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 constructed.

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 ever existing and currently existing socio-historical organisms taken 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 the form of government, the dominant religion, the socio-economic system, the dominant sphere 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 latter 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., in the way in which 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 relationships 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 the 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.

The primitive communal formation is characterized by:

1. primitive forms of labor organization (rare use of mechanisms, mainly manual individual labor, occasionally collective labor (hunting, farming);

2. absence of private property - common ownership of the means and results of labor;

3. equality and personal freedom;

4. the absence of coercive public power isolated from society;

5. weak social organization - the absence of states, unification into tribes based on consanguinity, joint decision-making.

The “Asian mode of production” was widespread in the ancient societies of the East (Egypt, China, Mesopotamia), located in the valleys of large rivers. The Asian production method included:

1. irrigation agriculture as the basis of the economy;

2. lack of private ownership of the main means of production (land, irrigation structures);

3. state ownership of land and means of production;

4. mass collective labor of free community members under strict control of the state (bureaucracy);

5. the presence of strong, centralized, despotic power.

The slaveholding socio-economic formation is fundamentally different from them:

1. private ownership of the means of production arose, including “living”, “talking” slaves;

2. social inequality and social (class) stratification;

3. state and public authority.

4. The feudal socio-economic formation was based on:

5. large land ownership of a special class of landowners - feudal lords;

6. the labor of free peasants, but economically (rarely politically) dependent on feudal lords;

7. special production relations in free craft centers - cities.

Under a capitalist socio-economic formation:

1. industry begins to play a major role in the economy;

2. the means of production become more complex - mechanization, unification of labor;

3. industrial means of production belong to the bourgeois class;

4. The bulk of labor is performed by free hired workers, economically dependent on the bourgeoisie.

Communist (socialist) formation (society of the future), according to Marx. Engels, Lenin, will be different:

1. lack of private ownership of the means of production;

2. state (public) ownership of the means of production;

3. the labor of workers, peasants, and intelligentsia, free from exploitation by private owners;

4. fair, uniform distribution of the total produced product among all members of society;

5. high level of development of productive forces and high organization of labor.

All history is viewed as a natural process of changing socio-economic formations. Each new formation matures in the depths of the previous one, denies it and then itself is denied by an even newer formation. Each formation is a higher type of organization of society.

The classics of Marxism also explain the mechanism of transition from one formation to another:

Productive forces are constantly developing and improving, but production relations remain the same. A conflict arises, a contradiction between the new level of productive forces and outdated production relations. Sooner or later, changes occur in the economic basis, either violently or peacefully - production relations, either gradually or through a radical break and replacing them with new ones, occur in accordance with the new level of productive forces.

stage of progressive human development. society, representing the totality of all societies. phenomena in their organic. unity and interaction based on this method of production of material goods; one of the main categories of historical materialism. See Socio-economic formation.

Great definition

Incomplete definition ↓

Socio-economic formation

a historically certain type of society, which is based on a certain method of production and production relations that determine all the main spheres of social, political, spiritual, etc. people's lives. One of the central categories of Marxism, according to which the history of the progressive development of society includes the succession of primitive communal, slaveholding, feudal, capitalist and communist formations, each of which has its own laws of emergence and development.

Great definition

Incomplete definition ↓

SOCIO-ECONOMIC FORMATION

a fundamental category in Marxism is a stage (period, era) in the development of human society. It is characterized by a combination of economic base, socio-political and ideological superstructure (forms of statehood, religion, culture, moral and ethical standards). A type of society that represents a special stage in its development. Marxism views the history of mankind as a successive change of primitive communal, slave systems, feudalism, capitalism and communism - the highest form of social progress.

Great definition

Incomplete definition ↓

Socio-economic formation (SEF)

a historical type of society, which is a certain stage in the progressive development of humanity, based on a certain method of production with its own base and superstructure.

According to the representative of this approach, K. Marx, the decisive factor in social development is the basis (the economic system of society, representing a certain system of historically determined production relations), which determines the corresponding type of superstructure elements (superstructure - a set of ideological relations and views - politics, law, morality, religion, philosophy, art and their corresponding organizations and institutions).

