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 nature of the social organization of labor, historically determined, stable forms of community of people and relationships between them, specific forms of social management, 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.

Productive forces form, in 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 set of countries on the planet that are currently 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 modes 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 consistent 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.

One of the ways to study society is the formational path.

Formation is a word of Latin origin, meaning “formation, form.” What is a formation? What types of formations are there? What are their features?

Formation

Formation is a society at a certain stage of historical development, main criterion which is the development of the economy, the method of production of material goods, the level of development of productive forces, the totality of production relations. This all adds up basis, that is, the basis of society. Towers over him superstructure.

Let us consider in more detail the concepts of “base” and “superstructure” put forward by K. Marx.

Basis – these are different material relations in society, that is, production relations that develop in the process of production of material goods, their exchange and distribution.

Superstructure includes various ideological relations(legal, political), related views, ideas, theories, as well as relevant organizations - the state, political parties, public organizations and foundations, etc.

The formational approach to the study of society was put forward in the 19th century Karl Marx. He also identified types of formations.

Five types of formations according to K. Marx

• Primitive communal formation: low level of development of productive forces and production relations, ownership of tools and means of production is communal. Management was carried out by all members of society or by the leader, who was elected as an authoritative person. The superstructure is primitive.
• Slave formation: the means of production, tools were in the hands of slave owners. They also owned slaves whose labor was exploited. The superstructure expressed the interests of slave owners.
• Feudal formation: the means of production, and most importantly the land, belonged to the feudal lords. The peasants were not the owners of the land; they rented it and paid quitrents for it or worked corvee labor. Religion played a huge role in the superstructure, protecting the interests of those in power and at the same time uniting feudal lords and peasants into spiritual unity.
• Capitalist formation: the means of production belonged to the bourgeoisie, and the proletariat, the working class, the producer of material goods, was deprived of the right of ownership of the means of production by selling its labor power, working in factories. Personally, the proletariat is free. The superstructure is complex: all members of society participate in the political struggle and movement, public organizations and parties appear. The main contradiction of the formation arose: between the social nature of production and the private form of appropriation of the produced product. Only a socialist revolution could resolve it, and then the next formation would be established.
• Communist formation: characterized by a social form of ownership of the means of production. All members of society participate in the creation of goods and their distribution, and all the needs of society are fully satisfied. Today we understand that communism is a utopia. However, they believed in him for a long time, even N.S. Khrushchev. hoped that by 1980 communism would be built in the USSR.

Material prepared by: Melnikova Vera Aleksandrovna

(historical materialism), reflecting the patterns of historical development of society, ascending from simple primitive social forms of development to more progressive ones, a historically specific type of society. This concept also reflects the social action of the categories and laws of dialectics, marking the natural and inevitable transition of humanity from the “kingdom of necessity to the kingdom of freedom” - to communism. The category of socio-economic formation was developed by Marx in the first versions of Capital: “Towards a critique of political economy.” and in “Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts 1857 - 1859.” It is presented in its most developed form in Capital.

The thinker believed that all societies, despite their specificity (which Marx never denied), go through the same steps or stages of social development - socio-economic formations. Moreover, each socio-economic formation is a special social organism, different from other social organisms (formations). In total, he identifies five such formations: primitive communal, slaveholding, feudal, capitalist and communist; which the early Marx reduces to three: public (without private property), private property and again public, but at a higher level of social development. Marx believed that economic relations and the mode of production are decisive in social development, according to which he named formations. The thinker became the founder of the formational approach in social philosophy, who believed that there are general social patterns of development of various societies.

The socio-economic formation consists of the economic basis of society and the superstructure, interconnected and interacting with each other. The main thing in this interaction is the economic basis, the economic development of society.

The economic basis of society - the defining element of the socio-economic formation, which represents the interaction of the productive forces of society and production relations.

The productive forces of society - the forces with the help of which the production process is carried out, consisting of man as the main productive force and the means of production (buildings, raw materials, machines and mechanisms, production technologies, etc.).

