Introduction

Today, the concepts of the historical process (formational, civilizational, modernization theories) have discovered their limits of applicability. The degree of awareness of the limitations of these concepts varies: most of all, the shortcomings of formation theory are realized; as for the civilizational doctrine and theories of modernization, there are more illusions regarding their ability to explain the historical process.

The insufficiency of these concepts for the study of social changes does not mean that they are absolutely false; the point is only that the categorical apparatus of each of the concepts and the range of social phenomena it describes are not complete enough, at least in relation to the description of what is contained in alternative theories.

It is necessary to rethink the content of descriptions of social changes, as well as the concepts of general and unique, on the basis of which generalizations and differentiations are made, and diagrams of the historical process are built.

Theories of the historical process reflect a one-sided understanding of historical changes; there is a reduction of the diversity of their forms to some kind. The formational concept sees only progress in the historical process, and total progress, believing that progressive development covers all spheres of social life, including humans.

Theory of socio-economic formations by K. Marx

One of the important shortcomings of orthodox historical materialism was that it did not identify and theoretically develop the basic meanings of the word "society". And this word in scientific language has at least five such meanings. The first meaning is a specific separate society, which is a relatively independent unit of historical development. In this understanding, I will call society a socio-historical (sociohistorical) organism or, in short, a socior.

The second meaning is a spatially limited system of socio-historical organisms, or a sociological system. The third meaning is all socio-historical organisms that have ever existed and currently exist together - human society as a whole. The fourth meaning is society in general, regardless of any specific forms of its real existence. The fifth meaning is a society in general of a certain type (a special society or type of society), for example, a feudal society or an industrial society.

There are different classifications of socio-historical organisms (according to form of government, dominant religion, socio-economic system, dominant sector of the economy, etc.). But the most general classification is the division of sociohistorical organisms according to the method of their internal organization into two main types.

The first type is socio-historical organisms, which are unions of people that are organized according to the principle of personal membership, primarily kinship. Each such socior is inseparable from its personnel and is capable of moving from one territory to another without losing its identity. I will call such societies demosocial organisms (demosociors). They are characteristic of the pre-class era of human history. Examples include primitive communities and multi-communal organisms called tribes and chiefdoms.

The boundaries of organisms of the second type are the boundaries of the territory they occupy. Such formations are organized according to the territorial principle and are inseparable from the areas of the earth’s surface they occupy. As a result, the personnel of each such organism acts in relation to this organism as an independent special phenomenon - its population. I will call this kind of society geosocial organisms (geosociors). They are characteristic of a class society. They are usually called states or countries.

Since historical materialism did not have the concept of a socio-historical organism, it developed neither the concept of a regional system of sociohistorical organisms, nor the concept of human society as a whole as the totality of all existing and existing sociors. The last concept, although present in an implicit form (implicit), was not clearly distinguished from the concept of society in general.

The absence of the concept of a sociohistorical organism in the categorical apparatus of the Marxist theory of history inevitably interfered with the understanding of the category of socio-economic formation. It was impossible to truly understand the category of socio-economic formation without comparing it with the concept of a sociohistorical organism. Defining a formation as a society or as a stage of development of society, our specialists in historical materialism did not in any way reveal the meaning that they put into the word “society”; worse, they endlessly, without completely realizing it, moved from one meaning of this word to another, which inevitably gave rise to incredible confusion.

Each specific socio-economic formation represents a certain type of society, identified on the basis of socio-economic structure. This means that a specific socio-economic formation is nothing more than something common that is inherent in all socio-historical organisms that have a given socio-economic structure. The concept of a specific formation always captures, on the one hand, the fundamental identity of all sociohistorical organisms based on the same system of production relations, and on the other hand, the significant difference between specific societies with different socio-economic structures. Thus, the relationship between a sociohistorical organism belonging to one or another socio-economic formation and this formation itself is a relationship between the individual and the general.