Depending on the types of economic basis, the following types of formations are distinguished: primitive communal, slaveholding, feudal, bourgeois and communist

Each formation corresponds to a certain type of production relations. Their change due to the improvement of the method of production (the method of creating material wealth) leads to a social revolution, to a transition from one formation to another. For example: the invention of the steam engine led to the emergence of fundamentally new tools of labor (machine tools), to the emergence of machine (factory production), and the transition from feudal to capitalist OEF.

The most important factor determining the type of state in this approach is its class essence (i.e., the interests of which class the state expresses), as well as the presence or absence of private property and commodity production.

The first OEF was a primitive communal one, but it knew neither private property, nor commodity production, nor classes, therefore there was no primitive type of state and the typology of states begins with the slaveholding and then each of the formations corresponds to its own historical type of state.

Slave owners and slaves, feudal lords and serfs, capitalists and the proletariat represent the main classes of the slave-owning, feudal and bourgeois OEF; there are antagonistic (irreconcilable) contradictions between them and therefore class struggle is inevitable.

The class struggle, during which the role of the masses, in particular the working class, is continuously strengthened should lead to a socialist revolution, the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which will ensure the transition to a classless communist OEF, where everyone is equal.

The advantages of this typology: 1) the very idea of analyzing the historical process on the basis of socio-economic factors that really significantly influence society is productive; 2) shows the gradual, natural-historical nature of the development of society.

Weaknesses: 1) it is characterized by excessive programming; meanwhile, history does not always “fit” into the schemes drawn for it. There have always been and still are many transitional types in the world that “do not fit” into the framework of one or another formation (for example: Kievan Rus in the 10th-12th centuries); 2) only the bourgeois socio-economic formation had a universal character. Pure slave states existed only in Greece and Rome, feudal states only in Europe. The socialist state never became the highest type of state. 3) there is no explanation for very important differences between states of the same formation; 4) spiritual factors (religious, national, cultural, etc.) are underestimated.