Industrial relations - relations between people that arise in the production process, related to their place and role in the production process, the relationship of ownership of the means of production, and their relationship to the product of production. As a rule, the one who owns the means of production plays a decisive role in production; the rest are forced to sell their labor power. The specific unity of the productive forces of society and production relations forms mode of production, determining the economic basis of society and the entire socio-economic formation as a whole.

Rising above the economic base superstructure, which is a system of ideological social relations, expressed in forms of social consciousness, in views, theories of illusions, feelings of various social groups and society as a whole. The most significant elements of the superstructure are law, politics, morality, art, religion, science, philosophy. The superstructure is determined by the basis, but it can have the opposite effect on the basis. The transition from one socio-economic formation to another is associated, first of all, with the development of the economic sphere, the dialectic of interaction between productive forces and production relations.

In this interaction, productive forces are the dynamically developing content, and production relations are the form that allows productive forces to exist and develop. At a certain stage, the development of the productive forces comes into conflict with the old relations of production, and then the time comes for a social revolution, carried out as a result of the class struggle. With the replacement of old production relations by new ones, the method of production and the economic basis of society change. With a change in the economic base, the superstructure also changes, therefore, there is a transition from one socio-economic formation to another.

Formational and civilizational concepts of social development.

In social philosophy there are many concepts of the development of society. However, the main ones are the formational and civilizational concepts of social development. The formational concept, developed by Marxism, believes that there are general patterns of development for all societies, regardless of their specifics. The central concept of this approach is the socio-economic formation.

Civilization concept of social development denies the general patterns of development of societies. The civilizational approach is most fully represented in the concept of A. Toynbee.

Civilization, according to Toynbee, is a stable community of people united by spiritual traditions, similar lifestyles, geographical and historical frameworks. History is a nonlinear process. This is the process of birth, life, and death of civilizations unrelated to each other. Toynbee divides all civilizations into main (Sumerian, Babylonian, Minoan, Hellenic - Greek, Chinese, Hindu, Islamic, Christian) and local (American, German, Russian, etc.). Major civilizations leave a bright mark on the history of mankind and indirectly influence (especially religiously) other civilizations. Local civilizations, as a rule, are confined within a national framework. Every civilization develops historically in accordance with the driving forces of history, the main ones being challenge and response.

Call - a concept that reflects threats coming to civilization from the outside (unfavorable geographical position, lagging behind other civilizations, aggression, wars, climate change, etc.) and requiring an adequate response, without which civilization may perish.

Answer - a concept that reflects the adequate response of a civilizational organism to a challenge, i.e. transformation, modernization of civilization for the purpose of survival and further development. The activities of talented, God-chosen, outstanding people, the creative minority, and the elite of society play a major role in the search and implementation of an adequate response. It leads an inert majority, which sometimes “extinguishes” the energy of the minority. Civilization, like any other living organism, goes through the following life cycles: birth, growth, breakdown, disintegration, followed by death and complete disappearance. As long as civilization is full of strength, as long as the creative minority is able to lead society and adequately respond to incoming challenges, it is developing. With the depletion of vitality, any challenge can lead to breakdown and death of civilization.

Closely related to the civilizational approach cultural approach, developed by N.Ya. Danilevsky and O. Spengler. The central concept of this approach is culture, interpreted as a certain internal meaning, a certain goal of the life of a particular society. Culture is a system-forming factor in the formation of sociocultural integrity, called the cultural-historical type by N. Ya. Danilevsky. Like a living organism, each society (cultural-historical type) goes through the following stages of development: birth and growth, flowering and fruiting, withering and death. Civilization is the highest stage of cultural development, a period of flowering and fruiting.

O. Spengler also identifies individual cultural organisms. This means that there is not and cannot be a single universal human culture. O. Spengler distinguishes between cultures that have completed their development cycle, cultures that have died before their time, and emerging cultures. Each cultural “organism,” according to Spengler, is predetermined for a certain period (about a millennium), depending on its internal life cycle. Dying, culture is reborn into a civilization (dead extension and “soulless intellect,” a sterile, ossified, mechanical formation), which marks the old age and illness of culture.

Materialistic approach to the study of civilizations

Within the framework of this approach, civilization appears as a higher level of development, going beyond the boundaries of “natural society” with its natural productive forces.