The problem of the general and the separate is one of the most important problems of philosophy and debates around it have been waged throughout the history of this area of ​​​​human knowledge. Since the Middle Ages, two main directions in solving this issue have been called nominalism and realism. According to the views of nominalists, in the objective world only the separate exists. There is either no general thing at all, or it exists only in consciousness, is a mental human construction.

There is a grain of truth in each of these two points of view, but both are wrong. For scientists, the existence of laws, patterns, essence, and necessity in the objective world is undeniable. And all this is common. The general thus exists not only in consciousness, but also in the objective world, but only differently than the individual exists. And this otherness of the general being does not at all consist in the fact that it forms a special world opposed to the world of the individual. There is no special world in common. The general does not exist in itself, not independently, but only in the particular and through the particular. On the other hand, the individual does not exist without the general.

Thus, there are two different types of objective existence in the world: one type is independent existence, as the separate exists, and the second is existence only in the separate and through the separate, as the general exists.

Sometimes, however, they say that the individual exists as such, but the general, while actually existing, does not exist as such. In the future, I will designate independent existence as self-existence, as self-existence, and existence in another and through another as other-existence, or as other-existence.

Different formations are based on qualitatively different systems of socio-economic relations. This means that different formations develop differently, according to different laws. Therefore, from this point of view, the most important task of social science is to study the laws of functioning and development of each of the socio-economic formations, i.e., to create a theory for each of them. In relation to capitalism, K. Marx tried to solve this problem.

The only way that can lead to the creation of a theory of any formation is to identify that essential, common thing that is manifested in the development of all sociohistorical organisms of a given type. It is quite clear that it is impossible to reveal what is common in phenomena without being distracted from the differences between them. It is possible to identify the internal objective necessity of any real process only by freeing it from the concrete historical form in which it manifested itself, only by presenting this process in a “pure” form, in a logical form, i.e., the way it can exist only in theoretical consciousness.

It is quite clear that a specific socio-economic formation in its pure form, that is, as a special sociohistorical organism, can exist only in theory, but not in historical reality. In the latter, it exists in individual societies as their internal essence, their objective basis.

Each real concrete socio-economic formation is a type of society and thereby an objective common feature that is inherent in all sociohistorical organisms of a given type. Therefore, it may well be called a society, but in no case a real sociohistorical organism. It can act as a sociohistorical organism only in theory, but not in reality. Each specific socio-economic formation, being a certain type of society, is the same society of this type in general. The capitalist socio-economic formation is a capitalist type of society and at the same time a capitalist society in general.

Each specific formation is in a certain relationship not only to sociohistorical organisms of a given type, but to society in general, that is, that objective commonality that is inherent in all sociohistorical organisms, regardless of their type. In relation to sociohistorical organisms of a given type, each specific formation acts as a general one. In relation to society in general, a specific formation acts as a general of a lower level, that is, as special, as a specific variety of society in general, as a special society.

The concept of a socio-economic formation in general, like the concept of society in general, reflects the general, but different from that which reflects the concept of society in general. The concept of society generally reflects what is common to all sociohistorical organisms, regardless of their type. The concept of a socio-economic formation generally reflects what is common to all specific socio-economic formations, regardless of their specific features, namely, that they are all types identified on the basis of socio-economic structure.

As a reaction to this kind of interpretation of socio-economic formations, a denial of their real existence arose. But it was not only due to the incredible confusion that existed in our literature on the issue of formations. The situation was more complicated. As already indicated, in theory, socio-economic formations exist as ideal sociohistorical organisms. Not finding such formations in the historical reality, some of our historians, and after them some historians of history, came to the conclusion that formations in reality do not exist at all, that they are only logical, theoretical constructions.

They were unable to understand that socio-economic formations exist in historical reality, but differently than in theory, not as ideal sociohistorical organisms of one type or another, but as an objective commonality in real sociohistorical organisms of one type or another. For them, being was reduced only to self-existence. They, like all nominalists in general, did not take into account other beings, and socio-economic formations, as already indicated, do not have their own existence. They do not self-exist, but exist in other ways.