Great definition

Incomplete definition ↓

SOCIO-ECONOMIC FORMATION

socio-economic, public) is the most important category of historical materialism, denoting a certain stage of progressive development of human society, namely such a set of societies. phenomena, the basis of the cut is the method of production of material goods that determines this formation and the cut is characterized by its own, inherent only to it types of political, legal. and other organizations and institutions, their ideological. relationship. The concept of "F. o.-e." introduced into science by K. Marx and F. Engels. The idea of stages of human history, distinguished by forms of property, first put forward by them in “The German Ideology” (1845-46), runs through the works “The Poverty of Philosophy” (1847), “Manifesto of the Communist Party” (1847-48), “Wage Labor and Capital " (1849) and is most fully expressed in the preface to the work "On the Critique of Political Economy" (1858-59). Here Marx showed that each formation represents a developing social production. an organism, a certain system - with its own method of producing material goods, its own type of production. relations, the totality of which constitutes economic. the structure of society, the real basis, over which the Crimea rises juridically. and political superstructure and to which certain forms of societies correspond. consciousness. Marx also showed how movement occurs from one formation to another, as with a revolution in economics. production conditions, with changes in economics. the foundations of society (starting with a change in the productive forces of society, which at a certain stage of their development come into conflict with existing production relations), a revolution occurs in the entire superstructure (see K. Marx and F. Engels, Works, 2nd ed. ., vol. 13, pp. 6-7). In Capital, the doctrine of F. o.-e. deeply substantiated and proven by the example of the analysis of one formation - capitalist. Marx did not limit himself to the study of production. relations of this formation, but showed “... the capitalist social formation as living - with its everyday aspects, with the actual social manifestation of the class antagonism inherent in production relations, with the bourgeois political superstructure that protects the dominance of the capitalist class, with the bourgeois ideas of freedom, equality, etc. etc., with bourgeois family relations" (Lenin V.I., Poln. sobr. soch., 5th ed., vol. 1, p. 139 (vol. 1, p. 124)). The doctrine of F. o.-e. contains in concentrated form the Marxist idea of the material basis of societies. development and its most important laws. Burzh. science denies the concept of F. O.-E., which leaves no room for idealism. interpretations of history process. About F. o.-e. see also Art. Historical materialism (especially the section Basic theoretical principles of historical materialism). A specific idea of the change in the world history of F. o.-e. developed and refined by the founders of Marxism as scientific knowledge accumulated. knowledge. In the 50-60s. 19th century Marx considered Asian, ancient, feudal and bourgeois modes of production as “...progressive eras of economic social formation” (see K. Marx and F. Engels, Works, 2nd ed., vol. 13, p. 7). When the studies of A. Haxthausen, G. L. Maurer, M. M. Kovalevsky showed the presence of a community in all countries, and in different historical sources. periods, including feudalism, and L. G. Morgan discovered a classless clan society, Marx and Engels clarified their specific idea of \u200b\u200bF. o.-e. (80s). In Engels’s work “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State” (1884), the term “Asian mode of production” is absent, the concept of the primitive communal system is introduced, and it is noted that “... the three great eras of civilization” (which replaced the primitive communal system) are characterized by “.. .three great forms of enslavement...": slavery - in the ancient world, serfdom - in the Middle Ages, wage labor - in modern times (see F. Engels, ibid., vol. 21, p. 175). Having already identified communism in his early works as a special formation based on societies. ownership of the means of production, and scientifically substantiating the need for a change in capitalist. F.o.-e. communism, Marx later, especially in “Critique of the Gotha Program” (1875), developed a thesis about 2 phases of communism. V. I. Lenin, who paid great attention to the Marxist theory of F. o.-e. starting with his early works (“What are “friends of the people” and how do they fight against the Social Democrats?”, 1894), he summarized the idea of the concrete change of the F. o.-e., preceding communist. formations, in the lecture “On the State” (1919). He generally agreed with the concept of F. o.-e., contained in “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State,” highlighting as successively one another: a society without classes - a primitive society; a society based on slavery is a slave-owning society; a society based on serfdom. exploitation - feud. system and, finally, capitalist society. In con. 20 - beginning 30s among the owls scientists have had discussions about F. o.-e. Some authors defended the idea of a special formation of “merchant capitalism” that supposedly lay between feudal societies. and capitalistic formation; others defended the theory of the “Asian mode of production” as a formation that supposedly arose in a number of countries with the decomposition of the primitive communal system (L. I. Magyar); still others, criticizing both the concept of “merchant capitalism” and the concept of the “Asian mode of production” (S. M. Dubrovsky), themselves tried to introduce a new economic economic system. - “serfdom”, a place cut, in their opinion, was between feudal. and capitalist. we are building. These concepts did not meet with the support of most scientists. As a result of the discussion, a scheme for changing the F. o.-e. was adopted, corresponding to that contained in Lenin’s work “On the State”. Thus it was confirmed. the following idea of the F. o.-e., successively replacing each other: the primitive communal system, the slave system, feudalism, capitalism, communism (its first phase is socialism, the second, the highest stage of development, is communist society). Selection of basic periods of world history - antiquity, the Middle Ages, modern and modern times - are ultimately associated with the change of the F. o.-e. But due to the wide variety of development paths, the department. countries and regions, the indicated periods in world history correspond to the formations underlying them only in general terms (for example, the beginning of the period of modern history is determined by the entry into the capitalist path of one advanced country - England, although the rest of the world was dominated - sometimes even long time - pre-capitalist relations; the beginning of modern history dates back to the Great October Socialist Revolution, although pre-socialist relations still existed in the rest of the world. The Marxist idea of the change of the F. o.-e., bearing in mind the general development of mankind along the path of progress, assumes at the same time that in history each specific country follows its own path and can bypass certain stages. For example, German and glory peoples moved directly from the primitive communal system to the feudal one. In the modern period, after the revolution of 1921, Mongolia passed through the period of late feudalism and capitalism with the help of the USSR. formation and began to build socialism; an example of certain Sov nationalities. The North shows the peoples of young Africans. and Asian states (the path of non-capitalist development opens before them) the prospect of transition from feudalism. and even from the dofeod. forms, bypassing capitalist. stage - to socialism. Material accumulated by source. science to 2nd half. 20th century, set before Marxist scientists the task of further developing ideas about political economics and clarifying certain provisions. The subject of a lively debate that has unfolded since the 60s. Among Marxist scientists of the USSR and a number of other countries, the problem of pre-capitalism has once again emerged. formations. During the discussions, some of its participants defended the point of view about the existence of a special formation of the Asian mode of production, some questioned the existence of slave owners. building as a special formation, a point of view was finally expressed that actually merged the slave owners. and feud. F.o.-e. into a single pre-capitalist formation (for more details, see art. Slave system, see lit. there). But none of these hypotheses is supported by sufficient evidence and does not form the basis of a specific historical research. The attention of historians and sociologists is also drawn to specific problems associated with the analysis of various forms and features of the transition from one political economy to economics. to the other, wearing a revolutionary. character. Lit. (except as indicated in the article): Ganovsky S., Socio-economic formation and peaceful coexistence, trans. from Bulgarian, M., 1964; Zhukov E.M., Lenin and the concept of “epoch” in world history, “NNI”, 1965, No. 5; him, Some questions of the theory of socio-economic formations, "Communist", 1973, No. 11; Bagaturia G. A., Marx’s first great discovery. Formation and development of a materialist understanding of history, in the book: Marx - historian, M., 1968; The principle of historicism in the knowledge of social phenomena, M., 1972; Barg M. B., Chernyak E. B., Structure and development of class-antagonistic formations, "VF", 1967; No. 6; Hoffmann E., Zwei aktuelle Probleme der geschichtlichen Entwicklungsfolge fortschreitenden Gesellschafts- formationen, "ZG", 1968, H. 10; Mohr H., Zur Rolle von Ideologie und Kultur bei der Charakterisierung und Periodisierung der vorkapitalistischen Gesellschaften, "Ethnographisch-Arch?ologische Zeitschrift", 1971, No. 1. V. N. Nikiforov. Moscow.