L. Morgan about the signs of a civilizational society: the development of productive forces, the functional division of labor, the expansion of the exchange system, the emergence of private ownership of land, the concentration of wealth, the split of society into classes, the formation of the state.

L. Morgan, F. Engels identified three large periods in the history of mankind: savagery, barbarism, civilization. Civilization is the achievement of some higher level compared to barbarism.

F. Engels about three great eras of civilizations: the first great era is ancient, the second is feudalism, the third is capitalism. The formation of civilization in connection with the emergence of the division of labor, the separation of crafts from agriculture, the formation of classes, the transition from a tribal system to a state based on social inequality. Two types of civilizations: antagonistic (the period of class societies) and non-antagonistic (the period of socialism and communism).

East and West as different types of civilizational development

“Traditional” society of the East (eastern traditional civilization), its main characteristics: undivided property and administrative power, subordination of society to the state, absence of private property and rights of citizens, complete absorption of the individual by the collective, economic and political domination of the state, the presence of despotic states. The influence of Western (technogenic) civilization.

Achievements and contradictions of Western civilization, its characteristic features: market economy, private property, rule of law, democratic social order, priority of the individual and his interests, various forms of class organization (trade unions, parties, etc.) - Comparative characteristics of the West and the East, their main traits, values.

Civilization and culture. Various approaches to understanding the phenomenon of culture, their connection. Main approaches: activity-based, axiological (value-based), semiotic, sociological, humanistic. Contrasting concepts "civilization" And "culture"(O. Spengler, X. Ortega y Gasset, D. Bell, N. A. Berdyaev, etc.).

The ambiguity of definitions of culture, its relationship with the concept of “civilization”:

• - civilization as a certain stage in the development of the culture of individual peoples and regions (L. Tonnoy. P. Sorokin);
• - civilization as a specific stage of social development, which is characterized by the emergence of cities, writing, and the formation of national-state entities (L. Morgan, F. Engels);
• - civilization as the value of all cultures (K. Jaspers);
• - civilization as the final moment in the development of culture, its “decline” and decline (O. Spengler);
• - civilization as a high level of human material activity: tools, technologies, economic and political relations and institutions;
• - culture as a manifestation of the spiritual essence of man (N. Berdyaev, S. Bulgakov), civilization as the highest manifestation of the spiritual essence of man;
• - culture is not civilization.

Culture, according to P.S. Gurevich, this is a historically determined level of development of society, creative forces, human abilities, expressed in the types of organization and activity of people, as well as in the material and spiritual values ​​they create. Culture as the totality of material and cultural achievements of mankind in all spheres of public life; as a specific characteristic of human society, as what distinguishes humans from animals.

The most important component of culture is the value-normative system. Value - this is the property of a particular social object or phenomenon to satisfy the needs, desires, interests of a person, society; this is a personally colored attitude to the world, arising not only on the basis of knowledge and information, but also a person’s own life experience; the significance of objects in the surrounding world for a person: class, group, society, humanity as a whole.

Culture occupies a special place in the structure of civilizations. Culture is a way of individual and social life, expressed in a concentrated form, the degree of development of both a person and social relations, and one’s own existence.

Differences between culture and civilization according to S. A. Babushkin, are as follows:

• - in historical time, culture is a broader category than civilization;
• - culture is part of civilization;
• - types of culture do not always coincide with types of civilizations;
• - they are smaller, more fragmented than the types of civilizations.

Theory of socio-economic formations by K. Marx and F. Engels

Socio-economic formation - This is a society at a certain stage of historical development, using a certain method of production.

The concept of linear development of the world-historical process.

World history is a collection of histories of many socio-historical organisms, each of which must “go through” all socio-economic formations. Production relations are primary, the foundation of all other social relations. Many social systems are reduced to several main types - socio-economic formations: primitive communal, slaveholding, feudal, capitalist, communist .

Three social formations (primary, secondary and tertiary) are designated by K. Marx as archaic (primitive), economic and communist. In the economic formation, K. Marx includes the Asian, ancient, feudal and modern bourgeois mode of production.

