages of birth, maturation, decrepitude and death. In his opinion, no civilization is better or more perfect; each has its own values and thus enriches the general human culture; each has its own internal logic of development and goes through its own stages.
In 1918, the book of the German scientist O. Spengler (1880-1936) "The Decline of Europe" was published, where he develops the ideas of his predecessors about the cyclical nature of historical changes and identifies eight higher cultures in world history: Egyptian, Babylonian, Indian, Chinese , Greco-Roman, Arabic, Mexican (Mayan) and Western. Every culture experiences cycles of childhood, adolescence, maturity and old age. Having realized the full amount of possibilities and fulfilling its mission, culture dies. The emergence and development of a particular culture cannot be explained in terms of causality - the development of culture occurs according to its inherent internal necessity.
Spengler's predictions regarding the future of Western culture were very gloomy. He believed that western culture passed the stage of its heyday and entered the stage of decay.
Life cycle theory civilizations found its development in the writings of the English historian A. Toynbee (1889-1975), who believed that world history is the emergence, development and decline relatively closed discrete (intermittent) civilizations... Civilizations arise and develop as a response to the challenge of the surrounding natural and social environment (unfavorable natural conditions, attack by foreigners, persecution of previous civilizations). Once the answer is found, a new challenge and a new answer follows.
The analysis of the above points of view allows us to draw some general conclusions from the theory of cyclical changes in general:
- cyclical processes there are closed when each complete cycle returns the system to its original (identical to the original) position; there are spiral when the repetition of certain stages occurs at a qualitatively different level - higher or lower);
- any social system in its development is experiencing a number of consecutive stages: origin, development(maturity), decline, destruction;
- phase system development, as a rule, have varying intensity and duration(accelerated processes of changes in one phase can be replaced by prolonged stagnation (conservation);
- no civilization (culture) is better or more perfect;
- social change- it's not only the result of the natural process of development of social systems, but alsothe result of active transformative human activity.
Social revolution
The second type of social change is revolutionary.
Revolution represents fast, fundamental, socio-economic and political changes, carried out, as a rule, violently. Revolution is a coup from below. It sweeps away the ruling elite, which has proven its inability to govern society, and creates a new political and social structure, new political, economic and social relations. As a result of the revolution basic transformations take place in the social-class structure of society, in the values and behavior of people.
The revolution involves into active political activity large masses the people... Activity, enthusiasm, optimism, hope for a brighter future mobilize people for feats of arms, free labor and social creativity. During the period of the revolution, mass activity reaches its climax, and social changes - at an unprecedented pace and depth. K. Marx called revolution« locomotives of history».
According to K. Marx, a revolution is a qualitative leap, the result of the resolution of fundamental contradictions in the basis of the socio-economic formation between backward production relations and productive forces that are outgrowing their framework. The class conflict is the direct expression of these contradictions. In a capitalist society, this is an unavoidable antagonistic conflict between the exploiters and the exploited. To fulfill its historical mission, the advanced class (for the capitalist formation, according to Marx, the proletariat, the working class) must realize its oppressed position, develop class consciousness and unite in the struggle against capitalism. The proletariat is assisted in obtaining the necessary knowledge by the most far-sighted progressive representatives of the moribund class. The proletariat, on the other hand, must be ready to solve the problem of conquering power by force. According to Marxist logic, socialist revolutions should have taken place in the most developed countries, since they are more ripe for this.
Follower and disciple of K. Marx E. Bernstein at the end
XIX century, relying on statistical data on the development of capitalism in industrialized countries, doubted the inevitability of a revolution in the near future and suggested that the transition to socialism could be relatively peaceful and would take a relatively long historical period. V. I. Lenin modernized the theory of the socialist revolution, insisting that it should take place in the weakest link of the capitalist system and serve as a "fuse" for the world revolution.
History of the XX century. showed that both Bernstein and Lenin were right in their own way. There were no socialist revolutions in the economically developed countries; they were in the problem regions of Asia and Latin America. Sociologists, in particular the French scientist Alain Touraine, believe that the main reason for the absence of revolutions in developed countries is the institutionalization of the main conflict - the conflict between labor and capital. They have legislative regulators of interaction between employers and employees, and the state acts as a social arbiter. In addition, the proletariat of the early capitalist society, which K. Marx studied, was absolutely powerless, and had nothing to lose except its chains. Now the situation has changed: in the leading industrial states, democratic procedures in the political sphere operate and are strictly observed, and most of the proletariat is the middle class, which has something to lose. Modern followers of Marxism also emphasize the role of the powerful ideological apparatus of the capitalist states in restraining possible revolutionary actions.