The founder of the formational perception of the historical process was the German scientist Karl Marx. In a number of his works of philosophical, political and economic directions, he highlighted the concept of socio-economic formation.

Spheres of life of human society

Marx's approach was based on a revolutionary (literally and figuratively) approach to three main spheres of life of human society:

1. Economic, where specific

concepts of labor power and surplus value to the price of goods. Based on these sources, Marx proposed an approach where the defining form of economic relations was the exploitation of workers by the owners of the means of production - plants, factories, and so on.

2. Philosophical. An approach called historical materialism viewed material production as the driving force of history. And the material capabilities of society are its basis, on which cultural, economic and political components arise - the superstructure.

3. Social. This area of Marxist teaching logically followed from the previous two. Material capabilities determine the character of a society where exploitation occurs in one way or another.

Socio-economic formation

As a result of the division of historical types of societies, the concept of formation was born. A socio-economic formation is the unique nature of social relations, determined by the method of material production, production relations between different layers of society and their role in the system. From this point of view, the driving force of social development becomes a constant conflict between productive forces - in fact, people - and production relations between these people. That is, despite the fact that material forces are growing, the ruling classes are still trying to preserve the existing situation in society, which leads to shocks and, ultimately, a change in the socio-economic formation. Five such formations were identified.

Primitive socio-economic formation

It is characterized by the so-called appropriating principle of production: gathering and hunting, the absence of agriculture and cattle breeding. As a result, material forces remain extremely low and do not allow the creation of surplus product. There are still not enough material benefits to ensure some kind of social stratification. Such societies did not have states, private property, and the hierarchy was based on gender and age principles. Only the Neolithic revolution (the discovery of cattle breeding and agriculture) allowed the emergence of a surplus product, and with it the emergence of property stratification, private property and the need for its protection - the state apparatus.

Slave-owning socio-economic formation

This was the nature of the ancient states of the 1st millennium BC and the first half of the 1st millennium AD (before the fall of the Western Roman Empire). Slave-owning society was called because slavery was not just a phenomenon, but its solid foundation. The main productive force of these states were powerless and completely personally dependent slaves. Such societies already had a pronounced class structure, a developed state, and significant achievements in many areas of human thought.

Feudal socio-economic formation

The fall of ancient states and the emergence of barbarian kingdoms in Europe gave rise to the so-called feudalism. As in antiquity, subsistence farming and crafts dominated here. Trade relations were still poorly developed. Society was a class-hierarchical structure, the place in which was determined by land grants from the king (in fact, the highest feudal lord who owned the largest amount of land), which in turn was inextricably linked with domination over the peasants, who were the main production class of society. At the same time, the peasants, unlike the slaves, themselves owned the means of production - small plots of land, livestock, and tools from which they fed, although they were forced to pay tribute to their feudal lord.