In this regard, one cannot help but say that the theory of formations can be accepted or rejected. But the socio-economic formations themselves cannot be ignored. Their existence, at least as certain types of society, is an undoubted fact.

• 1. The basis of the Marxist theory of socio-economic formations is a materialistic understanding of the history of the development of mankind as a whole, as a historically changing set of various forms of human activity in producing their lives.
• 2. The unity of productive forces and production relations constitutes a historically determined method of production of the material life of society.
• 3. The method of production of material life determines the social, political and spiritual process of life in general.
• 4. By material productive forces in Marxism we mean instruments of production or means of production, technologies and people using them. The main productive force is man, his physical and mental abilities, as well as his cultural and moral level.
• 5. Production relations in Marxist theory denote the relations of individuals regarding both the reproduction of the human species in general and the actual production of means of production and consumer goods, their distribution, exchange and consumption.
• 6. The totality of production relations, as a method of producing the material life of society, constitutes the economic structure of society.
• 7. In Marxism, a socio-economic formation is understood as a historical period in the development of mankind, characterized by a certain method of production.
• 8. According to Marxist theory, humanity as a whole is moving progressively from less developed socio-economic formations to more developed ones. This is the dialectical logic that Marx extended to the history of human development.
• 9. In the theory of socio-economic formations of K. Marx, each formation acts as a society in general of a certain type and thereby as a pure, ideal socio-historical organism of a given type. This theory features primitive society in general, Asian society in general, pure ancient society, etc. Accordingly, the change of social formations appears in it as the transformation of an ideal socio-historical organism of one type into a pure socio-historical organism of another, higher type: ancient society in general into feudal society in general, pure feudal society into pure capitalist society, capitalist into communist society.
• 10. The entire history of human development in Marxism was presented as a dialectical, progressive movement of humanity from the primitive communist formation to the Asian and ancient (slaveholding) formations, and from them to the feudal, and then to the bourgeois (capitalist) socio-economic formation.

Socio-historical practice has confirmed the correctness of these Marxist conclusions. And if there are disputes in science regarding the Asian and ancient (slave-owning) methods of production and their transition to feudalism, then no one doubts the reality of the existence of the historical period of feudalism, and then its evolutionary-revolutionary development into capitalism.

11. Marxism revealed the economic reasons for the change in socio-economic formations. Their essence lies in the fact that at a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with existing production relations, or - which is only a legal expression of this - with property relations within which they have hitherto developed. From forms of development of productive forces, these relations turn into their fetters. Then comes the era of social revolution. With a change in the economic basis, a revolution occurs more or less quickly in the entire enormous superstructure.

This happens because the productive forces of society develop according to their own internal laws. In their movement, they are always ahead of the production relations that develop within property relations.

Page 1

A social formation, according to Marx, is a social system consisting of interconnected elements and in a state of unstable equilibrium. The structure of this system is as follows. Marx also sometimes uses the terms economic formation and economic social formation. The mode of production has two sides: the productive forces of society and the relations of production.

A social formation replacing capitalism, based on large-scale scientifically organized social production, organized distribution and consisting of two phases: 1) lower (socialism), in which the means of production are already public property, classes have already been destroyed, but the state still remains, and each member of society receives depending on the quantity and quality of his labor; 2) the highest (full communism), in which the state dies away and the principle is implemented: from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. The transition from capitalism to communism is possible only through a proletarian revolution and a long era of dictatorship of the proletariat.

A social formation, according to Marx, is a social system consisting of interconnected elements and in a state of unstable equilibrium. The structure of this system is as follows. The mode of production has two sides: the productive forces of society and the relations of production.

A social formation is a specific historical form of society that has developed on the basis of a given method of production.