Formation - a certain stage in the historical progress of society, its natural and progressive approach to communism.

Structure and main elements of the formation.

Social relations are divided into material and ideological. Basis - the economic structure of society, the totality of production relations. Material relations- production relations that arise between people in the process of production, exchange and distribution of material goods. The nature of production relations is determined not by the will and consciousness of people, but by the achieved level of development of the productive forces. The unity of production relations and productive forces forms a specific for each formation mode of production. Add-on - a set of ideological (political, legal, etc.) relations, associated views, theories, ideas, i.e. ideology and psychology of various social groups or society as a whole, as well as relevant organizations and institutions - the state, political parties, public organizations. The structure of the socio-economic formation also includes social relations of society, certain forms of life, family, and lifestyle. The superstructure depends on the base and influences the economic base, and production relations influence the productive forces.

Individual elements of the structure of a socio-economic formation are interconnected and experience mutual influence. As socio-economic formations develop, they change, the transition from one formation to another through a social revolution, the resolution of antagonistic contradictions between productive forces and production relations, between the base and the superstructure. Within the framework of the communist socio-economic formation, socialism develops into communism.

• Cm.: Gurevich A. Ya. The theory of formation and the reality of history // Questions of philosophy. 1991. No. 10; Zakharov A. Once again about the theory of formations // Social sciences and modernity. 1992. No. 2.

Socio-economic formation- according to the Marxist concept of the historical process, society is at a certain stage of historical development, characterized by the level of development of the productive forces and the historical type of economic relations of production. Each socio-economic formation is based on a certain method of production (basis), and production relations form its essence. The system of production relations that forms the economic basis of the formation corresponds to a political, legal and ideological superstructure. The structure of the formation includes not only economic, but also social relations, as well as forms of life, family, and lifestyle. The reason for the transition from one stage of social development to another is the discrepancy between the increased productive forces and the remaining type of production relations. According to Marxist teaching, humanity in the course of its development must go through the following stages: primitive communal system, slave system, feudalism, capitalism, communism.

The primitive communal system in Marxism is considered as the first non-antagonistic socio-economic formation through which all peoples without exception passed. As a result of the decomposition of the primitive communal system, a transition to class, antagonistic socio-economic formations took place. Early class formations include the slave system and feudalism, while many peoples moved from the primitive communal system directly to feudalism, bypassing the stage of slavery. Pointing to this phenomenon, Marxists substantiated for some countries the possibility of a transition from feudalism to socialism, bypassing the stage of capitalism. Karl Marx himself, among the early class formations, singled out a special Asian mode of production and a corresponding formation. The question of the Asian mode of production remained controversial in philosophical and historical literature, without receiving a clear solution. Capitalism was considered by Marx as the last antagonistic form of the social process of production; it was to be replaced by a non-antagonistic communist formation.
The change in socio-economic formations is explained by the contradictions between new productive forces and outdated production relations, which are transformed from forms of development into fetters of productive forces. The transition from one formation to another takes place in the form of a social revolution, which resolves the contradictions between productive forces and production relations, as well as between the base and the superstructure. Marxism pointed to the presence of transitional forms from one formation to another. Transitional states of society are usually characterized by the presence of various socio-economic structures that do not cover the economy and everyday life as a whole. These structures can represent both the remnants of the old and the embryos of a new socio-economic formation. The diversity of historical development is associated with the uneven pace of historical development: some peoples rapidly progressed in their development, others lagged behind. The interaction between them was of a different nature: it accelerated or, conversely, slowed down the course of historical development of individual peoples.
The collapse of the world system of socialism at the end of the 20th century and disappointment in communist ideas led to a critical attitude of researchers towards the Marxist formational scheme. Nevertheless, the idea of ​​identifying stages in the world historical process is recognized as sound. In historical science and in teaching history, the concepts of primitive communal system, slave system, feudalism and capitalism are actively used. Along with this, the theory of stages of economic growth developed by W. Rostow and O. Toffler has found wide application: agrarian society (traditional society) - industrial society (consumer society) - post-industrial society (information society).