Asian production method

At one time, Karl Marx did not sufficiently study the issue of Asian societies, which gave rise to the so-called problem of the Asian mode of production. In these states, firstly, there was never a concept of private property, unlike Europe, and secondly, there was no class-hierarchical system. All subjects of the state in the face of the sovereign were powerless slaves, by his will at the moment they were deprived of all privileges. No European king had such power. This implied a completely unusual for Europe concentration of production forces in the hands of the state with corresponding motivation.

Capitalist socio-economic formation

The development of productive forces and the industrial revolution led to the emergence in Europe, and later throughout the world, of a new version of social design. This formation is characterized by the high development of commodity-money relations, the emergence of a free market as the main regulator of economic relations, the emergence of private ownership of the means of production and

the use there of workers who do not have these funds and are forced to work for wages. The forceful coercion of the times of feudalism is being replaced by economic coercion. Society is experiencing strong social stratification: new classes of workers, bourgeoisie, and so on are emerging. An important phenomenon of this formation is growing social stratification.

Communist socio-economic formation

The growing contradictions between the workers, who create all material goods, and the ruling capitalist class, which increasingly appropriates the results of their labor, according to Karl Marx and his followers, should have led to a peak of social tension. And to the world revolution, as a result of which a socially homogeneous and fair in the distribution of material goods will be established - a communist society. The ideas of Marxism had a significant influence on the socio-political thought of the 19th and 20th centuries and on the appearance of the modern world.

In the history of sociology, there are several attempts to determine the structure of society, i.e., social formation. Many proceeded from the analogy of society with a biological organism. In society, attempts were made to identify organ systems with corresponding functions, as well as to determine the main relationships between society and the environment (natural and social). Structural evolutionists consider the development of society to be conditioned by (a) differentiation and integration of its organ systems and (b) interaction-competition with the external environment. Let's look at some of these attempts.

The first of them was undertaken by G. Spencer, the founder of the theory of classical social evolution. His society consisted of three organ systems: economic, transport and management (I already talked about this above). The reason for the development of societies, according to Spencer, is both the differentiation and integration of human activity and the confrontation with the natural environment and other societies. Spencer identified two historical types of society - military and industrial.

The next attempt was made by K. Marx, who proposed the concept. She represents specific society at a certain stage of historical development, including (1) an economic basis (productive forces and production relations) and (2) a superstructure dependent on it (forms of social consciousness; state, law, church, etc.; superstructural relations). The initial reason for the development of socio-economic formations is the development of tools and forms of ownership of them. Consistently progressive formations Marx and his followers call primitive communal, ancient (slaveholding), feudal, capitalist, communist (its first phase is “proletarian socialism”). Marxist theory - revolutionary, she sees the main reason for the forward movement of societies in the class struggle of the poor and the rich, and Marx called social revolutions the locomotives of human history.

The concept of socio-economic formation has a number of shortcomings. First of all, in the structure of the socio-economic formation there is no demosocial sphere - the consumption and life of people, for the sake of which the socio-economic formation arises. In addition, in this model of society, the political, legal, and spiritual spheres are deprived of an independent role and serve as a simple superstructure over the economic basis of society.

Julian Steward, as mentioned above, moved away from Spencer's classical evolutionism based on differentiation of labor. He based the evolution of human societies on a comparative analysis of various societies as unique crops

Talcott Parsons defines society as a type, which is one of the four subsystems of the system, acting along with the cultural, personal, and human organism. The core of society, according to Parsons, forms societal subsystem (societal community) that characterizes society as a whole. It is a collection of people, families, businesses, churches, etc., united by norms of behavior (cultural patterns). These samples perform integrative role in relation to its structural elements, organizing them into a societal community. As a result of the action of such patterns, the societal community acts as a complex network (horizontal and hierarchical) of interpenetrating typical groups and collective loyalties.

If you compare it with, defines society as an ideal concept, rather than a specific society; introduces a societal community into the structure of society; refuses the basic-superstructural relationship between economics, on the one hand, politics, religion and culture, on the other hand; approaches society as a system of social action. The behavior of social systems (and society), like biological organisms, is caused by the requirements (challenges) of the external environment, the fulfillment of which is a condition for survival; elements-organs of society functionally contribute to its survival in the external environment. The main problem of society is the organization of the relationship between people, order, and balance with the external environment.