Non-Marxist theories of social revolutions primarily include sociology of revolution P. A. Sorokin... In his opinion, revolution there is a painful process that turns into a total social disorganization... But even painful processes have their own logic - a revolution is not a random event. P. Sorokin calls its three main conditions:
- an increase in suppressed basic instincts - the basic needs of the population and the impossibility of meeting them;
- the repression suffered by the disaffected must affect large sections of the population;
- the forces of order do not have the means to suppress destructive encroachments.
Revolution have three phases: short-term phase joy and expectation; destructive when the old order is eradicated, often together with their bearers; constructive, in the process of which the most persistent pre-revolutionary values and institutions are largely reanimated. The general conclusion of P. Sorokin is as follows: damage inflicted on society by revolutions, always turns out to be big than probable benefit.
The topic of social revolutions is also touched upon by other non-Marxist theories: the theory of elite circulation by Vilfredo Pareto, the theory of relative deprivation and the theory of modernization. According to the first theory, a revolutionary situation is created by the degradation of elites that have been in power for too long and do not provide normal circulation - a replacement for a new elite. Ted Garr's theory of relative deprivation, which explains the emergence of social movements, links the emergence of social tension in society with the gap between the level of people's needs and the possibilities of achieving what they want. Modernization theory views revolution as a crisis that arises in the process of political and cultural modernization of society. It arises when modernization is carried out unevenly in different spheres of society.
Social revolution concept. Revolutions and reforms
A social revolution is a qualitative leap in the development of society, which is accompanied by the transfer of state power into the hands of the revolutionary class or classes and profound changes in all spheres of social life.
According to Marx, social revolutions are an expression of the essence of the natural-historical process of the development of society. They have a general, natural character and represent the most important fundamental changes taking place in the history of mankind. The law of social revolution discovered by Marxism points to the objective necessity of replacing one socio-economic formation with another, more progressive one.
Non-Marxist and anti-Marxist concepts generally deny the lawfulness of social revolutions. Thus, G. Spencer compared social revolutions with hunger, calamities, general diseases, manifestations of disobedience, and “agitation that grew to revolutionary meetings”, open uprisings, which he called “social changes of an abnormal nature.” 2 K. Popper identified revolution with violence ... The social revolution, in his words, destroys the traditional structure of society and its institutions ... But ... if they (people - I.Sh.) destroy tradition, then civilization disappears along with it ... They return to the animal state.1
The concept of social revolution and its types has an ambiguous interpretation in modern literature. The term “revolution” entered social science less than three centuries ago, and in its modern meaning is used relatively recently. In general, as you know, the term “social revolution” is used, firstly, to denote the transition from one socio-economic formation to another, ie. social revolution is understood as an era of transition from one type of production to another over a long period of time; this epoch, with logical necessity, completes the process of resolving the contradiction between the productive forces and production relations that arises at a certain stage in the development of production, and the conflict between the latter exacerbates all social contradictions and naturally leads to a class struggle in which the oppressed class must deprive the exploiters of political power; secondly, to ensure a similar transition within the framework of a separate social organism; third, to denote a relatively short-lived political coup; fourthly, to designate a revolution in the social sphere of public life; 2 fifthly, to designate a method of historical action as opposed to another method - reformist, etc. (the term “revolution” is often understood as an extremely broad scientific revolution, technical, commercial , financial, agricultural, environmental and sexual). one
Within the framework of the national state, in which a social revolution is taking place, three most important structural elements can be distinguished in it: 1) a political coup (political revolution);
2) qualitative transformations of economic relations (economic revolution); 3) cultural and ideological transformations (cultural revolution). Let us emphasize that Marx also developed two concepts of revolution: social and political. The process of approaching the understanding of the essence of the social revolution was also complicated in Marxism. At first, its founders opposed the concepts of "political revolution" and "social revolution", understanding the first as bourgeois revolutions, and the second as proletarian. Only after some time does Marx come to the conclusion: “Every revolution destroys the old society, and insofar as it is social. Each revolution overthrows the old power, and insofar as it has a political character. ”2 In this regard, the point of view of M. A. Seleznev is acceptable. a class in the socio-economic and political spheres through conscious and violent actions and which are inextricably linked with each other in space and time, it would be more accurate to call socio-political revolutions ”.3
While the political revolution aims to put the mechanism of state power at the service of the new class, i.e. to make it politically dominant, then the economic revolution should ensure the dominance of production relations corresponding to the nature of the productive forces and the interests of the progressive class. Revolutionary economic transformations end only with the victory of the new mode of production. Similarly, a radical change in the formation of a new consciousness, in the creation of a new spiritual culture occurs only in the course of the cultural revolution, as the corresponding economic, political, educational, cultural and ideological prerequisites are created.2
With all the ambiguity of approaches to the essence of the social revolution, one can agree that there are general patterns of it: 1) the presence of causes of social revolution (expansion and aggravation of contradictions); 2) the maturity of objective conditions and the subjective factor and their interaction as the law of social revolution; 3) social revolution as progress (combination of evolutionary and abrupt changes); 4) the solution of the fundamental question (about power).