The concept of social formation is used to designate qualitatively different types of society. However, in reality, along with them, there are elements of old methods of production and emerging new ones in the form of socio-economic structures, which is especially characteristic of transition periods from one formation to another. In modern conditions, the study of economic structures and the characteristics of their interaction is becoming an increasingly urgent problem.

Every social formation is characterized by its K.

Changing the social formation in Russia requires a revision of the methodological and regulatory apparatus for ensuring the reliability of large energy systems. The transition to market relations in the fuel and energy sectors that are natural monopolies (electric power and gas industries) is associated with new formulations of reliability problems. At the same time, it is advisable to preserve everything valuable in the methodology for studying the reliability of energy systems that was created in the previous period.

Every social formation has its own class structure of society. At the same time, finance takes into account the distribution of national income, organizing their redistribution in favor of the state.

Any social formation is characterized by a discrepancy between the production and consumption (use) of the product of labor in time and space. As the social division of labor develops, this discrepancy increases. But of fundamental importance is the fact that the product is only ready for consumption when it is delivered to the place of consumption with those consumer properties that meet the conditions of its use.

For any social formation, it is natural to create a certain amount of reserves of material resources to ensure a continuous process of production and circulation. The creation of inventories of material assets in enterprises is objective in nature and is a consequence of the social division of labor, when an enterprise, in the process of production activities, receives the means of production it needs from other enterprises geographically located at a considerable distance from consumers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dialectics of social development Konstantinov Fedor Vasilievich

1. Socio-economic formation

(The category “socio-economic formation” is the cornerstone of the materialistic rise of history as a natural historical process of the development of society according to objective laws. Without understanding the deep content of this category, it is impossible to know the essence of human society and its development along the path of progress.

Developing historical materialism as a philosophical science and a general sociological theory, the founders of Marxism-Leninism showed that the starting point for the study of society must be taken not the individual individuals that make it up, but those social relations that develop between people in the process of their production activities, i.e. total industrial relations.

For the sake of producing the material goods necessary for life, people inevitably enter into production relations independent of their will, which in turn determine all other - socio-political, ideological, moral, etc. - relations, as well as the development of the person himself as an individual. V.I. Lenin noted that “a sociologist-materialist who makes the subject of his study certain social relations of people, thereby also studies real personalities, from the actions of which these relationships are composed.”

Scientific materialist knowledge of society was developed in the struggle against bourgeois sociology. Bourgeois philosophers and subjectivist sociologists operated with the concepts of “man in general,” “society in general.” They proceeded not from a generalization of the real activities of people and their interactions, interrelations, not from social relations emerging on the basis of their practical activities, but from an abstract “model of society”, completed in accordance with the subjective view of the scientist and supposedly corresponding to human nature. Naturally, such an idealistic concept of society, divorced from the immediate life of people and their actual relationships, is opposite to its materialist interpretation.

Historical materialism, when analyzing the category of socio-economic formation, operates with the scientific concept of society. It is used when analyzing the relationship between society and nature, when the need to maintain an ecological balance between them is considered. It is impossible to do without it when considering both human society as a whole and any specific historical type and stage of its development. Finally, this concept is organically woven into the definition of the subject of historical materialism as a science about the most general laws of the development of society and its driving forces. V.I. Lenin wrote that K. Marx discarded empty talk about society in general and began studying one specific, capitalist formation. However, this does not mean at all that K. Marx will reject the very concept of society. As V.I. Razin notes, he “only spoke out against empty discussions about society in general, which bourgeois sociologists did not go beyond.”

The concept of society cannot be discarded or opposed to the concept of “socio-economic formation”. This would contradict the most important principle of the approach to the definition of scientific concepts. This principle, as is known, is that the concept being defined must be subsumed under another, broader in scope, which is generic in relation to the one being defined. This is a logical rule for defining any concepts. It is quite applicable to the definition of the concepts of society and socio-economic formation. In this case, the generic concept is “society,” considered regardless of its specific form and historical stage of development. This was repeatedly noted by K. Marx. “What is society, whatever its form? - K. Marx asked and answered: “A product of human interaction.” Society “expresses the sum of those connections and relationships in which... individuals are related to each other.” Society is “man himself in his social relations.”