Parsons' theory also attracts criticism. First, the concepts of action system and society are highly abstract. This was expressed, in particular, in the interpretation of the core of society - the societal subsystem. Secondly, Parsons' model of social system was created to establish social order and balance with the external environment. But society seeks to upset the balance with the external environment in order to satisfy its growing needs. Thirdly, the societal, fiduciary (model reproduction) and political subsystems are essentially elements of the economic (adaptive, practical) subsystem. This limits the independence of other subsystems, especially the political one (which is typical for European societies). Fourthly, there is no demosocial subsystem, which is the starting point for society and encourages it to disturb its balance with the environment.

Marx and Parsons are structural functionalists who view society as a system of social (public) relations. If for Marx the economy is the factor that organizes (integrates) social relations, then for Parsons it is the societal community. If for Marx society strives for a revolutionary imbalance with the external environment as a result of economic inequality and class struggle, then for Parsons it strives for social order, equilibrium with the external environment in the process of evolution based on increasing differentiation and integration of its subsystems. Unlike Marx, who focused not on the structure of society, but on the causes and process of its revolutionary development, Parsons focused on the problem of “social order,” the integration of people into society. But Parsons, like Marx, considered economic activity to be the basic activity of society, and all other types of action to be auxiliary.

Social formation as a metasystem of society

The proposed concept of social formation is based on a synthesis of the ideas of Spencer, Marx, and Parsons on this problem. The social formation is characterized by the following features. Firstly, it should be considered an ideal concept (and not a specific society, like Marx), capturing the most essential properties of real societies. At the same time, this concept is not as abstract as Parsons’ “social system”. Secondly, the demosocial, economic, political and spiritual subsystems of society play initial, basic And auxiliary role, turning society into a social organism. Thirdly, a social formation represents a metaphorical “public house” of the people living in it: the initial system is the “foundation”, the base is the “walls”, and the auxiliary system is the “roof”.

Original the social formation system includes geographical and demosocial subsystems. It forms the “metabolic structure” of a society consisting of human cells interacting with the geographical sphere, and represents both the beginning and the completion of other subsystems: economic (economic benefits), political (rights and responsibilities), spiritual (spiritual values). The demosocial subsystem includes social groups, institutions, and their actions aimed at the reproduction of people as biosocial beings.

Basic the system performs the following functions: 1) acts as the main means of meeting the needs of the demosocial subsystem; 2) is the leading adaptive system of a given society, satisfying some leading need of people, for the sake of which the social system is organized; 3) the social community, institutions, organizations of this subsystem occupy leading positions in society, manage other spheres of society using means characteristic of it, integrating them into the social system. In identifying the basic system, I assume that certain fundamental needs (and interests) of people, under certain circumstances, become leading in the structure of the social organism. The basic system includes a social class (societal community), as well as its inherent needs, values, and norms of integration. It is distinguished by the type of sociality according to Weber (purposive-rational, value-rational, etc.), which affects the entire social system.

Auxiliary the system of social formation is formed primarily by the spiritual system (artistic, moral, educational, etc.). This cultural orientation system, giving meaning, purposefulness, spirituality the existence and development of the original and basic systems. The role of the auxiliary system is: 1) in the development and preservation of interests, motives, cultural principles (beliefs, beliefs), patterns of behavior; 2) their transmission among people through socialization and integration; 3) their renewal as a result of changes in society and its relations with the external environment. Through socialization, worldview, mentality, and characters of people, the auxiliary system has an important influence on the basic and initial systems. It should be noted that the political (and legal) system can also play the same role in societies with some of its parts and functions. T. Parsons calls the spiritual system cultural and is located outside society as a social system, defining it through the reproduction of patterns of social action: creation, preservation, transmission and renewal of needs, interests, motives, cultural principles, patterns of behavior. For Marx, this system is in the superstructure socio-economic formation and does not play an independent role in society - an economic formation.

Each social system is characterized by social stratification in accordance with the initial, basic and auxiliary systems. Strata are separated by their roles, statuses (consumer, professional, economic, etc.) and united by needs, values, norms, traditions. The leading ones are stimulated by the basic system. For example, in economic societies this includes freedom, private property, profit and other economic values.