The Marxist theory of social revolution argues that the main reason for the social revolution is the deepening conflict between the growth of the productive forces of society and the outdated, conservative system of production relations, which manifests itself in the exacerbation of social antagonisms, in the intensification of the struggle between the ruling class, interested in preserving the existing system, and the oppressed classes. ... Classes and social strata, which, by their objective position in the system of production relations, are interested in overthrowing the existing system and are capable of participating in the struggle for the victory of a more progressive system, act as the driving forces of the social revolution. A revolution is never the product of a conspiracy of individuals or the arbitrary actions of a minority isolated from the masses. It can arise only as a result of objective changes that set in motion mass forces and create a revolutionary situation 1. Thus, social revolutions are not just random outbursts of discontent, riots or coups. They "are not made to order, do not coincide with one or another moment, but ripen in the process of historical development and burst out at a moment conditioned by a complex of a number of internal and external reasons."
Cardinal changes in the reality of our days and in public and individual consciousness undoubtedly require a new understanding of the problem of social reorganization along the path of progress. This comprehension is, first of all, associated with the clarification of the relationship between evolution and revolution, reform and revolution.
As already indicated, evolution is usually understood as a whole as quantitative changes, and revolution as qualitative changes. Wherein reform is also identified with quantitative changes and, accordingly, is opposed to revolution.
Evolution is a continuous series of successive qualitative changes, as a result of which the nature of non-indigenous parties, insignificant for a given quality, changes. Taken together, these gradual changes prepare the leap as a fundamental, qualitative change. A revolution is a change in the internal structure of a system, which becomes a link between two evolutionary stages in the development of a system. Reform is a part of evolution, its one-time moment, an act.
Reform- this is a special form of the revolutionary process, if we understand the revolution as a resolution of the contradiction, first of all, between the productive forces (content) and production relations (form). In the reform, one can see both destructive and constructive processes. The destructive nature of the reforms is manifested in the fact that, from the point of view of the revolutionary forces, concessions in the form of reforms carried out by the ruling class "undermine" the position of the latter. And this, as you know, can push the ruling class to violent actions in order to preserve its domination unchanged (and the revolutionary forces - to retaliate). As a result, the preparation of qualitative changes in the social organism is conserved or even interrupted.
The constructive nature of the reforms is manifested in the fact that they prepare new qualitative changes, contribute to a peaceful transition to a new qualitative state of society, a peaceful form of the course of the revolutionary process - revolution. By underestimating the importance of reforms in the progressive transformation of society, we underestimate the role of form in the development of content, which in itself is not dialectical. Consequently, revolution and reform are necessary components of a concrete historical stage in the development of human society, forming a contradictory unity. But reforms as such still do not change the foundation of the old social order.
There is no doubt that in the revolutionary processes of modern history, the importance of constructive goals inevitably increases to the detriment of destructive ones. Reforms are transformed from a subordinate and auxiliary moment of the revolution into a peculiar form of its expression. This creates opportunities for mutual penetration and, obviously, mutual transition, mutual influence of reform and revolution.
From the foregoing it follows that from now on it is necessary to consider revolutionary not what goes beyond the framework of the reform, but what makes it possible to expand this framework to the level and requirements of the tasks of cardinal transformation of existing social relations. The essence is not in opposing "movement" and "final goal", but in such a connection between them so that in the course and as a result of "movement" the "final goal" could be realized. "Revolutionary reformism" rejects, as untenable, the alternative: revolution or reform. If we do not believe in the evolutionary possibilities of our civilization and again are inclined only to revolutions and upheavals, then there can be no talk of reforms.
Thus, based on the analysis of world history and the main historical types of social revolutions in general, it can be argued that social revolutions are necessary and natural, because, ultimately, they marked the movement of mankind along the path of progressive socio-historical development. But the revolutionary process (as well as the evolutionary process) is not a one-time act. In the course of this process, there is a clarification and deepening of the tasks originally set by the subjects of the revolution, the principled affirmation, the materialization of ideas. Revolutions, in the words of Marx, "constantly criticize themselves ... return to what seems to have already been accomplished in order to start it over again, with merciless thoroughness ridicule the half-heartedness, weaknesses and worthlessness of their first attempts."