Being generic in relation to the concept of “socio-economic formation,” the concept of “society” reflects the qualitative certainty of the social form of the movement of matter, in contrast to other forms. The category “socio-economic formation” expresses the qualitative certainty of the types and historical stages of the development of society.

Since society is a system of social relations that make up a certain structural integrity, knowledge of it consists in the study of these relations. Criticizing the subjective method of N. Mikhailovsky and other Russian populists, V. I. Lenin wrote: “Where will you get the concept of society and progress in general, when you ... have not even been able to approach a serious factual study, an objective analysis of any social relationship?

As is known, K. Marx began his analysis of the concept and structure of a socio-economic formation with the study of social relations, primarily production relations. Having isolated from the entire totality of social relations the main, defining, i.e., material, production relations on which the development of other social relations depends, K. Marx found an objective criterion of repeatability in the development of society, which was denied by subjectivists. Analysis of “material social relations,” noted V.I. Lenin, “immediately made it possible to notice repeatability and correctness and to generalize the orders of different countries into one basic concept social formation." Isolating what is common and repeats itself in the history of different countries and peoples has made it possible to identify qualitatively defined types of society and to present social development as a natural historical process of the natural progressive movement of society from lower to higher levels.

The category of socio-economic formation simultaneously reflects the concept of the type of society and the stage of its historical development. In the preface to the work “A Critique of Political Economy,” K. Marx singled out Asian, ancient, feudal and bourgeois modes of production as progressive eras of economic social formation. The bourgeois social formation “ends the prehistory of human society”; it is naturally replaced by the communist social economic formation, which reveals the true history of mankind. In subsequent works, the founders of Marxism also singled out the primitive communal formation as the first in the history of mankind, which all peoples go through.

This typification of socio-economic formations, created by K. Marx in the 50s of the 19th century, also provided for the presence in history of a specific Asian mode of production and, therefore, an Asian formation that existed on its basis, which took place in the countries of the Ancient East. However, already in the early 80s of the 19th century, when K. Marx and F. Engels developed a definition of the primitive communal and slave-owning formation, they did not use the term “Asian mode of production”, abandoning this very concept. In the subsequent works of K. Marx and F. Engels, we talk only about... five socio-economic ones. formations: primitive communal, slaveholding, feudal, capitalist and communist.

The construction of a typology of socio-economic formations was based on the brilliant knowledge of K. Marx and F. Engels of historical, economic and other social sciences, because it is impossible to resolve the issue of the number of formations and the order of their occurrence without taking into account the achievements of history, economics, politics, law, archeology, etc. . P.

The formational stage that a particular country or region goes through is determined primarily by the prevailing production relations in them, which determine the nature of social, political and spiritual relations at a given stage of development and the corresponding social institutions. Therefore, V.I. Lenin defined a socio-economic formation as a set of production relations. But of course, he did not reduce the formation only to the totality of production relations, but pointed out the need for a comprehensive analysis of its structure and the interrelations of all aspects of the latter. Noting that the study of the capitalist formation in K. Marx’s “Capital” is based on the study of the production relations of capitalism, V. I. Lenin at the same time emphasized that this is only the skeleton of “Capital”. He wrote:

“The whole point, however, is that Marx was not satisfied with this skeleton... that - explaining structure and development of this social formation exclusively relations of production - he nevertheless everywhere and constantly traced the superstructures corresponding to these relations of production, clothed the skeleton with flesh and blood.” “Capital” showed “the reader the entire capitalist social formation as alive - with its everyday aspects, with the actual social manifestation of the class antagonism inherent in production relations, with the bourgeois political superstructure protecting the dominance of the capitalist class, with the bourgeois ideas of freedom, equality, etc., with bourgeois family relations."