Between demosocial layers there is always a formation confidence, without which social order and social mobility (upward and downward) are impossible. It forms social capital social system. “In addition to the means of production, qualifications and knowledge of people,” writes Fukuyama, “the ability to communicate, to collective action, in turn, depends on the extent to which certain communities adhere to similar norms and values and can subordinate the individual interests of individuals interests of large groups. Based on such common values, a confidence, which<...>has a great and very specific economic (and political - S.S.) value.”

Social capital - it is a set of informal values and norms shared by members of the social communities that make up society: fulfilling obligations (duty), truthfulness in relationships, cooperation with others, etc. Speaking about social capital, we are still abstracting from its social content, which is significantly different in Asian and European types of societies. The most important function of society is the reproduction of its “body”, the demosocial system.

The external environment (natural and social) has a great influence on the social system. It is included in the structure of the social system (type of society) partially and functionally as objects of consumption and production, remaining an external environment for it. The external environment is included in the structure of society in the broad sense of the word - as natural-social body. This emphasizes the relative independence of the social system as a characteristic society in relation to the natural conditions of its existence and development.

Why does a social formation arise? According to Marx, it arises primarily to satisfy material the needs of people, so economics occupies a basic place for him. For Parsons, the basis of society is the societal community of people, therefore the societal formation arises for the sake of integration people, families, firms and other groups into a single whole. For me, a social formation arises to satisfy the various needs of people, among which the basic one is the main one. This leads to a wide variety of types of social formations in human history.

The main ways of integrating people into the social body and means of satisfying corresponding needs are economics, politics, and spirituality. Economic strength society is based on material interest, people's desire for money and material well-being. Political power society is based on physical violence, on the desire of people for order and security. Spiritual strength society is based on a certain meaning of life that goes beyond the limits of well-being and power, and life from this point of view is of a transcendental nature: as service to the nation, God and the idea in general.

The main subsystems of the social system are closely interconnected. First of all, the boundary between any pair of systems of society represents a certain “zone” of structural components that can be considered as belonging to both systems. Further, the basic system is itself a superstructure over the original system, which it expresses And organizes. At the same time, it acts as a source system in relation to the auxiliary one. And the last one is not only back controls the basis, but also provides additional influence on the original subsystem. And, finally, different types of demosocial, economic, political, spiritual subsystems of society in their interaction form many intricate combinations of the social system.

On the one hand, the initial system of social formation is living people who, throughout their lives, consume material, social, and spiritual goods for their reproduction and development. The remaining systems of the social system objectively serve, to one degree or another, the reproduction and development of the demosocial system. On the other hand, the social system has a socializing influence on the demosocial sphere and shapes it with its institutions. It represents for the life of people, their youth, maturity, old age, as it were, an external form in which they have to be happy and unhappy. Thus, people who lived in the Soviet formation evaluate it through the prism of their life of different ages.

A social formation is a type of society that represents the interconnection of the initial, basic and auxiliary systems, the result of the functioning of which is the reproduction, protection, and development of the population in the process of transforming the external environment and adapting to it by creating an artificial nature. This system provides the means (artificial nature) to satisfy people’s needs and reproduce their bodies, integrates many people, ensures the realization of people’s abilities in various areas, and is improved as a result of the contradiction between the developing needs and abilities of people, between different subsystems of society.

Types of social formations

Society exists in the form of country, region, city, village, etc., representing its different levels. In this sense, a family, school, enterprise, etc. are not societies, but social institutions included in societies. Society (for example, Russia, the USA, etc.) includes (1) the leading (modern) social system; (2) remnants of previous social formations; (3) geographical system. Social formation is the most important metasystem of society, but is not identical to it, so it can be used to designate the type of countries that are the primary subject of our analysis.

Public life is the unity of social formation and private life. Social formation characterizes institutional relations between people. Private life - This is that part of social life that is not covered by the social system and is a manifestation of the individual freedom of people in consumption, economics, politics, and spirituality. Social formation and private life as two parts of society are closely interconnected and interpenetrate each other. The contradiction between them is the source of the development of society. The quality of life of certain peoples largely, but not entirely, depends on the type of their “public house”. Private life largely depends on personal initiative and many accidents. For example, the Soviet system was very inconvenient for people’s private lives, it was like a fortress-prison. Nevertheless, within its framework, people went to kindergartens, studied at school, loved and were happy.

A social formation takes shape unconsciously, without a general will, as a result of the confluence of many circumstances, wills, and plans. But in this process there is a certain logic that can be highlighted. The types of social system change from historical era to era, from country to country, and are in competitive relationships with each other. Basicity of a particular social system not originally laid down. It arises as a result a unique set of circumstances, including subjective ones (for example, the presence of an outstanding leader). Basic system determines the interests and goals of the source and auxiliary systems.

Primitive communal the formation is syncretic. The beginnings of the economic, political and spiritual spheres are closely intertwined in it. It can be argued that original the sphere of this system is the geographical system. Basic is a demosocial system, the process of human reproduction in a natural way, based on a monogamous family. The production of people at this time is the main sphere of society that determines all others. Auxiliary there are economic, managerial and mythological systems that support the basic and original systems. The economic system is based on individual means of production and simple cooperation. The administrative system is represented by tribal self-government and armed men. The spiritual system is represented by taboos, rituals, mythology, pagan religion, priests, as well as the rudiments of art.

As a result of the social division of labor, primitive clans were divided into agricultural (sedentary) and pastoral (nomadic) ones. An exchange of products and wars arose between them. Agricultural communities, engaged in agriculture and exchange, were less mobile and warlike than pastoral communities. With the increase in the number of people, villages, clans, the development of the exchange of products and wars, primitive communal society gradually transformed over thousands of years into a political, economic, theocratic one. The emergence of these types of societies occurs among different peoples at different historical times due to the confluence of many objective and subjective circumstances.

From a primitive communal society, he is socially isolated before others -political(Asian) formation. Its basis becomes an authoritarian political system, the core of which is autocratic state power in the slave-owning and serf-owning form. In such formations the leader becomes public the need for power, order, social equality, it is expressed by the political classes. It becomes basic in them value-rational and traditional activities. This is typical, for example, of Babylon, Assyria and the Russian Empire.

Then arises socially -economic(European) formation, the basis of which is the market economy in its ancient commodity and then capitalist form. In such formations the basic becomes individual(private) need for material goods, a secure life, power, economic classes correspond to it. The basis for them is goal-oriented activity. Economic societies arose in relatively favorable natural and social conditions - ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, Western European countries.

IN spiritual(theo- and ideocratic) formation, the basis becomes some kind of ideological system in its religious or ideological version. Spiritual needs (salvation, building a corporate state, communism, etc.) and value-rational activities become basic.

IN mixed(convergent) formations form the basis of several social systems. Individual and social needs in their organic unity become basic. This was the European feudal society in the pre-industrial era, and the social democratic society in the industrial era. In them, both goal-rational and value-rational types of social actions in their organic unity are basic. Such societies are better adapted to the historical challenges of an increasingly complex natural and social environment.

The formation of a social formation begins with the emergence of a ruling class and a social system adequate to it. They take the leading position in society, subordinating other classes and related spheres, systems and roles. The ruling class makes its life activity (all needs, values, actions, results), as well as ideology, the main one.

For example, after the February (1917) revolution in Russia, the Bolsheviks seized state power, made their dictatorship the basis, and the communist ideology - dominant, interrupted the transformation of the agrarian-serf system into a bourgeois-democratic one and created the Soviet formation in the process of the “proletarian-socialist” (industrial-serf) revolution.

Social formations go through stages of (1) formation; (2) flourishing; (3) decline and (4) transformation into another type or death. The development of societies is of a wave nature, in which periods of decline and rise of different types of social formations change as a result of the struggle between them, convergence, and social hybridization. Each type of social formation represents the process of progressive development of humanity, from simple to complex.

The development of societies is characterized by the decline of previous ones and the emergence of new social formations, along with the previous ones. Advanced social formations occupy a dominant position, and backward ones occupy a subordinate position. Over time, a hierarchy of social formations emerges. Such a formational hierarchy gives strength and continuity to societies, allowing them to draw strength (physical, moral, religious) for further development in historically early types of formations. In this regard, the liquidation of the peasant formation in Russia during collectivization weakened the country.

Thus, the development of humanity is subject to the law of negation of negation. In accordance with it, the stage of negation of the negation of the initial stage (primitive communal society), on the one hand, represents a return to the original type of society, and on the other hand, is a synthesis of previous types of societies (Asian and European) in a social democratic one.