A socio-economic formation is a qualitatively defined type of society at a given stage of its historical development, which represents a system of social relations and phenomena determined by the method of production and subject to both general and its own specific laws of functioning and development. The category of socio-economic formation, as the most general one in historical materialism, reflects all the diversity of aspects of social life at a certain stage of its historical development. The structure of each formation includes both general elements characteristic of all formations and unique elements characteristic of a particular formation. At the same time, the determining role in the development and interaction of all structural elements is played by the method of production, its inherent production relations, which determine the nature and type of all elements of the formation.

In addition to the method of production, the most important structural elements of all socio-economic formations are the corresponding economic base and the superstructure rising above it. In historical materialism, the concepts of base and superstructure serve to distinguish between material (primary) and ideological (secondary) social relations. The basis is a set of production relations, the economic structure of society. This concept expresses the social function of production relations as the economic basis of society, developing between people regardless of their consciousness in the process of producing material goods.

The superstructure is formed on the basis of the economic basis, develops and changes under the influence of the transformations taking place in it, and is its reflection. The superstructure includes ideas, theories and views of society and the institutions, institutions and organizations that implement them, as well as ideological relations between people, social groups, classes. The peculiarity of ideological relations, in contrast to material ones, is that they pass through the consciousness of people, that is, they are built consciously, in accordance with the ideas, views, needs and interests that guide people.

The most general elements that characterize the structure of all formations should include, in our opinion, the way of life. As K. Marx and F. Engels showed, a way of life is “a certain way of activity of given individuals, a certain type of their life activity,” which develops under the influence of the method of production. Representing a set of types of life activities of people, social groups in the labor, socio-political, family and everyday spheres, etc., the way of life is formed on the basis of a given method of production, under the influence of production relations and in accordance with the value orientations and ideals prevailing in society . Reflecting human activity, the category of lifestyle reveals the individual and social groups primarily as subjects of social relations.

Prevailing social relations are inseparable from the way of life. For example, the collectivist way of life in a socialist society is fundamentally opposite to the individualistic way of life under capitalism, which is determined by the opposition of the social relations prevailing in these societies. However, it does not follow from this that lifestyle and social relations can be identified, as was sometimes allowed in the works of some sociologists. Such identification led to the loss of the specificity of the way of life as one of the elements of the social formation, to its identification with the formation, and replaced this most general concept of historical materialism, reducing its methodological significance for understanding the development of society. The 26th Congress of the CPSU, determining ways for the further development of the socialist way of life, noted the need to practically strengthen its material and spiritual foundations. This should be expressed primarily in the transformation and development of such spheres of life as labor, cultural and living conditions, medical care, trade, public education, physical culture, sports, etc., which contribute to the comprehensive development of the individual.

The method of production, the basis and superstructure, the way of life constitute the basic elements of the structure of all formations, but their content is specific to each of them. In any formation, these structural elements have a qualitative certainty, determined primarily by the type of production relations prevailing in society, the peculiarities of the emergence and development of these elements during the transition to a more progressive formation. Thus, in exploitative societies, the structural elements and the relationships they define have a contradictory, antagonistic character. These elements already originate in the depths of the previous formation, and the social revolution, which marks the transition to a more progressive formation, eliminating outdated production relations and the superstructure that expressed them (primarily the old state machine), gives scope for the development of new relations and phenomena characteristic of the established formation. Thus, the social revolution brings into line outdated production relations with the productive forces that have grown in the depths of the old system, which ensures the further development of production and social relations.

The socialist basis, superstructure and way of life cannot arise in the depths of the capitalist formation, since they are based only on socialist production relations, which in turn are formed only on the basis of socialist ownership of the means of production. As is known, socialist property is established only after the victory of the socialist revolution and the nationalization of bourgeois ownership of the means of production, as well as as a result of production cooperation between the economy of artisans and working peasants.

In addition to the noted elements, the structure of the formation also includes other social phenomena that influence its development. Among these phenomena, such as family and everyday life are inherent in all formations, and such historical communities of people as clan, tribe, nationality, nation, class are characteristic only of certain formations.

As stated, each formation is a complex set of qualitatively defined social relations, phenomena and processes. They are formed in various spheres of human activity and together constitute the structure of the formation. What many of these phenomena have in common is that they cannot be completely attributed only to the base or only to the superstructure. Such are, for example, family, way of life, class, nation, the system of which includes basic - material, economic - relations, as well as ideological relations of a superstructural nature. To determine their role in the system of social relations of a given formation, it is necessary to take into account the nature of the social needs that gave rise to these phenomena, to identify the nature of their connections with production relations, and to reveal their social functions. Only such a comprehensive analysis allows one to correctly determine the structure of the formation and the patterns of its development.

To reveal the concept of socio-economic formation as a stage in the natural historical development of society, the concept of “world-historical era” is important. This concept reflects a whole period in the development of society, when, on the basis of a social revolution, a transition is made from one formation to another, more progressive one. During the period of revolution, a qualitative transformation of the method of production, base and superstructure, as well as the way of life and other components of the structure of the formation occurs, the formation of a qualitatively new social organism is carried out, accompanied by the resolution of urgent contradictions in the development of the economic base and superstructure. “...The development of the contradictions of a known historical form of production is the only historical way of its decomposition and the formation of a new one,” noted K. Marx in Capital.

The unity and diversity of the historical development of mankind finds its expression in the dialectics of the formation and change of socio-economic formations. The general pattern of human history is that, in general, all peoples and countries go from lower to higher formations in the organization of social life, forming the main line of progressive development of society along the path of progress. However, this general pattern manifests itself specifically in the development of individual countries and peoples. This is explained by the uneven pace of development, arising not only from the uniqueness of economic development, but also “thanks to the infinitely varied empirical circumstances, natural conditions, racial relations, historical influences acting from outside, etc.”

The diversity of historical development is inherent both in individual countries and peoples, and in formations. It manifests itself in the existence of varieties of individual formations (for example, serfdom is a type of feudalism); in the uniqueness of the transition from one formation to another (for example, the transition from capitalism to socialism presupposes a whole transition period, during which a socialist society is created);

in the ability of individual countries and peoples to bypass certain formations (for example, in Russia there was no slave-owning formation, and Mongolia and some developing countries bypassed the era of capitalism).

The experience of history shows that in transitional historical eras, a new socio-economic formation is first established in individual countries or groups of countries. Thus, after the victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution, the world split into two systems, and the formation of the communist formation in Russia began. Following our country, a number of countries in Europe, Asia, Latin America and Africa embarked on the path of transition from capitalism to socialism. V. I. Lenin’s prediction that “the destruction of capitalism and its traces, the introduction of the foundations of the communist order constitutes the content of the new era of world history that has now begun” was fully confirmed. The main content of the modern era is the transition from capitalism to socialism and communism on a worldwide scale. The countries of the socialist community are today the leading force and determine the main direction of the social progress of all mankind. At the forefront of the socialist countries is the Soviet Union, which, having built a developed socialist society, entered a “necessary, natural and historically long period in the formation of the communist formation.” The stage of a developed socialist society is the pinnacle of social progress in our time.

Communism is a classless society of complete social equality and social homogeneity, ensuring a harmonious combination of public and personal interests and the comprehensive development of the individual as the highest goal of this society. Its implementation will be in the interests of all humanity. The communist formation is the last form of structure of the human race, but not because the development of history stops there. At its core, its development excludes socio-political revolution. Under communism, contradictions between the productive forces and production relations will remain, but they will be resolved by society without leading to the need for a social revolution, the overthrow of the old system and its replacement with a new one. By promptly revealing and resolving emerging contradictions, communism as a formation will develop endlessly.